Originally Posted by
ItsJustMe
Absolutely everyone I've seen talk about this, and my own experience, points to a wide angle lens making things look LESS dangerous. The wide angle lens makes it look like a close pass was actually not close.
I'm not really sure what the point of this thread is. It seems like another thread where people are telling other people why what they do is dumb, or that anyone who does things differently than they do is wrong.
If a camera seems like a good idea to you, go ahead and do it. If not, don't. It being a good idea for one doesn't make it a good idea for someone else, nor does the opposite hold true.
I ride with a camera. It isn't a problem at all. It adds almost nothing to my weekly ritual time - maybe adds an extra 15 to 20 seconds a week to plug it in the charger every 2 days when I get to my desk. It's the only thing on my helmet and it weighs so little that I forget it's there and don't even remember to turn it off when I get home until I see the light flashing.
I don't think I'm telling anyone what to do, or stating objective fact...the OP asked if there were cons and I gave my experience and opinion. I don't think I'm right in some objective sense. How and where we ride could also play a role - I would NOT want a video of me showing me following Iowa laws used against me in front of a judge/jury who won't view that the way I may want them to.
When I first got the camera I was showing some non-bike friends some commute footage. It was boring - nothing happened - but they found it "exciting". A normal pace home - probably 15-18mph most of the time - looked fast to them. Passing cars looked tighter. Iowa laws looked scary! That's your jury - and they thought my boring commute looked dangerous.