Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Walk to School Hall of Shame Web Site is Up (was The D-SLR..

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 9:17:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Since I only started this project a few weeks ago, and school ends
today, I don't have much up here yet. I'll add more starting in August.
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 9:17:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <1119033072.691900.102630@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Scharf-DCA <scharf.steven@gmail.com> wrote:
>Argh, sorry.
>
>URL is http://nordicgroup.us/wtshos

Might I suggest a polarizing filter, so the driver is easier to
see through the window reflections? That might have more impact.

Good Luck,
DoN.

--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 11:10:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Steven M. Scharf" <schart.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:hADse.5334$hK3.1276@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Since I only started this project a few weeks ago, and school ends
> today, I don't have much up here yet. I'll add more starting in August.

Not that it's in any way relevant to us here in the UK, does this wonderful
site have such a thing as a URL?
Hannah.
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 11:45:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Steven M. Scharf" <schart.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:hADse.5334$hK3.1276@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Since I only started this project a few weeks ago, and school ends today,
> I don't have much up here yet. I'll add more starting in August.

Nice idea mate!

The only -ve thing is that the images are chuffing massive!! I'm on a
2.2Mbps connection and they still take ages to appear...

I'm glad you provoked a response from an idiot driver too!

Craig.
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 11:50:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Craig Marston wrote:
> "Steven M. Scharf" <schart.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
> news:hADse.5334$hK3.1276@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Since I only started this project a few weeks ago, and school ends today,
>>I don't have much up here yet. I'll add more starting in August.
>
>
> Nice idea mate!
>
> The only -ve thing is that the images are chuffing massive!! I'm on a
> 2.2Mbps connection and they still take ages to appear...

Sorry, I corrected this. I decreased the size and quality of the JPEGs,
and cropped them.
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 3:24:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Dontcha just love these dozy stupid wimmin and their pig ignorant drivin?

Great site...next time some dozy bint stops you and hassles you about taking
her picture tell her it could be worse you could be photographing her
driving over a 7 yo corpse or shooting her with a .357

"Steven M. Scharf" <schart.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:hADse.5334$hK3.1276@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Since I only started this project a few weeks ago, and school ends today,
> I don't have much up here yet. I'll add more starting in August.
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 9:07:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> Since I only started this project a few weeks ago, and school ends today,
> I don't have much up here yet. I'll add more starting in August.

4 or 5 years ago I put up this page- www.ChainReaction.com/schools.htm, in
response to the total mayhem at our nearby elementary school. Our schools
are becoming transit stations, with lunatics everywhere! I agree, great
places to get photos of people doing stupid things. Too bad you didn't post
before the end of the school year, as it would have given me a fun project
for my new toy (Rebel XT with 17-85).

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 3:22:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Steven M. Scharf" <schart.steven@linkearth.net> writes:

> I agree with you, the worst possible place for crosswalks (or for
> crossing a street without crosswalks) is right at an
> intersection. You're dealing with traffic from 3 to 4 sources, often
> where you can't see them coming, and you are not in the vehicles field
> of view, unless they are a good driver that looks all around for
> pedestrians, bicycles, etc.
>
> Alas, not many public works people understand this, so crosswalks
> continue to be placed at intersections.

On the other hand, if you're walking more than one block, having to
detour from your line at each corner to get to the crosswalk is going
to significantly increase your distance. And, bluntly, people won't
do it.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 3:23:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> writes:

> Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>
>> I checked with the police (my neighbor who is a detective with a
>> local police department), and he assured me that there is no law
>> against photographing vehicles (or people) in public. Of course this
>> doesn't stop someone from trying to sue me!
>
> Photographing people in public is not illegal. Publishing likenesses
> of people without their permission often is. The exceptions are
> people attending public events and who are part of a crowd, people who
> look at the camera in a way that is clearly cooperative, celebrities,
> and other cases.
>
> Here, publishing a photo of a person in their car would be construed
> invasion of privacy and use of somebody's likeness without their
> permsission. Likewise, best to obscure licence plates.

Nope. "Current events" exception.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
June 18, 2005 3:58:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 17:17:01 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<schart.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:

>Since I only started this project a few weeks ago, and school ends
>today, I don't have much up here yet. I'll add more starting in August.

Looked at your site and noted the things you've tried to get the
problem addressed. You missed a good one though... Contact your local
news agencies and ask them to come out and do a report.

That one ALWAYS gets some attention.
Drifter
"I've been here, I've been there..."
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 4:58:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> writes:
>
>>Photographing people in public is not illegal. Publishing likenesses
>>of people without their permission often is. The exceptions are
>>people attending public events and who are part of a crowd, people who
>>look at the camera in a way that is clearly cooperative, celebrities,
>>and other cases.
>>
>>Here, publishing a photo of a person in their car would be construed
>>invasion of privacy and use of somebody's likeness without their
>>permsission. Likewise, best to obscure licence plates.
>
>
> Nope. "Current events" exception.

What is a "current event"? I can't see that people bringing kids to
school as an "event", but just part of their normal, legal, free daily
activities.

Contrary to my first para, where an 'event' (gathering in the park,
concert, race, fair, etc.) is an event where one would expect
photographers to be present.

By "Here" I mean here in Quebec where being inside a car carries an
expectection of privacy.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 7:30:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Steven M. Scharf" wrote:
>
> Since I only started this project a few weeks ago, and school ends
> today, I don't have much up here yet. I'll add more starting in August.

I hope your site doesn't get you sued, or anything, but good on you for
taking a stand.

One point about the pictures strikes me, though, and that's the
placement of the crosswalk, dead in line with the approaching
sidewalks. This configuration has some inherent problems, like not
really giving enough room for vehicles to complete the turn before being
confronted with the crossing. Immediately prior, their minds are not on
the crosswalk, they are still evaluating the main road traffic as they
make the turn, and if they do stop before the crossing, their tail is
sticking out into the traffic stream. I can see drivers would want to
get their vehicle around the corner before they stop, and then they are
over the crossing.

Likewise, cars emerging from the side street cannot properly get a view
of the main road without stopping partly on the crossing.

The real problem here is the crosswalk placement. It should be at least
a vehicle length or more from the corner, which would remove the above
problems. Here in New Zealand, they tend to do this, with the crossings
placed about 5 to 10 metres from the corner - except with
lights-controlled crossings/intersections, where the crossings are in
line with the sidewalks. The law also says that you must use a
crosswalk if you are within 50 ft /15 metres of a marked crosswalk, and
if you just bowl across the corner, you can be ticketed for jaywalking.

Perhaps you could give this a bit of thought, and over the holidays, get
the city officials to move the crossing. Sell the idea as a trial, or
something.

Colin
June 18, 2005 7:30:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Colin D wrote:
>
> "Steven M. Scharf" wrote:
>
>>Since I only started this project a few weeks ago, and school ends
>>today, I don't have much up here yet. I'll add more starting in August.
>
>
> I hope your site doesn't get you sued, or anything, but good on you for
> taking a stand.
>
> One point about the pictures strikes me, though, and that's the
> placement of the crosswalk, dead in line with the approaching
> sidewalks. This configuration has some inherent problems, like not
> really giving enough room for vehicles to complete the turn before being
> confronted with the crossing. Immediately prior, their minds are not on
> the crosswalk, they are still evaluating the main road traffic as they
> make the turn, and if they do stop before the crossing, their tail is
> sticking out into the traffic stream. I can see drivers would want to
> get their vehicle around the corner before they stop, and then they are
> over the crossing.
>
> Likewise, cars emerging from the side street cannot properly get a view
> of the main road without stopping partly on the crossing.
>
> The real problem here is the crosswalk placement. It should be at least
> a vehicle length or more from the corner, which would remove the above
> problems. Here in New Zealand, they tend to do this, with the crossings
> placed about 5 to 10 metres from the corner - except with
> lights-controlled crossings/intersections, where the crossings are in
> line with the sidewalks. The law also says that you must use a
> crosswalk if you are within 50 ft /15 metres of a marked crosswalk, and
> if you just bowl across the corner, you can be ticketed for jaywalking.
>
> Perhaps you could give this a bit of thought, and over the holidays, get
> the city officials to move the crossing. Sell the idea as a trial, or
> something.
>
> Colin


I'll bet not many blind pedestrians would support this idea.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 7:30:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Colin D wrote:
>
> "Steven M. Scharf" wrote:
>
>>Since I only started this project a few weeks ago, and school ends
>>today, I don't have much up here yet. I'll add more starting in August.
>
>
> I hope your site doesn't get you sued, or anything, but good on you for
> taking a stand.

I checked with the police (my neighbor who is a detective with a local
police department), and he assured me that there is no law against
photographing vehicles (or people) in public. Of course this doesn't
stop someone from trying to sue me!

> One point about the pictures strikes me, though, and that's the
> placement of the crosswalk, dead in line with the approaching
> sidewalks. This configuration has some inherent problems, like not
> really giving enough room for vehicles to complete the turn before being
> confronted with the crossing. Immediately prior, their minds are not on
> the crosswalk, they are still evaluating the main road traffic as they
> make the turn, and if they do stop before the crossing, their tail is
> sticking out into the traffic stream. I can see drivers would want to
> get their vehicle around the corner before they stop, and then they are
> over the crossing.

I agree with you, the worst possible place for crosswalks (or for
crossing a street without crosswalks) is right at an intersection.
You're dealing with traffic from 3 to 4 sources, often where you can't
see them coming, and you are not in the vehicles field of view, unless
they are a good driver that looks all around for pedestrians, bicycles, etc.

Alas, not many public works people understand this, so crosswalks
continue to be placed at intersections.

> Likewise, cars emerging from the side street cannot properly get a view
> of the main road without stopping partly on the crossing.

This is true. But the issue with crosswalks at corners is such that the
vehicles need to stop before the crosswalk if there is a pedestrian, and
again at the point where they can see other traffic, once they get to
the stop sign. I have no issue with vehicles that block the crosswalk in
this manner, as long as they do it when there are no pedestrians
entering the crosswalk.

> The real problem here is the crosswalk placement. It should be at least
> a vehicle length or more from the corner, which would remove the above
> problems. Here in New Zealand, they tend to do this, with the crossings
> placed about 5 to 10 metres from the corner - except with
> lights-controlled crossings/intersections, where the crossings are in
> line with the sidewalks. The law also says that you must use a
> crosswalk if you are within 50 ft /15 metres of a marked crosswalk, and
> if you just bowl across the corner, you can be ticketed for jaywalking.
>
> Perhaps you could give this a bit of thought, and over the holidays, get
> the city officials to move the crossing. Sell the idea as a trial, or

I may do this. There is a much better place for a crossing down the
block, immediately across from the school. But pedestrian safety is a
non-issue in the city where I live, as I point out on my web site, so I
am not optimistic. Ironically, people that try to cross at the safer
location are harassed by the cops, even though it is technically not
illegal to cross there, since it is far from the marked crosswalk, and
not between two controlled intersections.
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 7:30:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Steven M. Scharf" <schart.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:WfTse.5614$hK3.3142@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Colin D wrote:
>>
>> "Steven M. Scharf" wrote:
>>
>>>Since I only started this project a few weeks ago, and school ends
>>>today, I don't have much up here yet. I'll add more starting in August.
>>
>>
>> I hope your site doesn't get you sued, or anything, but good on you for
>> taking a stand.
>
> I checked with the police (my neighbor who is a detective with a local
> police department), and he assured me that there is no law against
> photographing vehicles (or people) in public. Of course this doesn't stop
> someone from trying to sue me!
>
>> One point about the pictures strikes me, though, and that's the
>> placement of the crosswalk, dead in line with the approaching
>> sidewalks. This configuration has some inherent problems, like not
>> really giving enough room for vehicles to complete the turn before being
>> confronted with the crossing. Immediately prior, their minds are not on
>> the crosswalk, they are still evaluating the main road traffic as they
>> make the turn, and if they do stop before the crossing, their tail is
>> sticking out into the traffic stream. I can see drivers would want to
>> get their vehicle around the corner before they stop, and then they are
>> over the crossing.
>
> I agree with you, the worst possible place for crosswalks (or for crossing
> a street without crosswalks) is right at an intersection. You're dealing
> with traffic from 3 to 4 sources, often where you can't see them coming,
> and you are not in the vehicles field of view, unless they are a good
> driver that looks all around for pedestrians, bicycles, etc.
>
> Alas, not many public works people understand this, so crosswalks continue
> to be placed at intersections.
>
>> Likewise, cars emerging from the side street cannot properly get a view
>> of the main road without stopping partly on the crossing.
>
> This is true. But the issue with crosswalks at corners is such that the
> vehicles need to stop before the crosswalk if there is a pedestrian, and
> again at the point where they can see other traffic, once they get to the
> stop sign. I have no issue with vehicles that block the crosswalk in this
> manner, as long as they do it when there are no pedestrians entering the
> crosswalk.
>
>> The real problem here is the crosswalk placement. It should be at least
>> a vehicle length or more from the corner, which would remove the above
>> problems. Here in New Zealand, they tend to do this, with the crossings
>> placed about 5 to 10 metres from the corner - except with
>> lights-controlled crossings/intersections, where the crossings are in
>> line with the sidewalks. The law also says that you must use a
>> crosswalk if you are within 50 ft /15 metres of a marked crosswalk, and
>> if you just bowl across the corner, you can be ticketed for jaywalking.
>>
>> Perhaps you could give this a bit of thought, and over the holidays, get
>> the city officials to move the crossing. Sell the idea as a trial, or
>
> I may do this. There is a much better place for a crossing down the block,
> immediately across from the school. But pedestrian safety is a non-issue
> in the city where I live, as I point out on my web site, so I am not
> optimistic. Ironically, people that try to cross at the safer location are
> harassed by the cops, even though it is technically not illegal to cross
> there, since it is far from the marked crosswalk, and not between two
> controlled intersections.

Chances are, these motorists travel this same route everyday and are
familiar with the placement of this crosswalk.
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 7:30:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

>
> I checked with the police (my neighbor who is a detective with a local
> police department), and he assured me that there is no law against
> photographing vehicles (or people) in public. Of course this doesn't
> stop someone from trying to sue me!

Photographing people in public is not illegal. Publishing likenesses of
people without their permission often is. The exceptions are people
attending public events and who are part of a crowd, people who look at
the camera in a way that is clearly cooperative, celebrities, and other
cases.

Here, publishing a photo of a person in their car would be construed
invasion of privacy and use of somebody's likeness without their
permsission. Likewise, best to obscure licence plates.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
June 18, 2005 7:30:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Steven M. Scharf wrote:
> Colin D wrote:
>
>>
>> "Steven M. Scharf" wrote:
>>
>>> Since I only started this project a few weeks ago, and school ends
>>> today, I don't have much up here yet. I'll add more starting in August.
>>
>>
>>
>> I hope your site doesn't get you sued, or anything, but good on you for
>> taking a stand.
>
>
> I checked with the police (my neighbor who is a detective with a local
> police department), and he assured me that there is no law against
> photographing vehicles (or people) in public. Of course this doesn't
> stop someone from trying to sue me!
>
>> One point about the pictures strikes me, though, and that's the
>> placement of the crosswalk, dead in line with the approaching
>> sidewalks. This configuration has some inherent problems, like not
>> really giving enough room for vehicles to complete the turn before being
>> confronted with the crossing. Immediately prior, their minds are not on
>> the crosswalk, they are still evaluating the main road traffic as they
>> make the turn, and if they do stop before the crossing, their tail is
>> sticking out into the traffic stream. I can see drivers would want to
>> get their vehicle around the corner before they stop, and then they are
>> over the crossing.
>
>
> I agree with you, the worst possible place for crosswalks (or for
> crossing a street without crosswalks) is right at an intersection.
> You're dealing with traffic from 3 to 4 sources, often where you can't
> see them coming, and you are not in the vehicles field of view, unless
> they are a good driver that looks all around for pedestrians, bicycles,
> etc.

I think the idea was to offer a crossing location that could benefit
from the existing traffic controls, and where traffic is either stopped
completely, or expected to be moving at a slow pace. Like you, I've
sometimes thought that some intersections are so busy that task loading
for drivers and pedestrians is daunting. But that's not to say there
aren't crossings in mid-block, I've seen a few, but often it's something
else nearby that warrants the exception.

>
> Alas, not many public works people understand this, so crosswalks
> continue to be placed at intersections.
>
>> Likewise, cars emerging from the side street cannot properly get a view
>> of the main road without stopping partly on the crossing.
>
>
> This is true. But the issue with crosswalks at corners is such that the
> vehicles need to stop before the crosswalk if there is a pedestrian, and
> again at the point where they can see other traffic, once they get to
> the stop sign. I have no issue with vehicles that block the crosswalk in
> this manner, as long as they do it when there are no pedestrians
> entering the crosswalk.
>
>> The real problem here is the crosswalk placement. It should be at least
>> a vehicle length or more from the corner, which would remove the above
>> problems. Here in New Zealand, they tend to do this, with the crossings
>> placed about 5 to 10 metres from the corner - except with
>> lights-controlled crossings/intersections, where the crossings are in
>> line with the sidewalks. The law also says that you must use a
>> crosswalk if you are within 50 ft /15 metres of a marked crosswalk, and
>> if you just bowl across the corner, you can be ticketed for jaywalking.
>>
>> Perhaps you could give this a bit of thought, and over the holidays, get
>> the city officials to move the crossing. Sell the idea as a trial, or
>
>
> I may do this. There is a much better place for a crossing down the
> block, immediately across from the school. But pedestrian safety is a
> non-issue in the city where I live, as I point out on my web site, so I
> am not optimistic. Ironically, people that try to cross at the safer
> location are harassed by the cops, even though it is technically not
> illegal to cross there, since it is far from the marked crosswalk, and
> not between two controlled intersections.

Do it. The media exposure to your issue alone is worth a life. One
sure way to guarantee media exposure is *not* obscure the license plates
of vehicles - let the complaints roll - this sort of shameful behavior
begs for public attention.


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 7:30:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Rudy Benner wrote:

<snip>
>
>
> Chances are, these motorists travel this same route everyday and are
> familiar with the placement of this crosswalk.

This is true, it's the same vehicles every day. I even have learned to
recognize the worst of the worst in terms of speeding and crosswalk
violations. The crosswalks around the schools are very well marked, with
many signs, including one placed in the middle of the crosswalk. There
really is no excuse for the behavior of these motorists.
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 7:30:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
> Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>
>>
>> I checked with the police (my neighbor who is a detective with a
>> local police department), and he assured me that there is no law
>> against photographing vehicles (or people) in public. Of course
>> this
>> doesn't stop someone from trying to sue me!
>
> Photographing people in public is not illegal. Publishing
> likenesses
> of people without their permission often is. The exceptions are
> people attending public events and who are part of a crowd, people
> who look at the camera in a way that is clearly cooperative,
> celebrities, and other cases.
>
> Here, publishing a photo of a person in their car would be construed
> invasion of privacy and use of somebody's likeness without their
> permsission. Likewise, best to obscure licence plates.
>

There are cases, IIRC, that involve images made in public places that
were published with intent to defame, degrade, or denigrate the
subject. I agree that reprehensible conduct in public should be
exposed and notorized, but since many jurisdictions are making
decisions "for this case only", the cost of the judicial process
necessary to determine if a subject has been injured may be
prohibitive.

I'd be tempted to let a local "investigative journalist" and employer
assume that risk.

--
Frank ess
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 7:53:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> writes:
>>
>>>Photographing people in public is not illegal. Publishing likenesses
>>>of people without their permission often is. The exceptions are
>>>people attending public events and who are part of a crowd, people who
>>>look at the camera in a way that is clearly cooperative, celebrities,
>>>and other cases.
>>>
>>>Here, publishing a photo of a person in their car would be construed
>>>invasion of privacy and use of somebody's likeness without their
>>>permsission. Likewise, best to obscure licence plates.
>> Nope. "Current events" exception.
>
> What is a "current event"? I can't see that people bringing kids to
> school as an "event", but just part of their normal, legal, free daily
> activities.

Reporting on something that took place.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 8:07:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
> Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>
>>
>> I checked with the police (my neighbor who is a detective with a local
>> police department), and he assured me that there is no law against
>> photographing vehicles (or people) in public. Of course this doesn't
>> stop someone from trying to sue me!
>
>
> Photographing people in public is not illegal. Publishing likenesses of
> people without their permission often is. The exceptions are people
> attending public events and who are part of a crowd, people who look at
> the camera in a way that is clearly cooperative, celebrities, and other
> cases.
>
> Here, publishing a photo of a person in their car would be construed
> invasion of privacy and use of somebody's likeness without their
> permsission. Likewise, best to obscure licence plates.

Thanks, I'll obscure both faces and license plates.
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 8:15:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Jer wrote:

> I think the idea was to offer a crossing location that could benefit
> from the existing traffic controls, and where traffic is either stopped
> completely, or expected to be moving at a slow pace. Like you, I've
> sometimes thought that some intersections are so busy that task loading
> for drivers and pedestrians is daunting. But that's not to say there
> aren't crossings in mid-block, I've seen a few, but often it's something
> else nearby that warrants the exception.

In many cases that is probably true, but that intersection has no
traffic controls at all, no stop sign or yield sign on any of the three
ways. The city hates putting up stop signs. I was surprised at the
number of uncontrolled T intersections, usually you get at least a yield
sign. Legally, uncontrolled intersections are regarded as an all-ways
stop, but no one ever stops at this one.

>> I am not optimistic. Ironically, people that try to cross at the safer
>> location are harassed by the cops, even though it is technically not
>> illegal to cross there, since it is far from the marked crosswalk, and
>> not between two controlled intersections.
>
>
> Do it. The media exposure to your issue alone is worth a life. One
> sure way to guarantee media exposure is *not* obscure the license plates
> of vehicles - let the complaints roll - this sort of shameful behavior
> begs for public attention.
>
>
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 9:07:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> writes:
>
>
>>David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>
>>>Nope. "Current events" exception.
>>
>>What is a "current event"? I can't see that people bringing kids to
>>school as an "event", but just part of their normal, legal, free daily
>>activities.
>
>
> Reporting on something that took place.

People's private lives are always taking place. That does not make it a
"current event" for the purpose of taking photos of people's daily
activities.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 9:27:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Jer wrote:
>
> Colin D wrote:
> >
> > "Steven M. Scharf" wrote:
> >
> >>Since I only started this project a few weeks ago, and school ends
> >>today, I don't have much up here yet. I'll add more starting in August.
> >
> >
> > I hope your site doesn't get you sued, or anything, but good on you for
> > taking a stand.
> >
> > One point about the pictures strikes me, though, and that's the
> > placement of the crosswalk, dead in line with the approaching
> > sidewalks. This configuration has some inherent problems, like not
> > really giving enough room for vehicles to complete the turn before being
> > confronted with the crossing. Immediately prior, their minds are not on
> > the crosswalk, they are still evaluating the main road traffic as they
> > make the turn, and if they do stop before the crossing, their tail is
> > sticking out into the traffic stream. I can see drivers would want to
> > get their vehicle around the corner before they stop, and then they are
> > over the crossing.
> >
> > Likewise, cars emerging from the side street cannot properly get a view
> > of the main road without stopping partly on the crossing.
> >
> > The real problem here is the crosswalk placement. It should be at least
> > a vehicle length or more from the corner, which would remove the above
> > problems. Here in New Zealand, they tend to do this, with the crossings
> > placed about 5 to 10 metres from the corner - except with
> > lights-controlled crossings/intersections, where the crossings are in
> > line with the sidewalks. The law also says that you must use a
> > crosswalk if you are within 50 ft /15 metres of a marked crosswalk, and
> > if you just bowl across the corner, you can be ticketed for jaywalking.
> >
> > Perhaps you could give this a bit of thought, and over the holidays, get
> > the city officials to move the crossing. Sell the idea as a trial, or
> > something.
> >
> > Colin
>
> I'll bet not many blind pedestrians would support this idea.
>
> --
> jer
> email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Blind people would get used to it very quickly, as they do with all
routes they learn, and I bet they would appreciate the safer setup as
well.

Colin
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 10:45:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> "Steven M. Scharf" <schart.steven@linkearth.net> writes:
>
> > I agree with you, the worst possible place for crosswalks (or for
> > crossing a street without crosswalks) is right at an
> > intersection. You're dealing with traffic from 3 to 4 sources, often
> > where you can't see them coming, and you are not in the vehicles field
> > of view, unless they are a good driver that looks all around for
> > pedestrians, bicycles, etc.
> >
> > Alas, not many public works people understand this, so crosswalks
> > continue to be placed at intersections.
>
> On the other hand, if you're walking more than one block, having to
> detour from your line at each corner to get to the crosswalk is going
> to significantly increase your distance. And, bluntly, people won't
> do it.

Just moving the crosswalk enough so it isn't conincident with the
corner would be enough, i.e. 20 feet or so, would be sufficient. It
doesn't have to be moved to the middle of the block.

For decades it's been beaten into our heads that the safest place to
cross is at intersections, even though it isn't true.
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 9:36:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> writes:
>>
>>>David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>>
>>>>Nope. "Current events" exception.
>>>
>>>What is a "current event"? I can't see that people bringing kids to
>>>school as an "event", but just part of their normal, legal, free daily
>>>activities.
>> Reporting on something that took place.
>
> People's private lives are always taking place. That does not make it
> a "current event" for the purpose of taking photos of people's daily
> activities.

Stuff you can photograph from public property is pretty much fair
game. The restriction on more private stuff is not actually on the
stuff itself, it's on where you have to be to photograph it
(trespassing).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
!