CyclingMikey has shared footage of a driver who ignored a road closure and ran over his bike, before fleeing the scene, the road safety campaigner saying “these drivers don’t even care slightly” after spotting several ignoring a no entry sign for roadworks in west London.
The famous online figure, real name Mike van Erp, uploads videos to his YouTube and social media channels showing him catching law-breaking drivers as he cycles around London, almost all the footage he films reported to the police and having led to numerous court appearances, penalty points and disqualifications.
In his latest video from this weekend, CyclingMikey was undertaking “Gandalf action” at a junction near Ravenscourt Park in west London, the route having been closed to northbound traffic entirely due to gas works. Despite saying there were eight signs communicating the closure to road users, Mikey spotted several drivers ignoring the no entry signs.
As one driver, who had a child in the backseat of their car, ignored the road closure, Mikey stepped out into the road, blocking the route and sending the motorist reversing back.
When oncoming traffic cleared, the driver tried again, Mikey stepping out only for the driver to run over his bike and send the contents of his rear storage all over the road.
“He just smashed the bike out of my hands and left the scene of a collision,” Mikey said. “He used his car as a weapon, I only wanted to stop him. I expected him to stop, to be honest, and when he kept going at speed I stopped.”
The road safety campaigner confirmed to us that he and his bike were unharmed, although the driver involved probably “has a scratch on his bonnet”.
Despite having reported hundreds of drivers to the police, Mikey said he will not be submitting footage of this incident as the Metropolitan Police “does not prosecute wrong side of a keep left any more [and] same for no entry contraventions”.
“I guess the leaving the scene of a collision would be [an offence]? I think he has a scratch on his bonnet. Tough. Don’t use your car as a weapon then. There is no right about the driver’s actions here. None at all. People driving like this should always be stopped. Selfish and dangerous.
“In case it’s not obvious, I did not throw the bike at his car,” CyclingMikey told us this morning. “I didn’t go out with the intention of a collision. I just wanted to stop him, but his unexpectedly savage acceleration and my slightly late reaction meant we ended up on a collision course. You can see me slam my left foot down sideways to stop myself going into his car. I’m not strong enough to stop both myself and a 28kg e-bike on a dime.”
Footage of the incident had already appeared on social media, the man talking to Mikey and filming from the pavement later uploading his footage to TikTok.
Cycling Mikey has lost it pic.twitter.com/GBvc7tt6dG
— Keir (@___KR111BACKUP) August 10, 2025
CyclingMikey rose to prominence online for his videos showing him catching phone-using motorists and stopping law-breaking drivers. With more than 100,000 subscribers on YouTube and thousands of social media followers, many of his videos attract widespread attention and press coverage.
Last year the Daily Mail named the road safety campaigner as one of its ‘Villains of 2024’, alongside the Post Office, VAR, and Gregg Wallace. His videos have also led to extensive online abuse, something Mikey says is due to motorists who “feel they have the right to drive how they want”.
While much of his work involves catching drivers using their phone behind the wheel, Mikey also regularly used to film himself preventing motorists driving on the wrong side of a keep left sign in Regent’s Park, the origin of his ‘Gandalf’ you shall not pass approach. In fact, the junction in question was dubbed Gandalf Corner as a result and even appears named as such on Google Maps.
In 2022, a jury acquitted a theatrical agent whose clients include Sir Ian McKellen and Colin Firth of assault following an incident at Gandalf Corner in which Paul Lyon-Maris was accused of driving at CyclingMikey – and carrying him on the bonnet of his Range Rover for around 20 metres.
Speaking about that episode in relation to this weekend’s, Mikey told us: “After the Paul Lyon-Maris incident, I realise that most drivers will not want to drive into my bike, although they might be quite happy to drive into my body.”
His videos have also featured numerous other famous faces, Guy Ritchie having been handed a driving ban after CyclingMikey caught him using his phone at the wheel. Likewise, boxing legend Chris Eubank was given three penalty points and told to pay £280 in fines, court costs and fees after being filmed on his phone driving through Hyde Park.
In 2023, a top TV comedy producer who “flipped the bird” and told CyclingMikey to “go f*** yourself” was fined over £2,000 and handed six points for phone use while driving. Jimmy Mulville, the co-founder of Hat Trick Productions, admitted that he was checking a text, after initially challenging the evidence put forward by the Met.
CyclingMikey also filmed an incident involving former Chelsea and England footballer Frank Lampard, although the case was dropped by CPS.
68 thoughts on “CyclingMikey’s bike ran over by “selfish and dangerous” driver who ignored road closure as safety campaigner tried to stop motorists running no entry sign”
There’s no excuse for driving
There’s no excuse for driving like that.
I have to admire CM’s zeal, but I’m worried he’s going to get hurt one day.
His bike was run over, surely
His bike was run over, surely? He possibly ran over somewhere but the bike can’t!
There’s another video on
There’s another video on Twitter that shows Mikey throwing his bike in front of the car.
You can decide how sensible this was.
https://x.com/TheGriftReport/status/1954591453037961668?t=hjiEJNaWZK3fxCtrw9aAOg&s=19
Throw?
Throw?
He is clearly holding the bike by the handlebars until its hit…
I think it’s quite clear he
I think it’s quite clear he shoved the bike into the car deliberately
squidgy wrote:
I disagree. It’s quite clear that he pushed his bike ahead thinking that the driver would stop at the obstacle, which is not the same as deliberately shoving the bike into the car.
What authority has cycling
What authority has cycling Mikey got to stop traffic? None at all. Just captured himself on camera committing criminal damage and a public order offence.
RichT84 wrote:
What authority does the driver have to ignore no entry signs and drive on the wrong side of the road risking collisions with oncoming traffic?
Zero. The same as Mikey has
Zero. The same as Mikey has to stop traffic and enforce the law.
Mikey is a pedestrian, he has
Mikey is a pedestrian, he has the right to pass and repass over the road.
And I’d guess even UK police
And I’d guess even UK police would be reluctant to charge a pedestrian that a driver ran into with criminal damage to the vehicle – although i wouldn’t bet my bike on it. And that’s mostly because I suspect they’d see it as just another “accident” on the road – little time needs spent…
RichT84 wrote:
Anyone has a right to stop traffic if they have a “lawful excuse”. It would be for a court to decide whether stopping people breaking the law constitutes a lawful excuse. The fact that CM has stopped traffic numerous times at Gandalf Corner without being charged with any offence and with the drivers he stopped being charged would seem to indicate that the police and courts recognise that he does have a lawful excuse.
squidgy wrote:
Since the front of the car hit the side of the bike it is clear that the driver ran into the bike deliberately!
Based on this video, I’m
Based on this video, I’m starting to think CyclingMikey may be approaching the boundaries of acceptable behaviour in his quest to make videos of himself holding bad motorists to account. Some would argue exceeding.
I don’t think either video
I don’t think either video shows Mikey “throwing” his bike in front of the car. Out of curiosity, I single-stepped through Mikey’s video, and it is very clear that he lets go of his bike a mere three frames before the car makes impact with his bike. I think the video is 30fps, so that’s 100mS between his hand letting go of the bike and the car taking it away from him. That suggests to me that he let go of the bike as he realised that the guy wasn’t going to stop.
But I do think that his actions were stupid. Why risk his own personal safety and wrecking his bike just to make a point? I hope it was worth the clicks!
Does anyone think that the police might take action regardless of Mickey not submitting the footage?
I would hope so: on the basis
I would hope so: on the basis of the driver’s appalling behaviour and lack of wearing a seatbelt, I wonder what other criminality it is involved in.
Not to mention the fact that if the driver is the parent of the child in the car, yet doesn’t care about it’s own safety through not wearing a seatbelt… would that be negligent parenting?
Shirley a case for the police and social services to follow up on this.
As DCS Andy Cox has said, it is worth the police’s time as drivers like this are often found to be involved in other criminal activities.
on the basis of the driver’s
on the basis of the driver’s appalling behaviour and lack of wearing a seatbelt, I wonder what other criminality it is involved in…DCS Andy Cox has said, it is worth the police’s time as drivers like this are often found to be involved in other criminal activities
This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the police mentality: the police don’t care the slightest about cyclist safety, and as far as they’re concerned an offence which isn’t reported didn’t happen so their main enemy is people who annoy them by reporting offences, especially if the report contains indisputable (although they’ll still dispute it and think up stupid reasons why it’s not good enough) video evidence. They don’t want to find out about the other criminal activities offenders are involved in, because that involves work and time which could be better spent saying ‘move along now, nothing to see here’, sitting around at the station and fixing the offence statistics. This is DG07 TMO, at least 2 of the 3 occupants are not wearing seatbelts and the vehicle had been driven around since failing MOT on 7.7.25 and being reported for that by me on 18.7.25. It failed MOT again on 7.8.25 and was then passed. I can guarantee that the police did nothing about these offences, except possibly tipping a wink to the offender, and so the offences have been ‘disappeared’ by the police. That’s how they work!
DeelitedManchester wrote:
Given that the police frequently (as seen on NMOTD and elsewhere) refuse to take action on clear life-threatening breaches of traffic law by drivers even when clear footage is submitted, I think we all know the answer to that one.
I thoroughly support the work
I thoroughly support the work CM has done on phone drivers both in catching them and raising awareness, but this one really does not seem worth risking life and limb (and bike) for. He could so easily have been caught in the bike and pulled under the car, the bike or parts of it could have flown off and hit someone else, the driver could’ve tried to swerve round him and hit someone else…at Gandalf Corner he was always in the road and clearly present before the driver reached him and they were generally going slowly anyway, shooting across the road at the last minute to try and stop a fast-moving car is a whole other level of risk and one that should be avoided for his own safety and that of others, in my view.
I’m afraid I unfollowed Mikey
I’m afraid I unfollowed Mikey’s YT some months ago as his interactions were getting steadily more provocative and goading, and video titles progressively more clickbaity. I’m not regretting it.
While the driving is indeed appalling, so is Mikey’s heat of the moment intervention. There was a time when he would have acknowledged the danger in this situation and held back. Instead he created unnecessary danger for the driver and for himself, and potentially put himself at risk of prosecution.
I won’t be re-following any time soon, and I hope he reflects on this incident and makes some changes in his approach. He’s certainly done a lot of good, but it does feel like it’s beginning to go another way.
I know it may have been heat
I know it may have been heat of the moment in the shock of the incident but his language when addressing the next woman was really surprising. One of the things that was great about his other videos was his total sangfroid even when confronted with severe abuse or even physical assault (like that “Incredible Hulk” shirtless melt in Hyde Park). Screaming obscenities at a driver would seem to indicate he’s become a bit frazzled and that maybe it’s time for him to take a sabbatical and cool down a bit.
I wish he wouldn’t converse
I wish he wouldn’t converse with these people; just film them transgressing and be done with it. You’re only going to get into bother if you start annoying the wrong people……..and it’s bound to happen.
I dont really see the point
I dont really see the point of getting involved in that one, its not something the Met are bothered with, it does nothing for road safety, and now a bunch more idiots will think Mikey engineers these confrontations. And the world’s a little bit less friendly towards cyclists.
Agree, except I think (sadly)
Agree, except I think (sadly) CyclingMikey only has an effect on a (very) few cyclists who pay attention in these kinds of venues. And a much smaller handful of drivers, who might now just check nobody’s filming them when they remember they’re actually breaking the rules.
The existence of mass motoring – as it’s set up most places – means that millions of motorists are “winning” * a war on vulnerable road users and “nicer places” that they don’t even know they’re fighting, without any “bad cyclist” examples needed.
* Actually we all lose in many ways – though the costs are obscured. Though we can now do all kinds of “impossible” things (carrying several people 50 miles in an hour) and motor vehicles are extremely convenient, we also think/feel we have to do stuff that perhaps we really don’t need to (especially in urban areas) – maybe with a little reorganisation.
Please correct the grammar in
Please correct the grammar in the title of the article. It hurts my eyes.
Joking aside, this is not his
Joking aside, this is not his finest moment. He could have hurt himself yes, and also I am not convinced that he’s not acting illegally himself at this stage. I admire the guy’s tenacity, but he fixates on some issues that would be quite a long way down my list of “things motorists do that might kill me”. How about a focus on close passing, or accelerating through amber lights when I am stopping. Or left hooking without indicating. All way more dangerous than spotting phone use in stationary traffic, or ignoring 10m of unnecessarily closed road – however annoying these things are.
Anonymousattorney wrote:
Firstly, it’s been demonstrated that the distraction effect of using your phone when stationary lasts for around fifty seconds after moving off, so there’s that, secondly people using their phones when stationary often lose track of the traffic ahead, so they then suddenly notice a gap and hurry to catch up to the endangerment of anyone (esp overtaking cyclists and crossing pedestrians) in their way, and they also provoke other drivers to take risks to get round them, and lastly how many people in the midst of a WhatsApp or text exchange on their phones when stopped virtuously put their phones down the second they move off? In my experience most pull away still looking at/tapping on their device. So it is pretty dangerous, even though it may not seem so.
Rendel Harris wrote:
So true. I see this all the time. I’ve seen them veer into the kerb, and hit the car in front. I don’t think I’ve ever seem a motorist drop their phone like a hot potato as soon as the car in front moves off, never. Only time I did see that was in response to me taking aim with my own phone (as a pedestrian, from the pavement).
Rendel Harris wrote:
The “WhatsGap”
All of this is consistent
All of this is consistent with what I said.
Close passes and simply not being seen at T junctions scare the ahit out of me. Inattention in queues can be dangerous but there’s more I can do about it.
I just question how best to spend all that righteous energy, that’s all.
This is probably more to do
This is probably more to do with how the police treats reports of different forms dangerous driving.
As the law has been tightened up so that phone use is pretty much a slam dunk in terms of prosecution, the police are far more likely to go with those reports.
Cases of close passing, RLJing, etc are all subject to the whims of the police staff member reviewing the evidence and the chances of them taking cases forward can vary wildly.
Now with almost all police forces being overwhelmed with reports, they are ignoring the ones that are subjective.
mitsky wrote:
Close passing may be subjective but RLJing is not. If the video shows a car going through on red it IS an offence. Whether prosecuting is in the public interest may be considered as subjective but I would argue that RLJ should always be actioned as it is so potentially dangerous.
As for being overwhelmed, a warning letter to the registered keeper takes very little time and effort. A NIP asking for the driver to be named takes very little time and can be dealt with by a warning letter once the driver is identified if time is pressing. If the driver is not identified then it’s slam dunk for the registered keeper. Offering an education course will save courts time as it will be accepted 9 times out of 10. In most other cases a fixed penalty will be accepted so very few will go to court which is where time really is a serious issue. Most of this is purely administrative and it’s only viewing the video and preparing a case for court that needs well trained personel.
Close passing may be
Close passing may be subjective but RLJing is not. If the video shows a car going through on red it IS an offence
https://upride.cc/incident/kn13aus_knausmotorhome_doubleredlightpass/
It all depends where you live- it’s undoubtdly also an offence in Lancashire, but not one where the sniggering officers back at the station will take any action. This was reported as APL165502 to OpSnap Lancs at about 21:20 on 9.5.25. No Response, No Action against either LB66 WMA or KN13 AUS. Below is the view when the lights turned red. Rendel claims the Met. has told him that it will take no action unless at least 2 seconds have elapsed since turning red, although I can’t see them admitting that in public. It also crucially depends on whether the police like you and your mode of transport.
It’s not possible to catch
It’s not possible to catch drivers using their phones when they’re driving at speed, filming in traffic queues is the only option.
Not only that it implies that
Not only that it implies that Mikey was the one who “ran over” something. It’s illiterate gibberish.
Not only that it implies that
Not only that it implies that Mikey was the one who “ran over” something. It’s illiterate gibberish.
Skiprider wrote:
No it doesn’t, the word “by” makes it quite clear what is the object and what the subject. The writer has mistakenly written “ran over” instead of “run over”, that does not make it “illiterate gibberish” except to a person so lacking in linguistic and interpretative skills that they can’t see the single letter error and correct it for themselves.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Nothing to do with this post but reminded me of some of those examples which delight in preventing that. I recall reading of the wonderful “mot” in earlier typewritten times – “It is mot necessary …” – leaving you perplexed as to whether you ought (with missing “s”) or ought not to (typo for “n”).
Or even that it’s just a tiny
Or even that it’s just a tiny bit necessary (with missing “e”).
Rendel Harris wrote:
He should have went back when the car come for him.
You can figure it out, so it’s correct?
Well, that’s another way to
Well, that’s another way to spend all that righteous energy, certainly…
Anonymousattorney wrote:
That would be a silly thing to say, so it’s a good job I said nothing of the sort. I clearly stated that it was a mistake. However, to claim that the mistake renders the statement “gibberish” (“unintelligible or meaningless” – Oxford) is just stupid.
Smart move putting this story
Smart move putting this story on Facebook as well
Over the past 100 years drivers have gaslighted people, including it seems the police, into thinking this sort of thing is OK.
About 100 years ago the
About 100 years ago the biggest con was already in place.
After the first death
… excused as “but they shouldn’t have been there” or “sadly accidents happen” or “an isolated incident” …
…there is no other.
I don’t like seeing Mikey put
I don’t like seeing Mikey put himself in harms way like this.
Being put in harms way so often, as we are, can lead to desensitisation to danger and I worry that in the heat of the moment CM forgets how much is at risk.
I know the issue is close to his heart but there are safer and perhaps more effective ways too. I’d be sad if the bane of London’s bad drivers retired but a holiday may be worthwhile.
He will never retire, unless
He will never retire, unless he becomes physically unable to continue. The more he is getting harrassed the more relentless with reporting he seems to be getting.
To be honest, if I found a
To be honest, if I found a lane blocked with roadworks like this when cycling, I’d probably find a way around it too.
Admittedly I wouldn’t if I was driving, though, as it’s more dangerous to other people and on a bike I always have the option to hop off and get out of the way.
Yes, I returned via Goldhawke
Yes, I returned via Goldhawke Rd instead. Knowing the road was closed. Clear alternative route and legal.
Humans do… but in fact
Humans do… but in fact there are several differences with the cyclist situation (some you’ve identified).
We have procedures like “put up warning / diversion signs. Granted, not always, but generally for planned works. Sadly generally *not* for cycling (or the diversion route is meant for drivers and takes you onto the M9…)
Didn’t see this until I got
Didn’t see this until I got home tonight, and realised I rode down there to my Immunotherapy session at Charing Cross hospital this afternoon. Would the driver still have speeded through if I was legally coming the other way on a Lime bike? Most probably. Thanks for trying Mikey.
He would have stopped. He
He would have stopped. He stopped at the first encounter, then barged through likely because he saw CM waiting to block his way again as soon as the cars going in the other direction were gone.
Even if you don’t commend or
Even if you don’t commend or condone what CM did here–and I don’t–it’s totally wild to conclude he’s the villain in this scenario. Oh, sure, a motorist just committed attempted murder with a speeding, 4,000 pound deadly weapon merely so he could illegally get where he was going a little faster, and then fled the scene–but did you see the guy who got a little overzealous in trying to stop him?! A true menace to society!
I’m not sure who you think
I’m not sure who you think has said he’s “the villain”. But did his involvement in this instance create higher risk than if he had not been there? Yes it did.
I agree that the drivers going through against the no entry should not have been doing so, and that there are risks created by that. But the ones seem in the clip were not doing so recklessly or in a particularly dangerous way, or indeed without good visibility. They were waiting patiently for a gap in traffic, and processing at sensible speed when clear – in a way that is not dissimilar to the way drivers legally and safely negotiate roads up and down the country where one side has a line of cars parked along it.
Am I justifying their actions? No. They should not be doing it and deserve any penalty incurred. But was it particularly dangerous in itself? No, not really.
The raging nutcase who sped through was driving much more dangerously, but the reason he was doing it in that way was precisely because he was trying to dash through while.CM was still on the pavement.
It doesn’t require seeing CM as a “menace to society” to see that he contributed to making this situation more rather than less dangerous, through well-meaning but ultimately counterproductive action.
Velo-drone wrote:
No, Because the roadworks were at a junction there was no way they could see if there was any traffic about to turn into the road, they were totally relying on luck, if a cyclist had come round in the opposite direction they would have stood no chance!
Backladder wrote:
With respect, I wholly disagree. You can see from the first pic that there’s enough space for two cars to pass each other on that stretch of road.
The fact that Mikey had to run onto the road to get far enough to even get the bike in front of the guy illustrates how much space there is there – and there’s still even a decent amount of space the other side of the car
If a cyclist came round the corner in the other direction they’d sail past in the space Mikey was standing in and probably not even pay a second thought to it.
Velo-drone wrote:
That doesn’t matter a damn, the lane is blocked and signposted no entry, it’s not up to car drivers to decide that they think the restriction isn’t necessary and ignore it!
Rendel Harris wrote:
Are you sure? I thought there was an unwritten but implied ‘unless it inconveniences you’ against every MUST NOT clause in the highway code
There’s nothing to disagree
There’s nothing to disagree with. If it says no entry, you don’t go through. Simple as
Well – I do think CM could
Well – I do think CM could perhaps (if he can) take a break / ease off a bit. Particularly because it seems the law is only technically on his side in many instances (e.g. the police have said “not interested in tackling certain crimes”). Which even he’s noted.
I don’t think I would do as he does nor recommend it.
But … I think this is on a slippery slope. I “involve myself” in standing up for my rights while cycling … by cycling. Am I increasing the risk, compared to me not being there on a bike? Somewhat (although I like to think decreasing everyone else’s risk by not driving).
Perhaps we should be lobbying for some legal changes to reflect your view – how about a new “causing death / injury by dangerous/careless driving which was technically illegal but not particularly dangerous in itself”?
For all I know you can currently defend using “provocation” – “I only did (the illegal thing even more riskily) because I wanted to reduce the risk to the vigilante intent on stopping me doing (the illegal thing)”?
You spent a lot of time
You spent a lot of time knocking down a straw man when literally the very first words of my comment were
That’s a lot of words to
That’s a lot of words to basically say, yes, you are justifying their actions
There’s absolutely no reason they should b3 going through, and there’s nothing wrong with someone trying to stop them
No, I am not justifying the
No, I am not justifying the driver’s actions.
For the hard of thinking, I’ll give a corresponding example that might be understandable to fanatics.
I don’t condone or justify cyclists jumping red lights – but it is most certainly possible to distinguish in terms of relative safety between those who do it carefully and in a broadly safe fashion, and those who bomb through at high speed without looking, weaving through cars and pedestrians alike.
It doesn’t make the ones who do it slowly or carefully any less law-breakers – but it does make them less reckless and dangerous.
I am saying exactly the same about drivers negotiating this no entry section. Hope that clarifies (although I’m sure someone will still pretend not to understand)
Velo-drone wrote:
I understand what you are saying and I’m sure that every road user has broken the law at some time either through ignorance of belief that their actions are safe and/or necessary, but I disagree that this particular action is on the less dangerous end of the spectrum.
It only just occurred to me
It only just occurred to me that on the basis of the driver’s appalling behaviour and lack of wearing a seatbelt, I wonder what other criminality it is involved in.
Not to mention the fact that if the driver is the parent of the child in the car, yet doesn’t care about it’s own safety through not wearing a seatbelt… would that be negligent parenting?
Shirley a case for the police and social services to follow up on this.
As DCS Andy Cox has said, it is worth the police’s time as drivers like this are often found to be involved in other criminal activities.
And in case anyone hasn’t
And in case anyone hasn’t seen CyclingMikey’s latest…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA5rYjYvpWs
The Telegraph reported this
The Telegraph reported this as “Cycling Mikey pushes his bike into a car” and I’m more inclined to agree with them. Whether the car should be driving in that direction or not, his actions are making a dangerous situation more dangerous. I’m all up for cyclists standing up for themselves on the road and drivers being held to account but this isn’t helping anyone.
The Telegraph… yes, of
The Telegraph… yes, of course you believe them. Big surprise
At best, it’s “Cycling Mikey
At best, it’s “Cycling Mikey pushes his bike into the path of a car being driven on the wrong side of the road, contravening a keep left and no-entry sign by a driver not wearing a seatbelt and who fails to take any action to avoid the collision”.