Men and overtaking
Discussion
Dizeee said:
2006 Standard, 2009 Advanced, 2014 TPAC, refreshed twice in 2016 and then 2019 for my current role...
Were you seriously taught to indicate on an Adv Course? Where was this - oop north?
Seriously 100% taught on all courses to indicate the overtake and throughout the overtake. And yes, a Northern force, but a lot closer to Scotland than prentendy northerners who say things like 'oop North'Were you seriously taught to indicate on an Adv Course? Where was this - oop north?
focusxr5 said:
Seriously 100% taught on all courses to indicate the overtake and throughout the overtake. And yes, a Northern force, but a lot closer to Scotland than prentendy northerners who say things like 'oop North'
To take the important parts from this:Is an indication ‘throughout’ the overtake, of any extra use if DRLs are fitted (and yes, are they front DRLs only?) Genuine question. I choose a short signal for the movement, but a continual indication If vehicles are approaching. This is the whole purpose of thinking about your signalling, and also what other ‘signals’ your car is otherwise showing.
Dizeee said:
DocSteve said:
Dizee, are you sure you are not winding us up??
No, not a wind up. I guess we all do things differently and I can only go by what I have been taught over the years. There is a lot I don't agree with written above. Overtaking a bus when it is only possible if the bus complies? There shouldn't be an if, but or any form of uncertainty about it. If its on it's on, and if there is any doubt hold back. An M5 overtaking a buss should not require any compliance from a bus driver on a road that is safe and suitable to overtake on.
Indicating in queues of traffic, seriously, how many people look and count off cars "not indicating" behind when pulling out for an overtake... your hazard is the group of cars as a whole and part of your risk assessment is the likelihood of movement judged by position and/or speed of any of them.
Bikers sitting in blind spots, yes they do, but that's why you shoulder check prior to moving out.
Indicating to let others know behind - I have already answered this - it should be obvious and apparent what you are doing by virtue of your positioning.
There may be some infrequent circumstances where an indication may benefit, but these are very infrequent for me. The only time I ever recall doing one is when I was awaiting opportunity for an overtake which I knew was imminent, and in the far distance behind me was a motorbike approaching at speed. I gave 3 flicks of my offside indicator which allowed him to roll off and come to rest behind me, removing the chance of him coming into conflict with my intentions. Had he have carried on then obviously I would have not continued with my intention, but as it turned out, it worked well. He respected my awareness of his presence and intentions, and I respected his response to my signal. This is what taking, using and giving information is all about.
Maybe it's my fault. Whenever I discuss driving it is with progress in mind. It is just inherent in my driving style and has been drummed into me now for over 16 years. There is no need, requirement or time for needless signals when your positioning makes it obvious what you are going to do, and in most circumstances will be off and away within a matter of seconds anyway.
Edited by Dizeee on Saturday 16th May 16:15
I don't understand your point about queues of traffic although I agree that your own risk assessment should not be based on the presence of or lack of indication from other road users. That doesn't mean that if you do it, it won't assist other road users and reduce the risk of a conflict though. I fully agree that you should not perform a manoeuvre simply because you have indicated and that there are multiple pieces of information that should inform your decision making.
I'm all for discussing different approaches but your dogmatic post was not in my opinion constructive. There is always uncertainty about the safety of an overtake and any driving activity, it's about mitigating those risks as I'm sure you are aware. An overtake could appear perfectly safe but the driver could do something completely unexpected etc etc.
It seems that you are or have been a police traffic officer. Presumably you use sirens and blues to indicate your presence rather than just your road positioning? A final point about your issue with the bus story: John Lyon - if you are not aware - was and still is one of the most highly regarded drivers out there and was well respected as a senior instructor at Hendon for many years.
focusxr5 said:
Seriously 100% taught on all courses to indicate the overtake and throughout the overtake. And yes, a Northern force, but a lot closer to Scotland than prentendy northerners who say things like 'oop North'
Genuinely, and I mean genuinely amazed. I guess there are regional variations. I would like to know more though. Training is to to a national level.... although I don't doubt your honesty, it is still wrong to me.
DocSteve said:
There is always uncertainty about the safety of an overtake
Presumably you use sirens and blues to indicate your presence rather than just your road positioning?
Sorry if my posts touched a nerve. It wasn't intended. I post honestly, and within the capacity of my own knowledge.Presumably you use sirens and blues to indicate your presence rather than just your road positioning?
There should never be uncertainty in any overtake. If there is, it's not on. Safety over system.
The use of audible and visual equipment does nothing other than "ask" for compliance from others. The conversation within this thread bears no resemblance to that.
Dizeee said:
DocSteve said:
There is always uncertainty about the safety of an overtake
Presumably you use sirens and blues to indicate your presence rather than just your road positioning?
Sorry if my posts touched a nerve. It wasn't intended. I post honestly, and within the capacity of my own knowledge.Presumably you use sirens and blues to indicate your presence rather than just your road positioning?
There should never be uncertainty in any overtake. If there is, it's not on. Safety over system.
The use of audible and visual equipment does nothing other than "ask" for compliance from others. The conversation within this thread bears no resemblance to that.
nonsequitur said:
It's just good driving Bucko. The pull back in after an OT is a separate move and requires a signal.
Why is it good driving to indicate back in after a pass? It's neither taught to learners nor to advanced drivers – I was taught there is no need to indicate left unless you are telling other road users something that isn’t obvious. nonsequitur said:
I would argue that any change of direction requires an indication.
I can think of some changes in direction when a signal could cause confusion or be misunderstood.Signals are just communication.
As with the written or spoken word some people are just not very good at it.
As with the written or spoken word sometimes you are better off remaining silent, whilst at other times speaking out.
What you do want though is clarity & accuracy, rather than fudged or vague
As with the written or spoken word some people are just not very good at it.
As with the written or spoken word sometimes you are better off remaining silent, whilst at other times speaking out.
What you do want though is clarity & accuracy, rather than fudged or vague
Salted_Peanut said:
nonsequitur said:
It's just good driving Bucko. The pull back in after an OT is a separate move and requires a signal.
Why is it good driving to indicate back in after a pass? It's neither taught to learners nor to advanced drivers – I was taught there is no need to indicate left unless you are telling other road users something that isn’t obvious. nonsequitur said:
I would argue that any change of direction requires an indication.
I can think of some changes in direction when a signal could cause confusion or be misunderstood.
Yippie Ky A.One of the few things I can remember my instructor drumming into me back in 1991 was that I should not indicate unless it was necessary to tell someone that I was changing lanes or turning left or right. He was pretty insistent about not indicating when moving across the centerline of the road to pass an obstruction as I may give someone the incorrect impression that I was turning right.
LunarOne said:
One of the few things I can remember my instructor drumming into me back in 1991 was that I should not indicate unless it was necessary to tell someone that I was changing lanes or turning left or right. He was pretty insistent about not indicating when moving across the centerline of the road to pass an obstruction as I may give someone the incorrect impression that I was turning right.
If you were turning right you would certainly be slowing down. Not necessarily so when passing obstructions.I'm always concerned when others go into great detail about why they are not indicating, but an actual indication takes less than a split second. Yes, that fast to let others know your next move.
nonsequitur said:
If you were turning right you would certainly be slowing down. Not necessarily so when passing obstructions.
I'm always concerned when others go into great detail about why they are not indicating, but an actual indication takes less than a split second. Yes, that fast to let others know your next move.
1. Some people behind wouldn't collate the "not slowing down" with "indicating right" and assume a right turn.I'm always concerned when others go into great detail about why they are not indicating, but an actual indication takes less than a split second. Yes, that fast to let others know your next move.
2. "Actual indication takes less than a split second" - yes, but for others to see and then comprehend takes considerably longer.
nonsequitur said:
I'm always concerned when others go into great detail about why they are not indicating, but an actual indication takes less than a split second. Yes, that fast to let others know your next move.
Are you implying that the reason many of us do not always indicate is to save the split second? If so, wrong and insulting. The traditional advanced teaching has been to always consider each feature of 'The System' - and considering whether an indication will be useful may take rather longer than your split second. Adopting the approach of always considering whether a signal will be useful helps a driver develop from the typical experienced driver who drives on autopilot to an Advanced Driver who observes, anticipates and plans before acting.
CH has argued persuasively that considering instead whether a signal could be misleading (and signalling if not) has the same benefit.
We've had so many threads on this topic over the years and it seems to me that people fall into three camps:
1) Always indicate.
2) Always indicate, unless it could mislead someone you've observed.
3) Only indicate to people you've observed who need to know, unless it could mislead.
My problem with 1 is it fails to take account of 2. Signals can mislead.
My problem with 3 is it assumes a driver's observation is perfect, which in my opinion it clearly isn't, so in this sense, indicating is a safety net. It also assumes the driver realises fully the breadth of road users and situations they need to signal for, which a significant number of people don't. The most common example is joining a motorway: some people say it's inevitable you're joining so you don't need to signal, but what if the slip road doesn't end, but becomes a lane? They simply haven't thought about it enough. The other example is people who don't think they need to signal to road users who aren't in cars, such as pedestrians or horse riders, which is obviously nonsense, and as a runner who averages an hour a day on the roads I find this extremely annoying.
Therefore I am in camp 2. This will pay dividends the day I signal before an overtake and the biker sat in my right rear blind spot, who I haven't seen, decides against overtaking because of my signal.
Finally, let's not forget that merely having this conversation puts us in a vanishingly small number of drivers. The vast majority of drivers that I see indicate as they turn ("turndicating"), which is obviously pointless and ridiculous.
1) Always indicate.
2) Always indicate, unless it could mislead someone you've observed.
3) Only indicate to people you've observed who need to know, unless it could mislead.
My problem with 1 is it fails to take account of 2. Signals can mislead.
My problem with 3 is it assumes a driver's observation is perfect, which in my opinion it clearly isn't, so in this sense, indicating is a safety net. It also assumes the driver realises fully the breadth of road users and situations they need to signal for, which a significant number of people don't. The most common example is joining a motorway: some people say it's inevitable you're joining so you don't need to signal, but what if the slip road doesn't end, but becomes a lane? They simply haven't thought about it enough. The other example is people who don't think they need to signal to road users who aren't in cars, such as pedestrians or horse riders, which is obviously nonsense, and as a runner who averages an hour a day on the roads I find this extremely annoying.
Therefore I am in camp 2. This will pay dividends the day I signal before an overtake and the biker sat in my right rear blind spot, who I haven't seen, decides against overtaking because of my signal.
Finally, let's not forget that merely having this conversation puts us in a vanishingly small number of drivers. The vast majority of drivers that I see indicate as they turn ("turndicating"), which is obviously pointless and ridiculous.
RobM77 said:
We've had so many threads on this topic over the years and it seems to me that people fall into three camps:
1) Always indicate.
2) Always indicate, unless it could mislead someone you've observed.
3) Only indicate to people you've observed who need to know, unless it could mislead.
My problem with 1 is it fails to take account of 2. Signals can mislead.
My problem with 3 is it assumes a driver's observation is perfect, which in my opinion it clearly isn't, so in this sense, indicating is a safety net. It also assumes the driver realises fully the breadth of road users and situations they need to signal for, which a significant number of people don't. The most common example is joining a motorway: some people say it's inevitable you're joining so you don't need to signal, but what if the slip road doesn't end, but becomes a lane? They simply haven't thought about it enough. The other example is people who don't think they need to signal to road users who aren't in cars, such as pedestrians or horse riders, which is obviously nonsense, and as a runner who averages an hour a day on the roads I find this extremely annoying.
Therefore I am in camp 2. This will pay dividends the day I signal before an overtake and the biker sat in my right rear blind spot, who I haven't seen, decides against overtaking because of my signal.
Finally, let's not forget that merely having this conversation puts us in a vanishingly small number of drivers. The vast majority of drivers that I see indicate as they turn ("turndicating"), which is obviously pointless and ridiculous.
I'm camp 2 in the car, and camp 3 on the bicycle. Simply because indicating on a bicycle reduces control, both in terms of turning and reducing braking capacity. So I'll only indicate if there's somebody who could manifestly benefit from that signal. Although that might include a driver behind when turning left, just to discourage them overtaking me across the junction.1) Always indicate.
2) Always indicate, unless it could mislead someone you've observed.
3) Only indicate to people you've observed who need to know, unless it could mislead.
My problem with 1 is it fails to take account of 2. Signals can mislead.
My problem with 3 is it assumes a driver's observation is perfect, which in my opinion it clearly isn't, so in this sense, indicating is a safety net. It also assumes the driver realises fully the breadth of road users and situations they need to signal for, which a significant number of people don't. The most common example is joining a motorway: some people say it's inevitable you're joining so you don't need to signal, but what if the slip road doesn't end, but becomes a lane? They simply haven't thought about it enough. The other example is people who don't think they need to signal to road users who aren't in cars, such as pedestrians or horse riders, which is obviously nonsense, and as a runner who averages an hour a day on the roads I find this extremely annoying.
Therefore I am in camp 2. This will pay dividends the day I signal before an overtake and the biker sat in my right rear blind spot, who I haven't seen, decides against overtaking because of my signal.
Finally, let's not forget that merely having this conversation puts us in a vanishingly small number of drivers. The vast majority of drivers that I see indicate as they turn ("turndicating"), which is obviously pointless and ridiculous.
Salted_Peanut said:
Well said RobM77 - excellent summary 
And I'm a defector! I was trained to be in Camp 3, but defected to Camp 2 for ideological reasons
Thanks. Yes, I've had several days of advanced tuition now and they've always taught Camp 3. I personally think that's nonsense though, because nobody's observation is perfect, so am in Camp 2 as well. The only disadvantage of Camp 2 is that you might mislead someone you haven't seen, but given the alternative is not indicating to that unseen person at all, I think the former situation is preferable.And I'm a defector! I was trained to be in Camp 3, but defected to Camp 2 for ideological reasons
RobM77 said:
Salted_Peanut said:
Well said RobM77 - excellent summary
And I'm a defector! I was trained to be in Camp 3, but defected to Camp 2 for ideological reasons
Thanks. Yes, I've had several days of advanced tuition now and they've always taught Camp 3. I personally think that's nonsense though, because nobody's observation is perfect, so am in Camp 2 as well. The only disadvantage of Camp 2 is that you might mislead someone you haven't seen, but given the alternative is not indicating to that unseen person at all, I think the former situation is preferable.And I'm a defector! I was trained to be in Camp 3, but defected to Camp 2 for ideological reasons
(I'm firmly Camp 1. Taught like that from the start, late 1960's, by my father and my instructor. 'Let them know what you are doing next for f***s sake'. Or words to that effect.) But it's not robotic, thought applied.
nonsequitur said:
Sorry Rob, how can you mislead someone you haven't seen?
Quite easily. If you signal your intentions to do A, but someone else thinks it means you're doing B, then it's misleading. That person may be seen or unseen by you.nonsequitur said:
(I'm firmly Camp 1. Taught like that from the start, late 1960's, by my father and my instructor. 'Let them know what you are doing next for f***s sake'. Or words to that effect.) But it's not robotic, thought applied.
I believe you can demonstrate use of signals as communication by the timing of your signal (e.g. matching it with a road sign, matching it with a change of speed, delaying it until after a junction beforehand etc).Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff