Get a bike cam for your and others' safety

btrettel · 2013-11-28 10:58:43

I had been aware of cyclists using video cameras since last year. I recall watching videos that appeared in the news like those from Longmont, CO, Berkeley, CA, and Washington, DC. The DC one hit close to home, as I lived in the DC suburbs at the time, but it did not immediately convince me to actually get a camera.

Two things helped convince me: video is one of the few ways you can get the police to take you seriously after a crash or harassment, and you often don't have the time to get license plate numbers. In every one of the cases that appeared in the news, the driver was charged with something and at least a partial license plate number was available thanks to the video. The police did not always get involved in the videos I saw only on YouTube, but the video definitely did not hurt. You can really only benefit from having video.

There's also a lot of research that suggests driver aggression is partly caused by the relative anonymity that driving provides. I intend to break this anonymity by noting that I am recording when appropriate, uploading video to YouTube, shouting out license plate numbers (for the driver to hear, and also if my video doesn't catch it), and getting clear shots of the drivers in crashes. I also try to make my camera as obvious as possible. Some drivers definitely notice my helmet cam and treat me with more respect because of that. I've only had one person curse at me since getting the camera in June, and before this was a monthly or bi-monthly thing.

Given all of this, I suggest that as many cyclists as possible start using video cameras. I'm the only one I've seen in Austin, and I'm hoping this changes. I use a ContourROAM camera, but GoPro cameras are also popular.

AusTexMurf · 2013-11-28 11:26:43

Contour Roam might be the most versatile cam for bike specific video currently on the market.
Joey Brooks, in NO, recommends the Contour over the GoPro, as well.
He has a lot of very interesting and very informative video posted of New Orleans cycling conditions.
But I have several friends that love their GoPro's, too.

And, I agree with you. Would be great if there were more cycling austin video out there.

Also, If you want to think crazy stuff involving video and cycling……
Wish that I could have some of the last 10 years of pedicabbing austin on video.
Drivers, cyclists, taxi drivers, drunks, wonderful weirdos, musical mayhem, or sometimes, the most shocking, police behavior, late night, in downtown austin.
And talk about bad driving…
But I have learned defensive cycling skills along the way, to be sure…

Thanks for the post.

Last edited by AusTexMurf (2013-11-28 11:28:49)

MichaelBluejay · 2013-11-28 12:11:34

Great idea. I just found the Rideye which was successfully funded on Kickstarter and is slated to be available in April. Versus other popular cameras, it has longer battery life (24 hours vs. 3.5 for CountourRoam), auto-deleting of old footage, and auto-shutoff in the event of a crash (to preserve crash footage). I plan to get at least one when they become available.

dougmc · 2013-11-28 13:14:41

Contour just went out of business about a month ago, and then a few days ago it was announced that somebody bought them up and is planning to bring them back to life. So their future is far from certain. I wouldn't suggest buying any Contour products right now unless they were at a very large discount.

One problem with the Roam is that the battery doesn't come out, so you can't swap batteries on long rides.

As for GoPro vs. Contour, I wouldn't say that one is more versatile than the other -- they're pretty much comparable. I've got a GoPro HD, GoPro 2 and Contour GPS so I'm familiar with them. (Though there are newer models out.) In general, I've found I prefer the GoPros, but the differences are minor. One nice thing about the GoPros is that they come by default with a waterproof case -- for the Contour cameras that's an expensive option (and all the options and mounts and such for the Contour cost more than the GoPro versions.)

I've been using my GoPros during rides and it works fine, but the problem is that the battery only lasts about two hours. (And the Contour GPS is worse.) And unless you're a major jerk while riding, 99% of your rides are uneventful, so you end up either deleting the footage (if you're smart) or needing terabytes of storage to keep all of it. So you spend a lot of time charging cameras and clearing memory cards -- far more time than you actually spend doing anything with the video. Also it's something that needs removing when you lock the bike, unless it's on your helmet and you bring the helmet inside.

