Cycling UK Forum

Vorpal wrote: ↑19 Sep 2023, 8:27am

Cowsham wrote: ↑18 Sep 2023, 9:25pm

What did he do wrong ? Which video do you refer to ?

From the OP: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-K4KZnUd_A

He says stuff like, "Is priority given or taken?", "Riding like this is just as dangerous as riding past that bull." and "Why put yourself at risk like this."

As I said, if he just approached it as 'here is how I would do it differently', it would be fine, but he doesn't. He blames the cyclist by implication.

Vorpal wrote: ↑19 Sep 2023, 8:27am

Cowsham wrote: ↑18 Sep 2023, 9:25pm

What did he do wrong ? Which video do you refer to ?

From the OP: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-K4KZnUd_A

He says stuff like, "Is priority given or taken?", "Riding like this is just as dangerous as riding past that bull." and "Why put yourself at risk like this."

As I said, if he just approached it as 'here is how I would do it differently', it would be fine, but he doesn't. He blames the cyclist by implication.

Cowsham wrote: ↑19 Sep 2023, 9:22am

Vorpal wrote: ↑19 Sep 2023, 8:27am

Cowsham wrote: ↑18 Sep 2023, 9:25pm

What did he do wrong ? Which video do you refer to ?

From the OP: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-K4KZnUd_A

He says stuff like, "Is priority given or taken?", "Riding like this is just as dangerous as riding past that bull." and "Why put yourself at risk like this."

As I said, if he just approached it as 'here is how I would do it differently', it would be fine, but he doesn't. He blames the cyclist by implication.

It is my opinion that he hasn't done anything wrong.

Cowsham wrote: ↑19 Sep 2023, 9:22am

Vorpal wrote: ↑19 Sep 2023, 8:27am

Cowsham wrote: ↑18 Sep 2023, 9:25pm

What did he do wrong ? Which video do you refer to ?

From the OP: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-K4KZnUd_A

He says stuff like, "Is priority given or taken?", "Riding like this is just as dangerous as riding past that bull." and "Why put yourself at risk like this."

As I said, if he just approached it as 'here is how I would do it differently', it would be fine, but he doesn't. He blames the cyclist by implication.

It is my opinion that he hasn't done anything wrong.

gcogger wrote: ↑19 Sep 2023, 11:01am

Vorpal wrote: ↑19 Sep 2023, 8:27am

Cowsham wrote: ↑18 Sep 2023, 9:25pm

What did he do wrong ? Which video do you refer to ?

From the OP: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-K4KZnUd_A

He says stuff like, "Is priority given or taken?", "Riding like this is just as dangerous as riding past that bull." and "Why put yourself at risk like this."

As I said, if he just approached it as 'here is how I would do it differently', it would be fine, but he doesn't. He blames the cyclist by implication.

The implication that he blames the cyclist is only there if you assume the video is looking for someone to blame. His videos (whether about cycling or driving) are, IMHO, simply giving advice about how to be as safe as possible - blame is irrelevant.

Bmblbzzz wrote: ↑19 Sep 2023, 3:57pm As an aside, the phrase "Is priority taken or given?" and its common counterpart "Offence is taken not given" are trite, rather nauseating, weasel-phrases.

Bmblbzzz wrote: ↑19 Sep 2023, 3:57pm As an aside, the phrase "Is priority taken or given?" and its common counterpart "Offence is taken not given" are trite, rather nauseating, weasel-phrases.

maximus meridius wrote: ↑19 Sep 2023, 5:39pm

Bmblbzzz wrote: ↑19 Sep 2023, 3:57pm As an aside, the phrase "Is priority taken or given?" and its common counterpart "Offence is taken not given" are trite, rather nauseating, weasel-phrases.

Those phrases aren't counterparts. They are just similar forms of words. I suppose it's a sort of false equivalence or false comparison, usually done as part of a fallacious argument.

We've seen it earlier in this thread when one poster compared one use of words to another use of words, from a totally different domain, where the second, unrelated use of words was in a racist context. The implication was subtle, but clear.

