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

chrisonatrike wrote:

Unfortunately the thread (and a couple of others it seems) has been left-hooked and now no-one's thinking about what we were doing before that.

Yep - perhaps now we can get back to nailing down the arrangements for the next Evil Cycling Lobby meeting.

I get your point about collective responsibility but the editor of this piece mentions a "German SUV". I've had a few of them, what's the difference?

The difference is a cyclist who views "German SUV" owners as a group will be wary of them with no power to intimidate or endanger them. A "German SUV" owner who views cyclists as a collective can be terrifying and dangerous.

I'm wary of all cyclists when I'm driving. That makes things safer. Things can work in different ways.

I don't think you understand what "wary" means here Ashley. You might well think cyclists are unpredictable, or need to be thought about, or given a wide berth, but I am pretty confident you don't think they could kill you. Sadly the same is not true for cars when I am on my bike. I guess the "German SUV" stereotype is a stereotype, but it might be broadly true: someone stupid enough to buy a car which is less safe than types, and or a brand which is far more expensive than equivalent types might well be, on average at least, a worse driver.

Thanks for the reply! I don't take offence to things like that, in fact there's not much I do take offence to. 

The key to all poor decision making is the human element and we're all in that one together.

Thanks for your support (especially on here!)

His basic education and on topic stuff is excellent. He also is relatable to the audience we as cyclists want to improve behaviour.

Unfortunately, he goes outside his field of expertise and at times I don't think he perceives how some of his throwaway remarks come across - and how charged the motoring fraternity on the Internet is, as someone commented below, you have UK Dashcams putting out dozens of videos of plonkers in killing machines doing their level best to kill people, but it is often the cyclist clip that will garner the most comments (not that they didn't deserve criticism).

As an example of Ashley not necessarily setting a great example, watch his Tesla video on using what is essentially cruise control. He starts out by saying it is unsafe and unusable, and then proceeds to demonstrate this on the public highway, including driving across junctions saying "I would have slowed down there". So he has actually filmed himself driving without due care.

At several times, Ashley was not in control of his car and was allowing it to drive in a way which was below the standard of a reasonable and careful driver. Did he need to demonstrate that the feature was not fit for purpose on the public highway? Was that wise? Clicks won out over common sense.

Moreover, the fundamental premise was flawed. I doubt anyone would suggest cruise control was ever a suitable device for driving in urban traffic, even with distance protection (adaptive cruise). Allowing your speed to be determined by the car in front, even within the speed limit, rather than the surroundings is wrong. Speed limiters are an appropriate device and I find them useful to allow me to concentrate on surroundings rather than needing to check how fast I am going (a quiet modern automatic with a torquey low revving diesel gives very little feedback on what actual speed you are going). The idea of allowing a car to accelerate in a built up area based on the car's perception, whether it is a sketchy Tesla or some other smart cruise control, rather than the drivers perception is something I can't get my head around even being on the agenda.

I don't think that he realises that many cyclists do thousands of miles a year (my recent average since retirement is about 5000 miles a year) and that this represents many more hours on the road than a driver for a similar distance. (I now cycle further than I drive in a year).Similarly, a motorist driving a 20 mile round trip commute outside London might interact with a handful of cyclists, some may never see a cyclist on many of their usual journeys. A cyclist interacts with hundreds of cars on every ride. Which group might have a better idea of what the other group might do in any given circumstance? Do cyclists shout at cars simply for using the road correctly - no of course not - but being shouted at simply for riding a bike legally and carefully causing no impediment to motorists is a normal occurrence. That's before we get into the number of careless or deliberate dangerous interactions we have. I've mentioned that simply shouting "Whoa!" in surprise at a driver overtaking skimming past an oncoming car within inches of a collision is enough to be subjected to a foul-mouthed lesson on road usage as perceived by an aggressive and probably drunk van driver. How many times has Ashley been assaulted for driving correctly on the road - I know I am not the only one! Boasting about such behaviour is socially acceptable too.

Similarly, I don't think he is very good at understanding the subtleties of posting on forums. For someone who likes to talk about diffusing situations when he is driving, even if the other road user is in the wrong, he's lobbed a few hand grenades around here, and I'm not sure he knows he's done it. On the horn example, he's just suggested that he's not been listened to, but several people explained what the problem was and his response was simply that we were wrong in a fairly condescending manner but he didn't give a proper explanation as to why from a cyclists perspective (how could he?), we are just supposed to be able to tell that the 110 decibels a few feet from our ear is friendly and helpful.

There are videos planned to mythbust your perception of the loudness of the horn approaching anyone, including cyclists. I got criticised I didn't listen, but you didn't listen to me either. Quite ironic.

In the video you talk about with the Tesla, I never let risk become unmanageable. I was always in control.

Just because you cycle 5000 miles a year doesn't mean you are good at it, think of motorists who do similar. They think they are good also.

I've been approached many times in my car (while teaching mainly) for driving correctly. Have a look at "Road Rage Parent" for an example, where I even talk about my own mistake during the interaction.

Some people don't act in a way that does the cycling community any favours, they create division instead. Road.cc is usually one of the prime examples.

Ashley, 

Talking about always being in control... When you drive and do your bits to camera, isn't that just as bad as driving with a mobile? Afterall, you are thinking about being perfect for the scene and not slipping over your speech and I expect you have to do several takes. You might be thinking you are in control but research has shown that even using hands free, you are less attentive to the roads. So isn't these an example when you think you are in control but might be less so? I also hate this with news items with "normal" drivers as well.

Ashley Neal wrote:

Just because you cycle 5000 miles a year doesn't mean you are good at it, think of motorists who do similar. They think they are good also.

There's a qualitative difference between driving 5000 miles a year and cycling the same distance. Whilst driving, you would have to be actively seeking to improve your observation and traffic prediction skills (which the best drivers will be doing) but on a bike you are pretty much forced to deal with sub-standard driving on most journeys.

Ashley Neal wrote:

Some people don't act in a way that does the cycling community any favours, they create division instead. Road.cc is usually one of the prime examples.

The biggest problem in the "cycling community" (more of an anarcho-syndicalist commune really) is the sheer amount of tripe that gets published in certain mainstream media outlets. Murdoch-owned papers are particularly bad in continually pushing an anti-cyclist agenda and even so-called impartial sources like the BBC are pursuing an agenda of barely mentioning the advantages of active travel and instead pushing electric cars instead. Notably, e-scooters are treated in a similar fashion to bikes with the media attention being mainly negative whilst ignoring the huge problems that come with personal cars.

To be honest, most of the time people bang on about "creating division", they're merely getting agitated about the out-group (cyclists) not quite towing the party line. Certainly, comparing the KSIs caused by motorists on a daily basis with the posts of a few people on Road.cc would suggest to me that people are focussing on the wrong issue by invoking "division". It's similar to the mantra of "share the road" which only seems to be used to ignore the valid complaints of cyclists.

Ultimately, we want drivers to stop killing people.

hawkinspeter wrote:

The biggest problem in the "cycling community" (more of an anarcho-syndicalist commune really)

Looking forward to my turn being executive officer for the week, though of course my decisions will have to be ratified by the bi-weekly meetings, by a simple majority in the case of purely internal decisions but by a two-thirds majority in the case of external matters.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Looking forward to my turn being executive officer for the week, though of course my decisions will have to be ratified by the bi-weekly meetings, by a simple majority in the case of purely internal decisions but by a two-thirds majority in the case of external matters.

Bloody peasant!

hawkinspeter wrote:

Rendel Harris wrote:

Looking forward to my turn being executive officer for the week, though of course my decisions will have to be ratified by the bi-weekly meetings, by a simple majority in the case of purely internal decisions but by a two-thirds majority in the case of external matters.

Bloody peasant!

Ooh what a giveaway!

Rendel Harris wrote:

Looking forward to my turn being executive officer for the week, though of course my decisions will have to be ratified by the bi-weekly meetings, by a simple majority in the case of purely internal decisions but by a two-thirds majority in the case of external matters.

 

"Rendel Harris" my arse! You are either Rishi Sunak or Liz Truss and I claim my £5.

I thought we meet the first Friday of every month in the parish hall.

You must part of the Deep State in cycling.

hirsute wrote:

I thought we meet the first Friday of every month in the parish hall.

You must part of the Deep State in cycling.

They told me we're meeting at Taco Bell. Does the UK even have those?

I don't need to mythbust my perception of horns, I know what it is like to be on the receiving end on a regular basis and I don't like it, I never find it helpful, and 95% of horn soundings that I receive are clearly not intended to be helpful. It is often unsettling because the majority of horn soundings are also accompanied by aggressive driving. I've told you that previously and your response is simply to declare I am wrong - and you've just done it again.

I quite agree about mileage does not equal expertise, but bearing in mind your comment about not having an opinion on what you don't know, you've written a snidey little put down there. My comments on your video are based on what you've published. I've justified my comments on your published work. You've implied I may not be a capable road user. However, the point remains, my experience is hundreds of thousands, (millions even?), of car interactions while riding a bike, how many interactions does a typical driver have with cyclists?

With regard to control while producing your videos, you should know that there is solid research about how difficult it is for the brain to task switch. When you are commentating a drive, you are fundamentally engaged with the driving task. When you drive around chatting about something else, you are doing two different tasks. Your brain gives the misleading illusion that you are able to concentrate on what you are talking about and what is going on around you. I also note you've invented your own rule to justify driving with one hand on the wheel as you gesticulate, getting animated about your subject rather than the task in hand. I very much doubt that it would pass muster on an assessment, because one of the objectives is having maximum control at all times - why would you plan to do otherwise? The concept of not having to worry about 2 hands on the wheel because of assessing reduced risk is your own invention, and is an idea that you are putting in the minds of your viewers. A number of your talks to camera are simply that, you are simply driving to create a background. Why do you think it is appropriate to do a talk to camera while driving around as opposed to sitting in your car, parked at the side of the road? In the examples I am thinking of, the driving in the background is irrelevant.

Anyway, as I've said, I think the majority of your stuff is good. But your interactions here aren't covering yourself in glory. I don't think you've grasped the fundamental. You as a driver have been on the receiving end of aggression due to your driving (thinking of the Audi tailgate clip). You talk about de-escalation and providing space, from the safety of your locked box. As a cyclist, if we receive the same intimidating driving, and it is the same, the potential impact is orders of magnitude different and the tools we have to mitigate are limited. Given that difference, of course cyclists are sensitive and intolerant of the standard of driving around them - stuff you brush off as annoying, we see as threatening and dangerous to us.

IanMSpencer wrote:

I don't need to mythbust my perception of horns, I know what it is like to be on the receiving end on a regular basis and I don't like it, I never find it helpful, and 95% of horn soundings that I receive are clearly not intended to be helpful. It is often unsettling because the majority of horn soundings are also accompanied by aggressive driving.

Agreed - I get a sudden rush of adrenaline if I'm cycling and hear a car horn as 9 times out of 10 there's an aggressive driver behind it, usually shouting obscenities about some made up rule of the road that they believe.

I'd expect most experienced cyclists get some kind of post-traumatic reaction to car horns.

9 times out of 10! How dare you group my non aggressive "pip" in with this cohort.

Ashley Neal wrote:

9 times out of 10! How dare you group my non aggressive "pip" in with this cohort.

Well, I don't think of you as an aggressive driver, so apologies for that.

Use of a car horn is problematic as they don't have much subtlety and they are only supposed to be used to announce "I AM HERE". It's annoying to get beeped at on a bike when the vehicle is behind you as there's little you can do. If there's not enough room for a safe overtake, then how is the cyclist supposed to act?

I've occasionally had a driver beep at me on the road and my initial adrenaline powered reaction is to start getting annoyed and then have spotted that the driver is someone I know who's just trying to communicate a friendly "hi there".

Whilst personally I don't interpret a courtesy beep (from a long way back) e.g on a country road as anything other than the HC meaning as a warning of presence, I would suggest as a standard rule just don't do it because 9 times out of 10* the horn is used to intimidate, rebuke, threaten and alarm. After a while you get conditioned to associate the sound of a car horn at close quarters with someone engaged in a shitty piece of driving which could cause you harm.

https://youtu.be/nS1Rnwjzdl4

*Not official statistical data.

Sadly those of us who regularly cycle have become accustomed to the horn being used as a form of bullying and intolerance. I've put this down mainly to the motorists (not all) mindset that those who cycle should only do so in the local park. I also think that since the horn shifted from the indicator stalk to the hub of the steering wheel it actually takes a lot more pressure to sound it resulting in a more aggressive tone. Also horns themselves seem to have more decibels today than 30 years ago. 

giff77 wrote:

Sadly those of us who regularly cycle have become accustomed to the horn being used as a form of bullying and intolerance. I've put this down mainly to the motorists (not all) mindset that those who cycle should only do so in the local park. I also think that since the horn shifted from the indicator stalk to the hub of the steering wheel it actually takes a lot more pressure to sound it resulting in a more aggressive tone. Also horns themselves seem to have more decibels today than 30 years ago. 

I remember reading about pedestrians seeing the dinging of a bike bell as often hostile, so maybe we all need a better way of warning others of our presence.

Yelling "Oi!" might work.

I've read a couple of similar reports on that one as well. In some ways I can agree of the perception that some pedestrians have of the bell being aggressive. I've witnessed when out walking cyclists pinging a bell like there was no tomorrow and it comes across as a strident out of my way announcement. And usually done at speed. 

On the rare occasions I use shared paths I'll ping from at least 10 metres out and scrub my speed until I'm past. It allows them to bring their animals to heel if they have one. I will slow down more and ring again if they've  not heard and maybe call out politely. I find that this usually works and only on the rare occasion will I encounter a stubborn pedestrian who refuses to budge. 

I don't have an issue with the intent behind your "pip" Ashley. The problem though is that the intent is not always obvious to the recipient. My instinctive reaction to hearing a horn behind me is to look over my shoulder - and that is not always conducive to holding a steady line when someone is overtaking.