Indicating on a roundabout

Dave101t

wow, there are some awful drivers on here, especially the op. here is my hierarchy of those most likely to do these stupid things on the roundabout (40.000 miles a year + biker means i have experience):
4 x 4 drivers (any sex)
women
old people
business people
boy racers
'normal' people

DaveF327

janninew wrote: »

Surely though when your on your test its better to use your handbrake at stop signs, just in case

That's exactly what the ineffectual instructors say! You're expressing a doubt (Just in case what?) and if you're confident in your ability and compliance with the exact letter of the law, then there should be no doubt.

, the driving examiner isn't going to fail you for doing this!

You're absolutely right. It's not even a fault, just as you discovered on your test. My point is, it's just not always necessary.

After you've passed, you can use the footbrake like everybody else.

There should be no difference between your driving style before you passed your test or after. Of course, there will be finesse with experience, but the rules and procedures should be the same

movingforward2010

the police seem to be having a right old go at the bikers at the moment it, thers messages from the police telling them their being watched etc on the radio all the time and theres yellow signs up every mile, on more or less every road around here with a pic of a motorbike and 'THINK'

momoyama

janninew wrote: »

My instructor told me to always use the handbrake at a stop sign (i dont now i've passed, i just use the footbrake!) He told me this shows the examiner that you have stopped completely, he had 2 students fail for not using the handbrake at a stop sign on their test. I don't think its just taught to the 'dopey' learners!

That's how I was taught, too.

On my test, though, the one place that there was a stop sign was blind on both sides (hence the "stop" and not just "give way".) To get out, you need to inch (and I really do mean "inch") forward whilst looking constantly. You can't do that on the handbrake. So, on the test, you get there, handbrake on, handbrake off... and inch forward on the clutch. I passed my test. Bizarre

momoyama

DaveF327 wrote: »

There should be no difference between your driving style before you passed your test or after. Of course, there will be finesse with experience, but the rules and procedures should be the same

In principle, I agree with you.

However, my instructor told me openly that he was teaching me to pass my driving test, NOT teaching me to drive :rolleyes:

hundredk

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!

Ditto + LGV too. Both require a lot more observation than the standard driving test. Advanced because it focuses on observation and hazard perception, LGV the same really but also awareness of your larger vehicle, more blind spots etc.

Wasn't that me re-re-re-reiterating looking around or is cyclonebri1 now agreeing with this?

I think its more about being overcautious / lacking in confidence rather than sobby for indicating when you didn't need to in normal driving.

Wecome your comments as the voice of reason.

hundredk

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

:rolleyes: Oh I see, I spelt "Kriptonite wrong", you've joined the grammar police as well now?, can you find anything else about me to criticise

"I am more educated than you, I've got proper O levels", which I think is what you mean seems to be something new you've brought to the table. Pity I too went to a proper grammar school and got equally good results, but don't normally wave them around in an attempt to exert superiority over everyone.

And that really is what your argument has been about. From your 1st post you have rubbished the driving, observation, spelling etc etc, every time I posted, brought the age thing into play as well, as you view old drivers as inferior.
You didn't want a debate about driving roundabouts, you wanted one about you. :T:T
The other sad thing is from your last post I think you may even be older than me:rotfl:, but I suppose in your view that also makes you superior? :think: :think: :think:

PS,
I've ended with a question so feel free to carry on, I'm sure you will.

I'm so sorry, I thought you'd find sarcasm more appealing that personal abuse, like I said it's only a thread. I could probably find something else to criticise you about but I don't like doing that. i'd just like you to extend some courtsey and reply to genuine questions - #169?

I'm pleased you went to a grammar school and are more educated than me. I can deal with that without thinking you have some kind of ego, honestly, well done. Therefore I assume you understood the analagy I used about qualifications as being something to be proud of achieving (in just the same way as you would be proud of passing a driving test or advanced test etc?). You will also have read the apology for going off topic in making that analagy.

As for the age thing we may never know - you've been asked at least twice and ignored. Don't think I've called you old though - just made observations about old drivers.

The debate has gone from roundabouts to signalling and as the voice of reason I rephrased the post you said you took offence to in the hope you might answer it. Would you care to do that now? - Post #169

hundredk

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Forgot to mention, when they were proper O levels they were graded 1 to 9, not alphabetically. 1 down to 6 were still passes, 7 to 9 failed. Were yours real ones?:wall::wall::wall:

Quite true. Now who's showing their age. Yeah they were real ones - couldn't get them off internet in those days.

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Maybe you are thinking about CSE's,:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Unless the demetia is kicking in, I'm sure I got the O levels before the A levels

hundredk

Dave101t wrote: »

wow, there are some awful drivers on here, especially the op. here is my hierarchy of those most likely to do these stupid things on the roundabout (40.000 miles a year + biker means i have experience):
4 x 4 drivers (any sex)
women
old people
business people
boy racers
'normal' people

:rotfl::rotfl:Careful, cyclonebri1 might be upset to feature so high up and on more than one occasion!

cyclonebri1

hundredk wrote: »

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?

You know I actually missed this post, probably because you went on so much about my driving deficiencies and your prowess in that dept? Also possibly subconsciously because it was printed in 2 foot high letters. I'm sure you'll now say you did that so that it didn't escape my attention. maybe had it been flashing I would have seen it;)

It's actually quite a sensible post and if the rest had been like this we wouldn't have had this issue. Nothing wrong with disagreeing just stick to the facts presented, don't make assumptions about other peoples abilities, and respect there view even if it's not yours.

Ok To answer your point(s) as fairly as I can;


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:

This is where we disagree. It achieves several things, agreed no benefit to any other driver, but, as I and others have pointed out very early on it benefits me by avoiding developing slopy or lazy driving habits.
If I have missed some other driver, regardless of why, it is an extra defence line that may just avoid an accident. I prefer not to remove that.
All roundabouts are not open and visible from 100 yds away, hence my comments about urban versus rural ones, there may be a car heading for that roundabout less than 30yds away but out of view. Without a well planned signal there will be no time for one at all. As in you can't can't see them untill they can see you.

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

No, not in the hope, .......just in case and for the reasons posted above

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.

The word hope comes from your lips or keyboard not mine. I don't signal, hope for the best and carry on blindly. This is just another one of the bits you have chosen to add. You use the word hope again?
It's not hope that can prevent an accident, it's observation, correct road positioning and making correct signall to enable other road users to read your intentions. Accepted if the other party has made an error and is unable to react in time then, no, no signal will help. But consider the fact that during the questionaire / claims form you and the other party will have to state wether or not either of you signalled.

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?

Look, you are talking a different situation here. You are assuming that I, (not quite sure I'm happy with you continually directing all this hypothetical situations directly at me, but we'll keep it at I for simplicities sake), have made a mistake.
If a mistake is made by any party, no signal is going to help, but we are not talking about situations where one driver makes a mistake, we are talking normal procedure at a roundabout.
No, they should have had an extra look and give a signal, multi tasking I think it's called, even blokes can do it. Hope doesn't come into it

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?

Yes I have, we all have. There are so many classes of numpties out there it's impossible to avoid coming into contact with them, which is why I and you effectively have to live with/tolerate them. They won't go away. Driving as defensively as possible is the only defence. If that means using all the tools at hand to make other road users aware then so be it. Hands up the person who's made no mistakes? Sorry I can't, but I've not made many and by driving as best I possibly can have remained accident free.

Right I've fully answered your question(s), I've deliberately not asked you any questions as far as I recall as I require no further education by you, so no reply necessary.
You avoid rubbishing my driving of which you know nothing about and I'll avoid insulting you