CyclingMikey’s latest video shows a London taxi driver telling him he will “end up needing the dentist” after he challenged the professional driver’s mobile phone use behind the wheel.
The cab driver was reported to the Metropolitan Police by the road safety campaigner and YouTuber, real name Mike van Erp, but avoided police prosecution due to staff dealing with an IT system change, Mikey saying they had been left understaffed and the report ran out of time.
Filmed in Hyde Park in July of last year, the footage shows the taxi driver moving forward while holding a mobile device in his hand for several metres before Mikey asks: “What’s that you’re holding in your left hand?”
“Mate, I’m doing two miles an hour, I’m not in a very good mood, I suggest you just jog on,” the man replied. “I’m really not very happy. You can film me all you like, mate, but you’re going to end up needing the dentist, now piss off.”
In response to being told the footage will be going to the police, the taxi driver replied: “You can do what you like.”
Sharing the video on YouTube to his 94,000 subscribers, Mikey said the driver is “supposedly professional” but “you don’t seem like London’s Finest to me with your phone use and rude and unprofessional threatening behaviour. I suggest you pull your socks up.”
And while he reported that the Metropolitan Police had begun prosecuting, they apparently ran out of time, Mikey suggesting that “the Allegations Team at Marlowe House were coping with an IT system change and were understaffed and overworked”.
> Tired of road crime”: CyclingMikey on episode 16 of the road.cc Podcast
After sharing the video on social media, TfL’s Taxi & Private Hire department replied thanking the cyclist for the report, adding that it has been “passed on for investigation”.
“He did at least get to feel the pain of the initial prosecution process, and probably would have been worried about the consequences and possible loss of his green badge for the entire six months,” Mikey said.
CyclingMikey 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, 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.
In January, speaking to road.cc, Mikey said “people need to see justice being done” and 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.”
107 thoughts on “Taxi driver warns CyclingMikey he will “end up needing the dentist” after challenging phone use”
I appreciate that these type
I appreciate that these type of articles get clicks, but I’m personally finding I’m spending less time on the site lately, as it seems more and and more articles are about driver agression towards cyclists. Just feels like it’s getting a bit much and is not what I want to read all the time. Is there anything more positive about cycling we can write about?
With regads to this article. without watching the video, I’m not sure how Mikey does this day in, day out and stays sane. Dealing with this amount of agresion on a regular basis can’t be good for your mental health.
a1white wrote:
I’d guess that he attempts to rise above it and sees the aggression as akin to a toddler’s tantrum. Remember, he’s motivated by the death of his father, so he likely can’t take drivers seriously when they start frothing about their need to drive and use a phone at the same time.
He doesn’t rise above it
He doesn’t rise above it enough in my view. I don’t know why he engages with them at all (other than to be confrontational and get more clicks). If he really was all about road safety, he’d just submit the footage and be done with it.
Agree – feels like his 15
Agree – feels like his 15 minutes of fame.
Submitting it to the police
Submitting it to the police will, hopefully, serve as a deterrent for that driver.
His interactions will, again hopefully, show other drivers watching it, just what kind of hatred there is out there for cyclist and cause them to think twice.
As for his 15 minutes of fame – he more than deserves it. He is obviously very focused on his goal of making cycling safer and if he needs to become famous to do it, I would support that.
HoldingOn wrote:
Based on the comments one can easily see on Twitter, YouTube, etc, I would say his confrontational attitude does far more harm than good. I wonder how many many times I’ve been close-passed by people enraged by CM.
But good for him and his infamy. Bravo.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
So you’re upset with CM and not so much by the idiots close-passing you?
I don’t think it’s valid to blame CM for drivers getting upset for being caught breaking the law. If they’re caught, then they should have a good look at themselves and why they think their convenience is more important than other people’s safety.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I never said that, did I. Nice try at putting words in my mouth though. Your standard MO.
Plainly, CM isn’t all about catching drivers breaking the law. If he was, he wouldn’t even stop as he cycles past. So long as he’s got a view of the number plate, the driver’s face and the offense, there would be enough information to make a submission. But no, he riles people up for views/clicks.
Dress it up whatever way you like. It’s harmful.
It’s a fair point. I am
It’s a fair point. I am guessing you have had a lot more close passes than I have had (simply because I haven’t been cycling for long)
I have no doubt that my first experience of an enraged driver threatening me will quickly change my view.
And yes – it does make me sad to know that it is when and not if.
Today I learned:
Today I learned:
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Huh?
I was replying to where you said “I wonder how many many times I’ve been close-passed by people enraged by CM.” and interpreted that as blaming CM for the shitty drivers.
What did you mean exactly?
hawkinspeter wrote:
Huh?
I was replying to where you said “I wonder how many many times I’ve been close-passed by people enraged by CM.” and interpreted that as blaming CM for the shitty drivers.
What did you mean exactly?— ShutTheFrontDawes
In what way is that blaming CM for the driver’s behaviour? That’d be like blaming McDonalds for getting fat – rediculous. The blame remains squarely on the poor driver, but I wonder how many of them are influenced by CM’s behaviour and thirst for clicks.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Huh?
I was replying to where you said “I wonder how many many times I’ve been close-passed by people enraged by CM.” and interpreted that as blaming CM for the shitty drivers.
What did you mean exactly?
— ShutTheFrontDawes In what way is that blaming CM for the driver’s behaviour? That’d be like blaming McDonalds for getting fat – rediculous. The blame remains squarely on the poor driver, but I wonder how many of them are influenced by CM’s behaviour and thirst for clicks.— hawkinspeter
Well we agree with the allocation of blame, then. I recall that you’re a Bristol fella, so presumably the number of drivers enraged by CM will be very small unless you do a lot of London cycling.
hawkinspeter wrote:
If only. CM feels the need to televise his idiocy on the wonderful invention of the internet. That’s the problem.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Are there really that many drivers that would get so angry after seeing another driver getting caught for using their phone at the wheel?
hawkinspeter wrote:
Are there really that many drivers that would get so angry after seeing another driver getting caught for using their phone at the wheel?— ShutTheFrontDawes
Based on the comments section of CMs videos, there are a lot of drivers who get angry about seeing a cyclist confront a driver (an otherwise-law-abiding-road-tax-paying driver of course) for their illegal (but obviously completely safe and absolutely reasonable) behaviour.
Previously
Previously
I wonder how many times I’ve been close-passed in Edinburgh by people enraged by CM?
We had this discussion back when Nigel-was-nigel or the Martin account was about. There are much more salient and likely sources for driver hate of cyclists. “Much of the media” followed by “some politicians” would be the starting point. (A better bogeyman might be Jeremy Vine).
IMO most likely of all is “you’re different and you’re in their way” – and some people are aggressive / don’t care about you.
I think close passes I’ve had are largely incompetence and ignorance, followed by a small but worrying minority of DGAF drivers. Fortunately very few “punishment passes” or other hassle but I suspect it’s the same types who find it amusing to suddenly yell at passers-by or throw things off bridges at people (bullies feel braver in motor vehicles).
chrisonatrike wrote:
I wonder how many times I’ve been close-passed in Edinburgh by people enraged by CM?
We had this discussion back when Nigel-was-nigel or the Martin account was about. There are much more salient and likely sources for driver hate of cyclists. “Much of the media” followed by “some politicians” would be the starting point. (A better bogeyman might be Jeremy Vine).
IMO most likely of all is “you’re different and you’re in their way” – and some people are aggressive / don’t care about you.
I think close passes I’ve had are largely incompetence and ignorance, followed by a small but worrying minority of DGAF drivers. Fortunately very few “punishment passes” or other hassle but I suspect it’s the same types who find it amusing to suddenly yell at passers-by or throw things off bridges at people (bullies feel braver in motor vehicles).— ShutTheFrontDawes
From the same school of logic as “me wearing a helmet causes car drivers to hit me”?
CM enraging car drivers does not mean that a car driver is no longer responsible for their actions. You’re putting words in my mouth that I never said.
Well this is an odd one –
Well this is an odd one – witchcraft? Clearly by putting your words (quoted) in my post I’ve made *my* words come out of your mouth – some devilry!
To avoid that happening further – as several folks seem not to be getting it – what *is* your point?
(I note helmets have been reached so it may be too late…)
chrisonatrike wrote:
My point is that confronting drivers, as CM continues to do, does far more harm than good.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
How is that statement not blaming CM?
Backladder wrote:
How is that statement not blaming CM?— ShutTheFrontDawes
Blaming him for somehow forcing poor drivers to close-pass me?
