Put it on the bike not the hat, unless you can get a mount recommended by the hat maker. You don't want a camera to be the last thing to go through your mind in a crash.
I've been using a £40 SJ4000 clone from the Range since the start of the year. The police accepted its footage without question the only time it's been needed. Picture is fine in good light but not great at night.
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.
mikeyg123 wrote:I was thinking a helmet cam would be good for the times I've had polite* conversations with drivers
Showing a confrontation with a driver more clearly is unlikely to increase the evidence value of the recording unless they go as far as assaulting you... and I strongly suggest riding away before they get that close, if you are able.
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.
I'd give a bit more thought to what you want to record and for what purpose, because that should guide your choice of equipment.
eg My impression is that something rear-mounted on the bike will give the best evidence of poor overtaking.
mjr is right about the potential danger of something mounted on a head or helmet and of the benefits of avoiding confrontation, but something on your head will record what you are looking at and eg a mugshot of your suspect can be excellent evidence. Remember that if you submit footage, you cannot pick and choose what's used: evidence cuts both ways.
One technical consideration is the lens angle: a lot of this sort of equipment has a wide-angle lens to capture the wider picture, but that can be deceptive in that everything looks further away and you will appear to be travelling faster than you were. I have an obsolete Dogcam Bullet Camera - recommended by somebody on here years ago - which gives very realistic footage and being helmet mounted does not need to be wide-angle.
I repeatedly make the point that it's harder to prosecute a case than it is to defend one: ie it's easier to introduce reasonable doubt than to prove there is no doubt.
thirdcrank wrote:[...] something on your head will record what you are looking at [...]
No, it'll record what your head is pointing towards, assuming that the camera hasn't rotated on the mount unseen (as you won't notice until you take the hat off), but we've discussed this previously ☺
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.
I suppose that when I look at any of the stacks of footage I see in various settings, I'm evaluating the evidential value, rather than the technical or philosophical aspects and that's the basis of pretty much all my comments. This is why I suggested that the OP think about what they hoped to record.
As a small but possibly significant example, if you have the reg of the offender's vehicle, a notice can be served on the keeper requiring the ID of the driver in respect of driving offences. If somebody in the vehicle is abusive or worse, that doesn't apply so a mugshot may be of considerable evidential value (always assuming the police take an interest.) The information held on the DVLA index should be enough get to the vehicle without notices, but there's no power to compel anybody to answer questions about offences such as assault. Now, I believe that a head or helmet-mounted camera is more likely to capture that evidence than one mounted on the bike. I'm stressing this because it was an aspect raised by the OP.
A cam mounted on the bike will tend to have shakier footage and more rattly audio. Anti shake only does so much, and it's at the expense of overall picture quality. A helmet or chest mount will generally be better, and can obviously be better directed.
gregoryoftours wrote:A cam mounted on the bike will tend to have shakier footage and more rattly audio. Anti shake only does so much, and it's at the expense of overall picture quality. A helmet or chest mount will generally be better, and can obviously be better directed.
Cameras mounted on helmets are lethal. It was a helmet mounted GoPro which caused Michael Schumacher’s head injury. The helmet wasn’t designed to have a camera mounted upon it.
Chest or bike mounted is safest. Cycliq seem the best option.
Chest mounted cameras are too faffy to put on and keep aligned. A good vibration- damping bike mount is best but police can pick out number plates through minor vibrations.
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.
I've considered a helmet cam, but wonder whether there is a weight penalty and that this might adversely effect the neck on a long ride? Anyone found this to be the case?
I can only reiterate that if a camera or cameras are used to gather and preserve evidence, then thought has to be given to what evidence they can gather. Not for the first time I'll link to Martin Porter's blog which is invaluable because he's a cyclist and a top lawyer who has had some disappointing experience with using camera evidence. I don't think I'm being rude if I suggest that despite his eminence in the civil courts, a criminal trial was a culture shock. http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/2016 ... on-2b.html
On the matter of number plates, I think that current technology is much-improved.
Basically wide angle lenses don't make for very strong evidence. A rear camera is required as well as a front one. Nothing whatsoever is likely to happen if the evidence is not very very strong and no-one was injured.
So is there any point? Does making a complaint have any effect? In most cases I don't care about exacting justice. I'd just like the driver to know somehow that they scared the living daylights out of me and that I did a right to cycle in the position that I was. Then hopefully there might be a small chance they might give the next cyclist a tiny bit more space. Is that possible? A searchable public site to log "this driver scared the *** out of me" videos? A service to forward on "this is what it looked like from my point of view" videos to the registered vehicle keeper?
