View Single Post
Old 08-15-19, 05:45 AM
  #7  
Riveting
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 510

Bikes: '13 Trek Madone 2.3, '13 Diamondback Hybrid Commuter, '17 Spec Roubaix Di2, '17 Spec Camber 29'er

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 182 Post(s)
Liked 35 Times in 23 Posts
Originally Posted by MattTheHat View Post
I see cameras mentioned all the time. Can someone explain to me how running a camera is going to keep a distracted/drunk/stoned driver from hitting a cyclist? Even a driver who just up and decides to run over a cyclist one day out of pure meanness...do we expect theyíre going to check for a camera first?

If the argument is that the camera content is going to be used after the fact to prosecute the driver...do we really think thatís going to help? Security cameras donít keep convenience stores from getting robbed.

Run a camera if if you like, but to think it offers any protection seems like a false hope to me.
The existence of a camera on your bike (or in a convenience store) doesn't offer direct protection, just as the existence of a police force in your town doesn't offer direct protection. Both are used AFTER an incident has occurred to bring the perpetrator to justice, and in doing so, and making those cases public (via newspaper or TV news) will cause future perpetrators to "think twice" and hopefully not perform the incident in the first place. It's called a "crime deterrent", Google it.
Riveting is offline