Ash's Driving Fail November | An Eventful Lesson 

Absolutely. It’s incredible how many drivers do this in the outer lane of a motorway at next to 80mph. The reason, of course, is that they are far, far too close to the vehicle in front. Often barely a vehicle’s length behind. I personally aim to be sufficiently far behind another vehicle on the motorway that I can respond to changes in their speed by simply stepping off the accelerator, not by braking. That is unless more aggressive action is needed due to very sudden slowing of traffic.

I make it a game on motorways to try and not have to brake when I'm on them

@@Wehttamman me too haha. Its also a good way to practice your rev-matching / downshifts

it also makes your brake shoes last longer.

@@Wehttamman It is indeed weirdly satisfying to be on a motorway for a couple of hours without ever braking.

I've often seen it when people are on their phone, the lack of attention & random braking is a warning to steer clear from them.

Described as comfort braking. I like to sit a reasonable distance behind these cars, usually going slower than they could do, and saying “ brake” when they approach some imperceptible bend on the road. And sure enough, they do. And if they don’t they get a sarcastic “ ooooh , well done “. Livens a dull journey up

I thought it might be an EV with regenerative braking enabled, which puts brake lights on when lifting the accelerator. But then I saw the exhaust.

@@highdownmartin I could be calling people around me idiots for not having their lights on or doing other stupid stuff, but at the same time i'm very composed with my driving. I won't let the idiots get to me. Occasionally though i'll be taking off with some more temperament when a situation delayed my journey more than i'm used to. All within the bounds of safety ofcourse. I'm still a novice driver and the biggest deal is always stupid stuff others do in traffic, especially the unexpected stupid stuff.

That's why I like it when newer cars have lights that light up more when they're braking harder. Our Volvo puts on hazard lights by itself when you brake hard. I think it's smart of the car companies.

It doesn't work, hitting someone with a much harsher penalty or banning people from driving and looking at it as anti social on the level of drink or drugged driving is how it should be. Awareness courses are a weak option that delivers no benefit to society/safety IMHO

@@ynotnilknarf39 penalty punishments are a proven failure. 3pts, 6pts, cash fines, none of it's working. Education is more effective at changing behaviour

@@RichO1701e Not from what I've seen, the punishments are not harsh enough, that is the problem.

@@RichO1701e I agree, did a speed awareness coarse a few years ago and found it very useful/educational, I definitely benefitted from it.

@@ynotnilknarf39 I chose a driver awareness course when I got caught speeding. It still hurt me financially, costing about the same as a fine but I did learn from it. They're fully aware that some will attend with the intention of not learning anything but they'll get caught again for that very reason, hopefully before they wreak too much damage. However, courses are only available for lower levels of speeding, more serious offenders don't have that option and may even face an 'automatic' ban if it's serious enough. Mobile use should, in my opinion, be treated like drink-driving; there are very few people these days who think drink-driving is acceptable, and that should be the goal with mobile use, to make it socially unacceptable. I'd put good money on those who think drink-driving is OK also thinking using a mobile is OK - such people are beyond educating and we simply need to get them off the roads. Society was educated about this with public campaigns rather than courses. More resources need to be provided in this respect. We can all play a part by calling it out and refusing to travel with a driver who uses a mobile, just as we would with a drink-driver.

Wow, thank you!

Thankfully but not surprisingly Callum passed a few days later 👍🏼

@@ashley_neal He deserved it, great driving.

@@ashley_neal He stood out as a good driver in those clips.

I was going to say the same! Congratulations Callum, wishing you many years happy and safe motoring.

With many hands free kits been available there is no need. Put the phone in a cradle with hands free, if you want to make a call pull over, if you have a car with voice controlled phone system then there is no reason to touch a phone whilst you are driving at all. There is always the factor of distraction but you are never going to rule out all forms of distraction if the driver is been distracted by been on the phone the driver jus needs to say to the person on the other end of the phone that they are driving and they need to ring them back.

I like to think that they were just left foot braking, so they were just pressing away

just on their way to tap dancing classes and want to be warmed up by the time they're there

Great job!

Well done.

Most modern cars also come with built-in bluetooth and microphones, as well as buttons to answer the phone on the steering wheel, so you don't even need any third party devices. Just connect your phone with bluetooth once and it will automatically connect anytime you have your phone with you. I just put my phone away where I can't even see it and it works perfectly.

I use my phone while driving as a sat Nav and use Google assistant voice control to make calls of I really really need to never actually touch the phone and only look at it to see where I'm going

Yeah I don't get it, it seems more the technologically illiterate have this problem. It's not hard to plug your phone in to an infotainment system and use Carplay or android auto and forget about it, you can use voice control to talk to text and use satnav. Of course a lot of cars on our roads still date before a lot of Bluetooth or any smart features are even standard so there's still that problem.

It’s peoples attitude that’s the problem, I see plenty of young people who have grew up with the technology and have modern cars still on their phones simply because they’re not bothered

Yeah - I use my builtin bluetooth with my phone and don't need to touch it. I won't answer calls unless I'm expecting them either when in the car. I do wonder, though, what 'excuses' people use if/when they are caught by Police when using them while driving?

Although driving bans are pretty useless because if you disobey them nothing much happens. I think the starting point for driving when disqualified should be a prison sentence, and it should be treated as contempt of court (i.e. tried by a judge)

You made me laugh just reading and imagining that...and I wasn't even there!

I have a neighbour who does it too. He doesn't seem to grasp that the accelerator has more than two positions.

@@cargy930 lol

And in car parks!

I even see people in new cars using their phones while driving... even BMW, Merc, Audi etc which we all know have bluetooth from factory... just lazy isnt it!

You can guarantee that a 20 reg merc van has Bluetooth as standard. In my eyes, those are the most dangerous drivers, the technology is there, they just don't care.

@@shawty1984 accidental rhyme

I don't even use the hands free now, I realised it also took my attention from the task in hand. Calls are rarely that urgent that they can't wait.

@@grahambonner508 Good man!

Yeah I've definitely noticed myself getting dazzled more, but I also have astigmatism which makes it worse.

The whole DRLs and needing brighter lights for 'safety' is complete bullshit, it's a total misunderstanding of safety and risk compensation. Brighter lights for night time driving produce the most ridiculous dazzle these days, worse in the rain, on 30mph roads you only need sidelights, it even says so in the HC! Certainly on lit roads there's no need for sunflares and this type of light has become too prevelent for people on bikes also. I ride a lot (many times more miles than I drive these days), I use very specific lights with a tight focused beam for seeing a little ways ahead on unlit roads (which I ride on often), however even when it might be a higher speed scenario like a downhill section I won't go for more lighting because it simply eggs you on to go faster thinking you can see further, but your brain cannot process the information fast enough, same with motorists, that means reduced thinking and braking time for situations beyond the distance you can see to be clear is why as many people crash at night time as ever, the additional dazzle makes it even worse. I only passed in '92 drove an Austin Allegro from the 1970s as my first car and never found it insufficient headlights wise., now they're like off road nightime Rally lights!

I get this as well. On a few narrow ish roads the other night, I just eased up a bit when faced with oncoming traffic, whereas in the day I don't need to

It is awful around town. Dazzled from cars coming towards you, dazzled by cars parked on your side of the road with their headlights on for no good reason. Light reflecting off the road and shop windows, I need some sunglasses.

Led and hid lights dazzle viciously on anything other than a dead straight ,dead level , dead smooth road. Original equipment lights are just as bad as aftermarket ones in my opinion.

If it's surprising to you after 30 years of driving, why is it no surprise at all for me after only driving about 2 years now?

cyclingmikey is a bellend, and doesn't have to worry about his business being hurt bcos he's an anonymous cyclist. Ash has a driving school business with his name on it, so, a), he doesn't have time to report every incident, and b), his business might suffer reprisals if he were known to report people to the fuzz. Just not worth it. That being said, if anything was caught on camera that involved a collision or RTC, I'm sure he'd pass on any relevant footage

@@RichO1701e You're the bell end.

i don't know about this specifically, but in a deluded viewer video ashley explained he didnt want to report people, but instead educate them, but of course thats a completely different scenario

@@RichO1701e I wouldn't call CyclingMikey a bellend, he's certainly single-minded and committed, and I wouldn't get myself into the lather he does, but I do agree that Ash would be vulnerable to reprisals should he report everything he sees, as well as having time constraints. We can all play a part though by submitting video clips of the dangerous driving we see to the police where they have that facility.

i can't understand the concept. If i brake i feel i need to to keep it safe and/or not bouncing around in my car as if it's a F1 race car on a track. For anything else i'd just let go of the gas pedal enough to slow down a bit. Braking is only done when i need to slow down a significant amount in a short time. If i want, i can get home from work without touching the brake pedal once. Wouldn't be wanting to drive behind me though as i'd slow down way too early for comfort for most people.

It's probably a car with one pedal driving - lift off the gas, regeneration comes on as do the brakes. The car isn't designed for those people who stamp on the accelerator, then cruise for a few seconds.

Yeah I’ve always said similar. The police should have padded envelopes ready to go; pop the phone in directly and it’s shipped to a depot about 4hrs away. Will be available for collection in a week. Recycled in a month. No direct fine, just enough hassle for it to be a true deterrent. ..Maybe they should put the car keys in that envelope too!!

I’d be tempted to make employers vicariously liable for traffic penalties, possibly with the potential for an unlimited fine in the most serious cases. Often this sort of incident involves white vans dashing about recklessly. Employers, or self employed people, need to be told, quite clearly, that the consequences of breaking the rules are far more serious than the cost of a few minutes extra on a journey, or the cost of investing in safe technology for staff out and about at work. We can’t impose a safety culture on these companies from above, but we can give them a lot of incentives not to behave badly.

You can't do that and there is no need to. Reality is that law would never be passd so thankfully we don't have to worry about such a ridiculously poorly thought out plan being implemented.

@@richiewagstaff2156 What, you must be having a laugh surely? The police do not and should not have the right to confiscate phones, let alone keys. Keeping people mobile phones and car keys is a joke of an idea. Reality is, using a phone while driving isn't a big deal and we have bigger issues on our roads like cyclists and slow drivers.

@@tgk300xx4 There is a large body of evidence that mobile phone use is a significant source of distraction and that this results in car accidents and, ultimately, fatalities. Drivers using a mobile phone are four times more likely to be involved in a crash than those not using a phone (due to cognitive distraction). A person may believe this does not affect their driving, but the evidence is pretty clear.

Great job!

True on the £600 fine and 3 points, as there's a lot of drivers that have even up to 50 points yet are still allowed to drive it's insane.

Please don't advertise cycling mikey, hes a cycle nazi, that man has issues. All the people he catch are stuck in traffic.

@@paulstevens9409 he has issues... With motorists breaking the law and driving dangerously. Being stuck in traffic is no excuse to drive dangerously and put others lives at risk.

@@paulstevens9409 He's not targeting people stuck in traffic he's targeting those breaking the law making it dangerous for everyone else, and only those that break the law using phones and driving dangerous are complaining about him. Gov cutbacks to the police force are why more and more idiots are driving on their phones because no one is catching them.

I do not really understand singling out phone use... whilst yes, the issue is easy to fix via a handsfree devices, I do not feel it is even in the top-5 most dangerous things people do whilst driving. tailgating, skipping red lights, overtaking on a roundabout (like that guy in the van was also doing) overtaking a standing bus, overtaking using head-on traffic lane on a winding road, all these things are waaay more dangerous.. I mean, yes, a mobile reduces concentration levels (and I do not mean it's a good thing), but, it does not automatically damage the traffic flow as much as any of multiple other types of aggressive driving styles does. albeit, often enough, thesame people who use a phone when driving, drive with aggression towards other road users.

@@stanislavkostarnov2157 The topic was on phone users. So I focused on that. I would be equally harsh to many if not all you mention. I just kept my comment succinct.

@@bmused55 I am more about the Ashe's choice of what to single out and what not to so much...

The real reason for getting a dashcam should be to protect yourself from a lying scumbag and their lying scumbag 'witnesses' in the event of an accident that was not your fault, or to offer that service to someone else suffering the same circumstance.

Interesting. In my career as a bus driving instructor, covering the brakes was an important part of the training. The right foot should be where it is most likely to be needed, which in so many situations is being prepared to slow down or stop. A foot in the correct place makes for much smoother, more controlled braking and also leads to improving awareness and anticipation. Also, the expression was, "gears for going, brakes for stopping". Using the gearbox to help maintain a lower speed is good, in a large vehicle it can be very important, but using the gearbox to slow down is not. Modern vehicles have no need to use the engine and gearbox to slow down. Driving as I describe and block changes were included in the test in the late 80's, early 90's. I remember training a know it all ex-van driver who demanded a test report after he failed. His test was in a crashbox, (no synchromesh) double deck bus approaching a downhill T junction where he had to give way. The examiners report stated, " The driver attempted to engage a lower gear to slow the vehicle. After gaining speed alarmingly he eventually, by brute force, managed to engage 2nd gear with a horrendous crashing and grinding". Typical of that drivers gung ho attitude and highlighting the dangers of inappropriately using the gearbox to try to slow down.

@@stevesales4263 _"covering the brakes was an important part of the training"_ I'm not talking about covering the brakes. I'm talking about pressing the brake pedal without slowing down. The course I was on was with two instructors in two cars, and the instructor behind would notify the one in front if the brake lights were lighting up but the vehicle was not slowing down. _"Using the gearbox to help maintain a lower speed is good, in a large vehicle it can be very important, but using the gearbox to slow down is not. Modern vehicles have no need to use the engine and gearbox to slow down."_ I am not going to comment on large vehicles as I have never driven anything larger than a Range Rover. But while you don't *need* to engine brake, it helps a lot. Going down hills, for example. It also depends on what you mean by "engine braking". I use it to mean any time when the engine is used to decelerate the car. Highway Code rule 122 even discourages coasting, meaning that engine braking should be used at all times when slowing down. And I consider that using higher gears to slow down is an important skill, especially in the wet or on ice, but one must know the car they're driving. Manual transmission vehicles will always perform better in this regard than automatic transmissions. I do agree that the instructors do use the expression "gears for going, brakes for stopping", but as far as I can tell (other than in particular cases where you must not engine brake, as in the case you described) it seems to me that this expression is used in order to simplify things for students, so they don't get confused with advanced clutch work. I feel that this is doing a disservice to students by not teaching them a technique that could save their lives one day.

@@CristiNeagu There is actually less control using the engine to slow down and if needed, shows the wrong gear was engaged in the 1st place. Also, driving in snow a higher gear gives greater control. Observe, what is happening around you. Anticipate, what hazards are developing and what hazards are present. Act. Adjust speed and position as necessary Before the hazard which means that on entering a hazard, be it a hill, bend, pedestrian or whatever, the speed, position and mechanical stability are all in place.

@@stevesales4263 _"There is actually less control using the engine to slow down"_ I have never experienced this. Can you elaborate? As far as I can tell, using the engine to slow down allows for better brake modulation and less brake pressure, reducing the changes of wheels locking up. _"if needed, shows the wrong gear was engaged in the 1st place"_ I disagree with this. I may be in 6th approaching a long descent, but then I'll shift to 4th to maintain speed down the hill. It doesn't mean I should have been in 4th while approaching the hill. _"Also, driving in snow a higher gear gives greater control"_ Not when slowing down, it doesn't, as the engine will reach idle and it will start fighting against the brakes.

@@CristiNeagu On normal vehicles the brakes act on 4 wheels not 2 and they are more responsive to light/heavier pressure. Engine braking is on or off and unless 4 wheel drive, acts on only 2 wheels. You should be at the appropriate speed and most suitable gear before reaching the hazard. The most dangerous action to take on a slippery surface is an unnecessary badly anticipated gear change. If you needed 4th gear on a dodgy surface, it should have been engaged before the hazard. The same applies if the engine is pushing against the brakes, wrong gear. It all boils down to awareness and anticipation. As a brief background, I was one of the 1st PSV instructors to gain the national qualification, the 1st to score 100% in the theory aspects, excellent in tuition and driving skills. All road aspects taken in a crashbox manual double decker with vacuum brakes and no power steering. I also passed my IAM qualification in the same vehicle and have attended many practical and theoretical courses over the last 45 years. The only real differences between driving a bus and car are size and the importance of smooth driving which relies on observation, awareness and anticipation.

AND if the van has the momentum do the overtake quickly

I know of a truck that has an automatic transmission retarder that will actively fight with the cruise throttle. if they are both on, it will be constantly activating the throttle and retarder to micromanage the speed.

He was a 3rd Dan Blackbelt BMW driver by the sound of it.

@@PedroConejo1939 haha, a Sensei BMW driver! Those sort of movements in the dojo would have got him an ippon, or full point. But the police probably gave him six points so even better.

I'd go as far as asking Ash why he did not let the car out? There my have been nothing behind him or something approaching at speed or even an Artic behind him but without knowing, it smacks a bit of me first.

I've never understood why the term 'You should have thought of that at the time' isn't enshrined in law.

Did we encounter the same tosser? Were they also braking 3 car lenghts away from every give way line and swerving to avoid cars waiting in the side roads too?

@@creepbg Unlikely, but my head canon wants to believe it was the same person lol

Biggest problem to that is Lawyers & Judges. They are not supposed to force someone to loose employment unless they have committed a serious crime. Just using a mobile phone isn't severe enough in itself, it's the consequences of having a crash that are severe enough. Recently an owner of a building company got off a driving ban, claiming he was car sick unless driving and IF banned he would close the business, with many people loosing their jobs. The Judge then has to give him points ( now over the 12 to be banned ) and a fine. Maybe the Judge should have called his bluff.