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

[ByDandyTurtle]

He's not putting fumes in people's lungs from his car and sees people doing illegal activities that kill others or make our premiums go up.

The police see him as a great help.

I think you’ve just proved me right. You're admitting that private spaces exist in public contexts.

I never said misuse of private information was illegal, in the sense of criminal. It’s a tort. And his defence to the tort would be in revealing wrongdoing.

But what if his intrusive filming doesn’t reveal wrongdoing? What’s his defence then?

You still haven’t answered my question. Do women drivers have privacy rights against intrusive pervy cyclists filming them below the waist?

What are you talking about? He’s a terrible interfering little cunt. Was probably bullied at school and seeking revenge ever since..Get a life

It takes 5 seconds to Google the law.

And it will show...

• you can film using a dashcam or helmet cam in the UK on public roads.
• you can upload it to the Internet if you blur faces and number plates.
• if you are recording audio in your own vehicle you need to tell your passengers.

If you are a business you need to have stronger rules, but not as a private individual.

Love him or hate him, he isn't breaking the law

Peering into cars and recording is not filming a public space.

There’s ECtHR authority on breach of Article 8 by taking but not even publishing photographs where expectations of privacy arise.

But, to be honest, I’m tired of arguing with people who know nothing about it and are just happy to be cheerleaders for a vigilante.

If his filming reveals no wrongdoing or the person manages to defend themselves (as with Frank Lampard) then the driver doesn't receive a traffic offense. Who are you to say it's intrusive? He's in public, the person on their phone is in public. And there's a window.

Mikey's intent has never been sexual gratification. It's catching motoring offense. Stop making stuff up.

Since you love making up these hypotheticals.

If there's a home and you can see through a window and can see and record Person A stabbing Person B to death, is that intrusive?

Don't drive on your phone. Drive safe and drive well.

I’ve never said his motivation was sexual gratification. I was talking about other, hypothetical cyclists, not Vigilante Mikey. Which was blindingly obvious.

Generally, you really, really don’t understand, do you?

Please just read what I’ve written, carefully, and think beyond the magistrates’ courts and guilt of minor traffic offences.

Are you a lawyer? Even so I remember clearly black belt barrister and Mikey collabing and black belt barrister clearly saying what Mikey does is right?

Also remember a solicitor video saying "yeah you can't really challenge the way Mikey got his evidence" public spade and all that.

Article 8 protects individuals right to respect for one's private life, family life, home etc. Recording someone in their car on a public road for the purposes of showing they were breaking the law is not a breach of this right.

Again, 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, don't you think the police would have told him what he was doing was illegal?

You still haven’t got it. I’m not talking about wrongdoers. I’m talking about his filming of people who he discovers are not using their phones while driving, even though he suspected they were.

Actually, you started trying to divert from the subject by telling me that if I'm happy with women's thighs being filed then I'm weird. Why would you even bring up women's thighs given you know Mikey doesn't film for sexual gratification?

So you were detracting from the issue here which is cycling mikey. A cyclist who catches motoring offences and keeps the roads safer.

And making up a pervy cyclist.

The relevance of other scenarios is to show that filming inside people’s cars is intrusive, whether you’re Vigilante Mikey or a different filmer who’s doing the filming for different reasons.

Jeez…

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

WTF are you talking about?

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

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.

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

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.

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.