Cycling Mikey

AndrewJRenko

on_the_nickel wrote: »

Because realism and compromise are more constructive in the efforts to improve road safety for cyclists and pedestrians than whataboutery and stubbornness. Divisiveness and creating an environment of us vs them is not going to solve anything and a little give-and-take on all sides is required.

Carr's Hill carries over 25,000 vehicles a day. url]http://www.pleanala.ie/documents/reports/HA0/RHA0053B.pdf[/url
Even though it's the most direct route for me to get home from a training spin, I haven't used it for for many years now as the population of Carrigaline, and the volume of traffic on this main arterial route, has increased dramatically.

Other may choose to steadfastly exert their right to cycle this road, some may in fact go this way specifically to find footage for their growing social media profiles - up to them. I've chosen to put myself in the position of someone trying to drive to or home from work and encountering a cyclist on that road and knowing how difficult and stressful it is to be at the front of a tailback of cars, waiting to safely overtake.

We all know we're entitled to cycle where we choose, but sometimes inconveniencing oneself to lessen the inconvenience of many hundreds of others, even though it will never be appreciated, and in fact probably only criticised by hardcore cycling evangelists, is the better option.

And by "compromise" you mean "cyclists get out of the way of the important motorists"?

on_the_nickel

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And by "compromise" you mean "cyclists get out of the way of the important motorists"?

No, that's not what I mean, that's how your mindset chooses to interpret my post. And I think you know that.

km991148

on_the_nickel wrote: »

No, that's not what I mean, that's how your mindset chooses to interpret my post. And I think you know that.

I'm not sure that is known.
Some people have massive blinkers on. AJR- I hate writing posts that comment directly on others. Often I would agree with you on some parts of boards but sometimes you seem to have a massive blindspot that I don't think does you any favours in the long run.

AndrewJRenko

on_the_nickel wrote: »

No, that's not what I mean, that's how your mindset chooses to interpret my post. And I think you know that.

That's what you said though -that cyclists should get out of the way of motorists.

AndrewJRenko

km991148 wrote: »

I'm not sure that is known.
Some people have massive blinkers on. AJR- I hate writing posts that comment directly on others. Often I would agree with you on some parts of boards but sometimes you seem to have a massive blindspot that I don't think does you any favours in the long run.

Maybe, just maybe, maybe it's not me that has the blindspot.

timmyjimmy wrote: »

Some degree of safer drivers maybe but they're probably cancelled out by his antagonistic behaviour and riling up of motorists. Unquantifiable really.

Maybe put a thread up in the motorist thread and see how ya fair out? I reckon you'll get the same reception as here, even worse.

So all the decades of antagonistic driving by motorists in the UK, and over here too, is now down to Mikey and other cyclists who don't tug their forelock quite enough when asking the nice motorist to - pretty please with bells on - not kill them on their journey today?

Funny how there wasn't huge outcry or concerns about the route cause of antagonistic drivers until Mikey came along - but until he gets his tone exactly right he's going to get a virtual kicking round here.

timmyjimmy wrote: »

I'm sure there are. Speaking for myself, I now don't go over the speed limit on the motorway between Michelstown and Cahir as I was once caught speeding there. That doesn't mean i've stopped breaking the speed limit completely.

Just because Mikey has caught people breaking a law doesn't mean that they won't break the law elsewhere.

Your faith in the Church of Mickey is a bit idealist. That's not how the real world works.

Pure strawman arguement. No-one suggested these actions were a panacea solution.

km991148 wrote: »

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

It's possible to engage with people calmly, in a civil manner, assertively and directly as Mikey generally does with now gesticulation and no getting in people's faces.

on_the_nickel

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's what you said though -that cyclists should get out of the way of motorists.

No, Andrew - and I would appreciate it if you could stop re-wording my posts to suit your argument - what I said was, in the case of this specific road, knowing it as I do, I chose not to put my convenience ahead of that of other road users.

I also, and this is important Andrew, because you seem to have difficulty understanding what I'm saying or maybe just seeing past your own pre-conceptions, I specifically said it was up to others to make their own choices.

km991148

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Maybe, just maybe, maybe it's not me that has the blindspot.

Maybe. I'm always looking to improve, there is always room.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's possible to engage with people calmly, in a civil manner, assertively and directly as Mikey generally does with now gesticulation and no getting in people's faces.

I guess one man's calm is anothers passive aggressive arseshole.

Mickey doesn't often gesticulate, I think that much is clear.
He literally gets in people's faces tho!

km991148

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So all the decades of antagonistic driving by motorists in the UK, and over here too, is now down to Mikey and other cyclists who don't tug their forelock quite enough when asking the nice motorist to - pretty please with bells on - not kill them on their journey today?

Funny how there wasn't huge outcry or concerns about the route cause of antagonistic drivers until Mikey came along - but until he gets his tone exactly right he's going to get a virtual kicking round here.

And you want to talk about strawmen and other poor debating techniques :pac:
Your some man for a bit of spin!


You don't like it when people tell you how to cycle (as is often the case when you post videos). Why do you think others are different?

All this forelock nonsense.. it's really telling about your attitude and I fear it will get you into serious trouble one day.

AndrewJRenko

km991148 wrote: »

And you want to talk about strawmen and other poor debating techniques :pac:
Your some man for a bit of spin!


You don't like it when people tell you how to cycle (as is often the case when you post videos). Why do you think others are different?

All this forelock nonsense.. it's really telling about your attitude and I fear it will get you into serious trouble one day.

Why is "do people like it" a key factor here? Is there some global rule about not offending the sensibilities of dangerous drivers?

AndrewJRenko

km991148 wrote: »

Maybe. I'm always looking to improve, there is always room.



I guess one man's calm is anothers passive aggressive arseshole.

Mickey doesn't often gesticulate, I think that much is clear.
He literally gets in people's faces tho!

He literally doesn't get in people's faces as he is always beside them, not in front of them.

AndrewJRenko

on_the_nickel wrote: »

No, Andrew - and I would appreciate it if you could stop re-wording my posts to suit your argument - what I said was, in the case of this specific road, knowing it as I do, I chose not to put my convenience ahead of that of other road users.

I also, and this is important Andrew, because you seem to have difficulty understanding what I'm saying or maybe just seeing past your own pre-conceptions, I specifically said it was up to others to make their own choices.

You said a bit more than your own personal choices in fairness - with your points about compromise and choosing the better option.

km991148

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why is "do people like it" a key factor here? Is there some global rule about not offending the sensibilities of dangerous drivers?

Why do you always view it that way? It's really is coming across as trolling.

I think it's been explained pretty clearly why people object to the little chats Mikey has and it has got sweet fa to do with 'offending' drivers (dangerous or otherwise).
No matter how many times you try and frame the conversation that way.

km991148

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

He literally doesn't get in people's faces as he is always beside them, not in front of them.

Semantics and pedantry. He literally stands in front of or beside people. If I'm beside you telling you how to behave, I think colloquially it would be described as getting in your face. I would go further and say beside is literally in your face. The side of one's face is still the face.

Or do you only want to include people directly on front of you within a certain range? Taking a line parallel to the forehead, we will draw another perpendicular line through the nose and only count 45 degrees either side? Maybe cap it as no further than 50cm from the forehead?

Regardless of where he stands, his attitude makes him a bit of a prick. His work and reporting is still great, but could be better.

AndrewJRenko

km991148 wrote: »

Semantics and pedantry. He literally stands in front of or beside people. If I'm beside you telling you how to behave, I think colloquially it would be described as getting in your face. I would go further and say beside is literally in your face. The side of one's face is still the face.

Or do you only want to include people directly on front of you within a certain range? Taking a line parallel to the forehead, we will draw another perpendicular line through the nose and only count 45 degrees either side? Maybe cap it as no further than 50cm from the forehead?

Regardless of where he stands, his attitude makes him a bit of a prick. His work and reporting is still great, but could be better.

When he stands in front, there is a windscreen and a bonnet between him and them - a long way from "in yer face".

AndrewJRenko

km991148 wrote: »

Why do you always view it that way? It's really is coming across as trolling.

I think it's been explained pretty clearly why people object to the little chats Mikey has and it has got sweet fa to do with 'offending' drivers (dangerous or otherwise).
No matter how many times you try and frame the conversation that way.

That's what been said here repeatedly - we can't be offending the drivers who routinely endanger other road users in case they get a bit cranky and decide to drive even more dangerously as a result.

Just have a little think about that, and how out of all the bad things happening in that cycle, it is Mikey's tone that you keep highlighting as the bit that needs to be fixed.

I guess a cyclist must have previously offended the van driver to cause the original beeping while overtaking.

https://twitter.com/righttobikeit/status/1371542513799036937?s=19

Weepsie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's what been said here repeatedly - we can't be offending the drivers who routinely endanger other road users in case they get a bit cranky and decide to drive even more dangerously as a result.

