1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Education Using bicycle helmet cameras?

Discussion in 'General' started by bigsharn, 29 Oct 2011.

  1. bigsharn

    bigsharn Officially demotivated

    Joined:
    9 May 2008
    Posts:
    2,605
    Likes Received:
    83
    Being a cyclist that does a good 10 miles per day, I get the odd moron come close to hitting me, so I invested in a head camera to record my commute in case I get knocked off and the driver denies all responsibility. Having a bike worth a decent amount of money I don't fancy being left out of pocket if some numpty floors me so it'd work as evidence in my favour... I mentioned this in the Latest Purchases thread and seem to have provoked a decent enough response to start a new topic.

    Different folks have different standards of cycling. Anything that comes within arm's reach (indicating) is a close pass as far as I'm concerned. Bearing in mind his camera gets 170 degrees of vision a lot of the passes seem a lot further out than they are.

    He doesn't use cycle lanes because:
    1. He goes too fast to use cycle lanes*
    2. Some of the cycle lanes are far too narrow to use, or are already occupied.**

    *The DfT in London specifies that a cycle lane should be (at least) 4ft wide, and cyclists should cycle at least 3ft from the kerbside.
    **They also say that anyone who regularly exceeds 18mph shouldn't use a cycle lane.


    Maybe you shouldn't ride so close to the kerb then. I'm not criticising your cycling, nor am I condoning it (I have no clue what your idea of safe is), and not everyone gives as much space as possible to cyclists, hence some of them ride defensively.

    It was literally a recall of seeing that as an example video and a reposting, it's not my video (My channel to be linked shortly). I've never seen a war between cyclists and drivers, but there are plenty of misjudgements on the road. I complain about bad driving, but on my channel (as with Gaz's) I regularly thank people in my videos and post videos of cyclists doing daft things (myself included).

    I don't get the first part of your statement, but I'm sure it'll be one of his dafter encounters. He's actually got a new channel and he's a lot less confrontational with drivers.



    This is my headcam channel, with some older videos from my handlebar mounted camera. If some of the videos seem like they didn't need naming and shaming there's probably still a good reason I posted it, as with many of the other cyclists using cameras, so just ask :p.
     
  2. MarkW7

    MarkW7 Total Noob

    Joined:
    30 Nov 2008
    Posts:
    1,795
    Likes Received:
    32
    I like guys like this.
    I don't know why cyclists think that they should ride in the middle of the road, you're (usually) on a bit of metal with pedals.
    I personally ride a motorbike and I see cyclists all the time in their fancy tight shorts and other crap but they don't know how to ride - they're constantly filtering when it's unsafe, I like to filter myself but I don't do it at every stop unlike these guys.
    They ride out way too far, don't use cycle lanes (they're there for a reason) then bitch when they get knocked off. If someone came up to me screaming at me because I overtook them because they're driving too slow to be on a road then I'd wait for them to get infront, clip their wheel and drive off.
    Also a lot of cycle videos I see are way too over exaggerated, "oh noez he keep within 1 metre of me, you can't do that! waa waa" you're clearly not in any danger and you could simply move over and get on with life.
    I also disagree with putting peoples number plates on youtube.
     
  3. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead It's big, and it's clever.

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    10,937
    Likes Received:
    536
    While many car drivers are very bad when it comes to watching out for cyclists, there are just as many cyclists who really need to learn the rules of the road.

    My view is, that cyclists should, as ROAD USERS, be obliged to have insurance. Twice now, cyclists have scratched my car by squeezing through gaps in traffic, and there's NOTHING I can do as they carry no means of identifying them, and even if you could, they have no insurance.

    Bikes on a public road should have some kind of registration that's visible, and should be obliged to have third party insurance.

    You want equal rights on the road, then you cant argue with that can you. You want to ride around freely with no consequences to your actions, then fine... but you'll always be second class road users in my mind.

    Whenever this subject comes up, cyclists always get very militant about it, and say "Why should be have to have insurance?". LOL.. because you're road users, and you can cause damage and injury as easily as a MOTOR bike can... and they have to have insurance! The means of propulsion doesn't make you less likely to be a knob, and cause damage or injury.

    I'm not anti-cyclist, and I always treat ALL road users with respect. Cyclists however, if they scratch your car, just tell you to fuc* off, and there's nothing you can do about it. You should all be made to wear HV gear with a clear registration number on it, and have insurance.

    This vid makes my point... the cyclist is reading out REGISTRATION numbers so he can identify them. Shouldn't we all have that right? If you want all car drivers to be accountable for their actions, then be ready to stand up and be accountable yourself.

    That's fair. If you think it's unfair, then I'd be interested to hear why you think so.
     
  4. bigsharn

    bigsharn Officially demotivated

    Joined:
    9 May 2008
    Posts:
    2,605
    Likes Received:
    83
    As above, we're just sticking with DfT recommendations. I'm sure you wouldn't mind taking a while out of your evening to watch This (yes, it's my channel) and seeing why cyclists don't always cycle in the gutter.

    I openly admit that a lot of cyclists don't know how to cycle. another youtube channel to look up (or something to search) is "Silly Cyclist(s)".

    Until you've used one of those helmet cameras you have no actual perception of how close people actually come. Being a motorbike rider I'm sure that you know that there are obstacles in the road that cyclists need to be aware of and need space to avoid. If some twonk's within 2ft of hitting you and you need to swerve so you don't slip on some roadkill, you're going under their wheels. ;)

    Also: rules 163, 212 and 213 of the Highway Code

    Why? It's information which is already in the public domain. By posting a numberplate rather than people's faces I'm doing nothing wrong.

    I agree, as I said above. EVERYONE, road users or not should read and be familiar with the highway code (not know the rules off by heart of course).

    Legally speaking, you can do something about it, you're well within your rights to photograph their face and report them to the police for leaving the scene of a collision.

    Registration, no. The government would have to pay for the DVLA to have thousands more staff to deal with this. The hundreds of thousands of bicycles on the road would have to be registered, the amount of cyclists on the road would fall considerably as kids would need their bike registered, and we'd need V5 documents for every bicycle in the country.
    Insurance, I agree and, in fact, I have third party and liability insurance on my bicycle up to £1m. It costs a total of £24/year and I don't mind paying that to have the same rights as motorists.

    Wait a minute, didn't you just say cyclists are second class road users a minute ago?

    HV gear - Bollocks, it's the same as compulsory helmet laws. It does very little for the very few.
    Helmets only work for crashes with a total collision force of under 12mph (hence I don't wear one... plus they're too warm) and HV gear is only good when you're the only cyclist around wearing HV gear. If there's a sea of green and/or orange the driver's going to just react the same regardless. That, and reflective tape only reflects properly when a headlight is on full beam, which I should hope is never the case in city traffic.
     
  5. MarkW7

    MarkW7 Total Noob

    Joined:
    30 Nov 2008
    Posts:
    1,795
    Likes Received:
    32
    I don't mind taking time to listen to your opinion but I do mind feeling slightly see sick after the experience and being none the wiser as to what you were saying. What I see there is a cyclist infront of you doing the right thing and he's not dead as you said he will be. They put a cycle lane there for you to use (the path was clear) yet you go and block the road.


    *scratch*, "WTF.. you just scratched my car", "**** you, blah blah (some crap here)", Wait there a sec while I go grab my camera.

    If I have to go and get my motorbike registered then you should do the same, it'll give you a LOT more rights on the road and you won't be seen as somebody that's just in the way and that can't afford a vehicle. I'm game for the number of cyclists falling.
     
    Last edited: 29 Oct 2011
  6. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead It's big, and it's clever.

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    10,937
    Likes Received:
    536
    Agreed... unfortunately, not the case, as cyclists don't have to study for a driving test. You buy a bike, and ride it.. there's nothing obliging you to ride to any standard, and no legal requirement for you to achieve a minimum standard. The result for cyclists is the same as allowing car drivers to drive without a test - bad driving (riding).



    I don't always have a camera with me... but I do always have a pen in my glovebox. Even if I did have a camera, it is not always safe to use it while driving.. and even if I DID use a camera, cyclists in cities often have helmets on, a lot have masks on to stop them breathing in fumes... couple this with the almost obligatory Oakleys, and a photo is pretty much rendered useless. Plus... by the time the dickhead cyclist has kicked your car because you didn't give him a million meteres space, he's usually gone anyway... usually by not stopping at a red light LOL


    So what if kids would need their bikes registered? You;d just do it when you bought the bike, same as when you buy a car. Kids wouldn't have to do it because it's the parents buying them the bike anyway. What's the big deal.. you buy a bike, you fill out a registration form, and are given a number.

    As for extra staff, then that would be paid for by the registration fee (or were you expecting your registration to be free when all other road users have to pay for it?).

    Good on you. I applaud your responsibility... however, you will be in a small minority, as you are not legally obliged to do so. This is need to be a legal requirement. However, unless you can identify the cyclist, then it's a moot point. Hence the need for registration.



    I did... but not in a "Get out of my way I don't care if I kill you or not" kind of way... just that until cyclists are registered, identifiable and accountable for their actions.. and insured, then they can just stop whining and suck it up. You get to travel anywhere you like for free when every other road user, including motorCYCLES have to pay. I'm not suggesting car drivers shouldn't take care and not threaten their safety - merely that it's incumbent on the cyclist to NOT get in the way of traffic. You have cycle lanes in cities.. stay in them. If you chose to leave a cycle lane, then you're no longer a cyclist in my mind, and you've chosen to mix it up with the cars and buses.



    I don't care about helmets. That's up to you.


    Perhaps, but the HV vest would be to have a background to contrast against the REGISTRATION number emblazoned across your back... nothing to do with making YOU more visible. Again, that's your responsibility. All I care about is...

    A) Cyclists are identifiable from a registration number.
    B) have insurance so I can claim against them after identifying them
    C) Made to pass a test before allowed to mix it up with the rest of the traffic.

    This is fair, and logical, and would reduce accidents. Car drivers would show you much more respect too, as you're paid up, registered and insured just like everyone else. Any cyclist who doesn't agree with this, is just not wanting to change. You want to have your cake and eat it. Well you cant.
     
    Last edited: 29 Oct 2011
  7. Zener Diode

    Zener Diode User Title

    Joined:
    13 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    624
    Likes Received:
    44
    What is total collision force. It seems odd that one figure covers all helmets and all types of collision.

    I know of one person who'd be dead after coming off a bike at 30mph and colliding with rocks, but his helmet saved him. It doesn't make much sense to me that helmets work up to 12mph but after that they're no use at all :confused:.
     
    mvagusta likes this.
  8. sp4nky

    sp4nky BF3: Aardfrith WoT: McGubbins

    Joined:
    15 Jul 2009
    Posts:
    1,706
    Likes Received:
    53
    Why is this in a new thread?
     
  9. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead It's big, and it's clever.

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    10,937
    Likes Received:
    536
    Oh... one more thing! I object to a percentage of my road tax paying for cycle lanes when cyclists don't have to pay a damned penny. You want them, you should pay for them.
     
  10. identikit

    identikit Minimodder

    Joined:
    5 Jun 2004
    Posts:
    1,322
    Likes Received:
    16
    Well this thread is going to turn out well...
     
  11. bigsharn

    bigsharn Officially demotivated

    Joined:
    9 May 2008
    Posts:
    2,605
    Likes Received:
    83
    I didn't just mean my Silly Cyclist video, there are plenty more out there. Most silly cyclist videos are theoretical, "He pulled onto the road without looking... What if I'd been a truck, I wouldn't have stopped in time", that one in particular, if the bus had moved they could have easily been offed.

    Most folk have a camera on their phones, it's easily reachable in their pocket or on their dashboard.

    And I suppose scooters, mobility scooters and pedestrians should also be registered? A cyclist has just as many rights of the road as any other vehicle. If you see cyclists as being in the way there's something seriously wrong with your perception of space...

    [​IMG]

    I'm sure you'd prefer the million or so cyclists in the UK to have cars instead...


    I think all cyclists should do Bikeability at some point (I did Advanced Cycle Proficiency, which is the same thing).

    And there are plenty of legal requirements for cyclists to uphold, for example, The Highway Code.

    That's a highly hypothetical situation. If someone refuses to give details there's always the police non-emergency number and carrying out a citizen's arrest to stop them getting away (though I'm not condoning using your car for this purpose).

    And of course this would encourage cycling... How? Remembering that you had to learn how to ride a bike before using it, how many people do you reckon will just think "sod it" and won't teach their kids to cycle? Of course cycling lessons are an idea to combat this, with children going to special classes with their bikes insured for kids to learn on, but how much will that cost?
    As for extra staff, I doubt very much if £55 (price of registering a zero-emission vehicle with the DVLA) per vehicle would cover the costs involved.


    You'd be surprised actually, over 100,000 cyclists have some sort of third party insurance from being members of cycling clubs alone... Not counting the ones that have insurance with CycleGuard and other smaller insurance companies.


