Cycling Camera... and a ****

General cycling advice ( NOT technical ! )
Darkman
Posts: 242
Joined: 30 Aug 2019, 8:46pm

Re: Cycling Camera... and a ****

Post by Darkman »

The driver in this incident is clearly out of control. I would be surprised if he is not known to the police for casual violence in other circumstances, for example assault on a partner or random people outside a pub or club, probably when drugged or in drink.
:shock:

That's one hell of an assumption to be making off the back of someone driving like an idiot.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Cycling Camera... and a ****

Post by mjr »

fivebikes wrote: 17 Apr 2021, 8:18am it has no screen but this is not an issue when worn on a helmet or bar mounted.
Screenless cameras have two small issues, in my experience:
1. you cannot check the aim until after recording, possibly too late;
2. setting the date/time (required by some police) is fiddlier and not usually possible directly on the camera (often copying a file to the camera or using an app).
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Cycling Camera... and a ****

Post by mjr »

thirdcrank wrote: 18 Apr 2021, 8:09pm Rather than risk the thread going in the helmet bin, I'd say that mounting a camera on your bonce - with or without a helmet - should ensure that you have a record of what you looked at eg car reg and suspect driver's mush. Both vital evidence for any sort of action.[...]
That evidence is not required. Most drivers' offences will be recorded perfectly well by bike-mounted cameras. Where the cyclist did or did not look is pretty irrelevant to whether the driver committed offences, isn't it?

Moreover, I feel it simply isn't worth the risk of sticking unapproved hard objects to the outside of a helmet. Most helmet manuals explicitly tell you not to stick junk on them.
TrevA wrote: 18 Apr 2021, 8:47pm If you mount the camera on top of the helmet, rather than the side, then it’s less likely to damage the helmet in a crash. On the few occasions I’ve fallen off, I’ve banged the side of my head or the back, not the top. Also, if the mount is Velcro or plastic, the camera will just break away.
Only the top of a helmet is tested as protective, not the side. Only use mounts approved by your helmet's maker, if there are any.
That said, the footage is just as good if the camera is mounted on the handlebars.
I think this is the key point.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
User avatar
531colin
Posts: 16083
Joined: 4 Dec 2009, 6:56pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Re: Cycling Camera... and a ****

Post by 531colin »

nomm wrote: 16 Apr 2021, 8:24pm ........ a narrow road with cars parked either side
............driver in question, who I can hear and see ahead (likely doing more than 20 mph, my opinion 40+) drives directly at me ..... around 30-50m ahead of me, he seemingly accelerates and starts pressing his horn...... on his horn still and preceded to accelerate, pass me at speed and drive away from me.......... In my moment of terror for my life and mainly my child's, I didn't get the plate details
.....................
Thats not "driving like an idiot" ...thats deliberate threat with a lethal weapon.
In my view, thats an assault.
If he had been using any weapon other than a motor vehicle, that would be assualt.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Cycling Camera... and a ****

Post by thirdcrank »

mjr wrote: 21 Apr 2021, 12:52pm
That evidence is not required. Most drivers' offences will be recorded perfectly well by bike-mounted cameras. Where the cyclist did or did not look is pretty irrelevant, isn't it?

Moreover, I feel it simply isn't worth the risk of sticking unapproved hard objects to the outside of a helmet. Most helmet manuals explicitly tell you not to stick junk on them.
Once again, I didn't make myself clear. Once the event has been recorded ie who did what, then evidence of who did it is crucial. In this case the OP didn't get the reg details and for very understandable reasons. Depending on the position of a bike-mounted camera it might or might not record the reg. Unless a motor vehicle is nicked then the reg should help get to the owner and from them the ID of the driver if it's a driving offence. If it's not a driving offence, or the suspect is not the driver - I do know the suspect was the driver here - then footage of the suspect's physog could be vital. Above all, it will usually help prove an offence and a face screwed up with anger spitting abuse should go someway to demonstrating intent. So, I'm simply saying that something which will record what most people naturally look at ie the threat, is going to be good evidence.

I didn't intend to argue in favour of one form of mounting or another; just trying to help the OP and anybody else reading decide, in the same way as my observations about wide-angle lenses further up. Obviously, many (most?) cameras of this broad genre are dashcams which only record straight ahead and users, including me are happy to use them.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Cycling Camera... and a ****

Post by mjr »

thirdcrank wrote: 21 Apr 2021, 1:15pm Once again, I didn't make myself clear. Once the event has been recorded ie who did what, then evidence of who did it is crucial.
I really do not understand why evidence of who recorded it matters at all, beyond them being available to swear that it appears a true likeness to them and they have not modified the footage. Maybe you are still being unclear?
In this case the OP didn't get the reg details and for very understandable reasons. Depending on the position of a bike-mounted camera it might or might not record the reg.
It seems somewhat unlikely that any front-facing bike-mounted camera would not capture the reg and at least a partial of the driver's face in the OP situation. I really do not understand why you seem to suggest these doubts about bike-mounted cameras in so many camera topics. They really are less problematic than head-mounted ones in several ways, including image stability and reproducibility.

It might also be useful to remember that police officers wear body-mounted cameras rather than head-mounted ones.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Cycling Camera... and a ****

Post by thirdcrank »

I didn't intend to suggest that "who recorded it" mattered (although the cameraman would normally have to give evidence about the filming) so that must be unintended ambiguity on my part. I am saying that proving the identity of an alleged offender is crucial to a prosecution and much more complicated than is often appreciated. Put another way, it must surely be one of the biggest potential loopholes on the market.

As a taste of the vital importance the criminal justice system accords to evidence of identification, there's an entire PACE Code of Practice dealing with it.
CODE D
Revised

Code of Practice for the identifcation of persons by Police Officers
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... d-2017.pdf

I think it's worth remembering that there's quite a growth industry in trading licence points and coming up with fanciful reasons for not supplying driver ID in response to the letters triggered by speed cameras etc. I'm no expert on speed cameras but I believe there's a growing use of cameras photographing the front of vehicles rather than the back to help combat this.

Re cameras used by patrolling police, there are different sorts. The diminishing numbers of "traffic" cars have sophisticated in-car cameras that record everything in high definition. The keenness displayed by police officers to detain the occupants of a fleeing vehicle, especially the driver, is directly related to the problems of subsequent ID (and things like administering an immediate breath test, of course.)

AIUI, body cameras are more to record an incident for the benefit of subsequent investigation of the officer's conduct.
User avatar
TrevA
Posts: 3551
Joined: 1 Jun 2007, 9:12pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: Cycling Camera... and a ****

Post by TrevA »

Have to say that I mount both my cameras (front facing and rear facing) on the bike. The front one is on the bars but I do have it angled out slightly, so that it better captures anything going on to my right. the advice I posted earlier about helmet mounting is from the instructions that came with my camera - ChilliTech Bullet Cam which comes with fittings for both helmet and bike.

A compromise if using a GoPro style camera is that you can mount the camera on a chest strap. This avoids potentially compromising your helmet (if you wear one).
Sherwood CC and Notts CTC.
A cart horse trapped in the body of a man.
http://www.jogler2009.blogspot.com
cycle tramp
Posts: 3531
Joined: 5 Aug 2009, 7:22pm

Re: Cycling Camera... and a ****

Post by cycle tramp »

Darkman wrote: 21 Apr 2021, 10:13am
The driver in this incident is clearly out of control. I would be surprised if he is not known to the police for casual violence in other circumstances, for example assault on a partner or random people outside a pub or club, probably when drugged or in drink.
:shock:

That's one hell of an assumption to be making off the back of someone driving like an idiot.
Perhaps not that much of an assumption. If someone is prepared to intimidate others to force a right of way contrary to the highway code, then way do we not think that they will not seek to intimidate others in other aspects of life.
Motorhead: god was never on your sidehttps://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&client=m ... +your+side
bohrsatom
Posts: 807
Joined: 20 May 2013, 4:36pm

Re: Cycling Camera... and a ****

Post by bohrsatom »

I have, very occasionally, ridden with a GoPro mounted on my handlebars and when I do I report any blatant close passes to the Met via their online form. I've found the Met process to be very smooth and most cases of really poor driving result in them sending a notice of intended prosecution to the driver.

My GoPro is a few years old now but can record in high enough quality to detect the numberplate of cars (I use 1080p / 30 fps / wide field of view).

Without video footage it's unlikely the police will take any action, but before you go down this route I suggest researching whether your police force is set up for acting on cycle cam videos. Some police forces are just not interested in 'near misses' and, as sad as it is to write this, your footage may only end up being of use if you're unfortunate enough to be seriously injured by a driver where it could be used to prove you weren't at fault.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Cycling Camera... and a ****

Post by thirdcrank »

I suggest researching whether your police force is set up for acting on cycle cam videos.
If they are not, and if you are sufficiently bothered to try to change this, then AIUI the official buzzwords are "Operation Snap." Here's the police inspectorate on the subject:-
Operation Snap

One cost-effective way in which forces can engage with the public and deal with road traffic offences is the use of video footage recorded on dashcams and helmet cameras. Operation Snap was initially developed by forces in Wales and the approach has now been adopted by many English forces. It enables the public to upload footage of road traffic offences that may provide evidence for prosecutions or lead to other police action.

The project has been recognised by the Department for Transport as best practice, and we agree. If implemented well, the scheme has the potential to significantly reduce the bureaucracy associated with the file preparation process for the police, as well as building good relationships with the public
Roads Policing: Not optional. An inspection of roads policing in England and Wales (pp36-37)

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk ... -wales.pdf

Unfortunately, they stopped short of a specific recommendation to adopt this, settling only for this:
Recommendation 9

With immediate effect, in forces where Operation Snap (the provision of digital video footage by the public) has been adopted, chief constables should make sure that it has enough resources and process to support its efficient and effective use.
Still worth a letter to your local sheriff (police and crime commissioner.)
nez
Posts: 2080
Joined: 19 Jun 2008, 12:11am

Re: Cycling Camera... and a ****

Post by nez »

thirdcrank wrote: 21 Apr 2021, 1:15pm
mjr wrote: 21 Apr 2021, 12:52pm
That evidence is not required. Most drivers' offences will be recorded perfectly well by bike-mounted cameras. Where the cyclist did or did not look is pretty irrelevant, isn't it?

Moreover, I feel it simply isn't worth the risk of sticking unapproved hard objects to the outside of a helmet. Most helmet manuals explicitly tell you not to stick junk on them.
Once again, I didn't make myself clear. Once the event has been recorded ie who did what, then evidence of who did it is crucial. In this case the OP didn't get the reg details and for very understandable reasons. Depending on the position of a bike-mounted camera it might or might not record the reg. Unless a motor vehicle is nicked then the reg should help get to the owner and from them the ID of the driver if it's a driving offence. If it's not a driving offence, or the suspect is not the driver - I do know the suspect was the driver here - then footage of the suspect's physog could be vital. Above all, it will usually help prove an offence and a face screwed up with anger spitting abuse should go someway to demonstrating intent. So, I'm simply saying that something which will record what most people naturally look at ie the threat, is going to be good evidence.

I didn't intend to argue in favour of one form of mounting or another; just trying to help the OP and anybody else reading decide, in the same way as my observations about wide-angle lenses further up. Obviously, many (most?) cameras of this broad genre are dashcams which only record straight ahead and users, including me are happy to use them.
The very latest ones take a really good wide angle picture, including anti-shake. I bought one recently and couldn't believe how much it steps up from GoPro 4. Will definitely resolve a number plate, though like you I think you need a helmet mount for a screw-up-mush-spitting-venom-ovision. I just use a bike mount. And of course you don't have to pay GoPro prices - I got a knock-off on Amazon for abt £70.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Cycling Camera... and a ****

Post by thirdcrank »

.... The very latest ones take a really good wide angle picture, ....
How do they fit in with what I've mentioned somewhere above about the distortion of distance and consequently, apparent speed?
nez
Posts: 2080
Joined: 19 Jun 2008, 12:11am

Re: Cycling Camera... and a ****

Post by nez »

I think a lawyer would always be able to argue distortion. All cameras distort. As I said to a photography client 'I can't change the laws of physics for you.' But they are quite a bit clearer so I think policemen or magistrates would be in a position to make their own judgements.

I should say I often see 'close pass' videos posted on line by cyclists which appear to my unprejudiced eye not all that close. I notice police forces publish encouragement to leave 1.5 metres. I would personally never pass a cyclist in my car at 1.5 metres, more like 2.5. But if 1.5 is the rule lots of what are claimed as 'close passes' aren't.

Sorry, I've rather got off the subject of the man with the screwed up face. If I can find a bit of video from my device I'll post it (somehow). I don't regularly look at it for fear of putting myself off cycling.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Cycling Camera... and a ****

Post by thirdcrank »

What I'm getting at is that first impressions count. I'm not going to go digging back now but some years ago Martin Porter QC, AKA the Cycling Lawyer blogger wrote several chapters (?) of his blog on things he had learned from his forays into the criminal courts with camera footage and this was one of the things he touched on. The point is that you can obtain all manner of accurate data by using footage as the basis for measuring eg vehicle emerges from a junction when "cameraman" it at another road feature then a surveyor's chain can be used to measure that distance - and so on. Unfortunately, if the footage makes it looks miles away, then that takes some dislodging in the mind of anybody looking at it.

I think this type of technology is great but the wide-angle lens thing is IMO at least worth considering when buying. For most uses, wide-angle seems a strong selling point as big numbers so often are and this is so strong that narrower angle lenses seem to be rare. Among all my other tech of this type I have a Dogcam Bullet camera, bought IIRC after reading MP's reflections. I bought the narrowest angle they did. Dogcam went bust long ago, which may say something, but that's what's needed. IMO.
Post Reply