Cycling Mikey

km991148 · 12-03-2021 4:01pm

Paddigol wrote: »

Do you have a link to it?

Does it matter if there is a link - because I believe that to be the case - the correct use of primary is encouraged for this sort of reason. However - its another random point that has been introduced that is nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Subterfuge in the extreme.

cletus · 12-03-2021 4:01pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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.

I know I said I was finished, but I just wanted to come back to this post.

You are right. You did say there are fewer dangerous drivers on the road because of Mikey's actions.

Maybe I can explain why I spoke about statistics. First of all, we could ask why he's doing this. The assumption would be to make the streets of London safer. In order to know whether the streets of London are actually safer we would have to look at the statistics which inform us of those levels of safety. Without having any of those figures to hand, I reckon I could make a guesstimate that, overall, dangerous driving was not reduced in London by Mikey's actions, simply because the impact he is making is too low.

So the question that I come back to then, is, is it worth it to spend his time doing what he's doing. If it's worth it to him, we might have to look at why, but I'm an even worse psychologist than I am a statistician.

So, while I do acknowledge the specific statement you made, I wanted to try clarify my position on it. I still think that almost everything in this thread is up for debate, mind.

AndrewJRenko · 12-03-2021 4:02pm

km991148 wrote: »

You *know* I am not talking about being assertive. You absolutely know I am talking about aggression *after* an incident as I have made clear multiple times. And it is that very attitude that causes issues.
Do you still want to continue talking about shifting goalposts?

I am under the impression you see every journey as a battle and from your comments I am not seeing that impression changing.

Where has Mikey been aggressive?

AndrewJRenko · 12-03-2021 4:03pm

cletus wrote: »

I know I said I was finished, but I just wanted to come back to this post.

You are right. You did say there are fewer dangerous drivers on the road because of Mikey's actions.

Maybe I can explain why I spoke about statistics. First of all, we could ask why he's doing this. The assumption would be to make the streets of London safer. In order to know whether the streets of London are actually safer we would have to look at the statistics which inform us of those levels of safety. Without having any of those figures to hand, I reckon I could make a guesstimate that, overall, dangerous driving was not reduced in London by Mikey's actions, simply because the impact he is making is too low.

So the question that I come back to then, is, is it worth it to spend his time doing what he's doing. If it's worth it to him, we might have to look at why, but I'm an even worse psychologist than I am a statistician.

So, while I do acknowledge the specific statement you made, I wanted to try clarify my position on it. I still think that almost everything in this thread is up for debate, mind.

Is it worth it for people to spend their time on Boards debating this? Who are any of us to judge what other people spend their time doing?

Paddigol · 12-03-2021 4:04pm

km991148 wrote: »

Does it matter if there is a link - because I believe that to be the case - the correct use of primary is encouraged for this sort of reason. However - its another random point that has been introduced that is nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Subterfuge in the extreme.

I'd be interested to read the report, that's all.

km991148 · 12-03-2021 4:05pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Where has Mikey been aggressive?

Plenty of cited examples of him being passive aggressive, with an attitude and calling people a wanker, arguing with teenager (grow a pair), knocking on window after filming an event, condescending attitude etc etc

(yeah yeah, show me a link etc - I will find them if I must) - but before we get into another tangent of defining how "aggressive" one has to be, please take the contrarians hat off for a second and answer this will ye?

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?

Paddigol · 12-03-2021 4:07pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Is it worth it for people to spend their time on Boards debating this? Who are any of us to judge what other people spend their time doing?

So you agree that it's debatable whether his behaviour has any overall positive effect vis-a-vis cycling? I think that's all people are getting at here. It's not a binary issue.

AndrewJRenko · 12-03-2021 4:08pm

timmyjimmy wrote: »

I don't appease any motorist. I'm well able to hold my own and account for
myself on the road. If a situation warrants me to speak to a motorist, I will. Saying that, I prefer to go keep going and enjoy my cycle.

Mikey constantly looks for trouble, knocking on windows for even the most minor of offences. That's pretty sad. Righttobikeit cycles on dangerous roads just to prove a point even do there are safer options out there. These guys are antagonists who do nothing for the image of cycling.

As for road deaths, who knows. I know plenty of people who were caught speeding. We'll just say that points and fines didn't stop them speeding, they just speed somewhere else.

There he goes, looking for trouble again

https://twitter.com/righttobikeit/status/1370387322273984518?s=19

He was really asking to be driven off the road, wasn't he?

I guess all those girls and women who get attacked walking home were to blame for not choosing a safer route?

AndrewJRenko · 12-03-2021 4:10pm

Paddigol wrote: »

So you agree that it's debatable whether his behaviour has any overall positive effect vis-a-vis cycling? I think that's all people are getting at here. It's not a binary issue.

I'll tell you one thing for sure - choosing NOT to engage with dangerous drivers is definitely not having an overall positive effect on cycling.

timmyjimmy · 12-03-2021 4:10pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There he goes, looking for trouble again

https://twitter.com/righttobikeit/status/1370387322273984518?s=19

He was really asking to be driven off the road, wasn't he?

I guess all those girls and women who get attacked walking home were to blame for not choosing a safer route?

Who said all his videos are trouble????

Do you know Carr's hill? If you don't, you haven't a clue what your talking about.

Paddigol · 12-03-2021 4:12pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'll tell you one thing for sure - choosing NOT to engage with dangerous drivers is definitely not having an overall positive effect on cycling.

That wasn't the question.

AndrewJRenko · 12-03-2021 4:12pm

km991148 wrote: »

Plenty of cited examples of him being passive aggressive, with an attitude and calling people a wanker, arguing with teenager (grow a pair), knocking on window after filming an event, condescending attitude etc etc

(yeah yeah, show me a link etc - I will find them if I must) - but before we get into another tangent of defining how "aggressive" one has to be, please take the contrarians hat off for a second and answer this will ye?

So we've gone from "aggressive" to "passive aggressive" now. I've been a subscriber to his channel for years now and I've never seen him being aggressive.

AndrewJRenko · 12-03-2021 4:13pm

timmyjimmy wrote: »

Who said all his videos are trouble????

Do you know Carr's hill? If you don't, you haven't a clue what your talking about.

Do you blame women who get attacked for not taking safer routes?

AndrewJRenko · 12-03-2021 4:15pm

Paddigol wrote: »

I'd be interested to read the report, that's all.

It's a reasonable request but I didn't keep details of that one to hand.

Large bottle small glass · 12-03-2021 4:16pm

Anyone else want some popcorn?

Seve OB · 12-03-2021 4:16pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So you did make it up then.

He will often state what activity is being done on the phone, which is a relevant factor for prosecution under UK law - he's Whatsapping or he's doing email or whatever. He's never breached privacy.

You are calling me a liar because I said I couldn’t be bothered searching through his videos.
Well I gave in, it didn’t actually take me long to find this one. I’ve seen him do it many more times but I guess you won’t believe me unless I link those clips also.:rolleyes:

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

km991148 · 12-03-2021 4:18pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So we've gone from "aggressive" to "passive aggressive" now. I've been a subscriber to his channel for years now and I've never seen him being aggressive.

I am talking about aggravating drivers after filming an event. As predicted you chose to debate terminology rather than answer a simple question.

Your love of the pedantry *really* doesn't do you any favours.

Thankfully people who adopt this attitude are in the minority and most people just want to get to where they are going in peace. I think he is doing great reporting the incidents, I just think he would do more good by not being an arse about it and not confronting people in any form after doing so. There is no need except possible for his own self satisfaction.

Can we try again? 3rd time lucky?

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?

km991148 · 12-03-2021 4:20pm

Large bottle small glass wrote: »

Anyone else want some popcorn?

meh its quite a boring and tedious show tho - some absolute pedantry to try and "win at boards" - few beers maybe but really time to be turning the channel.

km991148 · 12-03-2021 4:24pm

Seve OB wrote: »

You are calling me a liar because I said I couldn’t be bothered searching through his videos.
Well I gave in, it didn’t actually take me long to find this one. I’ve seen him do it many more times but I guess you won’t believe me unless I link those clips also.:rolleyes:

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

yes but you know the answer to this - reading a WA message doesn't *technically* constitute a breach of privacy because to do so under section blah blah blah of data protection law blah fu(king blah specifies that private information is defined as blah..

Wishbone Ash · 12-03-2021 4:24pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you blame women who get attacked for not taking safer routes?

That's a ridiculous analogy.

Close passes are usually the result of inattentiveness, poor driving skills etc.
Attacking women is a pre-meditated action. Are you suggesting that drivers set out to intimidate/injure cyclists?

12-03-2021 4:24pm

cletus wrote: »

In order to know whether the streets of London are actually safer we would have to look at the statistics which inform us of those levels of safety. Without having any of those figures to hand, I reckon I could make a guesstimate that, overall, dangerous driving was not reduced in London by Mikey's actions, simply because the impact he is making is too low.

Paddigol wrote: »

So you agree that it's debatable whether his behaviour has any overall positive effect vis-a-vis cycling? I think that's all people are getting at here. It's not a binary issue.

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.

JimmiesRustled · 12-03-2021 4:25pm

km991148 wrote: »

meh its quite a boring and tedious show tho - some absolute pedantry to try and "win at boards" - few beers maybe but really time to be turning the channel.

He's a troll. 100%. I'm not sure why he's still allowed to post or why anyone gives him the time of day.

That terrorist attack a couple of weeks ago in Sweeden he came out with the following:

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Four people were killed after falling through ice in Sweden last week.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/four-die-sweden-falling-ice-235410176.html

Just move on and ignore.

AndrewJRenko · 12-03-2021 4:25pm

Seve OB wrote: »

You are calling me a liar because I said I couldn’t be bothered searching through his videos.
Well I gave in, it didn’t actually take me long to find this one. I’ve seen him do it many more times but I guess you won’t believe me unless I link those clips also.:rolleyes:

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

"No worries love I'll be seeing you tomorrow" is revealing private information?

Ah here

AndrewJRenko · 12-03-2021 4:28pm

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

That's a ridiculous analogy.

Close passes are usually the result of inattentiveness, poor driving skills etc.
Attacking women is a pre-meditated action. Are you suggesting that drivers set out to intimidate/injure cyclists?

You think the driver in the last tweet didn't intend to drive within a few millimetres of the cyclist? Were they not in control of the vehicle?

cletus · 12-03-2021 4:30pm

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.

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

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Is it worth it for people to spend their time on Boards debating this? Who are any of us to judge what other people spend their time doing?

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.

hans aus dtschl · 12-03-2021 4:31pm

timmyjimmy wrote: »

Who said all his videos are trouble????

Do you know Carr's hill? If you don't, you haven't a clue what your talking about.

I really don't want to be involved in this thread, but just stepping in to say that I personally cycle Carrs hill, not to prove a point, but because there's really no point in the alternative. I get abuse on the rafeen road, I get abuse on Carr's hill...

I'm not the "RightToBike" guy, but perhaps he's just doing the same as me and trying to go from A to B.

And yes Carr's hill is a crap cycle experience TBH. It's one of many pieces of what I consider "active transport prevention infrastructure" in Cork. Dunkettle Interchange, Tivoli Dual Carriageway, Carr's Hill, N40 between Douglas and Ballincollig etc.

Anyway we digress. I'm just saying Carr's Hill is a legitimate route is all.

timmyjimmy · 12-03-2021 4:34pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you blame women who get attacked for not taking safer routes?

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.

timmyjimmy · 12-03-2021 4:37pm

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

I really don't want to be involved in this thread, but just stepping in to say that I personally cycle Carrs hill, not to prove a point, but because there's really no point in the alternative. I get abuse on the rafeen road, I get abuse on Carr's hill...

I'm not the "RightToBike" guy, but perhaps he's just doing the same as me and trying to go from A to B.

And yes Carr's hill is a crap cycle experience TBH. It's one of many pieces of what I consider "active transport prevention infrastructure" in Cork. Dunkettle Interchange, Tivoli Dual Carriageway, Carr's Hill, N40 between Douglas and Ballincollig etc.

Anyway we digress. I'm just saying Carr's Hill is a legitimate route is all.

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.

Seve OB · 12-03-2021 4:39pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

"No worries love I'll be seeing you tomorrow" is revealing private information?

Ah here

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.

breezy1985 · 12-03-2021 4:43pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You only need to be watching the bushes if you're trying to drive on the wrong side of the road through a junction to skip a queue.

Grow a sense of humour

Cycling Mikey

Comments