longbeachgary

Brilliant!!!

znomit

Coroner will love this too.

smasha

as for "cameras vs safe riding", that's a false dichotomy.at the end of the day, cameras are a tremendous asset to good drivers/bicyclists, and a tremendous liability to bad drivers/bicyclists.

smasha

worst case scenario, yes... it may help identify my killer.

one of my motivations for getting the cameras was a spate of (non-fatal) hit-n-runs against bicyclists. no charges were ever filed in those cases, because the police had no leads to pursue.

even a few weeks ago, someone locally got doored, had some significant injuries (broken bones, IIRC), and the motorist just stuck their head out of the window and yelled "SORRY!", then drove off. dooring is a statutory offence[1] here, compounded by a hit-n-run[2], but the bicyclist and the witnesses were in such a state of shock that no one thought to write down the plate number of the offending vehicle. AFAIK, police had no leads to pursue charges.

1- 7.2 Use of doors
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regul...DLM303620.html
(1) A person must not cause a hazard to any person by opening or closing a door of a motor vehicle, or by leaving the door of a motor vehicle open.

2- 22 Driver's duties where accident occurs
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...DLM434540.html
(1) If an accident arising directly or indirectly from the operation of a vehicle occurs to a person or to a vehicle, the driver or rider of the vehicle must (a) stop and ascertain whether a person has been injured; and (b) render all practicable assistance to any injured persons.
(3) If the accident involves an injury to or the death of a person, the driver or rider must report the accident to an enforcement officer as soon as reasonably practicable, and in any case not later than 24 hours after the time of the accident, unless the driver or rider is incapable of doing so by reason of injuries sustained by him or her in the accident.

RyderTheRider

I don't understand how people can do that. Even in your vid, it looks like everyone just kind of went on with their day after you crashed (including you!) without any real concern for the person who just crashed.

dynodonn 

This seems to be a very common theme, since things can happen very fast.
I had an extremely close passing maneuver being made by a motorist traveling 40 mph faster than I was riding at the time, and I was unable to get any credible information at the time of the incident. Thanks to my cameras, upon reviewing my video of the incident, I not only got the vehicle license number, but also the vehicle model, and various decal stickers attached to the vehicle. I was also able to view the motorist looking straight me before the passing maneuver, and then looking into his side mirror after he made the pass.

znomit

Actually a driver can fling their door open with impunity, as cyclists are not allowed to ride in the door zone:
"Never ride in the ‘door zone’ (the space where car doors open) when cycling past parked cars. Allow at least one metre between you and a parked car."
https://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/ro...ibilities.html

ItsJustMe

That's a guideline, not a law. Therefore you're "allowed" to ride there, but it's strongly recommended that you do not.

smasha

correct.

the NZ road-code is generally consistent with the NZ statutes, but that's an example of an inconsistency. the police enforce statutes (eg, it's illegal to open a door in front of a cyclist) - police do not enforce recommendations (eg, it's recommended that cyclists never ride in the door zone).

they can't make it illegal to ride in the door zone... that would force too many bicyclists out of the bike lanes

GaryPitts

Tell us about your video setup. I have one camera that faces forward and know I also need one rearward. I love the way you have two and they are synched together in one image.

smasha

aside from these pictures, i'm not sure what i can say about my camera setup - https://www.flickr.com/photos/6366944...7627407231030/
it's nothing extraordinary.

the cameras aren't synced. the videos are synced when i cut and edit the footage together.

dynodonn 

Having two cameras definitely gives a more complete picture of what has transpired. Since a number of aggressive motorists that I've encountered did not have a front license plate, I opted for a frame mounted front camera, rather than a helmet mounted cam, to better capture a rear license plate number.

digger

I'm curious if any of the situations you had, where you used the video as evidence, did the motorist try to accuse you of "tampering" with the video?

I had a close pass in June of 2012, driver ticketed, he contested the ticket, but lost. He was charged $285 for passing too close (we have a 1-metre rule here). The driver did try to state that the video should not be used in court as I may have tampered with it.

