Near Miss of the Day 779: A new camera angle...but same response from the police

Just had an idea, thanks to your post above - i am going to resurect my brothers defunct old go-pro and mount it on rear of my bike to see whether it deters close passing motorists  !  

My PassPixi camera sign undoubtedly does - and one works just as well for Mrs H, who doesn't actually have a camera.

Well I'm a skeptic on how much difference that stuff really makes, as you are fundamentally relying on a drivers concious observation to notice something different on your bike, process what it is and react accordingly, which if they were concentrating that hard, SMIDSYs wouldnt be a thing anymore. But alot of driving is handled by your subconscious & reflex, so how does that camera or sign filter through.

Plus I also dont like the idea drivers treat cyclists differently, I mean they blatantly do, but surely the point is they ought to treat all cyclists as camera carrying vigilantes, to use the popular press term, and give us all space regardless.

I'm more skeptical about "I didn't see you" claims.

When there is an incident, not seeing someone has plausibility to the police (or victim) and sounds much better than "I hate the lycra-clad f***ers so I thought I'd give them a fright.'

IanMSpencer wrote:

I'm more skeptical about "I didn't see you" claims. When there is an incident, not seeing someone has plausibility to the police (or victim) and sounds much better than "I hate the lycra-clad f***ers so I thought I'd give them a fright.'

Shouldn't claiming not having seen a cyclist you passed within a metre of be treated as an admission of either careless driving, or a mental or physical inability to drive safely?

It's the old incompetence paradox again...  Even though in several charges the "standard of a competent careful driver" (or similar, too lazy to double-check) is mentioned.  The focus seems to be on "did you deliberately go for someone / were aware of them but didn't care" vs. "were you unaware of them".  Rather than "were you not paying attention (and therefore driving incompetently)". The "causing death / injury by dangerous / careless" which I believe were invented to get round the high bar for proving intent - as is the case in charges like manslaughter / assault - seem to have brought some "intent" with them.

It could have just be an accident, after all.  Everyone makes mistakes...

So it seems just driving poorly - and that having consequences - is sometimes fine.  As long as you can persuade the police / court you'd no awareness of the presence of others.  It might even help you to show that.

Not to invite a pile on but I agree with them.

It's much harder to figure out how close a vehicle is when you don't have a solid reference. 

For proving close passes a camera fixed to the centre of your handlebars with the top of the wheel in shot shows your road position.  That can be used with the road fixtures to calculate roughly how close away a vehicle is.

(Eg centre lane markings are usually around 3.6m from kerb.  If cyclist is in secondary at 1m from kerb you can show from the position of the rear offside wheels that the vehicle is closer than 1.5m because to pass at a safe distance 1m +1.5m =2.5m so the vehicle MUST straddle the white lines for a pass to meet the minimum distance).

HOWEVER head mounted cameras are far better at catching people on their phone.  Ones fixed on the bike don't do it.  If your main issue is close passes though I'd recommend fixing it and also do some reference shots to demonstrate what 30cm 60cm 90cm 120cm and 150cm look like on video.  This is something you can do by cycling past a parked car at the above distances and screenshotting where the car appears at the bottom right of the frame. 

For reference on my Go Pro 9 in superview mode if a vehicle is giving 1.5m the front wheels do not appear in frame until the vehicle has past. In other words of the front wheels can be seen at the bottom of the screen it's too close.  Just make sure you get the test footage with the same FOV you record in and save the test results.  You can then put in above in your statement to provide a distance.

It's much harder to figure out how close a vehicle is when you don't have a solid reference

It's not that hard, but justice, sense and logic have yet to evolve at Lancashire Constabulary. No action on this case

Yeah to be fair I also completely agree with them, now that I know it is a concern. I do also have a fixed camera facing backwards on the seatpost, which would provide the better perspective for measuring distances. In fact I did also upload footage of the pass from this camera as well, so hopefully that will have given them enough supporting evidence.

carlosdsanchez wrote:

I got a 360 camera, so have been experimenting with camera position. This one is below the bar as far to the RHS as I can go without pinching the gear and brake hose.

https://youtu.be/3zyf1l7y5IE

It's quite an effective position. I suggest however 3 sec. is rather short so longer would be better to get the sense of space in the field of view. Thanks for sharing this.

