Hallelujah (See my definition) But to clarify, you don't have to be aware of all locations and movements of all people - just one will do Perhaps a better way of looking at it is to "look for a reason *not* to signal" rather than looking for people to signal to.

I didn't say you had to be aware of all locations and movements, the point I was making is that you can't physically be aware of all locations and movements.

It is for this reason you should always indicate.

Could you link/quote the example of why its confusing? I can't seem to find it. (the junction/overtaking scenario doesn't really count as imo its a bit silly to do an overtake anyway )

Ah that was the example I was referring to I can adapt it though You're driving along an NSL road following two cars. It's a fairly straight road with good visibility - there's a junction coming up on the right but you can see clearly into it and all the way along the road it becomes. You're looking to overtake both cars as the car in front has been dithering about overtaking for a little while now.

Two scenarios to mull over:

1. Car in front pops his right indicator on - what is his intention and how should you react?

2. The car in front doesn't put his indicator on so you decide to overtake (assuming a banana overtake) and put your indicator on. What does the car in front think your intention is? Assuming that they are checking their mirrors and notice

To me, its purely a warning in less congested areas, I don't expect them to change their course of action simply because I have signalled (ie not offloading responsibility), acknowledged I have indicated and I am making a maneuver, yes. In high congestion areas ofc some discretion is advised. Unless this isn't the correct way of thought?

Pah, tedious... maybe a diagram will help..

I'll start out by saying there isn't one "correct" way of thinking and part of the joy of coaching people is getting them to explore their own questions

If you're using an indicator as a warning in less congested areas, what are you warning of and who are you warning? Do they need to be warned (ie things are getting a bit uncomfortable) or you'd just like to increase your visibility? Is the indicator the best tool to achieve that?

Chris

I didn't say you had to be aware of all locations and movements, the point I was making is that you can't physically be aware of all locations and movements.

And the point I was making is it is irrelevant that you are physically aware of all locations and movements and you only need one reason to indicate.

It is for this reason you should always indicate.

And yet the DSA and Advanced Driving organisations seem to disagree. Still, what do they know, eh?

Chris

"It wasn't my fault, I had my indicator on" mentality which seems to be fairly prevalent.

So assuming it was their fault, which scenario would be best?

1) It wasn't my fault, I had my indicator on.

2) It wasn't my fault, nor did I see the point in indicating.

So assuming it was their fault, which scenario would be best?

1) It wasn't my fault, I had my indicator on.

2) It wasn't my fault, nor did I see the point in indicating.

Blame doesn't particularly help - I'm in the camp who doesn't have the accident in the first place

Chris

And yet the DSA and Advanced Driving organisations seem to disagree. Still, what do they know, eh?

They say "consider if a signal is necessary".

In the example given in the OP then it is fairly obvious that a signal was necessary.

Blame doesn't particularly help - I'm in the camp who doesn't have the accident in the first place

Ah, I see, you are crash proof!

I don't need to indicate, I'll never crash.

Two scenarios to mull over:

1. Car in front pops his right indicator on - what is his intention and how should you react?

2. The car in front doesn't put his indicator on so you decide to overtake (assuming a banana overtake) and put your indicator on. What does the car in front think your intention is? Assuming that they are checking their mirrors and notice

It's the same for both scenario's.

The other driver see's the indication and knows that the car is planning to change direction.

As a result he is now paying the other car more attention than he was before the indication.

Knowing the exact intentions of the other car therefore isn't necessary.

They say "consider if a signal is necessary".

In the example given in the OP then it is fairly obvious that a signal was necessary.

I fear we are going round in circles so I will spell it out for you. You are telling people "You must always signal" (and you will get angry if they don't). The DSA's advice is "Use a signal when it's necessary". I am suggesting that people should perhaps listen to the official advice

Chris

Here's my attempt at spelling it out...

"You must always signal" "when it is necessary"

Navigating a junction? Entering or exiting a sliproad? I always signal because it is necessary.

Ah, I see, you are crash proof!

I don't need to indicate, I'll never crash.

I strive to not crash. I don't indicate if there's no need. I indicate if there is a need. I haven't crashed, caused a crash, annoyed people, etc.

If you want to indicate at all times because you are not confident in your observation/ability then by all means continue. If you want to continue to accuse me of poor driving practices and keep getting in personal digs, then feel free, but you'll forgive me if I give up on replying and concentrate on spending my limited time replying to those who are looking to broaden their horizons and improve their driving. As I said earlier in the thread, I'm happy to extend the offer I've made to others on the thread and take you out for some free coaching if you're ever in the area...

Chris

It's not that I'm not confident, it's just that I am realistic about my abilities and accept that by being human it's physically impossible for me to know 100% if there is someone likely to benefit from me indicating.

I could try and conceal my personal digs with excessive use of the emoticons, but you've used them all up.

Ah that was the example I was referring to I can adapt it though You're driving along an NSL road following two cars. It's a fairly straight road with good visibility - there's a junction coming up on the right but you can see clearly into it and all the way along the road it becomes. You're looking to overtake both cars as the car in front has been dithering about overtaking for a little while now.

Two scenarios to mull over:

1. Car in front pops his right indicator on - what is his intention and how should you react?

2. The car in front doesn't put his indicator on so you decide to overtake (assuming a banana overtake) and put your indicator on. What does the car in front think your intention is? Assuming that they are checking their mirrors and notice

Depends how far we all are to the junction, what speed of the cars, the tell-tail signs of an overtake or simply tailgating and how common that junction is -

1) I would wait to see whats the plan, because driver has indicated they want to do something, regardless overtake or turning, probably want to leave a little more space for the driver incase they may fudge the overtake or turn.

2) A banana overtake? Sounds exciting (ok after a quick google - http://www.ridedrive.co.uk/driving-tips-07c.htm).. I don't do a banana overtake, though the catch and match thing sounds more similar I don't normally 'hover' completely on the other side of the road, see no need for it generally on the roads I go on. Maybe half? I keep enough distance to see far enough ahead for the overtakes to take place.

Back to the question - When I hover/match speed/scout I don't signal, when the maneuver is on I will signal. If by any chance there was an unsighted stretch later and a car pops round and I was still in the oncoming lane then they will know I am in the process of finishing my overtake with the signal.

If Im completely honest though, I'd most likely hold back till there are no junctions, as I've never had the luxury of seeing one of those scenarios.

Depends how far we all are to the junction, what speed of the cars, the tell-tail signs of an overtake or simply tailgating and how common that junction is -

1) I would wait to see whats the plan, because driver has indicated they want to do something, regardless overtake or turning, probably want to leave a little more space for the driver incase they may fudge the overtake or turn.

2) A banana overtake? Sounds exciting (ok after a quick google - http://www.ridedrive.co.uk/driving-tips-07c.htm).. I don't do a banana overtake, though the catch and match thing sounds more similar I don't normally 'hover' completely on the other side of the road, see no need for it generally on the roads I go on. Maybe half? I keep enough distance to see far enough ahead for the overtakes to take place.

Back to the question - When I hover/match speed/scout I don't signal, when the maneuver is on I will signal. If by any chance there was an unsighted stretch later and a car pops round and I was still in the oncoming lane then they will know I am in the process of finishing my overtake with the signal.

If Im completely honest though, I'd most likely hold back till there are no junctions, as I've never had the luxury of seeing one of those scenarios.

1. So basically they've provided a signal but their intention isn't clear and so we're looking at secondary indications to try and get more information about what they might do next. However, if they chose to "hover" without indicating, their intentions would be much clearer.

2. The big advantage with the "full" offside is that you can see the road ahead of the target car. This helps you identlfy anything which may cause the target car to veer from a steady course (eg puddles at the near side of the road, pot holes, cyclist, dead sheep, etc) which may need to be factored into the overtaking plan and affect when you decide to commit to the overtake. It also means you can see the driver and your car is visible in their mirrors, especially if you put dipped lights on which, imho, draws more attention that a signal and gives you a better chance of acknowledgement. Some people don't like being overtaken and so moving to the "hover" without changing speed means that you will tease this reaction out of them before you've committed and are playing the game of chasing down the ever diminishing road space. The point about a car appearing in view is interesting - I'm wondering at what point they might benefit from being told you are overtaking? Would seeing two cars side by side cause them concern if they were both in the distance (assuming they had looked that far ahead and the indicator was visible from that distance)? Would you expect a reaction from the car approaching if they didn't feel comfortable with your overtake?

I was spoilt with the Salisbury Plains where there are a lot of roads with extended views and there are a few stretches that can be driven safely completely offside as a result. Not quite the same in London

Chris

Round and round in circles we go.

You don't need to indicate unless necessary end of story

Its DSA, IAM and any other professionals body stance on it.

Few examples:

Overtaking a car, i don't need to indicate to pull back in as i am either on the wrong side of the road or in an overtaking lane so obvious to everyone around where i am going to go.

I don't need to indicate on a left or right turn only lane unless there is a pedestrian that may benefit from this.

I don't need to indicate when there are no cars around me as nobody will see. I Don't get the 360 degree argument to be honest as i can see in front, behind and any approaching junctions....why would i need 360degree vision??

I don't need to indicate when passing a cyclist or pedestrian on the road if the person behind can see. Only i was driving something like a van or a lorry would i need to indicate if the car behind would not be able to see the obstruction. Indicating in this situation can actually make other road users think you are turning right.

