Forgive yourself.
Discussion
R_U_LOCAL said:
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.
Perhaps if you don't feel confident enough in your abilities to make that decision, then it would have been helpful for them to indicate earlier that there was a difference between the two; for even though it's not really necessary to point that out, it would have been helpful?
Just a polite enquiry.
I was warned when I started writing on here that some people like to drag threads into pedantic arguments. It seems this one is going in that direction.
Please don't expect me to fall into an argument about the meaning of a single word in one of your posts. If you disagree with my points, then at least find something valid to disagree with.
Edited to add - does anyone else find it ironic in the extreme that someone should try to show off their superior intellect by arguing over the meaning of the word "conceit"?
Please don't expect me to fall into an argument about the meaning of a single word in one of your posts. If you disagree with my points, then at least find something valid to disagree with.
Edited to add - does anyone else find it ironic in the extreme that someone should try to show off their superior intellect by arguing over the meaning of the word "conceit"?
Edited by R_U_LOCAL on Friday 9th March 11:25
R_U_LOCAL said:
If you disagree with my points, then at least find something valid to disagree with.
I thought I did...
1. Signalling when there is little obvious benefit is sometimes the best course where:-
- the cost of signalling (potential for confusion, distraction from controls) is less than the benefit
- the cost of signalling later (when benefit becomes obvious) is significantly higher than later
Whilst agreeing with your point that sometimes not signalling at all is fine.
2. Signal benefits are to do with what might be helpful to another unthinking, unaware or unobservant road users, not whether you judge them necessary from your particular point of view
- in particular where signalling to join a motorway, a big flashing light helps the people in lane one do their thinking for them.
3. 1-on-1 overtakes can benefit from signals - particularly where there are high closing speeds.
- headlamp flash
- horn signal
- flashing orange thingy
all help the person in front to be more aware of the person behind.
..but then you kept on going-on about whether not signalling was conceited, and decided to question my confidence in my abilities.
Why not come out for a drive sometime, it's more fun that posting here, but harder to do whilst at work.
I have to disagree with the OP, if you are overtaking anything it is only commonsense and courtesy to let everyone know your intention. They can then react to the information and adjust their own speed and position as necessary. The overtakee may even assist the overtake.
With the Reservoir incident, the overtakee would have seen you indicate in her mirror, and maintained her position.
With the Reservoir incident, the overtakee would have seen you indicate in her mirror, and maintained her position.
Edited by henrycrun on Friday 9th March 12:31
7db said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
If you disagree with my points, then at least find something valid to disagree with.
I thought I did...
1. Signalling when there is little obvious benefit is sometimes the best course where:-
- the cost of signalling (potential for confusion, distraction from controls) is less than the benefit
- the cost of signalling later (when benefit becomes obvious) is significantly higher than later
Whilst agreeing with your point that sometimes not signalling at all is fine.
2. Signal benefits are to do with what might be helpful to another unthinking, unaware or unobservant road users, not whether you judge them necessary from your particular point of view
- in particular where signalling to join a motorway, a big flashing light helps the people in lane one do their thinking for them.
3. 1-on-1 overtakes can benefit from signals - particularly where there are high closing speeds.
- headlamp flash
- horn signal
- flashing orange thingy
all help the person in front to be more aware of the person behind.
..but then you kept on going-on about whether not signalling was conceited, and decided to question my confidence in my abilities.
Why not come out for a drive sometime, it's more fun that posting here, but harder to do whilst at work.
That's more like it!
I'd rather have a disagreement on valid points than on my use of the English Language, so, let's have a look at your points then.
1. That reads as though you pretty much agree with me, although you have some difficulty with the "later signal". Think back to the diagram showing the system of car control in Roadcraft - the information phase runs throughout the system, and a big part of the information phase is the giving of information. A good planned approach to a manoeuvre should include various alternatives, one of which is whether to signal or not. The system allows you to put a signal on at any point during that manoeuvre if the information available to the driver changes.
Don't get me wrong - I can see your point of view - what if there is someone there who could benefit from a signal, but I've missed them? Well, that's the whole point of the exercise - having to think about whether there is someone who will benefit is whet makes a student look more carefully at the whole environment when scanning, and forces them to consider more things when formulating their driving plan, rather than just sticking an indicator on "just in case".
The "cost of signalling" as you put it, isn't really valid, as it's a very basic driving skill, and I've never once encountered anyone who became distracted from a vehicles controls by using an indicator.
Although the new-style Vauxhall indicators are a bit of a bugger.
2. "Signal benefits are to do with what might be helpful to another unthinking, unaware or unobservant road users, not whether you judge them necessary from your particular point of view".
This doesn't differ from my point of view at all. If another road user might benefit from a signal, then you should put one on. I'm glad to see we agree on so much! The motorway join is a nice example to come back to. If I thought for one second, that a driver on the motorway would benefit from a signal, then I'd put one on, but on more occasions than not, this isn't the case. Do you stick a right indicator on when you're entering a quiet, empty motorway? What about if there's one vehicle way behind you in lane 1? Or if there is scattered, light traffic, and your intention is to slot in behind an HGV in lane 1. Or if it's heavy traffic, and you need, in effect, to "ask" your way into a suitable gap? Each situation is different, and should be assessed individually.
Don't forget, that it's the responsibility of the driver who's entering the motorway to adjust their speed, and fit in with the other traffic. There is a tendency these days, for people in lane 1 to move out to lane 2 on the approach to on-slips, in order to allow people to join. Now, don't get me wrong - I'm all for this, as it's a nice display of courtesy, which is severely lacking on todays roads. It does, however, become a problem when people make the move to lane 2 without checking behind them correctly. We all know that the majority of drivers don't check their mirrors often enough, and there are a large number of occasions when I've seen people make a courteous move to lane 2 to allow vehicles to join, when they haven't checked their mirrors first, and a considerable amount of swerving/braking/swearing has resulted.
There is also a knock-on effect from that, in that a lot of drivers now expect that move to lane 2 to allow them to join, even when it's not appropriate. Rather than accept that they should be adjusting their own speed to slot in, a lot of drivers power down a slip-road, stick on a right indicator, and expect someone in lane 1 to move over and allow them to join. This is fine in light traffic, but if you're the poor sod sitting behind a slow HGV and being overtaken by a bus, then where are you expected to move to? If you drive on the motorways regularly, you'll be familiar with those scenarios.
Switching on a right indicator when joining a motorway can encourage people to move to lane 2 even if it's not necessary for them to do so, and how do we know if they'll check their mirrors correctly first? We don't. There might be no need whatsoever for these people to move and your signal may well just be a signal of your intention to join lane 1, but it could be misinterpreted.
That's why I very rarely use an indicator when joining a motorway.
3. Again, the signals you describe could illicit a bad response from the very person you're trying to benefit. Come and have a ride out in my police car with me some time and see how badly some people react to blue lights, flashing headlights and sirens. If they react badly to those signals, then the same will be true if I flash my lights and sound my horn in my own car.
Don't get me wrong - I see your point, but the psychology of driving has changed dramatically in this country over the last 40 years, and whereas a horn warning or headlight flash would once have been taken exactly as they were intended - a friendly warning of your presence - they are now considered (wrongly - granted) to be aggressive and confrontational. I'd much rather overtake a single car without headlight flash/horn use than with them, as I'd be too conscious of getting an aggressive response from the driver. I accept that these are legitimate signals, and used correctly, can form part of a progressive advanced drive, but I tend to avoid them unless I think they're absolutely necessary.
Oh, and some of us get days off during the week - I've tried accessing this site from work, but it's blocked, and operating a laptop is on the list of things which you shouldn't do whilst driving, along with using a mobile phone, eating spaghetti bolognese and playing Texas hold 'em poker.
henrycrun said:
I have to disagree with the OP, if you are overtaking anything it is only commonsense and courtesy to let everyone know your intention. They can then react to the information and adjust their own speed and position as necessary. The overtakee may even assist the overtake.
With the Reservoir incident, the overtakee would have seen you indicate in her mirror, and maintained her position.
With the Reservoir incident, the overtakee would have seen you indicate in her mirror, and maintained her position.
Edited by henrycrun on Friday 9th March 12:31
You could be right - an indicator might have prevented her from making that manoeuvre. But in all honesty, I think I could have been driving a 40 foot high inflatable luminous pink elephant, and pulling a trailer containing the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra playing Ride of the Valkyries, and she'd still have made the move. It was obvious afterwards, that at no point before, during or after the incident, was this woman aware of my vehicles presence. It's unlikely that a right indicator would have changed that fact.
As with my previous post, an indicator prior to overtaking is just as likely to result in a negative reaction form the overtaken car as a positive one these days, and so I tend to avoid it.
R_U_LOCAL said:
3. Again, the signals you describe could illicit a bad response from the very person you're trying to benefit. Come and have a ride out in my police car with me some time and see how badly some people react to blue lights, flashing headlights and sirens. If they react badly to those signals, then the same will be true if I flash my lights and sound my horn in my own car.
Is that a possibility Reg? I (genuinely) would love to come out and watch it done in real life. I posted on S,P&L to see if it was feasible for a mop to go out, but didn't get any offers!
Bert
bertbert said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
3. Again, the signals you describe could illicit a bad response from the very person you're trying to benefit. Come and have a ride out in my police car with me some time and see how badly some people react to blue lights, flashing headlights and sirens. If they react badly to those signals, then the same will be true if I flash my lights and sound my horn in my own car.
Is that a possibility Reg? I (genuinely) would love to come out and watch it done in real life. I posted on S,P&L to see if it was feasible for a mop to go out, but didn't get any offers!
Bert
It's a possibility, but there are certain considerations that the job has to make, such as insurance issues and your safety at the scenes of potentially dangerous incidents.
PM me, and we'll discuss it away from the public forum.
henrycrun said:
I have to disagree with the OP, if you are overtaking anything it is only commonsense and courtesy to let everyone know your intention. They can then react to the information and adjust their own speed and position as necessary. The overtakee may even assist the overtake.
With the Reservoir incident, the overtakee would have seen you indicate in her mirror, and maintained her position.
With the Reservoir incident, the overtakee would have seen you indicate in her mirror, and maintained her position.
I think that was a case where a signal was not obviously necessary, but it could have been helpful in avoiding the near miss that did happen. Sorry Reg. 
Best wishes all,
Dave.
R_U_LOCAL said:
I was warned when I started writing on here that some people like to drag threads into pedantic arguments. It seems this one is going in that direction.
One thing that intrigues me - from a writer's point of view - is how language and intonation can be misconstrued so easily in email and forum debates. I wonder if it is a sign that people find it difficult to read off a screen or is it that people are lazy when it comes to expressing themselves? Or do people not read things properly, and in rushing to respond make an ill formed judgement? I for one try to write well but have had my point misconstrued on many occassions. I also wonder why people get into debates about semantics. Is it a result of people's frustration at not being able to communicate effectively their point of view? I think that it is a feeling closely allied to road rage, a symptom of not being able to engage in a reasoned argument , communicate your grievance or offer an apology for a mistake or inappropriate action.
Getting back to your original post Reg, that woman was clearly not paying any attention to her surroundings or using her mirrors so a signal would not have been seen. I am loathe to use the horn or flashing lights as a warning having had the use of them misinterpreted before. That isn't to say that there will not be occassions when I will use them in future
Edited by EmmaP on Friday 9th March 16:18
R_U_LOCAL said:
I was warned when I started writing on here that some people like to drag threads into pedantic arguments. It seems this one is going in that direction.
If it was my warning to which you refer, I said that threads can degenerate to pedancy. I was convinced that my poor spelling would provoke a pedant or two, but suppose you can't win 'em all!
I'm amazed at how contentious an issue signalling appears to have become, and normally find the topic a bit of a yawn. But I've enjoyed your thoughts on the matter - as somebody who consciously signals when joining traffic on a dual carriageway/motorway for the reasons 7db mentioned, your reasoned rebuttal has given me something to consider.
You mentioned your frustration using the indicators in new Vauxhalls. Could you elaborate, as I have a suggestion that may be helpful if the problem is the same as I had in a BMW?
WilliBetz
EmmaP said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
I was warned when I started writing on here that some people like to drag threads into pedantic arguments. It seems this one is going in that direction.
One thing that intrigues me - from a writer's point of view - is how language and intonation can be misconstrued so easily in email and forum debates. I wonder if it is a sign that people find it difficult to read off a screen or is it that people are lazy when it comes to expressing themselves? Or do people not read things properly, and in rushing to respond make an ill formed judgement? I for one try to write well but have had my point misconstrued on many occassions. I also wonder why people get into debates about semantics. Is it a result of people's frustration at not being able to communicate effectively their point of view? I think that it is a feeling closely allied to road rage, a symptom of not being able to engage in a reasoned argument , communicate your grievance or offer an apology for a mistake or inappropriate action.
Getting back to your original post Reg, that woman was clearly not paying any attention to her surroundings or using her mirrors so a signal would not have been seen. I am loathe to use the horn or flashing lights as a warning having had the use of them misinterpreted before. That isn't to say that there will not be occassions when I will use them in future
Edited by EmmaP on Friday 9th March 16:18
The problem is a natural one I believe with the difficulty of expressing oneself in a conversational style by writing. There is no way to do the emphasis and intonation that would be inherant in the spoken word. Maybe the younger (in relation to me I hasten to add) generations will develop written conversation to the point that it encompasses the right amount of language nuances to avoid so much mis-interpretation! But then again...
Bert
bertbert said:
Maybe the younger (in relation to me I hasten to add) generations will develop written conversation to the point that it encompasses the right amount of language nuances to avoid so much mis-interpretation! But then again...
Bert
Bert
That is an interesting point. I wonder how language will evolve as we become increasingly reliant on communicating electronically, mainly via email (people tend to abbreviate and use less formal language in doing so). Will it regress, utilise a new code or will it become more sophisticated?
The loss of non-verbal cues was something that smileys were supposed to address, but their utility has been diluted somewhat by excessive and inappropriate usage. Of course, the whole business of conveying meaning in written language is what grammar and punctuation are all about, as well. After all, we've had considerable practise to demonstrate its efficacy, and yet the trend seems to be degenerative, with the majority of posting to message boards sinking into a sort of Joycean stream of consciousness where people replicate spoken language in the written (typed) word. This then requires several attempts at parsing the meaning and is too easy to misinterpret. Add to that certain spelling errors that can create ambiguity in the word that was meant and it's a surprise that the intended meaning ever comes through. I'm undoubtedly just an old fart (I'm definitely a TOG), but I do find it a delight to be able to read a well-structured article or posting that I can parse in one reading (and I include Reg's missives in that category).
You've hit the nail right on the head there. I recently taught a module in personal and professional developmemt. The students couldn't understand why I kept handing back their work, refusing to accept it as a final draft because of their inability to punctuate, despite my repeated correction.
I think that many people are just plain lazy when it comes to writing on message boards. I find it a real joy to read something that is well structured and demonstrating a considered and appropriate use of language.
I think that many people are just plain lazy when it comes to writing on message boards. I find it a real joy to read something that is well structured and demonstrating a considered and appropriate use of language.
Edited by EmmaP on Saturday 10th March 10:55
*sits watching the the thread drift away from the original subject.
Reg, I long ago abandoned superfluous indicating at junctions, roundabouts and the like because dammit man, those little bulbs wear out you know and who pays for them? That's right, me. And what's the point? If there's nobody there to see it what on Earth do you need to do it for? In my opinion anyone indicating out of habit just ain't paying attention and is just as like to swerve to the other side of the road and rummage in her handbag.
Which brings me to the overtaking thing. I have no problem whatsoever with leaving indicators alone and saving myself 0.0000001p a week in bulb replacement but I think there is a case for the argument that a pretty flashing light will attract the attention of some drivers. I know people will freeze or act weird when they see and hear blues and twos but I don't think a single indicator would have the same effect. Then again I have seen drivers mesmerised by cloud formations as they wander across all three lanes of a motorway so who knows?
There's also the arse covering aspect. If it goes wrong and there's an incident one of the questions will be 'Was he indicating?. Now I can argue til the cows come home that that the silly old biddy was blissfully unaware of her surroundings and distracted by the fact that her colostomy bag was full and the aforementioned inflatable pink thing and orchestra wouldn't have got her attention but when the underpaid insurance claims clerk and run-of-the-mill plod hear that I wasn't they'll immediately blame me (I know, I know. If it were an overtake the responsibility is mine etc, etc). Not indicating is one of the most heinous crimes of all in some people's eyes and immediately brands you as the sort of person who would hit a baby with a brick.
As for flashing headlights and honking horns I'd put that under the heading of 'Do Not Do This'. It's common in other countries where it is clearly understood to be an attention getter. On our roads it would be more like a red rag to a bull especially if the flasher (ooer, missus) is driving a nice car. "Ooo's that f*cking flash bastard fink 'e is? I'll f*cking show 'im" <swerve, swerve>. Asking for trouble I think.
Reg, I long ago abandoned superfluous indicating at junctions, roundabouts and the like because dammit man, those little bulbs wear out you know and who pays for them? That's right, me. And what's the point? If there's nobody there to see it what on Earth do you need to do it for? In my opinion anyone indicating out of habit just ain't paying attention and is just as like to swerve to the other side of the road and rummage in her handbag.
Which brings me to the overtaking thing. I have no problem whatsoever with leaving indicators alone and saving myself 0.0000001p a week in bulb replacement but I think there is a case for the argument that a pretty flashing light will attract the attention of some drivers. I know people will freeze or act weird when they see and hear blues and twos but I don't think a single indicator would have the same effect. Then again I have seen drivers mesmerised by cloud formations as they wander across all three lanes of a motorway so who knows?
There's also the arse covering aspect. If it goes wrong and there's an incident one of the questions will be 'Was he indicating?. Now I can argue til the cows come home that that the silly old biddy was blissfully unaware of her surroundings and distracted by the fact that her colostomy bag was full and the aforementioned inflatable pink thing and orchestra wouldn't have got her attention but when the underpaid insurance claims clerk and run-of-the-mill plod hear that I wasn't they'll immediately blame me (I know, I know. If it were an overtake the responsibility is mine etc, etc). Not indicating is one of the most heinous crimes of all in some people's eyes and immediately brands you as the sort of person who would hit a baby with a brick.
As for flashing headlights and honking horns I'd put that under the heading of 'Do Not Do This'. It's common in other countries where it is clearly understood to be an attention getter. On our roads it would be more like a red rag to a bull especially if the flasher (ooer, missus) is driving a nice car. "Ooo's that f*cking flash bastard fink 'e is? I'll f*cking show 'im" <swerve, swerve>. Asking for trouble I think.
Edited by Flintstone on Monday 12th March 10:12
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff