Cyclist who fractured shoulder in road traffic incident denied access to CCTV footage because he wasn’t killed

Evan if you had the registration number, nothing would still be done. An incident like this goes in the don't bother pile, an automated letter 3 months down the line.

Personally I'm surprised that all the cameras aren't recording all the time, data storage is reasonably cheap after all and it seems pointless having a camera up if it's just a live view only.

As usual the police and TFL DGAF and also don't know the law. Their "policy" to refuse access to footage unless there is a fatality is total bollocks and as a result their "policy" is NOT lawful. The IP should make a formal request as described by many above. He may have to pay a small charge if the filth won't re-open the case as if the filth make the request to TFL there is no charge to the IP, but they won't make a request if they have closed the case to cut costs. The IP needs to make a request as described above to TFL but may have to pay a small charge.

Alternatively the IP should contact a PI solicitor who specialises in cycling claims and they will make a request for the CCTV footage on their behalf. This is what I had to do as the filth frustrated all attempts I made to get insurance details from them of a driver that knocked me down then point blank refused to provide them until I got a solicitor involved. Generally CCTV footage is held for 28 days before being erased. I had to pay £10 to my local council to view it who then told me the cameras were facing the other way and there was no footage of me being knocked down anyway! Crooks.

There is a unit of the met police that is embedded with TfL. A large part of their funding is also provided by TfL.

The unit is also responsible for passing on evidence to the main section of the met when a bus driver is considered to have committed a serious driving offence.

It may come as no surprise that there has been a low number of prosecutions of bus drivers by the CPS

As mentioned above, the Data Protection Act covers this. The victim can make a request for the footage under s.35 on the basis that he is considering a civil action for the pain and suffering caused (even "seeking legal advice" is sufficient).

The police can make (if they choose to) a request under s.29 which is basically the same as s.35 but for criminal proceedings.

The Data Protection act covers this - the person involved has a right to all data held about him by an organisation by making a data access request.

This includes CCTV data. If it was recorded (sounds like it was if its available for fatalities) then they do not have the right to with hold the information from him.

It could of course be that it has been deleted since, but as its there for the protection of the public you could argue it was deleted in error as it still has a purpose to serve

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/cctv/

as a matter of policy, London Transport do not release camera data unless there has been a fatality.

This is utter bullshit. If the police suspect a crime has been committed then they can seize evidence under section 19 of the Police And Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), which includes electronic information and computer equipment. Its not up to TfL to "release it"; a constable investigating a crime can simply turn up at TfL premises and demand it; they don't even need a search warrant. Its also obvious that a crime was committed here as the driver left the scene of an accident and failed to report an injury to the police.

All the Rear Admiral needs to do is pull a few favours in from GCHQ. All relevant footage, background information and everything else on his desk by lunch. Necessary call to his pals in the RAF and a drone then activated to target said van and then an artillery regiment can drop a shell on the van. Job done. He has the skills and resources to bring the might of the British military to bare and teach the wee toe rag a lesson or two.

If you think you have been filmed ANYWHERE on a CCTV camera, you have the right to that footage should you wish to have it for any reason.

You just have to file a freedom of information request and ask whomever has the footage to give you a copy, if it was me in that accident, that would be my first thing to do, get a copy of that footage and then have it dealt with, not just ask, but file a request

Couldn't they fine the cyclist for some sort of 'lying about in the road' public order offence?

After all these cameras are there to make money.

Its fair to say, the police as useless as usual. Its probably down to fatal combination of underfunding, too much bureaucracy and general laziness creeping in.

Surely General Sir Beefstock can get this one sorted for us biking chaps. Looks like a job for the Old Boys. [Twirling mustache smiley]

Have I misunderstood this? They will only release CCTV footage if the victim is dead and provides them with a registration number?
Sort of Catch 22.

Another reason for me to buy the Fly6 rear view camera. Evidence after the fact.
Ultimately glad he is okay, could have been a whole lot worse.

The cynic in me is asking if the Met Police would bother investigate this further had it been anyone other than an Assistant chief of Defence Staff i.e. you or me...
In my case, A few years ago I was knocked off in a hit and run, I couldn't supply the number plate though I knew the car make Model etc as got a look of it before I blacked out. The Police didn't even check the garage forecourt cameras the car had driven out of. Said not likely to bring results and they had other more pressing things to deal with.

What a load of bul****t from TFL.
Will they do the same when Boris is knocked over while cycling?
I dare, the TFL incharge will be beheaded by Boris.

Quote:

On the TfL website, it says that images captured by traffic monitoring and enforcement cameras are only recorded where vehicles are seen ‘committing traffic contravention’. Images which do not result in the issue of a penalty charge notice are deleted after 28 days.

Shouldn't be an issue, find me a junction where an offense ISN'T being committed. Or is the issue the operators are car drivers and don't register the usual RLJing, speeding, close passes, crossing stop lines, sitting in ASL boxes etc etc etc

Maybe if he was licensed, insured, wore a helmet and high visbility knickers and had the simple decency to die he might have something to moan about. As it is I have no sympathy.

This is what happens when jobsworths are allowed to make decisions.