|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Independant witnesses....
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. |
Ads |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Independant witnesses....
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 14:28:42 +0200, Roberto Divia
wrote: wrote: 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
|
|||
|
|||
Independant witnesses....
said the following on 25/08/2006 13:21:
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. 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
|
|||
|
|||
Independant witnesses....
said the following on 25/08/2006 13:48:
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
|
|||
|
|||
Independant witnesses....
In article , Paul
Boyd writes said the following on 25/08/2006 13:21: 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
|
|||
|
|||
Independant witnesses....
Paul Boyd wrote:
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
|
|||
|
|||
Independant witnesses....
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 14:15:43 +0100, Paul Boyd wrote:
said the following on 25/08/2006 13:48: 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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Independant witnesses....
Following on from Paul Boyd's message. . .
said the following on 25/08/2006 13:48: 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 www.eminent.demon.co.uk - Lots for cyclists |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Independant witnesses....
Peter Fox wrote:
Following on from Paul Boyd's message. . . said the following on 25/08/2006 13:48: 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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dick Pound Witnesses Huge Flash Of Light!!!!! | Calogero Carlucci | Racing | 0 | July 4th 06 05:43 AM |
Independant Media | Flying Echidna | Australia | 5 | October 27th 05 01:16 PM |
tandem stoker independant cadence | Brink | General | 1 | July 20th 04 01:03 PM |