Is this the unraveling of CyclingMikey?

Flipflops sounds like a terrible choice for cycling. I know you can buy proper cycling sandals, and that sounds bad enough, with how grubby your feet would get, but flipflops is just ridiculous.
 
Rroff said:
There are rules about wearing appropriate clothing when cycling by extension that includes footwear.
Click to expand...

Those "rules" are recommendations not requirements. They say SHOULD not MUST. Compare Rule 59 (on cyclists' clothing) with Rule 60 (on bicycle lights).

Rroff said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, as stated above, I wouldn't wear them for cycling so I'm not going to defend him on it. But if they are such a dreadful liability on an EAPC he would probably have had a problem while wearing them by now and already stopped.
 
Resident said:
Why is it that those defending Van Erp only post his own, edit footage.
Click to expand...

Err where have I defended him?
I've asked two questions:
1) Does it look like he 'threw' his bike into the car?
2) Why did the driver speed off when his car was obviously damaged?

I made my point very clear, around 2011 I was CyclingMikey for 3 months until I realised I was engineering some of the incidents.
I don't have any now because I stay out of the way of car drivers.
 
Maple Leaf said:
Those "rules" are recommendations not requirements. They say SHOULD not MUST. Compare Rule 59 (on cyclists' clothing) with Rule 60 (on bicycle lights).



Well, as stated above, I wouldn't wear them for cycling so I'm not going to defend him on it. But if they are such a dreadful liability on an EAPC he would probably have had a problem while wearing them by now and already stopped.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure your point, they make a recommendation based on an identifiable safety hazard - just because they aren't a requirement doesn't mean it is OK to ignore them. Far too many accidents happen because people only care about the letter and not the spirit of laws, etc.
 
Maple Leaf said:
Those "rules" are recommendations not requirements. They say SHOULD not MUST. Compare Rule 59 (on cyclists' clothing) with Rule 60 (on bicycle lights).
Click to expand...

You mean like rule 97 which applies to drivers and is also a "should"?

However I'm fairly confident that if you were to have a crash and it was found your wearing of flipflops contributed (e.g. they got stuck under the brake pedal), then you'd be looking at a charge of driving without due care, so clearly it's not as simple as you're making out.
 
Vonhelmet said:
Flipflops sounds like a terrible choice for cycling. I know you can buy proper cycling sandals, and that sounds bad enough, with how grubby your feet would get, but flipflops is just ridiculous.
Click to expand...
I agree. I cycle to and from work each day, and wearing flip-flops would be an absolute ******* nightmare. I wear a pair of lightweight Puma trainers which are sturdy enough to pedal in, but so light you feel like you're just wearing socks.
 
Resident said:
He'll happily castigate motorists but won't say boo to a goose to the law-breaking cyclists.
Click to expand...

Actually, Mikey has criticised other cyclists who run red lights in a very forthright manner.

He also helped the Police by knocking down a violent criminal they were chasing so they could arrest him. When was the last time you helped the Police catch someone on the run from them?

By the way, over a 5 year study period, most cyclist deaths at traffic lights in London were caused by motorists failing to stop for red lights and hitting cyclists, not by cyclists running red lights. A study from 2007 also found that cyclists who wait patiently at traffic lights are actually more at risk of being hit by lorries (due to being in the lorry driver's blind spot).

Resident said:
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. ... The car going through the no entry is a separate issue to Mikey's actions, in law.
Click to expand...
Chuk_Chuk said:
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.
Click to expand...

The problem with both of your arguments is that the Police have actively permitted Mikey to do this for many years. He first submitted videos of himself doing this to the Police at least 6 years ago: Mercedes road rage driver... Two angry road raging doctors...

If, like you, they thought his behaviour was unacceptable they would have told him not to do it again when he sent them his first blocking video. They had all the evidence they needed to prosecute him for doing it.

However, since then he has reported 2,280 drivers for breaking the Road Traffic Act. They were given 2,649 penalty points, received £165,700 in fines and 35 drivers were disqualified. Given that Mikey has basically been doing the Police's job for them for free it might be politically difficult for them to turn around and prosecute him now for just doing what they knew he was doing for the last 6 years!

As I stated earlier, if the dangerous driver had not escalated the situation and forced his way through (on his second time of trying) there would have been no collision and hence none of you would be calling for Mikey to be prosecuted.

Personally, I don't think it is worth him endangering his life by using these tactics. After all, London is full of entitled overpaid idiots and it's just a matter of time until he runs into an evil nutter like Kenneth Noye (the road rager who stabbed a motorist to death).

SexyGreyFox said:
Err where have I defended him?
I've asked two questions:
1) Does it look like he 'threw' his bike into the car?
2) Why did the driver speed off when his car was obviously damaged?
Click to expand...