Indicating when not necessary is deemed in the eyes of advanced driving as driving without due care from a training point of view as it displays that you aren't truly aware of your surroundings, the rules of the roads and signage. You would never pass an advanced driving qualification from indicating at every opportunity

1. So basically they've provided a signal but their intention isn't clear and so we're looking at secondary indications to try and get more information about what they might do next. However, if they chose to "hover" without indicating, their intentions would be much clearer.

2. The big advantage with the "full" offside is that you can see the road ahead of the target car. This helps you identlfy anything which may cause the target car to veer from a steady course (eg puddles at the near side of the road, pot holes, cyclist, dead sheep, etc) which may need to be factored into the overtaking plan and affect when you decide to commit to the overtake. It also means you can see the driver and your car is visible in their mirrors, especially if you put dipped lights on which, imho, draws more attention that a signal and gives you a better chance of acknowledgement. Some people don't like being overtaken and so moving to the "hover" without changing speed means that you will tease this reaction out of them before you've committed and are playing the game of chasing down the ever diminishing road space. The point about a car appearing in view is interesting - I'm wondering at what point they might benefit from being told you are overtaking? Would seeing two cars side by side cause them concern if they were both in the distance (assuming they had looked that far ahead and the indicator was visible from that distance)? Would you expect a reaction from the car approaching if they didn't feel comfortable with your overtake?

I was spoilt with the Salisbury Plains where there are a lot of roads with extended views and there are a few stretches that can be driven safely completely offside as a result. Not quite the same in London

Chris

Ah, yeah locations maybe at a play here lol! In london you see a car oncoming, not signalling, they're having that piece of road, end of. They will instinctively take more of your side (because they can) to make you slow down or stop. I assume because if they have an incident it will be at your fault because they're 'finishing' they're manoeuvre and you should have seen them coming, or.. they simply dont gives a rats and dont have insurance. I think main reason is when people signal it gives them time to react take advantage of that knowledge and don't give you space (as seen many on m/ways and slip roads) . If you translate that to london driving they will not slow down for you if you signal, which is fine, exactly what I intended for anyway. So to not signal is 'normal' on london roads but I wouldn't call it advance driving in this context , perhaps more defensive/aggressive.

You do have a point on the full offside theory though. I generally hug left, then hug right so I get a picture whats ahead of the driver. Leaving enough gap behind solves this puddle problem but I suppose it doesn't give a full detailed up to date picture of what driver in front sees. In reference to bikes, normally they can be seen a while off when even staying on the near side, the additional clue is when the driver slams on the brake and follows them for 5 seconds before realising there's no cars oncoming... I'll give the full offside a try then next time

Massive paintbrush on London drivers I know but its what the style is like..

So remind me, as you clearly are a perfect driver, what is the benefit of not indicating?

The key here is your "I don't need to indicate" compared with the other persons "I wish he'd indicate".

I'll take that as you stating that you are the perfect driver, despite a body of evidence including the Police service driving school at Hendon disagreeing with your view, since you've directly ignored my request that you try to think rather than blindly repeating a mantra, and do something more productive with my time.

Ah, yeah locations maybe at a play here lol! In london you see a car oncoming, not signalling, they're having that piece of road, end of. They will instinctively take more of your side (because they can) to make you slow down or stop.

That's an interesting observation and the technique (coincidentally) is something I try to coach, especially where the road is too narrow for two cars or perhaps uncomfortably narrow. It does come down to communication though and if I'm approaching a line of parked cars, for example, I will try an early offside position (no signal) to test the water - often the other driver will see that the road looks too narrow for them to pass and will stop and let me through (and cheerily acknowledge my thank you when I pass them). Where they don't show any sign of co-operation, I'll tuck in and yield to them. Again it comes down to showing your cards early (and as a result getting them to show their cards early) - once you know their intention, it's much easier to build a more accurate plan.

I will say though, I don't tend to drive in London too much as the public transport network is so good, although I recommend it to anyone wishing to sharpen their observation skills as every piece of space around the car is filled and you need to be on your toes and use signalling (and the response to signalling) effectively.

I assume because if they have an incident it will be at your fault because they're 'finishing' they're manoeuvre and you should have seen them coming, or.. they simply dont gives a rats and dont have insurance.

I'm not a big fan of the blame culture and apportioning fault and I'd rather look at the bigger picture and avoid the accident altogether. If someone is coming towards you on your side of the road, at that moment it doesn't really matter what the law of the land or who the HC says is in the right, if continuing as you are will result in conflict (even if you are signalling ), you have to take the responsibility for your own safety and yield, also remembering that expressing your displeasure at their manouevre is usually also a sure fire way of escalating the situation. A little inconvenience to your journey is probably preferable to the alternative.

I think main reason is when people signal it gives them time to react take advantage of that knowledge and don't give you space (as seen many on m/ways and slip roads) . If you translate that to london driving they will not slow down for you if you signal, which is fine, exactly what I intended for anyway.

I'd agree - and this highlights that the signal is a two way process and getting the response (be it compliance or not) clarifies the situation for you immediately and the driving plan gets updated to reflect that. It's also why it's important, imho, to give a signal in plenty of time and allow it to sit on for several flashes to allow those around you to take in, use that information and give their response (TUG in AD terms :lol: ). Often driving on motorways, you'll see the indicator go on for one or two flashes, followed immediately by the manoeuvre and the chap in the next lane who has reacted by accelerating (rightly or wrongly) to close the gap will be leaning on his horn.

You do have a point on the full offside theory though. I generally hug left, then hug right so I get a picture whats ahead of the driver. Leaving enough gap behind solves this puddle problem but I suppose it doesn't give a full detailed up to date picture of what driver in front sees. In reference to bikes, normally they can be seen a while off when even staying on the near side, the additional clue is when the driver slams on the brake and follows them for 5 seconds before realising there's no cars oncoming... I'll give the full offside a try then next time

That's true about reactions to bikes, although could the visibility ahead also depend on the size of what you are overtaking? That's rhetorical btw

This video is quite good (shame about the watermarking but the DVD is a worthy purchase if you're interested in improving driving) and if you scroll forward to 5 minutes you'll see an overtake of a large vehicle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvXbmR1Rjv0

Chris

This video is quite good (shame about the watermarking but the DVD is a worthy purchase if you're interested in improving driving) and if you scroll forward to 5 minutes you'll see an overtake of a large vehicle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvXbmR1Rjv0

Chris

I'd second the recommendation, despite feeling that some of Chris Gilbert's contemporaries at Hendon were better instructors.

Lots of second gear stuff. What car is he using?

Lots of second gear stuff. What car is he using?

ISTR there were three cars used in the DVD and the most likely one for this clip may be the Saab 9-3 turbo which I suspect, similar to the Octavia vRS, had quite long gearing. Been a while since I watched the full thing so could be wrong though. It's been a long time since I've owned a car where I'd use 2nd much on those sort of roads

As a slight aside to that, Chris maintains that he never uses more than 90% of the car's available rev range (defined from 0 - start of red line) and the appropriate gear for the hazard depends on the "exit performance" required.

Chris

Thought so. I'd be in 3rd or even 4th for some of those. I know many won't change down because of laziness or if the car has enough torque to pull through the bend. I'll change down for one to have best possible acceleration and because it's fun. The bit where the anticipates the junctions and moves over I've always done. The overtake is right too. The nothing wrong with nosing out as it lets him know you want to pass (he's a tractor so should be used to it) and if there's nothing coming it should be fine anyway.

Unfortunately if they gave themselves the option of tucking in it would be nice, they will speed up or stop (block) the road if it doesn't plan out their way. but again thats open to more can-o-worms. Its one of those things where seeing is clearer than explaining.

Think there's a fine line between assertiveness and aggression, in london many use the latter to get around. Anyway, least they're most are alert .

I have roadcraft dvd, I checked out the vid and links earlier and he seems entertaining. esp when some vids are quite dated. Its awesome seeing some of those cars on the road again , then makes you realise ah, so someone has already figured out how to drive properly donkey years ago... whats wrong with society now? (lost in translation)

I'll take that as you stating that you are the perfect driver, despite a body of evidence including the Police service driving school at Hendon disagreeing with your view, since you've directly ignored my request that you try to think rather than blindly repeating a mantra, and do something more productive with my time.

Erm, you must have missed my earlier post...

I don't pretend I'm the perfect driver...

You don't need to indicate unless necessary end of story

I don't recall this being disputed?

Its DSA, IAM and any other professionals body stance on it.

Again, I don't think anyone disagrees?

I don't need to indicate when there are no cars around me as nobody will see.

It's not just cars that benefit from your indication though.

You can't see them so that means they can't see you?

I don't get the 360 degree argument to be honest as i can see in front, behind and any approaching junctions....why would i need 360degree vision??

But you can't see infront and behind at the same time, and what about left, right and your blind spots?

If you did have 360 degree vision then you would be able to determine for sure if there was anyone around who could benefit from your indication. As none of us do it can't be reasonably expected that you can be 100% sure that you know there is no one around who would otherwise benefit.

I've never said an indication is necessary in each and every situation. I agree pulling back into lane 1 from lane 2 doesn't warrant a signal, but trying to get back to the OP if there was ever an example where it could be of benefit its when merging into traffic from a slip road. The fact that the OP felt it was necessary to start a thread on it would suggest to me he feels he would have benefitted if the merging car had indicated.