I learnt this at motor cycle training and it is SO, so true. Here lies the body of poor John Grey Who died maintaining his right of way He was right, so right as he rode along But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.
Excellently put. Rather than saving lives i think it will probably turn out more cyclists with the mentality of the father in this film will end up injured or dead.
so true its no good saying the car should have stopped cos one day it may not be able to stop cyclists need to ride more defensively for there own safety
As a pedestrian or a cyclist, I always walk or ride as defensively as I can. Even when the law is in my favour, If a car or a truck hits me then I will always lose.
Exactly how I still ride intuitively and not place my life in the hands of Law or other drivers. So when lights are red, I stop, when Green I cross with caution, that is how I have managed to reach so far 70. If I am behind a bus, and it pulls over at a bus stop, I just stay behind and wait for it to move on again, just a matter of a few seconds, and if a lorry pulls over at red lights, never go between it and the curb, common sense is what is lacking and the Law thought we need a Law to protect idiots. Idiots no one can protect.
Ultimately it comes down to the fact that being right doesn't stop you from getting injured or killed. As a father I wouldn't take the chance that the car would stop safely.
I agree. And perhaps the Father himself would take a different decision if he could have thought a bit more rationally about it in the moment. Most of us have been guilty of continuing a course of action on the roads to assert out righteousness and appease our own ego. But when you're in charge of a 5 year old child on the roads, I think the first thing you have to do is leave your ego and self-righteousness at the door. And I hope the Father in this video, and other Mothers and Fathers watching, are learning the same lesson.
Exactly - I always remember my dad telling me "Saying 'I had right of way' will not heal your injuries when you're lying in a pool of your own blood because others didn't agree"
@@psy-op Some cyclists are self-entitled, sure. There are self-entitled people in all walks of life. But is that honestly what you see in this particular video?
The car didn't stop, nor did the child. Guess what nobody was hurt. Personally I wouldn't of risked it because your more likely to be seen hitting a meteorite during the day, than at night time. Direct hits can kill.
Couldn't agree more, the Father should be ashamed of himself for in a way deliberately putting his child in danger. But the car should have stopped especially when you see how close he was to clipping the wing mirror of the parked car, he knew he was too close to the child
I can't see were the child was at fault. It was his right of way, there is no age limit for pushbikes, he was wearing a helmet and a high Viz jacket. What did he do wrong ?
Not exactly Ashley's comments though are they. He wholeheartedly said the driver was at fault. Yeah, I wouldn't ride like that with my kid but if I did the driver would still be 100% in the wrong.
Agree the car is at fault legally but in my opinion the only sensible road user in the whole bunch is the 5 year-old child. They saw the hazard and correctly identified the best move to mitigate the danger only to be overruled by the other moron of an adult in the situation.
Agreed, but in my view by the time the kid reaches the white van, it’s too late to tell him to stop. That might have caused him to wobble or fall into the car. Taking him on that road at all put the kid at unacceptable risk, because it was foreseeable that this situation might arise. To that extent Sajid was right. Not because the car driver was right, but because it was foreseeable that he would act wrongly.
Totally agree. The child asked to pull in and the dad overruled him. The motorist should have slowed down at least or stopped, the child could have wobbled into the car. All in all, the child was the only one who seemed to have sense.
There is somewhere in the UK an epitaph that reads. ' His way was right, and his will was strong, but he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong '. Both the grown ups in this are culpable. The father demonstrated no judgement. The driver was wrong. and the father knew his rights. What could possibly go wrong 🤔
100% agree. I'm having trouble understanding people defending the father. Does he not owe his 5 year old son a moral and legal duty of care not to put him in overtly dangerous situations?
The driver did nothing wrong ; the wrong was all on the parent . I can only imagine the lambasting he would have received from the child's mother when she saw the video - with any luck he will now have been banned from taking the little chap out unsupervised .
The child asked if he should stop and the father told him to continue on. From the child’s perspective he might have been scared of the oncoming car and he might have wobbled under the car
That's a possibility. A wobble, a panic and a fall in the path of the oncoming car. I was ten before I was allowed a road bicycle, I then took a cycling proficiency course and test. A five year old riding a pavement sized cycle should not be on the road.
@@stephencope7178 it’s never to early to teach them good roadcraft in an appropriate setting, which I would argue this was - residential, traffic calming. Sadly the dad failed to teach them good roadcraft in this instance.
@@chrisbrookes1167 That is why many public parks have cycle training areas with paths marked out as roads , safely away from traffic ; this was a public highway , full of parked vehicles , physical obstructions in the road layout , and moving vehicles as well as the danger of hidden pedestrians and animals emerging into the little boy's path ; it was NOT a safe or appropriate place to take a small child .
I have seen the video before but never heard the sound. The little boy was actually the most sensible person in the whole Scenario, he saw the car coming towards him and asked his father "should I pull in?"
My grandfather alway pointed out to me that sometimes we face the decision to be right or be alive. Legal matters aside the father should have told his son to wait. As my driving instructor once told me, the key to surviving driving is to drive like everyone else is a moron that doesn't know the laws and rules.
My grandfather always had the view that some other "silly bugger" will kill you, no matter how safe you drive. That's why he never went over 45mph with us kids in the car, even when the speed limit was 60mph on open roads. But he remembered when the black and white sign meant no speed limit on open roads. The only real answer to this video seems to be to build cycle (only) roads everywhere in the country, no matter the cost.
Mine told me the same. If I was the driver I'd had stopped and beckoned then through as a shield of safety a young kids life is more important than arriving at a destination ten seconds quicker
Mine told me "assume every other driver is a homicidal maniac out to kill you and every pedestrian and cyclist is a suicidal maniac trying to get you to kill them."
The 5 year old comes out as the most “adult” , driver the worst, dad not great . When the child asked should I pull in dad should have said yes. He could tell the driver was not going to stop. Fix the danger rather than make it worse. If it was dad on his own, fair enough to ride through but not for child. Dad responsible for child.
The boy's father was utterly irresponsible. This has nothing to do with 'rights' and everything to do with responsibility. You can't possibly expect a 5 year old to anticipate the potential hazards of a road - he should have been riding on the pavenment. Meanwhile, his father was concentrating on his son, and therefore not driving with due care and attention. The driver of the other car is blameless.
We cycled to school every day from this age.They stayed on the pavement. I believed that this was OK for kids and no one ever challenged us, until they were old enough to cycle by themselves. I wouldn't have been comfortable with anything else.
@@Paul1962 except the child is under 10 and hence is not considered criminally responsible, and if memory serves there is guidance that young children are to be excluded from this requirement.
My opinion: it’s fine to drive according to the road rules but if you can see a likely hazard and actively drive into the situation, then don’t be surprised when it becomes a hazard.
Extremely balanced view. Life is a learning curve and things can escalate in an instant. No use a person arriving at the Pearly Gates and complaining "But I had right of way......." Better to arrive 30 minutes late in this life, than 30 years early in the next one.
@@RichardPhillips1066 That's not the point. There's a hazard ahead & the motorist is treating it accordingly, due to their obvious inheriant dislike of cyclists. If it had been a cat or a dog in the road, I'm willing to bet they would've slowed more.
@@RichardPhillips1066 Kids need to learn how to ride and how to use the road. It was a quiet residential, traffic calmed road - about as safe is it could be. I applaud the father. The more we can get our kids to cycle the better. Better for their health (obesity and then diabetes) and better for the environment.
I agree 100% however as a caveat the 5yr old had more sense than all of them as you can clearly hear him say dad shall i pull over... well done little man both your dad and the car driver are A'holes.
@drie wiel Ahole..... yes had the lad stopped instead of being forced into oncoming traffic by his moronic father then it would have been much safer for him. Clearly you're not very clever on road safety. I hope you don't drive or god forbid ride a pushbike
The kid's dad can take solice in being right when he's at the hospital or morgue with his kid. It's sad when the kid had the best judgment of all three people.
Totally not to absolve the driver as they should have stopped, but humans will be humans. Some times even when we're not distracted from the road we make the wrong snap judgement or take just a bit too long to notice something and react. This is why it's so important to observe best practices and drive/ride defensively and with care as in most cases one party can save both from an accident. And let's not even go into people driving while distracted on their phones etc...
BBB is correct about there being no such thing as right of way on our roads, however there is a thing called priority & in this circumstance (with the cyclists already overtaking parked cars before the Focus reaches parked cars on its side) the cyclists had priority & the Focus should've stopped. Unfortunately, dad wanted to make a point & used his child to try to make that point.🤦♂
Yes, the priority argument is a good one. I wonder if the car driver would have stopped early were it another car coming the opposite way already overtaking the parked vehicles 🤔
WRONG : all road users have right of way ; it is the right to pass along the way , or simply to use the road or path , otherwise known as a way , weg , via , route or any of many other words in various languages . As for your skewed notion of priority ; the car had already been established on course and had shown the amount of space he required , so he had actually commenced his overtake before the cyclists and was entitled to complete it .
Common sense says the driver of the car should have given way, common sense also says the father should not have put his child in what could have been a bad result,
Common sense says the child should have stopped ; any decent father would not have taken such a small child there in the first place and secondly would have told the child to slow down and wait .
How would a five year old react to an emergency situation. Any action (if any) they take might be the wrong type of action. If the father shouted instructions to the child, there would be a slight delay in action that the child might take or panic and take the wrong action.
I noticed 2 things. 1 the driver could have stopped but instead only slowed down (he should have stopped of course). 2 the 5 year old has better road sense than his dad. Better to be safe and late than in the Right at Hospital.
