HelmetCam

Driving on busy highways exposes people to the risk of collisions almost every day. Changing lanes, merging, entering and exiting the highway create moments of increased risk. As long as everybody follows well established rules, accidents are few. But lapses in judgement, honest errors, reckless lane changes, moments of indecision, and constant choices make the task of driving safely a very difficult one. The driver of this small car was traveling on Highway 404 near Toronto, Ontario. There are many lanes of traffic and the on-ramps and offramps are numerous. It is almost impossible to travel any distance on this section of road without being affected by people changing lanes around you. Simply put, there is a lot to watch for and a driver will spend a lot of time looking in all directions. The speed limit here is 100km/h or 60mph. Our driver approached a section of highway where traffic was merging from his right. Vehicles in the lanes to his left were traveling faster than the speed limit, as is typical, and our driver could see that the cars were passing him, despite the fact that he was driving carefully at the speed limit. When he saw that the transport and the vehicle behind it were moving much more slowly, he decided that maintaining his speed was the safest approach. This is what the Ontario Highway Traffic Act and the driver's handbook suggests a driver should do when approaching such an on-ramp. It was his expectation that the merging vehicles would continue to accelerate in their lane as he passed and then they would merge safely. He increased his speed slightly to ensure that he was past them in time for their merge. They have more than 700m (half a mile) of lane left. He has the right of way by law, and by common sense. But the 18 wheel transport truck merged much sooner than expected and the car behind it began to do the same. They began this lane change as our driver was quickly looking to his left to see if he could change lanes himself to make all of this easier. The car that was passing on his left made it impossible to move over. The driver of the car behind the 18 wheeler obviously didn't see him as he changed lanes. It was also accelerating up on his right and preventing him from slamming on his brakes to avoid the back of the 18 wheeler. Our driver was able to inch over and straddle the lanes until the lane to his left was fully open. He then smoothly changed lanes and missed being run over by the 18 wheeler by mere inches. He also missed sideswiping the vehicle on his left by inches as well. Sometimes it's easier to see alternatives when we watch video footage. We mistakenly assume that the driver was able to see all that the camera shows us, but in reality, drivers of vehicles are looking in many directions and making many decisions each minute. We also have the luxury of watching several times, but drivers on the road have just one chance to get it all right. In this case, the lane change of the merging vehicles left our driver with only two options. He could have braked hard and hoped nobody hit him, or he could do what he did and squeeze into a small gap in the traffic. Either way, this video demonstrates how quickly an accident can happen on a highway and how keen we must be at watching other drivers around us.

When traffic is backed up on a highway due to an accident ahead, people get frustrated and panicky about being late. It's understandable that they want to find a way around the lineup. When an ambulance or other emergency vehicle comes up the left side, people get the idea that the best place to be is right behind it. These motorists were all thinking the same thing. As traffic pulls to the right to get out of the way of the emergency vehicle, it creates an empty spot right behind. The motorist with the camera has pulled into the left lane and has found it to be smooth sailing right behind the ambulance. Somebody has squeezed in between and is doing the exact same thing. He needs to keep right on the tail of the ambulance to avoid being blocked by every other person who is just as eager to chase it. An Audi driver in the middle lane is getting ready to chase the ambulance too and he doesn't seem to care that he is cutting off the vehicle that was chasing it first. He pulls out and the camera car driver lays on the horn and the brakes to avoid hitting him. It's back to chasing the ambulance for all of them as the lineup of cars continues up the highway behind it. In Ontario, as in most places, the person changing lanes has the full responsibility to do so safely, and in a manner that does not require evasive action by any other driver. The person already in the lane has the right of way. In this case, no accident occurred and it was not an issue. Following behind an ambulance can be hazardous because it is predictable that people will try to force their way in so that they can follow it through traffic.

Two mountain bikers legally using a trail were ordered to leave, accused of trespassing and harassed by a woman named Julie. Then they were reported to the police for criminal assault on her neighbor. Only the helmet camera footage saved them from all sorts of legal trouble. It started as a simple bike ride in the wilderness. The cyclists were looking for their access point from a public road. It was not the direction from which they had been accessing this forest so the entry point was confusing. They followed signs and the roadway to a gate that was locked. They met a local woman named "Julie" who was going through the gate with a key. She said the Hydro company owned the road in and didn't allow cyclists. She said she was allowed through to get to her land beyond. What she did not say was that the road beyond this gate was actually briefly on her land too. The cyclists figured out that they had the wrong gate and rode around the corner to the correct one. They began cycling north, as they were allowed to do. Julie returned and saw their van parked nearby. She made the assumption that they entered through the locked gate somehow and then trespassed across a short stretch of her road to get to the power lines and trails. She drove her truck on the trail to track them down and angrily confront them. She roared up in her truck and began yelling, refusing to even listen to them. She screamed and swore, telling them to go back to their vehicle. She was confusing and hard to follow but told them they had trespassed. They didn't know where the alleged trespass happened because they knew the hydro company owned the land at their access point and the rest was public property. She seemed convinced they had trespassed until she claimed that she had seen them going through the gate. They knew this was a complete lie. She also said that she owned the land where she was now confronting them. This was another obvious lie. They knew this at the time, but later confirmed where her property was. It was a long way south of their confrontation and she knew it. The cyclists asserted that they were on public property and had accessed the trails where permitted by the hydro company. This is a trail system in Ontario, Canada. It stretches hundreds of miles and runs through Parry Sound, where this took place. Entry to the three power lines can be gained in several spots. Dave, the cyclist had been using the trails just north of there for over 20 years and had actually spoken with hydro employees earlier that day and on many occasions prior. The proper entrances are clearly marked that ATVs, bikes, and snowmobiles can use the trail at their own risk. Sensing trouble after the first minute of the confrontation, Dave turned on his helmet camera and told Julie it was recording. Julie's demeanor changed instantly, but she still told them to go back and get off the trail. Dave said they would keep going north. Julie angrily left and said she was calling the van plates in to report the "trespassing" to police. Dave knew that police could figure out who he was with the plate information and a first name. He didn't believe that Julie was actually calling the police when she didn't own the land and had not seen actual trespassing. Dave and his wife rode for over an hour before returning to the hydro company property where they would get to Kirkham Road and their van.They did wonder if Julie would confront them again but agreed to deal with things as they happened. When a white truck pulled up alongside Dave, and the driver told them to go along a trail to the west, they tried to continue straight. Julie had called her neighbor, Dave, and he came out to confront the cyclists. He located them on hydro property. He swerved at the cyclists to block them from riding past. Cyclist Dave had shoes clipped into his pedals and he was riding over sand. He swerved and braked to avoid being hit and he tipped off the bike. He walked it around the truck as the driver got out and ordered him to stay where he was. Dave, the driver claimed the police were coming. Suspecting that Julie and her friends were the only ones around the corner, Dave and his wife were not waiting as he called. They intended to ride to their van at the road. Dave had no lawful right to arrest anyone, even though he was wearing a shirt that seemed to identify him as part of the Canadian Coast Guard. He tried to place cyclist Dave under citizen's arrest. There are a few problems with that scenario because Dave has no authority to arrest anyone. He was on hydro property, not his own. If he personally witnessed a criminal act on his own property, he could possibly arrest somebody there. He cannot arrest anyone off his own property and he cannot arrest anyone based on hearsay information from Julie or speculation. Trespassing wouldn't even be a criminal act. It is a Provincial Offence. Dave also has no need to arrest cyclists that can be identified easily by their van. Arresting somebody requires authority and understanding. Ill informed citizens should never try it. Cyclist Dave actually understands the law and he knows without a doubt that Sheriff Dave is acting unlawfully. Sheriff Dave jumped in front of the cyclist as he clipped his shoes in and started to ride away. Dave pushed the bike tire sideways with his leg and grabbed the handlebar, making cyclist Dave fall off and onto him. Sheriff Dave pushed him and had both hands up like he was going to fight, but he was also holding a cell phone. Cyclist Dave struggled to get his feet unclipped and he pushed Sheriff Dave away. As he got on his feet, cyclist Dave pushed Sheriff Dave back again and warned him not to touch him. Both had pushed the other but nothing more. No punches were thrown, although Cyclist Dave could lawfully strike Sheriff Dave at several points in this matter. Both Daves argued about assault and Cyclist Dave picked up his bike again. While trying to ride away, Sheriff Dave grabbed Cyclist Dave, trying to pull him off his bike. This was easily deflected and Sheriff Dave gave up. It was technically assault, but it was another feeble one. The cyclists rode out, still unsure if police had been called, but they were prepared to call if it had not been done. Police were indeed waiting at the van and an officer explained that there had been allegations against them of assault and trespassing. Julie and Sheriff Dave demanded that criminal and provincial charges be laid. Cyclist Dave showed the officer helmet camera footage that clearly showed it was he who was assaulted and not Sheriff Dave. It was obvious that Julie and Sheriff Dave had lied. Cyclist Dave had no interest in wasting the officer's time with a feeble assault complaint of his own, but he requested that both of them have things explained so they understood why they cannot harass or arrest cyclists on the trail system. In a case like this, citizen's arrest is completely unlawful. It is an assault to try to arrest somebody like this. A person has the right to defend themselves against assault and unlawful arrest. The arresting citizen can end up hurt and even charged criminally. There is a good reason why police officers go to police academy to learn the law in relation to arrest. Even security firms provide training on this complicated topic. It is best to leave this stuff to the professionals. And to be clear, Sheriff Dave is not a real Sheriff.

The GoPro Hero 9 is an exciting camera with some spectacular new features and upgrades. The action cam enthusiasts are all offering their opinions and reviews, but this camera buff is excited about something other than the stabilization features. He's baffled by the new "voodoo science" that he says allows the camera to take you back in time to capture the action that happened 30 seconds before you even knew you needed to record. Our tech review enthusiast provides a hilarious rapid review in a Scottish brogue as he struggles to maintain his enthusiasm. Luckily, he's slowed down his commentary as much as he can to make it understandable to the viewer, and even to the camera. The fact that the voice control feature can understand the Scottish accent, known to be one of the most difficult technological feats, impresses him almost as much as the feature he reviews. Hindsight is the latest development from this action camera giant and it passively records when the camera is on, but not activated to record. Once the record button is pressed, or the voice command is given, the images from the past 30 seconds are stored by the camera as if the user had the ability to go back in time 30 seconds and begin recording.