JM Clark Ltd threaten legal action over helmet cam footage after driver is filmed using phone at the wheel

It has been mentioned that JM Clark leases their vehicles so there's not guarantee that the driver is theirs. A post from their twitter account however shows that they have no problem with the practice of using a handhed device behind the wheel.

https://twitter.com/jmitchfraser/status/698257209441050624

What a public relations disaster. You don't threaten the messenger who publicises the fact a driver is behaving like a twonk. If this is picked up by the big papers they will have a field day ripping to shreds this company

Rider, pass details to police and complain to newspapers about this company.

nope

'No' would do just as well, or better. Or even yes, as it remains true that there's no link to the video. But thanks for providing the link.

so a truck load of crap swept off the road is "intellectual property" - i presume it has the company's name on it just in case it contains the essential brain cell that the person that drafted the response to the youtube video lost somewhere 

My curiosity aroused, I looked up the Arkell vs. Pressdram case - its worthy of reproducing here in its entirety ...

29th April 1971

Dear Sir,

We act for Mr Arkell who is Retail Credit Manager of Granada TV Rental Ltd. His attention has been drawn to an article appearing in the issue of Private Eye dated 9th April 1971 on page 4. The statements made about Mr Arkell are entirely untrue and clearly highly defamatory. We are therefore instructed to require from you immediately your proposals for dealing with the matter. 

Mr Arkell's first concern is that there should be a full retraction at the earliest possible date in Private Eye and he will also want his costs paid. His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply.

Yours,

(Signed)

Goodman Derrick & Co.

------------------------------

Dear Sirs,

We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr. J. Arkell. 

We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.

Yours,

Private Eye

This past tweet from JM Clark is rather ironic given the baseless threats they've made over the video.

https://twitter.com/jmclarksweepers/status/625717189375578112

The response per Arkell vs Pressdram has I gather already been made, clearly the company needs to read up on the Streisand effect. Worth noting that these are not HGV (some may be classed as mobile plant) and can be driven on a standard (pre-1997) driving licence.

In original video it was also noted that front n/s tyre seemed to be under-inflated as well.

A response along the lines of:
"Thank you for highlighting this. We will take disciplinary action against the driver. Our company has a strict policy that all our employees abide by road traffic legislation....... Blah, blah, blah"
Would have been much more gracious and a better way to manage the PR.

Until Mobile phones have an in built safety feature that uses gps, accelerometer's etc to detect movement and speed to shut down phone functions by law scenes like these will become more commonplace.  There aren't enough police on the roads to be able to detect this type of behaviour and as such drivers get away with it.

I can't help but wonder why a Company clearly so concerned about their "intellectual property" don't drive around in unliveried trucks.

Of course ensuring their drivers obeyed the law and presented a good image for the company is too much of a mental leap for these mouth breathers.

Shame they don't go bust because of this. They don't deserve to be in business with this attitude

Can't wait till Kalashnikov notice all the media outlets showing their products being used by terrorists!

Martin Clark doesn't get it. Don't shoot the messenger, the problem is the tit behind the wheel.

I'm sure that JM Clark Ltd Road Sweeper Hire will be happy to supply details of the driver's identity.

Is there even such as thing as an "IP attorney" in England & Wales?

Shame on them! We should all email them and let them know what we think, and share this all over the media. If this is how they react to having it pointed out to them that someone driving one of their vehicles - whether it is hired out or one of their drivers - they don't deserve to be in business

Might they not better use their time chasing the driver,  who seems to be putting a very expensive bit of plant at risk. ( Not to mention the other road users being put at risk.)

I'm always amazed that helmet cam people can spot these things.

Might want to reply and ask them if they have heard back from their 'IP Attorney' yet?

JM Clark should go and learn about the law before throwing legal threats around.

If the Vid was shot in a public space (like a public road), then the cyclist has no case to answer.

Here's the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ-KST2so9s

Video's up now. Search for "jmsweepers".

And yet there's no link to the video, suggesting the bullying may have worked.

Pr team trying to save the situation by putting more fuel into the fire. Well done. Why large corporations always try to threaten or silence the people instead of trying to understand the situation and work the problem out...
I don't like your critisim. Go to jail. Yep, that's how the world works...