Maelochs

Shoot ... I thought I was verbose .... I have been schooled.

JW Fas

It's an extremely common tactic for those who know they don't have an argument to put forth the disingenuous claim that a camera isn't some magic bubble. The rest of us with a brain are going, "No sh*t, Sherlock." I wait for the day when these people get into a situation where there aren't any witnesses and it's their word against someone else. In fact, my cop video illustrates why you can't count on witnesses as there were two (one in a Ford Fiesta and another in a pickup truck). Neither stopped and gave statements, and there isn't a statute I know of in any state where you're obligated to stop if you witness a crash.

CB HI

livedarklions

In my case, it's not a disingenuous claim, and it's not even an argument. You do what you want, but "it doesn't make me safer" is a clearly objective statement of fact as you concede by evoking feces and Sherlock.

Wearing a camera has economic costs, and requires some investment of my time and space on my person or bike, so I need to calculate whether the benefits of a camera are worth it to me. Since it doesn't enhance my safety, the only benefit is that there is some chance that it might record something useful in the event of a mishap. That chance is small enough that to me, the cost and inconvenience are not worth it. I really don't care that you figure differently, the values of these chances and costs are very nearly purely subjective (cameras do have actually definable prices, so that part isn't subjective).

If I were you, I think I'd want to find something better to do than "wait for the day" you get to say "I told you so". I know I'm taking the chance that I won't catch an incident "on tape", but then again, so are you if you don't have cameras facing from every possible angle and a drone following you. I have no idea why you're spending so much effort trying to convince people that they're wrong for not wanting cameras.

Lemond1985

Who ever said that? I thought the gist of this thread was:

Camera Owners: "They're great!"

Non-Camera Owners: "No they're not, they suck. Stop advocating for a law that will force me to buy one."

Shimagnolo

I must have missed this;
Who was advocating for a law requiring cameras?

livedarklions

Only 2 problems with that:

1) The title of the thread is clearly about convincing people to use them--that''s what "advocating" means in this context. I really have no intention to review the thread, but I assume the bit about the law is your joke because I don't remember anything about that from either side, but "you're not convincing me" is a perfectly reasonable response to an advocacy thread.

2) The statement I was reacting to: "I wait for the day when these people get into a situation where there aren't any witnesses and it's their word against someone else." That goes way beyond "they're great". Not to mention, that post also claimed that an assertion that cameras don't enhance safety was both disingenuous and "no **** Sherlock" obvious, which offends my sensibilities as a devotee of logic. A statement cannot be both of those at the same time.

Maelochs

Gist of most threads: "My choices are Right, and only idiots don't agree."

mr_bill

Come on, you read the Metro Boston: Good ride today? thread.

Mishap free benefits (more like awe full moments):

livedarklions

Trust me, no one wants to see the pictures I'd take because the shifting from close to far vision and back is not something I can pull off well on a bike. "Here's my water bottle", "Here's my right index finger", "Here's the front of my left shoe", "Back of truck", "Gray blob".

Totally different calculation in your case!

logical

Not my point.

I personally dont care what anyone in the thread does. Dont like cameras? Cool, but if you get in a situation where you're run over and wished you had one it would have been nice. Dont wear a helmet? Cool, but if you get your head cracked open thats fine as well it aint my head

The point is just cause you dont like or dont want to spend money on a camera dont act like the camera is useless. Many people ride bikes their whole life wearing a helmet but never have to actually "use" it... its an insurance policy. Just like many people ride with a camera and never do a damn thing with the footage they record. But if you ever get into a situation where one is needed you will be glad you had it.

mr_bill

? You know I only push the button once at the start of the ride, right?

-mr. bill

livedarklions

Those are vid caps? They look too good.

mr_bill

Those are vid caps. Thanks.

-mr. bill

CB HI

Current camera and software quality give very good results for both video and vid caps. You just proved yourself deficient in the camera discussion at hand.

base2 

You two should get a room.

JW Fas

Here is the problem: You know you're not the first person by a long shot to make that statement, so to say it's stating an objective fact and something completely obvious is not fooling anyone.

Everything has an economic cost. So what? A good camera is cheaper than most insurance deductibles. I spend $800/year on car insurance with a $500 deductible to cover me in the event I crash or collide. The chances of getting into a car wreck aren't insanely low, but they're not that high either, and obviously good defensive driving can mitigate the risk even further. However, I don't make the argument it's not worth buying insurance because I have a relatively small chance of crashing my car, because it's one scenario where I don't want to be wrong in the event the dice don't roll in my favor. Likewise, a helmet camera (or a dash cam for a car) is the cheapest insurance policy you can buy, and it greatly increases your odds of covering your ass in the event something bad happens...even after you've engaged in risk avoidance behaviors.

