UK and Europe · Public discussion

Independant witnesses....

Started by Email address hidden · · Last activity · 11 posts · 434 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
25 August 2006
Last activity
29 August 2006
Original author
Email address hidden
Posts
11
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
434
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–11 of 11
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. The discussion on how drivers seem to be immune to castigation without
    independant witnessing has prompted this observation / question...

    On my daily commute to work, I usually see at least 3 drivers on the
    phone, and I go through one particular set of lights where cars
    routinely drive through on red (frequently the same cars).

    If, say three people stood at a set of lights and noted the numbers
    (and descriptions of the drivers, as suggested in the other thread) of
    red-light-jumping cars; could they be considered 'independant' for the
    purposes of being witnesses? (bearing in mind that their purpose in
    being there is to note such driving)

    I'm not suggesting that any vigilante type activity be undertaken, and
    before anyone asks, yes, I think unlawful behaviour by cyclists should
    be included too.

    thoughts?
    M.

  2. Quoted message said:

    The discussion on how drivers seem to be immune to castigation without
    independant witnessing has prompted this observation / question...

    On my daily commute to work, I usually see at least 3 drivers on the
    phone, and I go through one particular set of lights where cars
    routinely drive through on red (frequently the same cars).

    If, say three people stood at a set of lights and noted the numbers
    (and descriptions of the drivers, as suggested in the other thread) of
    red-light-jumping cars; could they be considered 'independant' for the
    purposes of being witnesses? (bearing in mind that their purpose in
    being there is to note such driving)

    I'm not suggesting that any vigilante type activity be undertaken, and
    before anyone asks, yes, I think unlawful behaviour by cyclists should
    be included too.

    thoughts?

    How about taking pictures? Would it go against people's privacy rights?

    Ciao,
    --
    Roberto Divia` Love at first sight is one of the greatest
    Dep:PH Bat:53 Mailbox:C02110 labour-saving devices the world has ever seen
    Route de Meyrin 385 ---------------------------------------------
    Case Postale Phone: +41-22-767-4994
    CH-1211 Geneve 23 CERN Fax: +41-22-767-9585
    Switzerland E-Mail: [email hidden]

  3. Roberto Divia said:
    Quoted message said:

    The discussion on how drivers seem to be immune to castigation without
    independant witnessing has prompted this observation / question...

    On my daily commute to work, I usually see at least 3 drivers on the
    phone, and I go through one particular set of lights where cars
    routinely drive through on red (frequently the same cars).

    If, say three people stood at a set of lights and noted the numbers
    (and descriptions of the drivers, as suggested in the other thread) of
    red-light-jumping cars; could they be considered 'independant' for the
    purposes of being witnesses? (bearing in mind that their purpose in
    being there is to note such driving)

    I'm not suggesting that any vigilante type activity be undertaken, and
    before anyone asks, yes, I think unlawful behaviour by cyclists should
    be included too.

    thoughts?

    How about taking pictures? Would it go against people's privacy rights?

    Ciao,

    Actions in public are not private, by definition.

  4. [email hidden] said the following on 25/08/2006 13:21:

    Quoted message said:

    If, say three people stood at a set of lights and noted the numbers
    (and descriptions of the drivers, as suggested in the other thread) of
    red-light-jumping cars; could they be considered 'independant' for the
    purposes of being witnesses? (bearing in mind that their purpose in
    being there is to note such driving)

    What comes to mind here are cases where local residents have hand-held
    speed cameras to record speeds of cars through villages. As I
    understand it, the worse that can happen to a speeding driver is they
    get a written warning from the police if they exceed a certain
    threshold. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4153429.stm for
    example. On that basis, I suspect that even if three people recorded a
    driver jumping the lights. You can always try it though, I guess. I
    have found from experience that the witnesses need to be truly
    independant of each other. Friends/colleagues/cohorts won't count.

    Quoted message said:

    I think unlawful behaviour by cyclists should
    be included too.

    Absolutely. It is very hard to be castigating motorists for poor
    behaviour when a cyclist promptly zips through a red light and onto a
    pavement. We lose all credibility.

    --
    Paul Boyd
    http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

  5. [email hidden] said the following on 25/08/2006 13:48:

    Quoted message said:

    Actions in public are not private, by definition.

    Not strictly true legally, I don't think. As an amateur photographer, I
    would have to be very careful not to include recognizable faces in any
    photos that could end up in the public domain. I think this is also why
    speed cameras take photos of cars moving away from them - taking a photo
    of the driver and passenger was deemed to be an invasion of privacy.
    Common sense doesn't count here, although if the registered keeper won't
    say who was driving, then they take the rap.

    --
    Paul Boyd
    http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

  6. In article <[email hidden]>, Paul
    Boyd <[email hidden]> writes

    Quoted message said:

    [email hidden] said the following on 25/08/2006 13:21:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I think unlawful behaviour by cyclists should
    be included too.

    Absolutely.

    Fair point, but what is there to record - make of bike and description
    of rider? How feasible is that given that they'd practically be past you
    by the time you had seen them doing something illegal? I doubt if a
    digital photo would be of much use.

    --
    congokid
    Eating out in London? Read my tips...
    http://congokid.com

  7. Paul Boyd said:

    I think this is also why speed cameras take photos of cars moving away
    from them - taking a photo of the driver and passenger was deemed to
    be an invasion of privacy.

    Not at all.

    The original Gatso cameras were designed to catch drivers doing away
    from them because it ensured they could catch motorbikes as well -
    which have a rear registration plate but not a front one.

    The subsequent introduction of Truvelo cameras, which do take pictures
    of the front of the car - precisely so that the driver can be
    identified - shows that there is no insurmountable privacy issue.

    --
    Stevie D
    \\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
    \\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
    ___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

  8. Paul Boyd said:

    [email hidden] said the following on 25/08/2006 13:48:

    Quoted message said:

    Actions in public are not private, by definition.

    Not strictly true legally, I don't think. As an amateur photographer, I
    would have to be very careful not to include recognizable faces in any
    photos that could end up in the public domain.

    Quoted message said:

    I think this is also why
    speed cameras take photos of cars moving away from them - taking a photo
    of the driver and passenger was deemed to be an invasion of privacy.
    Common sense doesn't count here, although if the registered keeper won't
    say who was driving, then they take the rap.

  9. Following on from Paul Boyd's message. . .

    Quoted message said:

    [email hidden] said the following on 25/08/2006 13:48:

    Quoted message said:

    Actions in public are not private, by definition.

    Not strictly true legally, I don't think. As an amateur photographer, I

    Perfectly true in UK. Unless people have a reasonable expectation of
    privacy (eg by being on private property at a private function) then
    it's not against the law.

    There might be issues with publishing images depending on the
    circumstances.

    --
    PETER FOX Not the same since the statuette business went bust
    [email hidden]
    www.eminent.demon.co.uk - Lots for cyclists

  10. Peter Fox said:

    Following on from Paul Boyd's message. . .

    Quoted message said:

    [email hidden] said the following on 25/08/2006 13:48:

    Quoted message said:

    Actions in public are not private, by definition.

    Not strictly true legally, I don't think. As an amateur
    photographer, I

    Perfectly true in UK. Unless people have a reasonable expectation of
    privacy (eg by being on private property at a private function) then
    it's not against the law.

    There might be issues with publishing images depending on the
    circumstances.

    The tale was told, a Several of years ago, about Herr X, who went to the
    German Grand Prix at Hockenheim. Frau X, watching the race on television,
    happened to notice that next to Herr X in the grandstand was Fraulein Y, and
    in fairly short order, Herr X was a bachelor again. Whereupon he sued the
    TV company for his plight, and won. Thereafter the tickets to the race
    contained a disclaimer to the effect that if you get caught in flagrante
    delicto, it's /your/ problem.

    This all seemed rather curious to the minds of BRITONS, but TWFKAML assured
    me that they take that sort of thing very seriously in Germany.

    --
    Dave Larrington
    <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
    While you were out at the Rollright Stones, I came and set fire
    to your Shed.

  11. Dave Larrington said:

    The tale was told, a Several of years ago, about Herr X, who went to the
    German Grand Prix at Hockenheim. Frau X, watching the race on television,
    happened to notice that next to Herr X in the grandstand was Fraulein Y, and
    in fairly short order, Herr X was a bachelor again. Whereupon he sued the
    TV company for his plight, and won. Thereafter the tickets to the race
    contained a disclaimer to the effect that if you get caught in flagrante
    delicto, it's /your/ problem.

    Many years ago when I was a poor student I was scraping togetehr a few
    pennies by means of photographic services.

    I took a series of pictures at a college event involving lots of people
    having a good time. These were published as a montage in the centre
    pages of the college rag (it being cheaper to cut the pictures up and
    do the paste up, then there was only one scanning charge. These were
    pre electronic publishing days.)
    Prominent in this montage was a rather nice picture of a couple having
    a rather nice time. His soon-to-be-ex girlfriend was not amused when
    she saw the pictures as she wasn't in them...

    I accept no blame - I am not expected to know the intimate details of a
    few thousand students relationships..
    ...d

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.