The value of having a camera
#151
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,529
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2111 Post(s)
Liked 663 Times
in
443 Posts
In the middle ages they even had black and white gopros filming the attempts.
Those Magnificent Men:
-mr. bill
Those Magnificent Men:
-mr. bill
Last edited by mr_bill; 07-12-15 at 10:24 AM.
#152
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Washington DC Metro Area
Posts: 1,218
Bikes: Breezer Uptown 8, Jamis Renegade Expert
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
BHPhoto is really making the Mini attractive at $95: Replay XD 1080 Mini Action Camera System 01-RPXD1080M-CS B&H
And the fact the Replay cameras can also be configured as dash-cams is making me very tempted.
And the fact the Replay cameras can also be configured as dash-cams is making me very tempted.
#153
24-Speed Machine
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wash. Grove, MD
Posts: 6,058
Bikes: 2003 Specialized Allez 24-Speed Road Bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
In the middle ages they even had black and white gopros filming the attempts.
Those Magnificent Men:
-mr. bill
Those Magnificent Men:
-mr. bill
#157
Vegan on a bicycle
following. i've got a driver facing potential prison-time after a court-date that's now scheduled for mid sep. actual prison-time is unlikely, but it is technically a potential penalty that he faces. if he's found guilty he WILL lose his license for at least six months.
the incident was late last year, and he's been maintaining his innocence.
video evidence is from 3x gopro cameras, all recording in protune mode. that's about 0.5GB/minute, per camera.
the video originally supplied to police was colour-graded, and from one camera it was cropped. they then asked (i think on behalf of the driver's lawyer) for "raw" footage, including about a minute before and a minute after the incident. 3x cameras, that barely fit on a single DVD as MP4 files, after being trimmed for duration but NOT re-encoded. if needed, i can supply "raw" door-to-door footage, but so far no one has requested that.
IIUC, the driver is employed as a "professional driver", and if he's guilty he's out of a career. that probably explains why he's fighting it, and hints at how far he'll go. i expect that he'll challenge my presence on the road, my lane position, and the authenticity of the video evidence; i wonder what else he'll try to argue...?
i've copied digger's info about video tampering, and after my case i'll upload a copy of the edits i've made for myself.
metadata is easy to fake. faking 30 frames per second, from multiple cameras, that's much easier to detect than it is to do. assuming that one is a credible witness, i think a defendant is pissing in the wind trying to claim that a "clean" video was tampered with. having dealt with similar before, i expect that we'll both give verbal testimony, and then watch the video. then we'll both give more verbal testimony, at which point i'll pretty much just testify that i shot the video, the video was entirely consistent with my recollection of the incident, and the video was not tampered with; however in this case i will also have to mention that the video was colour-graded, and i might get questioned about what that means (basically, it's an "advanced" version of contrast and brightness). in any case, the "raw" footage of the incident was given to police, and any inconsistencies (if there are any) between the raw footage and the colour-graded footage can be discussed candidly.
that reminds me... i should email the investigating officer a few links about "what is protune", so they can be "disclosed" to the driver's lawyer. i have technology and know-how to bring details out of shadows, but i can't show myself being chased by velociraptors.
the incident was late last year, and he's been maintaining his innocence.
video evidence is from 3x gopro cameras, all recording in protune mode. that's about 0.5GB/minute, per camera.
the video originally supplied to police was colour-graded, and from one camera it was cropped. they then asked (i think on behalf of the driver's lawyer) for "raw" footage, including about a minute before and a minute after the incident. 3x cameras, that barely fit on a single DVD as MP4 files, after being trimmed for duration but NOT re-encoded. if needed, i can supply "raw" door-to-door footage, but so far no one has requested that.
IIUC, the driver is employed as a "professional driver", and if he's guilty he's out of a career. that probably explains why he's fighting it, and hints at how far he'll go. i expect that he'll challenge my presence on the road, my lane position, and the authenticity of the video evidence; i wonder what else he'll try to argue...?
i've copied digger's info about video tampering, and after my case i'll upload a copy of the edits i've made for myself.
metadata is easy to fake. faking 30 frames per second, from multiple cameras, that's much easier to detect than it is to do. assuming that one is a credible witness, i think a defendant is pissing in the wind trying to claim that a "clean" video was tampered with. having dealt with similar before, i expect that we'll both give verbal testimony, and then watch the video. then we'll both give more verbal testimony, at which point i'll pretty much just testify that i shot the video, the video was entirely consistent with my recollection of the incident, and the video was not tampered with; however in this case i will also have to mention that the video was colour-graded, and i might get questioned about what that means (basically, it's an "advanced" version of contrast and brightness). in any case, the "raw" footage of the incident was given to police, and any inconsistencies (if there are any) between the raw footage and the colour-graded footage can be discussed candidly.
that reminds me... i should email the investigating officer a few links about "what is protune", so they can be "disclosed" to the driver's lawyer. i have technology and know-how to bring details out of shadows, but i can't show myself being chased by velociraptors.
#158
Senior Member
following. i've got a driver facing potential prison-time after a court-date that's now scheduled for mid sep. actual prison-time is unlikely, but it is technically a potential penalty that he faces. if he's found guilty he WILL lose his license for at least six months.
i've copied digger's info about video tampering, and after my case i'll upload a copy of the edits i've made for myself.
<SNIP>
i've copied digger's info about video tampering, and after my case i'll upload a copy of the edits i've made for myself.
<SNIP>
If this is an issue with the motorist passing too close, and you have a 1-metre (3 foot) law in your area, then you'll likely be challenged on how you knew (s)he (the motorist) was closer than 1 metre. This raises the question of how is a driver/motorist to know that (s)he is 1 metre from a cyclist.
This will be a challenging question to answer. I had added text to the video which described using the 4 inch-wide (1 decimetre) fog line to judge the distance of the trucks wheel from the road edge and based on the cyclists' position on the road and the width of the handlebars. It would be wise to snap a picture of a metre stick on the road, with one end on the fog line, to give a judge of distance. Then that can be compared to the video. Use the same camera at the same position the video was taken.
I would point out that the law (at least here) requires at least 1 metre clearance, not exactly 1 metre. Much of driving involves judgement of distances.
Our MVA describes minimum distances for vehicle manoeuvers and I'm sure that your MVA has the same. So using the argument that the motorist cannot judge a distance is tenuous at best.
Some examples from our MVA:
- section 115 regarding safe unobstructed passing distance in the opposing lane – 150m.
- section 120 regarding the minimum unobstructed sightline when turning a vehicle on a road – 150m
- section 125(A) regarding the minimum distance to stop at a crosswalk – 5m
- section 143(1) regarding the distance required from an intersection when parking – 7.5m
- section 148 regarding the minimum distance of road width required, when parking, to allow traffic to pass – 3m.
You'll be told that you're required to keep as far right as possible.
No, as far right as practicable, check your MVA for the section to quote. Practicable generally means safe and reasonable. However, the MVA does list a few situations when it is not practicable to ride a bicycle to the right, these include when: passing another vehicle traveling in the same direction (pass on the left); preparing for a left turn; necessary to avoid unsafe conditions including fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, pedestrians, animals or surface hazards; substandard width lanes (a lane too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely share). Because a bicycle is required to stay to as far right as practicable, this could be interpreted to mean if there is bike lane or paved shoulder, a cyclist would be required to ride in it, as it would be the far-right side of the road. However, if one of the exceptions listed in section ?? exist, they would be excused from the ‘far right’ requirement.
“Practicable” is likely to mean one thing to an experienced road cyclist, one thing to a motorist, and a different thing to every law enforcement officer who enforces the law. What is practicable is often context sensitive based upon road and traffic conditions – practicable in one instance may not be in another instance.
Then you'll be accussed of obstructing traffic and the judge should issue you a ticket for that.
There is a word written above the speed limit signs, and that word is MAXIMUM. This means that any speed at, or below, that maximum is legal. Was there a legal minimum on that road?
Second, a slow moving vehicle is generally applied to equipment and vehicles such as farm equipment (including tractors), construction equipment, trucks towing trailers, or any such vehicles which cannot safely operate above a specified speed. It does not include vehicles normally known to be unlikely operated at that speed or incapable of reaching that speed, such as bicycles, mopeds and disabled vehicles being towed.
On and on it goes.
#159
Vegan on a bicycle
we're a few years away from having a 1.5m passing law, and the rule here is FLAP, not FRAP.
yeah, i've dealt with similar before... but this one is kinda "special". i can't get too much into details until after the trial, but i've gone through the "NZTA road code" and "NZTA road code for cyclists" (these are comparable to DOT driving and cycling manuals) and highlighted the sections about cyclist lane positions (my responsibilities, and how i was in compliance), and how to safely share the road with cyclists (his responsibilities, and how he was in gross violation).
my favourite part: "Cyclists have a right to use the roads and to travel safely and enjoyably. Please understand and respect their needs." - The official New Zealand road code - About other road users
i expect that he's going to try to say that i screwed up and "made him" do what he did. there are some points that i can easily address, eg taking the lane on a multi-lane road with almost no other traffic while approaching and passing parked cars. other points are more subjective. ultimately, even if i did everything wrong, he is the one who was charged with committing a violation, and the trial needs to stay focused on that simple point: did he commit a violation?
there's at least one "trick" point that i suspect he'll raise, but my answer is along the lines of "so what? even if that did happen as you say it did, it still doesn't excuse your behaviour which is clearly shown on camera."
it also helps that i'm certified as an on-road bike-safety instructor, and when i lived in the states i completed defensive driver training and advanced defensive driver training courses. these things look good on my "resume" as a witness.
but yeah... there's a few things that i expect he'll do, to try to transfer blame to me, and i'm prepared to handle those, with documentation as appropriate. it's the unknown unknowns that i'm curious about...
it'll be funny if he says i "wasn't even doing the speed limit"
if he goes there, i'll respond by asking "can you explain what the word LIMIT means?"
yeah, i've dealt with similar before... but this one is kinda "special". i can't get too much into details until after the trial, but i've gone through the "NZTA road code" and "NZTA road code for cyclists" (these are comparable to DOT driving and cycling manuals) and highlighted the sections about cyclist lane positions (my responsibilities, and how i was in compliance), and how to safely share the road with cyclists (his responsibilities, and how he was in gross violation).
my favourite part: "Cyclists have a right to use the roads and to travel safely and enjoyably. Please understand and respect their needs." - The official New Zealand road code - About other road users
i expect that he's going to try to say that i screwed up and "made him" do what he did. there are some points that i can easily address, eg taking the lane on a multi-lane road with almost no other traffic while approaching and passing parked cars. other points are more subjective. ultimately, even if i did everything wrong, he is the one who was charged with committing a violation, and the trial needs to stay focused on that simple point: did he commit a violation?
there's at least one "trick" point that i suspect he'll raise, but my answer is along the lines of "so what? even if that did happen as you say it did, it still doesn't excuse your behaviour which is clearly shown on camera."
it also helps that i'm certified as an on-road bike-safety instructor, and when i lived in the states i completed defensive driver training and advanced defensive driver training courses. these things look good on my "resume" as a witness.
but yeah... there's a few things that i expect he'll do, to try to transfer blame to me, and i'm prepared to handle those, with documentation as appropriate. it's the unknown unknowns that i'm curious about...
it'll be funny if he says i "wasn't even doing the speed limit"
if he goes there, i'll respond by asking "can you explain what the word LIMIT means?"
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
SlimRider
Commuting
62
06-12-12 04:04 PM