“More than primary encourages an undertake”: Footballer-turned-driving instructor Ashley Neal questions cyclist’s positioning (+ concerning police response); Bigham the Bounty basher?; London’s most dangerous borough for collisions + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
"You're on camera" is associated with poor road use... apparently
Another aspect of Neal’s video comes near the end when he addresses the cyclist’s warning to the driver attempting a dangerous undertake “you’re on camera”, which the driving instructor suggests is a line “often associated, for me, with poor road behaviour”.
Not simply a warning to a driver to not do something dangerous?
“When they get this mindset of trying to capture something so they can maybe put it on YouTube it just creates more problems…and this is something I feel is strong in this clip.”
Right, I’m going to get back to enjoying Neal’s back catalogue of clicky ‘road fail’ videos on YouTube… wait a minute…
Your thoughts
Mungecrundle: “To be clear. The issue here is really not about the cyclist’s road position, it is about a motorist in too much of a hurry, determined to get past, with no care or attention to anything or anyone appearing from between the parked cars.”
wycombewheeler: “I agree entirely 1) there was not enough space to overtake 2) the cyclist correctly stays out of the door zone 3) the driver is wrong 4) the cyclist positions so far to the right, they enable the undertake. Riding in the centre of the space ensures there is no room on either side for the overtake/undertake.”
HoarseMann: “Ashley thought the cyclist should have been riding near to the white line. He didn’t consider that the strong position in the centre of the oncoming lane was probably to deter oncoming drivers from ploughing on through before the cyclist had completed the overtake of the parked cars.
“He does, generally, have good advice to give and is broadly respectful of vulnerable road users’ rights. However, his lack of experience in dealing with bad drivers when cycling shows through when he tries to pass comment on situations like this. He’s also not immune to dropping the odd cycling fallacy here and there.
“But by far the worst bit about this video is the response from the police, who failed to take any action against the driver (other than reminding them not to drive dangerously) and blamed the cyclist for following the Highway Code!”
But what about the police response?
Now for BY FAR the worst bit of this whole episode… the police response…
Good morning
Thank you for your submission
This has been viewed and reviewed
Whilst we appreciate that the road surface can be less than suitable for cyclists and it is safer to keep a distance from parked cars, cycling in the opposite carriageway is A) dangerous, and B) inconsiderate to oncoming traffic
Whilst the other vehicle should not have undertaken you (they have been written to with regards to this) your actions left them few other choices
Give me strength…
Neal commented: “I disagree strongly with this, holding back and waiting is always an option”.
"More than primary encourages an undertake": Footballer-turned-driving instructor Ashley Neal questions cyclist's positioning
The son of former Liverpool and England full-back Phil Neal, Ashley — who had a brief playing career himself and now works as a driving instructor, uploading videos to YouTube on all things road safety — has done another video on cycling. So, we thought we’d take a look to see if it’s anything like the last couple that have come to our attention…
This one’s all about primary position (or riding in the centre of the lane) something Rule 72 of the Highway Code suggests should be adopted:
On quiet roads or streets – if a faster vehicle comes up behind you, move to the left to enable them to overtake, if you can do so safely.
In slower-moving traffic – when the traffic around you starts to flow more freely, move over to the left if you can do so safely so that faster vehicles behind you can overtake.
At the approach to junctions or road narrowings where it would be unsafe for drivers to overtake you.
Clearly in the video too where there is the danger of car doors flying open, or something or someone suddenly emerging from between parked vehicles, it is suitable to ride away from the left. It seems the cyclist thinks any driver overtaking here would cause danger, so they adopt primary position to discourage such a manoeuvre… only to be undertaken… something Neal says wasn’t helped by their positioning being too far to the right of the available road space…
“Now, there’s no way in the world the motorist should have even thought about overtaking the cyclist in that situation,” Neal began. Cool, job done, let’s all pack up for the day…
The YouTube driving instructor then explains the cyclist needed to stay out the door zone which doesn’t leave enough room for any motorist to overtake safely, with a 1.5m gap…
But what about the cyclist’s “poor positioning”? Neal then asks, suggesting they were too far away from the cars, which might have encouraged the “stubbornness” of the driver to kick in and force the overtake.
“I’m all for keeping positive and maybe commanding other road users at certain times, but why go so far? Why go all the way into the oncoming traffic lane?”
Neal then argues the positioning also took away their “escape route” back to the left and adds: “If I were on the bike I probably would have positioned near, or on or just over, the centre line of the road and if the other vehicle behind had decided to come past I would have slowed it down, tucked it in to the left a little bit, allowed the situation to clear and then got on with my day…”
Thoughts? Should the emphasis simply be on not dangerously over/undertaking? Not too sure about the merits of “tucking it” into the door zone just because an impatient motorist has to get past but hey, I’m not a driving instructor…
Dan Bigham is happy to see the back of Bounty
Don’t think we didn’t see this, Dan…
Although, knowing Bigham, it’s probably for aero reasons, let’s be honest — anyone got the CdA of a Bounty or are we going to have to take a tub of festive treats to the wind tunnel?
London cyclists most likely to be involved in a collision in Westminster, Met Police data suggests
[ 📷: CC BY 2.0 Waterford_Man]
The Evening Standard reports the London borough of Westminster is the most dangerous place to ride a bike in the English capital, having analysed Metropolitan Police collision figures. Of course the data only counts recorded collisions and injuries, but the number of collisions involving a person riding a bicycle has risen from 150 in 2017 to 437 in 2021.
A total of 307 incidents have already been recorded between January and August 2022. The Standard’s Miriam Burrell reports incidents were most frequent in Westminster over the past six years, with the exception of 2018 when the most were recorded in Southwark.
[📷: CC BY 2.0 David Holt]
So far this year 40 collisions have been recorded in Westminster, up from 30 in 2020 and 38 in 2021. “Westminster is coming up constantly as top for walking and cycling collisions,” Healthy Streets campaigner Clare Rogers told the daily newspaper.
“You can say that it’s partly because so many people walk and cycle in central London but it’s not an excuse for Westminster City Council, who have been notoriously backward for putting in cycling infrastructure. Ultimately this is about cycling infrastructure.”
Andrew Feather's 5.39kg Cannondale SuperSix Evo Hi Mod Hill Climb Bike
More of your comments...
Plenty of healthy discussion in the comments…
stonojnr: “The driver was a total ass to undertake, but Neal is making a fair point on the riders positioning.”
ChrisB200SX: “A close pass is a close pass, regardless of which side of you it is on and where you are positioned on the road. Road positioning does not encourage a close pass.”
OnYerBike: “From the cyclist’s own commentary in the video, I get the impression that their positioning was primarily designed to prevent an unsafe overtake. If that is the objective, then positioning oneself in the middle of the available space would seem to be the optimal position. In that sense, the cyclist is further to the right than I would have recommended”
BalladOfStruth: “I don’t think Ashley is a bad guy, I think he genuinely wants to improve the standard of driving and is generally positive towards cycling. It’s just that, being from a ‘car-centric’ world/profession, he tends to look at car vs bike incidents a little too much from the perspective of driver convenience and therefore does put out some pretty shit cycling takes occasionally.”
Car Delenda Est: “The issue here is caused by bad driving, not riding.”
cmedred: “Sadly, Ashley asks the right question: ‘Just hold back?” Only it shouldn’t be a question. It’s the proper driving advice for this road. From the looks of it, no motorist should be going more than 15 or 20 mph, if that, given it’s a heavy residential area and God only knows who or what could pop out between all those parked cars. And if you’re going that slow, it’s not really going to slow you down much before the cyclist clears the zone of congestion. Ashley’s question should have been: ‘What’s the rush?’ And his answer should have been: ‘Just hold back.’ What kind of driving does he teach his students anyway?”
Not ANOTHER helmet debate...
Fighting talk from Mips this morning…
The Multi-directional Impact Protection System has defended the efficacy of its helmet safety system, saying that its test methods meet the highest scientific standards and that its results are based on the most realistic head form currently available.
Mips says that results from two of the key head forms used in helmet safety testing both show its system to be effective in protecting against brain injury and, in a reference to Kask, it says “any reference to WG11 as a self-contained test method for rotational motion is false and misleading”.
A tale of two news reports...
Just one more Panorama-related post… it’s been that kind of week…
Two BBC reporters doing a news report while cycling: Richard Bilton in England and @annaholligan in the Netherlands.
Can you spot the difference?
The difference is a result of our policy choices over decades. The good news is we know what we need to do to make it better. pic.twitter.com/ovcwZnDbfa
— Adam Tranter (@adamtranter) November 4, 2022
Reading town centre cycle hub receives approval
A secure bike parking facility is to be opened in Reading town centre with the aim of reducing thefts. The borough council has approved the project, to replace the former Primark shop in West Street with 82 parking spaces for bikes. It will also have a maintenance station and bike loan scheme. There was no word on expansion plans, however, if demand exceeds the near-100 spaces available.
The BBC reports the scheme was unanimously approved at a meeting of the council’s planning committee and will be open seven days a week.
“Particularly with the development of electric bikes there’s a real need to offer a facility that can offer much greater security than is currently available,” cabinet member for transport Tony Page said.
EU proposal to require bicycle parking in every new building takes "major legislative step forward"
Interesting news from the European Cyclists’ Federation that there has been a “major step forward” with EU member states supporting a proposal to require bicycle parking in every new and renovated residential and non-residential building.
Member states gave support to a revision of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD). Although the wording of the revision does include the caveat that for residential buildings they would only be required to create “as many spaces as appropriate” if it is deemed unfeasable during the building process.
The European Cyclists’ Federation “welcome many elements of the council position but hold the view that it must be further improved”.
“Member states’ get-out clauses are too wide, ‘average user capacity’ is not an adequate criterium and provisions on parking space for non-standard bicycles and charging infrastructure for e-bikes are absent,” the Federation added.
France's first funerals using a bicycle-hearse
In #Paris, you can now go from cradle (cargobike from the hospital) to grave in bicycles!
A small funeral home called “Le Ciel & La Terre” (The Sky and the Earth) will carry out #France’s first funerals using a bicycle-hearse called “Corbicyclette” pic.twitter.com/sUQMU3a7A7
— Taras Grescoe 🚇 (@grescoe) November 4, 2022
Wout van Aert (and possibly Peter Sagan) sign up for Vincenzo Nibali's pro cyclist FIFA tournament
Wout van Aert has reportedly joined the growing list of WorldTour stars to be paying €50 for the chance to win the €1,000 prize for whoever wins the big FIFA showdown on December 15. Peter Sagan is mentioned in the hashtags too so we wonder if you’ll finally see him get a third win in 2022… (sorry, Peter, it was an open goal)…
Anyone fancy a trip to Mexico?
If anyone wants to dodge the winter and ride some great gravel or road or hang at the beach in a chill part of Mexico, I’ve now got a place for that to happen pic.twitter.com/yjVxZi5ctI
— Phil Gaimon (@philgaimon) November 3, 2022
I’m sure Phil won’t mind if a hundred or so of us come visiting…
Have a good weekend!
Have a good weekend everybody… we look forward to welcoming you back to the live blog on Monday… but for now it’s time for bikes and a couple of beers…
THANK YOU to the Garrick Hotel for not parking in the Garry Street Bike Lane while loading and unloading beer deliveries. It is very much appreciated! pic.twitter.com/TrfrkX4MAl
— Brent Bellamy (@brent_bellamy) October 24, 2022
4 November 2022, 09:09
4 November 2022, 09:09
4 November 2022, 09:09
Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £1.99. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
99 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
@ianking Riding back from a trip to Spain through France, it was noticeable that the amount of bad driving near us cyclists increased the farther north we got, and the cars had Brit plates.
@jackcycles On a very busy NSL A road with heavy coach and HGV traffic it makes perfect sense to provide cyclists with a separate carriageway. It's not saying cyclists don't belong on the road, it's saying here's a great way that everyone can enjoy cycling this route safely, even if they're a child or elderly person who can't manage above 10mph. I can't stand this posturing, usually from fit young racers who do feel safe on such a road, saying that separate cycling infra isn't necessary. On this sort of road even if every single driver is highly skilled and obeys the law and the Highway Code to the letter cycling would still be a highly unpleasant and somewhat dangerous experience, especially for the aforementioned young or elderly riders, riders lacking in confidence, small riders easily blown around by turbulence etc. Everyone involved, from Chris Boardman down to local cyclists, seems delighted with it; the idea that having a cycleway here isn't better for all concerned is what's "ludicrous and false".
@chrisonabike I could call it mamilism and get cheap bikes and lycra ;-)
As long as cars crossing the cycleway have to wait for bikes to pass rather than vice-versa,.I don't see a problem.
"This cycleway isn’t just a piece of infrastructure, it’s an invitation to thousands of people to leave the car at home and travel in a way that’s better for them and better for their community." Er no, a cycleway *is* just a piece of infrastructure. The idea that you need a dedicated cycleway in order to ride a bike is ludicrous and false, and gives succour to those who think that cyclists don't belong on a road.
I only get punishment passes when Im riding close to the gutter usually when there's a painted farcility!
I reckon you should go for some patriarchal system - you might grow to like it and I reckon it would be popular with lots of men who seem to feel hard-done by. Perhaps you could institute a holy sacrament which would allow you to circumvent local drugs legislation, or at least get some tax exemptions (coffee?). Anyway - we all love a good protected-characteristic-fight - today misogyny versus religious discrimination!
@This Wreckage I never realised it wasn't misogyny if it was based on religion, I wonder what else I will be able to get away with once I found my own religion!
"Landcross Road is now like a rat run, cars bomb through there. Surprised that there hasn’t been a smash there or somebody hasn’t been knocked down yet." Is that a vote for a modal filter there? Or - better - seeing how this could be fitted into a broader pattern of LTNs for residents? Or even starting a conversation on what they expect from travel locally / regionally and how could that be delivered. If the answer is - predictably - "like now but driving is more convenient" how much is that *really* going to cost / affect them going forward? Spoiler - they might well get lucky and have a few more years of "help for the hard- pressed motorist". (Particularly through the influence of Reform moving the conversation at a national level). But with more people here, more bills from people living longer (and all the other changes, the wars we're paying for...) the *real* costs of mass motoring may come back to bite pretty soon.
Scrapbook or it didn't happen?
99 thoughts on ““More than primary encourages an undertake”: Footballer-turned-driving instructor Ashley Neal questions cyclist’s positioning (+ concerning police response); Bigham the Bounty basher?; London’s most dangerous borough for collisions + more on the live blog”
To be clear. The issue here
To be clear. The issue here is really not about the cyclist’s road position, it is about a motorist in too much of a hurry, determined to get past, with no care or attention to anything or anyone appearing from between the parked cars.
Don’t get me wrong, the
Don’t get me wrong, the driver is 100% at fault here, in an ideal world, the cyclist should’t have to position themselves to prevent a driver from doing something dangerous. Also, I suspect the positioning by the cyclist was to give themselves the best possible line-of-sight through the blind left corner. But, in reflection of the incident, I don’t think this is necessarily bad general advice – the whole point of primary is to prevent drivers who are too selfish/ignorant/impatient from making overtakes where you deem it unsafe, so positioning yourself right over by the opposite kerb and giving the driver a gap on your inside does seem counterproductive.
There was a similar NMOTD a little while ago where a cyclist went through a traffic calming bottle-neck hugging the right-hand kerb, and the BMW behind them undertook through the pinch point. Not the cyclist’s fault, by any stretch of the imagination, but being in the centre of the lane would have prevented it.
Though I disagree with what he says about “tucking in”, as I can’t see how that wouldn’t place the cyclist in more danger (if you’ve got a car tailgating you through a pinch-point, the last thing you want to do is suddenly slow down to go for a gap on the left).
but on that NMOTD there was a
but on that NMOTD there was a clear issue with the perfect line youd want to be on, so it made sense to steer rightside, because a leftside line would have just invited the divebomb by the car behind in from the right and youd not expect an undertake
in this video, its not certain that their positioning is all about the surface because the first time they pass parked vans they took a similar extended prime line, and whilst you can argue the road isnt great when the car undertakes, a line nearer the centre line would have equally avoided the problem with the road surface, still blocked the vehicle behind, and not left the rider more exposed to oncoming traffic.
I mean what do they do if that oncoming car appears 5 secs earlier, or another cyclist ?
I watched the cycling video
I watched the cycling video with Ashley Neal. I agreed with his opinion.
With the positioning, the cyclist was in the correct position prior to overtaking the parked cars. But when overtaking the parked cars the position was just bizarro sat on the far right of the road looking for trouble. The car driver got unnecessarily angry and should not be undertaking under those circumstances. I do not think the cyclist knew the car was there, I think they are just very bad at cycling.
I have no idea why, but the cycling person sounded like they were from the USA so perhaps they just forgot which country they are in. Perhaps they just did it because they were running the cameras and have an otherwise boring life, so wanted to capture for the YouTube clicks, like Mr Neal said. It is hard to tell.
It was good advice from the police, except the bit where they said the driver had no alternative. That is rubbish because although the cyclist was badly behaved and perhaps looking for an incident, the driver could also have waited. I therefore consider that the driver was lucky in this occasion.
When I go out cycling with my friends and see someone riding like that I give them a friendly whack round the head at the cup of tea stop next time. They do not do it again. That is all.
Rakia wrote:
FTFY. Everything else is either just pure conjecture or misguided opinion. We cannot make any conclusions as to the motive of the driver or the cyclist, the skills of the cyclist, or begin to place any more blame on either party than what mungrecrundle very correctly says elsewhere.
Also – I agree that the cyclist’s position was imperfect, but saying that imperfect positioning ‘encourages’ undertakes is a bit like saying wearing revealing outfits ‘encourages’ rapes.
vthejk wrote:
Fixed yours for you too
Really? On what are you
Really? On what are you basing that point?
So you think vthejk was wrong
So you think vthejk was wrong in stating the cyclists position was imperfect, so you actually now think it was perfect. Spot on for realising your mistake after vthejk mentioned it.
Violence, that is the way to
Violence, that is the way to sort out problems and make your point. Not sure the rest of your spiel makes any more sense.
I agree entirely
I agree entirely
1) there was not enough space to overtake
2) the cyclist correctly stays out of the door zone
3) the driver is wrong
4) the cyclist positions them so far to the right, they enable the undertake. riding in the centre of the space ensures there is no room on either side for the overtake/undertake
Ashley thought the cyclist
Ashley thought the cyclist should have been riding near to the white line.
He didn’t consider that the strong position in the centre of the oncoming lane was probably to deter oncoming drivers from ploughing on through before the cyclist had completed the overtake of the parked cars.
He does, generally, have good advice to give and is broadly respectful of vulnerable road users rights. However, his lack of experience in dealing with bad drivers when cycling shows through when he tries to pass comment on situations like this. He’s also not immune to dropping the odd cycling fallacy here and there.
But by far the worst bit about this video is the response from the police, who failed to take any action against the driver (other than reminding them not to drive dangerously) and blamed the cyclist for following the highway code!
The issue here is caused by
The issue here is caused by bad driving, not riding.
Though I hope other readers remember that undertakes are a thing some drivers will do to you and to ride defensively against that as well, if not better than, overtakes.
If someone decides to force a pass you can try and make sure it’s an overtake not an undertake.
Although sometimes there’s nothing you can do, I was undertaken in the middle of a junction in the last second before I started moving to the gutter to let the queue pass (not really something I’d do on a four lane road anymore.)
Always look both ways before you change positioning.
Sadly, Ashley asks the right
Sadly, Ashley asks the right question: “Just hold back?” Only it shouldn’t be a question. It’s the proper driving advice for this road. From the looks of it, no motorist should be going more than 15 or 20 mph, if that, given it’s a heavy residential area and God only knows who or what could pop out between all those parked cars. And if you’re going that slow, it’s not really going to slow you down much before the cyclist clears the zone of congestion. Ashley’s question should have been: “What’s the rush?” And his answer should have been: “Just hold back.” What kind of driving does he teach his students anyway?
Just more self-righteous
Just more self-righteous spiel from a self-appointed road expert. His entire position is shown perfectly by the fact that when he read the email from the police, he omitted the bit in the brackets:
“Whilst the other vehicle should not have undertaken you (they have been written to with regards to this) your actions left them few other choices.”
The number plate is one digit
The number plate is one digit away from the one on my car. Was momentarily worried when she was reading it out.
I had that the other week on
I had that the other week on NMOTD. Plausibly in my area and same make, model and colour of car plus an unreadable number plate. A few minutes of please not me please not me whilst I reviewed by whereabouts.
Question for the Commenterati. If it was your car on a NMOTD would you put your hand up and do the walk of shame?
Absolutely. I have never
Absolutely. I have never claimed to be a perfect driver, (or perfect anything else) but I strongly believe that to get better you have to own up to your shortcomings.
I keep waiting to see my car
I keep waiting to see my car on one of these ‘bad driving videos …
With my wife driving, obviously ? ?
Why do you give Mr Neal the
Why do you give Mr Neal the oxygen of publicity? His videos are just click bait and should be ignored.
Whilst I agree this kinda
Whilst I agree this kinda stuff is Slow Friday stuff I have to disagree about the click bait. He’s just another YouTuber making content and his opinions and attitudes are usually fairly cycling positive (or at least not cyclist hating – which I’ll take).
Not sure I’d devote an enitre friday live blog to him – but it seems to have worked judging by the comments!
I don’t think Ashley is a bad
I don’t think Ashley is a bad guy, I think he genuinely wants to improve the standard of driving and is generally positive towards cycling. It’s just that, being from a “car-centric” world/profession, he tends to look at car vs bike incidents a little too much from the perspective of driver convenience and therefore does put out some pretty shit cycling takes occasionally.
Yep, I don’t think he’s a bad
Yep, I don’t think he’s a bad guy. His attitude isn’t wrong but his perspective is a bit skewed. I think if he was persuaded to do some club rides or cycle commuting over a period of time, he could actually become an asset to safer road use overall.
I agree with some of it,
I agree with some of it, however his take of “I won’t report any bad driving I see because I don’t want learner drivers to be hated” is very short sighted and probably risks more lives then not. If his learners “learned” that bad driving could be caught at any point from any other vehicle, they might keep up a standard. Also other drivers might be less stupid to around learner drivers. Some of the speeding and offences I have seen to “get past” are dangerous to the learner and any innocent person who happens to be nearby. And like with cyclists, I don’t think certain drivers will have any lesser opinion of learners anyway, which is weird as unlike cycling, pretty much everyone was a learner once.
A lot of his videos are great
A lot of his videos are great if you are learning to drive, they are mostly nicely balanced and he does his best to encourage new drivers to be respectful of others and to understand how others use the roads. The down side is that all too often he comes across as rather patronising often to cyclists.
From the cyclist’s own
From the cyclist’s own commentary in the video, I get the impression that their positioning was primarily designed to prevent an unsafe overtake. If that is the objective, then positioning oneself in the middle of the available space would seem to be the optimal position. In that sense, the cyclist is further to the right than I would have recommended (I note that the cyclist moves further right once they realise the car is trying to push through on the left – at that point moving left would only endanger the cyclist further).
But it’s not clear what else, if anything, contributed to their positioning. Other people have noted that the positioning can be useful in increasing visibility of oncoming traffic and deterring oncoming traffic from attempting to push through in the other direction (once the cyclist has started passing the parked cars, oncoming traffic ought to give way).
There’s also the question of the road surface – this is mentioned in the Police’s (woeful) response, and certainly at some points in the video it is evident that the road surface is poor in places. The cyclist therefore might not be able to adopt the “ideal” position as they also need to avoid the potholes. Cycling to the left of the potholes would be in the dooring zone, so cycling to the right of the potholes might therefore have been the best available option.
Ashley Neal wrote:
— Ashley NealSounds a lot like “Her skirt was a bit short, she was asking for it”
A close pass is a close pass, regardless of which side of you it is on and where you are positioned on the road. Road positioning does not encourage a close pass.
Once the cyclist was beyond the dooring zone there was not enough room to overtake safely. A cyclist may have to be further out still if there are other factors such road surface defects
ChrisB200SX wrote:
It’s worth noting that when I’m on my motorbike I often ride just a bit to the right of the centre of the lane. Doing this means I miss the manhole covers, painted road markings and the asphalt joint. Numerous times I’ve had drivers making sneaky overtakes on the inside, only for me to come past them at the next set of lights and ask them what they thought they were doing.
I really need to get my headcam in use when I’m on my motorbike. If anything, I see even more drivers on the phone when I’m on the motorbike than when I’m on my bicycle as I’m going that bit quicker and pass more vehicles.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
Really? Lets chose a completely irrevelant conflation in the hope of stoking enough outrage it stops people from thinking “Wait a minute…..”
Its nothing like the same thing.
What a silly comment, this is
What a silly comment, this is just one big echo chamber of cycle nazis, you lot are obsessed…well most of you anyway, you should hear yourself.
Ashley Neil is fair and spot on as always.
?? wrote:
Although sometimes Ashley Neal misses the mark in his videos.
However did you rumble us? I
However did you rumble us? I thought we’d removed the last group outing pictures from the
libraryweb?No he is really quite
No he is really quite patronising at times.
Instead of explaining why you
Instead of explaining why you think it’s silly, you decide instead to make a moronic comment.
Another one post idiot.
I’d say it doesn’t.
I’d say it doesn’t.
It’s a fair observation – a position a little further to the left would have prevented an overtake full-stop, which is presumably the objective. Either side.
Bad news and good news. Mark
Bad news and good news. Mark Hodson (close pass initiative) has been diagnosed with an inflammatory arthritic condition. The good news is he is now working from home to standardise “third-party reporting” – the uploading of video evidence to police force websites.
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/fitness/cycling-is-my-medicine-pioneer-of-operation-close-pass-on-refusing-to-let-chronic-pain-curtail-his-riding
Apologies if this has appeared elsewhere but I thought it may be of inetrest.
https://www.surrey.police.uk
https://www.surrey.police.uk/news/surrey/news/2022/10/5-months-660-traffic-offences/
“Now a full team, the Vanguard Road Safety Team are very excited to continue to proactively carry out work to reduce the number or those killed and seriously injured on our roads.”
be interested to know how many of the 660 offences were caught by the brompton !
Not seen this video before,
Not seen this video before, but the problems of thinking using your phone when stationary is ok debunked
https://twitter.com/azb2019
https://twitter.com/azb2019/status/1588456317429374977
Critique needed of this reckless cyclist.
Interesting that all the
Interesting that all the comments I read were against the motorist.
I entirely agree that extra care should be taken around youngsters but I wonder if the response would be the same for an adult.
Bungle_52 wrote:
Read down a little further.
Mark Hodson
Mark Hodson
https://twitter.com/markandcharlie/status/1588459706137579521
[/end]
I get so many of those types
I get so many of those types of passes I cant believe the average person actually thinks its a problem at all.
Shit bit of driving and a
Shit bit of driving and a shit bit of riding.
My thoughts exactly.
My thoughts exactly.
Bit of an old photograph of
Bit of an old photograph of Westminster Bridge there; this year, after far too long, the anti-terrorist barrier has been moved out to the right to provide a cycle lane. It’s far from ideal, being too narrow and with no protection from the pavement, so at busy times the tourists just walk in there, but it’s better than nothing.
As for Westminster being the most dangerous borough, I’m quite surprised; I find it no worse than anywhere else and considerably better than its neighbours in Kensington and Chelsea where, notoriously, the council have not installed a single yard of segregated cycling provision on the 125 miles of roads under their stewardship. It would be interesting to see the ratio of collisions to cyclist numbers in each borough.
The driver was a total ass to
The driver was a total ass to undertake, but Neal is making a fair point on the riders positioning.
Fair, but irrelevant point.
