- 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
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
forum
Ashley's Back - Blood Pressure Pills at the ready
https://youtu.be/DC7omiVPuUI?si=xQ58IoGQrVXWnhir
https://twitter.com/PudseyPedaller/status/1743566923617476671?t=M7rR7_AR...
If you want a hint of the quality of the analysis, medical expert Ashley Neal considers a bleed on the brain as not life threatening so unworthy of mention.
I haven't brought myself to watch it. Thanks to Pudsey Pedaller for taking one for the team.
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.
Latest Forum Topics
Latest Comments
- Exup 53 min 11 sec ago
At least some justice is being done........
- BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP 1 hour 3 min ago
I imagine the Police treat bike theft as an insurance issue rather than a criminal issue. Can't blame them to be honest. The best thing is to use...
- BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP 1 hour 14 min ago
I was overtaken by an electric monster a few days ago. It was huge and I still think about it. It was so close and so impatient I could 'feel' its...
- David9694 1 hour 29 min ago
Police launch investigation into destruction of barber shop in Hythe High Street...
- Browsie 3 hours 29 min ago
I've suspected for some time that you are a complete and utter twat , now my suspicions.have finally been confirmed, many thanks!
- barbarus 9 hours 31 min ago
I live right in the centre of this. It's really heartening to read that there are people in favour....
- ktache 9 hours 59 min ago
I'd love for them to put a number on that "inappropriate speed"
- Nick T 10 hours 52 min ago
They need to use some harder material for the cleat retention clip really, that's worn out long before any bearing has had a chance to fail on...
- yiipeeia 13 hours 42 min ago
I am 67 and I cycle with two groups during the year The Haddenham Easyriders International who ride during the summer on Thursday evenings, and The...
- don simon fbpe 13 hours 53 min ago
Brexit is a wholly selfish act....
Add new comment
19 comments
Update on Sentencing Remarks
It appears there is a thing called an EX107 form (10 pages), and a complicated and potentially expensive process for getting hold of the data.
Form
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64d4a8be667f340014549d27/...
Notes
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64cce275995827000dc1e90f/...
My first comment on this one is that the sentence is very interesting, and I think that there are various background factors.
- There was a guilty plea, so 1 year is a reduced sentence over what it would have been.
- The two year driving ban is the minimum for Serious Injury by Dangerous Driving where there has been two previous disqualifications of 56 days or more in three years.
- Perhaps stopping at the scene to help is seen as some form of mitigation.
It's been assessed as an A or B level culpability, High Level harm to get to a 1 year jail sentence on a guilty plea, which is the more serious end of the offence's spectrum.
Does anyone know the process for getting a copy of the sentencing remarks? I can't ask my local Crown Courts, as none of them are answering the form. The sentencing council have promised to come back to me, though - if I find out I will publish the process.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/cau...
Not really enough info to say what's happened with the sentencing. The sentencing would most likely be 18 months, then a one third discount for the guilty plea to take it down to 12 months. This would suggest it's been put in the highest categories for both Culpability and Harm. The starting point is a 12 month sentence (before discount). "Victim was a vulnerable road user" is an aggravating factor, I don't know if that would be enough on its own to account for the extra 6 months.
There was a suggestion in the video that this will somehow ruin the driver's life. They'll be out of jail in 6 months, then another 12 months of supervision, at which point their life is almost back to normal. The driving ban will expire 2 years after they get out and the driving conviction will be spent after 5 years.
Hang on - so Neal's analysis is of that incident? Makes me even less likely to watch the video, if he's going to explain how it was all the cyclist's fault or some similar sh!t...
He struggles. There could only ever be 2 messages from this incident, drive properly or else you will kill people, and cyclists beware, there are people who will kill you.
Although his emphasis is on the driver, in the end, his message to cyclists is that had the cyclist ridden better, they should have been able to avoid it, essentially, cyclists should ride at a speed past any junction to allow motorists to be absolute arses and then cyclists will be fine. He made some snide comment about the police and insurers wanting the outcome, rather than it being an actual conclusion of an investigation. As an example of missing content, he mentioned doing looks, but he did not go through the driver process that should have happened, a slow approach, assess, reassess, keep looking, prepare to stop if not entirely certain it was clear. When that driver had set off, if they had kept up observation they could have corrected their error.
A mate of mine was riding to work in Brum. He saw car car approaching the roundabout at speed and prepared to take evasive action. The car stopped at the give way, he carried on, the SUV absolutely floored it and smashed into the side him, destroying his knee. (The driver was not of homicidal intent, just incredibly incompetent).
I've had a similar thing myself, tentatively turning right around a mini-roundabout that you know drivers are twitchy about, and believed I had made eye contact with the driver who pulled up to a stop, who was looking for traffic at the previous junction, but as far as I could tell had stopped for me as there was no other reason to stop - there was nobody about to enter the roundabout or following me. As I was right in front of them, they set off, only for daughter, who was staring straight at me, to whack her mother and shout at her to stop. I can tell you from the soundless exchange through the windscreen, that mum was really pissed off with me embarrassing her in front of her daughter and entirely unapologetic at nearly running me over.
Neal imagines that motorists have a basic level of competence. The reality is that whatever defensive moves you attempt, there will always be a driver that outflanks you, whether by unimaginable incompetence or malicious driving. I think motorists forget how bad fellow road users can be. (Yet he shows videos of drivers doing unimaginably illegal things around him on his travels).
So, the only message in that video should have been, "Come on drivers, that driving was shit, we need to do better. Spread the word."
As he's a driving instructor perhaps he's just sticking to his area and not venturing into comments on matters "above his pay grade"? (Or giving his customers too many negatives, you might say.)
I suppose I'd like to see:
A) emphasis it is really, really in the driver's *own* interest to get this right
for *their own safety* and convenience. He could have emphasised that actually with "the wrong timing" the driver here could have had another car through the passenger side window rather than merely legal inconvenience*.
B) acknowledgement that because roads are now built for cars it isn't just "we all look out for each other - there's an extra burden on vulnerable road users. BUT we can see from other countries it doesn't have to be this way. (Probably asking a bit much here).
* Or traumatic memories, if they're the decent sort - he has addressed that in his "innocently killed" segment in a previous video and that seems to be very salient for him. Albeit that seemed to be on the person thus killed... teetering on the edge of "that idiot got themselves killed and now they've given me a problem too".
I read Pudsey Pedaller's twitter thread and as a result have absolutely no desire to listen to Dr/Rev/judge+jury Ashley Neal's parsimonous 'expertise' in passing judgement on the incident. He's just another car-brain, even though he wants us to think otherwise.
The sad fact is that, as Ian says, the standard of driving among the general public is poor but I feel that it's the culture that surrounds car ownership and driving that is far worse. It's why speeding is seen by the vast majority as OK, why drink-driving and mobile phone use at the wheel are so common and why SUV ownership is so popular, as is the mentality that 'might is right', which seems to be the basis on which so many drivers treat other road users.
The road.cc article from 29 December with video footage is here. In the article they quote the Traffic Investigations Unit:
“This was an appalling piece of careless driving which left the cyclist badly injured. She is an experienced cyclist and a member of a local cycling club, but it’s clear from the footage that Freeman’s careless driving when crossing the junction meant she stood no chance." (my emphasis)
So Ashley Neal and his followers can fuck right off. While I'd question whether a prison term is the answer for such cases for multiple reasons, the government and police forces really should take this stuff seriously and get more dangerous drivers off the road.
Neal especially picked out that police quote to dismiss it.
So that rant is based on your not actually having watched the video?
Is it worth watching? I left a comment on one of his videos which I believe was deleted due to it disagreeing with his take. I don't want to help with his view count.
Yes.
Do you have a problem with that?
Got round to watching it in the end.
3 issues.
The analysis of the lady's cycling was facile from zero data. <20mph on a road bike is not flying around out of control, it is the sort of speed any road cyclist will be doing with a bit of an assist from a downhill. Was it too fast for the road? From the Google view, we can see that the road ahead has good visibility of the junction with little traffic. There was nobody waiting to the left, and the car to the right had just pulled out so a reasonable assessment would be that the next car would draw up to the junction and pause. At the braking point, the car hadn't reached the give way. Even when the car is emerging, you would be expecting a safety check and a halt, so the driver (or passenger even) wasn't alert to rechecking. So the cyclist was probably just in the disbelief zone of being unable to react, even though of course this rider was festooned in hi-viz and helmets.
There was no mention of the road hierarchy, to emphasise that it is a driver's duty not just to drive carefully. but to be alert to the possibility of cyclists and other road users. Drivers don't perceive cyclists well because, actually, for all the moaning, they don't encounter them very often. My every ride example, is Knowle High Street which has been 20mph forever and I ride it as near to 20 as my weariness and wind (sorry, the wind) will allow, yet the sight of a cycle sends blood rushing to the head of drivers who must overtake ignoring side roads on either side, queuing traffic, taking big risks to allow me to follow them down the rest of the street waving at them in their rear view mirror, shooing them on as they sit in the queue. There was only one message to come out of that incident - motorists must drive with far more care than is the typical standard of driving today. The cyclist did nothing wrong except encounter a careless driver. Neal's message to cyclists was, there are idiots on the road so you need to be careful of them is not a message any cyclist needs to hear because we encounter them many times a day. If touring cyclists rode to the expectation of every driver being a total incompetent, we might as well pack up and go home. Yes, too many of my club members have been killed or injured by incompetent motorists. The answer is not to tolerate incompetence, but to treat such poor driving as drink driving.
I think the third issue is the sentencing in relation to the injury and the risks. There was, in the comments, and perhaps in the commentary (I'll give Neal a partial pass because I am biased in how I am interpreting what he is attempting to say), a feeling that a 1 year sentence was harsh, (although to be fair, the comments were far more critical of the driver than I expected and generally supportive that the cyclist wasn't actually blameworthy at all) It was not. The driving error was obvious, no doubt habiltual, part of a driving culture (not unique to the UK) that driving is unimportant, something that you just have to tolerate to get from A to B. Driving a vehicle is a skilled task which few treat with the respect it requires. The collision was wholly avoidable with the basic skills of a newly qualified driver. If you drive to that standard, accidents are inevitable. What percentage of drivers are on the phone as they drive these days? On any cycle or car journey I can point to drivers who are so distracted, they cannot keep their car in lane, either locally or on the motorway. The lady was nearly killed and has life changing injuries. While these things "happen" of course drivers will think punishments ahrsh - quite a few flagging up relatively light sentences. Until causing a collision is treated as a serious offence - considering the potential of the error, not just the actual outcome - then there is no incentive for the 80% of drivers who don't take driving seriously to alter their attitude.
It was not an accident it was a negligent collision. Even the Police refer to such incidents as RTC's.
It's OK to watch the first half, albeit he leans heavily on the negative effects of this (criminal record, "will have to live with this for the rest of his life"). Taking a sympathetic view perhaps he's trying to emphasise the seriousness of this action. Otherwise he's just reflecting the common view this will ruin the driver's life. Maybe. I bet plenty of people get over it and get on...
He's correct about not trusting other drivers. As normal for the couple of his videos I've seen (with a slight exception for his Edinburgh video that appeared here) he leaves it there. Well, he's not a road designer but an instructor....
However that is an issue - because much of our road infra has some assumptions designed in that people WILL follow the rules. If your mindset is "trust nobody " some becomes less functionally usable. Especially on a bike - many junctions would be inconvenient if not unusable (too cautious and those *behind you* will hit you).
That's why the Dutch have the sustainable safety principles and their infra continues to evolve. It aims to avoid cyclists having to rely on motorists getting it right. And it doesn't trade all the convenience for safety.
From the original item
Yes, it's quite interesting. I saw a lot of people commenting that the cyclist was travelling way too fast and that there was a blue car that came past much more slowly. But in actual fact, it appears the slow blue car was going a smidge quicker than the cyclist.
Ah, but here it's transformed into "because lack of observation by drivers you have to cycle at a speed where you can stop/avoid at a second's notice". (Possibly with a dash of "and the seriousness of their injuries was due to their own speed ").
Also note the driver gets understanding that their view was blocked by the other car, but not the cyclist. (Often cyclists may be able to see over cars - not sure here as not a tall cyclist. This may be less unfair though due to expectations that both will mostly be viewing the direction they are travelling).
So yeah - some normal (but not extreme) double standards...
I braved the comments - and mostly NOT terrible. Although they tend towards thoughtful "yeah it's dangerous and we should all take more care" rather than "bloody driver" of course. Maybe more cyclists were attracted?
It's worth a note that this is Ashley's "Just Cycling" channel, not the driving one.
However, as a regular-ish commenter there, I find that both are civilised except for a few outliers - and that it is quite a good learning community.