would you comply with this?

Gee. . . as long as the weather holds . . . :-)

What "nudity issue?"

I AM surprised that a group of people wants to assemble in a public place and display themselves. Prohibiting photography strikes me as a lost cause and contrary to their logic. Exhibitionists generally crave the attention. Naturists in a private, secluded setting generally do not want the attention and I can respect that.

Go ahead! Test the law!

Interesting question. Tempting event to photo as I'm sure a lot of good candids will arise. I don't see how they can enforce this, but it would be interesting to ask a policeman on the day what advice they have been given. The English police seem to be developing a habit of arresting people for suspicion of taking obscene photos. A nude event certainly puts you at risk of this charge. I've never understood why they don't arrest the person doing the obscene act rather than the photographer, but that's another question. I'd personally click away and ignore it, but might run the risk of having my photography gear confiscated for a month or so and my house and computer searched. 1984 approaches ever nearer!

It is outrageous. It is the sort of petty, tidy-minded policy I would expect from a borough council but to get this from a supposedly open-minded environmental group is absurd and worrying.

I propose that people protest to the names given freely on worldnakedride's website.

As WNR provided the following info on a public web site I am sure there will be no objection to repeating it here:

CONTACT US: For photos from 2004 or to schedule interviews with riders, please contact our UK Press Officer -

Graham glee194584 [at] aol.com 0795 626 1902 or from outside the UK call (+44) 795 626 1902.

Alternatively, contact the UK Rides Coordinator

Jesse uk [at] worldnakedride.org 0781 458 7361 or from outside the UK call (+44) 781 458 7361.

Finally, this seems almost comedic. People who propose to parade their bodies through a city centre - which will undoubtedly offend many parents and other adults - are taking exception to photographers snapping a shot!

Should the bike riders perhaps get the written consent of all those they propose to expose themselves to, before they get on their bikes?

Mark

One needs to establish the ramifications of any permit granted to them by the City of London.

If general rules regarding public events apply, I cannot see how these people can make rules on photography in a public place. And even if it is remotely possible that they can, the rules will be impossible to enforce. If photographers want close-ups of nude cyclists they will get them via extreme telephoto lenses and aerial photography.

This aside, it strikes me as ironic (and altogether silly) that nude people riding bicycles through the middle of London should be this puritanical regarding photography. Somehow it defeates the whole moral purpose of riding nude through London if the purpose is to express personal liberation from the public shame of nudity.

On second thoughts, I think this is the flip side of political correctness.

One stated aim of politically correct language is to prevent the exclusion or the offending of people because of their differences or handicaps.

The flip side is to impose limits on language and the range of acceptable public debate. Or, in this case, photography as another language or means of communication.

So why don't we want pictures here?

What they are saying is, "We have the right to act as we please, to get in your face and if you object to our naked ride you are just showing yourself to be square and irrelevent.

"But we're going to do this within the boundaries of political correctness, so no pictures of naked women and no invasion of my personal space."

To get philosophical, PC is about relativism - every opinion is as good as another. Photography, fixed in time and place, is the enemy of relativism. In this instance, it would identify the rider as holding specific views and could force him to stand up and justify them.

I think that is the objection here. It is certainly not that you ride naked but are worried about people seeing you.

I'm not remotely interested but I might just turn up with three shooters round my neck just to p**s them off.

Mark

Mark Gay , jun 12, 2005; 09:22 a.m. It is outrageous. It is the sort of petty, tidy-minded policy I would expect from a borough council but to get this from a supposedly open-minded environmental group is absurd and worrying....

I am a journalist as well but based in the north of England. Had I been in London on the day I might have been inclined to buy 10 or 20 disposables and hand them out to people on the street just to test it out... WITH A COUNTER PROTEST - LOL

It is more than outrageous.

Hunter

My mother in law is coming from the States next week.

I can feel a 20-pack of disposables coming on!

Mark

Meanwhile in Scotland...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3800003.stm

Protest cyclists opt to cover up

"A group of campaigners has decided against riding naked through the centre of Edinburgh to protest about Britain's reliance on petrol.

The group had planned to strip off and cycle through the city as part of the World Naked Bike Ride Day against oil dependency and climate change.

But eventually they completed their ride with their clothing on....(break in text)

...Police were monitoring the event and had said that any naked cyclists would be arrested for indecent exposure.

The protest spokesman added: "There may have been people who got naked but they quickly disappeared on arrival of the police..." "

----- RE: Mark Gay

Ahhhhhhh, so now we know who was on the wrong side of the law. As far as London was concerned, then, the event might be viewed as merely having been tolerated (by the police). That certainly moves the photographer's right to photograph it up a notch or two.

Here's another view then. They were breaking the law; they knew they were breaking the law; and they were trying to prevent others, including the "press," from photographing them doing it.

There is the whiff of a Carry-On film storyline about this.

Hunter

- Mother-in-law

- States

- 20 pack of disposable cameras

- London

- Naked bike ride

Until just now, I'd have been willing to bet a decent amount of money that one couldn't come up with a sentence, or even a paragraph, using all these words/phrases together ... other than in a work of utter fantasy or fiction.

And here I see I'd have lost my bet !

Hunter, you've put your finger on it

Erm, sorry, I mean you have identified their true concerns more succinctly than I.

Michael, ROTFLMAO.

Mark

Mark, I just knew that I would get to the... errrr... well... sort of... the "bottom" of it, sooner or later.

LOL

Hunter

People who don't want their naked ass photographed in unflattering ways probably shouldn't take off their clothes in public. I mean how stupid can you get! It's a protest, right? That's some lilly livered protesters then; I guess they don't feel very strongly about their cause. Real protesters are willing to take severe beatings, and won't whine about if their sexy parts will look good on camera.

