I'm Getting Sued?

In this video I explain my decisions on why I thought the van driver swerved purposefully at the cyclist. I also explain why I'm happy to defend any proceedings that are made against me.
‪@BlackBeltBarrister‬ Video - • 2 Barristers Analyse L...
Dash Camera Affiliate Links.
Car - Viofo - viofouk.co.uk/...
Motorcycle - Innov - innovv.co.uk/a...
Motorcycle, Bicycle and Equestrian - Techalogic - techalogic.co....
Social Media
www.ashleyneal...
/ ashleynealdrivinginstr...
[e-mail]
Amazon Links
Sony a6400 Camera - amzn.to/2xVCrn0
Sony A7C Camera - amzn.to/3JUvUIa
Tascam DR-10L Microphone - amzn.to/3M8P0fd
Sony FDR X3000 Action Camera - amzn.to/2YVoPDh
#driving #tesla #education

[@Zaranathax]

The company has just shot themselves in the foot with the lawyer's letter bullying trick. Where we might have just seen that as bad driving from an employee, we now have a better idea of what the company itself is like.

[@JAKENMK]

Hardly. There are no facts here other than the fact that Ashley has defamed the company based off his own personal interpretations of why the van swerved. How is a court going to determine why the van swerved? It’s easy to determine defamation after multiple videos have been posted on the subject on the worlds largest video sharing platform. The subsequent obstinance with regards to the polite request to remove them shows the intent to cause damage to the company in question.

[@nickhubbard78]

@@JAKENMK A polite request backed by a solicitor's letter is not a polite request.

[@phildane7411]

@@JAKENMK What a load of old nonsense.

[@monishbiswas1966]

@@JAKENMK I think the point is that the court does not need to determine whether the swerve was deliberate or not, just whether Ashleys commentary was defamation or not. I suspect (I am not a lawer) Ashleys opinion would not be sufficient if the driver was being accused of assult in court, as the driver could claim he swerved for another reason, (possibly opening them up for an charge of careless driving), but not proving intent.for assult.

[@kentmccroskey3712]

@@JAKENMK Sounds like you work for the company and are trying to shift blame. the best thing to do if you own the company/manage the driver in question would be a public apology, or explanation of how you dealt with the driver. instead, they choose to back the driver's bad driving, which is a fact that cannot be disputed, it was caught on video, and can that be denied in any way? it would be great if another cammer caught what went on before. I've had situations where drivers have overtaken me, stopped at traffic lights, I've filtered through in the cycle lane and got ahead again, and the previous drivers appear angry that I'm in front again. I see this on almost every ride I have on my bike.

[@alexlewis9189]

The Company: "cease and desist, take the video down!" Ashley: "so here it is again, the clip in full" Love it, 😂 just because it embarrasses them doesn't make it illegal, quite the opposite.

[@trueriver1950]

Actually... It's much more betterer than that. The Company: cease and desist, take the video down, and give us an undertaking not to pass it on for publication elsewhere BlackBeltBarrister: before I analyse it, here's the clip in full... Ashley: before I go into more detail here it is again... I love the tandem disobedience :)

[@kiradotee]

@@trueriver1950 haha so true 😂 They shot themselves in the foot. 😂

[@bloodymarvelous4790]

@@trueriver1950 Showing the clip isn't defamation. Defamation is making comments about the clip that put the company in bad light, which are not substantiated by the clip. I might be wrong, but in the still where the swerve is initiated, it appears the cyclist is looking at the passing blue van. That could indicate there was a history between these two road users.

[@trueriver1950]

@@bloodymarvelous4790 I think you have missed the point the company is making. The company and its lawyers are definitely coming from the position that Ashley's spoken words and choice of title are defamatory. That is made clear in the way Black Belt Barrister describes the letter Ashley received. That is the only way that the crease and desist makes any sense. And by passing the video on to BBB Ashley is quite explicitly saying there is no validity in the claim. If the video itself were held to be defamatory by a court then showing it would be a further defamatory act: of republishing the defamation. Whether further comments made by you tubers are defamatory is a separate matter: as statements of opinion I don't think they are; but even if they were that is not the subject of the cease and desist letter. In my view none of the original video not the republishing are defamatory: it's all opinion that is reasonable to drive from the video, even if other interpretations exist. I have a degree in English law but am not a legal practitioner, so I might be wrong too :) Hope that clarifies things for you

[@RoamingAdhocrat]

I wonder if the van company have ever heard of the Streisand Effect

[@tiggydorset9041]

The company would have had a big thumbs up if they released a statement that they are dealing with the poor driver in question. Instead they do themselves no favours by sticking up for him and escalating this situation. The company is now causing self-defamation.....in my opinion of course :)

[@peterwright9546]

Like to bet it is an owner driver so he can't sack himself .

[@stephenw2992]

@@peterwright9546 Dominic is his name by the look of it. We can be sure he was the one driving.

[@L5GUK]

Either a partner/close friend or even himself driving the van, that's why. Even if it wasn't intentional 'a drink was spilt' or 'the driver instinctually swerved when he saw how close the other van was' or something to that effect can still be apologiesed for. 'Hey we know it looks like and I don't blame anyone for coming to that conclusion. It was me driving/I have spoken to the driver and they explained that they weren't paying enough attention, instead talking with their passenger and the position of the oncoming van suprised them. They appreciate how this may have looked, and is sorry to the cyclist for causing any distress and will strive to do better moving forward'. There. Surely that is easier than spending money on the legal threats and proceedings etc etc...

[@yutman4532]

@@peterwright9546 Most companies would have acted against the driver. Self important company owner was driving in my opinion.

[@manu-tonyo9654]

I agree Tiggy, bit of a self destructive thing to do when an apology and a promise of education for the driver on behalf of the company via Ashley would have brought good kudos(even if it does turn out to be an owner/driver)

[@davidjones332]

I'd put money on the driver being the business owner whose ego has just taken a bruising. No intelligent person would go running to give money to a solicitor when all that's needed is an apology and a sharp interview with the driver.

[@alexmorgan3435]

Yep 100% my thoughts as well. A low IQ knuckle dragger.

[@bombaymolotov]

@@col8353 company management give the driver a talking to. Not an interview on this channel

[@El_Gormo]

@@col8353 calm down, It doesn’t take a linguist to figure out he might have meant short not sharp.

[@whyIsItSoLoud]

City Warmth?

[@roadmonitoroz]

You never know how the business will react. You could be right about it being the owner. I remember pointing out an illegal act of a driver driving a company vehicle. The reaction was 6 - 10 new google accounts opened insulting/abusing me on that video and going through and abusing me on others as well plus 6 instant dislikes every time a new video came out (for months).They also complained to youtube saying it identifies their company so the video got taken down so I put up the video again hiding the company branding on the side of the vehicle :D I personally didn't care about the insults / abuse. I just blocked their accounts. It is like that woman who was texting in a mall and fell into a water fountain. The video was so blocky that nobody could really identify her. She complained and ended up being interviewed by a news show (in high def) so now everyone has seen both the blocky video and her face clear as day.

[@eddiegremlin]

To be honest, I’ve seen this video three times now and I’ve never noticed the logo or sign on the van. This is self defeating by the company drawing attention to themselves, rather than dealing with the problem, they themselves are singling themselves out…

[@robg521]

Excellent comment, I too have watched the vid several times and I never I noticed the name or logo on the van. So now the story is changing from the driver of the van to the company who own the van.

[@roderickmain9697]

Now that you said that, I had to go and look at it again just to find the logo. Blink and you'll miss it.

[@Pystro]

I deliberately avoided stopping the video to read the company name, even when commenters under that video pointed to the fact that that name is on the video. It was simply not relevant because the entity discussed was the van driver, not the company. However, now it IS about the company so I now on my refresher round through the "watch their video if you haven't already" chain, I did read the company name.

[@jcskyknight2222]

@@Pystro Basically the same. Until this video I hadn't bothered pausing to have a look 🤣

[@tobyjackman3212]

That's exactly what I thought

[@tkx86]

I am a truck driver and been on the road most my life.. The van DEFINITELY swerved at the cyclist and deserves to lose his job and licence. On top of that the company has indeed shot themselves in the foot. They could of turned this story around and stated they have fired the driver in question and offer an apology and explanation on how serious they are about road safety and have policies in place which their employee violated. Instead they try the old strongly worded letter trick with some fancy letterhead with solicitors mentioned in it.

[@ashwayn]

When TT racing on A1 I found truck drivers ok I think they knew our brains were in Origen debt I bet they said o bugger here we go again 200 TT loons eyes glazed in utter pain why the F do they do it every Sunday from 6 am they should be in bed shagging lol he he he

[@carlos02966]

I too am a truck driver and have spent many years on the road and have seen lots of things on the road over the years I 100% agree with this analysis.

[@giggity4670]

To be honest if they just did nothing and carried on it would have been forgot in the millions of vids that pop up on youtube but them trying to force the vid down is just shining a beacon on the matter and the company so more people see the company and the bad driving and will lose more customers doing the takedown notice the old barbra streisand effect.

[@garywoolford3930]

My take on this as a retired professional Hgv driver and instructor of 40 years experience on the road is , if the van driver had been on a driving test he would have failed.

[@jakerockznoodles]

It's incredible that rather than seeing this and disciplining your own employees for behaving badly, the reaction of the company is to try to silence someone pointing it out. I totally agree that there are bad eggs everywhere, but a responsible organisation should deal with these people properly rather than trying to cover up their behaviour to manage the company's reputation. Very poor.

[@FFVoyager]

Feasibly the driver is also the owner of the business?

[@I_Don_t_want_a_handle]

The driver probably said, 'I sneezed'. No damage was done, no one hurt, feelings intact and the cyclist is mute on the subject. No one was called a naughty word. Maybe the company have received some unwanted attention from cycling fascists and driving safety twiters? Maybe they have lost business? Suing though? Losers.

[@McMahonshaun]

@@I_Don_t_want_a_handle I agree. It’s hard to say that the company is not going to get flack for this. Once it’s in public viewing it forever be viewed by people that will write a fake negative review etc. This damaging the company in perpetuity regardless of their actions to remedy the situation, no one will know of the company has fired the guy etc. I understand their actions to have it taken down for protection but requesting the business signs be blurred after showing a suitable remedy has been implemented would be common ground for both sides.

[@mattkinsella9856]

@@FFVoyager I think this is most likely and their fragile ego is damaged so they're lashing out. Unsurprising if you look at their driving, obviously this is how they go through life.

[@TheEulerID]

It seems it's a two-person business. I think it reasonable to assume the driver was also one of the business owners.

[@sophiescyclingandwalkingch4294]

As an ADI who is a cyclist, I am so pleased you intend to stand up for us.

[@BlackBeltBarrister]

Very good breakdown. I agree and still don't think it was a swerve from the blue van. Either way, he clearly didn't give the cyclist enough room and was breaking the HWC Rules in any event, in my view.

[@giolaccoun2857]

Isn’t the wording in the original video the crux of the argument here? Ashley says “without doubt this was a form of punishment” yet in this video he has used the words “think”. Regardless of what actually happened, surely somebody can’t make the claim “without doubt”, and is therefore liable to slander? Would be interested to hear your take on it

[@PedroConejo1939]

@@giolaccoun2857 The comments on the original video do not make any mention of the company or even its field of business. They were directed entirely at the still unidentified driver, but it is the company that has responed with a legal letter.

[@pocky1scot1]

@@giolaccoun2857 'without doubt' is still an opinion.

[@FlyingSpaghettiMonster2000]

A short response to the effect of "I refer you to the reply given in Arkell and Pressdram" should suffice

[@giolaccoun2857]

@@pocky1scot1 I’m not 100% sure it is. I’ve just done some searching and it says “you are emphasizing that it is definitely true.” So yes, it’s an opinion which is based upon something that is factual. Bit of a grey area but I could see how this statement could be considered slander. Will be interesting to see what happens though

[@Savage1606]

First time watching I didn't even notice the van was liveried up. After their response I decided to go frame by frame just to get the company name and see the backlash. How do you own a company, successfully fit and repair boilers for years, but are stupid enough to not see this happening? You know when 90% of PR teams say "an internal investigation will be held and appropriate action taken"... That's the ONLY response needed.

[@nicolajaynehodson9223]

what the 'company' be a tin pot sole trader

[@CharlieHolmesT]

@@nicolajaynehodson9223 Yeah their accounts show only 2 employees so it's likely just the owner.

[@QuentinStephens]

Good on you for standing up. The proper response to such bullies is, "See you in court."

[@FlyingSpaghettiMonster2000]

Or alternatively "I refer you to the reply given in Arkell and Pressdram"

[@dafyddthomas7299]

@@FlyingSpaghettiMonster2000 many said I love that case.

[@AndrewEbling]

Thanks for sticking up for us vulnerable road users Ashley and not bowing to legal pressure. Will happily donate to a gofundme if it does come to it.

[@Hunter-NG]

Well done for doubling down, don't be bullied.

[@sanmiguel4019]

He's not doubling down though!!!

[@LimerickWarrior1]

@@sanmiguel4019 "to become more tenacious, zealous, or resolute in a position or undertaking" aka Doubling down

[@mash83]

@@LimerickWarrior1 however doubling down is usually used when describing someone who is entrenching their position even though they're in the wrong so it sounds a bit out of place here.

[@sanmiguel4019]

@@LimerickWarrior1 That's fair enough, I thought it meant the other way round, happy to be put right!

[@paulprice5466]

@@mash83 you can double down on a position of power, truth, etc when challenged.

[@Rapscallion2009]

Put it this way. If this driver was working for me, I'd be having a serious "meeting without coffee" and sending them for driver training. I wouldn't get getting the lawyers out...

[@FishPieTV]

What if the driver owned the business 😉

[@Rapscallion2009]

@@FishPieTV then I'd probably have the coffee.

[@FishPieTV]

@@Rapscallion2009 🤣

[@TylerBenney]

You have done nothing wrong. They’re trying to cover up a bad employee instead of dealing with the situation properly.

[@eddier9455]

Nah I reckon its the boss driving.

[@Rybo-Senpai]

Yeah I agree with Eddie R, why go to the hassle of defending an employee unless it's the Boss or the Bosses immediate Family in their employ.

[@pelicanofpunishment6]

@@ggwoods5684 Its near impossible to prove damage to business over this video. Sure, I believe there has been one negative review based on it, but that isn't Ashley's fault. He never said anything even about the company or to do anything. If you watch Black Belt Barrister's video on the matter, it's broken down really nicely and simply as to why he, and the other barrister he had on for the analysis, don't think the case has enough weight behind it as they can see it.

[@DannyDashcam]

@@ggwoods5684 no it's not , driving badly in a livered vehicle is what damages the company reputation.

[@Slaeowulf]

@@eddier9455 I think so, too. Were I a boss and I saw one of my drivers doing this I would give them the bollocking of a lifetime and release a statement saying I was just as appalled and will deal with the driver in question.

[@robertjohnston3848]

You should be a forensic police accident investigator . Your tips on driving has made me rethink my driving position , speed ,forward thinking ect. Many thanks Robert / Edinburgh

[@hozzer68]

As I posted on Black belt barristers channel alluding to this video, When I drove works vehicles with company logos I was always told “ just remember when you drive our vehicles you a representing our company, do not do anything to tarnish our reputation”

[@vladimirputin4822]

Perhaps, and quite possibly after their action here, their boss is an asshat and the employees don't give a fig?

[@richardharvey1732]

Hi Hozzer, same for me!, on more than one occasion I returned to the yard where the company I worked for was based only to be greeted by a scolding!, each time it was because someone had seen me driving a bit lively somewhere and saw the company phone number on the side of the van, all of these times I was not actually endangering others, usually it was just getting a bit of a lean on the van going round a roundabout when it was clear of other traffic!, I still took my 'punishment' like a man and told them that they were right to take the call and tell me off for it!. I might be a reckless fool but I am not a complete scoundrel!. Cheers, Richard.

[@hozzer68]

Every possibility.

[@steve-manchesteruk4598]

I am a cyclist as well as an HGV driver. When you froze at the front to front point of the vans, the cyclist is looking right at the van. That tells me there may have been an earlier incident and the cyclist is either saying something or just keeping an eye on a threat. 100% the van driver is acting maliciously. I will happily contribute to a funding page if this goes further.👍

[@maringarvanovic8011]

Steve. Fully agree with you there. Don't know the full story but has the cyclist been identified?.

[@rufusgreenleaf2466]

It clearly looks like a threat on the business for the reason they are complaining like it's some newer hierarchy towards people getting away with such reckless behaviour. You're good to stand your ground Ashley i hope it works out for you, reckless driving shouldn't go unchecked. It's life or death, the courts should know this.

[@dafyddthomas7299]

many said the van driver or company has no case at all and simply throwing their ££/$$ and also adding negative kudos towards their company. Many said they should have done a simply apology, discipline the driver - especially for his possible dangerous / driving without care attention driving and leave it at that.

[@rufusgreenleaf2466]

@Ed Straker You think it was a self employed driver? I had a feeling it could have been.

[@bobdadnaila7708]

I think it's OBVIOUS the driver was adjusting for the two vehicles in the opposite lane steering to avoid collision with a parked car. Take your Karen-ass home and cease & desist with your wanton defamation.

[@bobdadnaila7708]

You LOOK like a "bad egg".....

[@rufusgreenleaf2466]

@@bobdadnaila7708 Okay so all safety out the window then, f*ck the cyclist. It doesn't matter if he did it to avoid cars or he was swatting a fly. His actions were intentional and intentionally dangerous he needs to drive with less aggression. It's come to the point where Karen's are starting to sound like people who care, the way people are skewing the meme. Leave your Karen meme out of this it doesn't fit.

[@raymondbenjamins5884]

Well, the company definitely shot themselves in the foot here. Instead of people seeing the video and then most likely forgetting about it again, they've now drawn more attention to it. If they would have just kept quiet about it, this whole thing would probably have been forgotten in a short period (I already forgot about that video).

[@prolynxExplores]

When I watched the video, I never really took notice of the sign writing. But now I think we all have, just because of their dumb tactics. Is it a case of dumb and dumber 3 hahaha.

[@RetroJay1974]

Yes I agree and now I have seen it! I will signpost this to my Dad and get his thoughts! he will then pass it onto his mates in turn they will no doubt do the same.

[@DannyDashcam]

Having been a HGV Driver myself for 20 years in mostly livered vehicles it is drummed into anyone driving thet they represent the company whilst on the road and any interaction with Joe public would be liable to a investigation if raised . This situation makes me feel it's a small business or someone from within the business in a key position trying to use bully boy tactics to lose the video. Stick to your guns Ashley, I'm interested to how this ends up.

[@gordon861]

I have no way of knowing this, but I have a feeling that the driver was probably the company owner or a close relative. The correct response should have been "thank you for bringing this to our attention we expect better road skills from our staff and further training will be undertaken", and then send the driver to a local driving school for a bit of refresher training.

[@DaveHunterDave]

I worked for a small company with engineers and salesmen, each of us with a company car. I asked the director why we didn't have our logo on the vehicles (except the delivery van) to aid brand recognition and his tongue in cheek response was "I've seen how you lot drive and don't want to deal with a load of angry calls" 😁

[@goodyeoman4534]

I wouldn't be surprised if the driver was a part-owner of the business, or related to the boss perhaps. A company would never stick up for a lowly worker if it meant a threat to their reputation or profit margin.

[@PedroConejo1939]

@@gordon861 I know, right, how easy would it be to issue a statement like that? That probably wouldn't prevent all of the negative reviews, but there are always ways to mitigate them, and any savvy business owner can score bonus points for good responses. The real answer is to drive more carefully.

[@LeadTechnicianIII]

I’m really appreciate you seriousness about road safety . Glad I’m not the only one

[@deivytrajan]

The reputation of that company will downgrade fast after this. They better apologise and punish the driver.

[@ggwoods5684]

That's why they can sue

[@pelicanofpunishment6]

@@ggwoods5684 I think their reputation will tank more based on the baseless legal threats, than Ashley's professional analysis of some bad driving. Black belt Barrister really broke down the damage to business rule of cases such as this really nicely in his analysis.

[@tonyjenkins2733]

I watched the Black Belt Barrister video yesterday; really interesting. The correct decision is to fight this one, though suspect many others wouldn't

[@georgecromar4094]

Love it, they threaten legal action so you post the video again! My hero! 😁

[@craymex]

Going to benefit from the Streisand effect

[@earlebacciochi9796]

I use to drive for a company and if there was a formal complaint from a member of the public or customer, about our behaviour we would be suspended until it was investigated ! But a great company to work for as they supported staff with any problems! 👍

[@jasonh9518]

I love how Ashley did an in depth analysis of the video they told him not to ever replay on any platform at any time lol 😂 ledge Also the van driver was 100% using his vehicle to intimidate that cyclist. That the company had decided to try and cover that up rather than dismiss the employee says it all

[@zxbzxbzxb1]

I think the employee is the company.

[@JAKENMK]

...in your opinion which is totally irrelevant outside of your own head

[@DavidBaillie1986]

​@@JAKENMK as is your own

[@danimayb]

@@JAKENMK Getting a bit salty there fella.. Do you know the guy? I don't give a damn what anyone says, That was a reckless manoeuvre! And I know this stuff happens all the time, I'm glad this one got caught on camera and shown to the public. As for the business, It's down to the owner/s (even if that was the driver) to hold their hands up and do something about it in an appropriate manner. If they get stung by this, It's their fault for just palming this incident off with solicitor letters to Ashley! That's what will kill his business and I have no sympathy.

[@jasonh9518]

@@JAKENMK well of course its my own opinion mate that's why I wrote it lol 😂

[@andycharles6641]

As ever - a logical, and balanced, assessment with a stepped-through breakdown. Glad to hear that you haven’t agreed to take the video down as you are right, the only way to improve the situation is to identify and educate in instances where drivers should have done better.

[@PedroConejo1939]

Completely agree. I saw the original, I saw the BBB video in its entirety, and I also emailed the company suggesting they view the video. I didn't leave any negative reviews because... why would I do that? Through all of this, I completely agree that it appears to be deliberate, and I don't believe the swerving-to-avoid-the-blue-van theory holds water. Apart from everything else you've pointed out, everyone drives that close to oncoming traffic in narrow roads and no-one bats an eyelid; it's really not that close at all. The only way I can see it could be a swerve due to the blue van is through distraction leading to surprise and overreaction, which makes it just as bad as a punishment pass. Cyclists know what this is.

[@martinbobfrank]

I never contacted the company, but I was going to say the same. I bet he was playing with the radio or getting a cig etc and reacted through surprise. Either way, it was bad driving and put the cyclist at risk. I went to work on a bike decades ago, and I was looking ahead of me not at the side of me unless I was moving out or something; I bet the cyclist didn't even notice. I saw the original and the BlackBeltBarriester video on it, and if I was the company I would watch that video before moving anymore on the subject. Very expensive the legal services, although well done and good luck Ashley on any future move.

[@dorianleakey]

yeah, i emailed them and told them to sort it out. They should just apologise, but too arrogant.

[@michellebyrom6551]

@@dorianleakey I hadn't known of this video until today. I agree with you. Ego has got in the way of logical analysis. A self employed driver confusing the business and personal aspects. All criticism in the video is - rightly in my opinion - is if the driver's ability to drive well. A company statement responding to bad reviews saying bad driving practices have been corrected, would have reversed any bad impressions linked to the company. That would have been the business savvy response. The private thoughts like what a toerag view, ahem, should best be just that - private.

[@mickk8519]

Yes, my immediate thought upon first seeing the swerve was that the driver must have somehow been distracted and suddenly noticed the blue van was close, but in his panic, he over compensated, because a sudden realisation could have made the blue van appear even closer. If I was the company owner, I'd suspect the driver of looking at his mobile phone at the time, then caught the blue van out of the corner of his eye.

[@Dave-hu5hr]

Absolute heroes you are.. 📩

[@keithdenton8386]

Possibility:- The van driver was not paying attention and was shocked when he saw the oncoming van so close. It may not have been deliberate, and over reacted. Just an alternative explanation.

[@shaunsmith1825]

Bad driving either way.

[@loverofgod6176]

I wondered this, but it happens too long after the vehicle has passed.

[@MDM1992]

I don't think so he had more than enough room to go straight and anyone with any driving experience and spacial awareness would know that. My guess is the cyclist was out the in the middle of the road holding him up somewhere down the road before this clip was taken (as they often like to do, because apparently sticking to the side allowing faster moving traffic to pass is too much to ask) and it's a classic case of road rage.

[@keithdenton8386]

@@MDM1992Knee jerk reaction. Like when you duck as a low flying aircraft passes over head. Not even close, but its reflex.

[@catleugh]

Possibly. Pretty terrible driving either way.

[@johno4521]

A reputable company would take it on the chin and see what good they could take from the situation moving forward ie. driver education.

[@Jaccayumitty]

I think I recognise the road, and the dialling code on the van means it's a local company. I'll be sure never to use them - not because of the driver's behaviour, any company could employ a bad driver and not know it, but purely because of the company's response to the video.

[@nicholassunshine]

Solicitor: Take down the video! Ashley: Hold my beer. Seriously though, well done on doubling down.

[@davek2276]

I use this a lot with very annoying people. It annoys them. "Sorry, but I think you may be confusing me with someone who actually gives a toss!"

[@cloudmaker]

Good on you Ashley. I can not understand companies like this taking this sort of action instead of dealing with the bad driving of their employee. You Tube took down a video of mine when the company who's driver I caught on dash cam watching his phone driving a 44 tonne truck on the M61, complained. I argued that they were condoning unsafe and illegal driving, but to no avail. I did re-edit it and sent it to several different channels.

[@gailmurray2574]

I'm sorry you are having to defend yourself like this (for simply highlighting bad driving). As a cyclist who has dealt with a number of situations similar to this, I appreciate the support.

[@philipslater9450]

Again I haven't seen the original video so thankyou for putting it up again. The company in question should take a look at your clips and explanation and then discipline the driver of the van. A poor response from the company in question. Keep up the good work Ashley

[@Broadsword999]

I used to work with an ex-solicitor, she always used to say as a solicitor she would happily send a letter to anyone on any subject as long as it wasn't proposing some sort of illegal action regardless of whether they had a good claim or not. It doesn't mean they would sue but she didn't care as she got paid £100 for 5 minutes work. Besides, people should look up Streisand Effect before threatening KZbinrs.

[@grahvis]

There are solicitors who happily take on a case they know has no chance of succeeding.

[@davek2276]

Bad decision by the company owner. No excuse for defending illegal behaviour by their driver. Do not overtake a cyclist if there isn't at least two metres clearance. You would have expected an apology and promise of additional driver training. And as for solicitors! I sent a rear view video of a 40 ton truck - well known company tailgating me on Chester High Road, and intimidating later by encroaching closer and closer at the next set of traffic lights. Received an apology and (as expected) that it was an agency driver who they wouldn't use again. Most drivers are still unaware of the new rules re priority of pedestrians. cyclists and horse riders. I'm getting beeped from the rear for slowing/stopping to allow pedestrians across the road.

[@harveysaunders2479]

Stick to your guns Ashley. This needs to stop, it happens everyday to cyclists 🚴‍♀️ 🙄

[@michaelc3977]

It's never happened to me and I've been riding bicycles on the road for over 30 years. I'm in no way condoning the action in this video, but it doesn't seem the common occurence you suggest, Harvey.

[@cheekychappy1234]

@@michaelc3977 Then you're very lucky. I was pushing my bike on the pavement, not even on the road, when a car deliberately swerved at me and tried to run me over. The idiots laughed like hyenas when they bounced off the kerb stone and then drove off.

[@jamessmith99731]

@@michaelc3977 Fallacy.

[@MegaCai123]

Well, if you weren't all a bunch of tossers, society wouldn't hate ya 🤷‍♂️. Playing victim all the time smh 🤦‍♂️

[@michaelc3977]

@@seventeesweremagic Try not to be afraid, especially if you ride a bike. Nervous road users are a danger to themselves and everyone around them.

[@Locateson]

The company is awfully unaware of the Streisand effect. Suing does more damage to the company image than the driver himself.

[@blisseyran-dom6822]

Good on you for doubling down and standing up to these bullies. Absolutely the best stance. You've nothing to worry about.

[@hambo6969]

Anything that happens in public can be recorded. No laws stopping that at all. The biggest mistake the company made was to not address this properly. This could have been dealt with and forgotten. Now more people get to see it.

[@Gopher31]

Good man. You Have to fight it or everyone will claim in future. On a side note, since watching you videos I’m noticing my driving recently is far more flow focused and forgiving of others errors. I’m convinced that what you are doing is important.

[@Bobtek]

I've found this too...recently I just focus on my own driving rather than getting miffed at others. So glad I found this channel.

[@beatinspector]

That is a signature move of looking up from your mobile phone realising the tight situation after the last second. Reflex move when something suddenly comes into your view unexpected.

[@artemkatelnytskyi]

Thank you for standing up for cyclists and road safety!

[@WhiteManInAVan]

100% agree with you. I drive a van and have learnt alot from your videos and changed alot of my own practices. I've always felt that van drivers should have to pass a separate test, just as I did for my minibus licence and as HGV drivers do. Its also amazing how many van drivers think that speed limits for them are the same as for cars and how many don't follow the driver directive.

[@bazzacuda_]

I haven't left any reviews myself and I won't. But, take the case of Taylor's Landscapes. That driver got out and pushed or punched a cyclist. (The cyclist had used his Hornit during a close pass). The video went viral, reviews were left on Yell, Google etc. and the business folded, all because of a 20 second video. I don't feel sorry for anyone who's business is affected by their own bad behaviour.

[@Jafmanz]

I agree but also imagine your employees ruining your life…

[@christastic100]

I had a guy on a phone overtake a parked car on his side while I was headed towards him ripping of both our mirrors and the parked car mirror. He didn’t stop but sped away at speed through a built up area requiring 30mph maximum speed. White van man indeed he was .

[@thealbagalavanter9986]

That's a very good way of pointing this out but my opinion still hasn't changed I don't think Mr Neal has done anything wrong never back down from what you believe

[@themittonmethod1243]

I concur with your assessment, Ashley. The Van that made the move was in virtually the SAME lane position as the car in front of them, and that car is the same width as the van (yet did not need to make any movement toward the cyclist or away from any of the oncoming vehicles as the mirrors were probably 40-50cm apart and in no danger of striking). In the first frame where the van appears to be initiating the movement, based on shadows and vehicle lengths, the front bumpers had most likely already passed each other and if a driver is so unsure of the width of their vehicle on the driver's side (!) they certainly are requiring some remedial training so as to be safer on the road. I know the width of the box truck that I drive for work, including the mirror clearances, and if I was unsure of being able to squeeze between the cyclist and the oncoming vehicle, I would simply have slowed down early to allow a slight movement in the direction AWAY from the cyclist (the other cars and vans would be able to see my move and the vast majority would do what they could to assist in giving me the extra room for the cyclist's safety. Cheers from BC Canada.

[@mikeball5883]

Boy this firm has well and truly shot themselves in the foot I never noticed the company logo on the van the first time around but I purposely paused the video to see the name this time and I’m sure many people have now done the same 🤣

[@1989silas]

I think it's a good idea to document the legal process here. You focus on road safety. Legal topics fit too. I appreciate the way you do it. You don't show the sign of the company in this clip, you don't want to escalate, you want to educate. I've learnt that doing nothing often really is the best option. In that case doing nothing would have been the best option for the company that sues you now. If I were the owner of that company I would have talked to the driver. Technically it could be that the driver was distracted and than got scared by the car on the other side of the road, reacted really badly and didn't even notice the cyclist. After the talk I would have reached out to you, only asking politely to censor the sign of the company.

[@Hevlikn]

Easy defence Ash! Hope you get your legal fees covered: 1) Truth; the van driver may admit to intentionally swerving 2) Not Reckless Disregard for the truth; you didn't know for certain that it wasn't intentional 3) Opinion: You quite clearly stated "I think [the swerve] was intentional So that's 3 affirmative defenses getting easier to prove down the list. Another point that might be worth highlighting, the van driver also appears to turn their head and reposition their hands in a way that seems intentional not reactionary: at 2:00 in the zoomed in section, we see the van drivers face stop being illuminated - indicating that it has turned toward the nearside and the cyclist - assuming illumination through the windscreen is minimal compared to the more proximate door window; second the hands reposition to the offside of the steering wheel - showing a preparation for a nearside maneuver (colloquially, getting ready to yank the wheel left). A reactionary maneuver, while done in this order by a well trained and competent driver, would not necessitate the hand repositioning.

[@wombleway]

It's not defamation, if the fella can't drive properly and got caught on camera, it's tough. They have absolutely no power or justification for their request. And well done for showing the clip again! 😄

[@Destide]

Handling how your company appears in a public space is down to the owner, Rather than coming out and apologising we get Streisand effect in action

[@WolfmanWoody]

This is just a judgement based on what I can see on the screen. Using the width of the white line being around 4" (100mm if you like), I think the width between the two van is at least 32" (2'8" if you like), maybe more. The wing mirrors don't stick out that much showing that there was no danger of a collision of wing mirrors. Perhaps it requires a more careful check and using other frames, but I would say there was no need to swerve his van at all. As the old saying goes "You could get a bus through there." Just my opinion, Ashley, but you might want to check that further.

[@paulefc1971]

Whilst I understand a company trying to protect their reputation, I think they are making an even bigger mistake by taking you to court, one way or another l, the driving by the offending van driver is atrocious, they should have just acknowledged that fact and left it at that. Also, well done for sticking to your principles Ashley, many would have crumbled at the sight of a solicitors letter.

[@martinhowes1496]

They won't acknowledge it because its a one person company. The director would have to admit that he made a mistake and we all know the type of drivers that would rather die than admit that they could possibly ever be wrong.

[@LEWIS1992]

Hang on, this is a recording of a public place. Then have no grounds to demand it be taken down, right?

[@_bodgie]

I agree you shouldn't be bullied into removing the video. UK defamation laws are pretty weird from my understanding but this seems like a stretch to call it defamation. I also agree it was a punishment maneuver to scare the cyclist.

[@TheTechGiantYouTube]

What i love about Ashley is that he's got BALLS! and will stand by his opinions. Others would roll over like a lap dog and do as they are told.

[@vetworker]

Good on you for sticking up for what is right. I don’t back down to bullies ever!

[@microcolonel]

Many years before I was a motorist, I was a cyclist and pedestrian every day. I take extra care to make sure the road is safe around them when I'm driving. The driver of the van clearly needed to chill out.

[@kennethnaunton3323]

Surely the Company should be Disciplining the Driver rather than persecuting you Ashley for showing bad driving. Unless the van driver was the company Owner/director then they should be ashamed of themselves. Keep the good work on improving driving standards Ashley.

[@Dave-bu6bc]

From a quick bit of research on companieshouse and elsewhere, i'll give it a 99.99% chance that the company is just one plumber in a van and his wife acting as company secretary.

[@lunarfusilier1]

Honestly held opinion based on facts and without malice. This is a hugely valuable channel for road safety and driver education, you should not be discouraged from expressing your opinions.

[@ParanoimiaUK]

I downloaded the video and did the same analysis of the space between the vans at the point the swerve occurred. There seems to be ample space between them, even accounting for the wing mirrors, so no need to swerve at all on that front. The company website is impressive and gives the impression of a large organisation, but someone else mentioned that if you look at the listing on Companies House, it seems quite small... possibly even just a husband and wife team. If so, then it's likely the driver is also the owner, and that may go some way to explaining why they went straight to the lawyers... basically, there would be no one higher up to take the driver aside and have a word, and a fragile ego has been damaged. But whatever the situation, it's a stellar example of how *_not_* to handle things. Black Belt Barrister's video was excellent, and it would seem all of the claims are unfounded nonsense. They will hopefully get laughed out of court.

[@russelldyke7997]

Plus better that two wing mirrors hit than you hit a cyclist with your van

[@Rroff2]

@@russelldyke7997 Logical reasoning but if the van driver wasn't paying sufficient attention and had to make a decision in a moment they may have already taken an instinctive action before any kind of logic kicked in (if it kicked in at all).

[@thegodofcycle216]

There are 3 possibilities, 1: The van intentionlly went close to the cyclist. The van driver could be someone who just hates cyclists. 2: The van driver swerved to avoid a possible collision with the other van. The driver may have felt at the last second they were too close to other vehicle. 3: The van driver was distracted for a second and for a moment lost control of the vehicle. This could have been caused by a cough, sneeze or laughing. Maybe another object, like a fly or a mobile phone.

[@Slaeowulf]

Ash, do please consider a gofundme or something like that if it comes to it. We are all interested in road safety, and ultimately we want to support you in your mission to improve road safety and improve communication around driving standards. If you do need some paid for legal representation you can always donate the leftover, or all of it assuming you can recover costs, to a suitable motoring charity.

[@Thats_Mr_Random_Person_to_you]

I second this. It is highly likely, even if it does go to court and Ashley does win that he will still be out of pocket (even after the court sorts out costs). Even just taking legal advixe has costed him. Its one issue with the legal system as a whole, even the winner can be out of pocket even after costs are settled and lots of people dont have the luxury of spare cash. So for cases like this where a business is trying to bully someone its not always as easy to just 'see you in court' as it should be. If this does go that far I don't want Ashley to be out of pocket for it. Promoting proper driving standards, calling our those who dont have those standards and apluding those who do is in everyone's interest. (Which is itonically part of a potential defence as the video is 'in the public interest')

[@jdaley197931]

I watched the analysis on Black belt barrister's channel. There's a lot of points the company would have a hard job providing evidence of. They're just making a mountain out of a mole hill by trying to sue you. They should of just said "Thank you for making us aware of the driver's behaviour, we'll be looking into some driver education". Fair play to you for sticking by your original analysis of the video and not giving into unreasonable demands.

[@FFVoyager]

I never cease to be amazed at the stupidity of drivers of liveried up vehicles.

[@stevenjoyce421]

I’m a motorist, a pedestrian and a cyclist. And the treatment you receive as a cyclist is sometimes dreadful, most drivers as safe and courteous. I’m not perfect as a cyclist or a driver. But more vulnerable on the bike even when I’m not riding perfect.

[@frozenbeverage]

Love your channel Ashley, it's helped me improve my driving immensely. Never back down to this kind of legal bullying. Keep up the amazing work

[@nickrobinson1954]

Top marks for showing and analysing the video and double top marks for not taking the video down. Whichever way you look at the driving of the van, it’s bad / dangerous driving, and needed exposing. We’ll done Ashley, you have a lot of genuine supporters, including me.

[@Mark..P]

Well done Ashley. I would be quiet happy to donate to a legal fund if it goes that far.

[@dafyddthomas7299]

many would and many said it hasn't got any legs to stand on it, many said the driver in Q likely to have broken many HC rules - especially 162-163 - overtaking and could be at fault of dangerous / careless driving many people have said.

[@jarthurs]

Yes, as was said in the BBB video once you win you're unlikely to recover all your costs. Sadly justice requires deep pockets.

[@Mark..P]

@@jarthurs That is a sad fact Jason. You sometimes have to be wealthy to defend yourself, which is a great shame

[@Mark..P]

@Advanced Driving I honestly don’t know how it works. But hopefully won’t go that far. I admire him for sticking to his guns though. Top guy

[@Akomarongg]

also a lawsuit on defamation wouldn't stand in court because you made no statement about the person or company. you made an objective observation about the driving of the van. which is backed up by video evidence. while intent for having done could be argued as ambiguous you have still not defamed them as you have made no statement about their character; only their evident actions.

[@Hunter-NG]

And the company have brought bad advertisement on themselves by their actions.

[@marklittler784]

They're drawing even more attention to themselves by disagreeing with Ashley's reasonable conclusion.

[@se-kmg355]

@@marklittler784 Streisand effect.

[@PedroConejo1939]

To the best of my knowledge, Ashley has never mentioned the name of the company, nor directly implied that the company is responsible for what happened. Why would they not just announce that the driver had been spoken to, or stronger? By getting all ornery about it, they've tied themselves to the poor driving and made people suggest that it was the company owner who was driving. They have entirely caused their own bad publicity.

[@marklittler784]

@@se-kmg355 Learnt something new !

[@15bit62]

The fascinating thing about this is that i had to pause and zoom the video to actually read the name on the van. It's not like it was obvious. So in pursuing a legal case the owner/driver of the van has probably attracted a lot of attention that he/she would otherwise have never got.

[@ev721]

If it wasn't deliberately, which i doubt, then perhaps the driver was looking at his cellphone, looked up, saw the blue van, got a fright and jerked the steering wheel to the left?

[@hansbambach4854]

This is my thinking as well ... it could be that they were distracted for a second and then got a fright which in turn led to the knee jerk reaction.

[@Dave-bu6bc]

I don't see how that's any better. People who use the phone while driving should be jailed on the first offence, for the safety of the rest of us.

[@grahvis]

Yes I wondered about that as an alternative reason, a sudden panic jerk on the wheel.

[@hansbambach4854]

@@Dave-bu6bc but these are all assumptions, the point is the driver is being blamed for deliberately swerving at the cyclist. When it COULD be a simply break of concentration and a knee jerk reaction. I’m not denying for a second that it was dangerous. But this could have been a dangerous mistake made by the driver. I don’t get this utter desire to hang the driver when none of us were in the cab and can fully understand what took place. What if it was honest mistake ? What then ? Everyone’s frantic about hanging the guy.

[@pompeymonkey3271]

Ride safe and drive safe! It's fantastic that you are always raising awareness of the relationships between different users of the roads. I wish that more road-users would see it this way.

[@Manu-Official]

I lost count of van drivers being buttholes on the road, towards me or other road users. Like you said in another video and I quote, ''Keep talking yourself into shit'' and the comments will state the obvious anyway: that van swerved towards the cyclist. Like you said, this attitude has to stop. Let them sue you, and watch the judge throw the highway book at them. If it's a case of the van driver suddenly getting spooked at the last nano second because of a lack of space, and that's what they're saying, then the van driver should have stayed behind the bike. Smells like a company had to deal with some social network backlash and loss of custom..... (side note, I do have a video of a lorry overtaking a cyclist inside a blind turn, over a white line and expecting me to go off the road to avoid a collision.)

[@codeymiller5954]

solicitors: take it down and please don’t reupload it ashley neal: “here’s the clip again in full” now it’s uploaded twice 😄

[@bennidamole3703]

It won’t go to court. All huff and puff that is only a bluff…..

[@ThatBloodyCyclist]

Cease and desist letters can be really stressful. What they ask for is also usually rather excessive. Why can't we all just share the road equally? There are so many media outlets that try to stoke the hate between different types of road user. I think that you've really been fair with this incident. I would accept constructive feedback with any incident that happens. We all develop bad habits when it comes to driving, cycling, riding or walking on the roads. Just have to look at ourselves first before blaming others.

[@shay8202]

Disgrace from City Warmth Plumbing & Heating

[@redtela]

Ash, check the description on this vid - typo mate ;) (we all do them) In that first frame when the van dips, it looks like the van driver uncrosses his hands. Speculation: did he have his phone in his hand, both hands at 12'oclock on the steering wheel, and he "woke up" and thought the blue van was closer than it was? Might not be a punishment swerve, but it is an alternative (and still the white van driver would then have to admit to holding his phone, which as we all know, is also illegal).

[@bmused55]

I wonder if the driver of the van is the company owner and hasn't taken your criticism well.

[@justsayin644]

To Ashley Neal. I don't know if you've noticed but when you zoomed the clip in and froze it the driver of the oncoming van appears to have his head turned toward the cyclist as if he is shouting at him through the opened passenger side van window. The driver then swerves toward the cyclist a split second later after this apparent interaction. I would suggest trying to zoom in even more and apply some sharpening and see if you can see this more clearly frame by frame.

[@alanwright3172]

Sheer intimidation both the incident and the management reaction, the owner of the company has shot himself in the foot with the bad publicity , was he the driver? The proper reaction should have been an apology and a quiet word in the drivers ear.

[@Blahsheep]

I love how instead of taking the video down, you make another video to make them even more known. They could have made an apology but instead of that they doubled down.

[@Haze1434]

Good on you Ashley. Bullies should never get away with bullying. As you said, regardless of what happened, it was AWFUL driving and SHOULD be called out. And if the other side want to argue it, that's a bully trying to get away with bullying.

[@markthesarcasticlawstudent]

I won't make any assumptions as to when the original footage was filmed. I'm going to presume that it was before the updates to the highway code. While the highway code is not in itself a source of law, it does provide a reasonable understanding of the 'reasonably competent driver' standard that is used by courts to determine whether a person has driven carelessly, dangerously etc. The van driver in question was central in his lane and the other van was towards the centreline but not across it. It is evident from the video that both vehicles were still entirely in their own lanes and therefore there was no actual risk of the two colliding. It's presumed that a reasonably competent driver would be sufficiently aware of their surroundings to firstly not get into that position in the first place but also to realise that there was no genuine danger of a collision and that swerving in the direction of the cyclist (which he was already passing closely) would potentially cause damage or loss greater than the cost of one or two wing mirrors. If the cyclist had been hit, injured or killed, I could quite imagine the driver being charged with an offence. In fact, I could see them being charged with an offence as it stands. Their standard of driving, in my view, fell below the standard of a reasonably competent driver, irrespective of whether it was a 'punishment pass'. All of this isn't really that relevant to the defamation allegation, because that is specifically in relation to whether or not it is true that the actions were a deliberate 'punishment pass'. I mention this purely as a rebuttal to the point about the swerve being due to the other van. In England and Wales, to prove defamation, the person bringing the claim must not only prove that the allegation of the punishment pass is false but also that Ashley either knew or believed it to be false when he made the allegation. They must also prove that they suffered a quantifiable loss as a direct result of that allegation being made. They also have a duty to limit that loss in so far as they are able to do so. To whoever owns the company: I've been there. I've been one of Ashley's 'iffy drivers' (I actually featured on the video he did titled something like 'does it really affect you?') and, while that video was dedicated for drivers who were perhaps a little iffy, they weren't AS iffy as some of those featured in the regular videos - the first thing I did was I emailed Ashley and not only explained the scenario from my perspective but also highlighted how I had learned from the experience and what I would say to others to help them avoid the same situation. I also highlighted that I was grateful that others were able to learn from my mistake and that we all had the chance to grow as a community and as drivers as a result. If the company owner had done the same thing here, not only would the situation be a whole lot more positive, but they may even have found that they got an increased reputation as a result. If they were my clients, I'd have advised them to take it on the chin and own it - there's a positive in everything, even things like this. It's not worth the hassle and it certainly won't be worth the expense. Defamation suits are notoriously difficult and, as a result, very VERY expensive.....yet, if I had a penny for every time I heard someone say 'that's slander (it's not, it's libel, just saying), I'm going to sue you', I wouldn't need a mortgage.....put it that way.

[@DjDolHaus86]

While I think you are completely in the right for both your assessment of the situation and refusal to take down the footage I would perhaps advise saying nothing further to avoid accidentally contradicting yourself or giving similar leverage points to a lawyer should it go to court (slim chance but you never know). Think of it sort of like the advice you have given to yourself many times about not further antagonising situations by engaging in discussion with idiots, sometimes it's better just not to say anything.

[@oliverpolden]

Good point but some people think their actions are just. In this case they even went through the trouble of employing a solicitor because they thought their actions were defendable. They aren’t, whatever the intent or reason. On the one hand it could be intentional, on the other hand it’s careless, both are dangerous and neither are acceptable. People like this sometimes need an authority to put them in their place and maybe then they will realise their actions were not acceptable.

[@DjDolHaus86]

@@oliverpolden that's not the point of this comment, the point is to avoid muddying the waters by speaking further on a subject which is already the focus of potential legal action. You can unintentionally weaken your own stable footing by digging unnecessarily

[@oliverpolden]

@@DjDolHaus86 yes I got your point. That’s why I said it’s a good one.

[@wannabuyabridge]

That did my head in a bit - I use that bit of road myself!

[@driving_all_over]

Good on you Ash, says a lot about that company if they’re threatening to sue you though

[@donaljamescaddye3805]

If I was the MD I'd be ashamed and horrified at this - Fair play to you Ashley for not backing down - You shouldn't have needed to seek legal advice on this - if this goes further we have your back !

[@TheOptimod]

The way almost everyone has responded to this is surely more than enough for this company to get the message to just be humble and apologise or remain silent, move on and let it go. Their ego didn’t allow that to happen sadly.

[@monishbiswas1966]

I assume they thought they could scare him into deleting the video - I think they will not proceed with the action and go quiet

[@johnmason5626]

I think Ashley’s assessment of the incident is probably correct and I don’t think the company threatening legal action has any case to make. I would urge anyone reading this to go and watch BlackBelt Barrister’s video on the matter, it’s a long watch but worth your time.

[@TheErsatzMode]

The company does itself a disservice in threatening legal action. It makes matters worse, and makes it look even worse than it did to start with.

[@DaveCorbey]

I watched this a few times...I don't think it was a great cyclist overtake by the Van driver, but I don't believe it was a punishment swerve. He waited until he felt he was clear of the cyclist (I think he was just past) and swerved fearing a mirror collision with the van opposite. I think the cyclist didn't react because the van had passed him before swerving in. So although you are right about it being bad driving and not making proper allowance for the cyclist...I would loose/remove the punishment swerve aspects of this one. I certainly wouldn't had overtaken the cyclist if I had been in the van and would have held back until the hazard was passed.

[@johncranna]

I think Ashley has done what you suggested by putting the question mark after the heading of the original video posting. And if you watch the Black Belt Barrister analysis then that is a very important point legally in defence of Ashley.

[@DaveCorbey]

@@johncranna Sure, but I am not sure it really needs to be there with a question mark. I love Ashleys stuff, but this time, I feel pretty certain it was to avoid the van, that sort of, oh my god swerve. Possibly it's this that got the van drivers back up, it's just a shame it's gone to legal proceedings?

[@johncranna]

@@DaveCorbey as far as I am aware there are no legal proceedings - just a letter from a solicitor to Ashley along the lines of 'you've caused damage to my client's business, remove the video or else'!

[@scrivsid]

"This poor attitude towards cyclists has to change..." If that means standing up to the defenders of bad driving, count me in. I will gladly contribute to your GoFundMe should it be necessary. Illegitimi non carborundum, Ashley.

[@codeymiller5954]

either the company can ask you to take it down and not do anything else about it. or the company can punish the driver for this and ask you to edit the video to inform what they did so it looks good on them because they went a responsible way about it and they can teach others about what could happen to them if they do the same. asking you to take it down literally makes them look worse because it looks like they are defending the actions.