M
Mark Tranchant
Guest
JohnB wrote:
> Mark Tranchant wrote:
>
>>Colin Blackburn wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In the UK there are very few situations (if any?) where a motor vehicle
>>>is required to signal if there is no-one around who needs to know. Of
>>>course, many drivers fail to signal because they think peds and
>>>cyclists don't need to know but that's another matter.
>>
>
>
>>Whilst it is important that one is always aware of everyone around, I think
>>it's foolish to assume that you've definitely seen everyone who might care
>>about your signal - what about the pedestrian behind the parked car, for
>>example?
>
>
>>This technique also encourages habitual correct signalling, which can only
>>be a good thing.
>
>
> A problem with *always* signalling and instilling it into training,
> especially with young people is that it can become more important than
> reading the road and the conditions.
> It is better to emphasise just why one needs to signal.
....which includes informing the person you haven't (couldn't) see what
you're doing.
> Of course signalling should always be carried out where it may affect
> someone else but to do it *****-nilly breeds a culture of "when I signal
> i have right of way" and one much practised by many motorists :-(
Agreed. Signalling should mean "I have determined that now is a reasonable
time to make the signalled action, and I intend to manoeuvre accordingly as
soon as it is safe to do so".
Round these parts, it has a tendency to mean "here I come!".
> There are also situations where it can be positively dangerous for a
> cyclist to signal such as when turning left when there is a vehicle
> behind that is intending the same. A signal may encourage the vehicle to
> overtake just as the cyclist is also turning with disastrous and
> potentially fatal results.
True. I solve this (in all the left turns I need to make) by moving out to
prevent overtaking traffic and to give me a better line through the corner.
--
Mark.
> Mark Tranchant wrote:
>
>>Colin Blackburn wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In the UK there are very few situations (if any?) where a motor vehicle
>>>is required to signal if there is no-one around who needs to know. Of
>>>course, many drivers fail to signal because they think peds and
>>>cyclists don't need to know but that's another matter.
>>
>
>
>>Whilst it is important that one is always aware of everyone around, I think
>>it's foolish to assume that you've definitely seen everyone who might care
>>about your signal - what about the pedestrian behind the parked car, for
>>example?
>
>
>>This technique also encourages habitual correct signalling, which can only
>>be a good thing.
>
>
> A problem with *always* signalling and instilling it into training,
> especially with young people is that it can become more important than
> reading the road and the conditions.
> It is better to emphasise just why one needs to signal.
....which includes informing the person you haven't (couldn't) see what
you're doing.
> Of course signalling should always be carried out where it may affect
> someone else but to do it *****-nilly breeds a culture of "when I signal
> i have right of way" and one much practised by many motorists :-(
Agreed. Signalling should mean "I have determined that now is a reasonable
time to make the signalled action, and I intend to manoeuvre accordingly as
soon as it is safe to do so".
Round these parts, it has a tendency to mean "here I come!".
> There are also situations where it can be positively dangerous for a
> cyclist to signal such as when turning left when there is a vehicle
> behind that is intending the same. A signal may encourage the vehicle to
> overtake just as the cyclist is also turning with disastrous and
> potentially fatal results.
True. I solve this (in all the left turns I need to make) by moving out to
prevent overtaking traffic and to give me a better line through the corner.
--
Mark.