Near Misses Volume 2 (So close you can feel it)

..

I sometimes do a jolly little double bip-bip when passing a cyclist (only a proper lycra-clad one on a road bike) by way of greeting and communication, "I'm one of you too". Is that an acceptable use of the horn?

Spot on Andrew, that's exactly what they're attempting. I hadn't heard anything regarding my compliant in over a week so sent a chaser mail yesterday evening. Got a reply from a compliance officer that they won't be able to investigate under the Consolidated Taxi Regulation Acts 2013/2016 as they need evidence that the vehicle was being operated for hire or reward.

Well I thought that was obvious; 1: the taxi plate is clearly on display 2: The driver is using an active bus lane which he was quick to highlight and as per the NTA website, "A taxi can use a normal (with-flow) bus lane only while it is operating as an SPSV – carrying a passenger, on the way to pick up a pre-booked customer, or plying for hire. Taxis must not use bus lanes if they are not operating as an SPSV" 3: The driver can be clearly heard saying he has a witness and sure enough he did have a back seat passenger.

Anyway have replied back with your suggestion that the compliant is regarding the conduct and behaviour of the SPSV driver quoting the specifics so will see what other excuse they formulate after a week or more to sit on their hands as another toothless regulatory body.

The utter ignorance of it is staggering. And the lack of judgement to put it in writing is extraordinary.

That email is wild. Doubly so considering AGS are frequently appealing for dashcam footage, which by the letter of that email, would be illegal for someone to have.

Regarding the Act referenced, I presume the text is not correct? On a common sense basis, it can't be. a 10 second Google led me to the Data Protection Commission website, which states that "..taking photographs of people in public is generally allowed and most likely will qualify for the household exemption..", so on the face of it it seems that the email is 100% incorrect.

It's not at all clear that the person was seeking out offenses to film - the email just refers to a 'biased agenda', whatever that means.

Language aside, that argument still doesn't hold up. I'm not aware that there's any regulation regarding the intent of the journey in relation to the use of dashcams. Their usage is either allowed, or it's not.

One of the major exceptions to GDPR is with regard to law enforcement so he hasn't got a leg to stand on. I've long been sceptical about AGS using GDPR to hide behind - especially with regard to illegal parking. Why number plates are covered by GDPR escapes me as identification of any individual requires access to the relevant database which is highly restricted.

Even assuming he is a data controller he has the right to film in a public place (otherwise all the CCTV cameras and doorbells would be for the bin). His legal basis is exactly the same as dashcam footage, and I assume that he's not building up terabytes of this stuff to spend his nights watching back so as regards the "personal data" I presume he only holds onto it for as long as it takes to report it, otherwise it gets wiped thus complying with the "only retain the personal data for as long as required" part of GDPR.

The guard is an asshat