CCTV of the recent road accident near the Natural History Museum

[Bill Wright]

I haven't seen any. Seems odd.

Bill

[alan_m]

Possibly because: i) It wasn't terrorism ii) It was an accident and the Police are not lo1oking for the driver iii) All parties involved have been identified

[harry]

More likely it WAS terrorism and they don't want us to know.

[Brian Gaff]

Well, Its one of those pet shared surfaces schemes around they, heaven forbid it gets any bad press the millions spent to make it impossible to use if you are not young able bodied andcan see. Brian

[Bob Eager]

The driver appears to have been on the Cromwell Road (not a shared surface) and attempted to turn left onto the shared surface BEFORE the traffic light. He went left of the traffic light post (which was on the kerb) and drove diagonally across the pavement onto the shared surface road.

Hardly the fault of the shared surface; it was the dest> Well, Its one of those pet shared surfaces schemes around they, heaven

[Nightjar]

That doesn't mean that confusion over the shared space didn't contribute to the accident.

[Bob Eager]

I can't see how. There are posts to stop you getting onto the shared space from that direction; by leaving the road before the traffic lights, he was deliberately avoiding those. There can have been no confusion.

[GB]

This was a mini cab driver, I suppose. How could somebody who makes his living by driving do something daft like that?

[Robin]

Any of the traits I've met or suspected in London PHV drivers over the years - drugs, working for the previous 16 hours, not acclimatised to UK road conditions, never taken a driving test...

[Dave Plowman (News)]

If you decided to run down people, you'd likely choose something a bit bigger than a Prius.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Wouldn't be the first cab or delivery driver who thinks traffic laws don't apply to them.

[Bill Wright]

But it was news, and anyone with CCTV could make a bit by selling to a broadcaster or a newspaper website.

Bill

[NY]

The fact that this hasn't happened makes me suspicious that the police have instructed newspapers not to publish footage. Of course, once it was announced that it was not a terrorist incident, the incident became less newsworthy, but until then I'd have thought the people with footage which showed what happened might have released it to the papers.

What is the current situation as regarded suspected terrorist attacks: do the police immediately issue a D Notice (or whatever the modern equivalent is) banning publication until there has been further analysis, after which it is not "news" if it is only an accident and not a terrorist incident.

And what about private publication on Youtube etc? Do the police issue immediate "takedown" instructions to Youtube? Now that it's not terrorist, maybe some footage will come to light.

Was he an idiot who couldn't read the road and turned too soon onto a pavement, or did he have some sort of medical incident that led to the car going out of control? I wonder if it was the dreaded problem with automatic cars of the driver hitting the accelerator instead of the brake and then not being able to stop quickly enough (the "elderly person driving into a shop window" type of accident - though I believe this guy was not elderly).

Very impressive that armed police were on hand to react so quickly. I imagine that the Kensington museums are seen as a likely target so there may be police on standby close by.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Not sure there'd be any private cameras in Exhibition Road.

[Andy Burns]

Only if that was one of the specified purposes of the CCTV in accordance with the DPA

[NY]

Is fixed CCTV subject to different rules to someone in the street filming with their phone, or is man-in-the-street footage really subject to DPA restrictions but no-one normally bothers? Is Google Streetview's blurring of faces and number plates actually a legal requirement or is it a courtesy to appease people concerned about privacy and maybe a worst-case rule in case other countries have more stringent rules.

Is it no longer the case that you can film anything that happens in a public place (the street) but not on private land such as a garden, and that people do not have any right to privacy in public. I always thought that warnings about CCTV were there to make it legal to use the footage in court, not to make it legal to publish it in general. Or are our laws becoming as draconian as USSR's and various dictatorships'? Obviously "public place" excludes specific MOD sites. I know some countries do not allow dashcams to be used, so you have no way of presenting footage to insurance companies in the event of an accident and you have to rely entirely on third-party witnesses - if any - rather than photographic evidence.

[michael adams]

I thought warnings about CCTV were so as to discourage potential miscreants who might not otherwise have noticed the presence of the camera. Or might even substitute for an actual working camera.

Same as with burglar alarm notices.

michael adams

...

[Scott]

Sell - I would have donated in the public interest.

[NY]

If I was ever in the position of being the only person to film a newsworthy event, I would offer it to the news agencies on the non-negotiable condition that they do not have exclusive rights to it and that I will be offering it also to other broadcasters and expect payment from anyone who uses it - and I will walk away from any company that says "we will pay you extra if you give us exclusive rights".

I remember years ago being first on the scene (apart from the ambulance and fire brigade) at a damage-only collision and car fire. I happened to have my camera with me, so I took a few photos, developed them in my darkroom and went round to the various free newspapers in town asking whether they were interested in buying the photos. The first paper, the weekly one, tried the "exclusive deal" line and I said "not interested". They upped the cost so I said "it's not the money, it's the exclusive part of the deal that I'm not interested in" and walked away.

I eventually sold the photo (for a pittance!) to one of their competitors, and opted for a by-line in lieu of payment from a third paper - I'd got what I wanted: a bit of money and a bit of publicity. The Bucks Herald lost their chance to print the photo because they wanted to be greedy and have exclusive rights to it.

[Nightjar]

It was an RTC where people were injured, which makes it an ongoing police investigation. It probably isn't sufficiently newsworthy to risk publishing potential evidence.