Mike van Erp, great cyclist or grass?

[reohn2]

Who is MIckey?

I haven't read your whole post, but don't you think it's good that someone is standing up to those who "do as they please irrespective of the law or others,and it has to be said with or only slight repercussions for their actions."

I think it's good. Well done Mike van Erp!

Sorry my bad,it's Mikey innit or Mike van Erp to give him is full name.
The problem with placing yourself in front of idiots in cars is,sooner or later you'll come across a real head the ball who'll think they have the right to run over you.I thought I made that clear in my post.
If not is it any clearer for you now?

That's a very worthy sentiment - nice to hear that you're concerned for the chap.

I was responding to your lengthy first sentence [now in bold] including the phrase "annoy and irritate" which doesn't seem very complimentary.

But they do annoy and irritare which is their worthy intention.
As I posted before my concern is for their's and Mikey's physical wellbeing up against entitled nutters who might just take things to the next level which could leave them maimed or worse.

So, I do hope you support those who are prepared to give their time to combat the sort of people you describe there. Specfiically, those who "do as they please irrespective of the law or others,and it has to be said with or only slight repercussions for their actions."

Without doubt though my support would be no more than verbal and a vote,against a tide of a government that couldn't give a monkey's for global warming or law breaking road users who put other at risk,if they did things might be different.

[pjclinch]

But they do annoy and irritare which is their worthy intention.

Again, the only people being "annoyed" by someone reporting criminals committing crimes are the criminals committing crimes and people who empathise with them because they commit similar crimes themselves and don't want to be held to account.

It's not a "worthy intention" to irritate these people, it's a "worthy attention" to stop them committing crimes, and particularly committing crimes that endanger all cyclists sharing the roads with them (pedestrians and other drivers too).

As I posted before my concern is for their's and Mikey's physical wellbeing up against entitled nutters who might just take things to the next level which could leave them maimed or worse.

But what about the safety of all cyclists sharing the roads with idiots who can't see where they're going because they're on their phones?
And what about the safety of all cyclists sharing the roads with entitled bampots who think they can knock cyclists aside anyway because... well, because they're entitled bampots?

Pete.

[reohn2]

Pete you're preaching to the converted.

[Dingdong]

Bit of both?

[gazza_d]

I think Mike is great and performing a great service.

It isn't "grassing" to report someone driving illegally and often dangerously.
I run front and rear cameras. They are mainly there in case I have a bad day and am hit.
I do use the footage to report close passes and other driver behaviour that puts me and/or others at risk.
Neither Mike or me are law enforcement, we just report. The police make the actual decision to prosecute or not.
My force are very good and don't mess about with warning letters or courses, if it's suitable for prosecution then they'll happily send out a fixed penalty notice.

I much prefer rides where I dont have to report anyone. I do prefer to use cycle paths and lanes where they exist and are in a usable and convenient condition, but do still often come across someone who's driving puts me in danger.

I have a dashcam in my car and have reported other drivers using footage from that. Does that make me a grass?

This isn't cyclists vs drivers. It's everyone else vs bad drivers.

[Bonefishblues]

And if that's the sum of it, everything that you have written is entirely commendable.

Where I do take issue is when MvE attempts to personally enforce compliance when all necessary evidence has been gathered in order to achieve prosecution. We'll never know if the Jury weighed this in any way in the case in point.

[thirdcrank]

I think Mike is great and performing a great service.

It isn't "grassing" to report someone driving illegally and often dangerously.
I run front and rear cameras. They are mainly there in case I have a bad day and am hit.
I do use the footage to report close passes and other driver behaviour that puts me and/or others at risk.
Neither Mike or me are law enforcement, we just report. The police make the actual decision to prosecute or not.
My force are very good and don't mess about with warning letters or courses, if it's suitable for prosecution then they'll happily send out a fixed penalty notice.

I much prefer rides where I dont have to report anyone. I do prefer to use cycle paths and lanes where they exist and are in a usable and convenient condition, but do still often come across someone who's driving puts me in danger.

I have a dashcam in my car and have reported other drivers using footage from that. Does that make me a grass?

This isn't cyclists vs drivers. It's everyone else vs bad drivers.

Your description of what you do seems so much at odds with what Mr Erp is seen doing in his linked vid, I cannot help wondering if you have looked beyond the thread title.

[mattsccm]

I am not sure how we could possibly object if some one is prepared to make great efforts to stop people breaking a law in behaving in an antisocial manner.
The term grass in this context is used in a negative way but to be such a person is to be applaued. Always. To my mind if you break a law then you must be punished however that is implemented.
I would also suggest that people who mutter about entrapment or going after trouble need to think things through. If you bait me with a fiver and I take it I deserve to be punished for being a thief and also for being so weak minded as to be tempted. Bai should be used to catch criminals. Entice them in and nab them. If you fall for the bait you are a criminal. If you are strong minded enough not to then ypou are not.
Great cyclist though? Nope.

[mattheus]

And if that's the sum of it, everything that you have written is entirely commendable.

Where I do take issue is when MvE attempts to personally enforce compliance when all necessary evidence has been gathered in order to achieve prosecution. We'll never know if the Jury weighed this in any way in the case in point.

You say "enforce compliance": I say - make a dangerous driver use the road safely.

As long as his actions are proportionate, I see no harm in anyone taking a so-called "vigilante" approach. So I wouldn't support him shooting a dangerous driver; but I'd support someone challenging a litterer. If he can stop a dangerous driver just by standing in front of the car being used, that's hardly going to bring down Western Civilisation!

He hasn't laid hands on the driver, he didn't try to damage the car. What exactly did he do wrong, Mr Bonefish?

[Bonefishblues]

And if that's the sum of it, everything that you have written is entirely commendable.

Where I do take issue is when MvE attempts to personally enforce compliance when all necessary evidence has been gathered in order to achieve prosecution. We'll never know if the Jury weighed this in any way in the case in point.

You say "enforce compliance": I say - make a dangerous driver use the road safely.

As long as his actions are proportionate, I see no harm in anyone taking a so-called "vigilante" approach. So I wouldn't support him shooting a dangerous driver; but I'd support someone challenging a litterer. If he can stop a dangerous driver just by standing in front of the car being used, that's hardly going to bring down Western Civilisation!

He hasn't laid hands on the driver, he didn't try to damage the car. What exactly did he do wrong, Mr Bonefish?

That's a different perspective to mine, that's fine with me, I agree that his actions did not and are unlikely to ever bring down Western Civilisation. Given the setting of that as a bar I think this isn't really susceptible to debate tbh.

[mattheus]

He hasn't laid hands on the driver, he didn't try to damage the car. What exactly did he do wrong, Mr Bonefish?

Where exactly do you "take issue"?

[Bonefishblues]

My post on 14th Oct refers

[mattheus]

oh, OK, let's see ...

I have no issue with the detection & reporting, where I do have an issue is often what develops into a battle of wills with the repeating of "Go back". Overall, I fear that he does more harm than good - but it could be very different with a different approach.

There, I've said it.

So he does no harm whatsoever.

He's just standing up to a motorist who is breaking the law, driving dangerously, and refuses to drive safely because it will be inconvenient [i.e. going back will cost the driver the couple of minutes he hoped to save].

In frustration over this inconvenience, the driver rammed someone with his car.

[Bonefishblues]

oh, OK, let's see ...

I have no issue with the detection & reporting, where I do have an issue is often what develops into a battle of wills with the repeating of "Go back". Overall, I fear that he does more harm than good - but it could be very different with a different approach.

There, I've said it.

So he does no harm whatsoever.

He's just standing up to a motorist who is breaking the law, driving dangerously, and refuses to drive safely because it will be inconvenient [i.e. going back will cost the driver the couple of minutes he hoped to save].

In frustration over this inconvenience, the driver rammed someone with his car.

You just slam dunked me, that's what you done

[thirdcrank]

oh, OK, let's see ...

I have no issue with the detection & reporting, where I do have an issue is often what develops into a battle of wills with the repeating of "Go back". Overall, I fear that he does more harm than good - but it could be very different with a different approach.

There, I've said it.

So he does no harm whatsoever.

He's just standing up to a motorist who is breaking the law, driving dangerously, and refuses to drive safely because it will be inconvenient [i.e. going back will cost the driver the couple of minutes he hoped to save].

In frustration over this inconvenience, the driver rammed someone with his car.

So much depends on what you mean by "harm."

I suspect that one likely result is that his video submissions may in future be treated with greater circumspection.

Then, I fear that that will apply to submissions of footage more generally.