# Cycling Mikey and third party reporting



## Arjimlad (5 Jan 2022)

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...rs-mike-van-erp-motorists-britain-roads-safer

I thought this was a good article, well it's by Peter Walker who is very pro-cycling. Mike explains his reasons & motivation very clearly. See it, report it. Simple.


----------



## fossyant (5 Jan 2022)

He's wearing jeans on a bike, oh he must be 'ard'.


----------



## Boopop (5 Jan 2022)

I like what he does with footage but he called me delicate on twitter for calling his friend out for telling @tricyclemayor to "f##k off". Shortly after that he blocked me, which I found rather ironic given he'd said I was delicate.

@tricyclemayor's an expert in the field, and I don't think we should be telling fellow cycling advocates to "f##k off", no matter how unpalatable their views may be. Harry's got mobility issues and she was accusing someone else of being ableist. I didn't necessarily agree with her but she has a different lived experience to me so I would hope that even if we disagreed with each other we could treat one another with respect.

Sorry for hijacking the thread a bit, it's just at this point I see CyclingMikey and think "well perhaps he's not perfect". Admittedly no-one is mind. I wouldn't tell him to f##k off


----------



## Arjimlad (5 Jan 2022)

Boopop said:


> I like what he does with footage but he called me delicate on twitter for calling his friend out for telling @tricyclemayor to "f##k off". Shortly after that he blocked me, which I found rather ironic given he'd said I was delicate.
> 
> @tricyclemayor's an expert in the field, and I don't think we should be telling fellow cycling advocates to "f##k off", no matter how unpalatable their views may be. Harry's got mobility issues and she was accusing someone else of being ableist. I didn't necessarily agree with her but she has a different lived experience to me so I would hope that even if we disagreed with each other we could treat one another with respect.
> 
> Sorry for hijacking the thread a bit, it's just at this point I see CyclingMikey and think "well perhaps he's not perfect". Admittedly no-one is mind. I wouldn't tell him to f##k off


That's not great. @tricyclemayor is a great Twitter account


----------



## Boopop (5 Jan 2022)

Arjimlad said:


> That's not great. @tricyclemayor is a great Twitter account


I know right! She's lovely and I love reading her insights.


----------



## Cycleops (5 Jan 2022)

Watch his videos on YouTube, very entertaining besides anything else. I believe he used to be on here.


----------



## ianrauk (5 Jan 2022)

Cycleops said:


> Watch his videos on YouTube, very entertaining besides anything else. I believe he used to be on here.


He did. Left the forum a couple of years before you joined. 
Good chap is our Mike.


----------



## Slick (5 Jan 2022)

Yeah, nice to get a genuinely positive response for a change.


----------



## Drago (5 Jan 2022)

I don't habe problem with him filming and grassing. They all deserve it, so the more the merrier.

I don't agree with his need to verbally confront the wrong doers. It gains him nothing, so why bother? He's already touched upon his feeling of powerlessness, and this behaviour smacks of a psychological weakness, a need and desire to dominate, to be on top. It's an unattractive trait and to a moderate degree detracts from his good work by turning away those who might otherwise heartily agree with the excellent camera work and diligent grassing.

Imagine how sheety a place the world would be if everyone who felt powerless spoke so condescendingly to everyone they met.


----------



## Slick (5 Jan 2022)

Drago said:


> I don't habe problem with him filming and grassing. They all deserve it, so the more the merrier.
> 
> I don't agree with his need to verbally confront the wrong doers. It gains him nothing, so why bother? He's already touched upon his feeling of powerlessness, and this behaviour smacks of a psychological weakness, a need and desire to dominate, to be on top. It's an unattractive trait and to a moderate degree detracts from his good work by turning away those who might otherwise heartily agree with the excellent camera work and diligent grassing.
> 
> Imagine how sheety a place the world would be if everyone who felt powerless spoke so condescendingly to everyone they met.


I'm no expert but from what I've seen its him reacting to total nobbers who just can't accept that they do not have the divine right to flout the laws of the land and put people in danger as they simply must answer that phone or get to that next set of lights 10 seconds earlier than they would have if they just had a modicum of patience. I really don't see it as condescending but I've seen a few who fet irate because he obviously isn't afraid of their idle threats.


----------



## figbat (6 Jan 2022)

Not sure of his motivation for confrontation rather than simply gathering evidence candidly and submitting for review. Perhaps it is more to do with a desire to not only catch but also educate, given his personal experience. However as is proven, the type of person getting caught is often not the type of person to be apologetic or submissive, thus leading to watchable video content.


----------



## Alex321 (6 Jan 2022)

Drago said:


> I don't habe problem with him filming and grassing. They all deserve it, so the more the merrier.
> 
> I don't agree with his need to verbally confront the wrong doers. It gains him nothing, so why bother? He's already touched upon his feeling of powerlessness, and this behaviour smacks of a psychological weakness, a need and desire to dominate, to be on top. It's an unattractive trait and to a moderate degree detracts from his good work by turning away those who might otherwise heartily agree with the excellent camera work and diligent grassing.
> 
> Imagine how sheety a place the world would be if everyone who felt powerless spoke so condescendingly to everyone they met.


Not only that, but despite him claiming not be a vigilante, that is exactly what him blocking and confronting those drivers is.

As I've said before, I absolutely think him videoing and reporting is a very good thing. But I don't agree with his direct action.


----------



## Cycleops (6 Jan 2022)

I think it’s worth reprising his videos. This is one of his very best when the entitled merc driver gets instant karma. Enjoy.


View: https://youtu.be/aA4Nw4sDT4U


----------



## the snail (6 Jan 2022)

Alex321 said:


> Not only that, but despite him claiming not be a vigilante, that is exactly what him blocking and confronting those drivers is.
> 
> As I've said before, I absolutely think him videoing and reporting is a very good thing. But I don't agree with his direct action.


He's not a vigilante. A vigilante sets themselves up as policeman, judge and executioner. He's not punishing anybody, or attacking them. He just confronts bad drivers and stands his ground, in a remarkably calm if slightly passive-agressive way. The likes of the mercedes driver are self-entitled bullies, who think the law doesn't apply to them, who behave like they do because they think their behaviour won't be challenged. If he were in Germany, where people expect others to obey the law, his behaviour would be the norm. If it was a mugger he confronted, no-one would think he was a vigilante. Personally, I'd give him an OBE.


----------



## fossyant (6 Jan 2022)

Drago said:


> Imagine how sheety a place the world would be if everyone who felt powerless spoke so condescendingly to everyone they met.



That perfectly describes 99.0% of cycling helmet camera wearers, unfortunately.


----------



## Alex321 (6 Jan 2022)

the snail said:


> He's not a vigilante. A vigilante sets themselves up as policeman, judge and executioner. He's not punishing anybody, or attacking them. He just confronts bad drivers and stands his ground, in a remarkably calm if slightly passive-agressive way. The likes of the mercedes driver are self-entitled bullies, who think the law doesn't apply to them, who behave like they do because they think their behaviour won't be challenged. If he were in Germany, where people expect others to obey the law, his behaviour would be the norm. If it was a mugger he confronted, no-one would think he was a vigilante. Personally, I'd give him an OBE.


_vigilante_
_noun [ C ]

UK 

/ˌvɪdʒ.ɪˈlæn.ti/ US 

/ˌvɪdʒ.əˈlæn.t̬i/
_
*a person who tries in an unofficial way to prevent crime*, or to catch and punish someone who has committed a crime

That completely describes what he is doing when he moves in front of somebody to block them from illegally going the wrong side of the traffic island. He is absolutely acting as a vigilante.


----------



## the snail (6 Jan 2022)

Alex321 said:


> _vigilante_
> _noun [ C ]
> 
> UK _
> ...


Well I don't have a problem with citizens trying to prevent crime, and he's acting perfectly reasonably and within the law. The mercedes driver is breaking the law and putting other road users in danger, challenging that behaviour is perfectly justified imo.


----------



## fossyant (6 Jan 2022)

Alex321 said:


> That completely describes what he is doing when he moves in front of somebody to block them from illegally going the wrong side of the traffic island. He is absolutely acting as a vigilante.



I don't actually mind those ones - you can see how dangerous the drivers are at that junction. Thing is, there are that many loons who will just not admit they are wrong. The number he get that start a full on argument for many minutes, and block the road for others.


----------



## mjr (6 Jan 2022)

fossyant said:


> That perfectly describes 99.0% of cycling helmet camera wearers, unfortunately.


99% of those who seek publicity, maybe. There are a hell of a lot of people with those little rubber cube cameras, or non-helmet bike light cameras, who never get in arguments with those they report, never attract press attention like this and never publish their footage themselves.

With all the cameras sold by supermarkets now, there must be thousands if not millions of bike cameras in use now. No way 99% of them are speaking to bad drivers, else every town would see arguments every day.

All power to Mikey but big love to the quiet camera operators and reporters too.


----------



## Alex321 (6 Jan 2022)

the snail said:


> Well I don't have a problem with citizens trying to prevent crime, and he's acting perfectly reasonably and within the law. The mercedes driver is breaking the law and putting other road users in danger, challenging that behaviour is perfectly justified imo.


Actually, while the drivers are most certainly breaking the law, I'm not at all sure he is acting within it either.

He is deliberately causing an obstruction, regardless of whether it is legal for the vehicle he is standing in front of to go that way. And what about vehicles trying to legally turn into that road from the other direction - they are blocked as well for as long as he stands there.

Videoing them and reporting to the police is absolutely a very good thing for him to be doing. But taking enforcement into his own hands, I'm not at all sure about.

And it isn't just him "standing his ground" - he wouldn't be in that space at all unless trying to deliberately block them.



fossyant said:


> I don't actually mind those ones - you can see how dangerous the drivers are at that junction. Thing is, there are that many loons who will just not admit they are wrong. The number he get that start a full on argument for many minutes, *and block the road for others*.



I fully agree that those drivers are acting very dangerously, and should absolutely be reported for it. But the last thing you say above is important - if it weren't for his actions, they wouldn't *be* blocking the road for others.


----------



## the snail (6 Jan 2022)

Alex321 said:


> He is deliberately causing an obstruction..


No, the mercedes driver is causing the obstruction. A friend of mine was prosecuted once in a similar situation - he was in a queue of traffic and pulled onto the rh lane to turn right. Another driver took exception and blocked his path. I think my friend ended up with points on his licence.


----------



## Alex321 (6 Jan 2022)

the snail said:


> No, the mercedes driver is causing the obstruction.



Those things are not mutually exclusive. There is no doubt whatsoever that if Mikey had not blocked the driver from continuing (it isn't all Mercedes drivers, so I don't know why you keep specifying that), there would have been no obstruction.

Mikey is deliberately blocking the road. That is causing an obstruction. The driver, by refusing to back up and join the correct queue of traffic is *also* causing an obstruction.



the snail said:


> A friend of mine was prosecuted once in a similar situation - he was in a queue of traffic and pulled onto the rh lane to turn right. Another driver took exception and blocked his path. I think my friend ended up with points on his licence.



As he should. But that doesn't mean the other driver was acting legally.

And if the other driver was not acting legally, that doesn't necessarily mean he will be prosecuted - the police have discretion in who they give FP tickets to, and if it goes beyond FP, they have discretion in who they report to the CPS, and the CPS have discretion in who gets prosecuted.


----------



## Arjimlad (6 Jan 2022)

If I were emerging from that junction on my bike, looking to my right, I would be mighty glad of Mikey or anyone blocking the dangerous clot who has decided to break the law and speed around the wrong side of a keep left bollard into my path.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (6 Jan 2022)

I look both ways when at junctions


----------



## figbat (6 Jan 2022)

Arjimlad said:


> If I were emerging from that junction on my bike, looking to my right, I would be mighty glad of Mikey or anyone blocking the dangerous clot who has decided to break the law and speed around the wrong side of a keep left bollard into my path.


Me too as a fail-safe, but my mantra when on the road is to check all possible angles of attack, not just the allowed ones. Just because someone shouldn’t do something, doesn’t mean they can’t. I will always, for example, check for vehicles emerging from a junction against a red light, or a No Entry sign, or whatever - at Gandalf Corner I would check both ways before emerging to clear the possibility of a someone flouting the ‘keep left’ sign.


----------



## Arrowfoot (6 Jan 2022)

We all seem to be glad that he is doing it and are thankful but it will be a different story if it was our son or daughter. We will seek help from a psychologist or a psychiatrist as we know there is an issue.

Civic mindedness can be a in many forms such as helping out in a shelter, retirement home, clearing litter in a park etc. But this is not it. We can help him by referring him to a health professional.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (6 Jan 2022)

figbat said:


> Me too as a fail-safe, but my mantra when on the road is to check all possible angles of attack, not just the allowed ones. Just because someone shouldn’t do something, doesn’t mean they can’t. I will always, for example, check for vehicles emerging from a junction against a red light, or a No Entry sign, or whatever - at Gandalf Corner I would check both ways before emerging to clear the possibility of a someone flouting the ‘keep left’ sign.


Exactly this. I'm also looking out for other more vulnerable road users, like pedestrians, who may be in my path as I emerge.


----------



## T4tomo (6 Jan 2022)

Bonefish Blues said:


> I look both ways when at junctions


Indeed, I pulled my daughter up on this very early on when teaching her to drive as I said she'd have failed for failing to look left when turning left at a T junction. she questioned it on the "I only need to check for traffic from the right" grounds. Ahha says wise dad, but what about over taking vehicles coming from that direction on your side, crossing pedestrians a mother duck and ducklings on a sit down protest....always good to look where you are going.

I pretty much agree with @Alex321 Mikeys heart & motivation is in the right place and I admire him for that, but the way he goes about it is a bit knobbish at times.


----------



## mjr (6 Jan 2022)

T4tomo said:


> Indeed, I pulled my daughter up on this very early on when teaching her to drive as I said she'd have failed for failing to look left when turning left at a T junction. she questioned it on the "I only need to check for traffic from the right" grounds. Ahha says wise dad, but what about over taking vehicles coming from that direction on your side, crossing pedestrians a mother duck and ducklings on a sit down protest....always good to look where you are going.


A more likely legitimate reason (at least around here, on an arterial road out of the town with the fire stations, police station and hospital) for a vehicle ignoring a keep-left or no-entry is an emergency vehicle on a blue-light run.

I've seen a couple of ambulance-car collision aftermaths where it's looked like there was little the ambulance driver could have done to avoid it without plodding slowly in the queue of heavy traffic and it should have been fine if the car driver had looked as required before pulling out, or even listened for the siren.


----------



## Arjimlad (6 Jan 2022)

figbat said:


> Me too as a fail-safe, but my mantra when on the road is to check all possible angles of attack, not just the allowed ones. Just because someone shouldn’t do something, doesn’t mean they can’t. I will always, for example, check for vehicles emerging from a junction against a red light, or a No Entry sign, or whatever - at Gandalf Corner I would check both ways before emerging to clear the possibility of a someone flouting the ‘keep left’ sign.


Yes, me too, but someone doing this poses a serious risk nevertheless, I would suggest. Worthy of re-education. Otherwise when will they stop/change? After or before serious injury?


----------



## matticus (6 Jan 2022)

figbat said:


> Me too as a fail-safe, but my mantra when on the road is to check all possible angles of attack, not just the allowed ones. Just because someone shouldn’t do something, doesn’t mean they can’t. I will always, for example, check for vehicles emerging from a junction against a red light, or a No Entry sign, or whatever - at Gandalf Corner I would check both ways before emerging to clear the possibility of a someone flouting the ‘keep left’ sign.


 Do you think we shouldn't stop dangerous/illegal driving, just because you're so careful that it could never affect you?


----------



## Alex321 (6 Jan 2022)

matticus said:


> Do you think we shouldn't stop dangerous/illegal driving, just because you're so careful that it could never affect you?


Nobody in this thread has suggested for one instant that we shouldn't stop dangerous driving.


----------



## Milkfloat (6 Jan 2022)

Arrowfoot said:


> We all seem to be glad that he is doing it and are thankful but it will be a different story if it was our son or daughter. We will seek help from a psychologist or a psychiatrist as we know there is an issue.
> 
> Civic mindedness can be a in many forms such as helping out in a shelter, retirement home, clearing litter in a park etc. But this is not it. We can help him by referring him to a health professional.


I disagree, were his Dad not mown down by a driver I think he would be proud. What harm is he actually doing? He is annoying/helping convict drivers who are breaking the law and sending a message to those who have not been caught that they might get caught. Whilst he might enrage dangerous drivers, they are already dangerous, he might just be educating some others. With over 35 million views his civic mindlessness is achieving a lot more than a litter pick or helping out in a shelter. Even if you disagree with all of that 35 million views is actually a very nice earner for him so perhaps no need for psychiatry.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (6 Jan 2022)

I do wonder about whether overall his impact is net positive for cyclists - sure there may be a small deterrent effect, and a few may change behaviour (or maybe be more careful when doing it?) but what may the impact have been on those many millions' view of cyclists as a group and the way they treat them as fellow road users?

I have no idea, btw, nor any way of knowing, failing doing Focus Groups or similar, just wondering out loud.


----------



## Milkfloat (6 Jan 2022)

Bonefish Blues said:


> I do wonder about whether overall his impact is net positive for cyclists - sure there may be a small deterrent effect, and a few may change behaviour (or maybe be more careful when doing it?) but what may the impact have been on those many millions' view of cyclists as a group and the way they treat them as fellow road users?
> 
> I have no idea, btw, nor any way of knowing, failing doing Focus Groups or similar, just wondering out loud.


Surely worse case they know that the cyclist may have a camera and that a prosecution may happen.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (6 Jan 2022)

Milkfloat said:


> Surely worse case they know that the cyclist may have a camera and that a prosecution may happen.


Worst case is it fuels hatred of cyclists, reinforces prejudices, and results in a less careful approach, or worse.


----------



## Milkfloat (6 Jan 2022)

Bonefish Blues said:


> Worst case is it fuels hatred of cyclists, reinforces prejudices, and results in a less careful approach, or worse.


Hate to break it to you - the subset of drivers he catches already hate cyclists.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (6 Jan 2022)

Milkfloat said:


> Hate to break it to you - the subset of drivers he catches already hate cyclists.


...and the 34-odd million other views representing a great many individuals - what's the impact there? That's the constituency that occupies my thoughts.


----------



## KnittyNorah (6 Jan 2022)

Bonefish Blues said:


> ...and the 34-odd million other views representing a great many individuals - what's the impact there? That's the constituency that occupies my thoughts.


_Anything_ that gives arrogant or feckless motorists some level of uncertainty about the possibility that dickish behaviour towards other, more vulnerable, road users _just might_ be recorded for posterity and future utilisation of said recording if anything untoward happens, is a good impact from my POV.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (6 Jan 2022)

KnittyNorah said:


> _Anything_ that gives arrogant or feckless motorists some level of uncertainty about the possibility that dickish behaviour towards other, more vulnerable, road users _just might_ be recorded for posterity and future utilisation of said recording if anything untoward happens, is a good impact from my POV.


I worry it's simply not as binary as that, that's what is exercising me.


----------



## KnittyNorah (6 Jan 2022)

Bonefish Blues said:


> I worry it's simply not as binary as that, that's what is exercising me.


It probably _isn't_ as binary as that for a (hopefully small) percentage of arrogant and feckless motorists, and it certainly isn't binary _at all _for the motorist who drives in a mentally-impaired state, whether that impairment is sourced in alcohol, drugs or illness - but there is little or nothing that an uninvolved third party, such as you or I or 'the man on the street' can do to stop that one, once they're in that condition. But for the majority of those who are what I can only refer to as 'normally' arrogant motorists, I believe that the perception of a higher chance of being 'caught' when acting carelessly around cyclists, would in many instances lead to a reduction in that type of behaviour.
I wish it were not so, but it is what it is ...


----------



## matticus (6 Jan 2022)

Bonefish Blues said:


> I do wonder about whether overall his impact is net positive for cyclists - sure there may be a small deterrent effect, and a few may change behaviour (or maybe be more careful when doing it?) but what may the impact have been on those many millions' view of cyclists as a group and the way they treat them as fellow road users?
> 
> I have no idea, btw



This is the same backwards logic that suggests we should be policing cyclists that jump red lights, cos without them, drivers would all be sooo considerate to cyclists.

I'd rather cyclists stood up for themselves.


----------



## mjr (6 Jan 2022)

Bonefish Blues said:


> ...and the 34-odd million other views representing a great many individuals - what's the impact there? That's the constituency that occupies my thoughts.


What are you thinking? That some good drivers will go "some cyclists have cameras so fark 'em, I'll left-hook them / I'll brake-test them / I'll close-pass them and dare them to shop me"??? I suggest that no good drivers will drive worse because some cyclists have cameras and report or even confront bad drivers.

I am pondering repairing my waterproof camera case and starting recording again after I was today forced to the kerb by an oncoming motorist screeching at me to "get out of the middle of the road" as she passed cars parked on her side long after I had started to, taking up pretty much all the remaining road width. Nobber.

(edited to add accentally-deleted words)


----------



## matticus (6 Jan 2022)

This is rather like 5TV showing a program called 
"Lycra Louts: a Menace on our Roads?" - note the crucial question mark. They're just wondering, you see.
Next week:
"Are all cyclists self-gratification artists? Should we slap them when they ride more than 2feet from the gutter?"


----------



## Bonefish Blues (6 Jan 2022)

matticus said:


> This is rather like 5TV showing a program called
> "Lycra Louts: a Menace on our Roads?" - note the crucial question mark. They're just wondering, you see.
> Next week:
> "Are all cyclists self-gratification artists? Should we slap them when they ride more than 2feet from the gutter?"


Not a problem, I'll delete. Cheers 😊

And gone.


----------



## matticus (8 Jan 2022)

Since the Peter Walker article I've seen numerous coppers come out in praise of Mikey's work. Here is today's


View: https://twitter.com/bikelawman/status/1478739941018513412?t=mf9_GFvQWzF9rB89O0kr1Q&s=19


Oddly enough, not one of these officers felt the need to end their tweets with:
" ... it's just a shame he's so knobbish."


----------



## FishFright (8 Jan 2022)

Bonefish Blues said:


> I do wonder about whether overall his impact is net positive for cyclists - sure there may be a small deterrent effect, and a few may change behaviour (or maybe be more careful when doing it?) but what may the impact have been on those many millions' view of cyclists as a group and the way they treat them as fellow road users?
> 
> I have no idea, btw, nor any way of knowing, failing doing Focus Groups or similar, just wondering out loud.



It's a positive outcome for all road users that stay within the law surely.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (8 Jan 2022)

FishFright said:


> It's a positive outcome for all road users that stay within the law surely.


Yes, absolutely 😊


----------



## Bonefish Blues (8 Jan 2022)

matticus said:


> Since the Peter Walker article I've seen numerous coppers come out in praise of Mikey's work. Here is today's
> 
> 
> View: https://twitter.com/bikelawman/status/1478739941018513412?t=mf9_GFvQWzF9rB89O0kr1Q&s=19
> ...



Excellent


----------



## Arjimlad (11 Jan 2022)

Spreading the word that bad driving can be caught anytime anywhere is a good thing. Many of my friends say they take greater care around cyclists having seen the videos I post up from time to time. Whether drivers take more care because they realise it's another person in danger, or because of the fear of consequences for themselves, the point is that both subsets will refrain from dangerous behaviour around other road users.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (11 Jan 2022)

Arjimlad said:


> Spreading the word that bad driving can be caught anytime anywhere is a good thing. Many of my friends say they take greater care around cyclists having seen the videos I post up from time to time. Whether drivers take more care because they realise it's another person in danger, or because of the fear of consequences for themselves, the point is that both subsets will refrain from dangerous behaviour around other road users.


It's unalloyed good news, for sure.


----------



## GilesM (20 Jan 2022)

Cycleops said:


> I think it’s worth reprising his videos. This is one of his very best when the entitled merc driver gets instant karma. Enjoy.
> 
> 
> View: https://youtu.be/aA4Nw4sDT4U



I'd never heard of this strange Dutchmen until I read the stuff about Lampard, and this video is the first time I've seen any of his vigilante work, he is definitely an odd character, it's the very concerning way he seems to be sitting there waiting for somebody to do what the Merc driver in the video has just done, and once the Merc driver had made his some what dumb manoeuvre, it would have been safer to let him go right rather than trying to force him back, film the guy breaking the law and report it if he thinks that would help, but behaving like a jumped up wee parking attendant is totally wrong. If I remember rightly the highway code requires everyone to take action to prevent possible accidents, this seems to be trying to force somebody to do something dangerous, and if he'd been in the road to start with the Merc driver would not (I accept I am speculating now, but chances are I'm right) have gone the wrong side of the traffic island, yes what the Merc driver did was wrong, but who hasn't done something technically wrong when they are able to accurately assess the risks. Obvious conclusion is that those who have mentioned that Mr Van-Erp needs help are correct.


----------



## matticus (20 Jan 2022)

GilesM said:


> I'd never heard of this strange Dutchmen until I read the stuff about Lampard, and this video is the first time I've seen any of his vigilante work, he is definitely an odd character, it's the very concerning way he seems to be sitting there waiting for somebody to do what the Merc driver in the video has just done, and once the Merc driver had made his some what dumb manoeuvre, it would have been safer to let him go right rather than trying to force him back, film the guy breaking the law and report it if he thinks that would help, but behaving like a jumped up wee parking attendant is totally wrong. If I remember rightly the highway code requires everyone to take action to prevent possible accidents, this seems to be trying to force somebody to do something dangerous, and if he'd been in the road to start with the Merc driver would not (I accept I am speculating now, but chances are I'm right) have gone the wrong side of the traffic island, yes what the Merc driver did was wrong, but who hasn't done something technically wrong when they are able to accurately assess the risks. Obvious conclusion is that those who have mentioned that Mr Van-Erp needs help are correct.


And yet the police strongly support him (see here ) . Can you explain to us why they are wrong?


----------



## Cycleops (20 Jan 2022)

Maybe he is a little strange Mr Giles. But perhaps no more strange than the pedo hunters who pose as children to entrap predators.
He says part of his motivation is his father was killed by drunk driver.
What the Merc driver did wasn't just 'technically wrong' but could have resulted in a nasty accident if a cyclist or car came around the corner on the right side of the road.He did no risk assessment, he just wanted to get there a bit faster 
I guess you either think he's a ' jumped up wee parking attendant' or a campaigner for safer roads.


----------



## GilesM (20 Jan 2022)

matticus said:


> And yet the police strongly support him (see here ) . Can you explain to us why they are wrong?



A good friend is a traffic cop, I will ask him for the general feeling towards Mr Van-Erp


----------



## Alex321 (20 Jan 2022)

matticus said:


> And yet the police strongly support him (see here ) . Can you explain to us why they are wrong?


I have seen nothing to suggest that they "strongly" support him, including your link.

I am quite sure some police do support him, as shown in that link - but note that the one in your link specifically says he *isn't* traffic police, and there is nothing to say what "the police" in general think of him, just what some individual officers think.


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (20 Jan 2022)

Remember that - at least according to him - that people have been injured by people doing exactly what these drivers are doing - os he does have a point.

I do think he is a bit of a knob at times - but mostly he is doing something that needs to be done
Any driver he stops is likely to think more carefully next time - and other drivers who can see it all are also likely to think a bit more.
Clearly there will be some that are set in their ways and feel they were in the right - even when it is clear they were not. Some of those will never change but will probably end up banned for something more major - which they also felt entitled to do


----------



## Alex321 (20 Jan 2022)

Cycleops said:


> Maybe he is a little strange Mr Giles. But perhaps no more strange than the pedo hunters who pose as children to entrap predators.
> He says part of his motivation is his father was killed by drunk driver.
> What the Merc driver did wasn't just 'technically wrong' but could have resulted in a nasty accident if a cyclist or car came around the corner on the right side of the road.He did no risk assessment, he just wanted to get there a bit faster



With Mikey standing there blocking the road, that *[increased* the chances of an accident, and certainly significantly increased the chances of other, legitimate road users being blocked.


Cycleops said:


> I guess you either think he's a ' jumped up wee parking attendant' or a campaigner for safer roads.


It is perfectly possible he could be both.

As I've said before, I think videoing and reporting these drivers is entirely laudable. Taking vigilante action isn't so laudable IMO.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (20 Jan 2022)

Think a lot of the helmet camera folk do on occasion forget themselves a touch but IMO Mikey is the most grounded of the very few I would follow.

Some however are a complete liability, rhymes with draffic troid


----------



## GilesM (20 Jan 2022)

Cycleops said:


> Maybe he is a little strange Mr Giles. But perhaps no more strange than the pedo hunters who pose as children to entrap predators.


No idea why you wrote that, just a touch irrelevant


Cycleops said:


> He says part of his motivation is his father was killed by drunk driver.


I would suggest having a close relative killed by a drunk driver would probably make me less likely to jump out in front of a car making an illegal manoeuvre.


Cycleops said:


> What the Merc driver did wasn't just 'technically wrong' but could have resulted in a nasty accident if a cyclist or car came around the corner on the right side of the road.He did no risk assessment, he just wanted to get there a bit faster


From the video I don't think it is possible to come to that conclusion, the guy certainly stopped quick enough to prevent any serious injury to Mr Van-Erp


Cycleops said:


> I guess you either think he's a ' jumped up wee parking attendant' or a campaigner for safer roads.


As others have already mentioned, he can campaign for safer roads with his camera if he that's what he wants to do, but deliberately stopping drivers to aggressively give them a piece of his mind is not very helpful, and/or sensible, he needs help, no other conclusion is possible.


----------



## GilesM (20 Jan 2022)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Think a lot of the helmet camera folk do on occasion forget themselves a touch but *IMO Mikey is the most grounded of the very few I would follow.*
> 
> Some however are a complete liability, rhymes with draffic troid


I hope I never meet one you think is less grounded than Van-Erp


----------



## matticus (20 Jan 2022)

GilesM said:


> he needs help, no other conclusion is possible.


Yes it is. 👍


----------



## Milkfloat (20 Jan 2022)

He gets results, if he simply filmed and reported drivers for their illegal actions nothing would be done. The conflicts drive traffic to his videos which means he is 'known' and the Police usually react. I am fully in favour of what he does, every driver prosecuted and every single one of the millions of hits on his videos remind drivers that they won't always get away with their dangerous actions.


----------



## DaveReading (20 Jan 2022)

GilesM said:


> From the video I don't think it is possible to come to that conclusion, the guy certainly stopped quick enough to prevent any serious injury to Mr Van-Erp


The Merc driver stopped quickly enough to avoid colliding with a stationary object. A car coming round the corner in the opposite direction, expecting there not to be an idiot approaching on the wrong side of the road, might well have resulted in a different outcome.


----------



## Rusty Nails (20 Jan 2022)

GilesM said:


> I'd never heard of this strange Dutchmen until I read the stuff about Lampard, and this video is the first time I've seen any of his vigilante work, he is definitely an odd character, *it's the very concerning way he seems to be sitting there waiting for somebody to do what the Merc driver in the video has just done, *and once the Merc driver had made his some what dumb manoeuvre, it would have been safer to let him go right rather than trying to force him back, film the guy breaking the law and report it if he thinks that would help, but behaving like a jumped up wee parking attendant is totally wrong. If I remember rightly the highway code requires everyone to take action to prevent possible accidents, this seems to be trying to force somebody to do something dangerous, and if he'd been in the road to start with the Merc driver would not (I accept I am speculating now, but chances are I'm right) have gone the wrong side of the traffic island, yes what the Merc driver did was wrong, but who hasn't done something technically wrong when they are able to accurately assess the risks. Obvious conclusion is that those who have mentioned that Mr Van-Erp needs help are correct.


Why is it concerning to anyone, possibly other than Mikey wrt to his own safety? I am sure he did not randomly choose that spot but chose it because there was a history of people doing similarly in the past.

Is it concerning that speeding camera vans (or fixed cameras) just sit there waiting for somebody to do what speeding motorists often do?

The comments about his personality traits are totally irrelevant to the benefits or otherwise of his actions, and are predicated on very little knowledge of the bloke.


----------



## GilesM (20 Jan 2022)

Rusty Nails said:


> Why is it concerning to anyone, possibly other than Mikey wrt to his own safety? I am sure he did not randomly choose that spot but chose it because there was a history of people doing similarly in the past.
> 
> Is it concerning that speeding camera vans (or fixed cameras) just sit there waiting for somebody to do what speeding motorists often do?
> 
> The comments about his personality traits are totally irrelevant to the benefits or otherwise of his actions, and are predicated on very little knowledge of the bloke.


It is very concerning that somebody who isn't a cop behaves like a (overly aggressive) cop.


----------



## mustang1 (20 Jan 2022)

GilesM said:


> I'd never heard of this strange Dutchmen until I read the stuff about Lampard, and this video is the first time I've seen any of his vigilante work, he is definitely an odd character, it's the very concerning way he seems to be sitting there waiting for somebody to do what the Merc driver in the video has just done, and once the Merc driver had made his some what dumb manoeuvre, it would have been safer to let him go right rather than trying to force him back, film the guy breaking the law and report it if he thinks that would help, but behaving like a jumped up wee parking attendant is totally wrong. If I remember rightly the highway code requires everyone to take action to prevent possible accidents, this seems to be trying to force somebody to do something dangerous, and if he'd been in the road to start with the Merc driver would not (I accept I am speculating now, but chances are I'm right) have gone the wrong side of the traffic island, yes what the Merc driver did was wrong, but who hasn't done something technically wrong when they are able to accurately assess the risks. Obvious conclusion is that those who have mentioned that Mr Van-Erp needs help are correct.



Extending your idea of allowing the Mercedes driver to go through, what Mikey should do in that case is stop the _legal _traffic turning left from the side road. "Can you guys stop here please while this Merc driver makes an illegal turn - that'll be great thanks."

Doing it Mikey's way, not only is he stopping traffic turning left from the side road thus increasing safety, but he's stopping a muppet from driving illegally too. 

* Ps: I only refer to the driver as Mercedes driver to clarify who I'm talking about, and not referring to the make of his car. I dislike calling out car brand names.


----------



## mustang1 (20 Jan 2022)

Alex321 said:


> With Mikey standing there blocking the road, that *[increased* the chances of an accident, and certainly significantly increased the chances of other, legitimate road users being blocked.
> 
> It is perfectly possible he could be both.
> 
> As I've said before, I think videoing and reporting these drivers is entirely laudable. Taking vigilante action isn't so laudable IMO.



Standing there, stationery, would not increase the risk of accident. But a car moving at "5mph" (according to the Merc driver, but probably more like 20mph) in the opposite direction to someone pulling out of the junction at, say 10mph, _would _increase the risk of an accident.


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (20 Jan 2022)

I do think some of the people watching could help more - there was one driver who was very uncertain about the idea of backing up
OK - that does rather suggest they shouldn;t be driving anyway
but if someone had offered to guide them back and ask drivers in the queu to let them in then that would have at least been a nice thing to do - and would have defused the situation and cleared the problem up quicker


----------



## GilesM (20 Jan 2022)

mustang1 said:


> Extending your idea of allowing the Mercedes driver to go through, what Mikey should do in that case is stop the _legal _traffic turning left from the side road. "Can you guys stop here please while this Merc driver makes an illegal turn - that'll be great thanks."
> 
> Doing it Mikey's way, not only is he stopping traffic turning left from the side road thus increasing safety, but he's stopping a muppet from driving illegally too.
> 
> * Ps: I only refer to the driver as Mercedes driver to clarify who I'm talking about, and not referring to the make of his car. I dislike calling out car brand names.



What Van-Erp should do is not stop drivers and tell them they are wrong, that's for Police officers to do, and Coppers tend to find a safe place to ask the drivers to stop.


----------



## KnittyNorah (20 Jan 2022)

GilesM said:


> What Van-Erp should do is not stop drivers and tell them they are wrong, that's for Police officers to do, and Coppers tend to find a safe place to ask the drivers to stop.


So are you saying that if a normal citizen sees another person blatantly, openly, breaking the law to an extent that they are causing imminent danger to those around them - the Gandalf Corner wrong-lane jumpers being a prime example - they should merely do ... nothing? Not even say 'stop it'? Sit and wait for a copper to come, by which time the perpetrator is far, far away ...?

They'll be sitting and waiting for ever in that case, while the bodies pile up.

That is not the concept on which policing in this country was founded, surely.


----------



## Rusty Nails (20 Jan 2022)

GilesM said:


> It is very concerning that somebody who isn't a cop behaves like a (overly aggressive) cop.


He is not behaving like a police officer (and certainly not an overly aggressive one) any more than anyone who sees a traffic crime and reports it. He is not pretending to be a police officer, not giving them an official warning, not taking their personal details, not giving them a breathaliser test, not touching anyone, nor arresting anyone for the (alleged) offence. I see a possibly overbearing approach, compared to what most people might adopt, but nothing aggressive.


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (20 Jan 2022)

Rusty Nails said:


> He is not behaving like a police officer (and certainly not an overly aggressive one) any more than anyone who sees a traffic crime and reports it. He is not pretending to be a police officer, not giving them an official warning, not taking their personal details, not giving them a breathaliser test, not touching anyone, nor arresting anyone for the (alleged) offence. I see a possibly overbearing approach, compared to what most people might adopt, but nothing aggressive.


Agreed - not aggressive - any aggressions comes from the driver
He is being stuborn and refuses to be intimidated - but that is not the same by a long way


----------



## classic33 (20 Jan 2022)

Isn't there a pedestrian refuge* in the centre of the road where he stands?


*Tactile pink paving slabs.


----------



## Alex321 (20 Jan 2022)

mustang1 said:


> Extending your idea of allowing the Mercedes driver to go through, what Mikey should do in that case is stop the _legal _traffic turning left from the side road. "Can you guys stop here please while this Merc driver makes an illegal turn - that'll be great thanks."


No, he shouldn't do anything but video and report.

We shouldn't be taking the law into our own hands.


----------



## Alex321 (20 Jan 2022)

classic33 said:


> Isn't there a pedestrian refuge* in the centre of the road where he stands?
> 
> 
> *Tactile pink paving slabs.


Where he stands while waiting for tossers to drive the wrong side, yes.

Not where he stands when blocking them from progressing.


----------



## classic33 (20 Jan 2022)

Alex321 said:


> Where he stands while waiting for tossers to drive the wrong side, yes.
> 
> Not where he stands when blocking them from progressing.


He's stood on a pedestrian crossing then. Don't drivers have to stop in that situation. Giving way to the pedestrian?


----------



## Rusty Nails (20 Jan 2022)

Alex321 said:


> No, he shouldn't do anything but video and report.
> 
> We shouldn't be taking the law into our own hands.


As has been explained several times already he is not taking the law into his own hands.

He is filming and reporting it to the police. Being a bit of an annoyance to those breaking the law, probably, but the police and the courts properly take the law into their own hands (or not) after his intervention.

The fact you don't like the way he goes about it is irrelevant to the facts.


----------



## Alex321 (20 Jan 2022)

classic33 said:


> He's stood on a pedestrian crossing then. Don't drivers have to stop in that situation. Giving way to the pedestrian?


No, he didn't stand on a pedestrian crossing.





This is the traffic island he stands in, then step out to block vehicles which are illegally passing to the right (left as we look at it) of the traffic island, in order to jump the queue and turn right, on the road called Outer Circle.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.525...4!1sT2rfvUc_g0WGCTi96p3JcA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192


----------



## Alex321 (20 Jan 2022)

Rusty Nails said:


> As has been explained several times already he is not taking the law into his own hands.


Not validly it hasn't.



Rusty Nails said:


> He is filming and reporting it to the police. Being a bit of an annoyance to those breaking the law, probably, but the police and the courts properly take the law into their own hands (or not) after his intervention.


So you think it has been "explained" why he isn't, while not actually knowing what he IS doing.

If he was just doing what you say, that would be absolutely fine, and exactly what he *should* be doing.

But he isn't just filming, he is taking it on himself to move into the road and block them from continuing.



Rusty Nails said:


> The fact you don't like the way he goes about it is irrelevant to the facts.


I know that, but the FACT is that he most certainly IS taking the law into his own hands, and acting as a vigilante.

That is indisputable.


----------



## classic33 (20 Jan 2022)

Alex321 said:


> No, he didn't stand on a pedestrian crossing.
> View attachment 627547
> 
> This is the traffic island he stands in, then step out to block vehicles which are illegally passing to the right (left as we look at it) of the traffic island, in order to jump the queue and turn right, on the road called Outer Circle.
> https://www.google.com/maps/@51.525...4!1sT2rfvUc_g0WGCTi96p3JcA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192


Dropped kerbs, tactile paving and a pedestrian refuge. All very clear.
What would you call it?


----------



## Alex321 (21 Jan 2022)

classic33 said:


> Dropped kerbs, tactile paving and a pedestrian refuge. All very clear.
> What would you call it?


A road with a pedestrian refuge in the middle.

A pedestrian crossing, where cars are required to stop for people wanting to cross, is an entirely different thing, and is marked with lines of some form (most commonly a zebra, but others exist).


----------



## slowmotion (21 Jan 2022)

In the course of his crusade against law-breaking road users, does Cycling Mikey grass up cyclists ignoring red lights?


----------



## DaveReading (21 Jan 2022)

Alex321 said:


> A road with a pedestrian refuge in the middle.
> 
> A pedestrian crossing, where cars are required to stop for people wanting to cross, is an entirely different thing, and is marked with lines of some form (most commonly a zebra, but others exist).


Let's just call it a designated crossing for pedestrians. 

That's why, on both sides of the refuge and in the gutters of the road itself, it clearly shows the advice (to pedestrians crossing) to "Look left" or "Look right".

Advice, incidentally, that would not not give you any protection from being hit by a car being driven on the wrong side of the road ...


----------



## GilesM (21 Jan 2022)

Rusty Nails said:


> He is not behaving like a police officer (and certainly not an overly aggressive one) any more than anyone who sees a traffic crime and reports it. He is not pretending to be a police officer, not giving them an official warning, not taking their personal details, not giving them a breathaliser test, not touching anyone, nor arresting anyone for the (alleged) offence. I see a possibly overbearing approach, compared to what most people might adopt, but nothing aggressive.



Do you really believe his actions with the Mercedes driver were nothing more than somebody reporting a traffic crime they have seen?
A clue is in the video where he forces the car to stop and starts telling the driver what to do, sort of like a copper would, although a good traffic cop would pull the dodgy driver over in a safer location, and have a sensible chat with the offender and consider the drivers reaction before deciding whether to take things further.


----------



## Cycleops (21 Jan 2022)

Alex321 said:


> I know that, but the FACT is that he most certainly IS taking the law into his own hands, and acting as a vigilante.
> 
> That is indisputable.


But is it? The term ‘vigilante’ has been thrown about. Lets get this out of the way

noun: *vigilante*; plural noun: *vigilantes*
a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.

Batman was a vigilante. Someone acting as law enforcement as well as judge and jury and carrying out the sentence. Perhaps now the term has come to mean something else but he is not acting outside the law, he’s reporting wrong doing. The pedo hunters posing as children are doing the exact same thing and maybe also exposing themselves to harm.
Perhaps he’s going too far by turning drivers back but it is heaping humiliation on them. The parks police guy on the bike who’s often there doesn’t seem to have a problem with it and it is very satisfying to watch. If the police were concerned over his actions I’m sure he would have been told to stop before now.


----------



## GilesM (21 Jan 2022)

KnittyNorah said:


> So are you saying that if a normal citizen sees another person blatantly, openly, breaking the law to an extent that they are causing imminent danger to those around them - the Gandalf Corner wrong-lane jumpers being a prime example - they should merely do ... nothing? Not even say 'stop it'? Sit and wait for a copper to come, by which time the perpetrator is far, far away ...?
> 
> They'll be sitting and waiting for ever in that case, while the bodies pile up.
> 
> That is not the concept on which policing in this country was founded, surely.



As has been mentioned many times, no problem with Van-Erp and his camera (although sitting at the side of a road waiting for a possible traffic offence isn't my way of enjoying an afternoon in London, and to me is still very odd) but by stopping the car as he did was completely wrong, and I am sure Mr Plod would advise Joe Public not to do it. His actions could have made the situation worse, and possibly more dangerous, of course we can all laugh at the Merc driver who does end up looking a complete chump, but I still would be totally against Van-Erp, or any other normal citizen doing the same again. 
I am happy that this country is not policed by vigilantes.


----------



## GilesM (21 Jan 2022)

Cycleops said:


> But is it? The term ‘vigilante’ has been thrown about. Lets get this out of the way
> 
> noun: *vigilante*; plural noun: *vigilantes*
> a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.
> ...


By stopping the offending drivers he is quite clearly taking the law into his own hands, that is a fact, whether we agree with what he doing is irrelevant, and I think in this post you are agreeing with the points being made against his actions.


----------



## Alex321 (21 Jan 2022)

Cycleops said:


> But is it? The term ‘vigilante’ has been thrown about. Lets get this out of the way
> 
> noun: *vigilante*; plural noun: *vigilantes*
> a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.


I have previously posted the definition from another dictionary, which is slightly more all-encompassing, and which he most definitely and clearly fits.

_vigilante_
_noun [ C ]_
_
UK

/ˌvɪdʒ.ɪˈlæn.ti/ US

/ˌvɪdʒ.əˈlæn.t̬i/

*a person who tries in an unofficial way to prevent crime*, or to catch and punish someone who has committed a crime_

And if you look up news reports, there are dozens describing him as a vigilante, and I believe he has even described himself that way.

I don't think there is the slightest doubt that he can legitimately be described as a vigilante.


----------



## Cycleops (21 Jan 2022)

You can think what you like Mr Giles but I support him and wish there were more like him.
Im sure he knows the risk to his own safety but that’s up to him.

Your definition is correct Alex but he doesn’t seek to punish drivers just report them.


----------



## figbat (21 Jan 2022)

Cycleops said:


> Your definition is correct Alex but he doesn’t seek to punish drivers just report them.


Then why not simply record what happens and submit to the police for consideration? He may not seek to punish through the courts (directly) but he is punishing via the Court of YouTube. Whether they had it coming is the question - do they deserve to be publicly humiliated as a sentence for their crime (akin to the stocks of the past)? Maybe, maybe not, but this is the punishment being meted out.


----------



## Alex321 (21 Jan 2022)

Cycleops said:


> You can think what you like Mr Giles but I support him and wish there were more like him.
> Im sure he knows the risk to his own safety but that’s up to him.
> 
> Your definition is correct Alex but he doesn’t seek to punish drivers just report them.


True, but the blocking the cars from proceeding is "trying in an unofficial way to prevent crime".

As I have said a number of times, I think videoing and reporting them is entirely laudable. I think we all should do that when such situations happen in front of us, and while I don't think most of us would seek out such situations, I see nothing wrong with him doing so.


----------



## Alex321 (21 Jan 2022)

figbat said:


> Then why not simply record what happens and submit to the police for consideration? He may not seek to punish through the courts (directly) but he is punishing via the Court of YouTube. Whether they had it coming is the question - do they deserve to be publicly humiliated as a sentence for their crime (akin to the stocks of the past)? Maybe, maybe not, but this is the punishment being meted out.


I don't even have any problem with him publishing the videos - apart from anything else, I think that makes it more likely the police will take action.


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (21 Jan 2022)

I would say he is clearly a vigilante
but on the soft edge of the term - not the "weapon wielding masked nut job threatening people" end of the term
and at that end he is doing a good job

A bit like someone seeing a thief taking someone's purse and stopping then leaving the shop - or intervening when a woman is being pestered by someone who won;t take no for an answer

Vigilante action is OK as long as it doesn;t go too far and respects the law and the Police and doesn;t cause harm to others - and probably soem other stuff


----------



## Cycleops (21 Jan 2022)

Part of his motivation is he seeks notoriety and he has certainly got his wish. Perhaps he has an overbearing personality. There are all sorts of people out there. He hasn’t been pulled up by the Police and asked to desist or told not to send the drivers back, which he doesn’t always do anyway.


----------



## shep (21 Jan 2022)

The bloke's an egotistical nobber that loves the attention and everyone knows it, he wouldn't be so quick to confront people if he wasn't hiding behind his camera.


----------



## matticus (21 Jan 2022)

Alex321 said:


> True, but the blocking the cars from proceeding is "trying in an unofficial way to prevent crime".


Dude, I did once tell someone to pick litter up. I hoped this would prevent further instances.
Please put me on your VIGILANTE hit-list. 

(I hadn't realised I was up there with Batman, must get myself a suit ... )


----------



## Alex321 (21 Jan 2022)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> I would say he is clearly a vigilante
> but on the soft edge of the term - not the "weapon wielding masked nut job threatening people" end of the term


Definitely he is at the softer end of it, agreed.


ebikeerwidnes said:


> Vigilante action is OK as long as it doesn;t go too far and respects the law and the Police and doesn;t cause harm to others - and probably soem other stuff


True, but I'm not convinced he *is* respecting the law himself.

I'm not totally convinced the other way either, but it is certainly arguable that he is obstructing the highway. I suspect that were the police to charge him with that though, the CPS would feel it not in the public interest to proceed.


----------



## matticus (21 Jan 2022)

slowmotion said:


> In the course of his crusade against law-breaking road users, does Cycling Mikey grass up cyclists ignoring red lights?


I sincerely hope not. I may have to take his picture down from my garage wall


----------



## Ming the Merciless (21 Jan 2022)

Alex321 said:


> I'm not totally convinced the other way either, but it is certainly arguable that he is obstructing the highway.



In the same way that people leaving their cars (aka parking) on the highway are obstructing it.


----------



## shep (21 Jan 2022)

matticus said:


> Dude, I did once tell someone to pick litter up. I hoped this would prevent further instances.
> Please put me on your VIGILANTE hit-list.
> 
> (I hadn't realised I was up there with Batman, must get myself a suit ... )


I have as well but I certainly wouldn't hang around McDonald's with a camera strapped to my noggin waiting for people to chuck their rappers on the floor and then run over and start reading them the riot act!


----------



## winjim (21 Jan 2022)

slowmotion said:


> In the course of his crusade against law-breaking road users, does Cycling Mikey grass up cyclists ignoring red lights?


He tends to admonish them with a note of despair and disappointment in his voice.

I don't know what he does about dog fouling or littering.


----------



## ianrauk (21 Jan 2022)

shep said:


> The bloke's an egotistical nobber that loves the attention and everyone knows it, he wouldn't be so quick to confront people if he wasn't hiding behind his camera.



I know Mikey and you are so very wrong on every level.


----------



## shep (21 Jan 2022)

matticus said:


> I sincerely hope not. I may have to take his picture down from my garage wall


Is it laminated?


----------



## Alex321 (21 Jan 2022)

matticus said:


> Dude, I did once tell someone to pick litter up. I hoped this would prevent further instances.
> Please put me on your VIGILANTE hit-list.


Why do you believe that would make you one?

And why do you believe I might have any sort of "hit list"?



matticus said:


> (I hadn't realised I was up there with Batman, must get myself a suit ... )


And why take it to extremes?

Peter Sutcliffe was a criminal. So was the litter dropper you spoke to, but that doesn't put the litter dropper "up there with the Yorkshire Ripper".


----------



## shep (21 Jan 2022)

winjim said:


> I don't know what he does about dog fouling or lilittering.


That's Accy's job.


----------



## winjim (21 Jan 2022)

Alex321 said:


> Definitely he is at the softer end of it, agreed.
> 
> True, but I'm not convinced he *is* respecting the law himself.
> 
> I'm not totally convinced the other way either, but it is certainly arguable that he is obstructing the highway. I suspect that were the police to charge him with that though, the CPS would feel it not in the public interest to proceed.


He's not obstructing the highway to traffic going the right way. It's the car in the wrong lane that's the obstruction.


----------



## shep (21 Jan 2022)

ianrauk said:


> I know Mikey and you are so very wrong on every level.


Why portray yourself as such then?

In my opinion only of course.


----------



## matticus (21 Jan 2022)

Alex321 said:


> Why do you believe that would make you one?


Because I've been reading your definitions that you so kindly provided us with.

I hadn't considered myself a vigilante before reading this thread, so it's been quite exciting. Thankyou!


----------



## ianrauk (21 Jan 2022)

shep said:


> Why portray yourself as such then?
> 
> In my opinion only of course.



You also said he wouldn't be so quick to confront people if he wasn't using a camera. He would.


----------



## shep (21 Jan 2022)

ianrauk said:


> You also said he wouldn't be so quick to confront people if he wasn't using a camera. He would.


I would imagine, unless he's a damn site tougher than he looks, he would of had a few 'slaps ' in his time.


----------



## GilesM (21 Jan 2022)

shep said:


> The bloke's an egotistical nobber that loves the attention and everyone knows it, he wouldn't be so quick to confront people if he wasn't hiding behind his camera.


I agree, his love of the limelight seems to be a significant motivator, however if my main purpose was to get people nicked for driving offences and humiliate them, I'd keep a lower profile, but that's probably why I will never have my 15 minutes.


----------



## Alex321 (21 Jan 2022)

Ming the Merciless said:


> In the same way that people leaving their cars (aka parking) on the highway are obstructing it.


No.

He blocks them from passing (and more importantly IMV, also blocks anybody trying to turn legitimately into that road from the other direction while he has the offender blocked). 

Cars legitimately parked at the side of the road are not usually causing an obstruction. Though I did once get a ticket for that for parking (with a caravan attached) about here. When I queried it, since there were no signs or road marking indicating no parking (and still aren't, 20+ years later!), I was told that queues were building up as a result of my parking there, so it was causing an obstruction - and I should have parked in the park-and-ride even if not using the "ride" part of that (the entrance a couple of hundred yards behind me was a park-and-ride car park then).


----------



## ianrauk (21 Jan 2022)

shep said:


> I would imagine, unless he's a damn site tougher than he looks, he would of had a few 'slaps ' in his time.


He is a damn sight tougher than he looks. He's a very fit and able guy. He's not one to back down. As far as I know he's not had a few 'slaps' in his time. He is also someone who can diffuse a situation as quick as one can escalate.


----------



## Alex321 (21 Jan 2022)

winjim said:


> He's not obstructing the highway to traffic going the right way. It's the car in the wrong lane that's the obstruction.


And while he is blocking them, he is also blocking anybody wanting to legitimately turn into that road. So yes he *is* obstructing it to traffic going the right way.

But as I said, I'm not totally convinced either way on this. It is definitely arguable though.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (21 Jan 2022)

GilesM said:


> behaves like a (overly aggressive) cop.



You must have led a very sheltered life.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (21 Jan 2022)

Alex321 said:


> No.
> 
> He blocks them from passing (and more importantly IMV, also blocks anybody trying to turn legitimately into that road from the other direction while he has the offender blocked).
> 
> Cars legitimately parked at the side of the road are not usually causing an obstruction. Though I did once get a ticket for that for parking (with a caravan attached) about here. When I queried it, since there were no signs or road marking indicating no parking (and still aren't, 20+ years later!), I was told that queues were building up as a result of my parking there, so it was causing an obstruction - and I should have parked in the park-and-ride even if not using the "ride" part of that (the entrance a couple of hundred yards behind me was a park-and-ride car park then).



Of course they are causing an obstruction they force you into the other side of the highway in many cases. Rendering half of the highway unusable.


----------



## DaveReading (21 Jan 2022)

shep said:


> waiting for people to chuck their rappers on the floor


The floor is where rappers belong, as I'm sure most of them would agree.


----------



## winjim (21 Jan 2022)

Alex321 said:


> And while he is blocking them, he is also blocking anybody wanting to legitimately turn into that road. So yes he *is* obstructing it to traffic going the right way.
> 
> But as I said, I'm not totally convinced either way on this. It is definitely arguable though.


No he's not. The traffic going the right way is obstructed by the car going the wrong way. Which can bloody well reverse.


----------



## GilesM (21 Jan 2022)

glasgowcyclist said:


> You must have led a very sheltered life.


No, but perhaps I should clarify things, he was acting more aggressively than any traffic cop I have ever had dealings with, last one who stopped me was very pleasant, he even seemed delighted my breathalyser reading was zero.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (21 Jan 2022)

He's not obstructing, he's protecting others.


----------



## Alex321 (21 Jan 2022)

winjim said:


> No he's not. The traffic going the right way is obstructed by the car going the wrong way. Which can bloody well reverse.


Which wouldn't have still been there if Mikey hadn't blocked it.

Plus, that legitimate traffic woulod have to drive through Mikey to reach the car behaving illegally.


----------



## mustang1 (21 Jan 2022)

Alex321 said:


> No.
> 
> He blocks them from passing (and more importantly IMV, also blocks anybody trying to turn legitimately into that road from the other direction while he has the offender blocked).
> 
> Cars legitimately parked at the side of the road are not usually causing an obstruction. Though I did once get a ticket for that for parking (with a caravan attached) about here. When I queried it, since there were no signs or road marking indicating no parking (and still aren't, 20+ years later!), I was told that queues were building up as a result of my parking there, so it was causing an obstruction - and I should have parked in the park-and-ride even if not using the "ride" part of that (the entrance a couple of hundred yards behind me was a park-and-ride car park then).


You wrote:
_He blocks them from passing (and more importantly IMV, also blocks anybody trying to turn legitimately into that road from the other direction while he has the offender blocked)._

My interpretation:
He blocks them from passing (and more importantly IMV, also *blocks anybody crashing when turning legitimately *into that road from the other direction *while the offending driver is on wrong side of the road*.).


----------



## Ian H (21 Jan 2022)

Given that the police have actually praised Mikey for his actions, I do wonder why some people are objecting so strenuously.


----------



## DaveReading (21 Jan 2022)

mustang1 said:


> My interpretation:
> He blocks them from passing (and more importantly IMV, also *blocks anybody crashing when turning legitimately *into that road from the other direction *while the offending driver is on wrong side of the road*.).


Exactly.

The fact that drivers who perform the same manoeuvre as the offender are mostly lucky doesn't detract from the fact that none of them have any way of knowing whether a car is going to come round the corner. In effect, they are relying on the other driver's (or cyclist's) reactions to avoid a collision.

It's not just a stupid and thoughtless act, it's a dangerous one.


----------



## Cycleops (21 Jan 2022)

Alex321 said:


> Which wouldn't have still been there if Mikey hadn't blocked it.


….or the driver had stayed on the correct side of the road


----------



## mustang1 (21 Jan 2022)

Suppose the offending driver who is on the wrong side of the road and I'm turning left (I could be on my bike taking central position, or I could be in my car). I then encounter the offending driver. Should I back away and let the offending driver through, or wait there until the offending driver has reversed?


----------



## GilesM (21 Jan 2022)

Ian H said:


> Given that the police have actually praised Mikey for his actions, I do wonder why some people are objecting so strenuously.


One or two coppers seem to have spoken in his favour, although I'm not sure some of his actions would be praised by all coppers, but I can see some people here think highly of him, and I really know nothing about him, so all I can say is from the few things I have seen of him, I'm not warming to him.


----------



## shep (21 Jan 2022)

mustang1 said:


> Suppose the offending driver who is on the wrong side of the road and I'm turning left (I could be on my bike taking central position, or I could be in my car). I then encounter the offending driver. Should I back away and let the offending driver through, or wait there until the offending driver has reversed?


It's a hard one to call really, if there's nowhere for them to go you've got to let them out but I wouldn't fancy reversing back onto the main road.

If I had made the turn already and they could back up I would just sit there and make them reverse because I'm in the correct lane.

If on the bike I would just ride round them or take to the footpath.


----------



## Cycleops (21 Jan 2022)

shep said:


> If on the bike I would just ride round them or take to the footpath.


Not so easy to do if you’ve just swung around that corner going at a lick and there’s a car right in front of you. Not like being in a car with a ton of metal around you.


----------



## figbat (21 Jan 2022)

Cycleops said:


> Not so easy to do if you’ve just swung around that corner going at a lick and there’s a car right in front of you. Not like being in a car with a ton of metal around you.


Surely if there's a risk of a car being right in front of you (whether legally or otherwise) one wouldn't be going "at a lick"?


----------



## shep (21 Jan 2022)

Y


Cycleops said:


> Not so easy to do if you’ve just swung around that corner going at a lick and there’s a car right in front of you. Not like being in a car with a ton of metal around you.


You're absolutely right and they shouldn't be doing it, we've established that fact.


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (21 Jan 2022)

figbat said:


> Surely if there's a risk of a car being right in front of you (whether legally or otherwise) one wouldn't be going "at a lick"?


especially round a corner where you can;t see whether there is something there
such as - perhaps - an occupied pram/pushchair


----------



## Cycleops (21 Jan 2022)

figbat said:


> Surely if there's a risk of a car being right in front of you (whether legally or otherwise) one wouldn't be going "at a lick"?


Quite right, I’m always meeting drivers on the wrong side of the road. Maybe we should moderate speed around corners or even push the bike?


----------



## Alex321 (21 Jan 2022)

Cycleops said:


> Quite right, I’m always meeting drivers on the wrong side of the road. Maybe we should moderate speed around corners or even push the bike?


Well you should always be able to stop within what you can see (whether on a bike or in a car or any other mode of transport). So yes, you should moderate speed around blind corners. That isn't just about drivers on the wrong side, it could be pedestrians, or the back of a queue of traffic going the right way, or any number of things.


----------



## winjim (21 Jan 2022)

Alex321 said:


> Which wouldn't have still been there if Mikey hadn't blocked it.
> 
> Plus, that legitimate traffic woulod have to drive through Mikey to reach the car behaving illegally.


There is more than enough evidence, including videos where police are at the scene, for Mikey to be charged with obstructing the highway if that's what he is in fact doing. He literally submits it himself.


----------



## PK99 (21 Jan 2022)

Clearly, Mikey is selective in the illegality he chooses to report. In this clip, he ignores cars driving on the pavement to get past the obstruction he is a part of.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYLfz538TNs

And here a cyclist cutting Gandalf corner by going onto the pavement:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TLQReKZ818


But here chooses to report a driver cutting the same corner on the pavement:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xOXwNdTV4k


----------



## Alex321 (21 Jan 2022)

winjim said:


> There is more than enough evidence, including videos where police are at the scene, for Mikey to be charged with obstructing the highway if that's what he is in fact doing. He literally submits it himself.


As I said before


Alex321 said:


> True, but I'm not convinced he *is* respecting the law himself.
> 
> I'm not totally convinced the other way either, but it is certainly arguable that he is obstructing the highway. I suspect that were the police to charge him with that though, the CPS would feel it not in the public interest to proceed.


----------



## shep (21 Jan 2022)

This bloke is a proper tw@t in my opinion and clearly gets his rocks off on his one man crusade.

I'm surprised no-one has give him a good hiding in the past, he's not really that difficult to find is he?


----------



## lazybloke (21 Jan 2022)

Alex321 said:


> True, but the blocking the cars from proceeding is "*trying in an unofficial way to prevent crime*".
> 
> As I have said a number of times, I think videoing and reporting them is entirely laudable. I think we all should do that when such situations happen in front of us, and while I don't think most of us would seek out such situations, I see nothing wrong with him doing so.


The offence has already been committed when he springs into action, so arguably he is not trying to prevent crime in any of his videos. Instead he's ensuring the police have the evidence to take further action (if appropriate). 

Mikey does little to directly affect driver behaviour. FPNs and points do that, but publishing those outcomes on youtube ensures millions of drivers are aware that actions have consequences.


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (21 Jan 2022)

He is selective about who he reports

But as far as cyclists are concerned what do you expect him to do
maybe all cyclists should pay road tax and have a registration plate nailed to the back of their bike?

i.e. he can;t identify them

As far as the drivers going on the pavement while he is dealing with the motorist he is blocking - well OK - but give the man a break and let him deal with one thing at a time.
I have seen him say he will report people for stuff like that when he was waiting for something else.

He has challenged cyclists who go through traffic lights - but there is not much he can do to report it - as evidenced by the Daily Mail comments on any anti-cycling article

but he is selective - but then that is what he is doing - maybe someone else can tackle the other culprits??


----------



## glasgowcyclist (21 Jan 2022)

PK99 said:


> Clearly, Mikey is selective in the illegality he chooses to report. In this clip, he ignores cars driving on the pavement to get past the obstruction he is a part of.
> 
> 
> View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYLfz538TNs



Excellent, two for the price of one there! 

Mikey's a legend.


----------



## shep (21 Jan 2022)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> I have seen him say he will report people for stuff like that when he was waiting for something else.


This just about sums him up for me.


----------



## mustang1 (21 Jan 2022)

Alex321 said:


> Well you should always be able to stop within what you can see (whether on a bike or in a car or any other mode of transport). So yes, you should moderate speed around blind corners. That isn't just about drivers on the wrong side, it could be pedestrians, or the back of a queue of traffic going the right way, or any number of things.


Suppose one is riding around the corner at a speed where you can stop easily, say 10mph. So if there are pedestrians crossing parallel to the road, they are coming at you at 0mph. Therefore you are approaching the pedestrian at 10mph.

But if a car is approaching in the offending lane at 15mph, then I am approaching that car at 25mph, so that's more likely to result in a crash, or atleast a bit of a knock.


----------



## matticus (21 Jan 2022)

PK99 said:


> Clearly, Mikey is *selective in the illegality he chooses to report*. In this clip, he ignores cars driving on the pavement to get past the obstruction he is a part of.


Sorry, I'm struggling to keep up:

does this mean he is acting just like a police officer?
Or like a vigilante?
Or just asking for a slap?


----------



## shep (21 Jan 2022)

matticus said:


> Sorry, I'm struggling to keep up:
> 
> does this mean he is acting just like a police officer?
> Or like a vigilante?
> Or just asking for a slap?


The last 2 in my opinion.


----------



## ianrauk (21 Jan 2022)

shep said:


> The last 2 in my opinion.



Its funny how many people have said they'll give him a slap, both in real life and through a keyboard. But no one ever has.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (21 Jan 2022)

ianrauk said:


> Its funny how many people have said they'll give him a slap, both in real life and through a keyboard. But no one ever has.


He was assaulted last week, as it happens.


----------



## ianrauk (21 Jan 2022)

Bonefish Blues said:


> He was assaulted last week, as it happens.


Fair enough, but doubt it was what I think what Shep calls and thinks is a 'Slap'
And as I said, Mikey can handle himself in that type of situation and is under no illusions that what he is doing won't end up in a physical confrontation.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (21 Jan 2022)

ianrauk said:


> Fair enough, but doubt it was what I think what Shep calls and thinks is a 'Slap'
> And as I said, Mikey can handle himself in that type of situation and is under no illusions that what he is doing won't end up in a physical confrontation.


He describes in on his Twitter feed, so go and take a look. I doubt the footage which he was delighted to find later he'd captured is on there because it'll be in the hands of the Police.


----------



## shep (21 Jan 2022)

ianrauk said:


> Its funny how many people have said they'll give him a slap, both in real life and through a keyboard. But no one ever has.


I'm sure the time will come when he picks on the wrong person, for example a stolen car with lads who won't give a t*ss about a camera wearing middle aged bloke reporting them, or maybe someone out for revenge on a motorcycle with no plates waiting for an opportunity to follow him home, or someone who has been paid to dish out some retribution on behalf of a bitter law breaker.

He treads a dangerous path in my humble, unimportant opinion.


----------



## ianrauk (21 Jan 2022)

shep said:


> I'm sure the time will come when he picks on the wrong person, for example a stolen car with lads who won't give a t*ss about a camera wearing middle aged bloke reporting them, or maybe someone out for revenge on a motorcycle with no plates waiting for an opportunity to follow him home, or someone who has been paid to dish out some retribution on behalf of a bitter law breaker.
> 
> He treads a dangerous path in my humble, unimportant opinion.



And I respect your opinion Shep. It would be very easy for you, me and anyone, not just Mikey to come across a complete and utter nutcaase like Kenneth Noye.


----------



## ianrauk (21 Jan 2022)

Anyway....
Here's a vid of Mikey and me high fiving on the road. he's a good egg.


----------



## Jody (21 Jan 2022)

Bonefish Blues said:


> He describes in on his Twitter feed, so go and take a look.



I've just had a look on his Twitter account. 

Lots of people ranting about road tax and cyclists being banned from the road.


----------



## Rusty Nails (21 Jan 2022)

GilesM said:


> Do you really believe his actions with the Mercedes driver were nothing more than somebody reporting a traffic crime they have seen?
> A clue is in the video where he forces the car to stop and starts telling the driver what to do, sort of like a copper would, although a good traffic cop would pull the dodgy driver over in a safer location, and have a sensible chat with the offender and consider the drivers reaction before deciding whether to take things further.


You don't like his attitude, fine, no one is asking you to, and of course it is a bit (or a lot) more than most do, but it is absolute hyperbole to suggest he is acting like a police officer. He is not pretending to be a police officer or a good traffic officer, and the people he stops/films are under no impression he is police officer. You can make these comparisons with a police officer till the cows come home but they are incorrect and not relevant.


----------



## Alex321 (21 Jan 2022)

Rusty Nails said:


> You don't like his attitude, fine, no one is asking you to, and of course it is a bit (or a lot) more than most do, but it is absolute hyperbole to suggest he is acting like a police officer. He is not pretending to be a police officer or a good traffic officer, and the people he stops/films are under no impression he is police officer. You can make these comparisons with a police officer till the cows come home but they are incorrect and not relevant.


Straw man, since nobody has suggested he might be pretending to be a police officer, nor that anybody he stops might somehow believe he is one.

"Acting like" one does not imply any such pretence or belief.

I'm not going argue about whether he is "acting like" a police officer, but your argument has no relevance to whether he is or not.


----------



## GilesM (21 Jan 2022)

Rusty Nails said:


> You don't like his attitude, fine, no one is asking you to, and of course it is a bit (or a lot) more than most do, but it is absolute hyperbole to suggest he is acting like a police officer. He is not pretending to be a police officer or a good traffic officer, and the people he stops/films are under no impression he is police officer. You can make these comparisons with a police officer till the cows come home but they are incorrect and not relevant.


I am not saying he is pretending to be a Police officer, my criticism is he is doing stuff that only a copper should be doing, example, standing in the road and stopping people who have just committed a traffic offence, it's not for him to do that, and I really don't think it's unreasonable for me to say that I would prefer if that type of stuff was left for the Police to do.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (21 Jan 2022)

Vigilantes are bad but a vigilante that doesn't 'prosecute' every offender is worse.

Have I got that right?


----------



## Bonefish Blues (21 Jan 2022)

GilesM said:


> I am not saying he is pretending to be a Police officer, my criticism is he is doing stuff that only a copper should be doing, example, standing in the road and stopping people who have just committed a traffic offence, it's not for him to do that, and I really don't think it's unreasonable for me to say that I would prefer if that type of stuff was left for the Police to do.


As a for instance, a camera at Gandalf Corner would solve all issues immediately.


----------



## DaveReading (21 Jan 2022)

mustang1 said:


> But if a car is approaching in the offending lane at 15mph, then I am approaching that car at 25mph, so that's more likely to result in a crash, or at least a bit of a knock.


And even if your speed is such that you can stop in the distance you can see, that's no guarantee against hitting another vehicle head on.


----------



## BoldonLad (21 Jan 2022)

The driver of the Merc spent TEN MINUTES! arguing, some time saving!


----------



## Jody (21 Jan 2022)

BoldonLad said:


> The driver of the Merc spent TEN MINUTES! arguing, some time saving!


 Also got prosecuted, raised the profile of CM's chanel and probably earned him some ad revenue.

Result


----------



## BoldonLad (21 Jan 2022)

Jody said:


> Also got prosecuted, raised the profile of CM's chanel and probably earned him some ad revenue.
> 
> Result



Not sure if we are talking about the same driver?, I was referring to the female Merc Driver, but, yes, the one where the police turned up was definitely a result.


----------



## shep (21 Jan 2022)

ianrauk said:


> And I respect your opinion Shep. It would be very easy for you, me and anyone, not just Mikey to come across a complete and utter nutcaase like Kenneth Noye.


I would imagine being the instigator of hundreds of fines, points and maybe bans coupled with his selected confrontational exploits he's going to have a bigger chance of running into said nutcase surely?

Not to mention people out for payback.


----------



## Dag Hammar (21 Jan 2022)

I will apologise in advance if what I’m about to write here has already been covered.
Re : Gandalf Corner.
The island that the offending vehicles pass on the wrong side is a halfway shelter for pedestrians crossing the road at that point. On the road surface it has “Look Left” markings. If crossing from the pavement towards the centre island it has “Look Right” markings. Those markings make sense because the traffic SHOULD only be coming from either of those directions.
Now imagine that a pedestrian is about to cross the road at that point and seeing those markings, checks in the one direction, and steps out into the road. Bang… hit by a vehicle coming the wrong way because the driver has ignored the mandatory keep left sign.

And you can add to that the additional danger of a cyclist turning left from that adjacent road and potentially ending up on the bonnet of a car.

Mikey has my support.


----------



## shep (21 Jan 2022)

Dag Hammar said:


> I will apologise in advance if what I’m about to write here has already been covered.
> Re : Gandalf Corner.
> The island that the offending vehicles pass on the wrong side is a halfway shelter for pedestrians crossing the road at that point. On the road surface it has “Look Left” markings. If crossing from the pavement towards the centre island it has “Look Right” markings. Those markings make sense because the traffic SHOULD only be coming from either of those directions.
> Now imagine that a pedestrian is about to cross the road at that point and seeing those markings, checks in the one direction, and steps out into the road. Bang… hit by a vehicle coming the wrong way because the driver has ignored the mandatory keep left sign.
> ...


I think something has been lost in all of this, if when riding around minding your own business you happen to film a wrong doing then fair enough report away. 

If however you go out of your way to watch and wait for offences to be committed and selectively challenge people to make a name for yourself and relish in the attention whilst hiding behind a camera, to me you're just a **** !


----------



## HobbesOnTour (21 Jan 2022)

shep said:


> make a name for yourself and relish in the attention whilst hiding behind a camera, to me you're just a **** !


It takes a special kind of arrogance to claim to read someone's mind and to know their motivations for doing something.

And as for "hiding behind a camera"?
He's standing right there in front of them! There really isn't any less "hiding" than that, is there? 
It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that someone will look to remove the camera some day. To face that idea down every single time takes a certain amount of courage. Surely that can be respected even if the method is disagreed with?

He's trying to make a change for the better and I'd like to know how many times in history positive change has come about by people sitting on their **** and just thinking about it.

And as for "selectively challenge" people he's just one person. Just because he can't catch everyone he shouldn't catch anyone?
What a messed up world we'd live in if nothing was done unless the result would be perfect.


----------



## GilesM (21 Jan 2022)

shep said:


> I think something has been lost in all of this, if when riding around minding your own business you happen to film a wrong doing then fair enough report away.
> 
> If however you go out of your way to watch and wait for offences to be committed and selectively challenge people to make a name for yourself and relish in the attention whilst hiding behind a camera, to me you're just a **** !


A perfect summing up.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (21 Jan 2022)

I think the word I would use is 'crusade' - with all it implies for good and ill.


----------



## Rusty Nails (21 Jan 2022)

shep said:


> I think something has been lost in all of this, if when riding around minding your own business you happen to film a wrong doing then fair enough report away.
> 
> If however you go out of your way to watch and wait for offences to be committed and selectively challenge people to make a name for yourself and relish in the attention whilst hiding behind a camera, to me you're just a **** !


You keep saying he is hiding behind a camera as if there is some sort of cowardice in his actìons. A camera is not exactly going to offer much protection, and it has already been explained to you that he is not afraid of confrontation, but that goes against your simplistic stereotype, so you choose to ignore it. Also it would be useless trying to film someone breaking the law if he were not "hiding" behind a camera. Perhaps he should take a pen and paper and draw them before sending his sketch to the police.

He is only "selectively" challenging people that he sees breaking the law, and not motorists who are driving within the law. They are the ones doing the self selecting.


----------



## shep (21 Jan 2022)

Rusty Nails said:


> You keep saying he is hiding behind a camera as if there is some sort of cowardice in his actìons. A camera is not exactly going to offer much protection, and it has already been explained to you that he is not afraid of confrontation, but that goes against your simplistic stereotype, so you choose to ignore it. Also it would be useless trying to film someone breaking the law if he were not "hiding" behind a camera. Perhaps he should take a pen and paper and draw them before sending his sketch to the police.
> 
> He is only "selectively" challenging people that he sees breaking the law, and not motorists who are driving within the law. They are the ones doing the self selecting.


Confronting someone whilst recording every word and action is protection in itself, if his aim was to simply 'educate' then the need for recording doesn't exist.

If his aim is prosecution, which in part it is, then anonymous filming would be adequate. 

The bloke likes the attention and the 'power ' he knows the camera affords him, without that he would have had his face punched in long ago.


----------



## shep (21 Jan 2022)

Anyway, time to get changed ready for the local and all the bores that frequent the place.


----------



## T4tomo (21 Jan 2022)

Cycleops said:


> Quite right, I’m always meeting drivers on the wrong side of the road. Maybe we should moderate speed around corners or even push the bike?


someone should tell Cyclops that they are suppose to be driving on the right in Ghana, bloody ex-pats.....


----------



## Rusty Nails (21 Jan 2022)

shep said:


> Confronting someone whilst recording every word and action is protection in itself, if his aim was to simply 'educate' then the need for recording doesn't exist.
> 
> If his aim is prosecution, which in part it is, then anonymous filming would be adequate.
> 
> The bloke likes the attention and the 'power ' he knows the camera affords him, without that he would have had his face punched in long ago.


Of course he looks for the attention via his blog/tweets/YouTube, or whatever he uses. That is obvious, and I doubt his aim is simply to educate them.

Whether he would have had his face punched in long ago is arguable and unprovable, as is your assertion he is "hiding" behind a camera. Without the camera he could not do what he does so there would be no point to it.

I suspect he doesn't give a toss about what other people think of his actions because he believes they are justifiable and successful. The fact that people spend so much time discussing his actions probably tells him his tactics are working, as do the prosecutions that arise from those actions.

Criticise away, meanwhile he will carry on filming and helping the police prosecute drivers who are breaking the law.

Even though Lampard did not get prosecuted over this latest film I bet he regrets doing it and will think twice about doing it again because of the bad publicity and the high fees for his loophole solicitor, so another result for Bikey Mikey.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (21 Jan 2022)

Has anyone had a look at the discussions about this on counterpart car forums?


----------



## Cycleops (21 Jan 2022)

T4tomo said:


> someone should tell Cyclops that they are suppose to be driving on the right in Ghana, bloody ex-pats.....


Funny you should say that. I've had a few clashes and near misses with cyclists here riding on the wrong side. Don't know whether it's sheer cussed disobedience or if they think it's safer. Can't image the latter as I've seen a few incidents where motorists have missed them as they're looking the wrong way coming out of side roads etc.

Having said that I've had my rear wheel crushed by an old boy on his phone in his 4x4.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (21 Jan 2022)

Cycleops said:


> Funny you should say that. I've had a few clashes and near misses with cyclists here riding on the wrong side. Don't know whether it's sheer cussed disobedience or if they think it's safer. Can't image the latter as I've seen a few incidents where motorists have missed them as they're looking the wrong way coming out of side roads etc.
> 
> *Having said that I've had my rear wheel crushed by an old boy on his phone in his 4x4.*


Who you gonna call? Reckon he might need a holiday


----------



## DaveReading (21 Jan 2022)

Dag Hammar said:


> I will apologise in advance if what I’m about to write here has already been covered.
> Re : Gandalf Corner.
> The island that the offending vehicles pass on the wrong side is a halfway shelter for pedestrians crossing the road at that point. On the road surface it has “Look Left” markings. If crossing from the pavement towards the centre island it has “Look Right” markings. Those markings make sense because the traffic SHOULD only be coming from either of those directions.
> Now imagine that a pedestrian is about to cross the road at that point and seeing those markings, checks in the one direction, and steps out into the road. Bang… hit by a vehicle coming the wrong way because the driver has ignored the mandatory keep left sign.


Post #84.


----------



## KnittyNorah (21 Jan 2022)

Dag Hammar said:


> The island that the offending vehicles pass on the wrong side is a halfway shelter for pedestrians crossing the road at that point. On the road surface it has “Look Left” markings. If crossing from the pavement towards the centre island it has “Look Right” markings. Those markings make sense because the traffic SHOULD only be coming from either of those directions.
> Now imagine that a pedestrian is about to cross the road at that point and seeing those markings, checks in the one direction, and steps out into the road. Bang… hit by a vehicle coming the wrong way because the driver has ignored the mandatory keep left sign.
> 
> And you can add to that the additional danger of a cyclist turning left from that adjacent road and potentially ending up on the bonnet of a car.
> ...


I am imagining me with my previous, for many years, severely visually impaired status, crossing at that corner.
Knowing the particular spots in my town where I only needed to detect traffic from one direction was incredibly helpful. I used to often need to ask - in shops where I was familiar with the staff - if someone could please 'see me across the road'; it's humiliating to have to do that, however much one might pretend that it's not. My preference was usually to walk up to a km merely to reach a crossing spot where I felt a safe passage was realistically achievable. Pelican crossings with audible signals were my preference, but there were a couple of 'easy' crossings not dissimilar to the Gandalf Corner one, where I could cross easily and fairly safely. But differences in design meant the - fortunately! - there was no issue with cars coming at me from the _wrong_ direction ...

Cycling Mikey has my support. I just wish that Lancashire police were as proactive as the Met and some others appear to be in the acceptance and use of video footage in traffic issues.


----------



## winjim (22 Jan 2022)

Where have all the good men gone and where are all the gods?


View: https://twitter.com/AndyCoxDCS/status/1484767559819931649?t=9RZvQCcx7aXT4ZXHbjTMWw&s=19


----------



## KnittyNorah (22 Jan 2022)

And in a real turn-up for the books, even a reporter from the notoriously-cyclist-hating DM appears to be on his side (piece linked in that twitter thread)!


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (22 Jan 2022)

KnittyNorah said:


> And in a real turn-up for the books, even a reporter from the notoriously-cyclist-hating DM appears to be on his side (piece linked in that twitter thread)!


Yup - I was surprised by that
I was dreading looking at the comments - but there were none on that story - which was also a surprise


----------



## Cycleops (22 Jan 2022)

KnittyNorah said:


> And in a real turn-up for the books, even a reporter from the notoriously-cyclist-hating DM appears to be on his side (piece linked in that twitter thread)!


It's usually in the comments you get the hate but I suspect the reporters are young people so are likely cyclists themselves


----------



## matticus (23 Jan 2022)

Is it possible that most of the cyclists calling Mikey rude names are part of the weird British animosity to "grasses"?
I hoped I left that behind in the playground ...


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (23 Jan 2022)

matticus said:


> Is it possible that most of the cyclists calling Mikey rude names are part of the weird British animosity to "grasses"?
> I hoped I left behind in the playground ...


'some relatives' have been known to say "well you just don;t grass on people"

including when someone threw a fire bomb at a house opposite to them during a kids party



It was OK becuase the morons had put the petrol in a plastic bottle and threw it at a double glazed window - and the petrol landed on concrete

but YEA GODS I would grass on them in under a microsecond

what do they think we pay the Police for with our taxes!!!

honestly - I despair of some people!


----------



## Brads (23 Jan 2022)

Oh shite.
I have been a road cyclist for over 40 years.
No matter how I try, I can’t view him as anything other that a total knobber.


----------



## Alex321 (23 Jan 2022)

matticus said:


> Is it possible that most of the cyclists calling Mikey rude names are part of the weird British animosity to "grasses"?
> I hoped I left behind in the playground ...


I don't think so, because most of the people criticising him are not criticising the fact he reports these bad drivers.

Not that many are calling him rude names, though a few are suggesting he "needs help", which AFAIK none of them are qualified to say, and if they were appropriately qualified, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be saying it based on a few videos.


----------



## shep (24 Jan 2022)

Alex321 said:


> I don't think so, because most of the people criticising him are not criticising the fact he reports these bad drivers.


Exactly this, it's been explained a number of times what people dislike about what he does.


----------



## shep (24 Jan 2022)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> 'some relatives' have been known to say "well you just don;t grass on people"
> 
> including when someone threw a fire bomb at a house opposite to them during a kids party
> 
> ...


Me too but if you think that's a good comparison then it's pointless trying to explain why some might dislike HOW he conducts his public heroics.


----------



## Cycleops (24 Jan 2022)

Here's a report on Mikey by road.cc which some might find interesting:
https://road.cc/content/news/cyclingmikey-episode-16-roadcc-podcast-289665


----------



## matticus (26 Jan 2022)

When I read this case, it made me laugh that people are ranting about Mikey the "vigilante":

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-60140865
_A man has been cleared of the *manslaughter of a suspected burglar following a citizen's arrest*.

Nathan Smith, 38, was found not guilty by a jury at Bristol Crown Court after pinning Craig Wiltshire, 43, to the ground on 20 November 2019.

Mr Wiltshire lost consciousness after Mr Smith knelt on his back for nine minutes while performing a citizen's arrest in a suburb of Bristol._


----------



## Cycleops (26 Jan 2022)

Also read about that. You may also be aware of the guy who used his car to run over and kill a violent ex husband who was stabbing his ex to death in Maida Vale just this week. These are the _real_ vigilantes.


----------



## Rusty Nails (26 Jan 2022)

Cycleops said:


> Also read about that. You may also be aware of the guy who used his car to run over and kill a violent ex husband who was stabbing his ex to death in Maida Vale just this week. These are the _real_ vigilantes.


I don't think that this man was a vigilante in any accepted sense of the term. He saw a man stabbing a woman and tried to stop him during the act by driving at him. A tragic outcome but certainly not vigilantism.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (26 Jan 2022)

Those two examples are ordinary people who happened across crimes and who intervened. There are not by any stretch of the imagination vigilantes.


----------



## matticus (26 Jan 2022)

Bonefish Blues said:


> Those two examples are ordinary people who happened across crimes and who intervened. There are not by any stretch of the imagination vigilantes.


Not so in the Bristol case; the guy that died was believed to have committed several burglaries in the area i.e. in the past.


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (26 Jan 2022)

We were talking about this last night at home

there is a fine line between a citizen reacting appropriately to a crime in progress - and vigilante

if you look the word 'vigilante' up on the various dictionaries on the WWW then the definition varies

it seems to be anything from
a) a person who takes it upon themselves to intervene in a crime - which could be a crime in progress - in spite of not being part of a legal law enforcement group

up to

b) a member of a GROUP who take it upon themselves to enforce the law and implement punishment because, in their eye the legally entitled forces of law and order are not doing it right/at all

clearly my phrasing

so - at one extreme - we have cyclingmikey

at the other we have - to go WAY to the extreme - Hitler's brown shirts and all that


some bloke seeing a woman being stabbed several times and driving his car at him - closer to cyclingmikey - crime on a different level leading to a response on a different level

but not a group - which one dictionary said - of people enforcing a different law that was somewhat different to the one on the statute books


but could be inside the definition - but only just and at the justifiable end


----------



## Bonefish Blues (26 Jan 2022)

matticus said:


> Not so in the Bristol case; the guy that died *was believed to have committed several burglaries in the area i.e. in the past*.


So because of that, the acquitted was a vigilante was he? You know, the man who spotted him (the man widely believed to be responsible for a series of thefts in the immediate area, as was accepted by the Judge as fact) outside the property he works in as a live-in-carer, and who detained him until the police arrived.

You not sure you're stretching any definition of vigilante just a tad now? 

Or let's say he is, for the sake of argument - draw me a distinction between him and Mikey, since you are rebuffing any attempts to label the latter thus.

For the record, I do not label Mikey a vigilante, nor do I label the acquitted one for exercising his legal right.


----------



## Alex321 (26 Jan 2022)

matticus said:


> When I read this case, it made me laugh that people are ranting about Mikey the "vigilante":


Well I haven't5 seen anybody doing that, but never mind.

Presumably then you would laugh at somebody who shoplifts a £10 t-shirt from a shop being labelled a "criminal", since murderers are criminals?


----------



## classic33 (26 Jan 2022)

Alex321 said:


> Well I haven't5 seen anybody doing that, but never mind.
> 
> Presumably then you would laugh at *somebody who shoplifts a £10 t-shirt from a shop being labelled a "criminal", *since murderers are criminals?


Nothing against that, they are. And they get a lot more leeway than many other criminals out there if & when it gets to court.


----------



## Alex321 (27 Jan 2022)

classic33 said:


> Nothing against that, they are. And they get a lot more leeway than many other criminals out there if & when it gets to court.


Agreed. I was making the point in response to matticus that if he laughs because Mikey is described as a vigilante (which he is) when there are far more serious cases around (which there absolutely are), then presumably he will similarly "laugh" at those people being called criminals because there are far more serious cases around.


----------



## classic33 (27 Jan 2022)

Alex321 said:


> Agreed. I was making the point in response to matticus that if he laughs because Mikey is described as a vigilante (which he is) when there are far more serious cases around (which there absolutely are), then presumably he will similarly "laugh" at those people being called criminals because there are far more serious cases around.


Now you're saying that cycling mikey is a vigilante?

Even shoplifting was split years ago, with a limit/value placed on the amount before police would be involved*. Assaults aside whilst the theft is taking place. Take a number of £10 items from different stores and it's down to the stores to take action.
Multiple murders are not on the same level. Especially when it gets to court. Less likely to get let off with a warning of "not to do it again".

*The police had more serious incidents to deal with, and not enough officer's to deal with them. Private security companies stepped in to fill that gap. They have no more power than you or me, or shop staff.


----------



## Alex321 (27 Jan 2022)

classic33 said:


> Now you're saying that cycling mikey is a vigilante?


I always have said that. (But not "ranting" about him being one).


----------



## matticus (27 Jan 2022)

Alex321 said:


> ... then presumably he will similarly ... [etc etc ...]


It's all about perspective. I happen to think that mine is about right on this matter.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (27 Jan 2022)

I’d add to this vigilante conversation, but sorry I need to head out and fight crime


----------



## Alex321 (27 Jan 2022)

matticus said:


> It's all about perspective. I happen to think that mine is about right on this matter.


I'm not quite sure what you are saying here.

It would *appear* that you are saying that from your "perspective" he can't be a vigilante because there are people who are far more seriously vigilantes.

Is that actually what you are trying to say, or are you saying something different that I'm just not getting?


----------



## matticus (27 Jan 2022)

You've just beautifully illustrated how perspectives work!
(sorry for not answering your actual question, but then I'm not under oath, or under any other obligation ... )


----------

