ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
I Rant at Mike Graham's ridiculous comments that put cyclists in danger.
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ส.ค. 2024
- Mike Graham appeared on national TV on 25th January 2022 and made a dangerous comment regarding cyclists priority at roundabouts. Check out the full video here • 'It's Completely Mad' ... . In this video I also clarify a couple of changes to the Highway Code which are different from the information proposed in the initial consultation.
Social Media
www.ashleyneal.com
/ ashleynealdrivinginstr...
ashleysanalysis@gmail.com
The Apps
Pupils - apps.apple.com/gb/app/driving...
ADI - apps.apple.com/gb/app/lesson-...
Amazon Links
Sony a6400 Camera - amzn.to/2xVCrn0
Sony FDR X3000 Action Camera - amzn.to/2YVoPDh
VIOFO A139 3 Channel Dash Cam - amzn.to/3kSGBBz
VIOFO 4K Dash Cam A129 Pro Duo - amzn.to/3fEouLg
#mikegraham #cycling #education
Isnt that the guy that argued that you can "grow concrete"? 👀
@Carl S 😂
Good spot - indeed he is!
yep, was gonna comment that. He also thought that wood was environmentally damaging, and that he won the argument with the carpenter, but the carpenter went quiet as he was so dumb struck by such stupid statements
Haha the very same! Clearly not the brightest button in the drawer.
Yes; but he was in reality focused on concrete being a sustainable material. So it sounded absurd (I heard it at the time), but could see that his thinking and speaking were not working as one. I guess we misrepresent ourselves (rarely thankfully) when we are either tired, distracted, or both. Mike Graham has laughed at himself about it.
Ah mike Graham, the man who once famously said you can grow concrete
He’s not the brightest spark in the welders yard is he?
What the actual... Yes he did say the literal words "You. Can. Grow. Concrete"
@@CED99 Yep, an interview with a carpenter who said his industry was green as you can grow more trees in plantations etc. This clown claimed you can grow concrete so concrete is green too.
That was Mike? Oh my. Now this is really not surprising at all.
His argument against cyclists has no foundation
It baffles me because everything i just thought was already a part of normal driving. If i see a bike on a roundabout i am not pulling out i just treat them like a car.
the general rule where I live is that if a bicycle is on the road, it must be considered the same as a car, both by the rider and by other drivers.
My driving instructor always used to say "Think: is it Safe, is it Legal, is it Possible." I found it applies everywhere, for every method of travel.
Good advice indeed. Perhaps someone should offer it to our prime minister?
My dear Billy, if you want to live your life in a different way, no one here can stop you making those decisions. The consequences and effects your decisions have on others, however, cannot be stopped (good or bad). So my only unsolicited advice to that is, be prepared to be responsible for those decisions because others will hold you accountable 😉
It's terrifying the amount of highway code media misinformation.
Daily mail article from a few days ago had a photo of a cyclist labelled 'Cyclist rides in the middle of road legally for the first time'
1. The cyclist was in the middle of the lane, not the road.
2. It's always been legal for cyclists to adopt a central position in a traffic lane.
3. No reason to assume this was the first time he'd done it.
12 words, 3 mistakes. Were they going for a record?
Another photo showed a cyclist in front of a car saying that the cyclist had swerved into the middle of the lane due to the new highway code rules. In truth it was clear from the photo that all vehicles pictured were setting off from a set of lights and the cyclist had simply used the full width of a bike box as advised so they weren't blocking the cycle lane and preventing other cyclist's getting to the ASL.
Are the people writing this dangerous tripe doing it through ignorance or to create clickbait and so what if someone potentially suffers as a result?
Daily Fail.
Hurrah for the blackshirts.
It’s the Sun for people who like to fool themselves that they’re reading a proper newspaper
It’s slack journalism
It's terrifying the amount of highway code media misinformation.
Daily mail article from a few days ago had a photo of a cyclist labelled 'Cyclist rides in the middle of road legally for the first time'
Actually it isn't misleading or misinformation. With these rule changes it's gone from advisary to law. We were always told to stay left, unless we felt unsafe, then to use the entire lane, but it was never actual law. Now it is. So the Daily Mail statement is factually correct.
@@MegaRugster Which law do you believe has been changed in relation to cyclist lane positioning?
Cyclists have always been legally allowed to cycle anywhere they please in the lane. If you think the Daily Mail article is accurate then presumably you believe it was previously illegal for cyclists to ride in the middle of the lane.
Which of the two below statements do you believe to be correct?
1. The daily mail article is accurate and it was previously illegal to ride in the centre of the lane.
2. The daily mail article was inaccurate and it was already legal.
@@roaduser6438 Well said.
I feel the rules have being misinterpreted by a lot of people. The only rule needed is don't drive or cycle like an ignorant twat and be considerate to other road users
Indeed, a lot of the changes are purely suggestions on how to be safe and clarification on what should count as safe.
The most infuriating article headline I've seen was along the lines of "£1000 fine and points for using the wrong hand to open door" (can't remember who posted it now), which is objectively false: you're still technically allowed to use either hand to open the door, you have _never_ been allowed (neither before or after the rule updates) to hit anyone when you open your door, and the rule is a suggestion on how you can make sure you don't.
Yeah but unless it's against the law, ignorant twats will do what they like.
@@goodlookinouthomie1757 Even if it's against the law in many cases.
I think there has been a lot of deliberate misinterpretation by the press.
Why, because it creates conflict that gets views/sells papers...
I seriously doubt anything the government could have done would have improved this. Yes, the HW code should have had a link to the new rules in advance (the draft changes were published well in advance so why weren't they linked to in the existing online HW code) but the people complaining and republishing various papers highly questionable interpretations (Also the number claiming that drivers previously had priority when turning into side roads (see old rule 8 and rule 170 both of which gave the pedestrian priority over turning traffic)) would mostly not have looked at the rules for anything short of mandatory retesting...
Agreed. Too many people nowadays treat their vehicle like a weapon.
Imagine being dense enough to think that you have to stop on a roundabout to let cyclists on. And then go on national television and say it.
I imagine what someone has said to him is that IF a cyclist enters the roundabout dangerously without giving way, the emphasis is on you to apply a duty of care and give the more vulnerable road user a safe amount of space to resolve the situation. Which, let's be honest, is the way it's always been. No one should be willing to knock a cyclist down just because they didn't give way correctly, to prove a point.
Same as usual then - being aware of such situations is just good defensive driving.
But then where would UK dashcam channel get their Sunday night vids? 😂
@@RichO1701e There are enough dickheads about to fill 1000 channels on youtube. Oh and that would have included me 20 years ago I'm a bit less of one now.
I think, to be fair, if someone has trouble understanding that concrete doesn't grow, the intricacies of the highway code are going to be a little bit beyond them.
@@edj4833 Oh it's HIM? Jesus. He really will try and use anything to get on telly eh?
Mike Graham is the epitome of uninformed mouthpieces that have a platform in modern society. Takes the tiniest bit on information, regurgitates it and spouts his nonsense opinion over the airwaves.
He's such a right-wing hack, he literally thinks concrete grows on trees.
Thanks for the accurate information in the rant, Ash 👍
I watched the whole debate. His argument was that concrete is a 'relatively sustainable' building material. And that wood growth relies on airborne carbon dioxide for photosynthesis to facilitate biofuels.
Yes. We all had a laugh at his expense. But the broader points that came out of the program stand scrutiny. Especially since household fuel bills (a reflection of ruinous energy policies around renewables and sustainability) are about to triple. So the suggestion that wood is the answer to building is idealistic and not practical.
@@hittitecharioteer not sure why you're claiming he didn't say it. The evidence is available for all to watch. Mike: "You can grow all sorts of things, can't you?" Interviewee: "Well, you can't grow concrete" Mike: "Yeah, you can". And then a long, awkward silence. There's literally no question about it.
@@hittitecharioteer he said that you can grow concrete. He’s a fucking plank ,mate
There’s no context here, he has an agenda and his woeful ignorance made him a laughing stock.
@@Kraftwerker1 I stand corrected. I think I was as tired of the debate as he was.
@@highdownmartin I stand corrected. I think I was as tired of the debate as he was.
As
a cycling Instructor, I am continuing to instruct my students to cycle defensively and with due care and attention on the roads. Some people appear to 'think' that these new rules mean vulnerable road users can go about with their eyes shut and motorists have to deal with it!
Gail, Spot on!.
I agree, the issue is that whilst they should continue to be defensive, they shouldn't HAVE to be defensive.
@@PCDelorian Indeed, putting the onus onto the vulnerable parties to not get harmed/killed NEVER works in any environment, this is proven throughout history.
It's frankly sickening,t the 'police', CPS - who downgrade charges at the drop of a hat, judges that accept piss poor excuses such as sun in eyes, momentary lapse and hand out sentences that are a joke/no deterrant, all fail the vulnerable every single day. The way killers are let off scot free far too often or a slap on the wrist, never mind the serious injuries etc just ends with more harm as drivers can pretty much do what they like with virtual impunity!
Can you instruct them to disappear?
@@getstrongby4038 If cyclists disappeared, it would be into motorised vehicles, putting more strain on the roads and lengthening your commute
Mike Graham looks like he's never been a bike in his life. Unsurprising to hear a negatively charged opinion from him.
But most cyclists are built like a wet noodle
@@mintywebb lol morbidly obese?
That was kinda random
I think anyone who gets their highway code from someone who thinks you can grow concrete, shouldn't be driving at all.
...and certainly shouldn't be given a platform on national TV to give misinformation for the purposes of provoking a reaction of outrage
Ashley, I am shocked but not totally surprised by what you said regarding your official notification. The communication roll out of these changes has been shambolic by virtue of being non existent from official sources. All you get is what you hear in the media and so it’s not surprising that misinformation like this happens. I went in the bookshop yesterday (2 Feb) to buy a copy of the new Highway Code but all they were selling was the old 2015 Edition. How is that even allowable?
The electronic version has been available since the 29th. The print version is scheduled for early spring when the reprint would have occurred. The proof copy has been available since Oct.
I totally agree the roll out could have been handled better. Sadly various media sources have put their own spin on it all to gain clicks and feed on peoples antipathy to cyclists.
You're a decent guy, Ashley. Writing as a cyclist I liked your *"more speed more space over less space less speed"* comment.
As for roundabouts generally: The thing is if I want to turn right at a roundabout, I really cannot dawdle over to the right. Once I emerge (having given way), what I'd like is just a little patience as I hold my right arm out glancing over my shoulder that Mr or Mrs Impatient won't either just run into the back of me or just cut across me from right to left to take their exit. *Most motorists are decent people* It's that few per thousand who think I have less right than they do to use the roads at all and / or don't understand I can only average about one sixth of a horse power peaking at perhaps ¼HP in small bursts; I simply cannot get out of their way or keep up. _That's why I need a tiny amount of patience and forebearing._
Keep up the good work!
it's not like "its a roundabout not a racetrack" is that hard a thing to teach. there are so many of ashley's bad driving clips that are people trying to overtake in roundabouts.
Also a cyclist however when on a roundabout I take the lane or adopt a road position the indicates to following traffic my intended exit. I've watched some cyclists going round from the left side edge and it scary to see as it enables traffic from behind to cut up the slower moving cycle or misinterpret their intentions
@@haggisbasher2906 I'm thinking of the "2 (or 3) lane wide {ie larger} roundabouts" like crossing the M1 @ J29 from Mansfield to go towards Clay Cross (or vice-versa); I would not go into the middle of the roundabout as though I were in a car. What makes me laugh here (regardless of me holding out my right arm to re-terate _I am staying on_ ) is that some of these licence holders assume I'm going to go down the M1 slip road and not skip past it! It is that lack of taking notice and giving me just that tiny amount of time to go where I need to.
I don't wish to tempt providence in saying this but having started as a cyclist as a kid, then gone onto motorcycles at 17 until my latish 20s but then having a car too from my early 20's, I have *never* had an accident which could remotely be attributed to me at all. I have had 2 people (in completely different times / places) drive into the back at me whilst stopped at red lights (in a car), and 1 person pull out in to my path from a side road on the left when I was on top of her because someone waiting to turn right (who was stationary facing me on the crown of the road) flashed her to let her out and she just went with the flash {not looking at me} - I hit her before my foot touched the brake... The point I'm trying to make is I believe that being a cyclist and motorcyclist has made me a better motorist. I understand how slippery the surface of the road can be even thugh you don't "fall off a car." I would urge any wannabe motorist to take up cycling too, if only to sit the cycling proficiency tests I did as a teenage schoolboy - because in makes you THINK. Not about who's got "rights" on the road; but to learn of the pitfalls and mistakes any one of us can make while using them.
Let's be tolerant and patient out there and remember *There is a long queue to the cemetery **_don't jump it!_*
@@paulfaulkner6299 You won't find me on the inside lane of a roundabout on my bike either, well put Paul.
You rant away, Ashley, as you're being our voice and it's much appreciated.
I speak to a barrister all the time - he's my brother and I wouldn't buy a bag of chips from him without counting them. The "I spoke to a lawyer" thing is just an extension of "My dad's bigger than your dad".
As for the rest of your rant, Ash, spot on. It is criminal how these changes have a) been worded in some cases; b) been drip fed to the public through the most disreputable sources imaginable.
I'm still at a loss as to whether it's recommended that I should stop to let pedestrians cross in front of me when I'm exiting a roundabout. Where it's safe, I already used to do that anyway, but there's just no clarity in the wording and its integration with the existing code.
haha, the top comment you mentioned made me laugh, I think I will nick that phrase.
the unsaid part of "I spoke to a lawyer" is "and he told me I could get away with saying this."
@@kenbrown2808 Spot on.
@@PedroConejo1939 there's a TV network in the states this guy would be a perfect fit for.
@@kenbrown2808 True dat.
Hi Ashley, thank you again. I am a big walker in Rugby town. From my experience so far crossing road junctions no one has read the new highway code. Car drivers are not looking to give way to pedestrians. What needs to happen urgently, in my opinion, is a big publicity campaign highlighting the main changes like this.
It’ll take years for peoples mindsets to evolve, including pedestrians.
@@nuntius1933 Jaywalking laws are a disaster for pedestrian safety. Look at places like North America where they have them and tell me they're safer.
So far have to agree that only a small minority are aware of the changes to the Highway Code. I live in a small town and it is water to walk to the supermarkets and shops - crossing the main through road i am very cautious, given the lack of indication on a roundabout. Must say that First Bus must have updated their driver training, so far two of their drivers have given way👍🏻whilst the remaining drivers carry on regardless.
