Cycling Mikey in court as a witness

[Tim Hall]

Cyling Mikey, formerly OTP and now mostly of YouTube, was in court recently as a witness,despite lurid headlines suggesting he was there as a defendent.

In summary, he did his "no pasaran" bit at Gandalf corner to the driver of a Range Rover. Range Rover driver drives (slowly) into Cycling Mikey and proceeds round the corner. Police called, driver prosecuted for dangerous driving and assault.

Goes to Crown Court , driver found not guilty.  He did plead guilty earlier at a magistrates' court to the traffic offence of ignoring the keep left arrow.

Here's a You Tube linky.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZMaxLG-Lpk

[andyoxon]

Yes, I've seen tweets saying 'hope he gets the court costs', erm, he was a prosecution witness...

Definitely seems to be an issue with jury outcomes in these kinds of court cases.

[rafletcher]

I’ve not watched any video of it, but having filmed the driver making the illegal turn - for which he was successfully prosecuted - would it not have been more sensible (from a self preservation perspective) to have got out of the carriageway? Not trying to excuse the driver however slowly he drove, but I can see how some might view standing in front of the car deliberately to impede it as provocative, and that’s perhaps the view of the majority of that jury.

[citoyen]

The point needs to be made that no amount of “provocation” justifies using your car as a weapon.

Unfortunately, this verdict sends the wrong message to car drivers.

[mrcharly-YHT]

I’ve not watched any video of it, but having filmed the driver making the illegal turn - for which he was successfully prosecuted - would it not have been more sensible (from a self preservation perspective) to have got out of the carriageway? Not trying to excuse the driver however slowly he drove, but I can see how some might view standing in front of the car deliberately to impede it as provocative, and that’s perhaps the view of the majority of that jury.

That feeling is why the laws about pedestrian right of way had to be changed.

It was already a breach of the highway code to drive into a pedestrian, but that didn't stop people from doing it. Impeding their 'Mr Toad-like rights to drive where they want' is felt to be an offense, and most juries would agree.

[Paul H]

I’ve not watched any video of it, but having filmed the driver making the illegal turn - for which he was successfully prosecuted

Can we be sure it would have been followed up without the escalation? I'm not saying it wouldn't, but neither would I make that assumption.
I'm surprised by the verdict, though I haven't been following it closely, the driver must have had a reasonable expectation of being acquitted to have opted for the Crown Court.

[jsabine]

I’ve not watched any video of it, but having filmed the driver making the illegal turn - for which he was successfully prosecuted

Can we be sure it would have been followed up without the escalation? I'm not saying it wouldn't, but neither would I make that assumption.
I'm surprised by the verdict, though I haven't been following it closely, the driver must have had a reasonable expectation of being acquitted to have opted for the Crown Court.

Why wouldn't a motorist choose to be judged by twelve other motorists, presided over by a motorist in a wig?

[TPMB12]

If a few of the motorists were like me then you might actually find the motorist complaining. Not least when his lawyer sees my brompton sat next to me in the jurors area. Lol

Seriously,  why do you think being a motorist and a cyclist is mutually exclusive? I bet even some of the judges and barristers have been known to ride a bike too

[grams]

They may sometimes ride a bike, but that could just mean they are Keen Cyclists Themselves.

[citoyen]

It’s not mutually exclusive but it is statistically likely that they are car drivers but not cyclists.

[Ham]

The point needs to be made that no amount of “provocation” justifies using your car as a weapon.

Unfortunately, this verdict sends the wrong message to car drivers.

Not that I disagree with you, but I also feel that Mikey's actions as self appointed enforcer of road law and the methods he chooses to do so sends the wrong message to drivers. Although I respect his reasons for his choice I am more surprised that he hasn't had more unpleasant confrontations. While part of that reason is that he comports himself with dignity and manages the confrontations he engenders with his targets, and I wish him all the best, I can't see it ending well.

[Mr Larrington]

He was scheduled to be on “Panorama” next Monday but reckons this is now likely to be postponed, because Cheesoid.

[citoyen]

Not that I disagree with you, but I also feel that Mikey's actions as self appointed enforcer of road law and the methods he chooses to do so sends the wrong message to drivers.

What message do you think it sends to drivers?

To me, the message it sends is: "I'm not tolerating your illegal behaviour that you know is illegal." People may not like that but they don't listen when you ask nicely either.

[Ham]

What message do you think it sends to drivers?

To me, the message it sends is: "I'm not tolerating your illegal behaviour that you know is illegal." People may not like that but they don't listen when you ask nicely either.

My feeling is that it will be taken by a large proportion of subjects and viewers to introduce and reinforce the view that "Cyclists are arrogant *****".

Most people will not have understood the absolute danger that driving behaviour represents, that Mikey understands and motivates him. Part of the reason why is that just because it is dangerous it is still very unlikely that it will result in an injury. Those watching Mikey will have seen similar behaviour from drivers NOT result in incident, and that will influence their opinion of the proportionality of his action.

[citoyen]

My feeling is that it will be taken by a large proportion of subjects and viewers to introduce and reinforce the view that "Cyclists are arrogant *****".

Then fuck them. I'm through with appeasing these fuckwits. They're the arrogant ones, thinking they can break the law with impunity.

The general state of this country right now is telling me that direct action is the only way to get your message across.

[Ham]

I'm kind-of happy if you really want to, videoing and reporting drivers breaking laws, if it brings you joy. In the context of driver cyclist relationships, it's only the miscreant involved, so sod what they think.

But where do you get off when you start telling people what to do? What do you achieve by acting like as if you have authority over law breakers? (hint: you don't)

[Paul H]

Can we be sure it would have been followed up without the escalation? I'm not saying it wouldn't, but neither would I make that assumption.
I'm surprised by the verdict, though I haven't been following it closely, the driver must have had a reasonable expectation of being acquitted to have opted for the Crown Court.

Why wouldn't a motorist choose to be judged by twelve other motorists, presided over by a motorist in a wig?

I'm sure that was a factor, but it's a pretty big gamble to rely on it when lower costs and sentance are on offer in the Magistrates Court.  I haven't followed this closely, the couple of times I've been in a court the judge's summing up has clearly laid out the points of law.  I can't imagine anyone opting for Crown Court unless they considered these points of law were at least well enough matched for a jury to find in their favour.

[citoyen]

There’s already laws telling people what to do and they ignore them. Where do *they* get off, recklessly endangering the lives of others through their own selfishness and arrogance?

And what does Mikey do anyway? Stand in the road and film people. That’s all. He’s not stopping the driving round him if they use the correct side of the road.

Stop defending the indefensible.

[barakta]

Cyclists like disabled people or other marginalised groups will NEVER be able to "ask nicely enough".

Whatever tactics are used, will be "too aggressive" "have bad optics" "piss people off" or they will be entirely ignorable...

[Ham]

There’s already laws telling people what to do and they ignore them. Where do *they* get off, recklessly endangering the lives of others through their own selfishness and arrogance?

And what does Mikey do anyway? Stand in the road and film people. That’s all. He’s not stopping the driving round him if they use the correct side of the road.

Stop defending the indefensible.

At no way,  in no respect, am I justifying the poor driving or suggesting it is in any way acceptable. If you can't see that it is possible for both parties to be wrong in different ways, i am sorry.

What Mikey is doing is stopping the offender from "benefitting" from their misdeeds, by creating a confrontation and a situation that in my view compounds the actual event. He has not stopped the driver offending (as they already have) and I have yet to see an occasion when anyone - let alone a privileged driver - modifies their behaviour because of some kind well informed person telling them the error of their ways. In real life, that just doesn't happen. What might make them modify their behaviour is if they get a fine/points, and that's not certain, and the confrontation has nothing to do with that.

[Cudzoziemiec]

A large part of the reason people are driving like this is because for the past half century or so, we've indulged them.

[Ham]

A large part of the reason people are driving like this is because for the past half century or so, we've indulged them.

......and any attempt at enforcing laws rigidly is met by whines of "war on the poor motorists"

[citoyen]

A large part of the reason people are driving like this is because for the past half century or so, we've indulged them.

......and any attempt at enforcing laws rigidly is met by whines of "war on the poor motorists"

...and it's about time we stopped caving in to this bullshit.

[Peter]

There’s already laws telling people what to do and they ignore them. Where do *they* get off, recklessly endangering the lives of others through their own selfishness and arrogance?

And what does Mikey do anyway? Stand in the road and film people. That’s all. He’s not stopping the driving round him if they use the correct side of the road.

Stop defending the indefensible.

At no way,  in no respect, am I justifying the poor driving or suggesting it is in any way acceptable. If you can't see that it is possible for both parties to be wrong in different ways, i am sorry.

What Mikey is doing is stopping the offender from "benefitting" from their misdeeds, by creating a confrontation and a situation that in my view compounds the actual event. He has not stopped the driver offending (as they already have) and I have yet to see an occasion when anyone - let alone a privileged driver - modifies their behaviour because of some kind well informed person telling them the error of their ways. In real life, that just doesn't happen. What might make them modify their behaviour is if they get a fine/points, and that's not certain, and the confrontation has nothing to do with that.

We tend only to see the more confrontational videos.  I believe Mikey has actually been responsible for a fair few motorists getting points and fines.  I don't have a considered opinion on his methods but I expect that a fair few of the fair few have modified their driving habits - at least at Gandalf Corner.

[Cudzoziemiec]

A large part of the reason people are driving like this is because for the past half century or so, we've indulged them.

......and any attempt at enforcing laws rigidly is met by whines of "war on the poor motorists"

The way to stop those whines is to enforce those laws, thereby creating the expectation that if caught you will be prosecuted. In many areas of law breaking we expect to get away with it by not being caught, but in no other area do we expect that if caught we will be let off because 'everyone does it' and 'you need to do it'. 'It was only one burglary your honour, and I need to burgle to pay for my heroin addiction.' Exceptional hardship would be caused by preventing me to rob.'