- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Pont Street, Belgravia, London (Google Maps)Cyclist to be prosecuted for “riding in the middle of the road” after filming a driver using mobile phone
A cyclist who recorded footage of a driver using his mobile phone in traffic with his helmet camera has been accused of “breaking the law” and posing a “danger to other road users” by the police, and is set to face prosecution for riding without due care and attention, including “riding in the middle of the road”.
Dave Clifton, 56, was cycling on Pont Street in Belgravia, London in August last year when he came across a driver at the wheel of a Range Rover in momentarily stationary traffic using his mobile phone and turned around to capture footage of the man caught in the act.
However, when he submitted the video, seen by The Standard, to the police, the outcome was certainly one that he was not expecting.
The penalty for holding a cellular device when driving can be up to 6 penalty points and a £200 fine, as well as losing your licence if the driver passed your driving test in the last 2 years.
However, the Met police instead proceeded to claim that the cyclist had been riding on the wrong side of the road, and suggested that he “could pose a danger to other road users”.
Natasha Springford, a Met police staff member in the traffic division, said that the cyclist was “in the middle of the road” and was then “very close to the Range Rover on the opposite side of the road whilst a motorcyclist was oncoming with a passenger”.
She added: “You can see the cyclist cycling towards the oncoming motorbike that is filtering between traffic,” and then suggested the motorbike has to “ride in between the cyclist that is very close and the Range Rover”.
Driver on phone - via CyclingMikey
Clifton is now due to face trial next month at Lavender Hill magistrates court. The driver of the Range Rover, meanwhile, has got away with a police “advisory letter” and is said to be facing no criminal case.
However, the cyclist from south-west London has said that he intends to fight the claim at the trial. He said: “The ‘other side of the road’ doesn’t begin wherever my accuser wants it to begin. This is a ludicrous allegation. The police have ignored the filtering motorcyclist and the driver using a mobile phone, and have chosen to prosecute me. This seems to be malicious.”
Third-party reporting of drivers by cyclists has divided opinion online and seemingly with public, when the matter is discussed by written or broadcast media. CyclingMikey or Mike van Erp, is perhaps the most well-known 'camera cyclist'.
The Dutch-born road safety campaigner's fame has grown as a result of his reports of motorists using mobile phones — close to 2,000, and including the likes of Chris Eubank and Guy Ritchie — some of which have landed him on the receiving end of violent threats and foul-mouthed tirades.
His videos, which he shares after the conviction on YouTube, have won him many fans in the cycling world. However, his approach has also birthed some detractors, most notably lawyer Nick Freeman, better known as Mr Loophole.
However, just last month, we reported that the public opinion on third-party reporting could be shifting as some have seemingly begun to accept that it could actually be making roads safer, the topic was discussed during a Channel 5 segment.
One such person was West Mercia Police's PC Jim Roberts, who said that the police are rather keen on more people reporting drivers breaking the law. “By the general public submitting dashcam footage to us and then those drivers being dealt with, it's sending a message and it is making our roads safer,” he said.
CyclingMikey added: “Somebody's got to step up and do it, and there are some of those in society at least who do it.”
Figures shared with Channel 5 showed that over 33,000 videos were submitted to police in England and Wales last year, up by 21 per cent on 2022, and an increase of almost 300 per cent over 2020. 70 per cent of these reports have led to police action, the broadcast said.
The National Police Chiefs' Council also told Channel 5 that they welcome that technology can help them, with one in every five drivers running a dashcam and an even higher estimate for cyclists, the news broadcaster said.
road.cc has contacted Dave Clifton for comment.
Adwitiya joined road.cc in 2023 as a news writer after graduating with a masters in journalism from Cardiff University. His dissertation focused on active travel, which soon threw him into the deep end of covering everything related to the two-wheeled tool, and now cycling is as big a part of his life as guitars and football. He has previously covered local and national politics for Voice Wales, and also likes to writes about science, tech and the environment, if he can find the time. Living right next to the Taff trail in the Welsh capital, you can find him trying to tackle the brutal climbs in the valleys.
Latest Comments
- ktache 4 sec ago
Now Emily Chappele really liked the Lezyne , I have the HV version, good, but I find the handle uncomfortable in use. I've often wondered about the...
- biking59boomer 6 min 53 sec ago
What about this one!?
- Muddy Ford 8 min 16 sec ago
Charlie Alliston got 18mths and is the reference case (because there are so few cases) for all campaigns by anti-cyclists that 'cyclists are not...
- RoubaixCube 55 min 33 sec ago
I do see cubes being reviewed once in a while. But I think the company/brand as a whole doesnt push a whole lot of money into their marketing...
- belugabob 1 hour 9 min ago
My local football practice pitches (all weather, in a fenced off area, are regularly the scene of inconsiderate parking, with vehicles blocking the...
- chrisonabike 1 hour 27 min ago
Don't forget though "Englishman's home is his castle" - which includes my rights to grow a giant curtain wall of Leylandii to "protect my privacy"....
- Spangly Shiny 1 hour 34 min ago
Assos ASOS anyone?
- chrisonabike 1 hour 48 min ago
Replace them all with Bromptons and they'd take up zero space within days or even hours, as they are all relocated elsewhere. To eBay or possibly...
- Andrewbanshee 2 hours 19 min ago
Where I live we are experiencing a lot of housing development on small and large plots of land. These developers don't seem to have problems...
- hawkinspeter 2 hours 25 min ago
Sometimes peanuts
Add new comment
105 comments
Best ignored. He/she never posts after 4pm or at weekends.
Nice trolling!
Not sure if it worth pointing out to the A-Hole on the Right, that the law was changed relatively recently to include pretty much ALL phone use behind the wheel, including in stationary/slow moving traffic.
This means the police/courts will treat it the same as when driving/moving at speed.
This would indicate that the law considers it to be the same level and worthy of prosecution in almost all cases where decent evidence exists.
(Not sure why this specific case wasn't considered worthy.)
My guess is that the court case will be thrown out and the Met police/prosecution will be told "Stop wasting our time.".
And of course, the meaning of "vigilante" is completely misunderstood by the AHotR.
But that isn't surprising.
"AHotR?
My suggested name for the troll, per the first line of my comment.
If the motorcyclist is simply 'filtering', how come the cyclist isn't?Sorry, just watched the Standard's copy of the video. If the motorcyclist is 'filtering' - and is travelling in the same direction as the Range Rover and the cyclist - then aren't they supposed to go around the outside of the cyclist, not ride between the cyclist and the Range Rover?
It looks like a pretty obvious case of dangerous riding by the motorbike rider to me! I'm not sure what the Police are smoking when trying to prosecute the cyclist here?!
A letter from Mr Clifton's Solicitor to the CPS suggesting that the prosecution isn't in the public interest should suffice. Followed by a complaint to the Met'.
So the driver, who actually did break the law, gets an advisory letter, but the cyclist, for whom the evidence of committing a crime is, shall we say, not convincing, is being taken to court. So glad to see that the police aren't biased. Well, not much. OK, they're blatantly biased.
So glad to see that the police aren't biased. Well, not much. OK, they're blatantly biased
This is yet more evidence that the police are beyond bent! No action over these (OK, so you have seen them before!)
https://upride.cc/incident/pj23vmc_honda125_redlightcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/g16dht_hgvtrainer_redlightcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/k7ddy_audia4_redlightpass/
...or this school bus XJF 386 with no MOT for 10 months (Edit: I ought to point out to the sceptics that this school bus was reported to the police on 10.2.23, and I wrote to Traveller's Choice 2 weeks ago about the 10 month gap in the bus's MOT coverage, including 6 photos on 3 different days during the No MOT period, to give them an opportunity to rectify any mistakes on the DVSA page for the vehicle, but there was no reply and no change to the page!) but 'like a ton of bricks' when a cyclist, who annoys them by producing evidence they don't like, can be attacked by the long and crooked arm of the law
Taking bets on the driver being a copper or a friend or relative of one.
From watching Mikey's many Hyde Park videos, I was led to believe that the Met were better than this. Seems the officer who spearheaded this prosecution has a chip on their shoulder
Edit - apparently they were a "police staff member", so not an actual officer. That helps explain a lot
I think (and it's certainly been my experience in dealing with them) that the overwhelming majority of submissions to the Met are handled by civilian staff, I think only the senior managers of the unit are actually officers.
Whether they are police officers or not is less important than that they are competent persons for the role since having the power of a constable seems irrelevant to the task.
Competence to the level of DVSA licence, Roadcraft (IAM..), Class 2, Class 1 or Examiner are well known and relevant. Clearly DVSA licence must be the minimum and Roadcraft very preferable. Traffic Division officers provide Class 2, Class 1, or Examiner competence. I highly doubt an experienced competent person would progress this situation to the CPS.
I wasn't suggesting it was important, perhaps I should have explained more fully: I was attempting to point out that virtually all the prosecuting decisions are made by civilians and in my experience many/most of them made by the Met are correct, so the previous comment saying that the fact that the decision was made by a civilian in this case "explains a lot" wasn't really valid.
Pages