- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Viral video debated on Jeremy Vine show (screenshot Twitter video/ @azb2019)"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
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?'"
Dan is the road.cc news editor and has spent the past four years writing stories and features, as well as (hopefully) keeping you entertained on the live blog. Having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for the Non-League Paper, Dan joined road.cc in 2020. Come the weekend you'll find him labouring up a hill, probably with a mouth full of jelly babies, or making a bonk-induced trip to a south of England petrol station... in search of more jelly babies.
Latest Comments
- grOg 3 hours 2 min ago
In Australia, two Melbourne suburbs with car-hating notoriously Green Left councils have 18 mph (30 kph) speed limits, essentially forcing cars to...
- mdavidford 6 hours 30 min ago
More likely they're just responding to a very skewed version of the incident presented to them by Royal Parks at face value.
- quadtodd 6 hours 36 min ago
We had to seriously brake to avoid a car running a red light this weekend; we were also in a car, following a green light....
- IanGlasgow 7 hours 1 min ago
I guess the FLock Light works best if you have paler legs for it to light up. Mine are actually blue (like any true Scotsman's legs they only turn...
- marmotte27 8 hours 10 min ago
Helmet zealots' lack of logic and knowledge, as evidenced by your post I responded to, exasperate me I'm afraid.
- Rendel Harris 8 hours 33 min ago
Absolutely agree: "You'll be sure to make a statement with these brightly-coloured road shoes from Fizik" - the statement being "I have no taste...
- perce 9 hours 7 min ago
Well done to Nick for opening up and sharing his story. Much respect.
- pjclinch 9 hours 8 min ago
Anything shy of a watersports dry suit (and you don't want to ride a bike in one of those) will let in heavy, set-in rain, as identified typically...
- stonojnr 9 hours 21 min ago
They have their own forum for members, go check them out....
Add new comment
146 comments
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 prog about the eighties I watched the other night. Good band
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...
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 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, 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."
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 getting sad, I need to re-let the head-space).
No way...
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 genuine mental health issues.
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.
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.
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 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?
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 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 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.
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 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 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 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.
Rich, or at least, very well off, dangerous drivers...
My apologies to Rich.cb, not you mate.
Nigels got to Nige...
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 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.
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"...
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 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.
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 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.
Pages