Bus enthusiasts

[igogeneral]

I have made this plea before so sorry to have to repeat it. Kev's welcomes bus enthusiasts and we always have . However those taking photographs must accept that some drivers from all Companies may have a very valid reason why they do not want their pictures taken so when they indicate this to you please respect their wishes.

It is not acceptable when a driver asks you not to take his picture you give him the "bird" and then complain to their management when they became equally abusive

Thank you all for your understanding

[Stu]

Moved to 'Notices' section as you make a very valid point

[igogeneral]

Thank you Stu. Unfortunately the bus enthusiast has now made an official complaint to TfWM stating our driver threated him. We have investigated and taken the appropriate action. We are happy to welcome all enthusiasts to our vehicles and by prior appointment to our yard. However can I remind all members of the forum with regard to individual rights under GDPR, if a driver says they do not want their picture taken that is exactly what they mean and right is on their side
Thank you all for your understanding of this message

[Wumpty]

Thank you Stu. Unfortunately the bus enthusiast has now made an official complaint to TfWM stating our driver threated him. We have investigated and taken the appropriate action. We are happy to welcome all enthusiasts to our vehicles and by prior appointment to our yard. However can I remind all members of the forum with regard to individual rights under GDPR, if a driver says they do not want their picture taken that is exactly what they mean and right is on their side
Thank you all for your understanding of this message

@igogeneral I'm not aware of the specific incident you reference, though for clarity the following points should be noted by enthusiasts, drivers and businesses alike (my current area of responsibility):

1. Depending upon where the photos are taken, general notice is that anyone taking photographs in public has a legal right to do so. There is no right to privacy in public. If you wish not to be photographed/videoed, then you should create your own privacy (face masks, hats or other ways to protect your identity). Whilst this may not be practical, then the onus is upon the aggrieved party to politely ask. The photographer does not have to stop, whether the aggrieved party agrees or not, therefore right is not on the aggrieved party's side.

2. GDPR applies to organisations only and not individuals. If the aggrieved party is a ward of court, or has legal protection to hide their identity, then this becomes a civil matter, not a criminal matter that would involve, say, the police. If your driver then photographed or videoed the enthusiast, the same rules as above apply, UNLESS they are using a company device, then it falls under GDPR and the enthusiast can make a Data Subject Access Request to the organisation they work for. Technically, this can be reported as a Section 5 Public Order offence if the enthusiast then feels "harassed, alarmed, or distressed" by the driver's actions.

3. If an enthusiast photographs or videos the driver or other passengers on the bus, or your premises, then upon being asked to leave the bus/premises, does it then become civil trespass. Police, nor the organisation cannot forcibly remove the individual. Aggravated trespass can then follow if the enthusiast intentionally prevents someone from engaging in their lawful activities by intimidating, obstructing or disrupting, e.g. driving or working. If the enthusiast prevents the driver from working either driving his bus, or other duties on your premises, then this again is aggravated trespass and police can intervene and forcibly remove them if they refuse to leave.

4. Other areas of law may be used other than the above, such as a Section 5 Public Order offence, where the aggrieved party feels "harassed, alarmed, or distressed", by the enthusiast's actions. This is more difficult to prove as a one on one event, hence normally app[lied with the presence of witnesses.


We unfortunately live in a world where phones aren't phones anymore. Whilst an enthusiast can be trespassed off your buses or land, they can still fly drones OVER your land as the airspace is controlled by the Civil Aviation Authority (subject to drone specs) and, unless you are in a flight restriction close to airports |(like Birmingham International Coaches and Claribels are/were) then there's nothing you can do about it.

This isn't an attempt to take sides, merely to guide and clarify legal rights to enthusiasts/public and organisations and their staff.

I hope the driver is OK and understand their reluctance at being filmed/photographed.

[igogeneral]

Thank you and I bow to your superior knowledge. I would have thought however that any respectable bus enthusiast could respect the drivers wishes.

My assumption is based on article 6.1 of GDPR which to me states that the media printing the picture is responsible and perhaps not the photographer especially in the case as the photo gives away the fact that the driver works for the operator of the vehicle. However this could be different if the photographer claims copyright of the picture.

I am a bus man, not a lawyer, so hopefully this will now be put to bed and we can all get on with our day to day lives without any further concern 

[Michael Bevan]

Thank you and I bow to your superior knowledge. I would have thought however that any respectable bus enthusiast could respect the drivers wishes.

My assumption is based on article 6.1 of GDPR which to me states that the media printing the picture is responsible and perhaps not the photographer especially in the case as the photo gives away the fact that the driver works for the operator of the vehicle. However this could be different if the photographer claims copyright of the picture.

I am a bus man, not a lawyer, so hopefully this will now be put to bed and we can all get on with our day to day lives without any further concern

I just want to add something to this point. I was photographing at Birmingham New Street yesterday evening on my way back home and a Kev's Enviro 200 MMC pulled in terminating on a rail replacement. As I was taking photos the driver signaled to me and asked me not to get any with him in. So I went over  explained what I was photographing and asked whether there was a chance I could get a photo whilst he was out the cab. He said he had to get a wheelchair user off and I could photograph whilst he was not in the cab, so that's what I did. Both parties were happy and the driver's wishes were respected. However @Wumpty is right with what he says and the enthusiast is technically not doing anything wrong with photographing a bus. But it's all about showing each other with respect. I'll use another incident as an example room I was photographing a Stagecoach E200 on the A9 and whilst I couldn't see it through my lenses whilst I was taking photos, the member of staff with the driver was unhappy with me taking photos. He went over to a Police van and proceeded to report me. I had an officer come up (reluctantly) and ask me about what had happened. So I showed him the photo and the member of staff in question and explained what I was doing. All people concerned were happy in the end and the member of staff was fine with it. These incidents will happen unfortunately as understandably not everyone wants to be put infront of a camera, but the way enthusiasts deal with it does definitely have an effect on the outcome. I always try and see it from the driver's point of view who may not understand what we're doing or why we are taking photos.

[Wumpty]

Thank you and I bow to your superior knowledge. I would have thought however that any respectable bus enthusiast could respect the drivers wishes.

My assumption is based on article 6.1 of GDPR which to me states that the media printing the picture is responsible and perhaps not the photographer especially in the case as the photo gives away the fact that the driver works for the operator of the vehicle. However this could be different if the photographer claims copyright of the picture.

I am a bus man, not a lawyer, so hopefully this will now be put to bed and we can all get on with our day to day lives without any further concern

Thanks @igogeneral - I'm no lawyer and certainly not "superior" knowledge, merely researched and informed and willalways bow to YOUR superior knowledge on all-things bus management.

Your point is valid under 6.1, though again this applies to an organisation. Ordinary enthusiasts aren't employed to publish photographs, and even if they shared them, let's say I took a photo of a Kev's bus and agreed to @Tony adding it to his website, that still isn't covered under 6.1 or GDPR as it's in public and neither are an organisation. The aggrieved party can ask the webmaster to remove it to maintain their privacy, though they are not obliged to do so without good cause. The same would apply to a video posted on Youtube - aggrieved party would need to ask Youtube to remove it.

If the photo was taken and was sold to a newspaper, then the burden of responsibility is on the publisher and not the person who sold the photo regardless of any financial gain - even then,  the aggrieved party can complain to the publisher and ask for the photo to be removed. It gets a little stickier if the privacy has been invaded via intrusion - e.g. a zoom lens that has infringed into a reasonably private area, like a staff room or canteen - this is still a civil matter unless it infringes upon protected areas like toilets/showers for obvious reasons.

@Michael Bevan approach is the reasonable (and, may I say,  his usual and exemplary approach) way and most self-respecting enthusiasts will observe an unwritten etiquette pertaining to photography and seeking "permission" should the need arise.

It is worth noting that, unfortunately, any driver that gives "the bird", "shakes their tic tacs", or offers any other gestures is subject to a Section 5 Public Order offence with sufficient evidence, no matter the provocation, or a "quiet word in the office" at work.

My advice to anyone worried about their privacy is to remain sickeningly nice, ask politely and, if their request is declined, ask where the footage will be posted - it's easier to deal with an organisation than an arsey enthusiast!

[Westy]

I'm trying to see where I've contributed here, as I've been tagged!

[Michael Bevan]

I'm trying to see where I've contributed here, as I've been tagged!

Sorry, must have mixed you up with Wumpty who actually contributed to this thread... 😂😂😂

[igogeneral]

I agree with all you say other than it was not the driver that gave the bird, it was the bus enthusiast

[Wumpty]

I agree with all you say other than it was not the driver that gave the bird, it was the bus enthusiast

@igogeneral apologies, though in a lot of cases (including ones I've dealt with myself) it's the aggrieved party that has been provoked into gestures and then had the situation turned to make them look like the aggressor.

I hope the driver was OK afterwards.

[Westy]

Sorry, must have mixed you up with Wumpty who actually contributed to this thread... 😂😂😂

Well, there is W & Y in our usernames!

:)

[Wumpty]

Well, there is W & Y in our usernames!

:)

Bloody hell, you don't want to get confused with me @Westy - you don't want to be THIS unpopular!!!!

[Westy]

Bloody hell, you don't want to get confused with me @Westy - you don't want to be THIS unpopular!!!!

And a T as well!

As for 'popularity ', depends on what mood 3 certain people are in ! :)

[hlliwmai]

I once had a similar situation with a Diamond Kidderminster driver some years ago I was taking pictures of buses outside Kidderminster Town Hall a Dart pulled in to the stop I'm that sad I remember the fleet number 20252 to this day, I took a picture of the bus the driver jumped out the cab (I've never seen a driver get out of a cab so fast in all my life!), he came over and said to me "You can delete that picture right now".... I was totally aghast but I did delete it however I instantly reported the incident to Simon Dunn and the then general manager of Kidderminster depot (Andy Norris) *he no longer works for Rotala*, I was told by Andy and Simon that the driver would be dealt with accordingly suffice to say I didn't have any aggravation from that driver again, it's unfortunate that Diamond/Rotala don't have the same policy in place as National Express do because as far as I'm aware if that incident had of been at NX there is no doubt that driver would of been sacked it was a long time ago BUT I can remember his aggression towards me on that day and I know this is something National Express do not tolerate it is a shame depending on the circumstances other companies don't operate the way NX do to these sort of things.