As a company car driver, all we have been told by our fleet control is that the Highway Code is changing, nothing else. Nothing about what parts or when.
Thankfully I get my information from Ash and have been able to do my own research after his three part series on the changes.
@@nuntius1933 Not that many countries have strict jaywalking laws. The general opinion is that they foster a negative view of pedestrians in the minds of car drivers (which is precisely what they were intended to do in the US, long story). This is much like those here who think cyclists should be required to use cycle paths regardless of their safety and fitness for use.
@@ibs5080 I'll take a crack at this. The jaywalking laws in the US came about as a result of the car lobby (I think in the 20s or 30s, I'm writing from memory) who were concerned about bad publicity due to their products being involved in the gruesome deaths of so many pedestrians - no pedestrian safety laws then. Rather than unprofitably constrain their customers or their products, it was better in their highly lobbied view, to constrain the pedestrians, who could then be blamed for their own demise. Over time, many drivers began to believe the 'serves them right' view that someone crossing a road in a non-specified location was entirely to blame for any injuries/death. This has led to the situation where a person wishing to visit two locations on opposite sides of the street may have to walk up to half a mile to legally do so. Or they could drive, which in the end, is what people choose to do. It's part of the entire town planning disaster that is North America. Pedestrians ended up being respected only when they obeyed strict laws.
I highly recommend the channel *Not Just Bikes,* that goes to town (see what I did) on this and other town planning/road safety subjects.
As a cyclist who regularly cycles at night (commuting to work on night shift) I feel that the new rules for cyclists have not changed the way I ride. It has never been illegal for a cyclist to ride in the middle of a lane, and I do so regularly at certain junctions to make myself seen and to block the pass and turn left maneuver. I love watching Ashley's videos and even in "Rant mode" he is so calm.
The new rules should change the way you ride, you should now give way to pedestrians waiting to cross at the junction and not just when that have placed a foot on the road.
@@afitzsimons I already did this as a cyclist, in fact on through routes with pedestrians at a central refuge, when I feel it is safe for me to do so (and I will be riding central in any case through the narrowed lane), wave them across. This removes the hazard for both of us and allows the pedestrians to cross safely instead of having to deal with motons thundering past, often within inches even when there are children with a parent/guardian.
It's v.rarely that it's a problem for pedestrians on unctions with people on bikes, but motorists, and indeed the hierachy is flawed, people on cycles are just as vulnerable as pedestrians as road users when the two collide, it's just that people on bikes when they are seriously hurt or killed by pedestrians this doesn't make the news unlike the other way around and inded the justice system discriminates against people in cycles when pedestrians harm them through their actions.
@@afitzsimons ....yes, but note the "should", not must. As a cyclist, you especially need to be careful of drivers that are not aware of this rule and suffer get-home-itus. I've had similar when driving, giving way to oncoming traffic due to parked vehicles, but the driver behind simply whizzes on past! I see this scenario when I'm cycling, and will be extremely aware of my visibility, and what is behind, especially at night and if I feel it is safe. 👍🙂🚴
Rough rule of thumb, take any statement the Mike Graham makes and take the opposite as being true.
After just watching a few of your videos and observing the way you drive, it occurred to me - how many people would be killed or seriously injured on our roads each year if everyone heeded your advice and drove like you? You'd probably count them on one hand! Save lives and the NHS - watch Ashley Neal's videos 😁
I think the Ministry of Transport should employ your services on the TV, Radio and any other media to get your clear, calm and accurate Road Safety information across to ALL UK road users.
You are already an ambassador for us on TH-cam.
Keep up your excellent work Ashley, it’s impressive 👍🏼
This needs to be a new video series: Ashley Rants! 😂 I agree with your rant. Everyone is allowed to their own opinion and public broadcasting these days needs more diversity of opinion, but there’s a difference between opinions and incorrect facts. Mike effectively states that cyclists have priority when joining the roundabout, which is just not true under the new rules. This is not only false information, but if he knew what the truth about this part of the new rules actually is, his opinion might not even be what he presented on air. Anything us motorists can do to help more vulnerable people like cyclists is always welcome and it’s slightly sad that this has to be written down as a new “rule” for some with a differing idea to follow, as you would think that every motorist would want to help keep other road users around them safe. Anyway, there’s my mini-rant! 😂 Cheers, as always, Ashley 👍🏽
I agree
Couldn't agree more with your excellent video Ashley. I'm a HGV driver AND keen cyclist, so I completely get both sides of the argument. I also regularly listen to Mike Graham's radio show on talk Radio. He is without doubt an avid anti-cyclist and loads any comments with his blinkered minded bias to that effect. Anyone is welcome to speak with him on his show, but there is no point as he will simply interject and talk over the top of you and then move on. So I appreciate you emphasizing your veiwers to form their own opinions and not to take this blinkered minded, London-centric moron seriously.
A point being raised in my area is the fact that Guide Dogs are trained to wait at the kerb, expecting cars to go past, then when the road junction is clear it will lead its handler across?
I've been driving for over fifty years, up to and including RoSPA gold in a coach, and ten years as an IAM observer in a car. I particularly like your imparting worthwhile wisdom, not just test passing. Thankyou. PS, yesterday, having arranged an observed run of two hours with a local ADI, I passed ! Pleased at 73.
Hi Ashley, I have been critical of one or two of your videos, however on this one, you are 100% bang on the buck.
So a thank you for your very clear message on these new HWC rules.
Spot on.
As a cyclist I would not even want to pull out on to a round-a-bout with OR without that rule in a certain Mike Graham's head. This man is dangerous to all road users.
Well I wish there were more cyclists like you. The amount of cyclists that don't stop or give way at roundabouts already is ridiculous.
No you are the danger,no training,no tax, no insurance and no brain
@@standelone1674 And with that attitude you are the danger.
I drive 2 cars and a van.
All Taxed, all insured, all MOTed, I have a licence, as does my wife.
I am a member of a club so must bee seen to obey the rules, I have Cycling federation club insurance.
Drives kill 98% of pedestrians.
Cyclists kill less than 1% of pedestrians.
Drivers kill cats and dogs, to my knowledge a cyclist has never killed a cat/dog.
Drivers are the hazard, along with the 2-3 tonnes of vehicle that they are using.
I think its you that has no brain.
@@bobhenderson9276 the amount of cars that don't stop or give way at a round about is much higher 🤷♂️
this is what happens when TV stations decide to get their mates on rather than experts
The whole roll-out of these updates to the Highway Code has been mismanaged by both Government and the media in such a way that it has increased antagonism between the different types of road user.
This 'broadcaster' Mike Graham is a culture warrior. As far as his schtick goes giving cyclists more space is akin to extending love and understanding to black and trans people. He makes his living out of spouting this sort of stuff.
Agreed. It has been nearly 10 years since I took my test and was always told 1.5 metres under 30mph and 2 metres over, despite there being no specific ruling at the time. Adding that distance to the highway code was a necessary update to make a dangerous close pass conviction easier to uphold in court and provide clarity to everyone.
Everything used to be simple and common sense previously. The fact that there are so many questions and misunderstandings speaks volumes for what a dangerous mess the new rules are.
Thanks Ash. I actually attended a webinar by my companies insurers solicitors today to learn more about these changes and most of the changes I am in favour of. But I recommend to all to read the actual changes and not just listen to commentators on the internet or TV
Was feeling ranty myself when I heard on BBC Radio 4 that “cyclist are encouraged to ride in the middle of the road”.
It’s the middle of the lane not road. Imagine how scary having cars try to pass you when you are straddling the white line.
For many drivers, middle of the lane is the middle of the road as far as they are concerned.
Sure, but for many, it isn't and they are clearly different things in many cases. The point is that the media should be sufficiently responsible to use wording which is unambiguous. The tragedy today is that much of the media couldn't care less if they can gain viewers or readers by being more sensationalist in their use of language.
@@GodmanchesterGoblin .
Unfortunately you are right. How about this headline
"Cyclists kill or maim two pedestrians every week, according to statistics"
Whilst the article did say the statistics did not say who was at fault, the tone of the article strongly suggested cyclists were at fault in any collisions.
And the quoted statistic is deliberately shock horror. The actual figure is 1 death per year caused by a collision with a cyclist. Contrast with some 45 per year pedestrian deaths due to motor vehicle collision with them while they are on the pavement or verge! :-)
I use a bicycle as my main form of transport, I would not think this is a fact and always give way at give way lines, I'd end up dead or injured otherwise. However, I did have a scenario yesterday when I could see a car coming (I had to give way) so adjusted my speed so I could turn after the car and carry on. The driver however stopped, looking at me, as though expecting me to go in front, so I had to stop too and wait, waving her on.
Thanks Ashley, it's good to actually see something correct amid all the nonsense that's been written on this. In the government's publicity campaign it would be nice if they also highlight the (unchanged) overview for rules 103 to 158 (General rules, techniques and advice for all drivers and riders): that the highway code never gives you right of way and you should always give way of it helps to avoid an incident. And yes this applies to cyclists as well as horse riders and motorists.
Having said this the changes won't make a huge amount of difference to how I drive or cycle: main one is that now I'll expect pedestrians to cross side roads rather than thinking they might and being ready to deal with it.
Thank you so much for doing this video Ashley - I was literally correcting that roundabout misconception on Facebook this morning, as several people in a local group were repeating it. It seems like certain groups are deliberately sowing disinformation on this subject - Fair Fuel UK and the like - which is so dangerous.
I don't understand why people seem to hate the idea of making it safer to cycle...if we had a situation where parents felt safe to let their kids ride to school, or commuters felt safe to ride to work, imagine how much rush hour traffic could be reduced. There's a reason why The Netherlands is constantly voted the best place for drivers - traffic moves far more smoothly than it does in the UK, because alot of those local journeys are done on two wheels instead. That means traders, disabled people, buses and everyone else who needs to drive isn't always snared up in endless jams.
To be fair to him he said (which most people seem to have missed) he asked a lawyer; so even lawyers are confused. And if you hit said cyclist that doesn't give way; under the new rules are you not then prosecuted for dangerous driving? Remember the hierarchy of blame; the bigger you are the more careful you have to be and consequently will be blamed for hitting the cyclist.
No, you're not prosecuted for dangerous driving if you are already in the roundabout and were driving to the conditions of the road yet a cyclist pulls out on you. Even though cyclists have been given extra protections with these rules, if they emerge onto a roundabout without giving way to traffic already on the roundabout then they are at fault. The rules that have been introduced make no mention of giving way to cyclists waiting to emerge onto the roundabout, only cyclists that are on the roundabout. Therefore, a car doesn't need to worry about traffic that is waiting to enter the roundabout if it is already on it within reason. The cyclist roundabout rules have been introduced to give cyclists an easier time when they are in the roundabout with the other traffic that is with them already in the roundabout. This is mostly so that faster vehicles don't overtake them and make everyone's lives harder when there is conflict if a cyclist needs to take a further exit than the faster vehicles
@@johnbower7452 Yeah but this is what Mike Graham has been doing for years to put it bluntly he talks a load of crap and either prefaces with, or states after the fact he got his information from someone else, usually an "expert". You should watch the video where he states that you can grow concrete, which he later doubled down on claiming he had spoken to a "concrete expert". The man really is clown and the bottom of the barrel when it comes to journalism, I highly doubt he asked anyone.
@@johnbower7452 he *said* he asked a lawyer… note that he didn’t have one with him.
What are you talking about ? I saw a women with a baby in a cart at the Front of her bike peddling down the middle of my road as I couldn't go out to say something to here I was looking out my bedroom window. This women wasn't putting her life in danger but her baby. The fving worlds gone mental. Can you imagine driving along and she has that cart and you can't see it it's at ground level , you can see the stupid bitch on her bike tho . Not the baby or the fving carriage thing the poor mite is in. The worst part of all this is the baby would be under some poor car driver front wheels no doubt about it. London is a very busy place at the best of times road wise shevwas out early morning probley dropping the child of at a childminders. This sickens me I drive and omg how would younever forgive yourself if that carriage ended up under your front wheels or you killed that child. It's fving outrageous. People like this should be allowed on the road 😤 if I see her again I will have a few hurtybwords to say to her woke childabuser
Thanks Ashley. Good as always. A friend of mine summed up the new rules and changes in four words: "Don't be a prat". Good and considerate drivers will find little or no change in their behaviour.
You have a great appreciation of how the changes will be seen & done by the public. I have in the last few days been turning in to a side road with people about to cross side road, I wait for them, they wait for me to turn I can not signal them to cross and don’t want turn in case they move. So I have started to smile and nod my head. It will take time for us all to get used to changes. At least with 50+ years driving behind me, I can say I am still learning.
That is the guy who said you can grow concrete… I’m betting he grew his ‘lawyer’ in his back garden too.
Thank you for posting this video. Cycling in the UK is dangerous enough without disinformation making things considerably worse. The rollout of this legislation has been shoddy but the rule changes are welcome as finally the need for protecting vulnerable road users has been legally recognised.
For the most part... Cyclists dont help themselves..
No lights on in the dark, wearing dark clothing.
Ignoring no entry, one way, never stop at red traffic lights.
They are unregistered, ininsured and unaccountable.
@@sahhull what a ridiculous comment. Some cyclists don’t follow rules, many drivers don’t either.
@@sahhull what rubbish.
Over 166,000 cyclists have insurance through British cycling membership. 70,000 cyclists have insurance through CyclingUK membership. 15000 cyclists have insurance though LLC & others are covered by other groups & home insurance.. All regular adult cyclists I know are insured
When motorists stop killing five people per day walking on pavements then they are in a position to be critical of others.
@@kidkarbon4775 5 a day? Yeah that math doesn't add up.
But the real problem with your statement is you have allready taken on the form of group identity.
I've never killed someone on the roads nor have I got any points in the 15 or so years of driving , I'm considerate of all road users and prioritize safety when I am out on the road.
Should I not have an opinion because I'm a part of a group that you don't particularly like?
I don't particularly like the Bradley Wiggins wannabe lycra clad Strava warrior that will run every red light they see and nearly hit pedestrians trying to cross because they are trying for a PB , Doesn't mean I will tar everyone with a pair of clipless pedals with the same brush.
In my opinion, the biggest issues with the changes to the highway code are that the government hasn't made a clear campain explaning the changes and that the national press has been spouting blatant misinformation.
Should this distance also apply to pedestrians as I was walking down a country lane and a car coming towards me passed within about 28 inches of me doing about 40 mph.
Good lad Ashley. Nice to see drivers and people who know what theyre actually talking about to stick up for us relatively sensible cyclists
Not about sensible cyclists, that idiot obviously has an axe to grind. Happily wait in traffic for 15 minutes due to other cars but won't wait 15 seconds for a cyclist lol
It's fairly obvious that Mike Graham has never been anywhere near a bicycle in his life.
I have a question. I am sitting in my car at a roundabout about to enter. No other vehicle is on the roundabout, I look to over my right shoulder and a car is approaching the roundabout at speed 30 to 50 mph on a dual carriageway. They are about 200 meters away from the roundabout at this point. Do I have the right of way to enter the roundabout if still no vehicle is on the roundabout taking I to account the approaching vehicle from my right who is at least 200 meters from the roundabout who I know will enter the roundabout about 20 to 30 mph as this roundabout is known for its high speed. Thanks
Thanks Ashley for your rant, it’s really nice to hear someone that talks sense and thinks about the implications of what’s said without thought.
I’m still concerned that the Undertaking at Junctions hasn’t been revoked, especially when the vehicle in front is clearly indicating it’s intention to turn, to pass on the inside at that point is surly the responsibility of the rider. I had a heated discussion recently with a couple of fellow cyclists who are adamant that they have the right of way and will proceed regardless.
When I did my cycling proficiency test in the 1970s we were strongly taught Never undertake queuing vehicles at junctions, just wait your turn, unless you want an early appointment at the UNDERTAKERS.
I’m not condoning the actions of any driver that recklessly overtakes then turns left.
Good video. Most people who cycle also have driving licences, but I've found in general they have a better understanding of the rules and of how to behave on roads than your average driver.
I'd like the Highway Code to include a line saying "if you're driving, act like you're operating heavy machinery that can easily kill". In fact, print it on every car steering wheel!
Superb Ashley - As a keen driver & cyclist there is no way on this earth that I think that as a cyclist just 'hooning' onto a roundabout and expecting motor vehicles to give way is ever going to end well. Even if the law said you can it's no point being RIGHT if you're dead.
I've been run into from the left at a mini roundabout by a distracted driver so I've no desire for a repeat. Incidentally dyfed powys police didn't fill in their paperwork in time, so my choice of sending the driver on a driver awareness course rather than prosecute him just ended up with a don't be a bad boy again letter. I later learned that he was a school bus driver. My fingers are crossed for the kids in his bus if he drives like that. - Keep up the education. We can ALL learn to be better on the roads.
Most of this just seems to be codifying what people already should do.
Mostly the danger between different types of vehicles comes from people not paying attention.
I've both been struck by a car in a single lane railway tunnel when he came into the tunnel too fast, and had a cyclist pull out of the left hand lane without looking or signalling, then scream at me that I was too close to him when I couldn't get far enough to the right to avoid being in touching distance (if he had reached out) because bikes can move sideways faster than cars at 20 mph.
In both cases it was at least one person not paying enough attention (I admit I should have anticipated the cyclist might change lane without looking at the end of a parking lane).
The only potential problem I see is with groups of school kids standing outside corner shops at lunch time where they will both be waiting their turn to get in and leaving at the same time, so you will never know if someone in the mass is about cross the road.
Its all very well to say people with more dangerous vehicles should take more care, it should also be the more vulnerable you are, the more care you should take to ensure you don't endanger yourself and others.
I find it very frustrating that there has been all this publicity and discussion but the new Highway Code is not available to buy until 11 April.
Great advice as usual Ashley!
Would you be able to do a short video on rule H2 (At a junction you should give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from which you are turning) to clarify exactly which junctions this applies to please?
For example, would junctions coming off roundabouts count, that sort of thing?
I have been trying to observe the new rules lately when driving and had an interesting run in today with another motorist: I gave way to a pedestrian at a junction when turning left and it took the pedestrian a second or two longer to realise that that's what I was doing. In that time a couple of drivers behind me started to sound their horns. One of them over took me (thankfully after the pedestrian had crossed) and then at the next set of traffic lights he rolled the windows down and used some not so good words. When I told him that I was just observing the new rules... he seemed bemused. I can certainly see a lot of such things happening on our roads, as people (drivers, pedestrians, cyclists etc.) become aware of the new rules and make the necessary adjustments.
Thing is they aren't actually new rules. There's no new legislation, it's just putting more emphasis on what's always been the case. The pedestrian has priority if they're in the road. You just used good anticipation to realise they could be when you negotiated the junction, instead of relying on intimidating them with the prospect of being runover.
Some pedestrians can't be intimidated, like the visually impaired.
Im 49 I cycle and walk and if I could legally drive I would. I've seen soo many crazy things on the road and hit a car too, it hurts, it beggars belief that 'the car fraternity' are up in arms over this, its basic sense that we all need to give each other space respect and time, I'm purely glad that Ashley is taking about this 🙏 - appreciated..
Now we give way to pedestrians waiting to cross the road when entering or leaving a junction, is exiting or joining a roundabout considered the same thing and I should give way to people waiting to cross?
I ca see how this works for T junctions but if I am on a roundabout and a pedestrian wishes to cross on my exit should I stop on the roundabout? You did a segment on this a few weeks ago but that was before the official release.
I take many reports from MSM with a large pinch of salt.
For all Road Safety advice; you're the one I will be listening to. Any doubts that arise will be emailed to you for clarification.
Thanks for everything you do on this channel. Rant justified.
Stay safe everyone 👍
Evening Graham. 👍
@@Jonc25 Hi Jon 👍
I saw "Graham's" on the title of this video, and I thought Ashley was ranting about you. I was like, “What did my Graham do?” 😂 Then I saw the video was about *Mike* Graham, not you. Pure relief after that realization. 👍
Stay safe, man. 😘
@@ClaireYunFarronXIII To slightly misquote the legendary Clint Eastwood.....
I'm sure that there's 101 good reasons for Ash to rant at me but right now I can't think of one 😁
Peace 👊👍
@@grahamnutt8958 The only reason to rant I can think Ashley would have for you is that you are too awesome. Peace, man. 😊
The Black belt barrister has made at least one video about the changes to the highway code in regard to cycling.
I think Daniel, the Black belt barrister and Ashley Neal, driving instructor should collaborate more together.
Great work by both of them.
I am seeing some roundabouts where there is a cycle lane on the outside of the roundabout, with crossing points at each exit. My understanding in this case is that the cycle would have priority over vehicles exiting the roundabout, though I would be damned careful exercising that priority. Is my understanding correct? Certainly if I am cycling on the road when I come to a roundabout I would still give way to traffic from my left.
A nice refreshing video Ashley i have to say i was one of many that commented on a short fuse on your other videos instead of just taking it into account. Come to think of it, most of the changes when you read into them are just common sense. I'm still a bit weary about a few of the rules in certain situations but day by day i'm progressing through them slowly but surely.
Thank you for this. I live in a rural area with 60mph roads and I didn't like the No to 2 metres either, I feel less safe in a 60mph road. I agree, these people at the top can make things a lot worse.
I'm with you on this one.
These new statements are principly reinforcing existing regulations but emphasis them from the cyclists point of view as not all drivers have always appreciated that.
If only my fellow motorists would drive like they did whilst taking their exam.
I applaud your efforts towards road safety irrispective of the mode of transport being used. Your clear and detailed explanations ensure understand and clarity.
Your pupils are privileged to have an instructor with such high standards
🙏
I watched this clip the other day, I really don't know why he would say such a blatantly untruthful thing. I hope I never encounter him driving a car, I don't think he's capable of turning his head.
I hate how the lack of communication and awareness raising of the new changes from the government has allowed incorrect tabloid journalism to fill the gap in "knowledge" about the changes with people. There's not enough official responses to these ridiculous comments saying "no, you are wrong, THIS is the actual rule".
I hate the fact people don't bother to check for updates to the HC *until* they see stuff in tabloids - it's updated every 2 years!
I've read bikes on roundabouts can go round the whole thing on the left side, even if they're not taking the first exit,effectively meaning if you are taking the first turning as a vehicle, the cyclist can just ride straight through your exit point and carry on to their exit.
Any thoughts anyone on this? Has anyone else come across this ?
I moved to France back in the 70s and the rule of "give way to the right" was in force in all situations. This meant that on roundabouts in towns, all cars already on the roundabout hadto give way to those entering. This led to total shutdown at rush hours as everyone claimed priority. I once saw a cop directing traffic throw his képi to the ground, stamp on it and walk away in disgust. The rule at roundabouts was changed some years later. However, the rule at junctions still exists in many towns and leads to some drivers entering a junction with their eyes closed because they have priority.
Another comment from me - maybe you could also do one correcting the misconception that 'cyclists don't pay road tax', so car drivers should take precedence - I have seen that so many times this week! People are utterly clueless about how the roads are paid for. I pay the same amount of VED for my bike as I do for my car - £0 - but, like everyone else, I pay for the roads through my tax and NI contributions.
And it's also perfectly possible that you have insurance to cover your cycling activities, either a specific policy, or in conjunction with something else (being a member of British Cycling, for example). The "you don't have insurance" argument is one that is also far too frequently used.
@Saddle Sore Budget Bike Rescue Indeed. I do pay VED, but it's so low that it costs me less than my British Cycling membership which gives me that insurance benefit. What a bonkers world we live in....
The rollout of this new legislation has been utterly confusing, I haven't driven for the past couple of years, but I occasionally cycle on the roads and understand why people are confused. I think it's dangerous to go on TV and mouth off if you don't completely understand what you're talking about, but he's clearly got this idea on roundabout priority from somewhere, how many others have got the same idea?
Probably got it from a guy on social media who got it from someone else who got it from someone else who heard it from someone that had been half-listening to a news report while cooking dinner.
The problem is that, despite living in an era where we are more able to look up info from the source easier than ever before, people don't bother to do any research. Hell, journalists are as bad for this as anyone. You'll easily find misinformation that has spread because news companies will literally copy-paste articles from other outlets without doing any fact-checking at all (or even in some cases, _removing typos_ ). It's really pretty poor.
The legislation is pretty simple really. The problem are journalists who lack a fair few brain cells that want to get attention to their article by inflating the law. I.e "EVERY CAR READER WILL BE FINED £10000 FOR INGORNING THIS NEW LAW!" etc etc
The legislation is poorly written and the people who oppose it are also annoying. It’s not a massive deal, not like these idiots on the TV, but it’s not exactly good either
Years ago i dI'd a cycle trip London to Paris with a small group of cyclist. They had 0 road craft. Every time car approached from behind they would go tight to the left which then encouraged cars to squeeze past them putting everyone in danger. Or would be spread along the road. Avengly I had to tell them to stop doing it as it actually dangerous for all road users as it encourages people to pass. I then had to explain they had every right to use the road. Then it was a case of keeping the group compact so that cars did not come in amongst the group. Which was something I didn't want as it increases risk. I explained that by being confident about road positioning of the road it actually conveys a message to drivers that you are confident and relaxed on the road. Which then makes drivers relax and not make rushed decisions.
Generally 'speaking to a lawyer' will give you pretty any much result/opinion that you want.
I can't get my head around the outrage of all this stuff I've seen. Don't get me wrong there will always be a minority who will ride recklessly but this whole roundabout thing just baffles me. I can't think of a single occasion were I have thought you know what... I'm going to overtake this cyclist on a roundabout putting them in my blind spots.
Conclusion: of course everyone watching your excellent videos will tend to be a more considerate driver/cyclist, as I am. So really I feel you are preaching to the choir. I only hope that every road user learns these new rules and obeys them.
Ash, I’ve got a question you might be able to shed some light on - if I’m on a roundabout and there’s a pedestrian waiting to cross at my exit, do I need to stop on the roundabout to allow the pedestrian to cross? There’s several very fast flowing roundabouts near me with drop kerb crossings (not lights or zebra) on the exits, I had a situation yesterday where I made the decision to continue rather than allow the pedestrian to cross as I deemed this the safest option given the proximity of other fast moving vehicles. Would this have been the correct option under the new Highway Code rules?
These roundabouts are dual carriageway roundabouts joining 2 A-Roads*
I hope Ashley sees your question. I've been cautious when entering at a roundabout with some pedestrians who have been surprised that they've been given way..
“Should” is key here. It’s exactly like we “should” let buses pull out from bus stops but there are occasions where it wouldn’t be safe. Video scheduled soon 👍🏼
In one of your earlier videos I commented that this was my biggest concern. People not knowing the new rules or getting the information from a clickbait website or person.
I have since thought about it more and have concerns for our younger pedestrians. I have not seen this mentioned before and wondered what were your thought of this? For myself I will not be looking to teach children when they should have priority e.g. if they step out at a certain time on this type of junction you're fine but dont do it here. I will be making sure they alway wait, never assume (especially as the rules are new). I wouldn't expect a child to know all these rules of priority. Its even worse when you have someone like this on TV.
Just to note I have no strong negative feelings towards the rules just concerns about the poor communication.
Thanks for the informtive content Ash.
Always reassuring to get Ashley's calm, reasoned point of view, especially in these angry, opinionated times. I'll be honest; I haven't reviewed the updates in the Highway Code. I've always given extra time and space to cyclist and horse riders. I've never understood the rage people get just because they've been delayed for a few seconds. However, I do get wound up if I'm stuck behind a car doing 40 in a 60 on a road where it's not safe to overtake.
Generally, if a the road condition is not safe for the speed limit, particularly narrow country lanes at National Speed Limit, it is advised to go slower. The speed limit is not a target to get as close as possible, it is just the maximum you are allowed to go providing the conditions are safe.
i bet that car carries on doing 40 in the 30's before and after the 60 too?
@@allothernamesbutthis No; they dropped down to 20!
@@matt_acton-varian Neah, the road was perfectly safe; they just don't have the skill or confidence to drive at the recommended speed, which means they shouldn't be on the road.
@@goodyeoman4534 If it's not safe to overtake there is a high probability that the section of road is also not safe to drive at the speed limit. Also, newer drivers who may not yet have the confidence or experience, somebody who is unfamiliar with a network of roads, or an older driver with slower reaction times still have every right to use the road as you do providing they are deemed medically fit to control a vehicle. As you don't know their situation patience is needed. It is frustrating being stuck behind an unnecessarily slow vehicle but something you are taught from the beginning when learning to drive is to plan ahead and leave with time in hand incase you come across a problem or delay, so you are still capable of arriving on time.
Is that the same guy that said on TV or radio (I can't remember) that you can grow concrete??
Yep. That's him.
What are your thoughts on guide dogs which are trained to wait until vehicles have passed before safe to cross?
The "should" part of the updates on the highway code takes care of this comfortably. Poor drivers will sit there staring at the guide dog and the pedestrian even though they are not moving. It's easy just drive on! You've been hoodwinked as have many 👍🏼 Just out of interest, where did you hear this?
Perhaps you can make "Ashley Rants" a series?
I'm sure there will be plenty of material soon. I'm personally waiting for horses/bikes to ride up at the white line to stop people passing them because muh 1.5m, yet are a ballhair away from oncoming cars.
The only rule that does need to be re-examined in my opinion is cyclists undertaking on the nearside of vehicles up to a traffic light junction wanting to travel straight on while other road users in the left lane want to turn left.
From what I understand the cyclist now is allowed to carry on ahead irrespective of whether they're ahead or not. I think this is going to cause accidents, especially with larger vehicles due to having bigger blind spots. This needs to be looked into.
Also the rollout of the new highway code has been abysmal. I doubt many motorists will read it and continue to drive the way they have done for years. I do wonder whether drivers should be reassessed periodically to ensure they are driving to the correct standards and are versed in the current rules of the road.
I agree about that rule. It is just simple pragmatism - ideally we would give cyclists right of way in this situation, but practically it is just too difficult to see them in mirrors, over the shoulder etc. whilst also trying to assess all the other hazards in an urban setting. Basically i think it is a good rule, but one which is practically very difficult to implement sufficiently well.
I think they need a clause on this about whether the cyclist reaches the cycles box containing the advance stop line where traffic is stationary. Also they should be advised not to undertake vehicles signalling left (i.e. moving vehicles) in the final twenty yards on approach. I think in general the code needs specifics and one which are easy to adhere to.
@@15bit62 Ideally, nobody would think trying to pass a turning vehicle of any kind on the side it is turning towards is a good idea. if the rules said filtering may only be done while the light is red, that might help.
@@15bit62 As a cyclist if I wanted to go ahead and a car was indicating LEFT no way would I pass on the left. Metal vs meat? - no contest. The problem would be with the drivers that want to turn left but DON'T signal. Even then is it worth being in the right but being taken out? Unless I can make myself totally known to the cars close to me I'm not risking it. Even then if there's an audi, merc, honda or jag my danger filter starts flashing.
No, it should be more reinfircement of motorists using their nearside mirrors and turning their heads to do a shoulder chek before turning. It couldn't be that simple. I drove in/around London for a decade as a commuter from N.herts, never had any issue when it came to being around any type of road user.
If you as a motorist can't be arsed to check your mirrors and/or turn your head before making a manoeuvre then you shouldn't be driving, end of story.
Also bigger vehicles don't have blind spots, this is BS and just an excuse for lazy/dangerous drivers in any vehicle type! people who again don't check mirrors properly or turn their heads/move their bodies to see all that they can and have no idea what's going on around them beforehand so ignore anything they might have passed in the few seconds before.
Too easy to blame the victims or make excuses for killer drivers.
Thanks Ashley you're doing a great job here. One aspect that I don't think has been covered are the reasons why passing distances have been reconfirmed. Close passes of cyclists is reported to the the number one reason new cyclists give up cycling. The results of this are the lowering of life expectancy of the local community as more people return to a sedentary lifestyle. Close passes are seriously bad for everyone! Hope you can get this message across 👍
This explains so much about conversations I’ve had with people over the years that go a bit like this:
:Person tells me something that I’m pretty sure isn’t true:
Me: “are you sure that’s true?”
Person: “yes because it was on the news”
Me: “oh!”
And then I don’t really know what to say because I don’t like the idea of suggesting stuff said on the news might be wrong. I mean isn’t that the point of the news? To tell us the fact!
I know now to fact check pretty much anything I hear, even on the news.
That'll explain a minor issue I had at a mini roundabout the other day when pedalling to town. I was trying to time my entry onto the roundabout and pulling in behind a car that had priority to minimise loss of speed. Either the driver didn't think I was going to stop or he didn't accelerate as quickly as I was expecting but stopped on the painted circle. There was no altercation and I thanked him and we went on about our journeys but it did confuse me slightly.
The thing that frustrates me the most regarding the coverage we've been seeing is that there was a government consultation on this. When I saw it, I took part. I'm mainly a cyclist so generally supported the moves. However, if sufficient people had responded in a contrary way, then I doubt we'd have seen the changes we're seeing. So, if Mike wanted to do something about this, it was in 2020!
I'm afraid this got loads of bad press because of the "consultation" essentially it was driven by cycle groups, agreed by cycle groups and approved by cycle groups it was an organised push, and consultation with "motorists" was deliberately avoided, personally I have no issue, with the exception of some cyclists being silly and using the badly written parts and just plain being silly. I pass cyclists as far as a car I look for them everywhere, however bad behavior by cyclists is rife in the UK and I saw a cycling group's, bitching because the police were fining them for running red lights, etc. and asking had the police nothing better to do? sorry guys you know the rules don't abuse them. AND FOR MY OWN peeve wear something light on dark days I don't need to be responsible for hitting a cyclist when a cyclist dressed in black with little to no lights comes off the pavement past a van that I cant see through
@@robba1234 Wearing hi-vis clothing, helmets, lights on bikes should be mandatory, but is only "advised". Also it is not against the law to use a phone whilst cycling!
@@haroldpearson6025 I don't care I don't want to run anyone down and reflective cycle gear was available in the 70s but 2022 and cyclists haven't learned anything but your reply tells me all I need to know about your cycling viewpoint. 😁
@@robba1234 Couldn't agree more. As a cyclist and motorist it really annoys me when cyclists run red lights. I NEVER do that. Also when cyclists ride in the dark with no lights and wearing dark clothing, that really irritates me. Even on my bike I have nearly run into the silly buggers because you can't see 'em.
I have noticed that these culprits are nearly all young guys.
@@robba1234 Sorry, the point I was trying to make was that hi-vis jackets, lights etc should be mandatory. I have written to my MP to this effect.
As a cyclists, I will always give way before joining a circle regardless. They are dredging the bottom of the barrel on morning telly if they have to ask a "broadcaster" for their opinions on road safety. I got rid of my telly license because of the increase in opinionated people on telly who have no clue about what they are saying and it's impact.
I'm wondering about pedestrian priority to cross roads at junctions. I understand that pedestrians waiting to or are already crossing a normal junction have priority, but what about when they're waiting at the mouth of a roundabout? Coming off the roundabout, you can spot them waiting or crossing, however, drivers should be looking to the right when entering a roundabout. Not many are going to be looking out for the pedestrian who starts to cross from the driver's left-hand side.
It is fair to say that drivers should quickly check to their left, before moving off, but in reality, how many do or will?
If drivers drove slower then they'd have more time to do proper hazard perception for both directions, just as they would when making a right turn. There should be no 'quickly' whatsoever regards making observations, that's why motorists crash/maim and kill so regularly because they are going too fast for them to have time to observe and act properly if they bother at all.
Ashley, you have highlighted one of the biggest issues in today's society. People talking about things they have no understanding of. I understand it may be more pleasant to hear those "uneducated opinions" as it is coming from a normal fella, like ourselves, but eventually it should be taken into an account as such. The shocking situation in here is that the person on the TV is an actual presenter, a person that should have common sense and should do investigation.
Me, as a cyclist, I wouldn't even dare to enter a round about with a traffic on it. It just doesn't make sense. It seems some people have zero common sense, or critical thinking and all they do is using power of the word against other users. That is shameful.
Thanks for the video and highlighting it.
Amazing what people say on the news. Does he have no common sense?
No, it's Mike Graham. He should nominate himself for plank of the week.
People have shown they have lost the ability to think for themselves recently. Regurgitating everything their telly box tells them.
@@EastMidlandsDUTCHess ooh... Don't talk about wooden planks to Mike Graham, the guy literally thinks concrete grows on trees
None whatever...the guy is a total plank...actually untrue...Eric Sykes and Tommy Cooper proved even a plank is sometimes of use...Mike Graham is not...
@@RichO1701e He also nominates people for Plank Of The Week on a weekly basis, while being the biggest plank himself.
As a motorist and a cyclist I have found that since the new update I have encountered a lot more aggressive driving when I am on my bike than before because motorists are angry with the changes. I don't really agree with them myself but when it becomes them vs us thats when the roads are going to be a lot more dangerous for everyone.
Great video Ashely. Also can I ask, what cameras you're using?
I had my first interesting situation with the new Highway Code the other day. And it did make it slightly more dangerous. I was in a protected right turn lane. There was a van waiting to turn right out of the junction, so he had to wait for me and there were two pedestrians waiting to cross the side road. When a gap came clear, I had to first ensure that the pedestrians had decided not to exercise their priority and then go. Meanwhile the van had already started to come out, expecting me to clear. I think it will take time for pedestrians to learn the new rules.
Do you not think the van driver should not have moved, and it is he who needs to think more. Your behaviour in delaying until you were sure of the pedestrians' intention was absolutely right and is what you would/should have done anyway even before these new HC rules were published. The new rules have been written because people dont behave like you did, and it is those who need to learn.
@@donvanvliet9477 He shouldn’t you’re right. But it’s like there’s a two speed Highway Code now. What we might call normal and “man with a flag” mode or non H-rules and H-rule sections.
So, the van, the pedestrian and me are in the H rule section. I’ve got to be prepared for the pedestrian who could walk out whenever they choose. And the van has to wait for me. But meanwhile there’s a busy 30mph road with smallish gaps in the traffic who don’t have to worry about this situation. They can carry on as before.
For example, the Highway Code warns us to watch out for overtaking traffic when turning right, (something which shouldn’t be happening), but it doesn’t warn us to be prepared for cars in front of us stopping for pedestrians when turning left.
Great vid Ashley, I’m a HGV driver and cyclist. I also hold a motorcycle licence. Regardless of the mode of transport I choose on any given day, I always try to put myself in the shoes of any other road user that I may be overtaking or being overtaken by. Clearly using all available safe space is the best option when overtaking or manoeuvring. However when the Highway Code is interpreted in so many ways by different people, this can unfortunately result in confusion or conflict and accidents happen as a result. As you’ve mentioned road safety is the main concern for all road users, a little bit of common sense and courtesy goes a long way to achieving this. Let’s hope for clear rules in the updated Highway Code that keep the roads safe. Credit to you for your advice and help clarifying this situation
Out of curiosity, when and how did you learn to drive so many different types of vehicles? Also what about was the overall cost?
@@aprilsummers6447 car licence at 17, truck at 23 and motorcycle at 38. Total cost was about £4000. Basically they all operate the same way so learning wasn’t an issue, but road position is vital. Drive/Ride defensively and always expect the unexpected
Why didn't the DSA give us information and clarity on these changes by going on television and social media ? Haven't seen a road safety ad for years either.
Great video as usual! Can you clarify if rule H2 (pedestrian priority at junctions) applies at a) mini roundabouts, and b) conventional non-signal controlled roundabouts?
That is correct, don't forget the "should" part though, so there may be circumstances where it may be unsafe to let the pedestrian across.
Ash what do you make of BlackBeltBarristers video on these changes?
I was asking people at work the other day, about what they thought of the new rules. Sadly, the predominant response was, "what changes". There really should have been a national advertising campaign by the DVLA.
I wouldn't dream of passing a horse at as high as 15 mph. If the horse is a bit nervous I always stop until i am sure it is safe to pass. I also stop for herds of sheep or cattle. This helps the farmer enormously.
5:25. The "Double Bip" is something I do when going over bridges. I was once taking a vocational driving assessment and did it and was told this was wrong because if I needed to sound the horn then I was ipso-facto travelling too fast (ie I should be going slow enough that it isn't necessary). Also - where in the highway code does it say to do this - you should only use the horn in the conditions specified in the Highway code. He said.
I decided to ignore the instructor. It makes sense to me to give people as much warning as possible.
These new highway code rules are ridiculous. As a pedestrian and cyclist, they're stupid. They're not enforceable by law, so some will do and some won't, causing confusion and potentially accidents. If the govt want to keep cyclists safer on the roads, they should implement Dutch style cycle lanes all over the country
Some years ago I adopted what I've come to consider a very valuable Life Pro Tip... when 'the media' is interviewing 'the media' you can safely assume that everything said is wrong. Honestly once you adopt that you will see it happening all the time. And this isn't a pop at the, airquotes, main stream media. Although it does now operate inside the Attention Economy. Which leads to media covering opinions from media people just for the resulting emotional involvement created. Hence... when a broadcaster or newspaper reporter is being interviewed (or a Royal Author, whatever they are!) just switch off. Or assume everything they say is wrong/slanted/biased by vested interest.
With the updates, I haven’t just read them and try to memorise them. But I keep referring back to them to make sure I’ve got them embedded. I tend not to listen to others (apart from your good self) as that is where it can start to confuse me. When I’m out walking and crossing a junction where I’m supposed to have priority I’m still finding myself stopping and giving way to vehicles. There is no way I’m stepping out and getting knocked down for the sake of waiting a few extra seconds.
Question: When leaving a roundabout (as a car driver) do I have to give way to pedestrians wanting to cross the road at my exit?
I wondered the same, but I think the rule only applies to side roads at junctions, not roundabouts, also the pictorial examples in the HW code only show side roads. I also wondered if the priority rule applying to cyclists also applies on separated (off road) paths, but again I think it is only cyclists on the road that have priority over vehicles turning. This said I will be very careful next time I see a cyclist on an off road path at a junction I'm turning into, in case one of us has misunderstood the new rule.
Another thing to consider is that many roundabout exits have two lanes, often merging, to stop in a left lane to let a pedestrian cross leaving the outside lane clear could be very dangerous for a pedestrian.
Just watched a Video from Hub Nut and he was saying that the Hard Copy Highway Code new editions are not being printed until April 2022. How useless is that I ask you? He also said that some people are trying to sell off hard copies of the existing HC disguising the wording of their adverts to make it seem like you are getting the New Version. So if anybody is looking for the New hard Copy be careful. I want to get the latest edition of the Driving Manual at some point and intend to look on line.