Flash Photography & Byelaw

[RENFE]

Hello
Today I took a camera-phone pic whilst on a platform, with the autoflash firing. A ticket inspector came up to me in order to tell me that it was an offence to use flash photography on rail premises. As I have seen this obnoxious and physically revolting person hassle passengers on numerous occasions, I stood up and stretched myself to my 1m 96cm, and looking down on him ask what byelaw. Naturally no answer and continued unnecessary attempts at put down from him.
Can anyone tell me of he is correct and to what extent and even better what byelaw?

Of course I am acting childishly, but the chance to carry on discussing it in a gentlemanly manner with his back to a wall would be splendid.

Gracias

 

[MK Tom]

Photography is allowed at any national rail station, but flash photography is not for the fairly sensible reason that it will dazzle drivers. I'm not aware of the specific regulation though if there is one.

 

[theironroad]

Flashes pointed at drivers is very irritating, though yesterday I had even better. It was dark ( save platform lighting) and the guy didn't have a flash, but a large red light on the front of his camera flashed as I was pulling into the platform.

A red light displayed towards a train at night means one thing - stop.

 

[RENFE]

That is what my quick scan around the interwebs came up with - no specific byelaw.
As there was not a train for miles I considered my action within reason

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The guidelines that are online within the NR and BTP websites specifically state that flash should not be used. While there is no specific mention of it in the byelaws, someone repeatedly using flash whether or not a train is present could probably be dealt with under the various byelaws relating to nuisance / disturbance, carrying out staff instructions and safety.


Edited to add: thank you Yorkie ( below ) - saves me looking them up and coming back...

 

[yorkie]

There is no specific Byelaw. However if you use flash photography towards a train driver, then that would probably be covered under Byelaws 2 (1) and perhaps 6 (8) and possibly 12 (1).

2 (1) Except with written permission from an Operator or an authorised person, no person shall bring with him or allow to remain on the railway any item which, in the opinion of an authorised person, may threaten, annoy, soil or damage any person or any property.

6 (8) No person shall molest or wilfully interfere with the comfort or convenience of any person on the railway.

12 (1) An Operator may issue reasonable instructions relating to safety on any part of the railway by means of a notice on or near that part of the railway. No person shall, without good cause, disobey such notice.

I would, therefore, advise against returning to continue the argument

 

[RENFE]

Thanks Yorkie, a look at some other posts here on apparently related topics I too get the idea there is no specific byelaw but as you quote some catch all.

Also other peoples' experiences tell me that the rules are applied variously and highly dependant on the uniformed people around. Who appear to lack customer awareness, shall I say.

12 (1) ah! the definition of reasonable ... ...

 

[455driver]

And if you point it at me when I am having a bad day there is a fair chance you will need a surgeon to retrieve said camera from a place where the flash would definitely be needed to see!

 

[Crossover]

Flashes pointed at drivers is very irritating, though yesterday I had even better. It was dark ( save platform lighting) and the guy didn't have a flash, but a large red light on the front of his camera flashed as I was pulling into the platform.

A red light displayed towards a train at night means one thing - stop.

That would be the auto focus light - only really useful close up and yes they can be quite bright. The auto focus isn't meant to be used in stations either

 

[RENFE]

Well, so after doing some internet research, asking Transport Police and senior inspectors, I can confirm there is no byelaw to proscribe flash. The only byelaw that would come in would be the last one Yorkie posted but probably only after repeated and wilful use.
So the degree of obnoxious and physical awfulness of the aromatically challenged one matched his knowledge in detail of the relevant codes and also matched his feeling of inadequacy

Hasta siempre

 

[Flamingo]

Reading the thread, I'm of the opinion that the OP was being a 1.96m prick as well, and lucky not to be catching a bus home...

 

[Aldaniti]

Reading the thread, I'm of the opinion that the OP was being a 1.96m prick as well, and lucky not to be catching a bus home...

I'm getting that impression too. Common sense doesn't come easy to all.

 

[Crossover]

Reading the thread, I'm of the opinion that the OP was being a 1.96m prick as well, and lucky not to be catching a bus home...

Maybe requires some salt and vinegar to go with the chip on their shoulder...

 

[carriageline]

It's a shame he couldn't give the op a slap and put him back in his place

Just because it isn't a specific byelaw, doesn't mean you was right and he was wrong. The guidelines say don't do it, so don't.

All it took was sorry mate, it was an accident. Instead of trying to intimidate and prove someone wrong, you won't get a medal for playing the big man, nor being a busy body know it all. You was in the wrong! Next time I hope you get escorted from the station, or will you play the "big I am" with the constables?

 

[jon0844]

The RPI was wrong but the OP was being stupid. Turn the flash off, simple.

As for the AF light, turn that off too - although I'd say they're usually more orange than red!

 

[455driver]

So the OP (thinks he) knows his rights but what about his responsibilities that go hand in hand with those rights?

Sounds like a first class clart to me!

 

[Flamingo]

I can't help wondering if this thread is a bit of trolling...

 

[Mojo]

I can't help wondering if this thread is a bit of trolling...

Yes, I am minded to agree. Even if it might not be against the Byelaws (we will have to disagree on that one), for anyone who has ever been on the front of the train, or even doing things like monitoring the CCTV, it can be extremely distracting.

 

[RENFE]

Just logged into the email account associated with this forum, and saw all the comments

If I were not clear, as soon as the ticket inspector told me 'no flash' I said 'sorry I did not know'. And if he had left it there it would have been the end and no post here. But he then proceeded to harangue me which was totally uncalled for. He was doing it in the same manner has he had just done to some poor young mother who had a baby in carriage asking about a ticketing issue. Which is why I got up from the bench and stood up.
I asked him under what rule the flash issue was controlled by. When he faltered, I guessed he did not know, and so my post that started this collective love in.

No trains around, no one to upset, no danger to be caused.

My original question if you strip back the florid comments was - which byelaw. To me that seems a reasonable question

Yorkie provided the answer, which I backed up by asking people at Waterloo.

This I do not consider trolling, if others do - OK that is your terms of reference.

And for the drivers and guards on here talking about slapping me - what!!! You are suggesting violence against a paying member of the public. That shows the customer care courses you have been on have had as much effect as the inspector I spoke to

Now, you can make fun of this is if you wish

I am a director of a global technical group employing just under 100 people all based out of this country. I interview for super high techie and customer facing jobs and the responses here have just reinforced my experience of not using English people for handling customer communication

Ahora, no me jodes, voy.

 

[PaxVobiscum]

... and the responses here have just reinforced my experience of not using English people for handling customer communication

Just curious - how can one have experience of not doing something?

Also that sounds like deliberate discrimination against those of a particular nationality - not welcome in the UK.

 

[fowler9]

Just logged into the email account associated with this forum, and saw all the comments

If I were not clear, as soon as the ticket inspector told me 'no flash' I said 'sorry I did not know'. And if he had left it there it would have been the end and no post here. But he then proceeded to harangue me which was totally uncalled for. He was doing it in the same manner has he had just done to some poor young mother who had a baby in carriage asking about a ticketing issue. Which is why I got up from the bench and stood up.
I asked him under what rule the flash issue was controlled by. When he faltered, I guessed he did not know, and so my post that started this collective love in.

No trains around, no one to upset, no danger to be caused.

My original question if you strip back the florid comments was - which byelaw. To me that seems a reasonable question

Yorkie provided the answer, which I backed up by asking people at Waterloo.

This I do not consider trolling, if others do - OK that is your terms of reference.

And for the drivers and guards on here talking about slapping me - what!!! You are suggesting violence against a paying member of the public. That shows the customer care courses you have been on have had as much effect as the inspector I spoke to

Now, you can make fun of this is if you wish

I am a director of a global technical group employing just under 100 people all based out of this country. I interview for super high techie and customer facing jobs and the responses here have just reinforced my experience of not using English people for handling customer communication

Ahora, no me jodes, voy.

Well if you base your recruitment or otherwise on your experience of a railway forum after an ill conceived comment you may want to re evaluate.

 

[EM2]

Which is why I got up from the bench and stood up.
I asked him under what rule the flash issue was controlled by.

It's not a question of rules, it's a simple question of safety.
Common sense should tell you that firing off a very bright light, in an area where there are likely to be people trying to safely control hundreds of tonnes of machinery and convey hundred of people, is a very bad idea.

 

[Flamingo]

Just logged into the email account associated with this forum, and saw all the comments

If I were not clear, as soon as the ticket inspector told me 'no flash' I said 'sorry I did not know'. And if he had left it there it would have been the end and no post here. But he then proceeded to harangue me which was totally uncalled for. He was doing it in the same manner has he had just done to some poor young mother who had a baby in carriage asking about a ticketing issue. Which is why I got up from the bench and stood up.
I asked him under what rule the flash issue was controlled by. When he faltered, I guessed he did not know, and so my post that started this collective love in.

No trains around, no one to upset, no danger to be caused.

My original question if you strip back the florid comments was - which byelaw. To me that seems a reasonable question

Yorkie provided the answer, which I backed up by asking people at Waterloo.

This I do not consider trolling, if others do - OK that is your terms of reference.

And for the drivers and guards on here talking about slapping me - what!!! You are suggesting violence against a paying member of the public. That shows the customer care courses you have been on have had as much effect as the inspector I spoke to

Now, you can make fun of this is if you wish

I am a director of a global technical group employing just under 100 people all based out of this country. I interview for super high techie and customer facing jobs and the responses here have just reinforced my experience of not using English people for handling customer communication

Ahora, no me jodes, voy.

You considered it appropriate to attempt to physically intimidate a member of staff who was doing his job by telling you that important safety rules had to be obeyed by you. You then went on later in the post to express a desire to have a further conversation with the same member of staff with "his back to a wall", the only reasonable inference from this being that he could not retreat to a place of safety from your intimidating physical presence.

You now appear to have a major snit on because pretty much everybody on here has told you you were in the wrong, and contrary to your egotistical assumptions to the contrary, you could have been lifted by BTP, and thrown off the station.

The reason behind this attitude seems to be that you are too important for some little oik to tell you what you can and can't do, which again is a reasonable inference from your apparent need to tell us all of your importance and how you interview intelligent people for jobs (presumably to overawe us with your CV). Taken along with the pidgin Spanish at the end of your post telling everybody "Do not fcuk with me", you have got a very overinflated sense of your own consequence.

I stand by my original impression of you - you are a prick. If you don't believe me, ask any one of the hundred people who work for you in a way that they can answer anonymously (as I'm pretty sure that if they answered you honestly you would be vindictive enough to ruin their career if you could do so).

 

[CC 72100]

Taken along with the pidgin Spanish at the end of your post (misspelt by the way) telling everybody "Do not fcuk with me", you have got a very overinflated sense of your own consequence.

It was actually spelt correctly - the subjunctive (as was used) was required

Agree with the rest of the post though!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

It's not a question of rules, it's a simple question of safety.
Common sense should tell you . . . . . .

Exactly !

I stand by my original impression of you - you are a prick. If you don't believe me, ask any one of the hundred people who work for you in a way that they can answer anonymously (as I'm pretty sure that if they answered you honestly you would be vindictive enough to ruin their career if you could do so).

Agreed.

Anyone who fails to recognise an instruction related to maintaining safe practices in a hazardous environment becomes, themselves, a hazard to safety.

Anyone who treats a professional's challenge to their own amateur assessment of a situation in a derisory and abusive manner is not a competent person.

Anyone who responds to a challenge with an irrelevant boast about their own 'achievements' has a learning difficulty.

Even pricks must not use flash in any safe workplace (unless appropriate arrangements have been put in place).

 

[Flamingo]

It was actually spelt correctly - the subjunctive (as was used) was required

Agree with the rest of the post though!

I stand corrected. My post has been edited accordingly.