Driving instructor Ashley Neal — who uploads videos to his YouTube following of 150,000 subscribers, often tackling topics concerning cycling and cyclist safety — has driven and cycled across one of the United Kingdom’s newest CYCLOPS cycling junctions for his latest video, claiming that the infrastructure designed to better protect vulnerable road users is an “absolutely awful waste of time and money” and “utterly pointless”.
Neal, the son of former Liverpool and England footballer Phil Neal, has frequently made headlines with his outspoken views on road safety, notably in 2022 when he was criticised for a video in which he beeped his horn at two cyclists while overtaking, as a “signal”. While in March, fellow social media figure, the road safety campaigner CyclingMikey said he wished Neal would “leave me alone” after the driving instructor uploaded another video criticising his approach.
Now, back with another cycling-related video, Neal has visited the Cycle Optimised Protected Signals (CYCLOPS) junction in St Helens to drive and cycle across it and give his thoughts on the infrastructure.
During the driving section he was very positive about the junction, calling it “super straightforward” and “dead simple” to use, but later expressed much criticism while cycling across it, largely due to the “ridiculous” wait times, regularly in excess of two minutes at traffic lights.
“If I’d used the main road and just waited in traffic I would have been gone,” Neal told his viewers during one wait at a red traffic light for cyclists using the junction. “This is my point with junctions like this, all they are really doing is creating an extra area where it is going to encourage cyclists to binbag this. This for me is utterly pointless, it’s ridiculous.”
Moments later Neal did acknowledge the safety element of the junction, accepting “yes, it’s lovely it keeps me out of the traffic here but the wait will just encourage people to go through, and then there is a conflict anyway”.
Riding away from the junction, back on a road without cycle protection, Neal added: “This is the problem with it for me — people are encouraged to get on a bike just because they’ve spent so much money on that particular junction and then the cycle lanes have just disappeared here.
“I’ve got to be back on the road, so if I’d just kept on the road anyway, through that junction that seems nicely managed and staggered quite well, honestly it would have been perfectly safe […] from first impressions I would have just preferred to ride in the road.”
Revisiting the junction for another go, Neal was again critical of the long waiting times, one taking up to four minutes, but came to his conclusion the infrastructure is an “absolutely awful waste of time and money” without asking if the wait times could be reduced by improving or adjusting the traffic light system or sensors.
> Could UK first CYCLOPS junction be “slam dunk” for cycling?
“It’s absolutely awful, a waste of time and money,” Neal said. “It’s just a big PR stunt for me. Does it do much to actually improve road safety? It might do compared to what the roundabout was like before but effectively cyclists and pedestrians have still got to do the same sort of thing, they’ve still got to cross this section of road, cross that section and then get to the other.
“Again sat here waiting, lights are still on red, so no I don’t think it’s a good idea. Driving through it’s fine, just another crossroads. It’s pretty fine on those terms but I think it’s an absolute waste.”
Concluding with some more general thoughts on cycling infrastructure in the UK, Neal said: “Motorists have to do better with cyclists. Much much better because cyclists using the road are the most vulnerable.
> More collisions at UK’s first Dutch-style roundabout than old layout, figures reveal
“For me, education is always going to win, this country is not designed well enough from the beginning to accommodate cyclists. The Dutch have been doing it for many years.”
In August, the St Helens junction came under fire from some locals who said the construction works on the infrastructure had created an “eyesore”, with homes and cars “permanently covered in dirt and dust”.
The junction opened a month later, a spokesperson from the council saying it would “significantly enhance the safety of pedestrians and cyclists, resulting in smoother journeys for all road users”.
St Helens Borough Council said the “prime location” had been chosen “close to several primary and secondary schools and sits next to Lea Green Railway Station”.
23 thoughts on “YouTube driving instructor Ashley Neal visits new CYCLOPS cycling junction… and calls it an “absolutely awful waste of time and money””
I think he’s got a point. I
I think he’s got a point. I won’t use infrastructure that deliberately marks cyclists or pedestrians out as second class citizens. It’s worth noting that in the Netherlands these kind of junctions give cyclists priority 100% of the time.
Must be 100% of the time
Must be 100% of the time cyclists are detected as using the path. Otherwise motor vehicles would never move as their lights would always be red.
If we want more people to
If we want more people to cycle, then these ‘junctions’ need to give priority to cyclists – not motorists.
And the cycle lanes full of debris aren’t great either……
> It’s worth noting that in
> It’s worth noting that in the Netherlands these kind of junctions give cyclists priority 100% of the time.
This is just not true. Major junctions on busy roads in the Netherlands usually have traffic signals for people walking and cycling. Only low-speed and low-traffic roads have priority crossings for vulnerable users.
Indeed – although it’s a bit
Indeed – although it’s a bit more involved IIRC: there are limits to maximum traffic volumes (it’s more granular than “per day” I think e.g. per hour?) and there are expectations that certain categories of roads (the Dutch have 3 “functional” types IIRC) will have separate cycle infra to go with usually a higher max speed for motor traffic.
At the best in NL they try to make it so that walking and cycling simply doesn’t need to interact with motor traffic at all e.g. by taking different – but ideally more direct – routes. Particularly at busy junctions (here’s a spectacular example – and a more prosaic one).
After applying that it also seems to be standard that cyclists will get priority as standard in urban areas in some situations and not in rural areas. (e.g. on roundabouts – although there are some exceptions e.g. a few municipalities do not do this – e.g. Assen seems to prefer a “rural” type design in urban areas).
Seems to be what you’d expect for a “pragmatic, real-world” arrangement where the UK requirement for priority for motor traffic, maximum capacity and indeed presumed permeability for same was not present!
Thing is … in the UK we’re
Thing is … in the UK we’re all still stuck in motor traffic thinking, even if we’re pro-cycling / active travel. In NL* they’ve started to move beyond that – so they’re looking at the safe and efficient movement of people (as opposed to cars or even bikes). Then – improving the environment and making more liveable places and (to some degree…) encouraging less fossil fuel use.
So it’s less about “we cyclists want priority! No, we motorists want priority!”. They have criteria for judging where it is safe and convenient to allow modes to mix or interact, and when that is not possible. Then they create “separate networks” so each mode is catered for in a way that is efficient.
This is how they’ve managed to actually generate such extensive networks for cycling. It would be unfeasable to build new separate infra everywhere there is a street / road – but in fact this is not necessary. On the other hand where motor traffic is heavy perhaps they will completely separate modes in space (grade separation) or time (e.g. all-ways green).
Efficient here means e.g. don’t make “safe” routes for cyclists which require them to keep stopping at traffic lights, or routes that are twice as far as a direct road.
Where it is not safe (e.g. outside urban areas) cyclists may not get priority – this is actually sensible as there won’t be many cyclists AND it means that it gives the responsibility back to cyclists for their own safety e.g. signals it’s up to you to assess if it’s safe to go rather than saying “go on, the drivers should stop…”
* I keep banging on about NL because they are much further on in their ideas and provision than anywhere else.
Incorrect. Not all this type
Incorrect. Not all this type of junction give cyclists priority 100% of the time. In fact it’s been noted here in NL that the lack of consistency in the priority is causing collisions.
It sounds as though the
It sounds as though the timings of the lights are a problem.
As for Mr Neal’s other comments, they do not come across as coherent. He refers to the Netherlands, but they have created a cycling culture with infrastructure like this, not just with education.
Of course we know we need coherent routes with consistent standards, but I guess you can’t do it all in one go.
In my 20+ years of cycling in
In my 20+ years of cycling in the Netherlands I have never seen anything like this.
They don’t need it because the drivers have cycle awareness and the cyclists have a cycle paths designed to keep them safe, rather than stopping drivers being inconvenienced – junctions are a breeze and I have never felt unsafe there.
The UK has a long way to go if they want to get to that level and that has to start with education AND good quality cycling infrastructure.
Agree – there is apparently a
Agree – there is apparently a virtuous circle at work in NL and *several* things reinforce mass cycling*.
We know it’s possible to start to turn the ship around because it has happened (Denmark, Sweden, some of Seville)…
However it is not easy in a country with such “motornormativity” as the UK. Driving has displaced a lot of public transport, amenities and jobs can be long distances from housing meaning “I need a car”. People (including many UK cyclists!) simply can’t imagine the system being much different than it is.
I suspect the start is building up cycle infra and reducing the convenience of driving (slightly). But it’s a slow, controversial fight, and sadly when we get infra it’s often inadequate and there are very few real networks of useful cycle routes.
* Although as David Hembrow has argued cycling is fragile. It’s kind of a “commons” – individually we don’t pay in much (privately) to enjoy it and the benefits are distributed. So it’s (currently…) unlike motoring. The motoring industry also has the ability to concentrate large amounts of money for a few. So cycling needs people to continue to value it – tricky when it’s cheap! The Netherlands – just like the UK – has already been on a trajectory to lose mass cycling (and indeed has still lost a lot compared to say over 50 years ago).
He is right that with the
He is right that with the current priorities it is a waste of money.
Disagreed with his asertion that UK could never be like Netherlands as we have a different culture. My understanding is that Netherlands was much like UK a few decades ago, until they made a concious effort to change it.
I’m glad this one has been
I’m glad this one has been noticed. My slightly long comments:
1 – Note this is on Ashley’s “Just Cycling” channel. And there is good debate in the comments over there.
As I have said before, I think this is a good learning community, and at both Ashley’s channels people with various shades of scepticism on cycling can get some rough edges knocked off – whether from Ashley’s basic message of ‘take responsibility for yourself and others, and help safety by improving your skills’ or by having conversation below the line.
2 – As ever, there are things I think Ashley got right, and a couple of things I think he missed.
3 – In this case, Road-confident cyclists – like Ashley, me and many Road.cc readers – are not the immediate target audience for this first cyclops junction in Liverpool City Region.
The area was slashed in half 50 years ago by what is now a 20k a day A-road, a 10k a day B-road the other way, and a huge motorway style traffic island. All with uncontrolled pedestrian crossings and casualty stats to match.
The big benefit of this CYCLOPS junction is that non-motor-users now have a safe option to get across all the roads. That is now BUILT IN, rather than RULED OUT, for the next 30 years. THAT is the big win here.
This is for example for people walking to the 1000 passenger a day Lea Green railway station, which is immediately adjacent.
4 – Straight-through cyclists are not the immediate audience, either. They still have the option, which as a signalised straight through road option is far safer than the multilane roundabout.
Active travellers, including right turning, or out and back, cyclists benefit from the CYCLOPS, as do people with mobility aids.
5 – The other group which benefits are all the people who did not cycle because of the killer roundabout. They – perhaps 10-50x as many as road-confident cyclists, now have a realistic & safe option here.
Imagine children cycling to school, or to cubs and brownies, and elderly people who use a standard or non-standard cycle as their mobility aid.
6 – Ashley is correct to roast the cycle-signals, which are an abortion. Fortunately they are an easy fix, and can be reprogrammed rather than needing a rebuild.
I think he is mistaken in suggesting that this may invalidate it all; I’d say it is 80-90% of the way there and needs some attention to detail. It may make the safe route round unattractive to particular groups until it is sorted – come back in 1-2 years.
It needs all-round ped/cycle green signals twice in every cycle, plus request buttons, and perhaps in due course detection loops for cycles and peds when there are more of them which will turn the traffic off. Max delay needs to be 20-30 seconds.
I put this down to Liverpool City Region inexperience. They need to learn from Manchester ! They are where Manchester was in 2018-2020 with these at the start of the learning curve.
That also shows up in details such as the non-sloped kerbs in some places.
7 – On attitudes to Dutch infra, I think Ashley’s own view is evolving. Not so long ago he commented “Dutch Infra could never happen here”.
Now it is starting to happen in a few places, including this little corner of Liverpool Region.
8 – This one in St Helens is starting a game of active-travel CATAN, starting to give practical non-motor options to everyone else. Now we need a lot more nodes, and the routes joining them up.
One thing they have got reasonably right is that the fall off the edge of the decent cycling infra is not as abrupt as one or two others, though this is just a first step.
Have a good day everyone !
mattw wrote:
I think he has a point though that even if the roundabout is now safer, those less confident cyclists are then thrust back onto the road afterwards. It’s possible that some were put off before solely by a large roundabout, but I’d wager they still won’t be that keen on the surrounding roads, and fixing just the junction doesn’t really help except as part of an incremental plan.
It does look like the sensors are largely to blame here. When cycle infra was first opened in Cardiff in recent years, the sensors seemed badly positioned. I eventually worked out that I had to stop a few bike lengths back to mimic a small queue, rather than stopping right on the line, and still spend most of my wait checking that the little red LED on the sensor is lit and registering me. Similarly there are some sensor-backed pedestrian crossings which will (infuriatingly) cancel the beg button if you wait out of sight of the sensor (e.g. when trying to stay out of puddle-splashing distance!)
quiff wrote:
I think that’s a poor reason for criticising it as that could apply to making anything safer as there’ll always be part of the road network that hasn’t been improved. Also, the way that cyclists gain experience is by cycling, so if a roundabout has been dissuading people from cycling, then it sounds like an improvement to me if it then allows them to start and become more experienced over time.
Sure. My concern though is
Sure. My concern though is short term planning and how they measure success – one big bit of new infra gets installed; there is no massive increase in cycle numbers (because people still have to deal with the roads either side of the roundabout); it’s deemed a failure; no more money is spent in the vicinity. Hopefully someone is taking a longer view than that and appreciates they need a joined up system, but politics…
It appears the big issue with
It appears the big issue with this one is the wait time, which can hopefully be adjusted to be better/prioritise cyclists otherwise they will end up not using it.
Whilst it would be great to have decent safe infrastructure for cyclists, this will not happen everywhere and where it is possible will take time to bring in.
If we want to increase cycling quickly, we need to make the roads safer.
The best way to do that is to force drivers to be safer around vulnerable road users.
And that basically involves a very big stick.
Cyclists and pedestrians. On
Cyclists and pedestrians. On my walk home from the station last night it took me around 4 minutes to cover about 50m across a crossroads. Two traffic light controlled crossings. It was 1 deg C so that made me grumpy. My area of NL seems to be prioritising road traffic over cycling and walking at the moment.
Driver complains about
Driver complains about waiting times at lights? What’s news here?
(Just joking! Haven’t watched them yet but I kind of agree with Ashley in that if it’s to work for “Joe public” – or indeed anyone – then the cycle infra has to be at least as convenient as it is for driving – and probably more given cycling involves physical effort compared to driving. Further – as he says most places in the UK do not have a network of routes suitable for 8-80 cycling. Here in most cases it’s a either “cycle facility” which disappears at any junction or – in rare cases like this – junctions which connect roads that e.g. the Dutch would always have actual separate cycle paths for due to speed / volume of motor traffic. Or streets where most of the motor traffic has been removed.)
The £15m scheme is not just
The £15m scheme is not just this junction, it also includes a multi-storey car park amongst other things!
https://www.sthelens.gov.uk/leagreen
He has a point about the wait times for cyclists, but this is fixable. It did come across to me as a bit of an anti-cycling-infrastructure rant, but I don’t think that was the intention.
He did manage to cycle through a red light a couple of times too! https://youtu.be/p3roS0jvksw?feature=shared&t=1294
Some of the design of this
Some of the design of this junction is a bit wacky. Who thought a tight 180 degree turn was a good idea here.
https://youtu.be/p3roS0jvksw?feature=shared&t=1372
I’ve got mixed feelings about
I’ve got mixed feelings about this new juction. Firstly, whilst new infra, especially at junctions is welcome – it has to be ‘right’ or ‘as good as possible’ on all levels, otherwise, it won’t really encourage many ‘new cyclists’ to use it. As mentioned by others, the wait time of up to 4mins is a real problem & yes how many ‘confident’ cyclists will take their chance on the road if it’s substantially quicker? One plus point is the junction eliminates any left-hook issues which can be a problem with circular Dutch-style roundabouts such the one on Fendon Road in Cambridge.
Comparing this to Cambridge is interesting on many levels. Whilst Fendon Road has a serious ‘left-hook’ design flaw, it is attractive to use. The red coloured asphalt, camferred kerbs and planting are all good, plus the limited wait times, if any at the junctions. To be fair the Cambridge junction is in a much quieter suburban environment, rather than a busy junction, as with St. Helen’s. The Cyclops design aims to address the issue of greater vehicular flow, but my god is it ugly! The light green topping will clip and fade in time, the vertical kerbs will gather leaves, be a ideal spot for weed growth and could possibly catch a pedal. It is not a place you could call attractive. People not only want a safe and easy to use cycle junction, they want an attractive one as well. I work at a large college in southern England and getting new people to cycle is a nightmare, literally everything has to be right for people to make the switch to cycling. Otherwise, they simply won’t do it.
Comparing the numbers, Fendon
Comparing the numbers, Fendon Road roundabout is around 16,000 vehicle movements / day; the St Helens junction is around 27,000.
I watched this 1st on Neal’s
I watched this 1st on Neal’s YT channel, not exactly a fan of his but he puts some good stuff on, he’s open to look into traffic junctions and cycle stuff too. He went to Dubai, New York and is thinking of going to Holland, which’ll be massively interesting to see a hardened motorist instructor see cycling mecca. I live about 6ml from this junction and the only time I’ve been thru it was on the road and to even think about doing the cycle lanes you’ve got to be crazy. Prior to this, it was a very straightforward roundabout and very quick too, what this council have done is 99% unpopular in the local area I can atest that.