Had my first run in with the police today

[Gary]

everytime we have one of these threads we always get people linking to war photos and suggesting that a photo taken by a bystander of a wrecked van is on the same kind of level... What an utter load of crap.

get some persepective. This shot of a RTA is not a shot that has changed the world.
I'm dont completely agree that all those famous shots of changed the world anyway (but thats another thread), but there is a big difference between a war photographer documenting a majoy part of history and a bystander taking a photo of a car crash. That photo isnt going to make it on the cover of the New York Times.

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

I'm not commenting on the actions of the police and the member of the public who became involved.

However, as a member of the emergency services myself, we DO NOT like bystanders taking photos. Very very bad taste indeed and something we are sickened by. Those photos taken by oppertunists normally end up on youtube or similar.

Also, having been involved in a serious rtc myself last year (which resulted in the other driver being convicted of dangerous driving and losing their licence as a result), if anyone had attempted to take photos of my smashed up vehicle, I would have let him/her have it with both barrels despite my injuries.

Regards
Lisa

You may not like it and you may let them have it with both barrels but the fact remains a member of the public is entitled to photograph the scene if they so wish - if you are said member of public it is down to your personal feelings if you take the photo or not.

 

[Gary]

I think there's a big difference between photographing an RTA for the sake of it and war reporting by the likes of Robert Capa. One is about educating and informing the public about national and global situations. The other has very little point at all. To try and draw comparisons between the two is at best clutching at straws to justify pretty pointless actions in my opinion.

why couldnt you have written that a bit earlier and saved me writing almost the same thing at the same time LOL

 

[Gary]

You may not like it and you may let them have it with both barrels but the fact remains a member of the public is entitled to photograph the scene if they so wish - if you are said member of public it is down to your personal feelings if you take the photo or not.

whether that is true or not, there are a lot more important things going on than a question of photographers rights.

 

[Crazyhorse]

AND another thing, you'd be absolutely amazed at the amount of people who try to crawl under the taped off area of an investigation scene. Don't they realise they can interfere with and or contaminate evidence????

Lisa

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

whether that is true or not, there are a lot more important things going on than a question of photographers rights.

Not really they have the right by law to take the shot - as i said its personal preference if they take the shot or not and nobody has the moral right to dictate a individuals personal preference.

 

[Crazyhorse]

You may not like it and you may let them have it with both barrels but the fact remains a member of the public is entitled to photograph the scene if they so wish - if you are said member of public it is down to your personal feelings if you take the photo or not.

Oh well, just call me old fashioned.

Lisa

 

[Byker28i]

I'm sorry if I have offended anyone

Not me

but if you meet the victims of rtc's even if they are not injured, some suffer terrible shock and even big hard me will just say they want their mum.

Lisa

Yup - so true. We have what I call Scooter week around the start of October every year, which is when the roads get damp and slippery and I seem to be picking up young scooter riders inappropriately dressed who have slid off around roundabouts. The second phone call after the emergency services is usually to the parent/mum.

 

[Crazyhorse]

Yup - so true. We have what I call Scooter week around the start of October every year, which is when the roads get damp and slippery and I seem to be picking up young scooter riders inappropriately dressed who have slid off around roundabouts. The second phone call after the emergency services is usually to the parent/mum.[/QUOTE]


Bless.

I can't believe the amount of bikers these days who don't wear leathers or decent boots, not that they'll save you but they do help in the case of minor injuries.

Lisa

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

Oh well, just call me old fashioned.

Lisa

Not old fashioned you just have a different set of beliefs (not sure if this the right word to use) to some other people, personally i'm not sure if i would take the shot or not - sat here in front of my keyboard i would take the shot but put me in the situation i'm not sure, but if someone else was there taking pictures i wouldn't have a problem with that either.

 

[Crazyhorse]

Not old fashioned you just have a different set of beliefs (not sure if this the right word to use) to some other people, personally i'm not sure if i would take the shot or not - sat here in front of my keyboard i would take the shot but put me in the situation i'm not sure, but if someone else was there taking pictures i wouldn't have a problem with that either.

Thanks for the clarification, appreciated. I think it's an emotive issue.

It's not the sort of thing I'd do but we can't all be the same.

Regards
Lisa

 

[Blapto]

Thanks for that, do you know where you got the source of this information?

I'm not disregarding it, I'd just like to say more than 'Well this one guy on a forum said I can'

Check the Conditions of Carriage:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/termsandconditions/899.aspx

Section 4.5 states:
4.5. For safety reasons, on our buses, in our bus stations and on Underground stations and trains
you must not:
...
• take flash photographs and/or use a tripod or other camera support equipment

As we live in a society where you can do things unless there are laws/rules against them, I'd interpret that as you can use a camera without a flash or support.

There's an increasing number of posts going around about 'Togs and Cops at war'

Togs and Cops, Torys and Cops... Where will it end?

 

[pxl8]

Either photographers can shoot what they want in a public place or they can't and it seems that society is changing its opinion on this. As more people object on moral grounds to the taking of certain shots and the more the issue of rights is debated the closer we get to the day when photography in public places will be illegal. Laws are written as much as possible to avoid specific siutations so, at best, we'll have a situation where some kind of licence will need applying for in advance and for specific reasons, ultimately a photography tax

 

[Marc]

whether that is true or not, there are a lot more important things going on than a question of photographers rights.

Which has been my point all along!

 

[Blue Moon 7]

one of the photos that sticks in my mind is of the London bombings and some guy helping to carry guy another where he took some of the blast, i think you will know the one i mean, it's become quite iconic now, i'm not sure if it was taken by someone in the media or it was a member of the public, but it just brings home why we need a record of this sort of thing,

If this is the photo that I think it is there was an interview with the man involved recently who was quite angry that the picture had been taken / published. I cannot recall where that was but it was within the past year. I will try to find it as if I recall correctly part of his anger was that no one had asked him if he wanted to be on the front pages of the papers or thought about the emotional impact that this would have on him or his family. I personally see those photographs as being inspirational and am humbled by peoples actions when I see stuff like that. However, if they were never shown again because the man involved didn't want them to be shown, that would be good with me. I personally think he has earned the right.

I think that the Police do on occasion get it wrong. On many occasions photographers probably get it wrong as well. Not in a legal sense but in a reading the situation sense. It isn't about political correctness (whatever that means....!). It is sometimes about doing the right thing / or not doing the wrong thing.

Many of the great photographers weren't / aren't just good with a camera. They have a feel for the environment that they work in and an empathy with the people that they are working with. Sometimes we have to balance the importance of the shot and it's value with our own sense of self importance and ask what value that shot actually has. Is it going to change the masses perceptions of RTA's or is it just going to upset people. I suppose what I am saying is in the greater scheme of things - is it worth it, and if so to whom?

My girlfriend took pictures that were used as evidence of attrocities in Central America in the late 80's & early 90's (Chile, Hondures & Nicaragua). She is not a photographer and has no real interest in photography. She was an aid worker. She has also spent time in Afganistan when the Russians were in residence and the Taliban were our buds. I was asking her point of view this morning and explaining the thread. This is what she said on her way out of the door:

"If the lad taking the pics really thinks that taking shots of accidents is making a difference for anyone other than himself good luck to him. Maybe what he should be doing is f*%$!^g off somewhere where he will be able to make a difference. It may change his perception of what is important and what is not. The Police wouldn't grab his camera. They would make him and his family disappear........ Can I have that last bit of toast?"

Now you have to remember that Lou has been jailed in the past for giving bread to children in Nicaragua and has buried victims of civil war with the villagers that she lived with and loved so has a different tolerence to me. She is a no nonsense type of girl who says it as it is. Which is why I love her dearly even after 15 years together! Made me stop and think, but I am a bit biased when it comes to her

I think this is a healthy debate that shows the differing points of view well. It's given me a lot to think about.

Chris

 

[oldfella]

there must be some coppers on this forum, who would like to give some advise to anyone on here ,that may have to deal with the police whislt taking photos crash scene etc

Are you serious. A copper who will give a neutral opinion when police are invoved. Do you not read the papers.

 

[Uneducated_Rick]

I've taken photos of minor accidents where cars have ended etc for insurance purposes. Several times they've been used as evidence as to where the accident really took place and thus who's fault it was. My favourite was when 1 female drive claimed the accident happened half a mile up the road where it was clear dual carriageway rather than when 3 lanes merged into 2

Surprised the policeman didnt take the camera off you

That would be unlawful as leave1 did nothing illegal.

Public place, its not illegal. Did you get the officers numbers or names? File a report with the local station.

Personally I wouldn't complain (as such) merely request that the officers be informed of the law and what they can and cannot do.

While I agree with it's your right to take pictures in public, aren't you taking it a bit far?

Seems like you took some pictures, were told to stop a couple of times, but kept on going. Why not just stop once you've got a couple, and leave it at that?

What's the difference between photos (which many people can see) and many people standing and watching?

Why not stop? Becuase he didn't have to and may not have got a good enough shot for a newspaper

You were asked to stop four times and nearly punched, I might have made my excuses and left a little earlier. Some battles just aren't worth winning.

But they had no reason or right to ask him to stop....

I think there's a big difference between photographing an RTA for the sake of it and war reporting by the likes of Robert Capa. One is about educating and informing the public about national and global situations. The other has very little point at all. To try and draw comparisons between the two is at best clutching at straws to justify pretty pointless actions in my opinion.

So only global news is news? In that case ban all local papers, radio stations and television news....

 

[Marc]

"If the lad taking the pics really thinks that taking shots of accidents is making a difference for anyone other than himself good luck to him. Maybe what he should be doing is f*%$!^g off somewhere where he will be able to make a difference. It may change his perception of what is important and what is not. The Police wouldn't grab his camera. They would make him and his family disappear........ Can I have that last bit of toast?"

Well I think that was a ridiculous thing to say! That piece of toast was obviously yours and you'd been looking forward to eating it!

 

[Gary]

I think this is a healthy debate that shows the differing points of view well.

I agree

when this came up on sportshooter.com forum I got shot down in flames. I was the only one who who didnt think it was necessarily right to shoot peoples grief and i got banned before the thread had gone 2 pages

 

[minky_monkey]

Either photographers can shoot what they want in a public place or they can't and it seems that society is changing its opinion on this. As more people object on moral grounds to the taking of certain shots and the more the issue of rights is debated the closer we get to the day when photography in public places will be illegal. Laws are written as much as possible to avoid specific siutations so, at best, we'll have a situation where some kind of licence will need applying for in advance and for specific reasons, ultimately a photography tax

It`s black and white IMO. Either we can, or we can`t take pictures. Once it starts getting into the morals of whether this or that picture should be taken if it`s going to offend certain individuals we`re on the very dangerous slope of censorship. There will ALWAYS be someone offended, dammit, some people almost make it their career to be. Who draws the line. What`s offensive?

Now, from my point of view I wouldn`t have taken the shots as a bystander. But I`ll stand up and defend the right to if it`s legal. I accept that in this situation it was probably upsetting for people, hell as a recovery driver I`ve been out to more RTCs than I can remember. I`ve taken pictures, most of the lads have. But only of the vehicles, nothing up close and only as part of the job.

 

[Gary]

I've taken photos of minor accidents where cars have ended etc for insurance purposes. Several times they've been used as evidence as to where the accident really took place and thus who's fault it was. My favourite was when 1 female drive claimed the accident happened half a mile up the road where it was clear dual carriageway rather than when 3 lanes merged into 2

with all due respect thats irrelivant

 

[Blue Moon 7]

Well I think that was a ridiculous thing to say! That piece of toast was obviously yours and you'd been looking forward to eating it!

That's what I thought but didn't have the bottle to say it. 8st dripping wet, but not a woman to mess with She got the toast :shake:

Chris

 

[Marc]

That's what I thought but didn't have the bottle to say it. 8st dripping wet, but not a woman to mess with She got the toast :shake:

Chris

Should have stood up for your rights!

 

[Uneducated_Rick]

with all due respect thats irrelivant

It was still an accident on public land photographed from public land.

It upset the woman I proved wrong yet it was still a perfectly legal photo to take

 

[Gary]

It was still an accident on public land photographed from public land.

It upset the woman I proved wrong yet it was still a perfectly legal photo to take

yes, but there were no emergency services there dealing with injured people whilst you argued with them.

 

[Kev M]

So only global news is news? In that case ban all local papers, radio stations and television news....

That's not what I said is it:nono: I was talking about people drawing references between people taking pictures of accidents for fun and war reporters. I didn't say it wasn't news at any point I said there was little point in a by-stander photographing it.

 

[fracster]

I wonder how many of these "Tog/Cop" situations could be defused by simply being civil to each other............

 

[whitey]

not sure why you would want to take pictures of it anyway, but each to their own.

i agree with that tbh

yes we are all photographers but there is a time and place IMO.

how would you feel if it was you in a car or a family member you were with and someone pops out a camera and starts taking pics? i know for one i wouldnt be happy

 

[TG.]

If this is the photo that I think it is there was an interview with the man involved recently who was quite angry that the picture had been taken / published. I cannot recall where that was but it was within the past year. I will try to find it as if I recall correctly part of his anger was that no one had asked him if he wanted to be on the front pages of the papers or thought about the emotional impact that this would have on him or his family. I personally see those photographs as being inspirational and am humbled by peoples actions when I see stuff like that. However, if they were never shown again because the man involved didn't want them to be shown, that would be good with me. I personally think he has earned the right.

I think that the Police do on occasion get it wrong. On many occasions photographers probably get it wrong as well. Not in a legal sense but in a reading the situation sense. It isn't about political correctness (whatever that means....!). It is sometimes about doing the right thing / or not doing the wrong thing.

Many of the great photographers weren't / aren't just good with a camera. They have a feel for the environment that they work in and an empathy with the people that they are working with. Sometimes we have to balance the importance of the shot and it's value with our own sense of self importance and ask what value that shot actually has. Is it going to change the masses perceptions of RTA's or is it just going to upset people. I suppose what I am saying is in the greater scheme of things - is it worth it, and if so to whom?

My girlfriend took pictures that were used as evidence of attrocities in Central America in the late 80's & early 90's (Chile, Hondures & Nicaragua). She is not a photographer and has no real interest in photography. She was an aid worker. She has also spent time in Afganistan when the Russians were in residence and the Taliban were our buds. I was asking her point of view this morning and explaining the thread. This is what she said on her way out of the door:

"If the lad taking the pics really thinks that taking shots of accidents is making a difference for anyone other than himself good luck to him. Maybe what he should be doing is f*%$!^g off somewhere where he will be able to make a difference. It may change his perception of what is important and what is not. The Police wouldn't grab his camera. They would make him and his family disappear........ Can I have that last bit of toast?"

Now you have to remember that Lou has been jailed in the past for giving bread to children in Nicaragua and has buried victims of civil war with the villagers that she lived with and loved so has a different tolerence to me. She is a no nonsense type of girl who says it as it is. Which is why I love her dearly even after 15 years together! Made me stop and think, but I am a bit biased when it comes to her

I think this is a healthy debate that shows the differing points of view well. It's given me a lot to think about.

Chris

Very good post which sums up a lot of the thread,and certainly food for thought, i agree with most of what your girl said to an extent, apart from this bit

Can I have that last bit of toast?"

i would have said no

 

[Crazyhorse]

Quote: 'Now, the emergency services were already there, and the victims were in the process of being cut out.' unquote

You got your camera out and started snapping away.

Just a question, how would you feel if it were your family being cut out with holmatros and a passing person with a camera stopped to take shots?

Lisa

 

[Gary]

I wonder how many of these "Tog/Cop" situations could be defused by simply being civil to each other............

*********** off

 

[Chillimonster]

Just a question, how would you feel if it were your family being cut out with holmatros and a passing person with a camera stopped to take shots?

I be more concerned for my family rather than the photographer (who i wouldn't give a toss about at the time)

I think too much is made of photographers doing what they do - Taking Photographs. As long as they are not in the way i cannot see the difference between what thay are doing and the people trying to get a good look at what is going on (And hopefully seeing a bit of blood!)

If these pictures can in anyway help to highlight the cause of the events then it must be for the general good of the public surely :shrug:

 

[London Headshots]

Think the original OP was chancing his arm to be perfectly honest.

Unless you were doing it just to prove you were allowed to, I can't really see the point. Save the battle for photographers rights for another place would be my advice.

At a rough guess, 154mm from your APS-C sensor camera and the height of the shot being about 3m (ish - just under 2 times the height of the copper n fireman) I'd say you were about 20m back from the scene. Too close?

Lastly, your composition is lacking, I don't like the partial van (<---thats a joke btw)

BTW

I was usng a 250mm lens on full zoom and was much further than 20m away.

I was also on ground level and I'm 5'7.

 

[MJ Stebbings]

I cant believe i just read all through this
My first point is that if the OP was doing this all the time them maybe morally he is wrong to do so as he would be persuing the RTAs to make a buck.
However, since he was just a passer by who considered it might be useful to photograph the events for awareness and possible evidence, i think he did the right thing.
There was a thread on here recently about someone not stopping 2 guys walking out of a supermarket after stealing two bottles of coke. Some people said he was morally wrong for not stopping them. So does that mean that had the OP not stopped and taken photos which may be needed, he would have been morally wrong?

My second point is to congratulate the Op for his attitute towards the offending officer(s) and the idiot who took a swing at him. I admit that while i would have spoken politely and calmly with the officers, had some idiot who was there for personal gain, and getting off on the fact there was an RTA, taken a swing at me then he would have been removing camera parts from his skull for the next few years!

 

[pxl8]

There seems to be a general (and perhaps irrational) distrust of people with cameras here, as if they are up to no good.

What is it about the guy with the DSLR that offends you so?
Do you feel the same towards someone taking snaps with a mobile phone and txt'ing it to their mates?
Do you feel the same towards someone who's simply standing and watching?
What if CCTV footage were to end up on road wars or similar?

 

[gingerjon]

When does it become acceptable to take pictures of scenes of death and injury?

There are (high quality) pics of fatal road traffic accidents on flickr. Anyone can find them on a safe search.

 

[MJ Stebbings]

Just a question, how would you feel if it were your family being cut out with holmatros and a passing person with a camera stopped to take shots?

Lisa

I would be happier there was someone there to document it to try and prosicute the *******s that caused the accident

 

[Marc]

There seems to be a general (and perhaps irrational) distrust of people with cameras here, as if they are up to no good.

What is it about the guy with the DSLR that offends you so?
Do you feel the same towards someone taking snaps with a mobile phone and txt'ing it to their mates?
Do you feel the same towards someone who's simply standing and watching?
What if CCTV footage were to end up on road wars or similar?

Just out of curiosity here, who is the "you" you are referring to?

 

[pxl8]

"You" are the folks who said they'd be offended if someone took shots of an RTA involving them and theirs.

 

[London Headshots]

Quote: 'Now, the emergency services were already there, and the victims were in the process of being cut out.' unquote

You got your camera out and started snapping away.

Just a question, how would you feel if it were your family being cut out with holmatros and a passing person with a camera stopped to take shots?

Lisa

Honestly? I think I'd be more concerned with my family. And since I'd probably be in the car getting cut out with them, I find it hard to believe I'd even notice a lone photographer calmly taking 17 shots of the actual wreckage in a throng of gawping bystanders doing nothing but cringing and gasping.