Rise of cycle cams debated on This Morning

crikey wrote:

'The true measure of a man is what he would do if he knew he would never be caught'

Lord Kelvin.

Catch them.
Shame them.

People have fallen for the idea that they exist and they are therefore entitled to do as they wish unless they are caught at it. Catching, naming and shaming is an antidote to this.

The converse is a society where we are all free to do as we please and sod the rest unless there happens to be a policeman nearby.

Moral fibre, morals in general seem to be an anachronism and if people cannot police their own behaviour, we must do so.

Very eloquently put crikey, and sadly very true in my experience.

I'm not defending her at all so I'm not an apologist.

I agree that the roads would be safer for everyone if everybody thought they were under constant surveillance, but the improved safety doesn't justify the means for me. You have no evidence that naming and shaming these people will "save a few lives" you are making a pretty bold assumption there. Even if you are right though I wouldn't support widespread use of this technique. That's not to say I don't value lives, I really do. The recent deaths are a tragedy and it's awful that there are still so many cycling deaths in our capital. But I do value life, and I value the freedom we have in our lives in our society. Freedom from everybody filming, judging and exposing us is worth too much to sacrifice lightly. Let's please not turn into a tattletale society.

Crikey - I'm sure people have been defending her actions but I hope you're not grouping me with them. I'm not trying to justify eating cereal whilst driving, I think I've said as much.

Jitensha Oni - Yes, I said she was at lights, I was going from memory of seeing the video a few hours before and I was wrong. She was in a line of traffic approaching a junction. It wasn't really the crux of my argument but you are right.
I think you are making assumptions about what this driver is going to do, it's quite possible that she is planning to put the bowl down on the passenger seat before pulling out at the junction (she's still not at the front during this video footage). I'm not assuming she is going to do that, just demonstrating that we don't actually know. Again let me clarify I'm not saying that she should be eating it whilst moving slowly, or even whilst stationary. I'm not defending or excusing her. I'm saying that I think this has been blown out of proportion and she didn't deserve all the consequences she got: a verbal telling off, the video being uploaded to YouTube and being sent to the police.
But my point is not limited to that video, it is more general. You may well be right about why many cyclists are riding with cameras, though I suspect there are also other reasons. I have nothing against people doing so, it seems quite sensible though I personally prefer not to myself. I don't suggest that they are only used by "busybodies", nor I have I used that name myself until now. I disagree that this is "the only recourse a cyclist has". I think it's fine to use them to highlight a problem, in which case drivers can be blurred out. I think it's fine to use them as evidence of dangerous driving. Of course it's sensible to use footage as evidence in the case of a collision. But my point still stands that I think there is a line that shouldn't be crossed lightly into using footage to name and shame drivers for relatively minor offenses. I personally wouldn't choose to cross that line and I think it's a mistake if many of us cyclists do cross it.

ron611087 wrote:

What gives you anonymity is not whether you are being recorded or not, it's what you are doing when you are being recorded. I bet I'm one of the many nameless background faces on tourists snaps around the capital. Neither they nor I care, and I remain anonymous.

As I said to atgni, it's a question of what society we want to live in. I have no desire for everybody to be filming everyone else with the intention of reporting even a minor wrong doing. For anybody else not comfortable with that future then it is a hypocrisy to support the naming and shaming of drivers (or cyclists, or pedestrians) for minor infringements.

ron611087 wrote:

In a word yes.

A few years ago a motorist gave me a close pass. When I caught up at the lights I saw why. He had a burger in in hand, Chips on his lap and a drink in the cup holder. He was also completely oblivious to me peering through his window, just as he was oblivious to me when he executed his dangerous pass. It wasn't a near miss, it was a near hit.

The woman in the video was sat at a red light whilst eating her cereal. I'm not suggesting it's a sensible thing to do. I'm not suggesting it's totally safe. But it's a whole different thing to driving along whist eating the cereal, and there is zero evidence of her doing that.

We've all had near misses (or near hits if you prefer) and some of them in my opinion justify being reported. That doesn't mean we should report everything just in case. I think there should be some common sense here.

John Mitchell wrote:

The woman in the video was sat at a red light whilst eating her cereal. I'm not suggesting it's a sensible thing to do. I'm not suggesting it's totally safe. But it's a whole different thing to driving along whist eating the cereal, and there is zero evidence of her doing that.

Watch the video. Balancing a bowl of cereal in one hand and steering with the other. Where do you think her attention was? Driving?

John Mitchell wrote:

I think there should be some common sense here.

Common sense is that collection of prejudices we have accumulated by the age of 18 - Albert Einstein.
You're progressing some way to proving his point.

ron611087 wrote:

Watch the video. Balancing a bowl of cereal in one hand and steering with the other. Where do you think her attention was? Driving?

I stand corrected, she was moving forward a car place with the food in her lap, so no she wasn't stationary. She also wasn't driving along the road in the way the gentleman was in your anecdote, and we have no evidence that she had been or was planning to.

ron611087 wrote:

Common sense is that collection of prejudices we have accumulated by the age of 18 - Albert Einstein.
You're progressing some way to proving his point.

