http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34408280?SThisFB

My little girl was first on scene for London Ambulance.

I'm very proud of my daughter.

On 01/10/2015 19:10, David Lang wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34408280?SThisFB

My little girl was first on scene for London Ambulance.

I'm very proud of my daughter.

And so you should be, well done to her. They all do a difficult and
quite often, a traumatic job.

Bod wrote:
On 01/10/2015 19:10, David Lang wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34408280?SThisFB

My little girl was first on scene for London Ambulance.

I'm very proud of my daughter.

And so you should be, well done to her. They all do a difficult and
quite often, a traumatic job.

I can't tell you have grateful I am to the ambulance people for what
they did here a couple of years ago.

Bill

On Thursday, 1 October 2015 19:09:49 UTC+1, David Lang wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34408280?SThisFB
My little girl was first on scene for London Ambulance.
I'm very proud of my daughter.

I wonder how the bus driver's going to talk himself out of that one.

And how much the BBC paid for the CCTV footage.

Owain

David Lang wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34408280?SThisFB

My little girl was first on scene for London Ambulance.

I'm very proud of my daughter.



I don't blame you.

What a terrible accident, one of those which is almost hard to believe
could happen. Hopefully the victim makes a full recovery.

In article ,
wrote:
On Thursday, 1 October 2015 19:09:49 UTC+1, David Lang wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34408280?SThisFB
My little girl was first on scene for London Ambulance.
I'm very proud of my daughter.

I wonder how the bus driver's going to talk himself out of that one.

Could it be the steering failed? Looked something like that on the CCTV.
Unless there was another reason why he swung the bus to the side? It's not
something that happens through inattention.

And how much the BBC paid for the CCTV footage.

Owain

--
*Red meat is not bad for you. Fuzzy green meat is bad for you.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 11:30:57 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34408280?SThisFB My little girl was
first on scene for London Ambulance.
I'm very proud of my daughter.

I wonder how the bus driver's going to talk himself out of that one.

Could it be the steering failed? Looked something like that on the CCTV.
Unless there was another reason why he swung the bus to the side?

He needed to pull around the parked white Focus.

I don't know whether he accidentally planted the throttle, or something
in the linkage went wrong - but the bus accelerated FAR harder than need
be.

On Friday, 2 October 2015 09:35:14 UTC+1, wrote:
On Thursday, 1 October 2015 19:09:49 UTC+1, David Lang wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34408280?SThisFB
My little girl was first on scene for London Ambulance.
I'm very proud of my daughter.

I wonder how the bus driver's going to talk himself out of that one.

And how much the BBC paid for the CCTV footage.

Is the CCTV legal ?
I've been told that you can't have a CCTV camera that overlooks another property or over a road.

On 02/10/2015 12:41, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 2 October 2015 09:35:14 UTC+1, wrote:
On Thursday, 1 October 2015 19:09:49 UTC+1, David Lang wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34408280?SThisFB
My little girl was first on scene for London Ambulance.
I'm very proud of my daughter.

I wonder how the bus driver's going to talk himself out of that one.

And how much the BBC paid for the CCTV footage.

Is the CCTV legal ?
I've been told that you can't have a CCTV camera that overlooks another property or over a road.



By a photographer?
The same one that keeps telling you the wrong things?

On Friday, 2 October 2015 13:24:15 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 02/10/2015 12:41, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 2 October 2015 09:35:14 UTC+1, wrote:
On Thursday, 1 October 2015 19:09:49 UTC+1, David Lang wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34408280?SThisFB
My little girl was first on scene for London Ambulance.
I'm very proud of my daughter.

I wonder how the bus driver's going to talk himself out of that one.

And how much the BBC paid for the CCTV footage.

Is the CCTV legal ?
I've been told that you can't have a CCTV camera that overlooks another property or over a road.



By a photographer?

What photographer ?


The same one that keeps telling you the wrong things?

http://www.problemneighbours.co.uk/c...d-the-law.html

The camera caught the bus and it's driver in a bus.
While I'd have no problems with the others might be more sensitive if it's a school bus or the CCTV can look into anothers window.
I was told to set up a CCTV system in my lab, but when I loked into it I''m not aloud to because of the data protection act.
As they wanted the monitors in my office where teh students can see it, that is NOT allowed, so I looked into what is and what isn't allowed.

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 04:41:11 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave wrote:

Is the CCTV legal ?
I've been told that you can't have a CCTV camera that overlooks another
property ...

AIUI from one private property to another private property would be
illegal.

... or over a road.

Private property to the public highway ("public place") is not a
problem neither is from a "public place" onto private property. This
is how the tabloid snappers can take and publish photos of "celebs"
in compromising situations - BFO lens from a "public place". There
are exceptions under the Official Secrets Act or similar that make it
illegal to photgraph etc certain locations, even from a public place.
These are normally well signed to that effect and the serious
security fenceing is quite often a bit of a give away as well.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 02/10/2015 12:41, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 2 October 2015 09:35:14 UTC+1, wrote:
On Thursday, 1 October 2015 19:09:49 UTC+1, David Lang wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34408280?SThisFB
My little girl was first on scene for London Ambulance.
I'm very proud of my daughter.

I wonder how the bus driver's going to talk himself out of that one.

And how much the BBC paid for the CCTV footage.

Is the CCTV legal ?
I've been told that you can't have a CCTV camera that overlooks another
property or over a road.

The police are often very glad when private CCTV cameras catch footage of a
murderer or attacker fleeing from the scene (or even walking towards it
beforehand) so they can publish "does anyone recognise this person" photos.

If they are going to gratefully receive it and then prosecute the person who
owned the camera, that's a bit churlish :-(

I wonder if the law is less severe for cameras overlooking a public place
such as the street, compared with a private garden (or inside a house or
hotel room or changing room) where people (unlike in the street) can have an
expectation of privacy. Maybe a blind eye is turned for cameras that show
part of the street but not private property other that the camera oewner's.


Looks as if the pedestrian was very lucky to escape with just broken bones.
It's incredible that the bus managed to achieve a speed that pushed the car
sideways only a few feet after setting off. Very difficult for him to offer
any defence against careless/dangerous driving. I imagine his employers and
the police will use the footage against him.

On Friday, 2 October 2015 14:02:15 UTC+1, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 02/10/2015 12:41, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 2 October 2015 09:35:14 UTC+1, wrote:
On Thursday, 1 October 2015 19:09:49 UTC+1, David Lang wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34408280?SThisFB
My little girl was first on scene for London Ambulance.
I'm very proud of my daughter.

I wonder how the bus driver's going to talk himself out of that one.

And how much the BBC paid for the CCTV footage.

Is the CCTV legal ?
I've been told that you can't have a CCTV camera that overlooks another
property or over a road.

The police are often very glad when private CCTV cameras catch footage of a
murderer or attacker fleeing from the scene (or even walking towards it
beforehand) so they can publish "does anyone recognise this person" photos.

But they also blur out those peole they are not interested in for legal reasons, the average home users hasn't this facility. So if yuo put this on youtube and people can identify themseleves they have the right to complain you have breached their privacy.

http://www.problemneighbours.co.uk/c...d-the-law.html



If they are going to gratefully receive it and then prosecute the person who
owned the camera, that's a bit churlish :-(

it would but what if that bus was a school bus, or you could see into
another persons house. I don;t think that is teh case here but anyone installing CCTV should be aware that they should only be monitoring their own property.


I wonder if the law is less severe for cameras overlooking a public place
such as the street, compared with a private garden (or inside a house or
hotel room or changing room) where people (unlike in the street) can have an
expectation of privacy. Maybe a blind eye is turned for cameras that show
part of the street but not private property other that the camera oewner's.

yes hopefully it's a balanced view. Ther'es plenty of CCTV vids that show that those showing the vid have taken steps to difuse some faces and even google does this. Why does google do this, well google is a business not private so they have to if they want to map theor google street view public they do the same with numbers too.



Looks as if the pedestrian was very lucky to escape with just broken bones.
It's incredible that the bus managed to achieve a speed that pushed the car
sideways only a few feet after setting off.

Yes, I wouldn't have though the bus could have done so much damage in such a short distance.

Very difficult for him to offer
any defence against careless/dangerous driving. I imagine his employers and
the police will use the footage against him.

depends whether or not mechanical failure can be proved/disproved,
although it does seem he accerlated a bit quick.
I'll wait for the pros to do their bit.

On 02/10/15 12:41, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 2 October 2015 09:35:14 UTC+1, wrote:
On Thursday, 1 October 2015 19:09:49 UTC+1, David Lang wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34408280?SThisFB
My little girl was first on scene for London Ambulance.
I'm very proud of my daughter.

I wonder how the bus driver's going to talk himself out of that one.

And how much the BBC paid for the CCTV footage.

Is the CCTV legal ?
I've been told that you can't have a CCTV camera that overlooks another property or over a road.



That's not the case by a long shot.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
The police are often very glad when private CCTV cameras catch footage
of a murderer or attacker fleeing from the scene (or even walking
towards it beforehand) so they can publish "does anyone recognise
this person" photos.

But they also blur out those peole they are not interested in for legal
reasons,

They don't want to be sued. Suggesting that person is in some way
associated with the wanted one by being close to him.

the average home users hasn't this facility. So if yuo put this on
youtube and people can identify themseleves they have the right to
complain you have breached their privacy.

********.

Never watched TV news? Camera in the street with lots walking buy. They
don't blank out their faces.

--
*Ah, I see the f**k-up fairy has visited us again

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Friday, 2 October 2015 14:41:19 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:
On 02/10/15 12:41, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 2 October 2015 09:35:14 UTC+1, wrote:
On Thursday, 1 October 2015 19:09:49 UTC+1, David Lang wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34408280?SThisFB
My little girl was first on scene for London Ambulance.
I'm very proud of my daughter.

I wonder how the bus driver's going to talk himself out of that one.

And how much the BBC paid for the CCTV footage.

Is the CCTV legal ?
I've been told that you can't have a CCTV camera that overlooks another property or over a road.



That's not the case by a long shot.

yes it is, unless asked by the owner you can't record what happenes on another property.

On Friday, 2 October 2015 15:47:45 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
The police are often very glad when private CCTV cameras catch footage
of a murderer or attacker fleeing from the scene (or even walking
towards it beforehand) so they can publish "does anyone recognise
this person" photos.

But they also blur out those peole they are not interested in for legal
reasons,

They don't want to be sued. Suggesting that person is in some way
associated with the wanted one by being close to him.

Nothing to do with that.


the average home users hasn't this facility. So if yuo put this on
youtube and people can identify themseleves they have the right to
complain you have breached their privacy.

********.

Never watched TV news? Camera in the street with lots walking buy.

STREET is public property, that';s the differnce.

They
don't blank out their faces.

because they aren't recognisable and they usaully shoot body only in a lot of cases.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

********.

Never watched TV news? Camera in the street with lots walking buy. They
don't blank out their faces.

Actually, since the introduction of HD, I have noticed some broadcasters
(C4?) doing a slight blur on faces in street scenes.

But a "domestic" CCTV is exempt from data protection act, even if it
captures some of the street scene as well as your own property,
obviously you wouldn't set it up so it "peeped" inside your neighbours
property ... most cameras can block out areas of the screen if needed.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Never watched TV news? Camera in the street with lots walking buy.

STREET is public property, that';s the differnce.

What the difference between that and a public place?

They
don't blank out their faces.

because they aren't recognisable and they usaully shoot body only in a
lot of cases.

That is going to be tricky if filming someone who is standing. As they
invariably are in a street interview.

--
*Vegetarians taste great*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Never watched TV news? Camera in the street with lots walking buy. They
don't blank out their faces.

Actually, since the introduction of HD, I have noticed some broadcasters
(C4?) doing a slight blur on faces in street scenes.

If you use a long lens as is popular, things other than in its focal area
will be slightly blurred. Which would be passers by - except when level
with the presenter or whatever. Who is hopefully in focus.

But a "domestic" CCTV is exempt from data protection act, even if it
captures some of the street scene as well as your own property,
obviously you wouldn't set it up so it "peeped" inside your neighbours
property ... most cameras can block out areas of the screen if needed.

Is there a difference between looking at your neighbours from an upstairs
window etc or using a camera to do the same?

--
*A backward poet writes inverse.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

since the introduction of HD, I have noticed some broadcasters
(C4?) doing a slight blur on faces in street scenes.

If you use a long lens as is popular, things other than in its focal area
will be slightly blurred. Which would be passers by - except when level
with the presenter or whatever. Who is hopefully in focus.

No, I don't mean out of focus, I do mean Gaussian blur just of faces,
though fairly subtle.

Is there a difference between looking at your neighbours from an upstairs
window etc or using a camera to do the same?

Using a camera is less obvious, and you could go back through
recordings, stepping to motion events ...

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 2 October 2015 09:35:14 UTC+1, wrote:
On Thursday, 1 October 2015 19:09:49 UTC+1, David Lang wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34408280?SThisFB
My little girl was first on scene for London Ambulance.
I'm very proud of my daughter.

I wonder how the bus driver's going to talk himself out of that one.

And how much the BBC paid for the CCTV footage.

Is the CCTV legal ?

I've been told that you can't have a CCTV camera that overlooks another
property or over a road.

It could be dodgy covering another property - you just tell the police it is
incidental if they ask and it is not a deliberate attempt to view just their
property, the road however is a different matter, it is a public place.

--
Adam

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 11:30:57 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34408280?SThisFB My little girl was
first on scene for London Ambulance.
I'm very proud of my daughter.

I wonder how the bus driver's going to talk himself out of that one.

Could it be the steering failed? Looked something like that on the CCTV.
Unless there was another reason why he swung the bus to the side?

He needed to pull around the parked white Focus.

I don't know whether he accidentally planted the throttle, or something
in the linkage went wrong - but the bus accelerated FAR harder than need
be.


I remember something very similar a couple of years ago. The bus did the
same manouver and hit a parked car on the opposide side of the road parked
in a bus stop, ISTR it was the parking lane cameras that caught that one on
CCTV. I cannot find the link to it ATM.

--
Adam

On 02/10/15 16:18, whisky-dave wrote:

yes it is, unless asked by the owner you can't record what happenes on another property.



Can you get a cite for that?


Because the best I can find is:

http://www.problemneighbours.co.uk/w...tv-camera.html

which suggests it might be a case of harassment. But for that, you've
have to be deliberately and provably targeting the other property, and
not merely have it incidentally feature in your picture.

All things said and done, it would be unsociable to obviously point a
camera over another's property without consent, but the legal position
looks like a minefield as opposed to a dead given.

On 02/10/2015 14:02, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 02/10/2015 12:41, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 2 October 2015 09:35:14 UTC+1,
wrote:
On Thursday, 1 October 2015 19:09:49 UTC+1, David Lang wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34408280?SThisFB
My little girl was first on scene for London Ambulance.
I'm very proud of my daughter.

I wonder how the bus driver's going to talk himself out of that one.

And how much the BBC paid for the CCTV footage.

Is the CCTV legal ?
I've been told that you can't have a CCTV camera that overlooks
another property or over a road.

The police are often very glad when private CCTV cameras catch footage
of a murderer or attacker fleeing from the scene (or even walking
towards it beforehand) so they can publish "does anyone recognise this
person" photos.

If they are going to gratefully receive it and then prosecute the person
who owned the camera, that's a bit churlish :-(

Unlike the USA where "illegally" obtained evidence can be ruled out in
court the CPS can use it in court.


I wonder if the law is less severe for cameras overlooking a public
place such as the street, compared with a private garden (or inside a
house or hotel room or changing room) where people (unlike in the
street) can have an expectation of privacy. Maybe a blind eye is turned
for cameras that show part of the street but not private property other
that the camera oewner's.

A business has to comply with the data protection act and can't look
into others property without permission. they can look at public places
as much as they like just as a photographer can take photos in a public
place.

Individuals don't have to comply with the data protection act but its
advisable not to point your cameras into other people property.

Looks as if the pedestrian was very lucky to escape with just broken
bones. It's incredible that the bus managed to achieve a speed that
pushed the car sideways only a few feet after setting off. Very
difficult for him to offer any defence against careless/dangerous
driving. I imagine his employers and the police will use the footage
against him.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 2 October 2015 13:24:15 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 02/10/2015 12:41, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 2 October 2015 09:35:14 UTC+1,
wrote:
On Thursday, 1 October 2015 19:09:49 UTC+1, David Lang wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34408280?SThisFB
My little girl was first on scene for London Ambulance.
I'm very proud of my daughter.

I wonder how the bus driver's going to talk himself out of that one.

And how much the BBC paid for the CCTV footage.

Is the CCTV legal ?
I've been told that you can't have a CCTV camera that overlooks another
property or over a road.



By a photographer?

What photographer ?


The same one that keeps telling you the wrong things?

http://www.problemneighbours.co.uk/c...d-the-law.html

That doesn't say anything about overlooking a road.

The camera caught the bus and it's driver in a bus.
While I'd have no problems with the others might be more sensitive
if it's a school bus or the CCTV can look into anothers window.

But it isn't illegal. And it isn't illegal to take video footage of traffic
on a road either.

I was told to set up a CCTV system in my lab, but when I loked
into it I''m not aloud to because of the data protection act.

The data protection act doesn't apply to the CCTV shown in that accident.

As they wanted the monitors in my office where teh students can see
it, that is NOT allowed, so I looked into what is and what isn't allowed.

But clearly don't understand that CCTV that
does show what happens on a road is fine.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 2 October 2015 14:02:15 UTC+1, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 02/10/2015 12:41, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 2 October 2015 09:35:14 UTC+1,
wrote:
On Thursday, 1 October 2015 19:09:49 UTC+1, David Lang wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34408280?SThisFB
My little girl was first on scene for London Ambulance.
I'm very proud of my daughter.

I wonder how the bus driver's going to talk himself out of that one.

And how much the BBC paid for the CCTV footage.

Is the CCTV legal ?
I've been told that you can't have a CCTV camera that overlooks
another
property or over a road.

The police are often very glad when private CCTV cameras catch footage of
a
murderer or attacker fleeing from the scene (or even walking towards it
beforehand) so they can publish "does anyone recognise this person"
photos.

But they also blur out those peole they are not interested in for legal
reasons, the average home users hasn't this facility. So if yuo put this
on youtube and people can identify themseleves they have the right
to complain you have breached their privacy.

They can complain, but their complaint will be ignored because it isn't
any more illegal than recording an incident with your phone while its
happening and putting that on youtube. Perfectly legal to do that.

http://www.problemneighbours.co.uk/c...d-the-law.html

Doesn't say anything like what you said with the road.

If they are going to gratefully receive it and then prosecute
the person who owned the camera, that's a bit churlish :-(

it would but what if that bus was a school bus,

Still perfectly legal to record a school
bus involved in an accident like that.

or you could see into another persons house.

That isn't what is being discussed. And if you chose to
record what was going on in a house with a domestic
violence incident with your mobile phone, that would
be completely legal too.

Same with road rage or just accidents with your dash cam.

I don;t think that is teh case here but anyone installing CCTV should
be aware that they should only be monitoring their own property.

The law doesn't say that with roads.

I wonder if the law is less severe for cameras overlooking a public place
such as the street, compared with a private garden (or inside a house or
hotel room or changing room) where people (unlike in the street) can have
an expectation of privacy. Maybe a blind eye is turned for cameras that
show
part of the street but not private property other that the camera
oewner's.

yes hopefully it's a balanced view. Ther'es plenty of CCTV
vids that show that those showing the vid have taken
steps to difuse some faces and even google does this.

In fact that varys dramatically with TV news footage particularly.

Why does google do this, well google is a business not
private so they have to if they want to map theor google
street view public they do the same with numbers too.

They don't in fact do that with the street numbers here and
I do sometimes use that when deciding where a particular
garage/yard sale is when looking at the street view.

Looks as if the pedestrian was very lucky to escape with just
broken bones. It's incredible that the bus managed to achieve
a speed that pushed the car sideways only a few feet after setting off.

Yes, I wouldn't have though the bus could have
done so much damage in such a short distance.

I would, just because its so much bigger than the car.
Very basic physics.

Very difficult for him to offer any defence against
careless/dangerous driving. I imagine his employers
and the police will use the footage against him.

depends whether or not mechanical failure can be proved/disproved,
although it does seem he accerlated a bit quick.
I'll wait for the pros to do their bit.

Not all accidents can be proven cause wise even by the pros.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 2 October 2015 14:41:19 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:
On 02/10/15 12:41, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 2 October 2015 09:35:14 UTC+1,
wrote:
On Thursday, 1 October 2015 19:09:49 UTC+1, David Lang wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34408280?SThisFB
My little girl was first on scene for London Ambulance.
I'm very proud of my daughter.

I wonder how the bus driver's going to talk himself out of that one.

And how much the BBC paid for the CCTV footage.

Is the CCTV legal ?
I've been told that you can't have a CCTV camera that overlooks another
property or over a road.



That's not the case by a long shot.

yes it is,

No its not.

unless asked by the owner you can't record what happenes on another
property.

That is not true of the public road being discussed or what happens on the
footpath either.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Never watched TV news? Camera in the street with lots walking buy. They
don't blank out their faces.

Actually, since the introduction of HD, I have noticed some broadcasters
(C4?) doing a slight blur on faces in street scenes.

If you use a long lens as is popular, things other than in its focal area
will be slightly blurred. Which would be passers by - except when level
with the presenter or whatever. Who is hopefully in focus.

But a "domestic" CCTV is exempt from data protection act, even if it
captures some of the street scene as well as your own property,
obviously you wouldn't set it up so it "peeped" inside your neighbours
property ... most cameras can block out areas of the screen if needed.

Is there a difference between looking at your neighbours from an upstairs
window etc or using a camera to do the same?


Probably not but some debate about publishing.

"ARW" wrote in message
...
"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 11:30:57 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34408280?SThisFB My little girl was
first on scene for London Ambulance.
I'm very proud of my daughter.

I wonder how the bus driver's going to talk himself out of that one.

Could it be the steering failed? Looked something like that on the CCTV.
Unless there was another reason why he swung the bus to the side?

He needed to pull around the parked white Focus.

I don't know whether he accidentally planted the throttle, or something
in the linkage went wrong - but the bus accelerated FAR harder than need
be.


I remember something very similar a couple of years ago. The bus did the
same manouver and hit a parked car on the opposide side of the road parked
in a bus stop, ISTR it was the parking lane cameras that caught that one
on CCTV. I cannot find the link to it ATM.

Found it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORKPh82yGU4



--
Adam

On 03/10/15 08:35, ARW wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message


I don't know whether he accidentally planted the throttle, or something
in the linkage went wrong - but the bus accelerated FAR harder than need
be.


I remember something very similar a couple of years ago. The bus did the
same manouver and hit a parked car on the opposide side of the road parked
in a bus stop, ISTR it was the parking lane cameras that caught that one
on CCTV. I cannot find the link to it ATM.

Found it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORKPh82yGU4

Looks very similar. From reading some of the comments, it seems the
driver was not at fault - the throttle stuck open.

--

Jeff

On 03/10/2015 09:11, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 03/10/15 08:35, ARW wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message


I don't know whether he accidentally planted the throttle, or something
in the linkage went wrong - but the bus accelerated FAR harder than
need
be.


I remember something very similar a couple of years ago. The bus did the
same manouver and hit a parked car on the opposide side of the road
parked
in a bus stop, ISTR it was the parking lane cameras that caught that one
on CCTV. I cannot find the link to it ATM.

Found it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORKPh82yGU4

Looks very similar. From reading some of the comments, it seems the
driver was not at fault - the throttle stuck open.


Similar thing at Crystal Palace last week

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cr...czgjODFUAQA%3D



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

A better link

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...between-single
decker-bus-and-lamppost-after-crash-in-crystal-palace-a2953516.html



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 03/10/2015 09:58, stuart noble wrote:
A better link

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...between-single
decker-bus-and-lamppost-after-crash-in-crystal-palace-a2953516.html



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Or unwrapped

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...-a2953516.html



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 09:54:00 +0100, stuart noble wrote:

I don't know whether he accidentally planted the throttle, or
something in the linkage went wrong - but the bus accelerated
FAR
harder than need be.


I remember something very similar a couple of years ago. The bus
did
the same manouver and hit a parked car on the opposide side of
the
road parked in a bus stop,

Looks very similar. From reading some of the comments, it seems
the
driver was not at fault - the throttle stuck open.


Similar thing at Crystal Palace last week

And just yesterday in Coventry:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-34436360

Except this time two are dead and another critical.

I find it very difficult to believe that bus drivers have suddenly(?)
taken to flooring the throttle and driving uncontrolled into
things/people.

Pretty obvious to me that some very close examination of throttle
potentiometers and/or the firmware controlling the engine needs to be
urgently carried out. Perhaps some makes/models of bus also need to
withdrawn from service until a cause is found.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 04/10/2015 13:55, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 09:54:00 +0100, stuart noble wrote:

I don't know whether he accidentally planted the throttle, or
something in the linkage went wrong - but the bus accelerated
FAR
harder than need be.


I remember something very similar a couple of years ago. The bus
did
the same manouver and hit a parked car on the opposide side of
the
road parked in a bus stop,

Looks very similar. From reading some of the comments, it seems
the
driver was not at fault - the throttle stuck open.


Similar thing at Crystal Palace last week

And just yesterday in Coventry:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-34436360

Except this time two are dead and another critical.

I find it very difficult to believe that bus drivers have suddenly(?)
taken to flooring the throttle and driving uncontrolled into
things/people.

Pretty obvious to me that some very close examination of throttle
potentiometers and/or the firmware controlling the engine needs to be
urgently carried out. Perhaps some makes/models of bus also need to
withdrawn from service until a cause is found.


You seem to be jumping to the conclusion that the bus did it all by
itself. However no information has been forthcoming so far about the
likely cause.

Whilst I don't imagine that the driver did it deliberatively, what if he
had collapsed at the wheel, with his foot jammed on the throttle - like
the bin lorry driver in Scotland?
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 2 October 2015 14:41:19 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:
On 02/10/15 12:41, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 2 October 2015 09:35:14 UTC+1,
wrote:
On Thursday, 1 October 2015 19:09:49 UTC+1, David Lang wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34408280?SThisFB
My little girl was first on scene for London Ambulance.
I'm very proud of my daughter.

I wonder how the bus driver's going to talk himself out of that one.

And how much the BBC paid for the CCTV footage.

Is the CCTV legal ?
I've been told that you can't have a CCTV camera that overlooks
another property or over a road.



That's not the case by a long shot.

yes it is,

No its not.

unless asked by the owner you can't record what happenes on another
property.

That is not true of the public road being discussed or what happens on the
footpath either.


Stupid Australian trolling ****.

On Sun, 04 Oct 2015 17:46:59 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

Pretty obvious to me that some very close examination of throttle
potentiometers and/or the firmware controlling the engine needs
to be
urgently carried out. Perhaps some makes/models of bus also need
to
withdrawn from service until a cause is found.

You seem to be jumping to the conclusion that the bus did it all
by
itself. However no information has been forthcoming so far about
the
likely cause.

Which if the driver had be carted off to hospital after suffering
some form of collapse would normally be mentioned. Either as quote
from the emergency services or from witness's.

The first of these in this thread certainly didn't do that (the one
where the guy got biffed into the fence). When the bus stops, you see
the driver getting up from the driving seat and moving towards the door
of the bus.

Quite and any mention of the other drivers condition, apart from the
Coventry one were he was hurt in the ensuing crash, is conspicious by
it's abscence.

Where are the proper journalists when you need one? The ones that
smell a story and start digging rather than just regurgitate any
Press Release that passes over their desk.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Friday, 2 October 2015 17:24:50 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Never watched TV news? Camera in the street with lots walking buy.

STREET is public property, that';s the differnce.

What the difference between that and a public place?

I don't think there's a differnce who's who's being filmed and why
and whether or not you put it on youtube.


They
don't blank out their faces.

because they aren't recognisable and they usaully shoot body only in a
lot of cases.

That is going to be tricky if filming someone who is standing. As they
invariably are in a street interview.

you point the camera down.

On Friday, 2 October 2015 19:24:46 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:
On 02/10/15 16:18, whisky-dave wrote:

yes it is, unless asked by the owner you can't record what happenes on another property.



Can you get a cite for that?

http://www.yourprivacy.co.uk/does-ne...cy-rights.html


Because the best I can find is:

http://www.problemneighbours.co.uk/w...tv-camera.html

which suggests it might be a case of harassment. But for that, you've
have to be deliberately and provably targeting the other property, and
not merely have it incidentally feature in your picture.

Yes I know, that's why you need to make sure your CCTV isn;t looking
into someone's house or garden.


All things said and done, it would be unsociable to obviously point a
camera over another's property without consent, but the legal position
looks like a minefield as opposed to a dead given.

Well if you're setting up a camera to catch crooks or wrong doings you really need to make sure you're doing nothing wrong.