What about the practice of indicating right just before passing a parked car?
I do a quick flick of the indicators (my car does a long flash at the start of each indication cycle, about 2/3 of a second, so I use that), for two reasons;
1) to inform those behind me of my intention (and wake them up potentially to a hazard);
2) in case the "parked" vehicle is about to go; this is especially true for buses, so they know what I'm about to do.
It depends on how much the parked vehicle is jutting out into the road; one small car I won't bother with, a big van, lorry or bus I will indicate for. If for no other reason than it might just wake up traffic coming in the other direction in case they're veering into the middle of the road (can happen).
|
I'm sorry, but signalling that you are passing a parked car? I occasionally saw this when I lived in the UK, and I thought it silly then too. Case 1. "Inform those behind... etc" Unless they are about to pass you, or your driving is going to affect them, can't they be trusted to see the obstruction the same way you did?. Case 2. "In case the 'parked' vehicle etc. Again, what were you going to do, slow down and park behind them? In that case indicate left and do so. If you were going to turn right into a drive or road, indicate right and do so. But to indicate right when you are just driving past, just so they know you are going to act perfectly normally, defies any logic.
Lets get indicators back to the turning, changing lanes, pulling out, pulling in notification system they were designed as. If you want to tell every one what you are going to do at every stage, get one of the LED signs they use on buses. I can see it now, Flash Flash " Just changing the radio station" Flash Flash "Moving right to avoid large leaf in the gutter".
|
Lud a comendable response I must say. The amount of times as a driver, cyclist and pedestrian I have seen someone too lazy to indicate drives me up the wall! However I also think these drivers are arrogant. The amount of effort and power needed to operate the indicators in neligable and any driver who thinks they know ALL the other road users intentions in the vicinity I think is arrogant. You should not encorage the arrogant parties on this forum. As for bad drivers, that is drivers who don't know all the intentions of the 3 groups of road users I have highlighted, they could at least have the curtersy of putting their indicators on. Looking at the behavour of most people they either seem unaware or discurtious.
I indicate whenever I belive apropate. That is I don't assume I know what all other road users in the vicinity are doing. Any other behavour is arrogant.
Who are the IaM group? I assume that they think every driver is by definition a good driver, who can survey their surroundings with perfection. Unluckly most drivers don't/can't and thus indicating may be require.
A prime example is when a young woman overtook me along a road near a crossroads. In her overtaking she gave me a very wider berth and dropped her speed down to minimise risk. As we both got to the cross roads she did not indicate so I assumed she must have been going straight on. Being in the UK and wanting to go right at the junction I attempted to pass her on the right hand side. When I was 5 feet away from her she started to indicate right, the result was a near collision in the middle of the juction. I feel that her driving was bad, in that she did not know what the other road users were doing. However I think if you feel if you are following the advice of IaM you must be looking at other road users exessivly rather than concentrating on your own driveing.
My advice is make 'resonable use of mirrors' so that you are 'optimially' aware of other road users behavour. However never assume you know everything and therefore indicate!
|
Upon the subject of indicating for passing parked cars I have to say in reponse to my last post I am a bit of a hypocrite. I never indicate to pass a parked car unless I believe that the driver behind me thinks I have parked. I almost got caught out once by stopping a long way down a one track road lined with cars when another car was aproaching. The car aproaching did turned into a parking space and I had just set off to accelrate (without checking my mirrors) and this other driver overtook me. If I had accelrated 1 second to soon then I would have been dealing with insurance companies. Howver I am unconvinced that indicating would have helped. The driver of the car that overtook me thought that I was parked, thus he had the right of way if I was indicating or not. That is to say if I had been indicating the same result to happen.
What bugs me is when cars indicate overtaking other cars and then go straight on, without the possiblity of them being parked (or parking) in the first place.
|
|
|
However I think if you feel if you are following the advice of IaM you must be looking at other road users exessivly rather than concentrating on your own driveing.
I feel the need to support the IAM view on this. I used to signal automoatically whenever I manouvered, now I don't. I think about whether I need to and that makes me look about me more. It makes me pay more attention. Yes, you need to be concentrating on your own driving, but that by definition means that need to be aware of your suroundings and the road users around you.
Before following the IAM procedures I don't think I was as giving as much thought to what I was I doing as I do now - and if that results in fewer signals then so be it - it's only the uninformative ones that have been eliminated.
Having to give a commentary as you drive, explaining what you're doing and why (including signalling) certainly concentrates the brain cells - and once I got used to it, I found it very helpful.
|
|
|
|
|
Why do drivers of stationery cars in filter lanes start signalling when the lights change? If you are in a right turn filter there's only one way to go.. Why do cars entering a dual carriageway signal right - again there's only one way to go and anyway they are turning left - in this case it seems to men "move over I' m not going to give way regardless of who has right of way"
|
I saw a classic with an rather old man in a Clio today at the local garage.
He backed out of his space indicating left, very slowly. Then he got to the exit indicating right.
I was behind him. I waited, and waited, and then he started fidding with putting his seatbelt on and then by the looks of it organising his wallet, all the time still indicating left, brake lights on.
I drove around him ( and turned right ) which seemed to wake him up to the fact that he was blocking people and out he pottered into the path of a car as you do. Then to my amusement, he stuck his left indicator on almost as soon as he was onto the main road.
Thing was, he passed two left turns before finally turning left. Had to chuckle.
One of my pet indication hates are those people who indicate right when going off at third exit or more, but dont then change to left to let you know if they are leaving the roundabout or carrying on round but instead continue to indiacte right as they leave the roundabout. My father is one of these!
Also rather annoying are the ones who indiacte right and then go straight over which is completely bizarre!
|
As a bike rider,I have a golden rule and that is trust no one !
I don't even trust people that actually do signal their intentions because many times they signal one thing and do another.
|
|
|
|
Case 1. "Informthose behind... etc" Unless they are about to pass you, or your driving is going to affect them, can't they be trusted to see the obstruction the same way you did?. Case 2. "In case the 'parked' vehicle etc. Again, what were you going to do, slow down and park behind them?
All true, which is why I do *not* fully indicate. A quick flash to make my intentions crystal clear. It takes no effort, and it may clarify to other road users something they may not have realised due to being asleep etc.
Case in point: bloke a couple of cars in front of me a few months back nearly got swiped by a bus he was overtaking. He did not indicate to make it clear he was going to pass the bus -- a quick flash of the indicators *might* have avoided the near-miss. On the other hand it might not. But we'll never know because blokey couldn't be bothered, and bus driver was being dangerously negligent.
Like I say, don't indicate past cars that are obviously parked, but it is often necessary if the vehicle is taking enough of the road, and/or you are not 100% sure it isn't about to pull out.
The IAM's attitude to signalling is only relevant to those drivers who are generally alert. The average chump should *always* be indicating, otherwise he'll forget. Don't forget, average blokey on the street is as thick as two short planks, and we shouldn't be trying to load his brain with when to and when not to do things in a safety-critical environment when the penalty for not signalling when necessary is so much greater than the penalty for signalling when not strictly necessary. All part of the same thing.
|
I agree with all the above. There's another kind of driver (my wife) who thinks that if you are joining a roundabout at a slight angle rather than at 90 degrees then you should indicate right because you are pulling out into a traffic stream. That's regardless of whether she is actually going to turn right or go straight on, or even turn left.
There's a new kind of signal I've noticed several times recently, more often than explained by simple mistakes or catching the stalk. Someone overtakes, and then does a quick alternate flash right, flash left, when well clear. Like a kind of victory roll - look at me, I overtook that stupid git!
|
>>... a quick alternate flash right, flash left...
That's also a way of saying thankyou to the person behind - buses often do it when you've let them out of a bus stop.
|
|
|
When you flash lorries in on motorways they will usually give a quick left/right blip on their indicators as a thank you; perhaps Cliff has been a courteous overtakee ( :
----------------------------------------------
One mans junk is another mans treasure
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What about the practice of indicating right just before passing a parked car?
When I was learning, my instructor told me never to do this - as it's misleading. If there's a road on the right, it gives the impression you are turning etc. Besides, it's completely useless - what else would you do but pass the parked car - wait behind it until the owner returned?!?
|
People who indicate to overtake parked cars are usually the ponderous, slow-reacting type of driver that think they are safer than everybody else, and who think that anyone who overtakes them is a "maniac"..... in my experience.
I agree with Greg. Unless you're indicating you're parking, or if you think other road users may benefit, don't do it. Driving is all about observation. The driving test and associated nonsense is far too easy, and the way instructors teach you to drive is utterly daft and of no use to you in real-life situations. The sooner we teach people to drive, rather than pass a Cholmondeley-Warner test, then the less idiots, ponderers and chavs we will have on our overloaded road system.
|
Couldn't agree more stevied. No doubt the old dear I followed down a stretch of rural single-carriageway at 30mph yesterday thought I was a maniac when I finally got too impatient to put up any longer - conditions were fine for a good 50-55mph. And... if you're driving correctly, and other drivers are being observant, you can tell just by the road-positioning of a car that they're waiting to pass a parked car.
I got tooted at a roundabout recently for not indicating right when I was going straight-on! She thought I must've been turning left even though I wasn't signalling when I entered the roundabout, and proceeded to pull out in front of me!! Idiots like that are a danger to themselves and everyone else - no doubt she thought my subsequent hand signal meant "peace, man"(!)
The driving test should be a 2-hour drive, and include town driving, rural driving, dual-carriageways and motorways. Why? Because that's slightly more challenging than a 30-minute jaunt around your own home town. The test should also have to be retaken every 10 years, with any mistake meaning an immediate fail. (That'd soon clear up the congested road system!)
|
Not sure I agree with people who say there is no need to indicate when no-one is about. How do you know there is no-one? In the middle of a field at 3am maybe, but otherwise how do you know a pedestrian isn't about to walk out of a driveway/shop/inbetween 2 cars/step out of a parked vehicle? How do you know a car is only 3 seconds behind you around the corner?
There is too much activity on modern roads today to have the time to sit there and decide if you should indicate or not and have a look round and asses the situation.
The number of times I have come across a vehicle that is doing something and there is no indicator and the driver is oblivious to me. Flippin dangerous at best, leathal at worst.
Lets be sensible-you are not going to indicate for every slight deviation in your lane. But what is the harm in conditioning yourself into indicating where necessary and regardless of if anyone is around?
|
Whinge, whinge, whinge.
99% of drivers indicate 99% of the time. Don't make it out to be a bigger problem than it is. Yes, the OP saw it happen, but you it's one of those things that you don't notice when it works.
Ref indicating to overtake parked cars, one use of indicators is to say that "I intend to move ...". Therefore, usage is correct. Why assume that the person behind can see the obstacle? A single flash of the indicator will generally not be misread.
V
|
Ref indicating to overtake parked cars, one use of indicators is to say that "I intend to move ...". Therefore, usage is correct. Why assume that the person behind can see the obstacle?
Absolutely right, Vin. Very often a cyclist is obscured to following traffic by the vehicle about to overtake and a signal draws attention to the fact that you are moving off your original line to go past. Of course, some drivers hardly move off their line and scrape past the bike with only inches to spare - so, presumably, they feel they have no need to indicate.
|
|
A parked car is not a moving obstacle, by definition of it being parked.
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly runboy. People who think they know everything that is happening on the road are usually the most dangouse of drivers. Have some humility in your observation abilties, drive defensively and we would all be safer.
|
|
|
Not sure I agree with people who say there is no need to indicate when no-one is about. How do you know there is no-one? In the middle of a field at 3am maybe, but otherwise how do you know a pedestrian isn't about to walk out of a driveway/shop/inbetween 2 cars/step out of a parked vehicle? How do you know a car is only 3 seconds behind you around the corner?
I've had this one asserted by an instructor on an advanced driving course. His stance was that you should go into every corner/junction assessing the situation and not indicating blindly - otherwise you could get into the habit of indicating without really thinking. My take is that you should go into every corner assessing the situation and indicating (virtually) regardless as there could be hazards that you had missed - you could just as easily get into the habit of not indicating and not thinking. I can think of many blind junctions where traffic is obscured by a building - best to be indicating ready IMHO.
|
|
I travel the same route to work and back at the same time every weekday. I see more or less the same cars in more or less the same places. Everyone knows where I am going so why do I need to keep signaling?
|
|
|
I've had this one asserted by an instructor on an advanced driving course. His stance was that you should go into every corner/junction assessing the situation and not indicating blindly - otherwise you could get into the habit of indicating without really thinking.
Yup, that's what they say.
My take is that you should go into every corner assessing the situation and indicating (virtually) regardless as there could be hazards that you had missed - you could just as easily get into the habit of not indicating and not thinking.
Quite right. It is better to indicate when not necessary (note not the same as indicating when inappropriate) than not indicating when it is necessary.
At the end of the day, regardless of whether you indicate in certain specific scenarios, surely the point is that it should be part of the thought process -- as long as you are indicating because you think there is a need to indicate rather than it being an automated action you're fine. There probably is no right or wrong answer, and if you are genuinely on the ball you can make decisions as to when to indicate (although I agree that this in itself is dodgy because you don't know what is round the corner or what others can see). In general though, pedantry is better than negligence.
But this is an *advanced* skill. The fact that learners are being taught this is inexcusable, because it's leading to just the problems we see today.
As for the "99% of people indicate 99% of the time", hmmm. More like 50 and 75 I'd say.
|
But this is an *advanced* skill. The fact that learners are being taught this is inexcusable, because it's leading to just the problems we see today.
The other one that's being over-emphasised is the desirability to drive to the speed limit 'where practical'. I don't personally have a problem with this, but many young drivers (e.g. my son) tend to interpret this as, for example, 'always drive at 60mph on single carriageways regardless of bends, moisture, ice etc'. This is an excuse that the kids love - especially when they've just written off SWMBO's Fiesta!
|
But but but.. that's youthful lack of judgement and experience.... it doesn't mean that the teaching is wrong. If your son thinks that it's appropriate to drive at 60 on ice, then he's wrong. That's not misinterpretation, it's just plain wrong!
Teaching shouldn't cater to the lowest common denominator at all times. Take a look around unstreamed schools to see the damage this causes.
|
I do try to think about my driving. If I think that signalling will help anyone around me understand what I intend to do, then I signal. If I cannot be absolutely sure that there is no-one around me, I signal. That includes passing parked cars (or cyclists or, especially, horses) where it involves straddling the centre line ("changing lanes") and there is room for oncoming traffic to pass safely, but not much.
Note: "intend to do". The ones that get steam coming out of my ears are those who don't signal until they are already in the intended manoeuvre or are actually completing it.
|
The ones that get steam coming outof my ears are those who don't signal until they are already in the intended manoeuvre or are actually completing it.
Hear hear RJ. Especially a single car in the outside lane at a traffic light. Light changes and the pink fluffy dice at the wheel suddenly remembers to signal. Makes you wish you were in mrmender's 9-litre V8 pickup truck so you could just drive straight over them. At least if they looked like a mess on the road they wouldn't be misrepresenting themselves.
|
That includes passing parked cars (or cyclists or, especially, horses)
I once saw a startled horse kick right through a car door - I have always made sure to pass very wide since then.
|
|
I agree with your sentiments, jase1, BUT I question the phrase "the fact that learners are being taught this is inexcusable".
No it isn't.
Teach people to drive properly before they go out on a public road. If learning to think, and consideration of other road users is considered "advanced" then heaven help us.
If you can't pilot a car competently with a degree of skill that's beyond the current "let's drive round your local area" test, then IMHO you shouldn't be on the road at all. And if you don't have the innate skills, then it isn't a "right". A licence is a privilege. There's plenty of things I'd like to do, but don't have the innate skills to do, and I don't bleat that it's "not fair" because I don't get to do them.
|
Actually, yes you are right stevied.
The logical conclusion of all of this is probably that we should bring in driving tests every say 5 or 10 years, across the board. Good drivers will not fear them, and bad drivers will be swept off the road until they learn to drive properly. The indicating thing is just one symptom -- the illness is that there are far too many incompetent or ignorant drivers on our roads.
Then, if people still do things wrong there is no excuse. We'll have filtered out the ones who genuinely weren't taught properly, or are incapable of learning and we'll be left with the toerags who don't care. Throw the book at them.
Problem is that all this would take far too much effort and tax money.
|
I absolutely agree, jase. The logical thing to say in terms of effort and cost, although I can't imagine it having much impact on the powers that be, would be that it would save money in the long run...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
