# "Cycling Mikey" loses court case.



## Brandane (13 Oct 2022)

Northern Echo link.

I wasn't previously aware of this incident, which happened in September 2021 near Regents Park, London. Presumably at the corner featured in a lot of CM's videos, where he tries to stop drivers turning right at a busy junction where they go on the wrong side of a keep left sign and island instead of waiting for traffic to clear.
I haven't seen this particular video; maybe it was kept private due to this ongoing court case. But the jury seem to have swallowed the defence story that CM threw himself onto the bonnet of the accused's Range Rover before being carried on it for 20 yards.
At least the incident resulted in the driver getting 3 points and a fine after pleading guilty to failing to comply with the keep left sign; which had previously been dealt with at a magistrate's court.


----------



## Arjimlad (13 Oct 2022)

You're correct, it's juries' infathomable decision making. 

How it can be acceptable to a jury for someone to drive a RR through CM in this fashion is beyond me. Charged with dangerous rather than careless, perhaps careless would have got through. 

We can't second guess their reasoning. A good call by the driver to put it to a jury rather than leaving it in the magistrates.


----------



## AndyRM (13 Oct 2022)

This is the video, for anyone interested.


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


----------



## winjim (13 Oct 2022)

To be fair there was a certain amount of unnecessary clinging to the bonnet involved, which can't have helped.


----------



## AndyRM (13 Oct 2022)

winjim said:


> To be fair there was a certain amount of unnecessary clinging to the bonnet involved, which can't have helped.



Agreed, and threatening the fella who got out, with a clenched fist, towards the end won't have done him any favours either.

I'm not a cammer myself, never felt the need to be. And in a way I do admire and respect some elements of what cammers do. But you seriously have to make sure your own behaviour is absolutely beyond the pale before making accusations/taking things further otherwise you just look like a bit of a pillock.


----------



## Brandane (13 Oct 2022)

The video clearly shows that the Range Rover had stopped; but then the driver moves off again knowing CM is standing in front of the vehicle. Yet a jury decides that is OK? I despair for humanity, again. A jury trial though, so not a surprise.


----------



## Arrowfoot (13 Oct 2022)

Was there ever a need to stand in front of the vehicle and or hold on to it. His camera has already captured the offence. Vigilanteism tends to go thru a cycle. There is an initial appreciation and recognition. It then goes to the head thinking that society wants and have empowered them to do more.


----------



## DaveReading (13 Oct 2022)

Misleading headline.

It was a criminal case in the Crown Court, in other words R v (the defendant). Cycling Mikey may well have given evidence, but he was neither prosecuting nor defending, so he didn't "lose" anything.


----------



## winjim (13 Oct 2022)

AndyRM said:


> Agreed, and threatening the fella who got out, with a clenched fist, towards the end won't have done him any favours either.
> 
> I'm not a cammer myself, never felt the need to be. And in a way I do admire and respect some elements of what cammers do. But you seriously have to make sure your own behaviour is absolutely beyond the pale before making accusations/taking things further otherwise you just look like a bit of a pillock.



It hampered his ability to call 999 for one thing which, bearing in mind I've got a lot of respect for Mikey, was quite funny. I don't see the point, once he's been hit it's been clear the driver is disregarding his safety, he's got the evidence, he's got the reg number, it's time to let go. Literally.

I get that a panic response may have kicked in but he does this all the time, he needs to be prepared for this eventuality and know exactly what he's going to do.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (13 Oct 2022)

Brandane said:


> Northern Echo link.
> 
> I wasn't previously aware of this incident, which happened in September 2021 near Regents Park, London. Presumably at the corner featured in a lot of CM's videos, where he tries to stop drivers turning right at a busy junction where they go on the wrong side of a keep left sign and island instead of waiting for traffic to clear.
> I haven't seen this particular video; maybe it was kept private due to this ongoing court case. But the jury seem to have swallowed the defence story that CM threw himself onto the bonnet of the accused's Range Rover before being carried on it for 20 yards.
> At least the incident resulted in the driver getting 3 points and a fine after pleading guilty to failing to comply with the keep left sign; which had previously been dealt with at a magistrate's court.



So he wasn't a Doctor on his way to an emergency as his mate claimed then. There's a shock.


----------



## shep (13 Oct 2022)

The bloke is a complete pr*ck in my opinion and hangs around on that corner to simply enhance his ego, I would dearly love someone to come along and knock him out!


----------



## Cycleops (13 Oct 2022)

That verdict will certainly embolden all entitled drivers who tho think cyclists are scum and shouldn't be on the road without having number plates and insurance. Might even encourage them to try a similar trick.


----------



## icowden (13 Oct 2022)

The key thing with this is the very poor reporting. Paul Lyon Maris was not found innocent of the charge. He was not exonerated for his poor behavior. What happened was that the Jury did not agree that there was sufficient evidence presented to find him guilty. Lyon Maris will have been able to afford a very expensive, top rated Barrister who managed to dance his way around the charge and present enough doubt that the Jury decided they could not convict.

It's a real shame for CyclingMikey, but it's a bigger shame that the press are portraying him as deliberately trying to entrap Lyon Maris.


----------



## wiggydiggy (13 Oct 2022)

I stopped watching cycling cam videos as I found it too depressing, it's just endless conflict and shouting. Id expect quiet calm incident free videos wouldn't be as popular though.


----------



## Cycleops (13 Oct 2022)

Hard to see how a campaigner trapping motorists who break the law using their phones is ever going to calm and quiet, although most seem to accept it as a 'fair cop'.


----------



## shep (13 Oct 2022)

Cycleops said:


> Hard to see how a campaigner trapping motorists who break the law using their phones is ever going to calm and quiet, although most seem to accept it as a 'fair cop'.



Because what people who don't do it for fame and notoriety would do is simply film the offence and submit it to the authorities. 

What spineless, self appointed, egotistical cowards that hide behind cameras do is wait in a spot well known for rule breaking and with camera running confront people in order to make a name for themselves. 

How many hoody wearing, illegal, footpath riding scooters does he stop?

None I guess 'cos he'd get a good slap!


----------



## Cycleops (13 Oct 2022)

Looks like Mikey is going to get a bit of competition from the Old Bill themselves as it introduces these camera equipped mobile units to catch the poor unsuspecting motorists on their phones or not wearing a belt.


View: https://youtu.be/BrBBdB5UUsU


----------



## slowmotion (14 Oct 2022)

I've seen a few clips by Mikey but what interests me is why a grown man would wish to lurk around bushes in Regents Park to catch motorists committing fairly minor traffic offences. What triggered this bizarre behaviour?


----------



## mustang1 (14 Oct 2022)

shep said:


> Because what people who don't do it for fame and notoriety would do is simply film the offence and submit it to the authorities.
> 
> What spineless, self appointed, egotistical cowards that hide behind cameras do is wait in a spot well known for rule breaking and with camera running confront people in order to make a name for themselves.
> 
> ...



That's a bit like those government-funded GATSO cameras that are only put in places where it is known that drivers break the rules. Pah, and those pesky RLJ cameras too, why would they be placed somewhere where drivers break the rules. I suppose it's the same things for CM, he lurks where drivers _do_ break the rules like the GATSO cameras, otherwise what's the point.

If CM was more of a vigilante, instead of a camera, he might choose one of those stingers that blow out the tyres!


----------



## shep (14 Oct 2022)

mustang1 said:


> That's a bit like those government-funded GATSO cameras that are only put in places where it is known that drivers break the rules. Pah, and those pesky RLJ cameras too, why would they be placed somewhere where drivers break the rules. I suppose it's the same things for CM, he lurks where drivers _do_ break the rules like the GATSO cameras, otherwise what's the point.
> 
> If CM was more of a vigilante, instead of a camera, he might choose one of those stingers that blow out the tyres!



Camera's are non confrontational and using a stinger would be criminal damage so a ridiculous comparison really. 

It's the hard on he gets from confronting people when he knows they're being filmed that I find cowardly, as already said why not find some young untraceable hoody wearing scooter riders to approach?

I saw a video of him turning around to confront some young kids for calling him a name, they were about 14/15 and he ended with the phrase "grow a pair " the bloke's a fame seeking nause!


----------



## Mo1959 (14 Oct 2022)

shep said:


> Camera's are non confrontational and using a stinger would be criminal damage so a ridiculous comparison really.
> 
> It's the hard on he gets from confronting people when he knows they're being filmed that I find cowardly, as already said why not find some young untraceable hoody wearing scooter riders to approach?
> 
> I saw a video of him turning around to confront some young kids for calling him a name, they were about 14/15 and he ended with the phrase "grow a pair " the bloke's a fame seeking nause!



Have to admit I find him intensely irritating any of his videos I have watched.


----------



## Juan Kog (14 Oct 2022)

slowmotion said:


> What triggered this bizarre behaviour?


Maybe it was his Father being run down and killed by a drunk driver .


----------



## shep (14 Oct 2022)

Juan Kog said:


> Maybe it was his Father being run down and killed by a drunk driver .



We all know the tail, why isn't he waiting outside pubs with a breathalyser kit then?


----------



## winjim (14 Oct 2022)

icowden said:


> Paul Lyon Maris was not found innocent of the charge. He was not exonerated for his poor behavior. What happened was that the Jury did not agree that there was sufficient evidence presented to find him guilty. Lyon Maris will have been able to afford a very expensive, top rated Barrister who managed to dance his way around the charge and present enough doubt that the Jury decided they could not convict.



Watching the video I can imagine how they came to that conclusion. Reading Lyon-Maris' defence as reported in that article, he's clearly being a drama queen and talking bollocks, however, it's very difficult to see exactly what happened at the beginning of the encounter and later on you can see that Mikey gets off the bonnet, but then climbs back on and grabs it again rather than simply moving to a safe position. That could be enough to make one doubt his motivation at the start.

Maybe, just maybe if we'd seen the beginning of the video with the car moving forward towards him and less of the bonnet gymnastics and smartwatch farce, there may have been a different outcome.

I generally regard Mikey as goodhearted and a bit of an eccentric and I watch his videos for a laugh, but I don't think he's done himself any favours with this one.


----------



## Cycleops (14 Oct 2022)

shep said:


> We all know the tail, why isn't he waiting outside pubs with a breathalyser kit then?


I’m sure he would if he could.


----------



## mustang1 (14 Oct 2022)

shep said:


> Camera's are non confrontational and using a stinger would be criminal damage so a ridiculous comparison really.
> 
> It's the hard on he gets from confronting people when he knows they're being filmed that I find cowardly, as already said why not find some young untraceable hoody wearing scooter riders to approach?
> 
> I saw a video of him turning around to confront some young kids for calling him a name, they were about 14/15 and he ended with the phrase "grow a pair " the bloke's a fame seeking nause!



I do understand your POV. Suppose CM confronted both the scooter riders and the car drivers. Would that be ok then?


----------



## matticus (14 Oct 2022)

shep said:


> How many hoody wearing, illegal, footpath riding scooters does he stop?
> 
> None I guess 'cos he'd get a good slap!



Tell us about your success stories stopping your local hoodies. (This isn't Youtube - you won't get any fame. Just us losers will read it.)


----------



## Juan Kog (14 Oct 2022)

shep said:


> We all know the tail, why isn't he waiting outside pubs with a breathalyser kit then?


🤔 Tough question. Maybe it’s because he’s not a Police Officer.

As Cycleops says 


Cycleops said:


> I’m sure he would if he could.


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (14 Oct 2022)

I do think he goes over the top 

The people he targets are breaking the law - but he feels entitled to confront them even if there is no clear harm being
done

The 'Gandalf Corner' stuff is a definite offence and a lot of the videos I have watched show drivers going WAY over the top rather than just reversing and going the right way round
There is never an excuse to just drive forward into him - however much of a prat he is being

But i have seen him confront people looking at a phone in a stationary traffic jam - OK clearly offence - but no harm because the car isn't moving 

If he toned down his attitude I would have more sympathy for him

does seem like he pushed it too far in this incident


As far as the comments about hoody wearing scooter riders (etc etc - you could easily include cyclist running red lights) then what can he do - he can't identify them easily and the chances of prosecution are negligible even if he gets a shot of their face!


----------



## Tom... (14 Oct 2022)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> But i have seen him confront people looking at a phone in a stationary traffic jam - OK clearly offence - *but no harm because the car isn't moving*


----------



## newfhouse (14 Oct 2022)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> but no harm because the car isn't moving



Do even cyclists believe this? Wow. 

Have you never seen the WhatsApp gap in action?


----------



## shep (14 Oct 2022)

Juan Kog said:


> 🤔 Tough question. Maybe it’s because he’s not a Police Officer.



I rest my case!


----------



## shep (14 Oct 2022)

matticus said:


> Tell us about your success stories stopping your local hoodies. (This isn't Youtube - you won't get any fame. Just us losers will read it.)



WTF are you going on about?

Why would I do either, I'm not a fame seeking knobb*r.


----------



## matticus (14 Oct 2022)

shep said:


> Why would I do either,



You're having a moan at him for not stopping the hoodies with e-scooters. Why should he, if _you _can't be bothered? You lazy knobb*er!

Meanwhile, let him get on with making a small difference to problems that _he _wants to tackle. Why accuse him of cowardice?


----------



## shep (14 Oct 2022)

Cycleops said:


> I’m sure he would if he could.



What's stopping him?

He could buy his own kit and confront them as they attempt to drive away.


----------



## shep (14 Oct 2022)

matticus said:


> You're having a moan at him for not stopping the hoodies with e-scooters. Why should he, if _you _can't be bothered? You lazy knobb*er!
> 
> Meanwhile, let him get on with making a small difference to problems that _he _wants to tackle. Why accuse him of cowardice?



I couldn't give a toss about either of them but he only chooses people who he knows can't retaliate (due to being filmed) that's why it's cowardly.


----------



## icowden (14 Oct 2022)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> I do think he goes over the top
> The people he targets are breaking the law - but he feels entitled to confront them even if there is no clear harm being done
> But i have seen him confront people looking at a phone in a stationary traffic jam - OK clearly offence - but no harm because the car isn't moving


Whilst I agree, I think that CyclingMikey is likely to be neurodivergent / Aspergers. For some of us we find it *really* difficult if not impossible to comprehend breaking the rules*. I get *very* agitated when I see red light jumpers, cars and motorbikes stopped in bike boxes, people parked on double yellows outside McDonalds, people who have just driven onto a wide pavement to park etc. I do recognise however that this is something that is a little peculiar to the way that I think, and I often have to have a word with myself (although I will then probably write an e-mail to the council suggesting enforcement or changes to street furniture to stop the lawlessness!). 

I recognise that very few of these things that make me seethe are actually dangerous or problematic in the grand scheme of things, but that rule following part of my soul *really wants to call for punishment!!*

*as long as the rules are soundly and logically constructed. Can't stand nonsense rules.


----------



## Cycleops (14 Oct 2022)

shep said:


> What's stopping him?
> 
> He could buy his own kit and confront them as they attempt to drive away.


Absolutely no point and would be dangerous as I’m sure you realise. He could report them though.


----------



## matticus (14 Oct 2022)

shep said:


> I couldn't give a toss about either of them but he only chooses people who he knows can't retaliate (due to being filmed) that's why it's cowardly.



Of course they can retaliate. People get beaten up on CCTV all the time. Police have bodycams - doesn't stop resisting arrest.
Mikey was recently driven into, on camera. Nice gentle speed, sure, but probably wasn't very nice. Did you see that?

There's a ton of footage of assualts/road-rage out there, caught on bike-cams.


----------



## shep (14 Oct 2022)

Cycleops said:


> Absolutely no point and would be dangerous as I’m sure you realise. He could report them though.



At last, exactly my point. 

Report them and F**k off, not hang around pretending you're Jonny big b*llox hiding behind a camera.


----------



## Chislenko (14 Oct 2022)

I think my worry is that his "behaviour" will further prejudice driver's attitudes towards cyclists and some poor minding his / her own business cyclist will be on the wrong end of a driver who he has p-ssed off.


----------



## shep (14 Oct 2022)

matticus said:


> Of course they can retaliate. People get beaten up on CCTV all the time. Police have bodycams - doesn't stop resisting arrest.
> Mikey was recently driven into, on camera. Nice gentle speed, sure, but probably wasn't very nice. Did you see that?
> 
> There's a ton of footage of assualts/road-rage out there, caught on bike-cams.



They can but less inclined to do so when fully traceable, as for being 'driven into ' hardly life threatening. 

OK I realise he's your hero, that's fine, but do you honestly believe this bloke isn't in it as much for the fame as anything else?

I saw one video where the tw*t was riding along a cycle lane in the opposite direction and turned around to peer into all the cars waiting in a queue to see who had their phone in hand, the bloke goes out of his way.


----------



## Cycleops (14 Oct 2022)

Chislenko said:


> I think my worry is that his "behaviour" will further prejudice driver's attitudes towards cyclists and some poor minding his / her own business cyclist will be on the wrong end of a driver who he has p-ssed off.


I'm sure he has 'pissed off' some motorists who've been caught but if they then transfer that to other cyclists they've only got their own prejudices to blame and are probably of the 'make 'em have number plates and insurance' brigade.


----------



## matticus (14 Oct 2022)

icowden said:


> I recognise that very few of these things that make me seethe are actually dangerous or problematic in the grand scheme of things, but that rule following part of my soul *really wants to call for punishment!!*



There may well be good reasons for enforcing the more "trivial" offences. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory


----------



## lazybloke (14 Oct 2022)

Latest camera angle supposedly disproves Mikey "climbed" on the bonnet and shows the driver repeatedly drove into Mikey. Not going to get drawn into that debate because the fisheye view on a phone screen looks far from clear to my eye.

But it does make we wonder which camera views were shared as evidence, and whether there is any option for the jury's decision to be reviewed.


----------



## icowden (14 Oct 2022)

lazybloke said:


> But it does make we wonder which camera views were shared as evidence, and whether there is any option for the jury's decision to be reviewed.


If those camera views were not admitted in evidence and have now come to light, then I think the defendant can be retried.


> The Court of Appeal can only make an order to quash an acquittal and order a retrial *if it is satisfied that there is both new and compelling evidence and that it is in the interests of justice*.


----------



## steveindenmark (14 Oct 2022)

shep said:


> The bloke is a complete pr*ck in my opinion and hangs around on that corner to simply enhance his ego, I would dearly love someone to come along and knock him out!



I have to agree with this. He is in the same mould as traffic droid. If you want to uphold the law on a full time basis, as these guys seem to do. Go and sign up to become a police officer. They antagonise motorists and that does cycling no good at all.


----------



## matticus (14 Oct 2022)

steveindenmark said:


> They antagonise motorists and that does cycling no good at all.



twollocks. They only antagonise drivers who are already breaking the law.

Meanwhile, cyclists just riding lawfully down the law are somehow antagonising some motorists - they can go screw themselves. Sorry if that offends you Steve.


----------



## matticus (14 Oct 2022)

steveindenmark said:


> If you want to uphold the law on a full time basis, as these guys seem to do. Go and sign up to become a police officer.



plenty of police forces have given their support to people like this. Do you know better than them? Are YOU a policeman Steve?


----------



## Bonefish Blues (14 Oct 2022)

What sort of support are you thinking about?


----------



## Juan Kog (14 Oct 2022)

shep said:


> I rest my case!


5 more posts after you rested your case .


----------



## the snail (14 Oct 2022)

slowmotion said:


> I've seen a few clips by Mikey but what interests me is why a grown man would wish to lurk around bushes in Regents Park to catch motorists committing fairly minor traffic offences. What triggered this bizarre behaviour?



If you came around that corner on your bike and got run over by that twat in the suv, I bet you wouldn't think it was a minor thing.


----------



## the snail (14 Oct 2022)

shep said:


> I couldn't give a toss about either of them but he only chooses people who he knows can't retaliate (due to being filmed) that's why it's cowardly.



Nonsense. The guy retaliated by driving his penis substitute at him. I don't think Mikey's behaviour is cowardly at all, it takes some nerve to stand in front of a random moton like that. The coward is the one who sits inside the metal box and tries to barge him out of the way.


----------



## slowmotion (14 Oct 2022)

the snail said:


> If you came around that corner on your bike and got run over by that twat in the suv, I bet you wouldn't think it was a minor thing.



I've been knocked off my bike several times by people driving badly. So far, I've not felt the need to engage in some kind of _jihad _against motorists.


----------



## Venod (14 Oct 2022)

I might have said this before, but if he comes up to Yorkshire to do his filming there would be no video evidence unless you extract his camera from his arse,


----------



## Cycleops (14 Oct 2022)

slowmotion said:


> I've been knocked off my bike several times by people driving badly. So far, I've not felt the need to engage in some kind of _jihad _against motorists.


A religious war?


----------



## lazybloke (14 Oct 2022)

Venod said:


> I might have said this before, but if he comes up to Yorkshire to do his filming there would be no video evidence unless you extract his camera from his arse,



I know people who have had to pay good money to get a camera up their.... 
No, never mind.


----------



## Venod (14 Oct 2022)

lazybloke said:


> I know people who have had to pay good money to get a camera up their....
> No, never mind.



Now I think about it I have had one up mine, free gratis.


----------



## Alex321 (14 Oct 2022)

matticus said:


> twollocks. They only antagonise drivers who are already breaking the law.



Why "twollocks" when you then agree with him?



matticus said:


> Meanwhile, cyclists just riding lawfully down the law are somehow antagonising some motorists - they can go screw themselves. Sorry if that offends you Steve.



One day, you should really come visit planet earth. Things are not as black and white here as you (and one or two others here) would have us believe.


----------



## Alex321 (14 Oct 2022)

matticus said:


> plenty of police forces have given their support to people like this. Do you know better than them? Are YOU a policeman Steve?



I'm not aware of any police force who has done so.

They give their support to people who video offences and submit that video.

I'm not aware of any police force who support people confronting those who are committing offences.

I don't agree that he is cowardly as Shep suggests, but I have always said that I do not agree with his confrontational stance. Take videos and submit them, absolutely. Take the law into your own hands by stopping them continuing, no.


----------



## shep (14 Oct 2022)

the snail said:


> Nonsense. The guy retaliated by driving his penis substitute at him. I don't think Mikey's behaviour is cowardly at all, it takes some nerve to stand in front of a random moton like that. The coward is the one who sits inside the metal box and tries to barge him out of the way.



I'd love to meet this pr*ck without his camera in a dark side street, doubt this would ever happen though.


----------



## shep (14 Oct 2022)

matticus said:


> plenty of police forces have given their support to people like this. Do you know better than them? Are YOU a policeman Steve?



Are YOU a purple coloured bird?


----------



## matticus (14 Oct 2022)




----------



## matticus (14 Oct 2022)




----------



## Time Waster (14 Oct 2022)

I think the support is in the forces who have set up systems where road users van submit video evidence of traffic offences. No matter how you legally get it I think those forces appreciate the means to an easier prosecution with good video evidence.

I get the idea that he's a dick in the way he's out to catch bad driving, but I do think he's at risk of going too far at times. I also think this guy got a posh guy pass with his acquittal.


----------



## Stephenite (15 Oct 2022)

shep said:


> I'd love to meet this pr*ck without his camera in a dark side street, doubt this would ever happen though.



You would run a mile.

You are all mouth.

CM is waiting for you at Gandalfs Corner.


----------



## shep (15 Oct 2022)

Stephenite said:


> CM is waiting for you at Gandalfs Corner.



With his camera rolling.


----------



## steveindenmark (16 Oct 2022)

I think that there is little doubt that he has problems. When "normal" cyclists see motorists making these manoevres we just assume they are a tosser and move on instantly. We do not go leaping on cars and making it our lifes work. 

As for this idea that the motorist did not prove his innocence. What tosh. His barrister has to prove his clients lack of guilt. Which he did in front of a jury. If a crazy man jumped on the front of my car. I would not stop either.

Mickey needs help imo.


----------



## figbat (16 Oct 2022)

steveindenmark said:


> As for this idea that the motorist did not prove his innocence. What tosh. His barrister has to prove his clients lack of guilt.



But in English law, those are different things. ”Not guilty” is not the same as “innocent”. It just means there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. There are all sorts of ways that a person might have done what they are being accused of but found not guilty.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (16 Oct 2022)

figbat said:


> But in English law, those are different things. ”Not guilty” is not the same as “innocent”. It just means there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. There are all sorts of ways that a person might have done what they are being accused of but found not guilty.



In English Law, if you are found not guilty, legally speaking you are innocent. There is no legal grey area as, with a few exceptions, the general under pinning premise is 'innocent until proven guilty'. Scotland has not proven, which is more in line with what you're saying.


----------



## figbat (16 Oct 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> In English Law, if you are found not guilty, legally speaking you are innocent. There is no legal grey area as, with a few exceptions, the general under pinning premise is 'innocent until proven guilty'. Scotland has not proven, which is more in line with what you're saying.



If you are found not guilty, you are acquitted of the crime. Nobody pronounces you innocent.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (16 Oct 2022)

figbat said:


> If you are found not guilty, you are acquitted of the crime. Nobody pronounces you innocent.



They don't need to, that's the default position of us all, and the cornerstone of our legal system.

By your argument, if you've never been arrested or convicted you must be guilty.


----------



## icowden (16 Oct 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> By your argument, if you've never been arrested or convicted you must be guilty.


Nope, because you have nothing to be guilty of. If you are tried at court you can be found Not Guilty, but you are not proven innocent.
For example, lets say you are found not guilty of murder, but in 5 years time crucial new DNA evidence is found suggesting beyond a doubt that you are the murderer. You can then be retried provided the appeal Court allows it. You were never innocent. Just not proven guilty.

If you want to understand this further @barristersecret has something to say about it in her rather excellent books about the law.


----------



## icowden (16 Oct 2022)

steveindenmark said:


> As for this idea that the motorist did not prove his innocence. What tosh. His barrister has to prove his clients lack of guilt. Which he did in front of a jury. If a crazy man jumped on the front of my car. I would not stop either.


There is no direct evidence that CyclingMikey jumped on the front of the car. There is just not enough evidence for the Jury to be happy that he *didn't* jump on the front of the car.


----------



## classic33 (16 Oct 2022)

steveindenmark said:


> I think that there is little doubt that he has problems. When "normal" cyclists see motorists making these manoevres we just assume they are a tosser and move on instantly. We do not go leaping on cars and making it our lifes work.
> 
> As for this idea that the motorist did not prove his innocence. What tosh. His barrister has to prove his clients lack of guilt. Which he did in front of a jury. If a crazy man jumped on the front of my car. I would not stop either.
> 
> Mickey needs help imo.


Would you also drive into a person more than once?


----------



## ClichéGuevara (16 Oct 2022)

icowden said:


> Nope, because you have nothing to be guilty of. If you are tried at court you can be found Not Guilty, but you are not proven innocent.
> For example, lets say you are found not guilty of murder, but in 5 years time crucial new DNA evidence is found suggesting beyond a doubt that you are the murderer. You can then be retried provided the appeal Court allows it. You were never innocent. Just not proven guilty.
> 
> If you want to understand this further @barristersecret has something to say about it in her rather excellent books about the law.



Nope. The cornerstone of UK Law is the presumption of innocence.

I guess people could be confusing public opinion with the legal status.


----------



## BoldonLad (16 Oct 2022)

Cycleops said:


> I'm sure he has 'pissed off' some motorists who've been caught but* if they then transfer that to other cyclists they've only got their own prejudices to blame and are probably of the 'make 'em have number plates and insurance' brigade*.



Possibly true, but, how does that help the "innocent" cyclist who is on the receiving end of the transferred rage?


----------



## matticus (16 Oct 2022)

BoldonLad said:


> Possibly true, but, how does that help the "innocent" cyclist who is on the receiving end of the transferred rage?



Speaking as an innocent cyclist, I don't give a monkeys. Angry drivers should be prosecuted if they break the law; locked up if they are a danger to the general public.
Simple.


----------



## BoldonLad (16 Oct 2022)

matticus said:


> Speaking as an innocent cyclist, I don't give a monkeys.* Angry drivers should be prosecuted if they break the law; locked up if they are a danger to the general public*.
> Simple.



Agreed, but, they have to be caught, and prosecuted first.


----------



## steveindenmark (16 Oct 2022)

figbat said:


> If you are found not guilty, you are acquitted of the crime. Nobody pronounces you innocent.



But you are presumed to be innocent under the law. You cannot be say


figbat said:


> But in English law, those are different things. ”Not guilty” is not the same as “innocent”. It just means there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. There are all sorts of ways that a person might have done what they are being accused of but found not guilty.



Yes but Innocent does not come up in a court. But not guilty does. The defence has to prove nothing. The prosecution failed to prove their case here . Whether he is innocent or not is immaterial. He is not guilty. He may be as guilty as sin. But the defence has to prove it.


----------



## icowden (16 Oct 2022)

ClichéGuevara said:


> In English Law, if you are found not guilty, legally speaking you are innocent. There is no legal grey area as, with a few exceptions, the general under pinning premise is 'innocent until proven guilty'. Scotland has not proven, which is more in line with what you're saying.



In English law you are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. This is a binary logic essential to justice. However if you are found not guilty, it does not mean that you are therefore meaningfully completely innocent. It just means that your guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (16 Oct 2022)

icowden said:


> In English law you are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. This is a binary logic essential to justice. However if you are found not guilty, it does not mean that you are therefore meaningfully completely innocent. It just means that your guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.



Okay, have it your way, but only for you personally. You are guilty of something as you've not proven your innocence.

I'll stick to being innocent as the law of this land determined.


----------



## DaveReading (16 Oct 2022)

icowden said:


> In English law you are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty.





icowden said:


> However if you are found not guilty, it does not mean that you are therefore meaningfully completely innocent. It just means that your guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.


Those two statements are contradictory. 

If you are found not guilty in court, then the presumption of innocence that applied before your trial continues to do so.

Unless you are one of the "no smoke without fire" lot.


----------



## icowden (17 Oct 2022)

DaveReading said:


> Those two statements are contradictory.


They aren't. One is a binary premise. 
The other statement is the real world implication of being charged with an offence. 

You cannot be proven innocent.


----------



## DaveReading (17 Oct 2022)

icowden said:


> They aren't. One is a binary premise.
> The other statement is the real world implication of being charged with an offence.
> 
> You cannot be proven innocent.


Indeed you can't. But that applies equally before and after a trial, if the trial results in a "not guilty" verdict. 

In those circumstances, you are still presumed to be innocent. Qualifying that presumption with weasel words like "completely" and "meaningfully" is, well, meaningless.


----------



## shep (17 Oct 2022)

icowden said:


> You cannot be proven innocent.



You don't need to be once you haven't been found guilty. 

This really is a pathetic argument!


----------



## matticus (17 Oct 2022)

BoldonLad said:


> Agreed, but, they have to be caught, and prosecuted first.



This is what Mikey is helping happen. Seems ok to me ...


----------



## BoldonLad (17 Oct 2022)

matticus said:


> This is what Mikey is helping happen. Seems ok to me ...



Me too, I didn’t say otherwise, but, I don’t see the need to confront people. Submit the footage, allow the police to their job.


----------



## icowden (17 Oct 2022)

shep said:


> You don't need to be once you haven't been found guilty.
> This really is a pathetic argument!


Actually in many cases the plaintiff wishes for just that. There is a very famous set of civil cases brought in the USA regarding a chap called Jeffrey Epstein. The 2006 criminal case ended with a non-prosecution agreement. Similarly Giuffre was unable to bring a criminal charge against Prince Andrew, but brought a civil suit instead which was settled.

So by your logic Andrew is entirely innocent of having raped Virginia Giuffre when she was 17 in Epstein's mansion for cash solely because there has been insufficient evidence to bring a criminal case, yet he paid Giuffre 12 million pounds to go away, which we all know is the action of an entirely innocent wealthy man.

Again, I would exhort you to read the Secret Barrister where you will discover that guilt and innocence is not as simple as you would like it to be. How about Dennis who walked into a police station to hand over kitchen knives whilst having a mental health crisis where he thought he would kill his flatmate? Yes, he was prosecuted for possessing a bladed weapon and making threats to kill. Guilty as hell!

Or how about the story of Rob McCulloch a man with multiple convictions for violence against women who groomed a 14 year old girl, gave her heroin then regularly beat and abused her until she was 22 and beaten so badly she was rescued by a taxi driver and taken to hospital where she told the Police about her life. Unfortunately the CPS failed to provide the police notebook or the medical records in evidence. The Judge therefore dismissed the charges. good old Rob! Completely innocent and free to brutally beat more young women!

Or how about Laura who stole £20,000 from an elderly man but got away with it because the Police forgot at *any* stage to ask whether he had given her permission to take the money.



> Practised criminals know that, even if the evidence against them appears strong, there is always the chance that the prosecution case will spin off the rails en route to trial and smash open an escape tunnel. One of the reasons that many defendants plead guilty only on the day of trial is that they will bide their time, hopeful that a prosecution error or a key witness losing their resolve – a crushingly prevalent problem in allegations of domestic violence – will free them at the last.
> 
> Barrister, The Secret. The Secret Barrister: Stories of the Law and How It's Broken (p. 128). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.


----------



## matticus (17 Oct 2022)

The Court of Public Opinion.

Sounds good to me!


----------



## HobbesOnTour (17 Oct 2022)

BoldonLad said:


> but, I don’t see the need to confront people.



I can see both sides to this.

On the one hand there's an almost instinctive dislike of a "grass" and people who presume an authoritative stance and there's no doubting that Mikey fires that up in some.

He absolutely has the right to hide in the bushes and record rule breaking drivers. 
The question of whether he has the right to then block them and make them go the legal way is, to my mind, the tricky proposition.

On the other hand a silent, invisible recording distances the driver (and the punishment) from the crime.
How does that work? They get a fine in the post?

By confronting the driver they make the connection between crime and punishment and I'd imagine the drivers are far more likely to modify their behaviour in future after such a confrontation rather than receiving a fine in the post some months later when they can't recall the incident. 

He might well have the same level of success by simply recording the illegal activity then holding up a sign saying "you've been caught" as they drive past.

As for the argument that he's a coward? I can't understand that at all. Standing in front of a car with an unknown driver (and possibly passengers) is a pretty brave thing to do in my book. 
I could understand "foolish" or "entitled" or other perjorative terms but cowardly it isn't.


----------



## matticus (17 Oct 2022)

HobbesOnTour said:


> On the one hand there's an almost instinctive dislike of a "grass"



I think it's instinctive for SOME people!


----------



## T4tomo (17 Oct 2022)

HobbesOnTour said:


> I can see both sides to this.
> 
> On the one hand there's an almost instinctive dislike of a "grass" and people who presume an authoritative stance and there's no doubting that Mikey fires that up in some.
> 
> ...



Pretty much my view on him too. I think the confrontation is more for 'mikey's benefit, maybe helps him get over his father's death in someway.


----------



## classic33 (17 Oct 2022)

steveindenmark said:


> But you are presumed to be innocent under the law. You cannot be say
> 
> 
> Yes but Innocent does not come up in a court. But not guilty does. *The defence has to prove nothing.* The prosecution failed to prove their case here . Whether he is innocent or not is immaterial. He is not guilty. He may be as guilty as sin. *But the defence has to prove it.*


If they have nothing to prove, why do they have to prove him guilty?

Summat not right there.


----------



## Alex321 (17 Oct 2022)

classic33 said:


> If they have nothing to prove, why do they have to prove him guilty?
> 
> Summat not right there.



I think that was meant to be Prosecution rather than defence in the second phrase.


----------



## BoldonLad (17 Oct 2022)

HobbesOnTour said:


> I can see both sides to this.
> 
> On the one hand there's an almost instinctive dislike of a "grass" and people who presume an authoritative stance and there's no doubting that Mikey fires that up in some.
> 
> ...



Rightly or wrongly, that is how most motoring offences are policed, present day, in the UK.


----------



## Cycleops (17 Oct 2022)

BoldonLad said:


> Rightly or wrongly, that is how most motoring offences are policed, present day, in the UK.


GoPro have got a lot to answer for.


----------



## BoldonLad (17 Oct 2022)

Cycleops said:


> GoPro have got a lot to answer for.



Yes, not to mention Gatso, Average Speed Cameras, the camera vehicles used (to little) to Police inconsiderate parking at schools etc, traffic light cameras.....


----------



## matticus (17 Oct 2022)

HobbesOnTour said:


> He absolutely has the right to hide in the bushes and record rule breaking drivers.
> The question of whether he has the right to then block them and make them go the legal way is, to my mind, the tricky proposition.
> 
> On the other hand a silent, invisible recording distances the driver (and the punishment) from the crime.
> How does that work? They get a fine in the post?


Yes, the _fine in the post _scenario has very little "education" benefit. There's been research on similar things, see Freakanomics; it just becomes a payment drivers can make if they want special status 🤦‍♀️

IMO it's completely reasonable to block a law-breaking driver - although I get why in _some _minds, this is a step over the line.

Let's consider littering:
in my view, totally reasonable to ask someone to pick something up. But I know that some will kick off and tell you where to shove it (even though *they *are breaking the law, not you!)


----------



## Milkfloat (17 Oct 2022)

Cycleops said:


> GoPro have got a lot to answer for.



I see the advent of citizen cameras as a good thing. I am sure police cuts would have taken place with or without them. However, I think it takes the likes of Mikey to actually get some reaction from the police. My submissions of dangerous close passes and dangerous driving get hardly any reaction from the local plod as there is not thousands of people looking at them and 'good' police officers monitoring my output. So much so, I have given up recording.


----------



## Regular.Cyclist (17 Oct 2022)

Milkfloat said:


> I see the advent of citizen cameras as a good thing. I am sure police cuts would have taken place with or without them. However, I think it takes the likes of Mikey to actually get some reaction from the police. My submissions of dangerous close passes and dangerous driving get hardly any reaction from the local plod as there is not thousands of people looking at them and 'good' police officers monitoring my output. So much so, I have given up recording.



Bit of a post code lottery most likely but my last submission resulted in the driver being prosecuted for a dangerous close pass.


----------



## BoldonLad (17 Oct 2022)

Regular.Cyclist said:


> Bit of a post code lottery most likely but my last submission resulted in the driver being prosecuted for a dangerous close pass.



Ditto


----------



## shep (17 Oct 2022)

matticus said:


> Yes, the _fine in the post _scenario has very little "education" benefit. There's been research on similar things, see Freakanomics; it just becomes a payment drivers can make if they want special status 🤦‍♀️
> 
> IMO it's completely reasonable to block a law-breaking driver - although I get why in _some _minds, this is a step over the line.
> 
> ...



You genuinely think of this Mikey character as an 'educator '?

FFS he's nothing more than an egotistical pr*ck with too much time on his hands and out to make a name for himself. 

I bet you've got a laminated A4 picture of him under your pillow.


----------



## HobbesOnTour (17 Oct 2022)

T4tomo said:


> Pretty much my view on him too. I think the confrontation is more for 'mikey's benefit, maybe helps him get over his father's death in someway.



I mean no disrespect but I'm not a fan of attributing motivations to someone.

When we do that it is very difficult to assess their actions without applying that bias. 

Mikey's Dutch. I lived there for a long time and the Dutch can be very, *very* direct in their communication. 
There is also a marked difference in the amount of personal space people instinctively give to each other there. What would be considered rude or even provocative in these islands is far more normalised there.


----------



## HobbesOnTour (17 Oct 2022)

BoldonLad said:


> Rightly or wrongly, that is how most motoring offences are policed, present day, in the UK.



Sorry, it's not clear to me what you mean.

Are you suggesting that most policing is done by citizen cameras or Police cameras?


----------



## T4tomo (17 Oct 2022)

HobbesOnTour said:


> I mean no disrespect but I'm not a fan of attributing motivations to someone.
> 
> When we do that it is very difficult to assess their actions without applying that bias.



fair point


----------



## boydj (17 Oct 2022)

Chislenko said:


> I think my worry is that his "behaviour" will further prejudice driver's attitudes towards cyclists and some poor minding his / her own business cyclist will be on the wrong end of a driver who he has p-ssed off.



You think drivers who think nothing of going the wrong-side of a keep-left sign are likely to have a good attitude to cyclists' safety? They certainly care nothing for pedestrian safety, which is the major problem with wrong-side driving since pedestrians could easily step into the path of such a driver while looking the other way.


----------



## shep (17 Oct 2022)

Get your arse to spoonies in Wolverhampton on a Saturday night if you want to see some direct confrontation!


----------



## Cycleops (17 Oct 2022)

shep said:


> Get your arse to spoonies in Wolverhampton on a Saturday night if you want to see some direct confrontation!


I think I'll pass on that.


----------



## BoldonLad (17 Oct 2022)

HobbesOnTour said:


> Sorry, it's not clear to me what you mean.
> 
> *Are you suggesting that most policing is done by citizen cameras or Police cameras?*



Yes, Police or local authority Cameras. Traffic Police, or, indeed, police "on the beat", or, in "Panda Cars" are almost totally absent from our streets.

I recently drove what I think is a significant distance in the UK, (approximately 850 miles, in two days), mostly on motorways or "A" roads. My recollection is that I did not see a single Police Patrol, but, I must have passed dozens of cameras.


----------



## boydj (17 Oct 2022)

Alex321 said:


> I'm not aware of any police force who has done so.
> 
> They give their support to people who video offences and submit that video.
> 
> ...



CM has had literally hundreds of people given points and fines for their behaviour at Gandalf Corner and elsewhere. The Met police and other forces are very supportive of camera cyclists - with a few notable exceptions. It's an easy win for them as most drivers, having seen the film, will plead guilty with the occasional expensive lawyer being brought in to wiggle their client out of the charges.

It takes a lot of guts to do what CM does. I find it amazing that so many drivers are prepared to break the law in such a blatantly dangerous way.


----------



## boydj (17 Oct 2022)

shep said:


> I'd love to meet this pr*ck without his camera in a dark side street, doubt this would ever happen though.



Ooh, you're so 'ard - behind a keyboard. Or are you really an aggressive idiot?


----------



## Dag Hammar (17 Oct 2022)

There has been much discussion in earlier comments regarding ‘guilty’ and ‘innocent’.
Below is copied and pasted and may be of interest for people that take an interest in law.
The 'third verdict' of 'not proven' is unique to the Scottish courts. It *allows juries to express misgivings about the accused's innocence, while accepting that the prosecution has not made its case 'beyond all reasonable doubt'*.


----------



## HobbesOnTour (17 Oct 2022)

BoldonLad said:


> Yes, Police or local authority Cameras. Traffic Police, or, indeed, police "on the beat", or, in "Panda Cars" are almost totally absent from our streets.
> 
> I recently drove what I think is a significant distance in the UK, (approximately 850 miles, in two days), mostly on motorways or "A" roads. My recollection is that I did not see a single Police Patrol, but, I must have passed dozens of cameras.



I do wonder how effective such a system is for preventing repeat offending other than the application of points on a license. 

My gut tells me that there's a significant section of the population that would respond more "positively" to a human interaction. And that's where Mikey comes in. 
I don't mean that drivers react positively towards him but I'd imagine a lot of them no longer cut that corner. That's a positive. 

That's completely separate to the overall visibility of Police as a deterrent for crime.


----------



## PK99 (17 Oct 2022)

Dag Hammar said:


> There has been much discussion in earlier comments regarding ‘guilty’ and ‘innocent’.
> Below is copied and pasted and may be of interest for people that take an interest in law.
> The 'third verdict' of 'not proven' is unique to the Scottish courts. It *allows juries to express misgivings about the accused's innocence, while accepting that the prosecution has not made its case 'beyond all reasonable doubt'*.


*Scotland's controversial not proven verdict is set to be abolished under a new bill to be considered by MSPs.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-62811085*

Same link: 
Despite being available in all Scottish criminal cases there is no definition of the not proven verdict, or the difference between it and a not guilty verdict.
*The legal implications of a not proven verdict are exactly the same as a not guilty verdict - the accused is acquitted and is innocent in the eyes of the law*


----------



## classic33 (17 Oct 2022)

The jury returns a not proven verdict because they believe the person is guilty, but the evidence did not prove this beyond a reasonable doubt.


https://www.gov.scot/publications/not-proven-verdict-related-reforms-consultation-analysis/pages/3/


----------



## Alex321 (17 Oct 2022)

boydj said:


> CM has had literally hundreds of people given points and fines for their behaviour at Gandalf Corner and elsewhere. The Met police and other forces are very supportive of camera cyclists - with a few notable exceptions. It's an easy win for them as most drivers, having seen the film, will plead guilty with the occasional expensive lawyer being brought in to wiggle their client out of the charges.



Which is basically agreeing with what I said - "They give their support to people who video offences and submit that video."



boydj said:


> It takes a lot of guts to do what CM does. I find it amazing that so many drivers are prepared to break the law in such a blatantly dangerous way.



It does take guts. But that still doesn't make blocking the road "right".


----------



## boydj (17 Oct 2022)

Alex321 said:


> It does take guts. But that still doesn't make blocking the road "right".



A lot of awareness has been raised on the problems at that corner through CM's actions. Almost certainly fewer drivers cut the corner and there are fewer accidents than before Mikey started doing what he does.

Where do you draw the line when intervening on witnessing a crime? 

Clearly CM should not have to do what he does, but in the absence of effective prevention by the council responsible for that area, something needs to happen.


----------



## lazybloke (17 Oct 2022)

shep said:


> You genuinely think of this Mikey character as an 'educator '?
> 
> FFS he's nothing more than an egotistical pr*ck with too much time on his hands and out to make a name for himself.
> 
> I bet you've got a laminated A4 picture of him under your pillow.



So if you were caught on camera by Mikey, you'd react how? Swear at him, lamp him, remain in denial at your own lawbreaking?

CM's approach is v confrontational, and would be copied by few on here, but some of us understand his motivations, and he does get results.

A more passive approach of filming from the roadside might not provide clear identification of the driver, and certainly wouldn't leave a lasting impression on the driver.

So yes, I genuinely think Mikey provides education. Some drivers are too thick/stubborn to learn, unfortunately.


----------



## Alex321 (18 Oct 2022)

boydj said:


> A lot of awareness has been raised on the problems at that corner through CM's actions. Almost certainly fewer drivers cut the corner and there are fewer accidents than before Mikey started doing what he does.
> 
> Where do you draw the line when intervening on witnessing a crime?
> 
> Clearly CM should not have to do what he does, but in the absence of effective prevention by the council responsible for that area, something needs to happen.


Unless it is a crime punishable by more than 6 months in prison (which is the limit for when a citizen's arrest is legal), I draw the line at recording and reporting it.

Maybe yelling at somebody. But blocking the road is technically another crime, and I was always taught that two wrongs don't make a right.

As I have said every time he has come up here, I fully support him videoing the incidents and sending the videos to the police. I disagree strongly with his confrontational actions which are of very questionable legality.


----------



## Fastpedaller (18 Oct 2022)

Alex321 said:


> But blocking the road is technically another crime, and I was always taught that two wrongs don't make a right.



But is it? He's not blocking the route of a vehicle using the road correctly (the offender's vehicle is doing that). If he was taking away a knife from an offender about to stab a victim would he be committing an offence? Removing their right to commit an offence is surely a good thing!


----------



## figbat (18 Oct 2022)

Fastpedaller said:


> But is it? He's not blocking the route of a vehicle using the road correctly (the offender's vehicle is doing that). If he was taking away a knife from an offender about to stab a victim would he be committing an offence? Removing their right to commit an offence is surely a good thing!



But the whole time he’s arguing the toss with the ‘offender’ the road is blocked for those who wish to use it legally. Indeed in many videos we see cyclists ride past the blockage on the pavement - with no hint of being reprimanded or reported.


----------



## winjim (18 Oct 2022)

figbat said:


> But the whole time he’s arguing the toss with the ‘offender’ the road is blocked for those who wish to use it legally. Indeed in many videos we see cyclists ride past the blockage on the pavement - with no hint of being reprimanded or reported.



He wags his finger at errant cyclists all the time, he just doesn't consider it safe or proportionate to start leaping out in front of them.


----------



## Alex321 (18 Oct 2022)

Fastpedaller said:


> But is it? He's not blocking the route of a vehicle using the road correctly (the offender's vehicle is doing that). If he was taking away a knife from an offender about to stab a victim would he be committing an offence? Removing their right to commit an offence is surely a good thing!



He is causing an obstruction. If he didn't stop the vehicles using it illegally, they would have moved on, and anybody attempting to use it legally would be able to do so.

It is a bit of a grey area, and I suspect the CPS would decide "not in the public interest" to prosecute, but I do believe that technically he is committing a crime as well.


----------



## matticus (18 Oct 2022)

Alex321 said:


> He is causing an obstruction. If he didn't stop the vehicles using it illegally, they would have moved on, and anybody attempting to use it legally would be able to do so.
> 
> It is a bit of a grey area, and I suspect the CPS would decide "not in the public interest" to prosecute, but I do believe that technically he is committing a crime as well.



If that's your idea of "_Two wrongs don't make a right_", I'd love to hear some other examples!


----------



## Rusty Nails (18 Oct 2022)

winjim said:


> *He wags his finger at errant cyclists all the time*, he just doesn't consider it safe or proportionate to start leaping out in front of them.



Oooooh, that'll show them.


----------



## winjim (18 Oct 2022)

Rusty Nails said:


> Oooooh, that'll show them.



At the really bad ones he tuts and rolls his eyes.


----------



## Alex321 (18 Oct 2022)

matticus said:


> If that's your idea of "_Two wrongs don't make a right_", I'd love to hear some other examples!



Any situation where person A does something wrong, and person B does something else which is wrong (even if less serious) in response.

Blocking the road is technically illegal, regardless of whether the person being blocked was driving legally (and even then, he is also blocking it for anybody wanting to come the other way)..


----------



## DaveReading (18 Oct 2022)

Alex321 said:


> and even then, he is also blocking it for anybody wanting to come the other way


As was the errant vehicle, the driver of which was simply lucky that nobody was coming round the corner expecting only to have conflicting traffic coming from their right, not from their left.


----------



## Alex321 (18 Oct 2022)

DaveReading said:


> As was the errant vehicle, the driver of which was simply lucky that nobody was coming round the corner expecting only to have conflicting traffic coming from their right, not from their left.



Of course.


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (18 Oct 2022)

Rusty Nails said:


> Oooooh, that'll show them.



Not sure what else he can do - or what I can do
chasing after them and 

well - then what
tackling them to the ground and performing a citizen's arrest would not be appropriate for riding on a pavement

I suppose he could try to isolate their faces and put up a "'Rogue's Gallery" type thing but the chances of getting the mug shot would be low so very little to be gained
and also very litlle good to be achieved as cyclist cause so few injuries to others compared to cars

Anyway I think he believes he is doing something for the good of society and causes little problem for the innocent
maybe a little delay for proper motorists at times

I think he takes it too far but he does make his presence known!


----------



## boydj (18 Oct 2022)

1. What these wrong-side drivers are doing is extremely dangerous for the many pedstrians using that corner who would not be expecting a car appearing in that direction.

2. The police are very supportive - there is one video I remember where a couple of afficers appeared as one driver was out of his car and starting to kick off. The driver was invited to reverse up the road to park up so the officers could 'have a word'.


----------



## Rusty Nails (18 Oct 2022)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> Not sure what else he can do - or what I can do
> chasing after them and
> 
> well - then what
> ...



My comment was not meant to be taken entirely seriously.


----------



## DRM (18 Oct 2022)

boydj said:


> 1. What these wrong-side drivers are doing is extremely dangerous for the many pedstrians using that corner who would not be expecting a car appearing in that direction.
> 
> 2. The police are very supportive - there is one video I remember where a couple of afficers appeared as one driver was out of his car and starting to kick off. The driver was invited to reverse up the road to park up so the officers could 'have a word'.



I recall another one where a bloke was going off on one, then when the Police turned up changed his manner totally, still didn’t stop one constable dragging the idiot up the road to point out the keep left sign, ended up getting a prosecution, you would think the locals would know the score at Gandalf Corner and obey the rules of the road


----------



## Phaeton (18 Oct 2022)

Why is he called Cycling Mikey, no bikes were involved?


----------



## DaveReading (18 Oct 2022)

boydj said:


> 1. What these wrong-side drivers are doing is extremely dangerous for the many pedestrians using that corner who would not be expecting a car appearing in that direction.


Or for a cyclist emerging from the side road and turning left who may be prepared to encounter crossing pedestrians, but not an oncoming vehicle on the wrong side of the island.


----------



## Time Waster (18 Oct 2022)

I'm sure it's been said but he didn't lose a case as he was only a prosecution witness. CPS lost the case.


----------



## DaveReading (18 Oct 2022)

Time Waster said:


> I'm sure it's been said but he didn't lose a case as he was only a prosecution witness. CPS lost the case.


Page 1 of the thread, in fact.


----------



## Time Waster (18 Oct 2022)

DaveReading said:


> Page 1 of the thread, in fact.



I keep popping in but joined a few pages in. The title keeps annoying me so I had to post about it. You know what I mean? Something just niggles at you and you can't ignore it in the end. Sorry to repeat what's been said before.


----------



## slowmotion (18 Oct 2022)

How long is this going to go on for?


----------



## Rusty Nails (18 Oct 2022)

Time Waster said:


> I keep popping in but joined a few pages in. The title keeps annoying me so I had to post about it. You know what I mean? Something just niggles at you and you can't ignore it in the end. Sorry to repeat what's been said before.



No problem, you're just living up to your username


----------



## Time Waster (18 Oct 2022)

Rusty Nails said:


> No problem, you're just living up to your username



I joined when I should have been working. It was a way to avoid having to do something I didn't want to do so I wasted my time on here instead of just getting it done. Of course I've come to learn I don't waste my time on here but I do at work!


----------



## newfhouse (19 Oct 2022)

slowmotion said:


> How long is this going to go on for?



Until they stop.


----------



## Phaeton (19 Oct 2022)

slowmotion said:


> How long is this going to go on for?



Until the Police either stand there & dish out fines, or they put a camera up & send out NIP's which I'm surprised they haven't done already, looks like a nice cash cow.


----------



## Arrowfoot (19 Oct 2022)

Time Waster said:


> I'm sure it's been said but he didn't lose a case as he was only a prosecution witness. CPS lost the case.



I think everyone knows what it means. He initiated this and lost it. CPS probably laughing behind his back. They did not go to law school to deal with one man’s misguided obsession. The Cops should install a camera and I sure it will cover the bill and more.


----------



## Brandane (19 Oct 2022)

Time Waster said:


> I keep popping in but joined a few pages in. The title keeps annoying me so I had to post about it. You know what I mean? Something just niggles at you and you can't ignore it in the end. Sorry to repeat what's been said before.



I'm terribly sorry if my standard of journalism doesn't meet your exacting standards, but I'm writing on a cycling forum, not the (insert quality newspaper of your choice here, as personally I think they are ALL shite).
As has been said, there's more than a little nit-picking going on over the title. It was CM who initially brought the matter to the attention of the Police, who reported it to the CPS, who presented it to the court, where the defence ripped it apart, and the jury found the accused not guilty. Or innocent, if you prefer. I couldn't be arsed fitting all that into the title, as IMHO that is what the initial post is for. So I went for the easy option, figuring that most people would be able to figure it out. Which they did!


----------



## matticus (19 Oct 2022)

Brandane said:


> I'm terribly sorry if my standard of journalism doesn't meet your exacting standards, but I'm writing on a cycling forum, not the (insert quality newspaper of your choice here, as personally I think they are ALL shite).
> As has been said, there's more than a little nit-picking going on over the title. It was CM who initially brought the matter to the attention of the Police, who reported it to the CPS, who presented it to the court, where the defence ripped it apart, and the jury found the accused not guilty. Or innocent, if you prefer. I couldn't be arsed fitting all that into the title, as IMHO that is what the initial post is for. So I went for the easy option, figuring that most people would be able to figure it out. Which they did!



I bet you send out EMails with blank Subject fields too.


----------



## Brandane (19 Oct 2022)

matticus said:


> I bet you send out EMails with blank Subject fields too.


----------



## DRM (19 Oct 2022)

Ahh CPS, I do believe the initials stand for “Couldn’t Prosecute Satan”


----------



## boydj (19 Oct 2022)

Arrowfoot said:


> I think everyone knows what it means. He initiated this and lost it. *CPS probably laughing behind his back*. They did not go to law school to deal with one man’s misguided obsession. The Cops should install a camera and I sure it will cover the bill and more.



I doubt that. The CPS don't bring cases unless they have a good expectation of winning, and they don't like losing.


----------



## ExBrit (19 Oct 2022)

Phaeton said:


> Until the Police either stand there & dish out fines, or they put a camera up & send out NIP's which I'm surprised they haven't done already, looks like a nice cash cow.



Or install those one-way tire shredders like they have at the exit of parking lots. Drive the right way - no problem, drive the wrong way - $1000 for new tires (sorry I meant 999 pounds for new tyres)


----------



## Phaeton (19 Oct 2022)

ExBrit said:


> Or install those one-way tire shredders like they have at the exit of parking lots. Drive the right way - no problem, drive the wrong way - $1000 for new tires (sorry I meant 999 pounds for new tyres)



Probably not as I'm sure the Police, Ambulance & Fire do exactly the same


----------



## ExBrit (19 Oct 2022)

Phaeton said:


> Probably not as I'm sure the Police, Ambulance & Fire do exactly the same



Do you think Mikey stands in front of them too?


----------



## Phaeton (19 Oct 2022)

ExBrit said:


> Do you think Mikey stands in front of them too?



I've no idea do you want to ask him?


----------



## Time Waster (19 Oct 2022)

Phaeton said:


> I've no idea do you want to ask him?



You might find him at gandalf corner! 😂


----------



## Arrowfoot (20 Oct 2022)

boydj said:


> I doubt that. The CPS don't bring cases unless they have a good expectation of winning, and they don't like losing.



An offence has clearly been committed by the driver and whether is reported by an overzealous vigilante, a responsible citizen or a Police officer, prosecution must follow. There is nothing to think about - the camera clip is clear. Its no brainer and I doubt even 5 minutes was spent making the decision. 

CPS cannot act as the judge and have to proceed with prosecution, unless there is a grey area. In this case bellend or no bellend who lodged the complaint, their hands are tied.


----------



## Alex321 (20 Oct 2022)

Arrowfoot said:


> An offence has clearly been committed by the driver and whether is reported by an overzealous vigilante, a responsible citizen or a Police officer, prosecution must follow. There is nothing to think about - the camera clip is clear. Its no brainer and I doubt even 5 minutes was spent making the decision.


In this case, I think you are right, and I really don't understand what arguments could have been used to geta not guilty verdict.




Arrowfoot said:


> CPS cannot act as the judge and have to proceed with prosecution, unless there is a grey area. In this case bellend or no bellend who lodged the complaint, their hands are tied.


They have to act as a pre-judge/pre-jury.

In general, they will only bring a case if they believe there is a greater than 50% chance of a conviction.


----------



## Time Waster (20 Oct 2022)

And in the public interest I believe is another phrase. A lot probably gets dropped under the public interest criteria.


----------



## Arrowfoot (20 Oct 2022)

Alex321 said:


> In this case, I think you are right, and I really don't understand what arguments could have been used to geta not guilty verdict.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The driver was caught on camera and its a well known place for this particular offence. What 50% are you referring to in this case.


----------



## DaveReading (20 Oct 2022)

Alex321 said:


> In this case, I think you are right, and I really don't understand what arguments could have been used to get a not guilty verdict.
> 
> They have to act as a pre-judge/pre-jury.


Bear in mind that the offences he was found not guilty of were assault and dangerous driving. He had already pleaded guilty to the traffic offence, and been fined for it, in the mags court.



Alex321 said:


> In general, they will only bring a case if they believe there is a greater than 50% chance of a conviction.


I don't think the "50%" is cast in stone - the criterion is that there has to be "a reasonable prospect of conviction".


----------



## Alex321 (20 Oct 2022)

Arrowfoot said:


> The driver was caught on camera and its a well known place for this particular offence. What 50% are you referring to in this case.



The same 50% as in other cases. They clearly thought there was a better chance than that of getting a conviction, or they would not have brought the case to court.

I'm not sure why you think it is a well known place for this particular offence though. It is a well known place for the offence he pleaded guilty to (ignoring a Keep Left sign). Neither of the offences he was found not guilty of (Assault and Dangerous Driving) are particularly common there AFAIK.


----------



## Alex321 (20 Oct 2022)

DaveReading said:


> Bear in mind that the offences he was found not guilty of were assault and dangerous driving. He had already pleaded guilty to the traffic offence, and been fined for it, in the mags court.


True, but having seen the footage, it is hard to see why the jury thought it wasn't assault. Dangerous driving a little more understandable, given the low speed.



DaveReading said:


> I don't think the "50%" is cast in stone - the criterion is that there has to be "a reasonable prospect of conviction".



You are right, it isn't set in stone, but it is the base they usually work from. As mentioned above, they also take into account other factors, such as whether it is "in the public interest" to prosecute.


----------



## GilesM (27 Oct 2022)

Alex321 said:


> True, but having seen the footage, it is hard to see why the jury thought it wasn't assault. Dangerous driving a little more understandable, given the low speed.



Maybe members of the Jury just thought that Van Erp was a bit of a pr***, and therefore sided with the defendant, it''s not very hard to imagine. I expect that's why Lyon-Maris' solicitor advised him to go trial by jury.


----------



## matticus (27 Oct 2022)

GilesM said:


> Maybe members of the Jury just thought that Van Erp was a bit of a pr***, and therefore sided with the defendant, it''s not very hard to imagine.



Yes, that seems the most likely. But you can't run someone over just because they seem a bit of a pr***. That's not a good decision by the jury, if that IS what they decided.


----------



## GilesM (27 Oct 2022)

matticus said:


> Yes, that seems the most likely. But you can't run someone over just because they seem a bit of a pr***. That's not a good decision by the jury, if that IS what they decided.



It may not be a good technical decision, but if somebody constantly interacts with people as Van Erp does, then they can hardly be surprised if large numbers of people don't warm to them, Jurors are only human. I've been knocked off my bike three times by d***h*** drivers, and I think Van Erp is a c***monkey, so what does the average none cyclist think.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (27 Oct 2022)

Arrowfoot said:


> An offence has clearly been committed by the driver and whether is reported by an overzealous vigilante, a responsible citizen or a Police officer, prosecution must follow. There is nothing to think about - the camera clip is clear. Its no brainer and I doubt even 5 minutes was spent making the decision.
> 
> CPS cannot act as the judge and have to proceed with prosecution, unless there is a grey area. In this case bellend or no bellend who lodged the complaint, their hands are tied.



@boydj is correct. The CPS operates under exactly those rules. They must also judge whether a prosecution is in the public interest.


----------

