Ashley Neal's 1st ride video (he gets left hooked)

Wait - did Ashley Neal put up a video of someone possibly committing an offense?

Isn't that just inciting division / fostering road rage?  He could just have passed it to the police!  I wonder if he's benefitting financially in any way from this vigilantism?

BTW I'm glad he's continuing to point out crap driving.  I disagree with some of his cycling opinions but on driving in general he seems to have good points, present them well and isn't afraid to call out unwise or dangerous behaviour even when doing so is clearly unpopular.

Shhh, he doesn't report them to the police so it is fine in PBU eyes. If these were actually recorded by Ashley and reported to the Police, then I'm sure he would have been hated by Socratic and boo, especially if he was more accepted by the rest of us as well. 

chrisonatrike wrote:

I wonder if he's benefitting financially in any way from this vigilantism?

Ashley Neal doesn't confront law breaking drivers like Cycling Mikey does. He just records it, doesn't bother reporting to the police, and uses it to make money educate drivers on youtube.

Imagine for instance if he, as a trainer of driving instructors, remonstrated with a driving instructor. The resentment and animosity that would be created between those two groups! It would be terrible when we should all just be trying to get along and create the best flow. oh wait... https://youtu.be/ZurmspspUSQ?t=552

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

The person is suing for loss of business and damage to character. 

Could he countersue for "You were driving like a ****"?

IanMSpencer wrote:

...As an advanced driver you are told to be wary of everything...

When I did IAM Skills For Life Advanced Driver years ago, the examiner (Police class 1 instructor) advised me after I'd passed to think of driving as "formation flying with hundreds of people you've never met" - then said that less than 2% of drivers on UK roads have done this, terrifying thought really. 

TBH I welcome his cycling videos IF he films himself being officially trained up the levels, first as a normal cyclist and finally as an instructor. Then, he might be worth listening to on using a bike on the road. Afterall, he has done this for being a Driving Instructor and is why he touts to be able to comment on videos.

But what I don't welcome is him stating he hasn't had close incidents on bikes when he literally named his "first" video of him cycling after a known close incident we experience, and shows it in the first 30 seconds and then doesn't acknowledge it at all. He even slams on his front brake. Yet when asked, he didn't consider it "as close as he had it under control." Just makes him out to be a liar to me as the exact same incidents have had Police Action and make up a good percentage of NMotD submissions. Also makes out he was only filming for the clicks and profit but that can't be right as only Mikey does that apparently.

Also showing videos of him tooting his horn in the normal way of use when he overtakes other slower vehicles to let them know he is there. I mean the cyclist one was because he believed they didn't know he was there, how does he know a horse rider has seen him, or a slow farm vehicle, or a lorry. 

When I took my motorcycle test many moons ago I did a training course with professional instructors. They advised me to treat every 'cage' driver as someone out to get me. This was sound advice. Of course, not ever car/van/truck/bus driver is out to get you, but if you assume they are then you'll maintain awareness at a higher level. 

Curiously enough, taking my motorcycle test taught me a lot about driving a car more safely as well. I already had a car licence but the motorcycle training was just so much better for hazard awareness. I know that vehicle insurance firms often offer cheaper car insurance rates for motorcyclsits because the insurance firms have crunched the data and this shows motorcyclists in general are better car drivers.

According to a peer reviewed paper published by the Transport Research Laboratory, cyclists also make better drivers. If it was up to me, the driving test would include a compulsory cycle training portion. Disabled riders would be offered the option of a hand cycle/trike if appropriate. I'd also make the cycle training retrospective, so that existing licence holders would have to undergo it when renewing licences, unless able to demonstrate that they had extensive cycling experience (such as through having a long road racing history or holding BC coaching certification for example). 

OldRidgeback wrote:

Curiously enough, taking my motorcycle test taught me a lot about driving a car more safely as well. I already had a car licence but the motorcycle training was just so much better for hazard awareness.

This was the case for me too. Although I had been driving for several years, I realised that I needed to be even more vigilant all of the time. I also had to take more notice of static hazards like grip (more specifically a sudden reduction of it), camber, white lines etc.

My kids have been taught not to trust drivers or assume they will do what is correct but to assume that they are all idiots because it only takes one idiot to kill you. Despite us not travelling in the car a great deal, they have witnessed plenty of stupid, unnecessary and even dangerous driving; on the upside, this does at least reinforce my point.

I really hope that Mr Neal (and other drivers & instructors) take on board some of the many constructive comments in this discussion.

Yes, yes, yes and yes basically. My kids are both very keen cyclists and I'd like to think their hazard perception is good too. My younger one is getting driving lessons and has a test booked for October. I'd like to think he'll be a safe driver. I've drilled into both my kids the need for safe road use and that if they want to drive flat out, track days are not too expensive. My eldest is taking his first driving lesson this week. 

They will also need to avoid peer pressure. The mates they will be giving lifts to will be pressing them to go faster etc. In that instance, just remind them that the driver is the one who gets done, not the passengers. 

