Without question, these cameras are emboldening their aggressive wearers to accost and rebuke other road users about issues which are very often no more than subjective perception like self appointed police officers. This is causing violent confrontation and is bound to lead to tears before long. See this good example.
It is not the right of any road user to rebuke others whilst pointing a camera at them in a threatening manner
It seems that the Police Chiefs agree.
.@DriverUnion People who take more overt action put themselves at risk of harm and could impact negatively on a police investigation.
— NPCC (@PoliceChiefs) June 19, 2015
I have already raised the very valid observation that, in an age when we are stopped from filming our own family at Nativity or in a swimming pool, these people can use a camera discriminatedly to film whoever they happen to be peering at at the time. School kids, babies, young mums and so on. This Sneeky Pete is doing just that. In my view this unsolicited filming of people could, and indeed, should be challenged whenever it happens. In fact, until tested, it could be deemed to be conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace. So far the police and Home Office, who I have raised this with, have not denied this is so. But usually the police don't like us being vigilantes in case we get hurt although they do seem to encourage it if against drivers; a discrimination if ever there were one. But for now I will concentrate on whether or not the police are able, or have the resources to examine every inch of weirdo footage submitted to them by sneaky Petes. Of course they don't. So let's get their role defined straight away. The police are meant to find their own cases, investigate them and instigate due process once the CPS is satisfied with their case. Of course they pursue allegations and compile evidence for prosecution but this role isn't confined to police. Any person is able to lay an information to the courts and present their case in due course. That is exactly how the head cam mafia should be dealt with. If they think they have produced enough evidence to convict a member of the public, then they should put their money where their mouth is and make the case themselves so that our police can get on with real crime as the majority of us would like them to do.
Unbelievably the new ACPO Ltd, NPCC, are saying they support aggressive head Cam vigilantes, accosting and rebuking other drivers whilst filming them without consent. See it here.
The law has NO power to stop you from taking photographs or recordings in public, the ONLY places you can be stopped from doing so is on private land/property, such as shopping centres, swimming pools(rather obvious to be honest), theatres, cinemas and other peoples homes UNLESS you have permission, you are allowed to record things in public(I.E on the street, in a park or in a public building UNLESS it is a building that also handles sensetive information) and while you can ask the person taking the pictures/video to not put you in it, that person can also, quite rightly and legally REFUSE and there is nothing the law can do about it, the only time the law can step in is break up any altercations, hell, even the police are now wearing cameras but I don't see you complaining about that, or the fact that in London alone, you will be caught on cctv 100 times in a single day.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you people always miss the point or respond to what's written? Head Camz are worn with hostile intent and ill will. They are to catch out people when they're doing wrong and report them. It's vigilantism. And no the police are not vigilantes they are the police. Because it is an aggressive act, and will point wherever the user is looking, it surely will be used by weridos and pervs and as an ex copper take that from me. In view of that members of the public would be well within their rights to challenge the use and prevent it too. From that a breach of the peace could ensue. Therefor it could be deemed to be conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace. Of course that would need to be tested but discriminately pointing a head cam at people can be challenged legitimately.
DeleteFirst off, they are NOT worn with "hostile intent", they are there for the EXACT same reason, police wear body cameras, as a silent witness, as a supposed ex copper, you of all people should know, that ANY officer who views video evidence, then become as good as a person who witnessed it first hand, they are not used to "catch people out", besides, CCTV does that as it is and does it FAR more discreetly than a camera mounted on a helmet or bike in plain sight, you often find CCTV perched on top of lamp posts and traffic lights, not hidden or anything but just placed out of a normal persons view, another point to consider, is the fact that weirdos and perverts aren't exactly going to be using cameras with extremely large fields of view and they certainly wouldn't use them in full view of everyone but again, members of the public have the right to ask for the camera to be pointed away from them but the person with the camera ALSO has the RIGHT to refuse, the law is VERY clear on the fact that you have NO expectation of privacy in the PUBLIC domain because anything and everything you do that isn't on private property, is then open to public scrutiny, a breach of the peace would only be caused if an altercation occured and it would only be the altercation that the parties involved would be arrested for and nothing else and no, recording/photogaphing someone in PUBLIC can NOT be legitimately challenged, it is in PUBLIC, therefore, the subject of the image can NOT challenge the person with the camera, anyway, many thousands of motorists are also running helmet cams(motorcyclists) and dash cams to catch poor driving, in fact, motorcyclists are likely to catch FAR more because those who have full licences can also go on the motorways yet you don't attack them for doing EXACTLY the same as cyclists with helmet cams, why is that?
DeleteOf course they are being used against perceived bad driving. What nonsense. ' to catch poor driving' is your contradiction.
DeleteDash cams are fixed and therefor not used discriminately. Head cams point where the wearer is looking. MCs also use fixed cameras front and rear. On the head gear, just like cyclists, they would be a danger to the user and compromise the helmet as well as other road users too.
But why should our police have to study all these submissions at great cost? We cannot afford it and nor can they. So let these people put their money where their mouth is and lay their own information to the courts. As a tiny minority, cyclists with head cams would have a job convincing the rest of us that's a bad idea and that was the central point of this post. Do your own prosecution if you think you have the evidence but I don't want police running the cyclist's war on drivers. Seem fair enough to me.