helmet cams

anyone know where you can hire em in Melb at all??

Son has a ride day at Kilsyth with Redriders next weekend.. wanna show
him what hes doing

 

I'll take that as a no..

 

There's regular ads for where you can buy them in AMCN if that helps

 

I noted with some (technical) interest that Deal Extreme have a couple
of 'vehicle safety' 'camcorders' on their 'New Arrivals' list today.

<http://dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.21448>
<http://dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.21449>

(One with sound, one without)

They seem to work similar to a cockpit voice recorder on a modern
airliner. Four hours worth of FIFO storage - once the storage card
is full, it starts over-writing the oldest data.

As I said, it's technically intersting, but I cant for the life of
me understand why someone would want to give cops and lawyers such
a gift.

In a conversation earlier today I put it a bit differently. I said
"I suppose it's for those among us who have not sinned to disprove
our claims of never having sinned when we have a lapse and drive/
ride up someone else's arse".


GB

 

I assume you've heard of Oregon.
http://www.amazon.com/Oregon-Scientific-ATC-1000-Action-Camera/dp/B000A7QI5O
Try Oregon on ebay.
MikeH

 

In aus.motorcycles on 19 Mar 2009 20:36:42 +1100

Do you recall the footage linked to a while back of someone filming
themselves getting snotted?

The footage clearly showed the car in the wrong, the driver claimed it
had happened quite differently.

Zebee

 

Oh, OK, the camera is pointing to the front.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

Yes, I do. I see it as a situation that could come horribly
unstuck though. Cops are going to want that tape 'for evidence'.
What else are they going to find on the tape?


GB

 

In aus.motorcycles on 20 Mar 2009 19:01:08 +1100

You pays your money and you takes your chances. If you plan to do
nasty illegal things then turn the tape off and hope that you don't
get snotted.

You don't give them the SD card in the camera, you give them *an* SD
card. Later.

You don't give it to them at the scene, you give it to them the next
day, saying you meant to give it and forgot in the chaos.

Can't see it's that hard.

Of course if you are the kind to do lots of things that will get you
done under the Public Stupidity act then don't use the thing.

Zebee

 

The thing is, the likelyhood of the police to want to collect recordings
as evidence increase in inverse proportion to your ability to have
control over what the police collect as evidence.

Nev..
'07 XB12X
'08 DL1000K8

 

You imbue the average coppa with far to much nouse

 

There are cops we're talking about. Nasty illegal things
aren't necessary. They'd find error in Mary McKillop's ways
if they had a tape to stare at.

Really? That's in interesting approach, but one that Magistrates
are quite wise to. A nicely edited snippet showing someone else's
wrongdoing without context doesn't actually fly.

Airbus tried that with the FDR and CVR in the A320 that they flew
into the forest. No-one believed them then, no-one believes them
now.

Oh, it's not hard, just not likely to fly.

ad hominem much?



GB

 

In aus.motorcycles on 21 Mar 2009 09:25:35 +1100

Ad hominum much?


seems to me that if you are doing things that are illegal enough to
get you done if a copper sees them, then don't run a helmet cam and if
you get snotted live with his word against yours.

Me, I figure that while I do things that are naughty such as
lanesplitting and low level speeding, they aren't bad enough that if
the cops do care about what else they see, I am willing to wear it if
it means the bod who hits me gets done.

Those who feel their riding style doesn't fit that have to make other
choices.

Zebee

 

We use cap cams from time to time and it's a given when people have
their attention draw to the cam being operational the rubbish behaviour
stops , simple easy way of slowing the rampant crowd behaviour and
dickheads

 

That's not actually what 'ad hominem' means.

Yes, yes, debates on usenet are always far more interesting
if the parties involved deliberately ignore the point of the
discussion. Never let the point get in the way of a good
story.

My *specific* point is that naughty things such as lanesplitting
and low level speeding are what is likely to be found on the
'tape' and punished.

Yes yes, it's easier to 'win' a debate if you redirect it.


GB

 

In aus.motorcycles on 21 Mar 2009 10:53:22 +1100

And mine is that the point of the tape is to be used by you when you
need it, and you risk the low level punishment for the high level
payoff.

No one has said they are *compulsory*, so whether you say you have one
is up to you.


Zebee

 

I've seen taxi drivers make the same comment. Point out the
camera in the taxi and the dickheads stop being dickheads
pretty much immediately.

It's called a 'panopticon', invented by a bloke called Jeremy
Bentham back in 1785. He described it as "a new mode of obtaining
power of mind over mind, in a quantity hitherto without example".
Bentham's design was for a prison. His prison was never built,
but many modern-day prisons follow his principles. The reasons
why it works so well are far more important than the manifestation
however. It was Michel Foucault, a French philosopher who got his
private jollies by nailing his dick to the floor, who really
demonstrated just how insidious this form of surveillance is.
It gets into people's heads so that they surveil, and restrain,
themselves. Security people and police love it because it's so
damned effective, but it is also *fundamentally* unethical. It's
a truly fucking awful way of treating (so-called) fellow human
beings.

But I would say that, my thesis is about approaches to dealing
with, and resisting, things like that.

The cap cam is an interesting variation on Bentham's panopticon,
Foucoult's surveillance, Orwell's Big Brother, Clegg's digital
panopticon. The principle of the panopticon is that you can never
be entirely sure whether or not you're under surveillance at
any given point in time, so you must assume that you are, and
you moderate your behaviour accordingly. With the cap cam,
there's the possibility of later reprisal from the head-mounted
panoptic 'gaze', but there's also overt surveillance in the form
of the guy wearing the cap watching what you're doing. Interesting!

I predict a huge rise in the popularity of a baseball caps
with a string of infra-red LEDs mounted across the peak. (Many
digital surveilance cameras can't see past the IR, so all they
see is a shining white blob.)


GB

 

I understand that. My counterpoint is that if the 'tape' exists,
you're unlikely to be able to choose if, when or how it gets
used.

The aviation industry has a strict rule: voice and data recorders
are used to improve safety, and no-one is ever charged or punished
on the basis of outputs from those recorders. The few countries
that don't play by that internationally agreed rule tend to struggle
with getting foreign pilots to fly there, and with an inordinately
high number of circuit breakers that power recorders 'popping'.

There is no such rule in society generally. Police and insurance
companies can and do look for any opportunity to pin people for
stuff or to abrogate their own responsibilities. If all were honest,
it wouldn't be a problem. Look at the guy in today's paper who
did-the-right-thing and dobbed in a copper who drank 4.5 standard
drinks in an hour and drove his kids home in the car straight
afterwards. For his trouble, the 'good citizen' has lost his job
and had the dog squad turn his home over. He happened to pick
a vindictive cop[1]. Let he who has not sinned be the first to
hand over the tape. Look at the young lady who encouraged police
to check her estranged boyfriend's computer for alleged child
porn last month, only to find herself being charged with
bestiality offences after police checked the 'Recycle Bin' and
found a couple of videos detailing *exactly* what she does with
the family beagle in the 'comfort and privacy' of her own home[2].
Sure, not everyone is as thick as that, but I think there's
still a lesson there.

Maybe JL can step in at this point: police powers of search in
the motor vehicle context? IIRC they can do pretty much what they
want, search-wise, with a motor vehicle. It's a little tricky to
have a camera on a bike and not catch the eye of someone looking
for a reason to do you in.


GB

[1] <http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25218828-421,00.html>
[2] <http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0318091dog1.html>

 

In aus.motorcycles on 21 Mar 2009 11:14:59 +1100

This is also called "living in a community" and "not being a
dickhead".

IT's called "having to wear the consequences of your actions".

Now sometimes those consequences are out of proportion, or otherwise
unjust, but that doesn't change what it is.

THere has to be a limit to the community's right to mold people's
behaviour, and places people can be private.

The question is... where and when?

I don't really know.. because I'm a fan of people moderating their
behaviour and doing the right thing, and if being called on it is what
it takes, then call them.

But it's way harder to know what the right thing *is*, and the more
diverse the community, the more difficult the answer.

Zebee

 

Just steering around the legalities for a moment -

Do these things work well or are they more trouble than they are worth?

Have seen the Oregon one on a helmet but I never got to catch up with the
rider to ask him / her their views.

Many times on a ride I see something I would like either a video or a still
of but the whole unpack the conventional camera thing is MTTIW [1].

Any views?

[More Trouble Than Its Worth] - acronyms, like the universe expand forever