Footballer-turned driving instructor Ashley Neal says that he “wholeheartedly” disagrees with the approach taken by fellow YouTuber CyclingMikey in trying to make roads safer, saying that by confronting law-breaking drivers he actually creates many road rage incidents.
Neal, who runs a driving school in Liverpool, visited London’s Regents Park and the junction nicknamed Gandalf Corner where, for several years now, Mike van Erp – Cycling Mikey – has regularly positioned himself, filming law-breaking drivers often on their mobile phone, or going the wrong side of a keep left sign to try and avoid queueing traffic.
In an eight-minute YouTube video, Neal explains how Gandalf Corner, which he describes as an “unremarkable” junction got its nickname, highlights some examples of law-breaking drivers there – including by using footage from CyclingMikey’s own YouTube channel.
“He’s caught many people over the years,” Neal explains. “Most are reported to the police. Some receive fines and points on the licence, others just have driver improvement courses, and there’s a few who don’t get any punishment whatsoever.”
Certainly, Neal has no truck with drivers who break the law – he points out that “impatience is normally the reason many road users take this short cut, however, this puts others at risk,” and that “pedestrians are only going to be expecting vehicles to be coming from their right as they cross this section of road, they wouldn’t expect vehicles to be coming from the opposite side of the road.”
He also highlights that van Erp “also catches a lot of people on their mobile phone, usually when they’re just queueing in traffic,” although he quickly qualifies that by adding, “that doesn’t mean that using your mobile phone while queueing in traffic is allowed,” mentioning the stricter laws that came into force earlier this year.
What Neal does appear to have an issue with, however, is van Erp – and other cyclists who use cameras – submitting that footage to the police for potential action to be taken against the motorists concerned, even though that is something that police forces across the country actively encourage.
“Mikey also takes great pride in showcasing all the fines that people have got and the points they got on the licence,” he says. “This isn’t something that I would do. Most of you understand my educational stance on things. I’ve never reported anyone for anything.
“That doesn’t mean reporting is a bad thing. It just depends on your own single circumstances. And for me, I run a driving school in Liverpool. I’m responsible for many instructors and all their students. If I was reporting every single thing that I saw, the negativity towards those instructors and students would definitely have a negative effect on road safety.
“The next thing is that if I reported every single offence that I saw I’d have no time to do anything else,” he adds.
Both have huge reach through their social media channels. Neal’s YouTube channel has 106,000 subscribers, compared to just over 80,000 on CyclingMikey’s channel – and views of individual videos posted by van Erp often run into several millions, while the driving instructor’s most popular upload is currently 3,000 short of seven figures.
Neal does use his YouTube presence to educate motorists over how to drive safely, as well as highlighting examples of poor driving (including, ironically, his own, as highlighted in the link below) – but in this case, he also points out that some cyclists break the law, too.
“What Mikey has done is actually rallied many cyclists to take a similar reporting approach,” he says. “This may have a positive impact nationally on stopping people using their mobile phones, but honestly, I think it’s created a different problem. I’ve actually asked Mikey about this on his videos before but he didn’t respond.
“Quite often you can see on the footage while he’s challenging the motorist for contravening the keep left bollard, cyclists doing exactly the same.
“Now, I understand that anyone driving a tonne’s worth of metal is going to do a hell of a lot more damage than anyone riding a bike, but with the speeds involved at this junction and at this crossing area, honestly, it becomes a lot less relevant.
“Some motorists think because of the lack of requirement for number plates and licences to ride a bicycle, cyclists are getting away with things that motorists don’t.
“I understand that this is a false equivalence and the updates to the Highway Code back this up. But this way of looking out for your own is wrong, you’re either pro road safety or not, This disparity between different types of road users just causes resentment and divide.
“We’ve now got legions of cyclists, all around the country, trying to capture that moment and shouting ‘you’re on camera, you know’.
“If you catch someone committing an offence, just report it if you wish to. Plainly and simply we need to be building bridges, not creating divide. All roads need to be shared safely and sensibly.”
“If you haven’t seen Mikey’s videos, please check them out. And also, I’d like you to tell me whether you find them entertaining, whether they help with. road safety or whether they hinder,” Neal continues.
“In my personal opinion, I wholeheartedly disagree with his approach, he effectively camps out here and creates many of these road rage incidents, all of his own accord.
“He could just record the offenders and then report them to the police anyway, without standing in and blocking the road. I’ve actually seen on a number of his uploads different types of road users taking to the pavement because of his actions,” he adds.
What Neal does not mention, but van Erp has in numerous media appearances, including on the road.cc Podcast, is one of the principal reasons why he is so passionate about making the roads safer and bringing law-breaking motorists to justice – his father was killed by a drink driver while van Erp was still a teenager.
> Tired of road crime”: CyclingMikey on episode 16 of the road.cc Podcast
A number of van Erp’s followers on Twitter expressed support for him, with @velobetty for example saying that while she usually respects Neal’s opinions, “I think he’s pretty wrong on this one.”
To be honest, I’m just absolutely sick to death of being, metaphorically, punched in the face and then being told to just get ok with everybody.
— Elisabeth Anderson ?? (@velobetty) May 22, 2022
‘We should be building bridges’
Fuck that, I’ve been hit by 3 drivers and had my back broken in 3 places through one of those interactions.
Reporting drivers can only have a positive impact – it is literally the consequences of their own actions.
— Harry ? (@nottheUCI) May 22, 2022
Van Erp himself – currently enjoying a cycling holiday on the Continent – is aware of the video, but says he won’t be watching it.
Interestingly, I believe the parks police minuted at a parks meeting that my activities had produced a substantial improvement in safety at the corner. That’s confirmed by a contact I have there who said far fewer people dare to do it nowadays.
— CyclingMikey along the Rhine ???????? (@MikeyCycling) May 23, 2022
Cheers. Not going to bother watching it. I don’t rate his opinion.
— CyclingMikey along the Rhine ???????? (@MikeyCycling) May 22, 2022
188 thoughts on ““I wholeheartedly disagree with his approach” – YouTube driving instructor Ashley Neal on CyclingMikey”
The message is clear. If you
The message is clear. If you see something suspicious at an airport, someone being threatened in the street, know of a child at risk in a domestic situation or are aware of discrimination against someone in your workplace. If you witness a crime in progress, then keep your head down and don’t antagonise the perpetrator(s). Don’t film or preserve evidence, don’t so much as look at them in a way that might be interpreted as a “bit funny” or any violent reaction is a provocation of your own making.
I get that Mikey might be considered a vigilante by some. But he operates within the law, passes evidence to the appropriate authorities and has every justification for pursuing his personal crusade given the circumstances of his Father’s death. As for those who he provokes to “road rage” I wonder if their apologists ever consider that the option of just backing down with a mea culpa and apology might be a better outcome.
I could not agree more.
I could not agree more.
Here is a man who is prepared to stand up and be counted. In the face of atrocious hate and downright villainy.
Mike should run for high office.
“To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards out of men”
Ella Wheeler Wilcox
While I do think that Neal
While I do think that Neal misses the point by some margin that cyclists are extremely vulnerable and are therefore much more invested in reducing/removing bad behaviour, I can’t help thinking that you missed at least some of the point that he is trying to make.
You can report incidents without having to confront the offenders. I agree with Neal that the confrontation is often not the best approach and much more likely to create an anti-cyclist driver than foster any kind of empathy for cycling safety.
I’m am sick to death of this “them and us” mentality that the media in particular loves to perpetuate. It’s counter productive to say the least to unnecessarily piss off the drivers and only makes cyclists more unpopular and more likely to be targetted by bad behaviour.
Unless the bad behaviour has personally impacted you, report to the police and let them deal with it (if they can be bothered).
MTB Refugee wrote:
I get what you mean, but why should ordinary people be afraid to confront law-breakers? If someone dropped litter on the street, do you think it is better to confront them or to contact the police/council? Why should drivers be allowed and even expected to turn violent over a simple interaction with another person?
I think I would be very
I think I would be very pissed off if I turned left out of that junction and was hit by a driver on the wrong side or was hit as a pedestrian.
How is that mikey gets thanks from drivers for stopping people from making that illegal turn ?
As soon as Mikey blocks the
As soon as Mikey blocks the road and prevents pedestrians from safely using the crossing point through the island and also prevents drivers from legally passing in the correct direction, then he is in the wrong and has gone too far. Being part of the solution should not mean that you have become the problem.
I could have sworn it was the
I could have sworn it was the driver in a wide car that was blocking the road that prevents other drivers driving in the correct direction making legal progress.
Do you routinely drive on the pavement when someone is driving on the wrong side at you ?
Blocking it for pedestrians:
Blocking it for pedestrians:
chrisonatrike wrote:
That’s disgraceful!
I’ve seen 5-year olds make better cars out of boxes – why’s the front open?
hawkinspeter wrote:
That’s the air intake for its high-powered engine, obviously.
Due to different power plant
Due to different power plant in use the exhausts are front and back.
Mikey isn’t blocking the
Mikey isn’t blocking the crossing, the driver is. The driver just has to reverse out the way, to prevent them from commiting a further offence.
MTB Refugee wrote:
I think you’ll find that the only time he blocks the road is when drivers are already prevented from legally passing in the correct direction and pedestrians are already prevented from safely using the crossing point through the island because some twat has decided they have a right to drive down the wrong side of the road to get to the turning. I don’t know if you’ve been to that corner, I ride past it semi-regularly (though I’ve never run across CM), it’s not some victimless, oh just let them through what harm can it do, situation, it’s a ninety-degree corner with vision from both sides obscured by thick hedges. When CM is forcing cars to stop and go back he’s not just getting them a ticket, he’s preventing a potentially serious incident.
MTB Refugee wrote:
And that would be fine* if it was remotely reasonable to expect that the reports would reliably result in appropriate action being taken against the offender. As it is, where they’re routinely dismissed or ignored, challenging the driver at the time is the only way of being sure that what they’ve done is highlighted to them and they have an opportunity to think about it, even if only a small minority take that opportunity.
* Except that, of course, if it’s not brought to their attention at the time, by the time the police process and act on a report, they will likely have very little memory of the event in question – a bit like yelling at the cat when you get home and find it’s crapped on the carpet – the cat has no idea what you’re yelling about and just thinks you’ve launched an unprovoked attack on it.
mdavidford wrote:
Nonsense, the cat knows exactly what the score is and has deliberately chosen that spot for its dirty deed. Never underestimate the evilness of a cat on a mission.
Good point – I annoyed one
Good point – I annoyed one once and it went and sat in the laundry basket and had a wee. Ariel didn’t cover that.
Yep. I don’t think Mikey
Yep. I don’t think Mikey provokes “road rage”, it’s most likely the rage is already in that driver, just waiting to come out.
Much better they lose their temper when almost stationary, than doing 90mph on a motorway or passing a cyclist on a country lane at speed.
So a bunch of road users who
So a bunch of road users who might have otherwise been ambivalent to cyclists now think that they are w£$nkers. I don’t see how this makes me any safer.
***Some*** of Mikeys actions are obviously going to drag innocent parties into the confrontation and I just don’t see how this helps the cause.
Why would anyone think that
Why would anyone think that driving on the wrong side of the road in an area where there have been accidents is ok? If these drivers are ambivalent then they are just looking for an excuse.
You have also ignored all the drivers who thank mikey.
In my view, any negativity
In my view, any negativity from an increase in resentment will be massively outweighed by the positive deterrent effect Mikey is having.
It’s the fear of getting caught doing something naughty that changes behaviours and publicity is key to that.
The drivers who do this are clearly already bad drivers. It’s unlikely they were totally ambivalent and drove like saints around cyclists prior to their encounter with Mikey. I think anyone who feels resentment on seeing this can only be a bad driver themselves.
Who feels resentment towards bank clerks who stand up to robbers? Or armed police who stop a terrorist? Probably only robbers or terrorists!
I continue to find it
I continue to find it astounding how entrenched the car-culture is in this country (though not nearly as bad as the U.S.).
Any other situation, such as confronting bank robbers and the plucky member of the public would be hailed a hero. Meanwhile, Mike persists in his road safety crusade and some deluded car-brains think that he’s the problem?
Look at it this way – how many injuries and deaths has Mike caused versus how many injuries and deaths have been caused by phone-using drivers?
I did just see a twitter
I did just see a twitter thread about driving over the pavement to avoid an ltn. The number of comments about grass, snitch, snout.
Depressing when you know how many peds are killed on the pavement by drivers.
The one from yesterday’s
The one from yesterday’s illegally parked ice cream truck causing cycle lane blocking had the usual “whataboutredlights” reponse. OP posted three cars that went through a red light he stopped at including two coming from behind to overtake and mentioned all were reported. Reply to that was simply “grass”.
I think the “driving in the
I think the “driving in the UK” is one of those issues which stands for much more than just “getting from A to B conveniently”. Obviously there’s the “I am now an adult” (both “I have ‘independence of travel’ ” and “I am responsible – I can drive others”) and the “I’m financially solvent” plus “stating my wealth / social position”.
I think it’s also one of those things which are some kind of proxy for larger “freedom” or “rights”. So a little like such things as hunting in France (to do with abolition of aristocratic priveledge following the 1789 revolution). Or guns in the US – “freedom from tyranny / getting pushed around (by King George III)” – they’re still celebrating.
On the last – we’re sadly rather keen to obey in the UK (compare with the French…) so this may be a fatal sticking point – our one political sop to “freedom”.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I saw on the news this morning that M&S are closing a load more of their stores. Mainly the ones in town centres, as they have said they are intending to move more of their stores ‘out of town’ to those hellish ‘only accessible by car’ (they didn’t say that!) outdoor shopping centres…
brooksby wrote:
I saw that they’re closing some Russian stores (apparently it’s tricky due to them being franchises or something). To be honest, I’m often surprised at how their clothing stores stay in business as from what I can see they’re aiming at an ageing demographic.
I think it’ll work out poorly for them as their food shops are a good fit with town centres and attracting younger people to grab a sandwich or whatever. If they close most of their in-town shops, then they’re going to end up with just old people buying jumpers and nearby people who like their food a bit overpriced.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I knew they were behind all our local Russian stores! Marx and Sparts, innit?
I just that on the bbc “It
I just that on the bbc “It said it was now relocating some shops from older, multi-floor buildings with poor access and parking.”
Just happening where I am – off to a giant retail park – really only accessible by car from the high st (where you can’t park outside, well unless you pretend you are a taxi).
hirsute wrote:
Sounds like they’re doubling down on catering to an aging population
I find it quite ironic that
I find it quite ironic that we have here a man representing a profession tasked with educating people how to drive properly complaining that someone has decided to do something about his profession’s abject failures.
he thinks you should only
he thinks you should only educate and not report
Failing to realise that the people who need the most education won’t seek out his videos….
Other way round: he (assuming
Other way round: he (assuming you mean Ashley Neal) thinks you should only report and not educate. He mentions several times he thinks Cycling Mikey should report what he sees to the police but not confront drivers on the spot.
Ashley doesn’t even want
Ashley doesn’t even want cyclists doing that. He thinks HE should educate drivers by showing poor driving and correcting it, but doesn’t want drivers reported.
hence the dig at legions of cyclists with cams….
Honestly? Road safety is a
Honestly? Road safety is a broad church and there’s room for the different approaches of Neal and Mikey. They are both very opiniated people, but that doesnt mean either of them have to be wrong. That’s just the politics of division and tribalism, isn’t helpful and is amplified by the Social media platforms they both use.
In short nothing to see here but a few ad impressions being generated by Internet based media.
Was that a quote from Ashley
Was that a quote from Ashley or CyclingMikey? They appear to think each other is wrong!
While I think “division and tribalism” is largely beside the point if you’re doing your transport right it probably does sometimes make it more uncomfortable for the “minority”. In the UK that’s anyone not in a motor vehicle on the roads. Isn’t “division and tribalism” kind of a “design feature” of (social) media anyway though?
Mikey’s videos are prefaced
Mikey’s videos are prefaced with
the parks police know of incidents where people have been injured here
friends complain of the risk they face
neither mentioned by ashley
Is is jealousy on his behalf and why did he have to make his video personal?
Stick to driving training as you dont know much about cycling.
(PS we did all this in the blog on monday !)
He also claims to be a keen
He also claims to be a keen cyclist. Mind boggles.
Ashley also didn’t put anythung in context – showed cyclists going by while mikey was dealing with the driver, and complained he didn’t stop cyclists – despite knowing full well why CM doesn’t.
he also showed the abusive ped being told by mikey he didn’t want to speak to him, and again failed to say that the led had been abusive for five min before that.
the editing was so biased.
So is the take home message
So is the take home message we need to get Mikey more subscribers than Ashley? Otherwise I don’t see the point of the article on here. Just giving voice to a noisy motorist who happens to teach driving.
I enjoy Neale’s cycling
I enjoy Neale’s cycling videos the way he stumbles over himself trying not to be anti cyclist whilst continually failing to understand what’s going on is funny. I commented on that vid and one of disciples said that Mikey had forced a driver to have to mount the kerb to get past, the fact that they still fail to see a driver’s actions as the drivers action says it all!
anagallis_arvensis wrote:
more than one blamed Mikey for “forcing” drivers to mount the kerb, or “making hundreds of drivers lives hell” while they waited because an entitled prick of a driver argued why their dangerous driving wasn’t dangerous.
he said he’s going to do a compilation of all the time mikey has “incited” road rage. All because mikey wasn’t nice to him in twitter…
“The next thing is that if I
“The next thing is that if I reported every single offence that I saw I’d have no time to do anything else,”
Ummm…what does that tell you about driving standards then?
Probably scared most are
Probably scared most are traced back to his school of motoring.
Also, his take that people would be against learners etc. The amount of bad driving I see around learners is on par with the bad driving against cyclists. Speeding passed, cutting up, pulling out in front off, being on the recieving end of horn use and bad language. I do wonder how many drivers forget they were learners once. If the bad driving against them could be used in evidence, then drivers might actually be more considerate around them.
Still, being as he films his youtube narration pieces whilst driving around, I would have thought his take on bad and distracted driving is automatically null and void.
Clem Fandango wrote:
which was pointed out by me and others in the comments. We had a back and forth as AN didn’t like me defending cycling mikey actions. He took great offence at CM calling someone a shithead but didn’t frame it in context, which was the far greater abuse he got first. Apparently he incites road rage. When I pointed out he does not such thing, it went quiet
Ashley claims to cycle regularly, I just wonder where, if he doesn’t see the issues that we’re seeing ?
He was on here but he didn’t
He was on here but he didn’t listen to what was said.
One of his recent videos had a comment about how difficult it is to see cyclists – I guess I must have exceptional skills in seeing cyclists despite my glasses.
Or maybe I just have outstanding night vision for black on black.
hirsute wrote:
i challenged in his “cyclists are hard enough ti see already” comment. Was told it’s because bikes aren’t as big as cars. When I pointed out that they’re still visible, so not HARD to see, and being taller than all but wankpanzers are often MORE visible, he went silent.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Maybe you just cut him off before he could finish his sentence: “cyclists are hard enough to see already as we don’t bother looking properly, despite what should be taught by driving instructors”
Yep! I pointed out drivers
Yep! I pointed out drivers aren’t taught well enough to see cyclists in general, and as his previous anti cycling video showed, he doesn’t teach brilliantly either, and didn’t get anything back. He can’t accept criticism of driving instructors from us mere plebs, and then pointing out drivers just don’t look for the perfectly visible cyclists didn’t get anything either.
I pointed out a Matt grey
I pointed out a Matt grey Merc to SWMBO which also had illegal dull greyed rear number plate and greyed rear lights. It was remarkably similar to the colour of the road. I wonder how long before someone rear ends or sideswipes them through not seeing them.
Another day, another
Another day, another horrendously bad cycling take by Ashley Neal…
I’ve lived and/or worked
I’ve lived and/or worked continuesly in the Regents Park area for 20 years and something has for sure worked. Cycling there is becoming safer and while it is impossible to prove the connection to his work something has worked so thank you CyclingMikey. Whatever Ashley’s views I suspect he does not live/work in the area and have not witnessed the positive change there or in the rest of central London.
He doesn’t, he is based in
He doesn’t, he is based in Liverpool I believe. Apparently the Parks Police have noted in meetings that there has been a significant drop in incidents around “Gandalf Corner” since Mikey started his campaign, so you’re dead right about the improvements and their cause. The police support his efforts, they wouldn’t do that if he was just some busybody who was actually creating more problems than he was solving.
Youtuber says something to
Youtuber says something to get views shocker
He’s trying to come over as
He’s trying to come over as the voice of reason but he clearly has a vested interest to be pro driver so it has built in bias.
The thing I don’t get is why you wouldn’t want to get Bad and dangerous drivers off the road. These drivers make life a misery for all road users. It just shows poor critical thinking in the face of trying to be populist in a car centric society.
I’m usually 50/50 on Ashleys
I’m usually 50/50 on Ashleys opinions about cyclists but I’ve said before and it’s worth repeating, if every driver followed his advice then the roads would be safer for everyone, especially us cyclists.
I’m a Mickey fan so obviously I disagree with this video but overall I think he does a good job promoting road safety in his own way.
Been thinking about Neal,
Been thinking about Neal, wondering how he would feel, nervous and very novice driver under his instruction, behemoth juggernaut approaches from behind, it’s operator wishes to overtake, do they get to use their incredibly loud horn, you know, just to let the driver they were there?
By his logic on overtaking
By his logic on overtaking bikes they’d have to wait there forever – even if you could see the other lane was clear for miles ahead – until there was space to pass at the distance recommended by the highway code. And that is why you should always single-up in a vehicle (maybe by sitting in the novice’s lap?) if another is waiting behind.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen
I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a misinformed, inaccurate and illogical piece by anyone ever. There are so many errors of logic and mistaken assumptions that it’s impossible to list them all, but here’s one example.
Mikey stops cars on the wrong side of the road at Gandalf Corner because what they are doing is illegal and dangerous. This is what AN says:
“My only question with what Mikey does at this particular corner is how many people have been convinced not to use a mobile phone because of what he does?”
He isn’t stopping them for using a mobile phone AN, it’s because they’re driving dangerously and illegally.
He justifies not reporting dangerous driving by saying:
“If I was to report every single thing that I saw, the negativity towards those instructors and students would definitely have a negative effect on road safety.”
Just how would it do that? Not reporting it demonstrates clearly to the students that dangerous illegal driving is perfectly acceptable, which very definitely has a negative effect on road safety.
Mikey is definitely right “Not going to bother watching it. I don’t rate his opinion.” And Mikey doesn’t have ads for junk wallets either.
“What Neal does appear to
“What Neal does appear to have an issue with, however, is van Erp – and other cyclists who use cameras – submitting that footage to the police for potential action to be taken against the motorists concerned, even though that is something that police forces across the country actively encourage.”
So he doesnt like it that more and more people are getting caught breaking the law and have to suffer the consequences?
Surely its counter productive to society to carry on allowing people to break the law and suffer no consequences? and the more people that get caught the better as it bumps up the standard of driving on the roads?
I can be cruising at 40kmh – above the legal speed limit for that stretch of road but someone will still be tailgating me, honking their horn in an effort to bully me even if im not holding them up. But If im doing 40kmh and he’s up my arse. Then he’s breaking the law and deserves to get punished because he put his foot in it.
If people are worried (Neal included…) about getting caught, It means that people who do have cameras are doing an EXCELLENT job at helping the community teach drivers not to break the law and keeping them in line.
And its always a roll of the dice if Mr Plod will do anything meaningful with the submissions anyway. police action always seems to be all over the place – some reports have no action or the least amount of action taken despite clear evidence of law breaking while the same footage can have the whole law and even the laws kitchen sink thrown at them if you submit the footage a second or third time – so people who break the law still have a chance at dodging justice.
If i was Mikey, I wouldnt waste time watching the video either.
Rather than calling Mikey out about what he does. Neil as a driving instructor should be working with Mikey to educate drivers but im guessing he wont because he’ll probably lose business. Its more beneficial for him to pick his side and stir the pot so he can potentially make more money off it.
Quote:
Ashley’s mate, the BlackBelt barrister raised questions on informing people where temp speed cams are each day as it was supposedly a topic on SM. He stated that as they are safety cameras, then telling people where they are should be fine as the “law-abiding” will slow in that area knowing they are out and the people who would speed “because they have robbed a bank” won’t be bothered. So essentially he is ok with people speeding all the time when they know the cameras are not on and only slowing when they know they might be caught. I didn’t read specific comments but the top one was a “stealth tax on motorists” type comment.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
To avoid speeding offences being a “stealth tax” (albeit an opt-in stealth tax), how about if the penalty for speeding offenses was something like confiscating the vehicle for a week/month/year depending on the severity of the crime? That would also make the law more applicable to rich people.
It’s hard to ensure
It’s hard to ensure punishment is completely fair – if the vehicle is confiscated then that would no doubt hit people who have one car for the whole family far harder than households with multiple cars, especially households with more cars than people. A short term driving ban might seem fairer in principle, although harder to enforce.
OnYerBike wrote:
Ultimately, people with more responsibilities are always going to feel more effects from punishment. The big advantage of confiscating the cars is the reduction in both congestion and air pollution. Ultimately, we want the punishment for speeding to cause a change in behaviour and having your car suddenly confiscated in the middle of a journey is likely to make people take notice.
I have always wondered why
I have always wondered why Cycling Mikey confronted those that he filmed. Telling them that has filmed them and that it will be 6 points on their licence or somesuch. I am not against filming and reporting of incidents in fact I am quite pro that. Confronting somebody and bragging to them that you have caught them seems to be a bit unnecessary. Course not so good to watch on YouTube without the slanging match!
It gives them instant info
It gives them instant info and feedback on their dangerous driving.
The feedback is unlikely to
The feedback is unlikely to make them change their habit of looking at their phone every 60 seconds to see if anyone gave them a stroke. I agree it might help on odd ocassions but most times you will be seen at best as an interfering busybody.
The trouble is we all ignore laws when it suits us. Some are arcane, some unenforcible, some nobody knows about. Apparently most of us commit about 32 different offences every year! Who knew vacuuming between 6pm and 8am on a weekday was illegal! It’s not that we think we are above the law. We just tend to think we will not do any harm if we carry a plank of wood down a street. Go at 75 on the motorway, sneak a look at a phone while in a queue, cycle without a front light when it is getting dusk. If someone points it out you shrug your shoulders and take the punishment, you don’t need telling, you already knew it was illegal.
JLasTSR wrote:
However, there’s a lot of drivers that don’t understand that driving too close to a cyclist is dangerous and illegal, so it does make sense to confront drivers that do that.
That said, I try to not confront drivers except when I’m really pissed off or angry at the time and leave it to the cam footage instead. I get that Mikey has made his cycling into a bit of a crusade following his father’s death, so I can totally understand why he feels the need to confront drivers about their behaviour and he has every right to do so.
This was the pass made by
Copy of email to driving instructor following a close pass today.
“This was the pass made by your driver under instruction earlier today from my point of view.
Please bear in mind that my camera is centrally mounted and that the (exceedingly poor) cycle lane marked here is actually less than the width of my handlebars. I can send you the full video if you wish to analyse the incident further.
1.5m is a minimum safe distance for overtaking in slow moving traffic. If you cannot allow the minimum distance, do not overtake until you can.
Regards”
Got a reply within the hour to say that the instructor was sorry and had taken the incident “on board” whatever that means.
NFA as far as I am concerned.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Never mind that they’ve taken it on board, how is it possible that a highly trained, skilled, tested driving instructor needed to be told that passing so close to a cyclist was against the law and dangerous?
So, along with the road laws being extremely driver-centric and not fit for purpose, it now appears that training and testing of driving instructors is also not fit for purpose. Does anyone know the standards for becomming a driving instructor?
eburtthebike wrote:
Yes, and the overwhelming majority of drivers would fail miserably unless they had been trained over a considerable period of time. The driving test is conducted by a senior DVSA examiner and is easily to IAM standard. Many, many candidates fail even after training.
The test of instructional ability examines the candidates’ in-car teaching, sometimes with a real pupil and sometimes with an examiner playing the role. It isn’t easy, there is a significant failure rate. And once the candidate has passed he/she is retested every few years to the same standard. Again there are failures.
So far so good. Now the downsides. Although the tests have been passed and the candidate is on the register of ADIs who is to say they will maintain the standards? Human nature will, for some folk, lead inevitably to short cuts and a decline in performance. The same could be said of your doctor, dentist or member of parliament. What is the answer to this? I certainly don’t know.
And the behaviour of the regulating agency, the DVSA, has often been questioned in these matters. Some interested parties claim that retests are not done often enough and that it is too easy for an instructor to stall the process, sometimes for years. Others say that instructors with lamentable pass rates, and there are some, should be taken to task more quickly.
As with most things improvements could be made but at the cost of money and time and would risk the goodwill of the majority of hardworking instructors.
mike the bike wrote:
— mike the bikeDashcam with DVSA able to demand the contents of the card at any time during or after a lesson? Or maybe an obligation to make footage available by uploading it for review.
And facilitate anonymous form submission by pupils where poor behaviour – whether poor quality tutoring, aggression towards other road users, foul language or inappropriate behaviour towards the pupil – can be kept on file for review.
Professions such as finance
Professions such as finance have continuous professional development as a means of keeping up standards. I guess that is not sufficient, but I know a friend who actually has tests each year to ensure their financial knowledge is up to date.
Plenty near me that certainly
Plenty near me that certainly pass close. The worrying ones I find are when you can feel the air move as they go pass at 60 + and then move out further to overtake you once they have passed you. You know they are driving beyond their ability which is worrying. Can’t confront those ones they are in the next parish in about 30 seconds and gone, hopefully never to be seen again.
Never taken a driver to task about a pass, never even managed to catch up with one! I have muttered a few inelegant phrases though.
JLasTSR wrote:
Yes! Then invariably stay out there for aaages.
You’ve been passed by him too
You’ve been passed by him too.
I agree. I think it will
I agree. I think it will encourage bad driving, increase the hatred for cyclists and make their drive unsafe for the rest of their journey due to the road rage.
The feedback is better recieved later when the driver is in a better mindset by a letter from the police.
It sounds like we should
It sounds like we should avoid you then, if you hate cyclists…
I personally wouldn’t argue with an enraged person armed with a motor vehicle but I think it’s beside the point. If you fly into a rage at the sight of a cyclist then whatever the cyclist does – other than not existing – is irrelevant.
I’d actually suggest that if you’re unable to keep your cool to the extent that your driving suffers you need parting from your driving licence at least, and soon.
I think some poor driving is just “humans” – that’s why we need segregated infra. Some people are just ignorant (we only test once…), have lost their skills or become complacent. Education could help here.
I knew someone in the probation service who dealt with some people with “anger management” issues who seemed to agree with that general diagnosis – a few bad ones but most sad.
I don’t hate all cyclists,
I ride by the way. Like most who’ve replied, you probably didn’t get past that first line of my post. It’s fine. But appreciate the reply that has nothing to do with the point I made.
There seems to be a bit of an
There seems to be a bit of an echo on your keyboard. You do keep saying “that has nothing to do with the point I made” and “read what I wrote” without apparently considering what people wrote – or indeed reading it.
Anyway if you – or indeed Ashley – have any ideas about how to deal with angry people who want to assault me with / from their cars despite me neither having a camera nor being CyclingMikey I’m sure I’ll read it, promise! If you want to have a go at explaining the connection between what anyone else does with a camera and “making the road more dangerous for the rest of us” that would interest too.
I don’t think Ashley’s being misinterpreted here. Aside from his videos a couple of posters have had exchanges with him on his sites about other stuff he’s said about cycling which didn’t seem sensible. Doesn’t seem anyone was missing anything. He’s just not quite right on all things to do with cycling on roads but not prepared to admit it. Understandable as someone focussed on driving, disappointing in a driving instructor putting himself out there to
sell thingseducate drivers.ste.gt13 wrote:
— ste.gt13The evidence would tend to suggest otherwise, and immediate pointing out of misbehaviour being much more effective than punishment months later. As for it increasing hatred of cyclists by drivers who already appear to hate them, or are at least callously indifferent to their safety, I beg to differ on that too.
Any person who hates another person solely on the grounds of their means of transport is most certainly beyond any logical response anyway.
What evidence? Please send me
What evidence? Please send me it.
Any person who hates another person solely on the grounds of their means of transport is most certainly beyond any logical response anyway.
Unless your deaf and blind, this is very much the case for many ignorant drivers towards cyclists and ignorant cyclists towards drivers. Just read the comments here for example. I’d love a middle ground but neither side wants to hear it.
ste.gt13 wrote:
To quote Eton Rifle “Illiterate twat. Get back to the Daily Heil. You’re fooling no-one.”
Your purpose here is clearly to sow dissent and confusion by pretending to be reasonable and open to argument when you are entrenched in your position.
I appreciate the
I appreciate the conscientiousness and endurace of sowers of dissent. They normally pop up, claim it’s a hive mind / echo chamber / collection of sheep or of old men nodding over their beer here but then try to change the world regardless.
Mind you – if they are indeed cyclists (maybe should qualify that “as opposed to just people on bikes”) that would be in character.
Appreciate it. ?
Appreciate it. ?
I don’t follow his youtube so
I don’t follow his youtube so don’t know if he still does it, but most of the time he did that previously, it was because he was filiming Mobile Phone use and almost had to get in the drivers face to film what it was being used for. Watching a video or checking instagram, not a problem, texting or calling, against the law.
Now the law is changed he probably doesn’t need to confront them in the same way, although mentioning at the time probably means they stop using at that time so he could have saved a collision further on.
He did say he doesn’t need a
He did say he doesn’t need a 4k camera anymore as he doesn’t need to capture the screen detail.
Might have a wait a few months to see if he gets as close in his videos.
I wholeheartedly disagree
I wholeheartedly disagree with the approach of some ex-footballlaying YouTuber when he says that cyclists should not protect themselves by using cameras.
Frankly it would be nice if the standards of drivers – and driving instructors – we’re good enough so that we did not have to, but they’re not so we do.
Dear Ashley – **** right off.
Really?? I think he’s pretty
Really?? I think he’s pretty fair, and lives in the real world, and not some fantasy world that too many cyclists wish to inhabit.
La la la, can’t be done here,
La la la, can’t be done here, it’s just not the way it is, get with the real world, university of life – school of hard knocks …
You’re right, some of us are dreamers. And so were some Finns, Swedes, Spaniards, Swiss, Parisians…
Velophaart_95 wrote:
I reckon cyclists have a better grasp of reality than drivers as we get to see it directly and not just through a window.
Also, what’s with all the car adverts showing glamorously open roads?
Velophaart_95 wrote:
I have no desire to live in Middle Earth or Narnia.
brooksby wrote:
Good because that would be ‘elfish, ent-itled and you won’t find everyone else fauning over your fantasy world.
Are you just trolling now?
Are you just trolling now?
Orchrist, no!
Orcrist, no!
‘he says that cyclists should
‘he says that cyclists should not protect themselves by using cameras’.. you are wrong; Ashley stated “He could just record the offenders and then report them to the police anyway, without standing in and blocking the road.”
Great, he’s going to teach us
Great, he’s going to teach us how to ride bikes!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5MvDgbIEx28
Well at least he won’t be
Well at least he won’t be talking to a camera whilst “in control” of a 1.5 ton moving vehicle.
anagallis_arvensis wrote:
He should do one of his shows from a bike – it might give him a renewed perspective on road danger.
Edit: watched a bit of that video and that does appear to be his intention
One of my first introductions
One of my first introductions to his videos was when he stated about a near miss he had by bike. I believe his conclusion was it was his fault as the driver was expected to be awful so he should have anticpated that
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
This can be a problem when society continually pushes the car agenda and people are taught to think of traffic just in terms of motor vehicles. Just because someone is on a bike doesn’t necessarily mean that they’ll come to the correct conclusion (over time they tend to come around though).
He will only see what he
He will only see what he wants to see. He did a cycling video before, did it when the roads were empty due to lock down and decided the roads were fine!!
He’s made quite a few cycling
He’s made quite a few cycling videos.
ste.gt13 wrote:
I did watch a couple of minutes of him unpacking a new bike frame from a sponsor and he said that he intends to ride it around to pick up more experience of cycling on roads since the Highway Code changes. Others on here have reported that Ashley is quite mistaken about some aspects of cycling, so it could be interesting to see if he changes his mind on anything.
Or just leave it bikability –
Or just leave it bikability – the ones who are trained in this.
Imagine the moans from
Imagine the moans from drivers when even more cyclists cycle “in the middle of the road”.
He’s probably going to do
He’s probably going to do videos on road safety for cycling
ste.gt13 wrote:
If you get ’em before the road.cc staff do, post them. I’ve no doubt they’ll attract interest.
I wonder whether Ashley Neal
I wonder whether Ashley Neal ever lambasted a referee in a former life for creating pitch rage by referring things to the video assistant referee?
chrisonatrike wrote:
Even I, whose knowledge of football could be fitted into a matchbox without taking the matches out first, know that his career was over long before VAR!
Alright! It’s hard enough
Alright! It’s hard enough trying to keep up with the cycle ball.
Funny how Ashley Neal trots
Funny how Ashley Neal trots out the line about a car being a “tonne of metal”. The average new car in 2020 was 1.9 tonnes, nearly double his estimate. And cars are only getting heavier as they get more electrification.
As a cyclist and reading
As a cyclist and reading these comments
I think Ashley has a valid point.
Don’t encourage road rage.
Road rage can encourage drivers to use their cars as a weopon and cause harm to you or those around (there are so many viral videos of this).
Simply, record and report. Move on with your life.
However, Ashley also points out, you shouldn’t live your life spending time on recording, conflicting every single incident you see.
He personally doesn’t do it, fine. That’s his choice.
Mikey intenially goes out looking for trouble to get views and make money from his channel.
Yes, Mikey has made the roads safer but he’s also made them unsafe.
Some drivers will leave the incident thinking I should of handled that differently.
But I belive the majority of drivers that leave the scene will be thinking ‘f*****g cyclist’ and continue to drive more agressively and show more agression to cyclists in the future.
My expierence from confronting enraged drivers, they’ll either have an epiphany and realise their mistake or they’ll be increasingly more ignorant and aggressive.
ste.gt13 wrote:
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
Another first time poster who
Another first time poster who hates cyclists, what a surprise. I read the rest of the tripe, you didn’t miss much. Standout gem: “Yes, Mikey has made the roads safer but he’s also made them unsafe.”
Rendel Harris wrote:
He encouraged road rage, the driver could of snapped and driven over him. Think.
ste.gt13 wrote:
And if he didn’t stop the driver, they would have driven round the blind corner on the wrong side of the road and straight into a pedestrian or legally-driving vehicle.
“We shouldn’t stop people doing bad and/or dangerous things in case they are so psychopathic they lose their shit and do something else bad” is not, one feels, a recipe for a well ordered society.
I understand your point but
I understand your point but there are enough viral videos of road rage making things far worse. Either incident could happen or nothing could happen at all. At the speed those drivers were going at, I think there is less risk of that than getting somebody enraged and stomping on the accelerator or letting their foot slip off the clutch.
ste.gt13 wrote:
Illiterate twat. Get back to the Daily Heil. You’re fooling no-one.
Very angry there, really
Very angry there, really sorry if my point offended you.
ste.gt13 wrote:
“She encouraged rape by wearing a short skirt”.
Some people would call this victim-blaming.
I call it dangerous nonsense that does nothing more than demonstrate and promote prejudice, whilst at the same time failing utterly to understand the motivations and causes of crime and law-breaking.
Back under your bridge, please.
That’s a pretty poor and
That’s a pretty poor and ignorant comparison.
You’re totally missing the point.
Cycling Mikey goes to this spot purposely to start a row. He literally pulls up on his bike and waits for motorists to come along to skip the traffic. So he can record them for his channel and fight them until they go back in the queue.
How the hell does to relate to victim blaming? He’s not a victim, he’s a wannabe vigilante.
Again, why so much anger and abuse?
He’s only a vigilante if he
He’s only a vigilante if he wears a cape and is stringing them up or carving a bat symbol in their faces or something.
Going to somewhere renowned for a specific law breaking activity, recording said activitity, and handing it over to the police, is no different than if the police themselves were setting up a mobile camera there, surely?
Google the meaning of
Google the meaning of vigilante.
Difference is, drivers will behave with a police officer over a vigilante with a camera phone as they can book them there and then.
Quote:
a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.
Also, look at the way drivers have treated fully marked up Police officer cycling on the roads including the recent comments to the PO cyclist in the Vine video over the weekend.
ste.gt13 wrote:
A vigilante is someone who takes the law into their own hands and metes out punishment for it, usually in the form of violence. Someone correctly reporting a crime or misdemeanour to the proper authorities to be dealt with is not a vigilante. Is your Google broken?
Seems to me he is dictating
Seems to me he is dictating drivers to follow the law, to me that falls under that particular definition.
If he was just recording and reporting, I wouldn’t say he was a vigilante.
So it’s all a lot of argument
So it’s all a lot of argument about your “as the person in the street understands it” meanings of words then? I’ve even managed to find a reading that backs you up. Get’chor definitions below!
From here – I’m guessing you want the first meaning (an antisocial vigilante?): Vigilante: a person who tries in an unofficial way to prevent crime, or to catch and punish someone who has committed a crime, especially because they do not think that official organizations, such as the police, are controlling crime effectively. Vigilantes usually join together to form groups.
Are you saying it’s entrapment? One set of definitions doesn’t agree but I’m sure someone somewhere does.
He is actually giving people
For the corner, he is actually giving people the option to get back in line and drive properly. The only ones he reports are the ones who decide that the car can push a pedestrian out of the way or continue on and break the law.
ste.gt13 wrote:
I would totally support a skilled female MMA fighter dressing in a short skirt and pretending to be tipsy around nightclubs, then filming her interactions with would-be rapists. I certainly wouldn’t blame her for the actions of her
assailantsvictimsinvoluntary sparring partners.I think where this new poster
I think where this new poster is going wrong is that they think it’s entrapment. In your example you could argue (I wouldn’t) that the woman being there was provoking crime where none would otherwise be. In the case of Gandalf corner however – or Chris Eubank / others on phones – the actual offense has already occured before someone appears. So the only possible point ste.gt13 could have – and they seem to be saying this – is that pointing this out to the driver or asking them to stop breaking the law is wrong. Why? Because apparently that is such provocation that it creates rage. That either: a) makes anything the angry person does next justifiable / partly the fault of the person pointing this out. b) OR that it then “incites them” / primes them to commit offenses elsewhere. Again that somehow being the fault of the person pointing this out. (Not quite sure which of those or if both).
I don’t quite get it but maybe it’s just a new take on “Better to be safe than right”?
Another bit I don’t understand is the connection to posting things online. ste.gt13 has said the filming part is OK – but only as long as you don’t ever mention this to people who aren’t the police as that’s just “seeking attention”.
Anywya presumably they’re OK with you stopping someone stealing your bike (proportional use of force / whatever) but not OK with you shouting “stop thief” when you see someone else stealing a bike. And presumably if you get assaulted or someone else does because the thief is angry that’s something on you. OR maybe you can do that, but just don’t mention it later on the internets m’kay, superman?
Thanks for not reading the
Thanks for not reading the rest of my ‘tripe’ and proving my point. Ashley is pointing out it’s better not to fight fire with fire and not to encourage road rage.
When I say I hate cyclists, read the abuse in these comments and tell me the community comes off likable and friendly. Sorry if that offended you to call me an idiot.
Ashley has good discussions, not a debate or ‘I’m right and you’re wrong’ fight, he has a genuine discussion about road safety. He was open to discuss with Cycling Mikey but he just hid and put an ignorant comment on twitter. People here seem to get angry and just wave the word ‘idiot’ and ‘he doesn’t know what he’s talking about’ comments around. I think it’s healthy to be open to different viewpoints. If Cycling Mikey was willing to discuss with Ashley, this could have been a positive story that would have benefited them and the community but… nope, Mikey and everyone else here are all sticking with the ‘us vrs them’ mindset, I’m right and you’re wrong etc. It’s a shame really.
ste.gt13 wrote:
Firstly, you’re opening sentence is specifically about how you hate a whole class of people and then you expect to have a rational debate with those same people?
From what little I’ve heard of Ashley, he seems to be highly biased towards car culture and less interested in road safety – he seems to be factually wrong about many aspects. I’m not quite sure what kind of sensible debate can be had when one side is ignoring reason and the law and instead just making emotional appeals to “not antagonise” the law breakers. Road safety would absolutely be improved if more people were prepared to call out selfish, dangerous behaviour such as using phones in cars etc.
You seem to be appealing to the “us-vs-them” platitudes, but you’re forgetting that most cyclists are also motorists (not me, though). The real dichotomy is between people that recognise that there are multiple valid forms of transport and the minority of drivers that are willing to endanger others for their own convenience.
I’m sorry but when I read
I’m sorry but when I read these comments, I was like, god I can see why drivers spew at us if these people are yelling in their windows with cameras.
You have a very negative viewpoint but when you call me an idiot and then open with hearsay on Ashley, I was surprised. Always enter the room with an openmind, look at the facts. Watch his videos, he replies to his comments.
If Ashley Neal was factually incorrect, there would be streams of correction videos. In your opinion, he may be wrong about this but I think he’s fairly logical. He has the knowlege of the law, the highway code and everyday experience to back it up. It’s literally his job. He has pretty good credibility over you or most when discussing road safty. As a cyclist, I see his point. I personally avoid conflict and just let the police do their work.
‘Road safety would absolutely be improved if more people were prepared to call out selfish, dangerous behaviour such as using phones in cars etc.’
I just see more road rage incidents coming out of this. Literally there is throusands of viral videos of people confronting each other where there has been injury and death. I’m sure the police wouldn’t encourage it either. Record and report fine but I wouldn’t recommend pushing people into anger. You never know who you’re dealing with.
You seem to be appealing to the “us-vs-them” platitudes, but you’re forgetting that most cyclists are also motorists (not me, though). The real dichotomy is between people that recognise that there are multiple valid forms of transport and the minority of drivers that are willing to endanger others for their own convenience.
It’s on both sides. But I’m saying we should close the gap. Ashley actually has videos encouraging drivers to respect cyclists. Here it’s attack attack attack.
I personally grew up farming, drove a HGV for a couple years and I worked in the cycling industry for 7 years as technical specialist.
ste.gt13 wrote:
You seem to be very much taken with choosing a side in the “us-vs-them” so-called debate. Why do you think that a cyclist that gets angry after having been put at risk by poor driving is somehow worse than a driver getting angry when caught out doing something wrong? If a driver doesn’t want to have an angry cyclist confronting them, then they just have to drive with care and consideration and if they do make a mistake (which everyone does), then they can surely apologise and defuse the situation that they caused. Meanwhile, a cyclist can be riding absolutely perfectly and considerately and get some random motorist endangering them for no reason. Do you see how those two things are not equivalent?
I disagree that “correction videos” are the typical response to incorrect videos – that’s fundamentally not how YouTube works (especially now that the dislike button has gone). See eburtthebike’s post earlier about a specific instance where Ashley is flat out wrong as I have no desire to watch Ashley’s videos (I’m unlikely to watch videos by CyclingMikey either apart from the odd clip that is shown on this site). I’m not convinced that Ashley is employed to work on road safety – who exactly pays him for this?
Nope. Literally surrounded by
Nope. Literally surrounded by cyclists daily. I don’t have issue with cyclists getting angry when they have an incident.
I think cyclists who deliberately go out, hide in a bush and go looking for an argument are a problem and it can endanger themselves and people around them if it goes the wrong way. We have the spandex but we’re not super heros.
Ashley is an driving instructor who runs own business. Research him just like I researched Cycling Mikey.
Ah – it’s finally dawned on
Ah – it’s finally dawned on me. Thank you for your persistance. Luckily someone else has your answer and you appear to already agree with it partly:
https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/55/collective-responsibility-collective-guilt
“I don’t hate all cyclists”… so there is no “us” then.
You seem concerned that no-one is reading your words or “doing the research”. But are you sure you’re not projecting?
Nope, that article is not
Nope, that article is not what I’m saying at all. I give up.
ste.gt13 wrote:
Please do.
ste.gt13 wrote:
If you had actually researched Mikey’s activities properly, you would know that none of his activities around Gandalf Corner are performed on a bicycle. Seems your research capacities are somewhere on a par with your spelling and grammar.
He’s not on his bike but his
He’s not on his bike but his bike is to one side in his videos but I have no idea why it matters if he was on his bike or not but there you go. (You can see his bike when he stopped a Volvo SUV). I’m a bike geek, my eyes clocked his bike a couple of times. My point stilll stands about going out deliberately to cause road rage, not safe and not a good look for the rest of us. He could of just filmed them and reported them without the argument.
ste.gt13 wrote:
If you have no idea why it matters, why did you make a point of castigating “cyclists who go out and hide behind a bush” (which he doesn’t, by the way, another triumph for your research).
Don’t bother answering though, you’re such a blatant troll, turns up, “I’m a cyclist myself but I hate cyclists”, argues ad nauseam with everybody. Jog on.
Why so angry? I watched quite
Why so angry? I watched quite a lot of his videos, he literally hides behind a bush on a corner.
Yep, that comment is just so
Yep, that comment is just so dogmatically digging in to all the points made by AN, it is clear that you are he.
Didn’t expect a comment like
Didn’t expect a comment like that! lol
No, I’m not him.?
In that case, he’s come back
In that case, he’s come back under a new username.
Hard to believe that a supposedly road safety person would make videos whilst driving with the inherent increased risk.
Given the complete failure of
Given the complete failure of logic, comprehension and sense in your post, identical to the approach taken in AN’s video, I’m pretty confident you’re him.
Why don’t you email Road.cc
Why don’t you email Road.cc to check me out. Honestly, dumbest comment I’ve read.
You repeatedly come across
You repeatedly come across drivers who have had an argument with and then classify their reactions for the subsequent arguments you have.
Do you also hate yourself ?
Thanks, nice comment.
Thanks, nice comment. Appreciate it.
@road.cc, bullying normally a thing here?
ste.gt13 wrote:
You deliberately started your first ever post here by insulting a whole community, so what do you really expect?
Also, I thought you wanted to welcome different viewpoints, but now you’re playing the “bullying” card?
It would seem that your only purpose here is to be a troll and waste our time with your nonsensical ramblings.
I apologise. I think my point
I apologise. I think my point is still valid, take a read please.
ste.gt13 wrote:
Okay.
I disagree that reporting/confronting poor and dangerous driving is encouraging road rage. It seems to me that drivers that respond with anger when caught out are behaving like spoilt toddlers and do not have the emotional maturity to be allowed to drive.
I can’t think of any other activity where we (well not me) excuse violent behaviour and then try to persuade people to accept law breaking and to not confront the criminals (excepting possibly where they are carrying guns). In general, the police are thought of as an extension of the public (i.e. policing by consent) and it is the duty/right of every member of the public to confront law breaking even though that may put themselves at risk. It’s a particularly bizarre argument that confronting a law breaking criminal puts everyone else at risk and I don’t see any evidence to support that view.
I think Ashley Neal is being disingenuous with his attitude towards Mikey and personally, I think it’s a method of getting exposure. I don’t believe that Ashley has made any significant contribution to road safety, whilst Mikey most certainly has.
Your first sentence on this
Your first sentence on this site is
“As a cyclist and reading these comments, I hate cyclists.”
This gives rise to the question – “do you hate yourself?”
I don’t see how you contrive this as bullying when it is a question about what you actually wrote.
Sure why not
Sure why not
“Encourage road rage” – I
“Encourage road rage” – I know the point is “why publish” but I think you’ll find the rage has already occurred – as it was being filmed. I very much doubt that – aside from a few road.cc posters and Ashely Neal – the majority of drivers are viewing these videos anyway.
I struggle with the concept that bad drivers up and down the country are stoking their ire like beserkers on CyclingMikey then going out to wreak revenge. And if they were doesn’t that suggest they’re people who are going to cause problems regardless? Maybe that’s what they’re watching on their phones in traffic though – that would explain Chris Eubank.
In those videos what you were seeing was “Person breaks law(s) by acting in a manner which endangers others and when challenged about it or prevented from continuing to break the law becomes very angry”. So if that’s what you mean by “encourages road rage” then you have a point. But then I myself would also be guilty of “encouraging litter-dropping rage” and “encouraging thwarted-violence rage”.
As someone who cycles sometimes I’m sad you’ve got to the “I hate myself and I want to drive” point.
P.S. Maybe you should also have a word with all the speed cameras which are likely inciting “speed rage” and also all those bollards (sometimes illuminated and retroreflective) encouraging “road infrastructure rage”. That’s making the place less safe for us all.
chrisonatrike wrote:
What really infuriates me are those concrete posts in front of shops to stop ram-raiders – they’re just an incitement for ordinary people to crash into shops (see car-hits-building-thread for details).
I hate those abstract posts
I hate those abstract posts too.
chrisonatrike wrote:
I’m a cyclist, I’ve worked in the industry for 7 years.
I drive, I’ve driven farm machinery to HGV’s. I look at everyone’s viewpoints like Ashley.
Encouraging road rage is not a good idea, that’s Ashley’s message.
If you spark up a driver on the wrong day, you or others around you could be injured or dead if they snap. As Ashley put it, feel free to record and report, let the police do their job. You raging at them will probably make it worse or encourage the driver to rage at cyclists even more.
But then Ashley states he
But then Ashley states he doesn’t report bad driving he sees because it might encourage road rage and abuse against learner drivers. First off, that ship has sailed (look at Rendalls video where even a driving instructor speeds past and bullies another learner). But now he and you are stating don’t confront, just report, but then expect to be bullied because another cyclist might have reported that driver in the past but didn’t confront.
Surely if drivers think the learner car or the cyclist has camera which could record their wrongdoing, the message should get through that don;t do anything wrong around them. Of course I haven’t covered all the dashcam footage that gets submitted as well…..
ste.gt13 wrote:
The part in bold is correct – but surely that should point out the problem here? One of the things we need is to keep individuals who have such poor control that can snap and kill others from the machinery which makes this so easy. (I’m mainly about removing the motor vehicles from being around people cycling and walking completely but let’s have both). Angry people could of course kill me with their bare hands. That might take a bit longer however. My aforementioned pal who dealt with “angry men” as part of the job (think they all were) said that the technique they taught was to try to slow down people’s reaction – for most a few seconds is all it takes to get yourself back in control.
It seems the people (like today’s video nasty) have longer than that. So maybe they’re in the “bad” category. In which case even giving them a polite shake of the head might push them over the edge.
Last think is – I don’t run a camera. I don’t often react to people. I didn’t in e.g. the case where people in a car threw some cans at me or where they suddenly overtook then swerved in at me while shouting stuff. I couldn’t react – because they initiated the “rage”. But maybe they saw into the future and read this very post I’m now typing?
I’ll shake my head but I won
I’ll shake my head but I won’t instigate a fight. I’ll just aim to get away from the driver as soon as possible. I’ll just send the footage to the police and let them deal with it after. In that clip, I would of held back, that driver was too aggressive to go along side. He had enough footage to report them.
The problem I have is people who go out looking for a fight, makes it harder for the rest of us I personally think.
There are clearly people who
There are clearly people who cannot control themselves. If they’re in a car that’s a huge force multiplier.
Thankfully I believe their numbers are small – compared to the total number of people in cars.
The point you seem to be making is because of the angry people, no-one (outside of another car? Plenty of drivers run dashcams and upload the footage) should ever directly challenge a driver. Because that might cause them to lose their shit and kill you then, or will make their barely controlled anger boil over at a later time. And that’s kind of your own fault.
So people should stop doing something legal (but only on bikes?) because the angry psychos. Do I have you right?
Further, something about having the footage out there spreads division, two tribes, why can’t we all get along… I’ll skip that because it’s late.
My point was that me just riding on the road, perfectly legally and reasonably (take it or not, I don’t run a camera) has been enough to cause other people to “instigate a fight”. (Assault me – but the end is in sight so moving on). Which like yourself I didn’t take up. When I hadn’t noticed them or couldn’t even see them before that.
People here have posted accounts of drivers being triggered by them shaking their heads at them or something similar.
Given that a few people are clearly triggered by anything – including just seeing someone on a bike – I’d suggest that the problem is not someone telling drivers they’re wrong. When most drivers are not psychos – or are you saying they are?
Additionally – how do you propose removing these out-of-control (by your own description) psychos from the road? Always up for learning something new.
I prefer to avoid conflict on
I prefer to avoid conflict on the roads, I commute through a city with very little conflicts. I have had bad expierence with a few drivers over time and I have reported drivers. I personally wouldn’t wind someone up in a big metal box that could take my life.
I understand you get angry, fair enough but people shouting is not a great way to educate them. Driving Awareness Courses, penalties and court is what I personally think will as it impacts their time and wallet.
I just record and report when I feel it’s neccessary. Driver gets a letter, I forget about it and move on with my life.
I don’t personally don’t go a vigilante route as unfortuantely I have other stuff to do in life and I’m not qualified to take on criminals.
ste.gt13 wrote:
So much other stuff to do that you sign up to websites, go straight in telling everyone that you hate them, and wind up and insult people with a mountain of rambling semi-literate comments. Busy busy!
Apologies for the hating
Apologies for the hating cyclist comment but when you see a tyraid of abuse towards a guy having a discussion, the comments on here don’t particually come off friendly. Am I wrong?
Your first sentence on here
Your first sentence on here
“I don’t hate all cyclists, just the angry depressing people commenting on here.”
which you then said I really mean
“I don’t hate all cyclists, just the angry depressing people commenting on here.”
It very clear who has the issue here.
I apologised but I guess it’s
I apologised but I guess it’s not good enough, right? I’m not allowed criticise my own kind.
Writing “I don’t hate all
Writing “I don’t hate all cyclists, just the angry depressing people commenting on here.” isn’t criticism, it’s just a wild accusation unrelated to the comments made by people you are replying to.
ste.gt13 wrote:
You’ve been calling people dumb, stupid, ignorant, negative, angry, depressing…and then you complain people aren’t friendly to you. Go figure.
What can I do to make it
What can I do to make it right?
Still 1 post, I notice…
Still 1 post, I notice… Didn’t come back to engage, after that little brainfart?
hi ?
hi ?
Quote:
It is amazing how many people think he is doing this for youtube money.
Nope, the only time he gets loads of views is when the Mail /telegraph / scum or other papers decide to do a stupid story about “being a vigilante”. Yet you blame Mikey and not the coverage they give for him being the “instigator”. People like Parris, Clarkson and Liddle were encouraging hate and attacks on cyclists well before Mikey came on the scene with their *checks notes* jokes about stringing up wire at head height.
I suspect Mikey has made the roads safer with his work then Ashley ever has with his, especially if the latter has never reported any crime he has seen on them and directed to his students.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Because in this ultra-right wing society, most people can’t concieve of doing the right thing without being paid for it. Just doing it because it’s right went out with the Victorians.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
when his learner broke the law by going through a light in amber, at low speed with no one behind, he didn’t seem too bothered by it, as it was the cyclists fault for distracting the learner by suddenly appearing. The cyclist that could be clearly seen for hundreds of metres back.
In another video he said
In another video he said there is a rsik from being rear ended if you stop, so better to keep going. Doesn’t say much about driving standards if you don’t think the learner in front will stop for amber.
Another one was driving on the pavement is ok if the obstruction is too near a junction. The idea that you could just get out of the car and push the obstructing car to a safer spot was a step too far.
As a fellow UK Dash Cam
As a fellow UK Dash Cam viewer, I think you’ll remember one where someone braked hard as the lights changed to yellow. Someone then rear ended him and the comments were full of “Safer to keep going etc”. Not many were lights were changing so should have stopped if safe to do so and car behind should definitely have been braking and not accelerating as well.
ste.gt13 wrote:
“Shut the fuck up and get to the back of the bus, Rosa. You’ll only make the white folks hate us even more”.
Have a word with yourself, mate.
I just prefer to ride my bike
I just prefer to ride my bike without fighting, it’s not hard.
The anger in these comments blow my mind.
ste.gt13 wrote:
It must be really confusing for you to join a cycling website, announce that you hate everyone on the site and then for some inexplicable reason, they don’t welcome all your stupid comments. That’s right, must be because they’re all angry and nothing to do with you being a prick.
I apologised, I can remove it
I apologised, I can remove it if it makes you all feel better.
ste.gt13 wrote:
That would certainly make sense, but the purpose isn’t to make us feel better, but to make you look less stupid.
I originally took your apology in good faith, but you just keep doubling-down on writing dumb things and misunderstanding words such as “vigilante”. I don’t feel that you’re bringing anything useful to this discussion.
Joys of dyslexia, aye.
Joys of dyslexia, aye.
I was going to keep the comment up to learn from my mistakes but fine, I’ll take it down.
He is a vigilante, lookup the definition.
ste.gt13 wrote:
No, you’re simply wrong on this. A vigilante metes out punishment for crimes, something which Mikey clearly doesn’t do.
ste.gt13 wrote:
Definition of vigilante
: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate)
To my knowledge CyclingMikey has never punished motorists – he simply gathers evidence (sometimes giving the perp a chance to correct their mistake) and hands it over to the police i.e. he’s relying on the law process. That means that we can definitely agree that CyclingMikey is in no way a vigilante, going by the most common definition.
By the way, if you wish to make a point about word usage, then it makes far more sense for you to post the definition that you are using, especially if (as in this case) it is different to how other people interpret the word. Simply demanding that other people look up the definition will make you look foolish if you’ve been misusing that particular word and making false accusations.
Jacques Derrida – “you can
Jacques Derrida – “you can make a definition but all other definitions remain in play”. (BTW I’ve no idea if that’s actually what he said. Or meant. I might even be thinking of Michael Fish).
I have had an interaction
I have had an interaction with him when, in his video on braking vs. evading, he had a footage from a cyclist who gets cut off by a driver coming out of a side street. The cyclist manages to evade the car by going behind it, gets up on the sidewalk and finally hits a fence (not very hard). Ashley’s comment was: “don’t your brakes work?”. I, along with a number of others, analysed the footage, distances and times of events and came to the conclusion that, given the speed of the cyclist, they DID brake quite forcefully and managed to evade quite competently – not overbraking while maneuvering to avoid crashing and sliding under the car, avoiding rough maneuvering over the gritty/slippery bit of the intersection, not trying to avoid hitting the sidewalk and ending with hitting it in an acute angle, but getting on it and (apparently) using the fence as the last bit of braking. He wouldn’t have none of that. I attempted to explain that he misinterpreted the footage due to the wide angle lens of the action camera, but all I got was the stereotypical sarcasm about cyclists thinking they own the street and so on… Essentially, he was arguing that it was the CYCLIST’s fault, because they shouldn’t have been going so fast if they can’t stop immediately when someone illegaly jumps out of a side street, and that they should have taken extra care because they’re so vulnerable. Frankly, I did not find him fair at all, but aggressive and combattive and unwilling to listen to arguments and learn something. Can’t say for sure, but he does seem to have a bee in his bonnet when it comes to cyclists.
He did come on here to debate
He did come on here to debate overtaking cyclists and use of the horn. He did not listen to what was said.
Engage with stakeholders then ignore their input.
Ashley is going to cop some
Ashley is going to cop some hate from all the van Twerp supporters on here..