Indicating on a roundabout

Fridge3

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

You really do seem to have a problem with "old" drivers don't you. I thought with your amazing powers of observation you would just accept them as standard hazards and get on with it.


I long since stopped replying to your individual points as you haven't made any, they are just rambling, pedantic assassination atempts at any group of motorists you asume are sub standrd to you. Just what is your is your problem with older drivers, check out your 1st post on this topic and you'll see why I take offence at your attitude.

Are you in favour of involuntary euthanasia??

I can concede nothing to someone with such self opinionated views of the quality of their own driving, and hence will be going away no time soon Mr Perfect Driver.:p


Perhaps you need to go back and read all your posts, they all are pointed at me and question my driving ability whilst praising your own?

You are unbelievable, same time tomorrow? :rolleyes:

haha comedy. so how old are you then.

Rolandtheroadie

GSXRCarlos wrote: »

I assume that everyone on the road is trying to kill me (I ride motorbikes), therefore it's up to me to be the most observant person on the road, and I don't rely on trivialities like indicators. I don't believe them until they actually turn

Exactly. (bikers need more road savvy as we are most vunerable).

Not one person has mentioned a left shoulder check before exiting.

Car drivers get taught mirror - signal- manoeuver. Bikers are mirror - signal -lifesaver - manoeuver. You guys are 25% down on us from the start.
[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]

[/FONT][/FONT]

cyclonebri1

scotsman4th wrote: »

Exactly. (bikers need more road savvy as we are most vunerable).

Not one person has mentioned a left shoulder check before exiting.

Car drivers get taught mirror - signal- manoeuver. Bikers are mirror - signal -lifesaver - manoeuver. You guys are 25% down on us from the start.
[FONT=Arial,Bold]

[/FONT]

Something that was lost on 100K

cyclonebri1

hundredk wrote: »

You put the old driver hat on and found it fits very nicely along with all my observations. When you read those observations and find they are correct your only retort is abuse which really compounds the fact you are indeed crap driver. Don't worry, you need to vent your anger before you can acknowledge the facts and I'll look forward to another beating with your handbag tomorrow.



:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
Like I said before you can't read and all you have proved here is just how inept you are. My amazing powers of observation and ability to read and present the facts do indeed show I have accepted them as hazards in the very last post - you know post #153 - in fact it was the very first sentence. No really, look here, I obviously have to bring to your attention to something so VERY obvious...here it is....





You don't reply because you cannot argue or debate with the truth. Even when posts are numbered to point you in the right direction you fail to see or read. Associate that with driving and it becomes clear why you feel the need to be defensive, abusive and ignore what's presented. You have demonstrated that the group of drivers you represent cannot read or observe, hardly a good start when left in charge of a car.


I'd have to consider the pro's and cons but you are presenting a very good case for it here. Do you believe driving with senile dementure is acceptable?


You don't have to like me to respond to a valid point and of course a response could go some way to negate the point. The fact you choose to, or are unable to respond means they are conceded - bit like a blank exam paper - nil points.



No, I know what I have posted because I can read and make no apologies for being literate. Like I said, you picked up the "old" cap and didn't like it when you realised it fit so well. My posts are responding to your points so they will be aimed at you wont they. I know you can't grasp this principle because you can't read (sure you'll flame me for this but proved it in this post alone:D).

Oh here we go again, who are you f*****g Superman?, I know you said youv'e got Xray vision, you been on the Kriptonite again?:T

I've told you what I don't like about your post. The way you group people by age and but them in a box and label them as inferior to yourself. I picked up the "old cap" as you put it because you labled you brought that to the table obviously as you have ageist tendancies
I'll ask you, purely to satisfy my puzzlement, when does a person become old in your view?

Did I say I didn't like you ? Not sure if I did, you are probably a very nice chap, but your superhuman driving skills, (in your mind), do little to convince me of that, and you come over as a proper prat, but I still like you , just can't be arsed to answer your attempts at point scoring when your point is actually based on your your assumptions of others abilities of which you know nothing.

Apologies to anyone else following this thread, I know it's deteriated to a penalty shoot out in terms of our posts. To save anyone the bother of reading all this bickering I'll copy the 1st post you made in answer to my stating I signalled at roundabouts, just in case there was someone who would benefit

Quote: Post 69
Originally Posted by cyclonebri1
Reghardless of requirements, I see no problem signalling when theres no one there, hopefully, to "benefit";)

"Driving like a robot and signalling when unnecessary means you are not reading road conditions or able to grasp the concept of when a signal is required. Do you also give way at a roundabout when there's no traffic there to avoid being sloppy?

Drivers who lack confidence are at best annoying at at worst cause accidents by over compensating with signals creeping along in the gutter and being hesitant causing confusion and frustration."

Your powers of deduction would amaze Sherlock Holmes, if only they were based on anything actually said in this thread.

See you here again tomorrow, :kisses3::kisses3::kisses3:

almillar

Right, look, I've done my advance driving test, passed it first time etc etc. That makes me better qualified than most drivers, but NOT necessarily a better driver.
People argue so much about this whole ALWAYS indicate or ONLY indicate if there's someone to indicate to. That's because they're shouting 2 different bits of advice.
The Highway Code says ALWAYS indicate. That's it. No exceptions, simple.
Advanced drivers are taught to look around them to decide whether to indicate or not. As cyclonebri1 has been re-re-re-reiterating, this is more about making you keep looking around you and judging what's going on on the road than to save your poor fingers from wear on the indicator stalk.
However, you will NOT fail an advanced test for indicating when you didn't need to. I think it's a good training tool for the advanced test, but I think people that stick that ridgedly to it in normal driving are, well, driving snobs.
Do this for your test, get into that habit of always being observant, then go back to that foolproof indicate all the time method. You're still observing, but always indicating.
I refuse to believe that the not indicating if there's no-one there thing won't catch you out sometime, when someone (motorist/cyclist/pedestrian) will appear, and you'll have to rush to indicate, or will be caught not indicating! CALL THE POLICE!
So it just seems to me that you're both arguing about 2 opinions, one of which I agree with and have given my argument for. I don't think the driving snobs can win this argument, but they will always be entitled to their opinion, and to practise their desired method in their driving. They certainly can't, however, ram their opinion down other road users' throats, as it goes against the advice in the highway code.
Phew!

hundredk

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Something that was lost on 100K

No something that is applied correctly, unlike you blindly [STRIKE]flashing[/STRIKE] indicating away in the middle of nowhere.

hundredk

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Oh here we go again, who are you f*****g Superman?, I know you said youv'e got Xray vision, you been on the Kriptonite again?:T

I've told you what I don't like about your post. The way you group people by age and but them in a box and label them as inferior to yourself. I picked up the "old cap" as you put it because you labled you brought that to the table obviously as you have ageist tendancies
I'll ask you, purely to satisfy my puzzlement, when does a person become old in your view?

Did I say I didn't like you ? Not sure if I did, you are probably a very nice chap, but your superhuman driving skills, (in your mind), do little to convince me of that, and you come over as a proper prat, but I still like you , just can't be arsed to answer your attempts at point scoring when your point is actually based on your your assumptions of others abilities of which you know nothing.

Apologies to anyone else following this thread, I know it's deteriated to a penalty shoot out in terms of our posts. To save anyone the bother of reading all this bickering I'll copy the 1st post you made in answer to my stating I signalled at roundabouts, just in case there was someone who would benefit

Quote: Post 69
Originally Posted by cyclonebri1
Reghardless of requirements, I see no problem signalling when theres no one there, hopefully, to "benefit";)

"Driving like a robot and signalling when unnecessary means you are not reading road conditions or able to grasp the concept of when a signal is required. Do you also give way at a roundabout when there's no traffic there to avoid being sloppy?

Drivers who lack confidence are at best annoying at at worst cause accidents by over compensating with signals creeping along in the gutter and being hesitant causing confusion and frustration."

Your powers of deduction would amaze Sherlock Holmes, if only they were based on anything actually said in this thread.

See you here again tomorrow, :kisses3::kisses3::kisses3:

Never said I'd got a cape, I believe it's kryptonite. Sheesh, what is your problem with me being alert and observing - I'm only doing what is required to drive at advanced level. O level results out today - hope you haven't condemned your grandchildren for being proud of their ability when they prove to be high achievers. Sorry, off topic, I got 6 A's and 2 B's when they were proper O levels and they could say fail for less than C. I was proud of that then and still am now - does that make me all the things you've said? :eek: OMG can you deduce I am a bit old from that?

When I become old I fully accept some of my faculties such as eyesight, hearing and reactions will deteriorate. This is bound to impact on driving skills (even for me), however much it is not wished for. In terms of driving I think there should be a retest and a certain age, maybe 70 - I wonder how many would fail on eyesight alone? Also I'd say right now that anyone who passed their test 20/30/40 years ago will have done so in far different conditions to those presented on todays roads and tests.

You didn't directly say you didn't like me, but I generally take abuse as being negative. Glad you like me:D, I have been told many times I am a very nice person. Thanks for assuming I am a chap, can I assume you are a lady?

No need to apologise to others - it has probably kept them amused like it has me. Don't take things to heart, it's only a thread.:grouphug: As you are so affected by me posting my observations in #69 I'll post again in the hope that you understand this is not a personal attack on you, just a valid queries regarding this bit.

As for the Sherlock bit, your generalisation saying "they" are not valid without referencing which points? How does that validate anything you say? By this principle, as soon as someone types "no that's not right" the thread ends.

So if you can't counter the points then the deduction stands. I won't be upset if you disagree.

hundredk

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Reghardless of requirements, I see no problem signalling when theres no one there, hopefully, to "benefit";)

I disagree with this. Whilst in principle there is nothing wrong with indicating when no one is there, surely it does not serve to acheive anything because your signal is based on the premise that it may benefit someone you have not seen:

If the hope that no one is there is correct, then indeed no damage done but the signal then proved to be unnecessary.

If, as you say the signal is made without seeing a hazard, what if the hazard you hope isn't there actually is and you've failed to see it? You have your indicator on in because you "hope they may benefit" but if they don't have time to react and an accident ensues how has the signal helped? - signal unnecessary.

If the other party sees you and takes action to prevent an accident, it is probably more likely because they have seen your vehicle rather than the signal (because if you pull out in error the immediate reaction would be to try and avoid an accident, not look and interpret signals). Either way, in this situation you will have relied on the other party seeing you and taking action. Does that not give the signalling driver a wake up call and highlight they have missed something they should have seen and if extra caution was required it would be better to have an extra look rather than a haopeful signal?

It is frustrating when a driver cuts you up, but more even more so when they are unaware of their actions and blindly carry on. Have you experienced this?

DaveF327

almillar wrote: »

The Highway Code says ALWAYS indicate. That's it. No exceptions, simple.

Highway_Code_Rule_159 wrote:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070312
159

Before moving off you should

• use all mirrors to check the road is clear
• look round to check the blind spots (the areas you are unable to see in the mirrors)
• signal if necessary before moving out
• look round for a final check

Move off only when it is safe to do so.

Sorry

Highway_Code_Rule_103 wrote:

103

Signals warn and inform other road users, including pedestrians (see 'Signals to other road users'), of your intended actions. You should always

• give clear signals in plenty of time, having checked it is not misleading to signal at that time
• use them to advise other road users before changing course or direction, stopping or moving off
• cancel them after use
• make sure your signals will not confuse others. If, for instance, you want to stop after a side road, do not signal until you are passing the road. If you signal earlier it may give the impression that you intend to turn into the road. Your brake lights will warn traffic behind you that you are slowing down
• use an arm signal to emphasise or reinforce your signal if necessary. Remember that signalling does not give you priority

The last bold point is to illustrate what could happen if signalling becomes robotic without prior thought.

cyclonebri1

almillar wrote: »

Right, look, I've done my advance driving test, passed it first time etc etc. That makes me better qualified than most drivers, but NOT necessarily a better driver.
People argue so much about this whole ALWAYS indicate or ONLY indicate if there's someone to indicate to. That's because they're shouting 2 different bits of advice.
The Highway Code says ALWAYS indicate. That's it. No exceptions, simple.
Advanced drivers are taught to look around them to decide whether to indicate or not. As cyclonebri1 has been re-re-re-reiterating, this is more about making you keep looking around you and judging what's going on on the road than to save your poor fingers from wear on the indicator stalk.
However, you will NOT fail an advanced test for indicating when you didn't need to. I think it's a good training tool for the advanced test, but I think people that stick that ridgedly to it in normal driving are, well, driving snobs.
Do this for your test, get into that habit of always being observant, then go back to that foolproof indicate all the time method. You're still observing, but always indicating.
I refuse to believe that the not indicating if there's no-one there thing won't catch you out sometime, when someone (motorist/cyclist/pedestrian) will appear, and you'll have to rush to indicate, or will be caught not indicating! CALL THE POLICE!
So it just seems to me that you're both arguing about 2 opinions, one of which I agree with and have given my argument for. I don't think the driving snobs can win this argument, but they will always be entitled to their opinion, and to practise their desired method in their driving. They certainly can't, however, ram their opinion down other road users' throats, as it goes against the advice in the highway code.
Phew!

:j:j:j:j:j Thank God for the voice of reason.:j:j:j:j:j