@@tomkent4656 The Driver should have stopped as in passing the parked cars he crossed the central line of the road in order to to safely pass. The cyclists were in thier own lane.
@@tomkent4656 Because they are driving towards a child riding a bike though a narrowing gap...... Oh unless you're asking why the cyclist should have stopped, It's unclear who "he" is in your question. In which case... because he is riding head-on into a lump of unforgiving metal that could easily injure him.
Why is it a he? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I have just watched this video several times now on different channels and in none of them can I identify the gender of the car driver.
If the child had stopped he might have lost his balance; I think telling him to stop would have been more dangerous than what was done. What the father did wrong - aside from putting the child in this situation in the first place - was telling the driver off, who couldn't hear him, which just served to confuse the child, who could hear him.
I agree, if the boy had slowed down and stopped, he might have gotten a bit wobbly. He was cycling in a nice straight line, that what his Dad could see.
@@bazahaza They were already cycling at a sedate speed. The car should have stopped, I would very concerned if I was driving and saw a small child on a bicycle coming towards me. Definitely I would stop.
Encouraging the child who wasn't confident and the child suggested pulling over...the child should have had a reflective jacket etc...father taking risks with child's safety...
When i was 10 years old my school did road proficiency tests that i passed. I was riding home from school as i was taught not many cars on the road at all apart from a drunk driver. Drove straight into me, my front wheel mangled i went over the handle bars and smashed my face on the pavement. The driver didnt stop, neighbours saw what happened and scraped me up from the floor as i was out cold. I now refuse to ride a bicycle at all.
That must have been very traumatic for you as a child. No wonder you refuse to ride one now. I’m pleased to see the change in the law to protect cyclists, although (sadly) a lot of people don’t seem to be aware of the recent changes.
yep it happened often and di to me as a kid; Police not bothered. It still happens today, only recently had a car swerve over to the wrong side to the road and went straight over the bonnet, bike frame and wheel bent. Driver blamed me, as he claimed he needed to relieve himself and this was the only spot he could park ie he was drunk. Police again not bothered and found it very hard to make a claim on my bike insurance.
When I was in high school in Perth (WA) two guys were on the one bicycle one was doing a 'dinkie' (a pillion passenger). The bicycle did not have good brakes and went through a stop sign and they ended literally 'under a car'. One had head injuries that resulted in him being deaf in one ear and the other guy gained some nasty scars on his body.
The parent should be charged with putting his child in risk of serious harm .The child felt uncomfortable in the situation and wanted to pull in a bit , but the father was determined to put his child in danger to prove a point .Keep that up and it will only end in a bad way .
Ashley Neil’s video on this is the best I’ve seen so far. As he says, the only one here who comes out without any blame is the 5-year old! - I wouldn’t have gone through that cycle lane either. It’s full of water, and as a cyclist you couldn’t possibly see what is in there. Gravel? Nails? Drain cover? Loads of hidden hazards.
@@simonmuhamed1071 Exactly! He would give up the life of his young kid just to 'prove a point'. THIS(!!!) is when The Law should do the right thing...and persecute that father.
Years ago in Belgium, I was told by a taxi driver that if there was an accident between a car and bicycle, insurance would always class the car to be at fault, regardless of who was to blame. It made most people very careful when driving around cyclists.
As a driver, I would have absolutely stopped when I saw the child approaching. The boy rode incredibly well in a dangerous situation that could have had tragic results due to the carelessness of the oncoming driver. To me, the question is and should always be, who is the most vulnerable in the situation, and obviously cyclists and pedestrians fit that criteria fully. So I don't mind waiting a while for cyclists or pedestrians, no matter what other drivers may want me to do, because I would not be at all happy if I harmed another human being. I was incredibly impressed that the five year old boy maintained his composure in this situation and rode straight through despite what could have occurred, and the father was correct to have encouraged him to do so. The driver, imho, was completely in the wrong in this circumstance.
To pander to cycling vigilantes is to encourage their entitlement ; the driver did well in slowing to a safe speed but proceeding with caution . The idiot father was the danger , not the driver .
At the end of the day it doesn’t matter if it’s a 5 year old boy on the bike or a 50 year old adult on a bike. The action from the driver should have been to wait.
I don't care who's at fault, no way would I allow a 5 year old on the highway on a bike. When you end up injured or dead, it don't matter who' fault, it's too late.
well said first job as a parent is to protect your children from danger and he failed. we can all say the driver was at fault but no the father is because any decent father would of not allowed a very young child on the road like that totally irresponsible
My mum and dad would never have put me in this position at such a young age. The dad here is looking for a reaction. The cyclists do have priority now, but that doesn't mean anything when you're squashed underneath the wheels of an oncoming vehicle.
I always give cyclists plenty of room on the road , it comes down to courtesy, the same as Horse riders , because I've ridden bikes , Motorcycles, and even horses, on the road , so I see it from everyone's point of view and put into practice what I preach , I ride and drive on a defensive basis, give yourself a space on the roads , stay safe .
@@cresspoobear1904 Some of us are courteous. As I usually cycle on narrow lanes I'm constantly pulling over to let a vehicle past. Basically it's as all things in life, some people are a-holes... some people aren't.
@@cresspoobear1904 sounds like you've got a hate on for bikes so you ain't going to be a courteous driver. Did they not tell you during your driving lessons that your supposed to give way to vulnerable road users or do you think you have right of way because you can go faster and kill vulnerable road users? Maybe it's because you have to pay pollution tax to use the road you think you should get priority!
@@DrJams Maybe, but if I was driving there with such a small child coming the other way I would stop. I can only assume that the driver in this case had no children.
If the car was following the new highway code rules then there would not have been an issue. The law should be changed to allow kids below a certain age to cycle on the pavement. 5 year olds don't present a significant risk to pedestrians. My teenage son is still afraid to cycle on the road as there are so many a-holes behind the wheel as demonstrated here. That child will develop a rich vocabulary if he survives into adulthood. He seems to have more common sense than his father.
Under twelves are immune from prosecution so they CAN cycle on the pavements , as can everyone since they were designated shared spaces following the pandemic . The law has not changed , there is just a load of bad advice in HC proffered by non drivers .
I commented on twitter at the time, but imagine this way... if this resulted in a tragic outcome the father would be blaming the driver, but in the corners of his mind a voice would be saying if only I had let him pull over when he asked. Don't put your child in harms way even if you are in the right technically. There's no moral high ground in a cemetery
The court would have convicted the father for child endangerment and criminal negligence ; the driver who did nothing wrong would have nothing to fear .
How are we in a world where the question of "is the 5 year old child to blame" is even considered? There are only 2 possible people to blame and they are the father and the driver.
Also pay attention to who has priority when it comes to passing parked cars in general. I was told by my driving instructor that If the parked cars are on your side of the road, then you should give way to oncoming traffic, If the parked cars are on the opposite side of the road, you have priority.
Exactly what I was taught too, if the obstruction is on your side then you must yeald to those on the opposite side if they have a clear lane which gives them priority, If both sides have obstructions then it's 50/50.
This is the best and fairest assessment of the event I've seen to date. We don't live in a world of black & whites where personal responsibility can be completely abnegated, so while the driver of the car is completely at fault in law, the father was unwise to have encouraged his son through the pinch point in the first place.
Whilst the motorist should have stopped due to the priority sign in addition to already in position to pass parked cars, At the same time a 5 year old should not be on the road in the first place, this is irresponsible and dangerous in addition to having no common sense they are also very unstable and can't go in straight line without wobbling heavily. They would also have no idea of the highway code.
the child had every right to be there though and every motorist on a residential road should be aware of this fact, rather than create unnecessary danger.
@@mikewade777 what about a 2 year old with stabilisers on a bike? Would they be creating unnecessary danger on the road? Doesn't the father have a moral and legal duty not to put his child in to potentially life threatening situations?
The motorist is 100% to _blame_ for the incident. Cyclists and especially children are far more vulnerable on the roads than a car, so the car should have given way. That said, it did become quite clear that the car was _not_ going to give way, and I think that the Father should then have instructed his child to pull in to the side just as the child himself had suggested. Personally I would not take my own 5 year old boy out into the roads on a bike like that, but on the other hand this particular 5 year old seems a lot more adept at riding a bike than mine and at some point we all need to teach our children how to ride on the roads by way of real life practice.
A child that age should not be riding on a busy public road. It is an accident waiting to happen. If he was tested on the Highway Code, do you think he would pass? A cyclist is often difficult to see/observe when full size but at the size of a five year old, even with an adult following, it would be easy to miss with possible tragic consequences.
There was plenty of room there for both. Yes there could be tragic consequences, which is partly why anyone with an ounce of sense would not have a five year old cycling on a busy road such as that.
@@hedydd2 You contradict yourself inside a single paragraph. "There was plenty of room there for both". "There could be tragic consequences". Those things are mutually exclusive.
@@hedydd2 We _mostly_ disagree. First of all, regarding the 5 year old boy, I myself have a 5 year old boy. And I have to admit, I would _not_ take my 5 year old boy out onto the main roads on a bike. But then my 5 year old boy does not cycle as confidently as the one shown in this video. So, like a lot of things in life, there is not a "one size fits all" answer to the question. You have to make the decision about what your child is competent and safe to do based on that specific child's skills/needs/circumstances. Regarding the cyclists being difficult to see. Well, unfortunately this is not any kind of an excuse that the driver of a vehicle can use. You need to be alert and aware at all times while driving, and paying attention to everything around you. If you fail to see a cyclist on the road, and a collision is the result, then in most circumstances it will be you who is held 100% responsible. As a driver of a vehicle, it is primarily your responsibility to reduce the risk of harm to the more vulnerable people on the road.