No I wouldn't comply for at least 2 reasons :-

1.If they are frankly stupid enough to exhibit themselves in this way then they are "fair game" and deserve whatever "exposure" they get.

2.I am getting seriously fed up with all the jumped-up little people who feel they can tell me what to do without any visible sign of authority so to do.(It is not just what I can do but what I must say and think)

I feel very inclined to hope that it is freezing cold with strong winds and large hailstones.

"I feel very inclined to hope that it is freezing cold with strong winds and large hailstones."

So obviously this isn't the first summer you've spent in the UK.

As it happens, I just came across this same news item in our regional newspaper. Apparently this demonstration is possibly going to be done in several countries to draw attention to conservation and world issues. The "why?" of this event outweighs their little anti-lewd photo restrictions, IMHO. I think it's pretty risque to sacrifice the political message by being arrested for public nudity, as they may be here in the U.S. FWIW: they could even get "life" if arrested in Texas I'll bet! Both nudity AND lewd photographs will incense Texas lawmakers! WOW! what an idea! :-)

Somebody took those cows' photo above. They're nekkid! Did anybody get arrested for that?

The law in England is quite clear. If you are in a public place you can be photographed. If they want to ride naked that's their choice and they must accept the consequences. If the participants object to being seen naked then what the hell are they doing it for?

I have every sympathy with their objectives (conservation,climate change et al) but I am not sure that these sort of tactics assist in any way - if anything they are counter-productive by giving people the opportunity to ridicule them and, by association, their objectives.They then make it worse by not having the courage of their convictions ( in both senses of the word ) and seeking to limit the rights of other people.

In this case the ends ( I suspect mostly pretty ugly) do not justify the means.

Well, it's Monday morning in Britain, and here is an interesting post mortem on the London nude bike ride event.

The BBC - right... and remember they are literally just down the street - has published several articles on the event - each one mentioning the London ride but accompanied by either photos or video of the MADRID [Spain] companion event riders.

Methinks, but without direct evidence except the notable LACK of photos, that the regular London national and international press didn't like the photo restrictions either and just refused to give them any photo coverage.

The only evidence I can find that [editorial] photos were taken at all, in London, are some uncredited [and an unsorted mix of] London / Madrid images that appeared on the Times of India website. Interestingly there were also no quoted comments from the London event - tending to indicate that even on-the-scene written reportage wasn't any more extensive than a mere re-write of press releases by some AP hack.

If true... then something of an own goal for the protesters it seems... whose obvious objective should have been maximum "coverage of their uncoverage."

Did the London press corps effectively boycott the event? Enquiring minds want to know. I shall have to ask around.

Hunter

They just did this ride here in Toronto, on Saturday. They only had about a dozen riders. They had no signs or any display of what they were protesting. The only real public reaction was annoyance at a group of bikes blocking part of the street and the glare off so many white asses in the sun.

Shades of Lady Godiva!

Just let me know when it's coming to New York...

Hi there. This is Jesse. I'm an amateur photographer (mostly landscape), and I'm also the 2005 London World Naked Bike Ride coordinator. I'm also a member of the planning collective that agreed to having the photo policy.

I noticed this thread, and I thought it would be helpful if I tried to clarify matters. This message is long, but hopefully will answer most of your questions. I hope that you will feel more welcome and less offended at the photo policy after reading this post.

We created the policy as one of a range of measures to create a safe enviroment and encourage new riders. We ended up with nearly 200 new riders, so the measures clearly worked.

It looks like this message list has gotten confused about the aims of our policy and the limitations it imposes. Just because you participate in a mass nude protest doesn't mean you are happy to be photographed close up in the nude. We asked photographers to get people's consent in order to take close ups. I'm not sure if you are legally required to do this ever, but it's clearly reasonable and friendly behaviour which most photographers would be happy to do. I speak as an experienced amateur darkroom photographer (particular interest - black and white landscape photography). If you wanted to photograph someone's baby, you would normally ask if the parent was ok with this before leaning into the baby carriage and snapping pictures. We put the policy into place because photographers at the 2004 ride were not all reasonably behaved. Certain other rides around the world have described similar problems.

At the ride, no photographers complained about the policy, even though quite a few knew about it. Most people DID comply with the policy - press included. We even had a 5 person documentary film crew riding/filming with the ride. They managed to comply with the policy as well even though they had 5 cameras and spent 2 hours filming us! As a result, we didn't have any of the complaints that came up last year.

Here's some background as to why we put the policy into place: In 2004, nearly two dozen photographers created a very unwelcome atmosphere by surrounding and filming/photographing the female ride participants before the ride started. This was not ordinary photography, it looked more like paparazzi massing around the ladies. Some ladies didn't have much trouble with this, but others said that the photography was too much and that this would be the last time they ever participated in the ride. I have to say, as a male participant I was very unnerved by the photographers behaviour towards the women.

So, who were the 2004 photographers? They weren't members of the press, and they didn't seem to be pro/semi-pro photographers (all of the pros and press behaved really well in 2004). The problem photographers were a mix of tourists/ opportunists/ creeps who couldn't behave in a reasonable and agreeable manner towards the ride participants. I know it's a situation of you had to be there to know for sure what it was like, but this opinion of the photographers was widely shared by most ride participants I spoke to.

So what was the 2005 policy? How could we enforce it?

Well, first of all... it wasn't a legally binding policy. I am told that there is some privacy law that is similar to our photo policy, but we weren't basing our policy on law, it was just criteria for participation in the event as riders/observers. It was like saying "we're having a community barbeque in the park, but we have a no alcohol policy." You wouldn't call the cops if someone showed up drinking a bottle of liquor at the barbeque, but you WOULD ask them to take their drinking somewhere else.

We notified people of the policy on the website and on leaflets we handed out at the event. For the text of the policy, visit: http://www.worldnakedbikeride.org/uk/london/policy/

Our policy was just there to encourage riders to assert themselves and feel confident that other riders/supporters would support them if they asked a photographer not to photograph in a harrassing/intrusive manner. In fact, no photographers were a big problem this time.

Why weren't the photographers a problem this time? 1. We had larger numbers (58 riders in 2004, and 250 riders in 2005). 2. We chose a better starting point (which allowed riders to "hide" from photos if they wanted). 3. The photo policy was in place.

The press took some brilliant photos (including a front page photo on the cover of the national paper The Observer). There are also some great photos by participants.

Here are the terrific photos which were made while there was still mass compliance with the photo policy. These photos are probably not work friendly, but they are also not particularly explicit/offensive.

To see some photos of the ride-

Participant's photos: http://members.lycos.co.uk/bodygital http://there.is/photos/WNBR2005 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/london/2005/06/313113.html

Press photos: For the following sites do a search for "world naked bike ride"- http://pro.corbis.com http://editorial.gettyimages.com http://www.flickr.com http://www.rexfeatures.com

And finally, here's my brief explanation of the ride:

The World Naked Bike Ride in London (UK) was a tremendous success! It was an important event in London Sustainability Weeks (LSW), and national Bike Week. The police agreed to it, and even persuaded the council to allow the assembly at Wellington Arch. The public was very supportive as we rode past them, some grasped what we were protesting about, some were just delighted to witness such an astonishing sight, and some were thrilled to see our courage in expressing opposition to oil dependency.

The participants were from all sorts of backgrounds. Many participants said they enjoyed the protest, and that it was their first time protesting in the nude (for many it was their first time being nude outdoors).

The only unfortunate incident was when a driver of a very expensive car became frustrated with the protest and agressed one of the cyclists - crushing the back wheel of his bike in the process. Fortunately the cyclist was unharmed and the bike frame was ok. The driver then drove off straight away while the cyclist phoned the police. Police are now looking for the driver because crushing bicycles and driving off is neither civil conduct, nor legal.

The media coverage of the naked bike ride was extraordinary. We made the cover of the Observer, and were featured in 6 of the newspapers on Sunday 12 June. We appeared on numerous TV news programmes, and had countless radio interviews. Every report or photo noted that the ride was a protest against oil dependency (even the Sunday Sport and News of the World!)

The numbers alone indicate the ride's huge success. In 2004 the official count at the end of the ride was 58 (about a dozen people joined us on the way, so we probably started with around 45). In 2005, the official count was 212 at the start and 250 at the finish (with another independent counter confirming the LSW result). This means that we had more than 4 times the number of event participants in 2005 as we had in 2004. If we continue at this rate, we'll have the entire country participating by the end of the decade!

Next year's ride will probably take the same route and have the same departure time. The date will be Saturday 10 June 2006. We will again welcome photographers, but the photo policy will remain in place. Behave in a reasonable manner towards the participants, and you shouldn't have any trouble getting extraordinary photos while still complying with our policy.

---

I hope that clarifies things.

Cheers, Jesse

To summarise then :-

1.You had/have no legal justification for your policy of prohibition.

2.You were determined on a course of action and were seeking to limit the consequences of such action.

The remainder is a justification of your actions.You are of course entitled to your view just as those who differ are.

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

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.

What Thomas said...

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.

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.

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.)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

How about an `official' `perverts parade' photographer who follows these obnoxious individuals around, taking photographs of them. 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.

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

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?

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.

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?

"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.

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.

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

Mike,

Would that make a picture ? :-)

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 ?

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.

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

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

• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• The point about `they are undressing in public; we have a right to photograph them' misses the point. It might be legal but it is disrespectful and hypocritical; what about their right to be photographed as and when they choose ?
• 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.

what about their right to be photographed as and when they choose ?

There is no such right. If they don't want to be photographed, they shouldn't be out in public where photography is legal, and in this case, expected.

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...

"...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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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...

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

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.

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.

I have no issue or interest in the nudity. This thread is about the 'POLICY' and the right for someone to use intimidation to stop a photographer pursuing his chosen course of action.

There are laws about being a nuisance and causing a disturbance of the peace that can prevent a photographer from doing just as he pleases. That's fine by me, but I reject any self imposed security officer from coming on heavy, just to please his masters.

We have a famous soccer team here called Manchester United. Long lenses are not allowed in the ground. Tripods are not allowed in the street outside, enforced by security to protect the brand. Japanese tourists get told to move on.

The rights for photographing the New York Marathon are being syndicated and the public cannot use anything with greater resolution than a camera phone on the streets of the city. Revenue talks. Gravel rash only stings.

Whew...! This is getting to be a long thread. The recent posts left me with plenty of responses.

Trevor said there weren't reports in the press, but there were a lot actually. Here's the BBC one which features footage and their guestimate of numbers (over 500) not our count of 795 leaving. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5067154.stm

More news coverage will be arriving on a regular basis, and links will all be posted on the wiki website eventually. http://wiki.worldnakedbikeride.org

Gary - Sorry you find the photo policy offensive, as I find it very practical and helpful. I don't think our "policy encourages organised bodies to assume powers that contavene [photographers] basic right [to take photos in public]." Our policy encourages people to cooperate in addressing photographers that are a problem. To my knowledge there has never been any physical threat or violence wielded against a photographer who was being a problem at our events. Likewise in your later post you suggest that we are trying to suggest that people have "the right ... to use intimidation to stop a photographer". That's not the aim of the policy - we don't encourage intimidation. I've never seen a photographers stopped at the ride through intimidation. I'm really dissapointed to hear about the way that the law has been used against photographers at Man United games and the New York Marathon. Those laws are insane, and you are right that revenue talks. Don't worry, we don't have any revenue (�200 was this year's entire annual London ride budget), nor do we have any Security Officers. We're not trying to add the laws against public photography - we're asking photographers who attend our event to behave in a respectful manner, and encouraging riders to verbally confront problem photographers.

Garrison - our policy is designed to protect men and women alike, but the examples of problem behaviour so far have occured toward women. We aren't stopping women from making their own choices. If no one is bothered by a photographer, the policy isn't enforced. We don't have a big anti-photo security force like the ones described for the Football and Marathon, we only have riders who are encouraged to (verbally) confront problem photographers directly (and collectively if necessary). "Mostly all male nudity. Weird." - first I disagree with this statement, and secondly it may have been that more women said "please don't take my photo" and the photographer's complied with the women's wishes. As to your third paragraph... uh... it looks like we really made you angry, and I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here (since I totally disagree with each of your points, but it seems like you aren't even listening to the points that I'm raising).

As you might expect, I'm pretty much in agreement with Col Loc about how to think about these issues, and I think that Michael M has made some very intelligent contributions (though I believe that humiliation tactics should be avoided if possible).

I was at both the York and London rides (both of which used the photo policy), and I personally observed no prurient photography that was upsetting or distressing any riders. I can say for sure that the no photographers upset riders at the York ride even though there were absolutely loads of photos taken. While the York ride had 62 riders, the London ride had 695 riders at the start and 800+ estimated at the end. As far as I can tell, the London ride photo policy was broadly a success this year because I had no reports of problem photography. I'm keen to learn more about the incident Michael Mounteney observed where three women were annoyed with creepy photographers and one was genuinely distressed. This is precisely the sort of incident we wanted to stop. I understand from what was written that people asked the photographers to stop. That's really great. Nobody felt confident that they should do this at the 2004 ride, even though there were plenty of people who didn't feel comfortable with the photographers behaviour. Although this isn't always enough to disuade problem photographers, there are other options as you helpfully point out - obscuring the subject of the photography and trying to shame the problem photographer (also very effective is when the subject directly addresses the photographer describing the photographer's behaviour aloud so all can hear).

Michael - Could you describe the incident more fully? (did it occur before/after the ride, what actually happened, how did the situation resolve)

In terms of the questions of the ride trying to terminate the rights of photographers, we simply aren't doing this. We're not asking for laws to be levied against photographers, we're simply encouraging people to work together to intervene when a photographer acts in a disrespectful, and unreasonable (though legal) manner toward the ride participants. Although the area at Wellington Arch is normally a simple public space, when we used it, it became a changing area, and as such it seems reasonable to ask people to respect people's privacy. A great number of professionals take part in the ride, and many of them would like to avoid having their photo appear on the internet because they could run into trouble at work, so we ask that people respect the no-close ups without permission rule.

The policy isn't enforced by security heavies, but by ordinary riders themselves. The ride is organised by a small collective and we don't have anywhere near the numbers to address every issue that may arise at the assembly point. We designed the photography policy so that it would encourage people to verbally confront photographers and seek help if this wasn't enough. I spoke to at least 60 riders, and none of them had witnessed any incident of problem photography behaviour. I'm not so naive as to think that no such behaviour occured, but I imagine that many of the riders successfully (verbally) persuaded the impolite photographers to desist. At the finish of the ride (5.30pm), many riders (men and women) waited for nearly an hour to put their clothes back on. This suggests to me that the riders felt quite happy and feel threatened by badly behaved photographers.

During the period of the last two years, there have been 7 documentary camera people on the ride, hundreds of riders with cameras, and dozens of professional photographers. The only incident that I've heard of is one where the riders were angry at a photographer who insisted on trying to take photos of a woman who said she didn't wish to be photographed. This incident ended with a number of riders getting irrate with the photographer, and the woman walking into the crowd (away from the problem photographer). That's not a nice situation, but as far as I heard it didn't dissuade the rider from coming back the next year. Every female friend I've asked gets treated disrespectfully on the street by men, and they hate it. They still walk on the street though, and they don't view men as the enemy - just the jerks who think it's fun to say things that are 1) creepy, 2) intrusive, 3) intimidating, 4) hostile, 5) inappropriate (sexual comments, etc). The ride policy can not ensure that no problems arise, but it provides enough guidance that riders can work collectively to stop pervy problem photographers when they are spotted. I stand by the policy as it seems to work, and all the female (and male) riders I spoke to after the ride seemed to have had a great time without harrassment by problem photographers.

Overall, it was a terrific ride in all four British cities (each of which had a ride photography policy). Michael Mounteney is the first this year to describe an incident (only two other minor -but relatively unpleasant- incidents were reported to me from last year's ride). The numbers at the rides were 160+ for Brighton's first ride, 800+ for London's third ride (at ride finish), 62 for York's first ride (at ride start), 30+ for Manchester's first ride (at ride start). All rides reported general enjoyment, success at conveying the environmental message and good reception from police/public. Both York and London had full permission from the police for both the route and nudity. We contributed 4 of the 54 rides worldwide this year. Next year's ride in London will be on Saturday the 9th of June. Hope to see some of you there exercising your legal right to photography in public (but naturally behaving in a courteous and reasonable manner toward riders, and asking before taking close-up photos).

http://www.worldnakedbikeride.org

Cheers, Jesse (from the London Ride Planning Collective)

"...Because, rights or not, that sort of lack of respect for someone would earn you a fair covering of gravel rash from me..."....of one thing you can always be sure. Those that initiate physical force, or threaten the use of physical force, to another human being, are definitely not concerned with freedom and rights. That is the basis of what freedom is all about. The protection against the threat or initiation of physical force upon another human being for exercising their rights.

Actually, there are two things that always give away the freedom hating person........intiation (or threat) of physical force and/or any attempt to prohibit the flow of information, be it written, spoken or visual.

Somebody above is not doing too well on either account....IMHO.

I thought it was clear that Col was speculating about what he might do if a photographer wouldn't leave him alone after being asked. He never said that this was how riders enforcing the ride photo policy should behave. We all have our snapping point, and I think he was saying that an unrelenting and disrespectful photographer would be enough to enrage him. This seems pretty normal behaviour to me. Lots of celebrities snap on photographers (and as has been pointed out, you can be prosecuted for assault for physically attacking someone). I'm sure each of us can think of a situation that would prompt violence in someone who is being mistreated. The thing is, the ride policy doesn't advocate humiliation or violence - and it's never resulted in either. Since we're talking about the policy, I think we should drop the discussion of what Col's personal snapping point would be.

Just to remind everyone about what he posted - "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"

Regarding respect: If I were out in public in an area where smoking is allowed, and I insisted that a smoker immediately put out his cigarette because I didn't like it, then attacked him physically because he refused to follow my demand, would the general perception be that he was the one showing me a lack of respect?

All of the arguments I've seen presented here trying to justify the policy against photography make a big issue of the photographers' lack of respect for their subjects, but they completely gloss over the lack of respect for others evident in insisting that they give up their legal right to take photos. If you are going to dismiss respect for the legal rights and desires of the photographer, why expect them to respect the "privacy" of people who are getting undressed in a public place?

...where exactly did I refer to the naked bike ride in my last comment. He implicitly (possibly even explicitly) threatened me, and I explained exactly what kind of person makes those kinds of threats.

This thread is useless anymore........you cannot stop me from taking pictures in public........that is the subject the original poster presented, and all my comments refer to that or the extension of that particular subject.....meaning, that after someone tells me to stop doing something I have the right to do.....the only way they can stop me is to threaten physical force. And Col was kind enough to prove my point for me.

take care.....

Jesse: send a message to mounty at wrandyke dot demon dot co dot uk and I will provide the details of who was harrassed and how.

Tom - I did not implicitly or explicitly threaten you. I do not believe that you would behave in a manner as I described in that scenario - most folk would have more respect than that. Likewise, I wouldn't behave in a violent manner either. The gravel rash comment was supposed to be humerous - if I was threatening violence surely I'd not used old fashioned out dated terminology like that! Gravel rash was a threat that burly northern footballers from Bolton would make to southern opponents in the early days of football.... bolton defender to the other teams striker "tha traas to git past me lad and tha'll git gravel rash..."...... The reality is that I am not a violent person, I'd much rather use the 'run like hell' option if violence is threatened! Likewise, surely you wouldn't behave in similar way to this scenario? Or would you? I suspect not. The point being that all this talk of photography policies and your 'rights' is irrelevant. If I'm wrong and you would behave like that then someone, maybe not me, but someone will give you a gravel rashing and you'll get no sympathy from me!

Quoting laws and rights shows narrow thinking to me - the law is a very fluid thing, constantly changing to suit society, and the only rights you have are the ones that have been fought for by people who often had to break the (then) current law to activate change. No doubt if you'd have lived back then you'd have opposed the changes? During the US civil rights challenges darwenism 'proved' that white people were further along the evolutionary chain than black and therefore slightly suprerior. Understanding that this was wrong would have meant thinking outside current convention, which is the whole point of things like the WNBR - to bring attention to issues that are contraversial because they are not within the confines of current convention. thinking 'outside the box' - you might disagree (which you are fully entitled to) but to think that it is wrong and the people therefore stupid.... "I don't understand it - therefore its wrong" is an attitude I notice so much when anyone voices an opinion that speaks against anyone who bring an issue that is outside current convention. Maybe in some ways I'm guilty of the same - I don't understand this intolerance - therefore I think its wrong.....? I'll mull over that!!!

I'll leave you guys to it - you obviously are not going to talk about the issue, just find points to disagree with. I'll leave you to it.

Big up the naked riders - well done guys and gals I for one am glad that there are folk willing to take the flack and go and do things like this.

It's interesting that you bring up the issue of civil rights. I don't think anyone has presented any kind of argument why people in public should have a right to determine whether or not they are photographed other than the personal discomfort of the person being photographed. I think there's a very strong moral basis and argument to be made against having laws and policies which discriminate against people because of their race; I don't see a very strong moral basis or argument for granting people the right to prohibit others from doing things that make them uncomfortable. Think of the repercussions of granting such a right.

Suppose a minority family wanted to move into a white neighborhood. Should the families living there already have a right to prohibit the minority family from moving in because they are uncomfortable with the idea (and not simply because they are racist--they might have concerns about falling property values, increasing racial tensions among their other neighbors, etc)? Does the minority family demonstrate a lack of respect for their new neighbors by moving in despite their objections? Would the minority family "get no sympathy" from you if someone decided to throw rocks through their windows (or worse)?

Re "Quoting laws and rights shows narrow thinking to me": Dismissing laws or rights when they conflict with your personal opinions or desires is hardly a sign of open mindedness. Consider the basis and rationale for those laws and rights, and consider the implications of changing those laws and rights to suit your preferences.

Ah - I did say I'd leave you all to it, but at last a reasonable debate unfolds...! To answer your last point first, quoting laws and rights does not equate to narrow mindedness, but proping up an argument with nothing but rights and laws quoted, with no offer of discussion because there is nothing to discuss (after all - its a law and a right....) is pretty narrow minded.

However, that obviously does not include you!

Although I don't entirely like it I think the law concerning photography of people in public places should remain as it is. Its a shame that 'common sense' judgements cannot be made in the law - it would be nice if it would work but obviously it would be far to abmiguous in relaity. I think its important that people can capture on film moments and events in public life, often this is important to civil liberties. However, the policy in question does not attempt to change the law, and the organisers of the ride recognise that it is not something that cannot be upheld by the law. It seems to me to be more along the lines of building into the outline of the ride something that relies on common sense. Like I said, as far as I could see in the DVD the streets of london were lined with members of the public snapping away as the ride went past, and no one had any problems with this.

Do you suggest that they simply should not have a policy on photography? Most of the riders would not want to ride if their nudity was presented in a creepy, lewd or pornographic way. Oil dependancy aside, nudity like this tries to challenge societies values of nudity representing sexuality and somehow being depraved. (to make a comment such as "if they are stupid enough to go naked in public then what do they expect" only shows an unwillingness to even attempt to understand the thinking behind the ride - not that you said that Mike, but is had been said here.)

Obviously it is impossible to prevent this, especially in the light of the photography rights within the law, but I would have thought that for the WNBR it would be necessary to include in the policies something about photography.

Initially the issue of civil liberties and rights and the law was brought up, then it was pointed out that this policy is not enforcable by law, and therefore I say that it is not the same issue. I cannot understand why it has upset so many of you so much, but maybe that is my ignorance to your subject?

If you had been there and wanted to photograph you'd have gotten as many shots as you'd have liked I'm sure.

Finally, although I do appreciate that someone has finally made a debate of this issue, I do think your example is not exactly relevant! It is a little strange to talk of someones discomfort being photographed and to make an analogy of racial discrimination. The only link is the word 'discomfort' and therefore I'd say that this link is fairly weak.... But, I do see the point you are trying to make and can think of lots of other scenario's where someone's 'discomfort' would be no basis for a change in the law.

Happy snapping!

Col.

"...Do you suggest that they simply should not have a policy on photography? Most of the riders would not want to ride if their nudity was presented in a creepy, lewd or pornographic way..."

You are still the one that doesn't understand all this. I have the right to take any picture of any person in a public place. That is law.......that is fact.....and actually, that is common sense. Now, to your comment i copied above............that scenario has absolutely nothing to do with TAKING the picture. It has to do with what is done with the picture afterwards. And that is an extremely important thing to seperate from the taking of the pic. And each has to be dealt with completely separately. And that is also a law..........libel laws to be exact. If I take the picture and present it as news, or as it is with no words attached to it....not title, no headline..........then the picture speaks for itself and the viewer's interpretation of it is whatever they get out of it. And I have not made any libel statements. However, if I make the title or the headline or somehow imply lewdness to the picture, then and only then am I infringing upon another's rights. And yes, I would be wrong. Just because I take the picture, you cannot impose to read my thoughts and say I will do harm with the picture. Only after I actually commit libel, can you do something about it.

And I am far from narrowminded..........I just actually know how to differentiate seperate actions and put them in their proper perspective.

Do you suggest that they simply should not have a policy on photography?
It is not your place to impose any policy on others. As Tom said, you still don't get it.

Finally, although I do appreciate that someone has finally made a debate of this issue,
Huh??? There is no debate here. The law is very clear.

Most of the riders would not want to ride if their nudity was presented in a creepy, lewd or pornographic way.<
Fortunately, people can choose not to participate in the ride, if they feel uncomfortable.

I cannot understand why it has upset so many of you so much, but maybe that is my ignorance to your subject?
Hardly upset. - more amused by your tiny rants.

aha! at last tom makes a decent argument! :-) Point well made tom, and you are right in your explanation there of the differences in presenting the pics and how libel comes into it. Taking the pic and presenting it are two different actions. In speaking of problems in the way the photo's are 'presented' I was wrong to say what I did. Please allow me to re-word it following your clafification! The 'policy' is (or seems to me to be) more to do with innapropriate behaviour of some people taking the pics - trying to seperate a lone woman from the crowd, extreme close-ups etc. Innapropriate ways to behave and considering this makes the policy justified in my opinion.

Remember that this policy in no way threatens your rights as it cannot be enforced by the law and, as I have said too many times, on the footage of the ride it looked like hundreds of pics were taken with no complaints.

Have you no sympathy or even just understanding for the reasons that this policy was made? I'm not asking this in an 'incredulous' tone of voice, its a genuine question. Cheers, Col.

"Do you suggest that they simply should not have a policy on photography?"

Of course. Did it take this whole thread for it to just sink in?

Isn't public nudity illegal? And you expect to use a self concocted illegal photography policy to support the "comfort" of a gender that would naturally in your society be focused on during this kind of illegal activity?

Brad, it ain't my policy, and can I ask you why its such a threat to you? 'impose a policy on you' - as has been pointed out they cannot impose the policy on you. Debate? the only reason you can't see the debate is that you can't see the debate........

I only wish my world was as clear-cut, black and white as yours obviously is.

Not upset? then whats all this about then - it all started because you lot were getting upset! Its been quite entertaining. :-D

However, I really have not got time for you wierdo's and anoraks, you've heard my piece and you know I'm right, I'll leave for pastures new and go enlighten some other poor misguided souls.

