Motorway driving - part 2 (including high speed)

[R_U_LOCAL]

waremark said:

R_U_LOCAL said:

My first to second gearchange is bloody awful at the moment.

Is it true? I admired the accuracy of your rev matching in the gear changing video filmed in the MX5 a few years ago.

Just a bit of critical self-analysis which I used as an example of how bad habits can develop unconsciously and then inevitably become long-term driving faults.

I occasionally "self examine", whereby I consciously look at how I'm driving and I noticed that I was rushing 1st to 2nd. It's an easy one to rush because you've normally just pulled away from stationary and your attention is on the hazard you're negotiating rather than what's happening "in-car".

The problem isn't my technique - I'm perfectly capeable of carrying out smooth changes. The problem is that I've stopped thinking about the change altogether and my attention is elsewhere. By the time I've remembered, I've already thrown the lever into second and it inevitably leads to a "D'oh" moment.

I've mostly sorted it now, but I can feel a post on self-analysis coming up...

[Rick101]

MC Bodge said:

Indeed. Discounting shoulder checks based on the fact that previous observations "should" be good enough is another example of the "elitist" attitude.

Shoulder checks. Again, why wouldn't you?

I'm in the same mind for always indicating but am constantly told I'm wrong for doing so.
I really don't understand the issue, negative effect or damage to my driving to flick an indicator on when changing direction must be absolutely minimal. There are some occasions where I don't indicate but 99% of the time, I think for moving my finger 1cm it's worth it.

Bizarrely I'm also told to not engage seatbelt until after I start the engine in case the car bursts into a massive fireball. I'm told 1 in a million chance but it's 'safety' so we should do it.

I suspect there are far less than 1 in a million occasions where somebody has not indicated and caused confusion.

Edited by Rick101 on Thursday 5th June 08:20

[R_U_LOCAL]

Rick101 said:

I'm in the same mind for always indicating but am constantly told I'm wrong for doing so.
I really don't understand the issue, negative effect or damage to my driving to flick an indicator on when changing direction must be absolutely minimal. There are some occasions where I don't indicate but 99% of the time, I think for moving my finger 1cm it's worth it.

If nothing else, it's a useful teaching aid. Police students are required to consider whether a signal is necessary before giving one. The knock-on effect is that it helps them develop better scanning skills and observations. It also requires them to be more careful in their analysis of the information they're taking in from their observations.

So, in effect, it's not really a reduction in signals that we're looking for - it's a more analytical approach to making observations. Being more selective about signals is one way to demonstrate these improved observation skills.

Back in the real world, however, I wouldn't normally advise someone to stop signalling automatically. If it works for you, then stick with it.

Rick101 said:

Bizarrely I'm also told to not engage seatbelt until after I start the engine in case the car bursts into a massive fireball. I'm told 1 in a million chance but it's 'safety' so we should do it.

This seems a bit unnecessary. The starting drill I used to teach involved a number of actions, including seatbelt, which were carried out before starting the engine. I would imagine the chances of a sudden explosion are the same as the chances of being shot by a sniper. Perhaps a quick scan for snipers should be included in the starting drill too?

On a more serious note, if your car is parked on the road (and being extremely pedantic in the traditional PH manner), once your engine is running, you are "driving" the car even if it's not moving, so you would be committing an offence if you hadn't already put your seatbelt on.

Bring on the arguments...

Edited by R_U_LOCAL on Thursday 5th June 10:16

[Rick101]

R_U_LOCAL said:

This seems a bit unnecessary. The starting drill I used to teach involved a number of actions, including seatbelt, which were carried out before starting the engine. I would imagine the chances of a sudden explosion are the same as the chances of being shot by a sniper. Perhaps a quick scan for snipers should be included in the starting drill too?

On a more serious note, if your car is parked on the road (and being extremely peedanic in the traditional PH manner), once your engine is running, you are "driving" the car even if it's not moving, so you would be committing an offence if you hadn't already put your seatbelt on.

Bring on the arguments...

Thank you. I recall on my basic test I was told belt first as there is a risk of somebody running into the back of you. Again, not much chance, but probably a damn sight more than the car suddenly exploding!

It's seems to be something thats passed down from an older generation, and nobodys questioned it, it MUST be right! Personally, I think thats the worst thing a driver can do, not question, challenge, check and check again.

[omegac]

R_U_LOCAL said:

Bring on the arguments...

Still taught at Hendon...never done in reality.

[omegac]

R_U_LOCAL said:

Bring on the arguments...

Still taught at Hendon...never done in reality.

[SK425]

R_U_LOCAL said:

If nothing else, it's a useful teaching aid. Police students are required to consider whether a signal is necessary before giving one. The knock-on effect is that it helps them develop better scanning skills and observations. It also requires them to be more careful in their analysis of the information they're taking in from their observations.

That's all perfectly sensible. In my view the mistake, which might be what Rick101 is suffering from, is when that gets extrapolated into a rule that signalling when it's not necessary is an error. That's not the error - the error would be forgetting to do the thinking before communicating. If you're doing the thinking - e.g. who am I communicating with?, what do I want to say?, might they think I'm saying something else?, what, if anything, do I want them to do about it? - then the only mistakes left to avoid are giving no signal when one would have been helpful and giving an ambiguous or misleading signal when no signal or better timing of the signal would have been better.

[S. Gonzales Esq.]

R_U_LOCAL said:

... I can feel a post on self-analysis coming up...

That's something you don't hear much about - the difficulty of being aware of all the things you're doing unconsciously.

I could do with more of it, and also a way of getting this idea across to my IAM associates more effectively. Is there a substitute for a good co-driver's analysis?

[omegac]

SK425 said:

That's all perfectly sensible. In my view the mistake, which might be what Rick101 is suffering from, is when that gets extrapolated into a rule that signalling when it's not necessary is an error. That's not the error - the error would be forgetting to do the thinking before communicating. If you're doing the thinking - e.g. who am I communicating with?, what do I want to say?, might they think I'm saying something else?, what, if anything, do I want them to do about it? - then the only mistakes left to avoid are giving no signal when one would have been helpful and giving an ambiguous or misleading signal when no signal or better timing of the signal would have been better.

An often quoted line from students was "I came here knowing what I was doing with indicators, now I feel like I don't." Because it was made into such a big thing, the instructor huffing and puffing and making the student feel like an idiot if they signalled when no one was around. Like you say, if their observation is sound and they're not missing a necessary signal, or misleading....then who the hell cares!

[Mr Grayson]

I'm tutoring someone at the moment who is a very experienced motorcyclist, a tutor on the bike in his own right - something he's been for a number of organisations over the years, and yet in a car, he signals for every manoeuvre (including passing parked cars, sometimes with no other moving traffic in sight). I'm gradually introducing selective signalling, but it's a slow process. In other respects he learns very quickly indeed, and he started from a good level of skill already.

On our last drive he said to me, when I brought up the subject in the debrief "Oh but I don't do it on the bike!". His reasoning behind this was that it's much harder on the bike, the switches being far less ergonomic, whereas in the car the hand just automatically slides up, or down, and pushes the indicator stalk in the right direction. I'm not sure I buy this, really. To my mind, it's much more about what goes on in his head when planning the manoeuvre, but it may be a contributory factor.

Just another 2p worth.

[Vipers]

R_U_LOCAL said:

On a more serious note, if your car is parked on the road (and being extremely pedantic in the traditional PH manner), once your engine is running, you are "driving" the car even if it's not moving, so you would be committing an offence if you hadn't already put your seatbelt

Unless you intend to reverse! And after completing the manouevour and intend to drive forwards, you will still be sitting stationary with the seatbelt off, until you put it on.

So I can't see it be an offence if the vehicle is stationary?

Edited by Vipers on Wednesday 11th June 19:55

[R_U_LOCAL]

Vipers said:

Unless you intend to reverse! And after completing the manouevour and intend to drive forwards, you will still be sitting stationary with the seatbelt off, until you put it on.

So I can't see it be an offence if the vehicle is stationary?

I was being a bit naughty with that one - there is an argument that if the engine is running and you're in a position to control the direction and propultion of the vehicle then you could be held to be driving. Its certainly the case if you were stuck in traffic or stopped at lights, but probably not at the start of a journey. In any case, it would have to be a particularly shiny-shoed and slashed-peak gutter rat to give you a ticket under those circumstances, and they're a dying breed these days.

The exemption you're referring to allows you to carry out a manoeuvre "which includes reversing", whilst not wearing a seatbelt, so the exemption counts even when driving forwards if the forward movement is part of a bigger manoeuvre which requires backwards and forwards movement, such as a three-point-turn.

[Vipers]

R_U_LOCAL said:

Vipers said:

Unless you intend to reverse! And after completing the manouevour and intend to drive forwards, you will still be sitting stationary with the seatbelt off, until you put it on.

So I can't see it be an offence if the vehicle is stationary?

I was being a bit naughty with that one - there is an argument that if the engine is running and you're in a position to control the direction and propultion of the vehicle then you could be held to be driving. Its certainly the case if you were stuck in traffic or stopped at lights, but probably not at the start of a journey. In any case, it would have to be a particularly shiny-shoed and slashed-peak gutter rat to give you a ticket under those circumstances, and they're a dying breed these days.

The exemption you're referring to allows you to carry out a manoeuvre "which includes reversing", whilst not wearing a seatbelt, so the exemption counts even when driving forwards if the forward movement is part of a bigger manoeuvre which requires backwards and forwards movement, such as a three-point-turn.

Thanks for the clarification, I don't have that problem, my seat belt goes on before I start the engine anyway and stays on, as I reverse by mirrors, I have no need to remove it. I learnt to drive in a 3 tonner and had to use mirrors.

[SVS]

I too was taught to only signal when it was useful to another road user. However, I've always felt that this causes more problems than it solves. Increasing focus on signalling increases 'task loading', which can be unhelpful.

Perhaps better advice would be to give a signal, unless it could be misinterpreted.

[Vipers]

SVS said:

I too was taught to only signal when it was useful to another road user. However, I've always felt that this causes more problems than it solves. Increasing focus on signalling increases 'task loading', which can be unhelpful.

Perhaps better advice would be to give a signal, unless it could be misinterpreted.

My view is I am the best driver I know, but being human, I am not infallible, so I indicate just in case I miss something, doesn't hurt.

Can't see as it increases the task, check mirrors, indicate, sorted.