I have already commented on this Oct 14 See here. and I did predict that cyclist's head cams would cause nothing but trouble. Filming anyone, with intent to ill will against, them is bound to be an offensive and an aggressive act, and added to that, at a time when people object to relatives filming their own family if with other kiddies, I am surprised that the selective filming of whoever takes one's fancy, is OK for cyclists anyway.
Plenty of grounds for conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace to my mind.
In some cases, cyclists are even filming people in their own private space, inside their cars, and accosting the drivers to rebuke them in their cars.
Why are police encouraging this kind of vigilantism anyway?
Now look at this Daily Mail story of an aggressive cyclist rebuking another (innocent female) road user for a perceived wrong and even extracting an apology with threats of reporting her to police.
'You are on camera' reveals the mindset that these cameras instill in their users. 'I am fire proof. I have a camera'. Since when was it good or justified to accost or rebuke other road users? Do police condone that conduct by any road user?
Sometimes this behaviour actually does result in a breach of the peace and assault on the cyclist.
There have been instances, when a vehicle has been attacked, the only legal recourse for a driver was to maintain contact and stop a cyclist, who has no number plate, before he can disappear up an alley and escape. So there are cases where cyclists, who having attacked a vehicle, have actually been knocked off their machines. So far no-one has tested the rights of a driver to protect his property when such assailants are not identifiable by number plates. Look at today's Evening Standard here.
This road user aggression and abuse must be discouraged by cycling groups and police before someone dies.
The solution is simple; if cycling is too dangerous for you, stop cycling. No-one depends on you doing it. We need drivers and walkers but we really don't need cyclists; especially aggressive ones selectively filming people with ill will and without their consent. The camera will not protect you at all. The most it will do is help to lay blame but will not repair your injuries or bring you back to life. If anything, all these cameras are doing is showing how dangerously daft road cycling really is.
See cycling death 2016
As somebody who has commuted by car and have commuted by bicycle, the behaviour of drivers when commuting by bike is phenomenally worse. I've been undertaken while on a roundabout, and can recall, almost on a weekly basis, exceptionally close and unnecessary passes. In the same way that most russian drivers now have dashcams because their police are ineffective, a similar approach is being taken by people cycling. The helmet cam is an independent witness. It is also highlighting the extremely poor quality of driving that is occurring on our roads and the complete disregard some drivers have for the safety of vulnerable users.
ReplyDeleteTo "blame" cyclists for this level of poor driving is non-sensical.
Hi Adam, where have I 'blamed' cyclists? I am just advocating against any road user confronting, accosting. abusing and rebuking other road users. Dash cams are not selective or pointed at anyone in particular. and are fixed. They are there to protect the driver from false allegation. Cyclists are using their head cams to seek out wrongs and report them. Neither type protects the user from injury and death. Exposed cyclists are more interested in their head cams than their own safety, and relying on them too much too.
ReplyDeleteOf course drivers and their vehicles are dangerous and unpredictable. So with all your near misses, why are you still cycling among them? Because you have a right? Ok tell that to St Peter as you let's you past his Pearly Gates. How does that right protect you or console your family. It's your choice.