Also note that if you do crash and the camera gets hit, there's a reasonable chance that it won't be able to save what just happened to the memory card and so it'll be lost.

btrettel wrote:

Two things helped convince me: video is one of the few ways you can get the police to take you seriously after a crash or harassment, and you often don't have the time to get license plate numbers. In every one of the cases that appeared in the news, the driver was charged with something and at least a partial license plate number was available thanks to the video. The police did not always get involved in the videos I saw only on YouTube, but the video definitely did not hurt. You can really only benefit from having video.

If a crash or serious crime happens, you'll prefer that you have video -- yes.

However, your observations about what's in the news has a huge bias -- only the cases where the police did something make it to the news. The reality is ... the police will generally only do anything in the most serious of cases. If there's a hit and run, sure they'll do something. But if they just cut you off and yell at you, or pass too closely ... the police will generally not do anything. In general, they will not track down the guy and give them a ticket, even if the violation is quite clear in the video. There's several reasons for that -- 1) Texas law limits the misdemeanors that officers can cite or arrest for if they did not personally witness the violation (and video doesn't count), 2) if it does go to court, they didn't see it -- you did -- so you'd have to testify (video isn't enough) and they don't like such cases, 3) unless your video shows the face of the driver clearly (or you can clearly identify them, but go back to #2), the police won't know who to charge -- drivers are cited, not the person registered as the owner of the plates, and 4) they're generally too busy to bother with such things anyways.

Also, the video can be used *against* you. If you're at fault in a collision and they know you're taping -- they'll want that video and it can be used in criminal or civil trials, and deleting it when you know they want it can be "destruction of evidence" which is a crime. And being recorded can enrage some people (though it's more likely to calm them down -- in general it makes them behave better, but not always.)

Ultimately, I'd say a video camera isn't going to do much for your or anybody else's safety. But it does do a lot to stop the "he said, she said" business that happens after something bad happens, which is certainly nice. And while a bad driver probably won't notice the camera, no matter how obvious, before he plows into you or decides to harass you, it might calm things down after the fact. Maybe.

Michael's Rideye sounds interesting. Having a much longer battery life and auto-deletion of old footage would remove a lot of the "maintenance" type work that current cameras need. I've got a dashboard camera in my car now and it runs whenever the car is on and auto-deletes old footage -- so it requires no maintenance at all, and that works very nicely. (The downside is that the video quality is awful and it interferes with my GPS. But hey, it was only $20 or so. I do need to get something better, however.)

I imagine that in the near future, more and more cars will have video cameras on them, recording everything. It's already happening in Russia, but the same reasons exist here too -- just to a smaller degree. For bikes, it's not as simple, but I expect more and more of them too.

MichaelBluejay · 2013-11-28 14:09:36

dougmc wrote:

The reality is ... the police will generally only do anything in the most serious of cases. If there's a hit and run, sure they'll do something.

Oh, don't I wish. Here's the reality. Do the police sometimes completely blow off hit-and-run reports? You betcha.

dougmc · 2013-11-28 16:53:54

Well, if we go back years, I don't doubt that cases can be found where the police did nothing about a hit and run, especially if there was no serious injury involved. Even if they had clear video evidence, though actually having clear video evidence much of the time is a recent development. And yes, I see that one of the victims listed in your page is you, and I remember many of those incidents.

But if you're nearly dead (or all the way dead) on the side of the road and your video clearly shows who did it ... I fully expect that the police will take that seriously, anti-bike bias or not. It seems that the police are better about this than they used to be.

Would I be correct in assuming that not a single one of these listed "no justice for cyclists" cases had clear video evidence of the incident, showing that the cyclist was innocent and the other party was entirely to blame? I see that you haven't updated the page since 2008, probably due to lack of time (and certainly not due to lack of incidents to report) -- but there haven't been any particularly serious recent cases that the local police just ignored, even when given the evidence on a silver platter, have there?

In any event, my point wasn't that police are going to investigate every case where video shows that there was actual contact, but more that unless there was a serious crime involved (serious injury + hit and run comes to mind, or intentional battery (where the *intentional* part is quite clear, clear enough to convince a jury -- and usually it is not)) ... don't expect *anything* from them, no matter how clear the video is when it shows that they cut you off or yelled at you or something.

MichaelBluejay · 2013-11-28 19:28:50

I don't know why you think that I haven't updated the page since 2008, since the "Last Update" date clearly shows that I updated the page this very year. But those edits have been incidental, I haven't gone searching for new cases for some years, though I have little reason to believe that things have changed very much. When a crazed driver nearly killed my wife earlier this month I called the police and they said an officer would call me back, but that never happened. In the hit-and-run against me some years ago, I did have evidence, in the form of impartial witnesses, but the police weren't interested in it (i.e., they didn't care to call the witnesses). Certainly having video evidence increases the chances that the police will take action, but I certainly wouldn't count on them doing it every time. And of course I agree with you that in the absence of actual contact, it's unlikely they'll do anything, even if video evidence is available.

dougmc · 2013-11-28 19:49:18

MichaelBluejay wrote:

I don't know why you think that I haven't updated the page since 2008, since the "Last Update" date clearly shows that I updated the page this very year.

I was more looking at the details page, which shows no incidents since 2008. Even the page you did link doesn't seem to show any new cyclist incidents, but it does mention Nestande (2011) and Gonzalez (2013). My mistake.

I've been paying attention, and haven't heard many cases of the police really refusing to their job in the last five years. Either things *have* gotten better, or you were just really, really good at finding dirt back then, and the things are still happening but I'm either not hearing about them or have forgotten.

I certainly didn't see your wife's incidents and only know what you said about them ... but they sound like the sort of thing the police do not do anything about, even with video evidence. Without a collision, they're not likely to do anything. But with a serious collision -- I believe they will, even if they sometimes wouldn't a few years ago. (Though often people aren't prosecuted, such as that woman who rammed the pedicab repeatedly -- but that's not really the police's fault, I recall them at least investigating that one.)

btrettel · 2013-11-28 21:11:12

MichaelBluejay wrote:

Great idea. I just found the Rideye which was successfully funded on Kickstarter and is slated to be available in April.

I had seen this before, but wanted something sooner, so I went with the Contour. This definitely is more like what I'd prefer. Doug is right; cleaning up the videos is a pain because 99% of them are worthless. I record about 10 hours each month, yet only about 5 minutes end up on YouTube.

dougmc wrote:

Contour just went out of business about a month ago, and then a few days ago it was announced that somebody bought them up and is planning to bring them back to life.

Thanks for that info. I knew Contour went out of business, but I had not heard someone bought them.

dougmc wrote:

However, your observations about what's in the news has a huge bias -- only the cases where the police did something make it to the news. The reality is ... the police will generally only do anything in the most serious of cases. If there's a hit and run, sure they'll do something. But if they just cut you off and yell at you, or pass too closely ... the police will generally not do anything. In general, they will not track down the guy and give them a ticket, even if the violation is quite clear in the video.

Oops, I was unclear. I was thinking more serious claims like hit-and-run. For the less serious things, I either forget it or upload a clip to YouTube and leave it at that. And as Michael Bluejay suggested, the police don't always care even in a hit-and-run. This seems to be different with video, mostly if the video goes viral. I know in the DC case I linked to, the police cared only after the video was promoted by WABA, a local bicyclist group.

Video seems to reach people better. As an example, about a month ago my PhD advisor asked me how my day was going. I complained about almost being hit by a car the previous day. Before, when I told people about things like that they would just roll their eyes as if they didn't believe me. But this time I showed him the video on YouTube. And he agreed he was surprised by how frightening the situation was. He told me later that he would not have had the right impression if I had not showed him the video.

dougmc wrote:

Also, the video can be used *against* you. If you're at fault in a collision and they know you're taping -- they'll want that video and it can be used in criminal or civil trials, and deleting it when you know they want it can be "destruction of evidence" which is a crime.

I'm skeptical of this; my 5th amendment right to not incriminate myself seems to be pretty clear. There was a case of a (Texas) motorcyclist being arrested for refusing to hand over helmet cam video to the police. He wasn't accused of doing anything wrong, so he didn't even have the 5th amendment to work from. I can't find the news story right now, but as I recall all charges were dropped against the motorcyclist because he was within his rights to refuse.

With that being said, I do think having a camera rolling makes me act more maturely. I use the exact same psychology I apply to aggressive drivers on myself.

dougmc wrote:

But it does do a lot to stop the "he said, she said" business that happens after something bad happens, which is certainly nice.

This is a big advantage, I think. I'm reminded of another case from DC. Here the cyclist was only able to win when they sued a dangerous driver because the cyclist found security cam footage.

dougmc · 2013-11-29 13:08:24

btrettel wrote:

dougmc wrote:
Also, the video can be used *against* you. If you're at fault in a collision and they know you're taping -- they'll want that video and it can be used in criminal or civil trials, and deleting it when you know they want it can be "destruction of evidence" which is a crime.
I'm skeptical of this; my 5th amendment right to not incriminate myself seems to be pretty clear.

You have the right to remain silent -- anything in your head should be safe from the police unless you let it slip.

However, your video is not in your head, and is not subject to the 5th amendment, but instead the 4th amendment.

The police may need to get a warrant to get the video, and probably won't just for a traffic collision, but that is an option for them. And there are laws against destruction of evidence. They're not as simple as "you cannot destroy evidence", but if the police have made it clear that they want some evidence, but you still have it -- you may not have to produce it yet, but you generally can't just destroy it instead. (Now, the penalty for destroying the evidence may be smaller than the penalty for whatever crime it'll support your conviction of, but that's another matter.)

Also, the 5th amendment only applies to criminal cases -- in a civil case, you have no right to remain silent, and the other side probably will demand your video (if they know about it, though they may make a blanket demand that would cover your video even if they don't know about it explicitly), and you can be slapped with contempt of court charges for refusing to produce it.

My point is, the video *can* be used against you. Maybe it's not likely, maybe it's usually only a minor issue ... but it's something to consider before deciding to record things.

AusTexMurf · 2013-11-29 13:53:54

Feedback on the current vid systems appreciated, Doug.
Not the most current on bike specific audio/video technologies, myself. Glad you guys are.
And, I am also interested in the Rideye technology. I would love to try one on my commuter and/or pedicab.
Informative thread, folks.

AusTexMurf · 2013-11-30 11:12:40

dougmc, MBJ, btrettel:
Should organize a cyclist video cam network via sticky on this forum.
Use another site to host.
A lot of folks like vimeo.

MichaelBluejay · 2013-11-30 11:56:31

What is a "cyclist video cam network", and why would we do that?

btrettel · 2013-11-30 21:00:22

dougmc wrote:

My point is, the video *can* be used against you. Maybe it's not likely, maybe it's usually only a minor issue ... but it's something to consider before deciding to record things.

Noted. You make some excellent points that I was not aware of.

MichaelBluejay wrote:

What is a "cyclist video cam network", and why would we do that?

Perhaps AusTexMurf means a single place someone could go to watch cycling safety incident videos for Austin. Such a thing would be useful to show to people who don't understand the safety issues facing cyclists, though your bike safety website also serves that purpose.

AusTexMurf · 2013-11-30 22:20:21

Or perhaps just current states of cycling affairs…
LAB conditions, crap on caesar chavez
Increasing commuter cycling on s 1st bridge and new bike lanes
DougMc's vids/photos should he choose
Mueller/Zilker cycle tracks/school commutes
Unsafe road conditions
Pedicab/Minor Mishap Marching Mayhem/Bikarachi
SXSW bike centric
ACL bike centric
Trying out the new B-Cycle/Bike Share bikes
Guadalupe cycle track real time conditions
Frankenbike
Charity rides
Commuter 'racing' ? other cyclists or autos (S Congress Oltorf to Caesar Chavez, nice) S 5th Oltorf to Barton Springs, etc…)
Moonlight Cruises
Neighborhood cruises
Bonehead Motorists ?
Etc.,
Other ideas ?

Last edited by AusTexMurf (2013-11-30 22:23:00)

MichaelBluejay · 2013-11-30 23:26:09

Well, I don't see how "a sticky" would work. First, near-miss videos, road conditions, and Frankenbike would all go in different forums, so each forum would have to have a sticky. Then, presumably people would want to actually discuss at least some of the videos, which would make the sticky'd thread cluttered with lots of different topics. Two years from now, the first post in a thread with lots of videos about unsafe road conditions is gonna be two years old. Seems like posting videos only to the threads about what they're actually about still makes the most sense.

AusTexMurf · 2013-12-01 09:09:16

Hadn't thought about the details when I was brainstorming/spilling ideas.
Agreed, though, about posting in the correct topic.
Structure, as is, should work, then.
We just have a lack of cyclist cameras, edited and interesting video, and folks who know how to edit/post/link their vids.
You three are still the right people to start such a thing, if you choose.

AusTexMurf · 2013-12-01 21:36:08

BICYCLING
"It must have been your fault. C'mon. You are a biker."
by Zach T. • June 27, 2013
Greater Washington, D.C. Article
Getting in a crash is one of the scariest things that can happen to a cyclist. Even worse is when police assume that bicyclists are always at fault, even if they've got evidence to the contrary.
crashaboutohappen
The crash about to happen. Photo captured from MPD surveillance video.
On a pleasant March morning in 2011, I was on my way to work, biking south on 14th St NW in the center of the right lane. As I approached W Street, I looked to make sure I had ample time to cross. The light was green. As I left the intersection, an SUV driver made a left turn across traffic, directly into my path. All I could do was hit the brakes hard.

The next thing I knew, I was on my back in the middle of the street. I tried to sit up, but failed pathetically and landed back on the road. My glasses were in a mangled heap nearby. Seconds later, some cyclists stopped by. None had seen the collision, but they locked my bike at the scene and helped me to a safe place. Someone called an ambulance, which showed up a few minutes later.

In the ambulance, Carlos Carter, a DC police officer, asked me what happened, and I told him. Once the EMTs realized I had hit my head, it was straight onto a backboard and off to the emergency room.

At George Washington University Hospital, an X-ray found that my shoulder was separated and several ligaments were torn. Doctors took me to a CAT scanner to check for broken bones.

During the test, Officer Carter entered the room. He asked me to sign a ticket for running a red light. I asked him to take a look at footage since I was certain I hadn't. He wasn't interested and asked me to sign the ticket and admit fault. I didn't. He left.

Video proves that I was right (read the rest...)

dougmc · 2013-12-02 01:13:11

AusTexMurf wrote:

We just have a lack of cyclist cameras, edited and interesting video, and folks who know how to edit/post/link their vids.
You three are still the right people to start such a thing, if you choose.

Personally, so little of my video is interesting.

I've taken hundreds of hours of cycling video, and only a few minutes of that is interesting. I've posted a few short videos of people crashing their bikes in front of me just so they could see what happened. I've only once seen a serious car/bike collision, and I wasn't even recording video at the time. I did take a bunch of stills, however which were helpful for the legal issues later. I've posted some video of places that cyclists rarely ride, but the reality is -- such videos probably hurt advocacy more than help it.

I guess I haven't taken any video of interactions with drivers by myself worth posting. I was shot with a paintball gun once during a ride -- that would have been very worthwhile, but I didn't have a video camera back then. I've crashed a few times by myself, but with no video running. I've had the usual close calls with drivers and such, but just nothing worth sharing with the world. I don't know if I'm exceptionally lucky or careful or nice or what, but I just normally don't have problems.

