Or so a new study says. How is a 5 ounce camera on a cyclist a threat to drivers of 2+ ton vehicles?
"The observable net effect of the increased use of cameras is one of distrust between modes of transport. Why have traffic relationships deteriorated to the point that cyclists feel the need for cameras as a self-defence mechanism?" -- Kah Chan
"The boom in helmet cameras is symptomatic of the safety issues on our roads, as traffic speeds, poor infrastructure and a lack of driver training can make it incredibly dangerous for people who choose to ride a bike." -- Martyn Brunt
The question begs - why are car drivers so easily antagonized by a video record of their own actions?
quizbot
2013-08-06 00:42:47
Both of those statements are accurate. Cyclists don't trust drivers, and it can be dangerous to ride a bike.
But nothing you quoted suggests "antagonizing" or that its a "threat to a two ton vehicle."
I look on my car insurance card and the first thing it says is "don't admit fault." This is the age we live in, where nobody would want to admit fault in any road incident.
italianblend
2013-08-06 04:52:42
The sourced article suggests antagonization.
Does Lycra negatively impact inter-modal discourse?
quizbot
2013-08-06 07:43:59
The article references "antagonized" drivers and also mentions bicyclists "getting agressive" with their cameras.
How does a biker get aggressive with a camera? I mean, we're not papazarri. I've heard no reports of a cyclist doing any "up skirt" shots.
I suspect the article is using as much imflammatory language as it can.
I'm guessing this isn't a very good newspaper.
mick
2013-08-06 10:31:42
Here's a better quotable statistic about cameras.
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=44427
rice-rocket
2013-08-06 10:40:34
"Why have traffic relationships deteriorated to the point that cyclists feel the need for cameras as a self-defence mechanism?"
Have traffic relationships deteriorated? Around here I think the situation's been improving over the decades, and the increased number of cameras is simply due to the availability and price of cameras. Had they been available 30 years ago, cyclists would have used them then.
Here's the web site for a previous study by the
same researcher. It's got videos of road users behaving badly.
I think
this is the abstract of the paper in question. It seems a lot more tame than the quotes in the paper.
steven
2013-08-06 11:07:47
The author can have his "general inter-modal discourse." I prefer having the police take me seriously when I present them with something other than my word vs a driver's.
Edited to add:
I've also found that wearing a helmet cam cuts down on my personally aggressive responses to aggression or dumbassery. So it's helpful in that it helps me check myself, too.
pinky
2013-08-06 11:57:59
I would call a camera passive aggressive. Cops, random strangers, and drivers all hate the idea that you are recording them as they do feel like they are being blamed for something. Guilty conscience maybe?
orionz06
2013-08-06 16:29:27
I don't currently use a camera... if I did, it would only be for the sake of telling my story if someone killed me and I wasn't around to tell the story myself. Of course, I would seriously consider sharing any footage that involved a blatant attempt, by a motorist, to intimidate me (to the point of it being a serious risk to my life).
As for privacy concerns, I can't afford to keep data for more than a couple of rides.
headloss
2013-08-06 17:37:03
being on a public street (in or out of a vehicle) means you have zero expectation of, or right to, privacy. people are stupid.
cburch
2013-08-06 23:40:34
cburch wrote:being on a public street (in or out of a vehicle) means you have zero expectation of, or right to, privacy. people are stupid.
This is only a small chunk of things people don't know and should.
orionz06
2013-08-07 15:24:44
ericf
2013-08-09 09:59:03
