Indication on roundabouts - please clarify for me

[SHutchinson]

Hooli said:

Third exit? I'd use the RH lane on approach.

R0G said:

Right lane only

Left lane is marked for the first exit and the road ahead at 11 o clock

Right lane is marked for road ahead at 11 o clock and the right turn

I'm of the same view, I approach this roundabout in the right hand lane. Virtually no other motorist that I've seen negotiate this roundabout uses the right hand lane for that exit. I've seen both buses and police cars take that exit from the left hand lane on approach.

I now either hang back so I'm not in any traffic or try to arrive at the roundabout with no one to the left of me.

The road signs don't make it explicitly clear either but it's quite a busy section of road, especially on a Saturday when all of the sheep flock to the nearby Metro Centre shopping mall.

One to watch out for should you ever find yourself having to drive through Swalwell.

[RobM77]

R0G said:

RobM77 said:

ot at all, by the very nature of this issue (imperfections in observation), a large proportion of people you ps off you'll never see. Sorry!

As my driving is overseen by others on a regular basis then that is unlikely

You are welcome to sit next to me on a drive if you like so I can prove that I do not miss anyone who would have benefitted from a signal that I did not give
I will also give a full running commentary if you so wish on such a drive

No driver is perfect and it is not reasonable to assume everything is ok but if everything is taken into account on the approach to a hazard or potential hazards then the decision to give a signal or not is very easy to determine

There may be occasions, as I find very often, that the original decision needs to be reconsidered and a signal applied quickly but I am always ready to do just that - It only takes less than a second to put it on when a left finger is poised on the stalk

Well if you don't see them then I wouldn't either, and that's the whole point. As for the observed drives, the IAM/RoSPA etc love this "only indicate if it benefits someone", purely because (in my opinion) it proves a point that they're thinking about indicating rather than doing it through habit. Actually, I think it's likely to piss people off, and could actually be dangerous in a few rare situations.

Maybe an example would help here? Let's say you're in a dimly lit 40 limit approaching a standard four exit roundabout in a cross shape with exits at 9, 12 and 3 o clock to your direction of travel. There are no vehicles about as far as you've observed. As per the OP's example, you're turning right. On the approach to that roundabout, how do you know there isn't a pedestrian waiting at a well hidden footpath entrance 20 yards down from the 12 o clock exit? They can cross the road safely if you go straight on, so they know they're safe crossing the road regardless of what you do, but they'd rather play it safe and see your right indicator before they commit to crossing the road. If you don't indicate and turn right, they're going to be pissed off that they could have crossed the road sooner, especially as you start slowing for the right turn and they're stood there confused wondering what's going on. With no street lights and dark clothing, you wouldn't see them on dipped beam. I know they're only stood there for 20 seconds, but that can seem like a long time if you've been walking quickly on a cold day for half an hour. Not much effort to indicate is it?

Another situation: the same roundabout, but you're turning left. There's a car sat on a driveway close to the roundabout's 9 o clock exit waiting to turn left to drive away from the roundabout in the same direction as you. Now, again, he's safe pulling out regardless, but for safety reasons he'd rather only pull out if you're going straight on or right. Because he's facing away from you and his rear lights are obscured by bushes, you can't see him, but he's looking over his right shoulder and can see you through gaps in the foliage. He's waiting for your indication to see if it's completely safe for him to pull out - are you giving it? Again, he's not relying on the indication to avoid an accident, but it'll be a bit awkward if he has to accelerate harder than he wanted to, or you have to slow down. Are you causing an awkward situation by not indicating?

Perfect observation is one thing (and none of us achieve that), but there are things that even perfect observation can't see, especially at night on dipped beam.

Right, now in those two examples I used intelligent careful people. How about slightly more reckless people who would rely on your indicators; not to avoid embaressing situations, but to avoid accidents? These people are more common than you'd think! Cars with lights out perhaps? Cars with one light out are common, and if seen from the side they're very hard to spot.

There are situations where I wouldn't indicate; for example some of roads in the Fens (Norfolk, Lincolnshire etc) with flat land all around - in clear daylight conditions observation can be pretty much perfect, and I don't bother indicating. Such situations are rare though.

[simoid]

Vipers said:

MagicalTrevor said:

The thing that scares is that I might get hit by one of these idiots who then insists they're in the right. Then my insurance will take a pasting because they'll lazily go 50/50.

Obvious answer is 'don't crash' of course

My driving instructor in the forces told us

"If your going to crash, stop. If your stationary you can't have a crash, you can only be involved in one "

One of my mates got told that too and came to a dead halt in the middle of the narrow (but 2 cars can pass) road to my golf club. I berated him, he gave my that advice, I asked what would happen if every driver did this.

At least it would mean zero road fatalities

[johnao]

RobM77 said:

not at all, by the very nature of this issue (imperfections in observation), a large proportion of people you ps off you'll never see. Sorry!

Forgive me, but is this an advanced driving forum or a DSA learners forum?

RobM77, please re-read ROG's post, the one immediately above this one. His post is what I would expect to see on an advanced forum, yours is what I would expect an ADI to post on a learner's forum. This is not meant as a reflection of your road driving, I have it on good authority that it's extremely good, it's just not what I would expect from someone versed in Roadcraft.

{Just waiting for Vonhosen to now pile in. I think I'll go offline for a couple of weeks until this all dies down!}

[Vipers]

johnao said:

Forgive me, but is this an advanced driving forum or a DSA learners forum?

RobM77, please re-read ROG's post, the one immediately above this one. His post is what I would expect to see on an advanced forum, yours is what I would expect an ADI to post on a learner's forum. This is not meant as a reflection of your road driving, I have it on good authority that it's extremely good, it's just not what I would expect from someone versed in Roadcraft.

{Just waiting for Vonhosen to now pile in. I think I'll go offline for a couple of weeks until this all dies down!}

He seems to have been quiet lately........................

[johnao]

RobM77 said:

Let's say you're in a dimly lit 40 limit approaching a standard four exit roundabout. ...There are no vehicles about as far as you've observed. ... With no street lights and dark clothing, you wouldn't see them on dipped beam.

Perfect observation is one thing (and none of us achieve that), but there are things that even perfect observation can't see, especially at night on dipped beam.

dimly lit 40 limit approaching a standard four exit roundabout. ...There are no vehicles about

Why would you be on dipped beam?

[F i F]

johnao said:

RobM77 said:

not at all, by the very nature of this issue (imperfections in observation), a large proportion of people you ps off you'll never see. Sorry!

Forgive me, but is this an advanced driving forum or a DSA learners forum?

RobM77, please re-read ROG's post, the one immediately above this one. His post is what I would expect to see on an advanced forum, yours is what I would expect an ADI to post on a learner's forum. This is not meant as a reflection of your road driving, I have it on good authority that it's extremely good, it's just not what I would expect from someone versed in Roadcraft.

{Just waiting for Vonhosen to now pile in. I think I'll go offline for a couple of weeks until this all dies down!}

I'll chip in before it dies down.

This issue of only indicating when there is someone to benefit from the signal, or perhaps should be better described as only not indicating when you are sure there isn't and won't be anyone to benefit from the signal.

Whilst it's a generally reasonable premise to follow and thus show you are thinking about it, there are certain circumstances, and roundabouts are one of those, where it's possible but extremely difficult to apply this technique. For example big open roundabouts in broad daylight where you can see for miles and rather than proceeding round an island it's more like driving round a circular one way road with a junction off to the left every so often. It's quite possible there.

However the majority of roundabouts can have so many road users, which of course includes pedestrians in darkest of clothing at night, coming at the junction from all directions that the fraction of a second delay as they hove into YOUR view just causes a momentary case of pissing them off as RobM77 puts it.

Sorry but this issue of indicating or not is so polarised because BOTH sides adopt such a rigid view on their stance, when the reality is a very flexible fuzzy line wending somewhere down the middle. Nobody is as good as they think they are.

Now I'll scoot off and get some work done.

[7db]

On the whole, I'd rather piss someone off because my signal choice led them to believe that I might claim my priority over them and therefore they waited unnecessarily, rather than piss them off because I misled them into thinking there was no conflict and we had a crash.

[aizvara]

F i F said:

a lot of sensible stuff...

My experience, similar to RobM77's, is of frustration born of drivers not indicating correctly or at all on two roundabouts that I cross daily. I get annoyed with the advanced drivers' optional indicating dogma as what I see every day is a huge number of people not indicating correctly or at all at these roundabouts. Obviously these people are likely not practising roadcraft/IAM or whatever, and my annoyance is misplaced, but its hard to disassociate, and hard to overcome the belief that a lot of people overestimate their observation skills.

7db said:

On the whole, I'd rather piss someone off because my signal choice led them to believe that I might claim my priority over them and therefore they waited unnecessarily, rather than piss them off because I misled them into thinking there was no conflict and we had a crash.

I'd rather you indicated as other road users expect from the highway code.

[R0G]

I thought all this signalling issue was in regrds to Roadcraft and advanced driving.

If the signalling is on DSA style driving then my views are totally different from what I have posted

which style of driving is being referred to?

[218g]

RobM77 said:

Not at all, by the very nature of this issue (imperfections in observation), a large proportion of people you ps off you'll never see. Sorry!

But the solution to imperfections in observation has to be to improve your observation doesn't it? The decision whether, when and for how long to signal comes from thinking about communication, and that starts with considering who I want to communicate with (which might be the as yet unseen person in the blind area - e.g. in a blind side road I'm turning into - who may of course not actually be there). Until I know who I want to talk to, I can't know the answers to all the supplementary considerations that are a natural part of communicating: what do I want to say, how do I want to say it, when do I want to say it, what I want them to do about it, what opportunity do they have for misunderstanding what I say.

As I approach a hazard and plan how to deal with it, I will be thinking about the people around me (including the as yet unseen) and considering communication. I might miss someone, and so erroneously conclude that the answer to the very first question, "who do I want to communicate with?" is "nobody" and so not consider signalling. But if I do that, not signalling when it could have helped is merely a symptom of my failure to observe, intepret and anticipate correctly. Simply encouraging me to signal more would fail to address the problem.

[R0G]

218 said:

As I approach a hazard and plan how to deal with it, I will be thinking about the people around me (including the as yet unseen) and considering communication. I might miss someone, and so erroneously conclude that the answer to the very first question, "who do I want to communicate with?" is "nobody" and so not consider signalling. But if I do that, not signalling when it could have helped is merely a symptom of my failure to observe, intepret and anticipate correctly. Simply encouraging me to signal more would fail to address the problem.

The reality for many drivers usually is - I will put on a signal so I don't have to bother too much with anything else - I see that sort of driving on a daily basis

[F i F]

To be fair the reality of the driving that we all see every day is:-

"That Chris Moyles is a plonker, gets my goat he does, now what advert uses that tune?, really will have to get up earlier in the morning and take a run, and cut down on the chocolate HobNobs, and maybe less curries. Wonder I wossnames going out for a beer on Fri.... Bloody hell, where did that come from?....."

[RobM77]

I'm a bit confused now (doesn't take much!). Regarding observation, I see it as a dual issue:

a) objects possible to see
b) objects not possible to see, or extremely difficult to see and beyond reasonable expectations to see.

"a" is what a driver can hope to observe and use in his gameplan as he drives. "b" has a varying potential to exist; in my example of the fens on a sunny day, there is no b, or very little chance of there being a b; but elsewhere, with trees, buildings, driveways, footpaths etc, especially at night, "b" has a fair chance of existing, so much so it can't be ignored.

With regard to indicating, road users in category "b" can sometimes need to know your intentions and would benefit from seeing an indication.

As far as I understand it, advanced drivers coached under the IAM, RoSPA etc completely ignore the possibility of b existing; they only talk about a. That's what I have an issue with. When I drive I go through the usual check to see who I'm indicating to and when the best time would be (for instance, next to a road sign to link my intentions with it; or perhaps pausing between indicating to change lanes and indicating to join a roundabout to show they're seperate actions), but I always consider the potential existence of "b", and usually (in fact probably well over 90% of the time), there's a b, so I indicate anyway.

[218g]

RobM77 said:

Maybe an example would help here? Let's say you're in a dimly lit 40 limit approaching a standard four exit roundabout in a cross shape with exits at 9, 12 and 3 o clock to your direction of travel. There are no vehicles about as far as you've observed. As per the OP's example, you're turning right. On the approach to that roundabout, how do you know there isn't a pedestrian waiting at a well hidden footpath entrance 20 yards down from the 12 o clock exit? They can cross the road safely if you go straight on, so they know they're safe crossing the road regardless of what you do, but they'd rather play it safe and see your right indicator before they commit to crossing the road.

Waiting for my right indicator would only make them feel safer if they chose to believe my signal.

I can't quite conceive of the situation you're describing. If I was the invisible pedestrian and I felt confident that it was safe to cross regardless of where the car went, I'd cross. If I felt that I'd prefer to know whether the car came wasn't straight on towards me, a right signal wouldn't be sufficient reassurance. I'd wait until I was sure the car wasn't going straight ahead, i.e. after it passed the straight ahead exit and stayed on the roundabout. I don't see a third option.

RobM77 said:

Another situation: the same roundabout, but you're turning left. There's a car sat on a driveway close to the roundabout's 9 o clock exit waiting to turn left to drive away from the roundabout in the same direction as you. Now, again, he's safe pulling out regardless, but for safety reasons he'd rather only pull out if you're going straight on or right. Because he's facing away from you and his rear lights are obscured by bushes, you can't see him, but he's looking over his right shoulder and can see you through gaps in the foliage.

Same question... If I'm in the car on the driveway, I don't know what it would mean to decide that it is safe to pull out, but for safety reasons I'd rather not pull out yet. That sounds like a contradiction. As with the previous example, if I felt that it was safe to emerge regardless of where the other car went, I'd emerge. If I felt that I'd prefer to be sure where the other car was going, I'd wait until I was sure - until the car had passed the first exit and stayed on the roundabout.

RobM77 said:

How about slightly more reckless people who would rely on your indicators; not to avoid embaressing situations, but to avoid accidents?

I'm not sure there's any more justification for relying on indicators to avoid embarrassing situations (like I think you're suggesting the people in your examples did) than there is for relying on indicators to accidents. Embarrassing situations sounds to me like it means narrowly avoided accidents.

[RobM77]

You're thinking like an advanced driver - think like the average motorist who looks at you and thinks "he's going straight on", when you're actually going left..

[R0G]

RobM77 said:

I'm a bit confused now (doesn't take much!). Regarding observation, I see it as a dual issue:

a) objects possible to see
b) objects not possible to see, or extremely difficult to see and beyond reasonable expectations to see.

"a" is what a driver can hope to observe and use in his gameplan as he drives. "b" has a varying potential to exist; in my example of the fens on a sunny day, there is no b, or very little chance of there being a b; but elsewhere, with trees, buildings, driveways, footpaths etc, especially at night, "b" has a fair chance of existing, so much so it can't be ignored.

With regard to indicating, road users in category "b" can sometimes need to know your intentions and would benefit from seeing an indication.

As far as I understand it, advanced drivers coached under the IAM, RoSPA etc completely ignore the possibility of b existing; they only talk about a. That's what I have an issue with. When I drive I go through the usual check to see who I'm indicating to and when the best time would be (for instance, next to a road sign to link my intentions with it; or perhaps pausing between indicating to change lanes and indicating to join a roundabout to show they're seperate actions), but I always consider the potential existence of "b", and usually (in fact probably well over 90% of the time), there's a b, so I indicate anyway.

Advanced drivers have 'b' in their minds all the time (or should do) to more of an extent than non advanced drivers and will probably be 'expecting' many things that might happen that they cannot actually see and they will be ready to react correctly to them - that is my experience in being an advanced senior observer and doing DSA LGV instruction for 3 years

[218g]

R0G said:

The reality for many drivers usually is - I will put on a signal so I don't have to bother too much with anything else - I see that sort of driving on a daily basis

Indeed. Again there, the amount of signalling is a symptom, not the disease.

[R0G]

On an advanced driving test the examiner will not want to see 'automatic' signalling but signalling at times when there is really no need to will not get marked down

The IAM want 'thinking' drivers and they want them to think 'do I need to signal and why?' - not just at the point where the DSA MSM advises to do it but perhaps earlier or during a negotiation of a hazard

This is why the Information phase of the advanced system is used constantly

[RobM77]

R0G said:

RobM77 said:

I'm a bit confused now (doesn't take much!). Regarding observation, I see it as a dual issue:

a) objects possible to see
b) objects not possible to see, or extremely difficult to see and beyond reasonable expectations to see.

"a" is what a driver can hope to observe and use in his gameplan as he drives. "b" has a varying potential to exist; in my example of the fens on a sunny day, there is no b, or very little chance of there being a b; but elsewhere, with trees, buildings, driveways, footpaths etc, especially at night, "b" has a fair chance of existing, so much so it can't be ignored.

With regard to indicating, road users in category "b" can sometimes need to know your intentions and would benefit from seeing an indication.

As far as I understand it, advanced drivers coached under the IAM, RoSPA etc completely ignore the possibility of b existing; they only talk about a. That's what I have an issue with. When I drive I go through the usual check to see who I'm indicating to and when the best time would be (for instance, next to a road sign to link my intentions with it; or perhaps pausing between indicating to change lanes and indicating to join a roundabout to show they're seperate actions), but I always consider the potential existence of "b", and usually (in fact probably well over 90% of the time), there's a b, so I indicate anyway.

Advanced drivers have 'b' in their minds all the time (or should do) to more of an extent than non advanced drivers and will probably be 'expecting' many things that might happen that they cannot actually see and they will be ready to react correctly to them - that is my experience in being an advanced senior observer and doing DSA LGV instruction for 3 years

That's not the impression that I get from reading this forum. If someone only signals when they think another road user would or could benefit, then looking at the a & b problem logically, I'd reckon if that was someone's philosophy then on average roads they'd only 'not signal' about once every four or five hours of driving at the absolute minimum, probably more like once every 10 to 20 hours of driving. That's how it is with my driving anyway. This week I've done about 100 miles in the car and I'm fairly sure not once have I made a decision not to signal. There have been plenty of situations where I can't see anyone, but "b" is still a very real possibility almost everywhere I go.