Shimagnolo

I just now found an interesting vmail: The Clear Creek Sheriff has been contacted by a reporter from the Clear Creek Courant, wanting my contact info to do a story on it. So they are asking if it is OK to pass my info along to the reporter.

Chris516

I hope there is a positive outcome.

ItsJustMe

Getting some publicity wouldn't be a bad thing. A few more people aware of cyclists with cameras will figure out that they can't pull crap on the roads and get away with lame excuses anymore.

Shimagnolo

Just got a copy of the police report. Here is the best part:

I contacted S****'s phone with the help of Dispatch and contacted his wife, unknown name DOB. I informed her the reason I was contacting her husband and she said "The man on the bike" was following and harassing them.

S**** called me back about 30 minutes later and stated he did not do anything the video showed. He stated Y**** was following them and harassing them on every stop. I asked S**** why he stopped if he was scared of Y**** and he stated he was just trying to relax on his vacation. S**** stated numerous times that he did not drink alcohol and that he had a good driving record. I told him about the video and emailed it to him. S**** stated Y**** could have easily edited the video. I asked S**** his thoughts on why Y**** would do that and why he would take his own time to go to court. I explained to him that Y**** was very upset at what he did and that the video was edited to shorten the time. I told S**** the video showing his driving actions was evident a crime did occur and that I believed the video was not edited during these times. S**** still denied the allegations and continued to say his driving record was great and that he did not drink alcohol. I explained that I would mail him a uniform summons to appear in court on this matter and would send it to his address on his driver's license (DL). S**** said his address on his DL was current and up to date.

ItsJustMe

I hope you kept the original, unedited video.

I would suggest to anyone reading that if you have an incident that might appear in court, it would be a good idea to remove the SD card and not use it again. SD cards are < $20 these days, just buy a couple and if one has an incident on it, quarantine it. I would honestly put it into a microsd to SD card adapter, set the write protect tab, then put it in the computer ONCE to read the files to the PC, then seal it away. Then you can provide it as is during discovery.

Shimagnolo

At the deputies request, I provided an unedited file to be submitted into evidence.
It was the file from my camera, with the portion prior to seeing the perp, (and the portion after), trimmed off.
It was just under 10 minutes.
I put it on Google Drive for them to download.
I still have the original file which is ~2.5GB and 30 minutes in length.

ItsJustMe

I think from having talked with people who have dealt with digital evidence, having the card exactly as removed from the camera immediately after the incident, untouched, might be useful. There may be ways in the filesystem or metadata to tell if it's likely a file was edited or came straight from the camera.

Chris516

So, Does that imply carrying around a number of media cards?

ItsJustMe

"what are the odds of getting into two accidents in one day?!" (kidding, I actually do understand statistics)

But usually I do have at least one or two spare cards in a phone or a tablet or something that I could swap out.

Personally I'd probably opt for not recording the rest of my trip if I had a reportable incident in the can. But that's me, I've been recording for years and haven't yet had something worth reporting, so the odds are very much against me missing another event later in the day.

Or in this case, I could stop recording on the front camera and keep rolling the rear camera, and at least have some coverage.

I suppose it'd be easy enough to keep a couple of spare 16G cards in the bag, they're cheap enough.

Shimagnolo

Why would you stop recording?
Look at my incident: If I had stopped recording, I would have missed the 2nd illegal pass, and missed recording the personal confrontation.

ItsJustMe

I actually would not stop recording unless I had a very small memory card in my camera and was worried about overwriting.

Chris516

Ah, Okay. I only have a front camera, but okay.

Shimagnolo

And speaking of memory cards, my camera went wonky on today's cycling ride.
Diagnosis at home revealed the 32GB (class 10) card died.
So back to using an old class 6 card I have on hand until a new replacement arrives.

ItsJustMe

Here's why I have a rear camera:

A few years ago, I was going over an expressway overpass, in the shoulder. The shoulder is quite wide, about 10 feet. At the other side of the bridge, the paint turns it into a lane to get on the onramp to the expressway.

As I was getting into the area where the onramp entrance was, I saw a car in my mirror a car moving to the right, behind me. I figure "OK, this guy wants to get into the onramp lane" so I moved left into the travel lane to help him out.

Then he looked up from texting, jerked back into the travel lane - he had just been drifting - and HONKED at me for being in his way.

I realized that if he'd hit me, my front-facing video would have shown me moving suddenly into the traffic lane for no apparent reason and being hit a couple of seconds later. The rear camera is vital for context sometimes.

GovernorSilver

You guys all prefer mounting cameras to your helmets, or do some of you mount to handlebar instead?

Thinking of getting helmet-mounted lights because when the season changes next, the MUPs I use will probably get pitch black in some spots.

molten

(s) 'Shimagnolo' be a motorcyclist type rider, rather than a bicyclist type rider. Chatting on a bicyclist website --- designated for bicyclists.
How many others are doing this.
The Shimagnolo under the designation of a pennyfarthing.

Shimagnolo

I'm sorry, bit I missed the rule where people who are both bicyclists and motorcyclists are prohibited from posting here. Perhaps you can point it out to me.

Chris516

Good point. While I can catch the plate as they pass. I don't see what they are doing behind me. I think I will look into getting a second camera.

ItsJustMe

FWIW, I've tried a bunch of rear cameras, and the Fly6 that I currently own is my favorite. It's the only one with bike specific features. The only downside is that it's seatpost mount or nothing. I need to get my butt in gear and get on the CAD software and design some alternate mounts for it before winter comes and my seatpost is blocked by bags.

digger

I had sawed off a section of old seat post (about 3 inches) and bolted that section to the rear of my rack.

There is an upside-down T shaped mounting plate at the back of the rack. I drilled 2 holes in that section of seat post, to align with those in that mounting plate. Then bolted it to that plate.

