6 ms·
"When he returns, a grinning Van Erp tells me the man reacted badly to the realisation he was being caught on camera. Why the fury? The driver was using his pho
by thatguy0900 5y ago
"When he returns, a grinning Van Erp tells me the man reacted badly to the realisation he was being caught on camera. Why the fury? The driver was using his phone as he waited for the traffic to move – and Van Erp recorded him doing it. In the coming months the man will most likely face a fine and six points on his driving licence, in turn triggering a significant jump in his insurance premium"
... Is this guy supposed to be a hero? Lol. What an obnoxious thing to do. He was at a red light. I was expecting it to be drunk driving or almost hitting him, and this is the first example they used?
Edit since people don't read the article, it says the driver was there for a minute before noticing being recorded. So the driver was waiting in stopped traffic long enough to start using his phone, then the bike guy rode up on him, then over a minute later the driver noticed, then the bike guy left after a conversation. So this guy was in completely dead stopped traffic for what sounds like 4 or 5 minutes and im supposed to care if he's on his phone?
- criddell 5y agoHow do you know it was a red light?
- loeg 5y ago> He edges along the stationary vehicles until he is parallel to a car. It is well over a minute before the driver looks up and spots him – and the camera strapped to his baseball cap. Traffic wasn't moving at the time.
- shkkmo 5y agoWhich happens for many reasons besides red lights, especially in a country like the UK where traffic circles are more common.
- loeg 5y agoWhy does it matter if traffic was stopped for a full minute because of a red light, or for some other reason?
- criddell 5y agoBecause that's what the law is. You might also say it doesn't matter if you roll through a stop sign when there's no traffic or pedestrians around. You can still get charged for that.
- loeg 5y agoOther commenters in the thread have claimed that the light being red doesn't matter -- it's prohibited regardless. So -- do you have a source of a specific statute that mentions light color?
- criddell 5y agoI have no idea how common it is for the light color to matter. There are some places though where it does make a difference. https://www.tampabay.com/news/transportation/2020/01/01/answering-your-questions-about-floridas-texting-while-driving-law/ https://www.tampabay.com/news/transportation/2020/01/01/answ...
- loeg 5y agoThe scenario in the article is in the UK, not Tampa.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- yonixw 5y agoI browsed his channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/CyclingMikey/videos https://www.youtube.com/c/CyclingMikey/videos Regardless if you agree with his actions, Most of the cases are in red light \ traffic jams...
- anoonmoose 5y agoYeah, kind of surprised to see The Guardian and/or HN taking a pro-vigilante stance.
- _Wintermute 5y agoHow is reporting illegal activity to the police a vigilante act?
- ad404b8a372f2b9 5y agoI think the line becomes blurred when you actively gather the evidence, rather than happen upon it, and post the videos online to publicly shame the people in question.
- namelessoracle 5y agoSo if a a cyclist decided to bike up and film people smoking marijuana in their car, then submitted it to police aggressively, you wouldnt feel it was a vigilante act?
- _Wintermute 5y agoNo.
- Earw0rm 5y agoIn a jurisdiction where driving while intoxicated on MJ is illegal, no, that's not vigilantism. You definitely don't want people driving around stoned in London traffic conditions - very much need to keep your wits about you when driving here. Yes, peoples' reaction to and tolerance of weed varies considerably, but there's just no need or reason to drive while high here.
- anoonmoose 5y agoThere are traffic cameras and traffic police. If you're doing their job for them, you're a vigilante. Not complicated.
- de_keyboard 5y ago
- mellosouls 5y agoI guess it was the first example as that is what he was doing at the time they interviewed him. Better for the driver to be focussing on driving, which is the whole point of CyclingMikey's actions in lieu of proper policing. It's definitely brave to be questioning people on their bad behaviour in real life, yes, though I disagree by default with public shaming and vigilante action. The better solution would be for traffic policing funds to be paying coppers rather than using "safety" cameras as a red herring. But without that, its fair enough for brave civic-minded people to take the anti-social to task in a reasonable manner.
- equalsione 5y ago"> What of those who argue that using a phone in stationary traffic does no harm? Van Erp has little patience with this – noting the “WhatsApp gap” – the way phone-distracted drivers tend to jerk forwards belatedly when the queue moves, often after a toot from behind. “There is evidence that phone use is as dangerous as drink-driving. I think it’s also very naive to imagine these people only use their phone in [stationary] traffic,” he says." https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/jan/05/filming-cyclingmikey-dangerous-drivers-mike-van-erp-motorists-britain-roads-safer#:~:text=What%20of%20those,traffic%2C%E2%80%9D%20he%20says https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/jan/05/filming....
- thatguy0900 5y agoHes noting a thing he made up? Is "jerking" forward in dead traffic with a big gap a bad thing when theres enough of a gap you are being honked at? Is this causing crashes? Is this even what he recorded here? No to the last part, at least.
- Earw0rm 5y agoBear in mind this is UK where the vast majority of cars are manual transmission stickshift. So you really can't drive smoothly with a phone in one hand. Using a bluetooth headset while driving is legal here, using a hand held phone is not.
- altacc 5y agoThere is also the impact of context switching from phone use to driving, which I imagine pretty much everyone has experienced. The reason for the law is to stop people being distracted and there is a delay in refocusing attention when switching from phone to driving and even a second or two can make a big difference when you're in charge of a self-propelled chunk of metal.
- altacc 5y agoThe colour of the light is a moot point. If a driver is in charge of a vehicle that is on the road, then the laws apply. The UK government's guidance on this is clear on that and after years of media & press about phone usage whilst driving, nobody in the UK can claim ignorance of the law. https://www.gov.uk/using-mobile-phones-when-driving-the-law https://www.gov.uk/using-mobile-phones-when-driving-the-law
- GrinningFool 5y ago> o the driver was waiting in stopped traffic long enough to start using his phone, then the bike guy rode up on him, then over a minute later the driver noticed, So the driver was waiting in stopped traffic long enough to use his phone, and was so unaware of his surroundings that it took a full minute for the driver to realize he was being recorded? If the driver took that long to notice someone next to him, imagine what else gets missed. At the /very/ least, he's the inconsiderate lout making everyone behind him wait until he wakes up to the light having changed.
- thatguy0900 5y agoThe traffic was dead. As in he was surrounded by stopped cars. What, exactly, was he supposed to see? What danger was he causing in a non moving car?
- soneil 5y agoHe'd be looking at the same fine if the police spotted them. Does it stop being illegal if the police don't spot you?