Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

OPINION

Should all cyclists use action cameras? Have your say

Avatar
One reader says it’s a moral duty to help protect fellow riders by bringing law-breaking drivers to justice. What do you think?

When I introduced myself as road.cc’s community editor a couple of weeks ago, I mentioned that one of the things the role involves is writing regular articles about broader issues related to cycling that go beyond a typical news story – and the first of those, sparked by a recent discussion thread, asks whether all cyclists should use action cameras? It’s an issue that from a personal point of view came into sharper focus a couple of weekends ago when a friend was knocked off his bike twice by the same driver in a matter of minutes – but with no video proof of what the motorist had done, landed himself with a caution for criminal damage.

We’d had a pleasant afternoon at the football, and after a swift pint following the match went our separate ways, me on foot, he on his bike. The following morning, he phoned me to tell me what had happened.

He was moving off from traffic lights to cross the South Circular Road in London, and since he was going straight on, had positioned himself in the middle of the three lanes, when his rear wheel was clipped by an Uber driver, sending him flying. The driver then berated him, insisting – incorrectly, of course – that he should have been riding in the gutter to the left.

With the driver continuing to insist he’d done nothing wrong, my friend, who pointed out that since he was going straight on he was in the correct lane, was unsurprisingly getting a bit steamed up and in his frustration kicked out at the car, knocking off the front number plate, before getting back on his bike and heading off.

A short time later, the same driver, who presumably had called the police in the meantime, pulled across my friend and knocked him off his bike again, before getting out of his car and putting him – still on the ground and somewhat dazed – in a chokehold. Moments later, a load of police turned up.

Despite my friend telling them what happened, the officers sided with the driver, and gave my friend – who had no witnesses to the first incident, and no evidence of the driver knocking him from his bike – a caution.

While I’m not condoning kicking out at the vehicle, it’s an understandable reaction in the circumstances, but it struck me as a clear example of one of those cases where video footage would have made all the difference – and could well have resulted in action being taken not against the cyclist, but against the motorist.

And it resonated with the piece I’d already been planning to write on the subject, based on readers’ comments to a news article that I posted last month in which Detective Chief Superintendent Andy Cox of Lincolnshire Police urged cyclists to use cameras to catch law-breaking drivers, saying that “the police can’t be everywhere all the time, but the public can be.”

> Highway Code changes: video submissions made to police rise as cyclists urged to report law-breaking drivers

That article reported how police had seen a rise in submissions of video evidence of poor driving following the changes to the Highway Code earlier this year.

One comment to the article in particular caught our eye, from road.cc reader Fignon’s Ghost, who argued that all cyclists have a moral obligation to use cameras and help make the roads safer for their follow riders. They wrote:

It should be read that ALL road cyclists have a responsibility to bring those rule breakers to account.
By doing so, you could be saving the life of a fellow cyclist.
If we cannot hold motorists to account for the terrible consequences their illegal driving has then we may as well stay on our paddleboards.
Your camera footage could mean the difference:
In a guilty verdict.
A criminal conviction.
The payment of personal injury compensation.
The mindset change of ALL those drivers out there who will have to face the fact their actions will no longer only have consequences for OTHER road users.

It's essential that we help our underfunded road traffic police and put forward evidence to arrest irresponsible driving.

If it's not today. It could be you on that future ride that succumbs to that moment of breathtaking motoring ignorance. It could be you...

Road cyclist. It's not about weight, cost or tedium.
That's why YOU always wear a camera. Front and back!

Unsurprisingly, the comment sparked a debate, with hawkinspeter, for example, saying it would be better if motorists were encouraged to use dashcams.

It'd be better if the onus was on drivers to run dashcams and submit evidence. Car dashcams are cheaper as they don't need a big internal battery, they don't need to be waterproof and weight is much less of an issue.

In reply to that comments, AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

I do wonder how many drivers submit dashcam footage and what level of driving they submit them for. Forgetting actual collisions, there are several YouTube channels who release weekly videos filled with many examples of bad driving (both from Cammer and subject) and not one indicates whether it was submitted. 

However WMP [West Midlands Police] sent me an email on Wednesday asking me for a resubmission over a mistake on my original form and it was above 1,850 submissions this year. I can't believe that is all from cyclists (although 15 of those would be mine). 

And jh2727 pointed out that it appears it is cyclists who are more likely than drivers to submit actual examples of offences being committed (we suspect in part that may be because, being unprotected by a vehicle’s body, cyclists’ perception of the danger they have been subjected to is higher). He write:

There was a story about this not so long ago. I think the upshot of it was that the police agreed that an offence was committed more often on the videos submitted by cyclists than videos by motorists.

It’s not impossible to envision a future in which all motor vehicles will be equipped with dashcams and other TV systems – many are already standard on fleets of commercial vehicles and those providing transportation services such as buses and coaches, of course (and such footage can and has been used to help convict law-breaking drivers.

But what do you think of the suggestion that all cyclists have a duty – albeit a moral rather than legal one – to use cameras?

One potential effect of that, of course, would be that just through sheer weight of numbers, many more examples of dangerous, as opposed to careless, driving would inevitably be captured – but that could risk overloading the system, with the result that many less serious crimes might go unpunished.

And as a number of readers pointed out, there’s also the issue of consistency in the approach taken by different police forces, some of which are much more proactive than others in enforcing the law and ensuring that drivers who break it are punished – although as IanMSpencer wrote, one potential solution to that might be to take the matter out of the hands of individual forces, and act upon such footage centrally.

I don't see why there can't be a national department for dealing with these, with a clear set of standards, which could be published so we know not to waste our or their time (or get to argue about the criteria). A specialist team could rattle through them, filtering out exceptions like likely repeat offenders for special local police treatment.

Certainly it’s an interesting idea, and as the articles published in our Near Miss of the Day series, now approaching 800 submissions, show, the issue of drivers putting cyclists in danger is an ever-present problem.

Let us know your thoughts on the issue in the comments below.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

119 comments

Avatar
tigersnapper replied to sapperadam | 2 years ago
2 likes

A lot of new cars already have the cameras built in.  I have a reversing camera and there is also a camera at the top of the windscreen that is used for lane keeping etc.  As more new cars have these safety features included they will also have the cameras.  They then just need to be attached to a recording device which is surely not massively costly in this day and age - most of the circuitry / software should already exist.

Avatar
Argos74 | 2 years ago
2 likes

I bought a cheap camera from Aldi last year, maybe the year before, and it's been sitting in it's box ever since. Given the brutal left hook I saw a few weeks ago -  which was a 6-12 inches from doing something very nasty to the rider in front of me - I'm minded to read the damn instructions, fit it to the handlebars and give it a go. I've held off on it so far on the grounds that it might incline me to be a bit of an asshat, but it contributes to getting MrLeftHook off the road - Fignon's Ghost's comments being very relevant here - it's worthwhile.

But the primary use would be for putting everything down on some dodgy singletrack, and reviewing the footage for [cough] posterity.

Avatar
ashen | 2 years ago
2 likes

The main problem for me regarding running cameras is that they are all either expensive or rubbish (or both)! I'd run a go pro if they did one with 4+ hr battery life - as it is, I run a chillitech bullet cam but the footage is awful ☹️.

Avatar
NOtotheEU replied to ashen | 2 years ago
1 like

ashen wrote:

The main problem for me regarding running cameras is that they are all either expensive or rubbish (or both)! I'd run a go pro if they did one with 4+ hr battery life - as it is, I run a chillitech bullet cam but the footage is awful ☹️.

I run Drift Ghost XL's front and rear. The quality is good if not as good as a GoPro but the batteries last 9 hours, they are waterproof, they are linked by wifi so the front one controls both and the quick release mounts are miles better than GoPro types. Unfortunately they cost me £130 each but it was money well spent. 

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to ashen | 2 years ago
1 like

ashen wrote:

The main problem for me regarding running cameras is that they are all either expensive or rubbish (or both)! I'd run a go pro if they did one with 4+ hr battery life - as it is, I run a chillitech bullet cam but the footage is awful ☹️.

My GoPro Hero 7 White has a fairly poor battery life of two hours, but that covers my 80-odd minute commute, for longer rides I either carry the charger cable if I'm visiting someone and can plug it in at theirs or connect it to a £30 powerbank that fits in my frame bag and at least trebles the recording time (that's on the commuter, on my road or mountain bikes I slip the powerbank, which is no bigger and not much heavier than a mobile phone, into my jersey pocket and charge up at coffee stops).

Avatar
EddyBerckx | 2 years ago
1 like

QUESTION: front or back?

You can choose only one...

Avatar
Sriracha replied to EddyBerckx | 2 years ago
2 likes

Does a 360 degree camera count, like Vine? (Well, a 4π steradian camera, but marketing)

Avatar
zideriup replied to Sriracha | 2 years ago
3 likes

I've personally thought about getting a 360 camera after reading a case years ago where a driver was NFA'd after a road rage incident because the driver claimed, in a his-word-against-mine-type thing, that a cyclist was making hand gestures which 'provoked' and somehow excused the subsequent red mist and their driving into said cyclist...

With a well-positioned 360 you get (mostly) everything: View from the front, rear and sides. It also helps track arm movements, for cases where a driver might falsely claim that you weren't indicating, as well as head movements for cases where a driver might falsely claim that you 'pulled out without even looking'.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to EddyBerckx | 2 years ago
0 likes

EddyBerckx wrote:

QUESTION: front or back?

You can choose only one...

Tricky... I'd choose front as that seems to provide the most salient footage for most of my submissions, but the rear is more convenient and cheaper.

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to hawkinspeter | 2 years ago
1 like

Although with the rear, you would be able to see how close some of those drivers have been to you which might be more off-putting for cyclists. But I do front and been more using Helmet Cam recently.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 2 years ago
2 likes

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

Although with the rear, you would be able to see how close some of those drivers have been to you which might be more off-putting for cyclists. But I do front and been more using Helmet Cam recently.

I've had close passes that looked a lot worse from the rear than the front, so I prefer front and rear cameras fitted to the bike. Sometimes the rear will get a better view of the number plate, especially if the driver has been behind you for a while.

Avatar
Eton Rifle replied to hawkinspeter | 2 years ago
3 likes

I had a close pass from a twat in a van recently, where I was headed into the sun and the front camera entirely failed to pick up the rear numberplate, due to it being in the shade. Rear camera picked it up a treat and police action taken. Run both, if you can.

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to hawkinspeter | 2 years ago
0 likes

I'm just answering a "one or the other" question. The main point I was making was you know when you need to review for the front camera ones, you would have to sit and review the rear ones to see if a submission was needed* in most cases and being made aware of how close to death you unknowingly had become might be more off-putting in the long run. 

*Also Martin73 would frown on that. 

Avatar
HoarseMann replied to EddyBerckx | 2 years ago
2 likes

I would say it depends on where you ride.

Rear if you are doing lots of country road miles and being hit from behind is the main concern.
Front if you are mainly city riding and vehicles pulling out on you is the biggest risk.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to EddyBerckx | 2 years ago
1 like

Could we have a drone that follows you like the luggage in Terry Pratchett's Diskworld series?

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to chrisonabike | 2 years ago
1 like

chrisonatrike wrote:

Could we have a drone that follows you like the luggage in Terry Pratchett's Diskworld series?

Already available, there are numerous "follow me" drones that pursue a sensor in your pocket - great for filming skiing or MTB action but with a battery life of around twenty minutes not much use for the commute (and entirely illegal of course).

Avatar
squired | 2 years ago
4 likes

Yes. A couple of years ago my brother was hit by a turning car and ended up with a crushed vertebrae. It just so happened that the driver was an off duty policeman, who said he can't believe he'd done the very thing he'd attended many times in his job.

Guess what - when the police report on the accident came through it described how my brother had turned into the path of the driver and was his fault. This made no sense because he was cycling in a bus lane on a long straight road, but that is what the report said. Thanks to that report a long battle with the insurance company followed.

Had my brother been riding with a camera it wouldn't have prevented the accident, but the whole insurance process would have been far easier and much less stressful.

Given the large number of accidents that are now hit and runs I think a camera is sadly necessary. I certainly always use one, even when my journey is ten minutes or less.

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to squired | 2 years ago
2 likes

TBH it is insurance purposes that most people run dashcams, due to one word against another in most cases, AND the rise in bogus insurance claims. 

Avatar
OnYerBike | 2 years ago
5 likes

I always run a camera when riding by myself (although less likely to when riding with other people). But asvthis article focuses on the moral duty in order to protect others and detect and report driving offences, then I don't see why the moral duty should fall solely on the shoulders of vulnerable road users - as hawkinspeter points out it's much easier to integrate a dashcam with a motor vehicle, and given that motor vehicles remain far more prevalent than bicycles, if every motor vehicle was fitted with a dashcam (and every driver submitted any offences witnesses) then that would seem to be a much more comprehensive system.

