Cycling Mikey

breezy1985

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

4 times more likely than who/what?

4 times more likely to crash compared to sober drivers not using a phone or 4 times more likely to crash compared to drunk drivers?

Don't know I'm not the RSA it's just something I pulled after 10 seconds of googling. I'm sure there is more info out there

km991148

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Can you link to that video please?

I just edited the post to describe the video - sorry overlap in posting!

Edit, same story with the wanker one but it was on the electric bike, sun behind him and you could clearly see the wanker sign. Again, driver was and I'd probably do the same. But then the follow up a mile or so down the road.. for what?

km991148

yeah went back again but cant find them.. they are in there somewhere, but I have already spent too much time on this channel :pac:

I did come across the one where a kid called him a (unt and he went back looking for the argument including trying to wind them up when he was back on the bike telling them to grow a pair (teenagers ffs).


I stick by it - he is doing a great job reporting the arseholes but he is not helping the greater good with his attitude and followups, and he will more than likely get a kicking at some point.

Meanwhile the rest of us have to put up with even more aggression as a result.

AndrewJRenko

km991148 wrote: »

Meanwhile the rest of us have to put up with even more aggression as a result.

That's debatable.

But it is absolutely certain that the rest of us will be sharing the road with fewer drivers using their phones.

cletus

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

But it is absolutely certain that the rest of us will be sharing the road with fewer drivers using their phones.

I think thats also debatable. If punishment was an absolute deterrent, then the old "chop the hand off" routine would long ago have stamped out thievery

km991148

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's debatable.

But it is absolutely certain that the rest of us will be sharing the road with fewer drivers using their phones.

Sure - anything is debatable, but it is my strong opinion that winding people up leads to aggression and enforcing negative stereotypes against cyclists including further division and the creation of an us vs them attitude.

Based on your previous posts I know you don't necessarily agree.

Besides - the "fewer drivers using phones" can happen without confrontation - just report it. The problem is he feels he needs to follow up and engage and tell them off (often in a condescending manner, or at lease a manner which could be perceived as such by the offender).

What happens to you when someone tells you how to behave on the road (irrespective of whether or not you were in the right?). Its basic human behaviour.

km991148

cletus wrote: »

I think thats also debatable. If punishment was an absolute deterrent, then the old "chop the hand off" routine would long ago have stamped out thievery

It is debatable, but more than likely there will be some kind of decrease in phone use. Some people its such a habit tho and it wont change. Others feel entitled and will spitefully continue on doing what they want. Others will be reminded of the prick cyclist that got them points every time they see a cyclists.

Regardless - report away, don't be a prick about it after.

buffalo

km991148 wrote: »

Besides - the "fewer drivers using phones" can happen without confrontation - just report it. The problem is he feels he needs to follow up and engage and tell them off (often in a condescending manner, or at lease a manner which could be perceived as such by the offender).

Have you ever reported a driver for using a mobile? Do you know how time-draining and soul-crushing that experience is?

1 Make call to TrafficWatch (optional)
2 Receive call from Garda (only if 1 done)
3 Go to station and hope right Garda is available
4 Slowly describe what you saw so that the Garda can write it all down
5 Be asked if you're prepared to go to court for this
6 Sign the statement
7 Never hear from Garda again
8 Ring station repeatedly
9 Maybe find out that the driver said they were only holding a calculator to their ear, and sure it's your word against theirs.

OR

1 Bang on the driver's window and call them a wanker

At least Mikey can just upload a video and be done with it.

km991148

buffalo wrote: »

Have you ever reported a driver for using a mobile? Do you know how time-draining and soul-crushing that experience is?

1 Make call to TrafficWatch (optional)
2 Receive call from Garda (only if 1 done)
3 Go to station and hope right Garda is available
4 Slowly describe what you saw so that the Garda can write it all down
5 Be asked if you're prepared to go to court for this
6 Sign the statement
7 Never hear from Garda again
8 Ring station repeatedly
9 Maybe find out that the driver said they were only holding a calculator to their ear, and sure it's your word against theirs.

OR

1 Bang on the driver's window and call them a wanker

At least Mikey can just upload a video and be done with it.

I've done both (and lots more of the later) - it doesn't help anything except myself in the moment.

I think if he wants to get more people done for phone use and genuinely help then reporting it using the (frankly brilliant) system they have over there then great. But he wants to get people caught AND exercise some sort of self validation or feel like hes an authority figure or wants good clips or some other ****. Most of the time the follow up conversation he has is not worth it (and in my opinion just winds people up - sure most of the time when there isn't a queue of traffic the driver ends up booting it down the street - great so now you have someone pissed off in charge of a vehicle - but hey - Mikey gets some good footage for YT)

Report the dicks, but in general - be more like this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FEO-XKo4cw

FinnC

I love cycling but there are plenty of cyclists that I don’t like.
This guy Mikey is one of them.

timmyjimmy

buffalo wrote: »

Have you ever reported a driver for using a mobile? Do you know how time-draining and soul-crushing that experience is?

1 Make call to TrafficWatch (optional)
2 Receive call from Garda (only if 1 done)
3 Go to station and hope right Garda is available
4 Slowly describe what you saw so that the Garda can write it all down
5 Be asked if you're prepared to go to court for this
6 Sign the statement
7 Never hear from Garda again
8 Ring station repeatedly
9 Maybe find out that the driver said they were only holding a calculator to their ear, and sure it's your word against theirs.

OR

1 Bang on the driver's window and call them a wanker

At least Mikey can just upload a video and be done with it.

Whichever you choose, the motorist will think you're a pr!ck cyclist. Albeit difficult, reporting is probably the better way to go, a few points and a fine might make drivers behave better, banging on windows only creates more animosity between motorists and cyclists.
Some arguments just aren't worth the hassle. Career reporters actively look for arguments. It's a bit sad really, just get out and enjoy the ride.

CramCycle

buffalo wrote: »

Have you ever reported a driver for using a mobile? Do you know how time-draining and soul-crushing that experience is?

1 Make call to TrafficWatch (optional)
2 Receive call from Garda (only if 1 done)
3 Go to station and hope right Garda is available
4 Slowly describe what you saw so that the Garda can write it all down
5 Be asked if you're prepared to go to court for this
6 Sign the statement
7 Never hear from Garda again
8 Ring station repeatedly
9 Maybe find out that the driver said they were only holding a calculator to their ear, and sure it's your word against theirs.

And that's when it goes well, if you go to the Garda thread over in the AMA forum, you see why being a Garda is such a soul crushing experience. The sooner they bring in a self submit video site for infractions, take a typed statement there and have it reviewed by a civilian force the better. Even the smallest of crimes have to be effectively ignored to allow Gardai to function because they all take so much time.

AndrewJRenko

cletus wrote: »

I think thats also debatable. If punishment was an absolute deterrent, then the old "chop the hand off" routine would long ago have stamped out thievery

I said "fewer " and you moved the goalposts to "absolute deterrent ". No one claimed absolute deterrent, but he absolutely has taken dangerous drivers off the road, with a few disqualifications. He's also got a ****load of fines and points issued, which must result in fewer drivers using their phones.

AndrewJRenko

FinnC wrote: »

I love cycling but there are plenty of cyclists that I don’t like.
This guy Mikey is one of them.

At a guess, he doesn't give a toss if you like him or approve of his methods. If you cycle in London, you will have fewer dangerous drivers around you as a result of his actions.

gctest50

And he's probably doing it all to get videos of down womens tops bit like that cycledub creep

AndrewJRenko

gctest50 wrote: »

And he's probably doing it all to get videos of down womens tops bit like that cycledub creep

Projecting much?

FinnC

Eamonnator wrote: »

He's a bellend.

/Thread

TheBoyConor

it all reminds me of that pair above in Dublin a few years ago ."OH MY GOD! I'm a woman on my own!"

Kevhog1988

I think he gives us all a bad name. The man's a bellend and I'm surprised he's never had a good smack in the mouth for his actions.

Kevhog1988

gctest50 wrote: »

And he's probably doing it all to get videos of down womens tops bit like that cycledub creep

hes getting a good few views on his videos.. hes making a few pound off it i bet

breezy1985

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

At a guess, he doesn't give a toss if you like him or approve of his methods. If you cycle in London, you will have fewer dangerous drivers around you as a result of his actions.

Ya but fellas hiding in hedges around London with a camera is also gonna scare the sh1t out of a load of women and maybe get you arrested.

I'll take the roads in London as they are over a load of wanna Capt. Americas jumping out of hedges disposing vigilante justice

AndrewJRenko

Kevhog1988 wrote: »

I think he gives us all a bad name. The man's a bellend and I'm surprised he's never had a good smack in the mouth for his actions.

Do the drivers using their phones give all us drivers a bad name?

AndrewJRenko

breezy1985 wrote: »

Ya but fellas hiding in hedges around London with a camera is also gonna scare the sh1t out of a load of women and maybe get you arrested.

I'll take the roads in London as they are over a load of wanna Capt. Americas jumping out of hedges disposing vigilante justice

You might want to look up the definition of "vigilante" because this isn't it - quite the reverse in fact.

As for the "scaring women" card, really?

breezy1985

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You might want to look up the definition of "vigilante" because this isn't it - quite the reverse in fact.

As for the "scaring women" card, really?

Ya really. People hanging round bushes are usually creeps.

It's London he could easily stand on the street corner with his phone and do the exact same thing but not look like a weirdo. It's mostly the theatrics I have an issue with but also transfer it to other walks of life, would you feel the same if some clown stood next to a cycle lane and jumped in front of bikes every time someone didn't stop at a red, indicate or have lights on.

You definitely wouldn't accept the latter Renko as anyone who calls out any cyclists regardless of the situation is the devil in your eyes

gctest50

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You might want to look up the definition of "vigilante" because this isn't it - quite the reverse in fact.

As for the "scaring women" card, really?

Recent events

https://www.rte.ie/news/uk/2021/0310/1203045-sarah-everard-london/

breezy1985

gctest50 wrote: »

Recent events

https://www.rte.ie/news/uk/2021/0310/1203045-sarah-everard-london/

Cressida Dick sounds like the medical term for Cycling Mikey

IrishLad90

This cycling mikey guy sounds like a terrorist

cletus

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I said "fewer " and you moved the goalposts to "absolute deterrent ". No one claimed absolute deterrent, but he absolutely has taken dangerous drivers off the road, with a few disqualifications. He's also got a ****load of fines and points issued, which must result in fewer drivers using their phones.

Sorry. I think if you look at my posting history here, my arguments and discussions are made in good faith.

When I said absolute deterrent, I meant in terms of the people actually caught. Yes, some of them might moderate their behaviour, but I was thinking in terms of people who have 6 or 9 points on their licence for speeding. Obviously the first round of points did nothing to deter them from doing the same thing again.

So, the phrase "absolute deterrent" might have been misplaced.

However, I don't think I'm wrong in saying your point is debatable. Unless you have figures, you can't really claim it as fact.

Just as in your quoted post above, where you say it "must result". Again, this is a debatable point, insofar as people can discuss and debate it

breezy1985

IrishLad90 wrote: »

This cycling mikey guy sounds like a terrorist

Probably a little over the top there but it did get me thinking, if Mikey was any colour other than white and was jumping out in front of cars screaming it wouldn't be long before the police took him out a la de Menezes in Stockwell

km991148

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do the drivers using their phones give all us drivers a bad name?

In the eyes of some people, of course it does.

How many people like to generalise? "All taxi drivers are pricks" "All car drivers are arseholes" "All Cyclists are pavement riding nazis"
Is this generalisation wrong, absolutely.

But - behaviour like Cycling Mikey does little to counteract this.
He is doing some good (by reporting certain actions - and it great that he puts the time in and there is a system to do so) but goes on to throw some petrol on the constant "us vs them" fire by engaging, resorting to name calling, condescending.
Why engage after filming? I could speculate that generally because he gets off on it and has a bit of an attitude (understandably because of his father being killed I think i read?) but regardless of his intentions is absolutely solidifies the view of "All cyclists are arseholes" in the eyes of some. And that is not good as the next time they have a close encounter with a cyclist they will be likely to take revenge/ punishment pass/ jump on the horn etc etc

I am not sure if you are disputing this, disagreeing with that outcome or disputing the fact that he does resort to name calling and driver engagement.

Chips Lovell

I think the minute you start going around filming people is probably the moment you have to ask yourself if you've begun to lose all sense of proportion.

Is this really how you want to spend your time? And by looking for confrontation, aren't you just ruining your enjoyment of cycling?

timmyjimmy

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do the drivers using their phones give all us drivers a bad name?

Not very much for drivers as they are in the majority but does a minority ethnic/group/creed/race committing an act or crime give the rest of their counterparts a bad name? I'll think you find, yes, it does.

AndrewJRenko

timmyjimmy wrote: »

Not very much for drivers as they are in the majority but does minority ethnic/group/creed/race commiting a crime give the rest of their counterparts a bad name? I'll think you find, yes, it does.

So collective responsibility only applies to minority groups then? And you think we should just accept the application of collective responsibility to minority groups, or should we say "nah, that's a load of bull, so I'm not going to accept that "?

AndrewJRenko

cletus wrote: »

Sorry. I think if you look at my posting history here, my arguments and discussions are made in good faith.

When I said absolute deterrent, I meant in terms of the people actually caught. Yes, some of them might moderate their behaviour, but I was thinking in terms of people who have 6 or 9 points on their licence for speeding. Obviously the first round of points did nothing to deter them from doing the same thing again.

So, the phrase "absolute deterrent" might have been misplaced.

However, I don't think I'm wrong in saying your point is debatable. Unless you have figures, you can't really claim it as fact.

Just as in your quoted post above, where you say it "must result". Again, this is a debatable point, insofar as people can discuss and debate it

It's a fact. He has got drivers disqualified, including Guy Ritchie. His actions resulted in fewer dangerous drivers on London roads.

It's not debatable. It's a fact.

timmyjimmy

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So collective responsibility only applies to minority groups then? And you think we should just accept the application of collective responsibility to minority groups, or should we say "nah, that's a load of bull, so I'm not going to accept that "?

Collective responsibility applies to all but its a lot easier to target minority groups.

km991148

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's a fact. He has got drivers disqualified, including Guy Ritchie. His actions resulted in fewer dangerous drivers on London roads.

It's not debatable. It's a fact.

It's a fact he got drivers done.
Is it a fact that points and a fine are a strong enough deterent (it's not as black and white, as we do get repeat offenders)?
Is it necessary to get in drivers faces and start with the attitude after filming? That's the main thing people have a problem with and it's certainly the most debatable in terms of impact.


But we all know cyclists who are like this, thankfully they are the minority..

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

In the eyes of some people, of course it does.

How many people like to generalise? "All taxi drivers are pricks" "All car drivers are arseholes" "All Cyclists are pavement riding nazis"
Is this generalisation wrong, absolutely.

For a substantial length of time there recently I was all of the following at the same time:

• A cyclist
• A landlord
• A civil servant
• An Audi driver
• A student

It really opened my eyes to the amount of acceptable hatred that goes with each of those labels, and has made me reevaluate my own cognitive dissonance and selective bias in plenty of areas.

Wishbone Ash

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's a fact. He has got drivers disqualified, including Guy Ritchie. His actions resulted in fewer dangerous drivers on London roads....

A 6 month driving ban for Richie seems very harsh for texting while stopped in traffic considering that there are so much more dangerous things going on.

km991148

[Deleted User] wrote: »

For a substantial length of time there recently I was all of the following at the same time:

• A cyclist
• A landlord
• A civil servant
• An Audi driver
• A student

It really opened my eyes to the amount of acceptable hatred that goes with each of those labels, and has made me reevaluate my own cognitive dissonance and selective bias in plenty of areas.

Absolutely! But a lot of people (and yes I'm generalising as well!) can't see beyond the generalisations.. and for these people, winding them up further is just going to kick that hatred down the line to the next unfortunate soul.

Should it be that way.. preferably not, but it is and to pretend that winding people up is not happening or doesn't have an effect is just ignorant (and again I stress I'm 100percent in favour of him making the reports in the first place, just leave out the attitude).

km991148

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

A 6 month driving ban for Richie seems very harsh for texting while stopped in traffic considering that there are so much more dangerous things going on.

Probably totting up..

You do see a wide difference in penalties tho. Some get the awareness course*, others get the full 6 and a fine, but even the fines vary a good bit.


*Probably more likely in certain situations like first offence. I know with speeding it's a case of a course if you are a little bit over, but if too far over no course, straight to points!

magicbastarder

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

A 6 month driving ban for Richie seems very harsh for texting while stopped in traffic considering that there are so much more dangerous things going on.

he didn't get banned specifically for texting, though; in that he was already at 9 or 10 points on his licence and this was what pushed him to 12.

cletus

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's a fact. He has got drivers disqualified, including Guy Ritchie. His actions resulted in fewer dangerous drivers on London roads.

It's not debatable. It's a fact.

It's a fact that he got drivers banned. Do you have the numbers to show that there has been a reduction of the number of dangerous drivers. Statistically speaking, the amount of people he has had removed is probably insignificant. I'm obviously being facetious here, but the point is, there are few absolutes in this world that are beyond debate.

I watched the Guy Ritchie video, as you had referenced it. He was sitting in stopped traffic reading a text or email or something. Did he break the law? Absolutely. Was he a dangerous driver? That's also debatable.

There's loads of stuff around this guy's videos that is debatable. Debatable means just that - people will have differing opinions, and will discuss them. It's possible for people not to have a problem with the sanctions receives by people in his videos, but still have a problem with how he conducts himself

breezy1985

cletus wrote: »

It's a fact that he got drivers banned. Do you have the numbers to show that there has been a reduction of the number of dangerous drivers. Statistically speaking, the amount of people he has had removed is probably insignificant. I'm obviously being facetious here, but the point is, there are few absolutes in this world that are beyond debate.

I watched the Guy Ritchie video, as you had referenced it. He was sitting in stopped traffic reading a text or email or something. Did he break the law? Absolutely. Was he a dangerous driver? That's also debatable.

There's loads of stuff around this guy's videos that is debatable. Debatable means just that - people will have differing opinions, and will discuss them. It's possible for people not to have a problem with the sanctions receives by people in his videos, but still have a problem with how he conducts himself

It's not debatable because Renko says so. End of

Wishbone Ash

magicbastarder wrote: »

he didn't get banned specifically for texting, though; in that he was already at 9 or 10 points on his licence and this was what pushed him to 12.

Ah fair enough. I was wondering why it was so harsh!

AndrewJRenko

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

A 6 month driving ban for Richie seems very harsh for texting while stopped in traffic considering that there are so much more dangerous things going on.

He was already on nine points for three speeding offences, so the six points for phone use pushed him over the edge.

Some people can be a bit slow to learn.

AndrewJRenko

cletus wrote: »

It's a fact that he got drivers banned. Do you have the numbers to show that there has been a reduction of the number of dangerous drivers. Statistically speaking, the amount of people he has had removed is probably insignificant. I'm obviously being facetious here, but the point is, there are few absolutes in this world that are beyond debate.

He got a number of dangerous drivers disqualified. By definition, that means there are fewer dangerous drivers on the road.

You're moving the goalposts again by introducing 'statistically significant'. It is not debatable that there are fewer dangerous drivers on the road as a result of his actions.

If you want to look at the number of drivers given points and fines, then you're getting into statistically significant territory.

cletus wrote: »

I watched the Guy Ritchie video, as you had referenced it. He was sitting in stopped traffic reading a text or email or something. Did he break the law? Absolutely. Was he a dangerous driver? That's also debatable.

Reading texts while stopped in traffic IS dangerous. You're supposed to be watching what's going on around you. There is also a very good chance that you'll be tempted to keep reading as you drive off. He WAS a dangerous driver, even before you consider his previous speeding offences.

AndrewJRenko

breezy1985 wrote: »

It's not debatable because Renko says so. End of

It's not debateable because it is a fact. He got drivers disqualified, therefore there are fewer dangerous drivers on the road.

If there is some flaw in my logic, please point it out. Otherwise, it IS a fact.

breezy1985

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's not debateable because it is a fact. He got drivers disqualified, therefore there are fewer dangerous drivers on the road.

If there is some flaw in my logic, please point it out. Otherwise, it IS a fact.

Despite your belief that you are the authority on all things round here you do not get to decide what is debatable. That's a fact

AndrewJRenko

timmyjimmy wrote: »

Collective responsibility applies to all but its a lot easier to target minority groups.

Collective responsibility is nonsense. I'm not responsible for the behaviour of other cyclists, or other motorists, or other boards users.

The only sensible response to anyone who tries to impose collective responsibility on any group, majority or otherwise, is to tell them that they're being a bit silly.

AndrewJRenko

breezy1985 wrote: »

Despite your belief that you are the authority on all things round here you do not get to decide what is debatable. That's a fact

So no flaws in the logic that you can actually point out then, that's what I thought.