I've seen some total morons out while I've been cycling, and they help to reinforce the stereotype of cyclists jumping lights and generally being above the law. One classic was a guy going through a red light on a pedestrian crossing, and when I pointed out to him that the light was red his response was "I'm on a bike". I don't know how someone can reach 40+ years of age and think bikes don't have to stop at red lights. The most worrying thing is that he no doubt drives a car with the same level of ignorance.

I saw a major bike pile up the other day. It was caused by a cyclist stopping at a red and the others didn’t

Totally agree. There are loads of people riding with phones where I live.

@@Rover200Power Very true. Equally though, I do think that the sterotype of cyclists jumping red lights comes mostly from the way that those bad cyclists who do jump lights choose to do it - they normally go through red lights at any stage of the phase, even if the other lane is already flowing! However, in my experience (and if I recall correctly, the evidence supports this), cars jumping red lights happens far, far more often...but the majority of times it is only for the few seconds after they've turned red, so perhaps drivers who perpetuate the "cyclists always jump red lights" myth let these sort of infringements go as "only just breaking the law".

Not me. I'm only responsible for my own riding. I can't control what others do.

Overdue for a Darwin award, that one.

doing what teenagers do, hes just showing off to his friends. Give them a car and they'll be doing doughnuts in a carpark.

@@jadedferret6727 Depends on the teenager. When I was one me and my mates all did some bloody stupid things on bikes, but among my mates only one (Chris) was stupid enough to do exactly the kind of thing shown in the video. All of us got occasional scrapes and bruises, Chris used to get plaster casts.

Hopefully he’ll be removed off road soon. Undertaker

@@ianmason. No it does not depend on the teenager because only teenagers do it. He's a typical peacocking runt who'd would be taking his time in the road if on foot. He's no more a cyclist than a joyrider is a car commuter.

I like how when the driver got beeped at she said 'Can you not see the cyclists in the road d*ckhead?!' even though it was only like a 10th of the wheel on a hatched marking, there really was no reason to stop and wait 🤦‍♂

Agreed i did feel the car needed to crawl forward, set off and bin the cyclists for someone else at that moment. Yes it was a little accident them falling off the bicycle but the cammer needed to keep the flow going. A lot of drivers have gotten into the forced mindset of stopping at a junction or roundabout to let someone cross and not moving until they've crossed. As long as you give them that chance of priority if they delay, you be on your way.

Only reason I can think of for staying that long would be just to laugh at them. But seriously should have made off instead of waiting for them to pick themselves up.

The cyclists should not have been riding at a pedestrian crossing, at least they should have dismounted. The motorist stopped because they did the unexpected and fell over, what else were they going to do? It would not have surprised me that one would have got up and sprinted across the road with little or no attention. I may have been tempted to pull forward when I saw the heap of cyclists but I don't blame the motorist for waiting, at least that way they were in control of the situation and kept themselves and others safe. The fact that the cyclists might have been embarrassed and then pressured to cross may have taught them a lesson especially as everyone was safe particularly as the stationary motorist was a good indicator that something was amiss to other road users, who could be unsighted as well as acting as a blocker.

Patience and courtesy?

This thinking was how the "brake check" gained popularity.

@@MrSonicAdvance Isnt brake checking where you quickly decrease your speed. You dont stop. So even then you are still moving.

Sometime you could be hit if you stop. Stopping us not always the safest option.

@@mikemonkeyz brake check can be to a complete stop

@@mikemonkeyz Who says they don't stop? I've seen loads of videos of people stopping dead to brake check the poor guy behind them. (Usually after a dangerously impatient overtake.)

Yes. Drive very slowly in carparks. You can literally stop on a dime, and once I had to when a moron came zooming around the corner against the arrow.

@@davidvanderklauw Indeed, people like that are hypocrites because they rely on others not driving like that or else they'd crash constantly.

Yep - the dashcam car driver was driving dangerously in that car park. Surprised Ashley did not criticize both parties.

