Indicate left after overtaking, or lane change on a motorway
Discussion
InitialDave said:
I don't disagree with any of that. I just recognise that you can do the same process and still choose to indicate.
This choosing to indicate is not the same as indicating out of habit or rote learning.
I always indicate. It is not zombie like or by rote, but all part of my daily driving which is thought through and planned for all eventualities. It is measured and calculated, sympathetic and observed. Informing other road users of my intentions is all part of the motoring structure.This choosing to indicate is not the same as indicating out of habit or rote learning.
InitialDave said:
I don't disagree with any of that. I just recognise that you can do the same process and still choose to indicate.
This choosing to indicate is not the same as indicating out of habit or rote learning.
Of course it's perfectly possible. But in choosing to indicate when unecessary you are choosing to add to signal clutter which could distract and by definition is of no benefit. Personally I think the unecessary hand movement is not a meaningful factor. This choosing to indicate is not the same as indicating out of habit or rote learning.
Graveworm said:
RobM77 said:
Personally I find it more distracting if people are changing lanes without indicating. It immediately flags warning signs in my head and makes me watch them more closely.
So the Police, Fire Brigade, Ambulance service etc? RoSPA & DVSA are not big on making the roads less safe.
I should also say that I hope my criticisms on this thread aren't taken by anyone to mean that I think I'm the safest or best driver out there. I'm neither. I just find some IAM methods rather odd and worthy of discussion and I hope my comments are taken in the right light by drivers who are probably, overall, better than me at safe road driving.
Back on topic - I was actually nearly run over a few years ago by a group of police motorcyclists who were all indicating left at a simple four exit roundabout. I was crossing the road that would have been straight on for them, and assumed they were going left. They were presumably indicating left because, as I later found out, the left turn off the roundabout was marked as a 'no entry to motor vehicles'. I bet they thought that was clever, much like the people on this forum who say they don't indicate to join a motorway because they think everyone should know their slip road is a standard one that ends, rather than continues. In both scenarios though, not everyone knows what the driver knows. Likewise, these motorcyclists had failed to take into account that I as a pedestrian was a road user just as much as the other cars were, and I couldn't see that "no motor vehicles" sign. Even if I could see it, it's not that obvious a sign to the average pedestrian without a driving license.
I've also seen some rather 'unusual' driving on these late night TV shows on the police that are sometimes on. I recall one well known video of a police traffic car overtaking a LHD lorry on a left hand motorway curve - the lorry was indicating right, but the police car overtook anyway and yes, they got squashed. Their defence was that lorries can't use the outside lane of the motorway....
There's obviously nothing stopping a police traffic officer taking pride in their job to the degree they improve their driving beyond the basic requirements of the job - many of us do the same in our own trades. Vonhosen for example clearly thinks quite deeply about driving. As a minimum standard you have to set the bar somewhere though and our police is notoriously underfunded, so I have no problem at all with things as they are. They or their driving rules are not beyond question though.
Graveworm said:
Of course it's perfectly possible. But in choosing to indicate when unecessary you are choosing to add to signal clutter which could distract and by definition is of no benefit. Personally I think the unecessary hand movement is not a meaningful factor.
The fact you don't regard the unnecessary hand movement as meaningful, when others apparently do, should be a good hint that different people assign different weight to the various elements involved. and as such will make different decisions in the same situation.Both those different decisions can still be correct ones.
nonsequitur said:
I always indicate. It is not zombie like or by rote, but all part of my daily driving which is thought through and planned for all eventualities. It is measured and calculated, sympathetic and observed. Informing other road users of my intentions is all part of the motoring structure.
If you have planned for all eventualities why indicate when there is no one to benefit. Quite clearly you don't plan for all eventualities just indicate by rote because it's easier not having to think about other road users benefitting from it.springfan62 said:
nonsequitur said:
I always indicate. It is not zombie like or by rote, but all part of my daily driving which is thought through and planned for all eventualities. It is measured and calculated, sympathetic and observed. Informing other road users of my intentions is all part of the motoring structure.
If you have planned for all eventualities why indicate when there is no one to benefit. Quite clearly you don't plan for all eventualities just indicate by rote because it's easier not having to think about other road users benefitting from it.RobM77 said:
From the small amount I know about advanced driving,
They or their driving rules are not beyond question though.
Well thats says it all someone who only knows a little about advanced driving chooses to question Roadcraft which is based on decades of police training and experience. It may not be perfect but I know which I would refer to.They or their driving rules are not beyond question though.
springfan62 said:
RobM77 said:
From the small amount I know about advanced driving,
They or their driving rules are not beyond question though.
Well thats says it all someone who only knows a little about advanced driving chooses to question Roadcraft which is based on decades of police training and experience. It may not be perfect but I know which I would refer to.They or their driving rules are not beyond question though.
InitialDave said:
The fact you don't regard the unnecessary hand movement as meaningful, when others apparently do, should be a good hint that different people assign different weight to the various elements involved. and as such will make different decisions in the same situation.
Both those different decisions can still be correct ones.
Yes but the science about distraction and how many visual things people can process is well established. Far more importantly its about not causing problems for others. As opposed to, not indicating because I may have to make an unecessary hand movement; I know what the impact of that is. Both those different decisions can still be correct ones.
Its just an insignificant benefit that also arises. A bit like the benefits of reversing into spaces also including it saving a tiny amount of fuel.
Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 8th August 11:09
nonsequitur said:
InitialDave said:
I don't disagree with any of that. I just recognise that you can do the same process and still choose to indicate.
This choosing to indicate is not the same as indicating out of habit or rote learning.
I always indicate. It is not zombie like or by rote, but all part of my daily driving which is thought through and planned for all eventualities. It is measured and calculated, sympathetic and observed. Informing other road users of my intentions is all part of the motoring structure.This choosing to indicate is not the same as indicating out of habit or rote learning.
You are either going through a thorough process of working out whether it's necessary or not, and then disregarding the result, or you are sometimes skipping parts of the process and using 'I always indicate' as a bit of a sticking plaster.
And when it comes to not causing problems for others, some people weight "a signal not given when you were in error about it being unnecessary" higher than "an unnecessary signal that may distract". These people will make different decisions.
The reason these threads are frustrating is it feels like despite people being happy to discuss why they do things a different way - while not discounting that there indeed merits to the opposing approach - they just get met with a rather stubborn and inflexible outlook that there is only one "right" way. And in my opinion that is diametrically opposed to the principles underpinning trying to be a good driver, that you assess, evaluate, and decide for yourself what actions to take.
The reason these threads are frustrating is it feels like despite people being happy to discuss why they do things a different way - while not discounting that there indeed merits to the opposing approach - they just get met with a rather stubborn and inflexible outlook that there is only one "right" way. And in my opinion that is diametrically opposed to the principles underpinning trying to be a good driver, that you assess, evaluate, and decide for yourself what actions to take.
RobM77 said:
We've explained this already. My initial process is the same as yours: I scan for the other road users I'm communicating to and decide when and where I will signal to best communicate my intended actions. If I don't see anyone, I signal about a second before I change speed or course. That second action is in addition to what you do, not instead of it. The reason I do it is because I know my observation isn't perfect. I have 6/4 vision and have raced for 18 years without ever crashing, so my judgement and reactions are good, but I know I'm not infallible and everyone makes mistakes - that's why I do that second operation of signalling anyway. I have missed things before - I can think of two occasions when I've failed to spot someone; both on the public road.
So why not always use a hand signal, or flash headlights/ sound your horn as you drive along in case you have missed something in front of you. Or indeed never leave your driveway in case you miss a cyclist or motorcyclist crossing, statistically that's far far more likely and doing that has no downside for others. InitialDave said:
And when it comes to not causing problems for others, some people weight "a signal not given when you were in error about it being unnecessary" higher than "an unnecessary signal that may distract". These people will make different decisions.
The reason these threads are frustrating is it feels like despite people being happy to discuss why they do things a different way - while not discounting that there indeed merits to the opposing approach - they just get met with a rather stubborn and inflexible outlook that there is only one "right" way. And in my opinion that is diametrically opposed to the principles underpinning trying to be a good driver, that you assess, evaluate, and decide for yourself what actions to take.
And a bigger problem than both of those is the many drivers who use a 'Well, I indicated, so I was within my rights' policy of lane-changing.The reason these threads are frustrating is it feels like despite people being happy to discuss why they do things a different way - while not discounting that there indeed merits to the opposing approach - they just get met with a rather stubborn and inflexible outlook that there is only one "right" way. And in my opinion that is diametrically opposed to the principles underpinning trying to be a good driver, that you assess, evaluate, and decide for yourself what actions to take.
SpeckledJim said:
And a bigger problem than both of those is the many drivers who use a 'Well, I indicated, so I was within my rights' policy of lane-changing.
I doubt you will find many of those in a PH advanced driving subforum thread.They're probably on Twitter or Facebook. Right now, in fact. While driving.
InitialDave said:
And when it comes to not causing problems for others, some people weight "a signal not given when you were in error about it being unnecessary" higher than "an unnecessary signal that may distract". These people will make different decisions.
The reason these threads are frustrating is it feels like despite people being happy to discuss why they do things a different way - while not discounting that there indeed merits to the opposing approach - they just get met with a rather stubborn and inflexible outlook that there is only one "right" way. And in my opinion that is diametrically opposed to the principles underpinning trying to be a good driver, that you assess, evaluate, and decide for yourself what actions to take.
But the that weighting has been evaluated already by many bodies over decades. You said yourself that it's a tiny percentage of times where someone is missed and a tiny percentage of times when it could help. Whereas the chance of distraction exists on all the other occasions. We always drive doing our best to know what is happening and drive accordingly. The reason these threads are frustrating is it feels like despite people being happy to discuss why they do things a different way - while not discounting that there indeed merits to the opposing approach - they just get met with a rather stubborn and inflexible outlook that there is only one "right" way. And in my opinion that is diametrically opposed to the principles underpinning trying to be a good driver, that you assess, evaluate, and decide for yourself what actions to take.
It is frustrating because it becomes either:
A) Faith/personal opinion over science and all the experts in the field.
Or worse
B) the starting position is I do it this way, the evidence is against me so how can I justify that.
Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 8th August 11:29
Graveworm said:
RobM77 said:
We've explained this already. My initial process is the same as yours: I scan for the other road users I'm communicating to and decide when and where I will signal to best communicate my intended actions. If I don't see anyone, I signal about a second before I change speed or course. That second action is in addition to what you do, not instead of it. The reason I do it is because I know my observation isn't perfect. I have 6/4 vision and have raced for 18 years without ever crashing, so my judgement and reactions are good, but I know I'm not infallible and everyone makes mistakes - that's why I do that second operation of signalling anyway. I have missed things before - I can think of two occasions when I've failed to spot someone; both on the public road.
So why not always use a hand signal, or flash headlights/ sound your horn as you drive along in case you have missed something in front of you. Or indeed never leave your driveway in case you miss a cyclist or motorcyclist crossing, statistically that's far far more likely and doing that has no downside for others. RobM77 said:
We've already covered that as well. I feel like we're going round in circles here.
You haven't explained why it is different, other than you see it differently. You also haven't said why, when driving you think it's OK to ignore what all safety bodies say is safer, so by definition making the roads less safe, based on your personal opinion with no science or evidence to support it. Graveworm said:
RobM77 said:
We've already covered that as well. I feel like we're going round in circles here.
You haven't explained why it is different, other than you see it differently. You also haven't said why, when driving you think it's OK to ignore what all safety bodies say is safer, so by definition making the roads less safe, based on your personal opinion with no science or evidence to support it. Personally I change my driving all the time to try and be better. As a result, I do plenty of things that aren't in Roadcraft but that I feel improve my safety, as do all the good drivers I've ridden with and respected. For example, after accidentally letting someone out of a junction a few years after I learnt to drive by turning my headlights on at the wrong point, I always use my headlights manually and always turn them on away from other drivers who might mis-understand what I'm doing. Is that in Roadcraft? I don't have a copy to hand, but I don't remember it being in there. Just an example - there are loads of others I can think of. Rev-matching and heel and toe is another - heel and toe particularly is not taught or encouraged by any advanced driving I've been involved with, but I see it as a basic driving skill. Another is the signals that come through the steering to inform you about what the car's doing, that's not in roadcraft. A detailed understanding of car dynamics isn't in roadcraft either, and whilst it's probably not worth the average road driver learning it, because the same time spent on roadcraft skills would be worth more, if you happen to already have it from years of motor racing, it can make you a much, much safer road driver. If I watch any 'police pursuit' style TV programme I cringe at the way the cars are handled at speed, creating a limit of adhesion far below what could be generated with more sympathetic driving. There was a poster on here a while ago (I think it was this forum anyway) who said he taught police drivers and got one of them to take a corner as fast as he could, right on the limit, which I think he said was about 60mph; the instructor then went through the same corner 20mph faster in complete safety, without being on the limit at al. The point of that demo wasn't to go 20mph faster, rather to go at the original 60mph, but to be a third safer when doing so...
In your specific examples of driving along flashing your lights constantly, obviously that's going to be interpreted in a detrimental way by 99% of road users, as in that example I just gave. Hooting a horn will just piss people off. etc etc.
As I said earlier, I've been surprised by someone I hadn't seen at least a couple of times I can remember in my 25 years of driving, and I've certainly seen it happen around me. Given that most of us drive for at least 60 years and there are millions of us, I wouldn't mind betting there's an awful lot of accidents that could be avoided if we all assumed our observation wasn't perfect.
Edited by RobM77 on Thursday 8th August 12:11
RobM77 said:
I think we both know that there isn't a pure and direct link between evidence and Roadcraft practice. The roadcraft manual has never pretended to be where advanced driving ends, it's merely a book and system of good advice for motorists wanting to improve their road safety.
I agree completely, except as it happens around indicating there is science and evidence. It is referenced elsewhere in Roadcraft. There is loads of evidence out there. You are also talking about doing things that are not in Roadcraft which is different to ignoring what is in Roadcraft. My observations cannot be perfect. They have always proved adequate. There is no logical reason not to do what is best based on the situation I believe it to be incase I am wrong.
RobM77 said:
I think we both know that there isn't a pure and direct link between evidence and Roadcraft practice. The roadcraft manual has never pretended to be where advanced driving ends, it's merely a book and system of good advice for motorists wanting to improve their road safety.
I agree completely, except as it happens around indicating there is science and evidence. It is referenced elsewhere in Roadcraft. There is loads of evidence out there. You are also talking about doing things that are not in Roadcraft which is different to ignoring what is in Roadcraft. My observations cannot be perfect. They have always proved adequate. There is no logical reason not to do what is best based on the situation I believe it to be incase I am wrong.
Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 8th August 12:16
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff