That can only be true if you state the registered owner drove illegally, if you state the driver of the vehicle then you are being factually correct.
Videoing illegal?
- Thread starter Matthew_T
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
That can only be true if you state the registered owner drove illegally, if you state the driver of the vehicle then you are being factually correct.
LosingFocus
Lost it, got it again.
Actually you can film and take photos of police officers, as long as it's not for terrorist purposes.
Additionally, only a handful of government buildings (MI6, MoD, not sure of any others) cannot be filmed - otherwise no-one would be able to take pictures of the Houses of Parliament.
Which is what I said...
True, but my version requires less brain power, important for some of us.
Angelfishsolo
A Velocipedian
- Location
- Cwmbach, South Wales
My post #24 backs this up.
I knew it was something like that, just not sure on the specifics. Can't say I live near anything so important it can't be photographed, living a crap town up north!
Essentially though, that copper is a lazy cow who can't be arsed to do her job.
Globalti
Legendary Member
I posted as a parent and resident who has been involved for eight years in a campaign to stop motorists racing through our street, using it as a short cut to avoid traffic lights on the main road despite the street being restricted by law to access only.
My experience has been that the Police are always ready to take action and indeed we have dealt successfully with two habitual speeders in the street with their help. However I was trying to convey (possibly clumsily) my belief that Police officers, just like all other humans, are only capable of giving limited attention to a problem when it arises again and again and when reported by the same people again and again, especially when their time and energy is being taken up by more serious crimes. I can envisage a scene where traffic officers who have just attended an unpleasant and distressing accident might even witness a near miss with a cyclist, see the cyclist survive with only dignity injured and laugh it off as a comical incident. They are humans like the rest of us and sometimes the cycling public needs to cut them some slack.
This has nothing to do with deliberate malice by motorists against cyclists, which is not the same as the thousands of little errors of judgement and lapses of concentration, which happen on the roads every day.
My experience has been that the Police are always ready to take action and indeed we have dealt successfully with two habitual speeders in the street with their help. However I was trying to convey (possibly clumsily) my belief that Police officers, just like all other humans, are only capable of giving limited attention to a problem when it arises again and again and when reported by the same people again and again, especially when their time and energy is being taken up by more serious crimes. I can envisage a scene where traffic officers who have just attended an unpleasant and distressing accident might even witness a near miss with a cyclist, see the cyclist survive with only dignity injured and laugh it off as a comical incident. They are humans like the rest of us and sometimes the cycling public needs to cut them some slack.
This has nothing to do with deliberate malice by motorists against cyclists, which is not the same as the thousands of little errors of judgement and lapses of concentration, which happen on the roads every day.
Mystified by this Globalti. I usually enjoy your posts, but you seem to have jumped in with both feet on this one. I've re-read the posts up to this point and see nothing to justify your words.
For starters, no-one mentioned commuters, the incident wasn't a case of "Oops! that was a bit close" but a deliberate attempt to harm by dooring, and the OP and most of the subsequent posts are concerned with the legal aspects of video evidence, not moral superiority.
LosingFocus
Lost it, got it again.
True, but my version requires less brain power, important for some of us.
Ah, too true...
gaz
Cycle Camera TV
- Location
- South Croydon
None of it applies to the use of cameras on the roads.
MrHappyCyclist
Riding the Devil's HIghway
- Location
- Bolton, England
You could have mentioned Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002. (Subsection 2 is relevant in this case.)
But doesn't subsection 4 mean that the constable can only seize the vehicle of a previously-warned offender?
Mushroomgodmat
Über Member
- Location
- Norwich
as a keen photographer (and someone who deals with copyrighted material all day long) I can confirm that you are free to record/photograph anything/anyone thats viewable from a public space, regardless of what it is or who it is.
The only exeption to this is if the public space that is privatly owned, and by that I mean a shopping center or a airport - both being places where the public go but are privatly owned.
The only exeption to this is if the public space that is privatly owned, and by that I mean a shopping center or a airport - both being places where the public go but are privatly owned.
MrHappyCyclist
Riding the Devil's HIghway
- Location
- Bolton, England
Yes, so if they've previously been warned, then they can seize the vehicle; if not, then they can give them a warning. Either way, there is a chance that the behaviour of the driver will be modified.
Mushroomgodmat
Über Member
- Location
- Norwich
Iv never heard of this - I have taken shots of the MI6 building, in sight of security and it was not a problem.