“If he’d stayed in his lane, I would have seen him”: Pavement parking taxi driver banned for injuring cyclist after pulling out without indicating – but barrister blames cyclist’s poor “lane discipline” for crash

It seems common sense to me to assume that I might not be fully aware of everything that's happening, and that there could be somebody there that I haven't noticed.

When I'm cycling I'm extremely wary of taxi drivers. They seem to think that the rules don't apply to them. In fact you might assume that any driver who has pulled up on the pavement thinks that they are above the rules and may do something else equally inconsiderate.

bensynnock wrote:

It seems common sense to me to assume that I might not be fully aware of everything that's happening, and that there could be somebody there that I haven't noticed. When I'm cycling I'm extremely wary of taxi drivers. They seem to think that the rules don't apply to them. In fact you might assume that any driver who has pulled up on the pavement thinks that they are above the rules and may do something else equally inconsiderate.

I'm similarly wary of taxi drivers - they're more likely to want to stop and/or turn around. They're also often using multiple devices: a GPS, either built-in or fixed to the windscreen and often they're on a handheld phone as well.

I wouldn't classify all pavement parkers as inconsiderate as they're often trying to be considerate to other drivers. The problem is that they prioritise drivers and fast roads over the health and safety of pedestrians.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I wouldn't classify all pavement parkers as inconsiderate as they're often trying to be considerate to other drivers. The problem is that they prioritise drivers and fast roads over the health and safety of pedestrians.

The first sentence is still going too far even with the second - "I wouldn't classify all speeding drivers as inconsiderate as they're often being considerate to their passengers or the people they've said they'll meet at a certain time".

Yes - it could be seen as "be considerate of other drivers" but it could also be "if I don't pull out of the way another driver could clip my motor..."

Or we can just call it "social convention" I guess?

hawkinspeter wrote:

They should make it a legal requirement to indicate before pulling out from a parking sport and turning into/out of side roads. Personally, I don't get why so many drivers don't bother as it's not exactly onerous to flick a lever to indicate.

(I have heard previously on here that some driving instructors actually berate learners for indicating when there's no-one visible around - that's just plain stupid).

IME a lot of motorists only seem to bother indicating if they see other cars.

Even if pedestrians waiting to cross who might have liked to know that you intend to turn into a side road and they could have crossed the road after all 

Quote:

"(I have heard previously on here that some driving instructors actually berate learners for indicating when there's no-one visible around - that's just plain stupid)."
I recall reading this, and hearing it from my daughter when she was learning to drive. It is of course utter bollocks, but fits with the myth that drivers are all-seelng and all-knowing, and the only reason they hit other road users is because it's the victims fault or they 'came out of nowhere!'
 

Most in my local town only indicate after the act that they are supposed to tell others, pull into the left lane then indicate left, mind-boggling daft I know they will or should be turning left but I did not know that they were moving from the righthand lane until they did and stopped at the red light. 

hawkinspeter wrote:

(I have heard previously on here that some driving instructors actually berate learners for indicating when there's no-one visible around - that's just plain stupid).

thats odd! I don't get why they would do that.. years ago when I had a driving instructor he would tell me to indicate regardless as you can't tell who can see you.. are they worried about using up the light bulbs??

Gravelproof wrote:

thats odd! I don't get why they would do that.. years ago when I had a driving instructor he would tell me to indicate regardless as you can't tell who can see you.. are they worried about using up the light bulbs??

The theory behind it as I understand it is that the learner should be constantly thinking about their driving and the traffic around them. If they always indicate before turning etc. then it is apparently demonstrating that they aren't thinking about who they're indicating for.

However, that's just obviously dangerous to not be encouraging learners to always indicate when performing a maneouvre with the exception being when indicating could be ambiguous (e.g. overtaking vs turning though that implies that they're overtaking near a junction which isn't great).

no its encouraging them to think and use the concious part of the brain to check the traffic around them properly, something we as cyclists criticise drivers alot for not doing, rather than letting the brain automatically switch off the decision making aspect and just treat it as repetition.

its a very valuable lesson to be taught.

This is where I disagree with the advanced driving guidance - it seems this is being used as much as a "sign of knowledge". And in fact whatever you practice likely becomes habit over time (brain is *excellent* at saving expense by swapping doing work every time for "here's one i made earlier").

Neither indicating or deliberately not indicating necessarily correlate with you actually checking sufficiently. And your indication or lack of it is only one of the inputs other road users need to consider.

But hey - if it acts as mental meta-tool to cue awareness then that's all good I guess.

stonojnr wrote:

no its encouraging them to think and use the concious part of the brain to check the traffic around them properly, something we as cyclists criticise drivers alot for not doing, rather than letting the brain automatically switch off the decision making aspect and just treat it as repetition.

its a very valuable lesson to be taught.

That would be okay if it actually worked like that, but this incident demonstrates that some drivers don't check sufficiently and don't indicate. It's particularly dangerous when they pull out of a parking space as there might be very little clue as to what they're doing. Failing to indicate when it is appropriate just compounds the problems with their lack of observation. They don't see an approaching cyclist, think that they shouldn't indicate and then cause a collision that could so easily have been avoided if they had indicated "just in case".

A colleague who did an advanced driving course was told the same thing. If there is no one around you don't need to indicate.

Yes, a friend of mine did an advanced driving course and got marked down for indicating where the instructor deemed it was unneccessary. I think the logic was that if he'd done all the required checks of mirrors etc (which he had done) then he would know that there's nothing around to indicate to. But what's the downside of indicating, just in case there was something which you didn't or couldn't see (e.g. in a blind spot)?

Even a pedestrian needs to know the intentions of a bicycle let alone a two-ton 150 HP SUV etc Some pedestrians are moving faster than four MPH like runners etc. They have eyes to see indicating traffic but not the mind-reading bit yet.

I've heard the same from the police. My problems with it are drivers don't always see everyone, it becomes a bad habit, and there's no upside.

There used to be a statement: Mirror Signal Manoeuvre.
Covered everything from pulling away, to changing gear, to changing direction and to stopping.

A *professional* driver would be using glance - look - glance - fecking *look* ... there really is no excuse for colliding with anything when in *control* of a motor vehicle.

Indicators are funny things ... some people don't use them as they know where they are going and they don't need the little arrow on the dashboard to tell them.

I remember a few decades ago on Look East; they were interviewing the head honcho of Suffolk Police Road Unit and the biggest gripe was that police officers didn't indicate when pulling back in from overtaking.
He replied with [paraphrasing so not a direct quote] it forced the driver to check their mirrors and also, because you should return to the left when finished overtaking, other road users should expect it, and thus no need to signal the intent.

Oldfatgit wrote:

There used to be a statement: Mirror Signal Manoeuvre. Covered everything from pulling away, to changing gear, to changing direction and to stopping. A *professional* driver would be using glance - look - glance - fecking *look* ... there really is no excuse for colliding with anything when in *control* of a motor vehicle. Indicators are funny things ... some people don't use them as they know where they are going and they don't need the little arrow on the dashboard to tell them. I remember a few decades ago on Look East; they were interviewing the head honcho of Suffolk Police Road Unit and the biggest gripe was that police officers didn't indicate when pulling back in from overtaking. He replied with [paraphrasing so not a direct quote] it forced the driver to check their mirrors and also, because you should return to the left when finished overtaking, other road users should expect it, and thus no need to signal the intent.

Ideally it should be Mirror Signal Mirror Manoeuvre. The second "Mirror" is also known as the life-saver.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Oldfatgit wrote:

There used to be a statement: Mirror Signal Manoeuvre. Covered everything from pulling away, to changing gear, to changing direction and to stopping. A *professional* driver would be using glance - look - glance - fecking *look* ... there really is no excuse for colliding with anything when in *control* of a motor vehicle. Indicators are funny things ... some people don't use them as they know where they are going and they don't need the little arrow on the dashboard to tell them. I remember a few decades ago on Look East; they were interviewing the head honcho of Suffolk Police Road Unit and the biggest gripe was that police officers didn't indicate when pulling back in from overtaking. He replied with [paraphrasing so not a direct quote] it forced the driver to check their mirrors and also, because you should return to the left when finished overtaking, other road users should expect it, and thus no need to signal the intent.

Ideally it should be Mirror Signal Mirror Manoeuvre. The second "Mirror" is also known as the life-saver.

Yes! I was taught that I should indicate early enough to ensure people saw it before moving, which required a further check. I wasn't to indicate where it could be ambiguous, and that included waiting to pull out from a parked space into moving traffic until I was ready to move. I should be waiting for the cars to pass, and indicating might give the impression that I was going to pull out in front of someone, causing them to break etc. The exception for that rule is buses.

I have heard that not indicating when there's 'no-one to see' is acceptable/good practice now, but far too many people just don't indicate unless they think it's to their advantage. More often than not they don't indicate where it would benefit pedestrians, but I see it a lot when I'm driving. While you shouldn't assume that someone indicating to turn into a side street will definitely do so, an indicator along with judging the car's speed and position can make the difference between getting out of that side street in a timely manner.

I think it's just good practice to stick to mirror-signal-mirror/shoulder check-manouvre as habit unless you have a good reason for doing something different. At least that way if you are a bit distracted for whatever reason then you are giving those around you a fighting chance.

FionaJJ wrote:

Yes! I was taught that I should indicate early enough to ensure people saw it before moving, which required a further check. I wasn't to indicate where it could be ambiguous, and that included waiting to pull out from a parked space into moving traffic until I was ready to move. I should be waiting for the cars to pass, and indicating might give the impression that I was going to pull out in front of someone, causing them to break etc. The exception for that rule is buses.

I have heard that not indicating when there's 'no-one to see' is acceptable/good practice now, but far too many people just don't indicate unless they think it's to their advantage. More often than not they don't indicate where it would benefit pedestrians, but I see it a lot when I'm driving. While you shouldn't assume that someone indicating to turn into a side street will definitely do so, an indicator along with judging the car's speed and position can make the difference between getting out of that side street in a timely manner.

I think it's just good practice to stick to mirror-signal-mirror/shoulder check-manouvre as habit unless you have a good reason for doing something different. At least that way if you are a bit distracted for whatever reason then you are giving those around you a fighting chance.

That's a good point about completely trusting that because someone has indicated that they definitely will perform a maneouvre. It's more about intention - they use their indicator to tell others that they intend to turn or pull out etc. which allows others to be better prepared for them changing direction etc.

When cycling I often indicate twice - once before changing speed for a manoeuvre, and again when I've slowed down just before making the turn. 

AidanR wrote:

When cycling I often indicate twice - once before changing speed for a manoeuvre, and again when I've slowed down just before making the turn. 

When cycling, I'll sometimes not indicate for a fast left turn as I'd rather keep both hands on the controls and it shouldn't make any difference for other traffic behind me. I do however indicate if I think it's useful info for pedestrians/drivers such as if they're waiting to turn into a side road that I'm also going to be turning into.

Using the cycle lanes in Copenhagen introduced me to the concept of always indicating when pulling away from stationary as there's so many people using the lanes and you don't want to veer straight into someone.

hawkinspeter wrote:

always indicating when pulling away from stationery

Presumably to make sure that you draw attention to yourself?

mdavidford wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

always indicating when pulling away from stationery

Presumably to make sure that you draw attention to yourself?

You should follow the letter of the law, find an envelope of space and put your stamp on it.

And if the professional had done that there would have been no crash, no severe injuries and no ban.

When I had some accompanied drives with IAM (couple of decades ago) that was their stance.

Mine is that I need to regular habit because not signalling makes more likely not to do it when I need to, and if I don't see someone they at least know what I am doing and can mitigate my mistake.

mattw wrote:

When I had some accompanied drives with IAM (couple of decades ago) that was their stance.

Mine is that I need to regular habit because not signalling makes more likely not to do it when I need to, and if I don't see someone they at least know what I am doing and can mitigate my mistake.

What snaps my cranks is that they could take that stance, but also encourage drivers to indicate anyway whilst stating "indicating just in case" which would fulfil their objective of getting a driver to think about the traffic and also provide the rest of us with a blinking light so that we can at least try to avoid a collision.

To be honest, I think they're just being obstinate in pushing their "ideal driver" stance over the practicalities of avoiding collisions. They're letting "perfect" be the enemy of "good". Also, they're promoting the idea of the omniscient driver - if they can't see anything, then there's nothing there.

the little onion wrote:

Oddly stiff punishment - by which I mean relative to the normal slap on the wrists. Is this a Scots law thing? Are driving penalties harsher up there?

Causing serious injury by careless driving is a relatively new offence, with stiffer penalties. Previously this would simply have been careless driving and the horrific injury suffered by the cyclist would be largely irrelevant.

The 80 year old that left me needing to walk with a stick, arthritis and a brain injury got 6 points and a small fine.

In Scotland [where I am and the collision happened], if you admit guilt at the scene, you can pretty much get away with points. That was 2018 and before the new charge came in ... but I can't see it being much different.