5 ms·

Since this site has a very international audience, it's quite important to make clear: there's not some road safety inspired reason for this. Mickey is an adren

by Traster 8mo ago

Since this site has a very international audience, it's quite important to make clear: there's not some road safety inspired reason for this. Mickey is an adrenaline junky who loves to start fights in public and he's found a way to do that in a mostly legal way. Sometimes, a little less legal, like when he lept onto the bonnet of a car in order to feign he'd been run over, or when he threw his bicycle into the path of an oncoming car endangering pretty much everyone in the situation (interestingly, a situation in which the author of this article seems to imply the car was to blame, not Mikey for deliberately throwing his bike into the path of the car, calculatingly not actually throwing himself into the path). The guy has got sucked into a sort of spiral where he's going out to create these confrontations (partly to monetize on youtube), and he will, eventually cause some serious harm to himself or someone else. This article kind of misses that this isn't a story about road safety, it's more a story about how people can self-radicalise and how social media has created a profit incentive for them to do so. It's difficult to watch a motorist threaten to take his own life if this guy reports him and then remember that actually, that's happening for ad revenue.

Freak_NL 8mo ago
So, don't fuck around with your phone while driving. Stick to the traffic rules. Avoiding him seems really, really easy. Anyone who chooses to grab their phone while driving a car deserves all the negativity they get. Unlearn that habit. Seek help if you're addicted to that device. Or just take the Tube.
- adammarples 8mo ago
  I think a lot of these are while idling at traffic lights and tbh, I have a little sympathy
  - MBCook 8mo ago
    Does the law say that’s OK? If not, the driver is still in the wrong.
    - IshKebab 8mo ago
      That not really how it works though. Laws and morals do not perfectly align even in mostly civilised countries like the UK. More importantly, laws are written under the tacit assumption that they won't be perfectly enforced. Have you ever driven 31 mph in a 30 mph zone? Illegal! You're in the wrong! I have never watched his videos so I don't know what proportion of his videos are of people stopped at lights briefly looking at their phone... but I don't think many people (even cyclists) would seriously object to that. I both cycle and drive a lot. There are a lot of bad drivers that I wish would get snitched. But I also occasionally look at my phone while waiting at a red light.
    - Traster 8mo ago
      So, in general, you support vigilantes?
      - deleted 8mo ago
        [deleted]
      - MBCook 8mo ago
        In my mind vigilante implies actually doing something to the criminal above and beyond documenting what they’re doing. “a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate)” That’s from Miriam Webster. I’d say he isn’t punishing crime, I could see an argument that he’s suppressing it, but it doesn’t really fit my normal view of the word.
        Traster 8mo ago
        Running into traffic to pick a fight with them? Throwing your bike in front of their car to cause a collision? Jumping onto their bonnet to try and pretend you're being run over? The guy is quite literally taking the law into his own hands and it's very clear that running around trying to cause car accidents is making people less safe, not more. In many cases the "accident" he claims to want to prevent is caused by his actions.
    - linkregister 8mo ago
- cwillu 8mo ago
  And what about the people he harasses who are literally stopped?
  - Y-bar 8mo ago
    You mean he harasses the people who are so entitled that when called out on their dangerous and illegal driving they get confrontational?
  - n4r9 8mo ago
    If you're queuing in traffic or stopped at some lights, then you're still in control of a big metal machine on the road and have a responsibility to have your attention on the road. If you're distracted then you might not notice a situation where you need to move the car aside in order to prevent an accident from escalating.
- Traster 8mo ago
  Yeah this is the animosity I'm talking about. I'd just point out that this also translates to drivers showing that animosity to cyclists on the streets in London.
  - ndsipa_pomu 8mo ago
    There's a huge difference between "animosity" because someone is endangering your life and "animosity" because you're stuck in traffic and don't like seeing a cyclist making progress. Most of the "animosity" from drivers is due to them not thinking clearly about the situation and also being aggressive bullies.
maxwellg 8mo ago
Mikey might have a profit incentive at play, but let's be abundantly clear - the drivers he is catching are frequently flagrantly breaking the law and endangering both themselves and the people around them. I have a very hard time feeling sympathy for those who are unable or unwilling to operate a car safely on public roads.
- cwillu 8mo ago
  A stopped driver on his phone is endangering literally nobody.
  - 0x1062 8mo ago
