Taxi driver warns CyclingMikey he will "end up needing the dentist" after challenging phone use

Car Delenda Est wrote:

chrisonatrike wrote:

Well this is an odd one - witchcraft? Clearly by putting your words (quoted) in my post I've made *my* words come out of your mouth - some devilry! To avoid that happening further - as several folks seem not to be getting it - what *is* your point? (I note helmets have been reached so it may be too late...)

At least they're staying logically consistent with the whole CM causes drivists to close pass cyclists thing..

Excuse me, I think you'll find that it's my M.O. to put words in other people's mouths

chrisonatrike wrote:

Well this is an odd one - witchcraft? Clearly by putting your words (quoted) in my post I've made *my* words come out of your mouth - some devilry! To avoid that happening further - as several folks seem not to be getting it - what *is* your point? (I note helmets have been reached so it may be too late...)

Is mentioning Helmets a cycling website variation of Godwin's law?

chrisonatrike wrote:

(cowards feel braver in motor vehicles).

ftfy

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Plainly, CM isn't all about catching drivers breaking the law. If he was, he wouldn't even stop as he cycles past. So long as he's got a view of the number plate, the driver's face and the offense, there would be enough information to make a submission. But no, he riles people up for views/clicks. Dress it up whatever way you like. It's harmful.

I don't "rile people up"; they get riled up when you point out that they are breaking the law but that's rather different. However, I will always speak to them and make them aware that they have been seen using their phones because in 99% of cases they will then put their phone away. I'm not prepared to let them carry on and endanger other people, satisfied in the knowledge that they will be getting a ticket in a few weeks. Example: a couple of months back I was following a woman over Battersea Bridge who was weaving around like a drunkard, leaving massive gaps in the traffic and then accelerating hard to catch up. She was quite clearly a danger to other road users. When I caught up with her she was using her phone with both hands whilst steering with her knees. I didn't have to speak to her, I got clear evidence of her on her phone on camera before I did, but should I have just let her carry on and maybe hit another cyclist or a pedestrian? As soon as I spoke to her she put her phone away, possibly averting a nasty incident. If I hadn't spoken to her, she would have carried on driving through the London rush-hour in an extremely dangerous manner.

I'm sure CM has the same motivation and I'm not sure how he can be described as "riling people up" when he is in fact a model of courteous behaviour even when faced with aggression and threats of violence.

Rendel Harris wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Plainly, CM isn't all about catching drivers breaking the law. If he was, he wouldn't even stop as he cycles past. So long as he's got a view of the number plate, the driver's face and the offense, there would be enough information to make a submission. But no, he riles people up for views/clicks. Dress it up whatever way you like. It's harmful.

I don't "rile people up"; they get riled up when you point out that they are breaking the law but that's rather different. However, I will always speak to them and make them aware that they have been seen using their phones because in 99% of cases they will then put their phone away. I'm not prepared to let them carry on and endanger other people, satisfied in the knowledge that they will be getting a ticket in a few weeks. Example: a couple of months back I was following a woman over Battersea Bridge who was weaving around like a drunkard, leaving massive gaps in the traffic and then accelerating hard to catch up. She was quite clearly a danger to other road users. When I caught up with her she was using her phone with both hands whilst steering with her knees. I didn't have to speak to her, I got clear evidence of her on her phone on camera before I did, but should I have just let her carry on and maybe hit another cyclist or a pedestrian? As soon as I spoke to her she put her phone away, possibly averting a nasty incident. If I hadn't spoken to her, she would have carried on driving through the London rush-hour in an extremely dangerous manner.

I'm sure CM has the same motivation and I'm not sure how he can be described as "riling people up" when he is in fact a model of courteous behaviour even when faced with aggression and threats of violence.

Why do you point out that they are breaking the law, and not just submit your video evidence to the police for them to deal with it?

Do you think that they will appreciate your kind and thoughtful efforts to make the world a safer place? Have they ever appreciated it?

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Why do you point out that they are breaking the law, and not just submit your video evidence to the police for them to deal with it? Do you think that they will appreciate your kind and thoughtful efforts to make the world a safer place? Have they ever appreciated it?

Did you actually read what I wrote? I said that when I speak to them, 99% of people will put their phone away and stop using it. If I just film them without saying anything and submit a report they will get punished by the police (hopefully) but I'm not going to feel very easy in my conscience if I didn't speak to them, they carried on breaking the law and injured or killed somebody. That's why I point out that they are breaking the law, which seems reasonable enough for me even if it doesn't to you.

Rendel Harris wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Why do you point out that they are breaking the law, and not just submit your video evidence to the police for them to deal with it? Do you think that they will appreciate your kind and thoughtful efforts to make the world a safer place? Have they ever appreciated it?

Did you actually read what I wrote? I said that when I speak to them, 99% of people will put their phone away and stop using it. If I just film them without saying anything and submit a report they will get punished by the police (hopefully) but I'm not going to feel very easy in my conscience if I didn't speak to them, they carried on breaking the law and injured or killed somebody. That's why I point out that they are breaking the law, which seems reasonable enough for me even if it doesn't to you.

Good job not answering my questions.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Good job not answering my questions.

You asked me why I didn't just submit video evidence to the police for them to deal with it instead of also speaking to the people breaking the law. I've just given you a full and detailed answer as to why I speak to them. If you mean I didn't answer your "do you think that they will appreciate your kind and thoughtful efforts" I assumed that was a rhetorical question as the answer is clearly they won't, and equally clearly I couldn't give a damn whether they do or not as long as they put their phones away.

Rendel Harris wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Good job not answering my questions.

You asked me why I didn't just submit video evidence to the police for them to deal with it instead of also speaking to the people breaking the law. I've just given you a full and detailed answer as to why I speak to them. If you mean I didn't answer your "do you think that they will appreciate your kind and thoughtful efforts" I assumed that was a rhetorical question as the answer is clearly they won't, and equally clearly I couldn't give a damn whether they do or not as long as they put their phones away.

 

You can't cope with having someone continuing to use their phone on your conscience? You can't be serious. If you think that your interaction with a dangerous driver will do anything other than antagonise them and make them more likely to 'other' cyclists in general, you're living in a dreamworld.

BikesnobNYC had a good article on not confronting drivers:

https://www.outsideonline.com/culture/opinion/its-never-worth-it-confron...

Although as usual he preemptively admitted that he didn't always follow his own advice.

https://bikesnobnyc.com/2021/08/11/the-jerkstore-called/

Since in court it always turns out it was a once-in-a-lifetime mistake though, perhaps - politely - reminding them they are entering into sin might be effective for many? After all, almost all of us will never be re-tested...

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

You can't cope with having someone continuing to use their phone on your conscience? You can't be serious. If you think that your interaction with a dangerous driver will do anything other than antagonise them and make them more likely to 'other' cyclists in general, you're living in a dreamworld.

Jolly good. I'm afraid I'm not going to apologise for telling people committing a criminal offence that puts other people's lives in danger to stop doing it, and I will continue both to call it out and report it when I see it. Sorry if people challenging the illegal and life-threatening behaviour of others is a problem for you.

Rendel Harris wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

You can't cope with having someone continuing to use their phone on your conscience? You can't be serious. If you think that your interaction with a dangerous driver will do anything other than antagonise them and make them more likely to 'other' cyclists in general, you're living in a dreamworld.

Jolly good. I'm afraid I'm not going to apologise for telling people committing a criminal offence that puts other people's lives in danger to stop doing it, and I will continue both to call it out and report it when I see it. Sorry if people challenging the illegal and life-threatening behaviour of others is a problem for you.

Good for you. You probably won't ever meet the cyclist who gets knocked off because the turd behind the wheel is angry because they couldn't stand being told off by sometime they perceive as a grubby little nobody on a bicycle.

But it's good that you get your moment feeling superior. Bonza.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

You probably won't ever meet the cyclist who gets knocked off because the turd behind the wheel is angry because they couldn't stand being told off by sometime they perceive as a grubby little nobody on a bicycle. But it's good that you get your moment feeling superior. Bonza.

What a load of bollocks.

It's not the first time have you spewed utter crap but in this thread you've really outdone your previous efforts. No logic behind your comments, you don't even read the posts you reply to properly. Are you this insufferable IRL?

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Good for you. You probably won't ever meet the cyclist who gets knocked off because the turd behind the wheel is angry because they couldn't stand being told off by sometime they perceive as a grubby little nobody on a bicycle. But it's good that you get your moment feeling superior. Bonza.

I think you may be imagining that everyone follows your MO, which is, as evinced on this thread and many others, to go into a screaming, frothing, incoherent and illogical rage the second anyone disgrees with you about anything. Seriously, have you ever considered a spot of yoga or maybe mindfulness training? It'd do you the world of good.

I challenge you to cite a single example of a driver assaulting a cyclist because they have been challenged on their behaviour by another cyclist. I can of course provide you with numerous examples of people who have been killed or maimed for life by drivers using mobile phones at the wheel.

I find it extraordinary that you think that someone engaging in a behaviour which is proven to be dangerous to others should be allowed to continue said behaviour in case they get annoyed about being challenged on it. Many years ago, as a pedestrian, I pulled the keys out of the ignition of the car of a woman who was obviously drunk to prevent her setting off on the road. Should I have left her to it in case being stopped from drink driving annoyed her? Mobile phone use at the wheel has been shown to be just as dangerous as driving over the limit yet according to you people shouldn't be told to stop it in case it annoys them.

Contrary to your assertion, it doesn't make me feel superior to challenge people's criminal behaviour when driving: it's a bore, sometimes a bit frightening, and I'd far sooner enjoy my riding without seeing any such behaviour. However, as long as I, my wife, friends and family cycle on the roads in London I am going to continue to challenge those whose selfish and criminal behaviour makes those roads a potentially lethal environment.

Rendel Harris wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Good for you. You probably won't ever meet the cyclist who gets knocked off because the turd behind the wheel is angry because they couldn't stand being told off by sometime they perceive as a grubby little nobody on a bicycle. But it's good that you get your moment feeling superior. Bonza.

I think you may be imagining that everyone follows your MO, which is, as evinced on this thread and many others, to go into a screaming, frothing, incoherent and illogical rage the second anyone disgrees with you about anything. Seriously, have you ever considered a spot of yoga or maybe mindfulness training? It'd do you the world of good.

I challenge you to cite a single example of a driver assaulting a cyclist because they have been challenged on their behaviour by another cyclist. I can of course provide you with numerous examples of people who have been killed or maimed for life by drivers using mobile phones at the wheel.

I find it extraordinary that you think that someone engaging in a behaviour which is proven to be dangerous to others should be allowed to continue said behaviour in case they get annoyed about being challenged on it. Many years ago, as a pedestrian, I pulled the keys out of the ignition of the car of a woman who was obviously drunk to prevent her setting off on the road. Should I have left her to it in case being stopped from drink driving annoyed her? Mobile phone use at the wheel has been shown to be just as dangerous as driving over the limit yet according to you people shouldn't be told to stop it in case it annoys them.

Contrary to your assertion, it doesn't make me feel superior to challenge people's criminal behaviour when driving: it's a bore, sometimes a bit frightening, and I'd far sooner enjoy my riding without seeing any such behaviour. However, as long as I, my wife, friends and family cycle on the roads in London I am going to continue to challenge those whose selfish and criminal behaviour makes those roads a potentially lethal environment.

There are many comments on this video alone that demonstrate the hatred people have for cyclists. Vids4clicks like this make things worse, not better.

If you think comments like telling cyclists to "drive under a bus" do not demonstrate the point, there is no convincing you of the harmfulness of this.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

There are many comments on this video alone that demonstrate the hatred people have for cyclists. Vids4clicks like this make things worse, not better. If you think comments like telling cyclists to "drive under a bus" do not demonstrate the point, there is no convincing you of the harmfulness of this.

If you think that the sort of people who leave those sorts of the vile comments on cycling videos wouldn't hate cyclists if the videos didn't exist, then I have some magic beans and a gold brick you may be interested in. They are simply using the video as an excuse to express their hate, the video didn't create it. I'm old enough to remember the days before the World Wide Web, the hatred levels for cyclists back then were pretty similar, although there were far fewer of us so it wasn't so obvious. Go and look in Richard's Bicycle Book, 1974, you'll find him talking about drivers saying they deliberately drive at cyclists, the only good cyclist is a dead cyclist and so on. 

Rendel Harris wrote:

If you think that the sort of people who leave those sorts of the vile comments on cycling videos wouldn't hate cyclists if the videos didn't exist, then I have some magic beans and a gold brick you may be interested in. They are simply using the video as an excuse to express their hate, the video didn't create it. I'm old enough to remember the days before the World Wide Web, the hatred levels for cyclists back then were pretty similar, although there were far fewer of us so it wasn't so obvious. Go and look in Richard's Bicycle Book, 1974, you'll find him talking about drivers saying they deliberately drive at cyclists, the only good cyclist is a dead cyclist and so on. 

Youtube comments (also Twitter etc) are notorious for people shit-posting and saying things that they would never do in real life. I don't think you can base any sensible strategy on looking at the comments.

Go on a local paper website where they have an escooter trial and there will be lots of comments on there about how awful the riders are.

Haters gotta hate.

It's called civil courage.

marmotte27 wrote:

It's called civil courage.

It would be admirable if it improved matters. It doesn't. As evidenced by CM's videos.

I applaud CM for taking the time to report illegal activity. The moment he starts being belligerent however, he does more harm than good.

And the fact is, though I disagree with it and wish it weren't the case, many drivers see cyclists as a single group.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

marmotte27 wrote:

It's called civil courage.

It would be admirable if it improved matters. It doesn't. As evidenced by CM's videos. I applaud CM for taking the time to report illegal activity. The moment he starts being belligerent however, he does more harm than good. And the fact is, though I disagree with it and wish it weren't the case, many drivers see cyclists as a single group.

You're quite right there.  Volumes have been written on "out-groups" and the "othering" of cyclists in low-cycling countries.  And of course there is no us.  Albeit it's a little more complicated, because since others dislike you as soon as you're a "cyclist" people who cycle are slightly more likely to find common cause with one another.

The part I'm not convinced about is that there is much that any cyclists (the tiny minority) can do to change the stereotype - positively OR negatively.  Once there is a stereotype human confirmation bias will quickly seek out and identify anything which might confirm it.  However the stereotype was already out there in the environment.  I suspect it's self-amplifying just as long as most people "aren't cyclists".  And that a dozen red-light jumpers scattered across the UK could keep that part of the stereotype current forever.

Undoing stereotypes takes a lot of time and personal engagement.  It probably someone to suddenly find themselves in the cyclist's shoes for that insight.  Or have a relative affected.

Do they reply "Time of the month is it bro?"

Hirsute wrote:

Do they reply "Time of the month is it bro?"

 Ah I see you know where I am on Twitter! Choice that feller was, and a cyclist!

Well since your policy is to use your name, not hard to find !

Hirsute wrote:

Well since your policy is to use your name, not hard to find !

Indeed, no criticism implied, that's why I use my real name everywhere!

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Rendel Harris wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Why do you point out that they are breaking the law, and not just submit your video evidence to the police for them to deal with it? Do you think that they will appreciate your kind and thoughtful efforts to make the world a safer place? Have they ever appreciated it?

Did you actually read what I wrote? I said that when I speak to them, 99% of people will put their phone away and stop using it. If I just film them without saying anything and submit a report they will get punished by the police (hopefully) but I'm not going to feel very easy in my conscience if I didn't speak to them, they carried on breaking the law and injured or killed somebody. That's why I point out that they are breaking the law, which seems reasonable enough for me even if it doesn't to you.

Good job not answering my questions.

I don't think he cares if they appreciate it, most of the rest of us appreciate it.

just submit your video evidence to the police for them to deal with it?

Because with very few exceptions, they just bin the evidence and do nothing except, at best, send out the joke warning letter

wtjs wrote:

just submit your video evidence to the police for them to deal with it?

Because with very few exceptions, they just bin the evidence and do nothing except, at best, send out the joke warning letter

Good news that Rendel asks them to put the phone away. That'll put a stop to that then (and not just make people angry at busybody cyclists, and by extension every cyclist ever). Good-o!

I'm sure you then escorted her to her destination to ensure she didn't start using her phone again as soon as you were out of sight.

ITK2012 wrote:

I'm sure you then escorted her to her destination to ensure she didn't start using her phone again as soon as you were out of sight.

Do you know, I didn't, and I can't guarantee that she didn't use her phone the next week or the next month while driving either. This obviously totally invalidates my actions. Or maybe, just maybe, she is now aware that there are cyclists in London with cameras who will report people for illegal driving and so be a bit more circumspect about using her phone in future.