Cameras + YouTube + Google - using the power

[lukesdad]

Oh and I have a pretty good idea of what the majority of cyclists think, for a start they don t use cameras, they dont look at the tube and they dont contribute to these debates.

 

[lukesdad]

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.

Unlike you I do not have an agenda.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

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.

It doesn't make sense for this reason "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".
As for the implications, I would suggest that if you took the time to create influence diagram of the problem , and then put values to those points you would find that the retribution would be a minor factor compared with the deterence.
One final point, if you see it as a" crusade" ( and I can't stop you doing that) then try replacing "motorists" with "criminals" and see if you still think it's a problem?

 

[lukesdad]

It doesn't make sense for this reason "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".
As for the implications, I would suggest that if you took the time to create influence diagram of the problem , and then put values to those points you would find that the retribution would be a minor factor compared with the deterence.
One final point, if you see it as a" crusade" ( and I can't stop you doing that) then try replacing "motorists" with "criminals" and see if you still think it's a problem?

Ok try this then, what happens when the retribution against cyclists doesn t take the form of a motor vehicle or its cyclists without cameras that are target because of your activity ?

 

[gaz]

Oh and I have a pretty good idea of what the majority of cyclists think, for a start they don t use cameras, they dont look at the tube and they dont contribute to these debates.

Notice how most cyclists using cameras are also not contributing to this 'debate'

 

[lukesdad]

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.

Don t dodge the question

 

[classic33]

User3143
Quite what you're trying to explain has been lost.

We as cyclists are not the only camera users on the roads these days. Does your argument then follow the obvious route of all who have such cameras fitted and use them are all guilty of making the "them & us" situation worse.

I'm aware of coaches, HGV's buses and private vehicles that have them fitted. The major difference for us as cyclists is that the camera can be easily seen, when compared to a private car. Some buses & fleet operators have got round the law by calling them collision cameras & not CCTV cameras. In order to do this, the warning sign(s) of "collision cameras in use" has to be fitted in a place that is easily seen. Next time you see one, watch the actions of those around them. There is footage from these cameras on the the television and the internet.

DHL & the Royal Mail have fitted them to some of their vehicles that enter city centres on a daily basis. Does that create a "them and us" feeling amongst other road users? Where will your argument go when more drivers opt to have such cameras fitted to record their journeys? We are at the start, what comes after we may have no say in.

There is potential everywhere for something to happen and not just on the roads. There have been videos by drivers of commercial vehicles, made using hand held video recorders to record the actions of others on the roads posted on youtube. How does that square up with your own arguments of the "them and us" and the potential for things to go wrong.

Comforting to know though that if you were involved in an incident and a witness came forward with video evidence of who was to blame, you'd give up cycling. Turning away a witness, who may have spoken in your favour will look good and also has the potential for that person to say "why did I bother trying". To walk towards the body of a person lying in the road, with a crowd around them after being hit by a car, camera in hand isn't easy. Carried as I approached because I didn't want to be seen as simply wanting to take a picture upon getting there.

 

[col]

I do think there is a place for cams, for real evidence for example But posting every close pass and showing number plates just gets a bad reaction, and is detrimental to cyclists.

 

[lukesdad]

Notice how most cyclists using cameras are also not contributing to this 'debate'

Quite right gaz I suspect one of 3 reasons, To busy on the tube, ITS CHRISTMAS,or they are starting to see some sense and have nothing to add.

 

[col]

User3143
Quite what you're trying to explain has been lost.

We as cyclists are not the only camera users on the roads these days. Does your argument then follow the obvious route of all who have such cameras fitted and use them are all guilty of making the "them & us" situation worse.

I'm aware of coaches, HGV's buses and private vehicles that have them fitted. The major difference for us as cyclists is that the camera can be easily seen, when compared to a private car. Some buses & fleet operators have got round the law by calling them collision cameras & not CCTV cameras. In order to do this, the warning sign(s) of "collision cameras in use" has to be fitted in a place that is easily seen. Next time you see one, watch the actions of those around them. There is footage from these cameras on the the television and the internet.

