Mike van Erp, great cyclist or grass?

[a.twiddler]

I don't know the junction concerned, but if there are repeated incidents of wrong way driving, there must be an argument for redesigning the junction even if it's to the extent of putting a physical barrier such as a raised kerb like an elongated traffic island along the centre line for some distance before the junction. A low maintenance solution rather than cameras or extra policing, along the lines of reducing temptation for the target behaviour. Recognising of course that even if it's designed to be idiot proof, an improved idiot will surely come along, given time.

[Vorpal]

I don't know the junction concerned, but if there are repeated incidents of wrong way driving, there must be an argument for redesigning the junction even if it's to the extent of putting a physical barrier such as a raised kerb like an elongated traffic island along the centre line for some distance before the junction. A low maintenance solution rather than cameras or extra policing, along the lines of reducing temptation for the target behaviour. Recognising of course that even if it's designed to be idiot proof, an improved idiot will surely come along, given time.

There are daily incidents of wrong way driving, and it's been a problem for decades. But... there are several areas in & around the park with far higher numbers of recorded crashes, and more severe ones. So, it's low priority.

The junction is this one: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5254742 ... 384!8i8192

[thirdcrank]

IMO, the solution to the general problem of people ignoring traffic directions etc is to pass responsibility for enforcement to the traffic authority so the people installing the system enforce it. (Admirers of Sir Robert Mark may recall he was suggesting a version of this in the 1970s)

Re Mr Erp, I've not been back to check the stuff linked above but irrc somewhere he likened his actions here to a member of the public stopping a drunk driver which is imo manifestly not so. A drunk driver represents a continuing danger so they are best stopped AND it's only a timely police breath test which will prove the offence. OTOH, stopping a driver and winding them up risks turning them into a similar danger to a drunk driver.

[Vorpal]

IMO, the solution to the general problem of people ignoring traffic directions etc is to pass responsibility for enforcement to the traffic authority so the people installing the system enforce it. (Admirers of Sir Robert Mark may recall he was suggesting a version of this in the 1970s)

That's an interesting idea, & potentially rather useful for getting a better standard of infrastructure.

[reohn2]

.......If we had enough policing he wouldn’t need to do it.

Nail,head,on!

I actually think that the best solution is to install a permanent camera, preferably with a sign warning drivers that there is camera enforcement. The police cannot be there all the time, even if that were the best use of police resources.

I take your point,but the point being made by Paulatic goes far wider than just that one road junction,if road users thought they couldn't get away with it and the punishment really smarted them they wouldn't be doing it in the first instance.
As it is they have almost free rein on the roads with little fear of being caught or if so the punishment fitting the crime,the case in question is but one example of many!

[Philip Benstead]

I don't know the junction concerned, but if there are repeated incidents of wrong way driving, there must be an argument for redesigning the junction even if it's to the extent of putting a physical barrier such as a raised kerb like an elongated traffic island along the centre line for some distance before the junction. A low maintenance solution rather than cameras or extra policing, along the lines of reducing temptation for the target behaviour. Recognising of course that even if it's designed to be idiot proof, an improved idiot will surely come along, given time.

There are daily incidents of wrong way driving, and it's been a problem for decades. But... there are several areas in & around the park with far higher numbers of recorded crashes, and more severe ones. So, it's low priority.

The junction is this one: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5254742 ... 384!8i8192

I go through this junction oftern, many of the car drivers who use this junction are entitled.

[PM999]

C.M. has published another video (different angle) which seems to support his "no jump" position. While I do share some reservations about the value of leaping out to block alleged offenders, in this case it does look like the car driver was out of order.

https://youtu.be/0T5dGtBDW7s

I've no idea why this footage was either not submitted or possibly not accepted as evidence.

[thirdcrank]

C.M. has published another video (different angle) which seems to support his "no jump" position. While I do share some reservations about the value of leaping out to block alleged offenders, in this case it does like the car driver was out of order.

https://youtu.be/0T5dGtBDW7s

I've no idea why this footage was either not submitted or possibly not accepted as evidence.

That's presumably the footage from the camera on a selfie stick which seems to be reflected in the car bonnet. I only watched the footage as linked rather than listening to the sound as well, so there may be an explanation there, but otherwise I presume CM originally posted the footage already linked above and has now posted this in response to criticism triggered by the other footage. The short point as already made by bonefishblues is that the jury did not accept that the prosecution had proved the offences in the indictment (dangerous driving and assault.)

[Bonefishblues]

I've no idea why this footage was either not submitted or possibly not accepted as evidence.

It will have been, on both counts, I'm sure.
A Jury did not feel the Prosecution had proved its case - that much we know. They may have taken a collective view of Mr v E's conduct, or any one of a thousand things that we can never know.

[PM999]

I've made an assumption, presumably a wrong one, that "Video 2" was not submitted/accepted. "Video 1" is less than convincing IMHO. "Video 2" seems pretty clear cut to me - car driver in the naughty corner. As you say, we'll never know the jury decision making process.

[hemo]

Jury all car drivers ?
I wonder what the vedict would be if they were non drivers.

[TrevA]

Anyone who watches Mike Van Erp's videos knows that stopping traffic at this corner is something he does regularly. He doesn't 'jump' out in front of them. He stands on the corner and steps out when they go the wrong side of the island. Drivers know it's illegal and dangerous, and they do it, anyway.

This corner is a huge problem that way & heavily used by cyclists and motorcyclists who report frequent near misses with wrong-side traffic there.

To be honest, the blame belongs fully & squarely with the authorities involved who have not
-installed a permanent camera there
-redesigned the junction to prevent wrong-way driving.
-and/or provided police/safety officer enforcement

Watch the video (now retitled Video 1). He first spots the car 5 seconds into the video, he even says “Here we go”. He doesn’t step out into the road until 20 seconds into the video, and the car collided with him at 23 seconds. If he’d stepped out earlier, the car may well have stopped earlier. Not defending the driver, but he was quite late stepping out in this case.

[thirdcrank]

I get the impression that Mr Erp has worked out the strengths and weaknesses of camera footage eg from the stuff linked above he seems not to bother with close passes. Somebody driving on the wrong side of an island with KEEP LEFT signs is nailed on or whatever they say. I also understand from what's been posted above that the incident we are discussing has become regular for him at this location. Presumably, his approach has not previously been contested in court, which may have encouraged him.

I'm not at all convinced that a jury go into something like this deeply, but rather take an overall view, perhaps based on first impressions, rather than a detailed analysis of the timeline. ie A member of the public taking it on themselves to stop moving traffic and to try to force a driver to reverse is OTT. (See bonefishblues above.)

I partly base my "first impressions" view on the Cycling Lawyer blog (Presumably, Martin Porter is now KC)

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/2016 ... on-2b.html

[Vorpal]

I agree that CyclingMikey goes over the top, directing traffic.

In older legislation, the power to stop and direct traffic was specifically a power granted to the police. The Traffic Management Act 2004 confers this power instead on a "traffic officer" and makes parallel changes to the Road Traffic Act 1988.

This power is granted through the Community Safety Accreditation Scheme, to DVSA, lollipop people, road race marshalls, local authorities, traffic management companies and others.

So, in theory, he could be granted to the power to direct traffic, but he does not currently have the legal power to do this.

That said, it seems to me to the evidence regarding the charges against the driver was pretty clear, whatever CyclingMikey's reasons for being in front of the vehicle. I would also argue that tacit police support has encouraged him, and if he was doing something wrong, the police should either have asked him to stop or granted him the authority to do it through the CSAS. Chatting with him & encouraging him (as can be seen in some of his videos) has led to an unclear situation.

[mattheus]

I agree that CyclingMikey goes over the top, directing traffic.

In older legislation, the power to stop and direct traffic was specifically a power granted to the police. The Traffic Management Act 2004 confers this power instead on a "traffic officer" and makes parallel changes to the Road Traffic Act 1988.

This power is granted through the Community Safety Accreditation Scheme, to DVSA, lollipop people, road race marshalls, local authorities, traffic management companies and others.

So, in theory, he could be granted to the power to direct traffic, but he does not currently have the legal power to do this.

Drivers using the wrong side of the road to save time, putting pedestrians and cyclists in danger
-vs
drivers being asked to stop by road race marshalls.

TOTALLY different situations! You conflating them is very unhelpful, Vorpal.