I think the question "Is priority taken or given?" is a reasonable one.

Bmblbzzz wrote: ↑19 Sep 2023, 6:49pm ...
I agree that "counterpart" is not a particularly good word here, but to my embarrassment, I couldn't come up with a better one at the time. What I meant was that the phrase about offence is commonly used to dismiss a complaint of hurt caused, and AN's phrase about priority, beyond the simple similarity of words, is being used in a similar way.

I don't agree that asking whether priority is taken or given is a reasonable question. These are not applicable concepts: priority is neither taken nor given, it simply is, as laid down by rules. And asking about priority is not really the point in this situation; it would be far more sensible to ask what is safe and what other road users might expect you to do.

Bmblbzzz wrote: ↑19 Sep 2023, 6:49pm

maximus meridius wrote: ↑19 Sep 2023, 5:39pm

Bmblbzzz wrote: ↑19 Sep 2023, 3:57pm As an aside, the phrase "Is priority taken or given?" and its common counterpart "Offence is taken not given" are trite, rather nauseating, weasel-phrases.

Those phrases aren't counterparts. They are just similar forms of words. I suppose it's a sort of false equivalence or false comparison, usually done as part of a fallacious argument.

We've seen it earlier in this thread when one poster compared one use of words to another use of words, from a totally different domain, where the second, unrelated use of words was in a racist context. The implication was subtle, but clear.

I think the question "Is priority taken or given?" is a reasonable one.

I agree that "counterpart" is not a particularly good word here, but to my embarrassment, I couldn't come up with a better one at the time. What I meant was that the phrase about offence is commonly used to dismiss a complaint of hurt caused, and AN's phrase about priority, beyond the simple similarity of words, is being used in a similar way.

I don't agree that asking whether priority is taken or given is a reasonable question. These are not applicable concepts: priority is neither taken nor given, it simply is, as laid down by rules. And asking about priority is not really the point in this situation; it would be far more sensible to ask what is safe and what other road users might expect you to do.

slowster wrote: ↑19 Sep 2023, 6:29pm Looking at the first clip (1 minute in), when he approached the van from behind, he chose to slow and come to a standstill behind the van, rather than filter up inside it. I think either approach is fine, but a driver seeing him deliberately keep behind instead of filtering would be much more likely to conclude that it was OK to turn left in front of Ashley Neal. If Ashley Neal had filtered, he would have drawn level with or pulled ahead of the van, and I think in that case it would have been clearer to the van driver that he should not turn left until Ashley Neal was well clear ahead of him.

Subsequently Ashley Neal says, "There's certain elements of the cycling community who would just blast down that inside and increase risk". This is a false binary, created by using emotively vivid language ('blast down'), something that is also typical of commentators who are irrationally biased against - and even hostile towards - people on bikes on the road. Probably most cyclists would have filtered at a safe steady speed.

I think Ashley Neal's videos deliberately tap in to a common human weakness of enjoying watching the mistakes of others and passing judgement on them, and telling ourselves that we would not have been so stupid. I think there is also an excessive amount of personal ego in his videos, and that sometimes clouds his judgement and analyses. He snipes at and makes snide comments about Jeremy Vine. That probably helps attract followers (drivers rather than cyclists) and monetized clicks, but is divisive and harmful, because it reinforces many drivers' prejudice against - and hostility to - cyclists in general.
.
I think his video covering Jeremy Vine's latest incident illustrates the inherent flaws of this type of social media content with a strong personal/personality component which increases views on a monetized platform. His antipathy towards Jeremy Vine is overt, and his analysis was not not particularly good: the most important learning point in a 6 minute video was lost in a pointless aside inserted to set up another personal dig at Jeremy Vine. I think Ashley Neal's videos are mainly useful not for his commentary, but because the actual video content (which is mostly provided by others) can be a useful basis for discussion.

gcogger wrote: ↑19 Sep 2023, 4:57pm

I can't say that I see those 2 phrases in the same way but, if you don't like the former, how about something like:
"Don't assume it's safe to enter a space just because you have priority".

I think that "priority is given not taken" is more succinct, but each to their own.