Cycling Mikey

cletus wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

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

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

Some people can be a bit slow to learn.

breezy1985 wrote: »

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

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

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

timmyjimmy wrote: »

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

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

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

cletus wrote: »

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

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

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

I would argue that if you've already racked up 9 or 10 points, and you STILL can't leave your phone while in the act of driving if the car (accepting he wasn't in motion at the time) , then overall, it's probably beneficial for everyone's safety that you get a little time-out on the naughty step.

I also think the same people that commit the more minor infractions of phone use whilst stationary are generally the same people that don't see the problem with much more serious act of driving along with their phones up to their ears, Its all part of the same culture and "me first" thinking that needs to be torn down.

As far CyclingMikey, I don't have an issue with what he does. The standard "none of your business" response he often gets raises my hackles because I'd be of the view what some morons do in their car on the road is very much my business and the business of everybody who has to share the road with them.

Would I do what he does myself? No., not least because I wouldn't count for a second on any sort of support or backup from our boys in blue. In the videos I've seen of him, his initial interactions have looked pretty polite, and I've never seen him call people names except in retaliation when they were hurling that sort of abuse at him.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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

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

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


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

Look, I'm going to leave it at this now. You are putting forward your thoughts and opinions on this as if they were irrefutable, or as if other people cannot have differing thoughts or opinion.

I'm not moving the goal posts by talking about statistically significant. You are talking about an overall reduction in dangerous drivers by this man. You can't offer figures to back this up. There are, out there somewhere, statists for the amount of penalty points given in London, the amount of crashes, accidents etc. An increase of one or two in (presumably) large numbers like that would be considered insignificant, insofar as the overall numbers are not impacted by such a small change.

Regarding whether reading texts in stopped traffic is dangerous. You have to define what we mean by dangerous driving. Is it the same as driving at 100kph in a 30kph zone? Do we acknowledge that there are differing levels of what constitutes dangerous?

You make an assumption that a driver is more likely to read texts while moving than while stopped. Do you have anything to back up that claim? If so you haven't provided it, but use it to claim that he was a dangerous driver.

The fact that he was put off the road because he had accumulated a number of offences speaks directly to the point I made about punishment and amendment of behaviour.

What all of this comes down to is not really whether he is right or wrong, but your assertion that it is beyond debate

cletus wrote: »

Look, I'm going to leave it at this now. You are putting forward your thoughts and opinions on this as if they were irrefutable, or as if other people cannot have differing thoughts or opinion.

I'm not moving the goal posts by talking about statistically significant. You are talking about an overall reduction in dangerous drivers by this man. You can't offer figures to back this up. There are, out there somewhere, statists for the amount of penalty points given in London, the amount of crashes, accidents etc. An increase of one or two in (presumably) large numbers like that would be considered insignificant, insofar as the overall numbers are not impacted by such a small change.

Regarding whether reading texts in stopped traffic is dangerous. You have to define what we mean by dangerous driving. Is it the same as driving at 100kph in a 30kph zone? Do we acknowledge that there are differing levels of what constitutes dangerous?

You make an assumption that a driver is more likely to read texts while moving than while stopped. Do you have anything to back up that claim? If so you haven't provided it, but use it to claim that he was a dangerous driver.

The fact that he was put off the road because he had accumulated a number of offences speaks directly to the point I made about punishment and amendment of behaviour.

What all of this comes down to is not really whether he is right or wrong, but your assertion that it is beyond debate

Again, shifting the goalposts with the 'overall reduction' which is not what I claimed. I made a very short, very simple statement, that there are fewer dangerous drivers on the road as a result of his actions. I didn't claim 'overall reduction'. I didn't claim 'statistically significant'. I claimed 'there are fewer dangerous drivers on the road as a result of his actions'. That's a fact, that's beyond debate.

timmyjimmy wrote: »

You are not responsible for anyone else but i've no doubt that you've been at the wrong end of the stick for being a cyclist, we all have.
Some cyclists behaviour pisses off motorists and some pissed off motorists make the road a very dangerous place for cyclists. Cycling Mikey has pissed off a lot of motorists. FACT.

Pissed off motorists are dangerous for everyone on the road, not just for cyclists. It's time we stopped appeasing pissed off motorists, tugging the forelock.

It's time that we, as Mikey does, start giving a clear message to motorists that if they keep misbehaving on the road, they're going to find themselves rediscovering the joy of cyclists of their disqualification.

How many motorists do you reckon have changed their behaviour for the good after being approached by Mikey, or more likely after seeing his videos online?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's time we stopped appeasing pissed off motorists, tugging the forelock.

Its unfortunate you see it this way and ultimately this attitude will put a glass ceiling on your road skills.

EDIT: and actually its not about appeasing anyone - its about not pissing people off unnecessarily. Report away but let the police do the policing.

timmyjimmy wrote: »

Mikey is a dick. I don't want to be like Mikey.

As for motorists changing their behaviour? not very many. Road deaths went up in London last year, Mikey is not the hero you're making him out to be.

I don't think anyone is telling you to be like Mikey. The problem is that you're telling Mikey and others that they need to be like you, appeasing dangerous drivers for fear of causing offence to those who casually endanger your safety.

Btw, what would the road death figures in London have been if Mikey hadn't taken a few dangerous drivers off the road, and ensured a large bunch of others got their wrists slapped by the Courts?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I don't think anyone is telling you to be like Mikey. The problem is that you're telling Mikey and others that they need to be like you, appeasing dangerous drivers for fear of causing offence to those who casually endanger your safety.

Btw, what would the road death figures in London have been if Mikey hadn't taken a few dangerous drivers off the road, and ensured a large bunch of others got their wrists slapped by the Courts?

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?

km991148 wrote: »

Its unfortunate you see it this way and ultimately this attitude will put a glass ceiling on your road skills.

EDIT: and actually its not about appeasing anyone - its about not pissing people off unnecessarily. Report away but let the police do the policing.

Most cycling instructors disagree with you, and highlight the importance of an assertive attitude and assertive road positioning.

There was a study in London some years back showing that female cyclists were more likely to be killed by trucks because they tended to hide at the gutter instead of taking up a visible position.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Btw, what would the road death figures in London have been if Mikey hadn't taken a few dangerous drivers off the road, and ensured a large bunch of others got their wrists slapped by the Courts?

Of course you're aware that that's impossible to tell. Just as its impossible to tell how many cyclists were the victims of road rage that they otherwise wouldn't have been but for the behaviour of Mikey to drivers who didn't get put off the road.

Do you think his behaviour/ modus operandi is beyond reproach?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There was a study in London some years back showing that female cyclists were more likely to be killed by trucks because they tended to hide at the gutter instead of taking up a visible position.

Do you have a link to it?