    Until they drive off while still looking at it, like the woman who drove through a pedestrian crossing a couple of weeks ago and almost hit me while I was walking across.
    - bigstrat2003 8mo ago
      Then they aren't stopped any more, and therefore the parent poster's statement no longer applies to them.
      - arjie 8mo ago
        I think a little reasoning at global scale easily arrives at a defence of the current traffic law depending on risk tolerance, but perhaps an analogy will help: most societies believe (or at least enforce in a manner that reflects belief) that walking around with a handgun out in your hand should be illegal. In truth no harm is done until one pulls the trigger, and there is certainly benefit: it is much faster to stop a criminal when you're ready at hand. The reasons we don't do that are manifold, but at least a few are analogous: * legibility: we don't need just lack of harm, we require common knowledge that harm is unlikely in order for society to work with frictionlessness we desire * distinguishability: at some percentage of accidental behaviour, we must constrain all people because we don't have a mechanism to determine who will likely cause it and who won't * reversibility: for sufficient harm, it is better to restrict the error condition than it is to punish Because we know we cannot bring the dead back to life, and no amount of prison will bring solace to their loved ones, we have decided that doing things that are high-risk to others is not permissible. Given this framework for the moral concern, it's just an optimization problem. The question then becomes what fraction of pedestrians killed in crosswalks is acceptable, or even what fraction of pedestrians following the law killed in crosswalks is acceptable. Some societies believe this should be zero (hence the amusingly named Vision Zero and so on as practised in Northern Europe). Others believe this should be fairly high (like the US) because the utility loss from constraint is too high. Now the handgun case has a very high number for potential risk, so it's obvious why most societies have that law. The crossing point of risk for almost everyone is below it, consequently most agree. The question then becomes what your crossing point for risk is and whether the number of accidental deaths is above your threshold or below your threshold. But in either case, I don't think the argument "until they hurt someone, no harm is done, and therefore it should be permissible" holds, for if it did, surely we would allow for people walking around with handguns, perhaps even pointed directly in front of them as they walk, so long as they do not pull the trigger. And that seems to be an absurdity.
crtasm 8mo ago
Throwing a bike would be impressive, but he clearly didn't throw it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9q_q7cNWbE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9q_q7cNWbE The car was stationary until just before he stepped out and the driver already knew to expect that he would do so. It does seem that Mikey had time to avoid the crash though.
- bryanlarsen 8mo ago
  TLDW: Mike's bike gets hit by a driver committing 7 different traffic offenses. The Internet blames Mike.
- toast0 8mo ago
  Throwing an ebike is pretty impressive cause they're big and bulky. A regular road bike isn't too bad... hard to get a lot of distance, but you can toss them a bit. Rolling them is easier, if you push hard enough and they're reasonably balanced you'll get some good distance before they fall over. At most, this was rolling it into traffic, but my view is he had a hand on the handlebar until right around the collision, so he was just walking with his bike. But WTF is that traffic configuration? Why are people trying to drive through that lane in the wrong direction? Seems like a good way to get a head-on with a car in addition to pedestrians that weren't expecting a wrong way driver. Vehicle operators usually have a duty not to proceed unless safe, even when they have right of way, I'm not sure how much that duty applies to pedestrians or if natural consequences is enough.
- Traster 8mo ago
  In future, if you think he's on the right side, link to the video of him doing it, not an 8 minute video talking around the fact he did it. There was no reason for the bicycle to enter the carriage way other than to come directly into the path of the vehicle. People think there's some sort of "Oh well if what you're doing isn't following the highway code then I can do ANYTHING and you're at fault" attitude, and it just isn't true. The driver shouldn't have gone that direction and Mikey shouldn't have caused the crash. People shouldn't break the law while driving. What Cycling Mikey is doing is ill-advised and dangerous.
petre 8mo ago
That's exactly what Mr. Loophole would say. Mickey risking his life for ad revenue. Sure. Mickey throwing his bike in front of a speeding vehicle, when he clearly dismounted before getting struck. Sorry mate, I live, drive and cycle in a country with the highest road fatalities in the EU. I think its unfair to take it out on Mickey.
- JCattheATM 8mo ago
  He clearly is. It takes a certain type of personality to go around starting fights with people over trivialities in the first place.

