Cycle and car cams and the law

[Fastpedaller]

I find that it is the narrow country lanes which are the problem. Cars speeding towards you which won't brake and slow down .

Absolutely - here in Norfolk I get the same issue, and sometimes wonder if a driver has even realised I'm there. Fortunately that sort of driver is in the minority, and most slow or even stop, and get a thank you wave It should be expected for them to take care, but a cheery wave reinforces that cyclists are human and costs nothing!

 

[Illaveago]

Absolutely - here in Norfolk I get the same issue, and sometimes wonder if a driver has even realised I'm there. Fortunately that sort of driver is in the minority, and most slow or even stop, and get a thank you wave It should be expected for them to take care, but a cheery wave reinforces that cyclists are human and costs nothing!

A few stop or slow down here but others just speed past. I think some of them don't even know what the brake pedal is for .

 

[mjr]

Pick a UK police force that accepts helmet camera/dashcam footage and you'll find the same wording on their submission form. It's not confined to one police force.

Can't see it on https://www.norfolk.police.uk/contact-us/6-report-it/10-dashboard-camera but I've not been through the whole process for months, so it may be on a later page.

 

[richardfm]

Pick a UK police force that accepts helmet camera/dashcam footage and you'll find the same wording on their submission form. It's not confined to one police force.

Can't see it here, https://gosafesnap.wales/ on the form used by South Wales Police

 

[cougie uk]

I find that it is the narrow country lanes which are the problem. Cars speeding towards you which won't brake and slow down .

If you're in the way they will usually slow down in my experience. Clinging to the side of the road and they might not.

You might need to be prepared to dodge if they're not going to budge though!

 

[Illaveago]

If you're in the way they will usually slow down in my experience. Clinging to the side of the road and they might not.

You might need to be prepared to dodge if they're not going to budge though!

That happened to me with a young woman in a mini! She wouldn't slow down or move over!

 

[DaveReading]

If you're in the way they will usually slow down in my experience. Clinging to the side of the road and they might not.

You might need to be prepared to dodge if they're not going to budge though!

Or just stop in the middle of the road with both brakes clamped firmly on.

You'll be just as dead with or without the brakes, but at least the tyre skid marks will show that you were stopped when they hit you.

 

[C R]

That happened to me with a young woman in a mini! She wouldn't slow down or move over!

Would it be this lady?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-25000788

 

[figbat]

Would it be this lady?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-25000788

“Way refused to comment as she left court, saying she had signed an exclusive television deal.”

Looking forward to seeing this on Netflix!

 

[All uphill]

Would it be this lady?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-25000788

I love her comment:

"It's the biggest regret of my life, so far"

I wonder what she's planning next?

 

[C R]

I love her comment:

"It's the biggest regret of my life, so far"

I wonder what she's planning next?

That was in 2013, so hopefully she did learn something.

 

[Bollo]

I've come at this one from a few angles over the years. Right now I work for a firm that produces software to manage data-privacy issues and compliance so, although I'm not on the lawyering side, I do work with people who are experts in the field. I also do a bit of amateur photography - mainly sporting events - and have come across the occasional jobsworth or "I know my rights" type over the years.

First off there are very few restrictions about taking images in a public space. The key here is what counts as "public". Certainly (again with a couple of exceptions around terrorism, sites covered by the official secrets act and, bizarrely, commercial photography in Trafalgar Sq ) the public highway is exactly that. Same with any facility that's not specifically owned by a private body, so public parks are also good. Many people are surprised that there's no law that stops you bringing a camera to your local park and taking pictures of the kids playing there. Whether that's a good idea is another argument and I certainly wouldn't, but people are quite happy for parents to livestream the same scenes from their mobiles on to any number of social media platforms with fair use policies that are anything but.

However, privacy law and how it relates to images of people does have some subtleties. Without any other identifying information, a movie of your journey to work won't have any privacy implications, even if you film any resulting "discussion" with a fellow road-user about misconceptions around the UK's current road-funding model. But, if you then passed on that footage to the police and they attempted to identify that road-user by cross-referencing with other data points, then that footage would fall under the police's GDPR responsibilities.

I've a few real-world examples from my own experience, including a long-running saga with the National Ice-Skating Association, but I'll spare you those.

As always, I point people towards the ICO website. I've had some people tell me it's "useless" when what they really mean is that it's giving them an answer they don't like, but it's generally well written and the many examples can be illuminating.

 

[C R]

But, if you then passed on that footage to the police and they attempted to identify that road-user by cross-referencing with other data points, then that footage would fall under the police's GDPR responsibilities.

But I would have thought that those responsibilities can not be construed as preventing the police from gathering and collating evidence.

 

[Bollo]

But I would have thought that those responsibilities can not be construed as preventing the police from gathering and collating evidence.

I think that's an interesting question that's being tested right now with the Lancashire plod's handling of the Nicola Bulley case.

Privacy laws aren't about information in isolation, but whether the use and retention and use of that information is reasonable. If the police require that information to investigate or progress a case then that generally constitutes a reasonable use. With Nicola Bulley, her state of mind at the time of her disappearance was almost certainly relevant to the police investigation, so retention was justifiable. By revealing it publicly, the argument is that they chose to use the information in a way that wasn't reasonable, because it wasn't directly released to aid the investigation but as a sop to all the conspiracy theorist nonsense swirling around her disappearance.

Generally the ICO are pragmatic and will choose guidance and monitoring over fines in all but the most egregious cases. US privacy laws are set at the state level (CCPA, NYPA) and tend to enforced more aggressively.

 

[icowden]

Privacy laws aren't about information in isolation, but whether the use and retention and use of that information is reasonable. If the police require that information to investigate or progress a case then that generally constitutes a reasonable use. With Nicola Bulley, her state of mind at the time of her disappearance was almost certainly relevant to the police investigation, so retention was justifiable. By revealing it publicly, the argument is that they chose to use the information in a way that wasn't reasonable, because it wasn't directly released to aid the investigation but as a sop to all the conspiracy theorist nonsense swirling around her disappearance.

I think there is also a peripheral issue that the information was going to be published anyway by those honourable ladies and gentlemen of the press - the Police chose (I think in liaison with the family) to control that release and are now taking the flak.