@@brianhoskins1979 Nonsense. Next time there might not be enough room or the driver might not see him or the five year old might suddenly turn right at a junction and get hit because five year old’s and older just do not have the attention span or the awareness of danger that nine, ten and older children [should] have.
My take - as the father, I would have been positioned off to the right side, to make it VERY clear that there was insufficient room for the car to come through. I've done this MANY times as a motorcyclist, with more novice bikers in front of me. I'm yet to have a car try to argue with me head on. Or when the kid says "shall I pull over to the side?" I would have perhaps said "no, but stop and lets see how this is going to happen. The car should wait for us, but lets not put ourselves into danger." Importantly, on a bicycle, I would NOT have pulled over to the side, but maybe stopping short to see what the car does is enough.
@@jamingaming9251 what makes you think I don't do the same defensive riding, regardless of the mass? You think I don't cycle too, for some reason? Give your average car driver enough room to squeeze by, they will. Make them choose between stopping or hitting you head on, they ALWAYS see sense and stop.
@@redtela I wasn't talking about you personally. I've been riding down a road besides cars caught in a traffic jam and seen a guy looking in his side mirror, he's then pull his car over to close the gap between his car and the pavement. Forcing me to either jump onto the pavement and hit an old lady or crash into his car. I obviously had no choice but to crash into his car, buckling my front wheel, because I was going to fast to stop in time. On many occasions I've been going down roads that have been narrowed by parked cars and the oncoming traffic refuses to wait for me to finish coming through and drive in closing up the gap so I've got less space than that kid had. Every night I'm blinded by the oncoming cars headlights, in the past month only 4 drivers have had the courtesy to dim their lights. I reckon if cars gave their drivers points on their like in the 5th element, 90% of drivers would be off the road in a week, they have no consideration for other road users.
@@jamingaming9251 the same situations happen with 2 wheels with or without an engine. Though I will add, when filtering (despite it being perfectly legal) a motorcycle rider will take some proportion of the blame if there's an insurance claim. So my gut reaction to your "I had no choice" - is that there's always a choice, including but not limited to lowering the risk by riding slower. On my push bike, car headlights at this time of year are a problem (and cars with LED lights are worse). On the motorbike, however, car drivers tend to dislike my Philips Xtreme bulbs on main beam.
@@redtela I was going down a steep hill, I squeezed both brakes put both feet on the ground but I couldn't slow down in time. He pulled the front of his car into a one way street to block my progress past him, if the old lady wasn't on the pavement I could have jumped onto the pavement and swerved around to avoid him. Bicycle breaks are practically useless, on my ebike I've got them tightened up so they are almost rubbing and I have to keep retightening them every week or so. I've finally just received a new 16 led headlight that'll actually illuminate the street, the 4 led bicycle style one barley lets me see 10 meters on dark roads with no street lighting. Once I figure out how to wire it in they can get a taste of their own medicine.
Ashley Neal's answer hit the nail on the head , the only road user to come out of this with any credit is the child. If you have not watched his breakdown of the video , then I suggest you do .
Where I live, we have cycle lanes & where there aren't any, cyclists are expected to keep as far left as is practicable. We also have a rule that drivers must give cyclists a 1.5 meter clearance when passing them. I am in NZ tho, I don't know what the UK rules are.
So a 5 year old child does not fully comprehend real life dangers, or can way up the risks of a threat or understand consequences? Hmmm, interesting. Makes me wonder why the medical profession and activists push for permanent gender transitioning of children. I think the dad was in the wrong. Letting a 5 year old child on to a main road is being negligent of the risks to everyone involved. Imagine if someone opened the van door and knocked the child in to the path of an oncoming vehicle.
"Don't bother kids whilst they are skateboarding". Kids need to learn risk assessment or you end up with a bunch of snowflakes... sound familiar? In this case the kid assessed the risk correctly. The father's fault was in telling him to carry on. As for the van door... they were leaving plenty of room between themselves and the parked cars.
Or if a dog had ran out just as he was passing . Fortunately the driver had seen the child , and had slowed to a crawl , exercising utmost caution , which was more than that poor excuse for a father did .
@@eccehomer8182 No they were not ! Cyclists MUST leave at least a full door's width from any parked vehicles , not only to allow for doors opening , but also for animals or pedestrians , which can include other children , darting out from behind the parked vehicles , most especially buses at bus stops , because many bus passengers are non drivers with zero road sense .
In defence of the father, I would have expected the car to stop before the white suv, just after passing the priority gate. By the time the kid suggested moving to the side it was too late to pull in behind the van, and slowing/stopping would have been seen by the car driver as an invitation to continue past.
So they passed each other at low speed with room to spare. Wow. Maybe we should all just wrap ourselves in cotton wool and not leave the house in case something bad ever happens.
If there was a half meter gap between two cars I'd agree...but it's a kid on a bike, it was fortunate that the boy kept his nerve and didn't wobble else the driver could have found himself charged with manslaughter or reckless driving I'm presuming yours is a trolling statement, because it's obvious that if things had gone wrong the driver would have lost his licence and potentially be doing time ..
@@AngelaH2222 The gap was much larger, but the kid moved towards the car a bit, which reduced the gap to about halve a meter. So imho it's just a lot of poohah about nothing really.
@@Robbedem it helps to treat young kids on the road in the same way as you might a horse,expect the unexpected, a less experienced kid would have wobbled off and the car driver been responsible for his life-changing injuries
@@AngelaH2222 if the kid would have hit the car, there would have been scratches on the car and maybe some bruises on the kid. This wouldn't have caused any life-changing injuries.
I strongly believe that both father and the driver should be charged for careless and dangerous driving. Really proud of the kid who's assessed the situation right and asked whether they should pull over to the side, which would be the rightest and safest thing to do in this situation. Indeed much smarter than their parent.
The child is thinking about safety, the adult is thinking about showing superiority, even if at the expense of his child. It's this entitlement that creates accidents, and being legally enforced only makes it worse, because it turns an easily solved situation into a dangerous one. This road code is an aberration where it comes to safety
I can see the scenario where the father shouts at the child to stop and wait till the car has passed. The child is startled and panics looks behind himself and swerves into the path of the car.
If everyone follows the rules then it’s happy days. I have found that as a two wheel user from the age of eleven that avoiding danger is better than being in the right, defensive cycling and motorcycling has kept me alive although I have been fortunate to not be hurt when I got it wrong. For too many two wheel users their first mistake can be their last. Although the car was in the wrong, as a cyclist I would have not chosen I am in the right so I am carrying on. Car drivers have usually had some training and been tested although it seems many forget or ignore what they have learned. Unfortunately there are many cyclists that make you wonder if they will see tomorrow.
The car driver did nothing wrong - he slowed right down and exercised caution . I do agree with what you say about common sense and vulnerable road users looking out for themselves . Most of us of a certain age have had training on everything from bicycles up ; the only mode of transport which does not seem to require training is walking , and we see this all too much nowadays thanks to idiot pedestrians who walk out into traffic whilst engrossed in their phones .
I remember two policemen telling me of for riding on the path when I was roughly about 5 years old. He told me to get on the road I cried my eyes out and told my mum she was furious
The dad was willing to put his son in a dangerous situation to hopefully film a situation like this cyclists are campaigning for years about how dangerous roads are for adults let alone a 5yrold child unbelievable he actually told his son to continue when even the son knew it was risky I genuinely believe that was child negligence.
Exactly. I hope the father gets singled out on future school runs as 'the braindead prk who would RISK the life of his young kid...just to 'teach a motorist a lesson'.
Kids do need to learn risk assessment. One of the problems with our "snowflake" youth is that they have been far too protected. However I agree, this is clearly going too far, though I'm not sure he did it to prove any point... lots of cyclists now wear cameras. Ultimately, the kid assessed the risk correctly, but his father vetoed him... he'd probably be safer on the roads on his own!
@@eccehomer8182 Have to agree with you 100% look what Pandering to the sensitive has done..all those participation trophies ...not allowed to do this or that...wearing safety glasses while playing Conkers ....Hi Viz to walk to School, climbing trees is now a thing of the past...probably need full fall arrest gear ....putting the Blame on everyone else when some dope gets run over because he crossed the road while not paying attention , looking at his Phone .. look at the People who cross a road and never look once to see what is coming .....relying on other road users to protect them... Sorry but i was brought up to understand that stupidity has consequences .
Missed this (likely because of the strike). As a mum, I 100% would tell my kiddo to move over. Right or freedom to be on the road be damned. I don’t trust other people. I’d ASSUME they wouldn’t stop and would actually pose a risk. And I’d tell my kiddo to move over/stop. Although, to be frank, I’d keep my 4 year old off the roads in general. I’d rather risk violation of the footpath laws.
my rule of thumb is that the squasher has priority over the squashee. The Highway code is no use to anybody when you're getting scraped off the road. The kid saw the risk and asked if he should pull over; the dad didn't care he just knew that they had priority so they were in the right, and expected the car to stop. Although the car did appear to slow down, but not enough.
As a driver and a father , If I was driving I would have stopped to let the cyclists through no matter what the law says. I would also have stopped earlier before the narrow gap caused by the parked vehicles. Of course this would take 20 seconds out of my schedule but I could live with that.
