Cameras + YouTube + Google - using the power

[Bigsharn]

Being someone who rarely posts/comments on others personality, you really do come across as an arrogant prick Mr. Lee.

 

[dawesome]

"of which you are not a member of"








reminds me of Austin Powers:

"Allow myself to introduce....myself!"

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

"of which you are not a member of"








reminds me of Austin Powers:

"Allow myself to introduce....myself!"

Like shooting fish in a barrel .

 

[Jezston]

You're still a hypocrite, Lee. And a deeply nasty and unpleasant one at that.

 

[classic33]

You're still a hypocrite, Lee. And a deeply nasty and unpleasant one at that.

+1

User3143
You come across as a sanctimonious pilioch. And, god forbid if anyone should disagree with you, on anything, your only response is to tear into that person.

The question now is, why? You claim to ride a bike like everyone else, yet when personal safety is brought into the issue you rear up against what people are doing. Again, why? You can also it appears do no wrong, if we believe you. My only lowering of my standard on here will be this bit, to your level. Stop talking bullshit.

I’ve used a VHS camcorder mounted on the rear of the bike. Big, bright! Yellow, with diagonal markings in black waterproof case. It was used at a time of lengthy roadwork’s, on a section of road that was used daily by me. Removed for me, by a lorry driver that ran a red light (I was going right, onto the road he came from, with the lights in my favour. He was going left onto the road I was on.) in the belief that he had right of way & safe in the knowledge that anyone he came into contact with would come of worst. Video tape recovered & handed over so that the matter could be dealt with.

I’ve advocated carrying a small single use camera. APS as the film is rewound into the can as you progress though the roll. I now use a helmet camera that is a bit smaller than the first camera used.

I’ve had photographs used in a hit & run case, mentioned elsewhere on here. In which the driver failed to stop & later went on to say he wasn’t the driver. I’d approached the scene of the woman lying in the centre of the road, on the crossing. Camera in hand, to be met with a similar response to what you are now spouting. This changed when it was made clear that there was evidence of the driver & vehicle details available.

You are saying that people such as myself are making the us & them culture worse. Please explain your argument(s) in this case with a bit more clarity & less abusive language. If those who do use helmet cameras are making the situation worse, explain how. Whilst at it, answer this. If someone had helmet camera footage of an incident in which you came of worst, would you use it?

 

[lukesdad]

Ahh I think you have been caught out by a quirk of English . I think, when those who are forecasting a backlash against cameras use the word "drivers" they are using it in the form that means " Criminals who have previously got away with their crimes " and I must admit I agree with them, I'm sure that " Criminals who have previously got away with their crimes " will feel "Rage against helmet cammers" . Much in the same way that muggers feel rage against the police and try not to commit crimes when the police are around . Muggers are pedestrians , but not all pedestrians are muggers, " Criminals who have previously got away with their crimes " are drivers, but not all drivers are " Criminals who have previously got away with their crimes "

and where do you propose to draw the line ? Seems to me any motorist who commits a minor offence in the vicinity of one of your cameras, is to be labeled a criminal ? Policeman Judge and Jury in the process of trial by camera ? You dont even get the backing of the majority of cyclists but, that doesn t matter you have the tube to give you your moment of fame. The thing is, if this campaign goes the way lee has indicated it might, and cyclists are targeted the forms it could take would make a camera pretty obselete don t you think ?

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

and where do you propose to draw the line ? Seems to me any motorist who commits a minor offence in the vicinity of one of your cameras, is to be labeled a criminal ? Policeman Judge and Jury in the process of trial by camera ? You dont even get the backing of the majority of cyclists but, that doesn t matter you have the tube to give you your moment of fame. The thing is, if this campaign goes the way lee has indicated it might, and cyclists are targeted the forms it could take would make a camera pretty obselete don t you think ?

Errrr forgive me if I'm wrong, and please feel free to correct me, but somone "who commits a minor offence" is a criminal, albeit a minor criminal.

The problem is that for far too long in the UK we have been using another version of English where a criminal who breaks the law by exceeding the speed limit, or parking on zig zags, or driving without care , or assault with the machine they are using is described as a "driver" and is deemed "unlucky" if they are caught.
The same problem was seen 40-50 years ago when drivers were seen to be" unlucky" if caught having a "bit too much drink", eventually it soaked in that, being pissed and driving wasn't acceptable. Slowly the same is being seen with speed limits, 20yrs ago, your were "unlucky" to be caught, now you are" stupid", eventually it will also become unacceptable. Hopefully the same can be done with other driving offences and a good place to start would be to use the correct langauge to describe someone involved in illegal activity , start calling them criminals.

WAR ON CRIMINALS doesn't have quite the same negative connotations as WAR ON DRIVERS but safe drivers have nothing to worry from cameras operated by private individuals , criminals do.

 

[lukesdad]

Errrr forgive me if I'm wrong, and please feel free to correct me, but somone "who commits a minor offence" is a criminal, albeit a minor criminal.

The problem is that for far too long in the UK we have been using another version of English where a criminal who breaks the law by exceeding the speed limit, or parking on zig zags, or driving without care , or assault with the machine they are using is described as a "driver" and is deemed "unlucky" if they are caught.
The same problem was seen 40-50 years ago when drivers were seen to be" unlucky" if caught having a "bit too much drink", eventually it soaked in that, being pissed and driving wasn't acceptable. Slowly the same is being seen with speed limits, 20yrs ago, your were "unlucky" to be caught, now you are" stupid", eventually it will also become unacceptable. Hopefully the same can be done with other driving offences and a good place to start would be to use the correct langauge to describe someone involved in illegal activity , start calling them criminals.

WAR ON CRIMINALS doesn't have quite the same negative connotations as WAR ON DRIVERS but safe drivers have nothing to worry from cameras operated by private individuals , criminals do.

Well Im glad we ve got that clear! Half the adult population of this country have been minor criminals at some stage of their life. Now what about the rest of the post, as you ve chosen to quote it ?

 

[lukesdad]

OK, point taken, but you agree with my first paragraph then?


It's true that these videos are, by and large, designed to incriminate rather than as well as educate bad motorists, along with a number of other purposes. But that is rather the point; some of us are not satisfied with the piss-poor cycling environment in this country, which is mostly down to the poor attitudes of a lot of drivers. It is possible that the videos may eventually contribute to improving that situation. If bad drivers don't like it, then that is a sign that it is having some effect.

I'm not sure what you mean by "untouchable". If you mean anonymous, then quite right; I have a family and there are some nutters out there. If you mean that cyclists are not subject to the same laws, then you are just plain wrong. If you mean that cyclists in general are not as easy to identify from their vehicle as motorists, then quite right again; there is a very good reason why the driver of a dangerous piece of powerful, heavy machinery taken into a public place should be made easily traceable, unlike a pedestrian or a cyclist.

So you think its fine to provoke one of these so called nutters, then let him take it out on some innocent cyclist because he can t find you !

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Well Im glad we ve got that clear! Half the adult population of this country have been minor criminals at some stage of their life. Now what about the rest of the post, as you ve chosen to quote it ?

In fact the vast majority of the UK population have been criminals , but I don't see how you think that excuses people commiting crimes whilst driving, "Everyone else is doing it!" was an excuse most people stopped using when they were nine!

The rest of your post? I finished replying when your post stopping making sense, there were so many if's , mights and coulds that it was impossible to pin down any real course without you claiming "that's not what I meant". Of course there was also the factual problems that I don't own a camera ,that there is no campaign , and that you have no idea what the majority of cyclists think. To your credit , you haven't started calling people idiots , ignorant or moron, but your argument is as thin as anyone who starts lashing out in that way.

 

[lukesdad]

Is it not dawning on any of you yet that, all this footage maybe fuelling further incidents ?

 

[lukesdad]

In fact the vast majority of the UK population have been criminals , but I don't see how you think that excuses people commiting crimes whilst driving, "Everyone else is doing it!" was an excuse most people stopped using when they were nine!

The rest of your post? I finished replying when your post stopping making sense, there were so many if's , mights and coulds that it was impossible to pin down any real course without you claiming "that's not what I meant". Of course there was also the factual problems that I don't own a camera ,that there is no campaign , and that you have no idea what the majority of cyclists think. To your credit , you haven't started calling people idiots , ignorant or moron, but your argument is as thin as anyone who starts lashing out in that way.

It doesn t make sense because you are not prepared to consider the implications, all you see is a crusade against motorists, which has been fairly evident throughout this thread.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Is it not dawning on any of you yet that, all this footage maybe fuelling further incidents ?

Has it not dawned on you yet, that when it got easier to catch criminals doing bank jobs, that it fuelled incidents on Post Offices?

Your agenda seems to be"let the criminal get away with it ( on someone else) and I might be OK". It didn't work for Chamberlain.

 

[col]

Is it not dawning on any of you yet that, all this footage maybe fuelling further incidents ?

some time ago, there was a cam user who got that well known for doing it, it was enraging drivers to the point that they were posting angry messages on the youtube vids.. so it did seem that it was causing a lot of animosity to cyclists trying to capture mistakes or impatient drivers , and to identify them on the film to the public. So yes I agree, it does feul more incidents I feel.

 

[mickle]

Is it not dawning on any of you yet that, all this footage maybe fuelling further incidents ?

Genius.