View Single Post
Old 08-15-19, 09:50 AM
  #11  
Paul Barnard
For The Fun of It
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Louisissippi Coast
Posts: 3,930

Bikes: Lynskey Backroad, Litespeed T6, Lynskey MT29, Burley Duet

Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1008 Post(s)
Liked 128 Times in 79 Posts
Originally Posted by MattTheHat View Post
Oh, I understand the idea, I just don't personally see any evidence that it's working. Convenience stores are still getting robbed. Cyclist are going to continue to get run over.

In many, many case, the driver stops. There's no need for a camera to identify them. And the drivers are often not charged because they claimed their vision was obstructed or some other equally lame excuse.

Now, as a prosecutorial aid, sure a camera could *possibly* be of some use. At least to identify the owner of the vehicle. But I wouldn't go as far as calling that protection.
I don't think that's the correct measure to determine if video cameras are having a deterrence effect. Has the incidence of robberies decreased since the use of cameras has become widespread? I don't know the answer to that.

I completely get your point about the presence of a camera having no effect on a distracted driver. The presence of cameras on bicycles will never move the distracted driver needle. But will it ever deter someone from driving off after they hit a cyclist? I suspect so. I am a technotard, aren't some cameras able to record to a remote site/cloud? If so motorists may not be as willing to take any cameras the cyclists may have had.
Paul Barnard is offline