Admirable that a 5 year old was riding so well on the road, great to see. But, as you suggested, err on the side of caution when it comes to Car vs Bicycle. The father wasn't at fault in my opinion, the car driver should have allowed more space.
There was an home office memorandum sent to the police that suggested people shouldn't be prosecuted for riding on the pavement where they were concerned that the road wasn't safe for cycling. Don't know how this would hold up in court or if there have been any court cases that have treated this.
If that was my grandson I'd be horrified! And I'd be tearing strips off my son. How dare he put that child in such danger! Shame on the father. Omg. Children are so precious and irreplaceable.
Another politician out of touch with reality - the child was taking a prominent position under adult instruction, as indeed he should. He was already overtaking the vehicles when it became evident that the approaching driver was an idiot. Also, those "little bits of cycle lane" are not often not cleaned and are thus frequently covered in broken glass swept across from vehicle accidents.
I have been a police officer for some 26 years now. The "holier-than-thou" attutude of some cyclists is unbelievable. They have the ultimate right to be on the road, and everyone else is responsible for their safety.
What is your point? Are you saying those cyclists shouldn't be on the road and weren't in the right? I wonder if your (easily searchable) employer thinks of your attitude.
@@Kradlum Oh yes! one of those! I work for a Police force that you could esily search. Crack on. I've not said aything they would disagree with. In my career I have taken reports from people starting with "I'm a cyclist....." etc, etc. Along with "I'm a parish councillor.....". Have a nice day! 😀
Hello, mate. I''m at the ambulance service and totally agree. They'd be screaming about their "right of way" even as the lorry ploughs into them. Zealots.
Another stance on that situation is, the little boy was clearly half way passed his obstruction when the car driver was corner to corner with their obstruction. This alone gives priority to the bike rider. The vehicle should have stopped & waited.
WRONG ; the driver had established himself on course first and thus had embarked on his overtake first ; this gives him priority ; the father should have allowed his son to wait .
@@derekheeps1244 You're incorrect. The child is half way down the side of the white Transit before the Ford even gets to the parked white car to their left. Also, the cyclists are vulnerable road users, especially a child. I suggest you watch & pause.
Regardless of who is right or wrong, in any incident between a cyclist and a car, guess who's getting in an ambulance. Being in the right doesn't make you invincible.
YEP TOO MANY PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS LACK COMMON SENSE AND THINK OF SILLY GOVERNMENT RULES , WHEN THERES ONLY 1 RULE , YOU SEE A CAR COMING YOU GET OUT THE WAY !!!
Saying you're at fault for refusing to accommodate the fault of others is just the sort of Orwellian doublethink I've come to expect from Britain today.
The other way of looking at it is the ADULT driving the car should have known better and given way to the boy on the bike. Even if it was the cars right of way (which to be clear it wasn’t) he/she still should have stopped/given way because it is the right thing to do. It’s called looking ahead and reacting based on experience.
@@stephenbland7461 I do agree but equally it’s a learning process too. As you say, personally I would’ve just assumed the drivers total stupidity and stopped both bikes and moved in out the way. Then possibly shouted obscenities at the driver after, but from a position of safety of course!
The father should have instructed his child to ride more to the center of the road to keep away from the danger of car doors opening also sending a clear message to the on coming driver that there is no room for him to pass safely or not!
People love to find blame and do something because it's their right, but blame isn't going to reverse a serious or fatal incident. I agree completelty with this analysis, the driver is in the wrong, but it would have shown good judgement for the father to tell his child (who even asked if he should) to pull to the side. It's like stepping out on a pelican crossing, yes you have the right to do so, but if you step in front of a car that isn't going to stop, the driver may well be at fault, but you may be seriousely injured or killed, that's why you stop and look to make sure it's safe first.
What worries me about this, is that a child of that age may not be aware of the potential for people to pop out between the cars, or someone to open a car door unexpectedly in front of you. If he puts his brakes on fast on that wet road, can he manage a skid?
Many car drivers do not follow the rules and always put others in serious danger and risk. This is just one of many scenarios I have seen whilst driving.
The same could be said of all road users. I have seen pedestrians, cyclist, motorcyclists, car drivers, van drivers, lorry drivers and bus drivers fail to follow the rules of the road and put themselves and others in danger. Indeed I was on a bus journey the other day where by the time the driver reached a set of lights they had turned from amber to red and yest he still continued through, (and if you can go through an entire green to amber to red sequence before you reach this particular set of lights then you should have stopped). The issue is that the larger the higher up in the priority, the greater the likelihood that the damage you cause will be serious, or even fatal, but even a cycle hitting a pedestrian has the potential to kill should the "right" circumstances occur.
@@MsOpportunity68 Thanks 😊 that is exactly the correct details for all road users. Though, even a stupid pedestrian can cause serious damage to cyclists on the road. Example, my case. 😉
@@DestructorX.Official Pedestrians can be harder to read then other vehicles because quite often they do the unexpected. The problem is that as a road user, a cyclist is meant to read the possible actions, and can be held accountable in the case of a collision. I'm sorry that you came off badly in an accident had hope you had a speedy recovery.
The car driver should have slowed down to a virtual stop and let the young lad cycle through safely. I can also understand why the dad said continue as to not panic his son. As for Javid’s comments, the less said the better.
Do you think the child's father has any moral or legal obligation not to put his son in to an overtly risky or dangerous situation? Is the father being negligent of his parental responsibilities by doing so? Javid is entitled to his opinion just as you are.
Tony you appear to have replied to my comment as I can see half of it in my notifications, however it does not appear in the replies section. I can only assume you too have been shadow-banned on this comment.
Imho the only one who was right was the kid who read the situation, sensed possible danger and correctly asked if he should pull over to the side.
Agree
This is precisely what I thought. The five year old has more sense than his father.
Absolutely.
exactly, i know the laws but you wouldn't gamble that the driver knows them with your child!
Correct
The boy has more road sense than his father, He did ask if should he move over after all. Good lad.
As an ex training partner who rode with professional cyclists we had a saying "better being safe than right".
There are too many people in the cemeteries who had right of way...
@@verabolton very true
I learnt this at motor cycle training and it is SO, so true.
Here lies the body of poor John Grey
Who died maintaining his right of way
He was right, so right as he rode along
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.
Excellently put. Rather than saving lives i think it will probably turn out more cyclists with the mentality of the father in this film will end up injured or dead.
Driving isn't fun anymore, it's too hectic
I wish I could bump this to the top
so true its no good saying the car should have stopped cos one day it may not be able to stop cyclists need to ride more defensively for there own safety
Great wisdom there.
As a pedestrian or a cyclist, I always walk or ride as defensively as I can. Even when the law is in my favour, If a car or a truck hits me then I will always lose.
Exactly how I still ride intuitively and not place my life in the hands of Law or other drivers. So when lights are red, I stop, when Green I cross with caution, that is how I have managed to reach so far 70. If I am behind a bus, and it pulls over at a bus stop, I just stay behind and wait for it to move on again, just a matter of a few seconds, and if a lorry pulls over at red lights, never go between it and the curb, common sense is what is lacking and the Law thought we need a Law to protect idiots. Idiots no one can protect.
@@mgabrielle2343 Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men .
I feel like the only sensible person here is the 5 year old for asking, 'Shall I pull over to the side?'
Absolutely - the child has more common sense and instinct and no arrogance
Children often make much more sense than adults, they just apply logic without the years/decades of conditioned presumptions and prejudice.
Ultimately it comes down to the fact that being right doesn't stop you from getting injured or killed. As a father I wouldn't take the chance that the car would stop safely.
I agree. And perhaps the Father himself would take a different decision if he could have thought a bit more rationally about it in the moment. Most of us have been guilty of continuing a course of action on the roads to assert out righteousness and appease our own ego. But when you're in charge of a 5 year old child on the roads, I think the first thing you have to do is leave your ego and self-righteousness at the door. And I hope the Father in this video, and other Mothers and Fathers watching, are learning the same lesson.
Who is right? The self entitled zoomer cyclist, did the cyclist slow down? Cyclist are arrogant entitled muppets.
Exactly - I always remember my dad telling me "Saying 'I had right of way' will not heal your injuries when you're lying in a pool of your own blood because others didn't agree"
@@psy-op Some cyclists are self-entitled, sure. There are self-entitled people in all walks of life. But is that honestly what you see in this particular video?
The car didn't stop, nor did the child. Guess what nobody was hurt. Personally I wouldn't of risked it because your more likely to be seen hitting a meteorite during the day, than at night time. Direct hits can kill.
That moment you watch a video with two adults and a 5yr old ... and the 5yr old is the sensible one.
I side with Ashley's comments, both were at fault, for different reasons. The only one with sense was the child, who asked if he should pull over.
Couldn't agree more, the Father should be ashamed of himself for in a way deliberately putting his child in danger. But the car should have stopped especially when you see how close he was to clipping the wing mirror of the parked car, he knew he was too close to the child
@@Lanser1964 or she.
Agree with that
I can't see were the child was at fault. It was his right of way, there is no age limit for pushbikes, he was wearing a helmet and a high Viz jacket. What did he do wrong ?
Not exactly Ashley's comments though are they.
He wholeheartedly said the driver was at fault.
Yeah, I wouldn't ride like that with my kid but if I did the driver would still be 100% in the wrong.
The child had more common sense by reading the oncoming situation early, the parent overruled that, putting his son at a possible risk.
It was not a possible risk: the risk was real .
