The matter went to court and the van driver pleaded guilty to driving without due consideration and received 5pts, a fine (she didn't know how much) and court costs.
(you have to go to page 8 to see that bit).
I don't know anything more than what is available in that thread.
people (& vans) are gonna do idiotic stuff like that. they treat cyclists no differently to cars drivers. you have to just learn to put up with it and behave responsibly. cyclists shouldn't undertake or overtake where it is unsafe to do so.
vernon wrote:It's another example of the bad Karma that helmet cams generate.
I've only read the first and last pages of the linked thread (and I didn't bother with watching the video) but for me the point is that with good admissible evidence which camcorder footage can provide cases can be successfully prosecuted. In many cases it will be stronger than the evidence of witnesses. (eg think how much clearer the events would have been in the current thread about the aerial being damaged on the landcruiser.)
I doubt if most headcams are prominent enough to be noticed, but as they become more widespread, I'd expect them to have a generally deterrent effect.
vernon wrote:It's another example of the bad Karma that helmet cams generate.
I'm missing something. Why is it bad Karma? The guy did something idiotic and the camera footage was instrumental in getting a result -that's good isn't it?
vernon wrote:It's another example of the bad Karma that helmet cams generate.
I'm missing something. Why is it bad Karma? The guy did something idiotic and the camera footage was instrumental in getting a result -that's good isn't it?
My take on vernon's post was that it seems like as soon as you wear a helmet cam, bad things happen. Not the case obviously but generally it's the poor behaviour we see posted. Unless I read his post wrongly of course.
vernon wrote:It's another example of the bad Karma that helmet cams generate.
I'm missing something. Why is it bad Karma? The guy did something idiotic and the camera footage was instrumental in getting a result -that's good isn't it?
My take on vernon's post was that it seems like as soon as you wear a helmet cam, bad things happen. Not the case obviously but generally it's the poor behaviour we see posted. Unless I read his post wrongly of course.
Helmet cam wearers do give the impression of being shroud wavers. I remain unconvinced of the need to wear the devices but would love to encounter a commuting cycling forum whose postings were unedited full run recordings of the commuters' journeys. It would alter folks perceptions of the hazards that folk face on a bike if they could be bothered to sit through the largely incident free recordings.
vernon wrote:Helmet cam wearers do give the impression of being shroud wavers. I remain unconvinced of the need to wear the devices but would love to encounter a commuting cycling forum whose postings were unedited full run recordings of the commuters' journeys. It would alter folks perceptions of the hazards that folk face on a bike if they could be bothered to sit through the largely incident free recordings.
After nearly being taken out by a bus some years ago I took to using a camera. I found that it caused me to analyse and improve my own riding. However some cyclists are drama queens and act up for the cameras - there's no doubt. Personally I'd be quite happy to post full recordings of my commute for others dissection I reckon I could learn a lot, two things currently stop me. I'm not currently using a camera - although I am going to refit one, but mainly the sheer size. Straight from the camera it's about 3Gb a day.
With regards the OP I think the use of the camera was justified and the end result may be one driver who'll think twice. However, personally I think I'd have ignored the van. Whilst it's difficult to be sure (camera distort things something chronic) his initial behaviour would probably have elicited nothing more than some head shaking from me.
The theme of this is a little like my own job. I work as a midwife, most births are relatively easy, straight forward events with the only intervention being some type of analgesia either administered by the miwife or by the anaesthetist in the case of an epidural.
Many obstetric doctors will say that birth is dangerous, fraught with complications, that's because they only see the cases where we call them in because of a problem.
When not on the injured list I clock up a large number of miles during the year and have probably seen it all, and am wary at a variety of junctions/situations and watch out for stupid maneouvres. I reckon I've had a bad journey if I get 3-4 stupid incidents, and, in the memory banks, these tend to outweigh all those motorists whose actions were of no threat to other's safety. This is the same with helmet cams, we see just how bad Motorists are. We already vent our spleen about that stupid motorist on forums such as these, so skew what it is lie to cycle on our roads today, now we can add helmetcam evidence.
It is bound to make cycle commuting look extremely dangerous, several motorist overtook or waited at junctions in that footage, but was our attention drawn to that, of course not.
Obviously helmetcams are going to increasingly play apart in some serious events, and this was potentially quite serious as the van driver did continue to drive in a rather erratic way after initially pulling out on the cyclist.