I would add one further note of caution, and that is that it doesn't always end with submitting a video: the accused has the right to reject an FPN and argue their case in court, in which case the person who submitted the video might be required to attend. I mention this because I have already had to attend court once this year and have two more court dates already in the diary, and it is frankly a right PITA. Especially given the whole ordeal seemed entirely redundant - the incidents all happened well over a year ago, and so the video footage and statement I made to the Police at the time are most certainly the most reliable evidence compared to my memories of the incidents. But my point is that any moral duty to have a dashcam must be backed up by a willingness to see it through and attend court of required.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to OnYerBike | 2 years ago
2 likes

Another benefit of fitting dashcams to motor vehicles is that insurance claims can be more quickly resolved if there's decent footage, so it makes a good incentive for insurance companies to encourage their use through lower premiums.

Avatar
Bucks Cycle Cammer replied to hawkinspeter | 2 years ago
2 likes

Indeed. In my case, I have an incident going straight through a no-fault process without even touching my own insurer or excess thanks to my dashcam.

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to OnYerBike | 2 years ago
0 likes

OnYerBike wrote:

I mention this because I have already had to attend court once this year and have two more court dates already in the diary, and it is frankly a right PITA. Especially given the whole ordeal seemed entirely redundant...

Absolutely, I have never attended court and been asked to do anything but describe what happened in the video, which a) is right there in the video and b) was fully described in my statement which, as you say, being written directly after the event is likely far more accurate than my ageing memory eighteen months later. Unfortunately a substantial number of court challenges are simply vexatious, entered in the hope that the witness won't appear and so the case will be dismissed, these people often change their plea to guilty once they discover that the witness is present and there seems to be no sanction for thus deliberately wasting the time of the witness and the court and imposing significant cost on the legal system.

Avatar
HoarseMann | 2 years ago
2 likes

Yes. Sad as it is, I tend to always ride with cameras now and I would recommend that everyone does.

I also think a national department for dealing with camera submissions is a great idea. FPN's for inconsiderate and careless driving ought to be issued by civil enforcement officers, rather than police, in the same way littering penalties are dealt with.

Avatar
nosferatu1001 replied to HoarseMann | 2 years ago
2 likes

Not possible, as they are a criminal offence. You would have to decriminalise them, at that point you lose the endorsement 

Avatar
HoarseMann replied to nosferatu1001 | 2 years ago
1 like

Not possible at the moment, but it would only take a small change in legislation. Councils can issue FPN's for parking, or driving in a bus lane, it's not a massive leap to extend this to other traffic law violations. It wouldn't need to be decriminalised and points could still be accrued.

Avatar
NOtotheEU | 2 years ago
0 likes

YES, YES, YES! 

In the very worst case it will inform the Police what happened after they scrape your dead body off the tarmac and give your loved ones some information on the cause of your demise.

On a day to day basis it will make 'some' drivers a little more careful around cyclists and other vulnerable road users, possibly save one or more of them from injury or death in the future and also provide evidence for any insurance claim.

Obviously cyclists shouldn't be in such a bad situation that we have to spend a lot of money on camera equipment and waste hours watching/reporting/charging etc. but until driver training improves, dangerous driving becomes as socially unacceptable as drink driving and the justice system takes it seriously then that's where we are.

Avatar
Gennysis | 2 years ago
3 likes

I run front and rear cameras in my car and I run front and rear cameras on my bike.

If someone hits you and it was their fault, they are likely  to lie and blame you.

Regrettable but true.

Avatar
Mungecrundle | 2 years ago
7 likes

There are 2 pieces of cycle safety equipment that I would turn back for if I got to the end of my road and realised I had forgotten. My gloves and my camera(s).

I have not had anything worth posting cycle wise for at least 6 months https://youtu.be/QLN8n9sP1G8 but I certainly have some footage from before including a hit and run https://youtu.be/cLF93a5w7ko and some malign driving https://youtu.be/nS1Rnwjzdl4 that got reported and actioned.

I am aware of the criticism that having a camera might make you go looking for trouble but I also run cameras in my cars and in 10 years of driving I really have nothing worthy of comment.

Avatar
Bucks Cycle Cammer replied to Mungecrundle | 2 years ago
1 like

Mungecrundle wrote:

I am aware of the criticism that having a camera might make you go looking for trouble

Which is completely perverse, since a cyclist will always come off worst in any collision; it's not at all in our interest to go looking for it.

Pages

Latest Comments