Traffic Officer tells me I must always, always, indicate!
Discussion
Johnnytheboy said:
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).
I completely agree with your statement regarding comparative criticism. An interesting aspect of this story though is that I happened to meet the officer in charge of Cambridgeshire police traffic division some months later and asked his opinion on my little "incident" with one of his officers. He was, not surprisingly, somewhat circumspect about what he said, but the gist of it was ..."I wasn't there so I can't comment, but what I can say is that all of our traffic officers are trained in strict accordance with Roadcraft". He repeated this statement twice, repetition seems to be a strong characteristic of Cambridgeshire police
So it would seem that my approach to signalling (as per Roadcraft and the Highway code for that matter) was exactly the same as the training received by, and I would suspect the practice of, the traffic officer who stopped me.
I've read of criminal prosecutions where it has been said in court that the traffic officer observed a driver not indicating when exiting a roundabout and this gave him (the police officer) cause to stop the driver and have a chat... the police officer then went on to discover some criminal activity, drugs, stolen goods, etc etc.
It just intrigues me that traffic officers who are trained to signal in the Roadcraft way also seem to be briefed to use non-signalling on the part of the general public as a reason/excuse to stop them and "have a chat".
johnao said:
It just intrigues me that traffic officers who are trained to signal in the Roadcraft way also seem to be briefed to use non-signalling on the part of the general public as a reason/excuse to stop them and "have a chat".
They don't need an excuse to stop drivers, but I guess that rather than completely randomly stopping people, they stop people who catch their eye for one reason or another.Actually, at the danger of taking this more off topic, I do have one situation where I don't 'indicate off': small four-point roundabouts on dual carriageways when I am in L2 going straight on and exiting in L2, as I think a left hand indication would give the impression I am changing to L1.
Deva Link said:
johnao said:
It just intrigues me that traffic officers who are trained to signal in the Roadcraft way also seem to be briefed to use non-signalling on the part of the general public as a reason/excuse to stop them and "have a chat".
They don't need an excuse to stop drivers, but I guess that rather than completely randomly stopping people, they stop people who catch their eye for one reason or another.As I understand it they can randomly stop any mechanically propelled vehicle without reason and ask to see the drivers documents and to establish ownership of the vehicle.
However, again, as I understand it, they are not empowered to randomly stop a vehicle for the purpose of a breath test. The officer must have reasonable grounds for believing that alcohol has been consumed before a stop can be made for a breath test; a moving traffic offence would be sufficient grounds for this belief. Like you, I suspect that they use "non-signalling" as "evidence of poor driving" in order to have "reasonable grounds for believing that alcohol has been consumed" in order to stop drivers and administer a breath test if they have any suspicions. If the driver then gets himself a smart solicitor who argues that this was a random stop in order to administer a breath test and that consequently the breath test is invalid, the traffic officer will be in a position to counter that argument. That's not to say that they can't breath test a driver who is stopped for a random documents test and who then smells of alcohol.
I'd be happy to be disabused of any of my opinions by any traffic officers who subscribe to this forum.
johnao said:
Deva Link said:
johnao said:
It just intrigues me that traffic officers who are trained to signal in the Roadcraft way also seem to be briefed to use non-signalling on the part of the general public as a reason/excuse to stop them and "have a chat".
They don't need an excuse to stop drivers, but I guess that rather than completely randomly stopping people, they stop people who catch their eye for one reason or another.As I understand it they can randomly stop any mechanically propelled vehicle without reason and ask to see the drivers documents and to establish ownership of the vehicle.
However, again, as I understand it, they are not empowered to randomly stop a vehicle for the purpose of a breath test. The officer must have reasonable grounds for believing that alcohol has been consumed before a stop can be made for a breath test; a moving traffic offence would be sufficient grounds for this belief. Like you, I suspect that they use "non-signalling" as "evidence of poor driving" in order to have "reasonable grounds for believing that alcohol has been consumed" in order to stop drivers and administer a breath test if they have any suspicions. If the driver then gets himself a smart solicitor who argues that this was a random stop in order to administer a breath test and that consequently the breath test is invalid, the traffic officer will be in a position to counter that argument. That's not to say that they can't breath test a driver who is stopped for a random documents test and who then smells of alcohol.
I'd be happy to be disabused of any of my opinions by any traffic officers who subscribe to this forum.
If there is nobody else about, what is the point of indicating? If you were stopped to see if you had been drinking, I think that's fair enough. Quite clearly though the officer is at odds with what he is taught in relation to telling you to indicate all the time. I hope you indicated when you pulled away...........
Deva Link said:
Neil.D said:
^^^What did you do? Overtake whilst within the zigzags of a crossing?
Yes, but on the exit of the crossing. Either way its an easy excuse to pull you over (thus slowing you down) - even if technically he was wrong to do so.
This "indicating when another road user would benefit" assumes that your observation is faultless, and we're all human.
Could you really see a pedestrian dressed in black at night who's crossed the road you're turning onto because you're not indicating to go down it? In fact even if you are observant I'd suggest that it's inadvisable to be looking 50 yards down the road you're about to turn onto, and your attention is better focused on the junction you're on and its immediate approach roads. No-one's observation is perfect, and therefore I always indicate everywhere. It's what I would call "double accounting" driving, i.e. if you forget to do one thing, you've got something to fall back on - observe everywhere [i]and[i/] indicate everywhere is what I've always done and always will do, because if one thing slips then I'm not compromising safety.
Could you really see a pedestrian dressed in black at night who's crossed the road you're turning onto because you're not indicating to go down it? In fact even if you are observant I'd suggest that it's inadvisable to be looking 50 yards down the road you're about to turn onto, and your attention is better focused on the junction you're on and its immediate approach roads. No-one's observation is perfect, and therefore I always indicate everywhere. It's what I would call "double accounting" driving, i.e. if you forget to do one thing, you've got something to fall back on - observe everywhere [i]and[i/] indicate everywhere is what I've always done and always will do, because if one thing slips then I'm not compromising safety.
I always indicate whether or not I've determined there's another road-user who would benefit. Firstly because it then becomes second-nature (why waste brain-power deciding whether or not to indicate, it can be used for more important things...) and secondly because it seems better to indicate when it's not required than to fail to indicate when it is required.
GW65 said:
I always indicate whether or not I've determined there's another road-user who would benefit. Firstly because it then becomes second-nature (why waste brain-power deciding whether or not to indicate, it can be used for more important things...) and secondly because it seems better to indicate when it's not required than to fail to indicate when it is required.
Plus of course as I've said above you might have missed something! We all make mistakes, and pedestrians in particular can be hard to see sometimes and keep track of, especially when one's eyes are on the road.hman said:
Deva Link said:
Neil.D said:
^^^What did you do? Overtake whilst within the zigzags of a crossing?
Yes, but on the exit of the crossing. Either way its an easy excuse to pull you over (thus slowing you down) - even if technically he was wrong to do so.
Police car was coming the other way and veered across the road and caused me to get much closer to the bus than I would have liked in case someone walked around the front of it.
When I saw him spin around I made a half-hearted attempt to hide in a small industrial estate but he found me. It must have bees so half-hearted that he didn't realise because he didn't mention it, and he didn't even do a vehicle or licence check.
GW65 said:
I always indicate whether or not I've determined there's another road-user who would benefit. Firstly because it then becomes second-nature (why waste brain-power deciding whether or not to indicate, it can be used for more important things...) and secondly because it seems better to indicate when it's not required than to fail to indicate when it is required.
What can be more important than determining whether another road user could be affected by your manoeuvre?Obviously it's better to indicate unnecessarily than fail to indicate when you should. But if you conciously do something different according to whether or not anyone could be affected by your manoeuvre, you are far less likely to fail to notice them.
johnao said:
Johnnytheboy said:
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).
I completely agree with your statement regarding comparative criticism. An interesting aspect of this story though is that I happened to meet the officer in charge of Cambridgeshire police traffic division some months later and asked his opinion on my little "incident" with one of his officers. He was, not surprisingly, somewhat circumspect about what he said, but the gist of it was ..."I wasn't there so I can't comment, but what I can say is that all of our traffic officers are trained in strict accordance with Roadcraft". He repeated this statement twice, repetition seems to be a strong characteristic of Cambridgeshire police
So it would seem that my approach to signalling (as per Roadcraft and the Highway code for that matter) was exactly the same as the training received by, and I would suspect the practice of, the traffic officer who stopped me.
I've read of criminal prosecutions where it has been said in court that the traffic officer observed a driver not indicating when exiting a roundabout and this gave him (the police officer) cause to stop the driver and have a chat... the police officer then went on to discover some criminal activity, drugs, stolen goods, etc etc.
It just intrigues me that traffic officers who are trained to signal in the Roadcraft way also seem to be briefed to use non-signalling on the part of the general public as a reason/excuse to stop them and "have a chat".
Interesting thread, I remember from my IAM days, a meeting with one of the Class Ones who helped support our Group.
Indicating came up, he said the training within the local Force was of the indicate if there was someone to benefit.
However, he said that the Force next door taught always indicate.
With a personal example, which he thought silly, from when he had been out with that Force.
Anyway, as we proceed in a cloud of confusion, a thought directed to the OP.
Some Officers would see you indicating leaving a large roundabout with no one about, apart from theirself entering, as an invitation to stop you, suspecting DD.
Excessive compliance often indicating someone who knows they've had too much.
Indicating came up, he said the training within the local Force was of the indicate if there was someone to benefit.
However, he said that the Force next door taught always indicate.
With a personal example, which he thought silly, from when he had been out with that Force.
Anyway, as we proceed in a cloud of confusion, a thought directed to the OP.
Some Officers would see you indicating leaving a large roundabout with no one about, apart from theirself entering, as an invitation to stop you, suspecting DD.
Excessive compliance often indicating someone who knows they've had too much.
I used to *always* indicate until I joined the IAM. Now I *almost always* indicate 
WhoseGeneration said:
Some Officers would see you indicating leaving a large roundabout with no one about, apart from theirself entering, as an invitation to stop you, suspecting DD.
Excessive compliance often indicating someone who knows they've had too much.
I would never have believed this until it happened to me. The night before my advanced test I did a practice run through the city centre as conscientiously and carefully as a nun with haemorrhoids. To my surprise I was pulled over by unmarked BIB who said that they'd been following me, because of my 'erratic driving'. Once it was clear that I was in fact as sober as a Tehran disco bar they let me go. To my amazement they didn't seem to notice that I'd pulled over into a one-way street in the wrong direction. After speaking with me they then proceeded down the street against the flow of traffic while I did a U-turn and headed home Excessive compliance often indicating someone who knows they've had too much.
GW65 said:
I always indicate whether or not I've determined there's another road-user who would benefit. Firstly because it then becomes second-nature (why waste brain-power deciding whether or not to indicate, it can be used for more important things...) and secondly because it seems better to indicate when it's not required than to fail to indicate when it is required.
It is certainly not a waste of brain power. The whole idea of Roadcraft is to produce 'thinking' drivers. People who do not just blindly do things without concious thought. In this case, actively thinking "should I signal" makes you search for others who may benefit from it. That is the point. If you are not sure whether a signal would benefit, then by all means stick the indicator on. At least you have put some thought in to it... and not just done it blindly.To make mistakes is human nature, so anybody who sees a car indicating and blindly assumes that the driver will be acting in accordance is asking for trouble. I've followed cars indicating for several miles, even though I and others have flashed them repeatedly.
There is a school of thought that puts roundabouts as a special case and a slight exception to the only indicate if someone to take advantage of it rule.
How it was explained to me in a debrief on one of our regular tests is that there is the potential for so many people coming at you from so many directions and sometimes at a fair pace that it's better practice to always indicate on a roundabout and saves you from having to quickly grab a signal at what might be an inconvenient moment if somebody barrels into view.
I could see his point in that it's a case of the interpretation of the rule is "don't indicate if you are sure there is no one now who will benefit from the signal and sure there will be no one that is not yet visible." Quite diffiicult to achieve on most roundabouts tbh.
How it was explained to me in a debrief on one of our regular tests is that there is the potential for so many people coming at you from so many directions and sometimes at a fair pace that it's better practice to always indicate on a roundabout and saves you from having to quickly grab a signal at what might be an inconvenient moment if somebody barrels into view.
I could see his point in that it's a case of the interpretation of the rule is "don't indicate if you are sure there is no one now who will benefit from the signal and sure there will be no one that is not yet visible." Quite diffiicult to achieve on most roundabouts tbh.
vonhosen said:
Just because he was trained that way it doesn't follow that he agreed with that training.
Good point.Can I take it that you're therefore suggesting that it wouldn't have been a good idea to try and explain my actions, as to have done so might have irritated him even further?
This is the point that I'm really trying to get at, by trying to explain oneself would an officer think that you're a bit of a smart arse, someone who thinks he knows it all but actually knows nothing, would he regard you as being argumentative and therefore perhaps give you a little bit of extra grief, a vehicle inspection, a producer, a further ear bashing? After all they are human just like the rest of us and will be coming into this situation from a dominant position of authority borne of their Roadcraft training, whether they agree with it or not, and of course their natural authority as police officers.
My reading of the various postings and further reflection on all of this is that with the situation that I described its probably just best to leave it be, agree with whatever he says and go on your way as soon as possible.
However, if accused of an offence, which clearly I wasn't, it might be worth putting up an explanation. For example I've spoken to a non-advanced police driver who considered off-siding/straight-lining as an offence of "driving without due care and attention" and told me that he would stop anyone he saw doing it and issue them with a ticket. This was until I took him out for a drive and showed him how to straight-line safely, after which he was quite happy to use the technique himself!
johnao said:
vonhosen said:
Just because he was trained that way it doesn't follow that he agreed with that training.
Good point.Can I take it that you're therefore suggesting that it wouldn't have been a good idea to try and explain my actions, as to have done so might have irritated him even further?
This is the point that I'm really trying to get at, by trying to explain oneself would an officer think that you're a bit of a smart arse, someone who thinks he knows it all but actually knows nothing, would he regard you as being argumentative and therefore perhaps give you a little bit of extra grief, a vehicle inspection, a producer, a further ear bashing? After all they are human just like the rest of us and will be coming into this situation from a dominant position of authority borne of their Roadcraft training, whether they agree with it or not, and of course their natural authority as police officers.
My reading of the various postings and further reflection on all of this is that with the situation that I described its probably just best to leave it be, agree with whatever he says and go on your way as soon as possible.
However, if accused of an offence, which clearly I wasn't, it might be worth putting up an explanation. For example I've spoken to a non-advanced police driver who considered off-siding/straight-lining as an offence of "driving without due care and attention" and told me that he would stop anyone he saw doing it and issue them with a ticket. This was until I took him out for a drive and showed him how to straight-line safely, after which he was quite happy to use the technique himself!
I always indicate no matter what I'm doing and no matter who's on the road. My reason being that it makes no difference to me, however, if I only indicated when it affected other road users I might occasionally miss another road user (small child dressed in black, nutter driving at 90 in a 30) and the result of that could be fatal. I really don't find flicking the indicator stalk very difficult.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff