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.