Hampshire Constabulary's new body-worn cameras have faced criticism from civil liberties groups

New police body-worn cameras could

New police body-worn cameras could "damage" trust with the public

First published in New Forest
Last updated
Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Crime Reporter

HAMPSHIRE will become the first force in the country to equip every police officer with controversial, body-worn cameras that capture evidence like never before.

But the cameras have come under fire from some sectors of the community as a threat to the trust between the police and the public.

The Home Office has awarded Hampshire Constabulary more than £360,000 to expand the use of the hi-tech cameras which will be issued to all officers and police community support officers.

Strapped to the chests of every officer, the palm-sized gadgets capture clear and crisp video and audio footage from crime scenes that can be uploaded within seconds.

The devices have faced some criticism from civil liberties group, such as Big Brother Watch, who have attacked their use for having “the potential to seriously undermine trust between the police and members of the community."

The news has been welcomed by Hampshire Police Federation which has already seen such footage used in court cases to help lock up dangerous criminals who have violently attacked officers.

The £362,800 from the Home Office is a share of £4m from the Police Innovation Fund, which has been split between eight forces.

Hampshire’s Chief Constable Andy Marsh, who is also the national policing lead for the kit, said: “Body-worn video can contribute to policing in many ways, not least as a piece of kit that supports and improves cases going to court – really telling the story of what has happened in a way many juries may not have appreciated before.”

The cameras are overt pieces of equipment, with officers duty-bound to inform those being recorded that their actions are being taped for evidence which may be used to support criminal prosecutions.

Hampshire police say any footage recorded that is not evidential will be deleted after 31 days.

John Apter, chairman of the Hampshire Police Federation, believes their use is good news for all, adding: “Even in the short period of time we have had these they have been shown to be an excellent piece of kit both for officers and the public.”

Comments (21)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:57am Wed 30 Jul 14

Raxx says...

And I bet they develop mysterious faults in instances where the police are accused of misconduct...
And I bet they develop mysterious faults in instances where the police are accused of misconduct... Raxx
  • Score: -3

8:55am Wed 30 Jul 14

Monkreadusuk says...

It's about time! Great bits of kit.
It's about time! Great bits of kit. Monkreadusuk
  • Score: 8

9:07am Wed 30 Jul 14

Hampshire Corn and Bread says...

Raxx wrote:
And I bet they develop mysterious faults in instances where the police are accused of misconduct...
That was my concern.

I think they're a great idea to detail exactly who said (or did) what to whom.

However, I worry that (for example) the CPS decide to proceed with a prosecution after 31 days & we're back to the old fallible ways.
[quote][p][bold]Raxx[/bold] wrote: And I bet they develop mysterious faults in instances where the police are accused of misconduct...[/p][/quote]That was my concern. I think they're a great idea to detail exactly who said (or did) what to whom. However, I worry that (for example) the CPS decide to proceed with a prosecution after 31 days & we're back to the old fallible ways. Hampshire Corn and Bread
  • Score: -4

9:15am Wed 30 Jul 14

Hampshire Corn and Bread says...

Raxx wrote:
And I bet they develop mysterious faults in instances where the police are accused of misconduct...
That was my concern.

I think they're a great idea to detail exactly who said (or did) what to whom.

However, I worry that (for example) the CPS decide to proceed with a prosecution after 31 days & we're back to the old fallible ways.
[quote][p][bold]Raxx[/bold] wrote: And I bet they develop mysterious faults in instances where the police are accused of misconduct...[/p][/quote]That was my concern. I think they're a great idea to detail exactly who said (or did) what to whom. However, I worry that (for example) the CPS decide to proceed with a prosecution after 31 days & we're back to the old fallible ways. Hampshire Corn and Bread
  • Score: -4

9:16am Wed 30 Jul 14

MPOV says...

Talking of trust... How about all the lies that the naughty people tell when making complaints about the police who are there trying to do their job? Or when the media start criticising police after an incident without the full facts? The video will allow the truth to be seen and heard.

It's there to protect the officers AND the public. When in use I bet officers are more careful of what they say and do. It's win - win...
Talking of trust... How about all the lies that the naughty people tell when making complaints about the police who are there trying to do their job? Or when the media start criticising police after an incident without the full facts? The video will allow the truth to be seen and heard. It's there to protect the officers AND the public. When in use I bet officers are more careful of what they say and do. It's win - win... MPOV
  • Score: 19

9:25am Wed 30 Jul 14

SOLENTDRIFTER says...

THEY ARE GOING TO ENJOY TAKING 'SELFIE'S' TO SHOW EACH OTHER......
THEY ARE GOING TO ENJOY TAKING 'SELFIE'S' TO SHOW EACH OTHER...... SOLENTDRIFTER
  • Score: -9

11:22am Wed 30 Jul 14

Mr E says...

if its there to protect people , then why to police officers get jumpy if you start taking photographs of them at work
if its there to protect people , then why to police officers get jumpy if you start taking photographs of them at work Mr E
  • Score: -4

12:02pm Wed 30 Jul 14

tsp1993 says...

Awful. You literally cant do anything without someone watching you the only place your not being watched is in your home but the minute you step out bam its over! I was recorded not long ago and wasn't informed i was like you are suppose to! Its one rule for the police and one for the public!
Awful. You literally cant do anything without someone watching you the only place your not being watched is in your home but the minute you step out bam its over! I was recorded not long ago and wasn't informed i was like you are suppose to! Its one rule for the police and one for the public! tsp1993
  • Score: -5

1:18pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Revolution802 says...

I am pleased that they have the cameras, this will stop the few from abusing the powers they have. I have witnessed on a few occasions police fuelling the fire instead of preventing.
I witness someone get arrested in hand cuffs for just saying to his friend "not to worry as they are public sector and we are on more money than him, he probably earns £25k max" as they were walking away, although this comment may annoy the officer should he of been arrested under the public order act?
I am pleased that they have the cameras, this will stop the few from abusing the powers they have. I have witnessed on a few occasions police fuelling the fire instead of preventing. I witness someone get arrested in hand cuffs for just saying to his friend "not to worry as they are public sector and we are on more money than him, he probably earns £25k max" as they were walking away, although this comment may annoy the officer should he of been arrested under the public order act? Revolution802
  • Score: 0

1:38pm Wed 30 Jul 14

sammytsang says...

I've noticed on youtube after watching vehicle videos, that some people have dash-cams and helmet-cams. Seems like a good idea. Perhaps every human who wants one should get a camera.

Just as you leave your house in the morning for work or whatever, you turn the camera on so that if needed you have evidence of an event.
I've noticed on youtube after watching vehicle videos, that some people have dash-cams and helmet-cams. Seems like a good idea. Perhaps every human who wants one should get a camera. Just as you leave your house in the morning for work or whatever, you turn the camera on so that if needed you have evidence of an event. sammytsang
  • Score: 6

3:04pm Wed 30 Jul 14

forest hump says...

Give every Police, Fire, Ambulance worker a camera. Then, round up all of these civil liberty yellow-bellies and deport them to somewhere that civil liberties are compromised. Waste of space.....the lot of them.
Give every Police, Fire, Ambulance worker a camera. Then, round up all of these civil liberty yellow-bellies and deport them to somewhere that civil liberties are compromised. Waste of space.....the lot of them. forest hump
  • Score: -3

6:07pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

tsp1993 wrote:
Awful. You literally cant do anything without someone watching you the only place your not being watched is in your home but the minute you step out bam its over! I was recorded not long ago and wasn't informed i was like you are suppose to! Its one rule for the police and one for the public!
Actually, no, you do NOT have to be informed if it's in PUBLIC, if that was the case, then BBC news wouldn't be able to bring us LIVE footage so quickly as they would first have to inform everyone in the vicinity or could walk into the vicinity that they may be recorded, the ONLY public places you may need to be informed of it is in or around play areas and in some public parks, usually there will be signs in such places to say that you need to inform people/gain their permission.
[quote][p][bold]tsp1993[/bold] wrote: Awful. You literally cant do anything without someone watching you the only place your not being watched is in your home but the minute you step out bam its over! I was recorded not long ago and wasn't informed i was like you are suppose to! Its one rule for the police and one for the public![/p][/quote]Actually, no, you do NOT have to be informed if it's in PUBLIC, if that was the case, then BBC news wouldn't be able to bring us LIVE footage so quickly as they would first have to inform everyone in the vicinity or could walk into the vicinity that they may be recorded, the ONLY public places you may need to be informed of it is in or around play areas and in some public parks, usually there will be signs in such places to say that you need to inform people/gain their permission. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 1

