CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Commuting

Person filming cyclists on NEPN

(22 posts)

Tags:


  1. panyagua
    Member

    I was cycling down from Drylaw towards the 'Y' junction at Craigleith on the NEPN this morning. As I approached the junction I noticed a man standing at the side of the path, panning a small video camera in my direction as I passed. He didn't appear 'official' (no hi-vis or anything). I wish now I'd asked him why he was filming cyclists, but by the time I'd registered him I was almost past.

    Did anyone else have that experience this morning, or know anything about this? As I was probably doing about 20mph, I half wondered if he was gathering 'evidence' of 'bloody cyclists' speeding along the path and upsetting pedestrians/children/dogs.

    In my defence, I was on a straight section of path, I could see well ahead, and it was completely clear. Unlike some NEPN users, I do always slow down for pedestrians and take extra care around children and dogs, so if I appear on some YouTube footage as an example of cycling nutterhood, I'm afraid he's got the wrong target.

    But hopefully I've jumped to the wrong conclusion...

    Posted 11 years ago #
  2. SRD
    Moderator

    My first guess would be that it was someone associated with the innertube map. Several of the folks involved with it are keen film-makers, and they've done various filming 'projects' in recent years involving showing users on the canal and other pathways.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  3. panyagua
    Member

    OK, thanks - let's hope that's who it was, and that my natural suspicion is misplaced!

    Posted 11 years ago #
  4. Kenny
    Member

    I don't believe there's anything to stop him doing it, and if you were doing nothing wrong, then you've nothing to be concerned about. Granted, I empathise with the potential feelings of paranoia, but I video numerous people every day merely because I have a camera on my commuting bike (note: another video shortly to be added to the bad driving thread), so if someone was videoing me cycling along, I can't exactly complain!

    Posted 11 years ago #
  5. Dave
    Member

    +1 my thoughts exactly. My cam often gets shifty looks from passers-by (I enjoy people watching from behind my sunglasses).

    Hope there aren't driving forums where people post about their concerns that they may have overtaken a cyclist with a camera (or on the other hand...)

    Posted 11 years ago #
  6. ARobComp
    Member

    If you are in the public place you can be photographed and video'd pretty much as much as anyone wants.

    "In general under the law of the United Kingdom one cannot prevent photography of private property from a public place, and in general the right to take photographs on private land upon which permission has been obtained is similarly unrestricted. However, landowners are permitted to impose any conditions they wish upon entry to a property, such as forbidding or restricting photography."

    Posted 11 years ago #
  7. panyagua
    Member

    Just to set the record straight - I wasn't suggesting I wanted to stop the guy filming - I'm well aware he's quite within his rights. I just would have been interested to know why he was specifically and intently filming me as I passed. And if I were to ask him the reason why he was doing so, I'd think it rude if he just said 'none of your business'. It's all hypothetical anyway, coz I didn't ask him!

    The reason I posted was to see if any forumites knew of a reason why someone would be filming cyclists in this way - for interest, though perhaps with a degree of paranoia...

    As mkns says, I was doing nothing wrong. It's a bit different from a helmet cam which indiscriminately films everything, and is only of interest in the event of an 'incident'.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  8. DaveC
    Member

    I was chatting to a diver freind who live and works in Devon a few years ago. He was attending a serious RTA, and awaiting the Ambulance. A man who was in a car stuck in the traffic as a result of the incident, walked up and started taking pictures of the incident and an injured lady stuck in her vehicle. My freind told the guy to go back to his car and stop taking pictures. The camera guy said that there was nothing the police man could do as it was his right to take pictures where ever and when ever he wanted in public.

    In the end my freind the police man, threatened the camera guy with some public order charge, before he stopped taking pictures and went away.

    I guess we're free to take pictures of what ever we like in public, but sometimes those having their picture taken, might not like what your taking pictures of.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  9. panyagua
    Member

    That's a good example of when manners and general taste should inform people's decisions about photography/filming. In less harrowing circumstances, of course it's also within the rights of the person being filmed to pull faces, point at the camera, and generally mock the photographer... as street performers know only too well!

    Posted 11 years ago #
  10. SRD
    Moderator

    btw, i did query someone at the Innertube and he said as far as he knew, no one was filming for them.

    probably an art student project or something.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  11. There was someone taking pics along the Innocent at the end of last week. I grinned like a loon at him....

    Posted 11 years ago #
  12. mgj
    Member

    @DaveC There was a prosecution in Edinburgh of a polish photographer for taking a picture of a (drunk) woman being sick. He was fined £250 IIRC for Breach of the Peace (so probably before 2010).

    Posted 11 years ago #
  13. What an odd case - £100 fine, and from 2008. I'd never heard of that before, thanks for mentioning it mgj. That's the beauty of the breach of the peace charge, can be used for virtually anything...

    Posted 11 years ago #
  14. Of course in the judgment the sheriff mentioned that taking the photograph was 'likely to cause offence' etc etc. I do wonder, therefore, why people getting drunk and throwing up in the street don't get breach of the peace charges more often. Certainly offends me...

    (of course the BBC report was simply that while drinking she had 'felt unwell and gone outside for some air', which is euphemistically wonderful).

    Posted 11 years ago #
  15. rust
    Member

    I went to talk a couple of years ago that discussed the laws around taking photographs in public places - it was mostly in relation to press photography.

    From what I remember it it came down to pretty much the rights people have described above - there is apparently a difference between England and Scotland where in Scotland Breach of the Peace can be used against photographers whereas in England it can't.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  16. mgj
    Member

    Breach of the Peace has now become statutory rather than common law, mostly because it could very much be abused (and would probably have not withstood an appeal to the ECHR)

    Posted 11 years ago #
  17. Breach of the Peace does still actually exist at common law, and can still be used as a charge, but apparently it's now more likely that someone will be charged with disorderly conduct under Section 38(1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 (presumably because it's a bit more watertight than the common law).

    Posted 11 years ago #
  18. DaveC
    Member

    Anth said "I do wonder, therefore, why people getting drunk and throwing up in the street don't get breach of the peace charges more often. Certainly offends me..."

    I suppose it depends on whether the incident is reported or not? Also on the evenings when most people will be drunk, the police are busy dealing with fights? I know there is a beleif that there are lots of police, but there aren't as many as people might beleive. Another freind in West Lothian, says that regularly in West Lothian, (Broxburn and Bathgate) ther can be as few as 4 officers on an overnight duty. They cover places which include Whitburn, Bathgate and Broxburn.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  19. Lovely case here from earlier this year when someone was convicted of common law breach of the peace AND statutory breach of the peace (and assaulting an officer).

    Posted 11 years ago #
  20. mgj
    Member

    General guidance to police officers completing a report was that after the creation of any statutory offence, they should not use the common law one unless it happened before the date of the new legislation or it was uncertain what the date of the offence was, but of course it is up to the Crown to decide on the charge libelled.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  21. mgj
    Member

    @DaveC, the BoP charge is not about offence but alarm to the lieges (great wording)

    Posted 11 years ago #
  22. Tulyar
    Member

    Just as Faith XX? who was for a while president of Living Streets mused on the great joy of her later life, having handed in her driving licence due to failing eyesight, of chatting to the various workers she came across walking around, as the prodded cables in the various boxes and manholes in the street, and learned some wonderful things.

    Just last month - looking at a tram project NOT in Edinburgh, I saw a man also showing an interest in the site, and it turned out he was a contractor for the nearby retail and office development, preparing their visual material to promote their premises - and connecting in with what the tram would deliver was a great opportunity for both parties.

    Off thread here but yesterday one comment on the trambles was that it was perhaps the first UK tram project to have grass growing up between the rails before a single tram had passed over them. maybe a candidate for the Railway Gardens competition http://railwayeye.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/railway-garden-competition-worcester.html not that I would submit an entry

    Posted 11 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin