Yeah this is the animosity I'm talking about. I'd just point out that this also translates to drivers showing that animosity to cyclists on the streets in London.

There's a huge difference between "animosity" because someone is endangering your life and "animosity" because you're stuck in traffic and don't like seeing a cyclist making progress. Most of the "animosity" from drivers is due to them not thinking clearly about the situation and also being aggressive bullies.

And what about the people he harasses who are literally stopped?

If you're queuing in traffic or stopped at some lights, then you're still in control of a big metal machine on the road and have a responsibility to have your attention on the road. If you're distracted then you might not notice a situation where you need to move the car aside in order to prevent an accident from escalating.

You mean he harasses the people who are so entitled that when called out on their dangerous and illegal driving they get confrontational?

Does the law say that’s OK?

If not, the driver is still in the wrong.

That not really how it works though. Laws and morals do not perfectly align even in mostly civilised countries like the UK.

More importantly, laws are written under the tacit assumption that they won't be perfectly enforced. Have you ever driven 31 mph in a 30 mph zone? Illegal! You're in the wrong!

I have never watched his videos so I don't know what proportion of his videos are of people stopped at lights briefly looking at their phone... but I don't think many people (even cyclists) would seriously object to that.

I both cycle and drive a lot. There are a lot of bad drivers that I wish would get snitched. But I also occasionally look at my phone while waiting at a red light.

It's trivial to find laws that the majority of Hacker News posters (and you) find abhorrent. Do you really equate law with moral correctness?

So, in general, you support vigilantes?

In my mind vigilante implies actually doing something to the criminal above and beyond documenting what they’re doing.

“a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate)”

That’s from Miriam Webster. I’d say he isn’t punishing crime, I could see an argument that he’s suppressing it, but it doesn’t really fit my normal view of the word.

Running into traffic to pick a fight with them? Throwing your bike in front of their car to cause a collision? Jumping onto their bonnet to try and pretend you're being run over?

The guy is quite literally taking the law into his own hands and it's very clear that running around trying to cause car accidents is making people less safe, not more. In many cases the "accident" he claims to want to prevent is caused by his actions.