a short vid of a collision involving a cyclist

sketchley

CiB wrote:

I agree with DDD.

As we're on about questionable interpretations of what seems like an overlap between semantics and common sense (and blind-spot sideways glance / shoulder checks fall into that), can any of our driving instructors or people who've passed the test in the recent past comment on this?

My wife a qualified driving instructor checked the email I posted above with the section from the Driving Standards Agency document. Particuarly the part about driving faults and serious fault and if you would fail or not.

CiB wrote:

I read somewhere recently that it's considered a serious (i.e. a fail) if on the driving test you encounter a 20mph advisory speed limit (e.g. outside a school at chucking out time) and you slow down to that speed. The logic IIRC is that you're unnecessairly holding up traffic. The concensus was that this is the current thinking and that an examiner would fail an eximanee for slowing down is this situation. Shome mishtake shurely?

There is not such thing as 20mph advisory speed limit. If you are talking about 20 is plenty signs, they are not road signs and should be ignored so I can see the instructors point.....

sketchley

Just asked my wife about the 20 is plenty signs. It's complicated and depends on the situation. You have to drive at a speed that is appropaite for the road and not in excess of the speedlimit. While you wouldn't be expected to obey these signs they would normally indicate a hazzard such as a school, it may therefore be approriate to drive at 20mph outside the school even if it is a 30mph limit road. Not doing so particuarly at school kicking out time might lead to driving fault regardless of if there is a sign or not. However slowing to 20mph when there is no hazzard on a 30mph limit road just beause of non legally enforceable sign could also lead to a driving fault.

DonDaddyD

Sketchley wrote:

i) "should suffice" and "would be sufficient" have suttle but important differences in meaning.

No they don't and even if they do, neither mean check the blind spot while moving and about to perform a manouvre.

Sketchley wrote:

If you are being pedantic, and you are, then I have to disagree.

I'm being pedantic and you're the one attempting to explain the difference between "should suffice" and "would be sufficient". How's that work?

Sketchley wrote:

Plus to be ultra picky on this all driving instructors now use blind spot mirrors (at least all the ones I know) and the sideways glance can be into the blind spot mirror. So unless moving off "mirrors should suffice" providing they are correctly adjusted and cover the blind spot.

Irrelevant, cars, as standard, do not come with blind spot mirrors. We weren't talking in the context of a driving instructors car.

Sketchley wrote:

ii) Yes and I said that earlier "In short though we all agree, check your blind spots but not by turning round and looking over your shoulder when moving. Use your mirrors for that and use them frequently not just when about to manoeuvre."

But we didn't agree though did we? Eke claimed that the only time you should shoulder check [blindspots] is when moving off and that otherwise [all other times] checking mirrors (i.e. moving/changing lanes) should suffice, implying no need to check blind spots while moving. You attempted to support this by retelling your wife's experience.

Sketchley wrote:

iii) Yes and I always understood your point. Now please do me and EKE the favour of conceeding the point that "Shoulder Checks", the original starting point of EKE posts that you took offence too, should not be used whilst moving and should infact only be used when "moving off" if you do this I think we are done.

Yet amazingly you still somehow manage to miss my point and my issue.

My issue isn't about 'shoulder checks' and 'sideways glances'. To be honest that's just squirmish semantic bullsh*t on yours and Eke's part in my opinion.

My issue isn't so much the first part of what he wrote.

My issue is the second part, "otherwise mirrors should suffice"

Now repeatedly I have stated that mirrors by themselves are not sufficient in checking whether it is safe to perform a manouvre while moving you need to check the blind spot.

sketchley

Ok if you took eke to mean that the only time to check blind spots is when moving off then this is clearly wrong and you are right, but honestly go back and read all the post again and tell me did he really mean that or were you just tying to find an argument where there wasn't really one?

DonDaddyD

Sketchley wrote:

Ok if you took eke to mean that the only time to check blind spots is when moving off then this is clearly wrong and you are right, but honestly go back and read all the post again and tell me did he really mean that or were you just tying to find an argument where there wasn't really one?

Maybe your bromance makes you blind. Or maybe you are just attempting to dismiss me by accusing me of being argumentative while selectively ignoring the fact you have continually chosen to argue...

but I'll play along, he said it here:

Eke wrote:

The only time a driver should do a shoulder check is when moving out from a parking space, otherwise, mirrors should suffice.

I'll repeat:

Mirrors alone aren't sufficient you need to check your blind spot while moving and about to perform a manoeuvre.

sketchley

Eke was making the point that you shouldn't shoulder check unless you are moving off. A point you have spectacularly or deliberately failed to recognise. Yes the second part of his post could be interpreted to mean he said never bother to look in your blind spot at any other time, but honestly do you really think he meant that? Particularly given the context above it that people on es website where saying the driver should have shoulder checked. In the context of thread you appear to have deliberately taken it in way that has meant you could have an argument, hence me accusing you of doing the same. If I'm wrong and you genuinely felt exe meant never check your blind spot when moving and feel the way you have responded is acceptable then I apologies, you are right and we are both wrong.

CiB

Sketchley wrote:

There is not such thing as 20mph advisory speed limit. If you are talking about 20 is plenty signs, they are not road signs and should be ignored so I can see the instructors point.....

From memory it was the advisory signs that indicate 20 during particular times, usually accompanied by flashing amber lights during periods considered more dangerous. Here's an example, halfway down this page - http://www.drivingtesttips.biz/speed-limit-uk.html

Carry on your fight with DDD though - it's quite entertaining, almost like old times.

sketchley

That a real speed limit sign, nothing advisory about that. The red circle implies you must obey the 20mph limit, the white rectangle provides an exemption from the prohibited sign. Perfectly legal and you should slow to 20mph when the lights are flashing and not a driving falt. In fact as you are most likely going passed a school you might want to slow to 20 anyway.

DonDaddyD

Sketchley wrote:

Eke was making the point that you shouldn't shoulder check unless you are moving off. A point you have spectacularly or deliberately failed to recognise.

I think we've been over this yesterday and today and I think you sepctacularly or deliberately fail to recognise that my issue is the part of the comment "otherwise, mirrors should suffice".

It's the notion that while moving you only need to check your mirrors. I cannot make this any clearer for you to understand, the fact that your are still ignoring this, my point and what my actual issue is, is frankly astonishing.

Sketchley wrote:

Yes the second part of his post could be interpreted to mean he said never bother to look in your blind spot at any other time, but honestly do you really think he meant that? Particularly given the context above it that people on es website where saying the driver should have shoulder checked. In the context of thread you appear to have deliberately taken it in way that has meant you could have an argument, hence me accusing you of doing the same. If I'm wrong and you genuinely felt exe meant never check your blind spot when moving and feel the way you have responded is acceptable then I apologies, you are right and we are both wrong.

Read this:

Eke wrote:

You guys must spend half of your time facing backwards when driving forwards in heavy traffic.
What do you do if you are driving a van (with no windows behind the front doors)? Unless you have X-Ray vision, a shoulder check won't tell you anything. I'm not saying that you don't look through the door window, but that is pretty much accomplished at the same time as the mirror check.
You have to set up and use your mirrors properly and carefully though.

Considering my training to be a driving instructor, I stand by my position.

Kinda, nullifies your quoted post above.

You cannot set up your mirrors properly to cover a blind spot while not creating new blind spots. Mirrors will not suffice you need to check your blind spot while moving and about to perform a manoeuvre

EKE_38BPM

I said to myself that I was going to stay away from this stupid pedantic argument about something that should be clear and obvious to normal, reasonably intelligent drivers, but it seems that I have to.

Earlier in the thread:

EKE wrote:

I'm not saying that you don't look through the door window, but that is pretty much accomplished at the same time as the mirror check.

So, to try to clarify my clarification:
When moving off, perform a shoulder check to see that the blindspot is clear.
When moving, do not perform a shoulder check. Looking into the mirrors should also include looking through the door window and should suffice to check your blind spot assuming you have been using your mirrors correctly prior to contemplating changing road position.

Considering we are all on the same side of the argument this is just, at one person's instigation, stupid.
That is it. I'm out. I don't care what the pedants have to add.

sketchley

I post saying if I'm wrong about you just trying to argue then I apologise and concede the point and instead of taking this as a victory for you (it was) you continue to argue. Kind of proves my point that your just trying to argue. I'm out you win the Internet enjoy playing with it.

boblo

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I said to myself that I was going to stay away from this stupid pedantic argument about something that should be clear and obvious to normal, reasonably intelligent drivers, but it seems that I have to

That's you being rude again. Yesterday people who didn't agree with you were ignorant, today you are implying they are thick and/or abnormal. You should stop this.

The reason you are getting feedback is you were sloppy with your original post and then tried to cover this up with obfuscation and noise. You implied you know more due to your education but in fact you painted yourself into a corner by sloppy English. Your mate then jumped in trying to cover up the original mistake. The mistake was making a statement that was silly.

This could all have been avoided if you'd simply said 'I didn't mean just use mirrors, I meant use these as well as check blind spots when moving'. God alone know why you didn't do this.

jimmypippa

Graeme_S wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I can't believe you just said that. It is really quite ridiculous.

Any time you are driving a vehicle and about to perform a manoeuvre you should check your blindspots to avoid potential situations like the one in the video.

Anyone else find that after they you start cycling regularly you end up shoulder checking while pushing a trolley in a supermarket, or even when just walking down the street?

Yes