Comedic "things you would ban": minor things that irritate you

[Domh245]

which poses the theoretical question - if there is no one to see you indicate, does it matter ?

Yes! Because there's a non-zero chance that there is someone there, and you've failed to see them!

 

[ABB125]

which poses the theoretical question - if there is no one to see you indicate, does it matter ?

I'd say that generally you should still indicate, as it's rather rare for there to be no other traffic around (unless you're on the M45, or in the middle of the night).

 

[Busaholic]

I'd say that generally you should still indicate, as it's rather rare for there to be no other traffic around (unless you're on the M45, or in the middle of the night).

Logically, you'd have no need to be changing lanes if there's no other traffic on the road.

 

[py_megapixel]

Logically, you'd have no need to be changing lanes if there's no other traffic on the road.

Perhaps if you're avoiding some obstruction in the left lane?

 

[gg1]

Perhaps if you're avoiding some obstruction in the left lane?

Or joining/leaving a filter lane.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'd say that generally you should still indicate, as it's rather rare for there to be no other traffic around (unless you're on the M45, or in the middle of the night).

as it happens it was the M45 I was thinking about - having travelled on it at 9pm Friday night with no other vehicles in sight.

Logically, you'd have no need to be changing lanes if there's no other traffic on the road.

I was taking a slightly shorter route around a right hand bend - at current diesel prices I reckon it saved me 0.1p

 

[Mcr Warrior]

I was taking a slightly shorter route around a right hand bend - at current diesel prices I reckon it saved me 0.1p

That old excuse for inappropriate motorway lane discipline!

 

[Busaholic]

Perhaps if you're avoiding some obstruction in the left lane?

No need to indicate to the badger that you're trying to avoid hitting them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

which poses the theoretical question - if there is no one to see you indicate, does it matter ?

Certainly it was taught in the 90s only to indicate if someone could benefit from it, but I have never understood that as doing so is no effort and someone you didn't see might benefit from it.

 

[py_megapixel]

Certainly it was taught in the 90s only to indicate if someone could benefit from it, but I have never understood that as doing so is no effort and someone you didn't see might benefit from it.

I suppose a possible reason is that indicating unnecessarily can sometimes cause confusion, but there are many more cases where not doing so causes confusion, so doing so should be the default.

For example, if you're about to turn into a side road, and there are no other vehicles around but there is someone on the pavement in your blind spot, then if you follow the "indicate only if you can see benefit" idea then you wouldn't indicate and the pedestrian would be likely to assume you are continuing straight-on; they may proceed cross the side road, with an ensuing very nasty collision. Whereas, if you had indicated, it may have occurred to the pedestrian that you hadn't seen them, reducing the risk.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Certainly it was taught in the 90s only to indicate if someone could benefit from it, but I have never understood that as doing so is no effort and someone you didn't see might benefit from it.

Better for indicating to become part of the process, so it becomes instinctive... then you're less likely to forget to do it when it does matter. At least that's how my instructor taught me back in 2001.

 

[Busaholic]

Better for indicating to become part of the process, so it becomes instinctive... then you're less likely to forget to do it when it does matter. At least that's how my instructor taught me back in 2001.

In the original addition of 'Roadcraft' the process you describe above was most definitely part of what might be described as Advance Driving, only for the requirement to be watered down in later editions, or at least to become more equivocal. In my opinion this was a mistake which it is probably too late to rectify now. I recollect seeing a video of a police officer upbraiding trainee police advanced drivers when they were driving at high speeds on motorways for 'over indicating' which struck me as ridiculous, if not actually 'criminal.' What harm can follow so long as there is no doubt as to your intentions? In forty years driving of my own and company cars I've only ever made one insurance claim, when my parked car was written off by a drunken driver, but if I'd adopted the newer attitude I suspect I might have made more claims, assuming I was still alive to make them.

 

[Gloster]

Better for indicating to become part of the process, so it becomes instinctive... then you're less likely to forget to do it when it does matter. At least that's how my instructor taught me back in 2001.

Exactly. I always do it as it and, although I can’t remember for certain, I think that is what I was taught in 1982. If it isn’t automatic, one day you will forget in a situation when you should have. I do still forget occasionally, but that is from being out of practice, and those occasions seem to be reducing in number. I never forget that I am in charge of half a ton of metal that could do serious damage to the human frame.

 

[xotGD]

It's the people still indicating right as they exit a roundabout that I have a problem with.

 

[Bald Rick]

I recollect seeing a video of a police officer upbraiding trainee police advanced drivers when they were driving at high speeds on motorways for 'over indicating' which struck me as ridiculous, if not actually 'criminal.'

the principle being that if you are driving at high speed on a motorway, you (obviously) need to concentrate on the traffic around you and particularly in front. What’s behind doesn’t matter, and you’re coming up on traffic so quickly they are unlikely to see yo7 indicate anyway. You need complete focus on the driving, and any superfluous activity could potentially distract you.

at least that’s what my Police A1 qualified driving uncle told me 30 years ago when he taught me how to drive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's the people still indicating right as they exit a roundabout that I have a problem with.

That is actively confusing with one exception - on a mini roundabout, you are supposed to indicate as if it were not there.

 

[gg1]

Special offer spam from companies where they claim an offer is "just for you", when it is in fact open to anyone.

eBay are especially fond of them.

 

[DelW]

Special offer spam from companies where they claim an offer is "just for you", when it is in fact open to anyone.

eBay are especially fond of them.

I like the idea of special offer Spam, I wouldn't ban it ... sliced and fried and served with baked beans and fried potatoes, yummy!

(I do agree with what you're actually complaining about, by the way).

 

[61653 HTAFC]

That is actively confusing with one exception - on a mini roundabout, you are supposed to indicate as if it were not there.

Let's just ban mini roundabouts. They're largely pointless, often ignored, and if a junction is busy enough to need one it's probably too busy for one. Certain councils seem obsessed with them though (cough cough Calderdale).

 

[Busaholic]

the principle being that if you are driving at high speed on a motorway, you (obviously) need to concentrate on the traffic around you and particularly in front. What’s behind doesn’t matter, and you’re coming up on traffic so quickly they are unlikely to see yo7 indicate anyway. You need complete focus on the driving, and any superfluous activity could potentially distract you.

at least that’s what my Police A1 qualified driving uncle told me 30 years ago when he taught me how to drive.

So the basic principle of 'mirror, indicate, manoeuvre' gets ditched? What you're talking about is obviously based on the car already being in the outside lane and is presuming it's the fastest vehicle travelling in one direction in the vicinity. It's also based on the car in question being fitted with blue lights and a siren. Not too many of us that applies to!

 

[Bald Rick]

What you're talking about is obviously based on the car already being in the outside lane and is presuming it's the fastest vehicle travelling in one direction in the vicinity. It's also based on the car in question being fitted with blue lights and a siren. Not too many of us that applies to!

correct - I was responding to a post about advanced police driving.

 

[BanburyBlue]

Retail websites, that after entering a search term, list the items in terms of 'relevance'. Relevance to what? I've just put in 'kettle' so I would hope all responses would be relevant to 'kettle'. I'm guessing what it really means is the most relevant are the ones the shop want to sell first?

 

[WelshBluebird]

which poses the theoretical question - if there is no one to see you indicate, does it matter ?

Yes because:
1 - You may not be correct in thinking nobody else is there!
2 - Not doing it often runs the risk of getting you in a bad habit of not doing it, leading to a greater chance of not doing it when you really do need to be!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jun 2022 ==

Retail websites, that after entering a search term, list the items in terms of 'relevance'. Relevance to what? I've just put in 'kettle' so I would hope all responses would be relevant to 'kettle'. I'm guessing what it really means is the most relevant are the ones the shop want to sell first?

But the term "kettle" can match a variety of things. I am assuming you mean a kettle to boil water, but you could also be searching for a drum, or some crisps, or something about birds or some weights etc etc. If you didn't order that by some kind of relevance score, you'd likely be even more annoyed at the order of the items!!

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes because:
1 - You may not be correct in thinking nobody else is there!
2 - Not doing it often runs the risk of getting you in a bad habit of not doing it, leading to a greater chance of not doing it when you really do need to be!

1) but what if I’m absolutely sure? Ie it’s dark, there’s nothing in front of you, you are certain that nothing has come up behind as there have been no lights, and then you do a full scan of mirrors etc.?
2) is a fair reason.

 

[Gloster]

1) but what if I’m absolutely sure? Ie it’s dark, there’s nothing in front of you, you are certain that nothing has come up behind as there have been no lights, and then you do a full scan of mirrors etc.?

What about a pedestrian? Don’t they deserve to have some warning?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

1) but what if I’m absolutely sure? Ie it’s dark, there’s nothing in front of you, you are certain that nothing has come up behind as there have been no lights, and then you do a full scan of mirrors etc.?
2) is a fair reason.

Re: 1) while you've been establishing that there's definitely nobody who needs to see your signal, you could have signalled, checked your blind-spots, and completed the manoeuvre. The whole "do I need to signal?" question is unnecessary if signalling is an instinctive part of the process. It's not as if it takes much effort to flick your indicator stalk.

 

[Bletchleyite]

the principle being that if you are driving at high speed on a motorway, you (obviously) need to concentrate on the traffic around you and particularly in front. What’s behind doesn’t matter, and you’re coming up on traffic so quickly they are unlikely to see yo7 indicate anyway. You need complete focus on the driving, and any superfluous activity could potentially distract you.

at least that’s what my Police A1 qualified driving uncle told me 30 years ago when he taught me how to drive.

correct - I was responding to a post about advanced police driving.

Yes, though I hope your Uncle also told you "this is what we do in the Police when doing pursuits, but unless you also join the emergency services you must never drive like this".

 

[Mcr Warrior]

1) but what if I’m absolutely sure? Ie it’s dark, there’s nothing in front of you, you are certain that nothing has come up behind as there have been no lights, and then you do a full scan of mirrors etc.?

And then you biff into the adjacent vehicle whose lights aren't properly on. Loads of folk pootling around on the road network at night with lights that aren't working.

What about a pedestrian? Don’t they deserve to have some warning?

What pedestrians? Aren't we still talking about motorway driving similar to 'Mr. Magoo' in this somewhat less than educational "Not the Highway Code" discussion?

 

[Richard Scott]

Let's just ban mini roundabouts. They're largely pointless, often ignored, and if a junction is busy enough to need one it's probably too busy for one. Certain councils seem obsessed with them though (cough cough Calderdale).

Whilst on subject of roundabouts, why are traffic lights needed on some roundabouts 24 hours a day, why can't they be turned off outside peak periods? Pointless.
The other moan is fog lights, why do a number of people drive around with front fog lights on, they make no difference in normal conditions? Also those that put rear fog lights on in slightest patch of fog where visibility is still good? Even more ridiculous those that have fog lights on then still do 80mph on motorway? If visibility is so poor fog lights are required then 80mph is far too fast!!

 

[Gloster]

Whilst on subject of roundabouts, why are traffic lights needed on some roundabouts 24 hours a day, why can't they be turned off outside peak periods? Pointless.

Because many drivers are stupid, and even the not so stupid shouldn’t be confused unnecessarily. If the lights are always operating, then people know that and obey them. If sometimes they are and sometimes they aren’t, you will get people going straight through them (or into the back of a car that is waiting for them to change).