I could blame him for making the us/them culture worse.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Oh. Well that’s all right then, presumably you don’t and I don’t, so we don’t have anything to worry about. All’s well after all. CM is just some guy in London (I assume) – if you live there just avoid him if he appears on your ride.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Did you miss the fact that he broadcasts his behaviour to an audience of tens, if not hundreds of thousands?
As well as his delightful comments: “I’m rather unlikely to be afraid of this fat old man haha”
And some people on here consider him to be an ambassador for road safety. What a joke.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
You’ve understated it. If it’s on the internet potentially he broadcasts to billions.
What I though we were debating originally – which it seems we are – is quite simple. Just how many actually watch and are then primed to commit offenses, assaults or whatever the police now want to say close-passes are (assault include giving fear of serious harm if I recall).
As opposed to those who get some justification for their existing aggressive nature (or lack of control) from niche outlets like the Mail, niche personalities like Matthew Paris, Gary Bushell etc. Or who don’t need someone to tell them who to hate.
He’s not my cup of tea so I don’t subscribe to his output. I don’t feel great sympathy for those he’s reported though.
chrisonatrike wrote:
At least they’re staying logically consistent with the whole CM causes drivists to close pass cyclists thing..
Car Delenda Est wrote:
Excuse me, I think you’ll find that it’s my M.O. to put words in other people’s mouths
chrisonatrike wrote:
Is mentioning Helmets a cycling website variation of Godwin’s law?
chrisonatrike wrote:
ftfy
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
I don’t “rile people up”; they get riled up when you point out that they are breaking the law but that’s rather different. However, I will always speak to them and make them aware that they have been seen using their phones because in 99% of cases they will then put their phone away. I’m not prepared to let them carry on and endanger other people, satisfied in the knowledge that they will be getting a ticket in a few weeks. Example: a couple of months back I was following a woman over Battersea Bridge who was weaving around like a drunkard, leaving massive gaps in the traffic and then accelerating hard to catch up. She was quite clearly a danger to other road users. When I caught up with her she was using her phone with both hands whilst steering with her knees. I didn’t have to speak to her, I got clear evidence of her on her phone on camera before I did, but should I have just let her carry on and maybe hit another cyclist or a pedestrian? As soon as I spoke to her she put her phone away, possibly averting a nasty incident. If I hadn’t spoken to her, she would have carried on driving through the London rush-hour in an extremely dangerous manner.
I’m sure CM has the same motivation and I’m not sure how he can be described as “riling people up” when he is in fact a model of courteous behaviour even when faced with aggression and threats of violence.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Why do you point out that they are breaking the law, and not just submit your video evidence to the police for them to deal with it?
Do you think that they will appreciate your kind and thoughtful efforts to make the world a safer place? Have they ever appreciated it?
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Did you actually read what I wrote? I said that when I speak to them, 99% of people will put their phone away and stop using it. If I just film them without saying anything and submit a report they will get punished by the police (hopefully) but I’m not going to feel very easy in my conscience if I didn’t speak to them, they carried on breaking the law and injured or killed somebody. That’s why I point out that they are breaking the law, which seems reasonable enough for me even if it doesn’t to you.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Did you actually read what I wrote? I said that when I speak to them, 99% of people will put their phone away and stop using it. If I just film them without saying anything and submit a report they will get punished by the police (hopefully) but I’m not going to feel very easy in my conscience if I didn’t speak to them, they carried on breaking the law and injured or killed somebody. That’s why I point out that they are breaking the law, which seems reasonable enough for me even if it doesn’t to you.— ShutTheFrontDawes
Good job not answering my questions.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
You asked me why I didn’t just submit video evidence to the police for them to deal with it instead of also speaking to the people breaking the law. I’ve just given you a full and detailed answer as to why I speak to them. If you mean I didn’t answer your “do you think that they will appreciate your kind and thoughtful efforts” I assumed that was a rhetorical question as the answer is clearly they won’t, and equally clearly I couldn’t give a damn whether they do or not as long as they put their phones away.
Rendel Harris wrote:
You can’t cope with having someone continuing to use their phone on your conscience? You can’t be serious. If you think that your interaction with a dangerous driver will do anything other than antagonise them and make them more likely to ‘other’ cyclists in general, you’re living in a dreamworld.
BikesnobNYC had a good
BikesnobNYC had a good article on not confronting drivers:
https://www.outsideonline.com/culture/opinion/its-never-worth-it-confront-motorists-while-cycling/
Although as usual he preemptively admitted that he didn’t always follow his own advice.
https://bikesnobnyc.com/2021/08/11/the-jerkstore-called/
Since in court it always turns out it was a once-in-a-lifetime mistake though, perhaps – politely – reminding them they are entering into sin might be effective for many? After all, almost all of us will never be re-tested…
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Jolly good. I’m afraid I’m not going to apologise for telling people committing a criminal offence that puts other people’s lives in danger to stop doing it, and I will continue both to call it out and report it when I see it. Sorry if people challenging the illegal and life-threatening behaviour of others is a problem for you.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Jolly good. I’m afraid I’m not going to apologise for telling people committing a criminal offence that puts other people’s lives in danger to stop doing it, and I will continue both to call it out and report it when I see it. Sorry if people challenging the illegal and life-threatening behaviour of others is a problem for you.— ShutTheFrontDawes
Good for you. You probably won’t ever meet the cyclist who gets knocked off because the turd behind the wheel is angry because they couldn’t stand being told off by sometime they perceive as a grubby little nobody on a bicycle.
But it’s good that you get your moment feeling superior. Bonza.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
What a load of bollocks.
It’s not the first time have you spewed utter crap but in this thread you’ve really outdone your previous efforts. No logic behind your comments, you don’t even read the posts you reply to properly. Are you this insufferable IRL?
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
I think you may be imagining that everyone follows your MO, which is, as evinced on this thread and many others, to go into a screaming, frothing, incoherent and illogical rage the second anyone disgrees with you about anything. Seriously, have you ever considered a spot of yoga or maybe mindfulness training? It’d do you the world of good.
I challenge you to cite a single example of a driver assaulting a cyclist because they have been challenged on their behaviour by another cyclist. I can of course provide you with numerous examples of people who have been killed or maimed for life by drivers using mobile phones at the wheel.
I find it extraordinary that you think that someone engaging in a behaviour which is proven to be dangerous to others should be allowed to continue said behaviour in case they get annoyed about being challenged on it. Many years ago, as a pedestrian, I pulled the keys out of the ignition of the car of a woman who was obviously drunk to prevent her setting off on the road. Should I have left her to it in case being stopped from drink driving annoyed her? Mobile phone use at the wheel has been shown to be just as dangerous as driving over the limit yet according to you people shouldn’t be told to stop it in case it annoys them.
Contrary to your assertion, it doesn’t make me feel superior to challenge people’s criminal behaviour when driving: it’s a bore, sometimes a bit frightening, and I’d far sooner enjoy my riding without seeing any such behaviour. However, as long as I, my wife, friends and family cycle on the roads in London I am going to continue to challenge those whose selfish and criminal behaviour makes those roads a potentially lethal environment.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I think you may be imagining that everyone follows your MO, which is, as evinced on this thread and many others, to go into a screaming, frothing, incoherent and illogical rage the second anyone disgrees with you about anything. Seriously, have you ever considered a spot of yoga or maybe mindfulness training? It’d do you the world of good.
I challenge you to cite a single example of a driver assaulting a cyclist because they have been challenged on their behaviour by another cyclist. I can of course provide you with numerous examples of people who have been killed or maimed for life by drivers using mobile phones at the wheel.
I find it extraordinary that you think that someone engaging in a behaviour which is proven to be dangerous to others should be allowed to continue said behaviour in case they get annoyed about being challenged on it. Many years ago, as a pedestrian, I pulled the keys out of the ignition of the car of a woman who was obviously drunk to prevent her setting off on the road. Should I have left her to it in case being stopped from drink driving annoyed her? Mobile phone use at the wheel has been shown to be just as dangerous as driving over the limit yet according to you people shouldn’t be told to stop it in case it annoys them.
Contrary to your assertion, it doesn’t make me feel superior to challenge people’s criminal behaviour when driving: it’s a bore, sometimes a bit frightening, and I’d far sooner enjoy my riding without seeing any such behaviour. However, as long as I, my wife, friends and family cycle on the roads in London I am going to continue to challenge those whose selfish and criminal behaviour makes those roads a potentially lethal environment.— ShutTheFrontDawes
There are many comments on this video alone that demonstrate the hatred people have for cyclists. Vids4clicks like this make things worse, not better.
If you think comments like telling cyclists to “drive under a bus” do not demonstrate the point, there is no convincing you of the harmfulness of this.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
If you think that the sort of people who leave those sorts of the vile comments on cycling videos wouldn’t hate cyclists if the videos didn’t exist, then I have some magic beans and a gold brick you may be interested in. They are simply using the video as an excuse to express their hate, the video didn’t create it. I’m old enough to remember the days before the World Wide Web, the hatred levels for cyclists back then were pretty similar, although there were far fewer of us so it wasn’t so obvious. Go and look in Richard’s Bicycle Book, 1974, you’ll find him talking about drivers saying they deliberately drive at cyclists, the only good cyclist is a dead cyclist and so on.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Youtube comments (also Twitter etc) are notorious for people shit-posting and saying things that they would never do in real life. I don’t think you can base any sensible strategy on looking at the comments.
Go on a local paper website
Go on a local paper website where they have an escooter trial and there will be lots of comments on there about how awful the riders are.
Haters gotta hate.
It’s called civil courage.
It’s called civil courage.
marmotte27 wrote:
It would be admirable if it improved matters. It doesn’t. As evidenced by CM’s videos.
I applaud CM for taking the time to report illegal activity. The moment he starts being belligerent however, he does more harm than good.
And the fact is, though I disagree with it and wish it weren’t the case, many drivers see cyclists as a single group.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
You’re quite right there. Volumes have been written on “out-groups” and the “othering” of cyclists in low-cycling countries. And of course there is no us. Albeit it’s a little more complicated, because since others dislike you as soon as you’re a “cyclist” people who cycle are slightly more likely to find common cause with one another.
The part I’m not convinced about is that there is much that any cyclists (the tiny minority) can do to change the stereotype – positively OR negatively. Once there is a stereotype human confirmation bias will quickly seek out and identify anything which might confirm it. However the stereotype was already out there in the environment. I suspect it’s self-amplifying just as long as most people “aren’t cyclists”. And that a dozen red-light jumpers scattered across the UK could keep that part of the stereotype current forever.
Undoing stereotypes takes a lot of time and personal engagement. It probably someone to suddenly find themselves in the cyclist’s shoes for that insight. Or have a relative affected.
Do they reply “Time of the
Do they reply “Time of the month is it bro?”
Hirsute wrote:
Well since your policy is to
Well since your policy is to use your name, not hard to find !
Hirsute wrote:
Indeed, no criticism implied, that’s why I use my real name everywhere!
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Did you actually read what I wrote? I said that when I speak to them, 99% of people will put their phone away and stop using it. If I just film them without saying anything and submit a report they will get punished by the police (hopefully) but I’m not going to feel very easy in my conscience if I didn’t speak to them, they carried on breaking the law and injured or killed somebody. That’s why I point out that they are breaking the law, which seems reasonable enough for me even if it doesn’t to you.
— Rendel Harris Good job not answering my questions.— ShutTheFrontDawes
I don’t think he cares if they appreciate it, most of the rest of us appreciate it.
just submit your video
just submit your video evidence to the police for them to deal with it?
Because with very few exceptions, they just bin the evidence and do nothing except, at best, send out the joke warning letter
wtjs wrote:
Good news that Rendel asks them to put the phone away. That’ll put a stop to that then (and not just make people angry at busybody cyclists, and by extension every cyclist ever). Good-o!
I’m sure you then escorted
I’m sure you then escorted her to her destination to ensure she didn’t start using her phone again as soon as you were out of sight.
ITK2012 wrote:
Do you know, I didn’t, and I can’t guarantee that she didn’t use her phone the next week or the next month while driving either. This obviously totally invalidates my actions. Or maybe, just maybe, she is now aware that there are cyclists in London with cameras who will report people for illegal driving and so be a bit more circumspect about using her phone in future.
hawkinspeter wrote:
So you’re upset with CM and not so much by the idiots close-passing you?
I don’t think it’s valid to blame CM for drivers getting upset for being caught breaking the law. If they’re caught, then they should have a good look at themselves and why they think their convenience is more important than other people’s safety.— ShutTheFrontDawes
That’s a stretch!
Van Erp shouldn’t be
Van Erp shouldn’t be confronting motorists.. it’s not his ‘job’ to catch people breaking the law; by all means pass on incriminating evidence to police but don’t play at being the police..
grOg wrote:
You don’t understand the basic principles behind policing, do you?
Thank you Prime Minister
Thank you Prime Minister Chamberlain. One wouldn’t want to enrage any potential killers.
cmedred wrote:
Likening having a moan at a dangerous driver to the allied offensive against fascism is hilarious. Comedy gold. We will fight them in the YouTube Comments section. We will fight them on Road.cc!
What I don’t understand is
What I don’t understand is how his submissions come to something but lots of other folks say theirs go straight on the bin.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Is it because the Met don’t want even more bad publicity and they know that CM has a large media profile?
chrisonatrike wrote:
He doesn’t have a 100% success rate, I think it’s about 80%, but bear in mind that he is almost exclusively reporting phone drivers which, with the sort of evidence he submits, generally comes with unequivocal proof and is easy to prosecute. I’m sure if he was reporting close passes and other dangerous driving he wouldn’t be nearly as successful.
His vigilante behaviour does
His vigilante behaviour does nothing at all to increase cycling safety.
grOg wrote:
You don’t understand the meaning of “vigilante”, do you?
Submitting to the police will
Submitting to the police will result in…. Nothing
Posting it online will and has affect the national conversation surrounding road use and eventually effect permanent change to the laws.
Did you read the article? he
Did you read the article? he did submit it to the police and – because reasons – they muffed it – now the video gets shared with all of us.
As for the threats, he will do nothing, as they all will do – “all fart and no poo” as Mikey sometimes puts it.
Nice how threats of violence – however empty – are what’s reached for as soon as there’s a problem.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
He’s extremely passionate about road safety and that’s the main reason that he confronts drivers in an attempt to educate them. Personally, I don’t bother confronting drivers nowadays as they very rarely respond in a helpful manner, so I just send the footage to A&S whereas previously I wouldn’t bother if they’d apologised sincerely.
He gets worse on twitter.
He gets worse on twitter. Some bloke is going to harass him on Twitter until cm kills himself!
In addition to his dad, a sixth form friend was injured by a driver going round a roundabout the wrong way.
The videos serve to show drivers that there is an increased chance of being caught. A required deterrent given policing levels.
a1white wrote:
The reason it’s getting a bit much, is there are still too many bad drivers on the roads. There is a balance to be struck, but unless the problem is publicised, nothing will change.
Yes – drivers are very quick
Yes – drivers are very quick to whinge if any official or citizen evidence capturing is overt.
The problem you have is
The problem you have is assuming he’s sane to begin with..
Not a popular opinion here,
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65679387
Not a popular opinion here, but this guy recording guys playing on their phone at zero or near zero speeds and trying to confront them, creates a more dangerous situation than if he just continued his commute. A still cyclist on the the middle on the road is dangerous, and an enraged driver hating a little extra cyclists is even more dangerous.
Don’t try get heros in motor traffic.
the danger comes in the 5
the danger comes in the 5 mins when the driver returns to normal road speeds – research has shown that drivers remain distracted for up to 5 mins after mobile phone use.
open_roads wrote:
FTFY
cyclisto wrote:
How exactly is a stationary cyclist dangerous and to whom?
Go ask the duck saver guy in
Go ask the duck saver guy in my link.
cyclisto wrote:
Do you mean the pedestrian that was hit (and killed) by a teenage driver who obviously wasn’t paying attention to what was ahead of them?
Exactly, unless someone
Exactly, unless someone believes a guy on a 15kg bike is more close to a 1ton car regarding passive safety than to a pedestrian.
hawkinspeter wrote:
And the local constabulary have almost immediately made a media statement to the effect that they do not think that she will face any charges at all
It is extremely rare for a
It is extremely rare for a driver in the U.S. to get charged for running down a pedestrian or cyclist unless the driver is a.) drunk or b.) shown to have been driving way, way, way in excess of the speed limit. Normal speeding , five to 15 mph over the limit, is accepted as a norm and is inattention. Any pedestrian or cyclist hit in or along the roadway (including in bike lanes) is considered to have been asking to be hit. Enforcement of the law requiring responsible driving parallels where rape and women who dressed provocatively were decades ago. It’s all very primitive. Here’s an example: “The Contra Costa County District Attorney blamed the (fatal) collision on the driver’s inattention, but that it was not enough to press criminal charges.” You don’t want the UK to be anything like the U.S. https://www.bicycling.com/news/a37081489/jets-assistant-coach-gregg-knapp-hit-by-a-driver/
The US has a poor record on
The US has a poor record on road safety with around 4x as many people killed annually/head of population than the UK. Some states are worse than others. North Carolina, population 10.6 million, had more road deaths in 2021 at 1,700 odd than the UK at 1,600 odd, population 67 million.
There has been an increase in pedestrian deaths on US roads in the last three years. I think the same applies to cyclists in the US, though I don’t have the figures to hand.
brooksby wrote:
The U.S. has a strange interpretation of traffic rules – they either let drivers get away with anything, or they give them humungous sentences.
The pedestrian that helped
The pedestrian that helped the ducks across the road stepped back out into the roadway afterwards without checking for traffic; seems like he needed someone looking out for him..
grOg wrote:
Reminds me of Charlie Alliston when he got put away for 18 months for not taking enough action to avoid hitting a pedestrian who had stepped back into his path.
cyclisto wrote:
I can’t find any evidence in that link that the duck saver guy was killed by a stationary cyclist, could you provide additional information?
cyclisto wrote:
Can’t write to more than one the same things, sorry, see before.
Propping to confront
Propping to confront motorists in the middle of the road is dangerous to the cyclist and in my jurisdiction can be construed as a road rage offence.
grOg wrote:
Just as well that your jurisdiction is irrelevant to us
Hmm… Pedestrian hit by car
Hmm… Pedestrian hit by car in America is proof of … something something Cycling Mikey?
I don’t think me confronting people would help most situations. It also tends to spoil my day. So I don’t. However I’ve experienced folks losing it at me on the road several times – no fault of my own, no cameras, no CM in sight.
The problem is behind the steering wheel here. If they don’t kick off at an irritating cyclist it will be something. Being in a vehicle can amplify the consequences so you bear more responsibility if you drive.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Can’t write to more than one the same things, sorry, see before.
Van Erp is a vigilante that
Van Erp is a vigilante that wallows in his notoriety; if he just recorded offences and reported them without interracting with offenders, that would be fine but he loves confronting offenders, which has the unfortunate side-effect of generating hate from those motorists for cyclists in general.
Still peddling this line
Still peddling this line despite many corrections.
I see you don’t know the meaning of the word despite it being explained to you.
Why do you continue to make incorrect assertions about English law when you don’t even live here ?
grOg wrote:
reporting incidents to the police is not vigilantism, cycling Mikey does not attempt to provide any enforcement.
accusing people reporting crimes of being vigilates is just one step away from snitches get stitches.
You’re pandering to EXACTLY
You’re pandering to EXACTLY this kind of driver. The ones who pick and choose which laws apply to them, and when. The ones who try and lecture law abiding cyclists with made up rules they just thought of. Your attitude, and theirs, is partly why we have got to the position where 80 people being killed or seriously injured every day on our roads is tolerated, or ignored.
There’s a time limit for
There’s a time limit for threatening behaviour now? Good to know.
Edit: Professional driver may only have been doing 2 mph but so unaware of his surroundings that he doesn’t notice he is being filmed by the notorious scourge of London cabbies and phone drivers. What else was he blissfully unaware of?
What is this threatening
What is this threatening behaviour you speak of? stating someone may be needing a dentist? internet lawyers like you make me laugh..
In determining whether words or actions constitute a threat there is a difference between an intention to cause harm, and someone who is merely “sounding off” who does not intend to create any fear. For example a statement ‘I feel like I could kill my spouse’ could be interpreted as an expression of emotions, whereas ‘I want to kill my spouse’ is a threat to do harm.
grOg wrote:
I’m afraid your credentials as an “internet lawyer” aren’t that great either: the test of the offence of “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour” under Section 4 of the Public Order Act (1986) is not whether the accused intended to cause fear or to progress to actual physical harm but whether the words used and the way they were expressed were enough to make a reasonable person fear immediate violence (or provoke violence in defence/retaliation) or be caused “harassment, alarm or distress”. It’s the effect the words/behaviour of the accused have on the victim that counts, not the intention of the accused. “I was just sounding off and didn’t mean to cause any fear” is not a defence in law.
In good faith I’ll inform you
In good faith I’ll inform you that they were threatening to damage Mikey’s teeth
No need to be a lawyer (
No need to be a lawyer (‘internet’ or otherwise) to understand the words ‘threat’ and ‘behaviour’, or to recognise when the latter constitutes the former.
Does he think that a London
Does he think that a London taxi driving at 2mph does no harm to anyone/anything it hits, then? I really don’t think that’s the case. It might be moving slowly but it is still a very heavy piece of machinery. Someone needs to explain some physics to that cabbie*
(edit) *Or, in one memorable line from that film with Matt Damon, “Let’s science the sh!t out of it!!“
Mark Hodson:
Mark Hodson:
“And I’ve only been to three fatals due to the use whilst stationary causing cognitive distraction which then impaired driving… Totally over the top… ? Very concerning, you carry on being the problem Jeff, but just do it quietly and elsewhere ?”
“I’ve actually dealt with three over my career …. One child victim and two elderly.”
saying they had been left
saying they had been left understaffed and the report ran out of time
Standard police dodge- I collected a stack of very similar dodge deployments, before Lancashire Constabulary decided that it was safer to simply refuse to respond to offence reports.
This is from 17.1.22:
Outcomes as requested:
1 Black Astra ML60 YMP – No further action taken as incident was processed too late after initial report.
2 Black VW N66 MOO – No further action as incident was processed too late after report.
3 Black Range Rover SL68 VFY – s.59 warning under Police reform act.
4 Black taxi LS07 MHA – No Further action as incident processed too later after initial report.
5 4 axle tipper lorry Robinson’s of Bilsborrow MV18 UJT – No Further action as incident processed too later after initial report.
6 Silver Ford Transit KK07 RTX – No Further action as incident processed too later after initial report.
7 White Audi Q5 T90 JDT – NFA – Although report was made 25th July, was not processed until 12th August and has passed 14 day NIP cut off period.
I appreciate that you will be disappointed with the lack of action by Lancashire Constabulary and would like to apologise on behalf of the organisation for this as it is unacceptable
Sometimes, they ring the changes with really, really stupid excuses for doing nothing. For this Stagecoach double decker offence they simply stated “No offence made out” (I see that the UpRide video sometimes stops at about 14 seconds- click just beyond and it shows the offence)
As an aside, I have just used
As an aside, I have just used information from CyclingMikey’s YouTube channel (including a page dated only yesterday) in my appeal of the Information Commissioner’s Decision Notice which not only allows, but mandates, police forces to refuse to tell you what they did about the offences you report to them. The Information Commissioner states that it is an offence against GDPR/ FOIA for the police to even tell you that they hold information about what they did. This is quite important because it could be used by all forces as a precedent. So, the appeal is now at the Information Tribunal, with numerous files of evidence: I have several emails from Lancashire Constabulary in which they tell me what happened (generally nothing because ‘case not processed in time’) to the driver of vehicles identified only by the registration number. I generally don’t have close up video of the driver himself, for obvious reasons if they’re close-passing me to within an inch of my life, or crashing through a red light at 50 mph).
However, CM often does show close up video of the phone offending driver stationary in a queue, and also plasters the vehicle registration all over the page. Yet the Met. often tells CM what happened to this very identifiable driver- driving course, warning letter, points, court etc. (obviously, only nothing or warning letter are the only options ever considered by LC!). According to the Information Commissioner, the Met. is committing an offence. I have asked for a court hearing at the Information Tribunal, rather than a decision based on reading the papers alone, because it’s a potentially important decision.
Can we all come along ?!
Can we all come along ?!
Can we all come along ?!
Can we all come along ?!
I’ve been away on Skye. This case against LancsFilth is EA/2023/0271, which is listed here, although it’s just a pending case with no hearing date set. Strictly speaking, of course, the case is an appeal against the Information Commissioner’s Decision to support the police in not telling cyclists what the police (didn’t do!) did about offences against them. There’s now a letter from the Information Tribunal asking the Chief Constable whether he wishes LC to ‘join the appeal’, and it’s likely he would rather see LC conduct a Sheffield NW-style Close Pass Operation- which LC has never done.
The CC would like the Commissioner to do his defending for him, which suits me as I will make strenuous efforts to be allowed to introduce evidence that LC routinely ignores all evidence from cyclists and does nothing at all even when it claims to be taking action. Then, if all goes according to plan, the IC will say ‘LC is not here to defend these actions’ and I will say that the Chief Constable should therefore be forced to join the appeal- that’s my present aim. They’re talking about a video hearing between 30th October and 27th November- it seems unlikely that these hearings are ‘broadcast’ to outsiders, but we’ll see. LC is continuing its evil ways, and didn’t respond to this at all- it’s almost 3 weeks since the incident. Blackburn Council claimed to be ‘investigating’ but looks like it’s also trying to forget about it and has said nothing about it since claiming that the taxi driver was licensed at the time even though he’s still not included on the Blackburn taxi driver registration list. This is looking rather suspicious!