- 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
Normally, I'd agree with increasing critical thinking, but in this instance it's the Highway Code using slightly misleading language.
Compare and contrast the guidance for passing pedestrians:
and here's the guidance for passing cyclists:
Notice how they only specify "overtaking" for cyclists instead of passing which is a mistake. Passing can be in either direction whereas overtaking is only when travelling in the same direction.
Whilst there's no argument from me on what your saying, how many drivers are leaving pedestrians 2 m of space? The number of drivers that drive far to fast on country roads. They don't seem to appreciate that many public footpaths are often connected by a short stretches of road with NO footpath. They can't be mislead by the language if they don't read it in the first place.
well if I was being provocative, is that just because most people drive everywhere thesedays and their actual experience of walking on country roads, or knowledge of footpaths is therefore minimal.
and they probably think anyone who does walk on such a road is crazy & lost.
Haha! Probably about 20 years ago when I still lived in England, walking home from the pub (in the country side) at night. Me and my mate both using torches, I'm wearing my old Gill cycling jacket with reflective tapes, and walking towards oncoming traffic. Didn't stop one idiot from slowing almost to a stop with a window open to ask "Are you trying to get yourselves killed?" Yep, put me on the obviously crazy pile.
This. While the inconsistent language might be confusing (might be - but both of the quoted passages are in a section about overtaking), these nice linguistic arguments are all post hoc rationalisation. The main problem is that people have never read the rules.
I'd agree with his take, although I don't have a strong opinion either way on the adult cyclist. The road doesn't look particularly dangerous (not that it's the roads that cause danger) and it's entirely possible that the adult believed that the driver would cede priority. Ultimately the entire situation was caused by the driver driving like an entitled asshat and creating danger when there was no need.
As others have pointed out, if the child was just an ordinary adult cyclist, would it change your opinion or discussion points? If it were two adults, then I don't think Ashley would be criticising the rear cyclist, so it seems that he's introducing an artificial age barrier into how to use public roads. I'm all for having an emotional age barrier for drivers however - act like a toddler throwing a tantrum and you should be banned for a while like sitting on a naughty step.
Maybe you should have to wear a driving helmet for a bit?
I would definately support 'D' plates for drivers who have accumulated 6 points!
I would rather support a wheel clamp for a few weeks.
It'd probably be pretty simple to implement a little led screen next to the number plate that displayed the number of points on someone's license. contactless tap the card to start the car and the number displays automatically.
Perhaps the embarassment would make people take a bit more care. Either that or make anyone with 6 points or more wear a helmet whilst driving, they're obviously a danger to themselves. the inconvenience etc would soon make people try to avoid getting points.
As a safety measure, maybe we should follow the example of big lorries reversing. Simply have a voice repeating "WARNING! BEEP BEEP BEEP. This driver is incompetent and dangerous" as they drive around.
Looks like they'd have to drive a 2CV for that to fit. As much as I like the idea of hyper-aggressive Audi/BMW/SUV drivers pootling around in 2CVs, I suspect it might not be feasible unless we start manufacturing a lot more of them.
I do like the idea of a 'D' plate so that it's clear which drivers you need to be extra careful around
As a complere aside, I saw an old 2CV ad the other day with the wonderful line "We couldn't make it any faster, after all it already exceeds the legal speed limit of 70mph by 1.5mph". It's a pity that car manufacturers and drivers don't follow that simple principle. https://www.goodwood.com/grr/road/news/2021/4/the-best-car-ads-ever--axo...
You spotted my intent!
Probably 2CVs aren't the greenest of vehicles - although I imagine that being light and going slow they need less power than your motor of today?
I remember my sister's boyfriend had one when I was a teenager and it did what was then regarded as a near-miraculous 65 miles to the gallon, very much assisted by the fact that it only weighed 500 kg.
I certainly wouldn't argue with his analysis. However, the issue may be that many motorists will.
The highway code could of course be clearer but tbh how much difference would it make. I've already put forward the argument that the driver should be taking extra care as it's a traffic calming area. I would also argue that the cars on the left of the road are too close and possibly opposite the junction.
Role 243: DO NOT stop or parkopposite or within 10 metres (32 feet) of a junction, except in an authorised parking space.
It's a reflection on how blind we've become to parked cars that he doesn't even notice this as a contibuting factor.
Wasn't there some police force that refused to take action on a close-pass recently as the motorist was passing from the other direction? Obviously, that's just an excuse, but seeing how skewed the courts are against cyclists, it's almost certainly going to lead to drivers getting away with dangerous driving just due to poor wording in the Highway Code.
"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,"
I think Neal's opinion & the sentiment in the YouTube piece, this time, is a very good, heartfelt, and an honest summary of how car drivers should behave/don't behave towards others. Also, he talks with conviction, together with frank concern, on how ‘us’ cyclists should react when drivers do not think of safety beyond their own.
His point is that cyclists do not have the safe capability to "barge" - however much I/we want/do this.
Some idiot on Youtube recently complained that me being cut up by a double decker bus, while i was still in the cycle lane, put all the bus passengers at risk of being killed...As if i had been the one to cause this, and also that a bicycle was somehow going to knock the bus over and kill all on board...
Well, it's not a terrible take by any means.
Too your and cake it eat have to. Please rearrange to produce a well known phrase that encapsulates yours and my response.
It have to eat cake and your too?
What's the point of having cake if you can't eat it?
Urinal cakes? I don't fancy eating them
You could have just said carrot cake as far as I'm concerned.
Heathen!
Pages