Near Miss of the Day 642: No mirror, no signal, left-hook manoeuvre

My assumption would be its London, you leave any more than a wheel gap to the vehicle in front & a taxi will be diving in from your right to take the space, hence also the impressive acceleration to keep pace with the van, keeping over left let's you see if theres a gap you can use to advance up the traffic queue.

Mungecrundle wrote:

At the risk of being part of a pile on, I thought this was a good demonstration of reasons to be catious when filtering and being entrained in slow moving traffic. Van driver failed to indicate but catious riding by the cyclist removed the risk though personally, and without seeing anything other than narrow time window and framing of the video clip, I'd like to think I'd have given more space and been a bit more towards the centre of the lane if moving at the same speed as the other traffic.

Agreed Munge

Agreed Munge

Yep - Agreed 

It is definately a good demonstration of shit infra. Visited and cycled around London last month after being out of UK for 15 years. I really expected better. K&C and Westminster were particularly shitty. 

Captain Badger wrote:

Qe?

Not usually one to stand up for the driver, but here did they did little wrong (the lack of indication was poor, but mostly from the perspective of any ped preparing to cross the side road.)

At the lights the rider was stationary behind the driver and didn't filter forward at any point, (which is fine) and remained behind throughout the action.

After the lights went green the traffic was free-flowing,  I don't believe filtering would have been appropriate, and the rider (quite rightly ) didn't do this.

This to me is not that big a deal, if any.

Because without the signalling the slowing for the corner is unexpected and the cyclist could end up on the inside, or running nto the back of the van.

Not really a left hook as the van doesn't come from behind, but signalling is imoportant. And also for peds as you suggest. Although driving instructers will tell learners not to signal where there are no other motor vehicles as it is unnecesary and implies they are unaware of their surroundings, even though it will be benficial to pedestrians

wycombewheeler wrote:

....

Because without the signalling the slowing for the corner is unexpected and the cyclist could end up on the inside, or running nto the back of the van.

Not really a left hook as the van doesn't come from behind, but signalling is imoportant. And also for peds as you suggest. Although driving instructers will tell learners not to signal where there are no other motor vehicles as it is unnecesary and implies they are unaware of their surroundings, even though it will be benficial to pedestrians

I'll accept that - not just the ped that needs the signal, and I'll reiterate that lack of signal is poor with a firm nod to your point

I still disagree that this in itself would be the cause of a collision.

HWC 126 Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. Although the rule uses the word "drive", I believe that the context definitely covers us when we are on 2 wheels (m'cycles or pushbikes) if only to state the bleeding obvious. In any case the section is headed "General rules, techniques and advice for all drivers and riders (103 to 158)"

An emergency stop/swerve may have similar warning or outcome, and as a following road user I would be expected to be able to take appropriate action to avoid a collision - if I can do it for an estop (rare) I can definitely do it for an unsignalled left (not so rare). To put it a slightly different way, if I am riding in such a manner to allow for an estop, I'll also have the unexpected left covered. NOTE - I do not mean by this that the driver doesn't need to signal, and that was still poor, unless it was a BMW of course. 

Captain Badger wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

....

Because without the signalling the slowing for the corner is unexpected and the cyclist could end up on the inside, or running nto the back of the van.

Not really a left hook as the van doesn't come from behind, but signalling is imoportant. And also for peds as you suggest. Although driving instructers will tell learners not to signal where there are no other motor vehicles as it is unnecesary and implies they are unaware of their surroundings, even though it will be benficial to pedestrians

I'll accept that - not just the ped that needs the signal, and I'll reiterate that lack of signal is poor with a firm nod to your point

I still disagree that this in itself would be the cause of a collision.

HWC 126 Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. Although the rule uses the word "drive", I believe that the context definitely covers us when we are on 2 wheels (m'cycles or pushbikes) if only to state the bleeding obvious. In any case the section is headed "General rules, techniques and advice for all drivers and riders (103 to 158)"

An emergency stop/swerve may have similar warning or outcome, and as a following road user I would be expected to be able to take appropriate action to avoid a collision - if I can do it for an estop (rare) I can definitely do it for an unsignalled left (not so rare). To put it a slightly different way, if I am riding in such a manner to allow for an estop, I'll also have the unexpected left covered. NOTE - I do not mean by this that the driver doesn't need to signal, and that was still poor, unless it was a BMW of course. 

I often think that the vast majority of accidents require two poeple to make an error. The first that does something foolish and another driver failing to react/make allowances for that.

In this case the cyclist was able to stop and there was no collision, so hard to fault what the cyclist did.

I don't know what you mean about BMWs not signalling, I was overtaking on the motorway on saturday, and after the BMW driver behind did not disintergrate my car with his full beam deathray (nowhere I could have moved to, but he still seemed surprised I did not clear his path), he then turned on the right indicator. I was tempted to slow down and wait to squeeze into a gap in lane 2 instead of completing my overtake and letting him past as would be normal.

wycombewheeler wrote:

.......

I don't know what you mean about BMWs not signalling, I was overtaking on the motorway on saturday, and after the BMW driver behind did not disintergrate my car with his full beam deathray (nowhere I could have moved to, but he still seemed surprised I did not clear his path), he then turned on the right indicator. I was tempted to slow down and wait to squeeze into a gap in lane 2 instead of completing my overtake and letting him past as would be normal.

I suspect that you were being silly by obeying the sped limit. Everyone knows that BMWs are subject only to autobahn rules, and therefore are entitled to.... to...... well, just generally entitled tbh.

I suspect tho that it wasn't a beemer, as evinced by the presence of an indicator

wycombewheeler]</p>

<p>[quote=Captain Badger

wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

In this case the cyclist was able to stop and there was no collision, so hard to fault what the cyclist did.

In my opinion, the only element the cyclist was potentially at fault at would be making a fuss about the incident. As the Captain say, no signal is poor form, but this example only became moderately newsworthy due to the cyclists position. 

As it was, that position enabled them to make adjustments as needed, so no complaints there when push comes to shove, however that positioning and the reduction in wiggle room, made what was realistically a non-event / mild irritation into something almost dramatic. 

Different scenario is a driver coming the other way and deciding they can beat the van driver to the turn and the van driver slams the brakes on. With the positioning here, there is little scope to see the oncoming traffic and risk that you run out of space where van driver brakes heavily.

I would have been more to the right and a little more back to give a better view.

wycombewheeler wrote:

driving instructers will tell learners not to signal where there are no other motor vehicles as it is unnecesary and implies they are unaware of their surroundings, even though it will be benficial to pedestrians

Poor advice from any driving instructor who does this - it assumes that the driver at all times and in all circumstances has perfect awareness of who may be around them - obviously that's not the case. 

Signalling when no-one is there harms nobody, and telling learners not to do it adds an unnecessary personal judgement stage to the process, where all would be safer if drivers simply signalled by default in all circumstances when turning/changing lane. 

Velo-drone]</p>

<p>[quote=wycombewheeler

wrote:

 driving instructers will tell learners not to signal where there are no other motor vehicles as it is unnecesary and implies they are unaware of their surroundings, even though it will be benficial to pedestrians  

 I'm sure that professional driving instructors would use the phrase 'road users', not 'motor vehicles'.

Velo-drone wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

driving instructers will tell learners not to signal where there are no other motor vehicles as it is unnecesary and implies they are unaware of their surroundings, even though it will be benficial to pedestrians

Poor advice from any driving instructor who does this - it assumes that the driver at all times and in all circumstances has perfect awareness of who may be around them - obviously that's not the case. 

Signalling when no-one is there harms nobody, and telling learners not to do it adds an unnecessary personal judgement stage to the process, where all would be safer if drivers simply signalled by default in all circumstances when turning/changing lane. 

At the level of the basic driving test I'd tend to agree with you Mr Velo.  But as you go higher up the chain of qualifications these things matter.  Any candidate for the police Advanced Test who resorted to your 'default' system of signalling would certainly receive some timely words of, shall we call it, 'advice' from the instructor.

mike the bike wrote:

Velo-drone wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

driving instructers will tell learners not to signal where there are no other motor vehicles as it is unnecesary and implies they are unaware of their surroundings, even though it will be benficial to pedestrians

Poor advice from any driving instructor who does this - it assumes that the driver at all times and in all circumstances has perfect awareness of who may be around them - obviously that's not the case. 

Signalling when no-one is there harms nobody, and telling learners not to do it adds an unnecessary personal judgement stage to the process, where all would be safer if drivers simply signalled by default in all circumstances when turning/changing lane. 

At the level of the basic driving test I'd tend to agree with you Mr Velo.  But as you go higher up the chain of qualifications these things matter.  Any candidate for the police Advanced Test who resorted to your 'default' system of signalling would certainly receive some timely words of, shall we call it, 'advice' from the instructor.

I can also vouch that this is in fact the case. 

similarly on Bikeability courses the lesson is "no need to signal if no one is there".  Keep your hands on the handlebar it's safer. 

I must admit to having found myself indicating on blue light runs due to muscle memory but it was mentioned in a less than complimentary manner on my last refresher.

The one thing I can't work out is the current spate of people who seem to indicate right when coming off a roundabout .  Just.... No!

Inspector Kevin Smith SYP wrote:

mike the bike wrote:

Velo-drone wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

driving instructers will tell learners not to signal where there are no other motor vehicles as it is unnecesary and implies they are unaware of their surroundings, even though it will be benficial to pedestrians

Poor advice from any driving instructor who does this - it assumes that the driver at all times and in all circumstances has perfect awareness of who may be around them - obviously that's not the case. 

Signalling when no-one is there harms nobody, and telling learners not to do it adds an unnecessary personal judgement stage to the process, where all would be safer if drivers simply signalled by default in all circumstances when turning/changing lane. 

At the level of the basic driving test I'd tend to agree with you Mr Velo.  But as you go higher up the chain of qualifications these things matter.  Any candidate for the police Advanced Test who resorted to your 'default' system of signalling would certainly receive some timely words of, shall we call it, 'advice' from the instructor.

I can also vouch that this is in fact the case. 

similarly on Bikeability courses the lesson is "no need to signal if no one is there".  Keep your hands on the handlebar it's safer. 

I must admit to having found myself indicating on blue light runs due to muscle memory but it was mentioned in a less than complimentary manner on my last refresher.

The one thing I can't work out is the current spate of people who seem to indicate right when coming off a roundabout .  Just.... No!

Agreed about incorrect signalling. As for not signalling this may be entirely appropriate for the police - you have different requirements though. Most people aren't police drivers, aren't paid for driving and don't / shouldn't be doing it under pressures that apply to police situations.

I'd love everyone to drive with that "alert" mindset and put in more focussed training than currently.  Current driver training could certainly be improved. It needs to address the fact that most people's focussed awareness is limited though. Also the current "skill level" bar for passing is set low - most of the population pass. That suggests our standard should be to train in "failsafe" driving eg. making "redundant" signals.

mike the bike wrote:

Velo-drone wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

driving instructers will tell learners not to signal where there are no other motor vehicles as it is unnecesary and implies they are unaware of their surroundings, even though it will be benficial to pedestrians

Poor advice from any driving instructor who does this - it assumes that the driver at all times and in all circumstances has perfect awareness of who may be around them - obviously that's not the case. 

Signalling when no-one is there harms nobody, and telling learners not to do it adds an unnecessary personal judgement stage to the process, where all would be safer if drivers simply signalled by default in all circumstances when turning/changing lane. 

At the level of the basic driving test I'd tend to agree with you Mr Velo.  But as you go higher up the chain of qualifications these things matter.  Any candidate for the police Advanced Test who resorted to your 'default' system of signalling would certainly receive some timely words of, shall we call it, 'advice' from the instructor.

Yet for some reason, we decided at some point to link the brake lights to the brake pedal, not give the driver a "slowing" button to turn them on when appropriate before braking.

mike the bike wrote:

......

 

At the level of the basic driving test I'd tend to agree with you Mr Velo.  But as you go higher up the chain of qualifications these things matter.  Any candidate for the police Advanced Test who resorted to your 'default' system of signalling would certainly receive some timely words of, shall we call it, 'advice' from the instructor.

Really? How would this "matter"? A signal is a flick of a switch by a finger that is already in position to do so. As Insp Kev states below, it's as often muscle memory as anything. 

Why actively put an additional decision process in place? 

I can imagine a police instructor bringing someone up about changing their hand position on the wheel in order to make the signal when blues are already showing, but a habitual tap on the stalk, when placed to do so, will make no discernable difference.

In any case, emergency service drivers are hardly the majority case study, and even then the above would only apply only when actually on a call - I'm sure the Insp can give us an idea of what proportion of driving time is spent with blues on.

In any other situation the key priority is reduction of risk, and that is what the basic level of driving is about. If any driver (unless an emergency driver on call) is driving other than at highway code and driving test pass standard, they are doing it wrong.

When on a bike as Insp says below there is the aspect of balance. This does not exist in a car (or m'bike I believe). If a driver is not in control enough, or driving too fast, to move their hand to signal in a safe and timely manner, their driving really falls below what is acceptable in that instance.

I defended the driver in the film, and I think I still do. Not signalling is irritating perhaps, and definitely not to driving test standards, but we're probably all guilty of it to a greater or lesser extent, and the following road user will be able to account for others' errors by the simple expedient of leaving enough stopping distance (which the rider did, just)

What seems odd to me is making a definite decision not to signal - to have spent the time, and complicated the risk assessment, for the sole aim of reducing the margin for error, and no other discernible benefit.

I sometimes think there is a desire to show how good a driver you are by deviating from the norm, backed up sometimes by "this is what the pros do", the F1 drivers, teh emergency services, the army etc. This negates the fact that inherently these drivers are performing high-risk actions, deliberately, and sometimes in highly controlled environments (F1, rally etc) or in totally uncontrolled environments (army). The civilian driver on the public highway has little appropriate use for these techniques.

Advanced driving is far more about training the driver to actively think about what they are doing on top of the robotic processes taught at the basic level.

For most of us the robot system works just fine. For many, even that level of ability is too much. An advanced Police driver or motorcyclist will outskill 99.9% of drivers any day.

Mungecrundle wrote:

Advanced driving is far more about training the driver to actively think about what they are doing on top of the robotic processes taught at the basic level. For most of us the robot system works just fine. For many, even that level of ability is too much. An advanced Police driver or motorcyclist will outskill 99.9% of drivers any day.

Advanced police drivers don't necessarily have the best safety records... They might "outskill" me, but what does that actually mean in practice? Narrowing the margin for error? Getting there sooner? an ability to judge whether they "need" to flick a switch or not? If they kill more people at the end of their driving careers than normal drivers, well, it doesn't look like they had the skills required to be considered advanced or superior after all - they just did it faster.

Robot system doesn't work for anyone, however neither does the assumption "I'm advanced, therefore normal rules don't apply"

Interestingly I can across this article in teh guardian from 2019. Police will be treated differently to ordinary drivers in teh event of a collision, to "reflect their training". And rightly so, a highly skilled driver should be expected to pose less of a risk to the public than a bog-standard one..... except no. They are to be less culpable. Staggering.

“It is important that when police officers are required to use their training to protect society, they can do so with the confidence that the law is on their side.”

Which really means, "we drive in such a way that we know will result in injury and death to members of the public, and we don't want to carry the can". A tacit admission by policymakers and police that they are more likely to collide with and kill members of the public, but that's alright, they're doing it to protect us, so they're allowed.....

This is (was, at least) the advice of the Institute of Advanced Motorists. I think the idea is that if you check to see if there's anyone to signal for, then you'll be more likely to see any hazards. Whether that makes sense or not for the average sleepy driver I doubt - I suspect that always signalling is an easier habit to keep.

wycombewheeler wrote:

Although driving instructers will tell learners not to signal where there are no other motor vehicles as it is unnecesary and implies they are unaware of their surroundings

Do they? The Highway Code says (Rule 103) "You should always give clear signals in plenty of time" - it doesn't say anything about "unless nobody's about". My excellent motorcycle instructor always instilled in me that you should always signal "because there's always a chance, however much you've looked around, that you've missed someone who might need it, and if you haven't, what harm's it done?"

My employer used to pay for IAM courses for those of us that drove company cars. Yes I was told not to indicate if there was no need.

Not sure I fully agreed then or now, but that was the advice.

Sniffer wrote:

My employer used to pay for IAM courses for those of us that drove company cars. Yes I was told not to indicate if there was no need. Not sure I fully agreed then or now, but that was the advice.

One more nail in the coffin of the IAM's reputation as far as I'm concerned. Facking stupid ill-considered advice. I'm coming to the conclusion that the IAM is all about justifying sloppy high-risk driving, cos " we're advanced innit"

This opinion is not soothed by one of my good friends ( competent driver) who is going through the next stage to become an instructor. Some of the dogma seems to be justifying things that are just as easily interpreted as carelessness,  simply because they're doing it carefully. The logic around signalling seems to be "don't signal sometimes to make sure you check whether you need to signal"

How about check, but signal in all circumstances, even if you're sure there's no one else there. This covers you for the time where you made an error.

I can't believe (well, I can) that the IAM thinks it's a badge of honour to contravene the HWC.....

Whilst I might agree with your assessment of the IAM on the whole, on the aspect of blindly always signalling I certainly dont on my bike if I assess it to be of no benefit to anyone else & my driving instructor taught me that as well. It always bugs me when a vehicle overtakes you and then indicates left to retake a road position, I always wonder if it's some passive aggressive hint to me to be more left on the road.

But its probably they just arent thinking,its automatic muscle memory and I think that's the key you are missing, it's not just dont indicate if theres no need, its get in the mindset of always assessing if there is a need, as you are then far more likely to spot hazards/dangers by doing that check, than just letting your brain drive you on autopilot, and if you feel that takes too much time than just automatically indicating, it probably tells you, you need to give yourself more time&space by slowing down.