Challenge dangerous driving or silently report? Driving instructor Ashley Neal weighs in on cyclist debate; Local angered by parking tickets vows not to drive, starts cycling; Bike lane removal protest; Cyclocross in a nutshell + more on the live blog

They also do one called ''London Grey''. I think ''London fog'' would be better and more appropriate.

perce wrote:

They also do one called ''London Grey''. I think ''London fog'' would be better and more appropriate.

On holiday in Canada this summer, I discovered the drink "London Fog".  It's basically an Earl Grey tea vanilla latte (so Earl Grey tea, vanilla syrup and steamed milk).  No coffee shops over here seem to do it (including, apparently, Canadian chain Tim Hortons) but it's easy to make at home with the help of my wife's Velvetiser.  Strongly recommended.

London Grey puts me in mind of an ex-pat urban parrot.

Sounds great silently report👍 unfortunately systems for reporting are not always up to the task. Were I am (Scotland) we still don't have online 3 rd party reporting. The process of reporting and submitting video evidence is a major barrier.

Backladder wrote:

Ashley Neal wrote:

When another Twitter user pointed out that this was a bad take by Neal, he countered saying: "Andy thinks challenge is acceptable, I disagree. Just report to the Police and that’s the end of it."

Ashley is absolutely right, if we just report it to the police that will be the end of it as no further action will be taken.

That's the thing, sometimes the Met will refuse to act on an absolute slam dunk dangerous/careless and sometimes act on one that I pondered a long time about whether it was worth submitting. If I think it's safe to do so I will let a driver know what they've done wrong and that they're on camera in the hope that even if the police won't act they might reflect on the fact that there are a lot of cyclists with cameras out there and that they might not be so fortunate next time.

mctrials23 wrote:

I have no real issue with Ashley Neal. I think he is generally a force for good when it comes to cyclists. We seem to have a large tendency to be overly idealistic and completely forget that great is the enemy of good. Are his opinions or takes perfect? No. Are they changing drivers opinions and is he slowly but surely understanding life as a cyclists? I think so. 

As is always the case when it comes to drivers vs cyclists, the somewhat important distinction is always conveniently ignored. Risk. Danger. A driver pulling out in front of me when I am doing 30 in a car will almost certainly do me little to no damage. Same situation on a bike and I could easily be dead or badly injured. Thats the issue. When people talk about cyclists doing things they shouldn't they completely ignore this fact. 

When someone pulls out on me in a car I think "what a pillock" but there is no thought of them having nearly killed me. Unsurprisingly "what a pillock" vs "you nearly fucking killed me you complete ****" are different emotions. 

This is why its hard for cyclists to just "get on with it" and let it go. Fundamentally we are all dealing with the fact people happily put our lives at risk to save themselves a few seconds or because they can't be bothered to give driving their vague attention. 

Very true.
If cyclists (or any other member of society) feels that they should 'get on with it" they are reinforcing the mindset of the person committing the offence (be it dangerous driving, or something else) that they can "just get on with it" without any redress - and the downward spiral continues, until there is no society.

Hmm... tricky this. Cyclists - or pedestrians - are in a very vulnerable position on the road. Calling out bad driving is trying to educate someone at a very unpropitious time. They may be full of emotion but are quite likely not full of respect! In the case of cyclists someone driving is quite likely to see them as less than full "citizens of the road".

Certainly people need feedback for behaviour change. But it takes a lot / regular feedback.

There are still very few cyclists in most places in UK. And our feedback to bad drivers isn't backed up by training (once per lifetime for most). Or the police and courts (very little enforcement, police and CPS don't take this seriously, courts don't convict, sentence are light). Or social attitudes generally.

The last might be different with a higher proportion if people cycling - but how to get there...?

Tbh I have almost been killed and also seriously injured a fair few times and on each occassion I have shouted aloud. Reflex thing. The last time the drivist decided to break check me, slow down to a crawl and weave about the road, threaten to pull in, perhaps to teach me a lesson.
I suppose I ought to wear a gag whenever I cycle because you know how sensitive drivists are and how evil people on bikes are.
One last thing. Stay behind a dangerous driver once they have almost wrecked your life. Secondly, if they do stop, you are protecting yourself from harm and using reasonable force. Remember that.

Generally speaking, it is much better practice to remain calm in order to resolve issues, so I understand Ashley's point. However, when another party is agressive from the beginning, it is human instinct to react or retalliate. It's never as straightforward especially when someone has a 2-ton mobile weapon at their disposal. Sometimes even the most calm and elloquant requests can be met with uncalled for rage simply because people don't like to be proven wrong or shown to be at fault.

Matthew Acton-Varian wrote:

However, when another party is agressive from the beginning, it is human instinct to react or retalliate. It's never as straightforward especially when someone has a 2-ton mobile weapon at their disposal. Sometimes even the most calm and elloquant requests can be met with uncalled for rage simply because people don't like to be proven wrong or shown to be at fault.

Sure, I mean I ended up calling my neighbour a cunt when he pulled a stupid overtake. Doesn't stop the point Ashley Neal is making being valid, nor the ridiculous need to resort referencing his football links. Poor journalism.

I am not known for being a shrinking violet when my hackles are raised and have confronted people in the past but recently I have stopped challenging people about their driving. It simply isn't worth it and the risk of meeting a psychopath in a two tonne weapon is too high. I now try to shake my head to myself, report it to the police if I feel it warrants it and get on with my ride.

100%

Had an incident yesterday and just about to check my camera. I ended up alongside the car at the next lights and it just isn't worth engaging beyond reporting.

I've seen tweets where the cyclist says the driver reacted to a shaken head. I've certainly had people watching the rear view mirror after a close pass to see my reaction.

The difference between an obvious and demonstrative shake of the head and a shake my head to myself. I can't be arsed to waste the effort in a massive demonstration of my displeasure, it just validates these idiots' view of cyclists as the enemy. Revenge is a dish best served cold, or more hopefully as a NIP in the post a few days later.

Ad hominem would be saying Ashley can't possibly know anything about road safety because he is the son of a footballer. Stating that he is the son of a footballer and prominent youtuber is not ad hominem - it is providing context as to why Ashley's comments are being reported on, compared to any number of other opinionated people posting on the internet. Adwitiya doesn't even state whether or not he agrees with Ashley - he says it's "one for you all to discuss".

And as for Cycling Mikey, given the previously reported story is highly relevant (i.e. about whether or not to confront illegal drivers) it would be odd not to mention it.

It's an attempt to discredit the person and their credibility rather than any point the person is making. Simple as, and quite common on here. It's the modus operandi of a number of members as well.

Let's see road.cc start referring to Jeremy Vine as gameshow host in their articles eh?

They do seem to do this by number!

However what do you suggest to cover why they're reporting on him anyway / introduction?  "Some guy called Ashley Neal" or "A random driving instructor (dunno why, but we seem to pick up on his opinions somehow)"?  Didn't see an ad hom this time though (unless you're counting 1 maybe)?

But yeah, I saw this and was looking for marka1 posting a "sailor chumming the water" pic.

FWIW I don't run cameras (yet) and can't remember the last time I complained to a driver - I tend to follow BikeSnobNYC's tack.  OTOH that hasn't stopped several people having a crack at me while out on my bike.  I really doubt they were CM "fans" or had met any other "confrontational cyclists".  A substantial fraction of the population drive or ride in cars, so even if there's a tiny portion with serious issues / who just hate them a cyclist 'cos different, or "they're in the way" that would still be lots of people.

"Ad hominem, (Latin: “against the man”) in full argumentum ad hominem, type of argument or attack that appeals to prejudice or feelings or irrelevantly impugns another person’s character instead of addressing the facts or claims made by the latter."

Is there any need to reference, or please explain why Ashley's links to football have any relevance to ANY article that references his opinion on driving or cycling matters?

As I mentioned on the other reply, Jeremy Vine is never mentioned in a similar manner and only in the capacity of his actions with regards cycling. In fact often his behaviour is arguably questionable, yet he gets a free pass seemingly simply because he is a "cyclist".

I generally use a camera more for capturing moments when out. Such as a near collision with a stoat (one of the more bizarre) and prefer to try (as a road user, rather than simply a cyclist) to have a more possive outlook and impact. Example being the repeated reporting of the poor condition of one of the few, yet widely used, pieces of cycle infrastructure local to me. The result being it is now more regularly swept clear, although another report is necessary it seems!

Edit (hope that is OK) just to add Ashley has at least tried to look at road use from the perspective of both driving and cycling. Vine like some on here, has a purely cycling centric viewpoint and one that is London centric, which isn't the reality even for the likes of myself living on the Kent/London border. To many here though it is just a binary case of bike good/car bad. So yeah, personal attacks and ad hominem are expected and the norm to anyone not towing that line.

Adam Sutton wrote:

"Ad hominem, (Latin: “against the man”) in full argumentum ad hominem, type of argument or attack that appeals to prejudice or feelings or irrelevantly impugns another person’s character instead of addressing the facts or claims made by the latter." Is there any need to reference, or please explain why Ashley's links to football have any relevance to ANY article that references his opinion on driving or cycling matters?

Well I dunno why they use it - perhaps mail road.cc and ask?  As a regular it does seem to be a trope.  Charitably though "news" outlets always want to identify people by some (generally reductive) characteristic and maybe more than just the regulars pass by here.  Vine is (for reasons beyond my understanding) a public figure but Ashley Neal is much less prominent - apart from the connection with his well-known father.  See - I can just put "Vine" and expect to have most people follow, but not "Neal"...

Adam Sutton wrote:

I generally use a camera more for capturing moments when out. Such as a near collision with a stoat [...] repeated reporting of the poor condition of one of the few, yet widely used, pieces of cycle infrastructure local to me. The result being it is now more regularly swept clear, [...]

Excellent uses; I occasionally consider getting cameras for those odd interesting things in passing.  Stopping and phone covers most of that though.  Plus I realise I would probably find reviewing stuff and clearing it out a chore.  Certainly "reporting" things seems a serious labour of love - or another emotion!

I think if you use a bike in traffic heavy areas it is worth running a camera, not just for reporting but more for evidence if anything does happen and to protect yourself.

Same as dash cams in cars. We never use to have one until my other half had someone pull out on a roundabout and hit him. It was clearcut fortunately, but didn't stop them even a year after trying it on, clearly after a no win no fee kind of parasitic solicitor had got onto them. It never even came close to court bit dash cam evidence would have taken a lot of the stress away.

Don't currently have a car, but (probably reading here too much) I would likely run one if I get one again.

I'm less optimistic about the value of one for cycling.  Too much looking at videos (or cases) here where apparently little weight has been given to video evidence.  And that's assuming footage is helpful - or even viewable.

I suppose I don't consider that I'd seriously damage someone cycling.  I try to ride with the same awareness / courtesy as when driving and statistically is is extremely unlikely.  Perhaps I should?