Camera: Facing forward or rear?
 

You have one camera, and one camera only. Which way would you point it, toward the front or the stern?

Statistically, you're more likely to get into a wreck with a vehicle in front of you, even though people tend to worry more about overtaking collisions. Play the odds and point it forward.

I prefer the front:

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=268855

Source for your "statistics"? Or your definition of "get into a wreck"? Or your information about what people tend to "worry more" about?

Helmet... it sees what you were looking at (that is, unless it's big, and bulky, like the GoPro)

I would put it on facing foward only because here in Az we only have rear plates and if something were to happen due to a vehicle coming from behind at least there would be a possibility of the vehicles plates being captured and if the danger comes from in front or the sides it may catch a face or at least a good discription of the vehicle.

A tough decision, rear cams are great for if one is hit from behind/tailgating in that it has more detail on the vehicle since the front cam would be rendered basically useless from the impact. A front cam would be good for gathering info on motorists making close passes, right/left hooks, signal light verification, etc. I decided on having both front and rear cams since they compliment each other giving a more complete story of what went on.

Helmet mounted GoPro facing forward. That's how I do it. Never had a problem with it. I tend to catch the majority of whatever bike related drama I encounter.

A complimentary rear facing cam never needs to turn it's head, and one would be amazed at what goes on behind them that gets overlooked, mirror or no mirror.

I am still wanting a GoPro in a Chest Mount Harness.

I have my GoPro facing to the rear. Almost all the harassment I get is when I take the lane for a left turn and a cager gets caught behind me. I had thought about getting a camera but didn't want to spend the money. That was until one rager blared their horn and threw coffee on my backpack as they passed me. A rear facing camera would have recorded it.

Probably forward, though it's close, but it's a silly question - in my opinion, if either is necessary, then both are.

I'm wearing a couple of different cameras (an ExtremeCam and a Contour Roam) but I'm going to be selling them both soon and buying a pair of GoPros HDs.

Maybe someone will make something like this to fit the Go Pro's for those daily commutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHw5u...eature=related

I've always preferred hand-held. :D


but i've used a chainstay mounted camera to great effect.


I haven't gotten that worried about videotaping my everyday riding.

I'd go for a helmet mounted camera. It wouldn't bounce as much as something mounted to the bicycle. I wish I had one when a Harley rider thought I shouldn't be on the road. He ran me off the road to the shoulder. I didn't report it because my previous two reports of drivers running me off the road resulted in nothing. Until I get a camera it just isn't worth the effort to call the cops.

When I report motorists to law enforcement, I go with the attitude that no action will be taken by them towards the motorist. If the motorist has a history of aggression or bad driving, then law enforcement may step into action, otherwise I just want to have a motorist documented in the local law enforcement's data system in case they continue to drive aggressively or dangerously.

Video cams that have very high resolution rates are a boon in gathering detailed info on motorists that have caused me some considerable grief, and are extremely helpful in providing more accurate details of an incident when making reports to law enforcement.

I opt for front but angled in most cases. Since the lens on my camera is wide angle it works well to have it 40 deg left-turn unless I am in a city where I would put it due forward. The offset allows a slightly earlier capture since PA also has rear only plate system.

i usually run four cameras. one never knows what's going to happen, where it's going to come from, and which camera(s) will collect good/better/best, or in any case useable, evidence.

Since you said "usually", where would you have them placed, and pointed?

* on the handlebars, pointed forward
* on the seat-post, pointed backward and angled out towards passing cars
* on the helmet
* under the top-tube near the seat-tube, pointed forward - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgwrb5w1XRY

My definition of "get into a wreck" is any kind of bike vs car collision, in this context.

Here's one source for statistics, although I've seen others. Select "crash type grouped" under "crash type" to see what I'm talking about. You'll see that about 1,900 out of about 13,600 bike vs car wrecks are where the motorist is overtaking the cyclist.

I don't have a source for what kind of wreck people tend to worry most about. That's anecdotal.

I contend that NO significant or reliable conclusion about bicycling risk can be drawn from data that counts as equal "any kind of bike vs car collision" regardless of severity of injuries suffered.

You can slice and dice the data on that website to correlate severity and type of collision. If you do, you'll see that, out of 328 cyclist fatalities, 2 resulted from overtaking collisions. Of 1110 "disabling injuries" to cyclists, 3 resulted from overtaking collisions.

First chart on this page -- class "D" is the only wreck type where the cyclist is hit from behind -- the rest are generally either from the side or the front, depending on who got there first.

This is sort of common sense -- the cyclist is always stopped or moving forward. If whatever the cyclist hits is stopped, the cyclist must have run into it. If whatever the cyclist hits is moving, then it could have run him over from behind -- but only if going faster. If going slower, the collision would have to be from the side or front. Cars certainly can go faster than bicycles, but the odds of a collision are still higher from the front than from the back simply due to the usual non-zero speed of the bicycle.

Given the choice of front facing camera or back facing camera, the front camera will catch more collisions. How many more is hard to say, but more than the back camera, simply because the bicycle is practically never moving backwards and often moving forwards at a good clip.

And if there is a collision, pointing front is more useful as it shows what the cyclist is reacting to and what lead up to the collision better than a rear facing camera.

For example, police cameras -- always facing forward. They usually don't even bother with a rear facing camera.

But really, if this question is so important, one probably should just get two cameras. Or three, with one on their helmet. Perhaps put the good camera up front or on the helmet, and cheap cameras on the other two places.

Kind of wish I had both now. My rear facing camera got the license plate of the truck. If I had a front facing one, it would have gotten video of the guy sticking his head out the window to yell at me.