# I dont think I'll win anyone over



## downfader (13 Feb 2011)

Hmm.. I've been trying to pitch in on the thread over on the RAC forums over helmetcams:

http://www.rac.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=12342

Some are quite level headed in some ways, but then one or two just seem to have this negative attitude towards us. I had hoped to convey why cyclists felt the need to use cameras, and how this all really shouldnt be happening, but just as with youtube theres always some wiseguy who picks the cyclists behaviour to peices rather than talking about the driving.

Frankly I'm left with the feeling that they're not concerned with any of the safety issues. Somehow the cyclist put themselves that position and therefore it is down to the cyclist to correct the problem


----------



## numbnuts (13 Feb 2011)

there are good and bad in both camps


----------



## dellzeqq (13 Feb 2011)

DF - it's a self-selecting sample of nitwits. Lobotomies come free with RAC membership. And nothing, but nothing is going to stop cyclists carrying cameras if they feel the need


----------



## jonesy (13 Feb 2011)

I'm surprised cameras haven't yet taken off for use in cars. Fitting would be easier, you could have easily have a constantly recorded 20 minute loop of the front and rear views, alongside data from the vehicle management system, which would be very helpful in the event of an accident. If you aren't at fault...


----------



## downfader (13 Feb 2011)

numbnuts said:


> there are good and bad in both camps



Exactly!



dellzeqq said:


> DF - it's a self-selecting sample of nitwits. Lobotomies come free with RAC membership. And nothing, but nothing is going to stop cyclists carrying cameras if they feel the need



Thats the worrying thing, a fair few of them are actually pretty knowledgable. They could, and possibly have, said the same about cycle forums.



jonesy said:


> I'm surprised cameras haven't yet taken off for use in cars. Fitting would be easier, you could have easily have a constantly recorded 20 minute loop of the front and rear views, alongside data from the vehicle management system, which would be very helpful in the event of an accident. If you aren't at fault...




Exactly. And the systems are more intricate - GPS mapping and speed recording, video, audio that works. No need to worry about the camera getting wet as theres always the wipers... It must be a massive help for the insurers. 

EDIT: and apparantly I pick and choose what sections of the highway code I listen to.  I think its time to unsubscribe from the forum notifications


----------



## dellzeqq (13 Feb 2011)

downfader said:


> Thats the worrying thing, a fair few of them are *actually pretty knowledgable*. They could, and possibly have, said the same about cycle forums.


I hadn't noticed!


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Feb 2011)

jonesy said:


> I'm surprised cameras haven't yet taken off for use in cars. Fitting would be easier, you could have easily have a constantly recorded 20 minute loop of the front and rear views, alongside data from the vehicle management system, which would be very helpful in the event of an accident. If you aren't at fault...



This is another reason why the use of cameras are unpopular with drivers, as they stop bad driving. Fleet users are starting to realise this and utilise the facility to review driver speeds, activities and standards.

To quote one firm:



> These fleet management techniques can now be integrated into one total fleet management system. These fleet management systems also incorporate the use of vehicle cameras, which provide essential and instant feedback to fleet managers, the likes of which have never been available before. Vehicle cameras in this instance provide live video transmission, which can be sent back to a base station in the event of an emergency ensuring that any incidents can be resolved in a time effective manner and with the use of accurate information. These total fleet management solutions with the use of live vehicle tracking and vehicle cameras provide real and effective fleet management solutions and can be used for taxi fleets, haulage fleets, delivery fleets, and plant machinery or in any situation where fleet vehicles are in constant use.


----------



## downfader (13 Feb 2011)

Cunobelin said:


> This is another reason why the use of cameras are unpopular with drivers, as they stop bad driving. Fleet users are starting to realise this and utilise the facility to review driver speeds, activities and standards.
> 
> To quote one firm:




I know of one local bus firm and two local hauliers who have cams as it has helped with bogus insurance claims. Another great reason to use them imo.


----------



## domd1979 (14 Feb 2011)

Most of big companies have both internal and external cameras as standard on new buses to protect them from duff insurance claims. Also know of another firm that uses a monitoring system on it's bus fleet that shows driver green/amber/red light according to their standard of driving - and data sent back for the gaffer to login and have a look at. Well driven should be in the green all the while, and drivers get bonus for 100% green. Accidents have dropped.


----------



## DTD (14 Feb 2011)

downfader said:


> I know of one local bus firm and two local hauliers who have cams as it has helped with bogus insurance claims. Another great reason to use them imo.



Most new buses are being fitted with cctv cameras (some of which record what the driver sees) – and I've been told that insurance claims and passengers claiming the bus didn't stop etc. are two of the most useful (for the bus companies) reasons why.


----------



## Bman (14 Feb 2011)

jonesy said:


> I'm surprised cameras haven't yet taken off for use in cars. Fitting would be easier, you could have easily have a constantly recorded 20 minute loop of the front and rear views, alongside data from the vehicle management system, which would be very helpful in the event of an accident. *If you aren't at fault...*




..and thats the problem.


----------



## ComedyPilot (14 Feb 2011)

I am registered and ready to wade in


----------



## Dan B (14 Feb 2011)

reiver said:


> They should be compulsory. Not only would it make the average driver concentrate more, it would also stop the Clarkson type lunatic from treating the road as a race track. Would the idiot in the Range Rover who was overtaking everyone on the wrong side of the double white while crossing Soutra on Saturday night be doing so if she/he had a fixed camera recording their journey?




Once they come down in price a bit and become generally more "fit and forget", I would hope that insurance companies will start pricing "do you have cameras" into their premiums the same way as they do for an immobiliser or an advanced driving course. Most people are quite happy to complain about "privacy" and "civil liberties" when there's basically no benefit to them of fitting the device, but offer them an incentive (see e.g. supermarket loyalty cards) and suddenly they forget they used to have principles about the point.


----------



## downfader (14 Feb 2011)

ComedyPilot said:


> I am registered and ready to wade in




Honestly I dont think its worth it, they struggle to grasp the idea that the vehicle in front has priority, even if its a cyclist.


----------



## ufkacbln (14 Feb 2011)

We used to have a "you have no rights as you don't pay road tax" idiot at work, who had the same attitudes about cyclists getting out of the way as they had no "rights", and would come off worse.

One lunchtime I simply queried this with a theory... 

I drive a large 4X4 which is in band H - Does that mean that I have more "right" to the road than his small band B car, especially given that he would come off worst in an accident. Should he be getting out of my way when I drive?

Apparently not!


----------



## downfader (15 Feb 2011)

Cunobelin said:


> We used to have a "you have no rights as you don't pay road tax" idiot at work, who had the same attitudes about cyclists getting out of the way as they had no "rights", and would come off worse.
> 
> One lunchtime I simply queried this with a theory...
> 
> ...



I have a mate that drives LGVs. Last time someone said similar to me in person I said the same, but with LGV instead of 4x4.

Theres a similar load of gumf going on the Daily Echo site after a horse rider died the other day. Muppets coming out saying "you dont pay tax, dont belong on the road, should insured..." 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/8853239.Horse_rider_s_road_safety_call/


----------



## stowie (16 Feb 2011)

Cunobelin said:


> We used to have a "you have no rights as you don't pay road tax" idiot at work, who had the same attitudes about cyclists getting out of the way as they had no "rights", and would come off worse.
> 
> One lunchtime I simply queried this with a theory...
> 
> ...



I have wondered a similar thing with regards to contributory negligence, which has been mentioned in rulings by judging in respect to cyclists not wearing helmets. 

One wonders whether contributory negligence could also be apportioned to the victim of a car accident who was driving a car with less than the maximum safety ratings? After all, the purchase of the car was their decision and they should have been aware of the safety ratings of the car they bought?


----------



## mumbo jumbo (21 Feb 2011)

reiver said:


> They should be compulsory. Not only would it make the average driver concentrate more, it would also stop the Clarkson type lunatic from treating the road as a race track. Would the idiot in the Range Rover who was overtaking everyone on the wrong side of the double white while crossing Soutra on Saturday night be doing so if she/he had a fixed camera recording their journey?
> 
> The biggest saftey feature in any vehicle is the drivers brain, getting the driver to engage it is more important than all the high tech safety features in the world.


A colleague of mine (ex cyclist, now Range Rover driver, but a level-headed type) recently said that the best safety innovation you could introduce into cars would be a 6 inch spike sticking out of the steering wheel. That's how to engage a driver's brain - personal consequences. I'm not endorsing this as an idea in practice. But it makes the point I think!


----------



## snorri (22 Feb 2011)

reiver said:


> There is someone who wants to get rid of speed limits. You can't make this stuff up.


No need to make it up, this topic has been covered ad nauseam on the Safespeed forum.


----------



## downfader (22 Feb 2011)

reiver said:


> Back to where this thread come from on the RAC forum. There is someone who wants to get rid of speed limits. You can't make this stuff up. read for yourself LINK




Yeah no suprise to me either. You expect it from some quarters of society, unfortunately they never take into account:

- to increase speed you need to increase stopping distance, this effectively means less vehicles can use said peice of road as they are more spaced out
- upon impact the damage will be more severe to driver and vehicle, higher likelyhood of death
- the overall average journey times will not usually be that affected for mid to long journeys (eg 20-60 miles distance). We're talking minutes, not hours less, sometimes even seconds once cornering and braking is taken into account

IMVHO most drivers just do not have the skills to drive at 60, let alone above. Theres a good reason why F1 drivers can do the things they do at such high speed - the training.


----------



## Chilternrides (25 Feb 2011)

Well for what it's worth Downfader, I though the conversation you had with most of the commentators on there was very well reasoned and presented, as in most cases were their replies.

People will always have differing views, but often those views are knee-jerk rather than reasoned, and from what I read on there a number of the comments were reasoned and reasonable, even if not at times in full agreement with you.

Thanks for representing the non-militants among us - a chance for other road users to see that we are not always foaming at the mouth and expecting it all our won way. Well done.


----------



## Riding in Circles (26 Feb 2011)

reiver said:


> Back to where this thread come from on the RAC forum. There is someone who wants to get rid of speed limits. You can't make this stuff up. read for yourself LINK



Pretty scary stuff, the reasoning seems to be that it is ok if innocent people are killed or maimed as it would be the drivers responsibility.


----------