    Most cyclists with helmet cameras (remember, this is what the topic was originally about) do have insurance in some shape or form. Cyclists are accountable for their actions, there are plenty of witnesses to most incidents and a quick Google search brings up plenty of examples of cyclists being prosecuted for careless cycling or similar charges

    As do pedestrians, and people on human powered scooters, and mobility scooters. I sense some jealousy of cyclists getting to travel around for free, which says something about the laziness of motorists if they're paying to get around when there's a perfectly plausible solution in the form of cycles.
    Again, rules 163 and 167 of the highway code. It is up to the overtaking vehicle to make sure that they don't come into conflict with the vehicle they're passing.


    And I suppose that as soon as we leave the cities we shouldn't use bicycles? That sounds a lot like what you're implying. The majority of commuter cyclists move faster in traffic than cars and larger vehicles so yes, we are mixing it up with cars and buses... Who should check their mirrors and (where appropriate) indicate before they move, as we legally have to.
    I added the helmet bit as a secondary example to the HV argument.

    A) Technically they are. If you ask to see the frame number of the bicycle that's unique to the bicycle.
    B) As above, 100,000 of us do already.
    C) I agreed above, but making in mandatory would be extremely difficult.



    Just an observation, there are more than a few uninsured drivers and motorcyclists out there...
     
  12. bigsharn

    bigsharn Officially demotivated

    Joined:
    9 May 2008
    Posts:
    2,605
    Likes Received:
    83
    The standard cycle helmet is guaranteed to work up to 12mph in the event of a collision. As far as I am aware, no cycle helmet manufacturer makes any claim above this figure

    I object to your paying road tax as well... most motorists pay Vehicle Excise Duty or Emissions Tax.
    Road Tax hasn't existed since 1937 when Winston Churchill abolished it, fearing that people who paid it would claim ownership of the roads.

    Cycle lanes are paid for out of Poll tax, which I also pay a contribution towards.
     
    chiper136 likes this.
  13. MarkW7

    MarkW7 Total Noob

    Joined:
    30 Nov 2008
    Posts:
    1,795
    Likes Received:
    32
    Nice use of the edit button. Another blatent disregard for the rules.
     
  14. Zener Diode

    Zener Diode User Title

    Joined:
    13 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    624
    Likes Received:
    44
    Fair enough.
     
  15. sp4nky

    sp4nky BF3: Aardfrith WoT: McGubbins

    Joined:
    15 Jul 2009
    Posts:
    1,706
    Likes Received:
    53
    You don't pay Poll tax. You may make a contribution to Council Tax but Poll tax does not exist and, as far as I'm aware, never has done. There was a tax unofficially dubbed as such but this was the Community Charge - the fore-runner to the Council Tax.
     
  16. identikit

    identikit Minimodder

    Joined:
    5 Jun 2004
    Posts:
    1,322
    Likes Received:
    16
    Man people can be so pedantic when arguing.
     
  17. mucgoo

    mucgoo Minimodder

    Joined:
    9 Dec 2010
    Posts:
    1,602
    Likes Received:
    41
    Helmets help at all collision speeds.
    I'd probably have fractured my skull/suffered brain injury if I hadn't of been wearing a helmet once and I was going much faster than 12mph. (Front flip over the handlebars down a hill landing on my shoulders with my head then whip lashing into the tarmac.)
     
  18. identikit

    identikit Minimodder

    Joined:
    5 Jun 2004
    Posts:
    1,322
    Likes Received:
    16
    Please cite the research that backs this.
     
  19. Blogins

    Blogins Panda have Guns

    Joined:
    3 Aug 2010
    Posts:
    4,883
    Likes Received:
    267
    We're all just trying to get from A to B right guys! :rolleyes:
     
  20. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead It's big, and it's clever.

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    10,937
    Likes Received:
    536
    So do I, but until it becomes a legal requirement, only a fraction of cyclists will.


    Quite a lot of the highway code isn't actually something you can be prosecuted for if you don't comply. Not directly anyway. If you cause an accident for not obeying the highway code, you can be prosecuted for dangerous driving, or driving without due care and attention, but not for actually disobeying the highway code. This is all academic anyway: When was teh last time you saw a cyclist get prosecuted for not signalling?



    Citizen's arrest.. right. I weigh 10st wet through... what are teh chances of me restraining some cyclist with 24" thighs! Nil. Besides, are you actually saying it's more practicable for people to go around performing citizens arrests than just have a simple system of cyclists displaying a registration number? Seriously?

    Police non emergency number? LOL. Yeah, they may show up a couple of hours later... even if I could perform a citizen's arrest, why should I wait for hours for the police to show up to this non-emergency?



    I'm sorry, but that's crap. Every 17 year old in the country is desperate to get behind the wheel of a car despite the strict testing involved, and the MASSIVE expense involved. If a 8 year old child wants to have the freedom of personal transport, then they'd willingly take a test, and get their parents to register their bikes. If that's what you had to do, that's what they would do, simply because all kids want bikes... just like all teenagers want cars.

    Cyclists are just spoilt: They are so used to having it all for free that they will resist tenaciously, just as you are doing now, but the reality is logic dictates that any road user should be culpable for any damage or injury they cause, but unfortunately, there is no system in place to allow that to happen.

    You want equal rights on the road, you want every highway and byway to have cycle paths, cycle lanes, and you want car users to give you more room, and more space, and more time, you want, want, want... but you want it for free. It's selfish and silly. The solution is obvious, as it;s the same solution car users and motorcycle users have had to be subject to for decades: Regulation, registration, licensing, and insurance. Given those things, they are then entitled to everything the car driver is entitled to. More importantly, if you behave like a cock, my DASH cam can record YOUR registration and I can put videos of you on YouTube!

    You want equality.... that's equality. However, what cyclists actually want is the ****ing Moon on a stick, and they want it for free. LOL


    Source?

    Even if true, that's a small fraction of the whole. Are these the ones that ride at night with no lights? They're certainly the ones that go through red lights because ALL damned cyclists do that. I'd like to see your insurance protect you in an incident when you've gone through a red light. Are you going to tell me you've never been through a red light as a cyclist? I'd find that hard to believe. I've never seen a cyclist wait patiently at a red light, and on the occasions I've cycled, and waited at a red light, other cyclists have hurled abuse at me for blocking the cycle lane!!!


    I don't believe that most cyclists are as responsible as you portray them. My personal experience says otherwise.

    How many cases has your Googling come across? The fact is, it's always going to be harder to prosecute a cyclist unless you can identify him/her. Stands to reason: The vehicle can't be traced like a motor vehicle can, and unless you can capture the person's face clearly, there is simply not enough evidence to prosecute.

    Your only objection to my suggestions is that it will cost you money. Well tough in my opinion. If you want equal standing as a road user, then you should put your hand in your pocket like all other road users have to.



    Don't get all evangelical. I don't cycle because it's impractical and slow. Simple as that. I'd have to leave home at a ridiculous hour in the morning to make it to work on time. I sometimes have to commute long distances too. The other times I drive it's to do chores such as shopping. How could I carry home 2 weeks worth of groceries on a bike? The remainder of my time is spent driving for the pleasure of driving. I don't enjoy riding a bicycle.

    So your "plausible" solution is not so plausible at all for the vast majority of people.

    As for jealousy, that's a childish response. I just think cyclists, as road users should be subject to the same regulations ALL road users are: Testing, insurance, registration. Simple as that. If that has a cost attached, so be it. It costs what it costs. Everyone else has to, so why shouldn't you?


    I'm not suggesting any such thing. But in rural country lanes for example, we have to be careful of other things, such as pedestrians walking in the road, horses, stray cattle... and cyclists. We accept that, and it's not solely cyclists that are a potential hazard. Drive to protect yourself from one, and you are doing so far all. You just don't need a cycle lane outside of a city usually.

    I fully acknowledge that cyclists move faster in a city.. that's why they NEED cycle lanes, and I'm not against cycle lanes either.

    Yes, cars and buses should check their mirrors, but cyclists should accept that mirrors have blind spots, and we can't be completely responsible for your safety. Sometimes other traffic will force me to move back in to the left before I've had chance to see you in my door mirror, and for any cyclist in my blind spot, yes he's gonna have to brake, but you should KNOW that can happen, and you should be anticipating it, just as I have to anticipate everyone else's actions. Most cyclists seem to think they can just cycle along, and it's ENTIRELY up to the car driver to ensure their safety. I'm not referring to you personally, but I've had many altercations with cyclists who just fail to understand that I can't see everywhere simultaneously.




    A) That assumes the cyclist has stopped and is being completely co-operative... and not kicked your car, hurled abuse at you, and rode off (usually through a red light ).

    B) Source?

    C) No more difficult than for all other road users.


    ...and the police invest millions in catching them, and when they're caught, they are heavily fined, banned, and even have their vehicles crushed.
     
    Last edited: 29 Oct 2011

Share This Page