"Privacy Rules" for Photographs

[MK Tom]

I received this odd response from Wessex Bus today responding to a complaint I made about a driver's reaction to being photographed:

"Thank you for contacting Wessex Bus with regards to the incident on the 10/06/2018 in Bicester Village.

I have reviewed your complaint with Management, the Manager that deals with the Bicester Village Shuttle has contacted the Traffic Department and they are now aware, who the driver is, involved in this incident.
The driver will be spoken too, with regards to his attitude and behaviour but we do need to remind you that there are new Privacy Laws and you do need to obtain the drivers / individuals permission before taking a photo now.

I have copied in below, the new Privacy laws for you:

https://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/legal-help/right-to-privacy

Should you wish to contact any member of our Customer Services Team at any point, in relation to this matter, please quote reference 17012 when doing so."

My reading of the laws she links to wouldn't apply to bus photography, where the driver is incidental to the photo. It's the same as taking a candid street scene where people are only in it incidentally - you can't go around asking them all for permission.

What are people's thoughts on this?

 

[overthewater]

Sounds like thier covering they backs.

 

[Wirewiper]

My immediate response was that the Customer Services person is interpreting the ruling wrongly, and there is nothing in the article that disabuses me of that notion.

That said I do recognise that having a camera pointed at you unexpectedly can be disconcerting. However bus drivers are meant to be trained professionals, and more enlightened operators recognise that there will be people who are interested in their vehicles and will want to photograph them.

I also recognise that as an enthusiast, I too have a duty to act responsibly, and to carry out my photography without obstructing, hindering or interfering with staff, passengers and the general public, and not to endanger others and myself.

My experience is that I have had many times more friendly smiles and waves from drivers whose vehicles I have photographed, than I have had adverse reactions.

 

[carlberry]

The 'new' privacy laws are connected with GDPR, the ones quoted on that link are old ones and don't stop photography of anything, or anybody, in a public place (a public place can sometimes be open to interpretation however, most bus stations are not public places for instance). If you deliberately photograph a specific person repeatably then it could be seen as harassment (however it would have to be over many days at least).

I think a while ago the met police even went as far as to release a statement about it because of the number of attempts by minor celebrities to try to use the law in that way. Just imagine how much material would be left on YouTube or Flickr if the law was actually interpreted in that way!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Photographs (and any other data for that matter) taken entirely for personal, non-commercial, non-organisational use are totally exempt from the provisions of GDPR.

OTOH as Bicester Village is private land that organisation would be well within its rights to prohibit photography if it so wished - many shopping centres do.

 

[bussnapperwm]

I received this odd response from Wessex Bus today responding to a complaint I made about a driver's reaction to being photographed:

"Thank you for contacting Wessex Bus with regards to the incident on the 10/06/2018 in Bicester Village.

I have reviewed your complaint with Management, the Manager that deals with the Bicester Village Shuttle has contacted the Traffic Department and they are now aware, who the driver is, involved in this incident.
The driver will be spoken too, with regards to his attitude and behaviour but we do need to remind you that there are new Privacy Laws and you do need to obtain the drivers / individuals permission before taking a photo now.

I have copied in below, the new Privacy laws for you:

https://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/legal-help/right-to-privacy

Should you wish to contact any member of our Customer Services Team at any point, in relation to this matter, please quote reference 17012 when doing so."

My reading of the laws she links to wouldn't apply to bus photography, where the driver is incidental to the photo. It's the same as taking a candid street scene where people are only in it incidentally - you can't go around asking them all for permission.

What are people's thoughts on this?

Sounds like the standard twaddle that Rotala spout. They are talking a complete nonsense (or as a very famous fictional Civil Servant would say...

"There is some difficulty in justifiably assigning the statement to the fourth of the epithets Rotala applied to the statement inasmuch as the precise correlation between the information they communicated and the facts insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated is such as to cause epistemological problems of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear."

OTOH as Bicester Village is private land that organisation would be well within its rights to prohibit photography if it so wished - many shopping centres do.

But if, hypothetically speaking, the OP was on the public highway at the time then that would not apply anyway

 

[Robertj21a]

She's talking rubbish.

You are free to photograph a bus, or anything you like, as long as you are in a public place [as others have said, this may not include private land such as bus stations etc]. All that you have never been allowed to do is to photograph an individual in such a way that they may deem it to be harassment.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But if, hypothetically speaking, the OP was on the public highway at the time then that would not apply anyway

Correct. Allegedly one can have quite a bit of fun hacking off the security guards at the Bullring by doing this.

 

[Dentonian]

She's talking rubbish.

You are free to photograph a bus, or anything you like, as long as you are in a public place [as others have said, this may not include private land such as bus stations etc]. All that you have never been allowed to do is to photograph an individual in such a way that they may deem it to be harassment.

Talking more broadly, what would count as harrasment? Eg if I were to have taken a photo of an HGV that's just parked on a bus stop a few minutes ago or of a cyclist hurtling towards me (and others) on a footbridge, would that be harrasment? Obviously, the latter is impractical as my phone memory isn't big enough and I would expect to be assaulted anyway.

 

[jellybaby]

Talking more broadly, what would count as harrasment?

Apparently two separate occasions are required in addition to other things.

But don't take the advice of a random person on the Internet, have a read of https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/stalking-and-harassment

 

[Robertj21a]

Talking more broadly, what would count as harrasment? Eg if I were to have taken a photo of an HGV that's just parked on a bus stop a few minutes ago or of a cyclist hurtling towards me (and others) on a footbridge, would that be harrasment? Obviously, the latter is impractical as my phone memory isn't big enough and I would expect to be assaulted anyway.

I think what I refer to as harrasment is mainly directed towards a 'paparazzi' type of approach where a photographer routinely invades an individual's personal space for numerous close-up photographs. While 'celebrities' may have to accept such intrusion as part of their lifestyle, the ordinary person in the street should not have to.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Talking more broadly, what would count as harrasment? Eg if I were to have taken a photo of an HGV that's just parked on a bus stop a few minutes ago or of a cyclist hurtling towards me (and others) on a footbridge, would that be harrasment? Obviously, the latter is impractical as my phone memory isn't big enough and I would expect to be assaulted anyway.

Why would you expect to be assaulted by a cyclist? Are they inherently more violent??

Robertj21a is correct in that harassment is a course of conduct so not an isolated instance. Not a legal beagle but believe that harassment is behaviour which causes you distress or alarm, you must have experienced at least two incidents by the same person or group of people, and whether most people or a reasonable person would think the behaviour amounts to harassment.

I take a lot of photographs (sometimes buses, sometimes street scenes, architecture, etc) and I've had a few people ask and the odd one take offence. If they start quoting "the law" (aka what a bloke down the pub says), I try to explain and placate them. If that doesn't suffice, just walk away.

This is a handy summary of what you can do http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-street-shooting.html

 

[Dentonian]

Why would you expect to be assaulted by a cyclist? Are they inherently more violent??

In my experience; absolutely. On most occasions I have been hit or been in a very near miss with cyclists on pavements and footbridges; their reaction has been in a predictable three stages:

1. Denying they have done anything illegal

2. Swearing.

3. Threatening me with more direct violence.

Yes, some have been 16-25 yo yobs, but two were middle aged men.

More recently, I have dried harder to avoid conflict (literal and verbal) but even then there are two recent examples illustrating their supreme arrogance.

On one occasion whilst struggling over the footbridge that I had been hit on twice before* as my anaemia was particularly bad, I reached the end of the bridge just as a yob in his twenties brushed past my left shoulder. I actually said nothing, but he immediately called me an "insolent to**er" before continuing along the pavement at such speed he nearly slammed into the side of a car emerging from the next side street!

Then a couple of weeks ago, I was also struggling along the pavement on a deserted, residential street when a cyclist who must have been about 60 came right up behind me. As I became aware of him (remember cycles are virtually silent, unlike cars!), I turned and said "Is there something wrong with the road" and his reply was "it would help if you could walk straight", before continuing on his way.

* OK. technically, the second one only collided with my walking stick, so that might not count legally.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

In my experience; absolutely. On most occasions I have been hit or been in a very near miss with cyclists on pavements and footbridges; their reaction has been in a predictable three stages:

1. Denying they have done anything illegal

2. Swearing.

3. Threatening me with more direct violence.

Yes, some have been 16-25 yo yobs, but two were middle aged men.

More recently, I have dried harder to avoid conflict (literal and verbal) but even then there are two recent examples illustrating their supreme arrogance.

On one occasion whilst struggling over the footbridge that I had been hit on twice before* as my anaemia was particularly bad, I reached the end of the bridge just as a yob in his twenties brushed past my left shoulder. I actually said nothing, but he immediately called me an "insolent to**er" before continuing along the pavement at such speed he nearly slammed into the side of a car emerging from the next side street!

Then a couple of weeks ago, I was also struggling along the pavement on a deserted, residential street when a cyclist who must have been about 60 came right up behind me. As I became aware of him (remember cycles are virtually silent, unlike cars!), I turned and said "Is there something wrong with the road" and his reply was "it would help if you could walk straight", before continuing on his way.

* OK. technically, the second one only collided with my walking stick, so that might not count legally.

Quite frankly, I'm amazed. Yes, there are rude and ignorant cyclists, in much the same way as there are rude and ignorant pedestrians and car drivers, plus the usual barrack room lawyers who will quote "the law" (which kind of ties in with this thread).

I've been a regular cyclist going to work or for pleasure and have never threatened anyone with violence.

I don't know your routes but I've had the line quoted at me about "using the road, not the pavement" when it's been a shared use path, often when nearly been wiped out by a dog walker with an extendable lead etc, or on paths that are actually cyclepaths that were initiated and maintained by Sustrans!

And yes, quite often there is something wrong with the road - of the 100+ cyclists killed each year, nearly half are attributable to poor road condition such as potholes.

Appreciate you may have had bad experiences and there are definitely cyclists who could and should do better but I can assure you that the "supreme arrogance" is equally applicable to pedestrians and other road users.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be fair that kind of selfish arrogance is something I've observed to exist far more in the areas around Manchester and Liverpool, particularly rougher areas, (in the demographic you may refer to as "scallies", perhaps) than elsewhere in the UK. It's not a purely cyclist thing, but that demographic probably drives less than others, and when it does it's too busy driving too fast in its souped-up Corsa to do anything else.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

don't go to the Gower peninsular then... the cyclists hunt in packs round there

 

[telstarbox]

Talking more broadly, what would count as harrasment? Eg if I were to have taken a photo of an HGV that's just parked on a bus stop a few minutes ago or of a cyclist hurtling towards me (and others) on a footbridge, would that be harrasment? Obviously, the latter is impractical as my phone memory isn't big enough and I would expect to be assaulted anyway.

You're tragically obsessed with this.

 

[Dentonian]

You're tragically obsessed with this.

"Tragically" insofaras a collision is much more likely to be put me in a wheelchair (or a box) than the average, physically healthy person - but that seems to be part of the problem. From past conversations with GMP - yes, they used to be interested - they did reveal that it was the elderly and infirm who had reported the problem most frequently. There is this sense that modern day cyclists are on a Darwinian mission; that they are the ones "saving the planet" and if that means some physically imperfect people are to be sacrificed then that is the price to pay.

 

[Dentonian]

Quite frankly, I'm amazed. Yes, there are rude and ignorant cyclists, in much the same way as there are rude and ignorant pedestrians and car drivers, plus the usual barrack room lawyers who will quote "the law" (which kind of ties in with this thread).

I've been a regular cyclist going to work or for pleasure and have never threatened anyone with violence.

I don't know your routes but I've had the line quoted at me about "using the road, not the pavement" when it's been a shared use path, often when nearly been wiped out by a dog walker with an extendable lead etc, or on paths that are actually cyclepaths that were initiated and maintained by Sustrans!

And yes, quite often there is something wrong with the road - of the 100+ cyclists killed each year, nearly half are attributable to poor road condition such as potholes.

Appreciate you may have had bad experiences and there are definitely cyclists who could and should do better but I can assure you that the "supreme arrogance" is equally applicable to pedestrians and other road users.

They are definitely not "shared spaces", but what I have noticed elsewhere is (admittedly fairly wide) pavements where every couple of hundred metres there has been a small blue sign with a white bicycle on it. I'm guessing these are "shared spaces", but note a. No signs at the start/end of the stretches of pavement and b. I've never seen cyclists on those stretches. They stick to the opposite pavement which is, of course, much narrower.

There are of course, arrogant motorists (though a smaller percentage overall), but I'm not sure there are many arrogant pedestrians - stupid ones who walk everywhere with headphones on, but not really arrogant.

 

[jon0844]

"Tragically" insofaras a collision is much more likely to be put me in a wheelchair (or a box) than the average, physically healthy person - but that seems to be part of the problem. From past conversations with GMP - yes, they used to be interested - they did reveal that it was the elderly and infirm who had reported the problem most frequently. There is this sense that modern day cyclists are on a Darwinian mission; that they are the ones "saving the planet" and if that means some physically imperfect people are to be sacrificed then that is the price to pay.

Hardly on topic, but I was in a restaurant near Holborn recently and watched out the window at what cyclists were up to.

Most were fine. Most stopped at the junction and placed some value on their own life. Deliveroo and Uber Eats drivers were lunatics, clearly under even more time pressure that the old-school bicycle courier. And there were two people on Boris bikes going the wrong way down a 4 lane one way street. One at the side of the road, but one in the middle of four lanes THE WRONG WAY, while on his phone. It appeared, but I couldn't see the screen, that he was likely using his phone as a navigation aid.

Amazingly nobody died, but it was pure fluke and likely the actions of motorists NOT trying to mow down cyclists that allowed these idiots to take to two wheels another day.

 

[Dentonian]

To be fair that kind of selfish arrogance is something I've observed to exist far more in the areas around Manchester and Liverpool, particularly rougher areas, (in the demographic you may refer to as "scallies", perhaps) than elsewhere in the UK. It's not a purely cyclist thing, but that demographic probably drives less than others, and when it does it's too busy driving too fast in its souped-up Corsa to do anything else.

This is partly true - especially if you include Salford - but my experience is much broader in terms of age and type of cyclist (ie many are commuters). What is noticable is that whilst the problem transcends all age groups and ethnicities, all the verbal (and physical) violence I've encountered has come from White, English males aged either 16-25 or 50-65 ish. As for the drivers; more Audi A3 & Range Rover than Corsa, I would venture.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are of course, arrogant motorists (though a smaller percentage overall), but I'm not sure there are many arrogant pedestrians - stupid ones who walk everywhere with headphones on, but not really arrogant.

People walking with their head in their mobile phone are probably the best. I've taken to walking straight towards them then stepping aside at the last second (when they look up and are shocked to find all 6' 4" and 19 stone of me barrelling down on them) to make a point.

 

[Dentonian]

People walking with their head in their mobile phone are probably the best. I've taken to walking straight towards them then stepping aside at the last second (when they look up and are shocked to find all 6' 4" and 19 stone of me barrelling down on them) to make a point.

Of course, *the* sterotypical "scally" is a cyclist leaning back, both hands on said mobile phone which he/she is staring down into and cycling obliviously along the pavement (or occasionally, road). My problem is I'm exactly half 19 stone!

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

There are of course, arrogant motorists (though a smaller percentage overall), but I'm not sure there are many arrogant pedestrians - stupid ones who walk everywhere with headphones on, but not really arrogant.

Really? Any evidence or just anecdotal experience?

Perhaps I should share my experiences? The woman who pulled out on me whilst I was rounding a corner in Bath? The guy in Keynsham who nearly took me out as he overtook me so he could immediately turn left (rather than wait 10 seconds?) The woman in Westbury who decided that whilst the signs said oncoming traffic (i.e. me) had priority, that didn't reflect the pecking order of life so decided to bully through anyway? Better still, my mate who was cycling to work in Kingswood and despite the high viz clothing he had on and the lights, had a woman turn across his path and saw him hit her ("sorry mate, I didn't see you"), resulting in a double leg fracture and shattered kneecap and a lifetime of osteo arthritis as a consequence.

London is a case apart (in so many ways) but being a car driving cyclist, I do take notice of how people behave. In Bristol, one of the UK's cycling hotspots, I see very, very few instances of red light jumping, cycling on non shared pavements etc. Almost never see anyone cycling whilst looking at a mobile. However, I've lost count of the times that I see the telltale drop of the eyes of car driver as they look at their mobile, or the delay at the lights when they've not noticed they've changed! As for pedestrians, the number who have walked out because they are busy on their phones etc.... well, it beggars belief!

One thing that perhaps people fail to understand is that most cyclists are also car drivers whereas most car drivers aren't cyclists. There are some "hair shirt" individuals who act like morons, like any fundamentalist does. There are idiots who ignore rules and signs - like the guy walking with his two young children on what he thought was a path in Snowdonia but was a custom built mountain bike trail - another scary moment for me to recall. However, I'd suggest most cyclists tend to be quite reasonable in my experience (and no, I'm not on about those Deliveroo people or lycra clad weekend warriors) and the idiots are no greater than the general populace, I would venture!

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

whilst conscious that we are getting way off topic here I'd like to share my favourite arrogant moment... when I first started driving buses I was one day happily pootling along at 20mph with a line of parked cars either side... a car came screaming down the road towards me and screetched to a halt in front of my bus. The driver, a middle aged woman, got out of the car and stormed over to my window and told me in no uncertain terms that I had to reverse because she had a BMW!

 

[carlberry]

whilst conscious that we are getting way off topic here I'd like to share my favourite arrogant moment... when I first started driving buses I was one day happily pootling along at 20mph with a line of parked cars either side... a car came screaming down the road towards me and screetched to a halt in front of my bus. The driver, a middle aged woman, got out of the car and stormed over to my window and told me in no uncertain terms that I had to reverse because she had a BMW!

You have to remember that BMWs have been manufactured for many years with none functioning indicators, I assume they've decided to remove reverse gear as well!

 

[Dentonian]

Really? Any evidence or just anecdotal experience?

Perhaps I should share my experiences? The woman who pulled out on me whilst I was rounding a corner in Bath? The guy in Keynsham who nearly took me out as he overtook me so he could immediately turn left (rather than wait 10 seconds?) The woman in Westbury who decided that whilst the signs said oncoming traffic (i.e. me) had priority, that didn't reflect the pecking order of life so decided to bully through anyway? Better still, my mate who was cycling to work in Kingswood and despite the high viz clothing he had on and the lights, had a woman turn across his path and saw him hit her ("sorry mate, I didn't see you"), resulting in a double leg fracture and shattered kneecap and a lifetime of osteo arthritis as a consequence.

London is a case apart (in so many ways) but being a car driving cyclist, I do take notice of how people behave. In Bristol, one of the UK's cycling hotspots, I see very, very few instances of red light jumping, cycling on non shared pavements etc. Almost never see anyone cycling whilst looking at a mobile. However, I've lost count of the times that I see the telltale drop of the eyes of car driver as they look at their mobile, or the delay at the lights when they've not noticed they've changed! As for pedestrians, the number who have walked out because they are busy on their phones etc.... well, it beggars belief!

One thing that perhaps people fail to understand is that most cyclists are also car drivers whereas most car drivers aren't cyclists. There are some "hair shirt" individuals who act like morons, like any fundamentalist does. There are idiots who ignore rules and signs - like the guy walking with his two young children on what he thought was a path in Snowdonia but was a custom built mountain bike trail - another scary moment for me to recall. However, I'd suggest most cyclists tend to be quite reasonable in my experience (and no, I'm not on about those Deliveroo people or lycra clad weekend warriors) and the idiots are no greater than the general populace, I would venture!

*Extensive* observation. But note I was talking proportions. If I observed 100 motorised road users, I would expect to see maybe one smoking in the cab of a commercial vehicle; three on their mobiles (at least two of which will be women under 25); two jumping red lights and three speeding. Out of 100 cyclists, I would expect to see 60 on the pavement, footpath or *inside* bus stations; and a further 20 on the road but jumping red lights (especially ped-x s). ie. 20 at most riding totally legally.
I was on a bus recently, when a girl stepped straight in front of the bus and even crossed the other carruageway nonchalontly with ear phones on, whilst road traffic had full right of way in both directions, but in all honestly, this behaviour is very rare compared to illegal and dangerous cycling. Of course, if I travelled in trendier areas or in the evenings with more young pedestrians about, my experience may be much closer to yours. FTR, the bus wasn't travelling too fast and whilst the driver had to break sharply, no passengers were injured. The driver did seem shook up though and was offered sympathy by passengers who'd witnessed the incident more clearly than me.
Take your point about Deliveroo (and of course, uber Eats fka Jinn) but I wish lycra clad warriors were restricted to weekends.

My memory failed me slightly when saying that all encounters (so far) had been with male cyclists. The first few were actually with a specific female cyclist who used to cycle along a local residential street and then as soon as she saw me (and I witnessed it with someone else once), would swerve off the road and ride right at me. She was one of the "no hands" brigade (but didn't have a mobile). This happened two or three times specifically on my way to work. However, I subsequently saw her periodically at various times of day on various local pavements and I think she literally just rode around on pavements all day(!)

 

[Dentonian]

You have to remember that BMWs have been manufactured for many years with none functioning indicators, I assume they've decided to remove reverse gear as well!

I can absolutely relate to that!

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

You have to remember that BMWs have been manufactured for many years with none functioning indicators, I assume they've decided to remove reverse gear as well!

Luckily I was driving a minibus from a certain German manufacturer so just played top trumps with her lol

 

[Robertj21a]

Is this still the Privacy rules for photographs thread ?