Other drivers getting aggravated when turning

almillar

that braking wastes both brake pads AND fuel

That's not strictly true, but especially not in this specific case. The fuel's already been used to get up to, and hold your speed. If you then slow down in gear for the corner, you'll be using no fuel for that time. If you also brake, you'll still be using no fuel, but for a shorter time. Don't forget the cost of your gearbox and clutch if you really want to count the pennies! You should also be in a habit of using the brake pedal for certain things, including this manoeuvre - your indicator should already be on of course, but don't forget that your brake pedal slows you down, and also puts out some big red lights behind you.

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

Again, in my opinion, it's over the line of saving money vs good driving. How much money you have shouldn't effect your driving.

I normally time it so I arrive at a light just as it turns green I can keep going and overtake other drivers that have raced up to the red light and still have to accelerate as I sail past in the other lane

This is good, progressive driving, AND saving you fuel, AND getting you there faster. Cruising up to a junction with a queue behind you is not.

Wow, so when I brake hard and my car automatically flashes it's hazard lights, that is in fact illegal

It absolutely is, Strider. Yes, lots of manufacturers are putting illegal cars out of their factories. Considering that it's quite a useful system, I don't think anyone is going to be stopped for it though.

martinthebandit

Can I just remind some posters of 'mirror, signal, manoeuvre'

That means you should not do a manoeuvre, which includes turning and slowing down for a turn without first checking your mirrors and then signalling your intent.

If you really feel the need to slow down before indicating, for example if there are two turn offs close together and you plan to take the further one then you should still signal your intent to do a manoeuvre by putting your foot on the brake which puts your bleeding brake lights on so that they serve the purpose of warning following drivers.

That's why vehicles are fitted with the ******* things!

It's really not rocket science!

Car_54

Strider590 wrote: »

Wow, so when I brake hard and my car automatically flashes it's hazard lights, that is in fact illegal. Good to know.........

Don't mention it.

BeenThroughItAll

Mercdriver wrote: »

I've done 62k on the set I have, and they still have another year's worth of wear left on them according to my last service report.

Even smaller cost then. Congratulations on never using your brakes. I'm happy if I get 20K out of a set, but then I'll change discs and pads all round at that stage anyway. I hate lipped discs, and they're cheap enough, and I enjoy doing them.

BeenThroughItAll

Strider590 wrote: »

Service report? What's that?

I check my tyres/brakes/everything every week.

Everything? Every week? Really?

I seriously doubt it.

boliston

almillar wrote: »

......

This is good, progressive driving, AND saving you fuel, AND getting you there faster. Cruising up to a junction with a queue behind you is not......

As the bulk of motorists choose to race up to a red light, slam on the brakes, then floor it when the lights go green I would say that my method of anticipating having to stop and then slowing down so that I arrive just as the lights go green is a far better and safer way of driving so if other motorists behind me end up also saving fuel and making better progress then I would say that everyone "wins"

HiToAll

glider3560 wrote: »

This was something that used to happen to me when I lived in London. Didn't see it round here until recently.

Basically, you want to turn left off a busy 30mph single carriageway road. You indicate in plenty of time then slow down gradually. Perfectly normal as you can't make a 90 degree turn at 30mph.

In the meantime, the driver behind decides to sound their horn, maybe flash their lights then overtake aggressively.

I checked my indicators are working, which they are.

Seriously don't see what their problem is. That they were delayed on their journey by 15 seconds by someone wanting to turn left!

Never seen that, but they do tend to get annoyed when they are driving close behind me, and i suddenly brake and turn left without indicating. They dont like that.

almillar

As the bulk of motorists choose to race up to a red light, slam on the brakes, then floor it when the lights go green I would say that my method of anticipating having to stop and then slowing down so that I arrive just as the lights go green is a far better and safer way of driving

I agree with this, I said that in my last post, which you quoted. I do this too.

This:

Cruising up to a junction with a queue behind you is not.....

As in OP's original example, which you were supporting, I disagree with. There's no red light to cruise up to, just a tight left turn. You shouldn't cruise up to it. You should indicate, you should brake (and show your brake lights), and you shouldn't be in fuel saving mode whilst completing a manoeuvre like this in traffic. It's obstructive and selfish.

reeac

almillar wrote: »

That's not strictly true, but especially not in this specific case. The fuel's already been used to get up to, and hold your speed. If you then slow down in gear for the corner, you'll be using no fuel for that time. If you also brake, you'll still be using no fuel,
.

Someone once told me that braking wastes fuel and as I didn't believe the magnitude of the effect that he quoted I did my own test by ŵcompletely avoiding using the brakes on a route of 9 miles of mainly twisty rural roads with little traffic. To my amazement the fuel computer read just over 70 mpg instead of the usual 53. I thought that perhaps the finishing point was at slightly lower altitude than the starting point but when I did the journey in reverse I got the same result.
I accept that you can only avoid braking for any length of time under certain road and traffic conditions but it works. I find now that I apply the principle of no-braking as far as is compatible with road and traffic conditions ...apart from economy it gives the passengers a smoother ride. Simple enough theory .... any kinetic energy lost by braking has to be regained by burning fuel.

boliston

reeac wrote: »

Someone once told me that braking wastes fuel and as I didn't believe the magnitude of the effect that he quoted I did my own test by ŵcompletely avoiding using the brakes on a route of 9 miles of mainly twisty rural roads with little traffic. To my amazement the fuel computer read just over 70 mpg instead of the usual 53. I thought that perhaps the finishing point was at slightly lower altitude than the starting point but when I did the journey in reverse I got the same result.
I accept that you can only avoid braking for any length of time under certain road and traffic conditions but it works. I find now that I apply the principle of no-braking as far as is compatible with road and traffic conditions ...apart from economy it gives the passengers a smoother ride. Simple enough theory .... any kinetic energy lost by braking has to be regained by burning fuel.

I normally commute by bike but on the rare occasions that I have had to commute by car I find that I'm sometimes able to go quite a while in "stop start" rush hour traffic without actually stopping! It's a far more relaxing way to drive and far more people should set themselves this challenge. The key to this is "thinking ahead" which is quite rare for most drivers.