Thoughts on Cycling Mikey

[matticus]

The relevant bit would seem to be:

... they [the public] nevertheless have a responsibility to help preserve community safety. According to the Peelian principles the only difference between the public and the police is that the police are “paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare” – in other words the public are not absolved from their responsibilities to their fellow citizens just because their taxes pay for a police officer to don a uniform and walk the beat.

 

[Glyno]

I’ve seen dozens of videos of Mikey doing what he does, and in not one of them have I seen him actively or directly prevent an accident. To me at least, the sole objective of his actions is to get offending motorists to amass penalty points, fined, or ultimately, banned. He almost always seems to take great pleasure in smugly informing the offender as such.

I’m not against the results of his actions per se, I just don’t accept that he’s going around like some guardian angel.

 

[mustang1]

I used to ride in regents park a lot. I would hate to be the cyclist that has just turned left onto the main road only to see a car coming headon towards me.

He does a fine job of stopping people who think they can get away with crap driving because they're "late". If he gets some YouTube views out of it then fine. What I don't get are the occasional passers by who try and justify the driver's actions.

 

[Binky]

I read this on one of the many forums who have covered this and thought it was quite amusing :

"Also he should film himself taking that bike to the tip, he's got a new channel Recycling Mikey!"

 

[matticus]

I’ve seen dozens of videos of Mikey doing what he does, and in not one of them have I seen him actively or directly prevent an accident. To me at least, the sole objective of his actions is to get offending motorists to amass penalty points, fined, or ultimately, banned.

What's your view on prosecutions for victimless crimes like speeding, driving without insurance, mobile use, drink-driving? Waste of police/court time?

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

I’ve seen dozens of videos of Mikey doing what he does, and in not one of them have I seen him actively or directly prevent an accident. To me at least, the sole objective of his actions is to get offending motorists to amass penalty points, fined, or ultimately, banned. He almost always seems to take great pleasure in smugly informing the offender as such.

I’m not against the results of his actions per se, I just don’t accept that he’s going around like some guardian angel.

yes I agree

he does seem to be especially smug and give the impression that he is a better person

which is partially true
but the smugness and attitude do have the effect of giving the people who start sentences with "all cyclists" "evidence" that they are right
and annoy people who are in this frame of mind

which just makes things worse

if he took the attitude away he might do more good overall

same goes for Jeremy Vine


just my opinions

 

[cyberknight]

What's your view on prosecutions for victimless crimes like speeding, driving without insurance, mobile use, drink-driving? Waste of police/court time?

Hardley victimless, stats mainly from 2022
303 people were killed in collisions involving someone exceeding the speed limit, with a further 2,180 people seriously injured and 5,648 slightly injured. A further 131 people died when someone was travelling too fast for the conditions.

22 people were killed and 674 injured in road traffic collisions where a driver using a mobile phone was considered to be a contributory factor.
Further analysis of the data shows that 4,188 injuries were recorded where there was a ‘distraction in vehicle’, where a mobile device could potentially have played a factor in the collision.
between 290 and 320 people were killed in collisions in Great Britain where at least one driver was over the drink-drive limit, with a central estimate of 300 deaths.
Those intentionally choosing to drive without insurance are:
• Ten times more likely to be a convicted drink driver
• Six times more likely to have defective vehicle
• Five times more likely to activate speed cameras
• Four - five times more likely to be involved in a fatal collision

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

Hardley victimless, stats mainly from 2022
303 people were killed in collisions involving someone exceeding the speed limit, with a further 2,180 people seriously injured and 5,648 slightly injured. A further 131 people died when someone was travelling too fast for the conditions.

22 people were killed and 674 injured in road traffic collisions where a driver using a mobile phone was considered to be a contributory factor.
Further analysis of the data shows that 4,188 injuries were recorded where there was a ‘distraction in vehicle’, where a mobile device could potentially have played a factor in the collision.
between 290 and 320 people were killed in collisions in Great Britain where at least one driver was over the drink-drive limit, with a central estimate of 300 deaths.
Those intentionally choosing to drive without insurance are:
• Ten times more likely to be a convicted drink driver
• Six times more likely to have defective vehicle
• Five times more likely to activate speed cameras
• Four - five times more likely to be involved in a fatal collision

True

but people see them as victimless

the stats show that there are victims - but the majority of time people commit the crime and get away with it

similar to a restaurant serving food that is past its sell by date and not bothering with normal safety precaution

most of the time no-one will be affected

until they are

 

[Alex321]

What's your view on prosecutions for victimless crimes like speeding, driving without insurance, mobile use, drink-driving? Waste of police/court time?

Describing them as "victimless" is not really valid. There may not be any direct victim for a specific occurrence of the offence, but there is clear evidence for most of them that the risk to others is significantly increased by committing those offences.

And it is absolutely not a waste of resources to prosecute those. If people knew they wouldn't be prosecuted unless they actually harmed other individuals directly, then rates of committing the offences would rise sharply, and road casualties would also rise.

 

[cyberknight]

True

but people see them as victimless

the stats show that there are victims - but the majority of time people commit the crime and get away with it

similar to a restaurant serving food that is past its sell by date and not bothering with normal safety precaution

most of the time no-one will be affected

until they are

indeed , i think though people use the term victimless as a way to try and justify illegal behaviour and get away with those acts.Speeding is seen by many as ok and every time the locations are posted on the local facefluff group the uproar it caused because they might have to drive correctly for a change is akin to taking a favourite toy from a toddler .

 

[BoldonLad]

Actually mainly criticising shop staff for not intervening.

I am not a legal expert, but, I would think that the employers "duty of care" to employees, would preclude expecting staff to risk assault or worse.

 

[matticus]

Hardley victimless, stats mainly from 2022
303 people were killed in collisions involving someone exceeding the speed limit, with a further 2,180 people seriously injured and 5,648 slightly injured. A further 131 people died when someone was travelling too fast for the conditions.

22 people were killed and 674 injured in road traffic collisions where a driver using a mobile phone was considered to be a contributory factor.
Further analysis of the data shows that 4,188 injuries were recorded where there was a ‘distraction in vehicle’, where a mobile device could potentially have played a factor in the collision.
between 290 and 320 people were killed in collisions in Great Britain where at least one driver was over the drink-drive limit, with a central estimate of 300 deaths.
Those intentionally choosing to drive without insurance are:
• Ten times more likely to be a convicted drink driver
• Six times more likely to have defective vehicle
• Five times more likely to activate speed cameras
• Four - five times more likely to be involved in a fatal collision

Exactly! I await the view of @Glyno ...

 

[Glyno]

Exactly! I await the view of @Glyno ...

Mikey seriously needs to up his game

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

I am not a legal expert, but, I would think that the employers "duty of care" to employees, would preclude expecting staff to risk assault or worse.

I know someone who works in security

for many years he worked in Tesco as a secutiy guard

he got a reputation as being the one who would look for and stop the known shop lifters
even chase them out of the shop and into the car park to try to get them

apparently he had a good effect on the "shrinkage" from the shop when he was around

but they have "dispensed with him" and he now guards places like warehouses

I do wonder if they were just worried about claims ratehr than the stock

 

[Glyno]

What's your view on prosecutions for victimless crimes like speeding, driving without insurance, mobile use, drink-driving? Waste of police/court time?

Waste of time? Not at all, offenders should be punished for breaking the law. What a strange question 🤔