Is this the unraveling of CyclingMikey?

[Efour]

I saw him reply about flipflops on another YouTube comment section....
He said words to the effect of:
' in the Netherlands loads of people cycle in them so it's perfectly fine"

 

[Rroff]

I saw him reply about flipflops on another YouTube comment section....
He said words to the effect of:
' in the Netherlands loads of people cycle in them so it's perfectly fine"

Sums him up really. Loads of people do lots of really silly things that doesn't make it fine. It is so very obviously something, completely avoidable, which can contribute to loss of control of a bike he really shouldn't be on the roads if his hazard perception is that poor.

 

[jaybee]

Complete moron. Doesn't deserve a thread this long discussing him.

 

[aVdub]

Complete moron. Doesn't deserve a thread this long discussing him.

If you take out all the posts pointing at others informing them of a need of mental health services or just calling them pricks, the thread isn't really that long..

Personally my own thoughts and without a link to a study is there are as many dicks in cars, motorbikes as on cycles and scooters that pointing at just one as a problem is blinkered.

In this instance I see him being egged on by the cheering crowd to perhaps overstep a little too far this time.

 

[fez]

[/QUOTE]

I saw him reply about flipflops on another YouTube comment section....
He said words to the effect of:
' in the Netherlands loads of people cycle in them so it's perfectly fine"

Hes riding an ebike. Pedals literally just need to go around and he goes forward. Hes not going to slip off the pedals. The fact he is wearing flip flops has absolutely nothing to do with anything other than the standard attempt at victim blaming that cyclists constantly get. Ooh, did he have lights on in the middle of the day. Was he wearing hi-viz. Did he have a helmet on. All things designed to distract from bad driving and remove the blame from drivers who simply don't bother paying attention when they drive and don't even give a second thought about cyclists.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

A car driver has to exercise a higher standard of care and vigilance than a pedestrian because they are controlling a vehicle which can easily kill and maim other people. There's plenty of case law to support that principle; see Lunt v Khelifa EWCA Civ 801, Eagle v Chambers and Sabir v Osei-Kwabena EWCA Civ 1213.

That doesn't mean a pedestrian can be reckless. Actually it means the opposite. So cycling mike is still wrong for his behaviour.

Don't be preposterous! Mikey knew that his bike and himself would come off far worse than the car in a collision. If the driver had stepped on his brake rather than his accelerator when Mikey stepped off the kerb we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Which is why he ran in front of a moving car? Threw his bike in front of the moving car instead of, grabbing the brakes (even though he was clearly slowing himself down as seen by Rroff screenshot, so he clearly knew it was too late for the vehicle to stop)

If Mikey had paid attention to the hedgehog advert and not stepped out in front of a moving car we would not be having this conversation.

 

[Resident]

They brought it up his sexuality not me. Is there anything incorrect about what I said?

And you argued that someone couldn't possibly be gay because they fathered children. You are wrong in that assertion and I gave you an example

Mikey was not violent or aggressive. He made no threats and addressed no swear words to the driver. The driver used his car like a weapon. He was the one who chose to risk causing property damage, serious injury or death.

Clearly nothing anyone shows you or tells you that puts Mikey in the wrong, despite several posters doing so, is going to remove the rose tinted blinkers you're obviously wearing.

He caused the collision, with intent because he's a jumped up little man who thinks he's a copper.

His recent escalations are going to get someone hurt, most likely himself but potential someone else

Maybe DM Mikey and ask him if he fancies a bum. You might get lucky.

 

[Resident]

What's with the yellow text

Equivalent to 'ALL CAPS RAGE' when your point is irrelevant...

 

[Haggisman]

And you argued that someone couldn't possibly be gay because they fathered children. You are wrong in that assertion and I gave you an example



Clearly nothing anyone shows you or tells you that puts Mikey in the wrong, despite several posters doing so, is going to remove the rose tinted blinkers you're obviously wearing.

He caused the collision, with intent because he's a jumped up little man who thinks he's a copper.

His recent escalations are going to get someone hurt, most likely himself but potential someone else

Maybe DM Mikey and ask him if he fancies a bum. You might get lucky.

Whilst I agree with your points, can we drop the poorly veiled homophobia? It's unnecessary and irrelevant to the situation

 

[hurfdurf]

People quoting the highway code is always hilarious.

 

[Maple Leaf]

And likewise if Mikey had just documented it and sent to the relevant authority rather than carry out an action he knew almost certainly would cause a collision - another time if he'd got that call wrong he'd have done damage to an innocent person's car or maybe caused them to swerve hitting a pedestrian, etc. let's not pretend this is a one way thing.

If you watch the video he made he seems pretty upset after the collision, so I don't accept that he believed he would cause a collision. You can certainly argue that he had impaired judgement, but I doubt that causing a collision was his intent.

As for damaging an innocent person's car, well you've already rowed back from your idea that the driver might have been exempted from having to obey the No Entry sign. We've clearly established that the driver drove recklessly and violated the RTA deliberately twice. Why are you defending selfish and reckless motorists? In my experience, such people are also likely to exhibit road rage and to have a violent streak. Frankly, they don't deserve your defence.

Also I want to know if he is cycling around in those flip flops - I don't think people have to be perfect to call out others but they should make an attempt to try and do the best they can and that is certainly not doing your best to ensure safe and proper use of the roads.

Oh please! This is a silly criticism. He is riding a legal EAPC so he doesn't have to be generating high torque to keep it moving at 15.5 mph. If his flip-flops fall off he will get sore feet from the pedals, but that's hardly a big deal which would lead to an accident.

Which is why he ran in front of a moving car? Threw his bike in front of the moving car instead of, grabbing the brakes (even though he was clearly slowing himself down as seen by Rroff screenshot, so he clearly knew it was too late for the vehicle to stop)

If you watch any of his other videos you will see he often puts himself in front of a moving car. Most drivers have the common decency to hit the brakes at that point rather than the accelerator.

And you argued that someone couldn't possibly be gay because they fathered children. You are wrong in that assertion and I gave you an example

I made the point that most men who have sex with women and men are bisexual, maybe there are a subset of them who stop having sex with women when they get older and consider themselves gay. Who knows? But the only reason I can see why Efour suggested he was gay was to denigrate him. The fact that others jumped in to say that he could still be gay after I pointed out that he had a relationship with a woman and fathered children just seems like an attempt to continue belittling him.

Clearly nothing anyone shows you or tells you that puts Mikey in the wrong, despite several posters doing so, is going to remove the rose tinted blinkers you're obviously wearing.

If you had bothered to read my posts properly you would see that I said more than once that I didn't approve of Mikey trying to block that car. The risk/benefit ratio just wasn't worth it. The sort of people who drive that carelessly and selfishly are also capable of road rage and violence, so it's quite possible that they will just hit the accelerator and maim/kill anyone in their way.

He caused the collision, with intent because he's a jumped up little man who thinks he's a copper.

If he had been wearing a PCSO's uniform do you think the driver would have stopped or still did what he did? I ask because a PCSO doesn't actually have any more arrest powers than a member of the public, but watching a frequently violated No Entry road like that would be the sort of job they would be given. Maybe their uniform would have been enough to ensure compliance though.

His recent escalations are going to get someone hurt, most likely himself but potential someone else

As I've said before I don't approve of him putting himself in front of deranged motorists. If something did happen to him and you were on the Jury I think we all know his killer would walk free.

Maybe DM Mikey and ask him if he fancies a bum. You might get lucky.

Oh, Ha Ha Ha. Using homosexual slurs to insult people is so middle school! Grow up.

 

[Resident]

If he had been wearing a PCSO's uniform do you think the driver would have stopped or still did what he did? I ask because a PCSO doesn't actually have any more arrest powers than a member of the public, but watching a frequently violated No Entry road like that would be the sort of job they would be given. Maybe their uniform would have been enough to ensure compliance though.

I won't be replying to any of the other banal and irrelevant nonsense you posted.

However I WILL correct you on this aberration of a thought process.

