Other drivers getting aggravated when turning

rdr

glider3560 wrote: »

To answer some of the points raised....

I always indicate well before slowing down.

The footpath has a well used cycle path. Many (most) cyclists fail to give way to cars as there is a speed bump which they can ride straight over. You have to look over your shoulder properly before turning.

That bump is immediately as you turn into the road. You cannot turn at any speed.

The road I'm turning into is narrow, so you cannot turn too fast, or you'll take the corner too wide and end up crashing into cars wanting to pull out.

The cycle path continueing over a speed table probably indicates that the cyclists are intended to have priority over traffic on the side road. The sharp narrow turn will be part of the design to ensure that drivers take the turn slowly enough to stop if needs be.
From the cyclists' point of view this is good design as it means you shouldn't have to stop at every side road -- if drivers understand -- and so the cycle path may not be so slow as to be useless
OP -- think about your mirror, signal, manueorver and whether you can improve it or it may be that you have just encountered a random cluster of motorised morons.

almillar

10-15 seconds is fine to me, indicate and ease off accelerator to slow down to avoid wearing brakes unnecessarily then brake if needed

This is over the line for me. I would say that it IS necessary to 'wear out the brakes' if there's a queue of traffic behind you - otherwise you're being selfishly economical. Brake pads are there to be worn, and if you're going to argue over the cost of material you lose slowing part of 30mph down, you can't afford to drive.

The problem with a 90 degree turn, is it could be a big wide one, but OP seems to be talking about a particularly tight one - that requires slower driving, and faster turning of the wheel. I'm certainly not saying there aren't impatient idiots on the road, but you need to drive differently when in traffic, from when you're on your own.

z1a

Pretty sure this has never happened to me in 40 years of driving.

boliston

almillar wrote: »

This is over the line for me. I would say that it IS necessary to 'wear out the brakes' if there's a queue of traffic behind you - otherwise you're being selfishly economical. Brake pads are there to be worn, and if you're going to argue over the cost of material you lose slowing part of 30mph down, you can't afford to drive.

The problem with a 90 degree turn, is it could be a big wide one, but OP seems to be talking about a particularly tight one - that requires slower driving, and faster turning of the wheel. I'm certainly not saying there aren't impatient idiots on the road, but you need to drive differently when in traffic, from when you're on your own.

I tend to have a "no brake unless necessary" way of driving on the basis that braking wastes both brake pads AND fuel - Other drivers don't know my personal level of disposable income so why should they assume I can afford to waste money just so they can leave an unsafe gap between themselves and the car in front.

martinthebandit

boliston wrote: »

I tend to have a "no brake unless necessary" way of driving on the basis that braking wastes both brake pads AND fuel - Other drivers don't know my personal level of disposable income so why should they assume I can afford to waste money just so they can leave an unsafe gap between themselves and the car in front.

.....and why should you consider other drivers?

It amazes me how many 'older' drivers decide that the standards of driving they had to meet to pass their driving test are no longer relevant.

boliston

martinthebandit wrote: »

.....and why should you consider other drivers?

It amazes me how many 'older' drivers decide that the standards of driving they had to meet to pass their driving test are no longer relevant.

I am considerate towards other considerate drivers - drivers who drive far to close are a liability to themselves and others around them.

Mercdriver

martinthebandit wrote: »

.....and why should you consider other drivers?

It amazes me how many 'older' drivers decide that the standards of driving they had to meet to pass their driving test are no longer relevant.

Driving on your brakes is very poor driving. Braking unnecessarily is a sign of poor observation.

Strider590

boliston wrote: »

I tend to have a "no brake unless necessary" way of driving on the basis that braking wastes both brake pads AND fuel - Other drivers don't know my personal level of disposable income so why should they assume I can afford to waste money just so they can leave an unsafe gap between themselves and the car in front.

That just makes people think your brake lights don't work, which if you've ever been behind a car with broken brake lights, you'll know is extremely nerve-wracking.

boliston

Strider590 wrote: »

That just makes people think your brake lights don't work, which if you've ever been behind a car with broken brake lights, you'll know is extremely nerve-wracking.

I have never understood this reliance on brake lights to see if a vehicle is slowing down - perhaps people have no ability to judge relative speed?

BeenThroughItAll

boliston wrote: »

I tend to have a "no brake unless necessary" way of driving on the basis that braking wastes both brake pads AND fuel - Other drivers don't know my personal level of disposable income so why should they assume I can afford to waste money just so they can leave an unsafe gap between themselves and the car in front.

If you are really so strapped as to be unable to afford the odd set of brake pads every 20K miles, how do you afford fuel? In terms of the relative costs of owning a car, brake pads make up a vanishingly small part.