Now, this video I took is pretty neat ... but the only thing bike related about that is that I rode my bike to get to Zilker (using a Bob trailer to carry my stuff) to avoid parking issues.

btrettel · 2013-12-03 21:06:32

AusTexMurf wrote:

We just have a lack of cyclist cameras, edited and interesting video, and folks who know how to edit/post/link their vids.

I don't know much about editing videos. I just make a using a very simple program and upload it to YouTube. Perhaps if I made a video explaining this, we'd see more videos? I'll give it some thought.

I'll also look into uploading some video of fun rides, my commute, and examples of good driving.

A good jumping-off point for Austin cycling videos is worthwhile, and I might put some information about that on my YouTube channel as I find more videos.

dougmc wrote:

I guess I haven't taken any video of interactions with drivers by myself worth posting. I was shot with a paintball gun once during a ride -- that would have been very worthwhile, but I didn't have a video camera back then. I've crashed a few times by myself, but with no video running. I've had the usual close calls with drivers and such, but just nothing worth sharing with the world. I don't know if I'm exceptionally lucky or careful or nice or what, but I just normally don't have problems.

I'm surprised you've had so few interactions worth posting. I've had a few near crashes per month that I've found worth uploading to YouTube. Perhaps what you think is worth posting differs from what I think is worth posting. My standard right now is to upload incidents if I think any driver stumbling upon the video could learn something about how to drive safer around cyclists. Or, alternatively, if it would help cyclists ride safer.

AusTexMurf · 2013-12-04 13:03:37

Interesting videos, doug.
Thanks for renewing the links.
A CarFree buddy recommended this camera. He has several.
This one is affordable and gets very good reviews on amazon, too.
No personal experience with this system, though.

TCL® SVC-200 SVC200 Mini Sport Waterproof DV Digital Camera Camcorder Car DVR for Outdoor Action Surveillance FHD1920X1080 Optical Glass + FREE All Accessories
tclsvc200
Review Here
Amazon Page Here

Bicycle Austin forum

#1 2013-11-28 10:58:43

Get a bike cam for your and others' safety

#2 2013-11-28 11:26:43

Re: Get a bike cam for your and others' safety

#3 2013-11-28 12:11:34

Re: Get a bike cam for your and others' safety

#4 2013-11-28 13:14:41

Re: Get a bike cam for your and others' safety

#5 2013-11-28 14:09:36

Re: Get a bike cam for your and others' safety

#6 2013-11-28 16:53:54

Re: Get a bike cam for your and others' safety

#7 2013-11-28 19:28:50

Re: Get a bike cam for your and others' safety

#8 2013-11-28 19:49:18

Re: Get a bike cam for your and others' safety

#9 2013-11-28 21:11:12

Re: Get a bike cam for your and others' safety

#10 2013-11-29 13:08:24

Re: Get a bike cam for your and others' safety

#11 2013-11-29 13:53:54

Re: Get a bike cam for your and others' safety

#12 2013-11-30 11:12:40

Re: Get a bike cam for your and others' safety

#13 2013-11-30 11:56:31

Re: Get a bike cam for your and others' safety

#14 2013-11-30 21:00:22

Re: Get a bike cam for your and others' safety

#15 2013-11-30 22:20:21

Re: Get a bike cam for your and others' safety

#16 2013-11-30 23:26:09

Re: Get a bike cam for your and others' safety

#17 2013-12-01 09:09:16

Re: Get a bike cam for your and others' safety

#18 2013-12-01 21:36:08

Re: Get a bike cam for your and others' safety

#19 2013-12-02 01:13:11

Re: Get a bike cam for your and others' safety

#20 2013-12-03 21:06:32

Re: Get a bike cam for your and others' safety

#21 2013-12-04 13:03:37

Re: Get a bike cam for your and others' safety

Board footer