• Attempted murder, you mean. This should be an automatic and immediate loss of the license, for life.

  • that'll be a smidsy, driver will argue if they had meant to kill the cyclist the cyclist would be dead

  • The way it works out most likely, yes. But really, it's clearly intentional. Thankfully, the real psychos like that one are quite rare in reality...

  • I emailed a bus company requesting the CCTV footage under GDPR legislation.

    This is their reply -

    “I have had chance to view the CCTV with the Duty Manager and did notice that our vehicle did cut in too close causing you to brake, which was not the professional standard expected of our drivers.

    Our Duty Manager has spoken to the driver concerned about this incident, as really he shouldn’t have passed you on the bridge and should’ve stayed behind you, and also for the encounter afterwards.

    I’m afraid we cannot forward you a copy of the CCTV footage due to the Data Protection Act, as we keep all copies here at the Depot. The only time we produce a copy is for the Police, who then come down to complete the paperwork and sign for their copy of the footage.”

    I thought they had to provide the CCTV footage under the new GDPR legislation? But they are claiming they can not due to data protection.

    Any help on how I should respond?

  • Google information commissioner and phone them. They should provide the info you need.

  • It's annoyingly out of date but...


    You have the right to see CCTV images of you and to ask for a copy of them. The organisation must provide them within 30 calendar days.

    Complain promptly as bus companies don't keep the video for long. You may need to complain to the ICO in which case they shouldn't delete the footage while the complaint is in progress but they probably will...

  • Thank you. I called the ICO helpline and they were very helpful.

    Basically the bus company can’t just say “because of the Data Protection Act we cant give you the footage”. They have to quote the specific part of the act which is stopping them.

    If there is other people in the CCTV footage they have to pixelate their faces and still provide the footage to myself.

    So the guy on the ICO helpline said to reply asking for the specific part of the act or exact reason why they can’t fulfil the subject access request.

  • That’s good. I have a friend who said they were helpful to him.
    I will be interested to hear the reason the bus firm supplies.

  • The bus company just replied saying they cannot provide the video due to other individuals being in the footage. Therefore it would breach the Data Protection Act if they gave me the footage.

    The ICO told me, this morning, that the bus company may come back with this reason and that I should reply saying the onus is on them to pixelate the faces of others. As they still have to provide me with my data but take steps to remove anyone else’s data.

    So I replied explaining this and that the ICO has provided this information.

    I wonder if the person I am emailing is just a customer service level employee. So I have asked if they have a Data Protection Officer or similar I can contact.

  • The GDPR legislation sets out various positions in the law. I believe they will have to comply with this so there should be someone. I’m not sure but I suspect they must supply the footage and pixelate it. Someone else here may be in a better position to clarify this.
    My GDPR mate is too busy for beer today or I’d ask him for you.

  • I wonder if they are concerned that if they give you the footage you could forward it onto the police and their driver could get done for careless driving?

    With the police seemingly getting better at taking action based on video footage bus companies may be regretting filming everything...

  • That's what I thought. Bad PR for the firm so they obstruct requests.

  • I also feel the fact the driver told me “you don’t own the road” should be addressed in some way. As somehow that gave him the right put my life in danger?

    So I had something like this today on my first attempt at cycling in Cardiff today. Long story short, I was keeping up with the car in front of me in primary, with about a cars length between me and it, and the next thing I know is a bus is unnecessarily overtaking and trying to squeeze into said gap. I kept up thinking he'll drop back which he absolutely should have. He doubled down and just merged forcing me to slam my brakes on or be crushed. He literally stopped 20 seconds down the road to go into his house, so I politely confronted him and said it was highly illegal what he did, dangerous, and asked him why he felt the need to overtake me given I was going as fast as the car in front and there is absolutely no room.

    His response was the most scary thing I've heard, more so than if he just screamed at me and said the same old shit about road tax etc. But no, he opined that I should have slowed down to yield to him as that's what the rules are, and that "all bus drivers are told to overtake cyclist at all times and it's the cyclist's onus to let busses by". Even with me saying that he'd not pass a driving test/get fired etc he continued and said there was no need for me to keep up with the cars and that cyclists shouldn't think themselves as equals on the road and "it's ok mate, you'll get used to it, it's how all drivers are".

    Just called the bus company who were dumbfounded by the bus drivers erroneous assertions about their training and asked to get the CCTV footage. I mainly said that what he did was dangerous, but I was more concerned about his complete ignorance about the way he should be driving a murder mobile! Waiting on a response...

  • That’s not relevant. You have the right to the footage. What you do with it is your business.

  • Arguably there may be a case for that if the vehicle has personally identifiable information (I'm not sure if a numberplate would count or not) and the solution would be they'd have to blur that too.

    If it's corporate livery though that wouldn't count.

  • For policing purposes that’s not relevant. There is a witness to the event who can provide the detail. And CCTV will show it.

  • Yes, I mean they might not provide it to an individual. Police is a different matter

  • They should provide it ro an individual.

  • Well yeah, it's not relevant in regards the law but is relevant in regards to why they are trying as hard as possible not to release it. The informal policy of that company may be 'fob them off as much as possible and they will probably leave us alone in the end'

    I'm not saying it's right.

  • I'm just waiting for the law that requires us all to walk round with our eyes shut in case we inadvertantly witness someones personal information.

  • You seem to miss my point. I’m in agreement with you. They may make reasons not to provide the footage. Probably to avoid police action.

  • fob them off as much as possible and they will probably leave us alone in the end

    Anyone in any desk job in any situation ever

  • It's in my objectives.

  • Wow, that's fucking worrying too hear, I mean I know some drivers are unaccustomed to cyclists around here, or maybe more wilfully ignorant, but that's genuinely concerning. Do update once you get a response.

  • Will do mate. I followed up the phone call with an email as I know that sometimes these things can be "lost" or "misfiled" for just the amount of time that they keep the CCTV footage! My brother who's lived here for a long time said nothing will come of it and it'll be buried as it's all amateur as fuck down here and the cops/companies give an even lesser shit than they do in London...so we'll see!

  • Post a reply
    • Bold
    • Italics
    • Link
    • Image
    • List
    • Quote
    • code
    • Preview

Please report dangerous drivers to the police - Roadsafe. Report to plod, not just whinge here.

Posted by Avatar for dancing james @dancing james