Manx Bean Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 Whilst I accept they are the latest must have driving accessory it seems, I have one question: Should the owners not have to be registered with the Data Protection Registrar (or whatever they are called these days) to record members of the public - which is what other road users are? Maybe one for our MHKs to pick up... http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=32580&headline=Driver%20fined%20£250%20for%20looking%20at%20mobile%20phone§ionIs=NEWS&searchyear=2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 No. You can take pictures/film most things from public land/roads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 I'll wager whoever took it has more than a few skeltons in their closet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 Whilst I accept they are the latest must have driving accessory it seems, I have one question: Should the owners not have to be registered with the Data Protection Registrar (or whatever they are called these days) to record members of the public - which is what other road users are? Maybe one for our MHKs to pick up... http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=32580&headline=Driver%20fined%20£250%20for%20looking%20at%20mobile%20phone§ionIs=NEWS&searchyear=2017 I think you can film all you want to in a public place, providing it is not pervy I would have thought. Very sad that somebody actually went to the police with their "evidence" . They must feel very proud. I hope the snitch doesn't live in a glass house and doesn't let their halo slip I thought the whole point of the dashcam was to settle any dispute in the event of being in a bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 Whilst I accept they are the latest must have driving accessory it seems, I have one question: Should the owners not have to be registered with the Data Protection Registrar (or whatever they are called these days) to record members of the public - which is what other road users are? Maybe one for our MHKs to pick up... http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=32580&headline=Driver%20fined%20£250%20for%20looking%20at%20mobile%20phone§ionIs=NEWS&searchyear=2017 I think you can film all you want to in a public place, providing it is not pervy I would have thought. Can do it even if it is pervy, for example paparazzi photos of Kate Middleton sunbathing topless, taken with a huge lens. I know it was a different country but basically the same law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jah_pet Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 I would do the same, only thing that would stop me is the time it would take me and hassle that it would cause. Its not hard to stay off your mobile while driving. With the state of peoples driving on this island you could go out with a camcorder and come back with enough examples of careless driving in a couple of hours to keep the courts busy for months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarne Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 Oh for fucks sake, the dude was doing the right thing by pulling over. Common sense here Police... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craggy_steve Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 Whilst I accept they are the latest must have driving accessory it seems, I have one question: Should the owners not have to be registered with the Data Protection Registrar (or whatever they are called these days) to record members of the public - which is what other road users are? Maybe one for our MHKs to pick up... http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=32580&headline=Driver%20fined%20£250%20for%20looking%20at%20mobile%20phone§ionIs=NEWS&searchyear=2017 Actually the Information Comissioner has explicitly published his opinion on the personal use of dashcams to report "poor driving". Basically if the dashcam is personally owned and used for personal domestic purposes then there is no need for the owner to register with the Information Commissioner - https://www.inforights.im/information-centre/data-protection/data-protection-guidance-for-individuals/surveillance-technology-cctv/ However ... the news report doesn't tell us that the dashcam was privately owned, installed for purposes other than the recording of bad driving, mounted in a privately owned vehicle, which was not at the time being used for business purposes. If any of those four is not true then it would be possible that the owner of the dashcam needed to be registered with the Information Commissioner for the purpose, and display appropriate warnings visible from outside the vehicle, or was otherwise in breach of the DPA. Personally If I was "the Police" I'd be very wary of accepting this type of evidence without assurance that the images were gathered lawfully. If I were the chap who has just been penalised I'd be very tempted to report the matter to the Information Commissioner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheldon Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 Very sad that somebody actually went to the police with their "evidence" . They must feel very proud. On any given day I probably see a dozen other drivers on their mobile while in motion, or parked on double-yellows because - surely - that call takes precedence over any other rules of the road, and if they introduced a reward for grassing them up I might well do so. I should therefore applaud this good citizen for their actions, and yet some deeper instinct whispers to me that they're a sad piece of work, and probably have malformed genitalia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 It's all about PACE. Police Accounts Currently Empty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 However ... the news report doesn't tell us that the dashcam was privately owned, installed for purposes other than the recording of bad driving, mounted in a privately owned vehicle, which was not at the time being used for business purposes. If any of those four is not true then it would be possible that the owner of the dashcam needed to be registered with the Information Commissioner for the purpose, and display appropriate warnings visible from outside the vehicle, or was otherwise in breach of the DPA. It also says that the police can ask for the 'evidence' but I think going to them with it without being asked isn't quite the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Prom Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 Good on whoever shopped the fucking wanker! You lot can have a valid opinion when you've had a family member killed by a driver on a phone. A £250 fine is a fucking piss tske. Should be £2,500 and an instant ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 Whilst I accept they are the latest must have driving accessory it seems, I have one question: Should the owners not have to be registered with the Data Protection Registrar (or whatever they are called these days) to record members of the public - which is what other road users are? Maybe one for our MHKs to pick up... http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=32580&headline=Driver%20fined%20£250%20for%20looking%20at%20mobile%20phone§ionIs=NEWS&searchyear=2017 I think you can film all you want to in a public place, providing it is not pervy I would have thought. Very sad that somebody actually went to the police with their "evidence" . They must feel very proud. I hope the snitch doesn't live in a glass house and doesn't let their halo slip I thought the whole point of the dashcam was to settle any dispute in the event of being in a bump I agree. Anyone who buys a dash cam is either a boy racer (who posts their stupid exploits on YouTube and gets themselves arrested whilst stupidly providing their own evidence), or is just an irritating busy body. They usually fall into category two as there is no point to them other than being a pathetic busy body who goes blabbing to the cops whenever they see something they don't like. Same as those stupid cyclists who wear the helmet cams. Camcorders are just more ammunition for twats to be twats with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 if they introduced a reward for grassing them up I might well do so. I should therefore applaud this good citizen for their actions, and yet some deeper instinct whispers to me that they're a sad piece of work The inner thoughts of typical East German in 1978. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.