Just have a little think about that, and how out of all the bad things happening in that cycle, it is Mikey's tone that you keep highlighting as the bit that needs to be fixed.

That's not what has been said. Not once. You're inferring what you want to and putting words into posters mouths, and being a bit selective in some of the quoting here.

km991148

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Just have a little think about that, and how out of all the bad things happening in that cycle, it is Mikey's tone that you keep highlighting as the bit that needs to be fixed.

bs - its widely acknowledged the biggest thing needing fixed is illegal behaviour. Its not commented on other than to say well done Mikey for that part. I don't need to have a little think about that as its clear as day (to nearly everyone except you!). People then go on to say hes a bit of an arse after. You don't agree, fine - so.. whats your point at this stage?

km991148

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

When he stands in front, there is a windscreen and a bonnet between him and them - a long way from "in yer face".

And beside? That s different is it?

..

I don't know whats worse at this stage - if your posts are similar to trolling, I'm now feeding away here :pac:

AndrewJRenko

km991148 wrote: »

And beside? That s different is it?

..

I don't know whats worse at this stage - if your posts are similar to trolling, I'm now feeding away here :pac:

Well, yes - it is different. It's not "literally in your face" when there's a windscreen and bonnet in between.

I preferred this thread when I assumed it was about a mens health issue due to cycling

km991148

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Well, yes - it is different. It's not "literally in your face" when there's a windscreen and bonnet in between.

I'm asking is "beside" literally in your face - I just want to understand your exact definitions - we are so far from any sensible point I may as well try to understand this part at least!

AndrewJRenko

km991148 wrote: »

I'm asking is "beside" literally in your face - I just want to understand your exact definitions - we are so far from any sensible point I may as well try to understand this part at least!

Well, no, as stated above - beside you, facing the same direction as you is not "literally in your face".

But it's interesting to note the extensive efforts to nitpick and find minor issues to hone in on while ignoring the endemic levels of mobile phone use by drivers.

a_squirrelman

There's only one nitpicker in this thread.

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: This is going round in circles. If you have nothing new to add, let's leave it there. Feel free to continue so long as it's not a long back and forth on the meaning/interpretation of 'in your face'. I presume its well understood what this means as a phrase. Link provided but no more discussion on what it means please.

Eamonnator

Eamonnator wrote: »

He's a bellend.

It's a week and 180 posts since I made this remark.
Nothing, that has been said since, has changed my mind.
I wonder has anybody changed their mind about Mikey's behaviour.

km991148

Eamonnator wrote: »

It's a week and 180 posts since I made this remark.
Nothing, that has been said since, has changed my mind.
I wonder has anybody changed their mind about Mikey's behaviour.

Not at all. I think he's doing a great job but needs to wind his neck in a bit as he comes across as an arse at times.

I've said as much in about 80 of those 180 posts :pac:

on_the_nickel

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

with your points about compromise and choosing the better option.

Andrew, read that again, in the context of this thread, and maybe life in general and ask yourself why you think compromise and choosing the better option are things to argue against, and why you're arguing against them.

I'm going to leave it at that.

AndrewJRenko

on_the_nickel wrote: »

Andrew, read that again, in the context of this thread, and maybe life in general and ask yourself why you think compromise and choosing the better option are things to argue against, and why you're arguing against them.

I'm going to leave it at that.

Compromise is a two way street.

cletus

Unless it's one way, with a segregated bike path...

CramCycle

I think that it s great that he is reporting so many people. This doesn't mean that physically policing rather than passively, no matter what way you spin it, hiding in bushes is silliness. In one video he caught two cars while he walked to the corner, if he just sat there with the camera he would have caught 30 or 40 drivers. So is he actively after bad drivers or clicks, the evidence indicates the latter. The same with the Land Rover video, leaning in the window of a driver, whether they are on a phone or not is asking for someone to claim they were being attacked and unlike that video with CycleDub and the 2 way street, if someone leaned in my window, I would presume they were about to attack me and act accordingly.
This said for the most part he is harmless and being passive aggressive isn't a crime. Honestly, compared to some of the youtubers he is certainly not as uncomfortable to watch, that CycleDub guy freaked me out, there was a really uncomfortable video of him filming schoolgirls complimenting his bike, I wonder (although I don't want to know) what he put up that got all his videos pulled.