Hacker News Reader

The 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

"> 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....

There 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.

Hes 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.

Bear 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.

> 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.

The 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?

I 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.

He'd be looking at the same fine if the police spotted them. Does it stop being illegal if the police don't spot you?

How do you know it was a red light?

> 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.

Which happens for many reasons besides red lights, especially in a country like the UK where traffic circles are more common.

Why does it matter if traffic was stopped for a full minute because of a red light, or for some other reason?

Because 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.

Other 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?

I 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/answ...

The scenario in the article is in the UK, not Tampa.

I browsed his channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/CyclingMikey/videos

Regardless if you agree with his actions, Most of the cases are in red light \ traffic jams...

Yeah, kind of surprised to see The Guardian and/or HN taking a pro-vigilante stance.

How is reporting illegal activity to the police a vigilante act?

I 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.

There are traffic cameras and traffic police. If you're doing their job for them, you're a vigilante. Not complicated.

So 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?

In 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.

No.

1. He is not a vigilante because he is merely reporting evidence to the proper authorities. A vigilante takes interpretation, defence and sentencing into their own hands.

2. UK police have actually asked road users to do this since they do not have the resources to be everywhere.

I'd agree more with your distinction if he was randomly happening upon crimes and reporting them instead of proactively seeking them out.

The fact that UK police are asking road users to do this makes it worse, and less advisable to do, not better/more.