Incorrect, it has been commented on by many times now that it is criminal damage.
If what you claim is true then why hasn't Mikey been charged by the Police? (It has now been 18 days since this incident occurred and he was reported to the Police for it by many irate motorists on YouTube over 2 weeks ago.)
The bike was not thrown, as many here have asserted. He didn’t lift it and hurl it; he simply rolled it forward in a fairly predictable way and with little speed perpendicular to the lane. Any conscientious driver would have had no difficulty avoiding it. To be clear, Mikey was entirely within his rights to walk across the road at that point, while it was unquestionably illegal for the car to continue its progress on the wrong side of the road against the flow of traffic. Given the driver’s behaviour both before and after the incident, a civil claim wouldn’t stand a chance, let alone a criminal one. On his video, Mikey is shown crossing the road at a point where, by law, it should have been entirely safe to do so, (since the lane’s legal traffic direction was clear).
Did you see the footage, he struck it with the bike, hence that being all over the road afterwards.
Of course, I saw the footage from both video cameras. If you watch the third-party video carefully, it’s obvious that he pushes the bike out in front of himself before the car arrives, using it as a barrier so he won’t be hit directly. He’s walking with the bike positioned ahead of him, one hand on the handlebar and the other on the saddle, and he keeps hold of the saddle right up until the car makes contact. You can also see that he tries to pull up when he realises the driver isn’t going to stop.
It’s clear he was attempting his usual tactic of blocking the car, but this time he miscalculated and didn’t anticipate the driver accelerating straight at him. The momentum the bike had would carry it forward when he stopped and let go of it, but even if he did push it at the end that would be a natural self-defence reflex since it would reduce the chance of it injuring him. Because there’s less risk of the rear of the bike hitting him as it rotates during the collision (since the car's impact would be taken by the front of the bike).
Legally the driver has an issue with not obeying traffic laws, 3 points.
He did a lot more than that! Didn't you notice in
Mikey's video that the reckless Fiat driver was also not wearing a seatbelt? For the driver charges of "failing to wear a seatbelt", driving "without due care and attention" and "driving into oncoming traffic" having ignored many signs stating that the road ahead was closed, also "failing to stop" after an accident could be levelled. The Highway Code (2022 update) has made it clear that motorists must protect vulnerable road users and make allowances for them even if they are behaving erratically.
I don’t support Mikey’s blocking tactics because of the risks to his own safety. That said, the driver is entirely responsible for creating this situation: not once, but twice. If someone cannot make safe rational choices, like avoiding making a dangerous illegal manoeuvre instead of repeating it, then it’s hard to feel any sympathy. Mikey posed no threat; he wasn’t being aggressive in the slightest. Yet this driver felt compelled to force his way through, colliding with his bike in the process. He should take a serious look at himself and reconsider his priorities when behind the wheel.
Mikey's own vigilantism has caused the criminal damage, a higher tier crime compared to the drivers, deserves a community order at the very least.
Anyone may legally stop traffic if they have a "lawful excuse". Ultimately, it is up to a court to decide whether preventing others from breaking the law qualifies as such an excuse, (but the Crown Prosecution Service would not put a case forward for trial if they doubted a conviction would be obtained). In this case the clear-and-present danger of a collision with a pedestrian (only looking in the direction of legal traffic flow), or a collision with an on-coming motorist would seem to be a sufficient justification.
The fact that Mikey has repeatedly halted vehicles at “Gandalf Corner” over the past six years without ever facing criminal charges, whereas the motorists he stopped have instead received EFPNs, with at least one case leading to a prosecution in Crown Court, rather suggests that both the Police and the CPS accept his actions as satisfying the "lawful excuse" justification in these circumstances.
By the way, the Metropolitan Police no longer prosecute drivers who ignore “Keep Left” or “No Entry” signs (as noted at the end of Mikey’s video). This may explain why he doesn’t simply video these offences and submit them any more. The problem is that law enforcement only seems to happen after something goes badly wrong, for example: when a pedestrian crossing the road or an on-coming vehicle is struck and someone is seriously hurt. At that point, a jury often includes people who think, “well, everyone does that” or “it could easily have been me,” which makes securing convictions in cases where people are seriously injured or killed far more difficult.
I was asking the one particular person i was replying to if they'd seen it, It wasn't a general question to every poster in this thread
You asserted that Mikey was using his bike as a weapon in a public forum. I have a right to dispute that. Mikey certainly pushes these encounters to the limit, but in my view, the majority of the blame - 75% - still lies with the Fiat driver. He was travelling on the wrong side of the road, against the legal flow of traffic, and doing so while speeding. Had he been driving sensibly, he would have had ample time to stop. He also chose to flee the scene afterwards.
The driver was clearly aware of what Mikey was attempting, yet pressed on regardless. Under the new Highway Code hierarchy, one could also argue that he should have yielded to a pedestrian even in these circumstances. He was irresponsible when he chose to accelerate rather than brake to avoid a collision.
Didn't you watch
Mikey's video of the incident to the end? Mikey stated at the end of it that the Met Police don't even prosecute people for violating "No Entry" signs, or for violating "Keep Left" signs any more. Therefore, there would be no point reporting the Fiat driver for this offence. I can understand Mikey's deep frustration seeing numerous people driving dangerously like this with complete impunity.
If you follow back up the chain of my posts there I was using the basis that he appeared to be holding the bike and the manner of a tool or weapon as reasoning that his intentions were to try and trigger forward collision assist to make the car brake itself. I'm not 100% sure it was his intentions but he has done it before. His own claim is that he reacted late.
Yes, he underestimated the speed/acceleration of the car. Mikey often filmed
himself stopping drivers from cutting across the wrong side of a “keep left” sign in Regent’s Park, a habit that earned him the nickname “Gandalf” for his ‘you shall not pass’ stance.
Reflecting on the incident there in which
Paul Lyon-Maris repeatedly struck him and carried him on the bonnet of his Range Rover SUV for about 20 metres, Mikey remarked:
"After the Paul Lyon-Maris incident, I realise that most drivers will not want to drive into my bike, although they might be quite happy to drive into my body." This explains why he consistently began using his bicycle as part of his blocking method.
However, where Mikey is catching people on their phones when they are sitting stationery in traffic, then to me there is no real chance of them injuring or killing anyone, because they can't go more than about 2 mph. However, I guess it teaches them a lesson, and might stop them using it at higher speeds when it is a real problem.
There’s substantial evidence that tackling minor offences is key to reducing more serious ones. Yet look at what happens when dashcam, helmet cam, or similar footage is submitted: a large proportion is simply disregarded, often due to the 14-day deadline for issuing a Notice of Intended Prosecution or concerns that juries will acquit offenders anyway. Indeed, many police forces even claim they don’t have the capacity to review submissions; despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of reports from cyclists and pedestrians are legitimate.
Isn't it amusing how people complain about petty crime like shoplifting going unpunished, but when Mikey tries to do something to stop dangerous law breakers he is dismissed as a vigilante and a busybody?
How many of those deaths and injuries were in stationary traffic in London?
The majority of motorists I've seen using their phones while stopped at red lights continue to do so when they pull away and doubtless a significant proportion of them do it while driving at speed. I've seen it create situations where they miss that the lights turned green and so drive away without making the proper observations. It is also dangerous because sometimes pedestrians try to cross the road between cars while they are stopped in queues and the driver is not looking at the road and can drive forward into them without even seeing them.
What have cyclists got to do with cyclists?
They are not classified as cyclists. The law on the public road use of ebikes (over 250 watts of sustained power) is actually the same as for mopeds. You have to be at least 16-years-old, properly trained/licensed as the rider, wear a crash helmet, have at least third-party insurance, be registered for road tax, the ebike must be type-approved by DVSA, the bike must have passed an MOT (if it's over 3-years-old) and it must be displaying a number plate. Whereas, EAPCs can be used on public roads by anyone of at least 14-years-old without any of those requirements, but they are speed-limited to 15.5 mph, only provide assistance* when peddling and cannot have a motor which produces over 250W of power for a sustained period.
*There is a grandfather exception that applies to legal EAPCs with a full-speed throttle manufactured or imported before 1/1/2016.
Maybe I painted a picture of the Sur-ron riding gangstas but I mean actual pedal e-bikes. Yes they are ridden at over 30mph through London. OK so they aren't pedalling at that speed, but they have pedals. They are trigger activated illegal machines. They're still cyclists by definition of having pedals no? What else would you call them? OK don't answer that lol. I mean genuinely...they're cyclists no? These tend to be the food courier ones trying to make 10 stops in 10 minutes to make the monies.
It doesn't matter if they have pedals. If they are riding at over 15.5 mph without pedalling (not down a hill obviously) then they are on illegal off-road ebikes. Bicycles don't have electric motors, legal EAPCs do (but note what I wrote above about assistance etc), but the ebikes you describe are definitely ILLEGAL for road use and their riders are, therefore, illegal MOTORISTS (they use an electric motor to propel themselves). I see them out-and-about delivering pizzas etc all the time and it makes me furious.
It's not the fault of cyclists that powerful off-road ebikes are being ridden on the roads illegally and that pedestrians are being hit by them. Two elderly ladies died in May in Bradford and Sunderland after being hit by Sur-Ron ebikes while crossing the road. The chance that those Sur-Rons were being driven on the road legally is remote, given that the rider in Sunderland fled the scene and the rider in Bradford was grabbed by passers-by so he couldn't flee the scene of the accident.