I don't really understand the relevance of this quote or your comment. Yes we are all full of prejudices and biases, it is what makes up our thought patterns. However we can actively work to reduce their impact on how we think. I would say there is a massive bias within the cycling community against car drivers, a kind of 'two wheels good, four wheels bad' mentality. I think it clouds some cyclists' judgement when looking at videos like the one above and leads them to conclusions that they wouldn't reach otherwise. I don't deny that I have biases that will alter my thinking but I really don't know which ones you are referring to.

John Mitchell wrote:

and we have no evidence that she had been

If only there was some footage!

atgni wrote:

If only there was some footage!

touché

John Mitchell wrote:

I stand corrected, she was moving forward a car place with the food in her lap, so no she wasn't stationary. She also wasn't driving along the road in the way the gentleman was in your anecdote, and we have no evidence that she had been or was planning to.

Oh really? I trust the bowl of slopping cereal would magically disappear between where she was filmed and where she was going? If she had no intention of driving with it, why is it in the car? If that's not evidence, what more evidence do you want?

Oh, and by the way, Einstein's quote was exactly in context. He viewed the expression "common sense" as a lazy way of presenting an unproven principle as truth. You're choosing to define your own concept of safety in the same way.

ron611087 wrote:

Oh really? I trust the bowl of slopping cereal would magically disappear between where she was filmed and where she was going? If she had no intention of driving with it, why is it in the car? If that's not evidence, what more evidence do you want?

Oh, and by the way, Einstein's quote was exactly in context. He viewed the expression "common sense" as a lazy way of presenting an unproven principle as truth. You're choosing to define your own concept of safety in the same way.

It's fairly plausible that she was only intending to eat from the bowl whilst stationary or in traffic. It's also plausible that she was eating it regardless and only happened to get caught doing it whilst in traffic. But the only evidence is of her doing it in the video so to assume that she would also be doing it whilst driving near the speed limit is wrong. It is possible, you could argue it is probable, but it's not a given.

When I said we should use common sense I meant that we should give this thought, so it was probably a clumsy term for me to use. What is the unproven principle I am presenting as truth? I thought I had been reasonably clear that it's my opinion that a tattletale society would be a negative change. I've suggested that others may share my view, I've claimed that anybody who does share it should consider what footage should therefore be shared from cycle-cams. I'm unsure what I've erroneously claimed as being a fact. Please clarify your point.

I'm unsure what I've erroneously claimed as being a fact.

You've erroneously claimed that the driver was "waiting at traffic lights". She was waiting to turn onto a dual carriageway from an unsignalled junction. So it would be her decision to pull out while juggling a bowl of cereal, not a traffic signal's. And once on the dual carriageway she would either be negotiating a roundabout in ether direction or making some sharp right angle crossings of shared use paths. Having to monitor your bowl balance, when to put it down and take it up again, the road and path conditions are, I suggest, asking a bit much from any road user.

I see the massive use of cameras with bicycles in the UK as symptomatic of the poor (mostly urban) cycling conditions, just as dashcams are in the Soviet Union. As much as anything else they are a cri de coeur about a real problem, not to be dismissed as the tools of busybodies. Since the authorities do nothing about the general problem, the only recourse a cyclist has is to point the finger at individuals, since the police will sometimes react to that.

jazzdude wrote:

As the police tweet said "anyone is entitled to film in a public place" so if you don't want people to see you doing something, do it at home.

Being legal and being moral are not necessarily the same thing. I am legally entitled to film you in a public place, does that morally entitle me to film you each day on your way to and from work because I like your face? Let's not hide behind the excuse of "we're allowed to" when talking about whether we should do something.

John Mitchell wrote:

... then you should probably also approve of the video recently sold to and published by The Sun of a man taking cocaine on the tube...

Whilst I'm not against the the Sun publishing the cocaine details you're not comparing like for like. Exposing someone who's indulging in self harm is not the same as exposing someone who's putting others at risk.

Anyway, someone who flouts the law in in a public place shouldn't be surprised if (s)he finds the details published in the public domain. There's a degree of Mens Rea here. They knew what they were doing was wrong and in full view of the public but did so anyway.

Tough.

ron611087 wrote:

John Mitchell wrote:

... then you should probably also approve of the video recently sold to and published by The Sun of a man taking cocaine on the tube...

Whilst I'm not against the the Sun publishing the cocaine details you're not comparing like for like. Exposing someone who's indulging in self harm is not the same as exposing someone who's putting others at risk.

Anyway, someone who flouts the law in in a public place shouldn't be surprised if (s)he finds the details published in the public domain. There's a degree of Mens Rea here. They knew what they were doing was wrong and in full view of the public but did so anyway.

Tough.

If we're talking about putting others at risk then how do you feel about naming and shaming cyclists with headphones in? Cyclists who RLJ? Cyclists who speed? Fixie riders with no front brake? Or any other way in which cyclists break road rules, which can certainly be perceived as putting themselves and others at risk?

Yes, when we flout laws (not just talking about on a bike now) we are usually aware that we are doing so. I have no idea how many times I've broken the law, lots. I don't think it makes me immoral or even irresponsible. I can't imagine there's many people who have never broken any. Obviously it's no excuse in a legal sense, and if caught we can all expect consequences, but that doesn't mean we should increase the amount of surveillance.

John Mitchel wrote:

If we're talking about putting others at risk then how do you feel about naming and shaming cyclists with headphones in? Cyclists who RLJ? Cyclists who speed?

How do I feel about cyclists behavior? To be honest I don't give a shit.
A cyclist who cycles like a dick will kill himself. A motorist who drives like a dick will kill me. There's the difference.

ron611087 wrote:

How do I feel about cyclists behavior? To be honest I don't give a shit.
A cyclist who cycles like a dick will kill himself. A motorist who drives like a dick will kill me. There's the difference.

You were previously talking about how anybody breaking a law in the public domain is fair game for this type of policing (ie people with cameras). My question was if that is your honest stance then do you support the idea of naming and shaming cyclists who break traffic laws?

In your last comment you seem to suggest that you only support the public exposure if the action puts someone else's life at risk. OK, so how much do they have to increase your probability of dying to warrant this naming and shaming? That might seem facetious but it's not intended to be. There are a lot of actions that will increase the likelihood of a cyclist dying but where do you set the threshold? If someone is talking on a hands-free phone then they will be more distracted than a driver who isn't, therefore they are increasing the probability that they will kill a cyclist. Obviously it's legal for them to do this but your latest comment suggests that it isn't the law that concerns you. A driver eating a cereal bar will be distracted, but less so than someone eating a bowl of cereal. Both of these drivers are safer than one who is driving recklessly because they are in a rush. Someone driving recklessly may or may not be more of a danger than another driver deliberately buzzing a cyclist.

The defence of "a motorist who drives like a dick will kill me" is obviously an exaggeration, rather it will increase the probability of him killing you. But is somebody eating cereal whilst sat at a light "driving like a dick"?

I don't think it's sensible to group all driving misdemeanors together as being equal. Some of them, if filmed, are deserving of being sent to the police etc. and others aren't. The question is where we draw the line.

John Mitchell wrote:

I think we just need to be consistent here. If you approve of cyclists filming as they ride and then publishing videos of anything they consider to be wrong (ie. not just using their video as evidence in case of a collision) then you should probably also approve of the video recently sold to and published by The Sun of a man taking cocaine on the tube.

The backlash against cycle cams isn't because their footage is being used as evidence after a collision. It's because cyclists are using the footage to name and shame drivers. Personally I am against it, I don't want to live in a society where we all film each other with the threat of exposing any misdemeanor. I understand there is CCTV in a lot of places but I don't see that as an argument of "so we might as well do it too".

I was going to say I somewhat agree with that - using it as evidence for the police and courts is different from making it public.

I think there's something to be said for, if making it public, removing identifying details, as the point should be demonstrating the prevalence of the general behaviour rather than shaming individuals.

Not sure that _is_ why there's a 'backlash' though.

Also, the background is that the police and courts are not always as enthusiastic as they should be about following up some of these things, that's a factor as to why shaming ends up being used instead. There are loads of clips of terrifyingly close and aggressive passes out there, for example, where the police just took no action.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Not sure that _is_ why there's a 'backlash' though.

Also, the background is that the police and courts are not always as enthusiastic as they should be about following up some of these things, that's a factor as to why shaming ends up being used instead. There are loads of clips of terrifyingly close and aggressive passes out there, for example, where the police just took no action.

OK yeah, I agree there are definitely other reasons for this attitude towards cyclists, it would be more accurate to say that in regards to the attitude towards cyclists with cameras, the naming and shaming mini-culture is a contributing factor.

Also I should clarify that I'm not against exposing some of the awful driving, I'm not totally against naming some of the drivers. But there is a scale of seriousness and I think we should be careful not to set the bar at "breaking the highway code".

John Mitchell wrote:

But there is a scale of seriousness and I think we should be careful not to set the bar at "breaking the highway code".

Why not? It a document written by a 3rd party rather than some arbitrary scale we invented.

atgni wrote:

Why not? It a document written by a 3rd party rather than some arbitrary scale we invented.

If you are happy with other road users filming you and submitting footage of any occasion that you break the highway code then yes, for you that would be the right level to set the bar at. Personally I would hate to be in that society. I hate the idea of everybody filming and snitching on everybody else. That's my opinion though, like I said if that's the society you want then I have no issue for you to say this occasion was justified.

John Mitchell wrote:

atgni wrote:

Why not? It a document written by a 3rd party rather than some arbitrary scale we invented.

If you are happy with other road users filming you and submitting footage of any occasion that you break the highway code then yes, for you that would be the right level to set the bar at. Personally I would hate to be in that society. I hate the idea of everybody filming and snitching on everybody else. That's my opinion though, like I said if that's the society you want then I have no issue for you to say this occasion was justified.

So is your chosen arbitrary point is a 'near death incident' how would you define the recommended reporting point?

Is calling 999 for the Police, rather than Fire or Ambulance, snitching too?