Is this the unraveling of CyclingMikey?

[Rroff]

If a child purposely ran into a road chasing a ball, would they be fair game to run over? The driver could have (and should have stopped) They chose not to, because cyclist. I hope there's an update to this when the driver is prosecuted.

The driver had clearly committed to going and by the time Mikey choose to put himself in it's path had picked up quite a bit of speed, there wasn't much margin for stopping by that point. If a child had run out unexpectedly it would have been difficult to avoid a collision, in a different context if there was a child at the side who might have run out I'd hope the driver would have approached it differently using more caution so as to have more time to react and stop.

 

[john_smith]

Are we all watching different videos?

Is this a “what colour is the dress?” type of internet situation?

 

[Rroff]

It is a man walking across a road at a pedestrian crossing point with a central refuge when his right is clear, meanwhile a car drives to the right of a keep left bollard (3 points instantly) and accelerates at a high rate at him from a standstill despite the impending danger of a pedestrian walking across his illegal path. I'm not surprised the driver sped off afterwards, he should be charged with dangerous driving. Ignore the bike and the annoying person and we should all be outraged at the dangerous driving shown by multiple drivers there and especially the Fiat driver.

The keep left is irrelevant in this context nullified by the closure and no entry signs - any legal context is proceeding past the point of no entry. The driver's behaviour was in reaction to someone trying to stop them in what would appear like crazy behaviour. Framing their behaviour without the bike and annoying person in the picture is warping perception of the circumstances.

 

[p1RATE]

Are we all watching different videos?

Is this a “what colour is the dress?” type of internet situation?

Definitely seems to be that way doesn't it. Peoples biases changing their perception.

There is no doubt that this Mikey guy propelled himself/his bike in front of the car and the driver was also an idiot for speeding through and hitting him. The fact that both did something wrong doesn't make the other right

 

[Trifid]

The keep left is irrelevant in this context nullified by the closure and no entry signs - any legal context is proceeding past the point of no entry. The driver's behaviour was in reaction to someone trying to stop them in what would appear like crazy behaviour. Framing their behaviour without the bike and annoying person in the picture is warping perception of the circumstances.

Same category of offence, TS50 and still 3 points. He ignored clear road signs and tried to run over someone in the process. Any other view than this is letting bigotry enter the conversation. And when it comes to someone with a bicycle, there is a lot of bigotry on the internet.

 

[Rroff]

Are we all watching different videos?

Is this a “what colour is the dress?” type of internet situation?

Yourself and 1-2 others seem to re-framing the situation by replacing the crazy actions of the cyclist with a normal pedestrian while keeping the crazy actions of the driver, which regardless of the wrongs and rights of the situation is a distorted way to look at it.

And while I highly doubt any of these drivers had an exception in this case I'm also aware due to a recent similar closure through my village that some drivers may have an exception to a no entry sign.

He ignored clear road signs and tried to run over someone in the process. Any other view than this is letting bigotry enter the conversation. And when it comes to someone with a bicycle, there is a lot of bigotry on the internet.

Something I'm aware of, not that the driver acted in the right way if it was the case, is that sometimes people do have exceptions to these signs - as above we recently had a similar situation here and residents had a letter saying they could still use the single lane with no entry signs to get access to their properties. I highly suspect the driver and the rest had no exception but Mikey had no way of knowing that.

 

[JonRGV250]

Any other view than this is letting bigotry enter the conversation. And when it comes to someone with a bicycle, there is a lot of bigotry on the internet.

lol, what a load of horse poop.

 

[Rroff]

and tried to run over someone in the process

I don't believe the driver actively tried to run someone over - the driver clearly commits to going through playing a game of chicken in some respects with Mikey, Mikey starts edging out so the driver starts to speed up likely with the intention of either getting past before Mikey can step out or inadvisably as a deterrence to Mikey from continuing. Mikey then makes the decision to try and put something in the way of the driver - by which point it would have been nigh on impossible for the driver to react and stop in time.

Writing that I actually wonder if Mikey made the mistake of assuming the car had a forward collision system and his actions would force the vehicle to pre-emptively apply the brakes stopping in time and inconveniencing the driver as he has done before. Rewatching it with that in mind the way he pushes the bike out would make more sense if the intention was to trigger such a system.

 

[Kenai]

I don't believe the driver actively tried to run someone over

Almost certainly not but they're going to have a tricky defence to put together if they're questioned as to why, after this cyclist has already stepped into their path once to try and block their passage and caused them to reverse, that they decided the best approach was to try again but to drive so quickly they had no hope of stopping if he did it again.

Whilst the obvious answer is "To try and get past before he could get in front" and that might satisfy curious onlookers like ourselves, it might not wash quite so readily if the driver ends up facing some sort of careless or dangerous driving charge.

(and edit for clarity, knowing what this forum is like sometimes, as stated before, I think both parties are likely to get in trouble here, my opinion that the driver has not behaved appropriately doesn't mean I think Mikey is entirely innocent and in the right)

 

[fez]

I don't believe the driver actively tried to run someone over - the driver clearly commits to going through playing a game of chicken in some respects with Mickey, Mickey starts edging out so the driver starts to speed up likely with the intention of either getting past before Mickey can step out or inadvisably as a deterrence to Mickey from continuing. Mickey then makes the decision to try and put something in the way of the driver - by which point it would have been nigh on impossible for the driver to react and stop in time.

The driver knows hes there and drives at speed to try and get past. Thats utterly stupid and dangerous. Yes Mikey shouldn't be trying to block the road in the manner he does when the bike is hit but how anyone can defend the drivers actions is beyond me. Mikey isn't going to hurt anyone with his actions. The driver could very easily hurt him.

 

[Rroff]

The driver knows hes there and drives at speed to try and get past. Thats utterly stupid and dangerous. Yes Mikey shouldn't be trying to block the road in the manner he does when the bike is hit but how anyone can defend the drivers actions is beyond me. Mikey isn't going to hurt anyone with his actions. The driver could very easily hurt him.

The driver was essentially playing chicken with Mikey at the start of the incident so I don't disagree with it being stupid and dangerous but Mikey made the choice to go ahead with blocking the road after it was clear a collision is all but inevitable.

As per my post having taken a look at both angles again I do wonder if with the way he pushes the bike out he mistakenly thought he could trigger a forward collision system - which is a tactic he has previously used on at least one occasion - possibly more but I don't take that much notice of his videos.

 

[fez]

The driver was essentially playing chicken with Mickey at the start of the incident so I don't disagree with it being stupid and dangerous but Mickey made the choice to go ahead with blocking the road after it was clear a collision is all but inevitable.

Thats not how it works. If someone is threatening to run out into the road in front of me I can't just say "well, he knew I was coming through and chose to run in front of me a second time so I didn't bother to drive safely". You drive to conditions. If someone is trying to block the road and stop you passing then you either don't go or you pass very slowly so that if they do run out you don't hit them.

The guy was not in fear for his safety and he was doing something he shouldn't have been. He thought he could get past without Mikey getting in the way and he was wrong. Now he should suffer the consequences for his dangerous driving.

 

[Uther]

Thats not how it works. If someone is threatening to run out into the road in front of me I can't just say "well, he knew I was coming through and chose to run in front of me a second time so I didn't bother to drive safely". You drive to conditions. If someone is trying to block the road and stop you passing then you either don't go or you pass very slowly so that if they do run out you don't hit them.

The guy was not in fear for his safety and he was doing something he shouldn't have been. He thought he could get past without Mikey getting in the way and he was wrong. Now he should suffer the consequences for his dangerous driving.

They were both being tools.

 

[Rroff]

Thats not how it works. If someone is threatening to run out into the road in front of me I can't just say "well, he knew I was coming through and chose to run in front of me a second time so I didn't bother to drive safely". You drive to conditions. If someone is trying to block the road and stop you passing then you either don't go or you pass very slowly so that if they do run out you don't hit them.

The guy was not in fear for his safety and he was doing something he shouldn't have been. He thought he could get past without Mikey getting in the way and he was wrong. Now he should suffer the consequences for his dangerous driving.

I don't disagree as such - the driver played chicken with Mikey in the hope that being decisively would discourage him from blocking him which is not advisable but it was a certainty that if he drove slowly Mikey would place himself in the way, but also Mikey choose to react late by which time the driver didn't realistically have much options even if they'd put themselves in that situation. Personally I think it distorts the situation if trying to interpret this through the lens of dealing with a normal situation - the driver would likely have done things very differently if dealing with a random pedestrian acting unpredictably.

Mikey was acting pretty crazy from the perspective of a random 3rd party, some may have thought he meant them harm. At the end of the day as above they were both being tools.

 

[Penfold101]

I’d love to see him try it in front of a train and see what happens.

I mean, he’s there, so it’s bound to stop for him, right?






Right?

 

[fez]

They were both being tools.

I don't disagree. One was driving a lump of metal at speed and could have really hurt the other one. One has a far higher expectation of good behaviour than the other. One of them should be in a lot of trouble with the police.

I’d love to see him try it in front of a train and see what happens.

I mean, he’s there, so it’s bound to stop for him, right?

Right?

I mean, yes, thats exactly what trains do when there is a report of someone on the lines. They stop. They don't say "well I'm a train and people can see i'm a train so **** it, here I come". If they can stop, they stop. They don't go again if the person who was just standing on the tracks is still standing by the tracks. You're not making the point you think you are.

 

[Rroff]

Quite an interesting frame - though Mikey himself said he reacted late, I do feel like he was thinking he could trigger the car's forward collision system, which in this case was either disabled or not a feature of the vehicle. Vehicle did attempt to turn away from the collision.

Also I hope he wasn't wearing flip flops when operating the bike - can hardly get on your high horse* about people driving in a manner which could cause an incident and then cycle in unsuitable footwear.

* Though I don't have a problem with him documenting and reporting people on their phones, etc.

 

[Resident]

If a child purposely ran into a road chasing a ball, would they be fair game to run over? The driver could have (and should have stopped) They chose not to, because cyclist. I hope there's an update to this when the driver is prosecuted.

Are you ok? Do you need me to research some mental health services in your area for you?

FYI Van Erp is currently the subject of investigation over the incident.

I've put a slowed down version of the original incident here, did he throw his bike at the car?
It doesn't look like it to me.

ThumbSnap - Free Photo / Video Sharing

ThumbSnap: Free Photo and Video Sharing

thumbsnap.com

Why is it that those defending Van Erp only post his own, edit footage.

Try this footage where it's clear that he's deliberately waiting, never looks right to check for oncoming because he's utterly rage-fixed on the Fiat.

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[Hotwired]

Clearly mentally stable.

 

[Rroff]

Try this footage where it's clear that he's deliberately waiting

Also notice the driver, even if they were likely in the wrong, putting up their window - some people are clearly concerned as to his behaviour and how it might escalate.