Forgive yourself.
Discussion
Interesting thread.
Yesterday a taxi pulled out in front of me, forcing me to take evasive action. It would be easy to come to the conclusion the taxi driver was in the wrong, and congratulate myself on avoiding it, but we all know things are rarely that simple. I am very much aware that despite being within the speed limit, if I had been going slightly slower I would have had more time to react (I did after all know the entrance the taxi emerged from was there), and that I had checked my mirrors moments before spotting the car, and in hindsight this was not the best place to momentarily takes my eyes off the road.
Which brings me to the point of my post, is it realistic to get to a level of driving where after every 'close shave' that you can honestly reflect that you did everything is your power to minimise the likelihood of an accident, or is it the case that the more experienced drivers very rarely get into such situations?
Yesterday a taxi pulled out in front of me, forcing me to take evasive action. It would be easy to come to the conclusion the taxi driver was in the wrong, and congratulate myself on avoiding it, but we all know things are rarely that simple. I am very much aware that despite being within the speed limit, if I had been going slightly slower I would have had more time to react (I did after all know the entrance the taxi emerged from was there), and that I had checked my mirrors moments before spotting the car, and in hindsight this was not the best place to momentarily takes my eyes off the road.
Which brings me to the point of my post, is it realistic to get to a level of driving where after every 'close shave' that you can honestly reflect that you did everything is your power to minimise the likelihood of an accident, or is it the case that the more experienced drivers very rarely get into such situations?
sato said:
Interesting thread.
Yesterday a taxi pulled out in front of me, forcing me to take evasive action. It would be easy to come to the conclusion the taxi driver was in the wrong, and congratulate myself on avoiding it, but we all know things are rarely that simple. I am very much aware that despite being within the speed limit, if I had been going slightly slower I would have had more time to react (I did after all know the entrance the taxi emerged from was there), and that I had checked my mirrors moments before spotting the car, and in hindsight this was not the best place to momentarily takes my eyes off the road.
Which brings me to the point of my post, is it realistic to get to a level of driving where after every 'close shave' that you can honestly reflect that you did everything is your power to minimise the likelihood of an accident, or is it the case that the more experienced drivers very rarely get into such situations?
Yesterday a taxi pulled out in front of me, forcing me to take evasive action. It would be easy to come to the conclusion the taxi driver was in the wrong, and congratulate myself on avoiding it, but we all know things are rarely that simple. I am very much aware that despite being within the speed limit, if I had been going slightly slower I would have had more time to react (I did after all know the entrance the taxi emerged from was there), and that I had checked my mirrors moments before spotting the car, and in hindsight this was not the best place to momentarily takes my eyes off the road.
Which brings me to the point of my post, is it realistic to get to a level of driving where after every 'close shave' that you can honestly reflect that you did everything is your power to minimise the likelihood of an accident, or is it the case that the more experienced drivers very rarely get into such situations?
That's an interesting point, and one I was pondering only yesterday.
As your observation and planning skills improve, your ability to spot potential problems increases, and with that, your ability to avoid conflict with other road users grows. You can get to a point where you can spot most problems soon enough to avoid those "oh s
t! moments, but one thing you should never do is become complacent with your new-found skills. I was out for a drive yesterday, and I'd just lined up a perfect overtake on a Rover 200. It was on a perfectly straight piece of road across an earth dam which seperates two reservoirs. Obviously, there were no junctions left or right, there was no on-coming traffic, and my closing speed on the Rover was approximately +30mph. Ther Rover driver was happily bimbling along at about 30mph with no sideways weaving, no change in speed, and no indication that they were about to do anything other than continue bimbling straight on.
It was going to be a perfect "rolling overtake" with no need to slow into a following position and no need to alter my speed, my gear, or to accelerate - all I had to do was move sideways nice and early, and roll past it.
I was about 5 car lengths from the rear of the Rover when, in the space of less than a second, the driver put on a right indicator, braked, and pulled right across the road to park next to the offside kerb. This prompted some heavy brake application from me, and a very quick swerve to the nearside, followed by some selective Anglo-Saxon phrases.
My point is that it doesn't matter how good you are, or how experienced you become at spotting potential hazards, there are still things out there that can catch you out.
Incidentally, I looked in my mirror immediately after that little episode, and the driver of the Rover had her head down and was busy rummaging in her handbag, not only totally unaware of what had (nearly) happened, but blissfully unaware of my presence. She's still out there, and she's out to get you!
bertbert said:
Just out of interest, what was going to be your passing speed differential? The same +30 or less than that? I assume that at distance, you were indicating?
I assume she didn't check behind her, but was wondering what she would have seen if she had.
Bert
I assume she didn't check behind her, but was wondering what she would have seen if she had.
Bert
She'd have seen me approaching on the offside of the road, and yes, my speed would have remained the same.
My point was that we are all capable of misjudging situations, so any criticism of my overtaking technique is fairly irrelevant, as I'd have to agree with you in this case.
The mistake was hers, but there was also an element of error on my part, as it is possible that I missed a clue that she was about to park on the offside.
I'm buggered if I can think what it was I missed though!
Oh, and no, I wasn't indicating. I don't generally indicate when overtaking and I've never taught students to either. I consider it a wasted signal, and can sometimes be mis-understood as an intention to turn right.
R_U_LOCAL said:
bertbert said:
Just out of interest, what was going to be your passing speed differential? The same +30 or less than that? I assume that at distance, you were indicating?
I assume she didn't check behind her, but was wondering what she would have seen if she had.
Bert
I assume she didn't check behind her, but was wondering what she would have seen if she had.
Bert
She'd have seen me approaching on the offside of the road, and yes, my speed would have remained the same.
My point was that we are all capable of misjudging situations, so any criticism of my overtaking technique is fairly irrelevant, as I'd have to agree with you in this case.
The mistake was hers, but there was also an element of error on my part, as it is possible that I missed a clue that she was about to park on the offside.
I'm buggered if I can think what it was I missed though!
Oh, and no, I wasn't indicating. I don't generally indicate when overtaking and I've never taught students to either. I consider it a wasted signal, and can sometimes be mis-understood as an intention to turn right.
I've sometimes switched on dipped headlights before starting an overtake (not just at the last minute) to try and attract the attention of the overtakee. It's not always easy to decide quite what's best in all situations, but I think that can help.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
R_U_LOCAL said:
bertbert said:
Just out of interest, what was going to be your passing speed differential? The same +30 or less than that? I assume that at distance, you were indicating?
I assume she didn't check behind her, but was wondering what she would have seen if she had.
Bert
I assume she didn't check behind her, but was wondering what she would have seen if she had.
Bert
She'd have seen me approaching on the offside of the road, and yes, my speed would have remained the same.
My point was that we are all capable of misjudging situations, so any criticism of my overtaking technique is fairly irrelevant, as I'd have to agree with you in this case.
The mistake was hers, but there was also an element of error on my part, as it is possible that I missed a clue that she was about to park on the offside.
I'm buggered if I can think what it was I missed though!
Oh, and no, I wasn't indicating. I don't generally indicate when overtaking and I've never taught students to either. I consider it a wasted signal, and can sometimes be mis-understood as an intention to turn right.
Sorry my intention was to understand the situation to put into practice in my driving, not to criticise!
On the indicating, why is it a wasted signal? There is always someone to indicate to (the overtakee) and if they are looking it gives them a clue that you are doing something. I appreciate the scope for misunderstanding though.
Bert
bertbert said:
Sorry my intention was to understand the situation to put into practice in my driving, not to criticise!
No need to apologise - I have no problem with people challenging my views and practices, and I'm happy to defend them robustly, or to accept criticism where it is due.
In this case, a small part of the situation was caused by my inability to realise what was about to happen, and so I'm happy to accept my mistake.
bertbert said:
On the indicating, why is it a wasted signal? There is always someone to indicate to (the overtakee) and if they are looking it gives them a clue that you are doing something. I appreciate the scope for misunderstanding though.
Bert
Bert
My opinion is that it's a bit like putting an indicator on when entering a motorway - where else am I going to go from a slip road, other than into lane 1? Nowhere. So a signal is unnecessary. The same goes for overtaking - what else would the overtaken driver think I was about to do when I moved out onto the offside at a considerable closing speed. The only time I advocate indicating your intention to overtake, is when a mirror check reveals a vehicle behind you who appears to also be looking for the opportunity to overtake.
I expect there will be plenty of people who disagree with this, so bring it on.
R_U_LOCAL said:
My opinion is that it's a bit like putting an indicator on when entering a motorway - where else am I going to go from a slip road, other than into lane 1? Nowhere. So a signal is unnecessary.
The question, Reg, isn't one of necessity, it is one of helpfulness. Will it be helpful to another road-user?
Yes, there's nowhere else for *you* to go, which is obvious to *you*. The chap in lane one hasn't empathised with you at all, and needs all the help he can get to understand your intention.
Not signalling is a conceit which we enjoy. Let's do it for the right reasons.
It's not conceited to omit a signal. A good driver will make a decision whether to signal or not based on whether anyone will benefit from that signal.
When a learner is taught to drive, the "signal" phase is an essential aspect, and they'll be expected by the examiner to put on an indicator as part of their approach to any maneouvre. Thinking about whether anyone will benefit from that signal doesn't come into it - they're taught to stick the signal on irrespective, and, quite understandably, most drivers continue to automatically signal their intentions long after they pass their test (and right up until they buy their first BMW)
At advanced level, drivers are expected to think more deeply about what they're doing, and to demonstrate a higher level of road observations and planning. I expect advanced students to think about whether anyone will benefit from a signal - this stops them from acting "automatically" in the car, and encourages them to extend their observations and make a decision whether to signal or not based on part of their planned approach to a hazard.
Of course, the information phase runs throughout the system, and the information available to a driver can change at any time, so there's always the option to stick a signal on at any time whilst dealing with a hazard, if the driver realises that there is someone who will benefit from a signal.
In my experience, overtaking a single car hardly ever requires a signal, apart, as I mentioned earlier, from when there is a vehicle behind which appears to also be looking for the overtake.
The same is true for joining a motorway. You should be matching your speed with the vhicles in lane 1 and slotting in where appropriate. A signal isn't generally required, unless the traffic in lane 1 is particularly heavy.
When a learner is taught to drive, the "signal" phase is an essential aspect, and they'll be expected by the examiner to put on an indicator as part of their approach to any maneouvre. Thinking about whether anyone will benefit from that signal doesn't come into it - they're taught to stick the signal on irrespective, and, quite understandably, most drivers continue to automatically signal their intentions long after they pass their test (and right up until they buy their first BMW
) At advanced level, drivers are expected to think more deeply about what they're doing, and to demonstrate a higher level of road observations and planning. I expect advanced students to think about whether anyone will benefit from a signal - this stops them from acting "automatically" in the car, and encourages them to extend their observations and make a decision whether to signal or not based on part of their planned approach to a hazard.
Of course, the information phase runs throughout the system, and the information available to a driver can change at any time, so there's always the option to stick a signal on at any time whilst dealing with a hazard, if the driver realises that there is someone who will benefit from a signal.
In my experience, overtaking a single car hardly ever requires a signal, apart, as I mentioned earlier, from when there is a vehicle behind which appears to also be looking for the overtake.
The same is true for joining a motorway. You should be matching your speed with the vhicles in lane 1 and slotting in where appropriate. A signal isn't generally required, unless the traffic in lane 1 is particularly heavy.
R_U_LOCAL said:
In my experience, overtaking a single car hardly ever requires a signal, apart, as I mentioned earlier, from when there is a vehicle behind which appears to also be looking for the overtake.
Think about the cost to signalling in this circumstance. Can it be misinterpreted? Does it distract? Simply saying the benefit is small shouldn't be enough to omit the signal. It should be outweighed by the cost.
The same goes for electing to signal mid-manoeuvre rather than at the initiation. Is there really a bigger cost to signally to the as-yet un-observed, than there is to executing the signal mid-turn, say?
How about a headlamp flash or sounding the horn when someone in front might not have noticed you?
Of course if the other driver is doing all the thinking that they might be doing, empathising with your drive, driving carefully and considerately, then that's redundant. But its so often not the case, and so it is helpful.
I've seen a few drivers so taken with the conceit of not signalling that they omit signals where they would be genuinely useful - in their teaching the emphasis has been misplaced/misunderstood, and not signalling has become the default rather than always thinking.
Don't get the wrong idea about my opinion on the matter. I don't have a massive issue with wasted signals and there's really nothing much wrong with signalling automatically for every maneouvre.
However, you keep insisting that the omission of a signal is conceited. It's not. As long as the decision is made with full consideration of all available information, then, as someone who has tested Police Officers at advanced level, it demonstrates to me that a driver has moved on from simply operating the vehicles controls without thinking, to a driving style where they are thinking about what they are looking at outside the vehicle, and making an informed decision as to whether a signal is necessary or not.
I understand where you're coming from with your point - if you don't feel confident enough in your abilities to make that decision, or you're simply more comfortable with signlling automatically, then that's fine - we all develop our own driving styles and who am I to say that your style is wrong for you?
But don't confuse the genuinely conceited, self-centred drivers who don't consider a signal at all, with those who consider it, and on occasion, choose not to signal. There is a vast difference between the two.
However, you keep insisting that the omission of a signal is conceited. It's not. As long as the decision is made with full consideration of all available information, then, as someone who has tested Police Officers at advanced level, it demonstrates to me that a driver has moved on from simply operating the vehicles controls without thinking, to a driving style where they are thinking about what they are looking at outside the vehicle, and making an informed decision as to whether a signal is necessary or not.
I understand where you're coming from with your point - if you don't feel confident enough in your abilities to make that decision, or you're simply more comfortable with signlling automatically, then that's fine - we all develop our own driving styles and who am I to say that your style is wrong for you?
But don't confuse the genuinely conceited, self-centred drivers who don't consider a signal at all, with those who consider it, and on occasion, choose not to signal. There is a vast difference between the two.
Edited by R_U_LOCAL on Thursday 8th March 23:24
R_U_LOCAL said:
It's not conceited to omit a signal. A good driver will make a decision whether to signal or not based on whether anyone will benefit from that signal.
When a learner is taught to drive, the "signal" phase is an essential aspect, and they'll be expected by the examiner to put on an indicator as part of their approach to any maneouvre. Thinking about whether anyone will benefit from that signal doesn't come into it - they're taught to stick the signal on irrespective, and, quite understandably, most drivers continue to automatically signal their intentions long after they pass their test (and right up until they buy their first BMW)
When a learner is taught to drive, the "signal" phase is an essential aspect, and they'll be expected by the examiner to put on an indicator as part of their approach to any maneouvre. Thinking about whether anyone will benefit from that signal doesn't come into it - they're taught to stick the signal on irrespective, and, quite understandably, most drivers continue to automatically signal their intentions long after they pass their test (and right up until they buy their first BMW
)They don't "have" to signal for the DSA, even at that stage in their driving career.
Of course some ADI's may get them to blanket signal, perhaps because they feel it's easier for them to teach & less confusing for the candidate, but the DSA don't require it on test, just signals where necessary for the benefit of others.
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 9th March 07:02
vonhosen said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
It's not conceited to omit a signal. A good driver will make a decision whether to signal or not based on whether anyone will benefit from that signal.
When a learner is taught to drive, the "signal" phase is an essential aspect, and they'll be expected by the examiner to put on an indicator as part of their approach to any maneouvre. Thinking about whether anyone will benefit from that signal doesn't come into it - they're taught to stick the signal on irrespective, and, quite understandably, most drivers continue to automatically signal their intentions long after they pass their test (and right up until they buy their first BMW)
When a learner is taught to drive, the "signal" phase is an essential aspect, and they'll be expected by the examiner to put on an indicator as part of their approach to any maneouvre. Thinking about whether anyone will benefit from that signal doesn't come into it - they're taught to stick the signal on irrespective, and, quite understandably, most drivers continue to automatically signal their intentions long after they pass their test (and right up until they buy their first BMW
)They don't "have" to signal for the DSA, even at that stage in their driving career.
