I guess I can see how someone might think I am being harsh .Especially if you are unable to see the glibness in my comments and understand that I am greatly generalizing the situation. My response was geared more toward the financial hardship case that Dave D was kinda making. The point was that every (again a generalization) extreme sport kid, track day enthusiast, racer, skier, ETC on the planet has a gopro. Why? Not because they can't wait to use it as a training tool. But because we all like watching ourselves. We like showing our friends and family how cool we are. I am no exception. Ive watched my own video from last race at least 10 times. Mostly to improve and to find things to work on, but just because I enjoy it too.
As far as against it because you are against regulations in general. Really? Only regs for safety and to define technical? How about regs for consideration of staff? To help them not have to deal with egocentric alpha's after very tense events like track incidences? People aren't suggesting regs just to make your life miserable or tedious. They are suggesting regs to help make things efficient and clearly understood. I know it is all the rage in the country to think regulation is a dirty word. And yes I would agree that you can take regulation too far. For example, if I use your criteria, it would be a righteous regulation to require that everyone run a halo seat and an onboard fire system, you know, for safety reasons. But there is a balance. Am I as safe in my non halo and 5lb hand held fire extinguisher? No. But I am safe enough. Should super cars be allowed to be sold in the US without ABS? Yes in my opinion. So I think it isn't as clear as regs being ok for certain categories of things. It is much more useful to write regs that advance the cause for some group we should be considering. And if it isn't a great burden to implement, do so. After all you have two gopros. What is the burden?
Glibness doesn't come through in forum posts very well. We aren't discussing every "extreme sport kid, track day enthusiast, racer, skier, ETC". Just racers. And, I don't see your characterization as an accurate one of the PRIMARY goal for the racing community. Sure we all like racing videos---but, I don't think that's not the primary reason we record it. I don't know THAT many racers, and the ones I DO know are pretty serious (like me) and are at the front of the pack (unlike me)---so maybe my sample is skewed. But, I don't know a SINGLE racer who records video primarily for the fun-factor.
Yes, I really am anti-regulation. I would dispute the claim that video (or regulations, in general) would reduce the tension of those incidents. Both parties still think their video supports THEIR position, and the other video is just a "funny angle". Confirmation bias is RAMPANT in racing incidents. The tension is going to be lessoned by the way the PEOPLE handle the situation, not because of some rule or video. We have rules for conduct on and off the track. Those don't decrease the tension either. The reality is that if one party doesn't have video then the discussion is pretty short. If someone wants to be an ass, they are going to be an ass regardless.
Obviously there is no burden to me...as you note, I already have two cameras. I run the fwd camera in all sessions (for the educational and entertainment value) and I run both cameras in races for the added evidentiary value. The only time I watch the rear video is if something exciting happens behind me.
Also note that I have a halo seat, a 1 5/8" OD/90mil wall roll cage, a hans (required per rules), a 4L fire system with 6 nozzles, a 3 layer suit, and wear fire retardent underwear. As noted, many of the above is in excess of the minimum requirements. I don't need regs to tell me what is "safe enough" or anything else, for me. If someone else wants to make a more "minimal" informed choice, I support their right to do so. Changing the rules to require any or all of the above optional additions, wouldn't burden me either. But, a number of people on here and elsewhere would squeal like stuck pigs. Sheesh we just went through that when the HANS was made mandatory.
If you don't tech the proposed camera rule, and have a consequence for violating the rule...then what is the point of the rule? We already have the essense of the gentlemen's agreement. The only real difference is that many are unlikely to show unfavorable video. But, the result is mostly the same...if you don't have video (or choose not to show it), you loose...unless BOTH cars don't have video. In my region, both cars without video is VERY unlikely (in SM/SSM anyway).