Cycling Mikey doesn't deserve the hate he's getting

You keep using your phone whilst queuing then. Relay your Things can be dangerous but not illegal and also be illegal but not dangerous. That's physically possible and anyone with a brain cell knows that to the magistrate and let us know how that works out for you. It’s the distraction that leads to complacency resulting in a collision at some point, maybe not this time. You’re in crawling traffic head up and down looking at your phone, edging forward every now and again, not really concentrating on the road chances are if someone was crossing between your car and the one in front you could miss them or there might not be anyone crossing but the lack of attention results in a bump into the car in front. Not the crime of the century but completely avoidable. It’s the thin end of the wedge, it starts with you don’t look at your phone when you’re actually moving but the traffic is going again and the reply pings from the message you sent whilst crawling, do you resist the temptation or do you just quickly pick up your phone to have a look at the notification? If your phone is on the seat beside you or on your lap, for some the temptation is too great, and there are some who will think, I’ll just send back a thumbs up, it’s a straight road, it’s only one emoji.. I’d like to know what message is that important that it can’t wait until the destination is reached or there’s an opportunity to pull over. Can you think of a message that when the police read it after someone has been struck by a vehicle that would justify picking up the phone? Even if it’s the best or worst news someone is ever likely to receive, you’re in a queue of traffic, nothing can be done. It’s not difficult, just leave your phone alone if you’re in charge of a vehicle, crawling, stopped at lights or driving around.

Filming an apparent offence and sending it to the police is perfectly legal. The police even want him to do this since we have operation snap.

If footage shows no offense the sensible thing is to delete the clip. Filming in public is lawful. Can you see in through a car window. Can't you see into a pub toilet stall can you?

Well i guess if there was evidence from the outside to suggest a crime was taking place...

He sees phone use (or what looks like it) and then he acts, films it, catches the offense and sends the evidence to the police.

He's not baiting me

It does though - someone sat in traffic using their phone may well look up and see that the traffic ahead has moved on without them, panic and move off without looking............straight into a cyclist or pedestrian.

I do wonder how he can be such a safe cyclist whilst spending so much time looking in to peoples cars.
Could it be that the reason he doesn't have accidents is because all those other drivers are aware of him and make allowances for his poor vehicle use?

You're saying Mickey is doing unauthorised surveillance. This would be a criminal offence. But he's not, he is filming in a public place, which is not a crime, or a civil wrong.

Having lost two friends to separate preventable incidents on the roads, and seen other friends hospitalised, I am 100% in favour of people behaving safely and following the rules, but the problem with Cycling Mikey is that in his fervour to get people to follow the rules, he frequently behaves in ways which are unsafe. And the whole purpose of the rules is to keep people safe.
He doesn't just film the drivers; he admitted while giving evidence in someone else's trial that he is in the habit of stepping out in front of people to stop them breaking the rules. Not only does this put him in danger, but if someone that he has been distracting swerves to avoid hitting him, they might hit another road user who they hadn't seen, because he was distracting them, and even if they do get past him safely, they are now wound up and unlikely to be driving at their most calm and focused.
He would do much more good if he put his energy into educating people to want to drive better every day, because it's the right thing to do, not because they're worried he's going to leap out from behind a bush.

I didn’t think it was worth answering. However…

…if you see a murder (or what looks like one) in public or private you should act on it.

But do you think people should go about filming into people’s houses just in case the occupier might be going to commit a fatal knife attack?

That’s a lovely cut and paste.

But it’s wrong. If you film into a car in a way that isn’t visible to passers by - like peering in to see what a driver is doing in their lap in stationary traffic - then it would be intruding into a private space.

And - yet again - what does Vigilante Mikey do with this sort of footage that doesn’t show phone use?

And completely ignores my hypothetical about if someone films through a house window person A stab person B to death.

Oh dear. You started going on about a reasonable expectation of privacy. That is the threshold condition for misuse of private information.

Because that's what the law says, that you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public road.

You won't answer but I'll ask again. Can you explain why given Cycling Mikey has sent hundreds of those videos to police and the police have got many convictions as a result of Mikey's footage, why the police haven't told him what he is doing is illegal? Why do they use his footage as proof?

You can film into a private place as long as you are stood in a public place while doing so. There’s loads of “auditors” who stand outside the back gate of police stations and film into the car parks and the police come out going crackers but ultimately they can’t do anything.

Charlie Veitch used to snoop around filming into peoples gardens to antagonise them for clicks and social media content, all perfect legal if totally despicable.

Plenty of drone “auditors” fly their drones above private property filming, again wanting it all to kick off for their social media.

so if they can do that I’m sure someone stood on a pavement or road can film inside a car through a window.

There is no general ban on filming in public. There’s no law that stops members of the public filming in public places (this obviously includes people visible through a windscreen). What is illegal is harassment.

Inside a car on the road isn’t “private” in the MPI sense. If the activity is visible to any passer-by, there’s usually no reasonable expectation of privacy. That’s especially true where the footage shows apparent criminality in public, which further weakens any privacy claim

If you simply record and give the footage to police, it's fine.

Filming a driver on their phone through the car window from the highway and submitting that video to police is generally lawful and does not breach a “right to privacy.” That’s because (i) there’s no ban on filming in public; (ii) the conduct is visible to anyone; (iii) the clip shows a public-place offence; and (iv) sharing with police is recognised by the ICO.

He also reminds me of jeremy kyle on a bike. Baiting the public and winding people up for entertainment.

The problem is he adds to the already huge hatred of cyclists. As someone who cycles to work I already experience abuse from drivers almost daily. He is making it worse.

WTF are you talking about?

Do you understand the difference between criminal offences and civil wrongs?

Oh dear. You started going on about a reasonable expectation of privacy. That is the threshold condition for misuse of private information.

If you’re genuinely interested, look at the House of Lords decision in Campbell v MGN.

I thought you said it was illegal? Are you now agreeing it isn't illegal?

Article 8 is the foundation of the tort of misuse of private information. You brought up the concept, not me. At least have some grasp of what you’re talking about.

Do keep up, you brought up Article 8. Can you explain how filming in cars in public is a breach and name the clause?

The rest of your post has already been answered. More than once.

No, it hasn't. You have yet to explain why given Cycling Mikey has sent hundreds of those videos to police and the police have got many convictions as a result of Mikey's footage, why the police haven't told him what he is doing is illegal? Why do they use his footage as proof?

No idea why people dislike this guy so much when from what I've seen, all he does is cykle round London and show others how many appalling drivers there are out there. Don't fuck about on your phone while driving, don't drive so close to vulnerable cyclists on the road, and it seems like you won't feature in his videos. Where is the harm in reminding drivers to be respectful and courteous to other road users? He could be saving lives, judging from the attitudes of some posters here they have minimal understanding that every time someone gets in a vehicle they're driving a lethal piece of equipment and becoming complacent about it is dangerous. Not rocket science, is it? He's making the roads safer for everyone, and if him existing on the road results in someone getting road rage or whatever, they shouldn't be driving anyway as they cannot be trusted to control themselves.

There is no evidence of this? All I see from his videos is that he'll cycle along and he'll see someone on their phone, then go with his camera. Get the evidence and send it to the police. Police look at evidence and more often than not, prosecute.

If no offense is commited or police cannot devote enough time then yeah, okay. NFA. I'm not bothered.

Article 8 is the foundation of the tort of misuse of private information. You brought up the concept, not me. At least have some grasp of what you’re talking about.

The rest of your post has already been answered. More than once.