In four years Mike van Erp has filmed 1,400 drivers using their phones, leading to 1,800 penalty points, £110,000 of fines — and him being assaulted by disgruntled motorists. Is he a road safety hero or just a darned nuisance? Nick Rufford joins him on patrol

“In four years Mike van Erp has filmed 1,400 drivers using their phones, leading to 1,800 penalty points, £110,000 of fines — and him being assaulted by disgruntled motorists. Is he a road safety hero or just a darned nuisance? Nick Rufford joins him on patrol”

I’ve watched a few of his videos. I should be surprised that he catches so many drivers in their phones, but in and around London? Not surprised at all.

  • TipponEnglish
    -9•1 year ago

    I’m sure he’ll find that comforting when he’s dead or injured.

    • @C4dOPEnglish
      6•1 year ago

      I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. Please elaborate.

      • @adrian783English
        6•1 year ago

        “if I can’t run him over personally, I hope someone else does”

      • TipponEnglish
        -4•1 year ago

        helmet or not the liability for any injury would rest wholly with the driver.

        I doubt that he’d find the fact that the liability rests with the driver comforting if he had a brain injury, or even died, because he didn’t wear a helmet.

        There’s a saying in motorcycling - ‘The graveyard is full of people who had the right of way’. It’s a similar idea, in that it doesn’t matter who was right, or who gets the blame, if you’re dead.

        • @C4dOPEnglish
          3•1 year ago

          I’m trying to draw a distinction here between a typical collision and a driver taking revenge on a cyclist. The argument of contributory negligence is unlikely to survive intact if it can be shown that the driver deliberately drove into the cyclist with intent to harm. Contributory negligence is however very real in more normal circumstances if it can be shown that an appropriately specified and correctly worn helmet would have made a difference.

          As for the graveyards saying, that’s very true. And very sad. I don’t think it was intended to be about someone actually trying to kill you, more about learning to be calm, to let things go and walk / cycle / drive defensively. Words to live by. I know too many who’ve died doing it the other way.

          • TipponEnglish
            0•1 year ago

            I’m not talking about contributory negligence, I’m agreeing with the original comment. If the cyclist is putting himself in a position where some moron in a car might want to take revenge, he’s daft not to wear a helmet.

            There could be all the evidence in the world showing that it was the driver’s fault, but the cyclist would be just as dead.

            Whether you think the cyclist is right or wrong, all it takes is a moment of madness from the wrong driver, and he’s knocked off his bike. It could be as simple as getting clipped by a mirror, and if he hits his head, he could be killed or seriously injured just from not wearing a helmet. I can’t understand why someone would put themselves in that position.

            • @C4dOPEnglish
              1•1 year ago

              I don’t think we’re disagreeing all that much; I think we (or at least I) an reading more into the comment than what is actually there.

              Right.

              I would wear a helmet; I would also avoid having a camera mounted to said helmet as they’re quite robust and the forces of an impact could drive it (or the mount) though the helmet and into my skull. I suspect by the time someone is around to dig it out I’d be long dead.

              The Highway Code does however say that one should (rather than must) wear one. Individual freedoms, choices (and consequences). I’m sure folk have advised CyclingMikey to wear a helmet.

              As long as we’re not empowering or enabling maliciousness (or sending the message that the threat of violence should be used to silence) I think we’re good.