"More than primary encourages an undertake": Footballer-turned-driving instructor Ashley Neal questions cyclist's positioning (+ concerning police response); Bigham the Bounty basher?; London's most dangerous borough for collisions + more on the live blog

This is discussed in the speeding vs drunk driving article.

https://road.cc/content/news/speeding-should-be-unacceptable-drink-drivi...

Apparently the speed limit used to be 40 along this stretch of road.

Doesn't explain the driver awareness course for 50 in a 30 though.

So his lesson was not to be aware of the speed limit, or to drive with awareness and notice the many signs indicating the current speed limit, but to appeal to the driverist magistrate's "common sense"

"I was only speeding slightly" - dealt with a long time ago (and probably every few years for over a century).

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2012/04/sorry-i-was-speeding-slightly.html

I think this is a key point. We mention that there are bad drivers and bad cyclists. The difference is Bad Cyclists stand out and Bad Drivers blend in.

The cycling community?
Did you not get the memo that the village hall is in use tonight for fireworks?
Did you bring the parkin ?

The trouble is, tucking in to the left at the point where the car was trying to get past, puts you right in the door zone of a car that has just pulled up; so a very high chance of door being flung open. That's not safer.

That was also the only opportunity to move back to the left, as the car was already by then trying to undertake, so moving across their path would have been very risky.

This is Ashley's advice for this situation and I think it is wrong.

https://youtu.be/5PZt7uKUrSg?t=205

Quote:

"If I was on a bike, what I would have done, I probably would have positioned near or on or just over the centre line of the road, and if the other vehicle behind had decided to come past, I would have slowed it down, tucked it in to the left a little bit, allowed the situation to clear and then got on with my day."

If the cyclist had tucked in to the left a bit and allowed the situation to clear, how close would that following vehicle have been passing her? It certainly wouldn't have been more that five feet, would it, and she would have been well into the Door Zone of Death... So rather than the motorist waiting for the few seconds it would take for the cyclist (who is in front, and therefore has priority) to clear the parked cars, Ashley Neal is recommending that she put herself purposely at greater risk just for the convenience of that motorist...? That would be a hard 'No' from me 

Well, I suppose there are a lot of gressingham ducks your way !

Fish

You haven't been to one of the local fairs.  Clearly the reference is to something that's easy to see but hard to catch.  It's a very large barrel but they've got it on a swing so there are waves in it.

I must say I didn't think much of their version of bobbing for apples though.

Excellent summary. Thank you. The only thing omitted is the poor road surface which was briefly mentioned,  presumably the reason the cyclist gave for riding so far out.

As for the terra bytes I'm sure many of us would be very interested to see some examples of how the police responded to your reports, especially those where some action was taken.

on the road surface bit weirdly I think riding their kind of prime line forces you over the worst bits of it, the better line at that point would be over to the left nearer the centre line, but then they adopted a similar "extended" prime when the road surface was fine so Im not sure if theyre just adopting a position on the road as a default prime, or actually avoiding a bad road surface.

as for my own videos, I ought to clarify its not terabytes of stuff Ive submitted to the police, I only submit a tiny fraction that I qualify as fearing I was going to be hit as a result of the pass, subsequently bar the Covid period everything Ive submitted except 1 resulted in a NIP, and the 1 NFA was when I learnt they dont prosecute close passes if you are in a marked cycle lane.

the bulk of the rest of the stuff I keep (and I dont really know why I keep it I guess its hard to let it go), its still full of close passes, left hooks,dangerous driving that Im sure alot would still get NIPS, most would be left in that grey area in between seen some given, seen some not, and I guess the question is why I dont submit them.

but that whole process I just find mentally challenging & depressing, I just want to ride my bike and enjoy riding the bike, not get home after a ride, have to review hours of footage focussing on the bad stuff again to judge on reviewing is that too close or not, was it a mistake was it deliberate, was I in the wrong position, did I do something wrong, fill in another form and deal with all the stress and angst it causes me,  which is why I totally refute the idea as a cyclist with a camera I video any of my rides just for social media clicks, and also why Ill never share them.

Awavey wrote:

the bulk of the rest of the stuff I keep (and I dont really know why I keep it I guess its hard to let it go), its still full of close passes, left hooks,dangerous driving that Im sure alot would still get NIPS, most would be left in that grey area in between seen some given, seen some not, and I guess the question is why I dont submit them.

but that whole process I just find mentally challenging & depressing, I just want to ride my bike and enjoy riding the bike, not get home after a ride, have to review hours of footage focussing on the bad stuff again to judge on reviewing is that too close or not, was it a mistake was it deliberate, was I in the wrong position, did I do something wrong, fill in another form and deal with all the stress and angst it causes me,  which is why I totally refute the idea as a cyclist with a camera I video any of my rides just for social media clicks, and also why Ill never share them.

I don't bother holding onto bike footage, despite being a data hoarder. I also don't bother reviewing footage unless there's been a notable incident and if I look at it and think "doesn't look so bad on the footage", then I don't bother keeping it at all. Just keep the bits that you've submitted sections from and it's not worth keeping it for more than two years, I would guess.

theyve reviewed the wrong vehicle pass havent they ?

I'm not sure. Previous reports suggest any old excuse to do nothing.

Can I put forward a question for debate?

What's the difference between:

1. A cycling YouTuber capturing clear video evidence of a driver using a mobile phone and submitting to the police using the proper channel for justice.
2. A driving YouTuber capturing poor quality dashcam video when they have a hunch, but no clear evidence, of a driver using a mobile phone and submitting it to social media for informal shaming.

Joint interview maybe?

Then maybe you can answer some questions back.

Why do you use your youtube channel for money generation by showing clips, yet complain a cyclist, who did submit this to the Police first is only filming for Youtube?
Why do you think you should not submit bad driving examples you have filmed to the Police? (But instead put them on your channel). Surely as a driving safety advocate, removing the worst of it is a priority? 
Why did you state you have never had a close call on a bike or in a car, but in one cycle video in 2020 you showed a car pulling out, and then when you recently went back to cycling, you entitled your first one Left Hooked and had to brake when you were? These are the exact things that appear on Road.cc that you have complained about in the past.
Why do you feel it is safe to drive and talk to the camera? Surely you trying to get the script straight whilst also driving and looking at the camera is a distraction. It is more akin to speaking on a mobile phone then someone sitting in the car, which studies have shown even with hands-free reduces awareness. 

Perfect responses. I'm happy to answer any questions separately but this video isn't going to be about me. 

Shame. I would have also asked if you can tell Martin how much money you make from Youtube as he hates people posting videos on there and earning from it. (Well only if a cyclist does it, if a driver does it he doesn't seem to be bothered. This is not a surprise as he defends people speeding at traffic lights if they turn amber, states lets ignore road deaths as they unfairly sway to motor vehicles and thinks it is ok for a lorry to drive at a cyclist on the wrong side of the road). 

BTW, the previous geezer who used to defend you who we warned you was racist was banned for racism again. Shame you felt the need to not believe us then because we are cyclists.

"Shame you felt the need to not believe us then because we are cyclists" Wow.

.

Ash, I've said before, you are completely wasting your time coming on to this site and expecting to have a reasonable / informed / balanced discussion.

.

Again:

Rule no. 1 - cyclists are never wrong.

Rule no. 2. - if ever a cyclist is in fact wrong (very rare, but hypothetically), then see Rule no. 1 above.

.

Flintshire Boy wrote:

.

Ash, I've said before, you are completely wasting your time coming on to this site and expecting to have a reasonable / informed / balanced discussion.

.

Again:

Rule no. 1 - cyclists are never wrong.

Rule no. 2. - if ever a cyclist is in fact wrong (very rare, but hypothetically), then see Rule no. 1 above.

.

Yeah, that's why a lot of the commentors (including myself, who has been critical of a lot of Ashley's cycling takes in the past) have generally agreed with his analysis here.