Cycling Mikey

km991148

I deliberately broke posts into smaller specific conversations for a reason....

All I read is most people want to get on with other road users and arrive safely.

Some people are dicks (law breaking etc)

And some people just *really* have a chip on their shoulder.

I'm glad most people fall into the first category.

timmyjimmy

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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?


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?

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

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.

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.

TL;DR

AndrewJRenko

km991148 wrote: »

All I read is most people want to get on with other road users and arrive safely.

Some people are dicks (law breaking etc)

Yep, that's 100% correct. And the more dangerous drivers get some kind of penalty for their dangerous driving, the better your chances of arriving safely in future.

cletus

Simply by using the word "less" you are suggesting there was an original number of dangerous drivers, and his actions have quantifiably reduced this. I don't know if that's your intention, but it is the result.

You keep referring to "dangerous drivers" as if there are people who, by default, are always dangerous whenever they are in a car. The reality here is much more nuanced. People may, for a whole host of reasons, break the law or perform a dangerous manoeuvre on the road that may not be in keeping with how they drive the rest of the time.

Otherwise the "nine less dangerous drivers" doesn't make sense. Nine less than what? You can say nine less than there were, but this still presupposes an original number that there can be nine less than

What we can say is that his actions have contributed to 9 people being removed from the road, who were either breaking the law, or driving dangerously. What the net effect is, nobody can really say.

I'm pretty sure you'll now take one sentence from what I've said, and partially respond.

km991148

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And ajr has a new deity

I'm beginning to wonder.. is Mikey ajrs alter ego??
Has anyone ever seen them both together!

Ajr.. I say this with respect to the forum but you are going way ott here... As is often the case, a fairly light hearted* thread has become a giant pain in the hole. I'm glad more cyclists are not like Mikey. I do however wish more cyclists would report.


*Of course driving with a phone is not at all light hearted, I feel I need to say that because I just know if I don't then you will jump to that conclusion.. I'm talking about the thread.

km991148

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yep, that's 100% correct. And the more dangerous drivers get some kind of penalty for their dangerous driving, the better your chances of arriving safely in future.

No one is disputing that. You are constantly misinterpreting the point.

Mikey is a bit of a prick in a lot of his videos. That's it.
You don't think so. Fine.

Incidentally bringing into question my character and the insinuations of weakness or not standing up for myself or what ever other bollocks says more about you than it does me..


Edit.: No actually Mikey is not a bit of a prick. He's a downright passive aggressive arseshole. He's looking for trouble because he gets a rise out if it. I've see similar behaviour by some posters here. That's the difference. When I do call someone out (for dangerous driving/cycling, crapping on my lawn or whatever other made up scenario) then I call them out directly with no ulterior motive. Mikey has one- to satisfy the chip on his shoulder. That there is the difference and it's also why (I imagine) most people seem to think the same.

Some people just go looking for trouble and based on your videos and posts, I'm suggesting you may also be in that category (of looking for trouble, I'm not calling you an arsehole btw!!).

Weepsie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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?

I wouldn't say it is. I would say in our little world of increasingly polarising views, he is reinforcing the strong held beliefs of those who dislike cyclists and making it a bit more hostile for people who come into contact with them. If he simply reported it, then I've no problem.

There are other fora on the internet, dedicated to driving and other pastimes and they shred into him.

His behaviour in hiding in bushes is not that of a normal person, and I'd say it's a matter of time before someone possibly is justified in reporting him for what is at best strange behaviour.


And on that, I'll.kindly ask you to stop insisting people back up, show their research, data etc when you can't do the same for any of your own assertions.

You keep being insistent on it with other posters, when later stating assumptions as facts.

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. .

Himself and another notorious Irish YouTube cyclist (who no longer post there) while pointing out various infringements, are guilty of p!as poor awareness themselves due to their fixation on seemingly trivial things to catch people out.

Film it, note it and report it.

And for your satisfaction on engaging with drivers. Last driver I had an issue with, tried pushing me off bike and then drove his car at me after I had caught up with him. He got done for the dangerous driving as he got caught up in his own excuse trying to justify what happened. I could've had a lot less stress just reporting the bad driving.

Seve OB

WOW.

I’m not even going to bother reading the last couple of pages.

I guess I should apologise to the masses for starting this thread looking at where is has gone! I just though Mikey is a bit of an arse and wondered if I was alone in my thinking. I’m clearly not, most seem to have same opinion as I do.......... most

AndrewJRenko

cletus wrote: »

Simply by using the word "less" you are suggesting there was an original number of dangerous drivers, and his actions have quantifiably reduced this. I don't know if that's your intention, but it is the result.

You keep referring to "dangerous drivers" as if there are people who, by default, are always dangerous whenever they are in a car. The reality here is much more nuanced. People may, for a whole host of reasons, break the law or perform a dangerous manoeuvre on the road that may not be in keeping with how they drive the rest of the time.

Otherwise the "nine less dangerous drivers" doesn't make sense. Nine less than what? You can say nine less than there were, but this still presupposes an original number that there can be nine less than

What we can say is that his actions have contributed to 9 people being removed from the road, who were either breaking the law, or driving dangerously. What the net effect is, nobody can really say.

I'm pretty sure you'll now take one sentence from what I've said, and partially respond.

Nine less dangerous drivers than would be on the road if Mikey wasn't doing his thing.

km991148

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Nine less dangerous drivers than would be on the road if Mikey wasn't doing his thing.

You're both wrong. "Nine less dangerous drivers" really doesn't make sense at all.



.
.
.
.
.
.


It's "Nine fewer dangerous drivers"...

crazy 88

Where does he get all the time? Fair enough if you spot these things on your regular commute, but this is a professional curtain twitcher. A very sad individual.

a_squirrelman

crazy 88 wrote: »

Where does he get all the time? Fair enough if you spot these things on your regular commute, but this is a professional curtain twitcher. A very sad individual.

Retired? He clearly isn't working with all that free time. At least righttobikeit is posting from his commute.

cletus

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Nine less dangerous drivers than would be on the road if Mikey wasn't doing his thing.

Ok, putting aside everything else I've said, let's go with nine less dangerous drivers (sorry, km)

Apart from those nine people not being able to drive, what has been the outcome, or result, of them not being on the road

a_squirrelman

But I would have to agree with earlier posters. It must be about the YouTube clicks at this stage given his style.

crazy 88

crazy 88 wrote: »

Where does he get all the time? Fair enough if you spot these things on your regular commute, but this is a professional curtain twitcher. A very sad individual.

He's a skate training teacher I have seen

km991148

crazy 88 wrote: »

Where does he get all the time? Fair enough if you spot these things on your regular commute, but this is a professional curtain twitcher. A very sad individual.

a_squirrelman wrote: »

But I would have to agree with earlier posters. It must be about the YouTube clicks at this stage given his style.

Pop psychology hat on here but I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say he is motivated by the tragic death of his father at the hands of a drunk driver and that may (entirely understandably) be influencing his style somewhat. Unlike some other YouTubers I don't believe he is purely doing it for YouTube money (although probably doing not bad from it at this stage) but genuinely believes his little chats are 'helping'.


That's my take, pure speculation, not going to be pulling peer reviewed research papers or stats.

km991148

Christ I need lockdown to end soon lol I've nearly as much time on my hands as Mikey.. irony aside, I've always wondered how he got the info on points/fines etc as I was pretty sure they wouldn't give that info to the reporter.. I actually think he's putting in a freedom of information request for each one (one of the videos was numbered FOIXXXX).

I wonder if that's automated or just more work (for him and the authorities). I'm gonna guess it still pays off - but he must spend a lot of time in this!

AndrewJRenko

crazy 88 wrote: »

Where does he get all the time? Fair enough if you spot these things on your regular commute, but this is a professional curtain twitcher. A very sad individual.

Says the lad twitching the curtain to look at the Mikey discussion thread...

Where do people get the time to be posting on Boards about him?

AndrewJRenko

km991148 wrote: »

Christ I need lockdown to end soon lol I've nearly as much time on my hands as Mikey.. irony aside, I've always wondered how he got the info on points/fines etc as I was pretty sure they wouldn't give that info to the reporter.. I actually think he's putting in a freedom of information request for each one (one of the videos was numbered FOIXXXX).

I wonder if that's automated or just more work (for him and the authorities). I'm gonna guess it still pays off - but he must spend a lot of time in this!

I think he gets a formal response from the police on the outcome of his complaint - another aspect where the UK's system is superior to here.

AndrewJRenko

cletus wrote: »

Ok, putting aside everything else I've said, let's go with nine less dangerous drivers (sorry, km)

Apart from those nine people not being able to drive, what has been the outcome, or result, of them not being on the road

The outcome is that the roads are safer for all road users than they would be if those nine drivers were still driving.

cletus

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The outcome is that the roads are safer for all road users than they would be if those nine drivers were still driving.

And have you some method of quantifying this? Is there some metric you can apply that shows greater safety

AndrewJRenko

a_squirrelman wrote: »

Retired? He clearly isn't working with all that free time. At least righttobikeit is posting from his commute.

He has mentioned working in what sounds like a personal care role for a person with a disability.

AndrewJRenko

cletus wrote: »

And have you some method of quantifying this? Is ther come metric you can apply that shows greater safety

The metric is the absence of nine dangerous drivers.

Why do you think we have a penalty points system that disqualifies dangerous drivers?

Weepsie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The metric is the absence of nine dangerous drivers.

Why do you think we have a penalty points system that disqualifies dangerous drivers?

Disqualified doesn't mean they're not driving.

Also, you've come very close to personally insulting 2 posters now in this thread, and I note that 1 has come close to personally insulting you. However stop with the posting things as an absolute proof when they are not, all the while insisting on the proof of others.

Everyone else. We think we get it and we're eveyone stands

crazy 88

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Says the lad twitching the curtain to look at the Mikey discussion thread...

Where do people get the time to be posting on Boards about him?

Is that you Mikey

AndrewJRenko

Weepsie wrote: »

Disqualified doesn't mean they're not driving.

.

If they are still driving, do you reckon that they are all driving in the same reckless manner that brought them to police attention in the past? And do you reckon that the drivers who got the 800+ penalty points issued as a result of his report, do you reckon they're all driving in the same reckless manner as before?

km991148

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If they are still driving, do you reckon that they are all driving in the same reckless manner that brought them to police attention in the past? And do you reckon that the drivers who got the 800+ penalty points issued as a result of his report, do you reckon they're all driving in the same reckless manner as before?

No one knows as it's all speculation at the end of the day (and that's kinda the point).

It's probably reasonable to assume dishing out points and fines does change driver behaviour for the better, otherwise we would have changed the system at some point.

It's also reasonable for some people to assume that winding people up doesn't help.

Both if these are ultimately assumptions.. which neither of us have evidence or studies to back up or test these assumptions.

If I'm not mistaken you've asked for evidence on the second point about the passive aggression or wind ups hence why people are probably asking you for evidence to prove the first point.

Weepsie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If they are still driving, do you reckon that they are all driving in the same reckless manner that brought them to police attention in the past? And do you reckon that the drivers who got the 800+ penalty points issued as a result of his report, do you reckon they're all driving in the same reckless manner as before?

Experience tells me (and stats too disqualified driver nos are up 33% in the uk as of last year according to the dvla) that yeah, many of them are.

We have quarter of a million people in ireland with penalty points for some offence or other. I can't remember how many of them exactly, but it was a high percentage have more than 1 offence. Repeat offenders are just that.

magicbastarder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Where do people get the time to be posting on Boards about him?

Usually while I'm driving. It's why some of my posts might come across as distracted.

AndrewJRenko

Weepsie wrote: »

Experience tells me (and stats too disqualified driver nos are up 33% in the uk as of last year according to the dvla) that yeah, many of them are.

We have quarter of a million people in ireland with penalty points for some offence or other. I can't remember how many of them exactly, but it was a high percentage have more than 1 offence. Repeat offenders are just that.

An increase in the number of disqualified drivers tells you nothing about whether those drivers are still driving.

What's your best guess - do you reckon some of the nine dangerous drivers, including the recognisable Guy Ritchie have stopped driving for the period of disqualification?

cletus

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The metric is the absence of nine dangerous drivers.

Why do you think we have a penalty points system that disqualifies dangerous drivers?

That's a fine example of circular logic.

Everyone here acknowledges that the reporting that this man does is a good thing. I acknowledged it myself in the second post of the thread. The manner in which he goes about it, however, is frankly odd.


He would appear to spend inordinate amounts of time standing in bushes to catch, what are most of the time, fairly minor offences. Your comparison of that behaviour with people posting on boards about it is a red herring.

You have either developed, or bought into, a narrative whereby this man is singlehandedly making the streets of London safer. You continue to talk about "dangerous drivers" as if they were a separate class of driver, removed from all other class of drivers, which vastly oversimplifies the interactions that happen daily on all streets between road users

The problem is, there's no way for you, or anyone else, to measure the impact of what he does. The removal of those nine people from the road is not going to show up in fatality or collision statistics, which is why you don't refer to them.

The only thing that can be factually stated is that he has contributed to nine drivers being removed from streets of London due to breaking the law

timmyjimmy

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If they are still driving, do you reckon that they are all driving in the same reckless manner that brought them to police attention in the past? And do you reckon that the drivers who got the 800+ penalty points issued as a result of his report, do you reckon they're all driving in the same reckless manner as before?

You are delusional if you think all fines/disqualifications change attitudes.

I saw a stat that 98% of motorists in Ireland break the speed limit in Ireland, probably most people in this forum who drive are in that 98%. I've had speed tickets and fines, i'm now back down to 0 points but I only found myself over the speed limit this morning, the fines didn't change my attitude.

I've a friend who drives for a living and has 10 driving points and was caught speeding again, her husband took the points so she could stay driving on the road.

I grew up in very rural Ireland where drink driving is rife, I know disqualified drivers who were caught drink driving who still drive in the locality.

All above are different arguments but again, you are delusional if you think all fines/disqualifications change attitudes.

buffalo

timmyjimmy wrote: »

I saw a stat that 98% of motorists in Ireland break the speed limit in Ireland, probably most people in this forum who drive are in that 98%. I've had speed tickets and fines, i'm now back down to 0 points but I only found myself over the speed limit this morning, the fines didn't change my attitude.

:pac: That's a weird journey of self-discovery.

km991148

cletus wrote: »

The only thing that can be factually stated is that he has contributed to nine drivers being removed from streets of London due to breaking the law

Not even. 9 drivers have received a driving ban. A lot of people are downright (unts and will drive anyway.


But I would like to think most people cop on s bit when the points are handed out.

Some people can't help but rack em up and an even smaller subset just don't care.

Weepsie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

An increase in the number of disqualified drivers tells you nothing about whether those drivers are still driving.

What's your best guess - do you reckon some of the nine dangerous drivers, including the recognisable Guy Ritchie have stopped driving for the period of disqualification?

You're really clutching at straws here. I'll ring his agent and ask him.

I noted also, that "Mikey" is requested by the Met to remove the videos form all social media. Presumably as they are potentially then prejudicial. Yet he doesn't.

So he is ignoring a direct request from the Met because it suits him. He's a bit of a weird fantasist in my opinion and nearly seems like he gets off on the attention judging by the sheer number of media pieces he did about the incident.

No problem with him reporting drivers (nobody seems to). He could just report it and be done though which is what most rational people would do, except maybe in some exceptional circumstances.

km991148

Weepsie wrote: »

I noted also, that "Mikey" is requested by the Met to remove the videos form all social media. Presumably as they are potentially then prejudicial. Yet he doesn't.

I think I'm right in saying he does wait until fines are issued etc. Did you see something where he doesn't?
I don't know the full process tho and how long he is supposed to wait etc.

Potentially as well tho, could he inadvertently screw up the cases with having the chats. I'm sure a good lawyer would argue some kind of harassment etc make out there was stuff going on before some of the cases.

AndrewJRenko

timmyjimmy wrote: »

You are delusional if you think all fines/disqualifications change attitudes.

I saw a stat that 98% of motorists in Ireland break the speed limit in Ireland, probably most people in this forum who drive are in that 98%. I've had speed tickets and fines, i'm now back down to 0 points but I only found myself over the speed limit this morning, the fines didn't change my attitude.

I've a friend who drives for a living and has 10 driving points and was caught speeding again, her husband took the points so she could stay driving on the road.

I grew up in very rural Ireland where drink driving is rife, I know disqualified drivers who were caught drink driving who still drive in the locality.

All above are different arguments but again, you are delusional if you think all fines/disqualifications change attitudes.

Where exactly did I say that all fines and disqualifications change attitudes?

timmyjimmy

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Where exactly did I say that all fines and disqualifications change attitudes?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If they are still driving, do you reckon that they are all driving in the same reckless manner

Right, not attitude but manner.

Example:
a person's outward bearing or way of behaving towards others.
"his arrogance and pompous manner"
Similar:
demeanour
air
aspect
attitude
appearance
look
bearing

km991148

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Where exactly did I say that all fines and disqualifications change attitudes?

You didn't say actually - only that fines and disqualifications remove dangerous drivers.


Instead you said that YouTube acts as a deterrent (Acting as a deterrent presumably can be read as changing attitudes)!

beauf

timmyjimmy wrote: »

You are delusional if you think all fines/disqualifications change attitudes.

I saw a stat that 98% of motorists in Ireland break the speed limit in Ireland, probably most people in this forum who drive are in that 98%. I've had speed tickets and fines, i'm now back down to 0 points but I only found myself over the speed limit this morning, the fines didn't change my attitude.

I've a friend who drives for a living and has 10 driving points and was caught speeding again, her husband took the points so she could stay driving on the road.

I grew up in very rural Ireland where drink driving is rife, I know disqualified drivers who were caught drink driving who still drive in the locality.

All above are different arguments but again, you are delusional if you think all fines/disqualifications change attitudes.

All that proves is there is a lack of enforcement.

AndrewJRenko

timmyjimmy wrote: »

Right, not attitude but manner.

Example:
a person's outward bearing or way of behaving towards others.
"his arrogance and pompous manner"
Similar:
demeanour
air
aspect
attitude
appearance
look
bearing

That's a question, not a statement. And its heading in the opposite direction to those words you put into my mouth. Let me demonstrate:

What do you think yourself - If they are still driving, do you reckon that they are all driving in the same reckless manner?

km991148

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's a question, not a statement. And its heading in the opposite direction to those words you put into my mouth. Let me demonstrate:

What do you think yourself - If they are still driving, do you reckon that they are all driving in the same reckless manner?

You know there is no black and white here tho.

Some of course will calm down and reflect after points or a fine.
Some won't give two ****s and carry on being self entitled pricks.

But the conversation was never really about whether or not drivers should be reported and punished. There is a system of enforcement and people are quite rightly using it. If the system isn't good enough it's a different conversation.

The main point of contention is back to whether or not members of the public should be going about telling others how to behave (and if people generally think that's a good idea and actually does any good). This point can't really be quantified, but the consensus seems to be that the way Mikey behaves after recording people is a bit much and likely not as useful and maybe even detracts from any good he is doing by reporting.

I'm still interested to know if you think that's appropriate ('nicely' or aggressively (passive or otherwise,)).

timmyjimmy

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's a question, not a statement. And its heading in the opposite direction to those words you put into my mouth. Let me demonstrate:

What do you think yourself - If they are still driving, do you reckon that they are all driving in the same reckless manner?

Yes. I've given plenty of examples where reprimanding of motorists had no affect on their driving behaviors.

timmyjimmy

beauf wrote: »

All that proves is there is a lack of enforcement.

There will never be 100% enforcement. People will always break the rules of the road where they can get away with it.

Maybe instead of watching videos, interviewing hedge lurkers and locating drivers, I would be out catching twice as many of these things myself - Police Officer Met.

AndrewJRenko

timmyjimmy wrote: »

Yes. I've given plenty of examples where reprimanding of motorists had no affect on their driving behaviors.

Are there any examples where reprimanding motorists had a positive effect on their driving behaviour?

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe instead of watching videos, interviewing hedge lurkers and locating drivers, I would be out catching twice as many of these things myself - Police Officer Met.

Or maybe I would be sitting on my couch, on my laptop and my phone, doing absolutely nothing to improve safety on the roads while pedantically nitpicking about the tone or hairstyle of those who do actually improve safety on the roads?

km991148

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Or maybe I would be sitting on my couch, on my laptop and my phone, doing absolutely nothing to improve safety on the roads while pedantically nitpicking about the tone or hairstyle of those who do actually improve safety on the roads?

Or nitpicking those that are really just having a discussion?

Or nitpicking the nitpickers that are nitpicking those that are really just having a discussion.


And it is that btw, a discussion on road safety. You think Mikey can do no wrong and he is a living superhero. But it seems others think he could do better by not being an arse.

Now, looking at the pushback here, do you not think there may be some merit in that? And that, maybe, if this is the perception that fellow cyclists have (that really do understand the dangers that come with being more vulnerable to crap driving) then there is a chance that other road users will think similarly and may even take umbrage to having someone telling them how to behave. Especially when they have just been embarrassed or caught out.

CramCycle

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Are there any examples where reprimanding motorists had a positive effect on their driving behaviour?

From personal experience, I have found you get a more positive response from a positive engagement although that is not always possible. I tend to find, and easier said than done, a nice tone, and a white lie of "you may not have realised but that gave me a bit of a scare, I know it wasn't intentional but you could frighten/scare/put off balance someone else".

Anecdotal I know, and undoubtedly doesn't work all the time but I get the impression that there is a slim hope the driver goes away from it thinking, jaysus, never even copped that, glad they told me. As opposed to, "that fuppin fupper, giving me a bollicking over something I am not even sure i done wrong, all those fuppers are the same".

Should it be that way, no, is my experience that it is, yes. Do I have proof? Not even close, but from the way I react to people who are immediately aggressive towards me, even passively so, I suspect that there is some hope as opposed to no hope.

km991148

CramCycle wrote: »

From personal experience, I have found you get a more positive response from a positive engagement although that is not always possible. I tend to find, and easier said than done, a nice tone, and a white lie of "you may not have realised but that gave me a bit of a scare, I know it wasn't intentional but you could frighten/scare/put off balance someone else".

Anecdotal I know, and undoubtedly doesn't work all the time but I get the impression that there is a slim hope the driver goes away from it thinking, jaysus, never even copped that, glad they told me. As opposed to, "that fuppin fupper, giving me a bollicking over something I am not even sure i done wrong, all those fuppers are the same".

Should it be that way, no, is my experience that it is, yes. Do I have proof? Not even close, but from the way I react to people who are immediately aggressive towards me, even passively so, I suspect that there is some hope as opposed to no hope.

Definitely more carrot than stick approach works for me.

I cycle like I drive in a lot if cases. Thank the kind gestures and read the road well ahead and be part of the traffic, including all responsibilities that go with it.

In younger angrier days it was more stress and more bull**** and fewer results.

For example: A lot if the time people make mistakes. The classic SMIDSY moves. Gesticulating and getting in people's faces does little except causes an argument (although of course sometimes it's absolutely rage inducing***). Pointing out what just happened generally gets an apology and an acknowledgement of mistake.

This doesn't exactly replicate Mikey but to me his attitude is closer to the former, even although he tries hard to make damn sure it looks like the latter.



***In these cases it's still the carrot approach, just modified a bit:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VReU7EgfPLc