Nick Freeman, the lawyer famous for obtaining not guilty verdicts for celebrities charged with driving offences, has claimed that CyclingMikey may be guilty of dangerous cycling after the road safety campaigner’s e-bike was run over by a motorist in west London last weekend.
The footage of the incident — filmed by and featuring CyclingMikey, real name Mike van Erp — shows the 53-year-old popular camera cyclist and road safety campaigner trying to prevent drivers ignoring a no-entry sign and road closure at a junction near Ravenscourt Park in Hammersmith. Van Erp said there were eight separate signs warning motorists of the closure, but still saw several driving through.
When one Fiat 500 driver with a child in the back attempted to pass, van Erp stepped into the road to block them, prompting the driver to reverse away. Moments later, after oncoming traffic cleared, the driver tried again — this time striking van Erp’s 28kg e-bike and sending his belongings across the carriageway before driving off.
Speaking to the Telegraph, Freeman, also known as ‘Mr Loophole’, said: “He is controlling the bike, so it is legally cycling. And, as a result he may be guilty of dangerous cycling. He could be seen as using his bike as a weapon as part of any dangerous driving charge because it falls below the standard of a competent and prudent cyclist.
“He can’t say: ‘The car shouldn’t be there, so I’m entitled to do it.’ He will say he has used his bike to stop an offence. But, in so doing he has risked injury to himself and the driver, who had a child in the car.
“He would argue that he has a legitimate cause. But, he has no legal status to police traffic and may be causing an obstruction in a highway. Cycling Mikey may not realise that by pushing the bike he is in fact cycling because he is in control of it, in the same way you’re legally driving if you’re sitting in a car and it’s freewheeling while the engine is off.”
Cycling Mikey has lost it pic.twitter.com/GBvc7tt6dG
— Keir (@___KR111BACKUP) August 10, 2025
Freeman added: “I think they are both culpable.” He told the paper the driver could be considered to have failed to stop following a collision, failed to report an accident, and potentially used his car as a weapon — which may amount to dangerous driving. “The police have a legal obligation to pursue any offences here,” he added.
Van Erp, meanwhile, denied throwing the bike, telling road.cc his “slightly late reaction” meant he could not stop in time once it became clear the driver was not going to brake
“I’m not strong enough to stop both myself and a 28kg e-bike on a dime,” he said. “He just smashed the bike out of my hands and left the scene of a collision. 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 Metropolitan Police said they are aware of the footage but require a complaint from a victim before they can take matters further. Van Erp has said he will not be reporting the incident because the Met no longer prosecutes certain no-entry contraventions.
This is far from the first time Mr Loophole and CyclingMikey have clashed in public. In August 2023, van Erp accused the lawyer of “stoking cyclist hate for publicity” after Freeman told The Times that he did not want to “live in a snitch society” and described camera cyclists as “a danger”.
Van Erp called Freeman “motivated by clickbait PR” and said he was “intelligently using cyclists” to generate coverage, adding: “I think he probably quite likes what camera cyclists do because we bring him money in defending clients.”
Freeman has repeatedly used high-profile cycling incidents to argue for legislative changes, including compulsory number plates, speedometers on bikes, and laws creating “parity” between driving and cycling offences.
Last September, after a drunk cyclist in Cheshire seriously injured two pedestrians — one of whom later had to have a finger amputated — Freeman appeared on TalkTV to renew his calls for registration and insurance for people on bikes.
And then a month later, he said it was a “no-brainer” to require speedometers on bicycles after the Royal Parks called for 20mph limits to be enforced on riders, a proposal that drew widespread criticism from cyclists.
With more than 100,000 YouTube subscribers and 35,000 followers on Twitter/X, CyclingMikey — who holds the honour of being named in the “top villains of 2024” list by Daily Mail — says he has reported 2,280 drivers since 2019, resulting in £165,700 in fines, 2,649 penalty points and 35 disqualifications.
His footage has led to multiple high-profile prosecutions, including boxing champion Chris Eubank and film director Guy Ritchie, as well as celebrity cases involving Frank Lampard and Jimmy Mulville.
