Foreword:- Why do cyclists constantly try to shame people on social media?
Cyclists know they’re small in number. They also know the number of motorists complaining about cyclists dwarfs the number of cyclists complaining about motorists. To level the playing field, some cyclists enjoy making videos which show how often motorists do the “wrong thing” in traffic. The logical fallacy being if they show enough car drivers breaking the road rules, people might start to forget how many cyclists also break the road rules on a regular basis.
Which brings us to the protagonist in this article. There are some cycling extremists who are so irrationally obsessed with defending “cycling at any cost” they like to make videos of themselves deliberately engaging in verbal conflict with members of the public. Of course, inevitably their luck runs out and they find out the hard way they’ve messed with the wrong guy.
For people who enjoy this sort of content, it’s commonly known as “recreational outrage.” However, the people who create the content are often motivated by far more cynical goals – like getting more clicks and followers. Which brings us to a particularly obnoxious chap on Twitter who calls himself “The Department of Parks & Recreation.” This is a guy who needs a LOT of attention.
Nominally created to rid London’s Royal Parks of automobiles, it turns out the chap behind this Twitter account is a cycling advocate – which is another way of saying he hates cars and the people who drive them, and he goes out of his way to let people know that.
Recently, Nutjob Man (we’ll call him that for short) decided he wasn’t getting enough attention from his traditional videos so he decided to cast a wider net. In the last few months he’s taken to filming people making mistakes in automobiles around the streets of London. His modus operandi involves confronting strangers about “their poor driving” to get a reaction on camera – indeed he even tells people “they’re on social media” – presumably to make them act even MORE agitated.
It's no secret London has a road congestion problem. What is less well known is the extreme end of London's cycling lobby has declared war on motor cars. To that end, certain cycling lobbyists are now showing up at high friction locations seeking conflict with members of the public. It seems to me there's something inherently immoral about acting like an asshole towards strangers and then filming their responses just so you can produce content for your YouTube channel.
The Problem is people don't like being filmed without permission.
Everybody knows distracted driving is dangerous. And yet that’s exactly what Nutjob Man relies on to get the best content. He deliberately distracts drivers at exactly the wrong moment – namely, when they’re supposed to be looking out for other road users. Instead of letting people perform that role, Nutjob Man diverts their attention to HIM and he films their reactions.
Perhaps the most galling aspect to Nutjob Man’s technique involves passing judgement with condescending remarks like “You’re breaking the law mate” or “What does a car in a red circle mean?” As you might imagine most people find the guy extremely confrontational.
Problem? What problem?
It will come as no surprise that content creators like Nutjob Man eventually find out the hard way they’ve messed with the wrong guy – and things tend to go quite pear shaped when that happens. It will also come as no surprise when Nutjob Man does get an aggressive reaction, he then plays the victim, expressing dismay at the manner in which certain people react.
In the following video we can see a recent example of his typical style. In the first half of the video the guy basically acts like a bully towards a woman who politely asks why he’s filming her. But in doing so, he then holds up another road user who is wanting to turn into the same lane way. And it’s this second driver who has far less tolerance for Nutjob Man’s schtick than the first lady.
Something to note in this video – between 0:18 and 0:30 the lady in the car attempts to avoid conflict on three occasions. Each time the lady tries to leave, Nutjob Man continues to pester her with increasingly charged rhetoric, which results in the lady becoming more and more agitated. And THAT is what’s so immoral about Nutjob Man’s videos. He deliberately baits strangers to get the best content.
Video Number One – Nutjob Man interrupts two separate drivers and he accuses them of breaking the law etc. This is where things started going pear shaped.
Consequences happen when you pick the wrong guy.
If you watched Part One of this video sequence you’ll have seen the guy in the Audi giving a bit of lip to the smarty pants behind the camera. However, in Part Two things get physical. Before the altercation Audi Man had no idea who Nutjob Man is. He had no idea Nutjob Man is a cycling lobbyist who gets his kicks by taunting strangers with sarcastic disrespect. The only thing Audi man knew ‘for sure’ is the guy he had “words” with 60 seconds earlier was still filming him while he walked down the street with his wife and kids.
Video Number Two – Nutjob Man continues to film Audi man, along with his wife and children, as they walk down the lane towards Nutjob Man. At this point Audi man decided “enough is enough”.
At the 1:30 mark in Video Number Two we can hear Nutjob Man moan to himself “Oh no… he’s coming this way….” but still he kept filming. At the 1:59 mark we can hear Audi man’s wife asking “What are you doing filming my children? What are you? A pedo?” and shortly after that Audi man approaches Nutjob Man and asks “Do you think you’re cool doing that?” and then he grabs the guys iPhone and smashes it the ground. This is then followed by 10-20 seconds of highly agitated words by Audi man towards Nutjob Man.
In fairness, it should be noted no punches were thrown – although in certain parts of the world there probably would have been.
"You're breaking the Law mate..." Was Nutjob Man even correct to say that?
It turns out he wasn’t. The incident occurred 9am on a Saturday morning at Kingston Upon Thames. Specifically the car being driven by Audi Man was legally turning into Bishop’s Hall. Yes, it’s true that further to the south along Thames Street (behind Nutjob Man) the region becomes a permanent Pedestrian Only zone, but that doesn’t apply to Bishop’s Hall at 9am.
Imagine this… you’re looking for a parking spot, you’re wanting to take your wife and children to the Kingston Historic Markets (presumably) and some nutjob is filming you, falsely accusing you of “breaking the law”. But then, on top of that, as you’re walking back up the street after parking your car the nutjob is STILL filming you. Would you not also have a negative reaction?
Nutjob Man was looking for conflict. That’s why the first thing he said to Audi Man was “You’re breaking the law mate…” But the facts are Audi Man was fully entitled to turn right into Bishop’s Hall at that time of the day. It’s irrelevant if there were (or weren’t ) any available parking spots… in and of itself, turning into Bishop’s Hall was a perfectly legal thing to do.
Nutjob Man is desperate to portray himself as the victim in this incident. But he admits he showed up at Thames St specifically to confront motorists, which means he knowingly tried to provoke a negative response in Audi Man. He did that to create the best possible content for his Twitter account. And now he's playing the victim.
Playing the victim till the very end. It's what cycling lobbyists do.
Ultimately what we’re seeing here is the cycling equivalent of an ultra militant feminist who deliberately baits a male so ruthlessly that he actually threatens to hit her – whereupon the feminist then screams to the world “Did you see that? He just threatened me! He just proved my point… all men are bastards, every single one of them!”
Now before any of you get hung up too much on the feminism metaphor…. the point is this – as a rule of thumb, people DO NOT respond well to disrespect. If you show enough disrespect for long enough, sooner or later you WILL get an aggressive response.
In the context of Nutjob Man and his confrontation videos, disrespect is his stock in trade. Sure, he justifies his conduct in terms of “defending cycling and holding up entitled motorists for all the world to see,” but at the end of the day he’s a conflict junkie. If you don’t believe me spend some time reading his Twitter feed and you’ll soon reach a similar conclusion. Nutjob Man (like most social justice warriors) relies on people being too polite to respond aggressively to his conflict and baiting. But not always!
So what was the outcome after his phone got smashed? Quite predictably, he promptly went to the Metropolitan Police to file a complaint about the terrible bad man in the white polo short. His report was investigated and it was closed with no further action. Nutjob Man is now on Twitter playing the victim, citing institutional prejudice by the Police towards cyclists. Blah Blah Blah…..
Here’s a screen shot of his version of events… as noted earlier, it’s a near perfect example of a conflict junkie in complete denial about the role he played in the conflict he found himself involved in.
In Closing:- Job well done Met Police.
Law Enforcement Officers all around the world have a tough job. As a result they have very little tolerance for people who make vexatious complaints. Which is another way of saying, don’t waste important Police time.
The Met Police weighed up all the factors in this matter – in particular – the video content itself. They assessed the complainant brought this incident on himself, or at least contibuted to it substantially.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Nutjob Man’s followers disagree with the way the Police have handled this matter. In their view the Police have acted appallingly. In their view it’s a cover up. In their view it’s an endemic institutional problem which won’t be solved by anything less than a multi million pound Royal Commission, paid for at the taxpayer’s expense.
All of which confirms why we are quite correct to refer to the protagonist in this article as Nutjob Man.
The police have reached the correct conclusion in this matter. As noted at the top of this article, there's something inherently immoral about baiting strangers to get a reaction, and then filming their reactions just so you can create content for your YouTube channel. Worse yet, uploading that content without permission from the people being filmed. Twitter and YouTube have a case to answer for here. They've empowered content creators to behave this way, and seemingly, any member of the public who reacts negatively is automatically assumed to be the guilty party.