Yes indeed, I'm aware of this. I remember when I first got my car licence and being pressed by my friends to overtake more.

OldRidgeback wrote:

Yes indeed, I'm aware of this. I remember when I first got my car licence and being pressed by my friends to overtake more.

I've been driving for nearly eighteen years, and I can count on one hand the number of times i have overtaken another car while driving a car on anything other than a motorway...

One of the pleasures of driving in Weardale was being able to do a proper overtake within the speed limit, plenty of visibility, going through the full Roadcraft process. Totally uneventful, yet it seems that to pass a cyclist it is imperative to use full throttle, break the speed limit and ignore the principles applied when overtaking motor traffic (including checking for oncoming traffic). There are few roads around where I am where it is even legal to overtake, and where it is it rare that a driver ahead will be driving far enough below the speed limit to make an overtake safe and legitimate. 

brooksby wrote:

OldRidgeback wrote:

Yes indeed, I'm aware of this. I remember when I first got my car licence and being pressed by my friends to overtake more.

I've been driving for nearly eighteen years, and I can count on one hand the number of times i have overtaken another car while driving a car on anything other than a motorway...

no A road dual carriageways where you live?

OldRidgeback wrote:

According to a peer reviewed paper published by the Transport Research Laboratory, cyclists also make better drivers. . 

I seem to recall the same applying to cyclists (although the intereference ffrom non cyclists tries to suggest otherwsie). Who would have thought, using the roads where the consequences of a collision are serious injury makes people more aware of the hazards around them?

No, there are still some of the comments about on other threads.

OldRidgeback wrote:

No, there are still some of the comments about on other threads.

Not direct comments from him though, only where other people have quoted him. His removal was confirmed to me last night by the site mods - along with the sensible request that if (as is sadly likely) he surfaces again, don't engage with him but report at once and he wil be dealt with.

The only worry is we do not know which is which. NotoEU for example, (who strangely likes to stay out of politics apart from having the most politically dividing username on here), got tarred as being him. And any other 1 post who comes on with a comment not agreed with will be as well. 

I suppose don't reply to any of them? 

The one posters who are clearly there as a WUM probabaly need a few robust responses. The ones this year haven't lasted beyond the thread they started in.

Garage did ok until the live blog of 1 july when he outed himself to the both of us - an extended discussion in a short space of time meant they reverted to type as it was too hard to keep up the persona.

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

The only worry is we do not know which is which. NotoEU for example, (who strangely likes to stay out of politics apart from having the most politically dividing username on here), got tarred as being him. And any other 1 post who comes on with a comment not agreed with will be as well. 

I suppose don't reply to any of them? 

I was guity of that too (for which I apologise to NotoEU). I guess engage until obvious trollhood appears; in the case of Nigel, the cloven hoof will always pop out sooner rather than later as part of the way he gets his troll jollies is letting people know that he has "cleverly" circumvented any ban and will always drop subtle [sic] hints ("leafy Essex", "courteous behaviour" etc). I shouldn't have been hooked really but when someone starts directly attacking one using stalkery quotes from other social media and making personal comments about one's wife it's hard to keep schtum.

NOtotheEU wrote:

It's not so much staying out of politics as believing most politicians are liars who all have the same agenda. They put on a show of disagreeing with each other to get our votes but basically they are all part of the same system which does little to improve the lives of regular people.

As for Brexit I was encouraged that most people seem to have voted on their beliefs rather than along party lines whether they were for or against, showing how pointless political parties really are. I certainly have no malice towards Remainers so I try to avoid slanging matches and hope most of my comments are constructive, or occasionally funny.

I hadn't considered Brexit in that light - that's a good way of looking at it.

Totally agree about political parties and I think we should bin them and the first-past-the-post system. It's a a conundrum, though, on how we can push through political changes without somehow getting politicians to work together, so maybe political parties is the least worst option although I'd much prefer to see data-driven policies rather than populist fakery.

It's funny that the party which is so dedicated to retaining first past the post for elections by the public, has such a complicated and multilayered procedure for selecting their own party leader...

brooksby wrote:

It's funny that the party which is so dedicated to retaining first past the post for elections by the public, has such a complicated and multilayered procedure for selecting their own party leader...

I saw some post the other day where someone used a VPN to connect via a different country and was still able to pay £5 to vote for the new Conservative leader. I don't know how true it was, but some people raised the point that it's an easy way of funnelling dark money into their coffers which made me think that there could be a reason for the loophole.

Edit: Found it: https://www.reddit.com/r/GreenAndPleasant/comments/w63e0r/aita_for_rigging_the_tory_leadership_election/

(You would have to sign up at least three months ago to be able to vote)

hawkinspeter wrote:

...someone used a VPN to connect via a different country and was still able to pay £5 to vote for the new Conservative leader ...

See - they're not just based on some antiquated hereditary system of privelege now!  As many Russians (and other honest business people) know you get the Conservative party* you pay for.

* Other parties are available for hire.