Bike Cameras. The Negatives and Positives of using them

[SteveRuss]

Right back in the first post of this thread I mentioned one particular individual that nearly sandwiched me then tried to rip my camera from my helmet in objection to me touching his van.

The situation reached it's conclusion yesterday with me opting for an out of court resolution. The chap concerned was reportedly very remorseful (after getting marched down to the police station to watch the video of course). He apparently was convinced he wasn't that close to me and regretted the common assault. I think it's called a community resolution (or something like that) which I was happy with the details of so I left the matter there as I feel he will now think twice about his driving and man handling people.

The point is, this relatively simple procedure would not have gone anywhere near as smoothly without me having camera footage. Despite the mention of two willing witnesses, you never know whether their enthusiasm at the time will translate into them making a statement and ultimately turning up to a court hearing. Most of these cases just go away, without the aggressor feeling any form of heat. It's laborious for all concerned when it's someone's word against another. Not so with good camera footage it turns out.

For this reason alone, I am going to continue to run the camera. I don't see it as surveillance in an Orwellian way although I understand there could be issues with using the footage in an unfair way. But, in my case it's worked out to the benefit of the common good.

 

[4bound]

Sounds like "Restorative Justice". http://restorativejustice.org.uk/
I expect he is relieved not to have a Caution on his Police record and will think twice next time.

 

[SteveRuss]

Sounds like "Restorative Justice". http://restorativejustice.org.uk/
I expect he is relieved not to have a Caution on his Police record and will think twice next time.

Yep. I think that was it.

The policeman said he didn't seem like such a bad guy, despite his video performance. It seemed like the way to go after that conversation. I know the police sometimes drop these things as quickly as possible but they really seemed to put some effort in to this one. Again, probably because of the ease of dealing with a situation which is fully documented on video.

 

[freddofrog]

If it were me, I would want to know why he passed so close i.e. is he a bad driver per se, or a one-off and "having a bad day". In either case, banging on the side of his van escalated something that was already over by the time you banged on the side of his van. IMO the helmet-camera comes into use when someone is injured, not when it's a close call (same applies to cars really, youtube is full of nonsense abut "look what he/she nearly did to me")

Also, maybe he has learned from it, or maybe not and was just "going through the motions" in order to reduce/remove any potential impact on him. If the latter, then your belief that you've achieved something by wearing a helmet-camera is purely that ....a belief.

 

[flecc]

The policeman said he didn't seem like such a bad guy, despite his video performance.

They almost always are normally good guys Steve. It's just that driving produces a particular kind of stress reaction in certain people which can emerge as aggression which we call road rage. Just getting behind the wheel turns them from Dr Jekyll into Mr Hyde.

Courts and fines rarely do any good, I'm strongly in favour of the driver awareness and behaviour courses that the police sometimes offer to transgressors. Some calm sessions in a classroom with expert driver instructors and video illustrations of bad behaviour can induce a different attitude of mind behind the wheel.

It's good to hear you are satisfied with the outcome, always nice to get a resolution.
.

 

[jonathan75]

If it were me, I would want to know why he passed so close i.e. is he a bad driver per se, or a one-off and "having a bad day". In either case, banging on the side of his van escalated something that was already over by the time you banged on the side of his van. IMO the helmet-camera comes into use when someone is injured, not when it's a close call (same applies to cars really, youtube is full of nonsense abut "look what he/she nearly did to me")

Also, maybe he has learned from it, or maybe not and was just "going through the motions" in order to reduce/remove any potential impact on him. If the latter, then your belief that you've achieved something by wearing a helmet-camera is purely that ....a belief.

Being made to think you're going to be hit is a thing too, as is thinking a driver needs to change so they don't do that again to someone else. They've legal implications even. And didn't Steve have to take evasive action?

Whether or not the guy's successful performance was heartfelt, Steve achieved justice. Impunity was avoided. The other bloke will definitely think again before he repeats that one. Next time if there is one he won't get the restorative treatment. But then again maybe he did feel remorse. Doesn't matter :even psychopaths understand the logic of deterrence and its impact on their self interest.

Of course if you believe cameras and bad cycling caused all this then it's a bad day for the struggle against surveillance and cocky squishy two wheelers, and the van driver is a martyr. I'm not of that view.

 

[flecc]

and the van driver is a martyr.

Anyone who drives for a living on our lousy UK roads is a martyr.
.

 

[jonathan75]

Anyone who drives for a living on our lousy UK roads is a martyr.
.

I agree it's sometimes a tough life, I just think they should be treated as though they choose their actions is all. Even if there is as you imply, a reduction in inhibition etc, that's more not less reason for the justice system to apply the logic of deterrence, given the threshold for temptation is lower than normal.

 

[flecc]

I agree it's sometimes a tough life, I just think they should be treated as though they choose their actions is all. Even if there is as you imply, a reduction in inhibition etc, that's more not less reason for the justice system to apply the logic of deterrence, given the threshold for temptation is lower than normal.

Yes, I'm not arguing for any difference in treatment, just for understanding. A professional drivers life in our cities is one of suffering frequent aggravation, and there's only so much someone can stand before they finally crack.

Someone earlier in this thread accused me of doing nothing for safety on the very silly grounds that I wouldn't personally use a video camera. If only they knew how much I actually do and how much greater an effect that has than using a video camera.

Among those things are the ways I help the professionals on the road since I understand how difficult their job is. I always give way to public transport, they are after all serving the whole community. I go out of my way to help van, truck and taxi drivers get out of and into side roads or pull away from parked situations. I'm always happy to quickly give way to any faster moving vehicle since I've no idea whether their need for speed is genuine or not, so I give the benefit of the doubt. As a quite fast driver myself, I get a move on after these actions so as not to cause any annoyance to any following drivers.

These actions not only remove possible aggravations, they actually have a de-stressing effect on the beneficiaries and encourage them towards more courtesy in turn.

I'm no saint, I just know that acting in this way makes sense for everyone, including me.
.

 

[selrahc1992]

They almost always are normally good guys Steve. It's just that driving produces a particular kind of stress reaction in certain people which can emerge as aggression which we call road rage. Just getting behind the wheel turns them from Dr Jekyll into Mr Hyde.

Courts and fines rarely do any good, I'm strongly in favour of the driver awareness and behaviour courses that the police sometimes offer to transgressors. Some calm sessions in a classroom with expert driver instructors and video illustrations of bad behaviour can induce a different attitude of mind behind the wheel.

It's good to hear you are satisfied with the outcome, always nice to get a resolution.
.

well, i take it you havent lost any friends in RTA's? That's a very great deal of empathy for the drivers and very little for the victims. I guess next we'd argue that driving as a "stressful experience" is grounds for diminished responsiblity in aggravated assault?

 

[SteveRuss]

If it were me, I would want to know why he passed so close i.e. is he a bad driver per se, or a one-off and "having a bad day". In either case, banging on the side of his van escalated something that was already over by the time you banged on the side of his van. IMO the helmet-camera comes into use when someone is injured, not when it's a close call (same applies to cars really, youtube is full of nonsense abut "look what he/she nearly did to me")

Also, maybe he has learned from it, or maybe not and was just "going through the motions" in order to reduce/remove any potential impact on him. If the latter, then your belief that you've achieved something by wearing a helmet-camera is purely that ....a belief.

Actually. I banged on the middle part of his van as I was nearly squidged so the situation hadn't passed at that stage. It was a reaction that I didn't plan and I know how much it can provoke that "DON'T TOUCH MY F%$€+^ VEHICLE" reaction. If I had a car horn, I would have hit that hard and long.

I think he learnt 'something' as the police officer seemed to think he was quite remorseful when he watched the close pass then the grabbing of the camera. Who knows but I think I made my point.

 

[freddofrog]

Actually. I banged on the middle part of his van as I was nearly squidged so the situation hadn't passed at that stage. It was a reaction that I didn't plan and I know how much it can provoke that "DON'T TOUCH MY F%$€+^ VEHICLE" reaction. If I had a car horn, I would have hit that hard and long.

I think he learnt 'something' as the police officer seemed to think he was quite remorseful when he watched the close pass then the grabbing of the camera. Who knows but I think I made my point.

Although you may not have planned to bang on his van, IMO that sort of "defensive" behaviour is a sub-conscious meme passed on by use of cameras and youtube. It all becomes a kind of "passive-aggressive" type of behaviour, where the person with the camera believes that they have the trump card, rather than iterating to find alternative ways of solving problems. Life is really a never-ending exercise in seeking better ways to solve problems in human interactions, evolving a whole repertoire.

Maybe by confronting this driver you have saved someone else's life in the future, or maybe it was a one-off on his part, or maybe it might make his behaviour worse in a future scenario. We'll never know.

I accept that as cyclists we are very vulnerable on the road, but I don't think that helmet cameras do anything to solve that, and I think the same thing about dash-cams too. Indeed at the moment I have SORN my large fast modern car and chosen to drive a very small 25-year-old car, just to experience life on the road where one is ignored LOL ....although now I do occasionally get big cars driving right up behind even when I'm driving at 10%+2 (but then I just shrug inwardly).

 

[flecc]

well, i take it you havent lost any friends in RTA's? That's a very great deal of empathy for the drivers and very little for the victims. I guess next we'd argue that driving as a "stressful experience" is grounds for diminished responsiblity in aggravated assault?

Actually I have lost one relative and also had two biker friends end up in wheelchairs, so I'm not lacking in sympathy for them too.

But you seem to have been rather selective and read something I haven't posted. I did after all say I wasn't arguing for any difference in the treatment of drivers and I've never said that their stressful conditions should affect how they are dealt with. When they've done wrong they should be punished, but that's no reason for ignoring the conditions that provoke their misbehaviour.

Knowing and understanding the reasons can enable changes to be made that reduce accidents, be they individual changes such as my own or official structural changes. These methods have reduced our road deaths from 6500 annually when there were far fewer vehicles to only about 1700 now.
.

 

[selrahc1992]

Actually I have lost one relative and also had two biker friends end up in wheelchairs, so I'm not lacking in sympathy for them too.

But you seem to have been rather selective and read something I haven't posted. I did after all say I wasn't arguing for any difference in the treatment of drivers and I've never said that their stressful conditions should affect how they are dealt with. When they've done wrong they should be punished, but that's no reason for ignoring the conditions that provoke their misbehaviour.

Knowing and understanding the reasons can enable changes to be made that reduce accidents, be they individual changes such as my own or official structural changes. These methods have reduced our road deaths from 6500 annually when there were far fewer vehicles to only about 1700 now.
.

i do a fair amount of driving myself, as part of a job. i think the safety of other road users, comprehensively, trumps any frustration a driver may feel about britains road conditions. in fact i dont have much sympathy for that kind of stress, at all. in fact i dont think it justifies road rage, at all. if a driver feels they can escape responbsiblity for road rage via the relative anonymity of being in a car, i'm all for relieving them of that anonymity by putting them on cctv. I think, when i drive, a slow moving cyclist in front of me has, if anything, more right to the road than me, as a fellow tax payer who has managed to do something more ethical than me. I'm afraid i really dont buy into thsi sympathy for drivers' frustration with driving at all. It brings to mind Clarkson's tirades about slow drivers. I think that is narcissism, not valid frustration.

 

[flecc]

i do a fair amount of driving myself, as part of a job. i think the safety of other road users, comprehensively, trumps any frustration a driver may feel about britains road conditions. in fact i dont have much sympathy for that kind of stress, at all. in fact i dont think it justifies road rage, at all. if a driver feels they can escape responbsiblity for road rage via the relative anonymity of being in a car, i'm all for relieving them of that anonymity by putting them on cctv. I think, when i drive, a slow moving cyclist in front of me has, if anything, more right to the road than me, as a fellow tax payer who has managed to do something more ethical than me. I'm afraid i really dont buy into thsi sympathy for drivers' frustration with driving at all. It brings to mind Clarkson's tirades about slow drivers. I think that is narcissism, not valid frustration.

I agree with much of what you've said, but cannot understand why you are misconstruing what I've posted as in any way excusing bad driving. I haven't in any way justified road rage or bad driving, just given reasons why it can occur with some drivers. I also strongly resent any association with Clarkson and his attitudes which I've always found objectionable.

If you look back at this post of mine, you'll see that I said understanding (of the reasons) and made no mention of empathy or sympathy, those being your words in your last two posts. So please stick to what I've posted and not what is imagined. Your first erroneous post attracted some likes, presumably from those thinking what you posted was true when it was not.
.

 

[selrahc1992]

They almost always are normally good guys Steve. It's just that driving produces a particular kind of stress reaction in certain people which can emerge as aggression which we call road rage. Just getting behind the wheel turns them from Dr Jekyll into Mr Hyde.

Courts and fines rarely do any good, I'm strongly in favour of the driver awareness and behaviour courses that the police sometimes offer to transgressors. Some calm sessions in a classroom with expert driver instructors and video illustrations of bad behaviour can induce a different attitude of mind behind the wheel.

It's good to hear you are satisfied with the outcome, always nice to get a resolution.
.

Well,apologies if I misunderstood your post. Butbi'm not sure its necessarily a matter of "almost always good guys" having a Hyde part of their character provoked by getting behind a wheel. I suspect it can all be a more disturbing phenomenon, but i perhaps i took milgram's experiments or lord of the flies too seriously

 

[flecc]

Well,apologies if I misunderstood your post. Butbi'm not sure its necessarily a matter of "almost always good guys" having a Hyde part of their character provoked by getting behind a wheel. I suspect it can all be a more disturbing phenomenon, but i perhaps i took milgram's experiments or lord of the flies too seriously

Certainly it's true that we all have a capacity to behave very badly if the circumstances drive us that way, and that of course includes those who fail to keep control behind the wheel. In my experience few behave that way walking on pavements, and that's what I mean by them mostly being good guys in other circumstances.

Driving clearly does something very unpleasant to a minority of people and I can only see re-education plus enforcement making any changes in their behaviours. Those who can't measure up ultimately have to be taken off the road, but with current low levels of traffic policing that doesn't happen as often as it perhaps should.
.

 

[SteveRuss]

Although you may not have planned to bang on his van, IMO that sort of "defensive" behaviour is a sub-conscious meme passed on by use of cameras and youtube. It all becomes a kind of "passive-aggressive" type of behaviour, where the person with the camera believes that they have the trump card, rather than iterating to find alternative ways of solving problems. Life is really a never-ending exercise in seeking better ways to solve problems in human interactions, evolving a whole repertoire.

For all he knew, the banging sound may have been my head bouncing off the side of his van. The reaction would have been the same.

I've banged (or tapped most of the time) on people's cars when they have got dangerously close for well over thirty years. Way longer than any of these cameras have been available. It's something I will continue to do regardless of whether someone takes exception. I know the risks of touching people's precious cars but it's not something I'm going to stop when I know someone is unaware they are just about to hurt me. I don't use it as a punishment system at all. Most of the time I'll hope to catch up with them and have a polite word. That, more times than not, ends well.

 

[flecc]

I've banged (or tapped most of the time) on people's cars when they have got dangerously close for well over thirty years. -------------------------------------- it's not something I'm going to stop when I know someone is unaware they are just about to hurt me.

But, and theres more than one here, is this an overreaction? After all, they haven't been knocking you off all the time over those thirty years, so are they really dangerously close or is it that they know exactly what they are doing?

Here's an illustration. I often used to think drivers were often only just missing me, but many years ago and unlike your bike, I added end of handlebar mirrors to my bikes. They stick out five to six inches beyond the end of the handlebar and have never been hit, so those vehicles were generally seven or more inches away. So I'm now much more relaxed about these "close" passes.

Of course it would be wonderful if vehicles left at least two or more feet clearance, but we rarely have the luxury of that much road space so all have to make the best of things as they are.

Maybe a mirror would help you in more than one way, not just to show the clearance actually given but also to give you early warning of what's coming up behind.
.

 

[freddofrog]

For all he knew, the banging sound may have been my head bouncing off the side of his van. The reaction would have been the same.

I've banged (or tapped most of the time) on people's cars when they have got dangerously close for well over thirty years. Way longer than any of these cameras have been available. It's something I will continue to do regardless of whether someone takes exception. I know the risks of touching people's precious cars but it's not something I'm going to stop when I know someone is unaware they are just about to hurt me. I don't use it as a punishment system at all. Most of the time I'll hope to catch up with them and have a polite word. That, more times than not, ends well.

if you've been doing this for 30 years, maybe it says more about you ....I think I'm a similar age to @flecc and like him I've never banged or tapped on people's cars either here or in Holland. Surely, by the time you do this banging/tapping it's going to be too late for a driver to alter their direction, unless you happen to be moving at the same speed, in which case application of the brakes is more usual.

Maybe there is a select few people in this country of which you are a member, that began the banging/tapping/shouting meme being amplified on youtube.