CyclingMikey takes down fleeing suspect with bike (includes video)

Cyclyingmikey runs a camera all the time he is on his bike, so I'm not really sure what your comment is about

I'm just curious why he saw fit to mention in his commentary that he was initially tempted to film the incident, believing that the man may have been unfairly targeted by the officers.

It's interesting in the context of the removed comments, because the implication is his initial reaction was concern for a black man being targeted by the Met. That rather suggests an anti-racist stance - along with his observations about the police being polite and using appropriate restraint.

As for his comment, perhaps he meant stopping to position himself so his cameras stayed on the suspect.

Anyone who follows Mikey's endeavours on social media will know that he has a pretty balanced attitude: he's highly supportive of the police but at the same time acknowledges that there are still problems with racism and won't hesitate to call them out when he sees them. This is exemplified here, where he changes from one perspective to another, both based on the evidence he saw.

The now-thankfully-banned poster was disgracefully trying to imply (because he disapproves of Mikey's main activity of catching phone drivers) that Mikey would have enjoyed taking down a black man because of his (Mikey's) upbringing in Zimbabwe. Good to see the back of him - until the next time of course.

Why don't you try ignoring them next time they appear? Don't take the bait unless you think it's a genuine comment put forward to generate a fruitful discussion.

I'm not sure I approve of people being banned for having views which don't always coincide with mine.

Over time you will notice that the "views" are deliberately crafted rather than just an alternative opinion - in fact the style of the crafting is the give away. This is not shutting down debate, it is about resisting deliberately provocative remarks with no other purpose. If Nigel was really interested in generating thoughtful debate, he'd engage properly in both sides of the conversation but instead he doubles down with more and more outrageous comments to pretend to make his case. I doubt he really believes much of what he posts, it looks more like a performance.

Secondly, Nigel deliberately targets Rendel with personal comments - in other words, Nigel is also a stalker.

I agree that there are times when trolls are best ignored, but Nigel is very good at pushing buttons and it's easy to stray into victim blaming.

Bungle_52 wrote:

Why don't you try ignoring them next time they appear? Don't take the bait unless you think it's a genuine comment put forward to generate a fruitful discussion.

So you're happy for the site to be swamped with lies and alt-right propaganda unchallenged? 

Bungle_52 wrote:

I'm not sure I approve of people being banned for having views which don't always coincide with mine.

There are large numbers of people on here whose opinions vehemently disagree with mine and with each others', they don't get banned and I wouldn't ask for them to be. This particular user has been banned (multiple times now) for (I assume) his blatant trolling and baiting.

If this truly is the same person coming back time and again under different guises, why are the system admins not able to recognise his IP address or browser fingerprint?

Sriracha wrote:

If this truly is the same person coming back time and again under different guises, why are the system admins not able to recognise his IP address or browser fingerprint?

That I don't know, I'm not very au fait with these things but aren't there ways of hiding one's identity with VPNs and so forth?

I don't think there's ever been any question it's the same person, he delights in it; his MO is to start off a new identity in a seemingly fairly innocuous fashion, masquerading as someone genuinely interested in cycling and nothing else, then he gradually drops in more and more of his signature phrases and opinions, starts referring to previous disagreements (some from years ago) and so forth until he gets banned, then he gives it a fortnight or so and starts over again.

They were careful not to mention "established red lights" this time.

It's a question of when they might do something rather than whether they can.

Sriracha wrote:

If this truly is the same person coming back time and again under different guises, why are the system admins not able to recognise his IP address or browser fingerprint?

It's trivial to use a VPN to hide your IP address, so although that would stop someone with no idea about computers, there's no guarantee that it would work.

Browser fingerprinting is also easy enough to spoof/change - just install a different browser for posting to Road.cc and if that gets banned, install some different add-ons or a different browser.

Ultimately though, I suspect that one or two feral posters are not a big issue for Road.cc and are likely tolerated as the trolling pushes up the page views until they cross the line of blatantly offensive comments.

So leftist diatribe gets free rein? that's rhetorical, of course it does.

Racist views have no place though.
If the person's intent is to post to bait people and they do this constantly then what are they bringing to the forum? It's certainly not an alternate view.
I did engage with them initially but it became clear that they were only here to wind people up so I just added them to an ignore list in my ad blocker. My list is basically the same person under several different usernames.

The trouble is now they have been back so many times that anyone new gets an unfair but understandable extra degree of scrutiny, so people like panda or nototheeu get a bit of flak at first.
I'm not sure what can be done, but I was tempted to start a thread - 'New posters you need to read this' so at least they are aware of the history.

Mixed on this. It's been the same person - or people using exactly the same style. They were mostly engaged in pure trolling. They've been happy to repeat racist (and anti-semitic / Islamophobic was it?) things plus a bunch of other insults (body shape etc). Happy for them to do one from here, they've had plenty of goes.

I can't remember if road.cc has a public policy on this? If not maybe add one or if so highlight it. I think most people understand this is as over the line without help but maybe that helps some mods (not all need it!) to act more decisively? This behaviour has been repeated and road.cc ain't 4chan (or wherever).

However - a) the trolling was pretty obvious (hence "is that you Nigel?") b) this isnt cycling Wikipedia, some knockabout is clearly expected c) simply dredging up "man in the street" / "taxi driver views" should not constitute trolling, however tiresome - many people - even cyclists - actually think like that. It's the pattern that counts. D) in the UK at least people who cycle are like cats so contrarians and curmugeons are to be expected. E) ... as you say the collective immune system here has recently overreacted to some newcomers.

Some of the issues could be dealt with if there was an ignore function which is often used on other sites. I think it is common to use it as a release valve for a week or so but here you have someone like alsosomniloquism taking an enforced break from the site as the only option.

Perhaps more of a benefit of the doubt should be given to new comers which I do try and use.

Obvious trolling is best ignored but alternative views and opinions are interesting; in my experience, sites that attract those with political ideology to the left who seem to prefer an echo chamber and such people will eagerly report anyone that offends their ideological sensibility in the hope of getting them banned.

Whereas right wing sites welcome other views with open arms...

You seem to have been sucked in by the persona of the PBU who had multiple usernames and whose MO was simply to disrupt and say anything that would give a reaction eg the repeated comments on Saqid Khan which were not related to his politics or actions. People challenging that were not doing it from an political stance.

grOg wrote:

Obvious trolling is best ignored but alternative views and opinions are interesting; in my experience, sites that attract those with political ideology to the left who seem to prefer an echo chamber and such people will eagerly report anyone that offends their ideological sensibility in the hope of getting them banned.

Unfortunately the main one almost only expressed "alternative facts" in the Trump style.  That's opinion as fact / "facts" coined solely for rhetorical impact - or at best of dubious veracity.  They - and what are possibly "chorus" accounts - did make the occasional post on more neutral cycling matters (e.g. kit, routes etc.)  However that was very rare.  Yes people did call for a ban.  IMO if you're going to go after people personally (not just "you're a fool") and come round with racist / other hateful stuff then good riddance.

Oddly, it was exactly those posters who larded their deposits with "echo chamber" / "woke" etc.

There are a few people with genuinely divergent opinions on some matters here and that provokes some robust debate.  It sometimes turns into name-calling which is regrettable.  However I challenge you to find some "all welcome" group where no-one occasionally growls at each.  And IFAIK no-one's calling for them to be banned.

As others have said what you won't see on any site - on any topic:  people welcoming someone who comes on every day and says "I think you're all delusional idiots with fragile egos!  People like you who undertake this activity are all crooks / entitled / should be restricted / why don't you all hate yourselves?" And concocting some false or irrelevant narrative to justify that.

Wikipedia has a lot of material on this kind of behaviour if interested.

People need to stop making Nigel accusations without conclusive proof.
Nothing could be more harmful to the little road.cc community than accusing every newcomer with uninformed opinions of being the local boogieman, and thereby implying their opinion will never be fully respected.
If we do that then Nigel has won.

Road.cc unfortunately suspends and bans people that make comments subversive to politically correct ideology, much like the Guardian does and like that socialist rag, they don't give any reason or justification for their actions to those they block.

Or in plain English, racist comments. But then you know all about that having had one removed recently (and the replies were removed too).

There have only been 3 people banned and they all came back again under different usernames and it took ages before they were banned again.
You have to do a hell of a lot to get banned on here.

grOg wrote:

Road.cc unfortunately suspends and bans people that make comments subversive to politically correct ideology, much like the Guardian does and like that socialist rag, they don't give any reason or justification for their actions to those they block.

I think that the Grauniad is a lot less socialist than you think it is...

I once filmed from my balcony a police stop of a black man that I thought was a bit dodgy. It ended fine, but I'm as aware as the next person that the Met don't have a good reputation re racism.
Anyway, I saw none of that in this suspected drug dealer's arrest. It was cool, calm, and professional behaviour from the police in what I saw.

CyclingMikey wrote:

I once filmed from my balcony a police stop of a black man that I thought was a bit dodgy. It ended fine, but I'm as aware as the next person that the Met don't have a good reputation re racism.
Anyway, I saw none of that in this suspected drug dealer's arrest. It was cool, calm, and professional behaviour from the police in what I saw.

Thanks for chat. 
 

cheers