Why the abuse?

[yenrod]

>Why the abuse?

Mags - maybe its because you indirectly goad drivers into this action ???

I dont know, but I'd be quite pissed off if a driver was filming me...

Which I have been BTW !!! (filmed)

 

[magnatom]

>Why the abuse?

Mags - maybe its because you indirectly goad drivers into this action ???

Oh come on yenners, how can I possibly indirectly goad a driver?

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Actually, this is a very interesting point you have raised. One I don't agree with. Look at what my filming and posting has done, it has instigated talking. How many words have been typed or even talked on the back of my videoing? A lot. Sure, there is a lot of noise, but there is a signal within it.

By continuing to post videos hopefully people will continue to talk, and who knows maybe some of these conversations will lead to ideas/progress (oh, I've gone all hopelessly optimistic!)

At the moment, yes - because we are still in a stage where, as bonj says, not everyone actually expects this or sees it as normal. I think there is a difference though, between creating a debate through a critique of a practice, and creating a debate by doing the thing that is being criticised. The latter inevitably encourages the practice and doesn't really leave any doubt that you believe you are the one in 'the right'.

So I wonder what you are actually optimistic about here when you say you are optimistic, and what progress you are talking about when you talk about progress. It's kind of what I meant when I said I didn't know what side you were on or even where the sides are in this debate.

If we did get to the extreme situation I mentioned (provocatively) earlier where we were all recording all our interactions, where social order was achieved through the constant threat of being observed rather than because we understood what was good or right, would this be 'progress'?

 

[Crackle]

would this be 'progress'?

No, it would a cross between Orwell and Bladerunner.


Maggers will be the ruination of us all - rise up against him (not you Mr. hippo, col and Maggot).

 

[downfader]

Now, that is a very good question, probably the best that's been asked here.

I think that we are seeing here (and in many cases like it) a kind of 'normalisation' of surveillance - the use of what used to be quite specialist technologies and unusual (even dubious) practices for normal, everyday interactions.

That doesn't mean it is wrong: social networking is simply technologically-mediated communication, and it doesn't become wrong because of the method. It should however make us question what kind of society we are making, and whether think we want that kind of society - where we are all watching each other through cameras instead of talking.

You seem pretty blase about it, and about your right to privacy, dignity etc. That is quite common amongst younger people, and teenagers in particular, the kinds of people who don't think much about consequences, or haven't yet done much that they would regard as private.

FWIW no one has a right to privacy in a public place. It would simply be unworkable.

I do remember a time without CCTV, the web and rolling news, etc.. I do also remember people getting s***ty over the first shops with CCTV about 20 years back. I think realistically this is a situation that has been going on for over 2 decades - why should anyone worry about bike-cameras when they dont worry about shop CCTV?

Life is just far too short for the vast majority of people to do anything wrong with said information.

 

[magnatom]

If we did get to the extreme situation I mentioned (provocatively) earlier where we were all recording all our interactions, where social order was achieved through the constant threat of being observed rather than because we understood what was good or right, would this be 'progress'?

By progress and optimism I am talking about improved treatment for cyclists, and more mutual respect on the roads. The camera and the videos it creates are just tools. It educates, it informs and creates debate, it gets people talking about the subject. It also informs those who have absolutely no experience of being on a bike on the roads about what it is like. I am not using the camera with the aim of creating debate about the use of cameras. On this my aim is to stay within the law, and as best I can to use it ethically. What ethically is, is probably open to debate of course, but that is why I would like to be involved in writing a set a ground rules for their use. However, this, though of interest to me is not my focus. The camera is just a tool to me.

I honestly, have no other motives.

I actually wish I did not have to use the camera, and if I felt that it served no road safety, or personal safety purpose, I would not use it. I could save the money and buy a better bike! So my gut feeling is that you last question misses the point a little. Progress would be, that there was no need for cyclists to have cameras.

But to directly answer the question, would all cyclists having cameras be progress, yes, if it made the roads a safer and happier place. If they didn't then there would be no point in them and no progress would have been made.

Does that make sense?

 

[downfader]

Then why do all your videos have provocative titles? You use them to admonish and humiliate drivers you think have wronged you. You post videos as revenge not education.

Thats why people get shirty.

Come on, they're hardly provocative. God forbid you'd ever read the Mail or you'd prolly s*** yourself in anger

Infact by your reasoning the Police are acting in revenge rather than justice, or the newspapers were acting in revenge instead of reporting current affairs..

 

[John Ponting]

FWIW no one has a right to privacy in a public place. It would simply be unworkable. .

Hasn't this been changed recently to prevent capturing images that would allow identification of police officers, military personnel and probably various other groups? Does that cover a headcam that includes an image of a proscribed group ? Especially if that image is subsequently published on web ?

 

[Bollo]

Then why do all your videos have provocative titles? You use them to admonish and humiliate drivers you think have wronged you. You post videos as revenge not education.

Thats why people get shirty.

Do you mean the people in the videos getting upset, or the people who leave comments on youtube? If its the former, I don't think I've ever seen anyone get upset specifically because of the presence of the camera. There's usually been an incident beforehand. Shirts have already been brandished.

As for youtube, its a screaming collection of the dull, ignorant and bigotted. The only reaction I have to most of the comments that go Magnatom's way is an increasing willingness for SARS to mutate into some form of idiocy-tracking virus. Meh.

Revenge? Its a pretty lame revenge. I've done it. I've put vids up as a form of revenge. Did it give me any satisfaction? Did it f***. It's p1ssing in the wind. Where I depart from Mag's way of thinking is that I believe it has very little effect on the public at large - either positively by improving driving standards or negatively by creating driver resentment and ill-will.

I have absolutely no problem with filming though. Driving is a public activity with public responsibilities and there shouldn't be any problem with exposing it to public scrutiny.

 

[downfader]

Hasn't this been changed recently to prevent capturing images that would allow identification of police officers, military personnel and probably various other groups? Does that cover a headcam that includes an image of a proscribed group ? Especially if that image is subsequently published on web ?

Sorry yes you're right in that instance (Army/services and government staff are also included)

Silly law tbh, all under section 44 having been amended... anyway thats a different story entirely

 

[thomas]

Who knows, maybe if less stuff ended up randomly posted on-line, often with no context, then people would be less twitchy and paranoid about you and your SLR, ever thought of that.

That's laughable. You really think people target cyclists because some of us have cameras? I'd bet if you asked the majority of drivers they wouldn't even realise. I know people who have cameras in their car too...

 

[goo_mason]

Maggot, I'm sorry, but you are calling your sig line into question. I think you and Tom are both intelligent and funny people with a differing point of view. Most of us have taken the Mickey out of Tom for his videos and I must say, he's taken it well and in good will. I loved your descent of the Gorge and Tom's tunnel video equally. Hasn't it gone a bit far, both of you?

(pssst. His name's not Tom, it's Dave.....)

 

[Dayvo]

(pssst. His name's not Tom, it's Dave.....)

Oh! I thought it was Margaret!

 

[Bollo]

Oh, and the Police don't tend to post vids on YouTube with deliberately provocative titles do they?

Roadwars? Streetwars? Scariest Police Chases?.........

 

[Bollo]

Ferchrissakes. Are you bored or summat? Can't you take the piss out of Belgium like everyone else?

Any country that eats horses is ok by me.