LCD theory*. Always the best practice. *Lowest common denominator. Design your behaviour around the stupidest person you are most likely to encounter. That way, you are prepared for 'almost' anything.

@@AdeboFunkyVoodoo Haha, I haven't heard it called that before, but this is how I have always driven. Personally, I can't understand trusting other road users by default when one mistake may lead to serious injury, death, or expensive/irreversible vehicle damage.

And it shows intention.

The problem is that most of our towns just don't have room for cycle paths, and squeezing them in to Victorian or Edwardian street patterns means either pedestrians or motorists have to surrender space to them. Some areas are better than others, but it's an issue that's certainly not overlooked, it's just not easily resolved.

@@davidjones332 that’s just it - it’s easy to resolve it. You do what the Dutch have done, with equally narrow streets, and realise that cars in urban settings need to play third fiddle to pedestrians and cyclists. Have a look at not just bikes for how sensible urban planning is actually a solved problem. We can copy paste it here.

It's the consequence of being an overcrowded island. No doubt the fabled roads of Holland and Belgium are far superior blah blah blah.

@@goodyeoman4534 Population density of the UK is 272 / km2, for Belgium it's 378 / km2, for the Netherlands it's 419 / km2 (all 2020 numbers). So clearly that's not the issue. The issue is one of political priorities.

@@kristofprovost What political priorities should cycle lanes displace?

My phone stays in my back pocket unless I have found a place to sit down for a minute when it gets transferred to my jacket pocket. Sometimes I even leave the infernal thing at home.

I think people are addicted to social media, like facebook, tik tok and whatever else. Glad I don't use them

Checking their Tinder matches and scrolling down the Daily Mail side bar of shame, I think.

possibly changing music song, they may be using wireless headphones of some sort, in which case they should slow down if not pull off the road, and don't do it in high traffic areas.

Solving climate change, global poverty, hunger, and devising a path for interstellar colonisation whilst simultaneously theorising the meaning of life.

Hah! I said something similar "The one we haven't seen yet."

Try spotting them at night with no lights in dark clothing 😁

he did but the car was driving too fast.

@@SPTSuperSprinter156 only a cyclist would say something as stupid as this. 🤣🤣

Yes your definitely right. Got myself a dashcam last year after years of driving but you have to do everything you can to safeguard yourself of claims by stupid cyclists 👍

@@mintywebb that's more than 5mph surely, I would've thought 10 or 15mph

He'll still get the blame

... but much more vulnerable than someone in a car.

Yes, it's very tribal and just adds to divisive behaviours. Still, it helps to generate 'likes' and comments on social media, that's the main thing.

@@squicker We need new terminology. Some of these riders are "cyclists" in the same way someone who has nicked a car and is being pursued by the police is a "motorist". Almost every cyclist over teenage I know is also a car owner. The problem is narcissism and lack of self-awareness, on 2 wheels or 4.

A bicycle is very different from a car, however, considering that it's powered by the user rather than an external power source, and much slower and smaller.

Mediocre is something I can relate 😂

But it is time cyclists became accountable and had insurance

Choice is vehicle is ... kinda relevant, Lorries are more dangerous than van's, van's are more dangerous than cars, cars are more dangerous than bikes.

@@Momofan69 Ah I think you misunderstood me there! Of course the amount of damage/injury that can be caused by a larger vehicle is important, and is why the hierarchy has been introduced. However, what I was referring to was that Ashley saying what he did was to debunk the the common, but incorrect, view that it's only cyclists that break the rules. This, along with dehumanising cyclists into some group of 'others', has caused a lot of antagonism, hatred and indeed acts of roadrage and violence towards cyclists. So by saying all road users can be good or bad road users, is refusing to accept the 'group' theory - we're all people, and we all make mistakes.

Yes. The cammer obviously thought it was a hassle to go around the door as he did.

@@jaycee330 It's not _just_ that, I think. It's the sending in the clip *and* there being a fairly good 2-lane cycle way right across the road. If there hadn't been, I suspect M. Neal would not have had this reaction; but I get the impression that M. Neal does not want to encourage people sending in clips just to point out this sort of stuff when they don't show a fairly obvious way of avoiding it entirely and leaving it to being the motorists's problem.

Delivery driver parked on both the pavement and double yellows but the cyclist is wrong for highlighting it...

@@philmoore97 My thoughts exactly. Baffling isn't it?

@@philmoore97 Not just double yellows (no parking), but double kerb marks (no loading) too.

Hi Graham; that one was me, and it's the exact reason you gave for why I used the horn there! I could have, as a lot of drivers would, just forced my way past; but the positioning and then lack of movement suggested they hadn't heard me approach and I didn't want to force my way through leaving next to no space; hence the short, friendly burst and not a lean. Nice to hear Ashley, and read others, approving of the horn use; means a lot when I only passed in March 👍

@@RidgwayBrandon The first thing I say is - well done. With a head wind it is often not possible to hear a car approaching from behind. In my opinion there are two things to remember/consider as a car driver in these circumstances - 1. Give the toot from some distance back - say 50 meters, so as not to startle the rider/s. 2. On single track roads (roads where it is impossible for two cars to pass) slow and give the cyclist/s time to get to a passing place or convenient spot to stop and let you pass, Be patient, it is sometimes the case that the cyclist can see another car approaching in the other direction which you may not be able to see and will complicate things. I will very often deliberately ride or move out to towards the centre of single track roads when a car approaches, this is to encourage the driver to slow down or if they come from the opposite direction, stop. This is because it is much safer and easier for me to pass a slow moving or stationary car (clearance can sometimes be less than 20cm) The worst thing is when a driver does not slow down, I have had drivers pass from behind way too fast with their offside wheels way up over the grass verge (very scary as I knew there was not enough road width) Also some drivers do not give enough time for the cyclist to stop and get over into the side in a safe position before passing - there can be some pretty nasty things growing out of dry stone walls and it can be tricky establishing a secure footing. I will always do what I can to not hold up traffic flow on such narrow roads, but sometimes a littler patience is required. I know not everyone is this accommodating and some may get triggered by the horn (as I stated in the previous comment I have yet to hear a "I'm behind you" toot) but generally I have found people to be nice and appreciative of a little help.

@@RidgwayBrandon This is a perfect example of exactly what the horn is meant to be used for, namely to alert other road users to the presence of your vehicle. All too often motorists seem to think it's an angry button so it is refreshing to see it being used responsibly for it's intended purpose. Your use of the horn there is the same way that I use my bell as a cyclist when approaching pedestrians on shared use paths when they don't appear to be aware of my approach and I would hope any cyclist would.

It’s scary really

That guy looked spaced out, like on something, or a medical emergency even (low blood sugar etc). Weird how he just cycled right out into the road.

Spot on. It's the shadow from the trees that is giving us the impression of a deviation in the road.

Hi Mike, I'm the driver from that one. It is indeed a road I know well, both from driving and cycling it. I think everything you've said is what I was thinking at the time and why I went for it; it's actually a section where I use both lanes when it's clear despite technically being 'blind' as you get a good view ahead before it dips. However, when I watched the clip back my thoughts were the same as what Ash said and I felt it was actually quite a poor decision; and personally feel I should have waited until after the dip! Thanks 👍

Yup, ditto.

@Nigel Buckham What, does that make them not a cyclist? Same applies to motorists as well then, naturally?

Bone conducting headphones are your friend

They’re looking for their Darwin Award under someone’s car.

So you obviously also believe, that motor vehicles should not have stereos? Or handsfree phone facilities for that matter?

You can actually hear background noise through a lot of headphones, many are designed like that. Also bear in mind that even with headphones cyclists can hear better than drivers, who even without the radio on can hear almost nothing. Not to mention deaf or hearing impaired cyclists....

@@edj4833 A Darwin contestant? Why, when being one of the most vulnerable road users, would you plug up your ears?

@@wibbley1 I half agree but bear in mind, as I said, that many headphones allow you to hear background noise.

Not quite sure the logic of this comment really stacks up. Firstly, if you've watched Ashley's other videos on the channel, it's pretty clear that passing a test to demonstrate knowledge does in no way guarantee good driving. Secondly, there are studies that show that drivers tend to be more law-breaking than cyclists. And thirdly, and perhaps most tellingly, the vast majority of cyclists are also drivers and have passed their test! I know it's hard to think that given how much the media likes to create an "us vs them" mentality with drivers vs cyclists. Also, it's worth thinking about just how much damage a cyclist can do vs a motorist. I think there have been only a couple of pedestrian KSIs caused by bikes in the last decade, so are you surprised that the requirement for insurance and number plates falls on the far, far, far bigger risk, the 2 tonne car?

@@alexwoodroffe9477 To take your points in order: passing a test demonstrates knowledge and people can then be held to account. Studies may show that but that doesn't matter: cyclists still need to be held to account for any misbehaviour. Third, so what? As for license plates, even the weediest motorcycles require license plates; if it can be done for them then it can be done for cyclists. We are all road users.

@@alexwoodroffe9477 Regardless of whether cyclist are more, or less, law-breaking than motorists (I'd like to see the studies before coming to my own conclusion on that matter), cyclists know that when they break the laws they're difficult - sometimes impossible - to trace. So, as the OP states, they generally don't face penalties for doing so. Your logic appears a little awry too: Just because a cyclist may cause less damage than motorists, that doesn't mean that the damage they do cause is inconsequential, or doesn't have to be paid for.

@@QuentinStephens That doesn't work though. There are more than a million uninsured cars on our roads for whom number plates don't seem to work for holding them to account, and Ashley's video yesterday had a youth on a motorbike doing wheelies through Liverpool with the statement that nothing could be done because the police were hamstrung. I don't think that imposing solutions that don't work will solve anything.

@@mattwardman A poor argument indeed. A million uninsured out of how many vehicles on our roads exactly? Oh, that's right, I believe it was around 32 million in 2020. Clearly it works fine for 31 million vehicles then. Now, what were you saying about solutions that don't work?

His clips don't feature enough joyriders and how they could do things better to improve theirs and road users' safety.

Yes but if the roads weren't made death traps for cyclists by many motorists, then scared cyclists wouldn't be on the pavement. Cause. Effect. ps. It isn't actually illegal to cycle on the footway.

I think it depends on the speed of the bike on the pavement. I see quite a lot of guys riding mountain bikes barely faster than walking pace, with their saddles way too low to get any effective pace up! In principle it's not allowed but if they aren't going faster than say a mobility scooter it's hard to get wound up about. However I agree when the speed is high and they are inconsiderate of pedestrians.

@@AdeboFunkyVoodoo i agree that many cyclists are scared to use roads, but in the UK it is technically illegal.

@@AdeboFunkyVoodoo actually it is illegal unless it is a designated shared cycle footpath

@@stephenhill8790 this is not the law. Whilst it is how most people understand the law. It is not the case. The law does not ban cycling on the footway. The footway can only be dual or multiple use, precisely because there is no legal impairment to make them so. The usage of footways is not set at a national level oe. One rule with local exceptions.. Each footway is allocated a designated usage, there is no "default". This ranges from footpath to BOAT. Ergo as any footway can have any designation, that designation is made locally, it is impossible to have a nationwide law for footways because every footway is different. The confusion largely comes because people assume that footways are automatically footpaths unless otherwise designated. This is not the case. It is all ad-hoc. To add to people's confusion: unlike parking, where there 8s a legal requirement to indicate at the site the legal restrictions. There is no requirement to place signs indicating the allowed or restricted use of the footway. Legally, this information need only be available publicly ie. at your local council office or library. So NOT having a sign saying that you CAN cycle does not mean that you can NOT or can for that matter. You literally have to ask the local council, unless your local council operates a default policy. Which some do, making all local footways in their area footpaths or for that matter dual use. *BOAT = byway open to all traffic. This includes motor vehicles. Typically used in areas where parking on the footway is required.

And yet when i was in primary school in the country side the school had an entire class of 30 kids out on there pushbikes on British roads...

I honestly don't have an issue with cycling on UK roads. I must pass thousands of cars on my typical fitness route (which is sadly failing to keep me fit), and the vast majority of those interactions pass unmemorably. But, in the same way drivers are apt to remember the odd cyclist that runs a red light, as a cyclist I am apt to remember the small number of drivers who make mistakes. It's just normal cognitive bias, so I try to to overcome that and remember most interactions on the road are without event. And of course it's incredibly rare to come across a genuinely nasty road users of any type, of course people make mistakes, but we make allowances for that as none of us are immune.

There is nothing wrong with taking your children cycling as long as you, as the parent properly supervise them which clearly wasn't happening in that clip.

There should have been one adult in front of, and one behind the child in that clip, or at least keep their eyes on them and listen out for cars.

I take my children out on dedicated cycle lanes , such as those created on disused railway tracks - completely away from other traffic ; seaside promenades are other good places .

That fine but the laws that govern don't protect them from the stupidity of others.

Why do you think they came up with "Cyclists are vulnerable so is everybody's duty to save them from themselves" aka babysitters on the road ... problem solved

I was wondering is Ashley would comment on the driver being in the cycle box or not… both drivers were, the merc mlre so.

@@robclayton9612 all bikes and cars use them in London all the time. Needs a change of law that you can't argue you entered on green

@Rob Clayton I can easily make a comment on the difference in risk between the cyclists actions and the stationary motorist if you like?

@@ashley_neal I think the bigger issue is the perpetual use of the ASL by all motorists. For a while I had conversations with motorbikes and almost without fail they believed they were for motorbikes too. Cars don't see them so much that I've been stationary in the box and a car has gone into the back of me! But these might be too London-centric. I don't use the road enough elsewhere to know.

@@ashley_neal the motorist, in taking up the refuge space at the lights, directly increases the risk to cyclists not wanting to get caught in the middle of traffic.

No, beeping cyclists is a shit idea, Neal is obsessed with using the horn unecessarily and needs to stop. It's either safe to overtake or it isn't, and if the person in front is doing something out the ordinary, hang back, you don't need to warn a cyclist or a pedestrian by sounding a horn, it just shouts 'get out the fucking way' and people react to that if not unsettling riders also. Lastly it ignires that some people simply won't hear the horn because they are deaf.

@@ynotnilknarf39 Hmm disagree with you about the use of the horn in this instance, assuming the driver waited until it was clear to overtake. As the family did not know he was there and it clearly did warn them and allow them to move over and be safer. It depends when. I cycle far more miles than I drive. It's sometimes good to have a warning a car is behind. Some of us are hard of hearing and may not hear a car approach until it right on top of us. As for those totally deaf - well they would never even hear it so it would not matter either way would it? If they had not registered I was there and they were moving about a bit like here, I would do so to allow them be warned and stay in. And indeed, that is what happened! I would just use it a little later in this case when clear to overtake. I am sure they would appreciate it, being a cyclist myself. We should be careful of ruling things out totally, the horn can be a good warning tool in many instances. That is what it is there for after all, not to try to shame drivers who did things wrong as most people seem to use it.

Driver stopped to unload, perfectly legal on double yellows, holding their door as the cyclist approaches. Complete non-event, no foul by either party.

Yeah Ashley says “just go around the door” and that’s all I see happen in that clip

Oh, the Northampton footballer? That's neat. Ashley mentioned he played football when he was younger, so that makes sense. Edit: Wiki confirms this.

Mix. I always run two rear lights, a steady and a flashing. Then if one battery dies or it breaks for some reason, you have a backup. On the front I use a single steady beam on unlit roads, but would consider adding a second flashing front light if I were predominately riding in a street lit built-up area. You need a red rear reflector and yellow pedal reflectors too. Yellow pedal reflectors are particularly effective (unless you've got large rear panniers on), being low down they reflect headlamps at a greater distance than the red reflector and their motion really shouts 'bike' at drivers, even more so than a flashing led light.

As a cyclist and a driver I find the best is either a combination of both or lights that 'pulse' rather than 'strobe'. The main thing to avoid is having them set too bright or pointing directly ahead. Unless you're riding on unlit roads you don't need >200 lumen lights that will just dazzle other road users.

They have different purposes, so its not really better or worse. The purpose of the headlights is to light up the road so that you can see where you are going, other trafficants in the road etc. A cyclist is not in a car, and they have no problem seeing other motorists in the dark. They have lights, so that they can be spotted. Which is why blinking is an option (I believe its statistically better, but I'm not 100 % sure).

I use flashing lights in the daytime because brighter ambient surroundings need something other than just a light to catch attention. At night I use steady lights. Two on front two on rear for redundancy. One of the fronts is a very powerful beam basically as bright as a single car headlight. Wouldn't have anything less for cycling after dark. I angle it downwards like a dipped car headlight.

Whichever you use, high viz clothing will do at least as much to keep you safe, especially if you're cycling in traffic.

They just think ££££ as they sue the driver, unless said driver has video evidence of negligence on the part of the cyclist

@Nigel Buckham I already have two thank you, and have experience of the situation described. Funnily enough the only time a cyclist involved in a collision with anyone I know has been traceable.

I'll check that out. We humans and our individual decisions are often influenced by systemic pressures, in other words there's always someone who's going to feel pressured into dangerous behaviour. As a cyclist the thing that most gives me the creeps, especially in London where they're all over the place, are those construction waste tipper lorries where the drivers are being paid per load. There's little worse on the road than hearing one of those rattling and speeding behind you.

@@alextw1488 Yea im a cyclist in London too and some people drive like theirs someone dying, alot of the time you hear them ebefore you see them ahah stay safe .

@@mintywebb All I am saying is when you get cyclist going through red lights and on payments and they just don't care if they could knock a child or anybody down.

@Nigel Buckham Well you get cars driving on payments as well.

@@anthonywalker7240 Dumbass! a 14year old girl war recently killed by a car driving along the pavement, are you implying that had there been red lights the driver would have stopped, and the kid would not have been killed. What about the 6year old learning to cycle and was lucky to survive a car the mounted the pavement at 60miles an hour. The work colleague who didn't turn up for work on Monday due to being killed on Friday whilst sat in a bus shelter waiting to go home... Clearly motorists just ''don't care''

@@mikewade777Dunbass! of course I am not you get bad drivers and cyclist now.

@@anthonywalker7240 you went from shop doors to redlights to not caring. In a very antagonistic manner. ''all I'm saying''🙄

Agreed. Acetabulum fractures, really horrible and serious injuries, often being the result, especially if landing on the corner of a kerb.

Your statement covers cyclists and motorists equally id say. Motorists kill 1800 and injure 180,000 every year in the UK, and yet the standard of driving gets worse and worse even with consequences. Is it a case of Monkey see, Monkey do?

@@DasArab you got to be a cyclist. So what's the number of people that get hurt each year as a result of poor cycling. You'll have a job to answer this as cyclist can't be identified unless they are flat on the floor 😉

@@DasArab Just because there are bad motorists, it doesn't mean that the lawbreaking of cyclists should be ignored. Both need to be tackled.

@@mintywebb I see your comment has disappeared. But It doesn't matter, I'll respond anyway: I said *both* should be dealt with.

@@cargy930 Absolutely, my point was your statement is true to both. Its a bit like saying "Oooo another Idiot BMW/Audi driver" Its not the car they drive, or the mode of transport they "pilot", the one common denominator? A human being.

I mostly agree. I believe they were right to stop and make sure none of them suddenly cross, but once one of the cyclists waved her through I would have taken that as the situation sorted. There looks to have been ample space for a slow and safe pass.

@@conorgreen3384 completely agreed

@Nigel Buckham who ever has what?

Top Brass don't want they to vilify large numbers of the population over trivial matters.

@@robertwillis4061 trivial matters at first then they get bigger and bigger.

Hahaha haha! Top comedy. The police? Doing their job? In this day and age? Brilliant!

@@fastfreddy19641 what police? Tories have cut them to the bone.

@@AdeboFunkyVoodoo yes your right that was a bit nieve

A time trial is something with a specific definition under road law and the requirements are different than for racing. There wouldn't be any 2 abreast riding in a time trial though, only one cyclist overtaking another.

@@ColinSmith2001 OK, I have the name wrong, clearly. Apologies. Race or perhaps just a large group of cyclists, whatever, I'm no expert. I am a cyclist, yes, but am not in any cycling clubs so am not familiar with the nomenclature. But the behaviour I have reported is accurate. The way they take up such a long length of road has to be seen to be believed and on a 60mph winding country road the large group of cyclists are near impossible to overtake as they leave no gaps to overtake them in stages - it's all or none. Nor do they stop occasionally to allow cars to pass safely. It really is quite selfish and therefore not good cycling.

@@Grahame59 No worries - the legal requirements are different for different events, so exactly what is happening will make a difference to exactly what should be done, and if it's a HWC guidance or something with more specific coverage (y)

@@Grahame59 it’s not selfish. The driver is no more entitled to travel at the limit (which is a limit and not a minimum…) than the cyclist is to travel at their speed. Everyone pays equally for the roads as it comes out of general taxation. If you know it’s happening drive another route.

Frankly the law requiring electric bikes be pedal assist only is absurd, the speed limiter is the main thing, how people get to that speed is neither here nor there and we should be encouraging all alternative transport options to cars, not micro-managing them with a labyrinth of laws.

@@Deedumdee My bike doesn't have a speed limiter either, but it's such an old, heavy, large thing... yeah sure I can get it above the speed limit by pedalling in top gear with the motor on, but a fit cyclist on a normal road bike with aeros on can still go much quicker than me. Cyclists breaking laws and reckless cycling just needs to be cracked down on more, that's all.

Stupid comment

The problem is that you can't use a car to teach that lesson without dialling up risk of death significantly. Teaching the lesson needs doing in another way. I sympathise with the sentiment though.

much like pop up bollards. Drivers never learn.

🎈🍺 😀

Actually, the reason he isn't pedalling is because it's an E-bike! However, the battery will go flat much sooner if the rider doesn't pedal whenever they're able to!

Still don't think this one would actually qualify as a motorcycle looks more like an electric moped (AM) vehicle to me. Frankly putting an electric motorcycle class motor on that thing would likely just spin the tires if it didn't outright break the wheel bearings or other drive components anyway. This thing is not designed to handle the torque output of those things you need quite a bit more traction to have them not just spin out the wheel or worse. I know people that build and race them (legally at track events and such as being custom builds they are not registerable for road use) they tend to use a motorcycle frame, wheels, and brakes for those for a reason. A multi kilowatt motor with the large batteries needed to supply that much power at all much less sustain it for any period of time without promptly venting with flame requires a significantly more robust frame to support it too. Obviously motorcycle frames are more suited to this as you basically end up with a vehicle that is in the size, weight, and performance class of a traditional motorcycle if you attempt this so you need motorcycle grade frames, wheels, brakes, and other components.

@@seraphina985 If it has a thumb or twist throttle you still need a licence so as far as the law goes it is a motorized vehicle, even if is a pile of junk bodged from a bicycle. Electric bikes must be pedal assist and limited to 15.8mph (30km/h).

@@chrisburn7178 Yes exactly, I even mentioned the licence class required to operate them (AM), motorcycles on the other hand are in different classes (A/A1/A2) depending on power and such, they also have different age requirements and such to get a licence for them so there is a legal distinction between them.