YouTube driving instructor Ashley Neal has joined the debate around the video of a five-year-old cyclist and a driver meeting at a pinch point which has gone viral since being first shared by the child’s father ten days ago.
Since then it has been discussed during a segment on Jeremy Vine’s Channel 5 show, attracted much-criticised comments from Conservative politicians including Sajid Javid, been viewed more than 2.7 million times and subject to national newspaper coverage.
Neal, whose “driving education” YouTube videos have earned him a large platform of 120,000 subscribers, released a video to give his “hot take” on the footage, in which he is complimentary of the child’s cycling and describes the driving on display as “terrible”.
In the final portion of the video Neal then questions the father telling his son to carry on when it is “obvious” the driver will not stop, comparing it to allowing your child to run around the edge of a swimming pool.
“The big lesson that people should be taking from this clip is obviously the terrible driving and the fact that motorist should have stopped and given way to the more vulnerable,” Neal concludes.
“But there is also the added point that even when you think you have priority you should not continue into an escalating risk. The father of this child [by telling him to carry on when he asked if they should pull over] has effectively told his kid to keep running around that swimming pool even though the kid wanted to walk.
“The only road user to come out of this clip with any credit, and it is full credit to them, is the child. The father seems like one of those I’ve got priority brigade and the motorist is simply dangerous — it is quite ironic that the young child is the only one with any common sense.”
Addressing the view expressed by many on social media, including by Conservative politicians Susan Hall and Baroness Foster, that the five-year-old cyclist should not have been on the road, Neal disagrees.
“I think it is lovely to see a young child like this being taught the skills at such an early age. There has been some discussion about the age of the child but for me it has got to be child-specific and there has got to be risk assessment for the road conditions.
“Some children you would be happy that they are going to follow your instructions if you are in charge of them, others not so. This road was traffic calmed and the traffic was quite light so for me there was nothing wrong with this child cycling here.
“This five-year-old also followed his father’s instructions impeccably, I would have been totally happy in charge of this child trying to teach him the skills that he needs to ride safely. The speed that they were cycling at and the distance that they were keeping from the parked vehicles was all good and the five-year-old also held a good steady line.”
“The most dangerous part of this clip”
“The most dangerous part of the clip” is the motorist, Neal tells his viewers, explaining that as the cyclist is “obviously more vulnerable” the driver should have given way, advice backed up by the Highway Code’s ‘hierarchy of road users’.
“Plainly and simply the driver should have given way but instead they barge through a narrowing and endangered the life of a five-year-old,” Neal said. “What if this child fell off? We would be dealing with a fatality.
“Another thing that backs up my opinion with this is the fact that the cyclist does not have to venture outside of their lane to proceed through the pinch point, the motorist obviously cannot say the same.
“Some people will think whoever gets there first goes first, and even with this incorrect mindset the five-year-old cyclist does arrive at the pinch point before the motorist, but the motorist still barges through.
“They do slow down, but not enough. They should have stopped but because they chose to keep moving this increased risk dramatically. The distance away from the cars on their side of the road was way too close and if another young child had run out between those vehicles it would have left the motorist no option but to swerve in the direction of our five-year-old cycling.
“Another reason to slow down and stop was the close proximity to the oncoming cyclists, but in my opinion this is a grey area that needs clarification. Even if I was driving on my side of the road and it was totally clear the cyclists in the oncoming lane might still be quite close.”
Showing the following scene to his viewers to demonstrate such a situation, Neal says he would “still slow down and look after them”.
“I do not think the updates in the Highway Code are clear enough on this point. Overtaking cyclists at speed up to 30mph you need to give them at least 1.5 metres clearance, but what if they are coming in the opposite direction?” Neal continued.
“If you did not know my opinion you now do. Try to follow this advice because it keeps everyone safe.”
Last week Neal released a video criticising reporter Richard Bilton for cycling through a red light in a clip seen in the recent Panorama episode ‘Road Rage: Cars v Bikes’.
Bilton told road.cc the incident demonstrates “how difficult” some junctions can be to navigate on a bike, as well as the wider “reality of cycling on UK roads”. Neal had said it “makes a little bit of a mockery when the question is asked ‘are the UK roads too dangerous to cycle on?'”
146 thoughts on ““Only road user to come out with any credit is the child”: Ashley Neal reacts to “terrible driving” in viral video of five-year-old cyclist”
Well, it’s not a terrible
Well, it’s not a terrible take by any means.
Too your and cake it eat have
Too your and cake it eat have to. Please rearrange to produce a well known phrase that encapsulates yours and my response.
hutchdaddy wrote:
It have to eat cake and your too?
hutchdaddy wrote:
What’s the point of having cake if you can’t eat it?
Steve K wrote:
Urinal cakes? I don’t fancy eating them
hawkinspeter wrote:
You could have just said carrot cake as far as I’m concerned.
Steve K wrote:
Heathen!
“Plainly and simply the
“Plainly and simply the driver should have given way but instead they barge through a narrowing and endangered the life of a five-year-old,”
I think Neal’s opinion & the sentiment in the YouTube piece, this time, is a very good, heartfelt, and an honest summary of how car drivers should behave/don’t behave towards others. Also, he talks with conviction, together with frank concern, on how ‘us’ cyclists should react when drivers do not think of safety beyond their own.
His point is that cyclists do not have the safe capability to “barge” – however much I/we want/do this.
Wales56 wrote:
Some idiot on Youtube recently complained that me being cut up by a double decker bus, while i was still in the cycle lane, put all the bus passengers at risk of being killed…As if i had been the one to cause this, and also that a bicycle was somehow going to knock the bus over and kill all on board…
I’d agree with his take,
I’d agree with his take, although I don’t have a strong opinion either way on the adult cyclist. The road doesn’t look particularly dangerous (not that it’s the roads that cause danger) and it’s entirely possible that the adult believed that the driver would cede priority. Ultimately the entire situation was caused by the driver driving like an entitled asshat and creating danger when there was no need.
As others have pointed out, if the child was just an ordinary adult cyclist, would it change your opinion or discussion points? If it were two adults, then I don’t think Ashley would be criticising the rear cyclist, so it seems that he’s introducing an artificial age barrier into how to use public roads. I’m all for having an emotional age barrier for drivers however – act like a toddler throwing a tantrum and you should be banned for a while like sitting on a naughty step.
Maybe you should have to wear
Maybe you should have to wear a driving helmet for a bit?
I would definately support ‘D
I would definately support ‘D’ plates for drivers who have accumulated 6 points!
HoarseMann wrote:
I would rather support a wheel clamp for a few weeks.
It’d probably be pretty
It’d probably be pretty simple to implement a little led screen next to the number plate that displayed the number of points on someone’s license. contactless tap the card to start the car and the number displays automatically.
Perhaps the embarassment would make people take a bit more care. Either that or make anyone with 6 points or more wear a helmet whilst driving, they’re obviously a danger to themselves. the inconvenience etc would soon make people try to avoid getting points.
RobD wrote:
As a safety measure, maybe we should follow the example of big lorries reversing. Simply have a voice repeating “WARNING! BEEP BEEP BEEP. This driver is incompetent and dangerous” as they drive around.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Looks like they’d have to drive a 2CV for that to fit. As much as I like the idea of hyper-aggressive Audi/BMW/SUV drivers pootling around in 2CVs, I suspect it might not be feasible unless we start manufacturing a lot more of them.
I do like the idea of a ‘D’ plate so that it’s clear which drivers you need to be extra careful around
hawkinspeter wrote:
As a complere aside, I saw an old 2CV ad the other day with the wonderful line “We couldn’t make it any faster, after all it already exceeds the legal speed limit of 70mph by 1.5mph”. It’s a pity that car manufacturers and drivers don’t follow that simple principle. https://www.goodwood.com/grr/road/news/2021/4/the-best-car-ads-ever–axons-automotive-anorak/
You spotted my intent!
You spotted my intent!
Probably 2CVs aren’t the greenest of vehicles – although I imagine that being light and going slow they need less power than your motor of today?
chrisonatrike wrote:
I remember my sister’s boyfriend had one when I was a teenager and it did what was then regarded as a near-miraculous 65 miles to the gallon, very much assisted by the fact that it only weighed 500 kg.
I certainly wouldn’t argue
I certainly wouldn’t argue with his analysis. However, the issue may be that many motorists will.
The highway code could of course be clearer but tbh how much difference would it make. I’ve already put forward the argument that the driver should be taking extra care as it’s a traffic calming area. I would also argue that the cars on the left of the road are too close and possibly opposite the junction.
Role 243: DO NOT stop or parkopposite or within 10 metres (32 feet) of a junction, except in an authorised parking space.
It’s a reflection on how blind we’ve become to parked cars that he doesn’t even notice this as a contibuting factor.
IanMK wrote:
Wasn’t there some police force that refused to take action on a close-pass recently as the motorist was passing from the other direction? Obviously, that’s just an excuse, but seeing how skewed the courts are against cyclists, it’s almost certainly going to lead to drivers getting away with dangerous driving just due to poor wording in the Highway Code.
The fact that anyone’s even
The fact that anyone’s even questioning whether the rules on avoiding collisions also apply to avoiding head-on collisions is proof we need a mandatory critical thinking GCSE.
Car Delenda Est wrote:
Normally, I’d agree with increasing critical thinking, but in this instance it’s the Highway Code using slightly misleading language.
Compare and contrast the guidance for passing pedestrians:
and here’s the guidance for passing cyclists:
Notice how they only specify “overtaking” for cyclists instead of passing which is a mistake. Passing can be in either direction whereas overtaking is only when travelling in the same direction.
Whilst there’s no argument
Whilst there’s no argument from me on what your saying, how many drivers are leaving pedestrians 2 m of space? The number of drivers that drive far to fast on country roads. They don’t seem to appreciate that many public footpaths are often connected by a short stretches of road with NO footpath. They can’t be mislead by the language if they don’t read it in the first place.
well if I was being
well if I was being provocative, is that just because most people drive everywhere thesedays and their actual experience of walking on country roads, or knowledge of footpaths is therefore minimal.
and they probably think anyone who does walk on such a road is crazy & lost.
Haha! Probably about 20 years
Haha! Probably about 20 years ago when I still lived in England, walking home from the pub (in the country side) at night. Me and my mate both using torches, I’m wearing my old Gill cycling jacket with reflective tapes, and walking towards oncoming traffic. Didn’t stop one idiot from slowing almost to a stop with a window open to ask “Are you trying to get yourselves killed?” Yep, put me on the obviously crazy pile.
This. While the inconsistent
This. While the inconsistent language might be confusing (might be – but both of the quoted passages are in a section about overtaking), these nice linguistic arguments are all post hoc rationalisation. The main problem is that people have never read the rules.
Thank-you for reproducing
Thank-you for reproducing Neal’s comments so fully.
These were my comments on his vid:
Having watched the clip a couple of times, for me there are three thoughts:
1 – That street is crying out for a segregated cycleway, preferably as part of a combined thru-routes and ‘safe routes to schools’ network. Such would at a stroke remove the conflict which caused the questions raised.
2 – The cycling bypass, which is infrastructure built until I think the 1980s, is even more out of date than that, and illustrates how little attention we pay to maintenance / updating. A practice that needs to be fixed.
3 – This and Ashley’s recent unfit-to-drive video illustrate the need for continuing driver education / monitoring.
Two weeks ago a 74 year old pensioner Arthur Robert McGrillen was given a 2.5 year prison sentence for killing one person on a bike with his car, and seriously injuring another. He had failed to self-disclose a stroke when renewing his driving license.
Two months ago an 82 year old pensioner Peter Gardner was given 6 months in prison for killing a 70 year old on a bike when he could only read a number plate at 10ft.
I suggest that the current system does not work, and would not actually be that expensive to fix – very little work for a GP nurse to do a rapid go/no go check, an refer to the GP if necessary.
On the clip I’d suggest that this driver will continue causing risks to other people unless educated somehow. I’d suggest a re-evaluation every 10 years when photocard is renewed, or far more widespread camera enforcement and courses.
* For road.cc peeps – that was a vid submitted to Ashley’s site by a cyclist sent cartwheeling through the air by an 82 year old pensioner. 12 weeks on crutches, broken pelvis, broken back – as we sometimes see. The conversation was about the issues around stopping pensioners driving when they become incapable.
vid submitted to Ashley’s
vid submitted to Ashley’s site by a cyclist sent cartwheeling through the air by an 82 year old pensioner
On the Panorama programme we saw a video of a cyclist cartwheeling through the air after being hit by a driver who incorrectly traversed a mini-roundabout, and claimed that ‘everybody does that’ as an excuse. She was not an 82 year old. Penalty?: negligible
mattw wrote:
FFS, there are still people in the comments blaming the cyclist.
Those road users with
Those road users with extremist views absolutely blow my mind.
If making 10 bicycle journeys
If making 10 bicycle journeys a week for a few years has taught me anything, it’s that there are a lot more of these types of road users than you’d think.
Ashley Neal wrote:
You are now starting to get the picture. Please bear in mind that there are people who do the same in real life, both expressing their views and then implementing them. So when you got a bit of a rough ride here early on, I think it was because you were dismissive. Hopefully we are all mellowing a bit.
I have a police incident ongoing where I was walking on a country lane, and because I didn’t step out of a driver’s way onto a slippery, muddy verge where I could have easily have fallen back in front of the car, I got a punch thrown at me, by a man I would estimate to be 75 years old. The fist was in response to me suggesting that instead of me being a “f*cking idiot” for walking in the road, he should read the Highway Code.
Anyway, that reminds me, how about a “Dealing with walkers on a country lane” episode. 90% of drivers seem to think that skimming past walkers at high speed is acceptable behaviour, presumably because we haven’t got 4 legs and might sit on them 😉
I’m now starting to get the
I’m now starting to get the picture! Lol. Don’t exculde extremist cycling views from my quote, as everyone here has. There’s plenty of people on here, who fall into the same category, but at the other end of the spectrum to the people who are blaming the cyclist in the clip in question.
There’s plenty of people on
“There’s plenty of people on here, who fall into the same category [ extremist cycling views] “
What’s an extremist cycling view and you need to give specific examples of posts if you are going to throw that at ‘plenty of people on here’.
hirsute wrote:
I would be very interested to hear what these extreme views are.
HoarseMann wrote:
Wanting court cases to be tried on the basis of driving test examiners’ opinions e.g. “Would that driving have failed a driving test?”
Lifetime driving bans for anyone found at fault for a RTC that ends someone’s life.
Immediate (temporary) driving bans for anyone found breaking the traffic law e.g. using a mobile phone whilst in control of a vehicle.
Immediate prison sentences for anyone found driving whilst banned along with a lifetime driving ban.
Closing road junctions to motor vehicles after serious incidents until the cause is determined and the junction made safe.
Detailed investigations of RTCs in a similar manner to rail or aircraft crash investigations.
Include road cycling as part of the driving test.
Not a bad start there, I
Not a bad start there, I might add:
– supporting LTN’s and active travel initiatives
– supporting congestion charging and clean air zones
– being broadly positive about the cycling infrastructure in The Netherlands
– not wishing to be honked by every passing motorist
– riding two abreast
– riding with a camera and posting content to YouTube without being a qualified driving-instructor instructor
HoarseMann wrote:
Daring to use the road when there’s a perfectly usable cycle path alongside the road although it’s covered in broken glass and wet leaves and dumps the cyclist out in an unfavourable position in the road and cedes priority at every single side road.
hirsute wrote:
He won’t be able to find specific examples because most of our ‘extremism’ would be around wanting people to follow the Highway Code as much as possible in order to reduce danger to others. There’s a common response to ‘extremist’ cyclist views – “I’d rather be wrong and safe than correct and dead” which is usually just a false dichotomy.
The other common type of cyclist ‘extremism’ is the ‘asserting priority’ jibe that Ashley mentioned. When other road users do it, it’s just normal driving behaviour, but when cyclists are progressing forwards in their lane, it’s sometimes seen as them forcing their views on everyone. In my experience, cyclists are highly motivated to avoid collisions and take avoiding action the vast majority of the time.
Agree – it’s the normal issue
Agree – it’s the normal issue with the force-multiplying aspect of being protected inside a metal cage and having a great deal of power at the touch of the pedal (plus it’s totally normal to be at >25mph in a car, less so on a bike).
People can be careless, arseholes or aggressive no matter what seat they’re occupying. It’s just that the possible consequences are massively different depending on type of seat. And everyone knows it.
The “extreme” views I’ve seen on here around conflict with drivers involve things like dropping stuff off road bridges (one poster who eventually got banned from here IIRC), getting handy with a D-lock (other folks immediately suggested this wasn’t very wise) then on downward to varied damage to cars or “provoking people”. Touching someone’s car has recently been critiqued and a couple of folks here have admitted to blatantly obeying speed limits when those behind them clearly wanted faster!
Finally there’s the usual “after the fact” response to reports of KSIs which is mostly people expressing desire for long jail sentences in unpleasant prisons. This ranges down to simply hoping that cases actually come to court! Or if convictions are attained then the appropriate sentencing guidelines are applied, rather than punishments being suspended or “you will have to live with the consequences of your actions; let that be a lesson to you…”
The road bridges poster moved
The road bridges poster moved to scandanvia so didn’t post after they had moved. Don’t think they got banned.
The “extreme” examples you give aren’t representative of ‘plenty of people on here’.
Thanks, I couldn’t remember
Thanks, I couldn’t remember whether they’d also got barred.
As for “extremists” I am just trying to imagine for a moment what might be considered “extreme” by “reasonable ‘non-cyclists’ ” from outside the forum.
Possibly should add getting really shouty and sweary in e.g. a close pass. These often don’t look so close on wide-angle camera. Plus some people clearly imagine the cyclists would feel the same as you would if you were in a car. So they just hear (sometimes see) some middle aged man on a bike and then a vehicle going past and not making contact, then said chap letting off a tirade. “Yes, nutter there” might be the response – if you’ve not been there…
Sure, but we aren’t talking
Sure, but we aren’t talking about the general public but someone with an interest in cycling and road safety.
Legs eleven, moved to a
Legs eleven, moved to a cyclist nirvana, Copenhagen or maybe Amsterdam.
Ah yes – it’s coming back to
Ah yes – it’s coming back to me now…
Sounded like they’d gone to a better place anyway. Don’t think they’d have much time for the current controversialists.
And the paving slab thing
And the paving slab thing tended to be a reaction to threats to cyclists such as piano wire and the like.
It would be nice if he could pop back on and tell us if it was everything he was hoping for. I hope it is.
Ah yes, legs eleven Worcester
Ah yes, legs eleven Worcester.
Don’t disagree, and I’ve
Don’t disagree, and I’ve called a few out in my time, but bear in mind that some of the extremist viewpoints are generated through years of PTSD inducing incidents. I’ve recently cut back on road cycling after a near head on with a driver who failed to make a 90 degree bend – phone in lap, so it does generate a certain intolerance.
This.
This.
It’s sometimes hard to remain totally objective when you are repeatedly put in danger for no reason other than MGIF, “you’re holding me up,” or just for daring to be using a shared space in anything other than a motor vehicle. However much you comply with the Highway Code.
I’ve felt the need to start using a camera on every ride now, having been wiped out on a roundabout a year or so ago & then having a string of crazy near misses from drivers when I got back on the road. I’ve never wanted to be THAT guy, but you can only take so much and left unchecked, the seemingly exponential decline in driving standards is going to get more & more of us injured or killed when it is largely completely avoidable. Case in point, I’ve had Surrey Police agree to take action on 2 dangerous & unecessary close passes in the last week alone, and these are just the ones that leave me still fuming/shaking hours after the event, I don’t bother reporting most things that would probably qualify – people do make mistakes & errors of judgement.
To paraphrase another user, I do anything from 6-10,000 miles a year on the bike (granted some is off road but the majority is road miles) which is comparable to what I do in the car. Pretty much every time I come back from a road ride I can recount multiple close passes, passes into blind bends, deliberate punishment passes etc that put me directly at risk. About once a week I get to thinking that I’ve been genuinely lucky to return home unscathed. Compare that to how often I feel the same way having driven the car somewhere. Though is it just me or is there a growing number of bellends on the road that will now overtake other cars at the drop of a hat unless they are doing the speed limit + 10% ?
Ashley Neal wrote:
Nowadays, just cycling in busy areas is enough to count as being extremist.
Although I’m happy to considered an extremist, I think that road danger discourse is hugely skewed towards motorists as they are in a majority and even some police forces take a very blinkered view of how the roads should be used. In most online forums, it’s considered perfectly normal for drivers to threaten violence against cyclists/pedestrians etc. that are “slowing them down” and yet the cyclists that present a more balanced look at road traffic are considered extreme.
Rather than thinking us-vs-them and extreme-vs-traditional, I’d prefer that we looked at whether views are logical and consistent. One handy way of determining if a viewpoint is heavily skewed is to replace vehicle types (e.g. a cyclist with a bus) and see if the same argument applies and if not, then why not?
Ashley Neal wrote:
Could you qualify what you mean by this? If the roles were reversed in the above video, I doubt there would be “plenty” of people here who would blame the driver for the cyclist cutting across their path with no warning.
If you define “extremist cycling views” as just being a little anti-car, then I suppose you could count myself among that number (I think that we have issues with laxity on road-crime, and also think that we need to seriously reduce the number of car journeys made for climate reasons). But, when out on the road, no matter how “extreme” my views are, I’m still very aware that there’s nothing protecting me from harm except a t-shirt, and I ride accordingly.
Drivers don’t really have anything to fear from cyclists with “extreme” views, but cyclists have everything to fear from drivers with extreme anti-cyclist views. All of us do. Every day, we put up with the abuse, the intimidation, the intentional endangerment. So whilst you may be right, those two attitudes aren’t exactly equivalent, are they?
To add to the chorus, Ashley
To add to the chorus, Ashley please give us examples of extremist cycling views?
Would it include asking you (and anyone else who does it) to stop doing pieces to camera while driving?
Ashley Neal wrote:
Oh shit! He’s onto us! https://evilcyclelobby.teemill.com/
Ashley Neal wrote:
You’re quite right to include extreme cyclist views in your statement. On road.cc there are many extreme cyclist comments, and worse if you don’t entertain or agree with these elements they will call you names and demand your immediate cancellation. It is to road.cc’s credit that they resist these demands and allow discourse and healthy debate to continue.
I agree with your comments on the incident, which actually chime in with my own: I would have stopped for the child personally, and morally it is the correct thing to do, but in my view there is no concrete rule in law to prevent the driver continuing slowly and cautiously. While you state the car driver was acting dangerously (something which I think can be disputed), what is your view on the legality of the situation if a collision had occurred?
Thanks as always for your wisdom in these videos.
Rakia wrote:
Oh go on, indulge us with some examples.
FFS who left the door open
FFS who left the door open again!
Clem Fandango wrote:
They’ve hopefully gone to find some examples and I suspect may be some time.
Plenty. The worst are often
Plenty. The worst are often reserved for the vigilante-style articles on people like van TwErp, or hateful comments on road safety campaigners such as Nick Freeman.
For example, on the Ashley neil article five months ago (https://road.cc/content/news/youtube-driving-instructor-ashley-neal-takes-cyclingmikey-293027)
Richard D succinctly wrote “Dear Ashley – **** right off.”
Brooksby stated “I have no desire to live in Middle Earth or Narnia.” in reply to Ashley.
Eton Rifle ruminated “Illiterate twat. Get back to the Daily Heil. You’re fooling no-one.”
Hawkins Peter raged “Well, you’ve just outed yourself as being an idiot that can’t understand that people are separate from their mode of transport.
I don’t think I’ve got the patience to read the rest of your tripe”
Some other bloke fumed “She encouraged rape by wearing a short skirt”.
I’m sure you’re getting the idea. This was just by scanning one page of comments on one article.
Rakia wrote:
????
I don’t see what’s so funny
I don’t see what’s so funny about that. Nick Freeman is a very well known and well regarded road safety campaigner and legal expert. He is listed as a top lawyer on Wikipedia, and has represented many celebrities, including Frank Lampard against Mike van Erp. He is often invited to give his opinion on a variety of legal issues on multiple TV and radio platforms, including the BBC.
You can listen to his verdict on Mike van Erp allegedly jumping on bonnets (it was disputed in court) at https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O3khK-HbwmA. I don’t agree with everything he says as I think he is sometimes a bit one-sided, but it’s worthwhile listening to his side of the story to get professional input.
Rakia wrote:
Then I will admit defeat and withdraw gracefully as I would struggle to debate the point with you in a polite, friendly and non judgemental way.
Rakia wrote:
He’s a well regarded something, that’s for sure.
Rakia wrote:
Having watched that vid, Nick Freeman comes across to me as ignorant and clueless.
He asserts that in the (imo) false “he jumped on my bonnet” allegation (he didn’t, as the published video clearly shows) Mike van Erp had “cycled in a dangerous manner” in that exact case. Freeman can’t even get the most basic facts straight, and he’s a lawyer.
In fact van Erp was not on his bike. Quite how you cycle dangerously when your bike is some distance away is … interesting.
Personally, having read about Freeman’s contributions to various cases, such as the Helen Measures case, I think he’s a poisonous snake.
mattw wrote:
To be fair, I don’t think he’s ignorant and clueless; I think he knows exactly what he’s doing, which is to lie, exaggerate and misinform to support his practice which is based around manipulating the legal system in order to ensure that wealthy clients who are clearly guilty avoid punishment. He’s pretty clever in his greedy, money-grubbing way.
People who eulogise him as a “top lawyer”, people who are so unversed in the most basic rules of law that they don’t even know the difference between libel and slander, they are ignorant and clueless, I’ll give you that.
Rakia wrote:
No I didn’t. I wrote it as a humorous response to a commenter (not Ashley Neal) who said something about cyclists living in a fantasy world.
“Good because that would be
“Good because that would be ‘elfish, ent-itled and you won’t find everyone else fauning over your fantasy world.”
Chrisonatrike.
Well this is embarassing – I
Well this is embarassing – I’m not only exposed (to sunlight) as a troll but even my fantasy world is a fantasy and it seems I’m not even the Lord of the Narnias (or one of the Seven). Back in my wardrobe for me.
There’s some rudeness there,
There’s some rudeness there, but hardly what I would call extreme cycling views. Is that the best (worst) you could find?
Those comments were countering Ashley Neal’s view that cyclists should not be uploading examples of bad driving to YouTube (like he wants a monopoly on that?) and that challenging bad driving was the cause of road rage (like if cyclists just ignore the bad drivers they’ll go away?).
Hmm. I wouldn’t call Ashley’s opinion an extreme driving view, but it’s extremely naive to think that doing nothing will make the problem go away – and he does do nothing; he proudly stated he’s never reported anyone to the police for a crime.
I’d say it really kicked off
I’d say it really kicked off when a new poster wrote this as their first sentence on road.cc
“As a cyclist and reading these comments, I hate cyclists.”
So you hate my mother, my sister and all chidren who cycle. Now that is an extreme view.
