Smidgaf - video - would you report this

[400bhp]

I do think there is sometimes a positive or helpful outcome to some helmet-cam footage, but to put this in even the same paragraph as the benefit brought by the traffic police, speed cameras, traffic wardens and similar seems like hyperbole to me.

I've shown my offspring a few helmet-cam vids on YouTube to demonstrate situations I can't just conjour up in real life on a whim... Thanks to some of the Helmet-Cam brigade for that.

I think that anyone claiming any profound benefit beyond occasional use as a training tool is believing their own PR rather more than might be healthy.

By all means amuse yourselves, but be sure to remember that it is largely about just that: amusing yourselves.

In that way it is alarmingly similar to this habit I have of posting on a web forum. I can dream all I want, but the net effect is zero.

You have it spot on - every word.

I'm going to give something a go - ignore list. Nuff said.

 

[subaqua]

They dont have the same effect at all, they just annoy others when they are so rediculous in threatening people with youtube for normally nothing much. And dont get me started on the ones who cuase the problem in the first place eh "bent"

what motorists who think its OK to drive like a tw@ without care or consideration for other road users, oh and for balance there are cylists out there who are the same and think laws do not apply to them either. some laws don't but the vast majority do . camera evidence there is worth its weight in gold.

 

[BentMikey]

Yes, because 3 points and £60 is a so much worse consequence than being called in for an interview with your Transport Manager, and receiving a formal warning, or perhaps even losing your job, yes?

 

[Origamist]

I'd not report that, GB.

It looks like you both get to the RaB at about the same time. In most similar situations, vehicles coming from the same direction as the bus will give way to you, but certainly not all - particularly if they are moving faster or have been waiting a while.

Someone not prepared to give way:

 

[gaz]

[QUOTE 1682955, member: 45"]I think that being so immersed in a practice can easily make you get things out of perspective. Personally I don't have a problem with proper camera use. I don't know whether I have respect or sympathy for those on here who are so heavily committed, but I recognise that some good comes out of it. Attributing a sea-change to camera use however is, I feel, several steps too far, and a result of the immersion.[/quote]
What is proper use?

 

[Norm]

What is proper use?

I think those four words are what this and many, many other similar threads have been discussing.

With no definitive conclusion being found to date.

 

[Jezston]

[QUOTE 1683041, member: 45"]As an educational tool for road users, and where they bring benefit.[/quote]

So using them as evidence in a report isn't?

 

[Jezston]

Because I got the impression that you were suggesting it isn't.

 

[Jezston]

My apologies, I misread that initially as meaning their only proper use is as an educational tool for road users, THAT BEING where they bring benefit - not that this was a separate reason.

 

[BentMikey]

One day we'll look back on this, and have a little chuckle at the standards of driving back then (now).

 

[Bicycle]

One day we'll look back on this, and have a little chuckle at the standards of driving back then (now).

A chuckle at how good they were or how bad they were?

I'm broadly OK with them as they are now. I believe I was at less risk cycling 4 miles to the cinema in the london suburbs aged 12 (early 70s) than my youngest is now if he goes for a 4-mile ride, but I am not overly exercised about road safety in the UK.

My wife told me the other day with a horrified look on her face that there'd been 16 cycling fatalities in london in the past year. I was surprised. She got quite cross with me when I (honestly) admitted I'd have guessed it would be four times that figure.

She told me this just before I took one of our kids on a mad, cross-London ride to the Emirates. I think she was trying to embed a little caution in my riding style (or similar). We got to the match and got to our seats after some awesome descending down Archway Road under what in childhood we referred to as Suicide Bridge. Bus lane? Schmuss Lane!

My issue (of course) would be if I or one I loved were to become one of those 16. Would I ride less if it were 32 or 64 fatalities? Of course not.

Do I think that helmet cams will ever be anything more than the cause of mild amusement and some occasional training benefit? No.

Has video evidence taken from a helmet cam been used to prove anything in a claim? I dare say it has, but so has the testimony of Mrs Bridges at number 12. No-one is building her up to be something special.

Will helmet-cam evidence play even a minor role in making our highways any safer? Tee hee...

Does helmet-cam footage do any harm? No. Nor do novelty birthday cards.

It's fun. If you take it seriously it can be terribly, terribly serious. But if you don't, it is even funnier when those who do keep saying what a benefit it is to mankind.

 

[Jezston]

Do I think that helmet cams will ever be anything more than the cause of mild amusement and some occasional training benefit? No.

Bike cam footage has already been shown to be utterly vital in several cases where otherwise there would have been no evidence.

From a quick google search:
http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/2011/06/helmet-camera-secures-conviction.html
http://road.cc/content/news/23959-legal-first-cyclists-helmet-cam-footage-helps-convict-driver
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12334486 (our very own benborp)
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...-and-8201-just-because-he-couldnt-overtake.do

And I'm sure there must have been many more that haven't made the news.

Care to retract that statement?

 

[Norm]

Care to retract that statement?

I think he covered that in the very next line:

Has video evidence taken from a helmet cam been used to prove anything in a claim? I dare say it has, but so has the testimony of Mrs Bridges at number 12. No-one is building her up to be something special.

I think, Jez, that you are doing yourself and your point of view no favours at all by pulling one line out of the context for setting up a straw man.

Having only 2 hours previously misrepresented Mr P's post on this very thread, maybe you should be a tad more dilligent before reaching for Google to prove a point that's either not there or not really relevant.

 

[Bicycle]

Bike cam footage has already been shown to be utterly vital in several cases where otherwise there would have been no evidence.

Care to retract that statement?

I'm sorry Jezston, but I fear Norm has a point. I had already accepted that proof from helmet cameras had made a difference.

I've said as much elsewhere too. It would therefore help you not at all if I were to retract my statement in part or in whole.

When loftily asking someone if they'd care to 'retract that statement', it can help if you've read the whole statement.

I'm sorry if this offends; I enjoy your posts. I have no idea how 'utterly vital' differs from merely 'vital', but I do enjoy your posts.

As I am the wordiest bastard on this forum, that last point may be a little rich, but I have no shame and few boundaries.

 

[Jezston]

It was entirely relevant, certainly not out of context and not a straw man as I do not believe I was misrepresenting his opinion.

Bicycle claimed that helmet cam footage was not useful for anything other than training and mild amusement. I took his second, somewhat contradictory statement to suggest it has been *useful* in a claim (insurance?), my point being that it has been essential in many serious criminal cases where it has been the only piece of irrefutable evidence. And that's a big difference.

Edit: bicycle -

I had already accepted that proof from helmet cameras had made a difference.

Then why would you then say it doesn't?