Question about overtaking.
Discussion
TripleS said:
Vaux said:
tommundy said:
An example of when a flash is 100% understood by both parties would be something like an instance that happened to me last night. I was progressing along a 3 laned section of motorway, moving into lanes 1,2 and 3 when appropriate and there had been a car behind me making similar progress, I passed some cars that were in lane 2 and pulled back into lane 2 after the manouevre. The car behind didnt pull in but maintained a steady pace in lane 3, and as we approached some slower traffic in lane 2, I checked my mirrors, he maintained his speed, I pulled out and gave a hand up of appreciation and he gave a double flash. Perfect!
Huh? Now I have witnessed people in your position indicating in lane 2 and receiving an "invitation" to get into lane 3 from the following car by means of an inappropriate headlight flash. But flashing you for waving at them?
I think what Tom was describing was all rather nice. He wanted to move back into lane 3 to do further overtaking and the guy behind anticipated that and left room for him. Tom waves to say 'Thanks for your help' and the guy behind gives the double flash to say 'You're welcome.'
In this case AIUI the following driver didn't flash Tom to invite him back into lane 3. He merely held back and left space for Tom to move out.
Anyhow, they both then go on their way with a better feeling as a result of that, which increases the likelihood that they'll be in a mood to offer the same sort of courtesies to other drivers they meeet, and so it can spread from there. It seems good to me.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
How do you know that's what it meant & that it wasn't a rebuke because the one behind felt he'd pulled into too small a gap ?
Sender - Encode/Decode - Receiver
It's called the Highway Code, it's to assist in communication.
.
That's why it's compulsory reading for the driving test & recommended reading for all.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 22 April 12:44
TripleS said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
I never give a signal to allow people presidence. That's not to say I never let people out - I'll always leave junctions clear in traffic and I'll regularly allow people out of junctions when its busy. What I don't do is signal them to pull out. It's also something I teach Police Officers not to do. People will blindly pull out of a junction if someone signals them to do so, and if a Police Officer waves them out and they have a bump, they can claim they were following Police directions. Much better just to leave them the space and allow them to make the decision themselves.
OK, the policy within your training regime is not to use the headlight flash to accord precedence to another driver, and you are also not happy to do it in your private motoring either, which is fair enough. We do indeed need to recognise the dangers in flashing (if you know what I mean!) so it should certainly not be done in a spirit of telling another driver what to do. My meaning in using a headlight flash is "I understand what you wish to do, and I'm ready to co-operate; please go ahead if you're happy it is safe to do so.' At the same time we should contrive to have adequate space and time in which the other driver can make his final check before making his move. On that basis I don't feel it is my responsibility either legally or morally if they then make a hash of it. We can't be driving somebody else's car for them, that has to remain their task.
Anyhow, I am mindful of another aspect to this. In the process of giving this type of signal to another driver, we are not only showing that we are aware of them, as of course we should be in any event, we are going beyond this and indicating that we are looking to their interests and wishes, and trying to accommodate and help them. IMHO it therefore promotes a better climate of goodwill and mutual support in our driving environment, and while this is hard to measure and evaluate, it does seem to me to be a useful benefit.
I still therefore feel that attempts should be made to legitimise this form of signal in the HC if we can overcome the concerns about the potential dangers. Whatever our personal views on it, the fact remains that it is now very widely understood and used, and what I feel to be the 'good attitude' aspect of it leads me to conclude that it is doing more good than harm.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
It would be nice if it worked that way, but in my experience, it doesn't. Case in point: the other day we were driving down a narrow-ish residential road, passing traffic on our side of the road (nothing coming towards us at this point). Ahead there's a junction on the right - a car appears coming towards us just as another car arrives at the junction, turning left. Car on our road flashes the driver on the side road, who immediately starts to pull out, right into our path. Fortunately, he then decided to look left and stopped.
