- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Driver of JM Clark Ltd vehicle using mobile phone at the wheel (image via YouTube).jpgJM Clark Ltd threaten legal action over helmet cam footage after driver is filmed using phone at the wheel
A cyclist who published helmet cam footage of a driver using a mobile phone while queuing in traffic has been threatened with legal action by the hire firm which owns the vehicle. JM Clark Ltd Road Sweeper Hire told YouTube user Dr Morocho that it would seek damages for use of its company branding on YouTube.
In a communication Dr Morocho subsequently reproduced via Twitter, Martin Clark writes:
“You are using our company branding on a video on YouTube without our permission.
“The video needs to be removed immediately and we will take no further action.
“If this is not done within 24 hours, we will seek damages to our company through the courts.
“If we pursue damages, it could result in your channel being removed from YouTube and costs to you personally.
“We have notified YouTube of your actions and our IP Attorney will be in touch with them should the video remain online.
“Thank you in advance for you [sic] co operation in this matter.”
Clark then adds: “We cannot accept responsibility for any self drive hire operators in terms of how they proceed to drive our vehicles.” Some Twitter users have however since pointed out that the firm offers to hire out road sweepers with a driver.
Is there any weight behind these threats? Guidance from the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland states: “There are no powers prohibiting the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place. Therefore members of the public and press should not be prevented from doing so.”
Martin Porter QC was one person who was clearly unimpressed.
This response from @jmclarksweepers merits wider circulation https://t.co/Rl3lYt1jQd
— Martin Porter QC (@MartinPorter6) February 12, 2016
Being as we too have now published a photo of a JM Clark Ltd vehicle, we’re very much looking forward to seeing what arrives in the post tomorrow…
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- stonojnr 3 hours 44 min ago
it feels a conveniant donkey to put the tail on imo, and Im not saying some members didnt quit BC because of the Shell thing, but Im not entirely...
- espressodan 4 hours 20 min ago
I'm never convinced how helmets with built in cameras and lights can be acceptable safe. Sounds like a good way to get a camera embedded in your...
- Rendel Harris 4 hours 28 min ago
Did I mention that it costs £580?
- chrisonabike 4 hours 28 min ago
Yeah - and one of the passengers had the gall to say that the *driver* had taken a wrong turn!...
- chrisonabike 4 hours 45 min ago
Don't worry! They've got plenty of others they can use!...
- Rendel Harris 5 hours 1 min ago
Well what is that way? Are you suggesting that every bend on every descent can be barriered over a 180km mountain stage?
- slappop 9 hours 14 min ago
Hopefully it'll still be allowed for recreational use.
- Bungle_52 10 hours 6 min ago
Well Gloucestershire are getting better. I'm being told whether or not action is to be taken, but not what action, within a few days of each report...
- Surreyrider 12 hours 35 min ago
Churnalism nowadays - mostly clickbait stuff and regurgitation in the local rags/comics and beyond.
- DogOfOB 12 hours 47 min ago
I'm glad the barrier wasn't damaged. Whew, close one there! \s
Add new comment
30 comments
It has been mentioned that JM Clark leases their vehicles so there's not guarantee that the driver is theirs. A post from their twitter account however shows that they have no problem with the practice of using a handhed device behind the wheel.
https://twitter.com/jmitchfraser/status/698257209441050624
What a public relations disaster. You don't threaten the messenger who publicises the fact a driver is behaving like a twonk. If this is picked up by the big papers they will have a field day ripping to shreds this company
Rider, pass details to police and complain to newspapers about this company.
nope
'No' would do just as well, or better. Or even yes, as it remains true that there's no link to the video. But thanks for providing the link.
so a truck load of crap swept off the road is "intellectual property" - i presume it has the company's name on it just in case it contains the essential brain cell that the person that drafted the response to the youtube video lost somewhere
My curiosity aroused, I looked up the Arkell vs. Pressdram case - its worthy of reproducing here in its entirety ...
29th April 1971
Dear Sir,
We act for Mr Arkell who is Retail Credit Manager of Granada TV Rental Ltd. His attention has been drawn to an article appearing in the issue of Private Eye dated 9th April 1971 on page 4. The statements made about Mr Arkell are entirely untrue and clearly highly defamatory. We are therefore instructed to require from you immediately your proposals for dealing with the matter.
Mr Arkell's first concern is that there should be a full retraction at the earliest possible date in Private Eye and he will also want his costs paid. His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply.
Yours,
(Signed)
Goodman Derrick & Co.
------------------------------
Dear Sirs,
We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr. J. Arkell.
We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.
Yours,
Private Eye
This past tweet from JM Clark is rather ironic given the baseless threats they've made over the video.
https://twitter.com/jmclarksweepers/status/625717189375578112
The response per Arkell vs Pressdram has I gather already been made, clearly the company needs to read up on the Streisand effect. Worth noting that these are not HGV (some may be classed as mobile plant) and can be driven on a standard (pre-1997) driving licence.
In original video it was also noted that front n/s tyre seemed to be under-inflated as well.
I agree, that the measured response quoted from Arkell vs Pressdram would probably be most appropriate here.
That's interesting - I give these things a veeeery wide berth on my early morning commute. They swing out across lanes, do U-turns all over the place, very unpredictable and deadly big wheels too.
A response along the lines of:
"Thank you for highlighting this. We will take disciplinary action against the driver. Our company has a strict policy that all our employees abide by road traffic legislation....... Blah, blah, blah"
Would have been much more gracious and a better way to manage the PR.
Until Mobile phones have an in built safety feature that uses gps, accelerometer's etc to detect movement and speed to shut down phone functions by law scenes like these will become more commonplace. There aren't enough police on the roads to be able to detect this type of behaviour and as such drivers get away with it.
It'll never work. A phone can't tell if you're the driver or passenger (inc in a bus or taxi) and no one would buy a phone that you can't use as a passenger.
These sweeper guys would seem to have made a rather counterproductive move!
I can't help but wonder why a Company clearly so concerned about their "intellectual property" don't drive around in unliveried trucks.
Of course ensuring their drivers obeyed the law and presented a good image for the company is too much of a mental leap for these mouth breathers.
Shame they don't go bust because of this. They don't deserve to be in business with this attitude
Can't wait till Kalashnikov notice all the media outlets showing their products being used by terrorists!
Martin Clark doesn't get it. Don't shoot the messenger, the problem is the tit behind the wheel.
I'm sure that JM Clark Ltd Road Sweeper Hire will be happy to supply details of the driver's identity.
Is there even such as thing as an "IP attorney" in England & Wales?
I imagine that the company googled for a threatening legal letter and found one from our notoriously litigious cousins on the other side of the Atlantic...
Yes (well solicitors if not attorneys) it is a big sector of law, copyright, patents etc. But not many that have ever heard of JM Clark Ltd Road Sweeper Hire I would bet.
There is as intellecutual property law & rights is big business. Whether they're referred to as "attornies" is another matter!
the term attorney is mainly an American term for those who practise law. It used to be a term in the UK up until the mid 19th century after which all practioners of law were to be referred to as solicitors in a court of law and it obviously spilt over to mainstream speak. You would think somebody who specialises in this field would have recognised that a patent for road sweeping doesn't exist and that no law exists for taking pictures and publishing them also doesn't exist. As another poster points out, the company has trawled the Internet for a copy of a letter and then posted it as a form of bullying. The appropriate response has already been suggested.
EDIT - as CX says the poster should pass on the threatening letter to the polis
Shame on them! We should all email them and let them know what we think, and share this all over the media. If this is how they react to having it pointed out to them that someone driving one of their vehicles - whether it is hired out or one of their drivers - they don't deserve to be in business
Might they not better use their time chasing the driver, who seems to be putting a very expensive bit of plant at risk. ( Not to mention the other road users being put at risk.)
I'm always amazed that helmet cam people can spot these things.
Do you not use your eyes when cycling? I don't record my rides but see things like this a lot.
At night, it's easy to see mobile use because of the glow on drivers faces.
Just a shame the police so very little about it.
Might want to reply and ask them if they have heard back from their 'IP Attorney' yet?
JM Clark should go and learn about the law before throwing legal threats around.
If the Vid was shot in a public space (like a public road), then the cyclist has no case to answer.
Here's the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ-KST2so9s
Video's up now. Search for "jmsweepers".
And yet there's no link to the video, suggesting the bullying may have worked.
nope, still on YouTube : https://youtu.be/NJ-KST2so9s
Pr team trying to save the situation by putting more fuel into the fire. Well done. Why large corporations always try to threaten or silence the people instead of trying to understand the situation and work the problem out...
I don't like your critisim. Go to jail. Yep, that's how the world works...