Cycling Mikey

magicbastarder

folks, can we cool a little of the language here? it's friday evening and me (and the other mods) don't want to have to be keeping an eye on this thread

AndrewJRenko

Seve OB wrote: »

Look I’ve answered you. You said you didn’t believe that he reads out peoples texts, I’ve proven to you that he does.

I said that I didn't believe that he reads out private information.

AndrewJRenko

timmyjimmy wrote: »

Am no. I think its pretty much instilled in women to take a safe route home, take a dangerous once? I doubt they'll be back.

It's a pretty crap analogy anyway. Accidents can happen in cars. Attacking is not an accident.

Do you really not see the problem with instilling fear into women, instead of dealing effectively with the underlying issue?

They're not "accidents" btw - they are crashes. Let's stop using language designed to let motorists off the hook.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/11/17/crash-not-accident-better-road-safety-reporting-could-save-lives-show-researchers

km991148

Come on AJR, Just answer a straight question instead of going round all the houses here.. because this is the crux of it, the rest is just fluff

km991148 wrote: »

Lets start slow here - Do you think its a good idea to challenge the motorist after filming them doing something illegal (rudely, aggressively, calmly or otherwise) - particularly when you were not directly involved in the incident?

AndrewJRenko

cletus wrote: »

Thats assuming that the number of "dangerous drivers" on the road is a static thing. Is a dangerous driver always a dangerous driver whenever they get in the car? Thats why statistics are used. We dont say there were 12,000 dangerous drivers on the road, now we're down to 11,999



You were pretty quick to point out when you thought I had made a straw man argument, and not addressed your point specifically. I thought perhaps you'd acknowledge the part of the post where I tried to explain my point of view.

Regarding whether debating this on boards is worth the time, each person has to make that decision for themselves. In my first post on this thread, I acknowledged that he was catching people breaking the law, but I felt that there might be more rewarding or fulfilling things you could do with your time, given that he appears to wait around for extended spells hoping to catch these people, as opposed to being on the road, and filming situations where he has been involved in some sort of incident.

Personally, I enjoy posting on boards, but there reaches a point where I decide it's no longer worth my time. As far as this thread goes, I think I may have reached that point now.

I'm not assuming anything about dangerous drivers. I'm saying that each disqualified driver is one less dangerous driver on the road.

So you make your own decisions about the time you spend posting here, just like Mikey makes his own decisions about the time he spends recording drivers.

People need to dig deep and start being honest about the actual source of their discomfort about what Mikey and RTBI do in reporting dangerous drivers.

AndrewJRenko

km991148 wrote: »

Come on AJR, Just answer a straight question instead of going round all the houses here.. because this is the crux of it, the rest is just fluff

It's a bigger question. I'll respond over the weekend.

km991148

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

.

People need to dig deep and start being honest about the actual source of their discomfort about what Mikey and RTBI do in reporting dangerous drivers.

It's really very simple. It's great that he reports them but he doesn't need to be an arsehole after filming them.
It antagonists people and makes the roads worse for everyone.
Most people agree. Some (one?) doesn't.

km991148

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's a bigger question. I'll respond over the weekend.

It's really not. One could argue that if you do it politely it may be useful. But generally it's futile (imo), and I think CM is a bit arsey in his approach.
Fine, I don't cycle much in London and it's only himself to blame for a hiding..

Enjoy your weekend meanwhile.. as MB says.. it's Friday night :pac:

timmyjimmy

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you really not see the problem with instilling fear into women, instead of dealing effectively with the underlying issue?

They're not "accidents" btw - they are crashes. Let's stop using language designed to let motorists off the hook.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/11/17/crash-not-accident-better-road-safety-reporting-could-save-lives-show-researchers

It's not about instilling fear, the threat is always there. Unfortunately, I think we'll always see in the news about someone being attacked or murdered. It's very difficult to deal with the underlying issue, it's not going away. First and foremost, we must look after ourselves, both men and women. There was a person stabbed at the bottom of my road just before christmas. There were also some other attacks. I now don't walk home late at night (not that i'm coming from anywhere late much these days). This is an educated guess on my own experiences. Our neighbours do the same. If any of them were to be attacked, well they should have known better.

fair enough with crashes.

Paddigol

Deleted User wrote: »

In this case, it is a binary issue.
If he did nothing, there would be X number of dangerous drivers on the road
After someone gets banned for dangerous driving, there are now X-1 number of dangerous drivers on the road
That is a positive effect, no matter what way you spin it.
That is 100% objectively a fact and is not debatable.
Andrew is right in that others have shifted the goalposts and are now trying to argue the semantics of the impact that has, but, in the heel of the hunt, there are one fewer dangerous drivers on the road due to his actions.

FWIW, Mikey is a sh1tebag and deserves a slap for some of his antics. He does not do cyclists any favours in the long term, IMO. That doesn't alter the above statements though.

You could not be more wrong. It's not binary and I've pointed out why - your argument completely ignores the effect his behaviour has on drivers in their interaction with other cyclists. You're focusing solely on the fact that his reports may lead to a driver being disqualified (which I never suggested was not a positive outcome). You can bang on all you like about positive effect of dopey driver being disqualified for texting at wheel etc, but that is NOT the point being discussed.

Would the roads be safer for cyclists without drivers breaking the law? Undoubtedly.
Would the roads be safer for cyclists without Mikey carrying on the way he does? Unless you can produce evidence or peer reviewed reports to show that antagonised drivers do not vent their frustrations at other cyclists via punishment passes etc, then arguably YES they would.

Therefore it is NOT binary. To argue otherwise is to misunderstand either the difference between binary and non-binary or the very point being discussed.

Perhaps there has been a study undertaken as to the effects of such vigilante behaviour. Perhaps it shows that the overall effect is beneficial to other road users. If so I'll be delighted. If not, then its perfectly reasonable to debate the merit of Mikey's actions.

AndrewJRenko

Paddigol wrote: »

You could not be more wrong. It's not binary and I've pointed out why - your argument completely ignores the effect his behaviour has on drivers in their interaction with other cyclists. You're focusing solely on the fact that his reports may lead to a driver being disqualified (which I never suggested was not a positive outcome). You can bang on all you like about positive effect of dopey driver being disqualified for texting at wheel etc, but that is NOT the point being discussed.

Would the roads be safer for cyclists without drivers breaking the law? Undoubtedly.
Would the roads be safer for cyclists without Mikey carrying on the way he does? Unless you can produce evidence or peer reviewed reports to show that antagonised drivers do not vent their frustrations at other cyclists via punishment passes etc, then arguably YES they would.

Therefore it is NOT binary. To argue otherwise is to misunderstand either the difference between binary and non-binary or the very point being discussed.

Perhaps there has been a study undertaken as to the effects of such vigilante behaviour. Perhaps it shows that the overall effect is beneficial to other road users. If so I'll be delighted. If not, then its perfectly reasonable to debate the merit of Mikey's actions.

Do you not need to show evidence or peer reviewed reports to show that antagonised drivers do vent their frustrations at other cyclists via punishment passes etc?

Nothing vigilante in Mikey's actions - quite the opposite

Paddigol

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you not need to show evidence or peer reviewed reports to show that antagonised drivers do vent their frustrations at other cyclists via punishment passes etc?

Nothing vigilante in Mikey's actions - quite the opposite

It's quite simple, to stand over something as being 'fact' or 'binary' you need to provide evidence. Otherwise that something is open to debate.

Anybody suggesting that it's a fact that Mikey's actions make the roads more dangerous for cyclists would need to produce some evidence.

Anybody suggesting that it's a fact that Mikey's actions make the roads safer for cyclists (see above posts for binary -v- non-binary discussion before jumping on this point by reference to "disqualified driver = safer road") would need to produce some evidence.

In the absence of evidence, maybe we could have a civilised debate without trying to shut down others by reference to 'logic' and 'facts'?

Edit: Oxford English Dictionary - 'vigilante' - "a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate". I might not be irrefutably correct in describing his behaviour as vigilante, but nor would I be irrefutably incorrect. He certainly ticks a lot of the boxes.

hans aus dtschl

timmyjimmy wrote: »

Fair enough. I usually go down into Douglas myself. We've all seen righttobikeits videos showing it to be very hostile. I'm not sure why anyone would want to bring that on themselves. I'm not sure where your heading but both options take 45 mins to the city centre from Carrigaline.

Yeah it's all the same to me whichever way I go. I'm normally going to town, so I usually take that turn down into Douglas too. The whole area is really crappy, and all very hostile for cycling. There's no better or worse route, unfortunately, in my experience. I've no opinion of the RightToBikeIt guy or anyone else.

Eamonnator

Paddigol wrote: »

You could not be more wrong. It's not binary and I've pointed out why - your argument completely ignores the effect his behaviour has on drivers in their interaction with other cyclists. You're focusing solely on the fact that his reports may lead to a driver being disqualified (which I never suggested was not a positive outcome). You can bang on all you like about positive effect of dopey driver being disqualified for texting at wheel etc, but that is NOT the point being discussed.

Would the roads be safer for cyclists without drivers breaking the law? Undoubtedly.
Would the roads be safer for cyclists without Mikey carrying on the way he does? Unless you can produce evidence or peer reviewed reports to show that antagonised drivers do not vent their frustrations at other cyclists via punishment passes etc, then arguably YES they would.

Therefore it is NOT binary. To argue otherwise is to misunderstand either the difference between binary and non-binary or the very point being discussed.

Perhaps there has been a study undertaken as to the effects of such vigilante behaviour. Perhaps it shows that the overall effect is beneficial to other road users. If so I'll be delighted. If not, then its perfectly reasonable to debate the merit of Mikey's actions.

Just to lighten this thread up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_1zoX5Ax9U

timmyjimmy

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Yeah it's all the same to me whichever way I go. I'm normally going to town, so I usually take that turn down into Douglas too. The whole area is really crappy, and all very hostile for cycling. There's no better or worse route, unfortunately, in my experience. I've no opinion of the RightToBikeIt guy or anyone else.

In my experience, the road to Douglas is a lot safer. The main road all the way in is death trap.

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: Happy Friday, if you see a bold post, report it, I'll lock the thread until tomorrow to get it out of your system. Otherwise you can post again on this thread tomorrow.

Opened- let us be nicer from here on out.

km991148

This is a great system - can I have that option for all of boards.ie :pac: Like just make it all go away for a while!


CycingMikey - I think the whole thing is a bit much with the follow ups etc, but hes still doing a good job reporting crappy/illegal behaviour. Who knows his motivation for confronting drivers after - maybe it just to create better content, maybe he thinks he is being genuinely useful - but really not like anyone is going to change it..!
now.. time for another few 5km laps!

AndrewJRenko

Paddigol wrote: »

It's quite simple, to stand over something as being 'fact' or 'binary' you need to provide evidence. Otherwise that something is open to debate.

Anybody suggesting that it's a fact that Mikey's actions make the roads more dangerous for cyclists would need to produce some evidence.

Anybody suggesting that it's a fact that Mikey's actions make the roads safer for cyclists (see above posts for binary -v- non-binary discussion before jumping on this point by reference to "disqualified driver = safer road") would need to produce some evidence.

In the absence of evidence, maybe we could have a civilised debate without trying to shut down others by reference to 'logic' and 'facts'?

Edit: Oxford English Dictionary - 'vigilante' - "a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate". I might not be irrefutably correct in describing his behaviour as vigilante, but nor would I be irrefutably incorrect. He certainly ticks a lot of the boxes.

OK so, evidence;

https://twitter.com/MikeyCycling/status/1357076859163471872

He's now up to eight drivers disqualified, 25 drivers sent on awareness courses, >880 penalty points issued, >£50k in fines issued.

That's a big difference. That's hundreds of drivers who've got a very serious warning about their behaviour. That is making London a safer place for cyclists and all road users.

And again, he is the exact opposite of vigilante. Vigilantes take the law into their own hands. Mikey reports to the relevant authorities and let's the system do the work.

AndrewJRenko

km991148 wrote: »

It's really not. One could argue that if you do it politely it may be useful. But generally it's futile (imo), and I think CM is a bit arsey in his approach.
Fine, I don't cycle much in London and it's only himself to blame for a hiding..

Enjoy your weekend meanwhile.. as MB says.. it's Friday night :pac:

km991148 wrote: »

It's really very simple. It's great that he reports them but he doesn't need to be an arsehole after filming them.
It antagonists people and makes the roads worse for everyone.
Most people agree. Some (one?) doesn't.

km991148 wrote: »

Lets start slow here - Do you think its a good idea to challenge the motorist after filming them doing something illegal (rudely, aggressively, calmly or otherwise) - particularly when you were not directly involved in the incident?

You keep playing the 'rude, aggressive' card with zero evidence. In anything that I've seen, he is inflappably civil - possibly verging into condescending at time, or maybe passive aggressive, but definitely not aggressive or rude. If he flipped one time and called some a kid a wanker, then so be it - which amongst us have never flipped just a little - but that's certainly not typical or usual.

Look at his latest interaction;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoVtTwkNWHQ

He's at the driver's ear for a good 20 seconds before the driver notices, which is a good indication of the level of distraction from traffic activity. He says; "Nice bit of WhatsApping going on there, I don't think you should be doing that in the car" - absolute civility, no aggression, no rudeness, vaguely passive-aggressive perhaps at worst.

So what's the problem? What is so terrible about one adult having a brief conversation with another adult about problematic, anti-social behaviour like this? Do you ever have words with another adult - someone who pushed ahead of you in a queue or who drops litter on your lawn? Are you going to report to the authorities or are you just going to have a quick, civil yet firm word about their behaviour?

As it happens, the driver calls him so he can play the 'I'm a better person because I'm in a fancy car' game, so Mikey has a bit of a laugh at him - no swearing, no aggression, no threats - just a little civil back-and-forth between two adults.

Is there something particularly special about getting behind the wheel of a car that makes people immune to any basic interaction with others?

Here's a suggestion - maybe when you've had one-tenth of his success in reducing dangerous driving, maybe then you get to have a view on the appropriate nature of interaction with drivers. Until then, it might be best to say 'thanks Mikey'.

BTW, if you think Mikey is hardcore, you should definitely not watch Stop A Douchebag

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzzT6RCRuaE

MojoMaker

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You keep playing the 'rude, aggressive' card with zero evidence. In anything that I've seen, he is inflappably civil - possibly verging into condescending at time, or maybe passive aggressive, but definitely not aggressive or rude. If he flipped one time and called some a kid a wanker, then so be it - which amongst us have never flipped just a little - but that's certainly not typical or usual.

Look at his latest interaction;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoVtTwkNWHQ

So what's the problem? What is so terrible about one adult having a brief conversation with another adult about problematic, anti-social behaviour like this?

The elephant in the (virtual) room here, as you have alluded to Andrew, but nobody is owning up to, is that that guy in the car is anyone here, and nobody, but nobody wants to be called out for poor behaviour, because by and large we are all self-entitled to a greater or lesser degree and can't/won't accept that we are.

Cycling Mikey's methods are particularly galling to occasional visitors here, which explains why most of the noise in this thread is coming from folks that don't usually engage in the cycling forum and/or possibly don't cycle all that much - or indeed drive a lot more than they cycle.

I'll be perfectly honest, if Cycling Mikey tapped on my window and I was typing on a phone while stopped, I'd be a bit thick with him too.

We all need to look at ourselves to be honest.

km991148

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You keep playing the 'rude, aggressive' card with zero evidence. In anything that I've seen, he is inflappably civil - possibly verging into condescending at time, or maybe passive aggressive, but definitely not aggressive or rude. If he flipped one time and called some a kid a wanker, then so be it - which amongst us have never flipped just a little - but that's certainly not typical or usual.

Look at his latest interaction;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoVtTwkNWHQ

He's at the driver's ear for a good 20 seconds before the driver notices, which is a good indication of the level of distraction from traffic activity. He says; "Nice bit of WhatsApping going on there, I don't think you should be doing that in the car" - absolute civility, no aggression, no rudeness, vaguely passive-aggressive perhaps at worst.

So what's the problem? What is so terrible about one adult having a brief conversation with another adult about problematic, anti-social behaviour like this? Do you ever have words with another adult - someone who pushed ahead of you in a queue or who drops litter on your lawn? Are you going to report to the authorities or are you just going to have a quick, civil yet firm word about their behaviour?

As it happens, the driver calls him so he can play the 'I'm a better person because I'm in a fancy car' game, so Mikey has a bit of a laugh at him - no swearing, no aggression, no threats - just a little civil back-and-forth between two adults.

Lol I came here because YouTube just recommended that range rover video :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoVtTwkNWHQ

Everything after the 1:29 mark is unnecessary. The 'my car is better, you are jealous' conversation didn't need to happen and predictably the guy just boots it away, quite pissed off.
Why bother with the follow up? He had the evidence (or not as this one turned out to be, unfortunately). The police/authorities would (normally) issue the fine and I think (obviously I haven't conducted a peer reviewed study on this) lessons would be easier learned. A cyclist (or any randomer) sticking their beak in is pretty much always going to wind someone up and in my opinion will always detract from the point.



Incidentally, I don't need your permission, success with the police or any other such nonsense to have an opinion.

I have a few suggestions for you, but you probably don't want to hear them and it's beyond the point and will just detract from my own point (see what I did there..).

I've already said numerous times I think that Mikey is doing a great job reporting incidents but overall people like him (including yourself based on past videos you posted) don't do any of us (us= road users) any favours at all.

So yeah, thanks Mikey, but please sometimes, wind your neck in.

km991148

MojoMaker wrote: »

The elephant in the (virtual) room here, as you have alluded to Andrew, but nobody is owning up to, is that that guy in the car is anyone here, and nobody, but nobody wants to be called out for poor behaviour, because by and large we are all self-entitled to a greater or lesser degree and can't/won't accept that we are.

.

Maybe, but genuinely I try to drive and cycle like this guy

https://youtu.be/lo3tSswZV7Q

Do I succeed all the time? No, sometimes I speed or jump a red or whatever. When I was younger and mobiles were new I'd probably be daft enough to use one (these days it's on car mode in the glove box).

If I get caught it's my own tough ****, but for some people the do get thick (Christ probably me too in the wrong mood) and when people get thick it impairs their driving.
The police won't let someone drive off in a bad mood, but Mikey isn't the police. So no matter how calmly he makes it look (which really is passive aggression a lot if the time) he is in danger of winding up the other party which is downright dangerous.

No matter how many people he gets fined (or helps the police to fine people), he never had the authority nor the right to go preaching at people.


Thankfully it seems the majority agree with me and the streets aren't awash with this sort of behaviour.

km991148

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

BTW, if you think Mikey is hardcore, you should definitely not watch Stop A Douchebag

I don't think he's hardcore, just a bit of a prick sometimes and I think he would be far more useful/successful if he cut the chats. But that probably doesn't give him the same sense of self validation. Unfortunate, especially if someone thumps him.

AndrewJRenko

km991148 wrote: »

Everything after the 1:29 mark is unnecessary. The 'my car is better, you are jealous' conversation didn't need to happen and predictably the guy just boots it away, quite pissed off.
Why bother with the follow up? He had the evidence (or not as this one turned out to be, unfortunately). The police/authorities would (normally) issue the fine and I think (obviously I haven't conducted a peer reviewed study on this) lessons would be easier learned. A cyclist (or any randomer) sticking their beak in is pretty much always going to wind someone up and in my opinion will always detract from the point.



Incidentally, I don't need your permission, success with the police or any other such nonsense to have an opinion.

I have a few suggestions for you, but you probably don't want to hear them and it's beyond the point and will just detract from my own point (see what I did there..).

I've already said numerous times I think that Mikey is doing a great job reporting incidents but overall people like him (including yourself based on past videos you posted) don't do any of us (us= road users) any favours at all.

So yeah, thanks Mikey, but please sometimes, wind your neck in.

Everything after the 1.29 mark happened because the driver wanted to take a swipe at Mikey. Mikey didn't initiate it. He responded calmly, clearly, sticking to point about the danger of using the phone while driving.

In fairness, you're right, you don't permission from me or anyone to have your opinion. But let's call it like it is - a 'hurler on the ditch' opinion from someone who isn't achieving anything near Mikey's achievements (taking nine disqualified drivers off the road and more besides). It's about as relevant as the pub bore's opinion on the Irish rugby team line up this afternoon.

It reminds me of all the 'tone policing' opinions that were floating about during the Repeal campaign, telling the young ladies that they should be nice and more respectful to the old men who were telling them how to control their reproductive systems. We know how the Repeal campaign worked out.

And just in case anyone has lost sight of how big the stakes are on this issue, here's what happens when mobile phone use goes unchallenged;

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/courtandcrime/arid-40243469.html

Cee-Jay-Cee

I read the title as ‘cycling mickey’ and thought this was a new name for numb nuts

CramCycle

Got a pedestrian light yesterday to cross the road with my son. Everyone stopped bar a driver in a VW vigorously scrolling away. Never seen the lights, never noticed us. The DB driver behind them looked shocked, the van driver in the other direction face palmed. We were fine because we are so used to it, we don't cross when it goes green as you have to wait for cars to stop. Nearly always it's drivers on their phones. It is beside 2 national schools. It's only a matter of time.

This said Mickey starting on people, and he is civil (not disputing that) rather than just reporting feels like he is doing it more for viewers than the actual achievement. I am jealous he has so much time and I think his attrition rate would be 4 fold if he simply took details and left.

He is a asshole. Yes the drivers are wrong, but it is polices job to manage, not his. Someone is going to take the camera from him and make him eat it

fryup

yep, sooner or late he's going to mess with the wrong guy

AndrewJRenko

CramCycle wrote: »

This said Mickey starting on people, and he is civil (not disputing that) rather than just reporting feels like he is doing it more for viewers than the actual achievement. I am jealous he has so much time and I think his attrition rate would be 4 fold if he simply took details and left.

Slight exaggeration there on the 'four fold'? The viewers that he gets create a significant deterrent. Like the ancient Romans who put the heads of their defeated enemies on spikes on public display, letting as many people as possible know of the existence of these dreadful cyclists who will rat you out is bound to have positive results to some extent. How many people who've seen a couple of his videos will be playing with their phones while driving around those parts of London at least?

Deleted User wrote: »

He is a asshole. Yes the drivers are wrong, but it is polices job to manage, not his. Someone is going to take the camera from him and make him eat it

Clearly, if he's been able to get nine drivers disqualified and had more than 500 penalty points issued, the police are not doing the job of managing it. So he's giving them a helping hand by reporting crimes with evidence, and letting the police finish the job off with prosecutions and points.

Is everyone who reports a crime with CCTV evidence an asshole, or is it just Mikey?

There was a reality show on yesterday with motorbike cops in Australia giving out instant on-the-spot disqualifications for speeding and mobile phone offences, taking the number plates off cars and holding them for a three month period. We really need to up our game here.

CramCycle

In times past I would have acted like him, stood my ground (not the YouTube bit) but nowadays, if I'm arsed, I report them. Having seen the steady shift in people.willing to go that bit further regardless of the consequences, it's not worth the risk. This said, it highlights the real issue here. In Ireland we for down a Garda to it, make a statement, have a super decide to proceed and a load of other stuff. In London, upload video, report, job done. Our system is hugely flawed. It was better when they used to use discretion and stir a bit of fear but they don't even do that anymore.

km991148

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Everything after the 1.29 mark happened because the driver wanted to take a swipe at Mikey. Mikey didn't initiate it. He responded calmly, clearly, sticking to point about the danger of using the phone while driving.

In fairness, you're right, you don't permission from me or anyone to have your opinion. But let's call it like it is - a 'hurler on the ditch' opinion from someone who isn't achieving anything near Mikey's achievements (taking nine disqualified drivers off the road and more besides). It's about as relevant as the pub bore's opinion on the Irish rugby team line up this afternoon.

After 1:29 may have been initiated by the driver, but just because someone tries to engage, doesn't mean to say you have to interact. He does it all the time, even with children.

Hurler from the ditch and pub bore.. yeah no problem..!

Here's what I do to reduce accident and crappy behaviour.. I practice good assertive cycling, reading the road ahead and with clear communication. I try to drive the same. I don't go out my way to wind others up and I don't turn every interaction with another road user into some Us Vs them bs argument. I lead by example and the more people that done that the better.

Going by your own posts, videos and language (how you often you use the tugging at the forelock expression etc) you would probably benefit from the same attitude and have way less stress on your rides. I have seen videos you have posted with incidents that could easily be avoided (or at least I would have avoided).

I'm saying this calmly and respectfully, but you are probably going to disagree and additionally not like what I have to say.

Additionally, just because I don't have a YouTube account and I'm not driven by the need to self validate, doesn't mean to say I haven't also done my fair share of reporting.

km991148

CramCycle wrote: »

In times past I would have acted like him, stood my ground (not the YouTube bit) but nowadays, if I'm arsed, I report them. Having seen the steady shift in people.willing to go that bit further regardless of the consequences, it's not worth the risk. This said, it highlights the real issue here. In Ireland we for down a Garda to it, make a statement, have a super decide to proceed and a load of other stuff. In London, upload video, report, job done. Our system is hugely flawed. It was better when they used to use discretion and stir a bit of fear but they don't even do that anymore.

It would be brilliant if we had that system here, it seems a no brainer as well.. it's free money really!

The only problem I would see is an increase in behaviour like Mikeys with the backchat and potential for agro. But it's probably still worth it.

And that's my point. Reporting is good and on balance he is probably still doing more good than harm, but he could do better by just not getting involved.
The getting involved part is some ego trip or misguided feeling of rights to authority (and yes, I get it, his father was unfortunately killed in a preventable death and it's probably why he started doing this).

km991148

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And just in case anyone has lost sight of how big the stakes are on this issue, here's what happens when mobile phone use goes unchallenged;

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/courtandcrime/arid-40243469.html

And really? Do we need to go looking up tragic stories here? Want me to dig out some road rage incidents that led to death or injuries after escalations from exchanging words?

I don't think this is required really. You are using danger and death to argue against someone who is advocating that we all take a safer approach to road use (including the handling of pricks breaking the law).

km991148

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Is everyone who reports a crime with CCTV evidence an asshole, or is it just Mikey?

Once again you seem to be missing the point. Reporting the crimes is not what makes him an arsehole. It's the little follow ups and micro aggressions.

Interesting tho.. you are illustrating my point exactly. If you are keen to jump to that conclusion, isn't it at all possible that one of the drivers or teenagers that he has a chat with will jump to the same conclusion?

AndrewJRenko

km991148 wrote: »

Once again you seem to be missing the point. Reporting the crimes is not what makes him an arsehole. It's the little follow ups and micro aggressions.

Interesting tho.. you are illustrating my point exactly. If you are keen to jump to that conclusion, isn't it at all possible that one of the drivers or teenagers that he has a chat with will jump to the same conclusion?

So what? Since when did "not offending dangerous drivers" become the important priority?

AndrewJRenko

km991148 wrote: »

And really? Do we need to go looking up tragic stories here? Want me to dig out some road rage incidents that led to death or injuries after escalations from exchanging words?

I don't think this is required really. You are using danger and death to argue against someone who is advocating that we all take a safer approach to road use (including the handling of pricks breaking the law).

Gwan then - dig out details of road range incidents involving cyclists reporting traffic offences like this.

CramCycle

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Slight exaggeration there on the 'four fold'? The viewers that he gets create a significant deterrent. Like the ancient Romans who put the heads of their defeated enemies on spikes on public display, letting as many people as possible know of the existence of these dreadful cyclists who will rat you out is bound to have positive results to some extent. How many people who've seen a couple of his videos will be playing with their phones while driving around those parts of London at least?

I think you over estimate how many people watch YouTube and see his style of videos and also how many see it and never make the leap back to their own behaviour. The time he spends pointing out what they've done wrong, he would have taken a video of many more and had many more fines issued. I don't disagree with what he is at but I won't pretend it's for more than hits on YouTube.

AndrewJRenko

CramCycle wrote: »

I think you over estimate how many people watch YouTube and see his style of videos and also how many see it and never make the leap back to their own behaviour. The time he spends pointing out what they've done wrong, he would have taken a video of many more and had many more fines issued. I don't disagree with what he is at but I won't pretend it's for more than hits on YouTube.

He's got more than 20k views on one video from a week ago. If just 1% of those viewers relate the video to their own driving style, that's 200 better drivers on the road for one video in one week.

km991148

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So what? Since when did "not offending dangerous drivers" become the important priority?

Take the blinkers off for a second here.. it's not about 'offending dangerous drivers'. No one is stating that point and I think that's your bias at play.

It's about not causing further aggro. People are suggesting that this can lead to further road rage as well as feed the 'all cyclists are arseholes' mentality. No one is saying counter aggression by drivers is right, but for the sake of the greater good, many people including myself believe the better thing to do is not engage.

I think I'm right in stating that you disagree and possibly that this is a sign of weakness or something? But knowing when to walk away and let arseholes be arseholes is a good thing (in my opinion) and contributes to an overall better environment to cycle in.

Once again, I cannot state clearly enough that the reporting of drivers that Mikey does is great and also (in my opinion again because obviously it cannot be directly proven) contributes to a safer environment.

km991148

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Gwan then - dig out details of road range incidents involving cyclists reporting traffic offences like this.

No. It's entirely unnecessary and will just lead to another pedantic tangent.

A quick web search will show many such incidents (here and the UK).

No need to bring them in here we all know the dangers of road rage as much as we know the dangers of mobile use.

Edit
And once again you seem to be (I can only assume deliberately at this stage) ignoring the point that it is not about the reporting but the follow up conversations.

timmyjimmy

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Gwan then - dig out details of road range incidents involving cyclists reporting traffic offences like this.

Not exactly reporting a traffic offence but an example of how quick things can turn when you go pointing out issues to drivers:

Weepsie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

He's got more than 20k views on one video from a week ago. If just 1% of those viewers relate the video to their own driving style, that's 200 better drivers on the road for one video in one week.

This is where we ask you for statistics to back that up, and/or peer reviewed evidence.

Youre very quick to dismiss other who make similar statements if they are contrary to this and or your views, so if you are going to make that statement, back it up.

I'd hold the view that this won't change close to 200 people's driving styles but it will feed the neverending cyclists v drivers agendas and leave people with incorrect assumptions about all drivers/cyclists.


He has stated he has 100s of hours if in uploaded stuff. I'd wager his own cycling roadcraft isn't perfect all the time, and he's pretty selective about what he puts up.

cletus

Weepsie wrote: »

This is where we ask you for statistics to back that up, and/or peer reviewed evidence.

Youre very quick to dismiss other who make similar statements if they are contrary to this and or your views, so if you are going to make that statement, back it up.

I'd hold the view that this won't change close to 200 people's driving styles but it will feed the neverending cyclists v drivers agendas and leave people with incorrect assumptions about all drivers/cyclists.


He has stated he has 100s of hours if in uploaded stuff. I'd wager his own cycling roadcraft isn't perfect all the time, and he's pretty selective about what he puts up.

Weepsie, lots of posts in this thread show a lack of understanding as to how statistics work. Posters are acting as if there is a finite, absolute number of dangerous drivers on the road, as well as these dangerous drivers always being dangerous whenever they're in their car, and finally conflating breaking the law with dangerous driving. Looking at your phone while stopped in traffic, while breaking the law, is not the same as looking at it while moving, nor is it the same as drink driving. Assumptions that people doing it while stopped will do it while moving are just that, assumptions.

Dr_Colossus

timmyjimmy wrote: »

Not exactly reporting a traffic offence but an example of how quick things can turn when you go pointing out issues to drivers:

Wow, that's some nutter, hadn't seen that one before.
Looking at the youtube comments it looks like the BMW couple only received a caution. What kind of pathetic outcome is that with threatening video evidence. Why weren't they at the very least fined and points given for running the red light which should have been an easy prosecution.

km991148

timmyjimmy wrote: »

Not exactly reporting a traffic offence but an example of how quick things can turn when you go pointing out issues to drivers:

For all my talk of driving/cycling responsibly, I think it would have been hard not to react to that one...!! :pac:


Note tho- the point was never about the reaction to reporting a driving offence - that was introduced by Andrew.

timmyjimmy

Dr_Colossus wrote: »

Wow, that's some nutter, hadn't seen that one before.
Looking at the youtube comments it looks like the BMW couple only received a caution. What kind of pathetic outcome is that with threatening video evidence. Why weren't they at the very least fined and points given for running the red light which should have been an easy prosecution.

It's an old video so I guess cycling offenses weren't taken as seriously then. I know that would have been difficult not to say anything but it's proof that sometimes it's worthwhile being careful and not saying anything as you don't know what form people are inside a car.

a_squirrelman

timmyjimmy wrote: »

Not exactly reporting a traffic offence but an example of how quick things can turn when you go pointing out issues to drivers:

Jesus. That's something else. He needs his licence taken from him. I probably couldn't remain calm if that was in my face.

AndrewJRenko

km991148 wrote: »

No. It's entirely unnecessary and will just lead to another pedantic tangent.
A quick web search will show many such incidents (here and the UK).
No need to bring them in here we all know the dangers of road rage as much as we know the dangers of mobile use.
Edit
And once again you seem to be (I can only assume deliberately at this stage) ignoring the point that it is not about the reporting but the follow up conversations.

Actually, there are very few such incidents. RTBI in Cork is a very interesting example. He’s been on YouTube for four years. He posts incidents involving engagement with drivers daily on Twitter, often multiple incidents each day. He’s a good bit more ‘in your face’ than Mikey.
And he’s had one incident like this in four years. And the worst it got was a bit of obnoxious shouting.

km991148 wrote: »

After 1:29 may have been initiated by the driver, but just because someone tries to engage, doesn't mean to say you have to interact. He does it all the time, even with children.

Sure, he doesn’t ‘have to’ interact, just as the driver doesn’t ‘have to’ call him back, but you’re happy to put all blame and responsibility on one side. And blame for what – yet another civil, calm conversation on Mikey’s side, but apparently, it would be Mikey’s fault if the driver lost the head and ran him down. Are you one of those people who, when the battered wife shows up with the black eye, you ask her what she did to annoy her husband?
And when you say ‘does it all the time, even with children’, you mean to say that he once had a bit of banter with some teenagers who were abusing him, right?

km991148 wrote: »

Here's what I do to reduce accident and crappy behaviour.. I practice good assertive cycling, reading the road ahead and with clear communication. I try to drive the same. I don't go out my way to wind others up and I don't turn every interaction with another road user into some Us Vs them bs argument. I lead by example and the more people that done that the better.
Going by your own posts, videos and language (how you often you use the tugging at the forelock expression etc) you would probably benefit from the same attitude and have way less stress on your rides. I have seen videos you have posted with incidents that could easily be avoided (or at least I would have avoided).

Well, good for you, though I’ve no idea what your cycling style or my cycling style has to do with Mikey’s interactions. I’ve no idea what of my videos you’re referring to either, so unless you’d like to produce some specifics, it’s not really productive to the conversation.
As it happens, for me, and presumably for Mikey, interactions like this aren’t the slightest bit stressful. In fact, leaving dangerous drivers to continue their dangerous drinking without any possibility of them changing their behaviour would be far more stressful for me. It sounds like that would be different for you, and that’s OK. I don’t think Mikey or me or anyone is telling you that you HAVE to tell bad drivers what to do. If you don’t want to engage with drivers, that’s OK for you. It doesn’t mean that you get to tell others on the road what to do.

km991148 wrote: »

Additionally, just because I don't have a YouTube account and I'm not driven by the need to self validate, doesn't mean to say I haven't also done my fair share of reporting.

Let’s compare notes then – what’s your track record of getting drivers disqualified, issued with penalty points and fined compared to Mikey, who’s technique you seem to think you are qualified to critique?

km991148 wrote: »

Once again you seem to be missing the point. Reporting the crimes is not what makes him an arsehole. It's the little follow ups and micro aggressions.

Interesting tho.. you are illustrating my point exactly. If you are keen to jump to that conclusion, isn't it at all possible that one of the drivers or teenagers that he has a chat with will jump to the same conclusion?

You really don’t need to answer for everyone. Not everyone has the same opinion to you about these matters.

km991148 wrote: »

Take the blinkers off for a second here.. it's not about 'offending dangerous drivers'. No one is stating that point and I think that's your bias at play.
It's about not causing further aggro. People are suggesting that this can lead to further road rage as well as feed the 'all cyclists are arseholes' mentality. No one is saying counter aggression by drivers is right, but for the sake of the greater good, many people including myself believe the better thing to do is not engage.
I think I'm right in stating that you disagree and possibly that this is a sign of weakness or something? But knowing when to walk away and let arseholes be arseholes is a good thing (in my opinion) and contributes to an overall better environment to cycle in.
Once again, I cannot state clearly enough that the reporting of drivers that Mikey does is great and also (in my opinion again because obviously it cannot be directly proven) contributes to a safer environment.

I fully agree that knowing when to walk away is important. I happen to have a different opinion to you on when is a good time to walk away.
I often engage with drivers who have passed me on their phones, though probably for different reasons to Mikey.
If someone passes me on the phone and I catch up with them at the lights, I will often try to get their attention and ask them if they could put their phone away in future. Their response guides my decision as to whether to report the matter to the Gardai or not. If I get a response that leads me to believe that there is any half chance of them taking my point, then I won’t take the matter any further. If I get a response that leads me to indicate that there is little chance of them doing things differently in future, I’ll make a Garda report, assuming that the camera footage comes out well. It rarely gets in any way heated, as I know that will cause difficulties for me when it comes to the Garda report.
There’s two drivers with penalty points and fines in the post to them this week as a result of recent 1km section of traffic.
That’s making the roads a safer environment for all road users.

But this thread isn't about your style or my style. It is about Mikey's style.

Again, there is no explanation for why you persistently disapprove of calm, assertive engagement by Mikey - because 'it might wind drivers up'. Do you ever actually speak up for yourself to other adults - whether the neighbour who's dog craps on your lawn or the boor in the pub abusing other drinkers or the idiot who pushes his way in front of you in the ATM queue? Do you avoid speaking to these people, just in case you wind them up?

Weepsie wrote: »

This is where we ask you for statistics to back that up, and/or peer reviewed evidence.
Youre very quick to dismiss other who make similar statements if they are contrary to this and or your views, so if you are going to make that statement, back it up.
I'd hold the view that this won't change close to 200 people's driving styles but it will feed the neverending cyclists v drivers agendas and leave people with incorrect assumptions about all drivers/cyclists.

Of course, I have no evidence to back up this claim, just as you have no evidence to back up your claim. So let me rephrase it: do you reckon that the number of people who have changed their driving style for the better after seeing the hundreds, if not thousands of videos on his YouTube and Twitter channels, is a positive number? Is it greater than zero, in your honest opinion?

Weepsie wrote: »

He has stated he has 100s of hours if in uploaded stuff. I'd wager his own cycling roadcraft isn't perfect all the time, and he's pretty selective about what he puts up.

So what? Is there some purity standard is required before any of us make a Garda report of a crime?

cletus wrote: »

Weepsie, lots of posts in this thread show a lack of understanding as to how statistics work. Posters are acting as if there is a finite, absolute number of dangerous drivers on the road, as well as these dangerous drivers always being dangerous whenever they're in their car, and finally conflating breaking the law with dangerous driving. Looking at your phone while stopped in traffic, while breaking the law, is not the same as looking at it while moving, nor is it the same as drink driving. Assumptions that people doing it while stopped will do it while moving are just that, assumptions.

This is almost completely untrue.
The one thing you’ve got right here is that the assumption that people who look at their phone while driving will also do it while moving is indeed an assumption. It is an assumption based on numerous personal examples of seeing exactly this scenario happen, so it does happen in some cases, though not in all cases.
There is no assumption about their being a finite, absolute number of dangerous drivers. Getting nine drivers disqualified means nine less dangerous drivers on the road. It doesn’t say anything about the total number of dangerous drivers on the road – that could be higher or lower, depending on other things. But the number is nine less than it would otherwise be if Mikey hadn’t made is reports.
Looking at your phone while stopped IS dangerous driving. I’m not talking about the traffic offence of ‘dangerous driving’. I’m talking about the general term of dangerous driving. Looking at your phone while stopped in traffic distracts the driver from noticing what is going on around them. That’s why it is an offence here in Ireland and around the world. The Aus show I mentioned showed a driver getting an on-the-spot disqualification for driving with the phone on her lap, not even having to look at it.

timmyjimmy wrote: »

It's an old video so I guess cycling offenses weren't taken as seriously then. I know that would have been difficult not to say anything but it's proof that sometimes it's worthwhile being careful and not saying anything as you don't know what form people are inside a car.

It’s also proof that out of four years of frequent engagement with dangerous drivers, the worst thing that happens really isn’t life-threateningly dangerous, at the end of the day.

And ajr has a new deity

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Is everyone who reports a crime with CCTV evidence an asshole, or is it just Mikey?

.

I think you are too invested to see the wood