Fair, but irrelevant point.
I’m sure the police also
I’m sure the police also conveyed to the driver that driving in the opposite carriageway is A) dangerous, and B) inconsiderate to oncoming traffic …. didn’t they?
On encountering the parked cars, the driver should have turned round and found another route rather than dangerously and inconsiderately travelling along the opposite carriageway to pass them, surely?
The undertaker seemed to take
The undertaker seemed to take a long time to complete the undertake, that in itself is wrong, putting both parties at more risk.
I wouldn’t cycle that far to the right; if a driver really is going to overtake, I want them to do it on the “proper” side of the road, not my inside. I would be to the right of the centre line, so in the opposite carriageway, but not almost in the gutter on the far side.
I think there were some
I think there were some inaudible verbals from the driver.
Neil correctly recognised the
Neil correctly recognised the poor undertake and then proceeded to use the old ‘what-aboutery’ trick to blame the victim. I use it all the time and my wife calls me Mr CLINT.
I enjoyed the articile
I enjoyed the articile headline:
London cyclists most likely to be involved in a collision in Westminster, Met Police data suggests
Yep. Aberdonian cyclists unlikely to top the lists in Westminster…
mattw wrote:
I can’t recall which comedian it was I saw years ago who said (to a London audience), “Statistics show that you are actually far more likely to be murdered in London than you are in New York.” There was something of a shocked silence and he said, “You know why that is, don’t you? You don’t live in New York.”
Was it James Cordon ripping
Was it James Cordon ripping off Ricky Gervais ?
hirsute wrote:
.
.
LOL! Old age, eh?! Join the club!
.
Yes, this happens all of the
Yes, this happens all of the time.
I can only assume that the ‘journalists’ responsible, do not read their copy back to themselves, nor have a competent colleague proof read it for them.
“Let’s eat, Grandma!” has a completely different meaning, without the comma.
Saw my dentist at lunchtime,
Saw my dentist at lunchtime, although he was in his car and I was on my bike.
He has wing cameras ?!
Not sure how that works, but I did wonder afterwards, if he gets BSOD, does he have to power off the car ?!
I’ve riden that road many
I’ve riden that road many times (Lower Green Road round the back of Sandown Park in Esher). If you take ‘proper’ primary position it’s not wide enough for cars to pass, but if you stay in the door zone cars will and do pass.
EU proposal to require
EU proposal to require bicycle parking in every new building takes “major legislative step forward”
That’s the trouble with those foreign johnnies; years behind us.
Thank god we’ve left.
L’art de se défendre à
L’art de se défendre à bicyclette
https://twitter.com/davidguenel/status/1588425815661780993
Time for a video on road.cc I
Time for a video on road.cc I think. Are you up for an interview Dan?
Joint interview maybe?
Joint interview maybe?
Then maybe you can answer some questions back.
Why do you use your youtube channel for money generation by showing clips, yet complain a cyclist, who did submit this to the Police first is only filming for Youtube?
Why do you think you should not submit bad driving examples you have filmed to the Police? (But instead put them on your channel). Surely as a driving safety advocate, removing the worst of it is a priority?
Why did you state you have never had a close call on a bike or in a car, but in one cycle video in 2020 you showed a car pulling out, and then when you recently went back to cycling, you entitled your first one Left Hooked and had to brake when you were? These are the exact things that appear on Road.cc that you have complained about in the past.
Why do you feel it is safe to drive and talk to the camera? Surely you trying to get the script straight whilst also driving and looking at the camera is a distraction. It is more akin to speaking on a mobile phone then someone sitting in the car, which studies have shown even with hands-free reduces awareness.
Perfect responses. I’m happy
Perfect responses. I’m happy to answer any questions separately but this video isn’t going to be about me.
Shame. I would have also
Shame. I would have also asked if you can tell Martin how much money you make from Youtube as he hates people posting videos on there and earning from it. (Well only if a cyclist does it, if a driver does it he doesn’t seem to be bothered. This is not a surprise as he defends people speeding at traffic lights if they turn amber, states lets ignore road deaths as they unfairly sway to motor vehicles and thinks it is ok for a lorry to drive at a cyclist on the wrong side of the road).
BTW, the previous geezer who used to defend you who we warned you was racist was banned for racism again. Shame you felt the need to not believe us then because we are cyclists.
“Shame you felt the need to
“Shame you felt the need to not believe us then because we are cyclists” Wow.
.
.
Ash, I’ve said before, you are completely wasting your time coming on to this site and expecting to have a reasonable / informed / balanced discussion.
.
Again:
Rule no. 1 – cyclists are never wrong.
Rule no. 2. – if ever a cyclist is in fact wrong (very rare, but hypothetically), then see Rule no. 1 above.
.
Flintshire Boy wrote:
Yeah, that’s why a lot of the commentors (including myself, who has been critical of a lot of Ashley’s cycling takes in the past) have generally agreed with his analysis here.
Hmmmm and yet not 20 mins
Hmmmm and yet not 20 mins before you posted that, I had even volunteered elsewhere on this thread that some of my past near misses may have been my fault. Balanced discussion is great but balance is required from both sides, and those involved in a balanced discussion usually admit that others may hold an equally valid but differing viewpoint on matters subjective. Not sure how your rule book above demonstrates your balance?
Are you a goldfish?
Are you a goldfish?
Do you remember anything you post from yesterday, the day before, last week?
I’d say think back to some recent posts you have made. (Not that I hold any hope)
1 there is more than one person who controls your login
2 your posts vary depending on your medication
3 you post for shits and giggles
At least he will discuss and
At least he will discuss and defend his side. You normally drop flyby insults at the site or the vast majority of posters and bugger off again for a few days.
I noticed the other day you mentioned “Old Age” which was a shock as I had actually mentally positioned you between 11 and 14 with the fake swearing and excessively over the top bad spelling and formatting.
This is not the truth I think
This is not the truth I think. The difference between Mr Neal and Mr Mikey van Erp is that Mikey pretends he is performing some kind of public service while sneakily coining in the cash from creating conflicts. He is a completely unskilled person without any talents whatsoever, and why anyone would look up to this man is a mystery to me.
Mr Neal is different. He is up front in that his videos are informational and that people are free to disagree or agree as much as they like, but he is an advanced driving expert and so is a good authority on his subject. So therefore why should he not be entitled to earn from his expertise?
Other people on this forum today have also noted Mr Neal’s evenhandedness on the subject and that his knowledge of roadcraft is excellent. I just think you don’t like him because you have an odd and extreme opinion about non-cycling traffic on the roads.
I would prefer someone who is
I would prefer someone who is proven not able to drive a motorvehicle to the laws of the land and to the detriment of safety to be caught and punished, preferably before they killed someone. For this benefit, I would actually prefer all drivers to have to re-take tests every 10 years as there seems to be many who do not know the Highway code since they recieved their license. If this was happening, roads might already be safer.
As for your other comments, just remember, CM would’t even have a channel if people followed the law so surely they are the ones to blame if he is earning any money.
And you have an odd opinion that car deaths and ksi’s should be accepted.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
I think he was suggesting we actually copy some of the worst contries in the world for road safety because they’re “growing economies”.
The difference I think is
The difference I think is small, but CM is far more skilled on the detail and application of the law surrounding mobile phone use in cars – a subject matter expert.
AN has a broader remit and an approach of avoiding reporting to the police, which would be understandable if your police force was not competent at dealing with third party reporting of incidents.
Both are valid approaches. However, I think AN would do more good if he tried to involve the police, it is after all their job and if their service needs to improve, he has a platform to shame them into action. But this would take more effort, focus and determination – qualities that CM has in spades.
To be fair to Ashley I doubt
To be fair to Ashley I doubt he’s spent a lot of time hanging around a cycling forum, what with a business to run and videos to produce. (Like it or not but if you want to make some coin / establish yourself putting out “content” is probably increasingly “a part of the job”). I’m actually a little surprised he pops up on here. While I can only speculate on his motivations he doesn’t have to!
As for listening to some odd voices on here – like most motorists he’s probably going to go with what he recognises – which is a driving perspective. And some of the posters put forth a certain “common knowledge ain’t it – I know because I drive” viewpoint. (Whether out of belief or just to provoke, Ashley’s probably not going to know or care).
I’m pleased he’s actually got some interest in cycling / makes a point of reinforcing the rules around careful driving around cyclist for whatever reason. Even though I happen to disagree with some of his views on this. EDIT – “Little beep” and some of his comments about doubling up and overtaking etc [1] [2]. Yes – it’s a bit sad that we should consider it a “bonus” for drivers to have an awareness of other road users / actually follow the rules, but here we are.
Can I put forward a question
Can I put forward a question for debate?
What’s the difference between:
We’re so shit, it’s
We’re so shit, it’s unbelievable.
https://mobile.twitter.com/PCorfe/status/1588512779069423616
“Interesting…according to
@ThamesVP
, filtering up the LHS of a right turning vehicle is a ‘self inflicted close pass’ which is frowned upon, even though the incident I reported related to a following vehicle that then close passed me”
theyve reviewed the wrong
theyve reviewed the wrong vehicle pass havent they ?
I’m not sure. Previous
I’m not sure. Previous reports suggest any old excuse to do nothing.
that video Ashley has shared,
that video Ashley has shared, its a tricky one to judge I think, but then I also like Bounty’s so Im often at odds with people 🙂
youd like to think how the cyclist rode that would just be a total non event, Im not sure Id personally have been that far over to the right, but if theyre happier being there, so be it, it shouldnt have been an issue.
I just look at the road at the end of the video leading to the bridge, and lets say that car had kept behind and not undertook, what do you think its going to do when it gets to that corner, its going to attempt to get past you before the bridge, and theres nothing and nowhere on the road you can position to stop it, youd be relying on oncoming traffic blocking them, and I bet the driver in this instance would still go for it given their clear demonstration of impatience, so was it worth the effort and aggro anyway ?
in terms of the “youre on video” thing, I dont agree its a youtube click generator, Ive videod every single ride Ive done for the past 6 years, Ive got terrabytes of close passes/near misses/dangerous driving (which I stupidly keep as I keep running out of disk space for them), but Ive never shared a single clip “online” (I might have shared a freeze frame still or two I cant remember) but I only share my clips with the police to prosecute those drivers I felt most at harm from.
if as in this example a driver pulls alongside you for a usually unfriendly chat, Ill always tell them Im videoing them first, firstly because then they cant claim I was secretly filming them and enticed them to do whatever happens next deliberately, secondly it gives an aggressive driver that chance to consider their next move knowing full well there will be video evidence of it that can be used against them, and thats actions as well as language.
Ive had several cases where a driver was being ultra aggressive towards me, threatening to hit me or intimidate me with violence, when Ive told them they are on video, theyve backed down, some still remain verbally aggressive towards you, but they know theres a line now they cant cross, so again I dont think the riders doing anything wrong there.
I mean the stupid thing is if you ride often enough, and especially in rush hour, youd know you dont have to go looking to create scenarios for youtube content, the level of safe driving around cyclists is often that bad it would be like shooting ducks in a barrel.
Well, I suppose there are a
Well, I suppose there are a lot of gressingham ducks your way !
Fish
Fish
You haven’t been to one of
You haven’t been to one of the local fairs. Clearly the reference is to something that’s easy to see but hard to catch. It’s a very large barrel but they’ve got it on a swing so there are waves in it.
I must say I didn’t think much of their version of bobbing for apples though.
Excellent summary. Thank you.
Excellent summary. Thank you. The only thing omitted is the poor road surface which was briefly mentioned, presumably the reason the cyclist gave for riding so far out.
As for the terra bytes I’m sure many of us would be very interested to see some examples of how the police responded to your reports, especially those where some action was taken.
on the road surface bit
on the road surface bit weirdly I think riding their kind of prime line forces you over the worst bits of it, the better line at that point would be over to the left nearer the centre line, but then they adopted a similar “extended” prime when the road surface was fine so Im not sure if theyre just adopting a position on the road as a default prime, or actually avoiding a bad road surface.
as for my own videos, I ought to clarify its not terabytes of stuff Ive submitted to the police, I only submit a tiny fraction that I qualify as fearing I was going to be hit as a result of the pass, subsequently bar the Covid period everything Ive submitted except 1 resulted in a NIP, and the 1 NFA was when I learnt they dont prosecute close passes if you are in a marked cycle lane.
the bulk of the rest of the stuff I keep (and I dont really know why I keep it I guess its hard to let it go), its still full of close passes, left hooks,dangerous driving that Im sure alot would still get NIPS, most would be left in that grey area in between seen some given, seen some not, and I guess the question is why I dont submit them.
but that whole process I just find mentally challenging & depressing, I just want to ride my bike and enjoy riding the bike, not get home after a ride, have to review hours of footage focussing on the bad stuff again to judge on reviewing is that too close or not, was it a mistake was it deliberate, was I in the wrong position, did I do something wrong, fill in another form and deal with all the stress and angst it causes me, which is why I totally refute the idea as a cyclist with a camera I video any of my rides just for social media clicks, and also why Ill never share them.
Awavey wrote:
I don’t bother holding onto bike footage, despite being a data hoarder. I also don’t bother reviewing footage unless there’s been a notable incident and if I look at it and think “doesn’t look so bad on the footage”, then I don’t bother keeping it at all. Just keep the bits that you’ve submitted sections from and it’s not worth keeping it for more than two years, I would guess.
I saw the bit about Reading,
I saw the bit about Reading, very excited and impressed.
Then I thought, it’s Reading, how are they going to mess it up…
I agree with Ashley. I don’t
I agree with Ashley. I don’t know why she is so far to the right that she has became a “Salmon cyclist”.
Ashley wasn’t suggesting she should tuck in, but that she’d have that option “if” a driver does overtake too close or on coming traffic comes too quick. It is about maximising your options to mitigate risks.
I do think the default stance of the cycling community is “a cyclist is always right” instead of being self critical of our actions and the actions of our community on the road.
Was the driver wrong for undetaking? Yes 100%.
Was the cyclists position wrong? Yes (ish), she way too far to the right. Increasing the danger if there was an oncoming car.
The cycling community?
The cycling community?
Did you not get the memo that the village hall is in use tonight for fireworks?
Did you bring the parkin ?
The trouble is, tucking in to
The trouble is, tucking in to the left at the point where the car was trying to get past, puts you right in the door zone of a car that has just pulled up; so a very high chance of door being flung open. That’s not safer.
That was also the only opportunity to move back to the left, as the car was already by then trying to undertake, so moving across their path would have been very risky.
This is Ashley’s advice for this situation and I think it is wrong.
If the cyclist had tucked in
If the cyclist had tucked in to the left a bit and allowed the situation to clear, how close would that following vehicle have been passing her? It certainly wouldn’t have been more that five feet, would it, and she would have been well into the Door Zone of Death… So rather than the motorist waiting for the few seconds it would take for the cyclist (who is in front, and therefore has priority) to clear the parked cars, Ashley Neal is recommending that she put herself purposely at greater risk just for the convenience of that motorist…? That would be a hard ‘No’ from me
I guess the real problem is
I guess the real problem is that the cyclist is being held to a standard of perfection in their actions, whereas the driver is being held to “the standard of a reasonably careful driver” in other words, the police are saying, expect drivers to be crap and don’t expect the courts to be interested.
Isn’t it amazing that there was no safe way to pass, undertaking is wrong, not giving space and time to vulnerable road users is against the HWC, yet the debate is all about the cyclist???
I think this is a key point.
I think this is a key point. We mention that there are bad drivers and bad cyclists. The difference is Bad Cyclists stand out and Bad Drivers blend in.
Hands up who would have known
Hands up who would have known what speed to drive in a 30mph when they weren’t sure what the speed limit was?
Driver escapes ban for consistent speeding through several speed cameras because they thought it was 40. Not clear what the limit was when the first offence was measured at 50 and got a speed awareness course but at 50 in a 40 surprised they didn’t get points and no offer of a course.
https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/uk-world-news/driver-gets-five-speeding-tickets-25433721
This is discussed in the
This is discussed in the speeding vs drunk driving article.
https://road.cc/content/news/speeding-should-be-unacceptable-drink-driving-296885
Apparently the speed limit used to be 40 along this stretch of road.
Doesn’t explain the driver awareness course for 50 in a 30 though.
So his lesson was not to be
So his lesson was not to be aware of the speed limit, or to drive with awareness and notice the many signs indicating the current speed limit, but to appeal to the driverist magistrate’s “common sense”
“I was only speeding slightly
“I was only speeding slightly” – dealt with a long time ago (and probably every few years for over a century).
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2012/04/sorry-i-was-speeding-slightly.html
Takedown Dutch style !
Takedown Dutch style !
https://mobile.twitter.com/fietsprofessor/status/1588976206325878784