Two questions, totally unrelated

[SpeedMattersNot]

Rather than making two topics.

1) A neighbour has a camera pointing at his old BMW 330Ci.. I have no objection to the camera the question is, this camera if fitted with an inappropriate lens could peer into our house/garden. Is there anything stopping him from doing this?

I do entirely trust that this camera is for his cars protection. But...what if I didn't trust him, is there anything he should or shouldn't be doing? Should there be a sign warning of the camera presence? Or is it fair game to point cameras where you want?

2) Do you need to yield to cyclists who commit to zebra crossings?

I found this;

79
Do not ride across equestrian crossings, as they are for horse riders only. Do not ride across a pelican, puffin or zebra crossing. Dismount and wheel your cycle across.

But does this apply? The confidence of which cyclists ride at pedestrian crossings in my semi-rural area concerns me. I am in doubt.

Is #79 a rule, or an etiquette?

Many thanks for any input, SPL gods of PH.

[Zeeky]

You don't commit the offence of failing to give way to pedestrians who are crossing but you are required to approach pedestrian crossings carefully. This includes consideration for cyclists if you don't want to be liable, at least in part, in the event of a collision.

[Gareth79]

SpeedMattersNot said:

1) A neighbour has a camera pointing at his old BMW 330Ci.. I have no objection to the camera the question is, this camera if fitted with an inappropriate lens could peer into our house/garden. Is there anything stopping him from doing this?

Nobody will stop him until they complain about it.

SpeedMattersNot said:

I do entirely trust that this camera is for his cars protection. But...what if I didn't trust him, is there anything he should or shouldn't be doing? Should there be a sign warning of the camera presence? Or is it fair game to point cameras where you want?

You can point as many cameras at anything on your own property as you like so long as it is for domestic purposes - security falls within that. Generally, filming the street is ok, and sometimes it's unavoidable to achieve the desired result. Pixelating or physically blocking neighbours' houses from view is probably recommended if they might get annoyed.

There aren't any specific laws related to pointing of cameras at other people's property, most likely harassment and voyeurism legislation would be used where there is a problem. Data protection legislation would cover it in some circumstances, but I doubt any individual has actually been prosecuted for CCTV related stuff, I'm sure it's mentioned a lot when police are investigating though.

[The Flying Ox]

SpeedMattersNot said:

2) Do you need to yield to cyclists who commit to zebra crossings?

No, you're right. Rule #79 would be interepreted by any court in the land as giving you free reign to mow them down with impunity.

Edited by The Flying Ox on Sunday 13th July 06:41

[tenpenceshort]

From memory, on zebra crossings the offence is made out when the pedestrian on it is impeded. Whether a cyclist riding his or her bike would qualify as a pedestrian I'm not sure?

[Snowboy]

Rule 79 is for cyclists.
You need to read the rules for drivers.

I'm pretty sure rule 1 or 2 says something like;
Don't crash into anyone else, even if they are breaking the rules themselves.

[Jon1967x]

I understood a cyclist was required to dismount when in pedestrian areas - it's wrong to cycle on foot paths or say a shopping centre.

A cyclist therefore shouldn't be cycling across in the same way a pedestrian walks across. That said, two wrongs don't make it right so you can't run them over.

[herewego]

If it was against the law to cycle across a pedestrian crossing then the highway code would say MUST not rather than do not.
It is of course against the law for adults to cycle on the pavement. However mostly they do it for their own safety which is understandable.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone cycle across a zebra, but I think it must be possible to see them approaching the crossing in the same way as seeing pedestrians and take appropriate action.

[Jon1967x]

herewego said:

If it was against the law to cycle across a pedestrian crossing then the highway code would say MUST not rather than do not.
It is of course against the law for adults to cycle on the pavement. However mostly they do it for their own safety which is understandable.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone cycle across a zebra, but I think it must be possible to see them approaching the crossing in the same way as seeing pedestrians and take appropriate action.

Isn't a crossing just the intersection of a footpath and a road? How can you cycle across if it's footpath both sides without getting on mid crossing and getting off before you reach the other side which is unlikely. I imagine one concern is people travelling quickly on bikes on footpath and then onto a crossing

It's also perfectly legal to cycle across a crossing when travelling along the road

Edit - Reading the original question again I think we need a bit more detail.

Edited by Jon1967x on Sunday 13th July 10:18

[Slidingpillar]

As far as I know, riding a bike - you're a bike rider not a pedestrian, pushing a bike - you're a pedestrian.

I have encountered car drivers who take the attitude they don't have stop for a bike pusher, but the threat of the bike through the windscreen seems to work...

[anonymous-user]

I've had a few cyclists who come flying round the corner expecting me to do an emergency stop to let them cross. Silly Billy's.

With regards to the camera, as far as I know you cannot point it in private property, so your garden would be a no no.

[Cat]

A driver who fails to give way to a cyclist on a zebra crossing wouldn't commit the offence of failing to give precedence under the zebra crossing regs as that offence only relates to pedestrians. They may however commit other offences e.g. careless/dangerous driving depending on the circumstances.

Cat

[can't remember]

The Flying Ox said:

SpeedMattersNot said:

2) Do you need to yield to cyclists who commit to zebra crossings?

No, you're right. Rule #79 would be interepreted by any court in the land as giving you free reign to mow them down with impunity.

Edited by The Flying Ox on Sunday 13th July 06:41

You should also make sure you finish them off as this will prevent you from having to start a 'Collision with a cyclist. Advice needed.' thread.

On a serious note someone else ignoring the law doesn't give you carte blanche to punish them / join in.

As for the camera, if it makes you uncomfortable have a word with the neighbour. If you can live with it think as a bit of additional security for your house and family that you didn't pay for.

[lbc]

SpeedMattersNot said:

2) Do you need to yield to cyclists who commit to zebra crossings?

Do you seriously need to ask this question?

What next, would you run over pedestrians that drop litter? or crash into other cars that break the speed limit?

[Impasse]

lbc said:

Do you seriously need to ask this question?

What next, would you run over pedestrians that drop litter? or crash into other cars that break the speed limit?

Not so fussed about others breaking the speed limit, but litter dropping by pedestrians? Hmm, I'd have to give that some consideration before coming out with a definite no.

[Retroman]

If drivers want to drive over me for cycling across a zebra crossing i'm cool with that as long as i can bunnyhop and cycle over their car when they break the speed limit or forget to indicate changing lanes / coming off roundabouts / turning into / out of a road

[anonymous-user]

SpeedMattersNot said:

1) A neighbour has a camera pointing at his old BMW 330Ci.. I have no objection to the camera the question is, this camera if fitted with an inappropriate lens could peer into our house/garden. Is there anything stopping him from doing this?

It's not covered by the Data Protection Act so you have no right to see what it is capturing.

The Information Commissioners Office states the following:

ICO said:

If you are concerned that CCTV is being used for harassment, anti social behaviour or other matters dealt with under the criminal law, then these are matters for the police.

Harassment would be very deliberate and likely as part of a series of things. I'm not sure what they mean by it being used anti-socially. Unless the camera spits, swears and loiters around.

Another thing that spring to mind is voyeurism, but this is specific.

A bit of "collateral intrusion" is highly unlikely to be illegal. Unless anyone knows any legislation I'm forgetting. I know there are people on the forum more up on RIPA than I am.