@@derekheeps1244 The risk was possible but nothing occurred even though it was possible
Agree the car is at fault legally but in my opinion the only sensible road user in the whole bunch is the 5 year-old child. They saw the hazard and correctly identified the best move to mitigate the danger only to be overruled by the other moron of an adult in the situation.
Agreed
Exactly right.
Absolutely agreed but the car driver shouldn’t get off the hook.
Agreed, but in my view by the time the kid reaches the white van, it’s too late to tell him to stop. That might have caused him to wobble or fall into the car. Taking him on that road at all put the kid at unacceptable risk, because it was foreseeable that this situation might arise. To that extent Sajid was right. Not because the car driver was right, but because it was foreseeable that he would act wrongly.
Totally agree. The child asked to pull in and the dad overruled him. The motorist should have slowed down at least or stopped, the child could have wobbled into the car. All in all, the child was the only one who seemed to have sense.
There is somewhere in the UK an epitaph that reads. ' His way was right, and his will was strong, but he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong '. Both the grown ups in this are culpable. The father demonstrated no judgement. The driver was wrong. and the father knew his rights. What could possibly go wrong 🤔
100% agree. I'm having trouble understanding people defending the father. Does he not owe his 5 year old son a moral and legal duty of care not to put him in overtly dangerous situations?
The driver did nothing wrong ; the wrong was all on the parent . I can only imagine the lambasting he would have received from the child's mother when she saw the video - with any luck he will now have been banned from taking the little chap out unsupervised .
The child asked if he should stop and the father told him to continue on. From the child’s perspective he might have been scared of the oncoming car and he might have wobbled under the car
The father felt that his need to make a point was more important than the safety of his child.
That's a possibility. A wobble, a panic and a fall in the path of the oncoming car. I was ten before I was allowed a road bicycle, I then took a cycling proficiency course and test. A five year old riding a pavement sized cycle should not be on the road.
@@stephencope7178 it’s never to early to teach them good roadcraft in an appropriate setting, which I would argue this was - residential, traffic calming. Sadly the dad failed to teach them good roadcraft in this instance.
@@chrisbrookes1167 That is why many public parks have cycle training areas with paths marked out as roads , safely away from traffic ; this was a public highway , full of parked vehicles , physical obstructions in the road layout , and moving vehicles as well as the danger of hidden pedestrians and animals emerging into the little boy's path ; it was NOT a safe or appropriate place to take a small child .
I have seen the video before but never heard the sound. The little boy was actually the most sensible person in the whole Scenario, he saw the car coming towards him and asked his father "should I pull in?"
The child was the only one who had common sense.
It seems the child had more road sense than both the adults
My grandfather alway pointed out to me that sometimes we face the decision to be right or be alive.
Legal matters aside the father should have told his son to wait.
As my driving instructor once told me, the key to surviving driving is to drive like everyone else is a moron that doesn't know the laws and rules.
and given half a chance, will kill you!
My grandfather always had the view that some other "silly bugger" will kill you, no matter how safe you drive. That's why he never went over 45mph with us kids in the car, even when the speed limit was 60mph on open roads. But he remembered when the black and white sign meant no speed limit on open roads. The only real answer to this video seems to be to build cycle (only) roads everywhere in the country, no matter the cost.
Mine told me the same. If I was the driver I'd had stopped and beckoned then through as a shield of safety a young kids life is more important than arriving at a destination ten seconds quicker
Mine told me "assume every other driver is a homicidal maniac out to kill you and every pedestrian and cyclist is a suicidal maniac trying to get you to kill them."
All things are lawful yet, not all things are advisable
Before the law, there is empathy and courtesy. When they are missing from human interactions, the health of civil society is at risk.
The 5 year old comes out as the most “adult” , driver the worst, dad not great . When the child asked should I pull in dad should have said yes. He could tell the driver was not going to stop. Fix the danger rather than make it worse. If it was dad on his own, fair enough to ride through but not for child. Dad responsible for child.
I totally agree with you.
The boy's father was utterly irresponsible. This has nothing to do with 'rights' and everything to do with responsibility. You can't possibly expect a 5 year old to anticipate the potential hazards of a road - he should have been riding on the pavenment. Meanwhile, his father was concentrating on his son, and therefore not driving with due care and attention. The driver of the other car is blameless.
We cycled to school every day from this age.They stayed on the pavement. I believed that this was OK for kids and no one ever challenged us, until they were old enough to cycle by themselves. I wouldn't have been comfortable with anything else.
it is illegal to cycle on the pavement
So what ...its a 5 year old!!!
@@Paul1962 except the child is under 10 and hence is not considered criminally responsible, and if memory serves there is guidance that young children are to be excluded from this requirement.
@@Paul1962 maybe but would you personally ride a bike on road in busy traffic
@@Paul1962 If it's empty of pedestrians, use it. Who's gonna complain ? so much safer for everyone.
Doesn't matter who's right or wrong, the father should be teaching his child how to be safe. The child has better instincts than the adult
My opinion: it’s fine to drive according to the road rules but if you can see a likely hazard and actively drive into the situation, then don’t be surprised when it becomes a hazard.
That premise applies even more to cycling .
Extremely balanced view. Life is a learning curve and things can escalate in an instant.
No use a person arriving at the Pearly Gates and complaining "But I had right of way......."
Better to arrive 30 minutes late in this life, than 30 years early in the next one.
It’s not about blame it’s about my grandkids being to precious to put in a risky situation
Exactly 👍
At what age would be acceptable for the car to pass that close?
It's insane he would put a kid so young on the road , I'm totally baffled people are auguing about road law
@@RichardPhillips1066 That's not the point. There's a hazard ahead & the motorist is treating it accordingly, due to their obvious inheriant dislike of cyclists. If it had been a cat or a dog in the road, I'm willing to bet they would've slowed more.
@@RichardPhillips1066 Kids need to learn how to ride and how to use the road. It was a quiet residential, traffic calmed road - about as safe is it could be. I applaud the father. The more we can get our kids to cycle the better. Better for their health (obesity and then diabetes) and better for the environment.
I agree 100% however as a caveat the 5yr old had more sense than all of them as you can clearly hear him say dad shall i pull over... well done little man both your dad and the car driver are A'holes.
Do you really think it is safer to suddenly jump in the gutter and emerge from behind parked cars the whole time? A'hole.
@drie wiel Ahole..... yes had the lad stopped instead of being forced into oncoming traffic by his moronic father then it would have been much safer for him. Clearly you're not very clever on road safety. I hope you don't drive or god forbid ride a pushbike
So so very right
I hope this clever boy will not learn the ways of his father. He's teaching his son to be careless and to call others an idiot... 🥺
The father is .
My son is in the hospital because of oncoming traffic, I am praying he survives but its ok we were in the right.
The kid's dad can take solice in being right when he's at the hospital or morgue with his kid. It's sad when the kid had the best judgment of all three people.
So true a comment as yours ❤️
Best comment so far.
@@Boilingfrogg Thank you. ❤️
I would never have dreamt of pushing through, especially when I saw a tiny vulnerable child coming the other way.
Totally not to absolve the driver as they should have stopped, but humans will be humans. Some times even when we're not distracted from the road we make the wrong snap judgement or take just a bit too long to notice something and react. This is why it's so important to observe best practices and drive/ride defensively and with care as in most cases one party can save both from an accident. And let's not even go into people driving while distracted on their phones etc...
Yes , that idiot father should have allowed his son to wait .
BBB is correct about there being no such thing as right of way on our roads, however there is a thing called priority & in this circumstance (with the cyclists already overtaking parked cars before the Focus reaches parked cars on its side) the cyclists had priority & the Focus should've stopped.
Unfortunately, dad wanted to make a point & used his child to try to make that point.🤦♂
at least the father could take some comfort at being right whilst he's waiting 3 hours for an ambulance.
Yes, the priority argument is a good one. I wonder if the car driver would have stopped early were it another car coming the opposite way already overtaking the parked vehicles 🤔
@@mickk8519 Especially if the other car was my Defender!
Exactly as I saw it, the cyclists had priority.
The father though, should have been teaching the boy defensive riding so must take some of the blame.
WRONG : all road users have right of way ; it is the right to pass along the way , or simply to use the road or path , otherwise known as a way , weg , via , route or any of many other words in various languages .
As for your skewed notion of priority ; the car had already been established on course and had shown the amount of space he required , so he had actually commenced his overtake before the cyclists and was entitled to complete it .
Agree with everything said here. Nice breakdown of who should have done what and when. Please ride and drive safely out there👍
Common sense says the driver of the car should have given way, common sense also says the father should not have put his child in what could have been a bad result,
Maybe the driver never spotted the child in time considering him being so small.
Common sense says the child should have stopped ; any decent father would not have taken such a small child there in the first place and secondly would have told the child to slow down and wait .
How would a five year old react to an emergency situation. Any action (if any) they take might be the wrong type of action. If the father shouted instructions to the child, there would be a slight delay in action that the child might take or panic and take the wrong action.
I noticed 2 things. 1 the driver could have stopped but instead only slowed down (he should have stopped of course). 2 the 5 year old has better road sense than his dad. Better to be safe and late than in the Right at Hospital.
@@tomkent4656 The Driver should have stopped as in passing the parked cars he crossed the central line of the road in order to to safely pass. The cyclists were in thier own lane.
@@tomkent4656 Because they are driving towards a child riding a bike though a narrowing gap...... Oh unless you're asking why the cyclist should have stopped, It's unclear who "he" is in your question. In which case... because he is riding head-on into a lump of unforgiving metal that could easily injure him.
Why is it a he? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I have just watched this video several times now on different channels and in none of them can I identify the gender of the car driver.
Vehicles can not pass a cyclist within 2 metres and a pedestrian within 1.5 metres. So yes the car should have stopped.
the driver was not obliged to stop ; he quite commendably slowed down and exercised caution .
If the child had stopped he might have lost his balance; I think telling him to stop would have been more dangerous than what was done.
What the father did wrong - aside from putting the child in this situation in the first place - was telling the driver off, who couldn't hear him, which just served to confuse the child, who could hear him.
I agree, if the boy had slowed down and stopped, he might have gotten a bit wobbly. He was cycling in a nice straight line, that what his Dad could see.
His dad should have been teaching him to slow down in dangerous situations. Like what the car did.
@@bazahaza They were already cycling at a sedate speed. The car should have stopped, I would very concerned if I was driving and saw a small child on a bicycle coming towards me. Definitely I would stop.
Especially since the driver did nothing wrong and it was the father who needed the telling off , and to be called an idiot .
@@DavidFraser007 The driver was not obliged to stop ; he was already proceeding very slowly and cautiously .
Excellent analysis and advice, thank you very much sir.
Encouraging the child who wasn't confident and the child suggested pulling over...the child should have had a reflective jacket etc...father taking risks with child's safety...
I cycle over 100 miles a week, this happens 90% of the time, and hardly anyone follows the old rules let alone the new ones. And you are 100% correct.
When i was 10 years old my school did road proficiency tests that i passed. I was riding home from school as i was taught not many cars on the road at all apart from a drunk driver. Drove straight into me, my front wheel mangled i went over the handle bars and smashed my face on the pavement. The driver didnt stop, neighbours saw what happened and scraped me up from the floor as i was out cold. I now refuse to ride a bicycle at all.
That must have been very traumatic for you as a child. No wonder you refuse to ride one now. I’m pleased to see the change in the law to protect cyclists, although (sadly) a lot of people don’t seem to be aware of the recent changes.
That is a very sad and awful story. I am so sorry for you, and I do understand your position. Was the car driver ever traced and prosectuted?
I am so sorry to hear what happened to you 😡 Great thing is your here and alive telling your true story ♥️
yep it happened often and di to me as a kid; Police not bothered. It still happens today, only recently had a car swerve over to the wrong side to the road and went straight over the bonnet, bike frame and wheel bent. Driver blamed me, as he claimed he needed to relieve himself and this was the only spot he could park ie he was drunk. Police again not bothered and found it very hard to make a claim on my bike insurance.
When I was in high school in Perth (WA) two guys were on the one bicycle one was doing a 'dinkie' (a pillion passenger). The bicycle did not have good brakes and went through a stop sign and they ended literally 'under a car'. One had head injuries that resulted in him being deaf in one ear and the other guy gained some nasty scars on his body.
The parent should be charged with putting his child in risk of serious harm .The child felt uncomfortable in the situation and wanted to pull in a bit , but the father was determined to put his child in danger to prove a point .Keep that up and it will only end in a bad way .
Ashley Neil’s video on this is the best I’ve seen so far. As he says, the only one here who comes out without any blame is the 5-year old!
- I wouldn’t have gone through that cycle lane either. It’s full of water, and as a cyclist you couldn’t possibly see what is in there. Gravel? Nails? Drain cover? Loads of hidden hazards.
I've seen Ashley's video and I too agree the child is truly the innocent party.
I hope the child's father takes some comfort from being in the right should the unspeakable ever happen.
@@simonmuhamed1071 Exactly! He would give up the life of his young kid just to 'prove a point'. THIS(!!!) is when The Law should do the right thing...and persecute that father.
what about the hazards motorists face when youre doing 25mph on a b road? cyclists are such donkeys.
@@croikeyaustralianbetamales3432 if you can’t deal with a slow moving cyclist, hand in your license.
Years ago in Belgium, I was told by a taxi driver that if there was an accident between a car and bicycle, insurance would always class the car to be at fault, regardless of who was to blame. It made most people very careful when driving around cyclists.
As a driver, I would have absolutely stopped when I saw the child approaching. The boy rode incredibly well in a dangerous situation that could have had tragic results due to the carelessness of the oncoming driver. To me, the question is and should always be, who is the most vulnerable in the situation, and obviously cyclists and pedestrians fit that criteria fully. So I don't mind waiting a while for cyclists or pedestrians, no matter what other drivers may want me to do, because I would not be at all happy if I harmed another human being. I was incredibly impressed that the five year old boy maintained his composure in this situation and rode straight through despite what could have occurred, and the father was correct to have encouraged him to do so. The driver, imho, was completely in the wrong in this circumstance.
To pander to cycling vigilantes is to encourage their entitlement ; the driver did well in slowing to a safe speed but proceeding with caution . The idiot father was the danger , not the driver .
At the end of the day it doesn’t matter if it’s a 5 year old boy on the bike or a 50 year old adult on a bike. The action from the driver should have been to wait.
I don't care who's at fault, no way would I allow a 5 year old on the highway on a bike. When you end up injured or dead, it don't matter who' fault, it's too late.
well said first job as a parent is to protect your children from danger and he failed. we can all say the driver was at fault but no the father is because any decent father would of not allowed a very young child on the road like that totally irresponsible
My mum and dad would never have put me in this position at such a young age. The dad here is looking for a reaction. The cyclists do have priority now, but that doesn't mean anything when you're squashed underneath the wheels of an oncoming vehicle.
I always give cyclists plenty of room on the road , it comes down to courtesy, the same as Horse riders , because I've ridden bikes , Motorcycles, and even horses, on the road , so I see it from everyone's point of view and put into practice what I preach , I ride and drive on a defensive basis, give yourself a space on the roads , stay safe .
Courtesy is a two way thing…I don’t see much of it from bikes
It's strange that most people don't show the same courtesy to cyclist as most do for horses.
@@cresspoobear1904 Some of us are courteous. As I usually cycle on narrow lanes I'm constantly pulling over to let a vehicle past. Basically it's as all things in life, some people are a-holes... some people aren't.
I wish more drivers were like you, I'm always riding through the small gaps those drivers leave and they never bother to slow down at all.
@@cresspoobear1904 sounds like you've got a hate on for bikes so you ain't going to be a courteous driver.
Did they not tell you during your driving lessons that your supposed to give way to vulnerable road users or do you think you have right of way because you can go faster and kill vulnerable road users?
Maybe it's because you have to pay pollution tax to use the road you think you should get priority!
To my mind, as an ex-HGV Driver, you would give way to the most vulnerable in these situations.
The motorist is to blame. But the father should have seen the risk and answered yes to move into the side
The child is the only one in the right, he read the situation and was willing to pull over.
He decided that his need to make a point was greater than that of the saferty of his child.
What made it worse was the idiot father was filming instead of making sure his child was safe.
Both can pass at slow speeds. Many motorists do this on narrow roads
@@DrJams Maybe, but if I was driving there with such a small child coming the other way I would stop. I can only assume that the driver in this case had no children.
The father, shouldn’t let a 5 year old ride on the road
Dad risking childs life to prove a point. Totally avoidable.
More concerned with being right than caring for child.
Except he was not right ; he was completely wrong .
@@derekheeps1244 I never said he was right.
If the car was following the new highway code rules then there would not have been an issue. The law should be changed to allow kids below a certain age to cycle on the pavement. 5 year olds don't present a significant risk to pedestrians. My teenage son is still afraid to cycle on the road as there are so many a-holes behind the wheel as demonstrated here. That child will develop a rich vocabulary if he survives into adulthood. He seems to have more common sense than his father.
Under twelves are immune from prosecution so they CAN cycle on the pavements , as can everyone since they were designated shared spaces following the pandemic .
The law has not changed , there is just a load of bad advice in HC proffered by non drivers .
The general rule of "Don't be an ass," in many ways fits this situation well, also.
I commented on twitter at the time, but imagine this way... if this resulted in a tragic outcome the father would be blaming the driver, but in the corners of his mind a voice would be saying if only I had let him pull over when he asked. Don't put your child in harms way even if you are in the right technically. There's no moral high ground in a cemetery
The court would have convicted the father for child endangerment and criminal negligence ; the driver who did nothing wrong would have nothing to fear .
How are we in a world where the question of "is the 5 year old child to blame" is even considered? There are only 2 possible people to blame and they are the father and the driver.
Also pay attention to who has priority when it comes to passing parked cars in general. I was told by my driving instructor that If the parked cars are on your side of the road, then you should give way to oncoming traffic, If the parked cars are on the opposite side of the road, you have priority.
Exactly what I was taught too, if the obstruction is on your side then you must yeald to those on the opposite side if they have a clear lane which gives them priority, If both sides have obstructions then it's 50/50.
In this case, the parked cars are on both sides of the road, so that's not really changing the situation for anybody.
"Daddy, should I move over to the side?"
Even a five-year-old could see it wasn't safe.
Kid should have told him you go first.
This is the best and fairest assessment of the event I've seen to date. We don't live in a world of black & whites where personal responsibility can be completely abnegated, so while the driver of the car is completely at fault in law, the father was unwise to have encouraged his son through the pinch point in the first place.
Whilst the motorist should have stopped due to the priority sign in addition to already in position to pass parked cars,
At the same time a 5 year old should not be on the road in the first place, this is irresponsible and dangerous in addition to having no common sense they are also very unstable and can't go in straight line without wobbling heavily. They would also have no idea of the highway code.
Interesting where the kid should have been. Now allowed on the road, not allowed on the pavement ?
the child had every right to be there though and every motorist on a residential road should be aware of this fact, rather than create unnecessary danger.
@@joshovki Should be on the pavement. Yes.
@@briantitchener4829 legally not allowed
@@mikewade777 what about a 2 year old with stabilisers on a bike? Would they be creating unnecessary danger on the road? Doesn't the father have a moral and legal duty not to put his child in to potentially life threatening situations?
Well said . I've driven trucks vans and cars ,I give way to people that will probably be seriously injured if I didn't .
The motorist is 100% to _blame_ for the incident. Cyclists and especially children are far more vulnerable on the roads than a car, so the car should have given way. That said, it did become quite clear that the car was _not_ going to give way, and I think that the Father should then have instructed his child to pull in to the side just as the child himself had suggested.
Personally I would not take my own 5 year old boy out into the roads on a bike like that, but on the other hand this particular 5 year old seems a lot more adept at riding a bike than mine and at some point we all need to teach our children how to ride on the roads by way of real life practice.
A child that age should not be riding on a busy public road. It is an accident waiting to happen. If he was tested on the Highway Code, do you think he would pass? A cyclist is often difficult to see/observe when full size but at the size of a five year old, even with an adult following, it would be easy to miss with possible tragic consequences.
There was plenty of room there for both. Yes there could be tragic consequences, which is partly why anyone with an ounce of sense would not have a five year old cycling on a busy road such as that.
@@hedydd2 You contradict yourself inside a single paragraph. "There was plenty of room there for both". "There could be tragic consequences".
Those things are mutually exclusive.
@@hedydd2 We _mostly_ disagree. First of all, regarding the 5 year old boy, I myself have a 5 year old boy. And I have to admit, I would _not_ take my 5 year old boy out onto the main roads on a bike. But then my 5 year old boy does not cycle as confidently as the one shown in this video. So, like a lot of things in life, there is not a "one size fits all" answer to the question. You have to make the decision about what your child is competent and safe to do based on that specific child's skills/needs/circumstances.
Regarding the cyclists being difficult to see. Well, unfortunately this is not any kind of an excuse that the driver of a vehicle can use. You need to be alert and aware at all times while driving, and paying attention to everything around you. If you fail to see a cyclist on the road, and a collision is the result, then in most circumstances it will be you who is held 100% responsible.
As a driver of a vehicle, it is primarily your responsibility to reduce the risk of harm to the more vulnerable people on the road.
@@brianhoskins1979
Nonsense. Next time there might not be enough room or the driver might not see him or the five year old might suddenly turn right at a junction and get hit because five year old’s and older just do not have the attention span or the awareness of danger that nine, ten and older children [should] have.
It would have been safe if the car waited but as usual the driver is in too much of a hurry to wait. 🤬
My take - as the father, I would have been positioned off to the right side, to make it VERY clear that there was insufficient room for the car to come through.
I've done this MANY times as a motorcyclist, with more novice bikers in front of me. I'm yet to have a car try to argue with me head on.
Or when the kid says "shall I pull over to the side?" I would have perhaps said "no, but stop and lets see how this is going to happen. The car should wait for us, but lets not put ourselves into danger." Importantly, on a bicycle, I would NOT have pulled over to the side, but maybe stopping short to see what the car does is enough.
A motorcycle has more mass than a bicycle, they are always willing to let a bicycle be mangled because it probably won't do anything to their vehicle.
@@jamingaming9251 what makes you think I don't do the same defensive riding, regardless of the mass? You think I don't cycle too, for some reason?
Give your average car driver enough room to squeeze by, they will. Make them choose between stopping or hitting you head on, they ALWAYS see sense and stop.
@@redtela I wasn't talking about you personally.
I've been riding down a road besides cars caught in a traffic jam and seen a guy looking in his side mirror, he's then pull his car over to close the gap between his car and the pavement. Forcing me to either jump onto the pavement and hit an old lady or crash into his car.
I obviously had no choice but to crash into his car, buckling my front wheel, because I was going to fast to stop in time.
On many occasions I've been going down roads that have been narrowed by parked cars and the oncoming traffic refuses to wait for me to finish coming through and drive in closing up the gap so I've got less space than that kid had.
Every night I'm blinded by the oncoming cars headlights, in the past month only 4 drivers have had the courtesy to dim their lights.
I reckon if cars gave their drivers points on their like in the 5th element, 90% of drivers would be off the road in a week, they have no consideration for other road users.
@@jamingaming9251 the same situations happen with 2 wheels with or without an engine.
Though I will add, when filtering (despite it being perfectly legal) a motorcycle rider will take some proportion of the blame if there's an insurance claim. So my gut reaction to your "I had no choice" - is that there's always a choice, including but not limited to lowering the risk by riding slower.
On my push bike, car headlights at this time of year are a problem (and cars with LED lights are worse). On the motorbike, however, car drivers tend to dislike my Philips Xtreme bulbs on main beam.
@@redtela I was going down a steep hill, I squeezed both brakes put both feet on the ground but I couldn't slow down in time. He pulled the front of his car into a one way street to block my progress past him, if the old lady wasn't on the pavement I could have jumped onto the pavement and swerved around to avoid him.
Bicycle breaks are practically useless, on my ebike I've got them tightened up so they are almost rubbing and I have to keep retightening them every week or so.
I've finally just received a new 16 led headlight that'll actually illuminate the street, the 4 led bicycle style one barley lets me see 10 meters on dark roads with no street lighting.
Once I figure out how to wire it in they can get a taste of their own medicine.
Ashley Neal's answer hit the nail on the head , the only road user to come out of this with any credit is the child.
If you have not watched his breakdown of the video , then I suggest you do .
Only sensible one was the 5 year old.
Where I live, we have cycle lanes & where there aren't any, cyclists are expected to keep as far left as is practicable. We also have a rule that drivers must give cyclists a 1.5 meter clearance when passing them.
I am in NZ tho, I don't know what the UK rules are.
So a 5 year old child does not fully comprehend real life dangers, or can way up the risks of a threat or understand consequences? Hmmm, interesting. Makes me wonder why the medical profession and activists push for permanent gender transitioning of children.
I think the dad was in the wrong. Letting a 5 year old child on to a main road is being negligent of the risks to everyone involved. Imagine if someone opened the van door and knocked the child in to the path of an oncoming vehicle.
"Don't bother kids whilst they are skateboarding". Kids need to learn risk assessment or you end up with a bunch of snowflakes... sound familiar? In this case the kid assessed the risk correctly. The father's fault was in telling him to carry on. As for the van door... they were leaving plenty of room between themselves and the parked cars.
Or if a dog had ran out just as he was passing . Fortunately the driver had seen the child , and had slowed to a crawl , exercising utmost caution , which was more than that poor excuse for a father did .
@@eccehomer8182 No they were not ! Cyclists MUST leave at least a full door's width from any parked vehicles , not only to allow for doors opening , but also for animals or pedestrians , which can include other children , darting out from behind the parked vehicles , most especially buses at bus stops , because many bus passengers are non drivers with zero road sense .
In defence of the father, I would have expected the car to stop before the white suv, just after passing the priority gate. By the time the kid suggested moving to the side it was too late to pull in behind the van, and slowing/stopping would have been seen by the car driver as an invitation to continue past.
So they passed each other at low speed with room to spare. Wow. Maybe we should all just wrap ourselves in cotton wool and not leave the house in case something bad ever happens.
If there was a half meter gap between two cars I'd agree...but it's a kid on a bike,
it was fortunate that the boy kept his nerve and didn't wobble else the driver could have found himself charged with manslaughter or reckless driving
I'm presuming yours is a trolling statement, because it's obvious that if things had gone wrong the driver would have lost his licence and potentially be doing time ..
@@AngelaH2222 The gap was much larger, but the kid moved towards the car a bit, which reduced the gap to about halve a meter.
So imho it's just a lot of poohah about nothing really.
@@Robbedem it helps to treat young kids on the road in the same way as you might a horse,expect the unexpected, a less experienced kid would have wobbled off and the car driver been responsible for his life-changing injuries
@@AngelaH2222 if the kid would have hit the car, there would have been scratches on the car and maybe some bruises on the kid.
This wouldn't have caused any life-changing injuries.
If the child gets killed, would it make the father feel better to know it was the car driver’s fault.?
I strongly believe that both father and the driver should be charged for careless and dangerous driving. Really proud of the kid who's assessed the situation right and asked whether they should pull over to the side, which would be the rightest and safest thing to do in this situation. Indeed much smarter than their parent.
The child is thinking about safety, the adult is thinking about showing superiority, even if at the expense of his child.
It's this entitlement that creates accidents, and being legally enforced only makes it worse, because it turns an easily solved situation into a dangerous one.
This road code is an aberration where it comes to safety
I can see the scenario where the father shouts at the child to stop and wait till the car has passed. The child is startled and panics looks behind himself and swerves into the path of the car.
No one was in the wrong…no one was in danger, there was plenty of room…this is a non event.
If everyone follows the rules then it’s happy days. I have found that as a two wheel user from the age of eleven that avoiding danger is better than being in the right, defensive cycling and motorcycling has kept me alive although I have been fortunate to not be hurt when I got it wrong. For too many two wheel users their first mistake can be their last. Although the car was in the wrong, as a cyclist I would have not chosen I am in the right so I am carrying on. Car drivers have usually had some training and been tested although it seems many forget or ignore what they have learned. Unfortunately there are many cyclists that make you wonder if they will see tomorrow.
The car driver did nothing wrong - he slowed right down and exercised caution . I do agree with what you say about common sense and vulnerable road users looking out for themselves . Most of us of a certain age have had training on everything from bicycles up ; the only mode of transport which does not seem to require training is walking , and we see this all too much nowadays thanks to idiot pedestrians who walk out into traffic whilst engrossed in their phones .
I remember two policemen telling me of for riding on the path when I was roughly about 5 years old. He told me to get on the road I cried my eyes out and told my mum she was furious
The dad was willing to put his son in a dangerous situation to hopefully film a situation like this cyclists are campaigning for years about how dangerous roads are for adults let alone a 5yrold child unbelievable he actually told his son to continue when even the son knew it was risky I genuinely believe that was child negligence.
Exactly.
I hope the father gets singled out on future school runs as 'the braindead prk who would RISK the life of his young kid...just to 'teach a motorist a lesson'.
Kids do need to learn risk assessment. One of the problems with our "snowflake" youth is that they have been far too protected. However I agree, this is clearly going too far, though I'm not sure he did it to prove any point... lots of cyclists now wear cameras. Ultimately, the kid assessed the risk correctly, but his father vetoed him... he'd probably be safer on the roads on his own!
@@eccehomer8182 Have to agree with you 100%
look what Pandering to the sensitive has done..all those participation trophies ...not allowed to do this or that...wearing safety glasses while playing Conkers ....Hi Viz to walk to School, climbing trees is now a thing of the past...probably need full fall arrest gear ....putting the Blame on everyone else when some dope gets run over because he crossed the road while not paying attention , looking at his Phone ..
look at the People who cross a road and never look once to see what is coming .....relying on other road users to protect them...
Sorry but i was brought up to understand that stupidity has consequences .
0:49 proves this.
How many other dodgy situations did that guy encourage his son to ride into , all in the name of clickbait ?
Missed this (likely because of the strike). As a mum, I 100% would tell my kiddo to move over.
Right or freedom to be on the road be damned. I don’t trust other people. I’d ASSUME they wouldn’t stop and would actually pose a risk. And I’d tell my kiddo to move over/stop. Although, to be frank, I’d keep my 4 year old off the roads in general. I’d rather risk violation of the footpath laws.
my rule of thumb is that the squasher has priority over the squashee. The Highway code is no use to anybody when you're getting scraped off the road.
The kid saw the risk and asked if he should pull over; the dad didn't care he just knew that they had priority so they were in the right, and expected the car to stop. Although the car did appear to slow down, but not enough.
Agreed. If you don't want hit by a large and heavy object move out of its way.
As a driver and a father , If I was driving I would have stopped to let the cyclists through no matter what the law says. I would also have stopped earlier before the narrow gap caused by the parked vehicles. Of course this would take 20 seconds out of my schedule but I could live with that.
Admirable that a 5 year old was riding so well on the road, great to see. But, as you suggested, err on the side of caution when it comes to Car vs Bicycle. The father wasn't at fault in my opinion, the car driver should have allowed more space.
The father was entirely at fault and the driver did nothing wrong .
There was an home office memorandum sent to the police that suggested people shouldn't be prosecuted for riding on the pavement where they were concerned that the road wasn't safe for cycling. Don't know how this would hold up in court or if there have been any court cases that have treated this.
If that was my grandson I'd be horrified! And I'd be tearing strips off my son. How dare he put that child in such danger! Shame on the father. Omg. Children are so precious and irreplaceable.
Another politician out of touch with reality - the child was taking a prominent position under adult instruction, as indeed he should. He was already overtaking the vehicles when it became evident that the approaching driver was an idiot. Also, those "little bits of cycle lane" are not often not cleaned and are thus frequently covered in broken glass swept across from vehicle accidents.
I have been a police officer for some 26 years now. The "holier-than-thou" attutude of some cyclists is unbelievable. They have the ultimate right to be on the road, and everyone else is responsible for their safety.
What is your point? Are you saying those cyclists shouldn't be on the road and weren't in the right?
I wonder if your (easily searchable) employer thinks of your attitude.
@@Kradlum what a stupid arrogant comment
@@Kradlum Oh yes! one of those!
I work for a Police force that you could esily search. Crack on. I've not said aything they would disagree with. In my career I have taken reports from people starting with "I'm a cyclist....." etc, etc. Along with "I'm a parish councillor.....".
Have a nice day! 😀
Hello, mate. I''m at the ambulance service and totally agree. They'd be screaming about their "right of way" even as the lorry ploughs into them. Zealots.
your an idiot its obvious the car driver was wrong and should have given way and I'm a car driver
The 5 year old has more cense than his dad, the driver had seen them from along way off, and should politely wait until they passed.
Another stance on that situation is, the little boy was clearly half way passed his obstruction when the car driver was corner to corner with their obstruction. This alone gives priority to the bike rider. The vehicle should have stopped & waited.
Also the bikers should have slowed down too.
WRONG ; the driver had established himself on course first and thus had embarked on his overtake first ; this gives him priority ; the father should have allowed his son to wait .
@@derekheeps1244 You're incorrect. The child is half way down the side of the white Transit before the Ford even gets to the parked white car to their left. Also, the cyclists are vulnerable road users, especially a child. I suggest you watch & pause.
Regardless of who is right or wrong, in any incident between a cyclist and a car, guess who's getting in an ambulance. Being in the right doesn't make you invincible.
YEP TOO MANY PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS LACK COMMON SENSE AND THINK OF SILLY GOVERNMENT RULES , WHEN THERES ONLY 1 RULE , YOU SEE A CAR COMING YOU GET OUT THE WAY !!!
Saying you're at fault for refusing to accommodate the fault of others is just the sort of Orwellian doublethink I've come to expect from Britain today.
Ashley Neal said it best in his review of this video, "The only person with any sense in this video is the child".
"I have right of way and, I'm very willing to put my son at risk to prove it!" Dad is a disgrace.
he needs chinning.
the mythical, non-existent, right of way
The other way of looking at it is the ADULT driving the car should have known better and given way to the boy on the bike. Even if it was the cars right of way (which to be clear it wasn’t) he/she still should have stopped/given way because it is the right thing to do. It’s called looking ahead and reacting based on experience.
The car should have slowed down or stopped, but being in the right is a hollow victory if your child ends up in intensive care….
@@stephenbland7461 I do agree but equally it’s a learning process too. As you say, personally I would’ve just assumed the drivers total stupidity and stopped both bikes and moved in out the way. Then possibly shouted obscenities at the driver after, but from a position of safety of course!
I think part of the problem we have, is that our roads aren't big enough for leaving 1.5m on many roads.
not big enough for parked cars.
The father should have instructed his child to ride more to the center of the road to keep away from the danger of car doors opening also sending a clear message to the on coming driver that there is no room for him to pass safely or not!
People love to find blame and do something because it's their right, but blame isn't going to reverse a serious or fatal incident. I agree completelty with this analysis, the driver is in the wrong, but it would have shown good judgement for the father to tell his child (who even asked if he should) to pull to the side. It's like stepping out on a pelican crossing, yes you have the right to do so, but if you step in front of a car that isn't going to stop, the driver may well be at fault, but you may be seriousely injured or killed, that's why you stop and look to make sure it's safe first.
What worries me about this, is that a child of that age may not be aware of the potential for people to pop out between the cars, or someone to open a car door unexpectedly in front of you. If he puts his brakes on fast on that wet road, can he manage a skid?
Many car drivers do not follow the rules and always put others in serious danger and risk. This is just one of many scenarios I have seen whilst driving.
The same could be said of all road users. I have seen pedestrians, cyclist, motorcyclists, car drivers, van drivers, lorry drivers and bus drivers fail to follow the rules of the road and put themselves and others in danger. Indeed I was on a bus journey the other day where by the time the driver reached a set of lights they had turned from amber to red and yest he still continued through, (and if you can go through an entire green to amber to red sequence before you reach this particular set of lights then you should have stopped).
The issue is that the larger the higher up in the priority, the greater the likelihood that the damage you cause will be serious, or even fatal, but even a cycle hitting a pedestrian has the potential to kill should the "right" circumstances occur.
@@MsOpportunity68 Thanks 😊 that is exactly the correct details for all road users. Though, even a stupid pedestrian can cause serious damage to cyclists on the road. Example, my case. 😉
@@DestructorX.Official Pedestrians can be harder to read then other vehicles because quite often they do the unexpected. The problem is that as a road user, a cyclist is meant to read the possible actions, and can be held accountable in the case of a collision.
I'm sorry that you came off badly in an accident had hope you had a speedy recovery.
As I commented on Ashley Neil's channel...
Out of 3 Road users, the 5 year old was the only one with any common sense.
The UK is always lagging to the rest of Europe when it comes to common sense, what a shame.
Father: “ ******* idiot!”
Child: “ what?”
Bless!
The car driver should have slowed down to a virtual stop and let the young lad cycle through safely. I can also understand why the dad said continue as to not panic his son. As for Javid’s comments, the less said the better.
agreed
Disagree.
@@tomkent4656 justification?
Do you think the child's father has any moral or legal obligation not to put his son in to an overtly risky or dangerous situation? Is the father being negligent of his parental responsibilities by doing so? Javid is entitled to his opinion just as you are.
Tony you appear to have replied to my comment as I can see half of it in my notifications, however it does not appear in the replies section. I can only assume you too have been shadow-banned on this comment.