CyclingMikey’s latest YouTube video shows two men on illegal e-bikes, suspected of being mobile phone thieves and running away from the police, confront him in an altercation on a bridge, which ends with the popular camera cyclist shouting angrily: “I will finish you.”
The footage opens at a red-light crossing near Chiswick roundabout, west London, where two Sur-Ron riders, dressed in black from top to bottom and wearing balaclavas, skid in and almost hit a female cyclist before darting across the road as sirens wail.
“You naughty little f******!” says Mikey — real name Mike van Erp — as he continues along the shared path. Moments later he finds the pair loitering by a bridge; one throws a backpack over the side into the cemetery beyond. “Bloody mobile phone thieves, those guys,” he says in the clip.
When van Erp reaches for his phone to dial 999, he hesitates, adding a caption that he feared they might try to snatch it. One rider then races at him, filming and chanting “Wagwan Mikey!” while the second circles in behind.
“Go away! I saw that. I’m going to call the police now,” van Erp says, backing to a wall and using his bike and white box to cover his sides.
He adds: “Why are you hiding? Horrible little thieves.” As they edge close he shouts, “Get away from me,” before warning, “I will finish you,” as the two riders drift off.
With the riders gone, the woman from the crossing pulls alongside. “Mobile phone thieves,” van Erp tells her. She replies: “Yeah, I know. I was scared during that crossing.”
Mikey then calls 999 and passes on all the relevant information to the call handler: “I’ve just come across two suspected mobile phone thieves on Sur-Rons… I’m now on the A406 Gunnersbury Avenue just north of Chiswick roundabout… All in black, wearing masks… They’re northbound on the A406… I did see them throw a bag… over the bridge into the cemetery.”
He follows up by searching the cemetery himself, speaking to a grounds worker and then peering over a barbed-wire fence by the railway, where he spots the bag. “Okay, it’s there,” he says, later captioning: “Looks like a neoprene laptop bag. I call the police back, they turn up and I show them where the bag is.”
Speaking to road.cc after publishing the video, van Erp said: “I didn’t see them actually steal anything, but one of them tossed a bag. I did show the police, they turned up maybe 15 minutes later, but I kept them off the video.”
This latest confrontation comes just a week after another incident in west London when a driver ignored a road closure and ran over van Erp’s bike near Ravenscourt Park as he tried to stop motorists disobeying a no-entry sign.
“He just smashed the bike out of my hands and left the scene of a collision,” he told us at the time, describing the motorist as “selfish and dangerous”. Footage filmed by a passer-by later appeared on TikTok.
Van Erp rose to prominence for documenting law-breaking drivers on London’s roads, with more than 100,000 subscribers following his clips and many police referrals leading to penalty points, fines and disqualifications.
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.
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”.
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.
> Taxi driver warns CyclingMikey he will “end up needing the dentist” after challenging phone use
In May 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.
A few days later, a London taxi driver warned van Erp he would “end up needing the dentist” after being challenged for phone use in Hyde Park; the case timed out with the Met, while TfL’s Taxi & Private Hire said it would investigate.
And then in July of that same year, a driver he filmed using a phone retaliated with an animated and expletive-laden tirade, which included labelling the cyclist as a ‘virgin’, accusing him of supporting Chelsea, and ending with: “If you’re going to be useful, come inside the car and f****** w*** me off or something.”
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
43 thoughts on ““I will finish you”: CyclingMikey confronted by suspected “horrible” mobile phone thieves on illegal e-bikes”
Whilst I generally agree with
Whilst I generally agree with what he’s trying to do, Mikey is gonna get himself stabbed.
Ihatepigeons wrote:
I agree with both parts of that statement. As I said on the other thread about him trying to block the guy who ran over his bike, for some reason he seems really to have upped his aggression levels recently. Previously his calm demeanour and reasonable tone meant (most) people didn’t react violently to him, it’s a good heuristic that the more aggression you offer the more you get back. I’m quite big and not scared of much but no way would I have risked confronting those scrotes unless someone else was at risk of being harmed. I’m also concerned that by putting the confrontation out on social media they’re now going to be looking out for him to take revenge on the “nark”. Worrying.
He’s figured out that it gets
He’s figured out that it gets him more clicks, and more clicks = more money. Lets be honest, if he was really bothered about road safety then he would record footage. report it to the police and leave it there like thousands of others manage to do. Absolutely no reason for him to publish any of it to YouTube other than for his own personal gain
He publishes his “catches” in
He publishes his “catches” in order to raise awareness of the fact that phone driving, even when stationary, is illegal. He is entirely genuine in his desire to improve road safety, particularly spurred by his father being killed by a drunk driver when he was a teenager. If he makes a few bob off his content whilst doing something useful, who cares?
Me_ wrote:
The 500 or whatever dodgy drivers Mikey gets done each year are the minor part for road safety, except that they provide material to be discussed and whined about by the lobotomised twats that read the Express, the bigoted, stupid twats that read the Mail,and the head-up-their-own-anus-snuffling-up-their-own-BS pompous twats that read the Telegrunt.
Whilst they are all telling the other twats how eeeeevilz Mikey is, they internalise what happens if they break the rules of the road.
UK Road Culture is in significant part stupid, selfish, and reckless. If Mikey can use the good offices of the Mail, the Express and the Telegrunt to pound reality into the thick heads of law breaking drivers, so much the better.
One day the twats will notice that 70% of dashcam reports come from people.
More strength to Mikey’s arm, and his sense of risk management.
mattw wrote:
Wait, what? Does that mean the the other 30% are being reported by all those autonomous cars out there?
No it means that the
No it means that the autonomous editor clipped “in motor vehicles” off the end.
mattw wrote:
Well actually 100% of dashcam reports come from people in motor vehicles, they being the only ones who have a dash on which to place a cam.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Wait – doesn’t putting one here count?
It’s behind the windscreen, just above the binnacle and the … steerer * … after all. Or is this the bonnet? Or merely a fairing?
* I think this one has “tank steering” although it says “joystick”?
Police took 15 minutes? If
Police took 15 minutes? If two cars in 5 minutes! Take care, Mikey, fingers crossed for you. These nasty chaps are or should be top priority for the Met!
Im more impressed they
Im more impressed they actually turned up.
Fair game the ‘lads’ on these
Fair game the ‘lads’ on these bikes aren’t angelic in any way ! I once got into a conversation whilst Ion foot with some whilst 1 went to a shop and they where telling me they can do 50 no probs 70 if they really push them.. the bikes should be banned immediately!
They are already illegal.
They are already illegal.
For some reason the police have turned a blind eye to illegal e-bikes (motorbikes) for years drepsite them being overwhelmingly used for acquisitive crime and drug deliveries.
Agree. I know little about
Agree. I know little about the murky world of these but I would note there does seem to be a bit of a two-tier system in practice in Edinburgh:
a) Food delivery folks – here they normally aren’t on the more powerful things and I (slow cyclist) am not regularly passed by them (well, hills…). Many of these may be illegal (throttle and not covered by e.g. “it’s walk-assist”) and I’m sure they’re not incentivised to worry about the difference. But slower. I suspect that’s just because they don’t have spare cash for the faster models – or would worry about them getting trashed / stolen. (In Edinburgh a large number are in fact rented, often shared by several people to maximise use from the bike).
b) “Youth” with faces fully covered, generally going some multiples of my speed. Presumably delivering more valuable things than takeaway curries or groceries. Also sometimes “tearing up the town” e.g. wheelies down the main road, just like they’d otherwise be doing on scrambler bikes…
No doubt there is cross-over but I would suspect that policing the extremely obvious Surron mob (b) would definitely turn up other offences which are of more interest to the police than just “illegal use of an unlicenced, unregistered, non-type-approved electric motorbike”.
…would definitely turn up
…would definitely turn up other offences which are of more interest to the police
The whole point is that these, and many other offences, are most definitely NOT of interest to the police, who are dead keen to ‘not know’ about them as that would detrimentally affect crime statistics (unless they can fix those like Manchester police famously did) and involve doing work
Of all the places, I didn’t
Of all the places, I didn’t expect road.cc to confuse e-bikes with unregistered electric motorbikes.
They didn’t say “cyclists” or
They didn’t say “cyclists” or “bicycles / cycles” at least (which eg. much of the mainstream media often does).
I think the latter is a better hill to fight on.
“e-bike” in common usage covers both EAPCs and electric motorbikes and I’m sure will even when “motorbike” starts to imply “electric” anyway.
Gven “EAPC” already exists for the legal case how would you slice and dice? (All irrelevant of course, the ship has sailed – unless some government brings in better regulation and policing).
How about: an e-bike is an
How about: an e-bike is an electric bike that doesn’t need rego and a licence. Everything else is an electic motorcycle.
I like “e-Moto” (makes sense
I like “e-Moto” (makes sense as they do look a bit like motocross bikes anway) for these electric motorcycles.
It also sounds like it might
It also sounds like it might make them more caring and in touch with their feelings, which would probably benefit them.
(No subject)
mdavidford wrote:
So if someone ripped you off when selling you one of them, would that be an emoticon?
Well, that’s not bad … but
Well, that’s not bad … but again the ship has sailed I think, because:
Legally it’s just bicycles (and EAPCs count as those) and motorcycle / moped / motor tricycle. I’m not good with the regs here but I’m not sure many of the electric bikes are “type approved”? If not even if you wore a motorbike helmet, had licence, were riding on roads not riding on cycle paths and could get insurance I don’t think that’s legal. So only usable on private land.
A Suron is an electric
A Suron is an electric motorcycle. They can be made road legal, but I’ve never seen one yet that is.
I couldn’t resist a quick
I couldn’t resist a quick peek at the Sur-Ron UK website, to quote them:
Street Legal.
Road Ready.
The Light Bee(L1E) has exactly the same power system as the Light Bee X, but we built it to comply with all European road regulations meaning you can legally tear up the streets. The road kit includes LCD Dashboard, LED headlights, Front & rear fenders, indicators, and brake lights. As comfortable on the road as it is off it. Exploring urban streets has never been easier.
Sur-ron bikes are constantly being tested and improved upon, both by professional riders and by our tech team. We have developed a multi-link rear suspension system for our light bee models, meaning, whether you are shredding through a city or hitting up the track, your new bike will adapt to any terrain. Big Fun. Anywhere.
So, their language doesn’t exactly encourage the best of behaviour using statements like “whether you are shredding through a city“. And I think the sentence “you can legally tear up the streets” is basically telling our UK scrotes that they can get straight on the road after delivery, no mention of little requirements like taxing the vehicle and insuring it.
Also – see Ashley Neal’s
Also – see Ashley Neal’s “Ashley please could you review our illegal bicycle” (yeah language is not quite right but it’s mostly coming from the sellers I think) – in which at least one of their reps essentially says “yeah just don’t floor it in front of the cops!”
I’m sure manufacturers and sellers are fully aware that buyers largely don’t care; in fact most of the public doesn’t really care … and the government / police don’t either.
Did you also see the photos
Did you also see the photos accolmpanying the street legal version…including riding one down a set of steps?
It is road legal but needs to
It is road legal but needs to be treated like a 125. Ie needs to be registered with the DVLA (there’s no suggestion that Sur-Ron do this for you), it will need to be insured, the younger rider will have to have a provisional license and complete their CBT, full motorcycle helmet, Mot after 3 yrs etc.
Perhaps an FOI request to the DVLA to find out how many are actually registered?
Light Bee L1E model is road
Light Bee L1E model is road legal, but I recall someone saying it was extremely expensive compared to the non-legal models.
In all fairness, they don’t
In all fairness, they don’t seem to be all that expensive to me, £4250 “on the road” price. Although, as one who doesn’t have a motorcycle licence nor shown much interest in owning a motorbike, I don’t really know what I should expect to pay for a brand new 125cc motorbike.
I wonder how easy it is to get one of these things completely legitimate for road use.
DeelitedManchester wrote:
For the UK, road.cc’s sister site ebiketips has how to do a road-legal speed-pedelec here. (Short: get some company – Riese und Muller here – to do much of the legwork for you. I very much doubt most of these companies do that – as opposed to “yeah just slow down when you spot the police” when prompted…)
DeelitedManchester wrote:
£3500-£5000 for a new one
More like £7500 for an electric one with 125-like performance.
https://www.motorcyclenews.com/advice/best/125-motorbikes/
“CyclingMikey’s latest
“CyclingMikey’s latest YouTube video shows two men on illegal e-bikes”
No it doesn’t. It shows them on illegal electric motorbikes! Come on Road.cc. You can/should do better.
If you want to get pedantic .
If you want to get pedantic … they’re probably on both (but definitely not on EAPCs). And neither machine is currently “illegal” (like “possession” or “not legal to sell”); only the usage in specific situations is. (TBF these are likely only legal to use on private land and almost nowhere else).
Not that these guys have bothered with any of this but actual motorbikes (with licence, insurance, number plate etc.) wouldn’t be legal to ride here either because cycle path (although sometimes it’s not immediately clear – see e.g. this loophole). But I don’t think these could easily be made legal to ride on the road (see road.cc article – well, ebiketips – about same) without the additional hurdle of “type approval” – which I doubt these have.
“I will finish you”
“I will finish you”
Why am I now picturing CyclingMikey as a new character in Mortal Kombat?
You can always rely on Mr
You can always rely on Mr Arsehole to come up with the absolute worst take on anything. Desperately tagging everyone in a bid for some self-pulblicity.
What a melt. Apparently there
What a melt. Apparently there’s video from the guys on Surrons (one for the police to trace, don’t suppose they will) and the “weapon” Mikey drew was…wait for it…a Sharpie felt tip pen.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Well in that case, he’s got a point – I mean, we all know the pen is mightier than the knife, right?
He has a point…. a Felt
He has a point…. a Felt point.
The question remains, though
The question remains, though – what did he draw the pen with?
mdavidford wrote:
Another pen, obvs. See also The Goon Show: “What’s the time, Eccles?” “Hang on, I’ve got it written on a piece of paper. Quarter past three.” “How do you know when to look at the piece of paper?” “I’ve got it written on another piece of paper.”
I’m not 100% certain, but
I’m not 100% certain, but surely he is totally wrong. Even a legally held firearm could be used for self defence. If you remember the case fo that farmer, tony Martin, the reason he was found guilty of murder was the fact that he chased the burglar and shot him. If he had stayed where he was and shot when attacked he would likely have got off (I’m pretty sure that’s what i remember the commentary on the case being, at the time)
He’s not exactly totally
He’s not exactly totally wrong, if you pull out an object in order to use it to defend yourself (e.g. if a chef on the way to work pulled out one of their knives, or a carpenter pulled out a hammer) it does then become an offensive weapon and it would be for the judiciary to decide whether threatening someone or actually injuring them with it was justified in relation to the threat faced. Where he’s completely wrong and utterly foolish is in saying that by pulling a felt tip out of his pocket he was wielding an offensive weapon; this would absolutely laughed out of court if it ever got there, it’s about akin to saying you felt threatened by someone pulling out of pocket handkerchief because they could’ve smothered you with it.