DHL & the Royal Mail have fitted them to some of their vehicles that enter city centres on a daily basis. Does that create a "them and us" feeling amongst other road users? Where will your argument go when more drivers opt to have such cameras fitted to record their journeys? We are at the start, what comes after we may have no say in.

There is potential everywhere for something to happen and not just on the roads. There have been videos by drivers of commercial vehicles, made using hand held video recorders to record the actions of others on the roads posted on youtube. How does that square up with your own arguments of the "them and us" and the potential for things to go wrong.

Comforting to know though that if you were involved in an incident and a witness came forward with video evidence of who was to blame, you'd give up cycling. Turning away a witness, who may have spoken in your favour will look good and also has the potential for that person to say "why did I bother trying". To walk towards the body of a person lying in the road, with a crowd around them after being hit by a car, camera in hand isn't easy. Carried as I approached because I didn't want to be seen as simply wanting to take a picture upon getting there.

The difference is the cams on vehicles are there to show what actually happened, when another vehicle is to blame for any contact. Because they mostly try to deny responibility. While some cyclists use it to find any incident they can , just to be able to post a vid and try to claim they would have lost their life if this had been a foot closer. Take a look on youtube and see.

 

[classic33]

Quite right gaz I suspect one of 3 reasons, To busy on the tube, ITS CHRISTMAS,or they are starting to see some sense and have nothing to add.

Not on the tube, it is Christmas, what that has to do with it I'd like to know. And I have been adding.
BTW We don't have a tube service near me.

 

[classic33]

The difference is the cams on vehicles are there to show what actually happened, when another vehicle is to blame for any contact. Because they mostly try to deny responibility. While some cyclists use it to find any incident they can , just to be able to post a vid and try to claim they would have lost their life if this had been a foot closer. Take a look on youtube and see.

The wide angle lenses in use on vehicle cameras would only distort the picture even more. Thereby making the pass seem closer still.
I'm aware of "smart cameras", but not one that can put the blame on any one party on its own. They are there to back up/deny any claims made.
How that covers handheld cameras isn't made clear. Videos on youtube, one such user was on here a while back.

 

[col]

The wide angle lenses in use on vehicle cameras would only distort the picture even more. Thereby making the pass seem closer still.
I'm aware of "smart cameras", but not one that can put the blame on any one party on its own. They are there to back up/deny any claims made.
How that covers handheld cameras isn't made clear. Videos on youtube, one such user was on here a while back.

The cams on vehicles are very good , we used to view them on the pc from the hard drive, and the quality so good it was crystal clear and no distortion what so ever. It left no doubt as to what actually happened, proved the driver denying was lieing on a number of occasions. It worked both ways though, it also showed the driver of the cam vehicle was in the wrong too. in fact I never saw any incidents where the cam didnt solve the issue of who was to blame.

 

[classic33]

The cams on vehicles are very good , we used to view them on the pc from the hard drive, and the quality so good it was crystal clear and no distortion what so ever. It left no doubt as to what actually happened, proved the driver denying was lieing on a number of occasions. It worked both ways though, it also showed the driver of the cam vehicle was in the wrong too. in fact I never saw any incidents where the cam didnt solve the issue of who was to blame.

Crystal clear the picture may be, but by its very construction a wide angle lens distorts the picture. The standard 50mm is seen as the closest matching lens to the human eye. And as you say it only served as back up to what drivers said. Are we as cyclists any different in wanting to protect ourselves by having a back up to a "he did this/I did this" dispute?

There must have been a problem there for companies to start installing such cameras in the first place. We as cyclists are no different in that sense. The difference being that there are a load of drivers out there who feel that cyclists do no not belong on the roads. We are the easy targets, in some cases litrally.

 

[col]

I never said it was just back up? It solved all disputes. Like I said before, they are good as evidence if used for what they should be used for. But not for finding any and all passes, cut ups ect and trying to identify people on youtube, it just doesnt seem right. And I believe causes more bad feeling to cyclists in general.

The feeling on here is there are a lot of anti car/bus/wagon cyclists, and I think it gives a false impression on the number of drivers who may be anti cyclist. I dont believe there are as many as some would have us believe.