I haven't seen any. Seems odd.

Bill

On 09/10/2017 04:00, Bill Wright wrote:
I haven't seen any. Seems odd.

Bill

Possibly because:
i) It wasn't terrorism
ii) It was an accident and the Police are not lo1oking for the driver
iii) All parties involved have been identified

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Monday, 9 October 2017 08:02:36 UTC+1, alan_m wrote:
On 09/10/2017 04:00, Bill Wright wrote:
I haven't seen any. Seems odd.

Bill

Possibly because:
i) It wasn't terrorism
ii) It was an accident and the Police are not lo1oking for the driver
iii) All parties involved have been identified

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

More likely it WAS terrorism and they don't want us to know.

Well, Its one of those pet shared surfaces schemes around they, heaven
forbid it gets any bad press the millions spent to make it impossible to use
if you are not young able bodied andcan see.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"harry" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 9 October 2017 08:02:36 UTC+1, alan_m wrote:
On 09/10/2017 04:00, Bill Wright wrote:
I haven't seen any. Seems odd.

Bill

Possibly because:
i) It wasn't terrorism
ii) It was an accident and the Police are not lo1oking for the driver
iii) All parties involved have been identified

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

More likely it WAS terrorism and they don't want us to know.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 9 October 2017 08:02:36 UTC+1, alan_m wrote:
On 09/10/2017 04:00, Bill Wright wrote:
I haven't seen any. Seems odd.

Bill

Possibly because:
i) It wasn't terrorism
ii) It was an accident and the Police are not lo1oking for the driver
iii) All parties involved have been identified

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

More likely it WAS terrorism and they don't want us to know.

How odd that they didnt care with the other ones.

The driver appears to have been on the Cromwell Road (not a shared
surface) and attempted to turn left onto the shared surface BEFORE the
traffic light. He went left of the traffic light post (which was on the
kerb) and drove diagonally across the pavement onto the shared surface
road.

Hardly the fault of the shared surface; it was the destination, not the
starting point.

On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 08:48:12 +0100, Brian Gaff wrote:

Well, Its one of those pet shared surfaces schemes around they, heaven
forbid it gets any bad press the millions spent to make it impossible to
use if you are not young able bodied andcan see.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 09-Oct-17 9:20 AM, Bob Eager wrote:
The driver appears to have been on the Cromwell Road (not a shared
surface) and attempted to turn left onto the shared surface BEFORE the
traffic light. He went left of the traffic light post (which was on the
kerb) and drove diagonally across the pavement onto the shared surface
road.

Hardly the fault of the shared surface; it was the destination, not the
starting point.

That doesn't mean that confusion over the shared space didn't contribute
to the accident.



--
--

Colin Bignell

On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 10:01:35 +0100, Nightjar wrote:

On 09-Oct-17 9:20 AM, Bob Eager wrote:
The driver appears to have been on the Cromwell Road (not a shared
surface) and attempted to turn left onto the shared surface BEFORE the
traffic light. He went left of the traffic light post (which was on the
kerb) and drove diagonally across the pavement onto the shared surface
road.

Hardly the fault of the shared surface; it was the destination, not the
starting point.

That doesn't mean that confusion over the shared space didn't contribute
to the accident.

I can't see how. There are posts to stop you getting onto the shared
space from that direction; by leaving the road before the traffic lights,
he was deliberately avoiding those. There can have been no confusion.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 09/10/2017 09:20, Bob Eager wrote:
The driver appears to have been on the Cromwell Road (not a shared
surface) and attempted to turn left onto the shared surface BEFORE the
traffic light. He went left of the traffic light post (which was on the
kerb) and drove diagonally across the pavement onto the shared surface
road.

This was a mini cab driver, I suppose. How could somebody who makes his
living by driving do something daft like that?




Hardly the fault of the shared surface; it was the destination, not the
starting point.

On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 08:48:12 +0100, Brian Gaff wrote:

Well, Its one of those pet shared surfaces schemes around they, heaven
forbid it gets any bad press the millions spent to make it impossible to
use if you are not young able bodied andcan see.

"GB" wrote in message
news
On 09/10/2017 09:20, Bob Eager wrote:
The driver appears to have been on the Cromwell Road (not a shared
surface) and attempted to turn left onto the shared surface BEFORE the
traffic light. He went left of the traffic light post (which was on the
kerb) and drove diagonally across the pavement onto the shared surface
road.

This was a mini cab driver, I suppose. How could somebody who makes his
living by driving do something daft like that?

Presumably by being too stupid to make their living in a field
that requires more than ear to ear dog **** between the ears.




Hardly the fault of the shared surface; it was the destination, not the
starting point.

On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 08:48:12 +0100, Brian Gaff wrote:

Well, Its one of those pet shared surfaces schemes around they, heaven
forbid it gets any bad press the millions spent to make it impossible to
use if you are not young able bodied andcan see.

On 09/10/2017 10:21, GB wrote:
On 09/10/2017 09:20, Bob Eager wrote:
The driver appears to have been on the Cromwell Road (not a shared
surface) and attempted to turn left onto the shared surface BEFORE the
traffic light. He went left of the traffic light post (which was on the
kerb) and drove diagonally across the pavement onto the shared surface
road.

This was a mini cab driver, I suppose.Â* How could somebody who makes his
living by driving do something daft like that?

Any of the traits I've met or suspected in London PHV drivers over the
years - drugs, working for the previous 16 hours, not acclimatised to UK
road conditions, never taken a driving test...





--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

In article ,
harry wrote:
On Monday, 9 October 2017 08:02:36 UTC+1, alan_m wrote:
On 09/10/2017 04:00, Bill Wright wrote:
I haven't seen any. Seems odd.

Bill

Possibly because:
i) It wasn't terrorism
ii) It was an accident and the Police are not lo1oking for the driver
iii) All parties involved have been identified

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

More likely it WAS terrorism and they don't want us to know.

If you decided to run down people, you'd likely choose something a bit
bigger than a Prius.

--
*Don't worry; it only seems kinky the first time.*

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

In article ,
GB wrote:
On 09/10/2017 09:20, Bob Eager wrote:
The driver appears to have been on the Cromwell Road (not a shared
surface) and attempted to turn left onto the shared surface BEFORE the
traffic light. He went left of the traffic light post (which was on the
kerb) and drove diagonally across the pavement onto the shared surface
road.

This was a mini cab driver, I suppose. How could somebody who makes his
living by driving do something daft like that?

Wouldn't be the first cab or delivery driver who thinks traffic laws don't
apply to them.

--
*On the other hand, you have different fingers*

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

On 09/10/2017 08:02, alan_m wrote:
On 09/10/2017 04:00, Bill Wright wrote:
I haven't seen any. Seems odd.

Bill

Possibly because:
i) It wasn't terrorism
ii) It was an accident and the Police are not lo1oking for the driver
iii) All parties involved have been identified

But it was news, and anyone with CCTV could make a bit by selling to a
broadcaster or a newspaper website.

Bill

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
news
On 09/10/2017 08:02, alan_m wrote:
On 09/10/2017 04:00, Bill Wright wrote:
I haven't seen any. Seems odd.

Bill

Possibly because:
i) It wasn't terrorism
ii) It was an accident and the Police are not lo1oking for the driver
iii) All parties involved have been identified

But it was news, and anyone with CCTV could make a bit by selling to a
broadcaster or a newspaper website.

The fact that this hasn't happened makes me suspicious that the police have
instructed newspapers not to publish footage. Of course, once it was
announced that it was not a terrorist incident, the incident became less
newsworthy, but until then I'd have thought the people with footage which
showed what happened might have released it to the papers.

What is the current situation as regarded suspected terrorist attacks: do
the police immediately issue a D Notice (or whatever the modern equivalent
is) banning publication until there has been further analysis, after which
it is not "news" if it is only an accident and not a terrorist incident.

And what about private publication on Youtube etc? Do the police issue
immediate "takedown" instructions to Youtube? Now that it's not terrorist,
maybe some footage will come to light.

Was he an idiot who couldn't read the road and turned too soon onto a
pavement, or did he have some sort of medical incident that led to the car
going out of control? I wonder if it was the dreaded problem with automatic
cars of the driver hitting the accelerator instead of the brake and then not
being able to stop quickly enough (the "elderly person driving into a shop
window" type of accident - though I believe this guy was not elderly).

Very impressive that armed police were on hand to react so quickly. I
imagine that the Kensington museums are seen as a likely target so there may
be police on standby close by.

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
On 09/10/2017 08:02, alan_m wrote:
On 09/10/2017 04:00, Bill Wright wrote:
I haven't seen any. Seems odd.

Bill

Possibly because:
i) It wasn't terrorism
ii) It was an accident and the Police are not lo1oking for the driver
iii) All parties involved have been identified

But it was news, and anyone with CCTV could make a bit by selling to a
broadcaster or a newspaper website.

Not sure there'd be any private cameras in Exhibition Road.

--
Small asylum seeker wanted as mud flap, must be flexible and willing to travel

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

Bill Wright wrote:

anyone with CCTV could make a bit by selling to a
broadcaster or a newspaper website.

Only if that was one of the specified purposes of the CCTV in accordance
with the DPA

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
Bill Wright wrote:

anyone with CCTV could make a bit by selling to a
broadcaster or a newspaper website.

Only if that was one of the specified purposes of the CCTV in accordance
with the DPA

Is fixed CCTV subject to different rules to someone in the street filming
with their phone, or is man-in-the-street footage really subject to DPA
restrictions but no-one normally bothers? Is Google Streetview's blurring of
faces and number plates actually a legal requirement or is it a courtesy to
appease people concerned about privacy and maybe a worst-case rule in case
other countries have more stringent rules.

Is it no longer the case that you can film anything that happens in a public
place (the street) but not on private land such as a garden, and that people
do not have any right to privacy in public. I always thought that warnings
about CCTV were there to make it legal to use the footage in court, not to
make it legal to publish it in general. Or are our laws becoming as
draconian as USSR's and various dictatorships'? Obviously "public place"
excludes specific MOD sites. I know some countries do not allow dashcams to
be used, so you have no way of presenting footage to insurance companies in
the event of an accident and you have to rely entirely on third-party
witnesses - if any - rather than photographic evidence.

"NY" wrote in message
o.uk...

I always thought that warnings about CCTV were there to make it legal to use the
footage in court, not to make it legal to publish it in general.

I thought warnings about CCTV were so as to discourage potential miscreants
who might not otherwise have noticed the presence of the camera. Or might
even substitute for an actual working camera.

Same as with burglar alarm notices.


michael adams

....

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 13:18:37 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

On 09/10/2017 08:02, alan_m wrote:
On 09/10/2017 04:00, Bill Wright wrote:
I haven't seen any. Seems odd.

Bill

Possibly because:
i) It wasn't terrorism
ii) It was an accident and the Police are not lo1oking for the driver
iii) All parties involved have been identified

But it was news, and anyone with CCTV could make a bit by selling to a
broadcaster or a newspaper website.

Sell - I would have donated in the public interest.

"Scott" wrote in message
...
Sell - I would have donated in the public interest.

If I was ever in the position of being the only person to film a newsworthy
event, I would offer it to the news agencies on the non-negotiable condition
that they do not have exclusive rights to it and that I will be offering it
also to other broadcasters and expect payment from anyone who uses it - and
I will walk away from any company that says "we will pay you extra if you
give us exclusive rights".

I remember years ago being first on the scene (apart from the ambulance and
fire brigade) at a damage-only collision and car fire. I happened to have my
camera with me, so I took a few photos, developed them in my darkroom and
went round to the various free newspapers in town asking whether they were
interested in buying the photos. The first paper, the weekly one, tried the
"exclusive deal" line and I said "not interested". They upped the cost so I
said "it's not the money, it's the exclusive part of the deal that I'm not
interested in" and walked away.

I eventually sold the photo (for a pittance!) to one of their competitors,
and opted for a by-line in lieu of payment from a third paper - I'd got what
I wanted: a bit of money and a bit of publicity. The Bucks Herald lost their
chance to print the photo because they wanted to be greedy and have
exclusive rights to it.

On 09-Oct-17 1:18 PM, Bill Wright wrote:
On 09/10/2017 08:02, alan_m wrote:
On 09/10/2017 04:00, Bill Wright wrote:
I haven't seen any. Seems odd.

Bill

Possibly because:
i) It wasn't terrorism
ii) It was an accident and the Police are not lo1oking for the driver
iii) All parties involved have been identified

But it was news, and anyone with CCTV could make a bit by selling to a
broadcaster or a newspaper website.

It was an RTC where people were injured, which makes it an ongoing
police investigation. It probably isn't sufficiently newsworthy to risk
publishing potential evidence.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 09/10/2017 10:21, GB wrote:
On 09/10/2017 09:20, Bob Eager wrote:
The driver appears to have been on the Cromwell Road (not a shared
surface) and attempted to turn left onto the shared surface BEFORE the
traffic light. He went left of the traffic light post (which was on the
kerb) and drove diagonally across the pavement onto the shared surface
road.

This was a mini cab driver, I suppose.Â* How could somebody who makes his
living by driving do something daft like that?

Yup. I had to stop a black cab today and point out that he was driving
the wrong way along a one way street.

To be fair, he was apologetic, thanked me and turned around straight
away - unlike the cyclist who I met on the same road a couple of hours
later.

The cyclist turned against a no left-turn/no entry sign into the road
that I was on. As I was coming to the end of the road and intended to
turn right, I was well over on the right side. I hit the brakes, lights
and horn and came to a stop. He swung across the front of my car,
stopping right in front, then passed along my left side, stopping to
spit on the car.

Over recent years I have met three cars going the wrong way there and
told them, each has been apologetic and thankful - only one continued
and that was because he couldn't have turned with the large trailer he
was towing.

I have met a fair-few more cyclists than that and all have been rude and
then continued on as before.

SteveW

On 09/10/2017 13:37, NY wrote:
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
news
On 09/10/2017 08:02, alan_m wrote:
On 09/10/2017 04:00, Bill Wright wrote:
I haven't seen any. Seems odd.

Bill

Possibly because:
i) It wasn't terrorism
ii) It was an accident and the Police are not lo1oking for the driver
iii) All parties involved have been identified

But it was news, and anyone with CCTV could make a bit by selling to a
broadcaster or a newspaper website.

The fact that this hasn't happened makes me suspicious that the police
have instructed newspapers not to publish footage. Of course, once it
was announced that it was not a terrorist incident, the incident became
less newsworthy, but until then I'd have thought the people with footage
which showed what happened might have released it to the papers.

What is the current situation as regarded suspected terrorist attacks:
do the police immediately issue a D Notice (or whatever the modern
equivalent is) banning publication until there has been further
analysis, after which it is not "news" if it is only an accident and not
a terrorist incident.

And what about private publication on Youtube etc? Do the police issue
immediate "takedown" instructions to Youtube? Now that it's not
terrorist, maybe some footage will come to light.

Was he an idiot who couldn't read the road and turned too soon onto a
pavement, or did he have some sort of medical incident that led to the
car going out of control? I wonder if it was the dreaded problem with
automatic cars of the driver hitting the accelerator instead of the
brake and then not being able to stop quickly enough (the "elderly
person driving into a shop window" type of accident - though I believe
this guy was not elderly).

Very impressive that armed police were on hand to react so quickly. I
imagine that the Kensington museums are seen as a likely target so there
may be police on standby close by.

At last a reasoned response.

Bill

On 09/10/2017 13:37, NY wrote:
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
news
On 09/10/2017 08:02, alan_m wrote:
On 09/10/2017 04:00, Bill Wright wrote:
I haven't seen any. Seems odd.



Very impressive that armed police were on hand to react so quickly. I
imagine that the Kensington museums are seen as a likely target so there
may be police on standby close by.

I think that there is an embassy (I think French) literally across the
road from the NH museum. There are usually 2 or 3 armed police
stationed outside.


--
Chris B (News)

On 09/10/2017 22:41, Steve Walker wrote:

Yup. I had to stop a black cab today and point out that he was driving
the wrong way along a one way street.

To be fair, he was apologetic, thanked me and turned around straight
away - unlike the cyclist who I met on the same road a couple of hours
later.

The cyclist turned against a no left-turn/no entry sign into the road
that I was on. As I was coming to the end of the road and intended to
turn right, I was well over on the right side. I hit the brakes, lights
and horn and came to a stop. He swung across the front of my car,
stopping right in front, then passed along my left side, stopping to
spit on the car.

Treat yourself. Just run the **** over.

I ran a little **** over (not a cyclist) who was playing chicken with
his mates in the road and making cars swerve. I had seen them playing it
earlier on my way to the shops. I had a cunning plan to scare the ****
out of them on my way back from the shops.

Their plan went along the lines of one of them running out into the road
as you approached them to make you swerve across the road before they
turned around and ran back to the pavement.

My theory was that if I just ignored the one that ran into the road and
carried on in a straight line then the little ****er would not be so
stupid as to turn around and then run into the path of my van that had
not swerved.

My theory was wrong.





--
Adam

On 11/10/2017 23:03, ARW wrote:
On 09/10/2017 22:41, Steve Walker wrote:

Yup. I had to stop a black cab today and point out that he was driving
the wrong way along a one way street.

To be fair, he was apologetic, thanked me and turned around straight
away - unlike the cyclist who I met on the same road a couple of hours
later.

The cyclist turned against a no left-turn/no entry sign into the road
that I was on. As I was coming to the end of the road and intended to
turn right, I was well over on the right side. I hit the brakes,
lights and horn and came to a stop. He swung across the front of my
car, stopping right in front, then passed along my left side, stopping
to spit on the car.

Treat yourself. Just run the **** over.

I ran a little **** over (not a cyclist) who was playing chicken with
his mates in the road and making cars swerve. I had seen them playing it
earlier on my way to the shops. I had a cunning plan to scare the ****
out of them on my way back from the shops.

Their plan went along the lines of one of them running out into the road
as you approached them to make you swerve across the road before they
turned around and ran back to the pavement.

My theory was that if I just ignored the one that ran into the road and
carried on in a straight line then the little ****er would not be so
stupid as to turn around and then run into the path of my van that had
not swerved.

My theory was wrong.

Was your van damaged?

--
Max Demian

"Max Demian" wrote in message
news
On 11/10/2017 23:03, ARW wrote:
On 09/10/2017 22:41, Steve Walker wrote:

Yup. I had to stop a black cab today and point out that he was driving
the wrong way along a one way street.

To be fair, he was apologetic, thanked me and turned around straight
away - unlike the cyclist who I met on the same road a couple of hours
later.

The cyclist turned against a no left-turn/no entry sign into the road
that I was on. As I was coming to the end of the road and intended to
turn right, I was well over on the right side. I hit the brakes, lights
and horn and came to a stop. He swung across the front of my car,
stopping right in front, then passed along my left side, stopping to
spit on the car.

Treat yourself. Just run the **** over.

I ran a little **** over (not a cyclist) who was playing chicken with his
mates in the road and making cars swerve. I had seen them playing it
earlier on my way to the shops. I had a cunning plan to scare the ****
out of them on my way back from the shops.

Their plan went along the lines of one of them running out into the road
as you approached them to make you swerve across the road before they
turned around and ran back to the pavement.

My theory was that if I just ignored the one that ran into the road and
carried on in a straight line then the little ****er would not be so
stupid as to turn around and then run into the path of my van that had
not swerved.

My theory was wrong.

Was your van damaged?

Thats why its so often undrivable, they are scraping the remains
of the latest stupid little **** off the working parts till it works again.

On 11/10/2017 23:29, Max Demian wrote:
On 11/10/2017 23:03, ARW wrote:
On 09/10/2017 22:41, Steve Walker wrote:

Yup. I had to stop a black cab today and point out that he was
driving the wrong way along a one way street.

To be fair, he was apologetic, thanked me and turned around straight
away - unlike the cyclist who I met on the same road a couple of
hours later.

The cyclist turned against a no left-turn/no entry sign into the road
that I was on. As I was coming to the end of the road and intended to
turn right, I was well over on the right side. I hit the brakes,
lights and horn and came to a stop. He swung across the front of my
car, stopping right in front, then passed along my left side,
stopping to spit on the car.

Treat yourself. Just run the **** over.

I ran a little **** over (not a cyclist) who was playing chicken with
his mates in the road and making cars swerve. I had seen them playing
it earlier on my way to the shops. I had a cunning plan to scare the
**** out of them on my way back from the shops.

Their plan went along the lines of one of them running out into the
road as you approached them to make you swerve across the road before
they turned around and ran back to the pavement.

My theory was that if I just ignored the one that ran into the road
and carried on in a straight line then the little ****er would not be
so stupid as to turn around and then run into the path of my van that
had not swerved.

My theory was wrong.

Was your van damaged?

It's a FIAT, it's a miracle that it did not break down on the way to or
on the way back from the shops.

But Scudos bumpers are made of stronger stuff than 14 year old kids.


--
Adam

On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 4:00:15 AM UTC+1, Bill Wright wrote:
I haven't seen any. Seems odd.

Bill

Probly cus it don't ave any connectoin to diy!

On 09-Oct-17 11:34 PM, Martin wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 18:41:20 +0100, Nightjar wrote:

On 09-Oct-17 1:18 PM, Bill Wright wrote:
On 09/10/2017 08:02, alan_m wrote:
On 09/10/2017 04:00, Bill Wright wrote:
I haven't seen any. Seems odd.

Bill

Possibly because:
i) It wasn't terrorism
ii) It was an accident and the Police are not lo1oking for the driver
iii) All parties involved have been identified

But it was news, and anyone with CCTV could make a bit by selling to a
broadcaster or a newspaper website.

It was an RTC where people were injured, which makes it an ongoing
police investigation. It probably isn't sufficiently newsworthy to risk
publishing potential evidence.

The press had lots of photos taken immediately after the accident. I am pretty
sure some of the photos were also shown in TV news programmes.


Photos taken after the event only show the result of the collision,
which is not evidence of how it occurred. CCTV footage is.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 04:00:08 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

I haven't seen any. Seems odd.

Bill

A simple question: Are there any CCTV cameras in that area?

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

On Thursday, 12 October 2017 14:45:10 UTC+1, Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 04:00:08 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

I haven't seen any. Seems odd.

Bill

A simple question: Are there any CCTV cameras in that area?

and if it's true CCTV will you ever get to see them.
Remmeber CCTV and webcams are a differnt setup, CC as in closed circuit mean not everyone has the right to see them.