6:10pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
tsp1993 wrote:
Awful. You literally cant do anything without someone watching you the only place your not being watched is in your home but the minute you step out bam its over! I was recorded not long ago and wasn't informed i was like you are suppose to! Its one rule for the police and one for the public!
Actually, no, you do NOT have to be informed if it's in PUBLIC, if that was the case, then BBC news wouldn't be able to bring us LIVE footage so quickly as they would first have to inform everyone in the vicinity or could walk into the vicinity that they may be recorded, the ONLY public places you may need to be informed of it is in or around play areas and in some public parks, usually there will be signs in such places to say that you need to inform people/gain their permission.
Not to mention the fact that they would have to put up signs about EVERY CCTV camera if you had to be informed.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tsp1993[/bold] wrote: Awful. You literally cant do anything without someone watching you the only place your not being watched is in your home but the minute you step out bam its over! I was recorded not long ago and wasn't informed i was like you are suppose to! Its one rule for the police and one for the public![/p][/quote]Actually, no, you do NOT have to be informed if it's in PUBLIC, if that was the case, then BBC news wouldn't be able to bring us LIVE footage so quickly as they would first have to inform everyone in the vicinity or could walk into the vicinity that they may be recorded, the ONLY public places you may need to be informed of it is in or around play areas and in some public parks, usually there will be signs in such places to say that you need to inform people/gain their permission.[/p][/quote]Not to mention the fact that they would have to put up signs about EVERY CCTV camera if you had to be informed. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

6:11pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

sammytsang wrote:
I've noticed on youtube after watching vehicle videos, that some people have dash-cams and helmet-cams. Seems like a good idea. Perhaps every human who wants one should get a camera.

Just as you leave your house in the morning for work or whatever, you turn the camera on so that if needed you have evidence of an event.
I have a helmet cam myself, has proven useful on several ocassions when reporting someone's driving to their boss.
[quote][p][bold]sammytsang[/bold] wrote: I've noticed on youtube after watching vehicle videos, that some people have dash-cams and helmet-cams. Seems like a good idea. Perhaps every human who wants one should get a camera. Just as you leave your house in the morning for work or whatever, you turn the camera on so that if needed you have evidence of an event.[/p][/quote]I have a helmet cam myself, has proven useful on several ocassions when reporting someone's driving to their boss. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -3

8:35pm Wed 30 Jul 14

forest hump says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
sammytsang wrote:
I've noticed on youtube after watching vehicle videos, that some people have dash-cams and helmet-cams. Seems like a good idea. Perhaps every human who wants one should get a camera.

Just as you leave your house in the morning for work or whatever, you turn the camera on so that if needed you have evidence of an event.
I have a helmet cam myself, has proven useful on several ocassions when reporting someone's driving to their boss.
That's ironic! I have a camera onboard my V8 4X4 so I can report irresponsible cyclists who run red lights and cycle on footpaths.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sammytsang[/bold] wrote: I've noticed on youtube after watching vehicle videos, that some people have dash-cams and helmet-cams. Seems like a good idea. Perhaps every human who wants one should get a camera. Just as you leave your house in the morning for work or whatever, you turn the camera on so that if needed you have evidence of an event.[/p][/quote]I have a helmet cam myself, has proven useful on several ocassions when reporting someone's driving to their boss.[/p][/quote]That's ironic! I have a camera onboard my V8 4X4 so I can report irresponsible cyclists who run red lights and cycle on footpaths. forest hump
  • Score: 3

10:29pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

forest hump wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
sammytsang wrote:
I've noticed on youtube after watching vehicle videos, that some people have dash-cams and helmet-cams. Seems like a good idea. Perhaps every human who wants one should get a camera.

Just as you leave your house in the morning for work or whatever, you turn the camera on so that if needed you have evidence of an event.
I have a helmet cam myself, has proven useful on several ocassions when reporting someone's driving to their boss.
That's ironic! I have a camera onboard my V8 4X4 so I can report irresponsible cyclists who run red lights and cycle on footpaths.
Bet you catch more irresponsible motorists than cyclists, driving on the pavement, parking on double yellows/zig-zags, running red lights, speeding, killing animals, using the phone while driving etc.
[quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sammytsang[/bold] wrote: I've noticed on youtube after watching vehicle videos, that some people have dash-cams and helmet-cams. Seems like a good idea. Perhaps every human who wants one should get a camera. Just as you leave your house in the morning for work or whatever, you turn the camera on so that if needed you have evidence of an event.[/p][/quote]I have a helmet cam myself, has proven useful on several ocassions when reporting someone's driving to their boss.[/p][/quote]That's ironic! I have a camera onboard my V8 4X4 so I can report irresponsible cyclists who run red lights and cycle on footpaths.[/p][/quote]Bet you catch more irresponsible motorists than cyclists, driving on the pavement, parking on double yellows/zig-zags, running red lights, speeding, killing animals, using the phone while driving etc. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -3

