Indicating on a roundabout

hundredk

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

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

You know what, most of your reply is sensible too and thank you for brightening my evenings up this week. My last sentence and responses that follow are genuine.:beer:

My post #169 (and all the others come to think of it) were in normal font when I posted. I didn't do anything to highlight it and it looks same size as the rest when I scroll up now. So what's going off there?

If the signalling benefits you, then yes I acknowledge that it is a benefit to you to make sure you keep signalling. My original point was only to try and be helpful and to point out that this may lull you into a false sense of security because the signals may not, in fact prevent an accident.

I have not added the word hope, you said it here:

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

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

I did read that sentence as though you signal, carry on and hope no one is there and no benefit needed. I've seen accidents just like this caused by the person pulling out not seeing the other vehicle yet signalling and driving within the highway code - they just did not see.

You have since said you observe, mirror signal manouver etc but at the point you posted in #68 it read like head in sand. I had visions of you not seeing anything, signalling and carrying on regardless. Hence my repeated comments about observation.

I agree with the para I have highlighted red and hope we both are fortunate enough to remain claim free and avoid the questionnaires.

My replies were to the principles you described. I may have responded with "you" but that's because saying "if one pulls out without looking....." sounds pompus, but you called me that anyway;).

You'll not be surpised to hear I can't put my hand up either (or maybe you will:rolleyes:). Main thing is to learn from them to avoid the same thing in future*** but I'm sure some of the numties carry on oblivious to what they do - either that or are too ashamed to acknowledge the mistake.

*** don't read that as me educating you or me having an ego, it's just a generic point.

My replies here, as requested do not offer you any more education, just acknowledgements.

Now it's getting sensible, lets not debate whether replies are necessary.

creased-leach

Are we there yet?

cyclonebri1

creased-leach wrote: »

Are we there yet?

The end, hopefully .

hundredk

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

The end, hopefully .

Yep, it,s all there for anyone to read should they wish:j

cyclonebri1

:shhh::shhh::shhh::shhh: Zzzzzzz, Zzzzzz

Liz3yy

Blood hell is this thread still going? haven't we established the right way to indicate yet?!! hilarious!

hundredk

Liz3yy wrote: »

Blood hell is this thread still going? haven't we established the right way to indicate yet?!! hilarious!

Shhh, I think someones having a nap

almillar

DaveF, I take on board your comments about the handbrake. It was a foolproof way of making sure the trainee/examinee was stopped. I've just learned from this thread that it was not required for the test. The law requires that you stop, as you say, but I had always been under the impression that the L test required the handbrake to be pulled.
Anyway looks like hundredk and cyclone have made up so let's put this one to bed.
Voice of reason eh! If you heard me shouting at all the other drivers in the morning...!

cyclonebri1

almillar wrote: »

DaveF, I take on board your comments about the handbrake. It was a foolproof way of making sure the trainee/examinee was stopped. I've just learned from this thread that it was not required for the test. The law requires that you stop, as you say, but I had always been under the impression that the L test required the handbrake to be pulled.
Anyway looks like hundredk and cyclone have made up so let's put this one to bed.
Voice of reason eh! If you heard me shouting at all the other drivers in the morning...!

No, I was just ignoring him, but he still wants the last word, inspite of that.
He ain't 'aving it, :p:p

He's got no one to talk to 'cept me. ???What....????

hundredk

almillar wrote: »

DaveF, I take on board your comments about the handbrake. It was a foolproof way of making sure the trainee/examinee was stopped. I've just learned from this thread that it was not required for the test. The law requires that you stop, as you say, but I had always been under the impression that the L test required the handbrake to be pulled.
Anyway looks like hundredk and cyclone have made up so let's put this one to bed.
Voice of reason eh! If you heard me shouting at all the other drivers in the morning...!

So nice when something constructive comes from reasoned debate.

Thanks for the voice of reason, I'm sure this one has been well and truly put to bed by now.:whistle: