Helmet Cameras

[Patrick]

One that always makes me sigh is the "well you don't see pedestrians going around wearing helmets and they seem to do all right..." and variations of this.

If that's one of YOURS, then do bear in mind that pedestrians, as a rule, keep to pavements, shops, offices, cafes, and so on; they tend not to dash along at 10-20mph on roads, weaving in and out of traffic.

That sounds like my point, and I'm sticking to it as an argument against mandatory helmets for cyclists rather than a argument against helmets in general.

I'll concede that protective headgear is more likely to be appropriate if you're cycling, and I do wear a helmet on my commute in case the road conditions take my bike down (again ). But there are plenty of hazardous walking situations which are more dangerous than safe riding situations, and that makes it inconsistent to say that cyclists should always wear a helmet without considering whether pedestrians should, at least some of the time, wear protective head gear.

Pedestrians don't spend all their time sitting down or strolling round their block, they also put themselves at risk by doing things like crossing busy roads, going out when it's icy, running, getting drunk etc. Should pubs refuse to serve people who aren't wearing protective head gear in case the become unsteady on their feet?

Bikes are more likely to be involved in road accidents, but helmets aren't designed to protect you against other vehicles, they're designed to protect you if you fall off and bang your head.

 

[banbury frank]

Bravo Patrick

I total Agree with your remarks Falling off after hitting a spill of diesel or ICE The kerb or lamppost wont KILL you it will turn you into a vegetable I think That is worst for all involved

Frank

 

[HarryB]

Listen guys, I know it is confusing having the word helmet in the thread title but this is really not about helmets so can you stop hijacking this thread? You will find there are countless threads if you do a search as it has been a recurring theme and it never goes anywhere. So to sum up this pointless topic:

If you want to wear a helmet then do, if you don't then don't, if you do then don't preach to others to wear one and if you don't then don't preach to others not to.

ps here is one you could add to http://www.pedelecs.co.uk/forum/electric-bicycles/7040-helmets-required-e-bikes.html?highlight=helmets

 

[allen-uk]

Fair point, Patrick. I am probably at worse risk from falling when walking, and breaking my elderly hip, so should devise some sort of surround cushion to wear.

I'm not for compulsion in this (although I am no loony libertarian, either - car seat belts have cut down many accidents), but I would like our choices to be better informed than sometimes appears to be the case.

Studies are necessary in the area of helmet-wearing for cyclists to prove or disprove their usefulness, and also to investigate the widely-reported phenomenon of vehicles being driven CLOSER to cyclists who wear helmets than to those who don't, as often these apparently perverse bits of logic turn out to be true.

Me? I wear a cheap helmet, but rely more on three flashing white lights on the front of my bike, two flashing reds on the rear, plus one flashing red on the back of my helmet. I'm saving up for the fairy to go on top.


A.

PS Sorry Harry, didn't see your post, but I really wouldn't worry about such things if I were you - bend with the wind.

 

[flecc]

1) If you want to wear a helmet then do,

2) if you don't then don't,

3) if you do then don't preach to others to wear one

4) if you don't then don't preach to others not to.

I've taken the liberty of numbering the above quote:

1, 2 and 3 are valid statements, but I have never seen a single incidence of anyone ever doing 4. That's a myth often promoted by those guilty of 3.

In reality the number 4 position is invariably, "I don't, but it's up to you if you want to", and the "helmet" threads show endless proofs of that.
.

 

[HarryB]

For those that are sad enough to have hung around this forum for a number of years, we remember a time when it seemed that every single thread ended up on the helmet debate - please can we not start doing it again? Do other cycling forum suffer the same way? What would help? Maybe we could make a sticky only for those wanting to debate the merits of helmets. It could be on the front page (where I rarely go!).

 

[Patrick]

Listen guys, I know it is confusing having the word helmet in the thread title but this is really not about helmets so can you stop hijacking this thread?

Oops, sorry, your right.

Back to the thread. I've been pondering the question of whether the cyclist was right to act the way he did, it's an interesting one, it looks at first glance like he's acting within his legal rights, but I can't quite shake the feeling that he was being a bit of a pratt.

I think that if he sincerely believed that the driver's actions were unintentional and that once the driver realised how close he was to the cyclist he would have seen the error of his ways, then the cyclists actions would have been justified. But the cyclist would be naive to believe in the gentle nature of London van drivers.

On the other hand if the cyclist was standing his ground in an attempt to force a deliberately bad driver to do what he should then they cyclist would have been putting himself in danger to make a point, in which case he was being a pratt.

My personal opinion from watching the clip is that he was being a pratt, and that the correct course of action when the van ran alongside would be to brake to let the van move ahead and then report him for dangerous driving. But I could be wrong, he might have just been naively trying to help the driver.

 

[HarryB]

I think they were both making a point but in the end the van driver was breaking the law and prosecuted for careless driving - that has got to be a good thing. There was a link to this BBC News - Cyclist v motorist: A heated debate from that page. Zoe Williams makes some interesting points and does it very calmly too.

 

[HarryB]

I
We choose to ride bikes for example, we aren't made to, so we have chosen that vulnerability.


.

Flecc I have thought about this and realised why this statement makes me so uncomfortable. If you turn it around and take that attitude as a thick driver, it doesn't take much of a leap to turn it into. ".. well that cyclist doesn't value his life doing something I perceive as so risky, so if he doesn't value it then why should I?"

 

[flecc]

Flecc I have thought about this and realised why this statement makes me so uncomfortable. If you turn it around and take that attitude as a thick driver, it doesn't take much of a leap to turn it into. ".. well that cyclist doesn't value his life doing something I perceive as so risky, so if he doesn't value it then why should I?"

But that's too far a stretch Hal and it applies to so many areas in other aspects of life too. Pedestrians and horse riders on the roads for example. Is the thick driver to make the same of them too with his invalid reasoning?

It's the thick driver who is making an invalid leap of reason. It does not alter the fact that our choices are ours alone, they cannot be used as a source of blameworthiness for others.

If I steal something from a supermarket, the fact that so much is temptingly on offer is not a reason for prosecuting the store manager for making me a thief. That choice to be a thief would have been mine alone, the manager cannot be held to blame, however ill advised his display of goods might be.
.

 

[banbury frank]

I think you should take the store manager outside an run him over with one off his own trucks

Sorry I forgot to add

Make sure he has the option of wearing A helmet ( NOT compulsory )

But if he wears one it is fitted with a helmet camera

And if NOT have somebody watching with a helmet camera

Frank

 

[tillson]

We have a brace of, "Television Types" in work for the next 7 days making a documentary. They have a couple of cameras which they gaffer tape to our heads to film what what goes on. These things are full 1080p HD cameras suitable for broadcast quality TV, they will record for just over an hour, and amazingly cost under £300.

These cameras are light and small enough to fit to a cycle helmet and would provide a tremendous level of evidential detail should it be needed. Probably a bit expensive for this role, but I was astonished that these high quality cameras cost so little.

 

[allen-uk]

http://www.pedelecs.co.uk/forum/electric-bicycles/6722-cheap-cyclecam.html

Tillson: you said you were going to buy one of the above 13 quid cameras to attach to a sheep's head to see what it got up to. Anyway, apart from my ability to search and check such silly factoids, my point is that the QUALITY of those cheap cameras is certainly as good as those on the BBC helmet-cam clips. Not sure what you get for the extra £293!

Allen.

 

[tillson]

Yes, I did buy one of the cheap £13 cameras from 7 Day Shop. Apart from having difficulty establishing what mode it is in, (issue with the indicator LEDs) it's very good.

I'm not really very knowledgeable about video, I've never dabbled, but the 7 Day Shop cheap camera produces a high quality image that measures about 150 mm x 100 mm on my computer screen. If I enlarge it any further, the image starts to pixelate. However, the £300 ish TV camera produced a full screen image of very high quality. Could this be what you get for the extra £297? I don't know.

I attached the cheap camera to my Border Collie so that I could see his sheep herding technique whilst training him. It worked reasonably well, but could do with a bit more image stabilisation. There is no point attaching the camera to the sheep's head. The idea is that they go in the opposite direction to the dog.

 

[Streethawk]

Useful link there, thanks. I just ordered this camera,

 

[NRG]

Did you watch the video? It drops 2 seconds of video every 5 mins, the guy missed an incident in the demo because of this.

 

[Streethawk]

Yes, but truncated videos can be recovered if need be. Takes a bit more work, but this is the reason i went for the 8gb one, that last 5 minute section is going to happen less often on the 8gb card.

 

[allen-uk]

Sorry to confuse dogs and sheep (just a city boy).

No, I've got no in-depth knowledge of video/filming either. But I bought one of those £13 cameras, and using an 8gb card haven't had any problems, except once for dirty contacts on the card itself. I've done a couple of (VERY interesting I don't think) 45min films of bike rides, without losing any bits.

I don't bother with the 'mode' business - running/not running is good enough for me. Oh, and I found it more reliable to download films and wipe the card using a USB lead connected direct to camera/computer, rather than taking out the card and sticking it into an adaptor.

Charging was always hit and miss; again, I found the USB lead into the supplied mains charger more reliable, rather than trying to suck power down the USB line from computer to camera. I just stuck it on charge for 3 or 4 hours each time.

Hope sheep/collie are doing okay.


Allen.