The 'need' to indicate - ?

[mjr]

Is there a linky to the campaign please?

https://www.iamroadsmart.com/media-...g-more-conflict-with-cyclists-and-pedestrians
and press statements in rags like the Daily Mail, Express, Sun and so on, along the lines of the quotes in https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/...nges-cars-must-give-way-cyclists-when-turning

 

[Bonefish Blues]

https://www.iamroadsmart.com/media-...g-more-conflict-with-cyclists-and-pedestrians
and press statements in rags like the Daily Mail, Express, Sun and so on, along the lines of the quotes in https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/...nges-cars-must-give-way-cyclists-when-turning

No, the campaign you mentioned?

 

[MontyVeda]

I'll only signal my intent if there's someone to signal my intent to.

The drivers who really annoy me are those who flick on their indicator at the last nanosecond before turning...

 

[mjr]

I wouldn't exactly describe it as "campaigning against".

How would you exactly describe it? IAM put resources into actions that hurt cycling. Despite their occasional protestations to care for all road users, the mask slipped to show they are still a motoring lobby group and fundamentally do not have the best interests of anyone but motorists at heart. That lens colours their teaching, such as requiring other road users to "be seen" before they are rewarded with basic indicating.

 

[Alex321]

How would you exactly describe it?

Certainly not as "campaigning".

"Campaiging" is asking for something to be changed (or not changed if they are campaining against proposed changes), and there is nowhere in either of the press releases I have seen which suggest they want anything in the proposals changing.

IAM put resources into actions that hurt cycling.

Cite?

I haven't seen anything that does so, but that could just be because I haven't been looking for such - there certainly isn't anything which does so in their responses to the HC changes.

Despite their occasional protestations to care for all road users, the mask slipped to show they are still a motoring lobby group and fundamentally do not have the best interests of anyone but motorists at heart.

Well the initials do stand for "Institute of Advanced Motorists".

That lens colours their teaching, such as requiring other road users to "be seen" before they are rewarded with basic indicating.

While your anti-motorist views strongly colour your reading of what they say.

 

[Saluki]

I indicate on deserted roads, it’s habit. A good habit, I think.

 

[Bonefish Blues]

Here's them campaigning again, I guess:

https://www.iamroadsmart.com/media-.../23/9-tips-for-sharing-the-road-with-cyclists

And again
https://www.iamroadsmart.com/media-...-changes-to-the-highway-code-you-need-to-know

And here they seem to be campaigning to inform about attitudes and make a point that it's not enough to change a book that's seldom-read because education and resources need to be put behind it if you want to change behaviour on the roads:
https://www.iamroadsmart.com/media-...rs-over-confusion-around-highway-code-changes

And so on...

 

[mjr]

While your anti-motorist views strongly colour your reading of what they say.

I am a motorist. I am not anti-motorist. That is a very lazy and inaccurate dismissal attempt.

 

[Alex321]

I am a motorist. I am not anti-motorist. That is a very lazy and inaccurate dismissal attempt.

Your posts here come across as very strongly anti-motorist, whatever you may believe about yourself.

Your posts above about the IAM show that, as do several of your posts in the "Visibility" thread.

 

[Scottish Scrutineer]

My driving instructor said don't indicate if it's obvious what you're doing, as it will just confuse people. <snip>
The entrance to my estate is a right turn off a main road, and there are usually parked cars on the main road opposite. If I indicate early I risk it being mistaken for a signal to overtake, if I wait until I'm already alongside the parked cars I risk that it's too late.

In this situation, I'd be looking to treat this as two manoeuvres:

1. The move to the right to pass the parked cars, so signal to indicate before moving out, then cancel that signal, next
2. The right turn; signal probably whilst in the road position to pass the parked cars. Of course you could be old-school and reinforce the right-turn signal by using hand signals. 😉

 

[mjr]

Your posts here come across as very strongly anti-motorist, whatever you may believe about yourself.

Your posts above about the IAM show that, as do several of your posts in the "Visibility" thread.

Just because I believe motorists should obey the law, and that we should recognise IAM as motoring lobbyists rather than any sort of safety experts, that is enough to be called "very strongly anti-motorist"? That shows how far up the creek this country's roads are.

 

[Alex321]

Just because I believe motorists should obey the law, and that we should recognise IAM as motoring lobbyists rather than any sort of safety experts, that is enough to be called "very strongly anti-motorist"? That shows how far up the creek this country's roads are.

No, it is the way you say these things, and things like describing the press release as "campaigning against" the changes when they certainly weren't doing so.

Things like putting all the blame on motorists for not seeing cyclists even when, in the dark, those cyclists are dressed in all dark clothing and no lights or reflectors.

And your interpretation of "motorists should obey the law" would require that nobody ever drive more than about 30mph after dark, because dipped headlights will never fully light the road surface far enough ahead.

I still have no idea what it is you think the IAM have put resources into that hurt cyclists either.

 

[Dogtrousers]

And your interpretation of "motorists should obey the law" would require that nobody ever drive more than about 30mph after dark, because dipped headlights will never fully light the road surface far enough ahead.

Huh?

I think you'd better think that out again. I don't have time to dissect it but it seems on the face of things to be cobblers. How dark exactly? Under streetlights or not? What type of road? Why no use of full beam? There may be nuggets of truth in there but I'm not seeing them.

 

[matticus]

Just because I believe motorists should obey the law, and that we should recognise IAM as motoring lobbyists rather than any sort of safety experts, that is enough to be called "very strongly anti-motorist"? That shows how far up the creek this country's roads are.

It's the War against Motorists!

 

[Alex321]

Huh?

I think you'd better think that out again. I don't have time to dissect it but it seems on the face of things to be cobblers. How dark exactly? Under streetlights or not? What type of road? Why no use of full beam? There may be nuggets of truth in there but I'm not seeing them.

His interpretation is that you should always drive to be able to stop within what you can fully see to be clear. Which in the dark means within the distance dipped headlights will show up any unlit dark objects in the road. See paragraph 2 of this Post.

His argument there was that the law was wrong to require rear lights (on all vehicles, not just bikes) because it encourages people to drive at speeds where they can't do that, but rather can only stop within the distance they could see a lit up or reflective object.

I understand his point, but don't agree that it is "shoot driving" or against the law to be driving like that.