I think you misunderstood my point. Anyone with a willingness to learn can be educated. The issue surrounds willingness. I doubt many drivers are interested in the You Tube videos and the number reported to the police etc. will be a minute percentage of motorists. Therefore it stands to reason considering helping more cyclists, a presumably interested audience, gain knowledge on how to deal with situations is more productive than speaking to a disinterested audience?
OK, I see your point - the issue remains that the general cyclist, looking at these videos, will be as willing/unwilling as the general motorist is to learn. We're the same humans, after all. Educating cyclists isn't going to do much at all to improve road safety, because cyclists don't kill and injure hundreds of thousands of people per year. Drivers do that, and that's why I'm with GrasB's victim blaming point.
I think that drivers might be unwilling to learn from just a video, but they're considerably more likely to learn when that video is accompanied by a letter from the police or even a notice of intended prosecution. They're also more likely to learn, unwillingly, when they are called for an interview with their manager/company transport manager to discuss their driving and how they brought their company name into disrepute, if it was a fleet vehicle that was filmed.
I recall reading about a study that showed very strongly how stricter traffic policing made a huge difference to injuries and deaths on the roads. I don't see why cameras won't have a similar effect. You may think the number of motorists affected by filming are tiny, but with thousands of camera cyclists out there, that's not quite true. Moreover, filmed drivers are likely to tell quite a few people about what happened to them, and with the publicity over camera incidents, I think the effect is much larger than you suggest.
Of course the alternative is to do nothing - that way you're guaranteed that the filmed drivers will improve their behaviour, yes?