Unsurprisingly, there was no real going back after that and HP even said to them that if they changed it, it would simply be about saving their embarrassment.
I apply the Steve K test. Go on the Crystal Palace supporters site and say the same thing and see what reaction you get.
Rakia wrote:
So, how did you feel about them when they shut down your previous accounts for racism and libellous comments?
As shown with your attempts
As shown with your attempts on Wiki editing, you do have some extremism yourself.
However, as you have been previously banned for racist comments multiple times now, and also decided on this account to pretend to be initially foreign and throw in some pretty racist views on how foreign people might speak, is there any wonder why we want you “cancelled”?
Ashley Neal wrote:
— Ashley NealAre you talking about me, after nearly 40 years of driving? *
C’mon Ashley, don’t tease. If there are “plenty” on here then it will be easy to give a few examples, even if you only paraphrase them.
* I’m definitely NOT suggesting that I am above criticism or don’t need to improve my skills, merely that like many regular posters on here I have a fair chunk of experience on 4 wheels as well as 2.
Welcome to the every day
Welcome to the every day world of cycling and cycle commuting.
Ashley Neal wrote:
It’s very easy to get to an extreme position or viewpoint after nearly being killed whilst riding a bike for the umpteenth time.
BalladOfStruth wrote:
TBF I can only see 2 or 3, though I have not read all 1600 comments, and they appear to be regular trolls (or ones I’d see as trolls).
“1 – That street is crying
“1 – That street is crying out for a segregated cycleway, preferably as part of a combined thru-routes and ‘safe routes to schools’ network. Such would at a stroke remove the conflict which caused the questions raised.”
I don’t think that segrated cycleways are the answer on roads like this. It’s already a traffic calming area so overtaking a cyclist would be against the highway code already. We need to clarify the highway code and have better control of parked cars (there’s really no need to allow parking on both sides of that street). We can’t just keep building infrastructure to compensate for shitty entitled driving
I believe it’s Worcester Park
I believe it’s Worcester Park / Surbiton area. Which has been a part LTN for decades – exits to the progressively A3 closed off. I have had family there since 1990.
I think that segregated would deliver the ability for children to cycle to school on their own younger and safely. I quite like the idea of Safe Routes to schools becoming a useful lever nationwide for improvement. My general view is that segregated is necessary everywhere there is a 30 limit, and the 20 limits with appropriate road design are acceptable – but perhaps only once we have a wholesale change in driving culture.
I think that one important measure on that street is to make parking one side only. As it stands it would be on the houses side imo.
Though I’d agree that effective traffic calming or an LTN on that street may make quite the difference. That existing traffic calming is chicanes, pinchpoints and bypasses, that is inadequate and 3+ decades out of date (estimate).
Although I was born around 3
Although I was born around 3 miles from there, we moved when I was three and that was in the sixties, so I’m going with your superior local knowledge. Certainly no argument about the inadequacy.
Parked cars do help with
Parked cars do help with traffic calming by restricting space on the road and forcing cars to slow down or stop when another car is coming in the opposite direction. Thic can be very effective on narrow roads during busier times. It doesn’t work when there is little traffic.
Obviously some drivers really don’t give two hoots about anyone that they think should or could get out of the way whilst they just plough on regardless.
mattw wrote:
Apologies to keep repeating this but it yes, indeed: where that makes sense. However there is another way (reposting same link to the article). Short: there’s a major difference between how UK does “local residential streets” and how the place with the most cycling does. I think this is underappreciated here but could make a world of difference in places like this. Also a) I believe things like this do already in exist in the UK in some places and b) it doesn’t involve building “cycle infra” (with all the expense but also drama of that).
Caveats: it *does* rely on people in cars changing their behaviour slightly so “takes time” – presumably the driver here just thinks they’ve done nothing wrong. Plus those three letters “LTN” could be applied and then we’re into party politics. (What am i saying? Any road change invites this…)
Another point from NL is that if somewhere is really a quiet residential street it should not be a main through route for cycling either. Obviously in the UK we’re scrabbling for what we can get but in the fullness of time I hope we’ll see the sense in this / manage to get some proper space for cycling directly – not just what can be patched together via indirect cut-throughs and back alleys between residential areas.
— mattw
Pet peeve of mine! I do use and appreciate them where present but I could produce half a dozen examples every day of these being rendered useless by parking. Applying the treatment shown in the article above ought to mean we don’t need additional “traffic calming”.
Thank you for that link.
Thank you for that link.
That’s probably the closest I’ll ever see to what happened to me … except I was doing 30mph down hill, and the 80 year old was estimated to be doing about 30 too.
It’s really not easy seeing it happening to someone else – especially as like many of my bones, I only have fragments of memory.
I’m not going to list my injuries (as I’ve done it enough on here and I don’t want it to seem like a competition), and I really, really hope that the cyclist made a full recovery.
I’m a more frequent driver
I’m a more frequent driver than a cyclist these days.
My rules when driving in the parked car situation are:
If I have to cross the White line and the other vehicle doesn’t have to then I give way, two wheels usually get priority
If both have to cross then uphill gets priority
On the flat both crossing first there gets priority.
I’m aware, from cycling, than regaining momentum is hard work so making a cyclist slow or stop is bad manners if nothing else.
I saw this an thought it was
I saw this an thought it was better than his takes have been previously, placing more focus on the source of the problem, as opposed nitpicking on how victims could have behaved differently.
I still get irked that he goes on quite a bit about priority being given not taken and fails to point ount that the vehicle coming the otherway took priority without being given it in addition to not having any right to it. It was all a bit mute anyway as he pointed out in his video the cyclists approached the parked cars first and didn’t leave their lane, no priority needed to be given at the point the cyclists proceeded, as the car wasn’t in a position to deny them priority.
As for whether the cyclists should stop or not, hindsight is 20-20, you can never be sure whether proceeding or stopping is best course of action. His own what if scenario where a child steps out from the cars on the right causing the oncoming car to swerve makes stopping riskier, as it increases your exposure to that risk as opposed to potentially missing it by moving out of the danger zone by proceeding. It’s why the drivers manouver was so dangerous there was nothing the cyclists could do to entirely remove the danger caused.
Yep, it’s all too easy with
Yep, it’s all too easy with hindsight. I thought he was a bit harsh on the Dad for making what was a very difficult decision with little time to do so.
You’d be pulling over to the side of the road constantly riding around town everytime there was the slightest chance a car driver was going to break the rules.
I really don’t know why Ashley didn’t mention Rule 66 – riding two abreast when cycling with kids. That is the one thing I definiately would have done in this scenario.
With regard to the “priority
With regard to the “priority can only be given, not taken”, it is no more than a statement of fact. If you have two road users, with differing views on who has priority, intent on enforcing their right then you have a certain collision/ confrontation. To avoid the collision, someone must cede the priority.
Now yes, very very clearly, the Road Traffic Acts and the Highway Code define in every situation who SHOULD have priority and the other road user SHOULD ALWAYS cede priority but for many reasons this doesn’t always happen. My personal view on this is when my hazard perception tells me I am cycling into such a situation then I do what I can to reduce the risk to me as my safety is number one priority. That may sometimes mean I cede a priority that was legally mine but rather that, a few seconds delay and yet another chance to mutter obscenities in my head than a potential visit to A and E or the morgue.
In the video, Ashley is 100% clear the car driver is in the wrong and he reiterates that numerous times. He can’t be much clearer on that point. When faced with similar situations, I don’t think it is then a bad thing to go beyond that appointment of blame and ask myself is is there anything I missed, anything I could have done to mitigate the unacceptable risk. I know there have been a few times where I have ridden into developing trouble on the roads and with hindsight I would have played it differently even though I was 100% legally in the right to do what I did. I also know there have been many times where I can pat myself on the back and say I saw the risk caused by someone else and due to my actions a collision and a lot of pain and anguish was avoided. I would rather be smug about preventing a collision. That’s my take, other views maybe different but I want to live to be a very old cyclist!
Recognising the hazard,
Recognising the hazard, assessing the risk and mitigating the risk are postive steps where you take control of the situation. I think too many times it is perceived as passively giving way but it is important to stress that it is positive action that is being taken.
Oh very definitely. Keeping
Oh very definitely. Keeping myself and fellow cyclists/ pedestrians / drivers safe from the reckless, careless or misjudged actions of others is an extremely positive action in two senses – both positive in its outcome and positive in that it doesn’t just happen it requires positive input in terms of thoughts / actions / mindset. It is extremely hard work maintaining this approach constantly in the face of such inadequate driving / cycling / pedestrianing* standards exhibited by a minority of road users which leads to the occasional burst of frustration on my part.
*I know that isn’t a word, but what is the correct word for that usage? Is there one? Walking doesn’t really convey the correct meaning in the sense I was trying to use it.
Mmm “…or hateful comments
Mmm “…or hateful comments on road safety campaigners such as Nick Freeman.”
The resident troll doesn’t even try and hide the fact he’s had multiple accounts before.
Anyway I’m not sure why Ashley Neals views merit a separate headlined article?
xcleigh1247 wrote:
The guy who’s made a career for himself getting dangerous drivers off the hook on technicalities and now spends large amounts of his time being interviewed by the gutter press, regurgitating long-disproven anti-cycling lines?
Sounds like the opposite of a road-safety campaigner to me.
Let me just re-iterate that for the people at the back. The guy has spent his career making sure there are more dangerous drivers on UK roads, not less.
Ah but he is a “top lawyer”.
Ah but he is a “top lawyer”.
That’s what he’s described as
That’s what he’s described as on Wikipedia. If you have a problem with the top lawyer description, take it up with them.
Rakia wrote:
More lies – it doesn’t say that.
Rendel Harris wrote:
More lies – it doesn’t say that. — Rakia
Talking of slander, here is Rendel Harris calling someone a liar when the text is directly verifiable on Wikipedia. According to Rendel you get banned from Road.cc for slander. Let’s see if Rendel gets banned.
From the CyclingMikey page on wikipedia:
“In April 2021, he filmed Frank Lampard using a mobile phone and holding a hot drink while driving,[8] but the prosecution was later dropped, due to insufficient evidence, after Lampard hired TOP LAWYER Nick Freeman to deal with the case.”
I look forward to an immediate personal apology and a lengthy ban for Mr Harris.
Watch now as Rendel edits the Wikipedia page and pretends those words don’t exist… Unfortunately for him Wikipedia page history exists indefinitely.
I am happy to apologise, I
I am happy to apologise, I admit that you are sad enough to trawl through every Wikipedia entry referring to your hero in a desperate attempt to support your words and I’m sorry that I’m not sad enough to do that, I naturally assumed you were actually referring to the Wikipedia page on Mr Poophole, which does not contain the words “top lawyer”.
You clearly are not a top lawyer or you would know that slander refers to verbal communication, not written, which is libel.
While we’re on the subject of people telling the truth, are you going to actually admit that you are the user previously known, and banned for racism and libellous comments, as Nigel Garage, Nigel Garrage, Youallarecyberbullies, TTDanger, Lance Strongarm, Great Eastern and Enjoy the Ride, amongst others?
You missed out his first name
You missed out his first name he was banned under. Someone called Booboo something.
And it is surprising that “Rakia” knows about the contents of CM page. I have never looked at Wiki history before. I wonder when the changes were made. Hold on, who is this BooBooBeaker who has been banned from Wiki for making changes to the CM page adding inflammatory language to it.
Worth checking out this Talk (look under CyclingMikey section) and it all seems vaguely similar.
Just a shame that Road.cc have still not re-banned him when he has all but admitted he is the same PBU the other week with his comments.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Good detective work there, yes it’s got his fingerprints all over it, hasn’t it?
Rendel Harris wrote:
Certainly has, this is one change, done to ’emphasise the controversial nature of cycling mikey’:
lol, just had another look,
lol, just had another look, the admins weren’t happy, ended up with a ban:
Ha ha, that says it all!
Ha ha, that says it all! Nigel gets himself blocked from Wikipedia for “edit warring”. What a tosser!
Does he have some kind of infantile/weird crush on Mikey?
Simon E wrote:
More likely they’ve been caught out by Mikey
Wikipedia famously isn’t a
Wikipedia famously isn’t a democracy and you can’t add things because they’re “true” or “factual”. You can only add information that is sourced reliably – though this has been taken to the extreme over the years, with them banning many news sources as too biased to be used, just because they don’t like anything not left-leaning. Jimmy Wales has spoken out on this, but doesn’t have power to do anything other than complain about it.
It would be better to stop editing Wikipedia and just let it die under it’s own mammoth politically extreme beurocracy at this point.
Jenova20 wrote:
Wikipedia has a high level of accuracy and it’s a very good source on most things, but I’d agree that it can’t be relied on for contentious/political topics.
From: https://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html
So, good for technical topics and not so much for music bands.
Also, amusingly, here’s Wikipedia’s article on Wikipedia’s accuracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
Though it has problems, I’m likely to use Wikipedia for casually looking up information. If you’re going to use if for anything serious then it’s a case of following the references and doing a bit of work.
They have the same problem
They have the same problem today they had 15 years ago, only worse today: The editors add topics they have an interest in and know about; which means certain things and technical fields don’t go into the depth required because the editors don’t understand them or don’t have an interest in them, and people who do understand them can’t just add to them since everything which could be challenged needs to be sourced reliably, without using primary sources or those which aren’t too well known, aren’t like Wikipedia, or lean to the right politically, and also with the huge beurocracy and manual of style requirements that the average non-Wikipedian wouldn’t bother to learn just to correct a mistake.
This issue even carries into BLP/Biography of Living People areas. It’s quite common to see the person in question asking on the talk page for an article to be edited or corrected, only for editors to refuse as the real person in question isn’t a reliable source, and even ban them for bias or edit warring when they try to change it themselves.
Wikipedia was a model of how the internet could work, but will die under the weight of it’s own rules in the future as the editorship keeps decreasing. It certainly doesn’t help with their lurch to the political left and demonisation of their predominantly white, male and Western world based editor base.
Conservapedia might actually outlive Wikipedia in the long run…And those people are fruitcakes.
Jenova20 wrote:
I’m not aware of Wikipedia’s political bias (possibly due to my left-leaning) – have you got any good examples of that? I’m not disputing that encyclopedias can be biased, but I’d considered Wikipedia to be reasonably neutral.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I was an editor for around 12 years before semi-retiring. The blatant bias and POV-pushing pushed me away. Certain areas such as Wikiproject LGBT are just becoming extremely far left, toxic and often racist and it’s not something i want to contribute to anymore.
Jenova20 wrote:
I’d expect LGBT campaigns to be left (not necessarily far left, though – what has sexuality got to do with destroying capitalism?) as most right-wing politics involves pretending the issues don’t exist or throwing people into prison. I’m very surprised to hear that they are racist though – any examples?
Jenova20 wrote:
I don’t think it’s the left/right leaning that impacts whether a source is trustworthy or not, but the sources’ general accuracy. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources
The Daily Mirror is included in the untrusted list even though it’s left-wing and there’s right-wing papers (e.g. Telegraph) which are still considered trusted sources.
hawkinspeter wrote:
There’s been debates of banning sources on political affiliation, some even bought to the talk page of Jimmy Wales just because of how toxic they’ve become. Right leaning sources are absolutely at a disadvantage and deliberately targeted.
Jenova20 wrote:
Well, as Stephen Colbert said, “Reality has a well-known liberal bias”, so is it instead a bias towards facts?
Okay, I’ve fallen down a bit
Okay, I’ve fallen down a bit of a rabbit hole now.
Was looking at the Wikipedia entry on RationalWiki to see how politically biased it was (it’s described as liberal) as I’ve occasionally used it to look up debunking info and found out about Conservapedia. It doesn’t look like the two sites are friendly though
Jenova20 wrote:
[Citation needed] – oh, I see hawkinspeter got there first.
I think Wikipedia was set up by an admirer of Ayn Rand, having variously described himself as interested in objectivism, libertarian and “centre-right”. What Wikipedia is now is a moot point. Some sections inevitably are influenced (or even taken over by) gangs, major groups or governments (possibly) who can afford the people time – seeing as it’s a go-to reference source by most people. Whether that eventually produces some kind of armed truce because it’s too useful to “our side” to fundamentally break it for others (e.g. like GPS) remains to be seen.
From everything I’ve read and
From everything I’ve read and observed about Wikipedia it falls into a pro-establishment, centre-left bias, a bit like the BBC. It reflects and amplifies the biases already present in the media and academia. It isn’t a good place to find dissent or alternative viewpoints, as it is precisely those viewpoints which are considered unreliable or biased.
This might mean it gives Jeremy Corbyn a hard time as much as Liz Truss for example, as they fall outside the centrist / centre-left viewpoint, but it doesn’t mean it is free of bias. It also tends to flag political groups and individuals as “far-right” when they aren’t, because it places too much weight and credence on sources such as The Guardian, which tends to use the term as a smear. The right-leaning press tend to use the term “far-left” far less, so you won’t see the term used in Wikipedia so much.
I therefore agree that it’s better as a source for factual scientific articles rather than political or subjective pieces.
I was listening to rip rig
I was listening to rip rig and panic the other day. Apparently Roland Kirk wasn’t his real name. No. He changed his name. From Ronald.To Roland. I don’t know if I’d have bothered. I think Ron Kirk sounds nice, or Ronnie. I bet some of his friends even called him Kirky. I quite like that, I wouldn’t mind being called Kirky. But not Ronald. Or Roland. A pint of milk in my local co-op costs a pound now – I’m sure it was only 50p last year. Doesn’t really bother me as we normally buy a four pint bottle, or six pint bottle if my wife is doing some baking. We sometimes have some left over. He added the Rahsaan bit later. What happened to the Pink Fairies?
Also – bring back Boatsie!
Also – bring back Boatsie!
chrisonatrike wrote:
Boatsie was great – I wonder if they just cycled off into the clouds one day and never came back to earth…
I too was listening to Rip
I too was listening to Rip Rig and Panic, but it was the band. Fantastic stuff, all 3 albums.
Yep, they were briefly on a
Yep, they were briefly on a prog about the eighties I watched the other night. Good band
I always think it’s odd how
I always think it’s odd how there’s is all this fuss in certain quarters about centrist/centre-left/left bias in the media and yet those parties never complain about other media being right bias… Why, it’s almost as if they don’t care about perceived bias so long as it’s the correct bias…
Rakia wrote:
It’s going to largely depend on which topics you frequent, which people you will be dealing with generally. Not everyone will have the same experience, though you may eventually end up dealing with SysOps and Admins occasionally – with mixed results. Sometimes you get a pleasant and helpful one, sometimes not so much.
If you edit anything remotely political you’ll quickly see how toxic it can be and how some Admins are abusing their authority. If you’re part of political or socail wikiprojects you’ll likely be targeted at some point just for that (Such as people undoing your changes just to mess with you, getting banned, then creating a new account just to target the user again (Sockpuppetry)). and because of how slow and beurocratic Wikipedia is a lot of good editors will just give up and leave instead of try again.
As Wiki seems to let edits
As Wiki seems to let edits happen from unregistered users and just the IP addresses show, I wonder who the first few IP addresses were after the initial fracas, still griping that CM had a Wiki entry for example and making changes.
Again, fits a pattern of keeping coming back even when banned.
Lol, wondered why mikey has
Lol, I wondered why mikey has a wikipedia entry and if he wrote it himself, funny that others think the same thing.
I don’t think the user you’ve cited is actually banned from Wikipedia. Looking at Hoarsemann’s post below, it would appear they were blocked from editing for 24 hours as a result of “edit warring”, which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring “occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other’s contributions.”
Quote:
No one thinks that he created his own, only you on there and on here.
Still a ban under the username which meant the person then came back as an unregistered user to keep on making the same changes. Similar to a PBU coming back on here under different options. Very familiar actions from you Boo/Nige/EnjoyTheRide.
Garrage at Large? (This is
Garrage at Large? (This is getting sad, I need to re-let the head-space).
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
No way…
I take back my comments about
I take back my comments about “just trolling” and “just here for the LOLz”. Looks like not just a belief but an obsession (in the pathological sense) here.
Yeah, looks like he’s got
Yeah, looks like he’s got genuine mental health issues.
Hope they do / can ride a
Hope they do / can ride a bike. Activity (mostly cycling nowadays) can be a real help especially when connection with people is lacking. At least – that way for me (increasingly so over the pandemic and beyond) and some of my friends / family too.
chrisonatrike wrote:
IIRC he does ride a bike and is extremely arrogant about it, claiming unfeasibly high average speeds and wattage, calling any other cyclist who weighs more than his claimed 65 kg fat, moaning about “newbies” on sportives, calling Leith Hill a “pimple” and so forth. What he’s been very careful to emphasise in the past though is that he only rides a bike for leisure and exercise and uses his car for everything else. He also only rides his bike on very quiet lanes in leafy Essex so that he doesn’t hold up car drivers who are making genuine A2B purposeful trips unlike selfish roundtrip cyclists.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Don’t ruin my day by telling me that. My local leafy Essex lanes look somehow less attractive to this definitely over 65kg slow and steady round-trip cyclist now ;-).
So, in summary, Rakia is
So, in summary, Rakia is right that there is a place on Wikipedia where Freeman is decribed as a ‘top’ lawyer, and he knew this because he wrote it?
Can we all stop feeding the troll, now, please?
Rendel Harris wrote:
Thanks for your apology, which I do accept. That feels good doesn’t it? It’s certainly put a spring in my step on this wet morning.
I also had a chuckle at the “detective work” put in this morning, uncovering someone editing the cyclingmikey page. Alas, I do not have a Wikipedia account and cannot claim credit.
I also note that the cited person (who appears to have no named resemblance to any of the people you’ve accused me of being) did not insert the “top lawyer” text into the article, which I assume means it is an uncontroversial and peer-reviewed change.
And now you’re in such a good
And now you’re in such a good mood, are you actually going to admit that you are the user previously known, and banned for racism and libellous comments, as Nigel Garage, Nigel Garrage, Garage at Large, Youallarecyberbullies, TTDanger, Lance Strongarm, Great Eastern and Enjoy the Ride, amongst others?
No. No I’m not going to admit
No. No I’m not going to admit that.
I can’t see anyone called Booboobeaker in that rolecall of names though, so I’m still slightly non-plussed and amused at the chat this monrning.
Rakia wrote:
You’re being very careful, aren’t you, saying “I’m not going to admit that” doesn’t actually mean it’s not true, does it? Let me rephrase the question, do you positively deny being the user previously known, and banned for racism and libellous comments, as Nigel Garage, Nigel Garrage, Youallarecyberbullies, TTDanger, Lance Strongarm, Great Eastern and Enjoy the Ride, amongst others?
Did he edit his post when he
Did he edit his post when he stated “he had positively changed you” when he supposedly only signed up in October?
Has he edited his posts calling Twitter Police accounts “donut eaters sitting on their backside”? Both of those are signatures on who this person is from previous times.
Only asking as Road.cc haven’t seem to have acted at all when this has been pointed out.
I mean the racism he showed in the first few posts by pretending “not to know the language” and posting in the style he thinks foreign people speak, and now posting as someone where English is definitely his first language should be enough anyway. Still clicks keeps Road.cc afloat.
Well as you all but confirmed
Well as you all but confirmed you are Nigel, and I linked you to Boo before, where you went from not knowing the person to “I know him well, we have chatted and he wasn’t banned for racism* but chose to leave and ask for all traces to be removed.” That is quite a feat when the site doesn’t allow any DM’s or contact options between users. So yes Boo, it is you.
*Seems to be a recurring theme in your personas leaving this site.
It probably did for a few
It probably did for a few minutes when he edited it himself. That’s the thing with Wikipedia – anyone can make changes that last until it gets reviewed. I was the top quarterback in the CFL for about 15 minutes and once played the lead in Top Gun.
Even a child knows this.
That’s ridiculous, and is
That’s ridiculous, and is another example of an extreme viewpoint. Mr Freeman is a defence lawyer, and it is his job to ensure that his clients have the best defence in law against the charges they face.
What you’ve written is like saying a criminal lawyer spends their career making sure there are more criminals on the street.
1) it isn’t true, they are simply doing their job representing clients to the best of their ability, as the law is intended.
2) they are best placed to understand badly written laws and make proposals on how to remedy them.
It is in this second capacity that Nick is able to both commentate and advise on these matters
Exploiting errors in the
Exploiting errors in the legal process to have the prosecution of his clients dismissed is one thing. Putting himself forward as any kind of proponent for road safety is quite another.
Rich, or at least, very well
Rich, or at least, very well off, dangerous drivers…
My apologies to Rich.cb, not you mate.
Nigels got to Nige…
Was that the same Nick
Was that the same Nick Freeman with his take on being held up – where it wouldn’t be safe to overtake anyway (e.g. windy road, blind bends) by cyclists cycling perfectly legally? Original article.
https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-live-blog-2-december-2021-288307
Would I be an extremist if I thought that the cyclists continuing moving at a reasonable pace * was a safe and reasonable thing to do, rather than all jumping off onto the verge to let vehicles past?
Is it that same Nick who thinks that cycle number plates – sorry, tabards – will make the roads safer? That’s probably not what he actually thinks – he just wants them to be more “accountable” although his speciality seems to be achieving the opposite. TBH I’ve no idea if he is serious, has strong feelings about cyclists either way, thinks this will help them or just wants spend more time in the limelight – but by this point who cares?
Whatever he does in his day job he’s certainly not promoting safety in his spare time!
* Only 19mph! Far less than 60mph that he could have been doing – although Mr. Freeman being an older chap also might have been thinking of going faster than that as he mentioned to “derestricted”…
chrisonatrike wrote:
Wondering what he means by “Cyclists flouting Highway Code ie R59 should wear helmet & light/fluorescent clothing”. They’re all wearing bright pink!
He then says they’re flouting HC rule 66, (which doesn’t really apply because it’s not a narrow or particularly busy road), when they’re actually aiding an easy overtake by presenting a shorter train for the driver to overtake. Clearly, mr Freeman isn’t as much of an “expert” as some seem to think…
Expert in road law as applied
Expert in road law as applied to defending drivers is about as far as I’d take it. As all lawyers he is firm on the “like it or not due process trumps other considerations”. Well, yes … on the other hand going further and suggesting that he’s helping the law to realise it’s an ass or that old bill will up their procedural game? More questionable.
The notion that plating and licencing cyclists is a) other than a money sink for little discernable benefit and b) anything to do with road safety though..?
The only thing I could see him ever doing for road safety would be as a “white hat devil’s advocate” e.g after you’d framed some better law for road safety pay him his fee to stress test the law and come up with some example defenses / spot the loopholes BEFORE you enact it.
No sign of ashley neal
No sign of ashley neal posting to explain his comments on extreme cycling views and that there are plenty of people on here who have them.
hirsute wrote:
I’ve come to the conclusion that he just threw that comment in for a laugh and had no intention of combing through comments to find something extreme.
I think he’s trying to promote himself and his videos at the moment by prodding the comment sections with a stick (which is fine by me as long as he keeps it interesting).