As Reg says, I think it's much safer to just indicate that you're sacrificing your priority by slowing down or stopping, and eschew any sort of signal, since that will often be interpreted as "off you go, then", rather than "check that it's safe and then go".
Legitimising it in the HC won't do any good, since no-one actually bothers to read it after they've passed their test.
OK gents, but I feel you're being too stiff and formal about this. Providing the signals are used sensibly, and we give ourselves reasonable time and maintain adequate space around us, I don't see the problem; so for the moment we're probably going to have to agree to differ.
I'm sure many people can find the odd example to suggest that a problem has been caused, but for every one of those there will be thousands that have worked perfectly well. There's a great deal of it going on and I don't think you'll stop it now.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
I'm sure many people can find the odd example to suggest that a problem has been caused, but for every one of those there will be thousands that have worked perfectly well. There's a great deal of it going on and I don't think you'll stop it now.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
TripleS said:
I think what Tom was describing was all rather nice. He wanted to move back into lane 3 to do further overtaking and the guy behind anticipated that and left room for him. Tom waves to say 'Thanks for your help' and the guy behind gives the double flash to say 'You're welcome.'
In this case AIUI the following driver didn't flash Tom to invite him back into lane 3. He merely held back and left space for Tom to move out.
Anyhow, they both then go on their way with a better feeling as a result of that, which increases the likelihood that they'll be in a mood to offer the same sort of courtesies to other drivers they meeet, and so it can spread from there. It seems good to me.
In this case AIUI the following driver didn't flash Tom to invite him back into lane 3. He merely held back and left space for Tom to move out.
Anyhow, they both then go on their way with a better feeling as a result of that, which increases the likelihood that they'll be in a mood to offer the same sort of courtesies to other drivers they meeet, and so it can spread from there. It seems good to me.
Ahhh. This is all getting too pink and fluffy for me! "All rather nice"....!
What was Tom doing going back into lane 2 when it appears clear he needed to stay in lane 3?
Never mind all this waving /flashing malarky!
Nowhere does Tom say he indicated to go back into lane 3, which would have been a useful giving of information. As Von points out, the flash could have been a rebuke, as in "dozy bugger pulling out - why did you go back in in the first place?"
Good fun this advanced driving!
Now, who has never flashed in or out LGVs on motorways? I see that as a means of making congestion less.
vonhosen said:
Your last sentence has me confused, because It sounds at odds with the rest of your post 
If you interpret it as someone allowing you precedence when in close proximity to them, where they infact are giving it as per the HC for fear that your actions lead them to believe you may not have seen them. Then the likely outcome may be a fault collision for you.
If I were dealing with such a collision, there would be a strong possibility of you being reported for without due care.
If you interpret it as someone allowing you precedence when in close proximity to them, where they infact are giving it as per the HC for fear that your actions lead them to believe you may not have seen them. Then the likely outcome may be a fault collision for you.
If I were dealing with such a collision, there would be a strong possibility of you being reported for without due care.
Clearly the two meanings are contradictory; one supports the other driver having precedence, the other doesn't. The HC makes it clear which interpretation is officially approved. The simple fact of the matter is that the opposite meaning will be taken almost universally. Obviously the fact that somebody has signalled you doesn't mean that you have to do what they are suggesting, and as a driver you are responsible for ensuring that what you do is safe. Still, a large part of road safety in traffic comes down to recognising and predicting other drivers' intentions, and the HC is not helping the problem by defining a protocol which is at odds with the convention that is actually in use.
Vaux said:
TripleS said:
I think what Tom was describing was all rather nice. He wanted to move back into lane 3 to do further overtaking and the guy behind anticipated that and left room for him. Tom waves to say 'Thanks for your help' and the guy behind gives the double flash to say 'You're welcome.'
In this case AIUI the following driver didn't flash Tom to invite him back into lane 3. He merely held back and left space for Tom to move out.
Anyhow, they both then go on their way with a better feeling as a result of that, which increases the likelihood that they'll be in a mood to offer the same sort of courtesies to other drivers they meeet, and so it can spread from there. It seems good to me.
In this case AIUI the following driver didn't flash Tom to invite him back into lane 3. He merely held back and left space for Tom to move out.
Anyhow, they both then go on their way with a better feeling as a result of that, which increases the likelihood that they'll be in a mood to offer the same sort of courtesies to other drivers they meeet, and so it can spread from there. It seems good to me.
Ahhh. This is all getting too pink and fluffy for me! "All rather nice"....!
What was Tom doing going back into lane 2 when it appears clear he needed to stay in lane 3?
Never mind all this waving /flashing malarky!
Nowhere does Tom say he indicated to go back into lane 3, which would have been a useful giving of information. As Von points out, the flash could have been a rebuke, as in "dozy bugger pulling out - why did you go back in in the first place?"
Good fun this advanced driving!
Now, who has never flashed in or out LGVs on motorways? I see that as a means of making congestion less.
Well, Mr pink and fluffy, perhaps it will be best if you make your choice of words, and I'll make mine, and we'll leave it at that eh? Meanwhile I think I'll be happier sharing the roads with people like Tom, rather than you.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
vonhosen said:
TripleS said:
Vaux said:
tommundy said:
An example of when a flash is 100% understood by both parties would be something like an instance that happened to me last night. I was progressing along a 3 laned section of motorway, moving into lanes 1,2 and 3 when appropriate and there had been a car behind me making similar progress, I passed some cars that were in lane 2 and pulled back into lane 2 after the manouevre. The car behind didnt pull in but maintained a steady pace in lane 3, and as we approached some slower traffic in lane 2, I checked my mirrors, he maintained his speed, I pulled out and gave a hand up of appreciation and he gave a double flash. Perfect!
Huh? Now I have witnessed people in your position indicating in lane 2 and receiving an "invitation" to get into lane 3 from the following car by means of an inappropriate headlight flash. But flashing you for waving at them?
I think what Tom was describing was all rather nice. He wanted to move back into lane 3 to do further overtaking and the guy behind anticipated that and left room for him. Tom waves to say 'Thanks for your help' and the guy behind gives the double flash to say 'You're welcome.'
In this case AIUI the following driver didn't flash Tom to invite him back into lane 3. He merely held back and left space for Tom to move out.
Anyhow, they both then go on their way with a better feeling as a result of that, which increases the likelihood that they'll be in a mood to offer the same sort of courtesies to other drivers they meeet, and so it can spread from there. It seems good to me.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
How do you know that's what it meant & that it wasn't a rebuke because the one behind felt he'd pulled into too small a gap ?
I can't be sure Von, and neither can you, but from the way Tom described it I think the probability is that they were both working to the same plan and were happy with what they were doing.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
TripleS said:
Well, Mr pink and fluffy, perhaps it will be best if you make your choice of words, and I'll make mine, and we'll leave it at that eh? Meanwhile I think I'll be happier sharing the roads with people like Tom, rather than you.
Calm down dear - just trying to brighten up a damp Sunday!
Vaux said:
TripleS said:
Well, Mr pink and fluffy, perhaps it will be best if you make your choice of words, and I'll make mine, and we'll leave it at that eh? Meanwhile I think I'll be happier sharing the roads with people like Tom, rather than you.
Calm down dear - just trying to brighten up a damp Sunday!
Splendid idea, your good intent is much appreciated. Perhaps I should go out and cause a bit of chaos in YO21 - I'm sure I can manage that - I might give somebody a quick flash.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
GreenV8S said:
vonhosen said:
Your last sentence has me confused, because It sounds at odds with the rest of your post
If you interpret it as someone allowing you precedence when in close proximity to them, where they infact are giving it as per the HC for fear that your actions lead them to believe you may not have seen them. Then the likely outcome may be a fault collision for you.
