- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Viral video debated on Jeremy Vine show (screenshot Twitter video/ @azb2019)"Only road user to come out with any credit is the child": Ashley Neal reacts to "terrible driving" in viral video of five-year-old cyclist
YouTube driving instructor Ashley Neal has joined the debate around the video of a five-year-old cyclist and a driver meeting at a pinch point which has gone viral since being first shared by the child's father ten days ago.
Since then it has been discussed during a segment on Jeremy Vine's Channel 5 show, attracted much-criticised comments from Conservative politicians including Sajid Javid, been viewed more than 2.7 million times and subject to national newspaper coverage.
Neal, whose "driving education" YouTube videos have earned him a large platform of 120,000 subscribers, released a video to give his "hot take" on the footage, in which he is complimentary of the child's cycling and describes the driving on display as "terrible".
In the final portion of the video Neal then questions the father telling his son to carry on when it is "obvious" the driver will not stop, comparing it to allowing your child to run around the edge of a swimming pool.
"The big lesson that people should be taking from this clip is obviously the terrible driving and the fact that motorist should have stopped and given way to the more vulnerable," Neal concludes.
"But there is also the added point that even when you think you have priority you should not continue into an escalating risk. The father of this child [by telling him to carry on when he asked if they should pull over] has effectively told his kid to keep running around that swimming pool even though the kid wanted to walk.
"The only road user to come out of this clip with any credit, and it is full credit to them, is the child. The father seems like one of those I've got priority brigade and the motorist is simply dangerous — it is quite ironic that the young child is the only one with any common sense."
Addressing the view expressed by many on social media, including by Conservative politicians Susan Hall and Baroness Foster, that the five-year-old cyclist should not have been on the road, Neal disagrees.
"I think it is lovely to see a young child like this being taught the skills at such an early age. There has been some discussion about the age of the child but for me it has got to be child-specific and there has got to be risk assessment for the road conditions.
"Some children you would be happy that they are going to follow your instructions if you are in charge of them, others not so. This road was traffic calmed and the traffic was quite light so for me there was nothing wrong with this child cycling here.
"This five-year-old also followed his father's instructions impeccably, I would have been totally happy in charge of this child trying to teach him the skills that he needs to ride safely. The speed that they were cycling at and the distance that they were keeping from the parked vehicles was all good and the five-year-old also held a good steady line."
"The most dangerous part of this clip"
"The most dangerous part of the clip" is the motorist, Neal tells his viewers, explaining that as the cyclist is "obviously more vulnerable" the driver should have given way, advice backed up by the Highway Code's 'hierarchy of road users'.
"Plainly and simply the driver should have given way but instead they barge through a narrowing and endangered the life of a five-year-old," Neal said. "What if this child fell off? We would be dealing with a fatality.
"Another thing that backs up my opinion with this is the fact that the cyclist does not have to venture outside of their lane to proceed through the pinch point, the motorist obviously cannot say the same.
"Some people will think whoever gets there first goes first, and even with this incorrect mindset the five-year-old cyclist does arrive at the pinch point before the motorist, but the motorist still barges through.
"They do slow down, but not enough. They should have stopped but because they chose to keep moving this increased risk dramatically. The distance away from the cars on their side of the road was way too close and if another young child had run out between those vehicles it would have left the motorist no option but to swerve in the direction of our five-year-old cycling.
"Another reason to slow down and stop was the close proximity to the oncoming cyclists, but in my opinion this is a grey area that needs clarification. Even if I was driving on my side of the road and it was totally clear the cyclists in the oncoming lane might still be quite close."
Showing the following scene to his viewers to demonstrate such a situation, Neal says he would "still slow down and look after them".
"I do not think the updates in the Highway Code are clear enough on this point. Overtaking cyclists at speed up to 30mph you need to give them at least 1.5 metres clearance, but what if they are coming in the opposite direction?" Neal continued.
"If you did not know my opinion you now do. Try to follow this advice because it keeps everyone safe."
Last week Neal released a video criticising reporter Richard Bilton for cycling through a red light in a clip seen in the recent Panorama episode 'Road Rage: Cars v Bikes'.
Bilton told road.cc the incident demonstrates "how difficult" some junctions can be to navigate on a bike, as well as the wider "reality of cycling on UK roads". Neal had said it "makes a little bit of a mockery when the question is asked 'are the UK roads too dangerous to cycle on?'"
Dan is the road.cc news editor and joined in 2020 having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Dan has been at road.cc for four years and mainly writes news and tech articles as well as the occasional feature. He has hopefully kept you entertained on the live blog too.
Never fast enough to take things on the bike too seriously, when he's not working you'll find him exploring the south of England by two wheels at a leisurely weekend pace, or enjoying his favourite Scottish roads when visiting family. Sometimes he'll even load up the bags and ride up the whole way, he's a bit strange like that.
Latest Comments
- David9694 4 sec ago
Devon man's warning after getting stung in restricted car park...
- Oldfatgit 56 min 26 sec ago
This is kinda what happened to me ... but in slow motion....
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 7 min ago
The Battle of Thermopylae (480 BC) was one of the most important battles of the ancient world, where 7,000 Greeks, led by the Spartans under...
- ktache 9 hours 8 min ago
They also do it in orange. I'm after a deep winter jacket after the past week.
- ktache 9 hours 7 min ago
The people at Hexlox have asked me to tell others about their black Friday deals, but I don't quite know what the offer is yet. But saving anything...
- Dnnnnnn 10 hours 3 min ago
I'm unclear how simply considering the views of people who travel through an area is voting for rat-runs. No need to explain though.
- biking59boomer 11 hours 43 min ago
Sadly the cyclist hate in this country seems to have worsened of late. Dangerous motoring combined with anti-cycling officialdom in some places is...
- Cyclo1964 14 hours 15 min ago
Brilliant 🤣
Add new comment
146 comments
With regard to the "priority can only be given, not taken", it is no more than a statement of fact. If you have two road users, with differing views on who has priority, intent on enforcing their right then you have a certain collision/ confrontation. To avoid the collision, someone must cede the priority.
Now yes, very very clearly, the Road Traffic Acts and the Highway Code define in every situation who SHOULD have priority and the other road user SHOULD ALWAYS cede priority but for many reasons this doesn't always happen. My personal view on this is when my hazard perception tells me I am cycling into such a situation then I do what I can to reduce the risk to me as my safety is number one priority. That may sometimes mean I cede a priority that was legally mine but rather that, a few seconds delay and yet another chance to mutter obscenities in my head than a potential visit to A and E or the morgue.
In the video, Ashley is 100% clear the car driver is in the wrong and he reiterates that numerous times. He can't be much clearer on that point. When faced with similar situations, I don't think it is then a bad thing to go beyond that appointment of blame and ask myself is is there anything I missed, anything I could have done to mitigate the unacceptable risk. I know there have been a few times where I have ridden into developing trouble on the roads and with hindsight I would have played it differently even though I was 100% legally in the right to do what I did. I also know there have been many times where I can pat myself on the back and say I saw the risk caused by someone else and due to my actions a collision and a lot of pain and anguish was avoided. I would rather be smug about preventing a collision. That's my take, other views maybe different but I want to live to be a very old cyclist!
Recognising the hazard, assessing the risk and mitigating the risk are postive steps where you take control of the situation. I think too many times it is perceived as passively giving way but it is important to stress that it is positive action that is being taken.
Oh very definitely. Keeping myself and fellow cyclists/ pedestrians / drivers safe from the reckless, careless or misjudged actions of others is an extremely positive action in two senses - both positive in its outcome and positive in that it doesn't just happen it requires positive input in terms of thoughts / actions / mindset. It is extremely hard work maintaining this approach constantly in the face of such inadequate driving / cycling / pedestrianing* standards exhibited by a minority of road users which leads to the occasional burst of frustration on my part.
*I know that isn't a word, but what is the correct word for that usage? Is there one? Walking doesn't really convey the correct meaning in the sense I was trying to use it.
I'm a more frequent driver than a cyclist these days.
My rules when driving in the parked car situation are:
If I have to cross the White line and the other vehicle doesn't have to then I give way, two wheels usually get priority
If both have to cross then uphill gets priority
On the flat both crossing first there gets priority.
I'm aware, from cycling, than regaining momentum is hard work so making a cyclist slow or stop is bad manners if nothing else.
Thank-you for reproducing Neal's comments so fully.
These were my comments on his vid:
Having watched the clip a couple of times, for me there are three thoughts:
1 - That street is crying out for a segregated cycleway, preferably as part of a combined thru-routes and 'safe routes to schools' network. Such would at a stroke remove the conflict which caused the questions raised.
2 - The cycling bypass, which is infrastructure built until I think the 1980s, is even more out of date than that, and illustrates how little attention we pay to maintenance / updating. A practice that needs to be fixed.
3 - This and Ashley's recent unfit-to-drive video illustrate the need for continuing driver education / monitoring.
Two weeks ago a 74 year old pensioner Arthur Robert McGrillen was given a 2.5 year prison sentence for killing one person on a bike with his car, and seriously injuring another. He had failed to self-disclose a stroke when renewing his driving license.
Two months ago an 82 year old pensioner Peter Gardner was given 6 months in prison for killing a 70 year old on a bike when he could only read a number plate at 10ft.
I suggest that the current system does not work, and would not actually be that expensive to fix - very little work for a GP nurse to do a rapid go/no go check, an refer to the GP if necessary.
On the clip I'd suggest that this driver will continue causing risks to other people unless educated somehow. I'd suggest a re-evaluation every 10 years when photocard is renewed, or far more widespread camera enforcement and courses.
* For road.cc peeps - that was a vid submitted to Ashley's site by a cyclist sent cartwheeling through the air by an 82 year old pensioner. 12 weeks on crutches, broken pelvis, broken back - as we sometimes see. The conversation was about the issues around stopping pensioners driving when they become incapable.
vid submitted to Ashley's site by a cyclist sent cartwheeling through the air by an 82 year old pensioner
On the Panorama programme we saw a video of a cyclist cartwheeling through the air after being hit by a driver who incorrectly traversed a mini-roundabout, and claimed that 'everybody does that' as an excuse. She was not an 82 year old. Penalty?: negligible
FFS, there are still people in the comments blaming the cyclist.
Those road users with extremist views absolutely blow my mind.
If making 10 bicycle journeys a week for a few years has taught me anything, it's that there are a lot more of these types of road users than you'd think.
You are now starting to get the picture. Please bear in mind that there are people who do the same in real life, both expressing their views and then implementing them. So when you got a bit of a rough ride here early on, I think it was because you were dismissive. Hopefully we are all mellowing a bit.
I have a police incident ongoing where I was walking on a country lane, and because I didn't step out of a driver's way onto a slippery, muddy verge where I could have easily have fallen back in front of the car, I got a punch thrown at me, by a man I would estimate to be 75 years old. The fist was in response to me suggesting that instead of me being a "f*cking idiot" for walking in the road, he should read the Highway Code.
Anyway, that reminds me, how about a "Dealing with walkers on a country lane" episode. 90% of drivers seem to think that skimming past walkers at high speed is acceptable behaviour, presumably because we haven't got 4 legs and might sit on them
I'm now starting to get the picture! Lol. Don't exculde extremist cycling views from my quote, as everyone here has. There's plenty of people on here, who fall into the same category, but at the other end of the spectrum to the people who are blaming the cyclist in the clip in question.
"There's plenty of people on here, who fall into the same category [ extremist cycling views] "
What's an extremist cycling view and you need to give specific examples of posts if you are going to throw that at 'plenty of people on here'.
I would be very interested to hear what these extreme views are.
Wanting court cases to be tried on the basis of driving test examiners' opinions e.g. "Would that driving have failed a driving test?"
Lifetime driving bans for anyone found at fault for a RTC that ends someone's life.
Immediate (temporary) driving bans for anyone found breaking the traffic law e.g. using a mobile phone whilst in control of a vehicle.
Immediate prison sentences for anyone found driving whilst banned along with a lifetime driving ban.
Closing road junctions to motor vehicles after serious incidents until the cause is determined and the junction made safe.
Detailed investigations of RTCs in a similar manner to rail or aircraft crash investigations.
Include road cycling as part of the driving test.
Not a bad start there, I might add:
- supporting LTN's and active travel initiatives
- supporting congestion charging and clean air zones
- being broadly positive about the cycling infrastructure in The Netherlands
- not wishing to be honked by every passing motorist
- riding two abreast
- riding with a camera and posting content to YouTube without being a qualified driving-instructor instructor
Daring to use the road when there's a perfectly usable cycle path alongside the road although it's covered in broken glass and wet leaves and dumps the cyclist out in an unfavourable position in the road and cedes priority at every single side road.
He won't be able to find specific examples because most of our 'extremism' would be around wanting people to follow the Highway Code as much as possible in order to reduce danger to others. There's a common response to 'extremist' cyclist views - "I'd rather be wrong and safe than correct and dead" which is usually just a false dichotomy.
The other common type of cyclist 'extremism' is the 'asserting priority' jibe that Ashley mentioned. When other road users do it, it's just normal driving behaviour, but when cyclists are progressing forwards in their lane, it's sometimes seen as them forcing their views on everyone. In my experience, cyclists are highly motivated to avoid collisions and take avoiding action the vast majority of the time.
Agree - it's the normal issue with the force-multiplying aspect of being protected inside a metal cage and having a great deal of power at the touch of the pedal (plus it's totally normal to be at >25mph in a car, less so on a bike).
People can be careless, arseholes or aggressive no matter what seat they're occupying. It's just that the possible consequences are massively different depending on type of seat. And everyone knows it.
The "extreme" views I've seen on here around conflict with drivers involve things like dropping stuff off road bridges (one poster who eventually got banned from here IIRC), getting handy with a D-lock (other folks immediately suggested this wasn't very wise) then on downward to varied damage to cars or "provoking people". Touching someone's car has recently been critiqued and a couple of folks here have admitted to blatantly obeying speed limits when those behind them clearly wanted faster!
Finally there's the usual "after the fact" response to reports of KSIs which is mostly people expressing desire for long jail sentences in unpleasant prisons. This ranges down to simply hoping that cases actually come to court! Or if convictions are attained then the appropriate sentencing guidelines are applied, rather than punishments being suspended or "you will have to live with the consequences of your actions; let that be a lesson to you..."
The road bridges poster moved to scandanvia so didn't post after they had moved. Don't think they got banned.
The "extreme" examples you give aren't representative of 'plenty of people on here'.
Thanks, I couldn't remember whether they'd also got barred.
As for "extremists" I am just trying to imagine for a moment what might be considered "extreme" by "reasonable 'non-cyclists' " from outside the forum.
Possibly should add getting really shouty and sweary in e.g. a close pass. These often don't look so close on wide-angle camera. Plus some people clearly imagine the cyclists would feel the same as you would if you were in a car. So they just hear (sometimes see) some middle aged man on a bike and then a vehicle going past and not making contact, then said chap letting off a tirade. "Yes, nutter there" might be the response - if you've not been there...
Sure, but we aren't talking about the general public but someone with an interest in cycling and road safety.
Legs eleven, moved to a cyclist nirvana, Copenhagen or maybe Amsterdam.
Ah yes - it's coming back to me now...
Sounded like they'd gone to a better place anyway. Don't think they'd have much time for the current controversialists.
And the paving slab thing tended to be a reaction to threats to cyclists such as piano wire and the like.
It would be nice if he could pop back on and tell us if it was everything he was hoping for. I hope it is.
Ah yes, legs eleven Worcester.
Don't disagree, and I've called a few out in my time, but bear in mind that some of the extremist viewpoints are generated through years of PTSD inducing incidents. I've recently cut back on road cycling after a near head on with a driver who failed to make a 90 degree bend - phone in lap, so it does generate a certain intolerance.
This.
It's sometimes hard to remain totally objective when you are repeatedly put in danger for no reason other than MGIF, "you're holding me up," or just for daring to be using a shared space in anything other than a motor vehicle. However much you comply with the Highway Code.
I've felt the need to start using a camera on every ride now, having been wiped out on a roundabout a year or so ago & then having a string of crazy near misses from drivers when I got back on the road. I've never wanted to be THAT guy, but you can only take so much and left unchecked, the seemingly exponential decline in driving standards is going to get more & more of us injured or killed when it is largely completely avoidable. Case in point, I've had Surrey Police agree to take action on 2 dangerous & unecessary close passes in the last week alone, and these are just the ones that leave me still fuming/shaking hours after the event, I don't bother reporting most things that would probably qualify - people do make mistakes & errors of judgement.
To paraphrase another user, I do anything from 6-10,000 miles a year on the bike (granted some is off road but the majority is road miles) which is comparable to what I do in the car. Pretty much every time I come back from a road ride I can recount multiple close passes, passes into blind bends, deliberate punishment passes etc that put me directly at risk. About once a week I get to thinking that I've been genuinely lucky to return home unscathed. Compare that to how often I feel the same way having driven the car somewhere. Though is it just me or is there a growing number of bellends on the road that will now overtake other cars at the drop of a hat unless they are doing the speed limit + 10% ?
Nowadays, just cycling in busy areas is enough to count as being extremist.
Although I'm happy to considered an extremist, I think that road danger discourse is hugely skewed towards motorists as they are in a majority and even some police forces take a very blinkered view of how the roads should be used. In most online forums, it's considered perfectly normal for drivers to threaten violence against cyclists/pedestrians etc. that are "slowing them down" and yet the cyclists that present a more balanced look at road traffic are considered extreme.
Rather than thinking us-vs-them and extreme-vs-traditional, I'd prefer that we looked at whether views are logical and consistent. One handy way of determining if a viewpoint is heavily skewed is to replace vehicle types (e.g. a cyclist with a bus) and see if the same argument applies and if not, then why not?
Could you qualify what you mean by this? If the roles were reversed in the above video, I doubt there would be "plenty" of people here who would blame the driver for the cyclist cutting across their path with no warning.
If you define "extremist cycling views" as just being a little anti-car, then I suppose you could count myself among that number (I think that we have issues with laxity on road-crime, and also think that we need to seriously reduce the number of car journeys made for climate reasons). But, when out on the road, no matter how "extreme" my views are, I'm still very aware that there's nothing protecting me from harm except a t-shirt, and I ride accordingly.
Drivers don't really have anything to fear from cyclists with "extreme" views, but cyclists have everything to fear from drivers with extreme anti-cyclist views. All of us do. Every day, we put up with the abuse, the intimidation, the intentional endangerment. So whilst you may be right, those two attitudes aren't exactly equivalent, are they?
To add to the chorus, Ashley please give us examples of extremist cycling views?
Would it include asking you (and anyone else who does it) to stop doing pieces to camera while driving?
Pages