PU states ^^^^^^^^^ also Police are taught only to indicate when it would warn or help another road user. If the OP was following the Police car along the "leg" the T with the crossbar being the main road, was it really necessary ?
Exactly what I was taught and as a result consider use of signal at every action instead of just slamming one in as a matter of course.
dvd
(Class 1)
|
|
|
|
What are police cars they seem to be extinct around West Yorkshire.
|
When I passed my test (1980), I had it repeated into me to indicate virtually everything. A huge amount of drivers now just simply do not bother so it is a bit unreasonable to expect the Police to.
Even when drivers do use indicators, there appears a lot of confusion, particularly at roundabouts, now. I regularly see third exit turnoffs (yes a classic right turn) performed in the left hand lane with the left indicator on all the way.
I can only believe that it is no longer such a high priority in the teaching / driving test.
|
When I passed my test (1980), I had it repeated into me to indicate virtually everything.
In that case I think you received flawed tuition.
In my opinion you should have been taught to assess every situation before signalling and then to signal only if it would be of value to another road user. I learned to drive when the order of the day was hand signals, and you had to think before you signalled. Now that we have direction indicator lights most signalling appears to be done without any prior conscious thought. At best, it's often a complete waste of time and at worst it's merely an indication that the driver is not paying any attention whatsoever to his surroundings. I'd sooner look at the position of another vehicle on the road, and its brake lights, and it's direction of travel, to tell me what it's going to do.
--
L\'escargot.
|
In the past couple of weeks, i have seen 2 police pug 307 cars with front head light bulbs gone and 1 with back bulbs gone
How would they like it if i stopped them and advised them. one rule for one and one for another.
|
Here in Cheshire we don't have police any longer. It's not cost-effective, and anyway there's nowhere to put criminals any more is there? : )
Blimey, I think I've swallowed a Daily Mail.
Our ambulance response units don't indicate though. And they exceed speed limits when off-call. Maybe they're targetted to cause accidents and increase productivity at the hospital? These days, I can imagine that such employees are on such targets and KPIs like everyone else.
As long as we're all singing from the same hymn sheet, it's a blue sky scenario.
|
Blimey, I think I've swallowed a Daily Mail.
Don't worry. Wait a day or two and it'll come out looking the same as when it went in.
|
|
|
|
In the past couple of weeks, i have seen 2 police pug 307 cars with front head light bulbs gone and 1 with back bulbs gone How would they like it if i stopped them and advised them. one rule for one and one for another.
>
you haven't thought this one through Tim. What would you prefer from your local Old Bill?
version A... two PCs turns up for night duty and one of the car lights isn't working......force instructions are car must be taken off the road until fixed.......no spare bulbs.......(should be, but someone used the last one and didn't tell anyone else, so it wasn't replaced.....no chance of replacing it until mon-fri 8-4... or the bulbs are too damned fiddly and inaccessible to fit yourself).......PCs walk, stay in the station doing paperwork etc, hop in with others, which noticeably cuts down on officer availability, as there are minimum staff posted on nights
version B... as above .......but they take the car out anyway........contravenes force instructions......technically means he's committing a disciplinary offence...annoys you.......but gets the job done and you get value for money
I know which one i'd prefer
|
>>>version B... as above .......but they take the car out anyway........contravenes force instructions......technically means he's committing a disciplinary >>>offence...annoys you.......but gets the job done and you get value for money
Except its the offside light thats not working and the street lights have gone out because its 2 in the morning.
A driver coming the other way thinks its a motorbike and so pulls out to pass some parked cars. Result: hospital for all involved.
|
|
|
|
|
>> In that case I think you received flawed tuition. L'escargot.
I disagree.
I think indicators serve an important role. I regularly see overtaking on dual carriage ways where drivers just serve out (no signal) and swerve back in (no signal) - the ame can be said of overtaking on two way A roads. There is nothing in the position of the road or braking signals to allow anticipation of this and subsequent speed adjustment if required. When parked cars block one side of a two way streetand a car pulls in behind. Is it also parked or will it pull out when oncoming traffic passes?
I would signal on all these ocassions rather than swerve in and out. Right turns on roundabouts I indicate and signal left as I come off (although as I said this is very unfashionable now).
|
Gan,
You've missed my point. Many drivers signal without any concious thought. Signalling is no substitute for being aware of what is around you. In my opinion it is far better to find out what is around you first and then, if it is perfectly safe to do so, manoeuvre without signalling than to just signal and expect other drivers to take avoiding action. By all means signal if it will be of value to another road user. But signalling should always be an indication of what you are considering doing and not just a habit-induced forerunner to an actual manoeuvre. If you've found out what is around you and made the necessary adjustments to your speed and position on the road then a signal will, in most instances, be superfluous. I always work on the premise that any signal and manoeuvre I make should not give cause to another driver having to alter their speed or direction.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
|
|
...to signal only if it would be of value to another road user
Trouble is with this strategy (..and I'm sure it doesn't apply to L'escargot or others here) is that
it assumes you're always going to be correct in your , often by necessity, transient
& fleeting observations. Can you assume that that pedestrian,cyclist or other non-vehicle , perhaps
partially obscured by a parked vehicle, tree , street furniture or bend in the road - isn't making decisions
contingent upon what he/she thinks you might do , i.e. turn right or go straight on?
I've seen (..and been involved in) situations where a pedsetrian 'suddenly' decides to cross the road
on the assumption that a vehicle is going to continue straight-on, when it turns left/right unexpectedly
with the pedestrian half- on or crossing the road. Also, cyclists, perhaps wating at a junction on a wet night,
needing to anticipate when to launch themselves into a gap etc.
..it's merely an indication that the driver is not paying any attention whatsoever to his surroundings...
Maybe true - but in that case all the more reason to 'blindly' indicate then, since we can't assume those
people not paying attention to their surroundings will observe better when taught not to indicate unless
necessary - at least they give other road users (inc. pedestrians/cyclists) an 'unnecessary' warning?
There's so much visual data we have to assimilate almost instantly in urban siutations, with vehicles,people,
and light/auditory distractions, that for me at least , the conservative approach of indicate if there's the
slightest,slightest doubt is best.
|
I used to drive round an ex plod of the old school to distant computer fairs and the like when I was on free fuel.
He always used to say "who's that for" when I indicated and I had to come up with an instant answer or he'd start waffling on. Mind you, most of his stories were extremely entertaining and made 2 or 3 hour journeys pass quickly.
|
|
I'd have throttled him with a SCART lead.
|
I agree with some of the more recent comments. Every day I will be waiting to cross roads when I needn't because a motorist will turn off before reaching me, or I'll be half way across when a motorist decides they want to turn and I should have read their mind.
As a motorist if I spent time looking at every house, garden gate, parked car to see if someone was there ready to make a move dependent on my car I would spend less time looking where I was going. Far better to indicate and observe the more important things going on around you.
2am in the middle of the Yorkshire moors and I agree signalling may not be required....but then there could be that stray sheep waiting to cross the road......
|
A very high percentage of motorists signal too late or not at all. Of course we all get apoplectic when behind someone in the outer lane at a traffic light, who remembers to signal only when the light changes to green, by which time it's too late to go round them.
Much, much better to signal unnecessarily than not to signal when you should. We have been through this in tedious detail before.
|
Much, much better to signal unnecessarily than not to signal when you should. We have been through this in tedious detail before.
Absolutely, 100% agree. Would add to that though that there are also a fair number of planks out there who indicate, change their mind then fail to cancel until it's too late. Potentially deadly mistake if done at the wrong time.
|
Gan, You've missed my point.
No I have not. I just think you are wrong. Far better to make a habit of something rather than rely on whether you have got everything covered. We are all capable of errors and could miss something in a blind spot. Indicating serves notice on other drivers
I always work on the premise that any signal and manoeuvre I make should not give cause to another driver having to alter their speed or direction.
To be honest I find that people moving out suddenly to overtake without signalling is the one thing that causes me to brake unexpectedly the most. Drivers who do this are relying on the reflexes of the driver behind in the outside lane. If you indicate, it does not mean that you have to move out suddenly, the driver behind may let you out anyway but at least you have served notice and the driver is on alert. The same can be said of drivers going around roundabouts not indicating. Wil or will they not turn off before they come to you? It's a menace.
We will have to agree to disagree
|
|
As far as I am concerned, being in a turn-right lane or turn-left lane is indication enough. I'd only use indicators in this situation if I thought it might help a pedestrian or such who might not be road-wary. Maybe this is what your police were doing.
|
As far as I am concerned, being in a turn-right lane or turn-left lane is indication enough. I'd only use indicators in this situation if I thought it might help a pedestrian or such who might not be road-wary.
Great minds think alike.
--
L\'escargot.
|
"Great minds think alike."
Why, thank you. But I'm spoken for!
|
> If you indicate, it does not mean that you have to move out suddenly, the driver behind may let you out anyway...
In that situation you mustn't put the indicator on at all unless you're sure there's space in the next lane and it's safe to move out. Drivers who do that 'speculative signal' as you're coming alongside are a menace - you have no idea if they've seen you and are waiting or are coming out anyway, which provokes a horrible moment of doubt as to what the other driver is about to do. The Highway Code motorway section is perfectly clear on this:
'remember that traffic may be coming up behind you very quickly. Check your mirrors carefully. When it is safe to do so, signal in plenty of time, then move out.'
Note that it does not say 'signal in the hope that someone will let you out'. 'Safe to do so' means no-one close to you in the lane you're about to enter.
Of course, in the case of a certain kind of HGV driver, as mentioned elsewhere, an indicator as you come up alongside means 'I'm coming out anyway and it's up to you to avoid me any way you can'.
|
Note that it does not say 'signal in the hope that someone will let you out'. '
But it does if you are sitting in the middle of the road waiting/hoping to turn right. Indicators then serve two purposes - to tell people coming up behind that you intend turning right, and also to try and persuade someone in the continuous oncoming lane to give way and let you through.
The more agressive action is to put your arm out of the window like a policeman indicating Halt ! and then go anyway.
Police indicators serve two contradictory functions:
1) to tell you where they are going
2) to order you to pull over.
I've been caught out by a police car doing that - I thought I was courteously slowing to let him get past on the trail of an escaping terrorist, only to find it was me he was after. (Only a random check - he wanted to discus Triumph 2000s)
No other indicator sign has the purpose of being an order rather than an intention, it seems a curious anomaly.
|
is on alert. The same can be said of drivers going around roundabouts not indicating. Wil or will they not turn off before they come to you? It's a menace.
This is my biggest pet-hate on the roads. Often I've imagined being in a big lorry or Hummer or somesuch so I could pull out in front of one of these people and teach them a lesson. (And before anyone jumps, it's not a serious thought....)
|
|
|
|
|
What are police cars they seem to be extinct around West Yorkshire.
Those silver cars with blue lights on top and fluorescent stripes down the side that you see parked on the double yellows outside the chippy.
|
I have obviously driven on a lot more congested roads than some of you:-
1 The Highway code may advocate waiting until the right hand lane is clear but the reality is that if you are in a busy dual carriageway (surely quite common in the congested roads of Britain) and you identify a roundabout / junction approaching where you wish to turn right, the reality is that you will have to come out into the right hand lane. The road may not become clear.
2 At a busy roundabout, signalling right is a courtesy for drivers waiting to enter the roundabout that you are indeed going around it. Signalling left notifies that you are coming off again this assists drivers waiting to come on.
|
1 The Highway code may advocate waiting until the right hand lane is clear but the reality is that if you are in a busy dual carriageway (surely quite common in the congested roads of Britain) and you identify a roundabout / junction approaching where you wish to turn right, the reality is that you will have to come out into the right hand lane. The road may not become clear.
I did refer to the motorway section and there aren't any roundabouts on motorways.
2 At a busy roundabout, signalling right is a courtesy for drivers waiting to enter the roundabout that you are indeed going around it. Signalling left notifies that you are coming off again this assists drivers waiting to come on.
This is self-evident, but it isn't a reason for giving a signal when there's no-one there to see it. The point is that going through the mental exercise of deciding whether or not to signal is useful in itself, as it forces the driver to take a good look around, notably in the mirror, which is easy to forget if flicking the indicator switch is just an automatic action. I'd agree, though, that I'd rather there were too much signalling going on out there than not enough.
One has to feel sorry for all those in 'entry-level' BMWs, who could, after all, only just afford the car,and for whom the indicators were just another on that long list of unattainable options. They must wonder what we're all talking about. =;-)
|
This is self-evident, but it isn't a reason for giving a signal when there's no-one there to see it. The point is that going through the mental exercise of deciding whether or not to signal is useful in itself, as it forces the driver to take a good look around, notably in the mirror, which is easy to forget if flicking the indicator switch is just an automatic action. I'd agree, though, that I'd rather there were too much signalling going on out there than not enough.
The problem is, IMO, that the person who decides not to indicate does so on the basis *they * think there's no one around to see it. Surely its safer to indicate, on the basis that you as a driver *might* have missed something ,than not to indicate on the basis that you don't think there's anyone around? That's why I too would rather there was too much indicating (chance would be a fine thing on the roads I use!!) than too little...
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
It sometimes makes me wonder whether they are aware of anything that's around them at all. I've been a passenger in a car where the driver used indicators on a deserted country road at 3 o'clock in the morning. I didn't bother asking him why he'd done it because he probably didn't realise that he had indicated. -- L\'escargot.
Sometimes there are things we don't see because we don't expect them to be there. 3 o'clock on a deserted country road might be just such an instance. It is hardly onerous to indicate at any time, in any case, and it is a good habit to get into. Turning right across a line of traffic should never be done without indicating.
|
It is hardly onerous to indicate at any time, in any case, and it is a good habit to get into.
My view is that a lot of drivers appear to indicate purely out of habit and without thinking. I'm convinced that on a lot of occasions they're not the slightest bit aware of whether there are (or are not) other road users around them. If they indicate without thinking I can't help but wonder what else they do without thinking. I realise this is a minority view on this forum, but it is my view nevertheless.
--
L\'escargot.
|
>>>a lot of drivers appear to indicate purely out of habit<<
Once again L,escargot hits the nail exactly on the head. IMHO drivers who indicate on each and every occasion are half asleep. Once they have indicated they seem to assume they have a God-given right to carry out their intended manouvere. Automatic signalling is pure lazyness.
|
>>>a lot of drivers appear to indicate purely out of habit<< Once again L,escargot hits the nail exactly on the head. IMHO drivers who indicate on each and every occasion are half asleep. Once they have indicated they seem to assume they have a God-given right to carry out their intended manouvere. Automatic signalling is pure lazyness.
It is not a bad habit if carried out correctly. If carried out without checking mirrors, etc, it is as bad as any other piece of bad driving. Is it correct to assume that people who don't indicate are any better?
|
|
|
Automatic signalling ispure lazyness.
No it isn't. It means that the driver concerned has acquired a habit conducive to road safety. It is important that road users be aware of the intentions of drivers around them. Signalling is one of the ways of making your intentions clear. As I have said before, signalling when there is no one around is harmless. Not signalling when there are other vehicles present is potentially dangerous.
DD says one's mere presence in a left turn or right turn lane - one assumes he means a lane only for left or right turn, not one with a straight-ahead alternative - is sufficient to indicate one's intention. It should be, but often isn't. Either by mistake or to gain some trivial advantage, quite a lot of drivers deliberately choose the wrong lane. Personally I tend to signal even when I am in such a lane. Belt and braces.
I am becoming bored by this argument. Signalling is good. Not signalling is bad. At roundabouts, be in the right lane and signal if turning left or right, but not if going straight ahead. At complex roundabouts, the sort of silly back-and-forth signalling being advocated by some here may be necessary. The essentials are to be in the right lane and watch out for idiots all around. They will often be there.
|
DD says one's mere presence in a left turn or right turn lane....
Did I?
|
|
Sorry DD, not you but the other Dave. If you didn't boast how bad you can be and how big your boots are this sort of thing wouldn't happen....
|
|
|
|
|
My view is that a lot of drivers appear to indicate purely out of habit and without thinking. I'm convinced that on a lot of occasions they're not the slightest bit aware of whether there are (or are not) other road users around them. If they indicate without thinking I can't help but wonder what else they do without thinking. I realise this is a minority view on this forum, but it is my view nevertheless. -- L\'escargot.
100% agree.....
what's worse..... someone driving on complete autopilot who bungs the indicator on, because they always do ....... or the person considerably more aware of what is going on, but on the odd occasion misses something and really ought to have indicated.
that is why police driver training is like it is.......you only indicate when you need to, to make you think about it, properly, every time, not just 'bung an indicator on'...... as the easy, non thinking, way out
my sister gave me a lift back to my mates farm in Dartmoor a while back, at night......indicated everywhere... didn't say anything because i was grateful for the lift...........i'm sure the odd fox or rabbit was happy for the warning
|
|
Dang ! I did it tonight on othewise desterted roads. Pooh.
|
|
|
westpig, if we were all keen drivers I would agree, but we aren't. Nor are the conditions always propitious for that sort of thing. Like it or not, we all develop an autopilot mode.
Which do you prefer: autopilot with signals, or without? We assume here for the sake of argument that you have to have one or the other.
|
Lud,
I'll graciously concede that one.......
with the Utopian dream that standards could/would rise.....and that considerably more people would 'up their game' and see more of what is really going on around them..... and then i woke up
|
|
Sigh. I spent 10 minutes composing a reply, pressed "Post this message" and it came up with the login, and my long reply was lost. Christ that gets on my nerves.
|
Sigh. I spent 10 minutes composing a reply, pressed "Post this message" and it came up with the login, and my long reply was lost.
If ever I take a long time composing a reply I just Edit>Copy the message before posting it just in case.
--
L\'escargot.
|
As I was going to say ...
There is a wide variation in police driving standards although I don't doubt that traffic police ae very skilled drivers. I lived in Slough for 6 years, and saw no poor driving by the police. They all seemed to know what they were doing. I have lived in Luton for 1 year, and have seen numerous cases where I thought a panda car was going at excess speed in a 20mph residential area. Quite often I am taken by surprise by a panda car moving at speed, popping out from round a corner, or driving at speed down the middle of a 2 lane road, between two lanes of traffic.
Only last night I nearly drove into the side of a panda car on a call out. I was about to emerge from a side junction on a green light, and turn right, when a panda car with lights on appeared from the right. I was forced to brake sharply. He then stopped directly in front of me, and both coppers stared at me. I wondered what was going on, then it occurred to me that the driver did not realise that the road to his left was a one way street, therefore he did not expect cars approaching in both lanes. I was in the right lane. He probably thought that he could safely drive half way aross the junction and then stop for any traffic.
I keep wondering when I will see a nasty smash in Luton involving a panda car.
|
Advanced driving organisations teach you to signal only if it gives useful information to someone else. A friend argued that you should signal anyway in case you did not see another road user. My answer to that is that if you did not see that road user, your observation skills are poor, and need improving as you should be aware of what is around you. If you are not sure what is around, how can you perform the manouevre?
I tend to always signal at night in case of unlit vehicles including cyclists.
I see nothing intrinsically wrong with signalling whenever turning, or changing lanes. However, I do worry that they might be driving on auto-pilot, and that he/she not paying attention to their surroundings.
Like others it annoys me when many people do not indicate until after they have started the manouevre. Why bother?
Also some people also seem to think that signalling automatically gives them permission to perform a manouevre.
Oh well, all the more reason to develop good observation and anticipation skills.
|
I keep wondering when I will see a nasty smash in Luton involving a panda car.
quite possibly down to the lowering of standards for police driver training, over the years the courses have been conducted over less and less time.............to save money
and...
the concept of 'basic driving' whereby a police officer with NO TRAINING AT ALL, is allowed to drive a marked police car, on the understanding that they won't drive it in emergency mode........yeah right
like giving a kid a chocolate bar and telling him not to eat it
very unfair practice, because a keen young officer who hears a very serious call come out over the radio e.g. armed robbery or another officer calling for 'urgent assistance' is not likely to sit in traffic and comply with the 30mph limit are they?..........everyone knows this, yet the practice persists........mad.
if it all goes horribly wrong, they end up 'hung drawn and quartered' because they weren't authorised.....nice. So most of the year the job gets done and it's 'head in the sand time' ...but if it goes wrong, there's massed tutting and shaking of heads and 'you're on your own pal'.
|
|
Bang on Westpig. The advanced driver standards are lower as well as far as I'm concerned. You get three or four tries these days. As far as I'm concerned, you've either got it or you ain't!! Four weeks should be enough for the instructors to know!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