by Traster 8mo ago

Freak_NL 8mo ago

So, don't fuck around with your phone while driving. Stick to the traffic rules. Avoiding him seems really, really easy. Anyone who chooses to grab their phone while driving a car deserves all the negativity they get. Unlearn that habit. Seek help if you're addicted to that device. Or just take the Tube.

adammarples 8mo ago
I think a lot of these are while idling at traffic lights and tbh, I have a little sympathy
- MBCook 8mo ago
  Does the law say that’s OK? If not, the driver is still in the wrong.
  - IshKebab 8mo ago
    That not really how it works though. Laws and morals do not perfectly align even in mostly civilised countries like the UK. More importantly, laws are written under the tacit assumption that they won't be perfectly enforced. Have you ever driven 31 mph in a 30 mph zone? Illegal! You're in the wrong! I have never watched his videos so I don't know what proportion of his videos are of people stopped at lights briefly looking at their phone... but I don't think many people (even cyclists) would seriously object to that. I both cycle and drive a lot. There are a lot of bad drivers that I wish would get snitched. But I also occasionally look at my phone while waiting at a red light.
  - Traster 8mo ago
    So, in general, you support vigilantes?
    - deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]
    - MBCook 8mo ago
      In my mind vigilante implies actually doing something to the criminal above and beyond documenting what they’re doing. “a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate)” That’s from Miriam Webster. I’d say he isn’t punishing crime, I could see an argument that he’s suppressing it, but it doesn’t really fit my normal view of the word.
      - Traster 8mo ago
        Running into traffic to pick a fight with them? Throwing your bike in front of their car to cause a collision? Jumping onto their bonnet to try and pretend you're being run over? The guy is quite literally taking the law into his own hands and it's very clear that running around trying to cause car accidents is making people less safe, not more. In many cases the "accident" he claims to want to prevent is caused by his actions.
  - linkregister 8mo ago
cwillu 8mo ago
And what about the people he harasses who are literally stopped?
- Y-bar 8mo ago
  You mean he harasses the people who are so entitled that when called out on their dangerous and illegal driving they get confrontational?
- n4r9 8mo ago
  If you're queuing in traffic or stopped at some lights, then you're still in control of a big metal machine on the road and have a responsibility to have your attention on the road. If you're distracted then you might not notice a situation where you need to move the car aside in order to prevent an accident from escalating.
Traster 8mo ago
Yeah this is the animosity I'm talking about. I'd just point out that this also translates to drivers showing that animosity to cyclists on the streets in London.
- ndsipa_pomu 8mo ago
  There's a huge difference between "animosity" because someone is endangering your life and "animosity" because you're stuck in traffic and don't like seeing a cyclist making progress. Most of the "animosity" from drivers is due to them not thinking clearly about the situation and also being aggressive bullies.

maxwellg 8mo ago

Mikey might have a profit incentive at play, but let's be abundantly clear - the drivers he is catching are frequently flagrantly breaking the law and endangering both themselves and the people around them. I have a very hard time feeling sympathy for those who are unable or unwilling to operate a car safely on public roads.

cwillu 8mo ago
A stopped driver on his phone is endangering literally nobody.
- 0x1062 8mo ago
  Until they drive off while still looking at it, like the woman who drove through a pedestrian crossing a couple of weeks ago and almost hit me while I was walking across.
  - bigstrat2003 8mo ago
    Then they aren't stopped any more, and therefore the parent poster's statement no longer applies to them.
    - arjie 8mo ago
      I think a little reasoning at global scale easily arrives at a defence of the current traffic law depending on risk tolerance, but perhaps an analogy will help: most societies believe (or at least enforce in a manner that reflects belief) that walking around with a handgun out in your hand should be illegal. In truth no harm is done until one pulls the trigger, and there is certainly benefit: it is much faster to stop a criminal when you're ready at hand. The reasons we don't do that are manifold, but at least a few are analogous: * legibility: we don't need just lack of harm, we require common knowledge that harm is unlikely in order for society to work with frictionlessness we desire * distinguishability: at some percentage of accidental behaviour, we must constrain all people because we don't have a mechanism to determine who will likely cause it and who won't * reversibility: for sufficient harm, it is better to restrict the error condition than it is to punish Because we know we cannot bring the dead back to life, and no amount of prison will bring solace to their loved ones, we have decided that doing things that are high-risk to others is not permissible. Given this framework for the moral concern, it's just an optimization problem. The question then becomes what fraction of pedestrians killed in crosswalks is acceptable, or even what fraction of pedestrians following the law killed in crosswalks is acceptable. Some societies believe this should be zero (hence the amusingly named Vision Zero and so on as practised in Northern Europe). Others believe this should be fairly high (like the US) because the utility loss from constraint is too high. Now the handgun case has a very high number for potential risk, so it's obvious why most societies have that law. The crossing point of risk for almost everyone is below it, consequently most agree. The question then becomes what your crossing point for risk is and whether the number of accidental deaths is above your threshold or below your threshold. But in either case, I don't think the argument "until they hurt someone, no harm is done, and therefore it should be permissible" holds, for if it did, surely we would allow for people walking around with handguns, perhaps even pointed directly in front of them as they walk, so long as they do not pull the trigger. And that seems to be an absurdity.

crtasm 8mo ago

Throwing a bike would be impressive, but he clearly didn't throw it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9q_q7cNWbE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9q_q7cNWbE The car was stationary until just before he stepped out and the driver already knew to expect that he would do so. It does seem that Mikey had time to avoid the crash though.

bryanlarsen 8mo ago
TLDW: Mike's bike gets hit by a driver committing 7 different traffic offenses. The Internet blames Mike.
toast0 8mo ago
Throwing an ebike is pretty impressive cause they're big and bulky. A regular road bike isn't too bad... hard to get a lot of distance, but you can toss them a bit. Rolling them is easier, if you push hard enough and they're reasonably balanced you'll get some good distance before they fall over. At most, this was rolling it into traffic, but my view is he had a hand on the handlebar until right around the collision, so he was just walking with his bike. But WTF is that traffic configuration? Why are people trying to drive through that lane in the wrong direction? Seems like a good way to get a head-on with a car in addition to pedestrians that weren't expecting a wrong way driver. Vehicle operators usually have a duty not to proceed unless safe, even when they have right of way, I'm not sure how much that duty applies to pedestrians or if natural consequences is enough.
Traster 8mo ago
In future, if you think he's on the right side, link to the video of him doing it, not an 8 minute video talking around the fact he did it. There was no reason for the bicycle to enter the carriage way other than to come directly into the path of the vehicle. People think there's some sort of "Oh well if what you're doing isn't following the highway code then I can do ANYTHING and you're at fault" attitude, and it just isn't true. The driver shouldn't have gone that direction and Mikey shouldn't have caused the crash. People shouldn't break the law while driving. What Cycling Mikey is doing is ill-advised and dangerous.

petre 8mo ago

That's exactly what Mr. Loophole would say. Mickey risking his life for ad revenue. Sure. Mickey throwing his bike in front of a speeding vehicle, when he clearly dismounted before getting struck. Sorry mate, I live, drive and cycle in a country with the highest road fatalities in the EU. I think its unfair to take it out on Mickey.

JCattheATM 8mo ago
He clearly is. It takes a certain type of personality to go around starting fights with people over trivialities in the first place.