+1

The law states that the person on the dual carriageway has right of way. This right of way shouldn't be confused with bloody mindlessness though.

Under general advice in the highway code it states that you should:

"try to be understanding if other road users cause problems; they may be inexperienced or not know the area well

be patient; remember that anyone can make a mistake

not allow yourself to become agitated or involved if someone is behaving badly on the road. This will only make the situation worse. Pull over, calm down and, when you feel relaxed, continue your journey"

So, as I think the OP has realised there was a better safer way of dealing with that situation. Perhaps the slip road driver was annoyed at this lack of courtesy towards him even though technically it was his role to adjust his speed and merge appropriately.

I can liken this situation to not letting a car out at a junction. Sure it's our right of way, we don't have to let them out but we do. How many of us have been annoyed that someone has sat in front of us blocking our exit onto a road. I for one.

iPhone using Tapatalk

The OP missed one very important detail.

Was the merging vehicle indicating his intention to join the dual carriageway?

I see the effort of turning on your indicator as an indication to other road users that you are aware of your surroundings and wish to pull out into an occupied piece of road. I return the favor and pull into lane two.

Can't be bothered to indicate? Then I can't be bothered to pull over to let you merge.

I haven't read all the other replies but the driver of the car joining the carriageway was 100% at fault, the broken lines running along the end of the slip road whare it joins the carriageway are GIVE WAY lines so although he may have thought 'ill' of you for not moving over , other than good manners you had absolutely no need to alter speed, course or lane, it was up to numpty head to do that.

The OP missed one very important detail.

Was the merging vehicle indicating his intention to join the dual carriageway?

Is that really a very important detail? An indication should be given where it will be of benefit - someone coming down a slip road only has one place to go so will his use of the indicator offer any new information to those already on the carriageway? Perhaps it will increase his visibility to those not paying attention?

Chris

Is that really a very important detail? An indication should be given where it will be of benefit - someone coming down a slip road only has one place to go so will his use of the indicator offer any new information to those already on the carriageway? Perhaps it will increase his visibility to those not paying attention?

Chris

An indication should always be given on a skip road to a dual-carriageway or a motorway.

Even though you do only have one exit route, you cannot be sure all other drivers on the main carriageway are aware of your presence. Due to this its a benefit of a flashing indicator to increase your visability to these road users.

Its the same given when changing lanes or overtaking, You indicate in and out even though you only have one place to go on each point of the manvouvere.

Its the same given when changing lanes or overtaking, You indicate in and out even though you only have one place to go on each point of the manvouvere.

Wrong; when making a lane change or overtaking, you have the options of changing lanes or not changing lanes.

Wrong; when making a lane change or overtaking, you have the options of changing lanes or not changing lanes.

So a single carriageway B road, you come to a car in front travelling at a slower speed, you look ahead for a safe place to overtake free of hazards. you choose you point to overtake and commit to the offside to start the manouvere, which is the only place to move. You then want to complete the manouvere so you go from offside to nearside, which again is the only option.

From what you have stated it reads to me that you wouldnt indicate any intentions when commiting to a new lane or changing your path in traffic?

An indication should always be given on a slip road to a dual-carriageway or a motorway.

According to who? What if there is no traffic around? What if the traffic will still be well behind you where you are joining?

Even though you do only have one exit route, you cannot be sure all other drivers on the main carriageway are aware of your presence. Due to this its a benefit of a flashing indicator to increase your visability to these road users.

True and I think I mentioned this, although I think there is a distinction to be made between joining free flowing traffic (where there is a suitable gap to easily slot into without needing co-operation from other vehicles) and joining where you may need to communicate your intentions to other road users (eg where I want to slot between two cars or where there is a chance a car in lane 2 may move to lane 1). In the OP's post, the OP is alert and had clocked the car early on the long slip road - he knew the car was going to join the carriageway and so had he moved to lane 2, what benefit is a signal from the car joining? He already knows that the OP is aware of him. Likewise if the OP had passed the joining point before the car from the slip road, what benefit is a signal in that case?

Its the same given when changing lanes or overtaking, You indicate in and out even though you only have one place to go on each point of the manvouvere.

I assume by "you" you're not referring to my driving because I only use my indicators when I want to signal my intention to someone How long do you leave the indicator on prior to starting the manouevre? What do you look for before starting the manouevre to know that you have successfully communicated your intentions?

Chris

So a single carriageway B road, you come to a car in front travelling at a slower speed, you look ahead for a safe place to overtake free of hazards. you choose you point to overtake and commit to the offside to start the manouvere, which is the only place to move. You then want to complete the manouvere so you go from offside to nearside, which again is the only option.

What benefit is the signal? In your example, you've already committed to the manouevre as you move offside - at what point is the target car going to see your signal and give you some form of acknowledgement that the manouevre is on? At least after the accident you can claim that you were in the right because your indicator was on

A different approach might be to position the car offside prior to committing to the manouevre, giving you a better view of the road in front of the target car, as well as the driver of the target car. You have 3 options from here, it's either on (in which case you can commit), it's not on (in which case you return nearside) or you don't know (in which case you can sit there until you know). If the driver of the target car hasn't acknowledged you, is it safe to overtake?

Chris

Edited 11 January, 201313 yr by ScoobyChris

Who ? are these drivers who read and learn the highway code and abide by these guidlines. Is it you! no i thought not.The problem is the ones that know it try to get the d...ck heads to drive the same. Best of luck with that one, driving defensibly the only way to keep your pride and joy and you in one piece, end of.

Who ? are these drivers who read and learn the highway code and abide by these guidlines. Is it you! no i thought not

You couldn't be further from the truth

Chris

So a single carriageway B road, you come to a car in front travelling at a slower speed, you look ahead for a safe place to overtake free of hazards. you choose you point to overtake and commit to the offside to start the manouvere, which is the only place to move. You then want to complete the manouvere so you go from offside to nearside, which again is the only option.

From what you have stated it reads to me that you wouldnt indicate any intentions when commiting to a new lane or changing your path in traffic?

Unless you have an active catch on and can make the lane change without having to fall in behind the slower car even briefly, there must be a point where you make the decision that you are going to pull out and accelerate. Are you seriously claiming that you can't decide to not overtake at that point? This is why you signal, to warn the vehicle that you're about to overtake of the lane change and acceleration.

Similarly, you don't have to make lane changes on multi-lane roads but can carry on indefinitely in your current lane.

Good driving and getting into a tussle are mutually exclusive. (no matter who may more right or more wrong).

Is that really a very important detail? An indication should be given where it will be of benefit - someone coming down a slip road only has one place to go so will his use of the indicator offer any new information to those already on the carriageway? Perhaps it will increase his visibility to those not paying attention?

Chris

Think sometimes it isn't clear if it is a slip road or its a slip road then into your own lane. Hence more often than not people signal.

When I know I'm going onto the dual carriageway at similar speeds as others I would signal nice and early, for the benefit of sleepy drivers. If my speeds exceeds theirs by a fair margin then occasionally I don't bother.

Unfortunately I think driving precision/advanced driving and 'benefit of the doubt' don't mix too well in this case.

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Tapatalk 2

Actually if you READ the Highway Code it state that there is no need to indicate to move back to the left.

And if you undertake advanced driver training they'll teach you to only indicate when there is someone to benefit from the signal, if you are overtaking a car and that is the only road user in sight then I would argue a signal isn't required at all as it is of no benefit to them whatsoever

To me, an indication is telling me a vehicle is in the process or just finished changing direction. So be cautious on speed differential, stability of vehicle or spacing around vehicle.

If one pulls out where there's no cars, but at the point the manouevre is 'finished' though speed is not the same as emerging car travelling at normal speeds then the car behind gets no indication of differential of speed. Except of course getting closer to the car in front. This point is where I disagree with the methodology.

Actually if you READ the Highway Code it state that there is no need to indicate to move back to the left.

And if you undertake advanced driver training they'll teach you to only indicate when there is someone to benefit from the signal, if you are overtaking a car and that is the only road user in sight then I would argue a signal isn't required at all as it is of no benefit to them whatsoever

Not sure who your referring to on the 1st bit but on the 2nd : If on mid overtake a an oncoming car comes round the bend, you still have space for the overtake however the oncoming car now thinks " car in opposite lane, why? " its not always instantly obvious the reason why and the speed differential. The indication imo gives a clearer and faster notion of what one is trying to do, spotting speed is also easier with indication on. Another example is when passing bikes, people don't bother to signal I find it really hard to spot bikes opposite as often they don't have any reflective or lights (idiots).

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Tapatalk 2

Not sure who your referring to on the 1st bit but on the 2nd : If on mid overtake a an oncoming car comes round the bend, you still have space for the overtake however the oncoming car now thinks " car in opposite lane, why? " its not always instantly obvious the reason why and the speed differential.

I'm not sure I've ever encountered someone who has been confused why a car is on the opposite lane, especially if the speed is matched/faster. My personal opinion is that an indicator doesn't really add anything - what is the oncomer going to do with the information provided? Will it cause confusion? If the information causes them to change speed or direction, perhaps the overtake wasn't on?

The only time I'd look to use a signal in that situation is to signal my intention to return to my side of the road to the oncomer if I think they will be close enough that they may wonder if I have seen them.

Chris

I'm not sure I've ever encountered someone who has been confused why a car is on the opposite lane, especially if the speed is matched/faster. My personal opinion is that an indicator doesn't really add anything - what is the oncomer going to do with the information provided? Will it cause confusion? If the information causes them to change speed or direction, perhaps the overtake wasn't on?

The only time I'd look to use a signal in that situation is to signal my intention to return to my side of the road to the oncomer if I think they will be close enough that they may wonder if I have seen them.

Chris

Opposite lane with lights on but no indication:

Parked cars, trying to beat the traffic light on a right turn, right turn, 3 point turn/u turn, avoiding hazards including ditches, bikes and pedestrians and finally an overtake.

Not all are by the law, but should those be excluded from my mind?

A signal will indicate in a process of change if direction and/or speed. May or may not interrupt oncoming traffic so it's a warning system. Obviously the driver overtaking believes it may not, but the overtaking driver may not know the emerging car maybe going faster than nsl..

I'm just saying slight confusion at worst is better than no fudge factor or communication between other drivers.

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Tapatalk 2

So your telling me that if you come round a bend to be faced in the distance by two cars travelling side by side towards you, you wouldnt realise what was going on unless the vehicle in your lane had an indication on? If the vehicle in your lane (the overtaking vehicle) was indicating right as he was pulling out and passing the other vehicle who's to say you wouldn't rightly or wrongly assume he is pulling up at the side of the road to set down or pick up passengers? The reason not to indicate unless there is specifically someone to benefit is to reduce such instances which are called signal clutter.

So your telling me that if you come round a bend to be faced in the distance by two cars travelling side by side towards you, you wouldnt realise what was going on unless the vehicle in your lane had an indication on? If the vehicle in your lane (the overtaking vehicle) was indicating right as he was pulling out and passing the other vehicle who's to say you wouldn't rightly or wrongly assume he is pulling up at the side of the road to set down or pick up passengers? The reason not to indicate unless there is specifically someone to benefit is to reduce such instances which are called signal clutter.

Hmm, no, not what I said.

Let me put it in another way. The likelihood of someone doing what you say is going to be doing something which will cause immediate danger. Just now on my journey home, 3 events where cars were on the opposite side of the road, one was parked opposite side with beams on. other two events were overtaking a car who was parked or stopping (which had lights on but neither car signalled). My point is I would not expect someone to be overtaking someone with enough time/space if they didn't signal as I would think they just swung out and more of a reaction thing. I cannot differentiate between drivers who swung out because they just reacted and 'advanced drivers who's trying to do an overtake without signalling because he/she is sure there's going to be enough space and/or there's will be no cars oncoming'. At least not initially. So in conclusion, if I did see car side by side heading towards me,of which no indication that they were going anywhere different (out of the way) I would instantly hover on the brake.

Other times I've seen cars side by side is when they're racing.. But that's more early hours of morning thing.. That, you really want to get out the way...

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Tapatalk 2

well I had a fun experience joining the motorway a few months back. car on the slip in front at m way speed, me looking in mirror and speeding up to get in to a very clear motorway, only to look ahead again to see the guy in front stationery. he thought that you stop at the junction before joining. nearly had a battered old clio hit him at 70ish. glad the brakes was the only thing that worked well on that car...

when I went to a speed awareness course, the instructor kindly pointed out I am 40% more likely to have a serious accident doing 35000 miles.

sent via Playbook and Tapatalk

I cannot differentiate between drivers who swung out because they just reacted and 'advanced drivers who's trying to do an overtake without signalling because he/she is sure there's going to be enough space and/or there's will be no cars oncoming'. At least not initially. So in conclusion, if I did see car side by side heading towards me,of which no indication that they were going anywhere different (out of the way) I would instantly hover on the brake.

I'm a bit confused by this so please forgive me if I've got the wrong end of the stick. Are you saying that you find it difficult to differentiate between the two just because of the lack on an indicator which would result in you hovering over the brake, irrespective of the distances or speeds involved? Would someone swinging out to avoid something but decided to indicate also cause confusion? Would looking further into the distance when you're driving help clarify situations as they unfolded?

I ask because it's not something I've ever encountered with anyone I've driven with/coached and it might be something worthy of exploring with them...

Chris

Look guys this is how slow speed merging is done!

The guy blocking the merging car must of had a brown trouser moment.

I'm a bit confused by this so please forgive me if I've got the wrong end of the stick.

Are you saying that you find it difficult to differentiate between the two just because of the lack on an indicator which would result in you hovering over the brake, irrespective of the distances or speeds involved?

Speeds and distances do make a difference, if I emerge from a bend and they're 100m away its unlikely they're going to affect my current progress. I am referring to examples when road is just opening up and the event happens relatively close. Though on a/b roads I tend to be little more weary as you never know in that instance how fast they're going and how much time/distance you have to play with.

Most often when you see a driver pull out or already on the my side of the road without signalling it generally means either (from my experience of driving):

(a ) accident avoidance (simply to react, no time for signal)

(b ) parking/turning without signalling (lazy)

(c ) muscling their way through a space in which only one car can fit (due to parked car with headlights on or cyclist etc etc, simply hoping/willing you to move aside or slow down to let the driver through) or,

(d ) is the driver not signalling because they think they can complete the maneuver (overtake) without the oncoming car needing to change speed

a-c I will most likely need to change my momentum at very least to give myself more time to assess the situation.

Would someone swinging out to avoid something but decided to indicate also cause confusion?

No, by signalling its telling me the driver had enough time to at least signal, hopefully looked and judged before deciding to come out. Depending on at what point I see the situation happening (ie prior or in progress) I can then judge if it was a planned reaction or erratic (by the speed and the speed of which the change in direction is performed). It will also make me look at their car width and the edge of the car and also make me ask the question "Why is he signalling? Whats on the drivers left hand side?"

Would looking further into the distance when you're driving help clarify situations as they unfolded?

Explained above.

I ask because it's not something I've ever encountered with anyone I've driven with/coached and it might be something worthy of exploring with them...

Chris

Ofc this is just how I see it, seems logical to me but please share the wisdom if I'm somewhat on the wrong pattern of thought.