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

NOtotheEU wrote:

Jenova20 wrote:

 

I think you'd have a different experience after cycling in Birmingham for a few days. The drivers are absolutely trying to kill cyclists.

It's not just me then, a lot of Brummie drivers really are dangerous lunatics.

Birmingham is statistically the most dangerous city in the UK for cyclists. Kind of glad I moved. Though, at the same time this might validate my confusion at the amount of dangerous driving i was constantly exposed to and reporting to WMP.

Source: https://road.cc/content/news/where-are-britains-safest-cities-cycling-29...

I kind of liked it, I was there for a few years either side of the millennium, I thought coming back to Reading, drivers were worse and then those around Farnborough really sucked.

Where did you go to if you don't mind me asking? Less hilly place then the Black Country?

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

Where did you go to if you don't mind me asking? Less hilly place then the Black Country?

Arnold, Nottingham.

No cycling infrastructure at all, and many of the roads look like the surface of the moon. So far reported one dangerous driver, and the police actually responded and said it was bad enough to take action...That's never happened with any of the 150+ police reports i made to WMP.

Ashley Neale, I suspect that if you ask, a huge majority of cyclists will tell you they perceive the use of the horn as a threatening act. I acknowledge that isn't how it is supposed to be taken according to the highway code. So the questions are how did we get where we are and how do we solve the issue?

The first is easy, we got where we are because a lot of use of the horn around cyclists feels intended to intimidate and is accompanied by other forms of aggression such as close passing, verbal abuse, items being thrown out of windows at you etc. Simply saying use a friendly toot won't help unless we somehow remove the belief that all use of the horn is aggressive. My flight or fight response is triggered by use of the horn around me, my heart rate spikes because in the past it has lead to me being struck by a passenger in a passing vehicle.

The how we solve this question is more difficult and I would be interested to hear your thoughts as I honestly am sick and tired of the aggression I face simply for riding a bike and would love it to end.

Just for context, I am an experienced cyclist of 45 years plus, who cycles a range of city, urban and rural roads on a regular basis. I count myself as a confident rider, willing to take control of the road when I need to do so to ensure my safety but also willing to assist car drivers to make good progress when safe to do so. I have never been hit by or hit a car though I have had several near misses. I put the clean accident record down to luck first, second and third with help from a reasonable sense of self preservation and learning from experience over the last 45 years.

In most situations horn use towards cyclists is threatening, but not by me. We're fighting a losing battle if the correct use is criticised so nobody is setting the right example. 

The correct use of the horn is not to use it unless there's imminent danger. If you use it for any other purpose, it loses its impact.

I'm afraid the battle is already lost when it comes to correct use and the police are not going to enforce it. Beeping at cyclists who are riding predictably and within the law is not setting the right example.

If you want to give a cyclist a quick toot because they're riding 2-abreast and you think they should move into single file, then go ahead. But PLEASE don't teach people that this is an acceptable practice. You have heard from many cyclists who would not be sure how to interpret this based on their past experiences with aggressive drivers. So if nothing else, please accept that the waters are muddy here and you should be treading carefully.

You are very much in the minority and you are correct that a loosing battle is being fought over the correct use of the horn. Until instructors emphasise the correct use of the horn during lessons to their pupils and you and your peers do the same through your various channels in refreshing driving knowledge. Then we are going to get pretty much nowhere. 

In the last year Ive only experienced a polite toot and that was when I pulled to the side on a country lane to let a driver by. Every other occasion was pretty much a get out of the way blast or a angry you've kept me back blast. 
 

If you use your horn frequently only for the intended HC purpose to warn other road users of your presence then you might ask yourself why you repeatedly manage to get yourself into situations where that is necessary.

Ashley Neal wrote:

In most situations horn use towards cyclists is threatening, but not by me. We're fighting a losing battle if the correct use is criticised so nobody is setting the right example. 

How do you get this polite toot thing from a car horn? You have only one variable - the length of time the horn is switched on. There's no volume control, no tone of voice. So you rely on a quick tap of the switch. But that's not as effective as you may think, and you may still make me jump, as I'm not enclosed in a box that NVH engineers have spent lots of time making quiet.

One of the things I learnt from pilot training is that surprises are dangerous, especially when your life is at stake. Adrenaline will impede ability to make a thoughtful reaction. So even your skilful polite toot could have unintended consequences, and most cyclists won't welcome it.

And that's without the other thought - that if a driver is hooting to get me to change my road position so he can squeeze past, that's contrary to the spirit of the recent HC changes, which make it clear that I can decide when it is safe for the driver to pass me. As well as being very intimidating.

I accept you don't use the horn in a threatening way, that wasn't ever in doubt. I guess my issue is that I have been conditioned by experience over the last decade or so to treat use of the horn as an intimidatory tactic and my body now acts accordingly (fight or flight). Is that my problem? Partly, yes but it also causes a problem for your idea of a warning beep since unless we first reduce the perception amongst cyclists that the horn is a threatening act then all your suggestion will do is increase conflict. This will be counterproductive as drivers who are genuinely trying to reduce potential risk suddenly find themselves in conflict situations. That's not a situation that either of us wants to end up in.

I posted this comment on the YouTube vid, my question is what do you expect the cyclists to do with the information? I can't really see how they can respond in a safe manner so I struggle to see the point.

.

'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.'

.

Dear God, Ashley, that is SO true.

.

Those on this site who are bike fascists will not allow that a cyclist is EVER in the wrong.

.

Flintshire Boy wrote:

Those on this site who are bike fascists will not allow that a cyclist is EVER in the wrong.

Whereas those on this site who are actual fascists or close to it (alt-right Trumpists etc) will virtually never allow that a cyclist is ever in the right.

As ever, the question is why do you infest this site when you hate it and the vast majority of its adherents so much? All you ever do is moan about it and us yet every day you're back for more moaning.

Rendel Harris wrote:

All you ever do is moan about it and us yet every day you're back for more moaning.

Does that make him a re-moaner?

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.

So should driver infractions involving a cyclist not be reported or discussed on a cycling news website? Who is causing this 'division' when most cyclists - including most of us posting on road.cc - are also drivers?

And what is this 'cycling community'? Where do I join and what do I get in return? Is there a 'driver community' that is answerable for the many people I see daily doing 40-50 mph in 30 zones? Is there a 'pedestrian community' that should be held responsible for the dogshit and litter that appear on pavements?

Or is it that your opinions are because you view cyclists in particular as an out-group?

I think my take on Ashley and how he has been received here is that he actually is reflecting the perceptions of the motoring community (whatever that is).

He's made a variety of comments here that suggest he perceives the whole cycling community as poor quality road users, who therefore as drivers transfer their poor quality cycling skills to that task.

He knows that in the past I have achieved Advanced Driver status, and although I would not claim to be at that level now (I could probably turn it on for an assessment and maintain a higher level of observation, speed awareness and car control, but haven't continued reassessment and have times where I assess myself as driving below standard) but he's been dismissive of my comments. I think that is for two reasons, he perceives me as a cyclist, therefore I must be a poor quality road user by definition, and secondly, I disagree with him. In fact, when I pointed out that a cyclist does not perceive the intent of the noise of a horn, he used my mention of having passed an advanced driver test to dismiss my contention - how could someone who could claim to have the qualities of an advance driver not divine his intent in sounding the horn? Therefore I am a poor quality road user as a cyclist and don't deserve my advanced driver accreditation (to be fair, I don't, IAM don't do reassessment yet allow you to retain the status) rather than it being "there is a chance that he has thought this through."

I think it doesn't take many postings to work out the nature of people. I've made the comment that Ashley doesn't handle himself well on forums - I've got 30 years of experience back from CompuServe days and developed skills as a moderator back in the 90s so I see the mistakes he makes. For an example, he makes a claim that he doesn't have opinions on what he hadn't seen but simply accepts GE is a reasonable person, and is very open to the 3 very identifiable anti-cycling posters (the 2 are obvious and we have a fairly recent poster who has consistently taken the side against cyclists - anyone who suggests that a cyclist who is swiped off his bike by a motorist at high speed when they are correctly on the road is at fault for their own downfall alerts my Spidey senses) comments uncritically - all along with numerous comments that we are a nasty bunch here. Yet I perceive the discussions here as quite open and constructive - even if there is a cynical resignation to our fate as cyclists. I also note he's been negative about road.cc generally but never engaged with the comments that made some criticisms of the video he posted. That creates a poor impression because it says to me he has dismissed the comments on his riding because he has already dismissed the views here views as without value, he's come here because someone has tipped him off and he wants to know what people are saying about him, and he's a bit miffed rather than engaging positively.

I think Ashley is a good presenter, specifically because he is relatable to his audience, but I don't think he is a great analyst. I don't have a problem with that, we all have different strengths, but a man's gotta know his limitations, especially when they put themselves in the public eye.

I even went to the effort to contact Ashley via his driving school website as the nature of the postings here, under his name, seemed very out of character and at odds with the mostly considered opinions on his driving videos. He confirmed that these are indeed his postings.

I think what he demonstrates is that while he has experience as a driving instructor and can even relate to the shitty driving some other road users demonstrate around learner drivers that he does not yet have enough experience as a cyclist to understand that the same aggression, impatience and poor driving standards deeply affect the way that regular cyclists perceive dangers on the road. Use of horn being one such naive assumption. Further that as a cyclist you have far less "road authority" to control the space around you no matter how carefully you judge use of primary, secondary or any other lane position. I too have done IAM at various times, qualified as a motorcycle instructor and drive. In around 10 years of using dashcams I have no close calls or run- ins with other road users. However, on the bicycle I report a couple of incidents a year on average and have been on the wrong end of a hit and run, well two if you count the deliberate brake check where I went into the back of the car.

IanMSpencer wrote:

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).

My car has adaptive cruise control and also a speed limiter.  Now obviously the technology varies a little bit with different manufacturers, but I find the speed limiter is completely unusable.

I can easily set the speed limiter to my current speed, just the same as with cruise control - but setting it to a chosen speed is nigh on impossible, because the increments are in 1mph - so if I see a change from 30 to 20 mph, I'd have to press the down button 10 times (or hold it for a long period so that it does a 10mph - and hope, or watch it to make sure, that it doesn't do two jumps. The speed limiter will only limit my acceleration, and not decelerate when I set a lower speed. To maintain a steady speed, I need to keep my foot on the accelerator.

With adapative cruise control, I decide what speed is safe, and set the target speed accordingly - it then gently accelerate or brakes to reach that speed. It maintains a safe distance from the vehicle in front (a larger gap than most motorists allow), however it doesn't always detect cyclists, particularly if they are cycling close to the kerb or in a cycle lane, so I need to be aware of that. If I see (say) a change speed limit from 30 to 20, I just tap the speed down button twice and by the time I reach the new limit, it will invariably have slowed to the new set speed. If I see a sharp bend or hidden junction, I can tap the speed down or use the foot brake if necessary. When I'm back on the straight, I can tap the speed back up again (or before, because it doesn't really do much accelerating until the steering is straight). If I need to make small adjustments to the acceration, it will allow that, anything more than small adjustments and it disengages immediately - I always have full control via the pedals. Because I don't need to keep the accellerator pressed to maintain a constant speed, I can drive with my foot covering the brake pedal - however I find the adaptive cruise control is normally already slowing my vehicle before I even start to think about braking. The important thing is that that the vehicle speed is always under my control - with the exception the emergency collision avoidance features - it is just a that I am using better tools to control it than just brake and accelerator pedals.

Mercedes have had a class-leading limiter for over 25 years. Light as a feather stalk, easily accessible with hand on wheel, 1 and 5moh increments, easy to count and timed just right so it is easy to set without looking. So once it is set, no need to do anything until a speed change.

25 years ago, the basic operation unchanged (now linked into brakes to retain auto control down hills). The VAG system is really naff in comparison, the Vauxhall system was ok, the Renault on a hire car was nearly incomprehensible. These manufacturers must be aware of the Merc system but can't get near it. It is a feature that makes me stick with them (I've had 2 since 1999, my 2012 C Class has a better system than my other half's much newer car).

IanMSpencer wrote:

my 2012 C Class has a better system than my other half's much newer car).

I concur. The limit/cruise stalk on an older Merc is great - but they've binned it off on the new models for some hateful fiddly buttons on the steering wheel. One of the steering wheel buttons is some sort of touch sensitive joystick - hated it!

At least they brake for you downhill to keep in the limit, instead of just beeping at you if it drifts over the limit - which is what some cars do, even ones with collision avoidance systems that will apply the brakes in that situation.

You've depressed me. Not that I'm looking to change until it falls to bits

You consulted with relevant stakeholders here before but you ignored what was said.

At least we know Ash won't get the support of someone as he only does his Youtube videos for the clicks and someone really really hates that. 

Ignored what exactly?

Ignored what many posters said about use of the horn.
You've hardly any posts here, so it's hard to believe that you have forgotten the thread.

You've ignored my opinion on it also then.