The 'need' to indicate - ?

[mjr]

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.

I was describing the activities, not only the press release, such as telling anyone who will listen things like "the new Highway Code will increase conflict on the road rather than reduce it" and attempting to divert effort into localised segregated facilities, which their local chapters then oppose as increasing conflict or making driving more difficult or some other motoring reason.

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.

I haven't done that. I am always clear that "no lights or reflectors" make it shared-fault at best, but I will not excuse drivers hitting unlit objects because that is below the standard required by the licence.

But I do not agree that wearing dark clothing is a significant fault and I hardly need to criticise the unlit cyclists in most of these cases because there's enough of a lunch mob on here for them already. Is that really a good justification to call me "anti-motorist"? Nope.

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.

Sorry but that is nonsense. Dipped headlights set to the recommended 1ish% declination should illuminate the road surface ahead far more than the code stopping distance at 70mph. If yours do not reach at least 100m, I suggest your vehicle is unroadworthy and should not be used at night until adjusted or repaired, which is often as simple as turning the adjuster on the back of the light while on level ground in front of a wall with a ruler.

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

For example, including in their survey whether helmet and cycleway use should be made compulsory and publishing the disappointingly high levels. Why do that?

Are you, or have you ever been, an adherant (member, supporter or whatever they call it) of IAM of any type? No stigma if so, for more joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, but I don't understand why you seem to trust them so utterly?

 

[mjr]

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.

Or rather, I pointed out that the CTC had some justification for opposing that law change. It is still the law, I still comply with it and I still encourage others to.

It is against the law to drive so you cannot stop within what you can see to be clear. It's stated in the highway code. It's required by the national standard for driving cars. I realise it is also widely done, but that's part of why so many people are killed on our roads avoidably. It's clearly a stupid and reckless thing to do and we need the culture to change so that driving blind becomes as unacceptable as driving drunk.

 

[Alex321]

Sorry but that is nonsense. Dipped headlights set to the recommended 1ish% declination should illuminate the road surface ahead far more than the code stopping distance at 70mph. If yours do not reach at least 100m, I suggest your vehicle is unroadworthy and should not be used at night until adjusted or repaired, which is often as simple as turning the adjuster on the back of the light while on level ground in front of a wall with a ruler.

They will illuminate the road ahead sufficiently to see things like road signs or cats-eyes, which are designed to be reflective. Or people facing you. But they won't be enough to show somebody walking away from you with dark clothing and a hood up or dark hair. Or a nasty pothole.

And other sources suggest about half the distance you say
https://www.drivingtesttips.biz/full-main-beam-headlights.html

For example, including in their survey whether helmet and cycleway use should be made compulsory and publishing the disappointingly high levels. Why do that?

I don't see them as hurting cyclists there. It is a reasonable question to ask, though I am also disappointed by the response. And I am willing to bet that almost all serious cyclists in the survey would have been in the 20% who said no.

Are you, or have you ever been, an adherant (member, supporter or whatever they call it) of IAM of any type? No stigma if so, for more joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, but I don't understand why you seem to trust them so utterly?

I have considered joining them (many years ago) just to take a course and improive my driving, but I never actually followed through on that.

What makes you think I "trust" them (utterly or otherwise)?

 

[mjr]

What makes you think I "trust" them (utterly or otherwise)?

You seem to regard their activities as sincere concern for the confusion caused by the highway code changing and see no motive in them including leading questions on compulsion in their survey, amongst other things.

Whereas I feel this is a straightforward motoring-lobbying campaign because the highway code changes often without IAM complaining (35 rules changed a few months ago) and drivers are required to stay up to date (but of course, this is another part of the driving standard not enforced much).

In one way, that's fine, as long as IAM is seen as what it is — lobbyists for motoring — and not an authority on good driving practices that should be cited in stuff like discussions about indicators.

 

[DaveReading]

I guess a campaign to get them to change the name to the Institute of Self-Important Motorists isn't destined to be very successful.

 

[matticus]

I guess a campaign to get them to change the name to the Institute of Self-Important Motorists isn't destined to be very successful.

I go for
Institute of "Advanced" Motorists.

 

[Dogtrousers]

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.

In the complete, absolute, pitch dark with no street or other lighting maybe. But who drives in those conditions, and does not put full beam on? And even then, in such conditions, caution is advisable.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

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...

That’s because they see you at the last second, having assumed their earlier observation skills were perfect.

 

[Alex321]

You seem to regard their activities as sincere concern for the confusion caused by the highway code changing and see no motive in them including leading questions on compulsion in their survey, amongst other things.

It is maybe a difference of optimism vs pessimism. I tend to believe what people (and organisations) say unless I can see clear signs of disingenuousness or somebody has provided evidence of such.

I don't have any more trust for the IAM than I do for any other organisation, and I am aware that the "motorists" in the their full name means something.

But I have never seen them as being mainly a lobbying organisation.

Their main aim has always been to teach better and safer driving. They have evolved over the years, and certainly do more lobbying nowadays than they did when I first became aware of them. But their main aims are still centred around road safety and better driving standards.

 

[Dogtrousers]

I've only ever heard of the IAM on here. And only when the subject of (not)always indicating comes up, which it does with some regularity.

Just sayin.

 

[Alex321]

I've only ever heard of the IAM on here. And only when the subject of (not)always indicating comes up, which it does with some regularity.

Just sayin.

I knew of it shortly after I first learned to drive, so around 1980ish.

As I say above, I did consider taking one of their courses then, and did get their manual from the library and read a lot of it.

I remember odds and sods from it, such as the suggestion that you verbalise your thinking as you drive, to ensure you are actually thinking rather than just driving on autopilot. I believe it is also this thinking that says you shouldn't automatically indicate, but should think about whether you need to, encouraging proper observation.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

I've only ever heard of the IAM on here. And only when the subject of (not)always indicating comes up, which it does with some regularity.

Just sayin.

Is IAM a narcissistic organisation ?

 

[Dogtrousers]

Is IAM a narcissistic organisation ?

Or a Cartesian one?

 

[DaveReading]

IAM, therefore I think, so to speak?

 

[CanucksTraveller]

I've done the IAM course (late 2000s) and then a few years later the very similar RoSPA course. (RoSPA is the foundation training for LAS response drivers so I had to do that one before going on the fast response role).

I'm not a current IAM member and didn't carry on with them after my assessment, so I'm not really sure what they're like as an organisation (outside of the training and assessment anyway). But I will say this: I'd prefer that there were many more IAM and RoSPA trained drivers on the road rather than less.
I'll hold my hands up and say that my own driving is far from perfect, but I do earnestly believe that some further driver training on the "system" (whether IAM or RoSPA) does make for a more thoughtful, careful, aware, and calm driver in general. The difference between standard driving instruction and an advanced course is like night and day, and the latter will change how you drive for life.

If any of you want to snipe at an image of IAM members that's fine, but I genuinely commend you to try the course yourself rather than criticise it without knowing.