The point is the driver is dangerous. The father was aware the driver but obviously expected the driver to take more care of his child. Society needs to take more care of children rather than putting it entirely on the parents.
You can even see at the start of the clip, the kid took a position in the centre of the road rather than going up the cycle path where he'd have been obscured by the cars. Whether it was intentional or instructed, it's worth noting.
@Shen-ek2oe are you talking about the 1 metre of bike lane leading directly into the back of a parked car? How exactly would the 5 year old take that lane..phase through the cars?
I am totally in agreement with you. The child was the only one who saw the danger; in my opinion, both the car driver and the child's father were stubborn and raised the danger level unnecessarily to the child.
Absolutely - at least the kid was wearing high vis clothing as well, no idea on the dad. One of my pet hates lately is cyclists doing silly things in dark clothing and poor if any lights then blaming anyone but themselves for near incidents.
@@iainamurray Because "I'm a cyclist" mentally. He put his child in extreme danger. It's all well and good saying, but they should have stopped. They won't bring a child back to life. Cyclists need to learn a car will always win. They have rules with boats, but the overwhelming rule is you always move out the way for the bigger boat as you'll lose.
I'm glad you said the child was the only person with any common sense there, that was my immediate thoughts as well. Whether you have priority or not, hanging back and leaving people to do whatever they're gonna do is key to self preservation. Just because you might have priority doesn't mean it's safe to proceed
Absolutely right.... I always say to people do you go onto a junction where you have the green light where the lorry coming at right angles is not appearing to be slowing to stop for what should be his red light? Being right but dead or seriously injured aren't somewhere I'd like to be.
I used to have the attitude of the father and I'm still assertive but I've realized that it is better to protect myself and let the bad drivers get on down the road and out of my life.
It has taken me years to get out of the minds set of, "if something happens to me, it's not my fault. And it won't happen to me, because they would be at fault"... my husband told me that you can't sue them if you're dead and that you being right isn't worth getting hurt or killed for.
My ex girlfriend used to be a triathlete and was out running on a country road. The road was narrow, a 60MPH limit and a bendy road with blind corners. A sports car came speeding around a blind corner while she was running along the road and she had to jump into ditch to avoid being killed. [as she landed in the ditch she damaged her hip and it has never been the same since ending her sporting career] She will vehemently rant on to anyone who will listen about how some utter lunatic ruined her career, but my attitude was “what the hell were you doing out running on that road. You knew full well it was a dangerous road so what did you expect?”. This didn’t go down well because her mind set was “but iv’e got the legal right to run along that road as much as I want” To which replied “Yes you have, and the car driver was indeed an #%*^hole and should not have been speeding around a blind corner, but in the end he drove off unaffected and you were the one left lying damaged in a ditch”
Spot on analysis. As the driver I'd had given way all day long, and probably had a shared feeling of fatherly pride in seeing a son out for a ride with his father. As the father I'd have told my child to stop. If I was in a car following behind the father and so also had to stop then I'd have had a shared sense of fatherly pride in the guided caution the father was giving his son.
If it was me, that made the mistake of "entering the corridor" - I would have stopped and allowed the young man to pass. Not attempt to "thread the needle" (simply because I wouldn't want to damage the blue car! The young cyclist knew what he was doing, and did great - one of the better cyclists I've seen recently, in all honesty)
I can't believe the Dad wasn't saying Slow down ready to stop and then the kid asked should I Stop! This Lad has more sense than his Dad and the Driver put together!!!
It's truly unbelievable that when someone is on a bike the other road users no longer see it as another human. Compassion and empathy go out of the window. I see a child on a bike coming the other way I want to be careful even if there's no pinch points... How has it got so bad.
"Compassion and empathy go out of the window" we've lost those since the 90s. Most people are so selfish, self-centred and simply don't care these days. Even commentary like Ashley's this isn't going to change because the people who need to learn wont until they've killed someone. Then with pointless sentencing there's no deterrant.
@@Itsa-sh The 90s..? Lol Arguably humans never really had compassion and empathy, other than for close members of their local community, but that was lost in the 60s not the 90s.
Sadly it works both ways as equally I’ve seen far too many cyclists deliberately put them in danger in claim of the ‘I’ve got priority’ If I was driving the car I’d have slowed down to no more than a creep since it looked like 20mph roads and it looked fairly decent rain so easy chance the child falling off the bike or taking longer to break. If I was cycling I would’ve held back and waited for the car to pass as end of the day, I’d rather be safe than barge through with the ‘I’ve got priority’
How typical to push the onus onto the vulnerable party to modify their behaviour. This, in part, is precisely why drivists see themselves as kings and queens of the roads and anyone else needs to get out the way or get what's coming to them. Getting out the way, having 'rules' to force you to wait to get somewhere on foot (or be killed/injured), ceding priority, wearing stupid day glow colours, having lights like a lighthouse and plastic hats has done f.all to make vulnerable persons safer. Motons take the piss and take more all the time others are told to cede/get out the way. But now you're blaming the victims because someone with huge kinetic energy won't do what the law tells them they MUST do and even when anothers life is at stake. Yeah, you stink like an entitled motorist!
That's not really that surprising! Most adult bike riders are arrogant and ignorant,like a lot of car drivers. I speak as an ex driving instructor! Common sense and patience is not common! The child's father is typical! He's an idiot.
Thank you for this - I feel this is a really good analysis. I will put my hands up as a daily cyclist and have 'cycled in to danger' before, even when common sense says to apply caution and not make a situation worse. The child here shows an important lesson to us all - ego can be really damaging (and sadly sometimes dangerous) and we must recognise when to take action, even if it goes against our own emotions/beliefs. Having more quiet streets and places where all ages and abilities feel they can safely walk/cycle/wheel is an integral part of our future - but as is empathy, recognition of mutual safety and looking out for each other. Thanks - I always enjoy your videos!
As of this comment I have only had one sour experience with a cyclist in my 10 years of driving since passing my test. All other times there was no beef at all, some even waved me on to pass or even yielded to me! Kindness costs nothing.
Up until this 5:35 i was thinking that i am going to have to disagree with Ashleys way of thinking, but fair play you eventually said EXACTLY what i was thinking to myself. I would rather submit than risk my sons life, as there ain't no glory in saying it was your right of way when your child is in a coffin!
As someone from the Netherlands, where we learn to cycle from a very young age (and you'll often see young children on the road unsupervised), I completely agree with your analysis. We have to keep a close eye on young children participating in traffic (whether it's cycling, walking or any other way). Even if they know the rules well (and let's be honest, most of them only know the basics), they simply don't have the same level of control of their vehicle that we expect from adults (and they also don't have the same level of awareness). As for this video: the motorist should have taken much more care, but the father telling the child to continue on into danger is a disgrace, especially since the child was clearly uncomfortable with the situation (considering they wanted to pull over). But what made it even worse for me, was him swearing at the driver in the presence of the child. That shows a mindset we should absolutely not teach our children ("I've got priority, so I'm going to just escalate the situation and create way more danger than their needs to be").
After reading some comments on here I basically agree that the father should have acted defensively for the sake of the child (pulled over into the opening that was there). I can't help but get the feeling the kid would have pulled alongside the parked van which does have some degree of risk but I cannot say for certain. I agree that the motorists should have also given way too. One being that, from I could recall in the video, the road signs instructing what to do and the fact there was someone more vulnerable than an adult cyclist on the road (I somewhat doubt the driver even saw the kid). The kid definitely had the most common sense. As for the language used by the father? I do agree it was disgusting to swear in front of a kid. That said I have heard many a bad word when I was their age so I can't really comment on it (again I do agree you should not swear in the company of kids).
Of course, in the Netherlands, the roads have evolved to reduce risk by design, it is called "sustainable safety", and is designed to minimise risks - even when mistakes are made. As Raymond will know, this systematic improvement started in the 1970s with the "stop de kindermoord" campaign (stop child killing). I thought of that when I saw the pathetically narrow few yards of bike lane to the left of the pinch point, that the riders rightly ignored. Had they taken that lane they may have been invisible to the oncoming car, and parked cars made that lane worthless, and increases risk. That the lane does not continue beyond the pinch points is lousy design, IMO, and would not be found much in the Netherlands. Such a "provision" for cycling is as pointless as it is dangerous. I think the dad in the circumstances shown should have pre-emptively asked his kid to pull in earlier, before the kid asked. Had he said yes to the kid saying "shall I pull in" that may have been too late to be useful. But maybe another commentary is that just as it is best to use a registered driving instructor to learn to drive, so ones dad (unless he has some lessons first to unlearn bad habits) may not be the best person to supervise cycling by youngsters!
@Joe Lynch disagree. Morons in control of machines don't mix; and that applies to morons in cars as much as morons on bikes. If you can't handle your machine safely in the presence of other kinds of road vehicle, it is YOU that should be off the road.
Great analysis, Ashley! From 5:15 of your video is the most important part in my opinion. The fact that the father was happy to let his child "carry on" was just as concerning as the opposite driver plowing through the pinch point.
@@mintywebb Having right of way doesn't mean you should take it regardless. You need to assess situations and respond, to ensure your safety and mitigate other's mistakes or bull-headedness. In this example the child assessed a potential problem, the father dismissed it and over-ruled his response to avoid danger. "I had right of way" is not a good epitaph. As for victim's of sexual assault? No, I blame those who commit the crime, and the mentality of 'boys will be boys' excusing their behaviour. Mind you, I'm biased, it's taken a lot of therapy to stop blaming myself. I was raised when "what does she expect dressed like that?" was a societal norm. Oh, and if you're wondering what I was wearing that so provoked a man, it was a school uniform, I was 12.
@@mintywebb OK, let's clarify. Yes, the driver is at fault; he should've given way, I'm not disputing that. I'm concerned the father teaching his son to overrule his sense of self preservation, putting his life at risk.
@@mintywebb The child read the danger, the dad made him carry on into that dangerous situation. He got what he wanted, a flashpoint that he could film as he has done countless times on his social media. the dad can clearly see the motorist isn't going to stop. This is where you have to be smart and the dad isn't. You cannot influence what the other driver does but you can influence the risk of injury to yourself or someone else by the decisions you take. In this instance the driver should have stopped but its clear to a five year old that the car is going to keep on going. |Because of that the father is also wrong to put his child in a dangerous situation just for his own ego. this whole 'i have the right of way' means absolutely nothing in the real world when you have two tonne of vehicle coming in the opposite direction. Easier to forget about massaging your own ego and pull over where safe. Because in events like this where you have two points of self entitlement there is only going to be one winner. And it ain't the kid on the pushbike. Smart people live to fight another day.
@@mintywebb “so you’re prepared to victim blame in one situation but not your own” are you for real? Wtf is that response, using SA as a petty point scoring comment. Sick. Proper dickhead comment that. Petty as hell.
When I learned to ride a motorcycle in the 80s, the instructor made the point of saying it's no good saying it was your right of way lying in a hospital bed. Giving way to someone is better than getting hurt
Fantastic analysis, totally agree. I'm especially pleased you wholeheartedly approved of teaching kids road safety instead of that knee jerk "they shouldn't be anywhere near a road" reaction.
Absolutely spot on. It's quite sad when a 5 year old child can display more sense and risk awareness than either of the grown adults in a situation like this. If he were mine, not only would I have encouraged him to slow and move out of danger, I would have praised him for asking the important question here. Sincerely asking yourself questions like that is how you develop good road habits imo.
@@mintywebb I see you've made similar comments here. And I see you make a habit of missing the point. Was it possible that the cyclists were going to be completely safe and the car would stop? Yes. Did it happen? No. So was the smart thing to do to pull into the side, like the kid asked? Yes. I could tell by then that the car wasn't going to stop. It hadn't started to slow, as it should have. Remember Ashley's words: "Priority is give, not taken." What the father has taught is to take priority and the driver is in the wrong. It's a bad habit to teach and is a really crappy mindset. Cars need to drive safely around more vulnerable road users. What you seem to think is we should be responsible for 100% of vulnerable road users' safety. That's an awful way to think. And before you think I ask victims of sexual abuse "what they wore" as you said to someone above...No, I have never been one of those people, but you have to attack the issue at both ends. Teach how to be safe around others and teach how to keep others safe. Basically, teach cyclists where to be safe in case drivers aren't doing what they should be.
@@mintywebb well, yes, if you think the risk of being punched in the face is significant. Do you often allow yourself to be punched in the face? Is it much fun?
@@mintywebb well, yes, if you think the risk of being punched in the face is significant. Do you often allow yourself to be punched in the face? Is it much fun?
I absolutely agree with you Ashley. You should also add the risk of target fixation here, As the car approaches you can see the child start to move towards the vehicle. He sees the vehicle and he moves towards it for a split second. Thankfully he regains his line and avoids the car.
Just to play devil's advocate, if this 5yr old had to slow down and stop, he might have become unstable and ended up placing his right foot on the ground and leaning into the oncoming traffic which showed no signs of stopping.
Exactly. In this situation, there wasn't really time to do anything different. What I would have done differently, would be to cycle alongside the child, 2 abreast, to try and manage the danger from oncoming vehicles.
@@Robert-cu9bm everyone is allowed to ride on the pavement with care, it’s effectively been decriminalised for years since the NPCC released guidelines.
@@shm5547 Rule 64 You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A sect 129 But it's still illegal, you would effectively be teaching children to break laws. The more small minor laws you break, the easier it becomes to break bigger laws. Then people wonder why young adults have no respect for the law.
“Here lies the body of William Jay, Who died maintaining his right of way- He was right, dead right, as he sped along, But he’s just as dead as if he were wrong.”
Thank you Ronnie for this quote - never heard it all before, just "Jimmy Jay died defending his rigjt of way" which my Mum used to say to us all when teaching us road sense (walking !!) thanks again 💯✔👍💖
I’m not sure I fully agree. The car coming the other way was some way off when the father advised his son to continue. Perhaps some extra caution might have been warranted given the age of the child but I would have taken that gap - the child and his father reached the pinch point long before the car did. The bulk of the blame lies with the car driver, who approached the pinch point way too fast and powered through like he owned the road despite there already being a vehicle. The local police constabulary expressed a similar view to me in the twitter thread.
"I'm very sorry dear, I'm afraid our little Billy died in a traffic accident when I took him out cycling. He was hit by an oncoming car after I told him to keep going when Billy asked if he should stop. We had priority though!"
"I'm very sorry dear, I'm afraid I was held up on my way home because I killed a child on a bike. You see although he had priority, and was vulnerable, I decided I'm more important and so I wanted to go, and my car is bigger than a child on a bike anyway."
@@jackw7714 "the funny part tho is that the child didnt actually have priority nor enough brains to stop after seeing a car, probably because he was a 5 year old and shouldnt have been on the road in the first place, especially during that weather. only the fittest survive"
I agree with the analysis of this as a single incident. What gives more problem is what then might begin to happen as general practice. If all cyclists go by "I should be able to keep going but if the car doesn't stop I should stop" and all drivers go by "I should stop, but if I keep going the cyclist will stop for me" then we've just created a different rule than is intended, where there is a stronger incentive for drivers not to stop. How do you then stop general practice going that way and pull things back to the intention? There's surely enough creative interpretation of the HWC as it is?
Should the motorist not have stopped and waited before the traffic calming chicane, as the sign is set up as "give way for oncoming vehicles" in the direction the motorist was coming from?
The adults are consumed with the politics of the situation - the cyclist seething that motorists don't give bikes priority as they should, the motorist barging through thinking he's the most important thing on the road. The kid has the most sense because he isn't contaminated by any of that, he just sees escalating danger and asks if she should take action - but is also intelligent enough to trust in his Dad's greater knowledge and experience and so follows instructions.
Why do you think the motorist should give the bike priority ? The bike has much less kinetic energy to lose , and needed to restart , than any motor vehicle . It is just like when I am out in my car and am confronted by a 38 tonne Artic coming the other way ; I will always stop for the Artic ; just as with a car and a bike , there will only ever be one winner if a car and an Artic have a coming together .
The inverse is true. The motorist only has to move their foot one inch to regain momentum, while the cyclist has to do real effort. Your arctic tanker argument is a fallacy: they actually move other stuff than the just the driver.
Glad to see this back up. It was taken down before I had a chance to view it. Excellent analysis and one that is important to the road safety discussion.
I’ve been cycling to work for over a year now and it’s amazing how many close calls you have because motorists feel they have priority over a measley push bike when they should be giving way. Of course if the blockage is on their side but they have nowhere to pull in to let me through I’ll just stop and let them through like any reasonable person would
I understand your comments about the father, saying carry on when maybe he could have called a stop, but if he told the child to stop, would that have led to a wobble and maybe fall into the path of the oncoming car ?
Thanks for not blaming the child on this one Ashley as they seemed to be the ones perceiving the danger. Just because you should have priority, it doesn't always mean it's safe to carry on regardless.
I'm absolutely 100% in agreement with you Ashley on this one. Kudos to the child for being the only one with some common sense, if it doesn't get "educated" out of him he will go far.
Excellent video, I totally agree. My father taught me that you "don't play games on the road" and "it's not just what you do but what other people do that can cause accidents". Whilst the driver was to blame, why on earth the father would send his son on to seemingly make a point is beyond me. Any driver prepared to do this is best avoided, it might hurt our pride but often backing down makes for a better journey.
When the kid asks to pull over and the father says no...as a dad that breaks my heart. Little kids voice. He even wabbles towards the oncoming car. Tough stuff to watch.
@Nothing The oncoming driver was to blame mate. Highway code is clear on it. Yes priority means nothing if you're 6 feet under but if we're attributing blame to something that happened. It's the driver at fault here. As Surrey Roads Policing unit has commented and as other traffic police have commented. Driver should have given way to the oncoming cyclists.
As a teacher, I am impressed with the question of the child. Further I agree with your assessment Ashley. A little point on the side and offtopic. 6 months ago you and I where talking about a Cruyff-shirt you where wearing. As a Dutchman I was proud to see that. Little did I know, sorry about that, what I found out a few days ago, that you where a professional footballplayer. Now I really understand the shirt! Keep on going with these video's. They are educational for everyone. In and outside of the UK.
Can’t argue with a lot said here! The lad’s body language clearly displayed a lack of self confidence approaching the hazard as his pedalling stroke momentarily ‘stuttered’. His verbalisation reiterated this uncertainty. Now, my own Father always taught me to treat all other road users as being blind, or at best, idiots! “Presume they have not, and will not see you” were his last words…just before the number 189 bus ran him over!! But seriously, that advice is sound advice and 30yrs riding motorcycles and still being in one piece is partly down to Dad’s words. I was slightly concerned that the Father of the child did not verbalise anything about the car reversing into the road at the end of the clip. This Father seems to me to be very reactive, when cycling with a child being taught Road sense, surely proactivity is the more desirable approach!
Exactly. The dad only had a small amount of time make a decision. He may have made the wrong decision, but not necessarily out of stubbornness or entitlement
Maybe you're right, but the kid was alert to the situation and would have had plenty of time to stop safely and not wobble. Especially considering how well he rode in a straight line whilst turning his head
Yeah as to who goes first. I'm generally of the sense that if my lane has the parked car, I wait for oncoming to pass before moving into what is THEIR side of the road. If both sides are blocked, we take turns or act like the other person will not be stopping. (Go when you know the other person is yielding). That being said, while cycling everyone is out to kill you. Though not literally true, I tend to act as though it is. The car can be completely at fault, but if I'm dead it hardly matters.
Thanks Ashley. I have commented on this on twitter and have had a change of heart over whether that child should have been on the road. I was concerned that the cycle lanes were flooded and it wasn't safe, but I taught my kids to ride on the road the same way. This is the first time I heard the child say "Shall I pull over to the side?" and I would have said "yes" because the life of my child comes before being proved right. As for the driver? Well, there was a point where he would have lost sight of that child. The very least he could have done was stopped until he was visible again. But as I said on twitter, there are some really bad "drivers" out there.
I agree with the analysis. My only thought playing devils advocate would be that maybe the father of the boy was worried about him stopping. Perhaps he knew the boy was fine while moving as you said but sometimes was a bit wobbly stopping and he didn't want him to fall off into the path of the oncoming car while trying to stop in a tricky spot? Sometimes it's safer to keep moving?
Absolutely nailed it right there. To stop in that situation would have been arguably more dangerous - the kid was riding a really straight line at the speed he was going
Bikes committed first (I guess I'm incorrect) but as a general rule, I think this works. But no way would I have squeezed through and would have let them pass first no matter what. People seem unable to judge when they will come and meet The only thing I would say is that sometimes telling a child to brake quickly could destabilise them and put them in more danger
My worst experience cycling through one of those pinch-points was when a car tried to pass me, but it wasn't until I heard him that I knew he wasn't going to stop. Wouldn't have been quite so scary if I didn't have bags of groceries from the supermarket on both sides of the carrier (because my car was out of action)!
When I used to cycle in town, I'd get out into the middle of the lane going through a pinch-point (after doing a rear ob), then pull over to the left as soon as I was clear so following cars could pass safely and quickly. With the cyclists on the country lane, providing the oncoming car is on his side of the road there is no need for him to slow down...the cyclists don't have to ride so irresponsibly close together...if one wobbled or had a tyre pop he could bring all his mates down. The can see the oncoming car and should give it space.
Being Devil’s Advocate, the driver might have been a little surprised seeing a 5 year old in front of him and might not quite been able to judge his speed, and got himself into a bit of a quandary and ended up ****ing things up. What I find quite worrying about this is would that child be easily spotted by someone opening a van or car door? Has anyone got any experience of that?
One can only assume that this father hates his child and has decided to put his life at great risk....has he even seen the standard of the average driver on our roads?
Priority is given not taken but should ALWAYS be given to more vulnerable road users under law. The analogy of Running around a swimming pool is horribly wrong, this is more like walking around a swimming pool while an adult runs around it in the other direction, running is wrong whoever does it and the child did nothing wrong!
This is utterly shocking ; for any parent to take such a young child cycling in such hazardous conditions is beyond irresponsible . When my children were that age , they were taken cycling in public parks , along seaside promenades , always completely away from any traffic . Ashley commented on the oncoming driver being too close to parked vehicles on his side - well so was the child on the bike : what if someone had stepped from behind one of the parked vans ; another child , or an angry dog ... that little boy would have veered right into the path of the oncoming car . The father SHOULD have instructed his son to wait until the road was completely clear before proceeding through the gap , especially as it was clear how little space there was going to be . Another failure is him encouraging the boy to ride through the traffic lane instead of using the cycle lanes to each side of the islands : these are designed to separate drivers and cyclists and to allow drivers to pass while cyclists are kept to the side . Sadly , the woke advocates who want everyone else to give them priority will keep trying to make themselves seem more important . It is a nonsense that everyone else should take responsibility for cyclists and pedestrians : the vulnerable can NEVER rely on others looking out for them - that is why so many end up dead - the only system which works is to teach cyclists to watch out for their own safety and take action to protect themselves . That poor excuse for a father is guilty of child endangerment and a pathetic example of parenthood .
Responsibility for all lies with all. There was also no cycle Lane, those are gates rendered useless and more dangerous to the child by the parked vehicles. Your last paragraph is juvenile nonsense.
my tuppence worth is the cyclist reached the parked cars (not the pinch point) long before the car, therefore they were already commited to the passing manoeuvre, irrespective of whether its a cyclist, hgv, bus, pedestrian or car the oncoming driver should have given way and who the hell tries to squeeze past a young child on a bike
I am sure the father now realises he gave his son the wrong answer. Hopefully this will be a learning curve for him. I personally never took my son out cycling on a road. No matter how well you instruct - the unpredictable can always happen. We always went to parks to cycle and he does not own a cycle now he is grown. I have a bicycle which I take to coastal paths etc and I generally do not cycle on roads as I consider it is too dangerous.
The only additional observation I would make is that perhaps a late brake action from the cyclists may have unsettled the bikes and caused the child (particularly) to fall off just as the car approached. (Wet roads). That might have been in the father's mind too. However if they'd stopped when the child first asked then the risk of this happening would have been much lower as the level of braking would have been lower.
Excellent. I am so glad I listened to your every word. Despite being on the side of the dad and his efforts to teach his little son, I concur with your analysis. Thank you
A normal,attentive, non sociopath would see that kid coming and come to a complete stop immediately. I have a friend who annoys me when she drives because she sees the pedestrian but continues at full speed towards them and then brakes hard. She assumes the ped understands that she intends to stop, even though she gives no indication she will stop, and she jumps on me if I point out her terrifying behavior.
Sounds like that Mercedes test driver on a motorway in Germany a few years back. He was doing something like 250 km/h, and there was a lady doing around 100 km/h ahead of him. He left it till the last minute to brake (no problem for him, an experienced driver in a fast car with good brakes), but the lady panicked when she saw him approaching in the rear view mirror and crashed off the road. At least one person was killed.
Hey Ash. This video has almost bought me to tears. I completely agree with your comments. Hats off to the lad, listen to your kids guys. This one will go far!
One could say the child hasn't been 'corrupted' by being an adult road user and the attitudes that brings. The kid still has the natural tendency of self-preservation that screamed danger when faced with this situation. The father, who has probably been in many dangerous situations on the road, has become more numb to this instinct unless a collision is imminent. He is effectively teaching his son to ignore that internal scream of danger as he does himself. It does sometimes seem like something we're meant to do. I had a similar situation the other day where I could stay on my side of the road to pass a parked car at the bottom of a hill. I had just cycled down a hill and I was doing 30-40 km/h (20-25 mph), but I was about to cycle up the hill ahead. I saw the parked car on my side of the road, I saw the oncoming car, and I had the scream of danger going off in my head. For some reason I decided keeping my momentum was more important as I didn't want to start up on the hill. I was able to stay on my side, the oncoming driver had their entire lane, my speed was slowed by the hill, but there wasn't enough room for it to be safe. I've been thinking about it since, especially the oncoming driver's smile -- I wonder what about the situation amused her -- either blissfully unaware or gleefully keeping going to teach me a lesson?
I have to say I agree 100% with everything you say here. When I'm in a situation like this, who I think has priority very much takes 2nd place to avoiding the risk altogether. As either the driver or the cyclist here I would have yielded.
@@ashley_neal im a hgv driver of 20 years, no serious crash, 2 minor bumps, i have learned, its not what i should do and its not whats law, its what the other idiot does. seeing what iv seen, i would not take 5 year old on road
Imagine if the driver of the oncoming car was the same one as in Ashleys ' Unfit to Drive' video. Having priority and proving a point for social media clicks doesn't stop you or your child getting killed. There are lot of older drivers with very poor eyesight and no awareness of anything around them.
Hats off to you Mr Neal for your balanced approach to these situations. Issues occur daily on the roads, both to cyclists and motorists alike. A sensible approach by all everyone is required to keep all parties safe. No place for told you so attitude on the road, by that point somebody could be dead, we all need to look out for each other.
Iv picked up Ashley's attitude to the road well over the past year and have become a cyclist people don't mind sharing the road with. It's like penguins of Madagascar, (smile and wave. )I got T,boned at 30mph a couple of months back in a bike lane when a car ran a no entry so it won't save you all the time but giving right of way does cut the risk to everyone somewhat.
This mindset change will have a bigger impact on road safety than any infrastructure you can possibly build. A good road user can negotiate through a tricky situation simply and easily.
Love this break down and fully agree with every single point made as a cyclist. I do have a pet peeve for those who automatically believe they have the right of way in these type of situations and continue (we are all guilty of it I guess) but it’s those who act out in aggression either by driving recklessly or genuinely abusive. As long as either party continues to keep safe and respect those on the road whether in the wrong or not then the roads will be a safer place. Conflict causes more danger in my eyes.
Absolutely, Ashley. I saw the clip, formed my own opinion, and sought out your channel for your take on it. I was pleased to see that we were in total agreement.
Absolutely spot in as usual. There is definitely advice missing regarding oncoming cyclists, the current advice only covers overtaking. This is especially common on narrow one lane country roads, as I cyclist I try to take secondary when faced with a motor vehicle that cannot possibly pass me safely, but some drivers don't slow down and think they have priority, when of course neither road user actually does. Relying on common sense is insufficient (as too many road users lack it).
About letting your child ride in front of you: There was a case where a child on a bike riding in front of her went forward at a junction and was killed and her mother could do nothing. I think this was 2010 or a year earlier. I always understood after that that a child should ride behind the adult?
Top notch - as always. Ego and stubbornness could easily have resulted in a fatality here. I agree - full credit to the Child who displayed more sense than the "so called" Adults. Stay safe out there.
Not uncalled for at all in my opinion. You say he was expecting the car to pull in. Given the fact that his five year old child was in front him and approaching potential danger, perhaps he should have been expecting it not to pull in and to be better safe than sorry.
@@davidrobinson4118 The car driver makes the dad look bad, he (the dad) had seconds to make a judgement and I think he made a reasonable one. The car didn't even need to pull in, it could have made the situation better by just stopping. That's why I think any criticism of the dad is uncalled for here, the car just ploughed on through and made the situation dangerous.
Absolute nonsense. If there was a clear opportunity for the child to pull over when it became clear the car wasn’t going to stop you might have a point- but by the time it was obvious the car was carrying on the child was next to the white van and there was no opportunity to pull over so carrying on was the safest option. If the child had pulled over there he would more than likely have overbalanced and would be more likely to fall into the oncoming car than if he had carried on riding. And to label the father as blasé about his child’s safety on the basis of this clip is staggering. I’m not one of the “I’ve got priority” brigade as you put it, but I think the father did exactly the right thing here in a very short window to make a decision - the least chance of a collision was for the child to hold their riding line. To pull over so near parked vehicles would likely have panicked him more. To put any blame at all on the father here is what I’d call victim blaming
This is why I check the wrong way down a one way street or check that nobody is proceeding through adjacent red lights. There’s no point in being able to say, ‘you were in the wrong’ when you’re dead.
This is just one of the reasons that I will cycle alongside my kids in preference to behind them until they're more experienced If dad had been alongside then the driver simply would not have been able to to bully through. Also protects from idiot close passes / left hooks coming from behind Too many times where my assumption that drivers would give some consideration to a child was shown to be horribly misplaced, so now I actively remove every opportunity i can for people to drive badly in a way that risks my kids lives. Still happens, sadly - but much less.
I disagree with the assessment of the dad. Suddenly telling his kid to stop may cause him to swerve or even fall. Startling such a young biker can be dangerous in a situation like this. Otherwise spot on analysis!
1:05 "If two vehicles are approaching this scenario there is no priority" Disagree with you, blue sign there shows the priority on this stretch of road with the large white arrow and small red arrow. Also, we should stop treating our public space as 'car space'. It should be a public right of way, that includes five year olds on bicycles. We should not be faulting the young for healthy modes of travel, we should be faulting motorists for making public rights of way dangerous places. If people can't be trusted with their cars, make the built environment safer to protect vulnerable road users.
I agree completely with everything you said. I live in a city with an excellent cycle network, and I'll take a longer route on the cycle path if it means staying off the roads. There's an unattractive bolshy streak that's very apparent today, with so many people thinking that they're the exception to every rule and they can do what they want. As you pointed out, the only person not displaying that attitude was the 5 year old, and they were the student in the situation. The child only asked if they should pull in because they had assessed the danger and felt unsafe. I would advise that if they had to ask the question, the answer is yes, you should pull in to the side. It's very easy to get into that argument of "who has right of way", and there are a lot of drivers out there who have taken umbrage to the change in law that gives the more vulnerable party right of way. Don't they know that driver owns the road and is the only person who should be on it? I've met plenty of drivers like that out and about. It's a big part of the reason why I stopped driving and stick to cycling.
There has NOT been a change in law ; only an ill conceived change in advice . In this situation both parties have right of way , and also equal priority .
@@derekheeps1244 As the video points out, right of way is given, not taken and that nobody has "right of way". The law favours the most vulnerable party in the situation, which is inarguably the 5 year old child and not your ego. You do not own the road, and you have the responsibility to conduct yourself with all due care and attention while you are driving on it. Since when did it become ok to forget your manners as soon as you sit down behind a steering wheel?
Any reasonable person can see the car should have given way but the father of the boy put him danger just to prove a point. the kid had more common sense than both the others.
@@shm5547 There's no such thing as 'right of way' in these cases. The principle is 'priority'. And if you've watched Ashley's videos, you'll know how priority should be managed.
@@tarnmonath but when you're teaching kids cycling, they are always asking should I stop, who has priority etc. The first, most basic thing, is to teach them the rules. Only then do you move onto managing risk from rule breakers. The only thing the father could do better here, is to ride 2 abreast with his kid to do that defensive cycling for them. A point Ashley completely missed.
I'm glad you took this angle at the clip, I was baffled at some of the news coverage treating the father as a total saint for not giving in to a driver like that as if he hadnt also instructed his kid into a dangerous situation.
I'd add one thing to this: Those 5m long cycle lanes at the traffic calming measures are appalling pieces of bad road design. Any cyclist actually using them, in either direction, is rendered invisible to oncoming traffic by the parked cars, van, and lorry. Imagine if the 5-year-old had used the one at 0:29.
Some years ago, I did a driving assessment of an employee. On our side of the road was a parked car, there wasn't enough room for two cars to pass each other alongside the parked car. Approaching us were two cars, separated by a distance. The driver being assessed, correctly waited for the first car to come through, then pulled out into the face of the second oncoming car, forcing it to brake. I asked why they had done that, their reply was "I waited my turn". Of course, I had to explain, there was no such thing as having a turn, and duly failed the assessment, on the grounds of unsafe manoeuvre.
Coming from a country with 23,4 million bicycles and a population of 17,5 Million people I see this: The father missed the opportunity to have the child ride between the curb and himself. This is very common in the Netherlands as it creates a safe(r) space for the child on the road. It would als have given an extremely clear signal to the oncoming car they are expected to wait. In the event the oncoming car still barges trough, the father can always steer to the left and push/knock the child over in the direction of the curb into safety.
@@MrSabretooth19 Have you looked outside some train stations in the Netherlands? I'm English but I remember seeing over a thousand bikes outside of a station in Utrecht, and it would've been impossible to get to "your" bike, as they were 50 deep and all leaning against each other up to a wall So I do believe that you can have more bikes than people in a country
@@MrSabretooth19 Not really. It is fairly common to have a normal (daily) bike and a recreational bike like a mountain bike, race bike or even a cargo bike. It is just the dutch equivalent to an American having daily driver, pickup truck and quad.
The boy's father says "That driver absolutely should have stopped." But you should never just assume someone you don't know is going to do what you think they should do, ESPECIALLY where the safety of a child is concerned.
The lad has shown he is very bright and capable of listening to, and following, instructions. You have to learn to ride on the road at some stage, the earlier the better. Cyclists put themselves at risk every time they use our roads as we share them with larger, faster and heavier vehicles. I don't think the parent has done anything wrong personally.
As soon as the parent said - ‘carry on to his child’ despite it being clear the car wasn’t going to stop - The parent, typical. Yes, we can all hope drivers were amazing and didn’t make mistakes. I don’t understand this, why put yourself into a dangerous situation just because you know you are right.
Whilst I agree with you, I think there's a tendency for cyclists to do this because as vulnerable road users they don't want to be bullied by motorists which is understandable given how dangerous the roads can be if they allow that to happen.
@@mikewade777 I'm not blaming the kid. Can you point to me where I did that? I'll wait. The child didn't go out for a bike ride because he felt like it. Try thinking before you write. The driver is 100% to blame...but that doesn't mean the child should be on a rainy, narrowed road at that age. What part of that are you struggling with, and I'll see if I can get you assistance from a help group.
@@jimskirtt5717 you're victim blaming the kid you idiot. You are saying ...kids should not be in road because road users are dangerous. You're arguing after the fact and since freedom of movement is written in law ...taking the space away from cars does not infringe that law.
I fully agree with the analysis, and I will specifically say again, in my state, the verbiage of the highway code is that a motorist must allow a cyclist enough room that the cyclist can fall down without being hit by the car. I like the verbiage because it is quite clear.
The child had more road awareness and did a quicker risk assessment than his father.
Put him in for driving lessons, he'd probably do better than his Dad 😆
The point is the driver is dangerous. The father was aware the driver but obviously expected the driver to take more care of his child. Society needs to take more care of children rather than putting it entirely on the parents.
I'm impressed with how the child analysed so far ahead, and asked the question. Full marks to him.
You can even see at the start of the clip, the kid took a position in the centre of the road rather than going up the cycle path where he'd have been obscured by the cars. Whether it was intentional or instructed, it's worth noting.
@Shen-ek2oe are you talking about the 1 metre of bike lane leading directly into the back of a parked car? How exactly would the 5 year old take that lane..phase through the cars?
I am totally in agreement with you. The child was the only one who saw the danger; in my opinion, both the car driver and the child's father were stubborn and raised the danger level unnecessarily to the child.
Absolutely - at least the kid was wearing high vis clothing as well, no idea on the dad. One of my pet hates lately is cyclists doing silly things in dark clothing and poor if any lights then blaming anyone but themselves for near incidents.
But the dad then wouldn't have had a video to post.
Why was the Dad being stubborn?
@@iainamurray
Because "I'm a cyclist" mentally.
He put his child in extreme danger.
It's all well and good saying, but they should have stopped. They won't bring a child back to life.
Cyclists need to learn a car will always win. They have rules with boats, but the overwhelming rule is you always move out the way for the bigger boat as you'll lose.
The father capped it off nicely by swearing in front of a 5 year old child.
I'm glad you said the child was the only person with any common sense there, that was my immediate thoughts as well. Whether you have priority or not, hanging back and leaving people to do whatever they're gonna do is key to self preservation. Just because you might have priority doesn't mean it's safe to proceed
Absolutely right.... I always say to people do you go onto a junction where you have the green light where the lorry coming at right angles is not appearing to be slowing to stop for what should be his red light? Being right but dead or seriously injured aren't somewhere I'd like to be.
Look idiots you are not allowed to kill cause you have a driver's license
I used to have the attitude of the father and I'm still assertive but I've realized that it is better to protect myself and let the bad drivers get on down the road and out of my life.
It has taken me years to get out of the minds set of, "if something happens to me, it's not my fault. And it won't happen to me, because they would be at fault"... my husband told me that you can't sue them if you're dead and that you being right isn't worth getting hurt or killed for.
Exactly
They can have "he was right" written on the gravestone.
My ex girlfriend used to be a triathlete and was out running on a country road. The road was narrow, a 60MPH limit and a bendy road with blind corners.
A sports car came speeding around a blind corner while she was running along the road and she had to jump into ditch to avoid being killed.
[as she landed in the ditch she damaged her hip and it has never been the same since ending her sporting career]
She will vehemently rant on to anyone who will listen about how some utter lunatic ruined her career, but my attitude was “what the hell were you doing out running on that road. You knew full well it was a dangerous road so what did you expect?”.
This didn’t go down well because her mind set was “but iv’e got the legal right to run along that road as much as I want”
To which replied “Yes you have, and the car driver was indeed an #%*^hole and should not have been speeding around a blind corner, but in the end he drove off unaffected and you were the one left lying damaged in a ditch”
I get why she is now your ex-girlfriend 😂
Your husband sounds like a good man
Spot on analysis. As the driver I'd had given way all day long, and probably had a shared feeling of fatherly pride in seeing a son out for a ride with his father.
As the father I'd have told my child to stop. If I was in a car following behind the father and so also had to stop then I'd have had a shared sense of fatherly pride in the guided caution the father was giving his son.
If it was me, that made the mistake of "entering the corridor" - I would have stopped and allowed the young man to pass. Not attempt to "thread the needle" (simply because I wouldn't want to damage the blue car! The young cyclist knew what he was doing, and did great - one of the better cyclists I've seen recently, in all honesty)
I agree that the kid had more sense. He obviously didn't feel safe with the oncoming car.
Yes
I can't believe the Dad wasn't saying Slow down ready to stop and then the kid asked should I Stop!
This Lad has more sense than his Dad and the Driver put together!!!
His instincts were correct.
His dad had to get he footage for youtube some how. Why is the 5 year old on the road in the first place.
Sorry but the dad's an irresponsible ego fuelled pillock.
It's truly unbelievable that when someone is on a bike the other road users no longer see it as another human. Compassion and empathy go out of the window. I see a child on a bike coming the other way I want to be careful even if there's no pinch points... How has it got so bad.
"Compassion and empathy go out of the window" we've lost those since the 90s. Most people are so selfish, self-centred and simply don't care these days. Even commentary like Ashley's this isn't going to change because the people who need to learn wont until they've killed someone. Then with pointless sentencing there's no deterrant.
@@Itsa-sh The 90s..? Lol
Arguably humans never really had compassion and empathy, other than for close members of their local community, but that was lost in the 60s not the 90s.
Sadly it works both ways as equally I’ve seen far too many cyclists deliberately put them in danger in claim of the ‘I’ve got priority’
If I was driving the car I’d have slowed down to no more than a creep since it looked like 20mph roads and it looked fairly decent rain so easy chance the child falling off the bike or taking longer to break.
If I was cycling I would’ve held back and waited for the car to pass as end of the day, I’d rather be safe than barge through with the ‘I’ve got priority’
Well said sir
How typical to push the onus onto the vulnerable party to modify their behaviour. This, in part, is precisely why drivists see themselves as kings and queens of the roads and anyone else needs to get out the way or get what's coming to them.
Getting out the way, having 'rules' to force you to wait to get somewhere on foot (or be killed/injured), ceding priority, wearing stupid day glow colours, having lights like a lighthouse and plastic hats has done f.all to make vulnerable persons safer.
Motons take the piss and take more all the time others are told to cede/get out the way.
But now you're blaming the victims because someone with huge kinetic energy won't do what the law tells them they MUST do and even when anothers life is at stake.
Yeah, you stink like an entitled motorist!
That kid was riding more sensibly than a lot of grownups!
Probably why the driver seemed to have confidence in the kids cycling
That's not really that surprising!
Most adult bike riders are arrogant and ignorant,like a lot of car drivers.
I speak as an ex driving instructor!
Common sense and patience is not common!
The child's father is typical!
He's an idiot.
@@nearlyretired7005 retire urgently.
I agree
Honestly says a lot about the state of our roads. 5 year old kid is a better road user than 90% of adults.
Thank you for this - I feel this is a really good analysis. I will put my hands up as a daily cyclist and have 'cycled in to danger' before, even when common sense says to apply caution and not make a situation worse. The child here shows an important lesson to us all - ego can be really damaging (and sadly sometimes dangerous) and we must recognise when to take action, even if it goes against our own emotions/beliefs. Having more quiet streets and places where all ages and abilities feel they can safely walk/cycle/wheel is an integral part of our future - but as is empathy, recognition of mutual safety and looking out for each other.
Thanks - I always enjoy your videos!
I enjoyed reading your comment.
ALL cyclists please remember that next time you want to jump a red light
Good comment. (Also to others, please let's not make it about red lights and all the usual arguments...)
@@dpace2310 That applies to you as well when you run a red/amber
light.
As of this comment I have only had one sour experience with a cyclist in my 10 years of driving since passing my test. All other times there was no beef at all, some even waved me on to pass or even yielded to me! Kindness costs nothing.
Up until this 5:35 i was thinking that i am going to have to disagree with Ashleys way of thinking, but fair play you eventually said EXACTLY what i was thinking to myself. I would rather submit than risk my sons life, as there ain't no glory in saying it was your right of way when your child is in a coffin!
As someone from the Netherlands, where we learn to cycle from a very young age (and you'll often see young children on the road unsupervised), I completely agree with your analysis. We have to keep a close eye on young children participating in traffic (whether it's cycling, walking or any other way). Even if they know the rules well (and let's be honest, most of them only know the basics), they simply don't have the same level of control of their vehicle that we expect from adults (and they also don't have the same level of awareness).
As for this video: the motorist should have taken much more care, but the father telling the child to continue on into danger is a disgrace, especially since the child was clearly uncomfortable with the situation (considering they wanted to pull over). But what made it even worse for me, was him swearing at the driver in the presence of the child. That shows a mindset we should absolutely not teach our children ("I've got priority, so I'm going to just escalate the situation and create way more danger than their needs to be").
After reading some comments on here I basically agree that the father should have acted defensively for the sake of the child (pulled over into the opening that was there). I can't help but get the feeling the kid would have pulled alongside the parked van which does have some degree of risk but I cannot say for certain. I agree that the motorists should have also given way too. One being that, from I could recall in the video, the road signs instructing what to do and the fact there was someone more vulnerable than an adult cyclist on the road (I somewhat doubt the driver even saw the kid).
The kid definitely had the most common sense.
As for the language used by the father? I do agree it was disgusting to swear in front of a kid. That said I have heard many a bad word when I was their age so I can't really comment on it (again I do agree you should not swear in the company of kids).
Of course, in the Netherlands, the roads have evolved to reduce risk by design, it is called "sustainable safety", and is designed to minimise risks - even when mistakes are made. As Raymond will know, this systematic improvement started in the 1970s with the "stop de kindermoord" campaign (stop child killing). I thought of that when I saw the pathetically narrow few yards of bike lane to the left of the pinch point, that the riders rightly ignored. Had they taken that lane they may have been invisible to the oncoming car, and parked cars made that lane worthless, and increases risk. That the lane does not continue beyond the pinch points is lousy design, IMO, and would not be found much in the Netherlands. Such a "provision" for cycling is as pointless as it is dangerous. I think the dad in the circumstances shown should have pre-emptively asked his kid to pull in earlier, before the kid asked. Had he said yes to the kid saying "shall I pull in" that may have been too late to be useful.
But maybe another commentary is that just as it is best to use a registered driving instructor to learn to drive, so ones dad (unless he has some lessons first to unlearn bad habits) may not be the best person to supervise cycling by youngsters!
@Joe Lynch disagree. Morons in control of machines don't mix; and that applies to morons in cars as much as morons on bikes. If you can't handle your machine safely in the presence of other kinds of road vehicle, it is YOU that should be off the road.
Your comment is spot on!
In my opinion, he was far too ready to hurl the abuse at the motorist adding evidence that he was far too aware of what might happen.
Great analysis, Ashley! From 5:15 of your video is the most important part in my opinion. The fact that the father was happy to let his child "carry on" was just as concerning as the opposite driver plowing through the pinch point.
Actually, I think it's of greater concern, he's teaching his child to ignore his instincts of danger.
@@mintywebb Having right of way doesn't mean you should take it regardless. You need to assess situations and respond, to ensure your safety and mitigate other's mistakes or bull-headedness. In this example the child assessed a potential problem, the father dismissed it and over-ruled his response to avoid danger. "I had right of way" is not a good epitaph.
As for victim's of sexual assault? No, I blame those who commit the crime, and the mentality of 'boys will be boys' excusing their behaviour. Mind you, I'm biased, it's taken a lot of therapy to stop blaming myself. I was raised when "what does she expect dressed like that?" was a societal norm. Oh, and if you're wondering what I was wearing that so provoked a man, it was a school uniform, I was 12.
@@mintywebb OK, let's clarify. Yes, the driver is at fault; he should've given way, I'm not disputing that. I'm concerned the father teaching his son to overrule his sense of self preservation, putting his life at risk.
@@mintywebb The child read the danger, the dad made him carry on into that dangerous situation. He got what he wanted, a flashpoint that he could film as he has done countless times on his social media. the dad can clearly see the motorist isn't going to stop. This is where you have to be smart and the dad isn't. You cannot influence what the other driver does but you can influence the risk of injury to yourself or someone else by the decisions you take.
In this instance the driver should have stopped but its clear to a five year old that the car is going to keep on going. |Because of that the father is also wrong to put his child in a dangerous situation just for his own ego. this whole 'i have the right of way' means absolutely nothing in the real world when you have two tonne of vehicle coming in the opposite direction. Easier to forget about massaging your own ego and pull over where safe. Because in events like this where you have two points of self entitlement there is only going to be one winner. And it ain't the kid on the pushbike.
Smart people live to fight another day.
@@mintywebb “so you’re prepared to victim blame in one situation but not your own” are you for real? Wtf is that response, using SA as a petty point scoring comment. Sick. Proper dickhead comment that. Petty as hell.
When I learned to ride a motorcycle in the 80s, the instructor made the point of saying it's no good saying it was your right of way lying in a hospital bed. Giving way to someone is better than getting hurt
Fantastic analysis, totally agree. I'm especially pleased you wholeheartedly approved of teaching kids road safety instead of that knee jerk "they shouldn't be anywhere near a road" reaction.
Absolutely spot on. It's quite sad when a 5 year old child can display more sense and risk awareness than either of the grown adults in a situation like this.
If he were mine, not only would I have encouraged him to slow and move out of danger, I would have praised him for asking the important question here. Sincerely asking yourself questions like that is how you develop good road habits imo.
@@mintywebb don't be daft! They wouldn't leave the house, far too dangerous!
@@mintywebb I see you've made similar comments here. And I see you make a habit of missing the point. Was it possible that the cyclists were going to be completely safe and the car would stop? Yes. Did it happen? No. So was the smart thing to do to pull into the side, like the kid asked? Yes. I could tell by then that the car wasn't going to stop. It hadn't started to slow, as it should have.
Remember Ashley's words: "Priority is give, not taken." What the father has taught is to take priority and the driver is in the wrong. It's a bad habit to teach and is a really crappy mindset. Cars need to drive safely around more vulnerable road users. What you seem to think is we should be responsible for 100% of vulnerable road users' safety. That's an awful way to think.
And before you think I ask victims of sexual abuse "what they wore" as you said to someone above...No, I have never been one of those people, but you have to attack the issue at both ends. Teach how to be safe around others and teach how to keep others safe. Basically, teach cyclists where to be safe in case drivers aren't doing what they should be.
Excellent point about developing good road habits. Well said.
@@mintywebb well, yes, if you think the risk of being punched in the face is significant. Do you often allow yourself to be punched in the face? Is it much fun?
@@mintywebb well, yes, if you think the risk of being punched in the face is significant. Do you often allow yourself to be punched in the face? Is it much fun?
I absolutely agree with you Ashley. You should also add the risk of target fixation here, As the car approaches you can see the child start to move towards the vehicle. He sees the vehicle and he moves towards it for a split second. Thankfully he regains his line and avoids the car.
Just to play devil's advocate, if this 5yr old had to slow down and stop, he might have become unstable and ended up placing his right foot on the ground and leaning into the oncoming traffic which showed no signs of stopping.
Agreed. That's why the slowing needed to be done earlier also.
Exactly. In this situation, there wasn't really time to do anything different. What I would have done differently, would be to cycle alongside the child, 2 abreast, to try and manage the danger from oncoming vehicles.
@@ashley_neal
This is why children should be allowed to ride on the pavement.
@@Robert-cu9bm everyone is allowed to ride on the pavement with care, it’s effectively been decriminalised for years since the NPCC released guidelines.
@@shm5547 Rule 64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A sect 129
But it's still illegal, you would effectively be teaching children to break laws.
The more small minor laws you break, the easier it becomes to break bigger laws.
Then people wonder why young adults have no respect for the law.
“Here lies the body of William Jay, Who died maintaining his right of way- He was right, dead right, as he sped along, But he’s just as dead as if he were wrong.”
"The hills are alive! Of the Twitter cyclists screeching!" 🎵
Thank you Ronnie for this quote - never heard it all before, just "Jimmy Jay died defending his rigjt of way" which my Mum used to say to us all when teaching us road sense (walking !!) thanks again 💯✔👍💖
thing is your attitude just means basically bicycles should always give way to cars no matter what. when the highway code says generally the opposite.
I’m not sure I fully agree. The car coming the other way was some way off when the father advised his son to continue. Perhaps some extra caution might have been warranted given the age of the child but I would have taken that gap - the child and his father reached the pinch point long before the car did. The bulk of the blame lies with the car driver, who approached the pinch point way too fast and powered through like he owned the road despite there already being a vehicle. The local police constabulary expressed a similar view to me in the twitter thread.
"I'm very sorry dear, I'm afraid our little Billy died in a traffic accident when I took him out cycling. He was hit by an oncoming car after I told him to keep going when Billy asked if he should stop. We had priority though!"
"I'm very sorry dear, I'm afraid I was held up on my way home because I killed a child on a bike. You see although he had priority, and was vulnerable, I decided I'm more important and so I wanted to go, and my car is bigger than a child on a bike anyway."
@@jackw7714 "the funny part tho is that the child didnt actually have priority nor enough brains to stop after seeing a car, probably because he was a 5 year old and shouldnt have been on the road in the first place, especially during that weather. only the fittest survive"
Looking closely, it looks like the driver slightly pinged the parked car's mirror shut with what might be a delayed noise of it hitting the car.
I agree with the analysis of this as a single incident. What gives more problem is what then might begin to happen as general practice.
If all cyclists go by "I should be able to keep going but if the car doesn't stop I should stop" and all drivers go by "I should stop, but if I keep going the cyclist will stop for me" then we've just created a different rule than is intended, where there is a stronger incentive for drivers not to stop.
How do you then stop general practice going that way and pull things back to the intention? There's surely enough creative interpretation of the HWC as it is?
Should the motorist not have stopped and waited before the traffic calming chicane, as the sign is set up as "give way for oncoming vehicles" in the direction the motorist was coming from?
The adults are consumed with the politics of the situation - the cyclist seething that motorists don't give bikes priority as they should, the motorist barging through thinking he's the most important thing on the road. The kid has the most sense because he isn't contaminated by any of that, he just sees escalating danger and asks if she should take action - but is also intelligent enough to trust in his Dad's greater knowledge and experience and so follows instructions.
Why do you think the motorist should give the bike priority ? The bike has much less kinetic energy to lose , and needed to restart , than any motor vehicle .
It is just like when I am out in my car and am confronted by a 38 tonne Artic coming the other way ; I will always stop for the Artic ; just as with a car and a bike , there will only ever be one winner if a car and an Artic have a coming together .
The inverse is true. The motorist only has to move their foot one inch to regain momentum, while the cyclist has to do real effort. Your arctic tanker argument is a fallacy: they actually move other stuff than the just the driver.
Shame his dad let him down, he should of agreed with his son when he asked should he pull over.
Glad to see this back up. It was taken down before I had a chance to view it. Excellent analysis and one that is important to the road safety discussion.
I’ve been cycling to work for over a year now and it’s amazing how many close calls you have because motorists feel they have priority over a measley push bike when they should be giving way.
Of course if the blockage is on their side but they have nowhere to pull in to let me through I’ll just stop and let them through like any reasonable person would
I understand your comments about the father, saying carry on when maybe he could have called a stop, but if he told the child to stop, would that have led to a wobble and maybe fall into the path of the oncoming car ?
Thanks for not blaming the child on this one Ashley as they seemed to be the ones perceiving the danger. Just because you should have priority, it doesn't always mean it's safe to carry on regardless.
Couldn't agree more, the child is the only one with sense.
I'm absolutely 100% in agreement with you Ashley on this one.
Kudos to the child for being the only one with some common sense, if it doesn't get "educated" out of him he will go far.
The kind of parent then when taking their child to the hospital, keeps saying "but we was in the right" 😡
Excellent video, I totally agree. My father taught me that you "don't play games on the road" and "it's not just what you do but what other people do that can cause accidents". Whilst the driver was to blame, why on earth the father would send his son on to seemingly make a point is beyond me. Any driver prepared to do this is best avoided, it might hurt our pride but often backing down makes for a better journey.
This is why I'm subscribed to this channel. Ashley does not pull any punches. An accurate and honest assessment if I ever heard one.
When the kid asks to pull over and the father says no...as a dad that breaks my heart. Little kids voice. He even wabbles towards the oncoming car. Tough stuff to watch.
He didnt wobble
@@steve00alt70 He wobbled.
@Nothing The oncoming driver was to blame mate.
Highway code is clear on it. Yes priority means nothing if you're 6 feet under but if we're attributing blame to something that happened. It's the driver at fault here.
As Surrey Roads Policing unit has commented and as other traffic police have commented. Driver should have given way to the oncoming cyclists.
@@lmaoroflcopter that attitude is exactly the problem.
The dad has issues.
Just watched the BBB video on copyright strike, great to see you both came out of it with the right result.
As a teacher, I am impressed with the question of the child. Further I agree with your assessment Ashley.
A little point on the side and offtopic. 6 months ago you and I where talking about a Cruyff-shirt you where wearing. As a Dutchman I was proud to see that. Little did I know, sorry about that, what I found out a few days ago, that you where a professional footballplayer. Now I really understand the shirt! Keep on going with these video's. They are educational for everyone. In and outside of the UK.
Can’t argue with a lot said here! The lad’s body language clearly displayed a lack of self confidence approaching the hazard as his pedalling stroke momentarily ‘stuttered’. His verbalisation reiterated this uncertainty.
Now, my own Father always taught me to treat all other road users as being blind, or at best, idiots! “Presume they have not, and will not see you” were his last words…just before the number 189 bus ran him over!!
But seriously, that advice is sound advice and 30yrs riding motorcycles and still being in one piece is partly down to Dad’s words.
I was slightly concerned that the Father of the child did not verbalise anything about the car reversing into the road at the end of the clip. This Father seems to me to be very reactive, when cycling with a child being taught Road sense, surely proactivity is the more desirable approach!
Maybe the father genuinely thought it was better to keep going. People, especially kids, can wobble when they stop a bicycle.
Exactly. The dad only had a small amount of time make a decision. He may have made the wrong decision, but not necessarily out of stubbornness or entitlement
Maybe you're right, but the kid was alert to the situation and would have had plenty of time to stop safely and not wobble. Especially considering how well he rode in a straight line whilst turning his head
The fathers an idiot, its obvious he was just being stubborn
@@Daniel-ug3ie Yep, he's a good kid, but I think his Dad knows him better than us.
Totally Agree. This is the first time I’ve seen this clip with sound. What an amazing young man that child is going to grow into
In this situation with the child cyclist there is no excuse for the actions of the oncoming car driver.
Yeah as to who goes first. I'm generally of the sense that if my lane has the parked car, I wait for oncoming to pass before moving into what is THEIR side of the road. If both sides are blocked, we take turns or act like the other person will not be stopping. (Go when you know the other person is yielding). That being said, while cycling everyone is out to kill you. Though not literally true, I tend to act as though it is. The car can be completely at fault, but if I'm dead it hardly matters.
Thanks Ashley. I have commented on this on twitter and have had a change of heart over whether that child should have been on the road.
I was concerned that the cycle lanes were flooded and it wasn't safe, but I taught my kids to ride on the road the same way.
This is the first time I heard the child say "Shall I pull over to the side?" and I would have said "yes" because the life of my child comes before being proved right. As for the driver? Well, there was a point where he would have lost sight of that child. The very least he could have done was stopped until he was visible again. But as I said on twitter, there are some really bad "drivers" out there.
John Casserly ... yes, there are some really bad "drivers" out there ... that's why a five-year-old child should not be riding on a public road!
Do remember during the give way bit, there are cycle lanes for cycles to use.
If they did then their speed and angles would’ve been different.
I agree with the analysis. My only thought playing devils advocate would be that maybe the father of the boy was worried about him stopping. Perhaps he knew the boy was fine while moving as you said but sometimes was a bit wobbly stopping and he didn't want him to fall off into the path of the oncoming car while trying to stop in a tricky spot? Sometimes it's safer to keep moving?
Absolutely nailed it right there. To stop in that situation would have been arguably more dangerous - the kid was riding a really straight line at the speed he was going
Child probably shouldn't be on the road if he can't safely do the emergency stop
That just demonstrates that the child should not be cycling on a busy road
Bikes committed first (I guess I'm incorrect) but as a general rule, I think this works.
But no way would I have squeezed through and would have let them pass first no matter what.
People seem unable to judge when they will come and meet
The only thing I would say is that sometimes telling a child to brake quickly could destabilise them and put them in more danger
My worst experience cycling through one of those pinch-points was when a car tried to pass me, but it wasn't until I heard him that I knew he wasn't going to stop. Wouldn't have been quite so scary if I didn't have bags of groceries from the supermarket on both sides of the carrier (because my car was out of action)!
When I used to cycle in town, I'd get out into the middle of the lane going through a pinch-point (after doing a rear ob), then pull over to the left as soon as I was clear so following cars could pass safely and quickly.
With the cyclists on the country lane, providing the oncoming car is on his side of the road there is no need for him to slow down...the cyclists don't have to ride so irresponsibly close together...if one wobbled or had a tyre pop he could bring all his mates down. The can see the oncoming car and should give it space.
I am glad you put that last bit in. Completely agree 👍
Do what's safe. They 'should' stop, doesn't mean they 'will' stop.
Being Devil’s Advocate, the driver might have been a little surprised seeing a 5 year old in front of him and might not quite been able to judge his speed, and got himself into a bit of a quandary and ended up ****ing things up. What I find quite worrying about this is would that child be easily spotted by someone opening a van or car door? Has anyone got any experience of that?
One can only assume that this father hates his child and has decided to put his life at great risk....has he even seen the standard of the average driver on our roads?
Priority is given not taken but should ALWAYS be given to more vulnerable road users under law.
The analogy of Running around a swimming pool is horribly wrong, this is more like walking around a swimming pool while an adult runs around it in the other direction, running is wrong whoever does it and the child did nothing wrong!
This is utterly shocking ; for any parent to take such a young child cycling in such hazardous conditions is beyond irresponsible . When my children were that age , they were taken cycling in public parks , along seaside promenades , always completely away from any traffic .
Ashley commented on the oncoming driver being too close to parked vehicles on his side - well so was the child on the bike : what if someone had stepped from behind one of the parked vans ; another child , or an angry dog ... that little boy would have veered right into the path of the oncoming car .
The father SHOULD have instructed his son to wait until the road was completely clear before proceeding through the gap , especially as it was clear how little space there was going to be . Another failure is him encouraging the boy to ride through the traffic lane instead of using the cycle lanes to each side of the islands : these are designed to separate drivers and cyclists and to allow drivers to pass while cyclists are kept to the side .
Sadly , the woke advocates who want everyone else to give them priority will keep trying to make themselves seem more important . It is a nonsense that everyone else should take responsibility for cyclists and pedestrians : the vulnerable can NEVER rely on others looking out for them - that is why so many end up dead - the only system which works is to teach cyclists to watch out for their own safety and take action to protect themselves .
That poor excuse for a father is guilty of child endangerment and a pathetic example of parenthood .
Responsibility for all lies with all. There was also no cycle Lane, those are gates rendered useless and more dangerous to the child by the parked vehicles.
Your last paragraph is juvenile nonsense.
my tuppence worth is the cyclist reached the parked cars (not the pinch point) long before the car, therefore they were already commited to the passing manoeuvre, irrespective of whether its a cyclist, hgv, bus, pedestrian or car the oncoming driver should have given way and who the hell tries to squeeze past a young child on a bike
Your opinions on road collisions like this are the best and most thought out well Ashley.
I am sure the father now realises he gave his son the wrong answer. Hopefully this will be a learning curve for him. I personally never took my son out cycling on a road. No matter how well you instruct - the unpredictable can always happen. We always went to parks to cycle and he does not own a cycle now he is grown. I have a bicycle which I take to coastal paths etc and I generally do not cycle on roads as I consider it is too dangerous.
Social services should be involved with this.
The only additional observation I would make is that perhaps a late brake action from the cyclists may have unsettled the bikes and caused the child (particularly) to fall off just as the car approached. (Wet roads). That might have been in the father's mind too. However if they'd stopped when the child first asked then the risk of this happening would have been much lower as the level of braking would have been lower.
Completely agree with this. And it’s very easy to critique after analysing a video
Excellent. I am so glad I listened to your every word.
Despite being on the side of the dad and his efforts to teach his little son, I concur with your analysis.
Thank you
A normal,attentive, non sociopath would see that kid coming and come to a complete stop immediately. I have a friend who annoys me when she drives because she sees the pedestrian but continues at full speed towards them and then brakes hard. She assumes the ped understands that she intends to stop, even though she gives no indication she will stop, and she jumps on me if I point out her terrifying behavior.
Sounds like that Mercedes test driver on a motorway in Germany a few years back. He was doing something like 250 km/h, and there was a lady doing around 100 km/h ahead of him. He left it till the last minute to brake (no problem for him, an experienced driver in a fast car with good brakes), but the lady panicked when she saw him approaching in the rear view mirror and crashed off the road. At least one person was killed.
Hey Ash. This video has almost bought me to tears. I completely agree with your comments. Hats off to the lad, listen to your kids guys. This one will go far!
The father was not teaching his son, he was teaching the driver, using his son.
One could say the child hasn't been 'corrupted' by being an adult road user and the attitudes that brings. The kid still has the natural tendency of self-preservation that screamed danger when faced with this situation. The father, who has probably been in many dangerous situations on the road, has become more numb to this instinct unless a collision is imminent. He is effectively teaching his son to ignore that internal scream of danger as he does himself. It does sometimes seem like something we're meant to do.
I had a similar situation the other day where I could stay on my side of the road to pass a parked car at the bottom of a hill. I had just cycled down a hill and I was doing 30-40 km/h (20-25 mph), but I was about to cycle up the hill ahead. I saw the parked car on my side of the road, I saw the oncoming car, and I had the scream of danger going off in my head. For some reason I decided keeping my momentum was more important as I didn't want to start up on the hill. I was able to stay on my side, the oncoming driver had their entire lane, my speed was slowed by the hill, but there wasn't enough room for it to be safe. I've been thinking about it since, especially the oncoming driver's smile -- I wonder what about the situation amused her -- either blissfully unaware or gleefully keeping going to teach me a lesson?
@Ashley re slowing down for the cycle pack on the other side of the road - pretty tricky if it's a 60mph road/ vehicles behind etc.
I have to say I agree 100% with everything you say here.
When I'm in a situation like this, who I think has priority very much takes 2nd place to avoiding the risk altogether. As either the driver or the cyclist here I would have yielded.
It wouldn't have happened if I was driving or riding either.
@@ashley_neal im a hgv driver of 20 years, no serious crash, 2 minor bumps, i have learned, its not what i should do and its not whats law, its what the other idiot does.
seeing what iv seen, i would not take 5 year old on road
This is your best video to date, utterly brilliant, a real clarity of thought. Superb.
Imagine if the driver of the oncoming car was the same one as in Ashleys ' Unfit to Drive' video.
Having priority and proving a point for social media clicks doesn't stop you or your child getting killed.
There are lot of older drivers with very poor eyesight and no awareness of anything around them.
@@mintywebb What is wrong with you?
Hats off to you Mr Neal for your balanced approach to these situations. Issues occur daily on the roads, both to cyclists and motorists alike. A sensible approach by all everyone is required to keep all parties safe. No place for told you so attitude on the road, by that point somebody could be dead, we all need to look out for each other.
Iv picked up Ashley's attitude to the road well over the past year and have become a cyclist people don't mind sharing the road with. It's like penguins of Madagascar, (smile and wave. )I got T,boned at 30mph a couple of months back in a bike lane when a car ran a no entry so it won't save you all the time but giving right of way does cut the risk to everyone somewhat.
This mindset change will have a bigger impact on road safety than any infrastructure you can possibly build. A good road user can negotiate through a tricky situation simply and easily.
I wish I'd seen this video when the incident went viral because this is exactly my take!
Love this break down and fully agree with every single point made as a cyclist. I do have a pet peeve for those who automatically believe they have the right of way in these type of situations and continue (we are all guilty of it I guess) but it’s those who act out in aggression either by driving recklessly or genuinely abusive. As long as either party continues to keep safe and respect those on the road whether in the wrong or not then the roads will be a safer place. Conflict causes more danger in my eyes.
Average UK car driver who thinks the road belongs to them, cycling will never be safe in this country
@@mattdavies55 And the dad is the worst kind of cyclist who believes that they have no responsibility for their own safety.
Glad to see your video is back up.
Its great to see that the five year old had better risk assessment capacity that the father, "shall I pull over"
Absolutely, Ashley. I saw the clip, formed my own opinion, and sought out your channel for your take on it. I was pleased to see that we were in total agreement.
Absolutely spot in as usual. There is definitely advice missing regarding oncoming cyclists, the current advice only covers overtaking.
This is especially common on narrow one lane country roads, as I cyclist I try to take secondary when faced with a motor vehicle that cannot possibly pass me safely, but some drivers don't slow down and think they have priority, when of course neither road user actually does. Relying on common sense is insufficient (as too many road users lack it).
About letting your child ride in front of you: There was a case where a child on a bike riding in front of her went forward at a junction and was killed and her mother could do nothing. I think this was 2010 or a year earlier. I always understood after that that a child should ride behind the adult?
Top notch - as always.
Ego and stubbornness could easily have resulted in a fatality here.
I agree - full credit to the Child who displayed more sense than the "so called" Adults.
Stay safe out there.
Spot on, Graham! 👍
@@Jonc25 Respect, bud 👍
Calling out the father as an 'I've got priority brigade' is totally uncalled for. We're not robots, we're humans. He was expecting the car to pull in.
Not uncalled for at all in my opinion. You say he was expecting the car to pull in. Given the fact that his five year old child was in front him and approaching potential danger, perhaps he should have been expecting it not to pull in and to be better safe than sorry.
@@davidrobinson4118 The car driver makes the dad look bad, he (the dad) had seconds to make a judgement and I think he made a reasonable one.
The car didn't even need to pull in, it could have made the situation better by just stopping.
That's why I think any criticism of the dad is uncalled for here, the car just ploughed on through and made the situation dangerous.
Absolute nonsense. If there was a clear opportunity for the child to pull over when it became clear the car wasn’t going to stop you might have a point- but by the time it was obvious the car was carrying on the child was next to the white van and there was no opportunity to pull over so carrying on was the safest option. If the child had pulled over there he would more than likely have overbalanced and would be more likely to fall into the oncoming car than if he had carried on riding. And to label the father as blasé about his child’s safety on the basis of this clip is staggering. I’m not one of the “I’ve got priority” brigade as you put it, but I think the father did exactly the right thing here in a very short window to make a decision - the least chance of a collision was for the child to hold their riding line. To pull over so near parked vehicles would likely have panicked him more. To put any blame at all on the father here is what I’d call victim blaming
This is why I check the wrong way down a one way street or check that nobody is proceeding through adjacent red lights.
There’s no point in being able to say, ‘you were in the wrong’ when you’re dead.
This is just one of the reasons that I will cycle alongside my kids in preference to behind them until they're more experienced
If dad had been alongside then the driver simply would not have been able to to bully through. Also protects from idiot close passes / left hooks coming from behind
Too many times where my assumption that drivers would give some consideration to a child was shown to be horribly misplaced, so now I actively remove every opportunity i can for people to drive badly in a way that risks my kids lives.
Still happens, sadly - but much less.
I disagree with the assessment of the dad. Suddenly telling his kid to stop may cause him to swerve or even fall. Startling such a young biker can be dangerous in a situation like this. Otherwise spot on analysis!
the kid literally asked if he should pull to the side, dad was at the fault here (plus the car driver)
1:05 "If two vehicles are approaching this scenario there is no priority"
Disagree with you, blue sign there shows the priority on this stretch of road with the large white arrow and small red arrow.
Also, we should stop treating our public space as 'car space'. It should be a public right of way, that includes five year olds on bicycles. We should not be faulting the young for healthy modes of travel, we should be faulting motorists for making public rights of way dangerous places. If people can't be trusted with their cars, make the built environment safer to protect vulnerable road users.
The blue signs denote priority at the sign, NOT to proceed down the road section. 👍
I agree completely with everything you said. I live in a city with an excellent cycle network, and I'll take a longer route on the cycle path if it means staying off the roads. There's an unattractive bolshy streak that's very apparent today, with so many people thinking that they're the exception to every rule and they can do what they want. As you pointed out, the only person not displaying that attitude was the 5 year old, and they were the student in the situation. The child only asked if they should pull in because they had assessed the danger and felt unsafe. I would advise that if they had to ask the question, the answer is yes, you should pull in to the side.
It's very easy to get into that argument of "who has right of way", and there are a lot of drivers out there who have taken umbrage to the change in law that gives the more vulnerable party right of way. Don't they know that driver owns the road and is the only person who should be on it? I've met plenty of drivers like that out and about. It's a big part of the reason why I stopped driving and stick to cycling.
There has NOT been a change in law ; only an ill conceived change in advice . In this situation both parties have right of way , and also equal priority .
@@derekheeps1244 As the video points out, right of way is given, not taken and that nobody has "right of way". The law favours the most vulnerable party in the situation, which is inarguably the 5 year old child and not your ego. You do not own the road, and you have the responsibility to conduct yourself with all due care and attention while you are driving on it. Since when did it become ok to forget your manners as soon as you sit down behind a steering wheel?
Any reasonable person can see the car should have given way but the father of the boy put him danger just to prove a point.
the kid had more common sense than both the others.
The kid saw the situation developing before the adults.😄😅😄😅
"Shall I pull over to the side?" At 5 years old? This kid is going places.
True. The child 'learner' was the most competent road user!
no, I don't think so, the kid was just asking about priority at the parked vehicles, which the father correctly told him it was their right of way.
@@shm5547 There's no such thing as 'right of way' in these cases. The principle is 'priority'. And if you've watched Ashley's videos, you'll know how priority should be managed.
@@tarnmonath but when you're teaching kids cycling, they are always asking should I stop, who has priority etc. The first, most basic thing, is to teach them the rules. Only then do you move onto managing risk from rule breakers. The only thing the father could do better here, is to ride 2 abreast with his kid to do that defensive cycling for them. A point Ashley completely missed.
I'm glad you took this angle at the clip, I was baffled at some of the news coverage treating the father as a total saint for not giving in to a driver like that as if he hadnt also instructed his kid into a dangerous situation.
Agree 100% With what you say, Ashley.
The Dad could learn a few things from the Kid.
....now for the headline...."Ex Foot......................
@@ashley_neal 😄 I await it.
@Ashley Neal I see we keep getting the headline wrong now.😄
Good to see this particular Analysis on Cc.👍
@Ashley Neal I see you have been causing a stir with the establishment, Ash.😄
I'd add one thing to this: Those 5m long cycle lanes at the traffic calming measures are appalling pieces of bad road design. Any cyclist actually using them, in either direction, is rendered invisible to oncoming traffic by the parked cars, van, and lorry. Imagine if the 5-year-old had used the one at 0:29.
Some years ago, I did a driving assessment of an employee. On our side of the road was a parked car, there wasn't enough room for two cars to pass each other alongside the parked car. Approaching us were two cars, separated by a distance. The driver being assessed, correctly waited for the first car to come through, then pulled out into the face of the second oncoming car, forcing it to brake. I asked why they had done that, their reply was "I waited my turn". Of course, I had to explain, there was no such thing as having a turn, and duly failed the assessment, on the grounds of unsafe manoeuvre.
Shouting “what are you doing?” In anger doesn’t help prevent an accident.
Coming from a country with 23,4 million bicycles and a population of 17,5 Million people I see this:
The father missed the opportunity to have the child ride between the curb and himself.
This is very common in the Netherlands as it creates a safe(r) space for the child on the road.
It would als have given an extremely clear signal to the oncoming car they are expected to wait.
In the event the oncoming car still barges trough, the father can always steer to the left and push/knock the child over in the direction of the curb into safety.
so you have 6 million bicycles sat around doing nothing😉
I also thought that the adult should have been over to the right of his child because he would be much more visible to traffic
@@MrSabretooth19 Have you looked outside some train stations in the Netherlands?
I'm English but I remember seeing over a thousand bikes outside of a station in Utrecht, and it would've been impossible to get to "your" bike, as they were 50 deep and all leaning against each other up to a wall
So I do believe that you can have more bikes than people in a country
@@MrSabretooth19 Not really. It is fairly common to have a normal (daily) bike and a recreational bike like a mountain bike, race bike or even a cargo bike. It is just the dutch equivalent to an American having daily driver, pickup truck and quad.
The car did not barge through any more than the cyclists did .
The boy's father says "That driver absolutely should have stopped." But you should never just assume someone you don't know is going to do what you think they should do, ESPECIALLY where the safety of a child is concerned.
The lad has shown he is very bright and capable of listening to, and following, instructions. You have to learn to ride on the road at some stage, the earlier the better. Cyclists put themselves at risk every time they use our roads as we share them with larger, faster and heavier vehicles. I don't think the parent has done anything wrong personally.
You were in the middle of the road on that scooter. Are you broken?
As soon as the parent said - ‘carry on to his child’ despite it being clear the car wasn’t going to stop - The parent, typical. Yes, we can all hope drivers were amazing and didn’t make mistakes. I don’t understand this, why put yourself into a dangerous situation just because you know you are right.
At 0:29 the sign says oncoming traffic has priority- does that change anything?
Whilst I agree with you, I think there's a tendency for cyclists to do this because as vulnerable road users they don't want to be bullied by motorists which is understandable given how dangerous the roads can be if they allow that to happen.
fair enough but do that when you don't have a child with you
Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. A 5 year-old child on a restricted road in the rain is just insane.
It's a residential Street outside his home, any driver in a residential Street should be driving with due care no excuses and no blaming the kid.
@@mikewade777
I'm not blaming the kid. Can you point to me where I did that? I'll wait. The child didn't go out for a bike ride because he felt like it. Try thinking before you write.
The driver is 100% to blame...but that doesn't mean the child should be on a rainy, narrowed road at that age. What part of that are you struggling with, and I'll see if I can get you assistance from a help group.
@@jimskirtt5717 you're victim blaming the kid you idiot. You are saying ...kids should not be in road because road users are dangerous. You're arguing after the fact and since freedom of movement is written in law ...taking the space away from cars does not infringe that law.
@@mikewade777
You're merely exhibiting your lack of intelligence. As I said, show me where I blamed the kid. I'll wait...
That kid should be teaching his dad how to cycle 🤣
I fully agree with the analysis, and I will specifically say again, in my state, the verbiage of the highway code is that a motorist must allow a cyclist enough room that the cyclist can fall down without being hit by the car. I like the verbiage because it is quite clear.