Your IAM observer, as are so many of them, was talking out of his/her arse. The examiner is correct. -- _______ ..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom) \`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3 `\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2 `\|/` `
Until your final shoulder check it's all about what you'd like to do isn't it? Otherwise why would you bother with the shoulder check? Seems a pointless distinction to make anyway, since it's situation dependant.
why bother with a shoulder check? Just indicate, and perform your manoevre. If people fail to get out of your way, well, it's *your* problem.
Did you never hear of "Mirror, Signal, Manouever" when you learnt to drive? Same thing, innit? First you check it's safe for you to perform said manouever, then you signal to let others know your intentions, then you go. -- _______ ..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom) \`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3 `\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2 `\|/` `
IME many drivers and riders, and sometimes myself, have at times indicated as a car approaches and you manouvre after they're passed- and I've never seen a panic reaction causing a pile up. The indicating isn't purely for the benefit of the vehicle approaching you from behind, it's also for vehicles directly behind you that might decide to whip out into the slipstream, and the driver in front of you. I maintain it's situation dependant and to put a hard and fast rule down is inflexible and a bit silly. The process of checking it's safe, etc still takes place, the action of indicating just occurs earlier for the purposes of more warning that would otherwise be preferable in some situations. It's quite simple.
I always shoulder check, I was questioning the apparent need for it if you've made a concrete decision about what you're going to do as per Mash's post. OTOH I can't see why people are getting so uptight about this. It's like saying "only ever use the front brake" or "always stick to the left kerb on the approach to a right hander". Sometimes there are exceptions.
