I have just followed an elderly lady for several miles in side roads. Most of that journey, she and I were the only moving vehicles in sight but there were lots of parked cars and skips.
Every time she approached a parked car or skip, she signalled right.
It got a bit tiresome, since she was only signalling to me and I could see what she was going to do anyway.
In fact, it could have been counter-productive since she eventually did make a right turn off the road and if I had been closer and just assumed that it was another 'overtake' there could have been some sharp braking or worse.
Anyone think all that signalling was correct/necessary?
|
If I'm coming down a road and there's very little traffic (usually late at night) and happen across someone who indicates for every little thing, I (rightly or wrongly) assume something's up with them whether they be drunk, or not the best driver in the world so I always hang back and wait for them to do something stupid.
...I also overtake and get the hell away from them as soon as possible.
--
Adam
|
|
If overtaking anything -- moving or stationary -- takes you into the oncoming carriageway, I reckon you should signal. It tells those behind you to anticipate an obstruction; it tells oncoming traffic that you are encroaching on their roadspace. But I see no need to do it unless you do need to cross the centre line.
|
|
I find myself doing this excessive signalling thing in the Beemer. Just to prove I had the optional signalling pack fitted.
|
|
Then there are the hazard light flashers every time they encounter a tail-back on the motorway...why?????
|
why?????
To try and avoid being rear ended by the myopic/drugged up/mobile phone totting/Fast-food chomping/sluglike-reacting drivers that haunt this fair isle.
|
>>why?????
Biggest contribution to road safety ever, imho.
When I was taught to drive, I dutifully put my indicator out every time I passed a parked car. My instructor (1990) told me not to do it, as provided I drove what he called the 'safety line' (i.e. a gentle move out from the edge of the road well before the obstacle, rather than a sharp move immediately in front of the obstacle) I would be making a clearer signal.
|
|
|
why????? To try and avoid being rear ended by the myopic/drugged up/mobile phone totting/Fast-food chomping/sluglike-reacting drivers that haunt this fair isle.
Yes, hello!
I think signalling when overtaking something stationary is pointless on a single-lane single-carriageway road. On motorways and dual-carriageways it's imperetive you do so for the benefit of other road users.
The worst problem is when people don't cancel their signals and end up signalling all the way up the road. I've been seeing this too often recently, even when going past side roads with cars waiting to pull out!
--------------
Mike Farrow
|
|
|
why????? To try and avoid being rear ended by the myopic/drugged up/mobile phone totting/Fast-food chomping/sluglike-reacting drivers that haunt this fair isle.
Or the Taliban look-alike that was driving along this morning drinking tea (or something) out of a china mug!
|
|
|
|
|
I would say inadequate or non-existent signalling is a greater problem - arguably your old lady was playing safe - I don't really buy the "crying wolf" argument - if she signals more than the average it just underlines thoughtless attitude of so many drivers who can't be bothered.
It's immensely irritating not to be given a clue which way the car in front is going from the lights, or whether the car you are waiting for at roundabout is about to take the exit on your right. It seems to be getting worse, along with going through red lights.
|
|
I've seen Officers use it as part of reason to stop a driver who was subsequently arrested for drink driving.
|
I always signal, and signal properly. I'm always cautious on roundabouts too, because most people don't seem to grasp the simple concept of indicating left as you reach the exit you want to take.
I probably signal too much, but I'd rather do that than not at all.
|
most people don't seem to grasp the simple concept of indicating left as you reach the exit you want to take.
Surely not? Surely you should indicate left as you pass the exit before the exit you want? This means your signal can't be mis-interpreted, and gives the maximum warning to the cars around you.
If you wait until you've already reached the exit you want, then there's hardly any point signalling at all - you're not really giving a warning of what you're about to do, you're already doing it!
|
Surely not? Surely you should indicate left as you pass the exit before the exit you want? This means your signal can't be mis-interpreted, and gives the maximum warning to the cars around you. If you wait until you've already reached the exit you want, then there's hardly any point signalling at all - you're not really giving a warning of what you're about to do, you're already doing it!
That's what I meant I just couldn't be bothered to type all that out. Thought I'd managed to insinuate it but obviously not - basically I do what the Highway Code says. That way if I have an accident I shouldn't be liable.
|
|
|
|
Anyone think all that signalling was correct/necessary?
I would say that the signalling was excessive. I have passed the Advanced Driving Test and the teaching is find a reason NOT to give a signal - in the case of stationary obstacles the positioning of the vehicle towards or even perhaps over the centre line is sufficient information and no need for a signal.
The only reason I would give a signal to pass a stationary object would be if I was also stationary and waiting for oncoming vehicles and with other vehicles approaching from behind. This would inform them that I will move off and I am not parked.
|
If I think that there's even a chance of a stationary vehicle having a driver in it, I'll give the indicator 3 or 4 flashes.
- If they're thinking of moving off, tells them I'm passing rather than letting them in (particularly for buses & taxis).
- If they're going to get out but aren't looking properly, the flashing indicator might just catch their eye and reduce the chance of them throwing a door open.
It also alerts any oncoming drivers who are on auto pilot that they should move over slightly.
|
I was always taught to indicate for at least four seconds before making a major manoeuvre - overtaking parked cars is not one of them and it should be obvious to a driver behind what are your intentions.
Apart from excessive indicating by other drivers, another habit which greatly annoys me is a driver who is constantly hitting the brake pedal, even for a slight bend in the road; the obvious result is brake lights going on and off all the time for no reason whatsoever in the majority of cases.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
it should be obvious to a driverbehind what are your intentions.
Some hope! Give them all possible clues and drive as defensively as possible is my policy.
|
|
|
When I did the advanced course I was taught 1 signal for every 10mph when travelling on mtotorways. Only then do I move out. gives everyone else time to see the signal and react to it.
When returning to nearside lane when/if no-one will benefit, no signal.
|
|
|
|
It also alerts any oncoming drivers who are on auto pilot that they should move over slightly.
I think that's a very good point. Often safe passing of a stationery car involves encroaching a bit over the centre line. If the remaining road is still wide enough for two streams of traffic, indicating gives fair warning to oncoming traffic that you intend booking that bit of space.
On the other hand, if a dreamer or a white van takes no notice, you can hang back, in which case your indicator stops other smart alecs behind from thinking they can nip round both you and the parked car.
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you change station on the road then you are obliged to signal by law. Having said that common sense should dictate. The one that really gets my goat is when you wait for someone to come through on a roundabout and they turn left without signalling.
|
A lot of people signal instinctively (i.e. without concious thought) according to the road layout rather than to conciously give information of their intentions to other road users. Consequently they often signal when there is nobody else close enough to benefit from their signal. If they give this little thought to their signalling, and are this little aware of the existence (or not) of other road users, how much thought do they give to the other aspects of driving? Very little, I would imagine.
--
L\'escargot by name, but not by nature.
|
That sounds like most New Zealand drivers, except for the part where they use their indicators. That's still running at about 50%, from what I have seen lately. I think only those of us who have driven in the UK (and Europe, America and several other places in my case) have the slightest thought about being considerate to other road users. Everybody else just seems to be on autopilot with tunnel vision. Even when you decide to let someone in or out of a space it can take several seconds for them to adjust to the fact that someone else is making room for them. Sometimes I just shake my head. No wonder we have such a high accident rate, most of the drivers are unskilled and untrained. I felt safer in London than I sometimes do over here.
Any of the visiting UK Lions rugby fans driving up and down the country in camper vans care to agree with me?
|
|
|
. Consequently they often signal when there is nobody else close enough to benefit from their signal.
True, but you often don't know who may not be visible but would still benefit. You don't know which pedestrian is waiting for a gap in the traffic to nip accross the road. If you don't signal your intentions it might be your car he walks under.
Another reason for signalling unnecessarily could just be as cover for possible insurance claims. My drive entrance is off an isolated narrow country lane, but on a blind bend. I always instinctively signal. There is never anyone coming, but just once there might be, and I want to avoid the other driver being able to say "and he wasn't even signalling".
|
The reason is quite simple. On any given day there is a quota of indicator flashes that must be used up. As we know there are certain cars that do not have indicators or where the indicators cannot be used (lest the driver be forced to buy a different marque).
This lady is simply using up the surplus.
|
I am finding myself guilty of indicating when on a dual carriageway for the 18 mile stretch of my trip to work.
But I have started doing the continental way - ie when in the outside lane, leaving the indicator on until I indicate to return to the inside lane. I don't tailgate or intimidate the vehicle in front, or hog the outside lane and as around 55-75 is my normal speed, other users behind, can usually see me doing it 2-3 times around slower vehicles before they overtake me at 65-90. So they know I'm not being forgetful.. This is not an offence, is it? Would it annoy you? In some ways I fell it makes up for the people who never use their indicators unless to park on double yellow lines.. (Light blue touchpaper and step well back)
|
|
|
|
|
|
A rather different kind of signal is nearly always given by drivers joining from a slip road. This seems to me to be quite unnecessary - there is no possible alternative manoeuvre, and usually it seems to mean 'make room, I'm coming in'. I suppose it might draw a little attention to the vehicle, but otherwise a waste of effort?
|
|
|
|
