Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

forum
road.cc bike forum

Left hook video on YouTube

by a1white
Tue, Jun 22, 2021 17:56
14

Here is a typically annoying video on YouTube of a horrendous looking left hook where the professional driving instructor analyses the video and seems to infer it is the cyclists fault 

https://youtu.be/EgAUAb3W0vA

He alleges the cyclist is withholding footage ignores the fact the driver drove off (after driving over his belongings) and then at 12.39 says the cyclist doesn't have priority, which is clearly wrong as rule 182 and 183, of the Highway Code, state cars turning left should look out for and give way to cycles and vehicles in general on their left. 
you can see that the YouTuber then likes all the comments that criticise the cyclist. Pathetic really. Another "whoe's to blame" video (from someone who believes he is an authority on sensible safe driving) that will probably get him lots of views and will make people believe that the driver is not all to blame, when legally he is. 
 

If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.

Add new comment

13 comments

Avatar
Captain Badger | 3 years ago
3 likes

Fuck me .I stopped watching in the first few seconds with the dick head in the car talking to the camera whilst driving. What a cnt.

Avatar
HoarseMann replied to Captain Badger | 3 years ago
2 likes

Yep - not a good look. He could probably argue he wasn't staring at the camera, but diligently checking his left mirror for cyclists approaching up the inside !

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to Captain Badger | 3 years ago
0 likes

Yep, seen his videos before and he does it alot. Surely a 'professional' driver knows to reduce distractions when driving, not increase them. 

Avatar
SaintClarence27 | 3 years ago
0 likes

There's not really a question that the driver was at fault.  The cyclist wasn't doing a great job protecting himself, and probably could have avoided the incident.  I do that because I don't want to be run over. But that doesn't obviate the asshole driver clearly in the wrong.

Avatar
Dave Dave replied to SaintClarence27 | 3 years ago
0 likes

The cyclist was bloody stupid, given the terrible standard of driving on the roads. Hanging out in someone's blind spot is just asking for trouble; I don't even do that in a car on multi-lane roads, because if they decide to change lanes, they probably won't see you.

The driver in the video should be charged with DWDC&A, but expecting the worst from drivers isn't paranoia, it's common sense.

Avatar
a1white replied to Dave Dave | 3 years ago
0 likes

Oh absolutely, I'd like to think I wouldn't put myself in that situation and have stayed behind the blue car.he definitely needs more awareness of what drivers might do at junctions  Regardless though, what I found annoying was his comments about the cyclist "not necessarily having priority". If you see his channel he makes out he's the ultimate authority on how to drive. The Highway Code is quite clear that you can't cut in in cyclists when turning left, but he's ignored this fact. https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/using-road-159-203#toc-5

Avatar
HoarseMann replied to a1white | 3 years ago
0 likes

a1white wrote:

what I found annoying was his comments about the cyclist "not necessarily having priority".

That made me flinch too - but he's kind of right. It's not clear-cut, that's why there was this 'turning the corner' campaign a while ago.

Rule 183 says you must give way when crossing a cycle lane - but at the junction, the cycle lane has gone - there are no lane markings for straight on across the junction, so there's an argument that this rule doesn't apply.

Rule 182 is more general for left turns, but doesn't say you must give way, just 'watch out for', which is a bit non-committal on who has priority.

Avatar
Dave Dave replied to HoarseMann | 3 years ago
1 like

Nonsense. Rule 180 is completely clear. The driver was 100% at fault, to the point of being a clear-cut case for criminal charges.

I don't know why anyone gets upset about some random idiot on youtube talking bollocks, tbh, but it's absolutely clear that it's total bollocks.

Avatar
HoarseMann replied to Dave Dave | 3 years ago
3 likes

Rule 180 refers to turning right, so not applicable in this case.

Hopefully this slight ambiguity will be cleared up with the upcoming updates to the highway code. https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/review-of-the-highway-code-t...

If the third bullet point gets implemented, then Mr Neal will be talking total bollocks.

edit: dug around and found the wording...

Quote:

Rule H3: Rule for drivers and motorcyclists

You should not cut across cyclists going ahead when turning into or out of a junction or changing direction or lane, just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle. This applies whether cyclists are using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on the road and you should give way to them.

Do not turn at a junction if to do so would cause the cyclist going straight ahead to stop or swerve, just as you would do with a motor vehicle.

You should stop and wait for a safe gap in the flow of cyclists if necessary. This includes when cyclists are:

approaching, passing or moving off from a junction
moving past or waiting alongside stationary or slow-moving traffic
travelling around a roundabout”

 

Avatar
wtjs replied to HoarseMann | 3 years ago
0 likes

Hopefully this slight ambiguity will be cleared up with the upcoming updates to the highway code. https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/review-of-the-highway-code-t...

Unfortunately, this worthless 'consultation' gives only 'guides':

─ leave a minimum distance of 1.5 metres at speeds under 30 mph

─ leave a minimum distance of 2.0 metres at speeds over 30 mph

─ for a large vehicle, leave a minimum distance of 2.0 metres in all conditions

These will continue to be ignored, like the present guides are ignored by the police and drivers alike. Remember, there have been no prosecutions for close-passing of cyclists in Lancashire.

Avatar
HoarseMann replied to wtjs | 3 years ago
0 likes

Yep, I don't agree with all of the updates. I responded to the consultation and suggested adjustments regarding the passing distances and situations where you would adopt a primary position.

The bit about giving priority to cyclists going straight-ahead seems quite clear to me and (I think) a useful addition.

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to Dave Dave | 3 years ago
0 likes

I don't know why anyone gets upset about some random idiot on youtube talking bollocks, tbh, but it's absolutely clear that it's total bollocks.

I suspect it is more this is a person whose job is to teach new drivers the standards to drive to. So if he is stating it is mostly the cyclists fault in this instance and giving the driver minimal fault (and I confess I have not watched all the video, just the initial incident and seeing comments like yours) then he must also be teaching his students the same wisdom. 

Avatar
HoarseMann replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 3 years ago
0 likes

To be fair to Ashley Neal - I don't think he apportioned minimal blame on the driver at all. He made a point of saying motorists have a greater duty of care and mentioned the upcoming highway code updates. Drawing on his own driving without due care conviction years ago.

These analysis videos are not really about apportioning blame - they're more about learning defensive driving/riding techniques and improving anticipation.

No matter what's written in the highway code, there will always be crap drivers/riders that you've got to watch out for. A competent driver/rider will anticipate and accommodate the failings of others in order to avoid a collision.

Latest Comments