You won't get honest answers to your questions from this lot! LOL

Rroff said:
I'm not sure your point, they make a recommendation based on an identifiable safety hazard - just because they aren't a requirement doesn't mean it is OK to ignore them. Far too many accidents happen because people only care about the letter and not the spirit of laws, etc.
Click to expand...

The Highway Code describes best practices for cyclists based on an interpretation of limited evidence. For example, it suggests (doubtlessly in good faith) that cyclists should wear a cycling helmet. In reality, wearing a conventional cycling helmet only protects your head against minor knocks and bumps, not against the high-energy collisions that occur with many cars and lorries.

Indeed, there is evidence from a 2006 study by Dr. Ian Walker at the University of Bath that drivers typically pass cyclists wearing helmets more closely than those without them, putting them at greater risk of a collision. Helmeted cyclists on average actually suffer 14% more collisions per mile travelled than non-wearers and they may increase the risk of neck injuries. It is, therefore, entirely possible that helmet-wearing might have a net disbenefit in safety terms.

Haggisman said:
However I'm fairly confident that if you were to have a crash and it was found your wearing of flipflops contributed (e.g. they got stuck under the brake pedal), then you'd be looking at a charge of driving without due care, so clearly it's not as simple as you're making out.
Click to expand...

We are talking about a legal EAPC cyclist wearing flip-flops not a car driver. Bicycles and EAPCs don't have brake pedals. The reality is that Mikey is far far more likely to injure himself by wearing flip-flops for cycling than anyone else. Also, I've made it clear several times already that I don't wear flip-flops for cycling and don't approve of it.
 
Short version: no one is going to change anyone's minds here. If you don't like cyclist behaviour then this thread is catnip. If you don't like driver behaviour then this thread is still catnip.

I do like the energy on show but do feel its slightly wasted.
 
Maple Leaf said:
The Highway Code describes best practices for cyclists based on an interpretation of limited evidence.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile I think most people would agree that wearing securely fitting footwear is a small thing to give a significant increase in safety- same as just not using your phone when driving - it shouldn't have to be rule of law for people to use some common sense and not do things which might distract or impact on the control of their or someone else's vehicle.

I'd still have a dim view of it in other contexts but someone who is holding other road users to account would do well to do the best they can as well.
 
Maple Leaf said:
Actually, Mikey has criticised other cyclists who run red lights in a very forthright manner.

He also helped the Police by knocking down a violent criminal they were chasing so they could arrest him. When was the last time you helped the Police catch someone on the run from them?

By the way, over a 5 year study period, most cyclist deaths at traffic lights in London were caused by motorists failing to stop for red lights and hitting cyclists, not by cyclists running red lights. A study from 2007 also found that cyclists who wait patiently at traffic lights are actually more at risk of being hit by lorries (due to being in the lorry driver's blind spot).




The problem with both of your arguments is that the Police have actively permitted Mikey to do this for many years. He first submitted videos of himself doing this to the Police at least 6 years ago: Mercedes road rage driver... Two angry road raging doctors...

If, like you, they thought his behaviour was unacceptable they would have told him not to do it again when he sent them his first blocking video. They had all the evidence they needed to prosecute him for doing it.

However, since then he has reported 2,280 drivers for breaking the Road Traffic Act. They were given 2,649 penalty points, received £165,700 in fines and 35 drivers were disqualified. Given that Mikey has basically been doing the Police's job for them for free it might be politically difficult for them to turn around and prosecute him now for just doing what they knew he was doing for the last 6 years!

As I stated earlier, if the dangerous driver had not escalated the situation and forced his way through (on his second time of trying) there would have been no collision and hence none of you would be calling for Mikey to be prosecuted.

Personally, I don't think it is worth him endangering his life by using these tactics. After all, London is full of entitled overpaid idiots and it's just a matter of time until he runs into an evil nutter like Kenneth Noye (the road rager who stabbed a motorist to death).



You won't get honest answers to your questions from this lot! LOL



The Highway Code describes best practices for cyclists based on an interpretation of limited evidence. For example, it suggests (doubtlessly in good faith) that cyclists should wear a cycling helmet. In reality, wearing a conventional cycling helmet only protects your head against minor knocks and bumps, not against the high-energy collisions that occur with many cars and lorries.

Indeed, there is evidence from a 2006 study by Dr. Ian Walker at the University of Bath that drivers typically pass cyclists wearing helmets more closely than those without them, putting them at greater risk of a collision. Helmeted cyclists on average actually suffer 14% more collisions per mile travelled than non-wearers and they may increase the risk of neck injuries. It is, therefore, entirely possible that helmet-wearing might have a net disbenefit in safety terms.



We are talking about a legal EAPC cyclist wearing flip-flops not a car driver. Bicycles and EAPCs don't have brake pedals. The reality is that Mikey is far far more likely to injure himself by wearing flip-flops for cycling than anyone else. Also, I've made it clear several times already that I don't wear flip-flops for cycling and don't approve of it.
Click to expand...

By the way, over a 5 year study period, most cyclist deaths at traffic lights in London were caused by motorists failing to stop for red lights and hitting cyclists, not by cyclists running red lights. A study from 2007 also found that cyclists who wait patiently at traffic lights are actually more at risk of being hit by lorries (due to being in the lorry driver's blind spot).

i'll explain why. I’ve seen this many times, cyclists don’t stop behind the truck, but when they reach a red light, they cycle up and stop next to it. I’ve noticed the same behavior with buses. It’s not the drivers’ fault

In one year I have seen hundreds if not thousands of cyclists, mopeds and scooters run red lights. use there phones and drive irrisponsable We need cyclists to have reg plates, I have seen how violent cyclists get.

I believe that we now need a licence for cyclists, they need to pass this to be able to be on the roads.
 
Last edited:
Maple Leaf said:
We are talking about a legal EAPC cyclist wearing flip-flops not a car driver.
Click to expand...

No we're talking about the fact that a highway code rule which says "should" rather than "must" can be completely ignored. Either you think that's the case (for both cyclists and car drivers), or you don't. Or you're admitting you're happy to apply double standards to cyclists and drivers, in which case stop beating about the bush and pretending otherwise.

Maple Leaf said:
Bicycles and EAPCs don't have brake pedals.
Click to expand...

Correct, the pedals are instead used for applying power, balance and steering.

In a car there's also zero chance of the flip-flops in question falling between the spokes and causing a rapid loss of speed and control (trust me, this hurts!)

Maple Leaf said:
The reality is that Mikey is far far more likely to injure himself by wearing flip-flops for cycling than anyone else.
Click to expand...

Except for the pedestrian or other cyclist he collides with, or the car which is forced to take evasive action to avoid him when he loses control.
 
Maple Leaf said:
As I stated earlier, if the dangerous driver had not escalated the situation and forced his way through (on his second time of trying) there would have been no collision and hence none of you would be calling for Mikey to be prosecuted.
Click to expand...

Pure Whataboutery.

You are literally stating that you think it's ok to break the law because someone else has.

Again Mikey broke the law and caused CRIMINAL damage to another vehicle and ENDANGERED himself and other road users.

The rest of your post is irrelevant to the discussion.


Maple Leaf said:
You won't get honest answers to your questions from this lot! LOL
Click to expand...

Kettle, Pot, Black.

Many posters in this thread have posted objectively and yet you've lambasted them all with whataboutery.
 
Haggisman said:
No we're talking about the fact that a highway code rule which says "should" rather than "must" can be completely ignored. Either you think that's the case (for both cyclists and car drivers), or you don't. Or you're admitting you're happy to apply double standards to cyclists and drivers, in which case stop beating about the bush and pretending otherwise.
Click to expand...

The very significant difference is that drivers ignoring a 'should' are likely to be breaking an actual law - driving without due care and attention or something similar.

It says cyclists 'should' wear a helmet, but that's obviously not a legal requirement and can literally be ignored.
 
Brun said:
The very significant difference is that drivers ignoring a 'should' are likely to be breaking an actual law - driving without due care and attention or something similar.

It says cyclists 'should' wear a helmet, but that's obviously not a legal requirement and can literally be ignored.
Click to expand...
“Should” does not have the weight of law. “Must” does. If a rule says “must” then it is linked to a specific offence in the road traffic act or similar. This applies to both drivers and cyclists.
 
Brun said:
The very significant difference is that drivers ignoring a 'should' are likely to be breaking an actual law - driving without due care and attention or something similar.
Click to expand...

Nope, "should" is not a legal requirement, purely a recommendation.

While the police/court/insurance would take a dim view of ignoring that recommendation if it were found to have caused an accident, and yes, you could be prosecuted for careless/dangerous driving/cycling (yes, that is a thing), the failure to adhere to those recommendations are not in themselves a breach of any law.

Ergo, whilst Mikey is not breaking the law by wearing flipflops (and neither would a driver be), if they were to cause an accident due to wearing them, then there is a good chance they would be held liable and potentially prosecuted for it.

Either way, I think we can all agree that anyone operating any kind of vehicle whilst wearing flipflops is an absolute muppet and has no place pulling up other people on road safety issues. Pot, kettle and all that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom