would you comply with this?

[worldnakedbikeride]

Guess what? Because photographers at the ride were generally well behaved in 2005, many people will be coming back to participate in the 2006 World Naked Bike Ride in London, UK. We think this has a lot to do with our photo policy helping to control unpleasant behavior in problem photographers.

 

We've revamped the photo policy to make it a little easier to understand. Have a look at it if you are thinking of photographing at this event (even if you are a well-behaved photographer).

http://www.worldnakedbikeride.org/uk/london/policy

 

The Brighton ride has adopted a slightly different policy, but with the same basic aims.

 

Cheers,

Jesse

[thomas_sullivan]

sorry Jesse...I have the right to take any picture of any person I want on a public street in the United States. Your policies do the same thing the Oil Companies do with their policies to justify their ends...infringe upon others rights. The scale of the infringement doesn't matter, you still feel you have the right to do it, just as they do. and you're both wrong.

[Brad_]

What Thomas said...

[jbq]

See what Thomas said - there's some confusion between publishing rules of etiquette and calling those a policy. You can ask photographers to not exercise their rights, but you can't actually restrict those rights (even if you don't like them).

 

In French, we say "one's freedom starts where someone else's stops" (la liberte des uns commence la ou s'arrete celle des autres), which means that other people's rights will inconvenience you, deal with it.

[worldnakedbikeride]

This last comment helps make more sense of things. What we are asking for is courteous behaviour from photographers. We're not declaring there are laws to prohibit them from behaving badly. We're just asking for good behaviour from photographers.

 

If someone came to our protest with a sign that advertised McDonalds we wouldn't have any legal power to prevent them from attending the protest, but we would ask them to leave. We would simply be asking for courteous behaviour. That's what the photo policy is about.

[terry_rory]

I still cannot see the link between mass public nudity and sustainability.

 

Would not a mass bicycling event (clothed) encourage far more people (especially people with young children and teens) than doing it naked?

 

Leaving alone the ludicrous idea that 8 million people in a space the size of London can ever be 'sustainable' or that any mega city can ever be ecologically benign.

 

Generous government grants to double glaze/insulate/install energy efficient heating and lighting to every home in the land and removing all tax breaks to company car drivers and giving the money to companies to encourage working from home (wherever possible or practical) would close at least couple of power stations and remove a fair slice of daily commuter traffic from most towns and cities and free up tens of thousands of acres of land used as car parks and give many people a couple of hours of their life back every day.

 

Simply changing every single light bulb in my house to compact flourescents saved 800 watts per hour at peak usage. Extrapolate that to every home and business and school and hospital and public building in the country and add to the effect cheap (or free) wall & loft insulation and double/triple glazing and energy efficient heating systems for low income households. How about protesting about jetting cheap, tasteless, vegetables/fruit and salads from all over the globe and use our EU subsidy payments to help local farmers from going out of business instead?

 

Tax breaks to supermarket chains who prove they support local farmers, paid for from the EU subsidies we use to pile up unwanted food 'mountains' that end up as landfill.

 

What mass 'flashing' on bikes will achieve I am not sure. It publicises nudity and risks turning the idea of sustainability into a joke and not much else.

 

If I were in London on the 10th June I would go to great lengths to avoid the spectacle.

 

 

If naked cycling is worth demonstrating for then do it on 10th December. (That would impress me.)

[worldnakedbikeride]

Trevor - Since this isn't about the photo policy, we're straying a little off topic by discussing the purpose of the ride, but it's great to hear your thoughts.

 

I think your ideas about how to better achieve sustainability are really great. The bike ride is really meant to be one of many campaigning tactics to raise awareness on the question of sustainability. The ride also has a body positive message and tries to show that social/non-sexual nudity needn't be imposing or frightening. Judging by the responses to the ride in London last year, we managed to convey the second message very well. Regarding the first message, we did a better job in the papers than at making the message clear to the public (this year, more signs/bodypaint should make the ride's purpose clearer to bystanders).

 

You questioned the link between nudity and sustainability, and it's pretty easy to explain. First of all, cities would be a lot more sustainable if most people used bikes for transport. Although most of my friends know how to ride a bike, almost none of them cycle in London. However, most of my friends would use the bike as their main form of transport if it were safer (not having to mix with motor traffic), and if bike parking was more readily available. By riding nude, we show the vulnerability of the cyclist in London traffic. Cars that wouldn't think twice about dangerously overtaking a cyclist, end up having to notice us for a while. People notice our sustainability message because we are riding in the nude. Because we are cheerfully riding in the nude, we convey a very positive and uplifting environmental message. People seem to understand that it takes some courage and conviction to express your environmental message by stripping off. It's not as though we are the first protest to use this tactic. We encountered almost universal responses of smiles, surprise, and enthusiastic support in London. Finally, the nudity is a cheeky way of symbolising the fact that we've nothing to hide because we're not burning fossil fuels to get around. I'm not expecting this explanation to turn your head around and make you decide to join us, but perhaps it will make you understand more why we think it's a relevant method of protest.

 

I should add that these are my own observations and thoughts. The ride is not meant to have a spokesperson who speaks on behalf of the ride. My explanation is simply my own perspective, and another rider might explain it quite differently. Each of the rides worldwide is fairly autonomous and each has a different local angle. There are over 100 rides expected this year. Three new rides are happening in the UK alone!

 

That said, let's keep this thread focused on photography and photography policies at the World Naked Bike Ride events. It may be worth noting that other rides have different photo policies (Seattle has a notably different policy but for much the same purpose as London's).

 

Cheers,

Jesse

[michael_mounteney]

There were several individuals at the marshalling point, intent on

taking as many prurient photographs as possible, and they were not

dissuaded from doing so by direct verbal attacks from their subjects,

and others. They simply ignored requests to stop, and kept on

snapping away.

<p>

If we are to keep the event attractive to women, then this problem

must be dealt-with, as much as it can be. I stress that there were

some photographers who were quite bare-faced about their intentions,

and nothing short of direct physical coercion would have stopped

them, I feel. Of course, we cannot (legally) do this.

<p>

HOWEVER, if the male majority were encouraged to be as gallant as

possible, to be on the look-out for peeping toms, and to do

everything legal to make them feel unwelcome, it would make the event

more comfortable for the courageous ladies who take part. All we

can/need to do is to tell these photographers, repeatedly, directly

and firmly that they and their activities are unacceptable. We can

stand between them and their unwilling subjects. Even if it doesn't

dissuade them, it will at least help the females to feel supported

and less like individual objects of unpleasant attention.

<p>

You have to be pretty thick-skinned to have a five naked blokes

standing in a line in front of you, chanting ``per-vert, per-vert''

and not be affected.

<p>

The `law' is irrelevant. There are many activities that are

unpleasant but not illegal, and vice versa. It is a matter of

courteous and respectful behaviour, which these prurient voyeurs did

not demonstrate.

<p>

How about an `official' `perverts parade' photographer who follows

these obnoxious individuals around, taking photographs of

<b>them</b>. Yes, it has been done, but not systematically. Also,

we will advertise the fact that these photographs will be features

prominently on a `perverts parade' page of the WNBR web site. Yeah,

possibly libellous, but as I will be living in Australia next year I

should be able to host the site whilst keeping free of the UK

ludicrous libel laws --- and there will be other ways as well, I'm

sure.

[mike dixon]

<i>The `law' is irrelevant. There are many activities that are unpleasant but not illegal, and vice versa. It is a matter of courteous and respectful behaviour</i><P>

So taking photos of people in a public place, which is quite legal, is unconscionable, but slander and libel are quite appropriate as long as they serve your ends?<P>

If you don't want people to be seen while they're in public, hold up a sheet in order to block the view. When I've done model shoots, and models needed to change clothing when there was no private place around, we used a changing tent or assistants holding up reflectors to block the view. We didn't stand around berating other people who were exercising their rights.<P>

[terry_rory]

It is a good job Michael Mounteney has told us how it went on Saturday. There was no (National) publicity here in the UK. I cannot find it on the BBC website either. Maybe staging the event the same day as an England world cup match was not a good idea?

[uk]

"ENFORCEMENT-

Riders and supporters are actively encouraged to enforce the policy described below.

Please notify a ride organiser or steward if a photographer refuses to comply. Thank you!"

 

Jesse,

 

I find your policy offensive. It has no legal standing and you are encouraging a incident

that could result in a breach of an individuals Human Rights.

 

Every photographer in the UK has the right to take pictures in a public place and your

policy encourages organised bodies to assume powers that contavene that basic right. If

you manhandle an individaual in the course of ejection that is an assault and if that

individual feels physically threatened he can react however he feels appropriate to defend

himself. That is the law and your 'policy' is working against it.

 

On a wider front, the 'success' of your 'Policy' will lead to others doing the same at

marches/demonstrations/meetings. A really bad situation started in the name of

freedom.

 

I encourage you to withdraw your policy and accept the consequences of your actions.

[mike dixon]

<i>You have to be pretty thick-skinned to have a five naked blokes standing in a line in front of you, chanting ``per-vert, per-vert'' and not be affected.</i><P>

Gotta admit, it is a pretty funny visual to imagine five naked guys, standing in a row, <b>in public</b>, chanting "Pervert! Pervert!" at someone who is fully-clothed.

[uk]

Mike,

 

Would that make a picture ? :-)

[michael s.]

I also appreciate the participants/organizers coming back here to report on the event.

 

But that's where I part company.

 

Participants are calling attention to an issue they regard as important. Fine. They want coverage and attention. Fine. They're doing a public event. Fine. They're riding bicycles in the nude. Fine.

 

But they want only the kind of coverage and attention *they* want. And worse, some want to defame photographers who, in their view, are covering the event in undesired ways -- the ones shooting 'raw files' so to speak.

 

Sorry, that's just not how it works.

 

Mike, that would make for some video clip, wouldn't it ?

[col_loc]

Sorry, but I cannot understand your objections.

 

This cannot be a legally binding policy - just a riders policy so that riders know what they are saying if something is happening that makes them feel uncomfortable.

 

Someone mentioned that it contravenes human rights to ask them not to take photo's?

Human rights?

Are you sure? lol!

 

Having seen the DVD documentary about the WNBR london 2005 I can tell you that loads and loads of folk are snapping away with mobile phones etc and doing so very freely with no objections.

Surely you can understand that there will be some very strange individuals out there who will want or try to do things that are very innapropriate given that there is public nudity going on.

If someone is going to participate in something like this they will obviously want to know that the organisers are going to do their bit if things go tits up. Sorry, bad choice of words.

A woman (or a bloke) may want to support the protest for a variety of reasons, but simply wouldn't do it if there was an 'anything goes' policy.

The question is: is going nude in public asking for lewd and creepy behaviour and therefore these folk shouldn't complain?

I suspect that many of you lot would answer yes and that your lack of understanding of what this is actually about is the real reason behind your critisism of it and refusal to accept that your complaints about this policy are unjustified - especially in the face of an explanation of it.

It seems to me that intolerance for the cause of the riders is the underlying problem here - not the semantics of this policy itself.

 

And, I suppose, if they have got a load of you angry enough to create a stir like this and threaten "I'm not remotely interested but I might just turn up with three shooters round my neck just to p**s them off." then their protest has worked in so far as they got yout attention!

 

Now stop sulking like a load of silly children ("not fair its not fair" LOL) and raise a smile for those that have got the guts to stand (or ride) naked in public to draw attention to what they believe in.

[thomas_sullivan]

sorry Col....I have the right to take pictures of anybody I want to on a public street in the United States

[michael_mounteney]

Just gathering up a few points after my earlier posting . . .

<ul>

<li>

I don't intend to libel anyone. However, the UK's ludicrous libel

laws could still be used against me. They are widely recognised as

being the harshest in the world. For example, they are one of the

few laws in which the defendant has to prove himself innocent, rather

than the plaintiff proving him guilty.

<li>

It seems to me that the `policy' might as well be done away with,

because it is unenforceable, and ignored by the perverts. So I would

instead encourage legal but emphatic chastisement of lewd

photography, as described above; it does after all give the voyeurs

what they are giving others: undesired exposure.

<li>

Suggest that women might like to bring a thin sheet or wrap which

they can stuff into a bag just before moving-off, so that they are

not exposed where they don't want to be.

<li>

The point about `they are undressing in public; we have a right to

photograph them' misses the point. It might be <i>legal</i> but it

is disrespectful and hypocritical; what about <b>their</b> right to

be photographed as and when they choose ?

<li>

The gender imbalance will widen if the issue is not tackled, since

women with bad memories will not return. At least three women around

me were genuinely annoyed (and in one case actually distressed) by

the photography. They are being incredibly brave for a worthy cause,

and that should be applauded and encouraged, not made harder by

tolerance of creeps.

</ul>

[Brad_]

<I>what about their right to be photographed as and when they choose ?</I><P>

 

There is no such <I>right</I>. If they don't want to be photographed, they shouldn't be out

in public where photography is legal, and in this case, expected.

[Brad_]

Maybe you should let women make their own choices - as you no doubt let men make theirs.

Is it *your* job to protect them? Feels weird...

[thomas_sullivan]

"...what about their right to be photographed as and when they choose?..."......there is no such right in a public place (except where EXPECTATIONS of privacy exist......such as public restrooms and public changing rooms)..........certainly not out in the middle of a public street.

 

I read what this group is trying to do, and they have some valid points about automobile pollution and drivers attitudes toward bicyclists, and the lack of support for alternative energy sources............BUT, they can not promote that cause over the rights of other people. Oil says they have the right to make money.........so, they do things the way they do......alot of it is wrong. and this needs to be fought. But, it cannot be fought at the cost of some elses rights. That's just mob rule. The ones with the loudest voices wins. That is NOT what the USA, or any other freedom loving country/peoples is about. Those who love freedom must make laws that allow everyone to be free. Not free to put their desires above everyone else's rights. That's what laws attempt to stop. The "right" of the biggest fist to win out. If you don't like the law the way it was decided on, cause it to be changed.......if you can.......but until then, you have to abide by it.

 

I can take pics of anyone I want to in a public place. It is not a right of anyone else to decide when I can do that. It's my right to do, not theirs to stop.

 

Got it!? There is no right of anyone to prohibit anothers right. It doesn't exist in a free society. It only exists where there is not freedom. And just think of what the oil companies would do if they decided to completely ignore the law? You can't fight them by taking away rights and freedoms......you can only play into their hands by doing that.

[col_loc]

Thomas: "sorry Col....I have the right to take pictures of anybody I want to on a public street in the United States"

Of course you have, and like I said loads of folk were snapping away and no one would have thought of challenging them.

This policy is more designed to give the riders some coherance and unison should something go tits up with some creep or other.

As its not legally enforcable, and as it would only be considered by a rider in extreme cirsumstance then why have you got so much to say against it?

If it was indeed denying you a 'right' then I could see your point - but it doesn't in any way.

 

Like I said - seems to me to be more about your lack of tolerance for what the riders are doing and a determination to disagree with them that fuels this venom from you lot rather than any reasonable complaint.

 

There are far greater issues in the world to complain and get upset about you know - like oil dependancy for example!

[col_loc]

Thomas (again): I can take pics of anyone I want to in a public place. It is not a right of anyone else to decide when I can do that. It's my right to do, not theirs to stop.

 

So, (to discuss this point in general not in the context of the naked bike ride) if for some reason you decided to snap me and came up to me and started snapping away and I asked you not to you'd just carry on?

Because, rights or not, that sort of lack of respect for someone would earn you a fair covering of gravel rash from me.

 

As for loudest voice and freedom loving countries - you've gotta be joking? You think that the naked bike ride (or any other protest) has a voice anywhere near the volume of the oil companies? What is freedom anyway? The US certainly doesn't promote it - land of the clearly unequal, the have's and the have not's. The only freedom the US promotes is one that is in agreement with them.

[Brad_]

<I> Because, rights or not, that sort of lack of respect for someone would earn you a fair

covering of gravel rash from me.</I><P>

 

And then you would go to jail and be branded for life as a criminal. Though seriously,

knowing Tom, who is a big guy, I suspect he wouldn't be the one with the gravel rash.

[garrison_k.]

<i> Maybe you should let women make their own choices - as you no doubt let men make theirs. Is it *your* job to protect them? Feels weird...</i> <br><br>

So's <a href=" http://www.flickr.com/groups/worldnakedbikeride/pool/show/">thier Flickr Pool.</a> Mostly all male nudity. Weird. <br><br>

What is it with these utopian freaks? Not sure why these clowns think they are above and beyond the law. Can't imagine how they expect to bring attention to their cause, doing so in an extreme fashion, yet without the hounds of publicity? Which...don't they want? Or knowing full well about the neanderthal tendencies of many middle aged hobbyists getting their free for all. What do they expect? Now listen to both of them here representing this ride. Twisting and intimidating and threatening everything legal in a free world with consequences of illegal net slandering and a good gravel washing. Imagine, coming to a street photography forum with seasoned street shooters and trying to hold their water in a paper bag. Idiots.

[col_loc]

you are a funny lot!

So you cannot see past the fact that I said 'gravel rash'? No one can answer (or see) the underlying question that that situation poses? ie: would photographing some member of the public despite their asking you to stop be discourteous?

You harp on about it being your 'right' - I say yeah, its a right, but surely you would have more respect than to be as discourteous as that?

 

The point? - that all this talk of your rights to photograph is quite irrelevant when it comes down to actual actions and what happens on the day. (as has been explained a few times).

 

I'll repeat it again - with phrases like "What is it with these utopian freaks?" it is obvious that your problem is with the people of the WNBR not this policy.

And again - if that is the case and you are troubled by it enough to argue in message boards about then obviously using a contraversial method to bring attention to a contraversial issue has worked. Well done guys.

 

Its quite funny - get over the nudity!

Why would being naked in the presence of other men be wierd? - To suggest it is means that you see links with sexuality and maybe depravity and I would suggest that that is wierd. Being naked is perfectly natural you know, covering with clothes makes a lot of sense a lot of the time - but to suggest that nudity is wierd is itself wierd.

 

By the way - I don't represent the ride, didn't take part and do not speak on their behalf. I just think all this fuss over a load of nudity is freakish, and the refusal to accept the message of the ride just plain selfish.