Happy snapping but you'd better ask me before taking my pic or it'll be gravel rash...... ;-)

However, I really have not got time for you wierdo's and anoraks, you've heard my piece and you know I'm right

Oh how you flatter yourself. Of course when you run out of gas and have to resort to insults...

What the policy does is encourage people to intervene in legal (non-violent) ways in order to discourage and stop problem photographers. It is not legally binding in any way.

Do you have a problem with this?

Here's an analogy of how the policy or rule functions - It is like saying we'll play a game of soccer/football and you can't wear metal cleats on your shoes. If someone insists on playing with metal cleats they are asked to leave the game. There is no legal power for them to be removed from the game, but people normally turn to the law to resolve things as a last resort. When someone doesn't agree to play by the rules of a group event, then I think people should intervene.

Here's another soccer/football example. A non-professional team is playing in a public park. By your logic, it's fine for any photographer to go onto the playing area of the non-professional soccer/football match in order to take photos REGARDLESS of what the players, coaches, supporters say. Although it's disruptive to the occasion and puts people into a bad mood, the photographer has a legal right to take photos, and people shouldn't be such complainers because this freedom is more important than the non-professional game.

Would you say that just because something is legal, it is necessarily right and deserves support. We drew up the policy in order to make it clear what we feel is the right behaviour for the event. This was necessary because people don't encounter public nudity often, and it's not always clear to the public what behaviour is appropriate to the occasion.

So, I'd really like to know the answer to my question above -

Do you have a problem with our policy as I've described it in the first paragraph?

Eric- as to the legality of public nudity, it varies widely from region to region. It is actually legal in England but it isn't so clearly legal in Scotland. In Burlington, VT and Manchester, England police were quoted as saying that it was legal. Police fully approved the conditions of the event in London (including filling out all the paperwork and sending along 15 officers to assist us). They were absolutely clear that "nudity in itself is not an offence in England". Brighton claimed that nudity on the ride would constitute a violation of the Public Order Act section 5 (section 1 is rioting, section 2 is affray, etc) - it is doubtful that this legislation would have succeeded in court, but riders did make token effort to cover themselves in the hope that next year the police would be more cooperative.

More info on legality of nudity in England is at - http://www.worldnakedbikeride.org/uk/faq/

Cheers, Jesse

As I pointed out in one of my earlier posts, resolving the "problem" is a simple matter of holding up a few sheets to provide a measure of privacy to people undressing. It doesn't infringe on anyones rights--people still have the freedom to photograph what is in plain sight. However, it doesn't give the same sense of power as you'd get from having a policy that tells people to surrender their rights, and it doesn't lead to the same sanctimonious self-satisfaction one might get from labeling people who ignore the policy "perverts." Why the emphasis on enforcing a policy that infringes the rights of others when there are simple, more-effective, non-confrontational means of dealing with the problem?

Regarding the football analogies: The first case fails on several counts. Participating in a game always involves accepting a set of mostly-arbitrary rules, and there's a reasonable argument for disallowing metal cleats because they cause an unacceptable increase in the risk of serious injury. But the photographers at the ride are more like spectators than participants at a football match. Are spectators at the football match not allowed to wear metal cleats?

The second case, as presented, has very little in common with the ride's photography policy. Are photographers standing in the path of riders in a manner that is causing danger to themselves and the riders? Are photographers at the football match prohibited from taking photos of players warming up or on the sidelines? Should photographers at the match be required to ask permission of each player before photographing him?

"Col Loc , jun 13, 2006; 07:05 p.m.

Happy snapping but you'd better ask me before taking my pic or it'll be gravel rash...... "

You ain't big enough in mind, or body....... ;-)

Jesse,

"Do you have a problem with our policy as I've described it in the first paragraph?"

I have every sympathy with your wish for privacy and if it was my wife/daughter getting the attention I would have something to say. However, they would also receive my criticism for putting themselves in that situation without due care.

However, I would not call on a wider group to impose my wishes and would rely on the police to stop undue interference.

As for your Policy, it can only apply to members of your own group and anybody else who wants to participate. It cannot apply to 'the public'. Your encouragement to call on other participants to enforce your policy is fundamentally wrong and threatening. I recognise that the intent is only to apply it in the extreme, but I still think 'the Policy' is out of order.

The Policy followed by the likes of Col and her stupid threatening behaviour will do your cause a lot of damage.

:-)

Bunch of self-obsessed public willy wagglers who did not have the sense to realise they were competing for attention with England's first match of the World Cup finals on the same afternoon! Decision.. "do we go and watch a few beardy old eco-warriors get nekked on bikes or watch the footy?" Hmmm.

Load of old bollocks. Literally.

Do you suppose, Trevor, that the naked riders and the soccer players were competing for the same "fan base" ? :)

I wish the naked riders had had the full attention of the England soccer fanbase. ("We interrupt this match to bring you live footage of some naked weirdos on bikes in London instead.") Lets see them threaten that lot with 'gravel rash'.

Sorry for the long message. This thread was very interesting. People seem to be obsessed with the legality of the policy. The statement was made up front, it isn�t legally binding. Take you pics, you will not be stopped.

Let me start by saying that, from what I saw, most riders had a great time. Many of the men and women there enjoyed the attention they were getting. These were easily identified by the fact that when they saw a camera, they stood up, smiled and spread their arms wide to ensure you got a good pic.

There were a few that were clearly distraught by the attention they were getting. People took photographs of their partially or fully naked bodies. These were perhaps the ones that deserve our respect most. They were not comfortable being naked, but felt they could make a statement by exposing themselves for a cause. They truly believed and were willing to expose themselves to embarrassment. I must applaud them.

I think an interesting argument that has not been raised is the fact that these people were engaged in a political protest. They chose to attract attention to their cause by riding or skating in a fashion intended to shock. The logic being this; If I stand up on the street corner and shout a message, no one will listen. If I take my clothes off and shout the message, they will come to look at my body. If they want to look at my body, they have to get close enough to hear my message. Their nakedness IS an integral part of their political message. If I choose to photograph the participants, I am forced to recall the message they were trying to convey. If I show the photo to a friend, I probably need to explain WHY this person was sitting, butt naked, on a bicycle. So, is not the photographer actually helping spread the protester�s message?

As for use, if I took one of these photos and posted it on the bulletin board at the office with a subtitle �SLUT� then I have truly maligned the individual, and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Would I obey these rules? That depends. Could someone define �Close-up?� Were they intending that I shouldn�t walk up to a woman and photograph a single breast, or I should get close enough to see their faces? If the definition is the former, then yes. If it was the latter, then no.

My favorite photo from the day was of a completely naked, very attractive woman, posing with two young Japanese girls. The girls were thrilled to have their picture taken with the naked woman, and the naked woman was truly comfortable enough with her body to pose with them. It was the coolest thing, and no one minded the photographers taking the pictures.

As a long standing photographer of many years experience in London UK I feel like adding some observations to this debate.:The policy on photography in fraught situations in the UK has never been black or white.For instance in the 1970s Police routinely would seize onlookers cameras in Kings Road Punk demos open the backs on the pretext of searching them,rip out the film and chuck it.Dont know if this was "nice"or "legal"?But as far as I know complaints were not effective.In those days to photograph something like that was still fairly rare for an ordinary Joe and considered a bit "odd".Also most cameras accessible to teens/ordinary folks were absolute garbage.Many wouldnt take pictures below 2.0 F!We talk here os Kodak instamatics and the like.One of the reasons that public photography is becoming a huge issue is because 1)Cheap Digi Cams with huge ranges make everyone and his dog equipped for surveillance very cheaply and easily.2)In the UK the Govt started it with all their CCTV cams.Digi cams and mobile phone cams are the citizens CCTV.3)The camera is a potent weapon as long as the photos are accepted ina court of law.4)Increasingly in the UK although its technically legal to photo people in public places the law is being directed in petty ways to discourage public photgraphy.Hence cases of peeping toms featuring prominently on the national news.Many of these are very trivial and open to questionable interpretation-is a camera on a stairway 4cm under a skirt hem"voyeurism"?Does a woman have right not to expect "creeps and pervs"looking up her 18"micro suede mini skirt?What is in denial here is (male)human sexuality.The male human responds to the sight of a naked female appropriately,erection,urge to mount,leer,that is because the sight of a pretty naked female is hypnotising and beautiful even in wickedly so.What these people(Cyclists) are expecting is males will deny this heterosexuality and self censor themselves(ie not take photos)and they are trying to make the point in their confused fuzzy logic sort of way that lechery is wrong or morally questionable.They are right.But do they need to strip off and wiggle their bits in peoples faces to prove it?Their hatred and absolute paranoia of what they call "creeps and perverts"is truly narrow minded.No love here.These are the "no single males","lynch and castrate"brigade on their bikes!I do not think these folks really believe they will not be photographed.I think they are just bored and play this little game for something to do and something to carp about "oooo look theres a perv behind that wall-get them!!!!"In a way they are acting decoy to encourage "pervs""out"from their "hiding places"so they can confront them in public.For pervs are sneaky and they cannot be recognised any other way perhaps?To conclude you cannot have a nude bike ride and no "voyeurs",male erections and peeping.Its a lost cause like King Canute trying to stop the tide!

That last post... I disagree with it, but I'm truly speechless. The photo policy has worked well in the last two years and cut down the number of problematic incidents that didn't resolve well to just 3 that we've heard of (even though there were 250 riders in 2005 and 800 in 2006). The photographs on the internet show happy riders who aren't upset, so I think the policy worked well. We welcome all photographers who have good behaviour. It's a wonderfully photogenic event! In spite of criticism on this board, we'll continue with the policy, but there are slight updates as you can see:

(link)

Well Herre Jesse Schust,All I can say is that because of your use of the words "pervert","creep"and characterisation sinsisterly of normal healthy adult males indulging in a bit of private thought fantasy and harmless self stimulation I have been put right off your ride!I did have initial sympathy for it.The ride so far has not had any trouble but riding through the largest city in Europe naked might spark some from less well educated amongst the bystanders eg.violent closet homosexual aggressors,true mental nutcases,batty women with umbrellas et al.The whole thing has the makings of sparks of conflict.Additionally one otehr very important point.I was reading an old interview with Stengl-the 70 year old Concentration Commander of Treblinka before he died.In it he states how when watching the crowds of naked prisoners being herded to the gas chambers he perceived them as non humans due to their nakedness and lost all empathy consequently.Both naked men and women were herded,not on bicycles granted,up a "tube(tunnel)"with whips to the gas chamber area.The nakedness allowed the guards to regard them as "non-human".Could not the same feeling be sparked in clothed onlookers of your followers?If trouble did break out and say a nudie was attacked would the clothed(textiles as I believe they are called)photographers and bystanders come to the nudies aid or just stand and gawp?You might well want to ponder this question as its a very good one.the nakedness creates an us and them.Are you not bringing down public esteem for the participants to the point where they just cut off from the nude "freaks"or treat them as chimpanzees ina circus?Eh?