One of my recent accidents I certainly wishe I had some sort of camcorder to prove that I crossed the lights on green, rather than red as claimed by the police and since (fortunately) refuted by a witness statement.
I stand and rejoice everytime I see a woman ride by on a wheel the picture of free, untrammeled womanhood. HG Wells
There must be a danger that having bought the kit, users will be over-eager to make use of it. I remember in the early days of mobile phones, there were lots of quite silly 999 calls from people who seemed to feel the need to use their nice new phone but had nobody else to ring. There was a bit of a rash of people being on the receiving end of some poor driving expecting to launch a high-speed chase.
It's a fine balancing act because some serious offences have been detected following an early call on a mobile.
Good on the Police for using camera footage to get a conviction, well deserved in my opinion.
As a camera wearer for the pat six months I can say the last thing I want is to provoke someone or put myself in a situation where my personal safety is put at risk just to capture a "good" video. In all the YouTube videos I have watched of other cyclists I have not seen such behaviour. In that time there has been four or five occasions when I have felt in imminent danger and had to take emergency action to prevent a collision. This is a similar rate of occurrence before I had a camera. About 95% of the incidents I see are minor traffic offences at best and just reflect the lack of law enforcement on our roads. My best days are when nothing happens and I can just delete the files, not very common during school term time for some reason.
Firstly I don't see any undertaking by the cyclist, the van drivers pulls wide & slows down several times deliberately, the cyclist maintains his speed for the most part & draws alongside at one point to speak to the driver. The cyclist does not actually pass the van at any point.
Instead of reflectors & a bell can cycle retailers sell headcams with new bikes instead IF every cyclist had one & used it every time they went out and all motorists knew we were wearing them, would this not have a massive impact on the way motorised vehicle drivers would treat us knowing that and the likely outcome if they transgressed?
The right result ATEOTD and if it got national press might have an impact for the better.
Tonyf33 wrote:Instead of reflectors & a bell can cycle retailers sell headcams with new bikes instead IF every cyclist had one & used it every time they went out and all motorists knew we were wearing them, would this not have a massive impact on the way motorised vehicle drivers would treat us knowing that and the likely outcome if they transgressed?
The right result ATEOTD and if it got national press might have an impact for the better.
I hate to say this but the people of this forum seem to be against Helmet Use and pro helmet cam compulsion Where are you supposed to wear it ?
Cycling is simple and relatively safe please lets keep it that way.
Tonyf33 wrote:Instead of reflectors & a bell can cycle retailers sell headcams with new bikes instead IF every cyclist had one & used it every time they went out and all motorists knew we were wearing them, would this not have a massive impact on the way motorised vehicle drivers would treat us knowing that and the likely outcome if they transgressed?
The right result ATEOTD and if it got national press might have an impact for the better.
I hate to say this but the people of this forum seem to be against Helmet Use and pro helmet cam compulsion Where are you supposed to wear it ?
Cycling is simple and relatively safe please lets keep it that way.
Where did I mention a helmet? I'm very sure a camera can be used without one & still give the required result. IF I chose to wear one I'd mount it to one of my wide camping/potholing straps in some way, can't be difficult can it? I guess you could also have a shoulder/chest mounted one, a handlebar mounted one. Lets get them in the headtubes with a gyro
Cycling isn't dangerous per se however capturing the moments when you really really needed a witness must have distinct advantages in the short & long run, do you not agree with that aspect?
Sorry Tony I just used what you had said for a bit of fun it wasn't meant as a criticism of you personally but just illustrating the point that every time there is a helmet thread. The anti helmet brigrade role out the line that cycling is safe so why should you need one. Yet the pro camera lobby tells us we need cameras cause its hard world out there.
Tonyf33 wrote:Cycling isn't dangerous per se however capturing the moments when you really really needed a witness must have distinct advantages in the short & long run, do you not agree with that aspect?
No I don't think its worth it. I've seen no real proof that they can be used in evidence. One possible case on that other forum but searching the internet doesn't point to any newspaper articles or court cases. And the few people i know with them seem to go seeking trouble. cycling should be about enjoying the bike.
IF every cyclist had one & used it every time they went out and all motorists knew we were wearing them, would this not have a massive impact on the way motorised vehicle drivers would treat us knowing that and the likely outcome if they transgressed?