Of course some ADI's may get them to blanket signal, perhaps because they feel it's easier for them to teach & less confusing for the candidate, but the DSA don't require it on test, just signals where necessary for the benefit of others.
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 9th March 07:02
I was also going to make that point as it has changed from when I took my test some while ago!
However, IIRC the DSA info isn't very useful on the subject. I think it syas where necessary, but doesn't add for the benefit of others! Mind you I'm sure the ADI will fill in the blanks!
Bert
R_U_LOCAL said:
At advanced level, drivers are expected to think more deeply about what they're doing, and to demonstrate a higher level of road observations and planning. I expect advanced students to think about whether anyone will benefit from a signal - this stops them from acting "automatically" in the car, and encourages them to extend their observations and make a decision whether to signal or not based on part of their planned approach to a hazard.
Out of interest, if you were critiquing an advanced student about a signal that might or might not have been redundant, if they had a strongly held rationale of who they were signaling to and why (such as the overtaking/signalling debate here), would you be happy with their signalling, or would you instruct them differently?
Bert
bertbert said:
Out of interest, if you were critiquing an advanced student about a signal that might or might not have been redundant, if they had a strongly held rationale of who they were signaling to and why (such as the overtaking/signalling debate here), would you be happy with their signalling, or would you instruct them differently?
And furthermore if they didn't know the difference between being conceited and a conceit would you correct them, or would you just let it lie?
bertbert said:
However, IIRC the DSA info isn't very useful on the subject. I think it syas where necessary, but doesn't add for the benefit of others! Mind you I'm sure the ADI will fill in the blanks!
Highway Code rule 85 is quite comprehensive.
DSA "Driving - the essential skills" page 82 covers signalling.
It clearly states under "Purpose" that signals are to to let others know what you are intending to do (my italics).
So, if there's no one there don't signal.
I think they just need to modify the MSMPSL (DSA "System" ) so that the first S means "signal clearly and in good time, if required"
As mentioned, there's enough for a learner to be doing dealing with hazards, so automatic indicating is the default. One less thing to worry about.
Edited by Vaux on Friday 9th March 10:22
bertbert said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
At advanced level, drivers are expected to think more deeply about what they're doing, and to demonstrate a higher level of road observations and planning. I expect advanced students to think about whether anyone will benefit from a signal - this stops them from acting "automatically" in the car, and encourages them to extend their observations and make a decision whether to signal or not based on part of their planned approach to a hazard.
Out of interest, if you were critiquing an advanced student about a signal that might or might not have been redundant, if they had a strongly held rationale of who they were signaling to and why (such as the overtaking/signalling debate here), would you be happy with their signalling, or would you instruct them differently?
Bert
Let's not get too obsessed with the signalling thing. A driver who produces a good advanced-level drive on test, but who automatically signals, will still pass. It'll certainly be mentioned by the examiner on de-brief, but it's not something that they would fail for - it's just one of many aspects that an examiner looks for to show whether the driver is observing and planning correctly. On the other hand, a driver who produces a similar level of drive on test, but who consistently fails to signal where appropriate will not pass.
I can understand people's reluctance to accept that I'm advocating that, on occassion, you shouldn't signal, but, s with any other aspect of driving, you should take the bits you like, and leave the bits you don't like.
7db said:
bertbert said:
Out of interest, if you were critiquing an advanced student about a signal that might or might not have been redundant, if they had a strongly held rationale of who they were signaling to and why (such as the overtaking/signalling debate here), would you be happy with their signalling, or would you instruct them differently?
And furthermore if they didn't know the difference between being conceited and a conceit would you correct them, or would you just let it lie?
That would depend on whether they were being pedantic by accident, or deliberately being a smart-arse.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff