It is quite common to hear about small cameras that some cyclists and also car drivers use to record the surrounding traffic. In case of a road accident or otherwise very blatant violation of the road traffic code, they expect such a video to be part of the evidence.

However I also heard that because of the new privacy laws basically no cameras are allowed on public places.

How to these approaches agree? Are these safety recording cameras just a violation or can they be used if solely for the accident reporting?

If this is something country specific, Switzerland is the most interesting but EU in general would probably substitute.

  • 2
    "...I also heard that because of the new privacy laws..." What laws? Cite them. Commented Dec 23, 2021 at 16:18
  • 1
    Does this answer your question? What are the legal repercussions of taking a stranger's picture in public? Commented Dec 23, 2021 at 16:20
  • 3
    What new laws? Cite them. Commented Dec 23, 2021 at 17:15
  • 1
    Do not really understand why "can I legally put camera on my bicycle" needs more details for clarity.
    – Stančikas
    Commented Dec 24, 2021 at 9:28
  • 2
    This seems perfectly clear to me. I am voting to reopen and urge others to do likewise. Commented Dec 24, 2021 at 16:17

2 Answers 2


Looks like these cameras are legal:

If a dash cam is installed (e. g. for the purpose of collecting evidence in case of an accident), it is important to ensure that this camera is not constantly recording traffic, as well as persons who are near a road.

This source, page 10. I assume, "constantly" means you cannot leave it recording round the clock on a parked bicycle, and the records must be retained no longer than is needed for the specified purpose.

  • A camera that would delete everything older than ten minutes unless an accident is detected or user input specifically commands retention (e.g. press a button to keep and not delete the past, say, 10 minutes of video). Something based on this principle is probably the safest bet.
    – kisspuska
    Commented Dec 26, 2021 at 2:06

“Privacy” laws became so strict a few years ago that you are required to obtain consent of all parties who are not public figures (or all non-public-figure parties who may be identified) to take photo, including video, and/or audio record of generally anywhere or everywhere — there may be exceptions to this rule.

In reality, this law governmentally is only enforced to the extent that it prevents the public from, for e.g., taking evidence of police misconduct, although a private person may start civil and/or criminal litigation in his or her own capacity (or by legal representation) against one in violation.

“According to the Civil Code and the judicial practice, as a general rule, the consent of the person concerned is required for both the taking and the use of images and audio recordings of the person concerned.

Consent can be either explicit, i.e. written consent, or implied. An example of an implied conduct related to the taking of an image or recording is where the data subject knows that a recording is being or may be made in the room he or she enters.” (BDT 2011. 2550) (http://www.jgypk.hu/tamop13e/tananyag_html/jogialapismeretek/18_szemlyisgi_jogok.html Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

  • Source would be needed for the claim that extreme.
    – Stančikas
    Commented Jan 31, 2022 at 17:25
  • Added secondary source from a law school summarizing the state of judicial practice.
    – kisspuska
    Commented Jan 31, 2022 at 21:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .