Idiot Drivers and Camera's
 

I was out taking pictures earlier, and just after mid day I seen a Mitsubishi car on the outside lane heading towards me, so not one for taking pictures of cars I decided I would.On viewing the picture the driver had taken both hands off the wheel to give me a two finger salute. Why? What harm was I doing to him? Why do people react like this and would he have done the same to a police camera? Bloody idiot.

Andy. :mad::mad:

It's like Audiman M6aen said yesterday (or was it the day before? I've been on nights!!) when that accident happened on the M6 and he and the others were trying to warn oncomming traffic only to get back signals of abuse. Some people are just that way inclined.

A few years back, I was on the A55 and a Postie was in his van with the indicator flashing, it hadn't self canceled and he hadn't noticed. As I went past him I got his attention, pointed down to the front of his van then gave the sign of the indicator flashing......................only to be given the w*nk*r sign from him!!! He was obviously IGNORANT of what I was trying to tell him and, I suspect, not a well experianced driver.:mad::mad::mad::mad:

Well Chris, whoever the driver was the police have got the picture, hence it not being posted on here, and I will be willingly making a statement. Had I been making signs at him fair kop, but someone standing holding a camera, I just can't see his train of thought.

Andy.

I'd be very interested to hear the outcome of this (if there ever is one) given the long debates about photographers' rights - would the driver be able to say that he could withhold permission to photograph his private property?

I thought the copyright belonged to the photographer and not the subject??

There's a lot of silly debate about all of this, probably stemming from the nuisance of paparazzi and their invasion of privacy of public figures but it seems that you may have the right to stop people photographing your private property.

Of course the driver mentioned by Mr T was just an idiot but it seems to me to all be a stupid legal mess.

Does a private car on a public road carry such implications? Who knows.

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/u...ers-rights-v2/

Sometimes I have been asked by drivers why I am photographing vehicles - usually a polite explanation is enough to assuage any fears. People may just be worried that I'm looking to find fault and report then for something or other so if they are not happy of course I will err on the side of caution and resist.

Good point about private property, but if that is the case what right have the police in parking a van in the hope of catching someone? How many private vehicles do they have to catch before catching a wrong one?
I will of course let you know how this goes, but remember some point's, two hands off the steering wheel, crouching under the sun visor and overtaking at speed, while looking up at me while the car has nobody holding the wheel.

Andy.

It appears that the driver will be spoken too about his actions, either by NWP or the force in his own area, he might also be hit with a Section 59, which I understand covers unsociable behaviour. Which beg's the question, had he done it to a revenue van would he have got away with it?

Andy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-12463016

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/b...ts/7415335.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/c...re/7087952.stm

But this clown I spotted will get away with it, except maybe getting served a Section 59.

Andy. :confused:

59 Vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance

(1) Where a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which-

(a) contravenes section 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road driving), and
(b) is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public,
he shall have the powers set out in subsection (3).

(2) A constable in uniform shall also have the powers set out in subsection (3) where he has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle has been used on any occasion in a manner falling within subsection (1).

(3) Those powers are-

(a) power, if the motor vehicle is moving, to order the person driving it to stop the vehicle;
(b) power to seize and remove the motor vehicle;
(c) power, for the purposes of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a) or (b), to enter any premises on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the motor vehicle to be;
(d) power to use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any power conferred by any of paragraphs to (a) to (c).
(4) A constable shall not seize a motor vehicle in the exercise of the powers conferred on him by this section unless-

(a) he has warned the person appearing to him to be the person whose use falls within subsection (1) that he will seize it, if that use continues or is repeated; and
(b) it appears to him that the use has continued or been repeated after the the warning.
(5) Subsection (4) does not require a warning to be given by a constable on any occasion on which he would otherwise have the power to seize a motor vehicle under this section if-

(a) the circumstances make it impracticable for him to give the warning;
(b) the constable has already on that occasion given a warning under that subsection in respect of any use of that motor vehicle or of another motor vehicle by that person or any other person;
(c) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that such a warning has been given on that occasion otherwise than by him; or
(d) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the person whose use of that motor vehicle on that occasion would justify the seizure is a person to whom a warning under that subsection has been given (whether or not by that constable or in respect the same vehicle or the same or a similar use) on a previous occasion in the previous twelve months.
(6) A person who fails to comply with an order under subsection (3)(a) is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(7) Subsection (3)(c) does not authorise entry into a private dwelling house.

(8) The powers conferred on a constable by this section shall be exercisable only at a time when regulations under section 60 are in force.

(9) In this section-

"driving" has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52);
"motor vehicle" means any mechanically propelled vehicle, whether or not it is intended or adapted for use on roads; and
"private dwelling house" does not include any garage or other structure occupied with the dwelling house, or any land appurtenant to the dwelling house.

so if you sent the pic to the police, what would they do???