This is an interesting thing. I used to get a lot of speeding tickets.
Then suddenly I stopped getting them. I could not figure out why.
Finally I realized I had gotten married and my wife was in the car with
me on most long trips. With two of us in the car it was not as easy to
get a conviction if we went to court. While the cop would normally be
believed above the driver, when there were two people saying he was
lying it would more likely be believed. BTW, all those tickets were in
Michigan (24+ years back) the radar the cops were using there back then
displayed 72mph when you hit the calibrate button. In every case they
said I was doing 72mph, but would write me up for 70 (pre double nickel
speed limit) so there would be no points on my license (and incidently
making it hard for me to prove they had hit the calibrate button). As
with most folks it was cheaper to pay the fine than fight it anyway.
Anyway the point here is that when it is more than one persons word
against the officer's, he just is not likely to approach you if there is
not a real violation going on, and if there is he will most likely call
for backup before he does.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
Glen wrote:
At 10:23 AM 10/26/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seeing these pics from the SF outing has led me to a thought. I
believe it's easier to take pictures of people in public places when
you're accompanied by at least one other photographer. To
oversimplify and exaggerate: Being part of a group taking photos
means you're on a photo outing or you're doing this for some
particular reason, therefore you're not just a pervert:-). Seriously,
at least as part of a group you have the psychological support of
others being intrusive right along with you. Perhaps it wouldn't work
that way for everyone. But I find that it works that way for me.
I agree with you. Having other photographers along does make things
easier. Heck, just having another _person_ with you makes things
easier, whether the other person has a camera or not.
In addition to the thinking you outlined above, there are a couple
other potential factors at work here:
1)
For members of the general public, it takes more nerve to confront and
harass a group of photographers, than to harass a single photographer.
Even if they think the photographers are being intrusive, they will be
less likely to confront a group than an individual.
2)
The more photographers that people see in a given location, the more
of a "common" sight it is. People tend to associate "common" with
"normal", and "normal" with "safe" or "acceptable." This isn't always
a valid association, but it does happen.
I believe that even many police officers would treat a group of
photographers somewhat differently than they would treat a single
photographer.
It seems that most people mistakenly assume that all perverts and
troublemakers are "loners". How many times have you heard an FBI
criminal profile that described a wanted person as a "loner" - vs. -
"a social butterfly, and the life of the party"? :)
Just because you are by yourself, and the only person taking pictures,
this automatically makes you "strange" in the minds of some people. It
isn't fair and it isn't logical, but as someone on this list recently
said, the paranoid have no need of logic. ;)
take care,
Glen