His “Gandalf Corner” interventions in Regent’s Park — where he has blocked drivers ignoring keep-left signs — have themselves been the subject of national headlines, including a 2022 court case in which theatrical agent Paul Lyon-Maris was acquitted of assault after being accused of driving at van Erp and carrying him on the bonnet of his Range Rover.
After this latest incident, van Erp said: “I guess 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.”
52 thoughts on “Mr Loophole accuses CyclingMikey of “using his bike as a weapon” after safety campaigner’s bike run over by motorist”
Quote:
ahhh this explains Fawthrop’s No No Cycling sign….
So pushing a bicycle along a
So pushing a bicycle along a pavement is illegal now because you are riding it? I thought there was case law that pushing a motorcycle along a pavement is legal because it’s NOT riding it?
The case law is crank vs
The case law is crank vs brook.
Technically it only binding for zebra crossings, but I expect the same principle would be applied everywhere else – that having dismounted fully (i.e. not straddling bike) means your a pedestrian with an accoutrement, not a cyclist.
And i would note rule 73 and 77, both of which say dismounting and pushing bikes across junctions, using traffic islands etc is recommended if you don’t feel confident riding – Are people really claiming the intention of this is to walk in the middle of the lane on a busy gyratory rather than using the footway.
Because if they are, its time to organise a ride to rule protest. How badly could a group of cyclists screw up London traffic by dismounting and walking through several gyratories on the road rather than wide footways on the basis that they don’t think its safe to cycle…
Note that where Mikey crossed there is a traffic island, so (regardless of discussion as to whether he should have yielded to the illegal driving) I would argue both 73 and 77 support walking a bicycle across the junction/roadworks at that point as a recommended way of getting through.
Mr Loophole talking out of
Mr Loophole talking out of his loophole again.
Could I stretch Freeman’s
Could I stretch Freeman’s “logic” to breaking point by asking if playing with a remote control car (toy) on a pavement would be illegal (driving on a pavement) because I’m “in control of it”…?
His mental/language gymnastics against cycling/road law should be an indicator that he isn’t good at his job (at least on this subject).
I have no idea what his success rate is but sadly, the majority of the public will not understand what he is doing.
AIUI he generally relies on
AIUI he generally relies on typos/minor errors in prosecution/police paperwork
anotherflat wrote:
Yes, he got Ranulph Fiennes off for his name being misspelt (who wouldn’t misspell it?), Freddie Flintoff (for 87 in a 50!) for papers being served two days late, he even got Paddy McGuinness off a ban by arguing that the CPS had been “cavalier” in their approach after McGuinness had already pleaded guilty!
And Jeremy Clarkson for doing
And Jeremy Clarkson for doing 60 ish in a 40 section of the A40.
And Jeremy Clarkson for doing
And Jeremy Clarkson for doing 60 ish in a 40 section of the A40.
And Jeremy Clarkson for doing
And Jeremy Clarkson for reportedly doing ~60 ish in a 40 section of the A40.
Suspect there will be even
Suspect there will be even more of the letters not arriving in time excuses now the Royal Mail only deliver 2nd class post every other working day of the week
Mr. Loophole wrote:
Aside from being a load of nonsense about cycling when pushing a bicycle whilst walking alongside it, surely the correct analogy is pushing a car along with your feet on the ground with the door open and your hand on the steering wheel. If you’re in the driving seat of a car, your feet are in the footwell and the car is rolling you are driving it.
Pretty sure you’d still be
Pretty sure you’d still be “in charge of” the motor vehicle in that situation. I’d guess you could be e.g. prosecuted for “drunk in charge” in that case. I’d guess that you couldn’t when wheeling a bike (but not certain on that latter point though, law and all that – and I think this would come down more to precedent and not written law e.g. the case that others have cited?)
Pushing the bike while to
Pushing the bike while to police believe you to be drunk is enough to get the police to charge. Story previously on this site as I remember.
ktache wrote:
Yes, he was held for nearly a day and charged under a Victorian law (same one as “furious and wanton” I’m guessing) whereby a bicycle is a carriage and it’s an offence to be in charge of it drunk even pushing on the pavement (as it’s part of the highway). IIRC the poor guy had stopped for a pint or two after a ride, decided he wasn’t safe to cycle home so pushed his bike, someone falsely accused him of bumping their car, police arrived, smelled booze and locked him up. Magistrates gave him the lowest possible sentence of conditional discharge and if memory serves pretty much took the piss out of the police for wasting everyone’s time. Pretty ludicrous, in the same way that someone who sleeps on the back seat of their car can still be charged with drunk in charge if they have the ignition keys on their person.
That photographic memory
That photographic memory again Rendel…
ktache wrote:
I hope the officers were nice
I hope the officers were nice to you
I stand corrected – awaiting
I stand corrected – awaiting further precedent to see how extensive this concept is eg. can I be nicked for drunk in charge while locking up my bike? What if I’m next to my bike with keys, but claim I locked it up before I got drunk?
chrisonabike wrote:
It would be an interesting case, as the example I mentioned of being charged with drunk in charge if you’re sleeping on the back seat of a car if you have the keys relies on the premise that you have the capacity to drive the car even if you weren’t doing so. As bikes don’t need keys presumably you still have the capacity to ride it when drunk if it’s anywhere in your immediate vicinity. I guess you need to lock it up before you start drinking and then give the keys to somebody else…I expect a zealous policeman would still try to get you, someone was charged quite a few years ago (though I think acquitted) as they knew the law about having the keys on you when sleeping drunk in the back so they put the keys in the exhaust pipe, police tried to argue they were still effectively in the driver’s possession.
We’re in the weeds now but I
We’re in the weeds now (and I’m now of the opinion that “none” is a suitable degree of any kind intoxication when riding) but I assume this is all around “what the court can be persuaded you had been doing or had intent to do?”
If I’m drunk and wheeling a bike presumably although I’m a pedestrian I could have just hopped off it, or be about to hop on. Or perhaps that isn’t important – I might eg. let go of the bike and cause injury while being “in charge” regardless of whether on or off the bike (is carrying the bike different)?
Presumably it is ultimately irrelevant what the risk is – it’s just up to the prosecution to convince the court that I was drunk (per whatever rule applies) and whatever being “in charge” may be taken to mean, I was!
It sort of gives the peverse
It sort of gives the peverse incentive to ride tipsy, if it’s as wrong to wheel the bike.
Jentishi Ono (apologies if misspelt) bought up one relating specifically to Surrey a while back on here. There is a by-law that states that it’s an offence to walk your bike on a public footpath in the county. He provided links. Might as well ride, as it’s more of a grey area. I am not advocating riding on Surrey’s public footpaths.
I thought it was the same
I thought it was the same everywhere that a public footpath ie green small dashed line on an os map means you can’t wheel a bike along it.
Hirsute wrote:
I’d always assumed you could wheel a bike on a footpath, but googling it, it appears to be a grey area. A footpath grants a right of way on foot, and with “usual accompaniments” which has been established to include things like a pram or dog. As far as I can tell, it has never been definitely answered whether or not a bicycle is a usual accompaniment.
That said, unless there are specific byelaws, the worst case is that wheeling a bike on a footpath is trespass against the landowner.
chrisonabike wrote:
Once you’ve admitted that it is your bike then you are obviously a cyclist and you are automatically guilty as charged
We had an ex pc at work. Many
We had an ex pc at work. Many years ago he arrested someone for being drunk in charge of a bicycle.
The custody sergeant told him he had 2 minutes to get rid of the bike, so he chucked it over a hedge!
When the bloke was let out the next day, they denied all knowledge and told him he was so drunk he was confused about it !
( Paperwork for drunk in charge of a bike was far more onerous than simply drunk in a public place ).
He was reportedly charged
He was reportedly charged under S12 of the Licensing Act 1872, which appears to apply to anyone who is “found drunk in any highway or other public place”, whether or not they are in charge of a carriage (although the penalty is higher if in charge of a carriage).