As far as space goes, cameras are tiny. Mine with the battery inserted weighs four ounces, and I can't even feel it on my head.


Having a camera that faces one angle still provides you much greater chances of CYA than having none at all. By the way, I'm not trying to convince people they're wrong for not having cameras. Read what I actually wrote and not what you think I wrote. I'm addressing your myopic statements. If one day we change the culture to where cyclists are respected by both the general citizenry and the court system, then cameras won't be necessary. Until that day, though, they are valuable assets.

livedarklions

Fooling anyone? You're the one who wrote "no **** Sherlock", apparently you don't understand that means it's an obvious fact. What does whether I'm the first person to say it have to do with that? You're completely incoherent on this point. Also, I'm pretty sure you don't actually know what "disingenuous" actually means, but that was from an earlier post.

I don't find it necessary. I don't want to pay for it. I have enough stuff strapped to my bike as is. I don't want to ride around with extra crap on my head even if it's small. It's not even remotely as likely to provide protection from liability as my auto insurance policy is. And yeah, telling people their reasons are "myopic" and you're waiting for the day they'll wish they had video is telling them they're wrong, so you've definitely been doing that multiple times.

Ride with a full film crew for all I care. Just stop calling people who aren't lying liars.

Lemond1985

* writes a letter to Congressman demanding legislation requiring that cyclists ride with a full film crew at all times *

Leisesturm

The great majority of cyclists that ride with a camera have a single forward facing camera. A smaller number have both front and rear facing cameras. A minuscule number are experimenting with 360* capture cameras. The data shows that the majority of cyclists hurt seriously or killed in a vehicle collision are hit from the side. Left side usually. The next most significant amount of collisions are where the cyclist hits the left turning vehicle on its passenger side. In the first instance only a 360* camera will capture anything significant and if they can keep their lunch down when viewing the highly distorted image of a 360* camera view there may be consensus with what is already known: the car hit the cyclist. In the second scenario, a forward camera will indeed capture the collision but it will then be on the cyclist to explain why they did not yield or otherwise anticipate the motorists actions. Ever hear of "throwing oneself on the mercy of the court"? The one thing I 'never' hear from the camera advocates is trust. I don't doubt that cyclists with cameras win their day in court and get a judgement that satisfies them. What I also know is that cyclists that let the judge or jury make up their own minds from the evidence presented such as it is, can really clean up. The ... arrogance ... seeming arrogance ... of a video supported claim of victimhood will limit any award to the minimum necessary. It only seems like it is necessary to treat everyone in a position to rule on your outcome like a blithering idiot. Cyclists did just fine before cameras because a 'thing'. They still do.

They are not. At best they do no harm. At worst they can make the cyclist look like an arrogant, entitled, prat. There are glaring failures in our legal system but cameras don't solve them. It is more the case that the day will come when a networked system of road surveillance cameras will make the carrying of personal video recording equipment obsolete, possibly illegal. You heard it here first.

logical

Why? I guess a camera screams "I have money to buy a camera and you dont" in your opinion?

Cameras arent quite a fashion accessory yet. The only recent piece of tech(that I can think of) that can double as a fashion accessory(and really has that stigma) are the Apple Airpods.

Nothing says I paid some cash for my wireless earbuds like Airpods:

mr_bill

What do you think about his Apple Watch, Lunar Snapback cap, and his Voyager tattoo?

I mean, with our self-appointed keepers of the Velominati, hard to keep up with all the new rules.

-mr. bill

logical

Well being an editor on the Verge hes naturally super trendy. But walking around a city the most immediately noticeable thing would be the airpods cause they look so stupid(IMO) A watch can be hidden by long sleeves and snapbacks arent expensive(although his hat is not a snapback, its fitted). So the airpods are going to have to stick out as that accessory that matters here.

MikeyMK

Air Pods are also safer and very comfortable, as there's no lead-tugging. But I realise this is irrelevant to you, and why..

logical

Safer than what?

Comfort is subjective.

I wear a pair of wireless earbuds while riding just not airpods. They dont stay in and after long sessions they just get annoying in my ears. Not to mention they are ugly as hell.