A PCSO is employed by the police force and would be in uniform. They would also have the authority to police the road.

Mikey is neither a PCSO or employed by the Metropolitan Police. He is a private citizen who erroneously believes he has the right to police the public & is, by definition, posted earlier in the thread, a vigilante.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

If you watch any of his other videos you will see he often puts himself in front of a moving car.

So he has an established pattern of playing in the road and trying to cause accidents and it’s all recorded and catalogued.

As they say play stupid games win stupid prizes.

Most drivers have the common decency to hit the brakes at that point rather than the accelerator.

My previous statement stands

I will say about Mike what I said about just stop oil. He behaves like an ******** because other people are nice enough to put up with his behaviour.

He was lucky that this time it was just his bike but he’s too arrogant to learn his lesson. If he continues playing in the road one day it will actually be him sprawling across the floor next to his bike and he will get no sympathy from me.

 

[shifty_uk]

Complete moron. Doesn't deserve a thread this long discussing him.

Its actually quite interesting if you look at the wider subject of road safety, mobile phone use behind the wheel or cyclist safety.

Trouble is, people are too entrenched in their own views that they can’t see any form of sense but you get that on any topic.

It’s a bit boring now, the guy isn’t a vigilante, he films people mostly on his commute, those people are committing crimes, wether you agree with the laws or not, he’s not orchestrating scenarios, he’s been doing it for over 10 years and only got some notoriety in the last couple of years, he’s not homosexual(and who cares if he was). I don’t agree with him walking out infront of that car but they had plenty of opportunity to stop and they didn’t which caused damage and potential injury, the driver will get the book thrown at him. It really is that simple. Like him or loathe him, he’s had a positive impact on phone usage behind the wheel in London and as I’ve said too many times, if you don’t commit crimes, you will never ever need to deal with someone like him so happy days for all(unless you’re an entitled moron that flouts the rules and jeopardises the safety of others)

 

[Rroff]

Oh please! This is a silly criticism. He is riding a legal EAPC so he doesn't have to be generating high torque to keep it moving at 15.5 mph. If his flip-flops fall off he will get sore feet from the pedals, but that's hardly a big deal which would lead to an accident.

Even on an electric assisted bike they are a significant hazard, if one comes loose or falls off they could become caught up in the mechanics of the bike or cause the rider to lose their balance or a bit more than sore feet if they slip and jarr themselves on the pedals causing a pain reaction, etc. I shouldn't need to explain this.

Calling it silly criticism makes it hard for me to take your other comments seriously.

 

[Rroff]

As for damaging an innocent person's car, well you've already rowed back from your idea that the driver might have been exempted from having to obey the No Entry sign. We've clearly established that the driver drove recklessly and violated the RTA deliberately twice. Why are you defending selfish and reckless motorists? In my experience, such people are also likely to exhibit road rage and to have a violent streak. Frankly, they don't deserve your defence.

I said another time he could get it wrong and damage an innocent person's car, etc. I haven't rowed back on anything I said from the start I thought the chances of this driver having an exemption was slim but it is possible. I haven't defended the driver at all that is your bias interpreting my posts, I've said from the start I believe this to be an interaction of two tools.

 

[Maple Leaf]

A PCSO is employed by the police force and would be in uniform. They would also have the authority to police the road.

Mikey is neither a PCSO or employed by the Metropolitan Police. He is a private citizen who erroneously believes he has the right to police the public & is, by definition, posted earlier in the thread, a vigilante.

Indeed, but the Police clearly weren't enforcing the rules there. Obviously, it would be better if the Police were stopping these reckless motorists and giving them Endorsable Fixed Penalty Notices, but they weren't. If they were then selfish and reckless drivers wouldn't be driving through there on the wrong side of the road with impunity.

Immediately after the collision with Mikey's bike another driver tried to force her way through too. If people see others getting away with it then many of them will do it themselves. There should at least be a temporary ANPR camera up there recording the violators so they can be sent EFPNs by post afterwards. Then Mikey would not have any reason to get involved.

Even on an electric assisted bike they are a significant hazard, if one comes loose or falls off they could become caught up in the mechanics of the bike or cause the rider to lose their balance or a bit more than sore feet if they slip and jarr themselves on the pedals causing a pain reaction, etc. I shouldn't need to explain this.

I cycle long distances every day so I am speaking from experience not theoretically. I have found that the ends of long shoe laces can get caught between the gears and the chain but the short closed loops on a pair of flip-flops do not. On an EAPC you can pedal with far less force and keep cycling at 15.5 mph which lowers the risk of something going wrong and your feet coming off the pedals and colliding with the floor at high speed. Personally, I wouldn't wear flip-flops for cycling because I ride a heavy mountain bike which I often pull a trailer behind and hence I often have to use considerable force to propel it along. I wear a pair of steel toe-capped safety shoes.

Calling it silly criticism makes it hard for me to take your other comments seriously.

I meant it is like you are so keen to criticise Mikey that you are searching for things that are barely relevant to the original subject. There are no rules about cyclists' footware and if he feels comfortable and safe wearing flip-flops that is up to him. I'm sure he will start wearing proper shoes if he injures himself because he was wearing them.

 

[Resident]

Then Mikey would not have any reason to get involved.

Beyond recording and reporting Mikey had no LEGAL AUTHORITY to get involved therefore NO VALID REASON. In doing so he put himself and others at risk & caused a collision. You can even see in the 3rd party video and in Mikey's own footage, at no point did he look in the direction of correctly proceeding vehicles before he ran out and 'attacked' the Fiat.

What if, as he ran out to stop the fiat, there was a correctly proceeding vehicle that was forced to take avoiding action or even hit Mikey?
I suppose you're going to say that would have been the fault of the Fiat too?

The car going through the no entry is a separate issue to Mikey's actions, in law.

 

[Maple Leaf]

You can even see in the 3rd party video and in Mikey's own footage, at no point did he look in the direction of correctly proceeding vehicles before he ran out and 'attacked' the Fiat.

That is simply not true. The third-party video was edited. In his video he looked to his right 5 times after the driver had reversed back to his starting position and before the collision. He would also have been able to hear vehicles approaching from his right.

What if, as he ran out to stop the fiat, there was a correctly proceeding vehicle that was forced to take avoiding action or even hit Mikey?

He only ran out after the Fiat set off. There would have been no point in its driver setting off if an on-coming motor vehicle had been coming from Mikey's right. (Not perfect, I know, because on-coming cyclists would have been close enough to the kerb not to cause the driver to wait for an empty lane.)

But I've already made it clear that I don't approve of what Mikey did. The risk/benefit ratio for this strategy under these circumstances is very poor.

 

[Rroff]

I cycle long distances every day so I am speaking from experience not theoretically. I have found that the ends of long shoe laces can get caught between the gears and the chain but the short closed loops on a pair of flip-flops do not. On an EAPC you can pedal with far less force and keep cycling at 15.5 mph which lowers the risk of something going wrong and your feet coming off the pedals and colliding with the floor at high speed. Personally, I wouldn't wear flip-flops for cycling because I ride a heavy mountain bike which I often pull a trailer behind and hence I often have to use considerable force to propel it along. I wear a pair of steel toe-capped safety shoes.


I meant it is like you are so keen to criticise Mikey that you are searching for things that are barely relevant to the original subject. There are no rules about cyclists' footware and if he feels comfortable and safe wearing flip-flops that is up to him. I'm sure he will start wearing proper shoes if he injures himself because he was wearing them.

There are rules about wearing appropriate clothing when cycling by extension that includes footwear. It is quite foreseeable that a flip flop coming loose could become wedged, caught or temporarily interfere with the mechanical operation of a bike, or distract the rider. While you might be able to lower the risk of an incident involving the pedals wearing appropriate footwear largely eliminates it... when cycling along with other cyclists as Mikey often does a flip flop coming loose from the bike ahead could cause them to swerve to avoid it or possibly affect their stability if they cycle over it - something completely avoidable by wearing appropriate footwear.

This is very relevant to the original subject given his supposed concerns about safety on the roads.