Cycling Mikey doesn't deserve the hate he's getting

Honestly, I'm done with this thread. I'm out. I'll get banned if I say the only reasonable response to this level of total invention.

I didn’t say you were a driver? But if you think oeople who use their phones while driving are just missing the virtues of a refresher course then you have more faith in humanity than I do

Do you not think that it’s provocative to drive dangerously and break the law? Or should we all just keep our heads down and let lives be risked for the sake of not appearing to be a busybody?

And that's just blatantly untrue.

For example, it's illegal to go to your car to grab your handbag if you're over the drink drive limit. It's not dangerous. It's illegal to nudge through a red light by six inches to let an ambulance through. It's not dangerous. It's illegal to sell a 17 year and 354 day old person 1ml of vodka. It's not dangerous.

Lots and lots of things are illegal but not dangerous.

And that's just blatantly untrue.

For example, it's illegal to go to your car to grab your handbag if you're over the drink drive limit. It's not dangerous. It's illegal to nudge through a red light by six inches to let an ambulance through. It's not dangerous. It's illegal to sell a 17 year and 354 day old person 1ml of vodka. It's not dangerous.

Lots and lots of things are illegal but not dangerous.

People have explained it. Did you not see the posts and the links with the research about mobile phone use?

Im sure you, random person who can’t even read an OP properly, is right and they’re wrong though

Eh??

Aside from the fact you totally put words in OP’s mouth, how is this the same?

OP didn’t describe what CM does and you haven’t watched videos but have decided that he’s in the wrong and all those drivers going round blind bends on the wrong side of the road are the hard done by misunderstood victims?

Explain how it is then. Explain how it could possibly result in any injury to use your phone whilst in a car that is not at all moving and continues to not at all move. Every example so far has been "well, you start moving"... so, not stationery traffic then.

Things can be dangerous but not illegal and also be illegal but not dangerous. That's physically possible and anyone with a brain cell knows that.

People have explained why it’s dangerous, you’re being obtuse.

That’s not true. He’s just another self-important ‘crusader’.

I'd never heard of him until now, but I'm not surprised. One day, he'll piss off the wrong person, and come to a sticky end. (I'm surprised that none of the JSO crowd got run over.) And I'm not going to line his pockets by clicking on him.

And is his cycling always impeccable? He never rides on pavements, never ignores red lights, obeys 20mph zones? (Some fit cyclists can ride faster than that.) Does he have insurance, as lots of people preach that cyclists should have it?

Incidentally, if it's illegal and allegedly "extremely dangerous" to operate a phone in stationary traffic, why do modern cars have touch screen controls for so many things like heating, so you have to look at the screen to adjust it, when previously, with an actual tactile switch, you could do it by feel, keeping your eyes on the road?

See the link upthread to how our brains react after being distracted by a phone. Of course it’s dangerous. Why is it illegal?

As a driving cyclist, no it’s not hard to understand - don’t use your phone. Why would you? What’s so urgent you can’t wait?

Same Shall we create a Smug Holier Than Thou motorist club? I’d enjoy being part of that, though I think we’d have to be <checks notes> slimey dobbers to gain entry

Anything to say about the people risking the lives of others? Or is it much worse to “dob people in”

So he should “dob people in”.

This bloke’s just another vigilante. He may be a middle-class-approved cycling vigilante. But he’s doing the same thing as Ring doorbell camera zealots putting their stupid videos on Facebook warning of suspicious men in the neighbourhood, or online ‘paedo hunters’.

Leave detection and enforcement to the police.

It's not dangerous though, is it? Being in non-moving traffic is not dangerous in any way. It's only dangerous when you start to move again. You cannot hit someone if your car isn't moving. The point is that some things are illegal but not dangerous. If you disagree with the very clear stationery traffic example, there are tonnes more I could give you.

I didn't comment on something I haven't watched - I commented on what OP said, and explicitly said I wasn't commenting on him or his videos, only on OP's comment. If you didn't read what I said before deciding to have a problem, that's not my fault.

If I started a post about Love Island and said "cats are black but dogs aren't", it doesn't take knowledge of Love Island for someone else to say "I haven't watched Love Island so I don't know what happened with Yasmine but I have a black dog so dogs can be black".

You can't hit anyone in stationery traffic. That's the point they're making. Starting to move again when you haven't checked properly is obviously dangerous - sitting in stationery traffic is not. Yet both are equally as illegal. That's the point being made. Illegal does not always mean dangerous.

I say this as a non-driving cyclist. It's not a difficult point to understand.

And that's just blatantly untrue.

For example, it's illegal to go to your car to grab your handbag if you're over the drink drive limit. It's not dangerous. It's illegal to nudge through a red light by six inches to let an ambulance through. It's not dangerous. It's illegal to sell a 17 year and 354 day old person 1ml of vodka. It's not dangerous.

Lots and lots of things are illegal but not dangerous.

Worse kind of human's a bit strong! Not paedophiles, murderers and dictators?