Are drivers fitting dash-cams to catch naughty cyclists?

every car sold should have a black box to monitor acceleration, speeds, phone calls made in the car etc. it should also have a camera watching the road, and another watching the driver.

every bicycle sold should have a bell, and front and back light fitted, reflectors on the pedals (or spd pedals should be made of reflective metal/material). these are all highway code requirements and a bike should not be sold without them because it allows idiots on bikes (not REAL cyclists) free on the road to give us all a bad name and kill themselves.

all you need then is a live stream and a z list compere, and you've practically got running man as a reality

Hi Road.cc

Well done for exacerbating the tension between cyclists & drivers by continuing the Independent's sensationalism with your ridiculous headline.

The only time I think I would use a camera is when there is that nude bike ride in town

oozaveared - I recall that some police cars were (and probably still are) fitted with two speedometers - a normal one and a more accurate one which moved a lot more slowly. They would follow a driver for 2/10ths of a mile to get an accurate reading.

They still count as independent evidence.

All sounds fair enough. Hopefully it'll get a few of the idiot cyclists out there to tone it down a bit, and stop giving the rest of us a bad name.

When riding through my city, Copenhagen, I use a sport cam primarily to shows friends and family the cycling infrastructure for my commute or on 'fun rides' with my recumbent or velomobile.

Occasionally when reviewing the footage, I catch things I would not have normally seen. I treat it like an extra pair of eyes, so that I can improve my future riding.

Designed specifically for cyclists the HD camera & tail-light combo will record what goes on behind cyclists to look out for their most vulnerable spot. Fly6 will be available through Kickstarter next week. For more info check out www.fly6.com where cyclists already posting crazy stuff using Fly6.

When motorists become aware they will be recorded, they will start behaving themselves because there will be clear HD footage of the incident.

Hopefully you don't need the camera and just use it as a tail-light but if something ever happens, it will be recorded!

Why aren't these statutory, GPS enabled and (relatively) tamper-proof like black boxes in aircraft yet?

Are Question Headlines Justified when you Know The Answer To The Question Is No?

Not sure why they are bothering - just be like Clarkson and use your handheld mobile to photograph/video when you're driving.

This is utter rubbish and reveals the two mindsets. Cyclists seem to have adopted head cams to video others transgressing.

Drivers have adopted them for protection and defence.

Two main events have caused this. 1) The crash for cash scam and 2) The most important, careless driving by fixed penalty. We are advising all drivers to fit them now. If it wasn't careless before, how does FP suddenly make it so? FPs had never ever been used nor were they intended for subjective issues. Careless driving on the subjective whim of a PC with the usual coercive offers of no points providing we accept the charge & hand over cash to some firm running dishonest courses?

So film everything and your recorded comments prior to and immediately after the event are very good evidence as is any conversations with police.

But never accept these tickets. Make the police prove it every time and make this type of FP an utter failure.
Where does the Indy get its ideas?

Given the reluctance we've just read about for the CPS to prosecute the murderous attempts of the moped rider all caught on camera will there be a specialist department set up to deal with the hours of footage that will no doubt swamp them and can they be arsed to act anyway?

My own experiences have left me in little doubt that the roads are one of the last bastions of utter lawlessness in the UK with a wild west approach of every man for himself.

Cameras should be a permanent fixture in every car with tamper proof recording accessible in the event of 'an accident' or as I like to call them, a completely avoidable incident for want of common sense, decency and patience.

Have to laugh at cams being bought to monitor the cyclists, as ever the twigs are focused on and victimised whilst the great boughs come crashing down doing the real damage completely unchecked.

How will the CPS deal with the inevitable challenges to so called evidence anyway, the legal companies specialising in keeping the nutters out there on the road will present such an obstacle that the CPS will no doubt throw the case due to the likely drawn out cost stating it's 'not in the public interest' or similar.

Result = the roads stay filled with lethal people freshly reminded that they can do pretty much whatever they want.

Really, really poor example of journalism, Road.cc. The kernel of truth in your article lie in the third and fourth paragraphs. Insurance and liability for accidents is often challenged in court, where if one cannot provide supporting evidence, then you're often out of luck.

Besides, the chances of using on-dash cameras to prosecute cyclists has a fatal flaw; how can you identify one pair of black lycra-clad buttocks from another in a line up?

Ref cam footage, a precedence has been set, any good solicitor will now get it thrown out.. And as we have no plates wear helmets and shades etc you prove it is '?' Whoever on grainy footage, Christ you can try and kick someone off a bike with a number plate on your back and they aren't interested so numpty cyclists have nothing to worry about at all. Annoyingly.

Q has to be asked though about the old bill that are wearing shoulder cams that are the same cams as most cyclists use. The police are giving people lots of ammo to throw back at them.... Silly silly plod.

Car cams they can fill their boots, because I will use it against them if they drive like twats.

Works both ways.

Betteridge's law in action, Road.cc?

"Lack of independent witnesses"?
Odd that; otoh, a polis speedometer is taken as a witness when they want to bust you for footing it along the road. Strange are the ways of the Law.

They'll have footage of a lot more law breaking motorists than law breaking cyclists.

No problems with cameras in cars. I managed to get seriously fed up with serial cash-for-crash scam artists/solicitors, and their lousy attempts to phish for information. Drivers are getting fed up as well, and it's worth the trade off for the cost of the camera against protecting their no claims discount.

No problem with being filmed either, as long as I get royalties if it's used it as a instructional video for aware, defensive riding.

Make 'em compulsory? Now there's a thought.

"Hello hello hello. Driving licence, insurance documents and dashcam hard drive please."

More cameras are good. Thinly of the joy, you've just been wiped out by a car, you pick yourself up and hear the shout from behind " that was outrageous mate, I've got it on video....."

Bring it on!

I use a camera, and there is one thing drivers will learn. They record their own behaviour as well as everyone elses, and if they are crap drivers they will incriminate themselves. Remember Richard Nixon?

For that reason I would love to see every motorist compelled to carry a camera.

It's the fucking Daily Mailism in people today. The "red light jumping is breaking the law!" moaners are the same jobsworths who won't serve you an egg mcmuffin at 11.05am but think making a short phone call while driving is okay.

Look at pedestrians - they shouldn't be crossing the streets away from crossings or when the man is red, but they do! So, where's the campaign against them?

As for cameras, I'd use a camera to protect myself against dangerous driving, not so I can report them to the teacher like we're back in primary school.

It's a good thing surely?

The cameras will record any poor road use, irrespective of who is doing it...even if that person be the driver of the car with a camera in, thus promoting sensible driving, hurrah!

These cameras mostly seem to be of use in civil claims.

Unfortunately, a lot of the aggression and bad driving doesn't result in a financial loss (close pases, verbal abuse, punching/kicking) so they aren't that useful unless the police prosecute on video evidence, which they don't appear to do.

Hence the youtube shaming...

Well.. road.cc took the Independents bait, hook, line, and sinker!

Strange as it may seem, motorists have more problems with other motorists than they have with cyclists. The cams are to catch ALL naughty road users.

They're a good thing, believe it or not. If everyone knows they're being watched, they'll be less likely to drive like morons, which can only be a good thing for cyclists.

But, you know.. don't let that get in the way of sensationalism. I think I'll stop visiting this site now.