Nuxx:J1f4jp$lfl$1@dont-email.me

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Ding Dong  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Video glasses update Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 22:57:12 +0100 References:  Lines: 39 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Reply-To: ding@dong.invalid Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 21:57:13 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8psORfuBq3je/hVXnlNHEQ"; logging-data="22005"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/dI2Zb2DVeGQSH3AW+K1hTkwapK86LUn4=" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 In-Reply-To:  Cancel-Lock: sha1:1ATllFumCURq5AVlC6BSfqnvUeU= Bytes: 3462 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:848463

On 04/08/2011 16:53, Simon Mason wrote: > The video sunglasses I have been using for several months now had one > disadvantage and that was that they were unusable at night, or in poor > light due to the dark Polaroid lenses. Since they are a direct copy of > the expensive USD250 12MP Zetronix originals, I took a gamble on the > spare clear lenses offered for sale by Zetronix being suitable. > > After contacting them, they informed me that it is not possible to add > a spare set of clear lenses to their online shopping basket, but I > could e-mail them my Paypal address and they would send me a pair at 9 > USD. They arrived yesterday and were a perfect fit, so if anyone buys > a pattern pair of Zetronix video glasses, the spare lenses as sold by > Zetronix will fit.

Interesting, but let's just hope you don't misuse them, like some do, to pick fights with motorists because you think they shouldn't be there. If you post one of those videos where the first part is mysteriously missing then we'll know that you've done exactly that; there's absolutely no reason why video glasses wouldn't be on, and looking where you're looking, the whole time.

Mind you, there's no real reason why helmet cams shouldn't be on all the time either...it's blatantly obvious that when footage is posted which suddenly starts mid-confrontation, it's because the cyclist has deleted the previous footage due to it incriminating them, and not because they "didn't have the camera on" like they claim (surely the whole point of a camera is to have it on whenever you're riding? You can hardly just turn it on instantly if a driver suddenly does something genuinely dangerous and causes you to have a nasty collision).

To still complain to the police when you know you've done at least equal wrong yourself shows the mindset of some cyclists (and indeed there is someone here who behaves like that when they're not cycling as well). I think there are some here who know exactly what is going on with this footage which suddenly starts in the middle of things, and they nevertheless applaud it. They should take a good look at themselves and ask if it's something they really want to be supporting...aren't there other, less dishonest ways of discouraging driving if you really want to do that?