Put him in for driving lessons, he'd probably do better than his Dad 😆

You can even see at the start of the clip, the kid took a position in the centre of the road rather than going up the cycle path where he'd have been obscured by the cars. Whether it was intentional or instructed, it's worth noting.

Exactly

They can have "he was right" written on the gravestone.

My ex girlfriend used to be a triathlete and was out running on a country road. The road was narrow, a 60MPH limit and a bendy road with blind corners. A sports car came speeding around a blind corner while she was running along the road and she had to jump into ditch to avoid being killed. [as she landed in the ditch she damaged her hip and it has never been the same since ending her sporting career] She will vehemently rant on to anyone who will listen about how some utter lunatic ruined her career, but my attitude was “what the hell were you doing out running on that road. You knew full well it was a dangerous road so what did you expect?”. This didn’t go down well because her mind set was “but iv’e got the legal right to run along that road as much as I want” To which replied “Yes you have, and the car driver was indeed an #%*^hole and should not have been speeding around a blind corner, but in the end he drove off unaffected and you were the one left lying damaged in a ditch”

I get why she is now your ex-girlfriend 😂

Your husband sounds like a good man

Absolutely right.... I always say to people do you go onto a junction where you have the green light where the lorry coming at right angles is not appearing to be slowing to stop for what should be his red light? Being right but dead or seriously injured aren't somewhere I'd like to be.

Look idiots you are not allowed to kill cause you have a driver's license

I used to have the attitude of the father and I'm still assertive but I've realized that it is better to protect myself and let the bad drivers get on down the road and out of my life.

Absolutely - at least the kid was wearing high vis clothing as well, no idea on the dad. One of my pet hates lately is cyclists doing silly things in dark clothing and poor if any lights then blaming anyone but themselves for near incidents.

But the dad then wouldn't have had a video to post.

Why was the Dad being stubborn?

@@iainamurray Because "I'm a cyclist" mentally. He put his child in extreme danger. It's all well and good saying, but they should have stopped. They won't bring a child back to life. Cyclists need to learn a car will always win. They have rules with boats, but the overwhelming rule is you always move out the way for the bigger boat as you'll lose.

The father capped it off nicely by swearing in front of a 5 year old child.

Yes

I can't believe the Dad wasn't saying Slow down ready to stop and then the kid asked should I Stop! This Lad has more sense than his Dad and the Driver put together!!!

His instincts were correct.

His dad had to get he footage for youtube some how. Why is the 5 year old on the road in the first place.

Sorry but the dad's an irresponsible ego fuelled pillock.

If it was me, that made the mistake of "entering the corridor" - I would have stopped and allowed the young man to pass. Not attempt to "thread the needle" (simply because I wouldn't want to damage the blue car! The young cyclist knew what he was doing, and did great - one of the better cyclists I've seen recently, in all honesty)

"Compassion and empathy go out of the window" we've lost those since the 90s. Most people are so selfish, self-centred and simply don't care these days. Even commentary like Ashley's this isn't going to change because the people who need to learn wont until they've killed someone. Then with pointless sentencing there's no deterrant.

@@Itsa-sh The 90s..? Lol Arguably humans never really had compassion and empathy, other than for close members of their local community, but that was lost in the 60s not the 90s.

Sadly it works both ways as equally I’ve seen far too many cyclists deliberately put them in danger in claim of the ‘I’ve got priority’ If I was driving the car I’d have slowed down to no more than a creep since it looked like 20mph roads and it looked fairly decent rain so easy chance the child falling off the bike or taking longer to break. If I was cycling I would’ve held back and waited for the car to pass as end of the day, I’d rather be safe than barge through with the ‘I’ve got priority’

Well said sir

How typical to push the onus onto the vulnerable party to modify their behaviour. This, in part, is precisely why drivists see themselves as kings and queens of the roads and anyone else needs to get out the way or get what's coming to them. Getting out the way, having 'rules' to force you to wait to get somewhere on foot (or be killed/injured), ceding priority, wearing stupid day glow colours, having lights like a lighthouse and plastic hats has done f.all to make vulnerable persons safer. Motons take the piss and take more all the time others are told to cede/get out the way. But now you're blaming the victims because someone with huge kinetic energy won't do what the law tells them they MUST do and even when anothers life is at stake. Yeah, you stink like an entitled motorist!

Probably why the driver seemed to have confidence in the kids cycling

That's not really that surprising! Most adult bike riders are arrogant and ignorant,like a lot of car drivers. I speak as an ex driving instructor! Common sense and patience is not common! The child's father is typical! He's an idiot.

@@nearlyretired7005 retire urgently.

I agree

Honestly says a lot about the state of our roads. 5 year old kid is a better road user than 90% of adults.

After reading some comments on here I basically agree that the father should have acted defensively for the sake of the child (pulled over into the opening that was there). I can't help but get the feeling the kid would have pulled alongside the parked van which does have some degree of risk but I cannot say for certain. I agree that the motorists should have also given way too. One being that, from I could recall in the video, the road signs instructing what to do and the fact there was someone more vulnerable than an adult cyclist on the road (I somewhat doubt the driver even saw the kid). The kid definitely had the most common sense. As for the language used by the father? I do agree it was disgusting to swear in front of a kid. That said I have heard many a bad word when I was their age so I can't really comment on it (again I do agree you should not swear in the company of kids).

Of course, in the Netherlands, the roads have evolved to reduce risk by design, it is called "sustainable safety", and is designed to minimise risks - even when mistakes are made. As Raymond will know, this systematic improvement started in the 1970s with the "stop de kindermoord" campaign (stop child killing). I thought of that when I saw the pathetically narrow few yards of bike lane to the left of the pinch point, that the riders rightly ignored. Had they taken that lane they may have been invisible to the oncoming car, and parked cars made that lane worthless, and increases risk. That the lane does not continue beyond the pinch points is lousy design, IMO, and would not be found much in the Netherlands. Such a "provision" for cycling is as pointless as it is dangerous. I think the dad in the circumstances shown should have pre-emptively asked his kid to pull in earlier, before the kid asked. Had he said yes to the kid saying "shall I pull in" that may have been too late to be useful. But maybe another commentary is that just as it is best to use a registered driving instructor to learn to drive, so ones dad (unless he has some lessons first to unlearn bad habits) may not be the best person to supervise cycling by youngsters!

@Joe Lynch disagree. Morons in control of machines don't mix; and that applies to morons in cars as much as morons on bikes. If you can't handle your machine safely in the presence of other kinds of road vehicle, it is YOU that should be off the road.

Your comment is spot on!

In my opinion, he was far too ready to hurl the abuse at the motorist adding evidence that he was far too aware of what might happen.

@@mintywebb don't be daft! They wouldn't leave the house, far too dangerous!

@@mintywebb I see you've made similar comments here. And I see you make a habit of missing the point. Was it possible that the cyclists were going to be completely safe and the car would stop? Yes. Did it happen? No. So was the smart thing to do to pull into the side, like the kid asked? Yes. I could tell by then that the car wasn't going to stop. It hadn't started to slow, as it should have. Remember Ashley's words: "Priority is give, not taken." What the father has taught is to take priority and the driver is in the wrong. It's a bad habit to teach and is a really crappy mindset. Cars need to drive safely around more vulnerable road users. What you seem to think is we should be responsible for 100% of vulnerable road users' safety. That's an awful way to think. And before you think I ask victims of sexual abuse "what they wore" as you said to someone above...No, I have never been one of those people, but you have to attack the issue at both ends. Teach how to be safe around others and teach how to keep others safe. Basically, teach cyclists where to be safe in case drivers aren't doing what they should be.

Excellent point about developing good road habits. Well said.

@@mintywebb well, yes, if you think the risk of being punched in the face is significant. Do you often allow yourself to be punched in the face? Is it much fun?

@@mintywebb well, yes, if you think the risk of being punched in the face is significant. Do you often allow yourself to be punched in the face? Is it much fun?

Why do you think the motorist should give the bike priority ? The bike has much less kinetic energy to lose , and needed to restart , than any motor vehicle . It is just like when I am out in my car and am confronted by a 38 tonne Artic coming the other way ; I will always stop for the Artic ; just as with a car and a bike , there will only ever be one winner if a car and an Artic have a coming together .

The inverse is true. The motorist only has to move their foot one inch to regain momentum, while the cyclist has to do real effort. Your arctic tanker argument is a fallacy: they actually move other stuff than the just the driver.

Shame his dad let him down, he should of agreed with his son when he asked should he pull over.

"The hills are alive! Of the Twitter cyclists screeching!" 🎵

Thank you Ronnie for this quote - never heard it all before, just "Jimmy Jay died defending his rigjt of way" which my Mum used to say to us all when teaching us road sense (walking !!) thanks again 💯✔👍💖

I enjoyed reading your comment.

ALL cyclists please remember that next time you want to jump a red light

Good comment. (Also to others, please let's not make it about red lights and all the usual arguments...)

@@dpace2310 That applies to you as well when you run a red/amber light.

As of this comment I have only had one sour experience with a cyclist in my 10 years of driving since passing my test. All other times there was no beef at all, some even waved me on to pass or even yielded to me! Kindness costs nothing.

Actually, I think it's of greater concern, he's teaching his child to ignore his instincts of danger.

@@mintywebb Having right of way doesn't mean you should take it regardless. You need to assess situations and respond, to ensure your safety and mitigate other's mistakes or bull-headedness. In this example the child assessed a potential problem, the father dismissed it and over-ruled his response to avoid danger. "I had right of way" is not a good epitaph. As for victim's of sexual assault? No, I blame those who commit the crime, and the mentality of 'boys will be boys' excusing their behaviour. Mind you, I'm biased, it's taken a lot of therapy to stop blaming myself. I was raised when "what does she expect dressed like that?" was a societal norm. Oh, and if you're wondering what I was wearing that so provoked a man, it was a school uniform, I was 12.

@@mintywebb OK, let's clarify. Yes, the driver is at fault; he should've given way, I'm not disputing that. I'm concerned the father teaching his son to overrule his sense of self preservation, putting his life at risk.

@@mintywebb The child read the danger, the dad made him carry on into that dangerous situation. He got what he wanted, a flashpoint that he could film as he has done countless times on his social media. the dad can clearly see the motorist isn't going to stop. This is where you have to be smart and the dad isn't. You cannot influence what the other driver does but you can influence the risk of injury to yourself or someone else by the decisions you take. In this instance the driver should have stopped but its clear to a five year old that the car is going to keep on going. |Because of that the father is also wrong to put his child in a dangerous situation just for his own ego. this whole 'i have the right of way' means absolutely nothing in the real world when you have two tonne of vehicle coming in the opposite direction. Easier to forget about massaging your own ego and pull over where safe. Because in events like this where you have two points of self entitlement there is only going to be one winner. And it ain't the kid on the pushbike. Smart people live to fight another day.

@@mintywebb “so you’re prepared to victim blame in one situation but not your own” are you for real? Wtf is that response, using SA as a petty point scoring comment. Sick. Proper dickhead comment that. Petty as hell.

He didnt wobble

@@steve00alt70 He wobbled.

@Nothing The oncoming driver was to blame mate. Highway code is clear on it. Yes priority means nothing if you're 6 feet under but if we're attributing blame to something that happened. It's the driver at fault here. As Surrey Roads Policing unit has commented and as other traffic police have commented. Driver should have given way to the oncoming cyclists.

@@lmaoroflcopter that attitude is exactly the problem.

The dad has issues.

Agreed. That's why the slowing needed to be done earlier also.

Exactly. In this situation, there wasn't really time to do anything different. What I would have done differently, would be to cycle alongside the child, 2 abreast, to try and manage the danger from oncoming vehicles.

@@ashley_neal This is why children should be allowed to ride on the pavement.

@@Robert-cu9bm everyone is allowed to ride on the pavement with care, it’s effectively been decriminalised for years since the NPCC released guidelines.

@@shm5547 Rule 64 You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A sect 129 But it's still illegal, you would effectively be teaching children to break laws. The more small minor laws you break, the easier it becomes to break bigger laws. Then people wonder why young adults have no respect for the law.

"I'm very sorry dear, I'm afraid I was held up on my way home because I killed a child on a bike. You see although he had priority, and was vulnerable, I decided I'm more important and so I wanted to go, and my car is bigger than a child on a bike anyway."

@@jackw7714 "the funny part tho is that the child didnt actually have priority nor enough brains to stop after seeing a car, probably because he was a 5 year old and shouldnt have been on the road in the first place, especially during that weather. only the fittest survive"

Exactly. The dad only had a small amount of time make a decision. He may have made the wrong decision, but not necessarily out of stubbornness or entitlement

Maybe you're right, but the kid was alert to the situation and would have had plenty of time to stop safely and not wobble. Especially considering how well he rode in a straight line whilst turning his head

The fathers an idiot, its obvious he was just being stubborn

@@Daniel-ug3ie Yep, he's a good kid, but I think his Dad knows him better than us.

Absolutely nailed it right there. To stop in that situation would have been arguably more dangerous - the kid was riding a really straight line at the speed he was going

Child probably shouldn't be on the road if he can't safely do the emergency stop

That just demonstrates that the child should not be cycling on a busy road

"Shall I pull over to the side?" At 5 years old? This kid is going places.

True. The child 'learner' was the most competent road user!

no, I don't think so, the kid was just asking about priority at the parked vehicles, which the father correctly told him it was their right of way.

@@shm5547 There's no such thing as 'right of way' in these cases. The principle is 'priority'. And if you've watched Ashley's videos, you'll know how priority should be managed.

@@tarnmonath but when you're teaching kids cycling, they are always asking should I stop, who has priority etc. The first, most basic thing, is to teach them the rules. Only then do you move onto managing risk from rule breakers. The only thing the father could do better here, is to ride 2 abreast with his kid to do that defensive cycling for them. A point Ashley completely missed.

Average UK car driver who thinks the road belongs to them, cycling will never be safe in this country

@@mattdavies55 And the dad is the worst kind of cyclist who believes that they have no responsibility for their own safety.

....now for the headline...."Ex Foot......................

@@ashley_neal 😄 I await it.

@Ashley Neal I see we keep getting the headline wrong now.😄 Good to see this particular Analysis on Cc.👍

@Ashley Neal I see you have been causing a stir with the establishment, Ash.😄

John Casserly ... yes, there are some really bad "drivers" out there ... that's why a five-year-old child should not be riding on a public road!

This mindset change will have a bigger impact on road safety than any infrastructure you can possibly build. A good road user can negotiate through a tricky situation simply and easily.

@@mintywebb What is wrong with you?

When I used to cycle in town, I'd get out into the middle of the lane going through a pinch-point (after doing a rear ob), then pull over to the left as soon as I was clear so following cars could pass safely and quickly. With the cyclists on the country lane, providing the oncoming car is on his side of the road there is no need for him to slow down...the cyclists don't have to ride so irresponsibly close together...if one wobbled or had a tyre pop he could bring all his mates down. The can see the oncoming car and should give it space.

Not uncalled for at all in my opinion. You say he was expecting the car to pull in. Given the fact that his five year old child was in front him and approaching potential danger, perhaps he should have been expecting it not to pull in and to be better safe than sorry.

@@davidrobinson4118 The car driver makes the dad look bad, he (the dad) had seconds to make a judgement and I think he made a reasonable one. The car didn't even need to pull in, it could have made the situation better by just stopping. That's why I think any criticism of the dad is uncalled for here, the car just ploughed on through and made the situation dangerous.

so you have 6 million bicycles sat around doing nothing😉

I also thought that the adult should have been over to the right of his child because he would be much more visible to traffic

@@MrSabretooth19 Have you looked outside some train stations in the Netherlands? I'm English but I remember seeing over a thousand bikes outside of a station in Utrecht, and it would've been impossible to get to "your" bike, as they were 50 deep and all leaning against each other up to a wall So I do believe that you can have more bikes than people in a country

@@MrSabretooth19 Not really. It is fairly common to have a normal (daily) bike and a recreational bike like a mountain bike, race bike or even a cargo bike. It is just the dutch equivalent to an American having daily driver, pickup truck and quad.

The car did not barge through any more than the cyclists did .

A good demonstration of why family are not always as good as properly trained instructors, whether bicycle, motorcycle, car or larger.

Completely agree with this. And it’s very easy to critique after analysing a video

It wouldn't have happened if I was driving or riding either.

@@ashley_neal im a hgv driver of 20 years, no serious crash, 2 minor bumps, i have learned, its not what i should do and its not whats law, its what the other idiot does. seeing what iv seen, i would not take 5 year old on road

Spot on, Graham! 👍

@@Jonc25 Respect, bud 👍

There has NOT been a change in law ; only an ill conceived change in advice . In this situation both parties have right of way , and also equal priority .

@@derekheeps1244 As the video points out, right of way is given, not taken and that nobody has "right of way". The law favours the most vulnerable party in the situation, which is inarguably the 5 year old child and not your ego. You do not own the road, and you have the responsibility to conduct yourself with all due care and attention while you are driving on it. Since when did it become ok to forget your manners as soon as you sit down behind a steering wheel?

the kid literally asked if he should pull to the side, dad was at the fault here (plus the car driver)

This is basically saying car drivers are car drivers, sharks are sharks. You can't do anything about them, just hide behind them and use them as an excuse. And this is a city residential street with low speed limits and complex activity, not a road where the purpose is to get people fast and efficient from A to B. I can see your point, though. So the first step should be to clean up the parked cars along this street and then put in a protected bidirectional bicycle lane . Another measuer would be to not have any through traffic, here. This looks very much like a destination street, meaning you slow down your car and is more of a guest. I am sure this dad wouldn't let his 5 year old son bicycle in traffic with dense and fast traffic.

​@@th5841 I find the whole idea ridiculous. There was a 7-year-old killed on a quadbike on a rural road near me back in 2007. More irresponsible parenting I'm so very sorry to say! "A girl of seven was killed after colliding with a car travelling in the opposite direction as she rode her Christmas present quad bike on an unlit country road on Boxing Day evening. Elizabeth Cooke and her 10-year-old brother, Jack, were each on quad bikes, following their father's car along a winding lane in Essex, when Elizabeth's bike collided with an oncoming Range Rover. Her brother was not hurt. A family friend said: "We were in the car with the children's dad and they [the children] were following us. We'd only gone 200 yards when it happened. I was watching them, keeping an eye on them. They both had lights on their bikes. "A car came past and I said to Gary [the father]: 'One of the lights has gone, one of them has come off the bike'." The accident happened in Fingrith Hall Lane, Blackmore, near Ongar, at 7pm. A spokesman for Essex police said: "A red Range Rover and a Shark quad bike struck each other. The rider, a seven-year-old girl who lived locally, was conveyed to Chelmsford's Broomfield hospital by ambulance but sadly died soon after arrival." *Nothing will convince me that I'm wrong and anyone condoning this sheer stupidity needs looking at!* _"Cycling as a family is great fun and fantastic exercise. But when you cycle with children, it's vital to stay as safe as possible. Brake recommends that children under 10 should only cycle on safe cycle paths, away from motorised traffic."_ "A five-year-old boy has died after being hit by a bin lorry while out riding his bicycle. The young child was pronounced dead following the collision in Walsall at about 10am on Sunday. The scene of the crash in West Bromwich Road was cordoned off by police as they carried out an investigation. Photos show officers examining a child's Spider-Man bicycle." (July this year)

@@th5841 Any views on the two dead children I have pointed out? Had they not been riding on the road, they would not be dead! *These two dead children were not riding in "dense and fast traffic"!*

@@thepianoman1010Those two cases are tragic. But how and why should I comment on them? I don't know anything about them. And are they relevant to this case? If the traffic wasn't dense or fast, what did the drivers of the Range Rover and the lorry contribute with to avoid the accidents? Nobody seems to question them or car drivers in general. Sure, it may very well be a matter of poor decisions by the parents. Something most of us wouldn't have done. But people make poor decisions. We all do. But as a car driver, in the case shown in this video, should you think "That was a stupid parent. I will just plow through to show my point". Or would you stop or slow down to reduce the danger while shouting your anger. Or would you slow down or stop and think that "the street isn't jsut for me? This is a residential area where you should expect and accept this kinds of activities". It might be that you and I live in two different cultures. Here drivers go very slowly in my neighbourhood. Small kids are out on their bicycles together with their parens, and there is no fuzz about it. In your place that may not be the case. Car drivers think they own the streets and they are like sharks. And we can't change sharks, just avoid them. I live in Oslo, Norway. In 2019 there were zero pedestrian fatalities in this city (700,000 citizens). So it isn't like we are completely wrong about these things.

​@@th5841 You don't have to comment on what I wrote at all but I'd expect you to note that the tragic cases I mentioned resulted from a situation where children were riding on a public road! Pretty obvious, surely. I'd also expect you to realise that there are many different kinds of car & truck drivers along with motorcyclists who use our roads and not all are the kind to stop or slow down to reduce any existing danger and ask themselves the question, "is the street just for me?" .. Indeed, some may be travelling too fast to do so and some may be under the influence of alcohol or drugs! You assume far too much. You then assume that all drivers in your area are safe and responsible drivers! That is an unbelievable thing to say ... vehicles allow all kinds of drivers to travel all over the country, including to your area! And believe me, your area has poor drivers in it as well as drunk and drugged drivers. If you can't see any of the above, move on ... we are both wasting our time. As for bragging about Norway's low road fatalities, go onto the World Health Rankings site for 2020 and you'll see that Norway had a death rate from road traffic accidents, of 1.76 per 100,000 of population and the figure for the UK is 2.81. When we consider the population of the two countries it is clear that UK roads are far safer than those in Norway, especially when we consider the large number of cities in the UK and the consequent densely packed roads. Norway is also 33% bigger than the UK. *"15 November 2022 at **17:03** Pedestrian dead after collision at Haugenstua in Oslo A person has died after being hit by a car at Haugenstua in Oslo. The driver ran away from the scene."* (Teknomers 15 Nov 2022) The population of Norway is 5 million and that for the UK is 67 million ... 13 times as many people. You say zero pedestrian fatalities in Oslo for 2019 but there were 109 fatalities in the country as a whole and despite more than halving the number of road accidents, by 2019 there were still 4,358 people, who had been non-fatally injured on Norwegian roads. You aren't very good at logic are you? Read this .. "Police alarmed over accelerating road fatalities. July 18, 2022 "Norwegians have hit the road again this summer but danger lurks even on the safest new highways. Traffic fatalities have risen sharply so far this year, with police and other transport experts worried that drivers simply aren’t keeping their eyes on the road." "New statistics show nearly a 60 percent increase in traffic deaths through the first half of 2022. Of the 63 people killed on Norwegian roads, 50 were men and more than half the fatal accidents involved private cars. Another 14 were killed in motorcycle accidents and three of the fatalities were pedestrians hit by passing vehicles. The number of traffic fatalities had risen to 70 by this week, after more serious accidents from Tromsø in the north to Sarpsborg in the south. The national traffic safety organization Trygg Trafikk notes that more than 70 percent of the fatal accidents involve single cars or head-on collisions. Police confirm that use of mobile phones while driving, along with use of touch screens in new, especially electric, cars are often involved as well. Motorists can be distracted by them, take their eyes off the road and quickly lose control of their cars." (News in English dot No July, 2022)

fair enough but do that when you don't have a child with you

What has nationally got to do with it? I am English!!

@@nearlyretired7005 different mentalities and mind sets perhaps, however your comment doesn't invalidate their point.

@@nearlyretired7005 Do you want a medal?

@@nearlyretired7005 Was about to write an essay on cycling culture. Point is, situation in the video are all too common over here. Children get taught to cycle very early and it's not uncommon to find 5 year olds cycle about independently. Motorists are human too, they make mistakes all the time, so do cyclists and pedestrians. It is essential that we recognize the mistake and help solve the problem. Cyclists are smaller, more agile and can stop much easier. They can easily adjust to accommodate a safe solution.

@@nearlyretired7005 Quite a lot when the nationality is Dutch. One only has to read the comments to one or two videos analysing cycling and you'll quickly discover that a _certain_ kind of British cyclist thinks the Nederland is a cycling nirvana and if only we did what the Dutch do the world would be perfect. Thus mentioning he's a Dutchman is Stefan's way of saying, for the benefit of _that_ kind of cyclist, "My opinion as a cyclist caries extra weight because I come from the land where cyclist's farts smell of roses". 🤣

And the car driver should not? Let's not focus on him/her. Or us as car drivers.

@@th5841 the road is filled with endless bad drivers. That parent has a responsibility for their 5 year old child. Putting them knowingly in danger is irresponsible. Grow up.

Not sure about the dad though!

@@davidrobinson4118 😄🤸😄🤸😄🤸😄

The problem is that car driver are also very possessive of the streets and roads. "Bicycles don't belong here!" Car drivers must learn that streets and roads are not made for them to get as fast as possible from A to B. They must adjust to road users like bicyclists when they are in residential streets like this. And I knew that most comments in here would be on what the bicyclists were doing wrong instead of what the car driver was doing wrong, even when the car dirver is posessing a murder weapon, his car.

If cyclists just used the pavement too many drivers would see this as a green light to continue driving poorly. We need to educate drivers which is difficult because most drivers don't believe they can be better. Many cyclists feel that way too.

@@zbf5h89ftb Oh that's true, but it doesn't negate the video's online where a lot of people still seem to be absolutely oblivious of other road users. It's a problem that's getting worse at an alarming rate, and steps need to be taken to counter it.

If everybody focused on the fact that the driver is at most to blame here, maybe it would change people's attitude that when driving a car you need to be responsible for vulnerable road users around you. If the driver had given way, as they were supposed to, there would have been no issue as to taking priority. Criticise the parent if you want to but you should also acknowledge the real fault is with the driver.

Bang on the money! (And Ashley's comment at the end about the father just rings so true.)

​@@philipallen4230 Focusing on the poor driving alone will achieve absolutely nothing. What difference do you think sitting here and tut-tuting will achieve - the poor drivers aren't listening. We have got to stop this "who's to blame" thinking and start thinking about everybody working to make it safer. If they had pulled over as the kid wanted to this would have been a non event _despite the bad driving of the oncoming driver_ . One can rail against bad drivers as much as one likes, being as smug or judgemental as one likes and it won't make them better drivers and it won't reduce the accident rates. I lock my doors because burglars are a thing, I yield when I shouldn't technically have to when I'm driving because bad and inconsiderate drivers are a thing. It's been proved time and time over that telling people of the consequences of bad behaviour has little or no effect, but selling the benefits of good behaviour works. Doctors are now taught to 'sell' the benefits of giving up smoking, not tell patients off for it. "Did you know that if you give up smoking then in five years you'll have the same risk of cardiovascular disease as a life long non-smoker" is a much more effective message than "smoking increases your risk of cardiovascular disease by between two and four times".

@@ianmason. my issue is not who’s to blame. My issue is with the fact that nearly every response to this video is focusing on the parent. Even your response is focused on changing the behaviour of the cyclist. I agree that you shouldn’t put yourself or child in danger and pulling over was probably the best action of the parent. But only focusing on the parents actions will also do absolutely nothing to change driver behaviour. I don’t care what the most effective way to change behaviour is, as long as it changes the behaviour of the people who present the greater risk.

@@philipallen4230 I say "start thinking about everybody working to make it safer" and you make that into "focused on changing the behaviour of the cyclist". "everybody" means "everybody". People are mentioning the parent's poor judgement because _he made it worse not better_, the driver's shitty driving is taken as read.