Trouble is, the Fly6 bounced out of the holder once when I traveled over a rough patch. I suspect that there is more vibration, or is more susceptible to jolting, at the back of the bike. I have to come up with a system to secure it better. For now, I use a zip tie around it to hold in place.

digger

Agreed, but, just playing devils advocate here, how can one prove that you did this? I'll have to explore the video files more to see if some meta data exists that could be used to corroborate that the video was unedited or not copied/transferred. But, one could easily argue that the meta data was edited (?)

I was forced off the road, 3 years ago, by a motorist in a Ford F150, and a towing trailer. It was on a rural road, and I was unable to pull over due to park cars along shoulder, garbage boxes, 1 metre deep holes in the shoulder, soft shoulder (gravel not compacted) and a steel girder. He saw me about 150m before he passed me, as he laid on the horn, well back.

The motorist challenged, in court, that the video could have been edited and thus, should not be admissible. Here are my responses, although not verbatim, as I wrote them down after, and modified them slightly for the sake of brevity.

A fair question. Yes, video and/or images can be edited, we all have seen TV and movies where Computer Graphics (CG) were used to add, remove or change features in a video. But there are a few things I’d like to point out before you pass judgement.

i) The software needed to add or remove features (CG) costs several thousand dollars. The software I have costs $40 (the Home Edition) and can do basic editing such as snip out sections of video, add text, PIP effects, separate video from audio, or create different file formats for different platforms. The software is called VideoPad by NCH Software, based out of Colorado. I’m not about to spend several thousand dollars on video editing software just to wind up in court.

ii) The only editing I did was to copy out a section of the video for the sake of brevity in the courtroom. If you wish, you can watch the whole raw video and compare with the excerpt shown here. There was no stopping or starting of the raw video after the incident to indicate any tampering, plus continuity of the video can be examined to look for lapses in time.

iii) This video was provided to police within 4 hours time of the incident. They had a copy of the video since and it can be corroborated with the one I have here. The chain of possession and custody was myself, as I shot the video, then the police.

iv) This camera shoots 60 frames/second, the video was 1:17 minutes long which meant I had to edit 4,620 frames (video length in seconds x 60) between the time of the incident and when police showed up at my door 3 hours later. As well, the camera shoots in HD (1080p) which requires even more precision, thus time, to make the ‘tampering’ look authentic.

v) Two cameras were used from 2 different perspectives and would require any ‘tampering’ between the 2 videos to match exactly. Another difficult challenge in the time allotted.

vi) The specific issue in this case is the proximity of the vehicle, or how close it was. I would have to somehow edit the image in such a way as to make the vehicle appear closer. Enlarging the vehicle, or digitally removing a section of image, over the number of images for both camera perspectives and both edits not being noticeable when viewed, would be quite a feat. In fact, the camera uses a convex lens which gives the resulting image a slightly ‘fisheye’ or bubble effect. This allows the camera to record more peripherally (to the side). This has the effect of making features appear smaller or further away. The same effect of a passenger side car mirror – objects in mirror are closer than they appear. So really, if the vehicle looks close to you in the video already, consider that the camera will make it appear further away.

vii) Finally, with all due respect to this courtroom, I'm happy to never ever step foot in a court room or meet people of his (the drivers) ilk. I make no money from this, and it actually costs me time and money to be here.

This video was shot fairly, without any attempt to mislead, nor was it edited or enhanced in any way. This video is neutral and credible.
Rebuttal Question to the Motorist: Wouldn’t the video footage be used from home security cameras if someone broke into a home? One could just as easy “tamper” with that.


The admissibility of a video can be challenged. Video footage must be relevant and reliable (authentication). Remind the court that we live in an unavoidable digital world and it is common knowledge that courts allow the use of digital evidence such as emails, photographs, ATM transactions, spreadsheets, GPS tracks, social media sites, text messages, etc. Also ask the court to reject the argument that the video is inadmissible without proof of tampering; the fact that it is possible to alter data contained in a computer (or camera) is plainly insufficient to establish untrustworthiness. Even hardcopy records, or any evidence, can be altered to serve an agenda.

The problem is proving the authenticity of the digital images. The court will have to determine if the video is relevant, authentic, if it is hearsay, or whether a copy is acceptable or original is required. The decision-maker will want to be sure that the evidence has not been fabricated, falsified, or tampered with, and that it has not been manipulated in a way that would mislead. You will have to authenticate the video by showing, or somehow giving doubt, that the video was not altered or enhanced in anyway.

Shimagnolo

Thanks for sharing that, digger!
On the off chance the idiot in my video decides to plead not-guilty, this could be useful in arguing the authenticity of the video.

ItsJustMe

Editing digital files always leaves fingerprints. Video is compressed, and to edit it, it has to be uncompressed, altered, and recompressed. A competent computer forensic expert should be able to testify that the video is as shot by the camera.

The encoding done by the h.264 encoding chip in the camera may have specific characteristics that do not match the compression done by the editing software.

This is why I suggest keeping the original file. Even just trimming the video down usually involved uncompress/alter/recompress and you lose that fingerprint of the original encoding.

In most cases, it would not be worth hiring a forensic expert, but in some cases it might, and in any case as digger pointed out, handing over the SD card as evidence within a short time after the incident would be a significant argument.

mconlonx

Anyone? This inquiring mind wants to know, as well...

I'm a motorcyclist type of bicycle rider as well. I wear a helmet while riding a bicycle because I got in the habit on a motorcycle. Situational awareness on motorcycles has helped me be an aware and safe bicycle rider.

And here all this time I thought Shimagnolo was just a fan of The Prisoner TV series...

I-Like-To-Bike

Who do you expect to be making this authenticity argument in the traffic court proceedings?