I'm inclined to take her explanation. Not least because someone seems to be filming this from the get-go and because it seems her rental was one minute long which is more consistent with the premise that someone shoved the bike back into the dock immediately she took it out. His hand on the bike reinforces that explanation.
CKs position was that there has been a general shift in the world to automatic acceptance that any argument between a black person and a Karen or a Gammon must be the fault of the white one. A fundamentally racist assumption juat as bad as the 1950s when blacks were automatically disbelieved in such an argument.
In that argument he says that groups who want to generate "vile Karen" content for social media roam the streets and troll or bait potential Karen's. You say you see no baiting here but redocking your bike as you take it out looks like baiting to me.
In the context of the proposition that the balance of believability has shifted and that people deliberately set out to cause these confrontations then "groups of black men roaming" is not racist, just descriptive. Particularly he is stating his experience in Chicago.
If it were white men doing this to Asian girls, then would the description also be racist? Why is the "men" part not "sexist".
So that's where I think you're wrong.
You can disagree that the premise is wrong, or that people don't roam the streets to make social media content, but in the context of that discussion/polemic the phrase is not racist or used in a racist way.
Even more importantly it is less than 0.05% of that whole piece and yet the title that has been given to the clip implies the whole thing is a racist rant, intending that people will take away that headline without listening to the whole thing.
It's fundamentally dishonest to do that.
Wouldn't you agree?