Is this the unraveling of CyclingMikey?

Resident said:
Delusional.
Click to expand...

OK, Kavannagh QC! This incident happened 15 days ago. Why haven't the Police charged Mikey with a crime already?

This former motor insurance claim handler who analyses dashcam footage of road accidents reckons the worst case scenario for Mikey is a civil court case (in which the motorist would have to pay the bulk of the damages and costs). He made the following video about it and the following comment:

The second video is also in my video and it shows no such intent. He walked out with his bike (a 28k pedal assisted E bike) at the same time the car set off; he realised the car was coming towards him so took a step back to protect himself. He had no way of pulling back such a considerably heavy bike with that step back.

There was not intent to ‘throw’ his bike at the car or cause damage, he was doing what he had done that day dozens of times and stand in front of the car. It’s also something that he had done 30 seconds earlier to the same car so the driver should have been expecting that.

Should he be doing that? No, I say so in the video. The car driver aggressively accelerated toward Mike who was visibly walking into the road, that car driver had previously ignored 8 road closed signs, and two no entry, was no on the wrong side of the road heading into oncoming traffic and also failed to check it was safe to turn left and then absconded the scene.

Forget it’s Mike, forget his previous, look at the incident in isolation, and both peoples actions. Then rank them next to each other. If this makes it to civil court - which it won’t because the car driver knows he’s up **** creek. My bet is 1/3 2/3 Mikes favour

What will look worse for the car driver is that Mike had stepped out on front of him previously so he should be anticipating Mike doing that again. He also had the opportunity to turn round and obey the dozen signs he’d ignored previously as other cars were doing. Source
Click to expand...

Tell me why he is wrong.

(Edited to add information about his professional background after prompting by Richie.)
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
This is really poor justification - I'm sure there are plenty of people as well who believe that using a phone when driving isn't going to distract them, etc. either and not like there is a shortage of well fitting ventilated footwear suitable for cycling.
Click to expand...

It may be a poor justification, but using a phone while driving is illegal whereas wearing flip-flops while cycling isn't.
 
Maple Leaf said:
It may be a poor justification, but using a phone while driving is illegal whereas wearing flip-flops while cycling isn't.
Click to expand...

And? surely what matters is safe and considerate use of the road not whether something it specifically legal or illegal by the very letter of the law?

(Sadly this is how so many people seem to think hence so many totally avoidable accidents happen).
 
Last edited:
Maple Leaf said:
This man analyses dashcam footage of road traffic accidents for a living and he reckons the worst case scenario for Mikey is a civil court case (in which the motorist would have to pay the bulk of the damages and costs). He made the following video about it and the following comment:

Tell me why he is wrong.
Click to expand...

I think it would be an idea for you to explain this guy's credentials first as, for now, its just his opinion and you are using his opinion as it supports your argument. In essence - why does itsbigjobber's opinion carry sufficient weight that you are using it to rebut an opinion you disagree with and why is it "better" than @Resident's opinion for you?


*saunters back to SC* :p
 
The few videos I’ve seen of this guy a couple years back always seemed to be him trying to provoke a reaction from people and then complaining when he got one.

Absolute idiot.
 
arknor said:
more people should try cycling and see how it really is, but they won't because they know how dangerous cars are and they don't have a death wish.
Click to expand...
I think that by law people who want a car licence should be made to pass the bike cbt at a minimum. Ideally they should gain one of the A licenses. I think this would do wonders for driving standards.
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
I think that by law people who want a car licence should be made to pass the bike cbt at a minimum. Ideally they should gain one of the A licenses. I think this would do wonders for driving standards.
Click to expand...

Why not all adult bike riders regardless if they want a car licence having to do what you suggest? :confused:
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
I think that by law people who want a car licence should be made to pass the bike cbt at a minimum. Ideally they should gain one of the A licenses. I think this would do wonders for driving standards.
Click to expand...

That sounds like aanother money grabbing scheme.

How about requiring to use a pushbike for 12 months (with proof of riding)
 
Richie said:
Why not all adult bike riders regardless if they want a car licence having to do what you suggest? :confused:
Click to expand...
I agree that they should but it is too difficult to regulate push bike sales, such that you force all push bike riders to take, the CBT.

hornetstinger said:
That sounds like aanother money grabbing scheme.

How about requiring to use a pushbike for 12 months (with proof of riding)
Click to expand...
We have enough terrible, careless push bike riders. They will simply reinforce that careless behaviour in that 12 months and then take that with them when they get behind the wheel. It much harder to get away with such careless behaviour on a bike. They also have method of long distance transport once they pass the bike test.
 
Last edited:
Vonhelmet said:
Just mindbendingly stupid.
Click to expand...

It's a statement of fact. If you had bothered to read my other posts in this thread you would know that I have said several times that I don't approve of Mikey wearing flip-flops for cycling and I wouldn't wear them for that either.

Rroff said:
And? surely what matters is safe and considerate use of the road not whether something it specifically legal or illegal by the very letter of the law?
Click to expand...

As I've said many times already I don't approve of wearing flip-flops for cycling, but your obsessive focus on his use of them seems rather opportunistic. If he has an accident involving other people where they are a contributory factor he will certainly be found culpable in civil and possibly criminal court. The right-wing newspaper hacks will have an absolute field day if that happens, so we will definitely all hear about it.

Richie said:
I think it would be an idea for you to explain this guy's credentials first as, for now, its just his opinion and you are using his opinion as it supports your argument. In essence - why does itsbigjobber's opinion carry sufficient weight that you are using it to rebut an opinion you disagree with and why is it "better" than @Resident's opinion for you?
Click to expand...

He was a motor insurance claim handler. Therefore, he understands the criminal and civil law regarding road traffic accidents, what constitutes a criminal/RTA offence and the attitude of judges to reckless conduct by road users who were involved in an accident. (If you read his X page you will see he received a lot of abuse from Mikey haters for giving his opinion about this case. Charming people aren't they?) What experience and qualifications does "Resident" have in this area?
 
Maple Leaf said:
It's a statement of fact. If you had bothered to read my other posts in this thread you would know that I have said several times that I don't approve of Mikey wearing flip-flops for cycling and I wouldn't wear them for that either.
Click to expand...
Then we’re in agreement. Jolly good.
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
I think that by law people who want a car licence should be made to pass the bike cbt at a minimum. Ideally they should gain one of the A licenses. I think this would do wonders for driving standards.
Click to expand...

Makes sense at first glance but would never work without exceptions - think of the type of person you'd never get on a bike - the overweight, the disabled etc.
 
Maple Leaf said:
As I've said many times already I don't approve of wearing flip-flops for cycling, but your obsessive focus on his use of them seems rather opportunistic. If he has an accident involving other people where they are a contributory factor he will certainly be found culpable in civil and possibly criminal court. The right-wing newspaper hacks will have an absolute field day if that happens, so we will definitely all hear about it.
Click to expand...

Only reason I've brought them up a lot is because you keep coming up with some ridiculous defence of them - which doesn't really mesh with not approving of them - if you don't approve of them surely that is because you can see there is a not insignificant chance of them contributing to or causing a completely avoidable accident. If he is going to go around pulling people up for how they use the road ostensibly on the basis of safety then he should at least make an effort himself.

Chuk_Chuk said:
I think that by law people who want a car licence should be made to pass the bike cbt at a minimum. Ideally they should gain one of the A licenses. I think this would do wonders for driving standards.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it would accomplish much, there are a lot of people whether the ride or drive who are just muppets when using the road or when it comes to safety thick as **** and I don't think that would change. The only thing I see, and to be fair to an extent behind my own position on this, where people's attitudes change is after experiencing a serious accident(s) first hand either observing or involved in - it is interesting how it flips some people from one extreme to the other as well.
 
Last edited:
There is some knuckledragger called jobbit or something that’s probably frothing at the mouth to make comments about this.

Actually, he probably already has but I’m not looking for his annoying videos or giving him the search result.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom