Are cameras always useful?

[zacklaws]

I always cringe, when I hear a cyclist with a camera having a tiff with someone, suddenly announce "Your on Camera". To me it always sounds wimpish, but it may stop someone carrying out a violent act if they know they are being filmed, but on the other hand, if the other person has committed a gross misnamenor and suddenly finds out that it has been filmed, then they could become more violent and try to destroy the camera and the evidence, even if if it means ripping your helmet off and probably your head still in it to stamp on it, or even chase you and try to run you over along with the camera. Discretion would probably be the best approach, and then the other person probably won't clam up, but carry on and damm themselves even more on camera.

Then I think it has been mentioned somewhere in the forums about the data protection act, such films etc taken from a camera mounted on a helmet should be for personal use, but when it is posted on the likes of You Tube, or in the forums etc, then suddenly it is in the public eye, and possibly someone could end up being sued.

Perhaps a warning sign stuck on the helmet could be useful, "Recording Equipment in use" to avoid confrontation before it starts, or even a cycling shirt with it emblazoned on the back in big letters, along with a bit of black painted dowel stuck to the top of the helmet to look like a camera, Especially if you can make one big enough out of polystyrene to look like the ones that they had on "World of Sport" many years ago with multiple lenses to stick on top of the helmet, that should put the cackers up motorists carving you up.


Capt Mannering to Cpl Jones when he had some far fetched suggestion "I think you're wandering into the realms of fantasy, Jones."

 

[Chutzpah]

If you're in a public place as far as I know data protection doesn't apply - you have no "right to privacy" if you're somewhere that you would reasonably expect to be filmed (i.e. not in your house). But then I'm not a lawyer.

 

[Bollo]

If you're in a public place as far as I know data protection doesn't apply - you have no "right to privacy" if you're somewhere that you would reasonably expect to be filmed (i.e. not in your house). But then I'm not a lawyer.

Magnatom has asked the question of officialdom (Data Protection Agency from memory, but I could be wrong) and, in Scotland at least, it's perfectly legal. There's no reason to think the law is any different for England and Wales.

Most cammed-up youtubers have had the "I'm a polic offiser and your gilty of a section 58 ofense - being a syclist peedo wiv a camera" type troll posts.

 

[Chutzpah]

Even if there were a police officer, most don't understand (or at least abuse) the powers that covering filming and photography. I'm not entirely sure I'd trust a word they told me

 

[ufkacbln]

It can be positive - I had an email discussion after a very close overtake....

The driver had been truly unaware how close he was, however when he saw the video he was very apologetic and now has a new perspsctive.

No tantrums, no fisticuffs a safer driver and a positive outcome for both of us.

 

[Norm]

Having a look at the video on the OP its hard to tell if they've gone on the pavement or leaned at an extreme angle and scooted with the tyres in the road. Not best practise however.

It's not that hard, as you can hear the thunk at about 15 seconds, when he comes off the pavement.

Norm.? Can you point us in the direction of the relevant legislation on the latter and proof on the former?

Try the Highway Code?

On the subject of signals, it says that you "should always" indicate but it says "Do not overtake on the left..."

 

[downfader]

I always cringe, when I hear a cyclist with a camera having a tiff with someone, suddenly announce "Your on Camera". To me it always sounds wimpish, but it may stop someone carrying out a violent act if they know they are being filmed, but on the other hand, if the other person has committed a gross misnamenor and suddenly finds out that it has been filmed, then they could become more violent and try to destroy the camera and the evidence, even if if it means ripping your helmet off and probably your head still in it to stamp on it, or even chase you and try to run you over along with the camera. Discretion would probably be the best approach, and then the other person probably won't clam up, but carry on and damm themselves even more on camera.

Then I think it has been mentioned somewhere in the forums about the data protection act, such films etc taken from a camera mounted on a helmet should be for personal use, but when it is posted on the likes of You Tube, or in the forums etc, then suddenly it is in the public eye, and possibly someone could end up being sued.

Perhaps a warning sign stuck on the helmet could be useful, "Recording Equipment in use" to avoid confrontation before it starts, or even a cycling shirt with it emblazoned on the back in big letters, along with a bit of black painted dowel stuck to the top of the helmet to look like a camera, Especially if you can make one big enough out of polystyrene to look like the ones that they had on "World of Sport" many years ago with multiple lenses to stick on top of the helmet, that should put the cackers up motorists carving you up.


Capt Mannering to Cpl Jones when he had some far fetched suggestion "I think you're wandering into the realms of fantasy, Jones."

By the same notion you're a journalist or columnist by publishing your writing on this webforum. The moment you advertise the camera you are in breach of the Info Comissioner's rules, from my understanding. Same as if you try to make any money from it.

I've heard others come out with the "you'll just provoke them" argument before. Do you really think someone is going to do something as public as hang around trying to bat a guy's helmet cam off his head..? It will in the least draw attention.

 

[downfader]

It's not that hard, as you can hear the thunk at about 15 seconds, when he comes off the pavement.

Try the Highway Code?

On the subject of signals, it says that you "should always" indicate but it says "Do not overtake on the left..."

TBH I didnt have any sound when I watched the first clip (family were watching telly)

"Do not" is not the same as "Must not" followed up with the relevant laws quoted, Norm. If it was illegal you wouldnt see driving schools teaching pupils to filter down the left past right turning cars, surely? I'm sure I have also seen a few of those cop shows where they fine drivers for not signalling.

 

[thomas]

TBH I didnt have any sound when I watched the first clip (family were watching telly)

"Do not" is not the same as "Must not" followed up with the relevant laws quoted, Norm. If it was illegal you wouldnt see driving schools teaching pupils to filter down the left past right turning cars, surely? I'm sure I have also seen a few of those cop shows where they fine drivers for not signalling.

That's a different rule. You may only undertake on the left when a driver is signally right...or when your in slow moving traffic.

Also, IAM teaches (i think), not bothering to signal if there isn't anyone around. Actually, in your driving test at some points you could get a minor for signalling when no one is around as it shows you're not paying attention (eg. if you don't signal, it's because you have looked and no one would see the signal anyway)....like when you're moving off from stationary, or just pulling up to the kerb.

 

[Chutzpah]

Yep, I apply the same principle to my cycling as my driving. If I can see there is no-one around (including pedestrians) I don't do it. It's best practice.

 

[gaz]

if the other person has committed a gross misnamenor and suddenly finds out that it has been filmed, then they could become more violent and try to destroy the camera and the evidence, even if if it means ripping your helmet off and probably your head still in it to stamp on it, or even chase you and try to run you over along with the camera. Discretion would probably be the best approach, and then the other person probably won't clam up, but carry on and damm themselves even more on camera.

I know of only one incident where someone has gone for the camera that a cyclist has. And it ended up with the driving being charged.
For me so far, that line has stopped several people that have gotten out of the car trying to do something to me. How far they would have gone without me saying that is unknown and not somewhere i want to visit.

 

[magnatom]

Magnatom has asked the question of officialdom (Data Protection Agency from memory, but I could be wrong) and, in Scotland at least, it's perfectly legal. There's no reason to think the law is any different for England and Wales.

It was the Information Commissioner for Scotland. They judged that my filming, and my posting on youtube was exempt from regulation under the 'Recreation' Clause in the Data Protection Act.


It's always interesting to watch discussions on this from the sidelines. Mind you, I think it should be a requirement for posters to name particular Helmet Camera Cyclists when describing certain characteristics. That would make the discussion a whole lot more entertaining!

 

[Crankarm]

There is no law against filming or taking photographs in a public place unless it is a "designated" place where photography will be excluded such as a military base. Those numptee twats who you have caught doing some thing wrong then come out with the "paedo" comments and simliar such offensive remarks who then tell you you can't film, abuse you, etc., are talking through their backsides. They then threaten you with violence, try to chase and assault you when you decline to follow their demands for your own safety. Royal Parks man caught red handed driving and dialing was a case in point. Nasty pieces of work.

 

[Crankarm]

If you're in a public place as far as I know data protection doesn't apply - you have no "right to privacy" if you're somewhere that you would reasonably expect to be filmed (i.e. not in your house). But then I'm not a lawyer.

The Data Protection Act doesn't apply to private individuals filming using personal hand held cameras in public places. Only to CCTV. If some one wants to view footage taken by a CCTV system it is under s.7 of the Data Protection Act. A charge can and is often levied to see the footage.

I suppose the grey area then becomes subsequently broadcasting it on Youtube. Is the footage balanced ie does it give the full picture as it were? Has an offence clearly been committed in which case shouldn't the police be dealing with the matter instead? But if some one is clearly being abnoxious, abusive, threatening or violent, committing offences in the footage then I would say publish and be damned. If some one is merely doing something you disagree with or it is not clear what they are doing, no offences have been committed or you have not suffered loss, then you could be defaming them by publication on Youtube. In this instance you better have deep pockets in case you are sued. I think Youtube would pull the footage if they received a notification of intent to sue.

 

[Crankarm]

It's not that hard, as you can hear the thunk at about 15 seconds, when he comes off the pavement.

Try the Highway Code?

On the subject of signals, it says that you "should always" indicate but it says "Do not overtake on the left..."

Doesn't Mirror-Signal-Manoeuvre appear frequently in the HC? Or translated to apply to cyclists Look-Signal-Manoeuvre?