Bike cameras

[rmurphy195]

I use a Garmin Virb which has been excellent with good resolution. It is quite expensive and you have to have some basic computer skills plus a computer of course. The file sizes are enormous so I don't keep them more than a couple of months.

To the poster who implied they wont make you safer I would disagree. My behaviour has changed and I believe I ride safer with CCTV. As if I need to use the footage, I don't want to be having to explain any questionable behaviour on my part. That tends to detract from the impact and culpability of the behaviour of the other person. Yes actually I believe that it can change driver behaviour too, especially if they aren't quite sure if we have a camera, they tend to default to their "better selves" - mostly, just to be on the safe side. Knowing there is a "witness" on the handlebars makes me less anxious and I worry less, which is a good outcome for me.

So if enough of us carry any sort of camera the possibility of detection is in the awareness of bad drivers and in most cases human nature would kick in to make us marginally safer in my view. Marginal differences are important. I wonder how many of us have been in a situation where by a hairs breadth we escaped. Now imagine that hairs breadth in the other direction and the proximity of catastrophe. So, I would conclude that marginal gains through cameras just may save my life.

+1

[Vantage]

I bought cameras. I used them. I stopped using them.
What makes me ride safer and more responsibly is knowing that if I don't, the bike gets damaged and at worst, I die. Riding better to stay out of trouble just isn't good enough.
Depending on where the camera using cyclist lives/rides, poor driving reported to the police will either result in a warning to the driver or it may just be completely ignored. More than likely is the latter.
Many of us have discovered that it is easier to survive the incident and put it to the back of our minds. Playing it back over and over in our heads or worse, on camera, spoils the ride.

[kwackers]

Playing it back over and over in our heads or worse, on camera, spoils the ride.

I don't do that.
I turn them on, ride, turn them off. I rarely look at the footage - last time was probably 3 months ago when I looked at an incident.

When I do look it's often to see if there's anything I could have done or indeed if the incident was really as bad as I thought.

I'm principally a utility/commuter cyclist though so other than mixing it with rush hour traffic I don't usually take to the roads for pleasure so there's nothing to spoil. When I do go out for pleasure, it's for a nice weekend ride through parks, canal paths etc and motorists are much better behaved at the weekend too!

[BakfietsUK]

Vantage, It seems completely natural to want to move on from any traumatic experience and I respect your ability to do that. Whilst it is beneficial on an individual psychological level to "forget" it seems different on a community basisl. At some level, as cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders and any other road user made vulnerable by motor traffic have a responsibility. As a cyclist I have a responsibility toward the community as well as anyone else, whatever they do. So if I don't uphold my right as a citizen to seek justice, then I am doing the community a dis-service as well as myself.

It is very much in the nature of a bully to seek to silence their targeted victim. It seems like we're being silenced by the fear that the more powerful road users seem to hold over us. So to take control over a bully involves the strength of character to re-live what might be traumatic experiences in the name of justice. If we're not prepared to do this to some extent, then we'll have great difficulty getting our experiences acknowledged and then addressed by law.

To me a bike camera is a witness on the handlebars and yes reviewing the footage is sometimes horrific. However, I want change to happen, so I am prepared to face the pain in order to get justice. If we rely on the authorities to do the job for us we'll be waiting a lot longer for action. If lots more cyclists were prepared to carry cameras and use the footage, we would be more in control of our own destiny.

[Phil Fouracre]

Just seen this. Have often thought about fitting one, then discarded the idea, as me getting paranoid in my old age. Got to agree with some of the comments on here though.
Yesterday making me think again! Out with the missus, enjoying a very pleasant ride, no traffic problems. One car behind as we approach a fairy wide open stretch of road, politely waiting to overtake us, when car coming towards us, other side of the road, fat woman driver blasting her horn and giving us the finger!! Spent the next mile wondering quite why that happened. Couldn't come to any meaningful conclusion, but, left a nasty taste.
Strangely, I could have understood it if it had been the car behind, rude, but, understandable! Would have been nice to have had a record of her number, though doubt I would have taken it any further, so full circle really

[mjr]

I'm currently using http://www.bmstores.co.uk/products/inte ... era-305941 which is surprisingly good. It'll record about 2 hours on its own power and fill the card doing so. It comes with a good range of mounts, but I expect to drill the waterproof one to allow a USB power lead to be connected once its internal battery stops holding good charge. The main feature it's missing is loop recording (auto-deleting the oldest recording when the memory card is full) - you can delete recordings from the camera but it's slow and eats valuable battery. Ejecting the card and using a computer is faster but annoying.