10:49pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Monkreadusuk says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
tsp1993 wrote:
Awful. You literally cant do anything without someone watching you the only place your not being watched is in your home but the minute you step out bam its over! I was recorded not long ago and wasn't informed i was like you are suppose to! Its one rule for the police and one for the public!
Actually, no, you do NOT have to be informed if it's in PUBLIC, if that was the case, then BBC news wouldn't be able to bring us LIVE footage so quickly as they would first have to inform everyone in the vicinity or could walk into the vicinity that they may be recorded, the ONLY public places you may need to be informed of it is in or around play areas and in some public parks, usually there will be signs in such places to say that you need to inform people/gain their permission.
Under the data protection act I'm obliged to inform any member of the public if I'm filming. However this doesn't apply to the public, just authorities I think.

It's a pain, but something I've got to do. However this doesn't mean I have to inform them if other factors stop me, physical violence etc.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tsp1993[/bold] wrote: Awful. You literally cant do anything without someone watching you the only place your not being watched is in your home but the minute you step out bam its over! I was recorded not long ago and wasn't informed i was like you are suppose to! Its one rule for the police and one for the public![/p][/quote]Actually, no, you do NOT have to be informed if it's in PUBLIC, if that was the case, then BBC news wouldn't be able to bring us LIVE footage so quickly as they would first have to inform everyone in the vicinity or could walk into the vicinity that they may be recorded, the ONLY public places you may need to be informed of it is in or around play areas and in some public parks, usually there will be signs in such places to say that you need to inform people/gain their permission.[/p][/quote]Under the data protection act I'm obliged to inform any member of the public if I'm filming. However this doesn't apply to the public, just authorities I think. It's a pain, but something I've got to do. However this doesn't mean I have to inform them if other factors stop me, physical violence etc. Monkreadusuk
  • Score: 1

11:13pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Monkreadusuk wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
tsp1993 wrote:
Awful. You literally cant do anything without someone watching you the only place your not being watched is in your home but the minute you step out bam its over! I was recorded not long ago and wasn't informed i was like you are suppose to! Its one rule for the police and one for the public!
Actually, no, you do NOT have to be informed if it's in PUBLIC, if that was the case, then BBC news wouldn't be able to bring us LIVE footage so quickly as they would first have to inform everyone in the vicinity or could walk into the vicinity that they may be recorded, the ONLY public places you may need to be informed of it is in or around play areas and in some public parks, usually there will be signs in such places to say that you need to inform people/gain their permission.
Under the data protection act I'm obliged to inform any member of the public if I'm filming. However this doesn't apply to the public, just authorities I think.

It's a pain, but something I've got to do. However this doesn't mean I have to inform them if other factors stop me, physical violence etc.
"where filming takes place in a public place, the fact that a passer by is captured in the film in the background and is able to be identified by individuals who know him/her does not in itself make the image personal data and consent is unlikely to be required to put the video on YouTube or incorporate it in an Open Educational Resource (OER)."
Quoted from a website specialising in this stuff, however, if someone is the main subject matter, then you do have to inform them BUT like you said, in some circumstances, that's impossible, like in my circumstance, it's often impossible as the person has already driven off but I do let them know they're on camera if I can, plus I have actually put a sticker on the camera that says just as much, need to get a sign that I can fit to my bag though, that way, people can see it and hopefully think twice before making a close, dangerous pass or cutting me up or something, like the old guy last week who not only almost had me off while I was keeping away from parked cars in case a door swung open but also, he almost smashed head on into a kid on a moped/scooter.
[quote][p][bold]Monkreadusuk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tsp1993[/bold] wrote: Awful. You literally cant do anything without someone watching you the only place your not being watched is in your home but the minute you step out bam its over! I was recorded not long ago and wasn't informed i was like you are suppose to! Its one rule for the police and one for the public![/p][/quote]Actually, no, you do NOT have to be informed if it's in PUBLIC, if that was the case, then BBC news wouldn't be able to bring us LIVE footage so quickly as they would first have to inform everyone in the vicinity or could walk into the vicinity that they may be recorded, the ONLY public places you may need to be informed of it is in or around play areas and in some public parks, usually there will be signs in such places to say that you need to inform people/gain their permission.[/p][/quote]Under the data protection act I'm obliged to inform any member of the public if I'm filming. However this doesn't apply to the public, just authorities I think. It's a pain, but something I've got to do. However this doesn't mean I have to inform them if other factors stop me, physical violence etc.[/p][/quote]"where filming takes place in a public place, the fact that a passer by is captured in the film in the background and is able to be identified by individuals who know him/her does not in itself make the image personal data and consent is unlikely to be required to put the video on YouTube or incorporate it in an Open Educational Resource (OER)." Quoted from a website specialising in this stuff, however, if someone is the main subject matter, then you do have to inform them BUT like you said, in some circumstances, that's impossible, like in my circumstance, it's often impossible as the person has already driven off but I do let them know they're on camera if I can, plus I have actually put a sticker on the camera that says just as much, need to get a sign that I can fit to my bag though, that way, people can see it and hopefully think twice before making a close, dangerous pass or cutting me up or something, like the old guy last week who not only almost had me off while I was keeping away from parked cars in case a door swung open but also, he almost smashed head on into a kid on a moped/scooter. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

1:10pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Revolution802 says...

Cyclists need to understand that they are vulnerable and most are idiotic when riding on roads. Yes drivers can be too but motorists have right of way to the roads as the roads were built to accommodate them as paths are built for pedestrians. I would gladly knock a cyclist over if they were riding a 3rd into the road making me drive into oncoming traffic, i would sacrifice a cyclist rather than hit another car anyway. Thinking of the most offensive word to describe a cyclist!
Cyclists need to understand that they are vulnerable and most are idiotic when riding on roads. Yes drivers can be too but motorists have right of way to the roads as the roads were built to accommodate them as paths are built for pedestrians. I would gladly knock a cyclist over if they were riding a 3rd into the road making me drive into oncoming traffic, i would sacrifice a cyclist rather than hit another car anyway. Thinking of the most offensive word to describe a cyclist! Revolution802
  • Score: 0

4:27pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Revolution802 wrote:
Cyclists need to understand that they are vulnerable and most are idiotic when riding on roads. Yes drivers can be too but motorists have right of way to the roads as the roads were built to accommodate them as paths are built for pedestrians. I would gladly knock a cyclist over if they were riding a 3rd into the road making me drive into oncoming traffic, i would sacrifice a cyclist rather than hit another car anyway. Thinking of the most offensive word to describe a cyclist!
Actually, motorists do NOT have "right of way" on the roads as the roads were NOT built for them, the ONLY roads they have right of way on and that were built FOR them is MOTORWAYS, every other road you may see, from quiet, single track country roads, to busy city streets were originally intended for pedestrians, horse riders and CYCLISTS and it was cyclists that kickstarted the construction of modern roads BUT it is PEDESTRIANS who have right of way on ALL roads over other road users, apart from on motorways, also, no, most cyclists are pretty good when riding on the road, yes there's a minority who ruin the image we try to create but that's all they are, a MINORITY and well done for admitting you would actively try and MURDER for NOTHING, a third of the way into the road is around where primary position would be, a safe and very LEGAL road position(middle of the cyclists chosen lane) for cyclists, a cyclist will often use this position where visibility is key or to stop dangerous overtakes such as on blind bends, at junctions, at pinch points, when travelling at speed, on narrow roads, on dual carriageways, at traffic lights, when passing parked cars(though on roads like Butts road, it may be that the cyclist needs to ride on or across the lane markings to avoid car doors opening), when turning(turning right requires cyclists to position themselves closer to the middle of the road unless there is a seperate right turn lane) and in any other circumstances where the vehicle behind may not be able to see the road ahead, such as on blind bridges, cyclists taking primary position does NOT make you do anything, it does NOT grant them the ability to control YOUR actions, if YOU drive into oncoming traffic, then the only one to blame, is your SELF, don't want to risk hitting another vehicle(which includes bicycles by the way)? Then you should NOT overtake into oncoming traffic, have some patience, you will only be behind the cyclist for a few seconds, then when oncoming traffic has cleared, you can then overtake, in the other lane, in the way that YOU are meant to, that is unless approaching any of the aforementioned circumstances above, then you do NOT overtake and most cyclists, once the hazard has passed and they're going considerably slower than the speed limit, will move to around 1 meter from the curb, where they should be riding IF it's SAFE. This is also how SCHOOL CHILDREN are bering taught to ride on the roads, do you REALLY want to potentially have a CHILD'S LIFE on your conscience? No? Didn't think so.
By the way, before you spout nonsense about "Road tax", it does NOT exist, it was abolished in 1937, it is now VED, a pollution tax, hence eco friendly cars such as the McLaren P1 hybrid supercar(VED is FREE for the first year) and Porsche 918 Spyder, hybrid supercar(VED is FREE for the cars life), Toyota Prius(FREE VED forever), renault twizzy(FREE VED forever) and Chevy volt(FREE VED forever), are either very cheap to tax or completely FREE to tax, bicycles would ALSO be completely free.
[quote][p][bold]Revolution802[/bold] wrote: Cyclists need to understand that they are vulnerable and most are idiotic when riding on roads. Yes drivers can be too but motorists have right of way to the roads as the roads were built to accommodate them as paths are built for pedestrians. I would gladly knock a cyclist over if they were riding a 3rd into the road making me drive into oncoming traffic, i would sacrifice a cyclist rather than hit another car anyway. Thinking of the most offensive word to describe a cyclist![/p][/quote]Actually, motorists do NOT have "right of way" on the roads as the roads were NOT built for them, the ONLY roads they have right of way on and that were built FOR them is MOTORWAYS, every other road you may see, from quiet, single track country roads, to busy city streets were originally intended for pedestrians, horse riders and CYCLISTS and it was cyclists that kickstarted the construction of modern roads BUT it is PEDESTRIANS who have right of way on ALL roads over other road users, apart from on motorways, also, no, most cyclists are pretty good when riding on the road, yes there's a minority who ruin the image we try to create but that's all they are, a MINORITY and well done for admitting you would actively try and MURDER for NOTHING, a third of the way into the road is around where primary position would be, a safe and very LEGAL road position(middle of the cyclists chosen lane) for cyclists, a cyclist will often use this position where visibility is key or to stop dangerous overtakes such as on blind bends, at junctions, at pinch points, when travelling at speed, on narrow roads, on dual carriageways, at traffic lights, when passing parked cars(though on roads like Butts road, it may be that the cyclist needs to ride on or across the lane markings to avoid car doors opening), when turning(turning right requires cyclists to position themselves closer to the middle of the road unless there is a seperate right turn lane) and in any other circumstances where the vehicle behind may not be able to see the road ahead, such as on blind bridges, cyclists taking primary position does NOT make you do anything, it does NOT grant them the ability to control YOUR actions, if YOU drive into oncoming traffic, then the only one to blame, is your SELF, don't want to risk hitting another vehicle(which includes bicycles by the way)? Then you should NOT overtake into oncoming traffic, have some patience, you will only be behind the cyclist for a few seconds, then when oncoming traffic has cleared, you can then overtake, in the other lane, in the way that YOU are meant to, that is unless approaching any of the aforementioned circumstances above, then you do NOT overtake and most cyclists, once the hazard has passed and they're going considerably slower than the speed limit, will move to around 1 meter from the curb, where they should be riding IF it's SAFE. This is also how SCHOOL CHILDREN are bering taught to ride on the roads, do you REALLY want to potentially have a CHILD'S LIFE on your conscience? No? Didn't think so. By the way, before you spout nonsense about "Road tax", it does NOT exist, it was abolished in 1937, it is now VED, a pollution tax, hence eco friendly cars such as the McLaren P1 hybrid supercar(VED is FREE for the first year) and Porsche 918 Spyder, hybrid supercar(VED is FREE for the cars life), Toyota Prius(FREE VED forever), renault twizzy(FREE VED forever) and Chevy volt(FREE VED forever), are either very cheap to tax or completely FREE to tax, bicycles would ALSO be completely free. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -2

1:20pm Fri 1 Aug 14

jaydejay says...

Great idea, well done! Now they just need guns!
Great idea, well done! Now they just need guns! jaydejay
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree