Indicate left after overtaking, or lane change on a motorway
Discussion
Graveworm said:
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. Innapp indicating is collected 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:
And that's where we differ and this discussion should really end I guess. I always leave my car in gear and with the handbrake on in case one fails, it's just the way I am. I've known my observation to be imperfect and I see it every day in others, therefore I always allow for the possibility that I'm wrong.
We do differ. Car in gear handbrake on wheels turned is all good and causes no problems for anyone else. Indicating in case you are wrong ignores the harm you do when you are right. Graveworm said:
We do differ. Car in gear handbrake on wheels turned is all good and causes no problems for anyone else. Indicating in case you are wrong ignores the harm you do when you are right.
So I'm genuinely intrigued by this. I think you said there was science/evidence behind the harm done by over-indicating (if I can use that expression).I haven't read any. My current opinion is that it feels quite scary when you don't indicate and someone appears that you think you should have indicated to. As I don't see/feel/experience any harm done [to others] by over-indicating I rate the former as more important than the latter. I think you are saying that the latter is (far?) worse.
Can you point me at some reading please? My old dusty copy of Roadcraft is at home where I'm not if the reference is in there.
Thanks
Bert
And yes, I have admitted to not being word perfect in the Roadcraft book - don't be too harsh.
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. Safe driving only starts with a book. Safe driving is then polished and improved by intelligently analysing your experiences and adjusting future driving accordingly.
I think there's lots to be said here and it's way off topic. But Roadcraft is a very low bar surely? Although it's not the start of safe driving. Learning to drive first of all and passing a test is the start. We may consider that a low bar, but is Roadcraft a much higher bar? Is it really 'Advanced Driving'? Not in my view. It was conceived as a systematic testable mechanism to take run of the mill drivers and by instilling a system, make them a bit better and nice and consistent.I'm not demeaning anything, just posing a view which is different to the hallowed ground that Roadcraft sometimes seems to be placed on.
And lest anyone think I am placing myself as a superior driver, I am not. I'm okish, but pretty poor in comparison with anyone who is actually a good driver. Feels a bit like my race abilities. Expect to be in the top half, perhaps in the top 25%, but rarely on the podium and easily seen off by any actual good drivers.
Bert
Road craft is the police handbook of Advanced Driving to suggest it is low bar is a pretty ignorant statement and then to suggest that you as an average driver is qualified to make changes to it based on just your own experience is laughable.
The Highway Code and Roadcraft differ from your point of view but you know better.
You could actually use this thread to learn to drive according to the Highway Code or you can just make it up as you go along. One wonders how many other areas of your driving have been modified.
When you have evidence of higher standard than Roadcraft please share until then perhaps best not to dig yourself an even deeper hole.
The Highway Code and Roadcraft differ from your point of view but you know better.
You could actually use this thread to learn to drive according to the Highway Code or you can just make it up as you go along. One wonders how many other areas of your driving have been modified.
When you have evidence of higher standard than Roadcraft please share until then perhaps best not to dig yourself an even deeper hole.
springfan62 said:
Road craft is the police handbook of Advanced Driving to suggest it is low bar is a pretty ignorant statement and then to suggest that you as an average driver is qualified to make changes to it based on just your own experience is laughable.
The Highway Code and Roadcraft differ from your point of view but you know better.
You could actually use this thread to learn to drive according to the Highway Code or you can just make it up as you go along. One wonders how many other areas of your driving have been modified.
When you have evidence of higher standard than Roadcraft please share until then perhaps best not to dig yourself an even deeper hole.
I'm not digging a hole at all, you're simply wrong. Bert very accurately describes Roadcraft's place in things above. I'd suggest that most people like me who've had advanced road driving coaching and thought about driving, as most of us on this forum have, have built on Roadcraft in many ways. Sticking to it as a religious text is just dogmatic.The Highway Code and Roadcraft differ from your point of view but you know better.
You could actually use this thread to learn to drive according to the Highway Code or you can just make it up as you go along. One wonders how many other areas of your driving have been modified.
When you have evidence of higher standard than Roadcraft please share until then perhaps best not to dig yourself an even deeper hole.
Oh, and something else you're wrong about: how do you know I'm "an average driver"? You've never even met me, let alone driven with me. I'm not even statistically likely to be average, given that I'm posting on an advanced driving forum.
Edited by RobM77 on Thursday 8th August 14:05
BertBert said:
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. Safe driving only starts with a book. Safe driving is then polished and improved by intelligently analysing your experiences and adjusting future driving accordingly.
I think there's lots to be said here and it's way off topic. But Roadcraft is a very low bar surely? Although it's not the start of safe driving. Learning to drive first of all and passing a test is the start. We may consider that a low bar, but is Roadcraft a much higher bar? Is it really 'Advanced Driving'? Not in my view. It was conceived as a systematic testable mechanism to take run of the mill drivers and by instilling a system, make them a bit better and nice and consistent.I'm not demeaning anything, just posing a view which is different to the hallowed ground that Roadcraft sometimes seems to be placed on.
And lest anyone think I am placing myself as a superior driver, I am not. I'm okish, but pretty poor in comparison with anyone who is actually a good driver. Feels a bit like my race abilities. Expect to be in the top half, perhaps in the top 25%, but rarely on the podium and easily seen off by any actual good drivers.
Bert
To doggedly follow a book written in the 1950s as a contained system for improving driving is very short-sighted. In everything I do in life, whether it be motor racing, running, playing music etc, I always analyse myself and try to improve. I don't think I've ever done anything by simply reading a book and calling that the end to improvement and learning.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.Indicating is all part of the plan, I have indicated for ME, thought through and carried out. If no-one benefits, then that's fine. Nobody is inconvenienced and we all carry on with our journey / lives.
Roadcraft was indeed conceived in the 1950's but its updated regularly, the last one being 2013, it's apparently being revised next year so to suggest its out of date is just an another myth being perpetuated by the ignorant.
Perhaps those on here that indicate for no reason would like to suggest a change to the standard whereby when changing lanes one considers whether it is useful to indicate and then do it anyway.
They will obviously take quite seriously the views of some keyboard warriors on an Advanced Driving forum who have had a bit of coaching over above professional police drivers who are probably amongst the best trained anywhere in the world. But thats forums for you, there is always someone that knows better than the professionals.
Perhaps those on here that indicate for no reason would like to suggest a change to the standard whereby when changing lanes one considers whether it is useful to indicate and then do it anyway.
They will obviously take quite seriously the views of some keyboard warriors on an Advanced Driving forum who have had a bit of coaching over above professional police drivers who are probably amongst the best trained anywhere in the world. But thats forums for you, there is always someone that knows better than the professionals.
springfan62 said:
Roadcraft was indeed conceived in the 1950's but its updated regularly, the last one being 2013, it's apparently being revised next year so to suggest its out of date is just an another myth being perpetuated by the ignorant.
Perhaps those on here that indicate for no reason would like to suggest a change to the standard whereby when changing lanes one considers whether it is useful to indicate and then do it anyway.
They will obviously take quite seriously the views of some keyboard warriors on an Advanced Driving forum who have had a bit of coaching over above professional police drivers who are probably amongst the best trained anywhere in the world. But thats forums for you, there is always someone that knows better than the professionals.
I fear that posters like BertBert and I are being labelled as something we're not here, and it's based around a few mis-understandings. Let's clear these up now, not just for my sake, but also for posters like BertBert who I have great respect for:Perhaps those on here that indicate for no reason would like to suggest a change to the standard whereby when changing lanes one considers whether it is useful to indicate and then do it anyway.
They will obviously take quite seriously the views of some keyboard warriors on an Advanced Driving forum who have had a bit of coaching over above professional police drivers who are probably amongst the best trained anywhere in the world. But thats forums for you, there is always someone that knows better than the professionals.
1) A police advanced driver is a professional, yes, but they're a professional policeman. They are not some un-attainable top level standard for advanced driving, and none of them claim to be. Plenty of posters on here have had more training than the average UK traffic officer, and in my experience of riding with them (Waremark for example) and knowing a few police traffic officers, those PHers have a far higher standard of advanced driving, obtained through passion, not profession. I'm a professional author, but like the pro traffic officer all that means is that I have some training, lots of experience, and I've been paid good money to write since 2003. That's "professional" defined for you. That doesn't mean I don't make mistakes (look: there you go, a double negative!) and it does not mean that I possess some mystical top level standard in penmanship that others can't reach.
2) Roadcraft is not a bible and we are not creationists. It's guidance and no more. BertBert covered this topic earlier better than I could do here succinctly. Dogmatically following a book never got anyone anywhere. In my profession as an author we have a book like this on how to write, but we have an hour set aside every Friday to discuss deviations from that style guide. We use the full hour every Friday, and do sometimes deviate - that is a good thing.
3) Strictly speaking, what I'm saying is not actually going against Roadcraft. Roadcraft says you don't need to signal to someone that isn't there. At no point does Roadcraft claim that all its practitioners have perfect observation, nor does it state that additional layers of safety are a bad idea.
RobM77 said:
I fear that posters like BertBert and I are being labelled as something we're not here, and it's based around a few mis-understandings. Let's clear these up now, not just for my sake, but also for posters like BertBert who I have great respect for:
1). Plenty of posters on here have had more training than the average UK traffic officer,
3) Strictly speaking, what I'm saying is not actually going against Roadcraft. Roadcraft says you don't need to signal to someone that isn't there.
1) Possibly but I doubt it (For driving/riding on roads) and almost certainly not at the speeds they have1). Plenty of posters on here have had more training than the average UK traffic officer,
3) Strictly speaking, what I'm saying is not actually going against Roadcraft. Roadcraft says you don't need to signal to someone that isn't there.
3) No it doesn't
However we can agree that Roadcraft is definitely not the book that is the pinnacle of Advanced training. Even on the first day of the standard course and every subsequent course you must pass a test on Roadcraft and the Highway code. Much of it you need by rote so I completely agree it's only the basis.
Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 8th August 19:46
RobM77 said:
) Strictly speaking, what I'm saying is not actually going against Roadcraft. Roadcraft says you don't need to signal to someone that isn't there. At no point does Roadcraft claim that all its practitioners have perfect observation, nor does it state that additional layers of safety are a bad idea.
But it does specifically state that it avoiding unnecessary signalling reduce signal clutter and I would be much more concerned that poor observation is the justification for additional signalling. If the driver's observation is that questionable how did they safely carry out the overtake in the first place.If the justification for additional signalling is imperfect observation then that is a very worrying concern about their driving generally.
If they can't be sure they don't need to indicate how can they be sure it's safe to change direction.
It seems to me that in reality pointless signalling is an excuse not to make adequate observations not an additional safety measure.
Just who are these people who's brains implode when trying to process an 'unnecessary' signal which may have caused 'signal clutter'?
There can only ever be a finite amount of cars in anyones field of vision at any one time. If there are genuinely drivers out there who are going to have a brain-fart moment and crash because of an 'unnecessary' signal then FFS!
Rather than this debate, perhaps the bar of obtaining a driving license should be changed to discount people whose brains can't process a few flashing lights.
There can only ever be a finite amount of cars in anyones field of vision at any one time. If there are genuinely drivers out there who are going to have a brain-fart moment and crash because of an 'unnecessary' signal then FFS!
Rather than this debate, perhaps the bar of obtaining a driving license should be changed to discount people whose brains can't process a few flashing lights.
r250 said:
Just who are these people who's brains implode when trying to process an 'unnecessary' signal which may have caused 'signal clutter'?
There can only ever be a finite amount of cars in anyones field of vision at any one time. If there are genuinely drivers out there who are going to have a brain-fart moment and crash because of an 'unnecessary' signal then FFS!
Rather than this debate, perhaps the bar of obtaining a driving license should be changed to discount people whose brains can't process a few flashing lights.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo&t=1sThere can only ever be a finite amount of cars in anyones field of vision at any one time. If there are genuinely drivers out there who are going to have a brain-fart moment and crash because of an 'unnecessary' signal then FFS!
Rather than this debate, perhaps the bar of obtaining a driving license should be changed to discount people whose brains can't process a few flashing lights.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpPYdMs97eE
Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 8th August 22:01
Vipers said:
Think I will stick to MSM, if no one is there to see my signal, I don't think the world will end.
If only most people bothered to find out what the S for "Signal" actual means.If not ending the world is the measure of success, then driving flat out into a bridge support will also be fine.
Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 8th August 22:20
Vipers said:
Think I will stick to MSM, if no one is there to see my signal, I don't think the world will end.
..and if people overtake me and signal left, then just in case they are signalling and do not know if anyone is there or not, I shall flash them to say ‘I am here’. Have I got that right? Is that how this all works?Graveworm said:
RobM77 said:
I fear that posters like BertBert and I are being labelled as something we're not here, and it's based around a few mis-understandings. Let's clear these up now, not just for my sake, but also for posters like BertBert who I have great respect for:
1). Plenty of posters on here have had more training than the average UK traffic officer,
3) Strictly speaking, what I'm saying is not actually going against Roadcraft. Roadcraft says you don't need to signal to someone that isn't there.
1) Possibly but I doubt it (For driving/riding on roads) and almost certainly not at the speeds they have1). Plenty of posters on here have had more training than the average UK traffic officer,
3) Strictly speaking, what I'm saying is not actually going against Roadcraft. Roadcraft says you don't need to signal to someone that isn't there.
3) No it doesn't
However we can agree that Roadcraft is definitely not the book that is the pinnacle of Advanced training. Even on the first day of the standard course and every subsequent course you must pass a test on Roadcraft and the Highway code. Much of it you need by rote so I completely agree it's only the basis.
Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 8th August 19:46
Well, I can't tell how far behind me is visible as clear of other traffic, and from the picture it's not clear where the roads go in terms of being able to hide approaching traffic, but yes, I probably would. I can't see anything that would make it actively disadvantageous to do so.
Why, is this specific junction some kind of trick question? Is there a reason why signalling for it would be a bad idea?
Why, is this specific junction some kind of trick question? Is there a reason why signalling for it would be a bad idea?
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff