A comedian and leading television executive has received six points on his licence and been fined over £2,000 after reacting angrily when CyclingMikey confronted him for typing on his phone “with both hands” while driving in traffic in London.
Jimmy Mulville, the co-founder of Hat Trick Productions, the company behind hit TV programmes such as Have I Got News For You, Father Ted, Derry Girls, and Room 101, was spotted using his phone behind the wheel by the road safety campaigner and YouTuber, real name Mike van Erp, while driving over Battersea Bridge last July, the Evening Standard reports.
According to Van Erp, after being confronted over his phone use, Mulville “flipped the bird” and shouted at the cyclist “go f*** yourself”.
> Tired of road crime”: CyclingMikey on episode 16 of the road.cc Podcast
Mulville, who was previously banned from driving in 2020 and handed another three points last October for speeding, was prosecuted for driving while using his mobile phone after not paying a Fixed Penalty fine.
Represented by Freeman and Co, the law firm of Nick Freeman – commonly known as Mr Loophole due to his ability to secure acquittals for celebrity clients charged with motoring offences – Mulville initially challenged much of the evidence put forward by the Metropolitan Police, including the accusation that he used his phone behind the wheel.
However, at City of London magistrates court earlier this week, the 68-year-old comedian – who was absent from the trial due to illness – conceded that he was using his phone to look at a text.
> Mr Loophole applauds police action against “vigilante cyclists” filming law-breaking drivers
Mulville was found guilty of driving while using his mobile phone and ordered to pay a £1,000 fine, plus £625 in costs and a £400 court fee. He also received six points on his driving licence.
“This was entirely out of character for him”, his barrister Sam Thomas told the court. “At the time, there were family concerns and he did look at the phone to look at a text message.”
Describing the incident, road safety activist Van Erp said that he was cycling home when he noticed the driver of an Aston Martin Rapide not keeping up with slow moving traffic, before accelerating sharply, a move described by the cyclist as the “WhatsApp gap”.
“I commented to myself it was symptomatic of a distracted driver and I wondered if he was on the phone”, he told the court. “I stopped next to the driver’s side window of the Aston Martin, I saw the driver was busy typing on the phone.”
Van Erp claimed he saw Mulville “typing with both hands”, before quickly shutting down the app when he realised he was being watched.
He added: “At this point he flipped me the bird and mouthed to me something rude. I believe it was ‘go f*** yourself’.”
> Taxi driver warns CyclingMikey he will “end up needing the dentist” after challenging phone use
Van Erp, known as CyclingMikey on social media, has reported thousands of law-breaking drivers over the years, with 800 successful prosecutions in the last five years and 383 reports last year.
He attracted attention for particularly high-profile cases, such as catching Guy Ritchie and Chris Eubank using their phones while driving, with the film director being banned from driving for six months as a result, while the retired boxer was given three penalty points and told to pay £280 in fines, court costs, and fees.
One of his latest videos, reported on by road.cc earlier this week and also stemming from July 2022, showed a London taxi driver telling the camera cyclist that he will “end up needing the dentist” after he challenged the professional driver’s mobile phone use behind the wheel.
However, the cab driver, who Mikey filmed in Hyde Park, avoided police prosecution due to staff dealing with an IT system change, with Van Erp adding that they had been left understaffed and that the report subsequently ran out of time.
In January, speaking to road.cc, Mikey said “people need to see justice being done” and that any abuse he receives is simply because some motorists “feel they have the right to drive how they want”.
“In the beginning of my camera work, almost 17 years ago, I took a lot of strain at the abuse thrown my way,” he said. “I’d answer each comment seriously. Nowadays, there has been such a torrent of abuse and lies about me that I just let most of it wash off me.
“In the UK cyclists are considered by society to be ‘cockroaches of the road’, unworthy scum who freeload on the public highway and are terrible lawbreakers. For such a person to challenge a driver for lawbreaking is a massive affront to the social order, and people don’t like this.
“Many of those throwing abuse also feel that they have the right to drive how they want, and that nobody can tell them what to do. They see the prosecutions, and they are afraid of the consequences, and they are angry that someone dares to do this to them.”




-1024x680.jpg)


















89 thoughts on “Top TV comedy producer who “flipped the bird” and told CyclingMikey to “go f*** yourself” fined over £2,000 and handed six points for phone use while driving”
Blimey I wouldn’t have
Blimey I wouldn’t have recognised him.
As for, “This was entirely out of character for him” his most recent record begs to differ;
Mulville, who was previously banned from driving in 2020 and handed another three points last October for speeding, was prosecuted for driving while using his mobile phone after not paying a Fixed Penalty fine.
billymansell wrote:
I couldn’t agree more. It looks like the judge took it with a pinch of salt as well. But wouldn’t it be nice to hear a judge say that to a defence barrister. They could also point out that people are supposed to tell the truth in court, including barristers.
He should have been banned
He should have been banned again, not that it would make much difference.
His solicitor said “This was entirely out of character for him”, really? Banned in 2020 and points in 2022, paints him as a serial offender.
For the very expensive
For the very expensive barrister, you don’t need both hands to read a text.
And the road safety expert lawyer isn’t cheap either.
Mikey will post the evidence soon, I’m sure, so we can all see how bang to rights the not at all self entitled drivest is…
A pathetic fine for a
A pathetic fine for a recidivist road criminal.
A comedian and leading
A comedian and leading television executive has received six points on his licence and been fined over £2,000……
Not sure he’ll see the funny side of this, or will he be working it into his next standup routine?
Can’t help having a little snigger myself.
He hasn’t been a performing
He hasn’t been a performing comedian for at least 35 years, Badvoc would say longer, but he never was a stand up anyway.
I did rather enjoy “Who Dares
I did rather enjoy “Who Dares Wins” back in the 80s, in which he appeared.
Wasn’t he also in Chelmsford
Wasn’t he also in Chelmsford 123?
Also on the radio, in Old
Also on the radio, in Old Harry’s Game. He played Thomas, a despised CEO of a privatised utility who (among other things) attempted to overthrow Satan and was notably a poor driver.
He was. I used to enjoy that.
He was. I used to enjoy that. I wonder why it was never as successful as some of his other stuff.
Mikey.
Mikey.
You are my patron Saint of…
EWW
To sin by silence, when we should protest,
Makes cowards out of men. The human race
Has climbed on protest. Had no voice been raised
Against injustice, ignorance, and lust,
The inquisition yet would serve the law,
And guillotines decide our least disputes.
The few who dare, must speak and speak again
To right the wrongs of many. Speech, thank God,
No vested power in this great day and land
Can gag or throttle. Press and voice may cry
Loud disapproval of existing ills;
May criticise oppression and condemn
The lawlessness of wealth-protecting laws
That let the children and childbearers toil
To purchase ease for idle millionaires.
Run for office please…Mikey. You must!
Bloody hell! In the space of
Bloody hell! In the space of a week we’ve had both a Gramsci quote and a Wheeler Wilcox poem on road.cc all without a troll to be found; wonderful.
Jimmy Mul..vile. A Twasser..
Jimmy Mul..vile. A Twasser… cuntundrum… cuckoldrum…. fuckler…. CUNT.
Discuss….
I agree
I agree
I also agree.
I also agree.
I sometimes think Cycling
I sometimes think Cycling Mikey is just another fixated cycling vigilante looking for trouble.
Then somthing like this happens and I reckon he’s doing a public service.
Cycloid wrote:
Why would you think that he’s a vigilante unless you don’t understand the meaning of the word?
“Activist” is probably the word you meant.
Generally it’s not just
Generally it’s not just ignorance, a term like vigilante is actually used by rightwingers to discredit activism. As always hypocrits to a (wo)man.
Another one who deliberately
Another one who deliberately misuses the term.
Looking for trouble. Yeah because in London you have to stake out a road all day to find one offence.
Cycloid wrote:
I think viglinate is exactly the correct term, don’t let the cadre grind you down.
Gimpl wrote:
Hurr durr – big word hard to spell. Harder to understand.
OOOO – a typo, colour me
OOOO – a typo, colour me stupid
Gimpl wrote:
Apologies – I don’t normally call out typos as these are informal comments, but you’re being a bit of an arse in my opinion.
Gimpl wrote:
It literally isn’t. A vigilante is someone who takes the law into their own hands and dishes out their own justice. Mikey reports crime to the police and leaves justice up to the legal system. How exaclty is that vigilantism? A vigilante is at odds with the police/legal system – the police have shown support for Mikey a number of times.
Sure, he intervenes when he sees particularly dangerous behaviour, but that’s no more vigilantism than someone intervening in a mugging is vigilantism.
BalladOfStruth wrote:
You are technically correct. The best kind of correct.
Gimpl wrote:
really?
What law enforcement is he undertaking? Is he not merely passing information to the police who do the enforcement, because it seems in these cases they are not inadequate.
Everyone is being very
Everyone is being very literal today. Yes, I can google the meaning too.
Gimpl wrote:
Then you probably should have before you incorrectly used the word to call Mikey something he’s not. The important distinction is that vigilantism is illegal, harmful, and can impeded the legal process. What Mikey does is to report crime to the authorities through the correct avenues, with the full support of those authorities. Like him or loathe him, he tries to hold lawbreakers to account. Calling him a vigilante is labelling him a lawbreaker himself, which he isn’t.
Thats your interpretation, my
Thats your interpretation, my interpretation is slightly different – do you not see?
Gimpl wrote:
My “interpretation” is the dictionary definition of the word. Your “interpretation” is objectively incorrect. Do you not see?
What are you doing? Arguing
What are you doing? Arguing semantics? Why?! (This is rhetorical, please just stop)
AltBren wrote:
It’s because people keep using the word ‘vigilante’ incorrectly. Whether this is due to ignorance or some kind of misguided “culture war”, I don’t know.
Nope. It’s a pathetic
Nope. It’s a pathetic argument.
I think he was just agreeing with the guy that said the Micky guy is looking for trouble, which he clearly is.
He sees someone on their phone in stationary traffic, stops (to pretend to look at his map) to aggravate the guy (he’s a div too obviously). But it was really unnecessary, he wasn’t a danger. I’d save my outrage for stuff that matters. How many dangerous moves do we see every day?! Why add to the driver/cyclist “war” with bad examples when there are so many genuinely dangerous 1s.
AltBren wrote:
Well, you are absolutely wrong about the danger posed by drivers using phones in stationary traffic which is why it is something that the police enforce (allowing for numbers etc.).
There are cyclists killed far too often in this country, so outrage is absolutely correct when faced with drivers that clearly do not care about endangering others. Maybe you’re some kind of psychopath that doesn’t care about other people, but not everyone is that way.
I don’t follow what you’re referring to with “it’s a pathetic argument” – was it about whether people should try to know what words mean when they insist on using them? If you think that encouraging people to use factually incorrect words is a good thing, then you are some kind of idiot and I shall not waste any further time on you as it’d be like playing chess with a pigeon.
Do you think the taxi driver
Do you think the taxi driver was a danger at that moment? He was barely moving… Save your outrage!
AltBren wrote:
So do we have to do a moment by moment evaluation of danger and criminality now?
The reason that mobile phone use behind the wheel has been criminalised is that it does present very real dangers and so drivers must be stopped from doing that wherever possible. Apologists may try and cook up some half-arsed excuses but it’s unacceptable behaviour however you try to justify it.
Would you consider speeding to be okay if they weren’t crashing at the time?
I don’t think the law states
I don’t think the law states it is ok to use a mobile phone if going slow. Pretty much they state use one when pulled over and the engine is fully off.
If you have never seen the whatapp gap where someone in a queue is distracted by a mobile phone, leaves a big gap, gets beeped by the driver behind and just accelerates quickly in embarrasement, then you might not think it is a danger. Combine that with pedestrians crossing in queuing traffic not realising the driver is distracted, and instead thinks they have been seen which is why the vehicle is “waiting” and it becomes even more of a danger. Finally put that scenario in a park with more children around.
Then of course you are also assuming the driver is going to stop using the phone when going at faster speeds.
If that driver is doing it
If that driver is doing it stationary that same driver will do it while moving.
The pathetic argument
The pathetic argument statement was refering to the whole discussion.
And calling me an idiot isn’t
And calling me an idiot isn’t helpful either. You’re putting words in my mouth and then giving me grief for it.
AltBren wrote:
What words? You’re not really expressing yourself very clearly and you’re certainly coming across as an idiot.
‘was it about whether people
‘was it about whether people should try to know what words mean when they insist on using them? If you think that encouraging people to use factually incorrect words is a good thing, then”. (No it wasn’t, it was about pursuing petty pointless arguments to the point where you’re rude to people.)
Again calling me an idiot isn’t helpful. Would you say that to my face, I doubt it. So please stop, because it feels like you’re just trying to antagonise me.
The cadre has kind of proved it’s zealousness.
I can see why the other guy tapped out, it’s tedious.
Well ostracized people! Way to go. Hope yous all happy in your echo chamber after you’ve silenced all the dissent.
I won’t be back.
Hopefully that was clear enough for you.
Which other guy?
Which other guy?
perce wrote:
Probably Gimpl
Ah thanks – makes sense.
Ah thanks – makes sense.
AltBren wrote:
Thank you for your contribution to the discussion – we all feel enriched by the interesting points that you raised and I’m sure you’ll be missed
To put it another way. Fuck
To put it another way. **** *** ****s.
AltBren wrote:
“Nuts!”
“Nuts!”
“I’m really really upset to
“I’m really really upset to be called an idiot, that is just plain rude”.
Well that’s big of you.
Well that’s big of you.
This was unacceptable,
This was unacceptable, sincere apologies to anyone offended. It was only aimed at 2 people (hirsute and Hawkinspeter), and they might deserve it, but that doesn’t make it ok.
Best of luck to all (well, nearly all).
AltBren wrote:
The distraction of using a mobile phone when driving has been shown by researchers to be as dangerous as the effects of driving over the alcohol limit. Research has further shown that the distraction effect lasts for up to ninety seconds after the phone has been put down and driving resumed. That’s if the phone is put down, you’re making a pretty large assumption that all these people would have carefully put their phone away before starting off again, very few of those I see in London traffic do so: the pattern tends to be that they will be texting/emailing/WhatsApping when stationary and reading the replies as they move along. So it is a real danger. Why do you think the sanction is set so high? Have the authorities just decided to impose six points and a £200 fine on perfectly safe behaviours just for the hell of it?
I have on occasion when
I have on occasion when driving seen the motorist behind me messing with their phone changed my route.
You are quite happy to use
You are quite happy to use words incorrectly to undermine someone.
Fascist Tory then.
I think you totally missed
I think you totally missed the point.
I’m a Tory, ok then you’re a nazi! (See how unhelpful that was?)
AltBren wrote:
Holy Necropost Batman!
What do you mean “just stop”?! You’re the one who’s resurrected a two-week old thread to stick up for a guy who is objectively incorrect.
Besides, I wasn’t arguing semantics – vigilantism is a crime. It involves taking the law into your own hands, bypassing the authorities/legal process, and dealing out your own punishments. None of which Mikey does. He reports to the correct authorities and utilises the legal process to hold bad drivers to account, with the full support of the police.
You’re free not to like him (I’m not exactly head of his fan-club myself, as I said elsewhere in this very thread), but if you don’t like him and don’t like the way he antagonises drivers, then say that, don’t accuse him of a crime he hasn’t committed.
That’s the dictionary
That’s the dictionary definition.
You have the wrong word
If you don’t like him, fine but don’t describe him as something he is not.
My sympathies, when they get
My sympathies, when they get on their high horse there’s no climbing down. (They’ve lost when they correct your spelling).
Gimpl wrote:
You are clueless to what vigilantism is. Where I grew up you would regularly see leaflets being distributed warning that anti social crime would not be tolerated and offenders would be dealt with. I’ve also seen the aftermath of these actions. Come back to me when CM starts to dish out summary beatings and giving people 24 hours to get out of the country.
Here come the cadre –
Here come the cadre
– policing dissent as usual
Gimpl wrote:
This coming from someone who this very morning told hawkinspeter on another thread that if he didn’t support the royal family he should emigrate from the UK because he is an embarrassment to “our” country. Spectacular.
I’m glad you mentioned that
I’m glad you mentioned that as I am genuinely interested in how you feel about the monarchy bearing in mind you are the son of someone who worked at the FCO like me. Did you go on post?
E.T.A. And I consider you to be one of the cadre
Gimpl wrote:
Why should my father’s occupation have any bearing on or relevance to my opinion of the monarchy? That’s a very odd question.
Rendel Harris wrote:
As a teacher I would have thought you knew that what you learn at an early age can have a bearing on the rest of your life.
Gimpl wrote:
That can be true but is a highly simplistic argument (and I say that also being a teacher).
I grew up in house with parents who would never consider voting anything other than Tory, smoked like chimneys and would hear nothing said against the monarchy. None of those things describe me, because I made up my own mind based on what I have seen around me … which is what the vast majority of people I have dealt with in my 30 + years of adult life on this planet do.
No one’s “policing” anything,
No one’s “policing” anything, you’re perfectly free not to like Mikey. There’s healthy disagreement about Mikey BTL on most stories he features in – I’m pretty ambivalent about his activities myself.
What’s happened here is you’ve misused a word, called him something he’s not and have been corrected. That’s all. If you’d have said “I don’t like Mikey” or “I disagree with his methods”, I wouldn’t have commented at all.
You’re also misusing “cadre” – a group of people who share an opinion you disagree with is not a cadre.
Gimpl wrote:
Not knowing the definition of a word isn’t “dissent”.
Gimpl wrote:
Usual tactic of bullies, use your erroneous dissent to make yourself the victim.
Gus T wrote:
That is very funny when there’s been a very predictabe pile on by the cadre.
Gimpl wrote:
*Makes objectively untrue statement about someone on website where that person has support*
*gets corrected*
“Help! Help! I’m being oppressed!
BTW, “cadre” is still the wrong word.
cadre
cadre
kä′drā, -drə, kăd′rē, kä′dər
noun
A nucleus of trained personnel around which a larger organization can be built and trained.
A tightly knit group of zealots who are active in advancing the interests of a revolutionary party.
A member of such a group.
Totally pathetic that I
Totally pathetic that I needed to post that. He clearly knew what he was saying.
AltBren wrote:
I don’t think you needed to post anything.
Certainly not on a two week old thread when you had no new arguement to make.
But, if you wanted to post things, fine, but don’t expect everyone to agree with you.
It came up in my feed today,
It came up in my feed today, so it’s new to me! None of this is necessary! (And I didn’t expect to be agreed with, he’s right about the zealots!)
And totally ditto to you!
And totally ditto to you! Calling me for posting and then posting yourself! What’s the difference?! Again it’s rhetorical, you don’t have to respond.. unless you want to (which you can if you like, as will I)
I’m not sure I like or agree
I’m not sure I like or agree with gimpl, but his point here was justified. He was simply agreeing that Micky is over the top in some cases, which doesn’t really help anyone.
We all agreed that the comedian was a prick and Micky did good work here.
Somehow that’s came to having to get the dictionary out! What a way to make a small point that we all mainly agreed on, into a fight.
The whole thing is embarrassing.
AltBren wrote:
People are free to have their own opinions of Mikey and I’d say that it’s a valid opinion to think that Mikey is over the top in some cases (not an opinion that I agree with, myself). Using the word ‘vigilante’ though is totally wrong and unfair to Mikey. It’s the equivalent of going around and calling all teachers pedophiles because they work with children – you don’t need a dictionary to realise that it’s just done to besmirch people that happen to be trying to make the world a little bit better.
He’s very close to a
He’s very close to a vigilante, it’s such a small difference that it’s not worth arguing about. So why are you.
AltBren wrote:
No. No, it’s not. How is observing a crime and then reporting it to the correct authorities, remotely close to the crime of taking the law into your own hands and dealing out your own punishments?
AltBren wrote:
Vigilantism is illegal and so it is libellous to refer to Mikey as a vigilante. Good luck explaining to a lawyer that it’s not defamation due to it just being a “small difference”.
Did you take lessons to be this obtuse or does it come naturally?
So am I vigilante when I
So am I vigilante when I report the description of somebody assaulting someone else?
AltBren wrote:
That is a justified opinion, but that’s not what he said. Not even close.
No. He made a point that I didn’t agree with (he literally accused Mikey of a crime), which is why I disagreed with it.
AltBren wrote:
…exactly? Explain to me how an unrelated collection of people who’ve never met, and who share nothing in common except for all being members of Road.cc (but have no formal affiliation with Road.cc) satisfies any of those definitions.
So, as I said. “cadre” = wrong word.
BalladOfStruth wrote:
…exactly? Explain to me how an unrelated collection of people who’ve never met, and who share nothing in common except for all being members of Road.cc (but have no formal affiliation with Road.cc) satisfies any of those definitions.
So, as I said. “cadre” = wrong word.— AltBren
it’s all part of the dark forces, people are being trained to oppose certain views on the internet. It’s the cycling illuminati taking over.
Anyway, you can all say what
Anyway, you can all say what you like now – I’m out, I have work to do.
“This was entirely out of
“This was entirely out of character for him”
Yeah obviously…
“Mulville, who was previously banned from driving in 2020”
Totally shameless lying!
Coming late to this one, but
Coming late to this one, but I can confirm the considered and expressed opinon that AltBren is an idiot.