Frank exchange of words with black cabbie New Topic Reply to Topic

Roos Eisma wrote:

That's odd. I was told by my driving instructor to indicate before
every significant change of direction, and changing lanes (in any
direction) certainly fell into that category.

That's a difference between 'driving tuition' and 'advanced driving
tuition'.

When you're learning to drive, it is safest to always indicate. It
won't do any harm if you indicate when you don't need to, and it saves
you from making an error of judgement about whether you need to and
failing to indicate when you should.

Advanced driving takes the premise that if there are no road users
around who will benefit from your signal, there is no point in giving
one [1]. If you indicate when there is clearly no need to, you are
deemed to not be sufficiently aware of the road around you and not
paying enough attention to notice that there is no-one nearby.

So when pulling back to the left-hand lane after overtaking another
car, there is no need to indicate, as (i) that is the correct course
of action to take, and (ii) once you are past them, you will be moving
away from them, so they won't need to take any action when you do pull
back in.

On the other hand, when pulling back into the middle lane after
overtaking, I almost invariably _do_ indicate, in case there is a car
that I haven't see in the left-hand lane.

[1] You must, of course, account for potential road users. If you
don't have a clear view all round, you should indicate in case
there is someone who is just out of sight, even if you can't see
them at the time.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

Tony Raven wrote:

Or a recognition that our awareness if fallible. Anyway you should only
be in the right lane for overtaking so what happened to the car/vehicle
just overtaken if its not around?

It's behind you and moving backwards (relative to you).

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

wrote:

That's why it's mirror, signal, manoeuvre. If it were always correct to
signal then it would be signal, mirror, manoeuvre but even the use of
signal is predicated on what is happening around you.

Nope.

It's mirror then signal then manoeuvre because that is the only way it
is safe.

First, you check that you can safely execute the manoeuvre - by
checking in your mirrors. (If you can't do so, you should wait until
after the other cars have gone - a lot of people don't seem to bother
with this though!)

When you have ascertained that it is OK to carry out the manoeuvre,
you signal your intention to other road users.
The you do it.

The MSM rule does not say that signalling is optional. It says that
you don't start to indicate until you know you are about to carry out
the manoeuvre. Don't indicate until you have checked that there are no
cars approaching that you will have to let pass - they might interpret
your signal as "I'm going" rather than "I'm waiting to go" and slam
the brakes on.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 23:30:31 +0100,
Stevie D wrote:
wrote:

That's why it's mirror, signal, manoeuvre. If it were always correct to
signal then it would be signal, mirror, manoeuvre but even the use of
signal is predicated on what is happening around you.

Nope.

It's mirror then signal then manoeuvre because that is the only way it
is safe.

First, you check that you can safely execute the manoeuvre - by
checking in your mirrors. (If you can't do so, you should wait until
after the other cars have gone - a lot of people don't seem to bother
with this though!)

When you have ascertained that it is OK to carry out the manoeuvre,
you signal your intention to other road users.
The you do it.

The MSM rule does not say that signalling is optional. It says that
you don't start to indicate until you know you are about to carry out
the manoeuvre. Don't indicate until you have checked that there are no
cars approaching that you will have to let pass - they might interpret
your signal as "I'm going" rather than "I'm waiting to go" and slam
the brakes on.


Isn't that exactly what I said?

Tim.


--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

Tim Woodall wrote:

The MSM rule does not say that signalling is optional. It says that
you don't start to indicate until you know you are about to carry out
the manoeuvre. Don't indicate until you have checked that there are no
cars approaching that you will have to let pass - they might interpret
your signal as "I'm going" rather than "I'm waiting to go" and slam
the brakes on.


Isn't that exactly what I said?

You said that 'MSM' means that signalling is optional - depending on
what you see in your mirrors. I don't think it does - you always
signal, but only once you have checked in your mirrors that it is
safe.

Not that I necessarily agree with that - if there is no need to
signal, I don't - but I don't think this would be a good way to teach
new drivers, and maybe not new cyclists.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

Stevie D wrote on 05/08/2006 23:25 +0100:
Tony Raven wrote:

Or a recognition that our awareness if fallible. Anyway you should only
be in the right lane for overtaking so what happened to the car/vehicle
just overtaken if its not around?

It's behind you and moving backwards (relative to you).


Are you sure? Not often, but frequently enough, some drivers see being
overtaken as a challenge to their masculinity and put their foot down to
try and re-pass on the inside.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006, Stevie D wrote:
Tim Woodall wrote:

Isn't that exactly what I said?

You said that 'MSM' means that signalling is optional - depending on
what you see in your mirrors.

No he didn't. He said that MSM means that sometimes you don't SM -
depending on what you see in your mirrors.

I don't think it does - you always signal,

Of course you don't. If you're not going to manoeuvre you don't
signal.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On 06/08/2006 16:28, Tony Raven said,

Are you sure? Not often, but frequently enough, some drivers see being
overtaken as a challenge to their masculinity and put their foot down to
try and re-pass on the inside.

That's extremely infuriating when people do that. Especially when you
have timed the overtaking to ensure you have sufficient time to pull
back in so that the cars coming up behind have a clear run - except they
haven't because the arsehole you have just passed has accelerated to
match or exceed your speed and you're still out. You drop in behind
them, then they slow back down again. AAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Tony Raven wrote:

Are you sure? Not often, but frequently enough, some drivers see
being overtaken as a challenge to their masculinity and put their foot
down to try and re-pass on the inside.

IMX it's very rare. Obviously you will check your mirrors before
pulling back in, and if the driver is being a prat in the way you
describe, you won't pull back in. If, OTOH, he is behaving normally
and continuing at the same speed as before, there is rarely a need to
indicate.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

Stevie D wrote:
Tony Raven wrote:

Are you sure? Not often, but frequently enough, some drivers see
being overtaken as a challenge to their masculinity and put their foot
down to try and re-pass on the inside.

IMX it's very rare. Obviously you will check your mirrors before
pulling back in, and if the driver is being a prat in the way you
describe, you won't pull back in. If, OTOH, he is behaving normally
and continuing at the same speed as before, there is rarely a need to
indicate.

It is those who think they can just pull in irrespective of the
distance they leave. No indicating and trying to remove the front wing
as they do so. I try to ensure I leave the car in front of whom I am
about to move at least the two second gap as well as indicating
intentions. All the more reason to leave such a gap if there is surface
water or similar. (there are of course those who will pull over only to
immediately move out again.. There is a sensible compromise between
keep left at all costs and lane hogging.)

...d