Although he did not say this, my only assumption is that his accusation of tampering meant that I somehow made his vehicle appear closer than it actually was.

smasha

an observation of riding at night... i've had HD HERO 1s & 2s on the bike and a Contour-1080 on the helmet. with a bright, or even decent headlight on the handlebars, rear plate numbers can be washed out by the glare of the light, when the light and camera are close enough. in these cases, it's often the (overall inferior) Contour on my helmet that catches 1-2 frames of rear plate.

so my advise for night, if you want to catch rear plate numbers: if your front-light is on the bars, put a camera on the helmet. if your front-light is on the helmet, put a camera on the bars.

dynodonn 

I've tried the helmet cam at night, too much Blair Witch effect. Our local license plates are also white, have 7 digits, on a plate 2/3rd the size of NZ plates, numbers even made smaller due to state/logo info, difficult to read under low light conditions with no head light washout involved.

smasha

no. no one has ever made that type of accusation regarding my videos. if anyone ever suggested that: i'm talented enough to add titles to a video and do some picture-in-picture effects, but that's about it. besides... i have no grudge against motorists who drive safely. there are enough bad drivers out there that i don't have to spend time doctoring videos.

i have had complaints down-graded (eg a "careless driving" incident was charged as "unsafe passing") because the objective quality of the video (eg distances, speeds, etc) is hard to quantify without expert witnesses, and such. the supervising officer in that case agreed that the motorist was likely deserving of a "careless driving" charge, but he was concerned that the video evidence might not meet the evidentiary threshold for "careless driving"; he said the video evidence clearly did meet the evidentiary threshold for "unsafe passing", and charges were filed for that. both charges incur a $150 fine, but "careless driving" also incurs 30 points (out of 100), while "unsafe passing" incurs zero points

but this all depends on who the complaint is assigned to... some of the cops will look at the video and clearly identify an offence that i'm happy with, while other cops are more conservative in weighing the "burden of evidence" required to sign-off on a traffic ticket, when they didn't witness the event first-hand. one of my videos resulted in a motorist getting a phone-call from the police... after confirming that he was driving the vehicle at the time and place of the incident, the motorist said he was certain there was no one there on a bike... the cop said it was clear from the video that i was "lit up like a christmas tree", and based on the motorist's statement of not seeing me or my bike, a "careless driving" ticket was issued. so in addition to video, this also depends on how slick/motivated the cop is at conducting interviews.

if i were in a jurisdiction that had a statutory minimum safe-passing clearance... i'd take a tape-measure, a chalk-line, and some big, fat pieces of coloured chalk to an empty parking lot... draw some lines at 30-50cm widths, and then ride along the "zero" line (after accounting for the width of the handlebars) with cameras rolling. this can be compared to any close-pass videos that need to be pursued. of course, anytime the mounts are adjusted, the cameras have to be "recalibrated". but the basic idea is to have a point-of-reference that clearly shows, within the video frame, where the legal threshold is, and where 50% and 75% of the legal threshold are.

cops and courts, understandably, don't want to deal with cases where someone was a few cm too close at reasonable speed... but if you can provide evidence that an overtaking vehicle was really too close, then those types of cases should be easier to prosecute.

cuzzinit

This happens to me in a 70 ft semi at least 4 times a year. the "must get in front" thought gets quite a few drivers. SUV's and 4x4 pickups are most frequent victims of Rectal-Cranial Inversion
i have a dashcam on Semi, car and soon helmet cam,for CYA purposes

smasha

you just reminded me of another side of that: when you're driving an emergency vehicle with lights and sirens, some ass-nugget will not pull over for a mile or so, then stop to wave you ahead at the crest of a hill on a blind corner.

if i was still volunteering as an EMT, i'd put a gopro on the windshield... let the cops send warning letters to people who pull out in front, don't move over, etc.