Near Miss of the Day 763: "Driving isn't poor enough" according to police

Couldn't agree more. I've certainly been in the position where I have emerged at a junction at night and would have appreciated a signal from somebody who most likely held the view that 'nobody is around so I'll not bother signalling'. 

My view is like yours, to always make intentions known. Roads are dynamic environments and just because there might not be a road user around to appreciate a signal at the start of a manoeuvre doesn't mean a road user might come round a corner or emerge at a junction at any point of the manoeuvre.

nordog wrote:

I had a lot worse than that here most days that had a clear view of any danger of income cars/van etc the pass me on totally blind bends that are even narrower than that wide road, I now ride centre lane most times to stop

dangerous passing in many parts of my local small town.

 

Totally agree had the cyclist blocked the driver by going to the right of those potholes and not the left this would not have happened. Hugging the kerb invites close passes

Glos Police has a very lazy attitude to dealing with poor driving standards that affect cyclists, despite having put up a load of posters reminding drivers to give cyclists room.  It's in their DNA.

Similarly, Lancashire Constabulary put up 3 combined 'Pass Safely' and '1.5 metres' signs on successive lamp-posts near my house. I filmed people performing gross close-passes right by the signs, and LC just ignores the reports. Hypocrisy is also in police DNA

Noticed the same thing. First thought the driver was indicating to "alert" the cyclist that they would be pulling in and then realised they were signalling for the "turn". At a guess they didn't know the area which again, means they should have waitied behind cyclist could have gone straight.

I see this quite often, drivers indicating when they don't need to  - and annoyingly, some expect you to....why??  In fact it happened to me on a bike; the road bends round to the right - straight on is a 'left turn' - and a driver expected me to signal right.....

Are people really that incompetent? The answer is 'Yes'.

I often wonder when a car has overtaken me and then indicates left, and theres not a left turn in sight, whether its not like a sort of passive aggressive keep left you cyclist kind of message.

here it could easily be they just were following satnav, they dont handle those kinds of road situations that well and will often say turn left in instruction to a road thats just going left.

Awavey wrote:

I often wonder when a car has overtaken me and then indicates left, and theres not a left turn in sight, whether its not like a sort of passive aggressive keep left you cyclist kind of message.

They are merely following good driving practice, and having indicated right to pass you, they then indicate left to pull back in.

no its not good driving practice, IMO at least, or my driving instructor who always said unless you are on a multi lane carriageway, were where you are going is important to indicate, we drive on the left in the UK, and you are expected to return to the left hand side of the road you are on anyway after overtaking anyway, so indicating left after an overtake of a cyclist could easily be misinterpreted that you are doing something more than overtaking like pulling over to the left & stopping at the side of the road, or taking a left turn into a driveway instead of an actual road, and so on.

its the same as cycling in terms of you signal to benefit road users behind you, you dont just signal because thats what youve been programmed to do because that actually shows you arent thinking about what you are doing and being observant, which is not the mindset you need on the road.

Awavey wrote:

no its not good driving practice, IMO at least, or my driving instructor who always said unless you are on a multi lane carriageway, were where you are going is important to indicate, we drive on the left in the UK, and you are expected to return to the left hand side of the road you are on anyway after overtaking anyway, so indicating left after an overtake of a cyclist could easily be misinterpreted that you are doing something more than overtaking like pulling over to the left & stopping at the side of the road, or taking a left turn into a driveway instead of an actual road, and so on.

its the same as cycling in terms of you signal to benefit road users behind you, you dont just signal because thats what youve been programmed to do because that actually shows you arent thinking about what you are doing and being observant, which is not the mindset you need on the road.

I remember a  TV documentary called "GLF" where a Police driving instructor  said you don't need to signal when pulling in after overtaking, unfortunately he forgot to acknowledge that there are other vehicles around and pulling in without signalling is dangerous.

Look around you and see the number of idiots who regard indicators as very fragile optional extras so don't use them at all.

It's better to keep a good habit then a bad habit.

But that's the curious point, you wouldnt expect based on the average driver use of indicators, theyd be used at all, yet it's a near 90% conformance to application of the left signal after theyve passed, I've no idea without a rear facing camera if they signal right first, and I dont always take notice if they apply the same signals to pass a cyclist up ahead of me riding more in the gutter, though I always feel I get the short end of the stick in terms of close passing.

But it's just something I ponder occasionally on my rides

Gus T wrote:

I remember a  TV documentary called "GLF" where a Police driving instructor  said you don't need to signal when pulling in after overtaking, unfortunately he forgot to acknowledge that there are other vehicles around and pulling in without signalling is dangerous.

Long ago I was in a car with three mates and I asked the driver (who was a very competent and courteous one, generally) why he wasn't signalling when returning to  the lefthand lane after overtaking on the motorway, he replied that not only was it unnecessary but strongly discouraged, if not illegal. The other two passengers (both drivers) agreed this was the case. I don't know where the myth that it's unnecessary or even illegal sprang up but it's pretty widely accepted, it seems.

Often the drivers are trying to cancel the lane alert systems which try to 'prevent' the cars from drifting across lanes. If a driver uses indicators, the cars sensors ignore the vihicle crossing a white line and don't alert the drivers, although this doesn't apply in the featured footage.

It's there dinosaur brain responding belatedly to the recognition of your presence. It does not mean anything other than they recognise something happened that they may or may not have understood

When in my car & overtaking a cyclist, I signal to say that I am pulling out to pass & also to say that I am pulling in, it's how I was taught when I learned to drive many moons ago.

The logic of advanced driving is that as at a certain point you should be returning to your lane, why would you need to signal?

Also, never signal if your signal is ambiguous, so signalling left when there is no obvious purpose can be misconstrued as about to turn left.

Similarly, there is no need to signal when passing a parked car, it is entirely obvious you need to go round it - and if the car is close to a junction you really only should be signalling if you are turning right.

Signalling is only one part of a clue to what people are doing and fixating on signalling rather than the combination of signal, speed and road position - for example, never consider pulling out in front of a car turning left until you have another clear confirmation that they are turning, which is typically reducing speed and watching their road position.

Having read a Roadcraft, and subscribed to a few Advanced Driving/Riding channels, that is correct as I understand it; no need to signal when returning to the left lane. Signaling purely out of habit, is not to be encouraged, as it means you're not thinking about your driving.

Velophaart_95 wrote:

Signaling purely out of habit, is not to be encouraged, as it means you're not thinking about your driving.

That's fine in principle, but I wonder if it stacks up in practice. There's no way for other road users to distinguish between advanced motorists who are thinking about their driving and have consciously decided not to indicate, and awful drivers who are neither indicating nor thinking. Personally I don't see the harm in both thinking about your driving and indicating.          

Self-proclaimed 'advanced' drivers seem to be one of the worst apologists for bad driving in general. It's hard to see how an actual IAM-tested advanced driver would condone the shite driving standard that is generally excused by the loud, self proclaimed kind on social media.

Maybe Roadcraft should be updated to reflect the recent changes in the HC because some, assuming they actually are IAM-tested advanced drivers and not a load of loud Walter Mittys trying to argue from an authority they don't have, still either haven't got the memo or think their opinions against the changes ultimately trumps the changes.

With regards to signalling when passing both parked cars and cyclists (and anything else that happens to be in the carriageway) when driving, I indicate precisely because while it is obvious to me that I need to pull out there is no guarantee that the driver behind me can see that need because, of course, my car is in their line of sight. Having signalled to move out, I then signal to move back to my previous line on the left, as I was taught many (many!) years ago. 

This isn't far from where I live and the amount of times cars have pulled out on me through a conjunction of SMIDSY, I thought you were "going straight on" and also simply "you were on a bike so thought you would have been slow".

The cars usually parked on the bend also make it lovely when there is also cars coming down the "main" route as well. 

It might have had one. Plod response is that they couldn't prosecute for it, not that they couldn't / didn't take other action. (Although letting the videographer know would have helped). 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

It might have had one. Plod response is that they couldn't prosecute for it, not that they couldn't / didn't take other action. (Although letting the videographer know would have helped). 

Possible, I suppose, but I'd expect that to be mentioned in the article.

Just submitted a report to A&S about a dangerous oncoming driver overtake - it's been my first one in ages. I'll probably post it here when I get a response from them.