Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Cycling Mikey
Options
Comments
-
AndrewJRenko wrote: »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.
After 1:29 may have been initiated by the driver, but just because someone tries to engage, doesn't mean to say you have to interact. He does it all the time, even with children.
Hurler from the ditch and pub bore.. yeah no problem..!
Here's what I do to reduce accident and crappy behaviour.. I practice good assertive cycling, reading the road ahead and with clear communication. I try to drive the same. I don't go out my way to wind others up and I don't turn every interaction with another road user into some Us Vs them bs argument. I lead by example and the more people that done that the better.
Going by your own posts, videos and language (how you often you use the tugging at the forelock expression etc) you would probably benefit from the same attitude and have way less stress on your rides. I have seen videos you have posted with incidents that could easily be avoided (or at least I would have avoided).
I'm saying this calmly and respectfully, but you are probably going to disagree and additionally not like what I have to say.
Additionally, just because I don't have a YouTube account and I'm not driven by the need to self validate, doesn't mean to say I haven't also done my fair share of reporting.0 -
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.
It would be brilliant if we had that system here, it seems a no brainer as well.. it's free money really!
The only problem I would see is an increase in behaviour like Mikeys with the backchat and potential for agro. But it's probably still worth it.
And that's my point. Reporting is good and on balance he is probably still doing more good than harm, but he could do better by just not getting involved.
The getting involved part is some ego trip or misguided feeling of rights to authority (and yes, I get it, his father was unfortunately killed in a preventable death and it's probably why he started doing this).0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »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
And really? Do we need to go looking up tragic stories here? Want me to dig out some road rage incidents that led to death or injuries after escalations from exchanging words?
I don't think this is required really. You are using danger and death to argue against someone who is advocating that we all take a safer approach to road use (including the handling of pricks breaking the law).0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »
Is everyone who reports a crime with CCTV evidence an asshole, or is it just Mikey?
Once again you seem to be missing the point. Reporting the crimes is not what makes him an arsehole. It's the little follow ups and micro aggressions.
Interesting tho.. you are illustrating my point exactly. If you are keen to jump to that conclusion, isn't it at all possible that one of the drivers or teenagers that he has a chat with will jump to the same conclusion?0 -
Once again you seem to be missing the point. Reporting the crimes is not what makes him an arsehole. It's the little follow ups and micro aggressions.
Interesting tho.. you are illustrating my point exactly. If you are keen to jump to that conclusion, isn't it at all possible that one of the drivers or teenagers that he has a chat with will jump to the same conclusion?
So what? Since when did "not offending dangerous drivers" become the important priority?0 -
Advertisement
-
And really? Do we need to go looking up tragic stories here? Want me to dig out some road rage incidents that led to death or injuries after escalations from exchanging words?
I don't think this is required really. You are using danger and death to argue against someone who is advocating that we all take a safer approach to road use (including the handling of pricks breaking the law).
Gwan then - dig out details of road range incidents involving cyclists reporting traffic offences like this.0 -
I think you over estimate how many people watch YouTube and see his style of videos and also how many see it and never make the leap back to their own behaviour. The time he spends pointing out what they've done wrong, he would have taken a video of many more and had many more fines issued. I don't disagree with what he is at but I won't pretend it's for more than hits on YouTube.AndrewJRenko wrote: »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?0 -
I think you over estimate how many people watch YouTube and see his style of videos and also how many see it and never make the leap back to their own behaviour. The time he spends pointing out what they've done wrong, he would have taken a video of many more and had many more fines issued. I don't disagree with what he is at but I won't pretend it's for more than hits on YouTube.
He's got more than 20k views on one video from a week ago. If just 1% of those viewers relate the video to their own driving style, that's 200 better drivers on the road for one video in one week.0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »So what? Since when did "not offending dangerous drivers" become the important priority?
Take the blinkers off for a second here.. it's not about 'offending dangerous drivers'. No one is stating that point and I think that's your bias at play.
It's about not causing further aggro. People are suggesting that this can lead to further road rage as well as feed the 'all cyclists are arseholes' mentality. No one is saying counter aggression by drivers is right, but for the sake of the greater good, many people including myself believe the better thing to do is not engage.
I think I'm right in stating that you disagree and possibly that this is a sign of weakness or something? But knowing when to walk away and let arseholes be arseholes is a good thing (in my opinion) and contributes to an overall better environment to cycle in.
Once again, I cannot state clearly enough that the reporting of drivers that Mikey does is great and also (in my opinion again because obviously it cannot be directly proven) contributes to a safer environment.0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »Gwan then - dig out details of road range incidents involving cyclists reporting traffic offences like this.
No. It's entirely unnecessary and will just lead to another pedantic tangent.
A quick web search will show many such incidents (here and the UK).
No need to bring them in here we all know the dangers of road rage as much as we know the dangers of mobile use.
Edit
And once again you seem to be (I can only assume deliberately at this stage) ignoring the point that it is not about the reporting but the follow up conversations.0 -
Advertisement
-
AndrewJRenko wrote: »Gwan then - dig out details of road range incidents involving cyclists reporting traffic offences like this.
Not exactly reporting a traffic offence but an example of how quick things can turn when you go pointing out issues to drivers:
0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »He's got more than 20k views on one video from a week ago. If just 1% of those viewers relate the video to their own driving style, that's 200 better drivers on the road for one video in one week.
This is where we ask you for statistics to back that up, and/or peer reviewed evidence.
Youre very quick to dismiss other who make similar statements if they are contrary to this and or your views, so if you are going to make that statement, back it up.
I'd hold the view that this won't change close to 200 people's driving styles but it will feed the neverending cyclists v drivers agendas and leave people with incorrect assumptions about all drivers/cyclists.
He has stated he has 100s of hours if in uploaded stuff. I'd wager his own cycling roadcraft isn't perfect all the time, and he's pretty selective about what he puts up.0 -
This is where we ask you for statistics to back that up, and/or peer reviewed evidence.
Youre very quick to dismiss other who make similar statements if they are contrary to this and or your views, so if you are going to make that statement, back it up.
I'd hold the view that this won't change close to 200 people's driving styles but it will feed the neverending cyclists v drivers agendas and leave people with incorrect assumptions about all drivers/cyclists.
He has stated he has 100s of hours if in uploaded stuff. I'd wager his own cycling roadcraft isn't perfect all the time, and he's pretty selective about what he puts up.
Weepsie, lots of posts in this thread show a lack of understanding as to how statistics work. Posters are acting as if there is a finite, absolute number of dangerous drivers on the road, as well as these dangerous drivers always being dangerous whenever they're in their car, and finally conflating breaking the law with dangerous driving. Looking at your phone while stopped in traffic, while breaking the law, is not the same as looking at it while moving, nor is it the same as drink driving. Assumptions that people doing it while stopped will do it while moving are just that, assumptions.0 -
timmyjimmy wrote: »Not exactly reporting a traffic offence but an example of how quick things can turn when you go pointing out issues to drivers:
Wow, that's some nutter, hadn't seen that one before.
Looking at the youtube comments it looks like the BMW couple only received a caution. What kind of pathetic outcome is that with threatening video evidence. Why weren't they at the very least fined and points given for running the red light which should have been an easy prosecution.0 -
timmyjimmy wrote: »Not exactly reporting a traffic offence but an example of how quick things can turn when you go pointing out issues to drivers:
For all my talk of driving/cycling responsibly, I think it would have been hard not to react to that one...!! :pac:
Note tho- the point was never about the reaction to reporting a driving offence - that was introduced by Andrew.0 -
Dr_Colossus wrote: »Wow, that's some nutter, hadn't seen that one before.
Looking at the youtube comments it looks like the BMW couple only received a caution. What kind of pathetic outcome is that with threatening video evidence. Why weren't they at the very least fined and points given for running the red light which should have been an easy prosecution.
It's an old video so I guess cycling offenses weren't taken as seriously then. I know that would have been difficult not to say anything but it's proof that sometimes it's worthwhile being careful and not saying anything as you don't know what form people are inside a car.0 -
timmyjimmy wrote: »Not exactly reporting a traffic offence but an example of how quick things can turn when you go pointing out issues to drivers:
Jesus. That's something else. He needs his licence taken from him. I probably couldn't remain calm if that was in my face.0 -
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.No. It's entirely unnecessary and will just lead to another pedantic tangent.
A quick web search will show many such incidents (here and the UK).
No need to bring them in here we all know the dangers of road rage as much as we know the dangers of mobile use.
Edit
And once again you seem to be (I can only assume deliberately at this stage) ignoring the point that it is not about the reporting but the follow up conversations.
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?After 1:29 may have been initiated by the driver, but just because someone tries to engage, doesn't mean to say you have to interact. He does it all the time, even with children.
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.Here's what I do to reduce accident and crappy behaviour.. I practice good assertive cycling, reading the road ahead and with clear communication. I try to drive the same. I don't go out my way to wind others up and I don't turn every interaction with another road user into some Us Vs them bs argument. I lead by example and the more people that done that the better.
Going by your own posts, videos and language (how you often you use the tugging at the forelock expression etc) you would probably benefit from the same attitude and have way less stress on your rides. I have seen videos you have posted with incidents that could easily be avoided (or at least I would have avoided).
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?
Additionally, just because I don't have a YouTube account and I'm not driven by the need to self validate, doesn't mean to say I haven't also done my fair share of reporting.
You really don’t need to answer for everyone. Not everyone has the same opinion to you about these matters.Once again you seem to be missing the point. Reporting the crimes is not what makes him an arsehole. It's the little follow ups and micro aggressions.
Interesting tho.. you are illustrating my point exactly. If you are keen to jump to that conclusion, isn't it at all possible that one of the drivers or teenagers that he has a chat with will jump to the same conclusion?
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.Take the blinkers off for a second here.. it's not about 'offending dangerous drivers'. No one is stating that point and I think that's your bias at play.
It's about not causing further aggro. People are suggesting that this can lead to further road rage as well as feed the 'all cyclists are arseholes' mentality. No one is saying counter aggression by drivers is right, but for the sake of the greater good, many people including myself believe the better thing to do is not engage.
I think I'm right in stating that you disagree and possibly that this is a sign of weakness or something? But knowing when to walk away and let arseholes be arseholes is a good thing (in my opinion) and contributes to an overall better environment to cycle in.
Once again, I cannot state clearly enough that the reporting of drivers that Mikey does is great and also (in my opinion again because obviously it cannot be directly proven) contributes to a safer environment.
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?This is where we ask you for statistics to back that up, and/or peer reviewed evidence.
Youre very quick to dismiss other who make similar statements if they are contrary to this and or your views, so if you are going to make that statement, back it up.
I'd hold the view that this won't change close to 200 people's driving styles but it will feed the neverending cyclists v drivers agendas and leave people with incorrect assumptions about all drivers/cyclists.
So what? Is there some purity standard is required before any of us make a Garda report of a crime?He has stated he has 100s of hours if in uploaded stuff. I'd wager his own cycling roadcraft isn't perfect all the time, and he's pretty selective about what he puts up.
This is almost completely untrue.Weepsie, lots of posts in this thread show a lack of understanding as to how statistics work. Posters are acting as if there is a finite, absolute number of dangerous drivers on the road, as well as these dangerous drivers always being dangerous whenever they're in their car, and finally conflating breaking the law with dangerous driving. Looking at your phone while stopped in traffic, while breaking the law, is not the same as looking at it while moving, nor is it the same as drink driving. Assumptions that people doing it while stopped will do it while moving are just that, assumptions.
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.timmyjimmy wrote: »It's an old video so I guess cycling offenses weren't taken as seriously then. I know that would have been difficult not to say anything but it's proof that sometimes it's worthwhile being careful and not saying anything as you don't know what form people are inside a car.0 -
And ajr has a new deity0
-
AndrewJRenko wrote: »
Is everyone who reports a crime with CCTV evidence an asshole, or is it just Mikey?
.
I think you are too invested to see the wood0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0 -
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;DR0 -
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.All I read is most people want to get on with other road users and arrive safely.
Some people are dicks (law breaking etc)0 -
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.0 -
[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.0 -
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!!).0 -
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.0 -
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.......... most0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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"...0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement