Caught on Video

[setha]

Originally Posted by Dovestrobe

Hi Setha!

I've had that same I thing happen to me several times. Knowing that they are merging into a solid white-lined lane, makes it definitely an illegal offense. Have you showed your video to the police?

This happened in unincorporated Washington County. Who would I call and/or email at the Washington County Sheriff's office to report this?

[setha]

Here's the link to the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rz7o3fkHfOg

From the description:

And they say bicyclists run red lights.

This is bicycle helmet cam video from the afternoon of 12/17/2011, Cascade and Hall, Beaverton, Oregon, USA. In one clip I caught two cars making left turns on red lights. I was on my bicycle, waiting for the light to turn green.

The first is at 0:09 where the white 4 door car comes from the off-ramp of Oregon Highway 217, and makes the left onto eastbound Hall. Note that the left turn arrow for eastbound Hall to southbound Cascade is green as 4 door crosses over the stop line. So, he must be proceeding against a red.

The second is at 0:26, where the green pickup truck makes a left from westbound Hall to on-ramp for southbound 217. You can see that my light turns green as he enters the intersection. So, he too must be proceeding against a red.

The camera did not get any view of the first license plate, and only a blurry view of the second license plate. You hear me say what I think the second plate is. On further review of the tape and the stills from the tape, I read the plate incorrectly.

Here are still pictures from the clip.


The white 4 door entering the intersection from the right. Note the left turn arrow near the top of the frame.


The white 4 door, mid-intersection.


Green pickup, just before my light goes green.


Green pickup, mid-intersection

[q`Tzal]

If anyone comes up with a way for helmet cam footage to be consistently used for successful prosecution please let us know.

While it may be a while before such footage would be accepted in criminal cases it is likely that someone has used helmet cam footage successfully in a civil case.

Anyone with hard data will be the person who sells me on the idea of purchasing a helmet cam. Otherwise it seems decorative.

[Simple Nature]

The authority of the region where the offense had taken place, with sufficient evidence of local, will write a warning letter to the registered owner of the vehicle. It may only be a slap on the wrist, but it is in a way a record of alleged offenses and might just make the person think twice about the next time they floor it to make a light.

As for the cams... they have a very poor success rate of acually picking up a license plate with any level of visual clarity. Anything worthwhile will probably set you back a couple of c-notes.

[setha]

Originally Posted by q`Tzal

If anyone comes up with a way for helmet cam footage to be consistently used for successful prosecution please let us know.

While it may be a while before such footage would be accepted in criminal cases it is likely that someone has used helmet cam footage successfully in a civil case.

Anyone with hard data will be the person who sells me on the idea of purchasing a helmet cam. Otherwise it seems decorative.

I'm not sure that this meets your definition of "hard data" or a "civil case." But I did get a response from TriMet Assistant Manger Greg Larson back on March 18, about the bus-in-the-bike-lane incident discussed in response #12, above. It may not be hard data because it's hearsay as far as you are concerned, and it's not an actual civil case. Mr. Larson wrote:

"...we have received your complaint of March 2. 2011 and have completed the investigation and interview with the Operator in question. While the Operator did use a certain amount of caution servicing the stop, she did not follow TriMet protocol as trained. I have initiated the help of our Training Department to help prevent a recurrence of this sort of maneuver in the future. Thank you for contacting TriMet with your concerns."

[q`Tzal]

Originally Posted by setha

I'm not sure that this meets your definition ...
It may not be hard data because it's hearsay as far as you are concerned

This is not my definition of what is legally admissible data is but the logical deduction of the lack of prosecution from dozens of helmet cam videos I've seen on this site alone. Many of these videos are YOURS.

I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to induce fear, no, TERROR in to the hearts and minds of drivers everywhere that small helmet cameras were EVERYWHERE and could be used to prosecute them.

People drive much more responsibly when they think someone is watching. This can only come to pass if the footage can be used to apply hard hitting consequences on drivers violating the law.

[setha]

Originally Posted by q`Tzal

This is not my definition of what is legally admissible data is but the logical deduction of the lack of prosecution from dozens of helmet cam videos I've seen on this site alone. Many of these videos are YOURS.

I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to induce fear, no, TERROR in to the hearts and minds of drivers everywhere that small helmet cameras were EVERYWHERE and could be used to prosecute them.

People drive much more responsibly when they think someone is watching. This can only come to pass if the footage can be used to apply hard hitting consequences on drivers violating the law.

There's a string of comments on youtube on my bus video. Several of the comments are from someone who claims to be another Tri-Met driver, NOT the one driving the #54 in the video. This other driver writes that the driver in question retired. The retirement was not the result of Tri-Met's investigation. Or so the other driver claims.

Would Tri-Met have even investigated without that video? I suspect not.

I did seem to notice for some months after I posted the video that I was getting more polite treatment from Tri-Met drivers in the form of a little more room when passing, and better interactions at bus stops. However, more recently, particularly after that jackass on the bicycle cut off the bus, and the bus caught it on video, I seem to be getting less room.

One other thing I think about using helmet cam video is in response to next time I hear an official at a public hearing make some comment along the lines of "all bicycles are scofflaws we shouldn't spent any money on bicycle infrastructure." Jonathan reported hearing it from Commissioner Fritz recently. Jim Parsons and I heard that line from Beaverton Traffic Comission Vice Chair Reynolds. I think it would be useful to have a laptop and a computer projector to show a string of motorists disobeying traffic law as a response.

Is any of this hard evidence that a helmet cam has made a difference? No, it is not.

Part of the reason why there are not more (or any) cases where helmet cams made a definitive difference is that there is no way to tie all these videos together so you can find them either by license plate, geographic location, type of vehicle, etc. The videos are on youtube, maybe other video sites like vimeo, and they are discussed on those video sites, here, http://www.bikeforums.net, and maybe elsewhere.

[Simple Nature]

One of the problems is knowing what the commissions would truly except as evidence of a systemic problem in -their- region. As long as they can make decisions based on their own biases, and ones that their constituency couldn't care less about, nothing will be done. Only when it goes over their heads, to the mayor's office, will some level of concerted effort be put forth. And I can almost guarantee you that this -concerted effort- will take a completely different form than you might have envisioned. Most likely, it will come out as an all out war against cyclists since we are often -not- the target constituency for sympathetic popularity. As long as we have a-holes riding bikes, we will not be recognized as a worthy sector of the population. And I meet a-holes on bikes from -all- walks of life... including the ultra-purists who sit in the very chambers as representatives of the "public". Welcome to democracy. The legal way to squash the little guy. We must become bigger. We must call out the hypocracy with a loud voice. No one among us can do this. We must do it together. And now to find the triggers and stores to achieve this.

[q`Tzal]

Originally Posted by setha

I think it would be useful to have a laptop and a computer projector to show a string of motorists disobeying traffic law as a response.

Yup.
I suspect though that it is common knowledge that auto drivers also commonly disobey traffic laws. Everyone in America accepts speeding, coasting through stop signs and all manner of "acceptable" mistakes.
The video footage that will be needed to make a difference is of a driver doing something stupid then a second video of the exact same situation where the driver's stupid actions are the clear cause of injury for a pedestrian or cyclist.

So many of the things we as cyclists see daily which we know as potentially very deadly look very innocent when a cyclist isn't in the camera's field of view.

Originally Posted by setha

Part of the reason why there are not more (or any) cases where helmet cams made a definitive difference is that there is no way to tie all these videos together so you can find them either by license plate, geographic location, type of vehicle, etc. The videos are on youtube, maybe other video sites like vimeo, and they are discussed on those video sites, here, http://www.bikeforums.net, and maybe elsewhere.

I think the trick then will be to use the tagging system in YouTube to make identifying information searchable like:

• license place number car color and model
• location info (by lat&long, state, city, zip, road name(s), anything else)
• driver info (race, sex, height, age)

[setha]

Originally Posted by q`Tzal

Yup.
....
I think the trick then will be to use the tagging system in YouTube to make identifying information searchable like:

• license place number car color and model
• location info (by lat&long, state, city, zip, road name(s), anything else)
• driver info (race, sex, height, age)

Interesting how as soon as I asked the question, the answer popped up in another helmet-cam wearing cyclist's video on youtube. There are 2: SMIDSY for the inattentative driver, and SMIDGAF for the purposefully reckless driver. SMIDSY is "Sorry mate, I did not see you," according to wiktionary. SMIDGAF is "Sorry mate, I dont give a ___". Wiktionary says that SMIDSY is a UK and Australian usage. Wiktionary does not list SMIDGAF, but I'm guessing that it is probably UK and Austrlian, too. I say why should the UK and Australia have a monopoly on such useful terms? Accordingly, I added smidsy/smidgaf to the tags on this string of comments.