Near Miss

[mjr]

Whether you agree with the methodology or not, the bottom line is that us advanced drivers have less whoopsies on the road and accordingly pay less for our insurance.

Is that still true, or is it just that the Institute of Advanced "indicators are for newbs" Morons are a goed enough lobby group that ending the discount would be damaging bad PR for the insurance firms?

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

Is that still true, or is it just that the Institute of Advanced "indicators are for newbs" Morons are a goed enough lobby group that ending the discount would be damaging bad PR for the insurance firms?

I used to be a member - passed the test and all that

whenever I tried to get a discount or low rate due to membership it always still ended up more expensive than other options

never did find that it saved me any money
glad I did it - but it was never worth it for the insurance

N.B. that was many many years ago - I left when I did some sums regarding the amount it costs to run it and how much the "executives" got paid to run a charity

 

[simongt]

the rest of my clothing was black

So how would he / she respond if you were driving a black car without your lights on I wonder - ?

 

[simongt]

The number of people who defend the "no need, there isn't anyone to see the indicator"

As with the increasing number of drivers who park 'blind' and don't bother indicating when they pull out even though they cannot possibly see what is heading towards them until they're well out into the traffic flow.

 

[Bristolian]

Is that still true, or is it just that the Institute of Advanced "indicators are for newbs" Morons are a goed enough lobby group that ending the discount would be damaging bad PR for the insurance firms?

Driving a motor vehicle should not be done parrot fashion - it's not the same as learning your times tables. Circumstances should be assessed and a suitable driving plan formulated and executed. That way the driver stays aware of their surroundings and alert to what they can see and what they might reasonably expect to happen, making the roads safer for everyone.

Your methodology is where learner drivers start off before they gain appreciation for the art of being a motorist rather than just a driver.

 

[mjr]

Driving a motor vehicle should not be done parrot fashion - it's not the same as learning your times tables. Circumstances should be assessed and a suitable driving plan formulated and executed.

Agreed, and part of any suitable plan for operating heavy machinery around the public in open environments must account for the fact that humans are fallible. When a good driver indicates when it's unnecessary then nothing bad happens except a little light pollution. When (not if) an IAMoron fails to indicate when it would be beneficial then they rob other road users of warning and precious reaction time, possibly helping cause a collision that would have been avoided, possibly damage and injury, possibly worse to a non-motorist. Therefore, routinely not indicating is careless and advocating it to the masses is reckless.

 

[Bristolian]

Agreed, and part of any suitable plan for operating heavy machinery around the public in open environments must account for the fact that humans are fallible. When a good driver indicates when it's unnecessary then nothing bad happens except a little light pollution. When (not if) an IAMoron fails to indicate when it would be beneficial then they rob other road users of warning and precious reaction time, possibly helping cause a collision that would have been avoided, possibly damage and injury, possibly worse to a non-motorist. Therefore, routinely not indicating is careless and advocating it to the masses is reckless.

Your assumption that advanced drivers routinely don't indicate is completely incorrect as no action is done routinely. What we do routinely (continuously) is assess the situation and adapt our actions accordingly, and that requires continuous concentration and situational awareness.

You are correct, of course, that we humans are fallible and everyone makes mistakes but advanced drivers are less likely to do so than drivers who indicate by rote and are statistically less likely to be fully concentrating on what they are doing or what is happening around them. I regularly see situations where a driver hits the indicator and makes a turn/changes lane without checking their mirrors first, during or afterwards and YouTube is full of such instances. They are more likely to be involved in a collision than a driver that is concentrating and thinking about everything they do and are more likely to forget to cancel the indicator after a manoeuvre.

Regarding the use of signals in the Highway Code; Rule 103 says "you should always use them to advise other road users" so, by extension, if there are no other road users you shouldn't use them. Rule 104 says you should "be aware that an indicator on another vehicle may not have been cancelled" yet no-where does it say you need to be aware that a vehicle hasn't set an indicator.

You are clearly not a fan of advanced driving techniques even though they are advocated by the emergency services and most modern driving instructors. Are they all guilty of careless driving? It's okay that we don't agree - we are all entitled to our own opinion, but I prefer my opinion to be based on recognised best practice and if it's good enough for the police, fire and ambulance services, IAMRoadsmart and RoSPA then it's good enough for me too.

 

[mjr]

Your assumption that advanced drivers routinely don't indicate is completely incorrect

I made no such assumption. Please don't misreport what I did.

You are correct, of course, that we humans are fallible and everyone makes mistakes but advanced drivers are less likely to do so than drivers who indicate by rote and are statistically less likely to be fully concentrating on what they are doing or what is happening around them.

1. I don't care if it's less likely because it's still going to happen and increase the danger to other road users unnecessarily. At no point did you address this case.

2. I'd like to see those statistics, please. I hope they're not just comparing people sufficiently interested in driving to pay the IAM with drivers so incompetent that they indicate by rote.

3. I'd also like to see the calculation that shows that the reduction in injury from not indicating when you don't see someone is greater than the increase in injury from an IAM moving without indicating when they didn't see someone.

[...] Regarding the use of signals in the Highway Code; Rule 103 says "you should always use them to advise other road users" so, by extension, if there are no other road users you shouldn't use them.

That's a logical inversion error, not an extension. Rule 92 says "You MUST be able to read a vehicle number plate, in good daylight, from a distance of 20 metres (or 20.5 metres where the old style number plate is used). If you need to wear glasses (or contact lenses) to do this, you MUST wear them at all times while driving." so by similar flawed inversion, if an IAM member is not driving, they mustn't wear glasses. 🤡

How about reading what's in the highway code and not making stuff up that's not there?

You are clearly not a fan of advanced driving techniques even though they are advocated by the emergency services and most modern driving instructors. Are they all guilty of careless driving? It's okay that we don't agree - we are all entitled to our own opinion, but I prefer my opinion to be based on recognised best practice and if it's good enough for the police, fire and ambulance services, IAMRoadsmart and RoSPA then it's good enough for me too.

I think some advanced driving techniques are good but the advice not to indicate if you don't see another road user is dangerously flawed for the reasons I gave above and that advice (and especially the absurd defence of it) should result in IAM losing its reputation.

 

[matticus]

"I considered putting a "DANGER, WET FLOOR" sign out, but I assessed the number of people in the area to be zero, so I chose not to.

Your Honour."

 

[presta]

When I signalled to overtake a parked car, my instructor told me you don't indicate when it's obvious what you're doing (it being obvious that I wasn't intending to crash into the back of it).

 

[matticus]

...

Your methodology is where learner drivers start off before they gain appreciation for the art of being a motorist rather than just a driver.

You see @mjr ? You are still merely "a driver" - if you practice longtime, and study at the feet of the masters, then ...
you too may become A Motorist, My Son.

(My own organisation - Institute of Advanced Cyclists, watch this space for subscriptions - support only using front lights on steep descents. Clearly your observation skills SHOULD deal with all other situations! )

 

[mjr]

You see @mjr ? You are still merely "a driver" - if you practice longtime, and study at the feet of the masters, then ...
you too may become A Motorist, My Son.

No, I'm a learner driver, apparently. Which is fine. I'd hate to be an arrogant nobber who thinks they have nothing to learn and doesn't indicate because I failed to spot an unlit person in my blind spot.

(My own organisation - Institute of Advanced Cyclists, watch this space for subscriptions - support only using front lights on steep descents. Clearly your observation skills SHOULD deal with all other situations! )

"Should I signal before turning?" "No, that's exactly what they expect!"

 

[All uphill]

When I did minibus driving training years ago I was told not to indicate if there were no other road users. I understood the idea was that we should scan and assess every time, which is clearly a good thing.

My concern was the emphasis on 'Road users'. What about pedestrians who might want to cross the road soon?

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

When I signalled to overtake a parked car, my instructor told me you don't indicate when it's obvious what you're doing (it being obvious that I wasn't intending to crash into the back of it).

I was told that - but then did my Advanced test with the IAM and got mixed responses

which came down to it having to be obvious to EVERYONE - including people that you cannot see such as the car that is about to appear from round the corner
and the pedestrian that is about to appear from behind that car where he has been picking up something

and if you can;t be sure all those people exists and might need to know about it then you should signal just in case

and you have to take into account whether or not the other people have realised - because they may not be paying attention

and you have to assess all this in the time available and decides whether it is not necessary to signal or to take the safer option and signal so everyone have positive evidence of what you are going to do

This driving lark is damn complicated!!!!

 

[mjr]

My concern was the emphasis on 'Road users'. What about pedestrians who might want to cross the road soon?

The pavement (footway) is part of the road and highway, which they are probably already using. Even some paths that you cannot drive along are still roads, legally.