Cameras frequently fail to capture context and released footage is often edited. Cameras often serve to justify existing biases.
I recently watched a video compilation put together by a truck driver who intended to show the dangerous behavior of passenger vehicles. It showed what it intended, but it also showed dangerous truck driver behavior. When this behavior was pointed out, the truck drivers in the comment section came up with many excuses for why this behavior was acceptable. One actually argued that in one of the scenarios the truck driver should not have had to yield (despite being required to do so by law) because accelerating back up to speed was expensive in terms of fuel.
So there was proof positive that this truck driver not only violated the law, but created an unsafe situation in a video specifically edited to show it was not truck drivers but passenger vehicles which caused unsafe situations, and this group of truck drivers defended the behavior.
In that case, the truck driver was ignorant and stupid. His behavior wasn't changed. And I see that a lot in YouTube videos about drivers of vehicle X complaining about drivers of vehicle Y. Anyone pointing out mistakes made by the driver of vehicle X is shouted down, nonsense about what is legal is posted (most of it wrong or incomplete), and everyone who drives a vehicle X shares their own (possibly apocryphal) stories about people driving vehicle Y.
So no, even with camera, I don't care much about the opinions of cyclists on drivers. Cameras can be good, but they can also be bad or indifferent, and nine times out of ten, I've got questions even after seeing the video.
