- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Ashley Neal overtaking video - car horn use (screenshot via YouTube, Ashley Neal)Footballer-turned-driving instructor Ashley Neal divides opinion with use of horn in overtaking video
Footballer-turned-driving instructor Ashley Neal has divided opinion online after posting a video in which he beeps his car horn at two cyclists while overtaking them.
Neal, the son of European Cup-winning Liverpool full back Phil Neal, regularly posts videos on his website and YouTube channel, which has over 98,000 subscribers, chronicling his experiences as a driver and instructor in the northwest of England.
Neal, who runs his own driving school business, has often been praised for his even-handed approach to cyclists on the roads, and last year posted a video analysing an incident in which a cyclist was knocked off their bike by a motorist, an act the instructor claimed was “done purposefully”.
Last week’s video, titled ‘Cycling 2 Abreast and Overtaking’, caused a stir in the comments of the video itself and on the road.cc forum, after some viewers claimed that Neal was criticising the cyclists riding two-abreast before “unnecessarily” beeping his horn at them as he passed.
As he approaches the cyclists in the video, Neal says: “Do they need to be taking up a primary position and riding two-abreast at the moment? Yes.
“But I think this is going to cause issues with the new updates to the Highway Code. And that’s if some cyclists choose to ignore the other advice which has been updated to say that they should move back to single file to allow faster moving traffic to overtake.”
On the subject of riding two abreast, the revised Highway Code states: “You can ride two abreast and it can be safer to do so, particularly in larger groups or when accompanying children or less experienced riders. Be aware of drivers behind you and allow them to overtake (for example, by moving into single file or stopping) when you feel it is safe to let them do so.”
> Highway Code changes: ‘What about cyclists, or do the rules not apply to them?’
Neal then questioned whether the cyclists’ decision to carry on riding two abreast prevented him “from giving them a proper two metres space on this faster speed limit”, before answering “well, it does”.
The Highway Code updates advise that drivers should “leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30mph, and give them more space when overtaking at higher speeds”, and only explicitly notes that two metres’ distance should be maintained when passing pedestrians or horses on the road.
“Just because you can ride two abreast,” Neal continued, “doesn’t mean you should be doing it always. You should still appreciate the flow from other people.”
Neal then proceeds to pass the cyclists, doing so at a safe distance in the opposite lane, sounding his horn as he begins the manoeuvre. After the overtake, Neal told his viewers to give cyclists “as much space and care as you would do overtaking a car… A little beep of the horn is key, no problems, do it safely.”
> Driver knocks cyclist off bike on purpose – then claims she used to be police officer
While some viewers took to the YouTube comments section and the road.cc forum to express their disgruntlement at Neal’s preference for the cyclists to have ridden single file (though he acknowledged that he wouldn’t have been able to pass in any case), most of the resulting controversy surrounding the video centred on his use of his horn.
One road.cc reader wrote: “I don't agree with his use of the horn. Imagine if every car that passed you 'warned you of their presence' with a 'friendly' toot.
“In my view, the only reason to warn someone of your presence is when you think they might need to take some evasive action or look like they might cross your path.”
Another said: “I don't know what a ‘friendly’ toot sounds like, I cannot remember the last time I heard one. It might be some quaint throwback to the golden age of motoring, but in my experience it just doesn't happen these days.
“Therefore, any use of the horn will get my hackles and probably my middle finger up. If you're driving behind a cyclist, however you use your horn will make them jump, which doesn't seem advisable to me.”
Some viewers on YouTube agreed:
“I'm not sure on beeping before you overtake. If someone beeps me when I'm cycling I assume they are highly offended by my existence. If you force a cyclist to take their eye off the road ahead and look around, especially if they are alongside someone, there is a chance they will swerve enough to cause an issue.”
“I really disagree with the use of the horn in this situation. I know why Ashley is using it, but there are very few road users who consistently use the horn like he does. When I am cycling and hear a horn being sounded from a car behind me, I generally assume that an accident or near miss is about to occur and take defensive actions.”
However, others were more forgiving of the ‘friendly toot’:
“In my opinion the reason for riding two abreast is to get the cars to slow down before overtaking thus reducing potential damage (to me). Once they slow down I move into single file as soon as I think it's safe to overtake.
“Very occasionally I don't notice the car behind and a friendly toot is much appreciated. I'm ashamed to admit that aggressive use of the horn just winds me up and the move to single file is much delayed as a result.”
“I'm not totally against a friendly horn toot if a driver thinks I may genuinely not be aware of them. However, if I haven't already heard you coming, then even a friendly toot is likely to be alarming.
“So if you're going to do it, I think you need to leave a pause before you then overtake, to account for the cyclist jumping or turning to look – don't toot while you're mid-overtake.”
Neal took to the comments section himself to respond to those criticising him for his horn use, telling one viewer to “go read the Highway Code”.
“The horn in this situation is a simple ‘excuse me’,” he wrote. “It’s no different than a signal with an indicator if I was passing a car. If someone might benefit, it’s needed. It’s really sad that the true use of the horn is lost on so many.”
Rule 112 of the Highway Code states that the car horn should only be used “while your vehicle is moving and you need to warn other road users of your presence. Never sound your horn aggressively.”
According to Neal, “due to their poor positioning and not going back to single file, [the use of the horn] was absolutely necessary. It’s only the poor perception of what the horn should be used for that’s the problem.
“It’s a non-aggressive way of saying “excuse me” and so many cyclists have problems with it… These cyclists were just riding for themselves and did nothing to work together as they should.”
After obtaining a PhD, lecturing, and hosting a history podcast at Queen’s University Belfast, Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.
Latest Comments
- wtjs 4 hours 57 min ago
it seems that most places just rely on sufficient policing to reduce the issue...
- Matt Page 5 hours 41 min ago
Many manufacturers, including Scribe, can give you methods to reduce the noise level. On Scribe, and other ratchet designs it's usually just adding...
- wtjs 6 hours 19 min ago
It wouldn't work at all where wtjs lives...
- Sriracha 6 hours 35 min ago
Pretty sure AI could skim through hours of footage in a few seconds to identify suspicious events. Of course someone in authority has to care in...
- chrisonabike 6 hours 43 min ago
Bonsai samurai? Or is it just a case of "they seem to get smaller every year"?
- IanGlasgow 7 hours 46 min ago
Sorry to see Endura struggling. They're based in Linvignston, not Edinburgh, which puts them very close to where I grew up....
- mdavidford 9 hours 27 min ago
I dunno - seems like it's coming round on a regular basis...
- Rich_cb 11 hours 9 min ago
The mistake is to focus on the US....
- chrisonabike 11 hours 21 min ago
I mean it seems silly to complain in detail when we're firmly in the territory in the UK of "you will have to live with this the rest of your life ...
- eburtthebike 13 hours 52 min ago
I thought students were supposed to be intelligent?
Add new comment
168 comments
It might not specifically mention danger, but use of the word 'warn' implies danger.
I agree with you that if the pass is safe, there would be no danger and no need for a warning.
Yes - that wasn't the distinction I was making, though. According to grOg, the Australian version is specific about the danger being posed by the other party. The UK version is ambiguous inasmuch as it doesn't specify whether it means 'look out, you're about to put yourself in / cause someone else danger', or 'look out, I'm about to put you in danger'. However, since you shouldn't generally be doing something that would put someone else in danger*, it can be inferred that you shouldn't generally need to use it in that way.
* There are certain circumstances where you could potentially argue that posing a potential danger is unavoidable - as someone else mentioned, a narrow humpback bridge might be an example. They're very much the exception, though, and 'wanting to overtake' certainly isn't one of them.
Ah, yes, see what you mean now. If anything, it's odd the Australian law doesn't mention the 'I'm about to put you in danger' case. Because there are some, such as the narrow bridge and even situations such as brake failure, but as you say, very much the exception.
Worth pointing out that, just like the 'Not every man' argument when discussing men who assault and rape women, it's impossible to remember that 'not every motorist' is going to make a dangerous pass, cut you up, or cause you to crash, when a small but notable minority of them do do so. People on bikes have every right to be fearful or respond negatively to a horn, regardless of the intention behind it, because intentions can't be read or seen out in the real world. Not your fault or well-intentioned motorists' fault, but doesn't change the effect that it has.
Bottom line - I say stop advising people to perform a maneuvre that might scare or threaten other road users.
Quite. Not all motorists are out to get cyclists But all those out to get cyclists are motorists.
On iteration, you might scare or threaten becomes you definitely will
I think you're probably right. I'm sure some might appreciate the horn (and have said as much) but it seems as if the majority don't. Should be reason enough not to use it.
That is a good point. It's probably why most police advice I have seen regarding overtaking cyclists warns against using the horn...
Nice one HM. Even teh police advise against sounding your horn behind people on bikes
Learn to read each toot on it's individual merits then, and interpret danger accordingly, which is quite ironic I'm saying this considering your comment.
Exactly how would I "read each toot on it's individual merits" when there no settings for a horn nor any agreed standards ? Seems you are just asking cyclists to have pyschic powers.
Or you could get on a bike and have car drivers pass you sounding their horns to demonstrate this concept of tooting then post a video of it.
I will do a video this weekend on how different use of the horn may be interpreted differently. I will use my example with the cyclists I overtake and a different one. Hopefully you will tune in and you can work it out. It's actually not that complicated.
The video will not be any good unless the cyclist is the subject who has the camera and is doing the recording whilst other parties do the driving and hooting.
I see you skipped over the concept of a standard. Are you assuming that all drivers and cylists know about your standard and apply it ?
You don't really seem to be taking on board any points raised by experienced cyclists here.
Learn to drive in such a way that you pose no danger or intimidation to others using the public highway - it really is easy with the right mind set and a little empathy
At this stage you are starting to look like someone who is intent on using the horn against vulnerable road users, in spite of the fact that a number are informing you it really isn't helpful, and is actually unpleasant.
This is really straight forward - you are in a position when driving that you are easily able to endanger and intimidate those who are not, regardless of your iintent.
Would you signal to overtake a vehicle? Yes, of course. What is different about a cyclist? It's a simple way of alerting them to my presence as they have no mirrors (and they didn't acknowledge me following and wishing to overtake by moving back to single file). It's not complicated! but it is to some!!
This is Rule 112 in its entirety.
The horn. Use only while your vehicle is moving and you need to warn other road users of your presence. Never sound your horn aggressively. You MUST NOT use your horn *while stationary on the road *when driving in a built-up area between the hours of 11.30 pm and 7.00 am (except when another road user poses a danger.)
It doesn't matter in the slightest how the "toot" was perceived, that is the problem who don't follow the rules and advice in the HC. How did I know these cyclists had seen me, and would that be a guarantee for every cyclist that is approached from behind? If these two were truly that observant they could have done plenty to help out, but instead the did nothing. The "toot" had it's desired effect as they looked, and only then was I comfortable to overtake even though the space was tighter than I would have liked.
Perhaps next time I should follow your advice. Not "toot", overtake anyway, then discover as I'm passing that the cyclist he has earphones in just as he swerves to avoid a manhole cover and I take him out.
Why are you driving so close that you would hit a cyclist in those circumstances, bearing in mind you should always allow for cyclists to swerve due to weather and road conditions.
Because they didn't move back to single file as the HC advises! Did you not watch the video? That's what it was all about, explaining there are dangers in this situation if cyclists stay 2 abreast.
Ashley, I've posted both here and on your channel about why I thought your video was reasonable. But I find ^^^ this ^^^ comment disappointing. It's cherry-picking parts of the advice to the cyclists. The following points are worth noting:
1) You drove in their vicinity with due respect to the cyclist for a some time. You slowed on your initial approach; you kept a respectable distance behind them, not crowding them; you overtake with reasonable care and planning once it was safe. Your purpose for posting appears to be about teaching people how to behave around cyclists who may be cycling two abreast. You kept it safe. All good so far.
2) The advice to cyclists about when to ride two abreast, as in Rule 66, 2nd bullet, says:
The advice that they may ride two abreast is a complete sentence; it stands in its own right for the meaning of the advice specifically on riding two abreast, and it is clear that cyclists are entitled to do so (don't think I'm dwelling on entitlement, but it is part of the picture). The sentences before and after advise on considerations of courtesy to others. But they do not actually advise cyclists to single out; rather that is one of two, non-exclusive solutions to allow drivers to overtake. It is also conditional on when the cyclists "feel it is safe to let [drivers overtake]". A third option is that they remain two abreast and keep a good line once the road straightens to allow a safe overtake in the opposite lane.
Therefore:
i) the cyclists need to balance the consideration of allowing drivers to overtake, and their own safety while doing so. The former is self-evidently a lower priority.
ii) it is advice to cyclists, not the driver behind; in other words the driver plays no part in that advice and is not in a position to determine when the cyclists should single out.
3) Rule 72 also gives advice on road positioning on a cycle. It says,
In the section of road you show, where the road is narrow and additionally winding (enough that it would not be safe to pass a single cyclist within the lane), that advice would be relevant; and indeed it is taught in the National Standard for Cycle Training (Bikeability).
By that advice, even if the cyclists had singled out, they would have occupied enough of the lane that you would have had to cross the white line completely in order to pass safely. There is therefore no advantage in them singling out, and the advice for them to consider doing so has no value in the circumstances.
4) You said, "That's what it was all about, explaining there are dangers in this situation if cyclists stay 2 abreast."
In the intro to your video, you also said,
That's not the same thing. First of all, taking the last sentence: in any given situation, give and take is not always equal, nor is the responsibility for managing the safety. If a faster vehicle approaches a slower vehicle(s), there is a courtesy in the latter allowing the former to pass; but it is a legal duty for the rear vehicle to exercise care for the vehicle in front. All have a duty of care, but the greater duty is on the rear vehicle. In the video, all parties exercise their their duty satisfactorily.
I don't think your video set out to say that there are dangers of cycling two abreast - it certainly did not show any. I think it set out to show drivers how to deal with cyclists cycling (perfectly legally and within the guidance) two abreast. I think either you are now projecting additional messages that you did not originally intend, or you did not convey the message effectively. Good job, too! Because, as above and absent other factors, the danger is not in cycling two abreast, it is purely with a driver not handling that safely.
5) Should they have singled out? It's worth noting that they never did - you overtook (safely) while they were still two abreast. And that is fine.
Throughout the video, it would have been unsafe to pass them riding two abreast. It would also have been unsafe to pass a single cyclist, since it would have required crossing the line to the other side of the road to pass safely, putting the car in the path of potential oncoming traffic hidden by bends in the road.
The cyclists emphasised the need for the car to pass wide, and that it was unsafe to pass.
6) We should, as drivers, be emphasising to each other that our journeys may incur delays. It could be traffic lights, other junctions, obstructions, collisions (all potentially requiring complete stops); it could be slower vehicles (slowed progress, but still progress). As good drivers, we should factor those into our journey times, and we should be in control of our emotions accordingly. That's it. A failure to do otherwise is a breach of our duty of care. (I'm not saying that because I think you need to hear it - you say it often enough yourself; but it's a relevant lesson from your video.)
On your channel, I calculated the delay you incurred , and it is insignificant. You are still moving, and, even though your time behind them was over a minute, the delay was no more than a minute - less than the time a driver will wait at some traffic lights without much thought.
That is the real value of your video.
Should cyclists single out? On occasions; but this vodeo did not demonstrate any need to do so. It demonstrated two road users using the road and a careful driver demosntrating how it's done.
So, in summary,
Nicely structured comment. I don't always agree but it's always appreciated. The main thing that I am disappointed that not many have mentioned is the thought for other road users apart from yourself. You know very well that selfishness on the road doesn't sit well with me. Keep safe.
I wouldn't consider their riding selfish at all. There was enough space to make a safe pass, and if there wasn't, beeping the horn wouldn't make it safe unless you waited for them to single out.
Hang on, who is being selfish? The cyclists who rode two abreast as they are allowed to do and you were able to pass anyway? Or the person in the big metal box with an armchair next to him and a sofa in the back who, regardless of still being wider than the two cyclists put together, was still able to overtake?
Ps thanks for contributing to the discussion and defending your viewpoint. Hopefully you can see why others have a different point of view
Yes. I use indicators. They inform teh vehicle behind of my intention. I also use them when o/taking people on bikes
When o/ting cars I don't use the horn. Do you?...
So the intent was "get out of my way" They don't need to acknowledge your presence by promptly singling out when you arrive
It is at the discretion of the rider when it is safe for them to single out - it is not for you to tell them when they should do so.
You proceeded to o/take with them abreast - are you saying there was no need for them to single out? Why then use the horn?
We've established that your intent was to instruct them to single out - this wasn't "I am here". Therefore this isn't in line with HWC
Yes, it very much does matter how it is perceived. If a significant number of people find car use of the horn unpleasant and intimidating, that is exactly what it is - regardless of your intent.
You don't , which is why you need to hang back with a suitable stopping distance ( at least 12m at 20mph) and wait for a safe opportunity.
again demonstrating that your intent wasn't "I'm politely alerting you of my presence for your safety and comfort", rather instruction and remonstration
Then you should have waited for a safe opportunity....
Again, it is your responsibility to overtake safely allowing for sufficient space for such a situation. It would be your fault if you hit someone in such a situation.
HWC 213
......
Motorcyclists, cyclists, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.
Of course, the same rule also states
[On narrow or quiet roads] It can be safer for groups of cyclists to ride two abreast in these situations. Allow them to do so for their own safety, to ensure they can see and be seen.
This started as an attempt to express that sounding the horn around people on bikes is unnecessary and unpleasant, and really that statement says it all, in spite of all the going and froing.
I'm sorry you feel unable to accept that, it's a real shame.
Carry on choosing which part of the HC you are going to follow then that suits your standpoint. I follow it all.
The "toot" necessitates the third paragraph of HWC 213 that you quote.
"Motorcyclists, cyclists, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make."
But it says give them plenty of room, not give them the horn!
...and you did give them plenty of room Ashley. It would have been a perfect pass if wearing noise cancelling headphones!
What parts of the highway code am I not following when I drive Ashley?
I can't see the bit where it says that if someone doesn't do what you want you should use the horn and barge through anyway. Perhaps you can point out out to me.....
No Ashley, you clearly don't "get" the highway code.
This conversation is turning into a demonstration of why people who ride bikes terms to have better and safer driving attitudes.
Have a great weekend old chum.
You don't get the use of the horn obviously. And regarding your comment of "people who ride bikes have better and safer driving attitudes" is clearly questionable with some of the comments on this thread.
As normal with everything it's 5% of the cohort that cause 95% of the problems. This is true about motorists, football hooligans (both of which I am more than qualified to judge) and most definitely cyclists.
I hope your ears don't bleed the next time a motorist pips the horn near you on your bike. I would also like to thank you for the inspiration for a video that I'm going to complete this weekend on our main discussion point regarding the use of the horn. I do hope you tune in.
its not about getting the "use" of the horn, we all get that really, its about how most cyclists experience the use of that horn. In an ideal world where everyone drives around safely and nicely and uses the horn no more aggressively than Noddy does with a little parp parp in Toytown, it would be fine, but thats not how cyclists experience life on UK roads.
So you have to factor that element in that actually 99% of the time a horn is used when passing a cyclist, its used in anger, so we are always naturally on the defensive, because we have to be, to survive.
the moment I let my guard down enough when Im riding that when someone hoots to let me know they are passing me, and its something I hadnt already taken account of, is the moment Im probably going to be another KSI statistic.
How can you read each toot "on its merits"? How can a cyclist possibly know if the driver means "here I am and I am going to overtake you" or "you've held me up for 10 seconds already I'm coming past regardless of any other dangers and I'm going to do it fast and close cos you stupid mamil road vermin make me so cross and I've had a bad day at work"?
Hi Ashley - if you've worked in or around the press you'll also know that the author doesn't always come up with the headlines, and in this case that was my decision not Ryan's!
HoarseMann has pretty much nailed why we chose to go with 'Ex-footballer' in the headline, it's simply what I thought would reach the most people - and I think in this respect it could have been right, almost 25,000 people have read the story and a lot of them through Google Discover. That's not bad at all for a cycling website.
You're right that the fact you played pro football isn't relevant to the debate about the use of the horn, but I think that your background carries weight as to why we would decide to run the story. Perhaps your name and the subject matter alone was enough to get the story into the search engine feeds of people outside of our usual audience and I was wrong, so I promise that if you make the news again we'll drop ex-footballer.
Even with the "ex-footballer" descriptor, I've still no idea who he is, and why his views are seen as important.
I'm glad then that it's helped increase the reach as it's an important point of road safety as a whole to treat cyclists with care and consideration. It's just not something that I've ever used to push my agenda. If there is anything I can do to help going forward don't hesitate to get in touch.
Pages