Near Miss of the Day 76: Cyclist is squeezed by close-passing bus driver (includes strong language)

don simon wrote:

benborp wrote:

don simon wrote:

That's a whole different argument of being in the public interest, and has been proven to be not in the public interest at times and the newspapers fined, and a moral boundary is not a legal boundary either.

Which is what my statement was illustrating. Public interest, moral and legal boundaries are not aligned.

Quote:

We have a right to privacy, even in the public domain, and it's our acceptance that's wrong and that doesn't mean that you can use a dashcam or bikecam and publish the results without recourse.

In the UK there is no absolute right to privacy. Any individual's right to privacy is balanced against others' freedom of expression, reasonable use and public interest. Demands for compensation or image rights would be futile. Proving harassment is a far more likely way to prevent publication, but that would require the photographer to transgress reasonableness by a huge margin.

Without reasonable use and freedom of expression clauses it would be very easy to make nearly all non-commercial photography illegal. Close-up nature photography would probably be ok.

Bearing in mind that the point is in relation to cctv and moving images, there has to be protection from stills too. Also taking into account the difference between taking an image and publishing, I can simply ask a photographer to remove an image, and then they must remove it from publication, unless they can demonstrate a just cause for it staying published.

It has to be so, you cannot take a photo of me and use it as you see fit with me having recourse. Whether the law can be arsed to move, is another question, but the public MUST have protection.

anyone, like me, who has taken many, many thousands of photos of people in public places has run into these questions thousands of times and both amateur and professional photographers generally make sure they know where they stand legally. I've been stopped and in many cases harassed for taking pictures in public, not just by members of the public, but by police, security guards, CPSOs and similar types over the 40+ years I've been taking street photos.

You may think you have certain rights not to be photographed, or to demand that pictures not be published, but fortunately you don't, by and large. Photographers' organisations and magazines publish various guides to photographers' rights in this area.

I say fortunately because the right to photograph anyone in public means thar for example police officers or security guards or other authority figures bullying people cannot legally prevent us from photographing them and publishing what they are doing. This is a very important freedom and protection against abuse of authority. 

ConcordeCX wrote:

don simon wrote:

benborp wrote:

don simon wrote:

That's a whole different argument of being in the public interest, and has been proven to be not in the public interest at times and the newspapers fined, and a moral boundary is not a legal boundary either.

Which is what my statement was illustrating. Public interest, moral and legal boundaries are not aligned.

Quote:

We have a right to privacy, even in the public domain, and it's our acceptance that's wrong and that doesn't mean that you can use a dashcam or bikecam and publish the results without recourse.

In the UK there is no absolute right to privacy. Any individual's right to privacy is balanced against others' freedom of expression, reasonable use and public interest. Demands for compensation or image rights would be futile. Proving harassment is a far more likely way to prevent publication, but that would require the photographer to transgress reasonableness by a huge margin.

Without reasonable use and freedom of expression clauses it would be very easy to make nearly all non-commercial photography illegal. Close-up nature photography would probably be ok.

Bearing in mind that the point is in relation to cctv and moving images, there has to be protection from stills too. Also taking into account the difference between taking an image and publishing, I can simply ask a photographer to remove an image, and then they must remove it from publication, unless they can demonstrate a just cause for it staying published.

It has to be so, you cannot take a photo of me and use it as you see fit with me having recourse. Whether the law can be arsed to move, is another question, but the public MUST have protection.

anyone, like me, who has taken many, many thousands of photos of people in public places has run into these questions thousands of times and both amateur and professional photographers generally make sure they know where they stand legally. I've been stopped and in many cases harassed for taking pictures in public, not just by members of the public, but by police, security guards, CPSOs and similar types over the 40+ years I've been taking street photos.

You may think you have certain rights not to be photographed, or to demand that pictures not be published, but fortunately you don't, by and large. Photographers' organisations and magazines publish various guides to photographers' rights in this area.

I say fortunately because the right to photograph anyone in public means thar for example police officers or security guards or other authority figures bullying people cannot legally prevent us from photographing them and publishing what they are doing. This is a very important freedom and protection against abuse of authority. 

You crack on, you're obviously right. Just do me a favour and quote me the law which states that the public has no rights governing what happens to our images whatsoever. Which law it is that states that you can take whichever photo of me in public and I cannot control whatever happens to it. Show the law which prevents me from having photos which you have published from being removed? Can you show me, please?

don simon wrote:

 

You crack on, you're obviously right. Just do me a favour and quote me the law which states that the public has no rights governing what happens to our images whatsoever. Which law it is that states that you can take whichever photo of me in public and I cannot control whatever happens to it. Show the law which prevents me from having photos which you have published from being removed? Can you show me, please?

 

 

In turn, can you show me the law that allows you to have photos which someone has published removed? 

I'm only joining in for the sheer novelty of partially agreeing with Rich_CB about something (don't think that's ever happened before!) but unless you can prove otherwise, I'm going to go on believing what I've already been lead to believe - that there's no general 'right to privacy' relating to photos taken in public places.

As I understand it the law is very unclear, because it depends on the European human rights act, which, as with most things European, contradicts itself (you have the right to privacy...but the photographer has the right to free speech...depends whether you have the reasonable expectation of privacy, and who knows what a judge might decide is 'reasonable'?).  You might have the right of which you speak, or you might not, its a crapshoot as far as I can make out, but I bet it would cost you a lot to find out.

If you are a wealthy celeb or Rupert Murdoch, you probably could afford to test out this 'right', and hire good enough lawyers to stand a chance, but I doubt most people could.

Ha, here's the case I vaguely remembered.  Yup, it demonstrates there is a sort of 'right to privacy' that applies...but how much do you think Naomi Campbell had to spend to get to that point?  And what are the chances that a judge would be equally sympathetic to Joe Nobody  who didn't have a very lucrative brand to defend?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v_MGN_Ltd

don simon wrote:

[very large snip]

You crack on, you're obviously right. Just do me a favour and quote me the law which states that the public has no rights governing what happens to our images whatsoever. Which law it is that states that you can take whichever photo of me in public and I cannot control whatever happens to it. Show the law which prevents me from having photos which you have published from being removed? Can you show me, please?

Don - Lots of people are saying the same thing to you, but you're not listening. 

The basic point about English Common Law is that the default position is that you can do anything you like, unless there is a law against it. That law can be from primary legislation, secondary legislation (regulations etc...) or case law (precedent). This is very different from many other countries, for example those with a formal constitution (e.g. USA) or with a defined civil/criminal code (often European countries)

Hence you asking someone to "quote me the law which states that the public has no rights governing what happens to our images whatsoever" is missing the point. The default position in English law is that you, as the person asserting a right, need to be able to quote the law that gives you rights over your own image. As others have said, you would have to bring a claim to get someone to remove or stop using your image, and you would have to set out on what legal basis you made that claim. 

Until recently, (very recently in terms of legal history), there was no concept of privacy in English law. It is simply not a common law concept. You mentioned defamation earlier, but that is about reputation, not privacy. The DPA in 1988 was more about ensuring that data held about you was correct, not preventing someone holding data about you.

It was only with the Human Rights Act that the first real suggestion of any right to privacy was introduced into domestic UK law. As others have pointed out though, this has not been held to prevent people taking and using photos of people in public where they had no expectation of privacy. It certainly does not give you the absolute right you keep asserting to have control over pictures of yourself.  

Grumpy17 wrote:

Why are you a 'nob' if you have a bike cam? Don't get that. Just because a small number of riders post up video clips willy nilly of trivial interactions with other road users doesn't make the rest of us 'nobs' for using one.

A camera has been a most useful accessory  to me over the past five years and this year alone has helped in winning, or at least driving swiftly to a conclusion, two accident claims. I have also seen three drivers sent on driver improvement courses by the police in the past six months based entirely on my camera evidence. The camera sits fairly inconspicuously on my bike and does not draw attention to me in any way.

I cannot see any arguments against having a camera, only arguments in favour.

It gives too many self righteous idiots access to publicly convicting people before a fair trial. A fair amount of time is wasted by people who want to rant about others while not paying sufficient attention to their own errors. It is not our job to police the roads, especially as we are untrained and generally ahve a poor grasp of the law.

They are a nice little toy, but when they fill up the internet with rants and hate filled objectives, I think they are wrong.

There should be a larger Police presence on the roads to prevent this type of incedent, we are just supporting the budget reducing policies by carrying cameras. There are so many reasons to not have cameras.

I would like to know how we would have reacted if govt made it policy that we all carried cameras throughout our daily lives. Not positively, I imagine, but here we are voluntarily sticking cameras on every flat surface to observe others. Invasion of privacy much?

I was filmed while entering the local recycling dump last week. Why? Simply because people can't do their jobs properly...

Here endeth my rantette....

Happy New Year!

don simon wrote:

I would like to know how we would have reacted if govt made it policy that we all carried cameras throughout our daily lives. Not positively, I imagine, but here we are voluntarily sticking cameras on every flat surface to observe others. Invasion of privacy much?

no, not at all. If you're in public you have no expectation of privacy. 

ConcordeCX wrote:

don simon wrote:

I would like to know how we would have reacted if govt made it policy that we all carried cameras throughout our daily lives. Not positively, I imagine, but here we are voluntarily sticking cameras on every flat surface to observe others. Invasion of privacy much?

no, not at all. If you're in public you have no expectation of privacy. 

Are you saying that someone can take my photo and publicly display it without my consent?

don simon wrote:

Are you saying that someone can take my photo and publicly display it without my consent?

Yes. And sell it. And broadcast it. And make comment on it. No one owns the rights to their public image. Images taken in private are a different matter.

benborp wrote:

don simon wrote:

Are you saying that someone can take my photo and publicly display it without my consent?

Yes. And sell it. And broadcast it. And make comment on it. No one owns the rights to their public image. Images taken in private are a different matter.

Oh! I thought it was different to that https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/cctv, same would apply to still cameras too with only slight changes.

don simon wrote:

Grumpy17 wrote:

Why are you a 'nob' if you have a bike cam? Don't get that. Just because a small number of riders post up video clips willy nilly of trivial interactions with other road users doesn't make the rest of us 'nobs' for using one.

A camera has been a most useful accessory  to me over the past five years and this year alone has helped in winning, or at least driving swiftly to a conclusion, two accident claims. I have also seen three drivers sent on driver improvement courses by the police in the past six months based entirely on my camera evidence. The camera sits fairly inconspicuously on my bike and does not draw attention to me in any way.

I cannot see any arguments against having a camera, only arguments in favour.

It gives too many self righteous idiots access to publicly convicting people before a fair trial. A fair amount of time is wasted by people who want to rant about others while not paying sufficient attention to their own errors. It is not our job to police the roads, especially as we are untrained and generally ahve a poor grasp of the law.

They are a nice little toy, but when they fill up the internet with rants and hate filled objectives, I think they are wrong.

There should be a larger Police presence on the roads to prevent this type of incedent, we are just supporting the budget reducing policies by carrying cameras. There are so many reasons to not have cameras.

I would like to know how we would have reacted if govt made it policy that we all carried cameras throughout our daily lives. Not positively, I imagine, but here we are voluntarily sticking cameras on every flat surface to observe others. Invasion of privacy much?

I was filmed while entering the local recycling dump last week. Why? Simply because people can't do their jobs properly...

Here endeth my rantette....

Happy New Year!

I briefly tried one, after having my front wheel buckled after experiencing an idiot-boy-racer-incomplete-overtake-left-turn-sideswipe-hit-and-run maneuver (there needs to be a shorter term for that).  Figured that if I had a camera next time I might get the licence plate number.

But the ultra-cheap one I tried turned out to be crap battery life and crap image-quality, and a camera good enough to be useful would be so costly I'd worry about damage to it more than I do the bike.

But as for 'there should be a larger police presence on the road'  - be real, there 'should be' all sorts of things, but that one in particular is never, ever going to happen (because it costs a lot, and, importantly, its an ongoing cost, not a one-off capital investment), so what then?

And the government doesn't need to make it policy that we all carry cameras, because most people already do precisely that (phones?).  Not to mention CCTV everywhere (I'd be surprised if a recycling centre didn't have CCTV).  We live in a goldfish bowl, for better or worse. 

Anything illegal or just embarrasingly stupid one does in public has a good chance of being captured on video now.  Fortunately for motorists, the police still won't do anything if it shows lawbreaking behind the wheel.

alansmurphy wrote:

@tonyfarrelley how can your website promote such language, there may be children reading and watching this content!

I really think you need to get a grip on life if you are more concerned about the riders language then a life threatening incident. Personally I find it easier to explain the rights and wrongs of swearing than to explain why the bus driver attempted to kill the cyclist.

Gus T wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

@tonyfarrelley how can your website promote such language, there may be children reading and watching this content!

I really think you need to get a grip on life if you are more concerned about the riders language then a life threatening incident. Personally I find it easier to explain the rights and wrongs of swearing than to explain why the bus driver attempted to kill the cyclist.

 

I feel a 'whoosh!' might be appropriate here.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Gus T wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

@tonyfarrelley how can your website promote such language, there may be children reading and watching this content!

I really think you need to get a grip on life if you are more concerned about the riders language then a life threatening incident. Personally I find it easier to explain the rights and wrongs of swearing than to explain why the bus driver attempted to kill the cyclist.

 

 

I feel a 'whoosh!' might be appropriate here.

Hi Gus,

Site genius Tony F had a pop at myself and other posters regarding our language on the forum due to the possibility of a younger audience. Our poor language was in response to a bigoted, racist, fudging walker whom Tony didn't feel it appropriate to 'discipline'.

Further to a lack of response to our concerns, I thought a little 'poke' on a video they publish on their site containing bad language was a lovely ironic use of the forum...

alansmurphy wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Gus T wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

@tonyfarrelley how can your website promote such language, there may be children reading and watching this content!

I really think you need to get a grip on life if you are more concerned about the riders language then a life threatening incident. Personally I find it easier to explain the rights and wrongs of swearing than to explain why the bus driver attempted to kill the cyclist.

 

 

I feel a 'whoosh!' might be appropriate here.

Hi Gus,

Site genius Tony F had a pop at myself and other posters regarding our language on the forum due to the possibility of a younger audience. Our poor language was in response to a bigoted, racist, fudging walker whom Tony didn't feel it appropriate to 'discipline'.

This site is intended primarily for those who are adults. If Tony F doesn't think adult language is suitable for his children then he needs to tell them they can't use it.

Personally I would block forums and sites with below the line comments from children younger than secondary age due to the use of double entendre in many of them and having to explain what they mean.

OldRidgeback wrote:

Given there's a cycle lane there, I do wonder if the bus driver was trying to make a point. Hopefully Essex Police will pick this up and speak to the driver. It looks like a pretty clear case of driving without due care and attention, but what do I know? A mate of mine is a cop in Essex and a very keen cyclist and I expect he'd be annoyed to see this, tho Sarfend isn't his beat.

Not his job.

OldRidgeback wrote:

Given there's a cycle lane there, I do wonder if the bus driver was trying to make a point. Hopefully Essex Police will pick this up and speak to the driver. It looks like a pretty clear case of driving without due care and attention, but what do I know? A mate of mine is a cop in Essex and a very keen cyclist and I expect he'd be annoyed to see this, tho Sarfend isn't his beat.

The cycle lane seems to be there more to help cyclists going left than straight a head, as it deposits those going straight ahead right in the path of traffic.

Hence it isn't a good idea to use it if you are going straight a head, as drivers (who mainly sit on the RHS in the UK) would have to look to their left to see you merging. While car drivers could see you with ease if they bothered to look, those driving large vehicles including buses would have difficulty.