Before I used an ebay MD80 "gumpack" (I won the ebay lottery on the second attempt - it's about £5 a play ) strapped to the bike with one of those silicone 8 shapes - and another for the USB power pack as those tiny cameras don't have an internal battery worth the name. It's cheap but takes a fiddly trial-and-error and some web searching to figure out what the Chinglish instructions really mean in practice. Its main problem is the lack of screen meaning sometimes I recorded mainly sky or ground but probably still enough cars to catch road-rage which was the main motive for purchase... but both cameras have been used more for reporting potholes than anything else. It's also not waterproof so you can't get the aim right and leave it on the bike forever, only removing the battery pack for recharging and memory card for wiping.

[karlt]

Seriously considering getting one if I thought the Rozzers would actually do anything. I had a good half dozen this morning who would be prosecutable.

[mjr]

Seriously considering getting one if I thought the Rozzers would actually do anything. I had a good half dozen this morning who would be prosecutable.

Ask your local police to act. West Yorkshire are the latest to start accepting video evidence: https://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/con ... cycle-safe

http://road.cc/content/news/215826-clos ... -yours-one lists forces who have gone to look at West Midlands's scheme. http://road.cc/content/news/217038-six- ... ding-leeds mentions Devon & Cornwall launching something too, as well as others considering.

[rmurphy195]

The reason I have one is quite simple - having been knocked off the bike by a kind person who subsequently lied about the facts - in this case claiming I rode off the pavement in front of him - the camera would have proved he was lying at the outset. Even if I hadn't survived to contradict him.

[toomsie]

I use the Cycliq Fly6 (rear) and Fly12 (front).

They function as bike lights as well as cameras so you may end up with less clutter on the bike. They automatically overwrite the memory card when it becomes full.

I always use two rear lights and given it's winter, I have a very bright front light - meaning I can use the Fly6 in camera/dim-flashing mode and the Fly12 in camera-only mode for my week's worth of commuting without having to charge them.

--Jatinder

The fly Fly12 and 6 are very good. I use them myself and they work every time. Just use it as a light and forget about it.
I am looking for a fake helmet cam better looking then a gopro.

[thirdcrank]

Colgrenfell

I think it's good that you are thinking about what you hope to achieve with a camera. You seem to want to use one to corroborate your account in the event of something like a crash. In that case, you don't need stunning cinematography, just something that gives a reasonable recording.

If you have not seen it, there's a thread on here involving a case where a rider's crash compo was reduced by a judge because he accepted that the rider wasn't looking where he was going. A helmet mounted camera rather than one on the bike would have cleared this up either way.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=112493

It does truly cut "either way" because it might show you never checked behind and so on.

[mjr]

If you have not seen it, there's a thread on here involving a case where a rider's crash compo was reduced by a judge because he accepted that the rider wasn't looking where he was going. A helmet mounted camera rather than one on the bike would have cleared this up either way.

Might have cleared that one up and might not, as a head-mounted camera shows where your nose is pointing, not where your eyes are looking. I suspect that judge would have found another reason to reduce the cyclist's compensation.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,

If you have not seen it, there's a thread on here involving a case where a rider's crash compo was reduced by a judge because he accepted that the rider wasn't looking where he was going. A helmet mounted camera rather than one on the bike would have cleared this up either way.

Might have cleared that one up and might not, as a head-mounted camera shows where your nose is pointing, not where your eyes are looking. I suspect that judge would have found another reason to reduce the cyclist's compensation.

I always poke my nose where my eyes aren't looking, because that's how I have survived so long unharmed

Its easy to flip eyes side to side but anyone knows that to look left & right you move your head and thus your nose, to suggest otherwise is spitting hairs, just try looking left or right even behind with nose upfront
Once you enter mid-peripheral vision movement and colour etc are diminished.
One is unlikely to move head left and keep eyes looking straight on.

[mjr]

Its easy to flip eyes side to side but anyone knows that to look left & right you move your head and thus your nose, to suggest otherwise is spitting hairs, just try looking left or right even behind with nose upfront
Once you enter mid-peripheral vision movement and colour etc are diminished.
One is unlikely to move head left and keep eyes looking straight on.

One also tends to turn one's head not quite far as far round as one looks, though. That's a benefit of having eyes that move in their sockets, but does mean a head-mounted camera probably won't quite match where you look.

But as I implied, I feel the judge was probably looking for reasons.

[thirdcrank]

In spite of the personal comments about the judge in the case to which I linked, I'd maintain my point about the difference between the mounting of a camera on the helmet as opposed to the bars. I'd give the example of a dashcam, which accurately records whether or not a driver stopped at a junction before emerging but not what they could see on the main road. Rear-mounted cameras were discussed above: essential for recording what happened behind, not necessarily much use otherwise.

This is why I referred to the OP's intended purpose. It's horses for courses. If somebody wants evidence to support a prosecution, then they need the best possible quality and even then, we know it risks being summarily dismissed by the police and things like the distortion of distance caused by the typical wide-angles lens may not convince a jury. (See Cycling Lawyer blog.) To defend yourself against accusations, lower quality will be enough for a reasonable doubt defending a criminal charge or to provide balance of probability in a civil case.