Ashley Neal and Cycling Mikey

[mjr]

So this was objecting to the summary of "Driving industry representative says cyclists should share the roads better; and drivers wouldn't break the law if they weren't being filmed."

Perhaps you at least watch the video (or even read the article) before attempting to "summarize" it, since that isn't even close to anything he suggested (where "close" means on the same continent).

He literally says (5min 05) "we've now got legions of cyclists all around the country trying to capture that moment [where drivers break the law] ... all roads need to be shared safely and sensibly" and (6min 44) "[Mikey] creates many of these road rage incidents all of his own accord".

It might not be exactly the same words, but it's definitely close enough to tick the share-the-road and incidents-only-happen-because-of-cyclists-with-cameras bingo boxes.

 

[Alex321]

So this was objecting to the summary of "Driving industry representative says cyclists should share the roads better; and drivers wouldn't break the law if they weren't being filmed."


He literally says (5min 05) "we've now got legions of cyclists all around the country trying to capture that moment [where drivers break the law] ... all roads need to be shared safely and sensibly" and (6min 44) "[Mikey] creates many of these road rage incidents all of his own accord".

It might not be exactly the same words, but it's definitely close enough to tick the share-the-road and incidents-only-happen-because-of-cyclists-with-cameras bingo boxes.

It isn't even close to suggesting they wouldn't break the law if not filmed - and he doesn't even suggest you shouldn't film (though he does say he himself wouldn't).

And he strongly emphasises "ALL" road users should share the road better, not "cyclists" should.

I agree with him about Mikey's confrontational stance creating road rage incidents where there wouldn't have been any (but the law breaking would still have been there). That has always been the main issue I have with Mikey.

I would also tend to dispute your description of him as "Driving industry representative". Yes, he works as a driving instructor, but he isn't making any attempt to represent anybody but himself, and certainly hasn't been appointed as any sort of representative.

So:
"Driving industry representative"
Not really.

"says cyclists should share the roads better; "
Says all users need to share the roads better.

"and drivers wouldn't break the law if they weren't being filmed."
Absolutely not suggested anywhere in the video or article.

 

[boydj]

I'm pretty sure that the publicity generated by Mikey - including Neal's piece - and Mikey's notoriety has had a positive effect on road, safety and a minimal effect on the drivers vs cyclists discussion, and maybe even improved road safety at 'Gandalf Corner'. Good for him for having the cojones to stand up to drivers.

 

[LCpl Boiled Egg]

He claims that Mikey ignores cyclists breaking the law, yet on the videos I've watched Mikey calls out the cyclists as he's dealing with the motorists. In any case, if he stood in front of a cyclist, they'd just go round him!

 

[cougie uk]

This is the problem with technology these days.
Just kick the cars and move on. One chap I know of Carrys round beach stones in his pocket and throws them At offenders.
A couple have stopped in the past but he just says dunno must of flicked up from the road.....

Yeah that's gonna get someone killed one day.

 

[cougie uk]

Mikey is doing a great job. How many motorists has he put off cutting that corner just by them seeing him stop another car ?

Ashley just wants the publicity - long way to come to make a film.

 

[Roseland triker]

Yeah that's gonna get someone killed one day.

We can live in hope, he's a right cockwomble 😁

 

[mjr]

And he strongly emphasises "ALL" road users should share the road better, not "cyclists" should.

I agree with him about Mikey's confrontational stance creating road rage incidents where there wouldn't have been any (but the law breaking would still have been there). That has always been the main issue I have with Mikey.

The road rage would probably still happen, but with someone without a camera and less used to dealing with daffodils.

And we all know pleas from motorists to "share the road" usually means they want cyclists to stop using primary position to assert control of a lane and deter dangerously close overtaking, or sometimes that there should be no cycle lane and all the roadway shared, or in reality dominated by motorists.

 

[Arrowfoot]

Would you applaud your partners or adult children who do this or help them get over it. If you have the time, will it not be more constructive to work for a charity or accompany disabled people for their medical appointments.

Though the Police are supportive in the media, I am sure privately it is likely to be different.

 

[Alex321]

The road rage would probably still happen, but with someone without a camera and less used to dealing with daffodils.

No it wouldn't.

Those people *may* still get road rage at some other point, totally unconnected.

But those incidents of it would not occur.

And we all know pleas from motorists to "share the road" usually means they want cyclists to stop using primary position to assert control of a lane and deter dangerously close overtaking, or sometimes that there should be no cycle lane and all the roadway shared, or in reality dominated by motorists.

No we don't.

I'm sure it sometimes means that. But I have never come across such, and I most certainly do not "know" it is what is usually meant.

Not that "usually" has any relevance here.

 

[mjr]

No it wouldn't.

Those people *may* still get road rage at some other point, totally unconnected.

But those incidents of it would not occur.

So you think road-ragers only rage at particular incidents, not the whole time they're on the road? I disagree and believe ragers are like that one in the Fast Show, ranting away just looking for targets for their rage.

No we don't.

I'm sure it sometimes means that. But I have never come across such, and I most certainly do not "know" it is what is usually meant.

Not that "usually" has any relevance here.

"Usually" is relevant because the term has a particular meaning to a group of his supporters while seeming innocuous to others. This is sometimes called a dog whistle in politics.

If you've never come across motorists asking cyclists to "share the road" when they mean basically letting motorists dominate it, then you've probably not been advocating cycling long enough.

 

[Alex321]

So you think road-ragers only rage at particular incidents, not the whole time they're on the road? I disagree and believe ragers are like that one in the Fast Show, ranting away just looking for targets for their rage.

I don't think many are like that. There are some people of course, who are pretty well perpetually angry, but I don't think the majority who will get angry in this sort of situation are of that type.

IMO, most will only get angry when triggered by something, they aren't looking for that trigger.

"Usually" is relevant because the term has a particular meaning to a group of his supporters while seeming innocuous to others. This is sometimes called a dog whistle in politics.

"Usually" is not relevant IMO because it wasn't his supporters we are talking about, it is what he says, as one individual, and what he meant, rather than how some of his supporters might interpret it.

If you've never come across motorists asking cyclists to "share the road" when they mean basically letting motorists dominate it, then you've probably not been advocating cycling long enough.

I have certainly come across motorists who think cyclists should always keep to the gutter, and that motorists are the only ones "entitled" to use the full road. But I've never come across those suggesting that as "sharing" the road.

But in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I always prefer to believe that people mean what they say, rather than believing they mean whatever fits my agenda.

 

[matticus]

But in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I always prefer to believe that people mean what they say, rather than believing they mean whatever fits my agenda.

Yes, that seems nice, doesn't it? But sometimes you find that the same phrase keeps leading you to people who are not behaving nicely. And after a while it becomes easier to see those signals and assume certain things.

Have you ever heard the phrase: "I'm not a racist, but ... " ?

 

[gcogger]

I don't think many are like that. There are some people of course, who are pretty well perpetually angry, but I don't think the majority who will get angry in this sort of situation are of that type.

IMO, most will only get angry when triggered by something, they aren't looking for that trigger.

I've seen drivers (and cyclists!) get triggered fairly easily, but I don't believe any of those people were 'raging' before the incident that triggered them.

"Usually" is not relevant IMO because it wasn't his supporters we are talking about, it is what he says, as one individual, and what he meant, rather than how some of his supporters might interpret it.


I have certainly come across motorists who think cyclists should always keep to the gutter, and that motorists are the only ones "entitled" to use the full road. But I've never come across those suggesting that as "sharing" the road.

But in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I always prefer to believe that people mean what they say, rather than believing they mean whatever fits my agenda.

While I've occasionally encountered drivers who don't think that a cyclist should be taking up any space on the road, I've certainly never had one refer to that as 'sharing the road'. It would be a very odd way of putting it (and doesn't contain any swear words!).

 

[Electric_Andy]

Perhaps you at least watch the video (or even read the article) before attempting to "summarize" it, since that isn't even close to anything he suggested (where "close" means on the same continent).

Perhaps you stop posting altogether because you're nasty for the sake of it. I'm putting you on ignore anyway