Traffic Officer tells me I must always, always, indicate!

[johnao]

Some while ago I was stopped by a Cambridgeshire traffic officer, (10:30pm, NSL, virtually no traffic about). I'm fairly certain that the reason he wanted to talk to me was to find out if I had been drinking, this was his very first question. I hadn't had a drop to drink of course, promise.

The interesting thing was that the reason, or excuse, he gave for stopping me was that ..."he was concerned about my driving" and his concern was that I hadn't indicated when exiting a roundabout. Now, I know that as advanced drivers we ..."only give a signal if in our opinion another road user would benefit", and the incident that he was alluding to concerned my exiting a very large roundabout just as he was entering it on the far side to me. I knew he was there, I knew it was a fully marked police car, but I didn't consider that he would benefit from a signal, so I didn't give one.

As soon as he realised that I hadn't been drinking, he didn't even bother to breathalyse me, I got an almighty lecture about always, always, always, without fail, always signal when exiting a roundabout.

I didn't argue with him, or attempt to explain my decision not to give a signal, because I simply wanted to be on my way. So I lied through my teeth and promised him I would always, always, always signal when exiting a roundabout in future.

I'm curious to know if anyone else has had a similar experience to this and how did you deal with it. Did you explain that you were using advanced driving techniques and perhaps referred the officer to Roadcraft page 100 on signalling, , and what was the officer's response?

Perhaps some of the traffic officers who frequent this forum could advise as to which response they would rather hear in this situation, a compliant "yes officer, whatever you say officer", or a reasoned, advanced driving, explanation of the driver's decision not to give a signal. I suspect it's the former because it seems to me that the excuse given for stopping the driver is just that, an excuse. From a psychological point of view I would guess that the officer may not take too kindly to a reasoned response as it would appear to be an attempt to undermine his dominant position in this situation

I'd be interested to hear anyone's comments.

[deeen]

Why not indicate?

[BertBert]

I would've found it hard to say yessir in those circs as I am an argumentative so and so!
Bert

[vonhosen]

johnao said:

Some while ago I was stopped by a Cambridgeshire traffic officer, (10:30pm, NSL, virtually no traffic about). I'm fairly certain that the reason he wanted to talk to me was to find out if I had been drinking, this was his very first question. I hadn't had a drop to drink of course, promise.

The interesting thing was that the reason, or excuse, he gave for stopping me was that ..."he was concerned about my driving" and his concern was that I hadn't indicated when exiting a roundabout. Now, I know that as advanced drivers we ..."only give a signal if in our opinion another road user would benefit", and the incident that he was alluding to concerned my exiting a very large roundabout just as he was entering it on the far side to me. I knew he was there, I knew it was a fully marked police car, but I didn't consider that he would benefit from a signal, so I didn't give one.

As soon as he realised that I hadn't been drinking, he didn't even bother to breathalyse me, I got an almighty lecture about always, always, always, without fail, always signal when exiting a roundabout.

I didn't argue with him, or attempt to explain my decision not to give a signal, because I simply wanted to be on my way. So I lied through my teeth and promised him I would always, always, always signal when exiting a roundabout in future.

I'm curious to know if anyone else has had a similar experience to this and how did you deal with it. Did you explain that you were using advanced driving techniques and perhaps referred the officer to Roadcraft page 100 on signalling, , and what was the officer's response?

Perhaps some of the traffic officers who frequent this forum could advise as to which response they would rather hear in this situation, a compliant "yes officer, whatever you say officer", or a reasoned, advanced driving, explanation of the driver's decision not to give a signal. I suspect it's the former because it seems to me that the excuse given for stopping the driver is just that, an excuse. From a psychological point of view I would guess that the officer may not take too kindly to a reasoned response as it would appear to be an attempt to undermine his dominant position in this situation

I'd be interested to hear anyone's comments.

So was he saying he felt he would have benefited from it, whilst you didn't think he would ?

[johnao]

vonhosen said:

So was he saying he felt he would have benefited from it, whilst you didn't think he would ?

Absolutely not. The question of "benefit" was never raised and was therefore not at issue.

The tirade, and I can only describe it as a tirade, was purely and simply, and I quote ..."always, always, always signal when exiting from a roundabout". This was repeated at least three times. It may have been my silence that caused him to keep repeating himself; I was somewhat taken aback by his rather forceful expression of belief and it was sometime before I could splutter ..."yes, of course, officer".
He was initially quite aggressive in his tone and attitude, which surprised me greatly, and only calmed down when he realised that I was going to be totally compliant and listen, and agree, with his every word. I sensed from his tone and attitude that he was a little "disappointed" that he hadn't caught a drink driver and that he was trying to justify to me why he had stopped me. Or, maybe, he really did feel that all drivers should signal automatically.

Edited by johnao on Thursday 14th January 18:28

[SeanyD]

deeen said:

Why not indicate?

Because the o/p actively made the informed decision no-one would benefit from it, therefore was fully aware of who was around him, and rightly so did not indicate.

[deeen]

SeanyD said:

deeen said:

Why not indicate?

Because the o/p actively made the informed decision no-one would benefit from it, therefore was fully aware of who was around him, and rightly so did not indicate.

I have never understood this point of view... what happens on the day he makes a mistake with his obeservation? Does this mean people who do not indicate believe they are infallible?

To err is human... i am human, therefore i indicate

[p1esk]

The police officer was bored so he probably wanted somebody to talk to.

TBH I don't think there was a major issue at stake there, but of course it's always nice to chat to a Traffic Officer so long as he's not going to nick me for something. I never get to talk to them.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[7mike]

deeen said:

.. i am human, therefore i indicate

..........and I must share the roads with a lot of aliens then

[Johnnytheboy]

SeanyD said:

deeen said:

Why not indicate?

Because the o/p actively made the informed decision no-one would benefit from it, therefore was fully aware of who was around him, and rightly so did not indicate.

The OP's informed decision was based on the misguided opinion that no-one would see him, effectively.

So why not just indicate, and account for the possibility that he may not have seen someone that may benefit?

[johnao]

Johnnytheboy said:

SeanyD said:

deeen said:

Why not indicate?

Because the o/p actively made the informed decision no-one would benefit from it, therefore was fully aware of who was around him, and rightly so did not indicate.

The OP's informed decision was based on the misguided opinion that no-one would see him, effectively.

So why not just indicate, and account for the possibility that he may not have seen someone that may benefit?

I have no desire to stifle any debate, but my post was aimed at those who apply the "Roadcraft" approach to signalling and how they have, if ever, dealt with the type of situation that I encountered; and also how would a traffic officer deal with a "Roadcraft" explanation response. I fully accept that anyone who subscribes to the automatic or habitual signalling approach would clearly not have the same dilemma of whether or not to "explain themselves" that I experienced.

[Johnnytheboy]

I'm glad that you don't wish to stifle debate!

In my opinion, ascribing a form of behaviour (not always indicating) to that belonging to a predefined set of rules (roadcraft) does not insulate it from comparative criticism from adherents (policeman) of another set of rules (the highway code, I guess).

Edited by Johnnytheboy on Thursday 14th January 20:03

[ScoobyChris]

Slightly related, but when I was being prepared for my IAM test last year, I was told by the Chief Observer of my group that examiner A expected associates to always indicate while examiner B expected associates to always indicate where it was of benefit to someone. Fortunately, I got examiner B and had a very enjoyable test, but I wonder if there is a range of beliefs of what is correct procedure?

Chris

[vonhosen]

ScoobyChris said:

Slightly related, but when I was being prepared for my IAM test last year, I was told by the Chief Observer of my group that examiner A expected associates to always indicate while examiner B expected associates to always indicate where it was of benefit to someone. Fortunately, I got examiner B and had a very enjoyable test, but I wonder if there is a range of beliefs of what is correct procedure?

Chris

I expect every individual has their own view about it.

[Vaux]

Johnnytheboy said:

... of another set of rules (the highway code, I guess).

HC rule 103 says (in part):
"Signals....use them to advise other road users......."

[p1esk]

ScoobyChris said:

I wonder if there is a range of beliefs of what is correct procedure?
Chris

Yes there is, so I use my own system, periodically adjusted to incorporate what I think makes most sense. You can't get locked into any one approach, and think that's the end of it.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Deva Link]

ScoobyChris said:

Slightly related, but when I was being prepared for my IAM test last year, I was told by the Chief Observer of my group that examiner A expected associates to always indicate while examiner B expected associates to always indicate where it was of benefit to someone. Fortunately, I got examiner B and had a very enjoyable test, but I wonder if there is a range of beliefs of what is correct procedure?

Two of the ex-Police driver trainers we have at work argued about this. They both agreed that, strictly speaking, you don't need to indicate if there's no one to benefit however one of them felt quite strongly that you should indicate because if someone suddenly appears mid-manoeuvre then you're going to be grabbing for the indicator lever in circumstances that might not be ideal.

[Neil.D]

I would have said,

'Roadcraft suggests that you do not need to indicate should you beleive that no one would benefit and I didn't beleive that you would have benefited in any way from any indication'.

Let him have his say then be on your (non indicating) merry way

[Deva Link]

johnao said:

Perhaps some of the traffic officers who frequent this forum could advise as to which response they would rather hear in this situation, a compliant "yes officer, whatever you say officer", or a reasoned, advanced driving, explanation of the driver's decision not to give a signal.

I argued with a traffic Bib over the zig zag rules and what he alledged was a dangerous over take. He backed down straighaway when I explained the rules to him amd that what I'd done was fine and I used phrases like "bold positioning" and "sight lines".

I'm a company director in a suit and driving a Merc though. I have no doubt that a younger person would not have got away with speaking to the officer as forcefully as I did. (I was angry as he'd swerved towards me and forced me very close to the side of a bus - if the manoeuvre was a bit dodgy he made it dangerous).

[Neil.D]

^^^What did you do? Overtake whilst within the zigzags of a crossing?