If I were dealing with such a collision, there would be a strong possibility of you being reported for without due care.
If you interpret it as someone allowing you precedence when in close proximity to them, where they infact are giving it as per the HC for fear that your actions lead them to believe you may not have seen them. Then the likely outcome may be a fault collision for you.
If I were dealing with such a collision, there would be a strong possibility of you being reported for without due care.
Clearly the two meanings are contradictory; one supports the other driver having precedence, the other doesn't. The HC makes it clear which interpretation is officially approved. The simple fact of the matter is that the opposite meaning will be taken almost universally. Obviously the fact that somebody has signalled you doesn't mean that you have to do what they are suggesting, and as a driver you are responsible for ensuring that what you do is safe. Still, a large part of road safety in traffic comes down to recognising and predicting other drivers' intentions, and the HC is not helping the problem by defining a protocol which is at odds with the convention that is actually in use.
The problem is though that it isn't a case of being at odds with convention.
The headlamp flash is used as convention by a great many, whilst also being used by others for a completely different (almost opposite) reason. We need it to be one or other for clarity. If we are having it as allowing precedence it should be that & that alone. If we have it as a warning of presence we should have it as that.
To me the later seems eminently more sensible, because even where it is used as a signal of you allowing someone precedence, there is great danger in them assuming from that alone that it is safe to go.
On that basis the best & most sensible way forward (IMHO) is that the signal is a warning & if you yourself wish to accord someone precedence, you should simply use the most reliable indicator (your position & speed) leaving them to decide whether it is safe to pull out themselves.
TripleS said:
vonhosen said:
TripleS said:
Vaux said:
tommundy said:
An example of when a flash is 100% understood by both parties would be something like an instance that happened to me last night. I was progressing along a 3 laned section of motorway, moving into lanes 1,2 and 3 when appropriate and there had been a car behind me making similar progress, I passed some cars that were in lane 2 and pulled back into lane 2 after the manouevre. The car behind didnt pull in but maintained a steady pace in lane 3, and as we approached some slower traffic in lane 2, I checked my mirrors, he maintained his speed, I pulled out and gave a hand up of appreciation and he gave a double flash. Perfect!
Huh? Now I have witnessed people in your position indicating in lane 2 and receiving an "invitation" to get into lane 3 from the following car by means of an inappropriate headlight flash. But flashing you for waving at them?
I think what Tom was describing was all rather nice. He wanted to move back into lane 3 to do further overtaking and the guy behind anticipated that and left room for him. Tom waves to say 'Thanks for your help' and the guy behind gives the double flash to say 'You're welcome.'
In this case AIUI the following driver didn't flash Tom to invite him back into lane 3. He merely held back and left space for Tom to move out.
Anyhow, they both then go on their way with a better feeling as a result of that, which increases the likelihood that they'll be in a mood to offer the same sort of courtesies to other drivers they meeet, and so it can spread from there. It seems good to me.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
How do you know that's what it meant & that it wasn't a rebuke because the one behind felt he'd pulled into too small a gap ?
I can't be sure Von, and neither can you, but from the way Tom described it I think the probability is that they were both working to the same plan and were happy with what they were doing.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
But that's why I suggest we should have clearly defined uses encouraged, so we know exactly what each other means.
vonhosen said:
The problem is though that it isn't a case of being at odds with convention.
The headlamp flash is used as convention by a great many, whilst also being used by others for a completely different (almost opposite) reason. We need it to be one or other for clarity.
Yes. However, I put it to you that the established convention is as an offer to give precedence. If you are in lane two closing on slower traffic in lane two, with another vehicle slowly closing on you in lane three, i.e. your opportunity to move to lane three is slowly disappearing, then a headlamp flash from the vehicle in lane 3 would be an invitation to move into lane three. It may be that you personally wouldn't give that signal with that meaning, but imo the vast majority of the motoring public would take that interpretation. It's something that happens very often, day in day out, and is one of the 'protocols' we use to negotiate our way around each other. It simply is. You appear to be suggesting that it *shouldn't be* and that you think the meaning given in the HC is better. Better or worse, that is NOT the convention that is in widespread use.
If you were driving the vehicle in lane three and used a headlamp flash to warn the driver in lane two that you were there, you should not be at all surprised if the other driver interpreted it as an invitation to pull out in front of you. Surely as an advanced driver you will be well aware that this is how it is used, whether you personally approve of that use or not.
GreenV8S said:
vonhosen said:
The problem is though that it isn't a case of being at odds with convention.
The headlamp flash is used as convention by a great many, whilst also being used by others for a completely different (almost opposite) reason. We need it to be one or other for clarity.
Yes. However, I put it to you that the established convention is as an offer to give precedence. If you are in lane two closing on slower traffic in lane two, with another vehicle slowly closing on you in lane three, i.e. your opportunity to move to lane three is slowly disappearing, then a headlamp flash from the vehicle in lane 3 would be an invitation to move into lane three. It may be that you personally wouldn't give that signal with that meaning, but imo the vast majority of the motoring public would take that interpretation. It's something that happens very often, day in day out, and is one of the 'protocols' we use to negotiate our way around each other. It simply is. You appear to be suggesting that it *shouldn't be* and that you think the meaning given in the HC is better. Better or worse, that is NOT the convention that is in widespread use.
If you were driving the vehicle in lane three and used a headlamp flash to warn the driver in lane two that you were there, you should not be at all surprised if the other driver interpreted it as an invitation to pull out in front of you. Surely as an advanced driver you will be well aware that this is how it is used, whether you personally approve of that use or not.
And I'm saying that where someone is thinking of moving to lane 3 (infront of me) & I am closing on them, I may well be using a headlamp flash to try & alert them to my presence (as per the HC). I don't want them to read that signal as an invitation and if they pull out, citing that signal as why they thought it as such an invitation, then that would not absolve them of any responsibilty they had in relation to ensuring that it was safe for them to commit to any such move, no matter how they have interpreted the signal.
If I were to be witness to any such event. An event where they have simply acted on & misinterpreted a correctly given (as per HC) signal & whilst doing so caused danger/inconvenience to another, then they would more than likely find themselves defending a DWDCA/ID summons.
I've seen that result many times before.
Someone who has pulled out on the basis of a misinterpreted headlamp flash & then been held responsible & summonsed for an offence following a collision.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 22 April 18:29
vonhosen said:
GreenV8S said:
vonhosen said:
The problem is though that it isn't a case of being at odds with convention.
The headlamp flash is used as convention by a great many, whilst also being used by others for a completely different (almost opposite) reason. We need it to be one or other for clarity.
Yes. However, I put it to you that the established convention is as an offer to give precedence. If you are in lane two closing on slower traffic in lane two, with another vehicle slowly closing on you in lane three, i.e. your opportunity to move to lane three is slowly disappearing, then a headlamp flash from the vehicle in lane 3 would be an invitation to move into lane three. It may be that you personally wouldn't give that signal with that meaning, but imo the vast majority of the motoring public would take that interpretation. It's something that happens very often, day in day out, and is one of the 'protocols' we use to negotiate our way around each other. It simply is. You appear to be suggesting that it *shouldn't be* and that you think the meaning given in the HC is better. Better or worse, that is NOT the convention that is in widespread use.
If you were driving the vehicle in lane three and used a headlamp flash to warn the driver in lane two that you were there, you should not be at all surprised if the other driver interpreted it as an invitation to pull out in front of you. Surely as an advanced driver you will be well aware that this is how it is used, whether you personally approve of that use or not.
And I'm saying that where someone is thinking of moving to lane 3 (infront of me) & I am closing on them, I may well be using a headlamp flash to try & alert them to my presence (as per the HC). I don't want them to read that signal as an invitation and if they pull out, citing that signal as why they thought it as such an invitation, then that would not absolve them of any responsibilty they had in relation to ensuring that it was safe for them to commit to any such move, no matter how they have interpreted the signal.
If I were to be witness to any such event. An event where they have simply acted on & misinterpreted a correctly given (as per HC) signal & whilst doing so caused danger/inconvenience to another, then they would more than likely find themselves defending a DWDCA/ID summons.
I've seen that result many times before.
Someone who has pulled out on the basis of a misinterpreted headlamp flash & then been held responsible & summonsed for an offence following a collision.
Von - I'm truly surprised at your initial comments there. You may give a headlight flash to warn somebody of your approach in accordance with the HC, but you know very well that in many (perhaps most) cases another driver will take that to mean you are according him precedence. I do recognise the scope for confusion here, but the fact is we do have these differing meanings, like it or not, and the unofficial one is the more popularly used one. The best answer for the time being therefore seems to be to accept the signal as a guide to intentions, but allow space and time for adjustments in case there is some misunderstanding.
It's no use me being dogmatic about this, as I don't know the right answer, but I am inclined to the view that we should be moving towards formal recognition of the 'giving precedence' flash. Use of headlights to say 'Please note I am here' might then be covered by putting dipped headlights on and leaving them on for an appreciable period, until the particular event has been safely completed.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
TripleS said:
vonhosen said:
GreenV8S said:
vonhosen said:
The problem is though that it isn't a case of being at odds with convention.
The headlamp flash is used as convention by a great many, whilst also being used by others for a completely different (almost opposite) reason. We need it to be one or other for clarity.
Yes. However, I put it to you that the established convention is as an offer to give precedence. If you are in lane two closing on slower traffic in lane two, with another vehicle slowly closing on you in lane three, i.e. your opportunity to move to lane three is slowly disappearing, then a headlamp flash from the vehicle in lane 3 would be an invitation to move into lane three. It may be that you personally wouldn't give that signal with that meaning, but imo the vast majority of the motoring public would take that interpretation. It's something that happens very often, day in day out, and is one of the 'protocols' we use to negotiate our way around each other. It simply is. You appear to be suggesting that it *shouldn't be* and that you think the meaning given in the HC is better. Better or worse, that is NOT the convention that is in widespread use.
If you were driving the vehicle in lane three and used a headlamp flash to warn the driver in lane two that you were there, you should not be at all surprised if the other driver interpreted it as an invitation to pull out in front of you. Surely as an advanced driver you will be well aware that this is how it is used, whether you personally approve of that use or not.
And I'm saying that where someone is thinking of moving to lane 3 (infront of me) & I am closing on them, I may well be using a headlamp flash to try & alert them to my presence (as per the HC). I don't want them to read that signal as an invitation and if they pull out, citing that signal as why they thought it as such an invitation, then that would not absolve them of any responsibilty they had in relation to ensuring that it was safe for them to commit to any such move, no matter how they have interpreted the signal.
If I were to be witness to any such event. An event where they have simply acted on & misinterpreted a correctly given (as per HC) signal & whilst doing so caused danger/inconvenience to another, then they would more than likely find themselves defending a DWDCA/ID summons.
I've seen that result many times before.
Someone who has pulled out on the basis of a misinterpreted headlamp flash & then been held responsible & summonsed for an offence following a collision.
Von - I'm truly surprised at your initial comments there. You may give a headlight flash to warn somebody of your approach in accordance with the HC, but you know very well that in many (perhaps most) cases another driver will take that to mean you are according him precedence. I do recognise the scope for confusion here, but the fact is we do have these differing meanings, like it or not, and the unofficial one is the more popularly used one. The best answer for the time being therefore seems to be to accept the signal as a guide to intentions, but allow space and time for adjustments in case there is some misunderstanding.
It's no use me being dogmatic about this, as I don't know the right answer, but I am inclined to the view that we should be moving towards formal recognition of the 'giving precedence' flash. Use of headlights to say 'Please note I am here' might then be covered by putting dipped headlights on and leaving them on for an appreciable period, until the particular event has been safely completed.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Dave
I said earlier that whilst I personally use it as a warning of my presence, I do not assume that it's use affords me any guarantee of safe passage. I do not commit to going into that area on the basis of the headlamp flash & I look for a positive (towards me) reaction to the signal from others before committing.
My point is that it is not good for us all to be having two such opposed meanings from the same signal.
You don't want there to be the same siganl for "I fear you are going to pull out here because you don't realise I am here" & "I am letting you out".
Now as the headlamp flash can never mean on it's own "iam letting you out & it's safe for you to come out" it seems to me non-sensical to favour that use over the more effective (in terms of the actual meaning of the signal) cautionary use.
The highway code is quite clear in describing the appropriate uses & I'll not be relying on the headlamp flash as someone according me precedence. I would urge others to do the same. Where I do witness conflict as a result someone acting on the signal, believing they have been afforded precedence (contrary to the advice in the HC) then I'm minded to put them before the court for DWDCA/ID. I wouldn't be doing the same for the person who has correctly (as per the HC) given that signal.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 22 April 19:16
TripleS said:
You may give a headlight flash to warn somebody of your approach in accordance with the HC, but you know very well that in many (perhaps most) cases another driver will take that to mean you are according him precedence.
Getting away from the literal HC meaning for a second, I thought there was something to do with the length of flash - a short flash is taken as meaning "please come out" where a long flash means "stay there, I'm on a mission".
No one's mentioned length of flash. I think only short flashes are acceptable now or road rage ensues.
Von - I didn't intend to imply that I thought you would be likely to be caught out by any misunderstandings about flashes.
As for the rest of it, the unofficial 'precedence offering/giving' use of headlight flashes now seems to have taken root, and I can't see that being killed off now. We shall just have to see what emerges in due course.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
As for the rest of it, the unofficial 'precedence offering/giving' use of headlight flashes now seems to have taken root, and I can't see that being killed off now. We shall just have to see what emerges in due course.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Given that there is so much scope for confusion, and the potential disaster of "aaaarrrrggh!" being mistaken for "no really, please pull out in front of me", I guess all you can rely on is that a headlight flash makes you more visible, but leaves you knowing no more about what the bloke in front is going to do next.
The o/p was just hoping to get the bloke in front to pay some attention to what is going on behind, and for that I reckon putting your headlights on well before the manouvre and leaving them on for its duration is the best bet. One of the factors determining how you execute the manouvre should an attempt to make yourself as visible as possible to the driver in front by maximising the movement and contrast change going on in his mirrors ... therefore not pulling out way, way behind him for example even if the road allows you to do so.
The o/p was just hoping to get the bloke in front to pay some attention to what is going on behind, and for that I reckon putting your headlights on well before the manouvre and leaving them on for its duration is the best bet. One of the factors determining how you execute the manouvre should an attempt to make yourself as visible as possible to the driver in front by maximising the movement and contrast change going on in his mirrors ... therefore not pulling out way, way behind him for example even if the road allows you to do so.
Vaux said:
TripleS said:
You may give a headlight flash to warn somebody of your approach in accordance with the HC, but you know very well that in many (perhaps most) cases another driver will take that to mean you are according him precedence.
Getting away from the literal HC meaning for a second, I thought there was something to do with the length of flash - a short flash is taken as meaning "please come out" where a long flash means "stay there, I'm on a mission".
No one's mentioned length of flash. I think only short flashes are acceptable now or road rage ensues.
I'm not aware of anything official relating to the length of a flash, but that seems to me to be introducing further complexity and it's never going to be a precise thing anyhow.
This subject needs further thought, I would say.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff