Sunday Times article

[ufkacbln]

I have had drivers cautioned with films from both an ATC 200 and the Muvi

 

[thomas]

I'm perplexed at the reference to "£15 cameras ... no bigger than a tube of lipstick". Having experimented with my cheapo ATC2K (under £100) I conclude it's not man enough for the job. You need a fairly meaty camera for real evidence. Or am I wrong? - technology ever advances on....

The muvi clones are about £15 and the size of a lipstick...and would be fine IMO.

 

[semislickstick]

There's often regional variations. I suspect the Irish version is different too...

Good(ish) article - no YouTube links though.

It seems to be suggesting there are youtube links on the online version.....are there?

 

[decca234uk]

I've noticed a few cyclists with head cams on lately. I've made the decision to get buy one, having a look around ebay at the moment. I think they're a great defence for cyclists and as more motorists become aware that cyclists are wearing head cams then it might encourage them to show cyclists more respect.

 

[PhunkPilot]

A great bit of positive publicity will never hurt us. Nice going guys

 

[Bollo]

Reasonably positive article. Well done Ben and Dave. I've always been underwhelmed by the ST's cycle coverage, so this is a pleasant change.

My one gripe (forgive me if I missed it- I was skim reading a little) is that it didn't really offer any critique of the difficulties with the police/CPS/PF accepting cams as evidence, beyond stating the bare facts of Dave and the cycling brief's experiences.

There's another issue that I think will become increasingly important as cameras become more prevelant - it has the potential to raise the evidential bar to a point where any incident not filmed will be dismissed as having 'no proof'. This isn't the core problem right now, but I'd hate it if cams became a de facto requirement for full legal protection.

 

[thomas]

There's another issue that I think will become increasingly important as cameras become more prevelant - it has the potential to raise the evidential bar to a point where any incident not filmed will be dismissed as having 'no proof'. This isn't the core problem right now, but I'd hate it if cams became a de facto requirement for full legal protection.

A lot of the time there won't be any other proof. If there are no 3rd party witnesses (or CCTV/etc), then it will be one person's word against another to some degree.



EDIT: Just seen I've wasted my 4000 post on this

 

[gaz]

Reasonably positive article. Well done Ben and Dave. I've always been underwhelmed by the ST's cycle coverage, so this is a pleasant change.

My one gripe (forgive me if I missed it- I was skim reading a little) is that it didn't really offer any critique of the difficulties with the police/CPS/PF accepting cams as evidence, beyond stating the bare facts of Dave and the cycling brief's experiences.

There's another issue that I think will become increasingly important as cameras become more prevelant - it has the potential to raise the evidential bar to a point where any incident not filmed will be dismissed as having 'no proof'. This isn't the core problem right now, but I'd hate it if cams became a de facto requirement for full legal protection.

If you go to the right unit in the police, i doubt you will have any trouble with using video evidence from your camera.
We have all been fobbed off by the desk boy who knows no better.
The problem seems to be the CPS and PF.

 

[dellzeqq]

Ben Porter, 37. Nobody's going to believe that!

 

[dellzeqq]

Reasonably positive article. Well done Ben and Dave. I've always been underwhelmed by the ST's cycle coverage, so this is a pleasant change.

My one gripe (forgive me if I missed it- I was skim reading a little) is that it didn't really offer any critique of the difficulties with the police/CPS/PF accepting cams as evidence, beyond stating the bare facts of Dave and the cycling brief's experiences.

There's another issue that I think will become increasingly important as cameras become more prevelant - it has the potential to raise the evidential bar to a point where any incident not filmed will be dismissed as having 'no proof'. This isn't the core problem right now, but I'd hate it if cams became a de facto requirement for full legal protection.

In a sense this is a good thing. It's more likely to make them think about it......

 

[downfader]

I also liked the fact they said "rogue drivers" rather than just "drivers". It instantly displays that we're not anti-car as some would have you beleive, just anti-bad driving (as all should be).

 

[magnatom]

Sorry I've not been on here properly today, so I can only comment now!

There are definitely two different versions of this story, one for us Scots and one for down south . I haven't had a chance to scan it yet, but mine has a picture of me instead of Ben along with the tanker video. The picture of the helmet camera is the same. This works, as it just so happens that Ben and I have exactly the same helmet (colour as well!).

The story is different up here too. In the Scottish version I am misquoted more! (not terribly, just slightly...). When I get a chance I'll scan it in. We've had scanned articles on here before with no problem.

The online version (yes I paid a £1!) is the same as posted on here and it has the three videos one after the other. The only difference with youtube is that there are a lot of bleeps. Not sure what that is about....

It's a start I suppose. Not perfect (I'm not appealing the decision for instance!), but it's not negative which is good. I hope to push things further when the PF gets back to me with information about the decision. Following that I will be onto MSP's etc.

I'll keep you informed.

 

[magnatom]

Sorry, I haven't had chance to scan the Scottish article, but I'll do that tonight.

However, when re-reading the article I realised what was the most important aspect of the piece. It was the comment by the Met officer encouraging cyclists to use helmet cameras. This is something that I and others will be able to reference in our future correspondance with the police, and will certainly be something I can use as leverage when contacting my MSP's etc when looking at changes in Scottish law.

 

[downfader]

Sorry, I haven't had chance to scan the Scottish article, but I'll do that tonight.

However, when re-reading the article I realised what was the most important aspect of the piece. It was the comment by the Met officer encouraging cyclists to use helmet cameras. This is something that I and others will be able to reference in our future correspondance with the police, and will certainly be something I can use as leverage when contacting my MSP's etc when looking at changes in Scottish law.

I think he worked for Roadsafe, specifically, and said something about it making their life easier.

 

[magnatom]

All anyone needs to know is that he is a 'Detective chief inspector at the Met' and that he said, 'Helmet cams are a great idea and I would encourage cyclists to use them'.