Yep, that’s the same law
Yep, that’s the same law which makes it illegal to be drunk in a pub!
Mr Poophole wrote:
Not a lawyer but how can you obstruct a closed highway? Surely as soon as it is officially closed off it ceases to be a highway and the usual laws no longer apply?
Send (insert government
Send (insert government-bothering activist group here, e.g. Just Stop Oil / Palestine Action) there for a sit in, and see!
This is also correct – it’s
Correct – it’s not possible to cause obstruction to a person who doesn’t have the right of free passage along a road.
You can in Norwich
You can in Norwich
https://www.norwichcyclingcampaign.org/arrested-for-being-a-pedestrian-in-a-pedestrianised-street/
You can in Norwich
You can in Norwich
And now let us all join together and chant ‘Despise The Police Even More!’
Rendel Harris wrote:
Not a lawyer but how can you obstruct a closed highway? Surely as soon as it is officially closed off it ceases to be a highway and the usual laws no longer apply?— Mr Poophole
Not sure how this might change the application of “obstruction” in this case, but the road was not actually closed as a way, it was restricted to vehicular traffic from one direction.
Big Jobber did a video in which he says both parties were at fault. Now he’s an insurance claims specialist (not, AFAIK a lawyer), but his knowledge will be pretty comprehensive and likely to match that of a lawyer in his field. But that field is the civil claim. His point was that Mikey put his bike in the way of the car and its driver, introducing the peril. Equally, the driver went through a closure sign with the same effect.
My suggestion is that it is reasonable for Mikey to conclude that there should not be any danger from his left in that case. I suppose the counter argument is that he only moved his bike because there was a risk from the left.
Is that an obstruction? I’m pretty sure that court comments have said that you cannnot be held to obstruct somebody who has no right to proceed that way (or words to that effect). It seems reasonable.
The outcome is, of course, that Mikey ends up holding up legitimate traffic while he clears his shed load from the carriageway. That is somewhat indirect and would not have happened if he, while legally crossing a highway was not hit by a driver illegally proceeding against signs.
My conclusion, therefore, is that the driver should be hunted down and torn apart by dogs. However I hasten to add that nobody should do so at my bidding.
“…Mikey put his bike in the
“…Mikey put his bike in the way of the car and its driver, introducing the peril. Equally, the driver went through a closure sign with the same effect.
My suggestion is that it is reasonable for Mikey to conclude that there should not be any danger from his left in that case. I suppose the counter argument is that he only moved his bike because there was a risk from the left.”
I’m wondering if the 1st law of robotics applies here…
“a robot must not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm”
By doing what did (and does so often) CM is trying to prevent harm.
mitsky wrote:
I don’t think the law has received royal assent.
When you assume the Laws of Robotics, you make an Asimov out of you and me.
You’d have thought that a
You’d have thought that a lawyer might know the law (at least the area in which he is supposedly an expert) but apparently not.
From the Court of Appeal in Crank v Brooks 1980:
“In my judgment a person who is walking across a pedestrian crossing pushing a bicycle, having started on the pavement on one side on her feet and not on the bicycle, and going across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the ground so to speak is clearly a ‘foot passenger’. If for example she had been using it as a scooter by having one foot on the pedal and pushing herself along, she would not have been a ‘foot passenger’. But the fact that she had the bicycle in her hand and was walking does not create any difference from a case where she is walking without a bicycle in her hand. I regard it as unarguable the finding that she was not a foot passenger.”
Pedant alert – he also
Pedant alert – he also misquoted the test for dangerous cycling as “competent and prudent” (it’s “competent and careful”)
I think he’s just engaged in
I think he’s just engaged in what is legally known as “talking shite”. (Or did he first inform everyone that he was just there publicising himself again, and in no manner implied what he said was legally correct?)
I stand to be corrected but I’m pretty sure the term used is “in charge of a vehicle” – and that – for a car when it’s moving – doesn’t really equate to the same when pushing a bike.
As others pointed out CM’s a pedestrian here. I’m pretty sure this isn’t any different to if you were pushing baby carriage instead. Or carrying a cake.
“In charge of” a vehicle applies to certain legal charges (though different rules / penalties may apply from motor vehicles) – I think you can be “drunk in charge” of a mobility vehicle or a horse.
In fact legally “in charge” isn’t defined I think, but the vehicle doesn’t have to be moving. Nor does the engine have to be on, nor do you have to be in it. (Though access to a key / ownership / possession / intention are important – otherwise little Tina left on the back seat while you nip into the shop could also be in “in charge”).
Mr. Loophole wrote:
Strange that because most of us don’t want to live in a loophole society and would describe lawyers like Freeman as a danger!
So, he thinks people who
So, he thinks people who report drunk drivers before they kill somebody are a danger!
And not forgetting NF’s
And not forgetting NF’s”profession” and likely income, I’m guessing he has security and CCTV around his home…
But of course he wouldn’t use any footage of criminality caught on those cameras to “snitch”, would he?
He’ll be happy for his neighbourhood to become a crimezone.
(and isn’t it strange how people of a certain mentality have the same initials…)
I am disappointed
I am disappointed cyclingmikey isnt reporting this. There needs to be consequences for using your car as a weapon.
I agree, the car was on the
I agree, the car was on the wrong side of the road and was used as a weapon to clear the way.
Agree – they might not be
Agree – they might not be interested in no-entry contraventions, but dangerous driving, failure to stop etc…
Driver is also not wearing a
Driver is also not wearing a seat belt
very clear as his shirt of white
Quite hilarious for someone
Quite hilarious for someone who has arguably spent most of his career working to keep unsafe drivers on the road to call Cycling Mikey a “”terrorist”.
I think CyclingMikey was
I think CyclingMikey was lucky not to be hurt in this incident. He should’ve let the stupid driver go TBH. But I’m not the only one seeing the irony of Mr Loophole claiming to be a road safety campaigner when he makes his not inconsiderable income from ensuring that rich, bad drivers don’t get penalised for traffic offences.
OldRidgeback wrote:
Seems perfectly reasonable to me – climate change campaigners campaign to reduce climate change; homelessness campaigners campaign to reduce homelessness; and he’s a road safety campaigner…
So if I’m shopping, with a
So if I’m shopping, with a bag on two wheels, I’m legally cycling? I think not.
Well you might be if you were
Well you might be if you were quaxing. I’m not sure the number of wheels is significant, more whether you can get around on the bag?
Mr Poophole is such a
Mr Poophole is such a bullshit artist. I wonder if he only saw the deliberately msileading viseo from the Telegrunt.
Crank vs Brookes 1980. Rules that someone pushing a cycle and not scooting is a pedestrian. That was on an uncontrolled crossing, and Mikey was on an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing when he had stepped out when the motor vehicle was 10-15m away starting from stationary.
So for one, the duty of care is engaged.
Elsewhere:
—————————
This is an appeal by way of case stated from a decision of Cheshire Justices sitting at Sandbach on 11 July 1978.
The defendant was summoned for a breach of regulation 8 of the Zebra Pedestrian Crossing Regulations 1971 and section 23 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 , for that he on 14 March 1978 at Elworth in Cheshire, being the driver of a motor vehicle, namely, a motor car in London Road, did fail to accord precedence to a foot passenger on the carriageway within the limits of an uncontrolled crossing, such foot passenger having been within those limits before the vehicle or any part thereof had come within those limits
….
In my judgment a person who is walking across a pedestrian crossing *443 pushing a bicycle, having started on the pavement on one side on her feet and not on the bicycle, and going across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the ground so to speak is clearly a ‘foot passenger.’ If for example she had been using it as a scooter by having one foot on the pedal and pushing herself along, she would not have been a ‘foot passenger’. But the fact that she had the bicycle in her hand and was walking does not create any difference from a case where she is walking without a bicycle in her hand. I regard it as unarguable the finding that she was not a foot passenger.
https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?t=58598#:~:text=The%20defendant%20was%20summoned%20for,to%20continue%20her%20journey%20home.