Here is a longer version of the same shot, basically this was from my first ride with the camera and I hadn't really go the hand of the editing software.

https://youtu.be/TtynJJodAQI

carlosdsanchez wrote:

Here is a longer version of the same shot, .

https://youtu.be/TtynJJodAQI

Thanks that shows, when the grey BMW passes in the other lane, that the white Audi is fully in your lane and just how close to the nearside curb, and you, it was.
Your ride data at that point, and analysis of the video would show if you were passed above 30mph, so that greater than 1.5 meter was required. Unfortunately adding that ride data would be modified video so no longer admissable. I guess you could supply both to prove that the ride data overlay was the only modification....
Does your camera support data overlay in real time rather than post production? Ant+ or Bluetooth integration with the head unit is a thing

There is an add on accessory which records gps data, which can then be overlaid in the editing app. You can also use the insta app on your phone to do the same thing, but it's not very well implemented. The screen has to be on and the app open for it to work. I just edit the clip and then run it through the virb edit app to add the data from my Garmin. I also mention in my statement that I have gps data available if required.

carlodsanchez See my other reply above. I was recently advised by South Wales Police to not move my head (with the helmet camera mounted on it) whilst a car is passing. If you choose this angle I would respectfully suggest sending a 'stationary' shot rather than a panning one, as this may mean the Police are less likely to take further action. You could maybe even send two separate videos, one from the back and one from the front.

Yes, I wouldn't submit a panning shot like that, I'd just send a fixed front a rear view. Could also send a side view to try and show how close the pass was. Didn't report that one, it took me a while to get the hang of the editing software for the 360 degree video, so I missed the cut off. Also I've now got the camera mounted under the drop of my bar, it's much more visible to passing traffic and suddenly I'm not being close passed any more.

I have a GoPro Max. Could you please show a pic of where exactly you attached your 360 camera to your handlebars, as well as a description of the type of mount? Thanks 

Still experimenting with the postion, when I shot the video of the white Audi, I was using the same bracket and mounting position on the right hand side of the bar, but it was underneath rather than on top.

Thanks Carlos. 

Thanks for posting. I've often wondered whether "360 degree" cameras are the answer, and whether they have enough resolution over the full panorama.

However, given the comments about which angle to submit etc, I now wonder whether whatever footage you could submit would not be rejected (or challenged in court) on the grounds of having, unavoidably, been edited.

if they are the answer, theyll need a whole heap more battery to be viable, that first insta360 had about 30-40mins life iirc, because its not designed as a dash cam, its designed for instagram influencers to film cool looking videos of no more than 30secs a time, to post to their site.

The newer version will run for about 1 hour 15 minutes @ 5.7k 30fps

It's simple enough: car doesn't hit you - no victim, so you don't hear back from them.  Behind the scenes it depends on the force but some will say "no crime" so they don't do anything.  Car does hit you - unfortunately there are now no witnesses because the driver says he didn't see you.  Can't proceed.

chrisonatrike wrote:

It's simple enough: car doesn't hit you - no victim, so you don't hear back from them.  Behind the scenes it depends on the force but some will say "no crime" so they don't do anything. Car does hit you - unfortunately there are now no witnesses because the driver says he didn't see you. Can't proceed.

Camera evidence can demonstrate a close pass, less than 1.5 meters so driving without due care. The camera is an independent witnesses so provided no missed or edited frames will evidence the crime of dangerous driving or manslaughter.

Kent Police do act on video evidence and prosecute. Your Chief Constable may vary though your PCC may not agree with NFA decisions. Unless it's Lancashire...

It's simple enough: car doesn't hit you - no victim, so you don't hear back from them.  Behind the scenes it depends on the force but some will say "no crime" so they don't do anything.  Car does hit you - unfortunately there are now no witnesses because the driver says he didn't see you and you're dead or seriously injured.  Can't proceed

That is indeed how they see it- Win/Win in their opinion.