Indication on roundabouts - please clarify for me
Discussion
Vipers said:
I see a car coming around the roundabout, having to guess where he is going, not indicating so he must be passing my exit, but oh no, they turn off, no indicators, I would have been moving off had I see him indicating to turn left.
Oh no you wouldn't!You might think you would, but I think you would wait until the body language of the other vehicle/turn of the steering wheel/direction of vehicle travel, anything other than an indicator signal, assured you beyond doubt that the other vehicle was turning off. In other words, exactly what you did in the absence of an indicator signal. Please, please don't tell me I'm wrong. (but, you can if you want to, I don't mind)
johnao said:
Vipers said:
I see a car coming around the roundabout, having to guess where he is going, not indicating so he must be passing my exit, but oh no, they turn off, no indicators, I would have been moving off had I see him indicating to turn left.
Oh no you wouldn't!You might think you would, but I think you would wait until the body language of the other vehicle/turn of the steering wheel/direction of vehicle travel, anything other than an indicator signal, assured you beyond doubt that the other vehicle was turning off. In other words, exactly what you did in the absence of an indicator signal. Please, please don't tell me I'm wrong. (but, you can if you want to, I don't mind)
Good senario is this current one -
The only two cars are the one in the junction waiting to emerge and the one intending to turn left into that junction
Whether the one intending to turn in indicates or not, the sensible car waiting to emerge will not start to do so until it is certain about the other and that will always be when they see it slow down and start to turn the wheels ..... so what is the point of the indicator in that senario for either car?
I often indicate in that situation but I've wondered what the point of doing so is because if I am the car waiting to emerge then once the other has gone they will not need to know and I am going to let them do whatever before I do my thing and if I am the one turning in then the other will not move until it is certain of where I am going.
The only two cars are the one in the junction waiting to emerge and the one intending to turn left into that junction
Whether the one intending to turn in indicates or not, the sensible car waiting to emerge will not start to do so until it is certain about the other and that will always be when they see it slow down and start to turn the wheels ..... so what is the point of the indicator in that senario for either car?
I often indicate in that situation but I've wondered what the point of doing so is because if I am the car waiting to emerge then once the other has gone they will not need to know and I am going to let them do whatever before I do my thing and if I am the one turning in then the other will not move until it is certain of where I am going.
Nothing wrong with a hand signal to reinforce the signal that you are turning left.
Last set of pictures on this document as an example
Last set of pictures on this document as an example
document said:
Note that the car driver points the right forearm and hand with the fingers extended to the left
m8rky said:
Hi i was being ironic.
Do the people that advocate the indicate only when their is someone to indicate to theory,take cyclists and pedestrians in to their decision making?
To correct another misconception of those drivers who do not advocate this approach, we include all road users who can be seen and also any who may be just around the corner out of sight. A good example of this would be on roundabouts where sight lines are poor.
Our driving plan is always based upon what can be seen, what cannot be seen, and what might reasonably be expected to happen. Signalling is one element of our driving plan and is therefore based on the same principles.
johnao said:
Can I assume that you're not still being ironic? If you are, I apologise for attempting an answer, if you're not, then the answer is yes, ... a signal is given if, in your opinion, another road user (any road user) might benefit. And , no, we don't suffer inner turmoil and spend a huge amount of time and effort weighing up whether the other road user would benefit or not benefit ...if there's someone there in the vicinity who, however remotely, might benefit from a signal, we signal.
To correct another misconception of those drivers who do not advocate this approach, we include all road users who can be seen and also any who may be just around the corner out of sight. A good example of this would be on roundabouts where sight lines are poor.
Our driving plan is always based upon what can be seen, what cannot be seen, and what might reasonably be expected to happen. Signalling is one element of our driving plan and is therefore based on the same principles.
A very good summation of the AD approach.To correct another misconception of those drivers who do not advocate this approach, we include all road users who can be seen and also any who may be just around the corner out of sight. A good example of this would be on roundabouts where sight lines are poor.
Our driving plan is always based upon what can be seen, what cannot be seen, and what might reasonably be expected to happen. Signalling is one element of our driving plan and is therefore based on the same principles.
Why do some seem to attempt to find fault in this?
WhoseGeneration said:
johnao said:
Can I assume that you're not still being ironic? If you are, I apologise for attempting an answer, if you're not, then the answer is yes, ... a signal is given if, in your opinion, another road user (any road user) might benefit. And , no, we don't suffer inner turmoil and spend a huge amount of time and effort weighing up whether the other road user would benefit or not benefit ...if there's someone there in the vicinity who, however remotely, might benefit from a signal, we signal.
To correct another misconception of those drivers who do not advocate this approach, we include all road users who can be seen and also any who may be just around the corner out of sight. A good example of this would be on roundabouts where sight lines are poor.
Our driving plan is always based upon what can be seen, what cannot be seen, and what might reasonably be expected to happen. Signalling is one element of our driving plan and is therefore based on the same principles.
A very good summation of the AD approach.To correct another misconception of those drivers who do not advocate this approach, we include all road users who can be seen and also any who may be just around the corner out of sight. A good example of this would be on roundabouts where sight lines are poor.
Our driving plan is always based upon what can be seen, what cannot be seen, and what might reasonably be expected to happen. Signalling is one element of our driving plan and is therefore based on the same principles.
Why do some seem to attempt to find fault in this?
The other issue of course is that this thread started on General Gassing, and we must remember the average audience that are reading this... the overwhelming problem we have on the roads in the UK with regard to indicating is people not indicating enough, or not indicating properly. Therefore I think the advanced level of choosey indication is way above the average driver and perhaps the average PHer. We should walk before we can run and I think it would be a good thing to encourage even the average driver, or even the average advanced driver, to indicate a lot more than they do.
RobM77 said:
It's not that I'm trying to find fault, please don't get that impression. The IAM and other similar bodies do immense good in promoting safe driving and I applaud what they do. It's just that some of their concepts are, to me, dogmatic and just plain wrong, and this is one of them. What you say above reads very well, but I feel that the judgement on the bit where you say "when sight lines are poor" is often innacurate and widely optimistic. I have driven with a large variety of abilities of advanced drivers too, up to the very top of the tree, and I'm afraid that's what I've seen.
The other issue of course is that this thread started on General Gassing, and we must remember the average audience that are reading this... the overwhelming problem we have on the roads in the UK with regard to indicating is people not indicating enough, or not indicating properly. Therefore I think the advanced level of choosey indication is way above the average driver and perhaps the average PHer. We should walk before we can run and I think it would be a good thing to encourage even the average driver, or even the average advanced driver, to indicate a lot more than they do.
I'd never think that you were trying to find fault, you are probably more AD than you think.The other issue of course is that this thread started on General Gassing, and we must remember the average audience that are reading this... the overwhelming problem we have on the roads in the UK with regard to indicating is people not indicating enough, or not indicating properly. Therefore I think the advanced level of choosey indication is way above the average driver and perhaps the average PHer. We should walk before we can run and I think it would be a good thing to encourage even the average driver, or even the average advanced driver, to indicate a lot more than they do.
I understand your frustration with how other drivers use indicators.
That is because they are not thinking and do not have a driving plan.
Many times I too arrive at a roundabout and observe those on my right, no signal, oh, going to go staight on, I stop, oh, they've turned to their left.
It's not about the AD approach, it's about the absolute inability of the majority to follow the basics they were taught to pass their DSA test.
R0G said:
Good senario is this current one -
The only two cars are the one in the junction waiting to emerge and the one intending to turn left into that junction
Whether the one intending to turn in indicates or not, the sensible car waiting to emerge will not start to do so until it is certain about the other and that will always be when they see it slow down and start to turn the wheels ..... so what is the point of the indicator in that senario for either car?
I often indicate in that situation but I've wondered what the point of doing so is because if I am the car waiting to emerge then once the other has gone they will not need to know and I am going to let them do whatever before I do my thing and if I am the one turning in then the other will not move until it is certain of where I am going.
Does it not drive you insane when you are waiting at a junction to turn right, a car coming down from your right gets about 3 metres from the corner and indicates to turn left, you could have been away had they indicated on the approach, there definately is a point in indicating, to let other road users your intention. Agree they don't need to know where you are going if you are exiting from the junction, but most of us indicate anyway.The only two cars are the one in the junction waiting to emerge and the one intending to turn left into that junction
Whether the one intending to turn in indicates or not, the sensible car waiting to emerge will not start to do so until it is certain about the other and that will always be when they see it slow down and start to turn the wheels ..... so what is the point of the indicator in that senario for either car?
I often indicate in that situation but I've wondered what the point of doing so is because if I am the car waiting to emerge then once the other has gone they will not need to know and I am going to let them do whatever before I do my thing and if I am the one turning in then the other will not move until it is certain of where I am going.
F i F said:
Nothing wrong with a hand signal to reinforce the signal that you are turning left.
Last set of pictures on this document as an example
Your not wrong, but have never seen a car driver use hand signals for younks, I think also you can extend your left arm fully to indicate turning left, assuming no one is in the passenger seat, seen that somewhere before.Last set of pictures on this document as an example
document said:
Note that the car driver points the right forearm and hand with the fingers extended to the left
RobM77: This thread started here in Advanced Driving purely because both myself and the person I was arguing with are Advanced Drivers
The scope of this discussion is both 'what the highway code says' and 'how we, as advanced drivers, interpret this'. Alll good so far, although my view is that I err on the side of caution when considering who I'm indicating to but certainly on a busy roundabout I will indicate fully for many of the reasons already discussed.
The scope of this discussion is both 'what the highway code says' and 'how we, as advanced drivers, interpret this'. Alll good so far, although my view is that I err on the side of caution when considering who I'm indicating to but certainly on a busy roundabout I will indicate fully for many of the reasons already discussed.
218g said:
Countdown said:
7db said:
What if you can see two people? One of whom will benefit from your signal and one of whom will suffer?
Interesting question. In what situation could one suffer from a correctly-applied indicator?.MagicalTrevor said:
RobM77: This thread started here in Advanced Driving purely because both myself and the person I was arguing with are Advanced Drivers
The scope of this discussion is both 'what the highway code says' and 'how we, as advanced drivers, interpret this'. Alll good so far, although my view is that I err on the side of caution when considering who I'm indicating to but certainly on a busy roundabout I will indicate fully for many of the reasons already discussed.
When I first saw the thread it was in General Gassing I'm sure?The scope of this discussion is both 'what the highway code says' and 'how we, as advanced drivers, interpret this'. Alll good so far, although my view is that I err on the side of caution when considering who I'm indicating to but certainly on a busy roundabout I will indicate fully for many of the reasons already discussed.
In response to both you and Whose Generation, there are two issues beimg discussed here:
1) Idiots who don't indicate properly and cause everyone hassle and increase congestion.
2) Advanced drivers choosing not to indicate sometimes, when they think nobody will benefit.
RobM77 said:
It's just that some of their [IAM and RoSPA] concepts are, to me, dogmatic and just plain wrong, and this is one of them.
Interestingly, the principle of only giving a signal if, in your opinion, another road user would benefit, as propounded in Roadcraft, which is where the IAM and RoSPA first got the idea, is probably the least dogmatic of all advanced driving techniques. "Give a signal if, in your opinion, another road user would benefit"
The principle allows the driver to make his own judgement and give, or not give, a signal accordingly. This does not fall in to my definition of dogma. This is not ..."you must, or must not, do as we tell you"; it has more of a feel of ..."use your own judgement and make up your own mind accordingly."
Dogma, in my opinion, would entail a rule, (note: not principle), that the driver MUST signal every time he changes course or direction. You may ask ...so, what's wrong with that then, it's better to have too much signalling than too little? The answer is ...
Firstly, as has already been pointed out by the OP and others, this is a discussion between, for want of a better term, advanced drivers and the following should be read in that context:
This extract comes from "Road Sense" by Doug Holland - Sigma Publishing 1993. ...the driver who wishes to consider the question "Is a signal necessary?" is the driver who is required to take effective all round observation in order to do so. Put yet another way, if unnecessary signals are given, it is not the signal itself which is the problem (unless it is misleading); rather it is the mental attitude of the driver immediately before the application of that signal. If a signal is given which was not necessary, it is unlikely that the thought process of the driver immediately before its application was: “I have taken effective all round observation; I have satisfied myself that I know the position and movements of all other road users around my vehicle. Clearly a signal is not necessary, but I will give one anyway”. It is much more likely to be: “I will not bother to take effective all round observation because I will signal no matter what I see”. In addition, It is a temptation for the habitual signaller to cease effective all round observation once the signal has been applied."
None of this will, of course, persuade anyone with an entrenched viewpoint but, it may help to clarify in the mind of anyone who is wavering on this subject the thinking behind the Roadcraft and IAM/RoSPA approach to signalling.
R0G said:
RobM77 said:
2) Advanced drivers choosing not to indicate sometimes, when they think nobody will benefit.
I would change the word 'think' to the word 'know'If I only 'think' it is not necessary then that is not 100% so I would indicate
a) those possible to observe
b) those hidden and therefore impossible to observe
For an advanced driver not to indicate then they have to be confident that their observation is perfect, so "a" above is well and truly ticked. They also have to be confident that "b" is non existent, and I'm including all road users in that, so unlit pedestrians as well as vehicles.
This does happen, but I just don't believe it truly happens as often as a lot of advanced drivers seem to make out. It's my humble opinion that it's a rare situation when one can get away without indicating.
I believe that there is merit to seeing indicators as a communication device (as in AD) rather than a habit (as in DSA basic test), because it has positive effects on one's timing and use of indicators. Therefore going through a thinking process with indicating is definitely worth it. I just worry that not indicating at some junctions every day is an effort by advanced drivers to demonstrate this thinking process that often goes a bit far and makes too many assumptions.
If an AD assumes anything then it is likely to be incorrect as assumption is the mother of all F-ups
What cannot be seen - then the phrase - be prepared - is a better one with a plan of action should the situation change
The AD way of doing things requires far more concentration, continuing observation and forward planning than the basic DSA way so in general is not such a laid-back approach to driving which many drivers like to do and for the most part that relaxed way is safe but not the safest way to drive
There are many driving styles out there and some are safer than others but that does not make those styles unsafe
What cannot be seen - then the phrase - be prepared - is a better one with a plan of action should the situation change
The AD way of doing things requires far more concentration, continuing observation and forward planning than the basic DSA way so in general is not such a laid-back approach to driving which many drivers like to do and for the most part that relaxed way is safe but not the safest way to drive
There are many driving styles out there and some are safer than others but that does not make those styles unsafe
johnao said:
Interestingly, the principle of only giving a signal if, in your opinion, another road user would benefit, as propounded in Roadcraft, which is where the IAM and RoSPA first got the idea, is probably the least dogmatic of all advanced driving techniques.
"Give a signal if, in your opinion, another road user would benefit"
The principle allows the driver to make his own judgement and give, or not give, a signal accordingly. This does not fall in to my definition of dogma. This is not ..."you must, or must not, do as we tell you"; it has more of a feel of ..."use your own judgement and make up your own mind accordingly."
Dogma, in my opinion, would entail a rule, (note: not principle), that the driver MUST signal every time he changes course or direction. You may ask ...so, what's wrong with that then, it's better to have too much signalling than too little? The answer is ...
Firstly, as has already been pointed out by the OP and others, this is a discussion between, for want of a better term, advanced drivers and the following should be read in that context:
This extract comes from "Road Sense" by Doug Holland - Sigma Publishing 1993. ...the driver who wishes to consider the question "Is a signal necessary?" is the driver who is required to take effective all round observation in order to do so. Put yet another way, if unnecessary signals are given, it is not the signal itself which is the problem (unless it is misleading); rather it is the mental attitude of the driver immediately before the application of that signal. If a signal is given which was not necessary, it is unlikely that the thought process of the driver immediately before its application was: “I have taken effective all round observation; I have satisfied myself that I know the position and movements of all other road users around my vehicle. Clearly a signal is not necessary, but I will give one anyway”. It is much more likely to be: “I will not bother to take effective all round observation because I will signal no matter what I see”. In addition, It is a temptation for the habitual signaller to cease effective all round observation once the signal has been applied."
None of this will, of course, persuade anyone with an entrenched viewpoint but, it may help to clarify in the mind of anyone who is wavering on this subject the thinking behind the Roadcraft and IAM/RoSPA approach to signalling.
If one were to use my preferred method of signalling unless your signal could be misleading, then surely you are:"Give a signal if, in your opinion, another road user would benefit"
The principle allows the driver to make his own judgement and give, or not give, a signal accordingly. This does not fall in to my definition of dogma. This is not ..."you must, or must not, do as we tell you"; it has more of a feel of ..."use your own judgement and make up your own mind accordingly."
Dogma, in my opinion, would entail a rule, (note: not principle), that the driver MUST signal every time he changes course or direction. You may ask ...so, what's wrong with that then, it's better to have too much signalling than too little? The answer is ...
Firstly, as has already been pointed out by the OP and others, this is a discussion between, for want of a better term, advanced drivers and the following should be read in that context:
This extract comes from "Road Sense" by Doug Holland - Sigma Publishing 1993. ...the driver who wishes to consider the question "Is a signal necessary?" is the driver who is required to take effective all round observation in order to do so. Put yet another way, if unnecessary signals are given, it is not the signal itself which is the problem (unless it is misleading); rather it is the mental attitude of the driver immediately before the application of that signal. If a signal is given which was not necessary, it is unlikely that the thought process of the driver immediately before its application was: “I have taken effective all round observation; I have satisfied myself that I know the position and movements of all other road users around my vehicle. Clearly a signal is not necessary, but I will give one anyway”. It is much more likely to be: “I will not bother to take effective all round observation because I will signal no matter what I see”. In addition, It is a temptation for the habitual signaller to cease effective all round observation once the signal has been applied."
None of this will, of course, persuade anyone with an entrenched viewpoint but, it may help to clarify in the mind of anyone who is wavering on this subject the thinking behind the Roadcraft and IAM/RoSPA approach to signalling.
a) less likely to not indicate in error
and
b) are still having to maintain proper observation?
I can't see how this would not be a better system, unless you have a particularly entrenched viewpoint, though perhaps coming for a drive with me could persuade you otherwise.
i]
If you regularly see drivers not indicating at some junctions every day I would like to know what leads you to believe that they are advanced drivers who are making an effort to demonstrate this thinking process. I would assert that it is more likely that they are simply rubbish drivers who haven't taken a moments coaching since they took their DSA test and have since forgotten and/or ignored everything they were taught?
Given that the number of advanced drivers out there using the Roadcraft approach to signalling is going to be less than than 0.25% (ie. 1 in 400) of all the drivers on the road, I think my assertion is more likely to be correct than your worry.
RobM77 said:
I just worry that not indicating at some junctions every day is an effort by advanced drivers to demonstrate this thinking process ...
I think you misunderstand the "effort" employed in the "thinking process" of "advanced drivers". If there is no other road user who, in our opinion, would benefit from a signal, it usually means that there is, we believe [rightly or wrongly], nobody there. In other words, there is nobody for whom we are making an effort to demonstrate this thinking process, because, ...there's nobody there!If you regularly see drivers not indicating at some junctions every day I would like to know what leads you to believe that they are advanced drivers who are making an effort to demonstrate this thinking process. I would assert that it is more likely that they are simply rubbish drivers who haven't taken a moments coaching since they took their DSA test and have since forgotten and/or ignored everything they were taught?
Given that the number of advanced drivers out there using the Roadcraft approach to signalling is going to be less than than 0.25% (ie. 1 in 400) of all the drivers on the road, I think my assertion is more likely to be correct than your worry.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff