Page 5 of 5

Re: What's wrong with just a mirror?

Posted: 8 Nov 2018, 6:59pm
by Scribblerian
Cugel wrote:
Scribblerian wrote:
Cugel wrote:

I'm not interested in proving a loon got me with his car, from behind or any other direction. I'm much more interested in preventing or avoiding such loon actions.

Christ on a bicycle, you should pardon the pun! That's what I keep saying. The camera is a signal to approaching drivers that if they behave badly, their actions will be recorded. That's it, I'm done.

Re: What's wrong with just a mirror?

Posted: 8 Nov 2018, 10:11pm
by Tangled Metal
So how do drivers know you have a camera recording them? I've seen a few cyclists with cameras on their bike but usually I notice them after the point I could have hit them. By that I mean as I'm overtaking them. I don't see the cameras at the distance needed to affect my potentially dangerous driving behaviour (a theoretical situation since I take great care around cyclists because if I'm not in the car I'm on my bike).

This idea of cameras on bikes as a deterrent for bad driving is probably very unlikely. It's realistically only a means for corroborating your statement. Which iirc your statement is classed as evidence the camera footage is only corroborating your evidence (both count as one piece of evidence I think that means not two when it comes to weight). YMMV but I suspect I'm right.