Is signalling a dying art?

[JohnC60]

If you want to quote from my post please do it in full so it contains my full meaning:
I said: Logically, the main purpose (some would say the only purpose) of signalling is to provide some information to other road users <snip> about your intentions so that, if necessary, they can change their speed, position or direction to avoid an accident.

Quite correct but what annoys me is on approaching a roundabout the vehicle in front is signalling right. I think good he intends to turn right, I'm going straight on. As I'm about to pass him on his left side to take the exit (he/she is after all informing me that he/she intends to turn right), the left indicator suddenly comes on and the vehicle cuts me up as it goes straight on!

That's pretty much the same as Signals warn and inform other road users, including pedestrians of your intended actions. Except I added the reason for signalling. Which is to avoid accidents that might occur if you don't signal.

Always follow the HC and NEVER EVER signal right on a roundabout unless it is your intention to do so. Please signal correctly to avoid crashes and near misses caused by incorrect signalling. (Which is worse than no signal at all).
p.s. I went on an advanced motorcycle course about 30 years ago and was thankfully taught correctly.

 

[Arfcollins]

What's the point? Yes I have seen confusion, braking and accidents from people reacting to an incorrect signal - including the signalling that we're discussing. But I could be making that up, so what value does it hold?

As I said - there's no guidance backing up what you think is a good idea and there's multiple sites showing that signalling is to show that you're turning or moving out. You were strangely quiet about those multiple sources of info.

Face it, the summary to this is that you do something that you think is a sensible thing to do, but it's not the suggested or recommended way of doing things. That's arrogance on your part.

Perhaps your greatest problem is that you're considering you (the person in the left lane going straight on) and the driver waiting to enter the roundabout, but you're not considering the person behind you or the drivers in the adjacent lane. You're so busy telling us how helpful it is to the person waiting to enter that you've forgotten anyone else exists.

One other thought - have you ever considered that the person waiting to join the roundabout might see your signal and assume that you're changing into the right hand lane of the roundabout, thus making it safe for them to join (turning left)?

You can carry on in your delusional, arrogant world where you think what you're doing is a good thing. But the reality is it's not recommended anywhere (for a good reason? Surely not) and it's confusing.

I didn't think you'd answer my questions.

 

[kedab]

i generally blat it past everyone approaching any given RAB, pull out on anyone who's on the RAB thus causing terror and confusion but leaving all vehicles stationary for fear of a collision and then i'm around the RAB in whichever lane i like and gone before anyone's got a clue what just happened and not too bothered if i frikin signaled. it's not pretty but it's effective and leaves no room for argument

 

[dodd82]

I didn't think you'd answer my questions.

And I thought you'd ignore ignore the overwhelming evidence to suggest that you're in the wrong.

But you're never wrong, are you?

 

[Arfcollins]

And I thought you'd ignore ignore the overwhelming evidence to suggest that you're in the wrong.

But you're never wrong, are you?

This will probably be my last post on the subject unless you can offer more than waffle. I haven't seen any evidence, overwhelming or otherwise, from you. What I have seen is 'it isn't in the highway code so it must be wrong/stupid/dangerous/confusing'. That isn't evidence. I have asked you for evidence of accidents resulting from this 'danger' and you refused. You said it would be a waste of time because you could just make up the example I've asked for. Well go for it then, if you can't think of a real example of right hand indicating resulting in an accident, make one up. Create a credible scenario where an accident would occur because of right hand indication on a RAB. If your scenario is believable I will happily admit my error. I think you would be pressing your luck with your suggestion that someone may pull onto a roundabout in front of another car because he thought that car was going to move into the right hand lane - that would be an accident caused by pure stupidity on the part of the driver being indicated at. Just to be absolutely clear, your example must be of an accident resulting from somone seeing the right hand indication and then doing something that results in an accident. Assume that the driver indicated at is not a stupid driver, as they would have accidents anyway.

When you've done that have a go at answering my simple questions (thrice ignored!) regarding the examples of accidents I have given. Help me to find out where I'm wrong on those too.

 

[dodd82]

This will probably be my last post on the subject unless you can offer more than waffle. I haven't seen any evidence, overwhelming or otherwise, from you. What I have seen is 'it isn't in the highway code so it must be wrong/stupid/dangerous/confusing'. That isn't evidence. I have asked you for evidence of accidents resulting from this 'danger' and you refused. You said it would be a waste of time because you could just make up the example I've asked for. Well go for it then, if you can't think of a real example of right hand indicating resulting in an accident, make one up. Create a credible scenario where an accident would occur because of right hand indication on a RAB. If your scenario is believable I will happily admit my error. I think you would be pressing your luck with your suggestion that someone may pull onto a roundabout in front of another car because he thought that car was going to move into the right hand lane - that would be an accident caused by pure stupidity on the part of the driver being indicated at. Just to be absolutely clear, your example must be of an accident resulting from somone seeing the right hand indication and then doing something that results in an accident. Assume that the driver indicated at is not a stupid driver, as they would have accidents anyway.

When you've done that have a go at answering my simple questions (thrice ignored!) regarding the examples of accidents I have given. Help me to find out where I'm wrong on those too.

You are quite incredible - I actually think you believe what you write. Deluded.

How can you claim your position is credible, when you contradict every set of guidance and advice that exists?

You're basically saying that you can do whatever you want and unless there's a specific sentence saying you shouldn't do it in the highway code, then it's fine. As I said; find me the line that says you shouldn't close your eyes and hope for the best.

What part of this does your deluded little brain not understand? Your actions go against all advice for signalling.

Have you ever wondered why that is?

Your right hand signal is telling people that you're intending to turn right or pull out... yet you do neither. But apparently that doesn't matter.

It beggars belief that you can be so arrogant to invent a reason for signalling, not featured in any guidance, and insist it's the correct thing to do.

You've made up a few irrelevant questions to make yourself feel better. Well, oh deluded one, why don't you read the reply above from the motorcyclist that explains why it's confusing or dangerous?

Here's another, which funnily enough I saw yesterday and thought of you. There's a roundabout on the A10 where two lanes of cars go straight on, as is signposted. The car in the left lane began signalling right as he entered the roundabout, and the car slightly behind to his right used his brakes. In doing so, the car coming from the right, which would have passed without issue if no braking had occurred, suddenly had to react.

All caused by the prat signalling right from the left lane when he was intending on staying in the same lane.

 

[dodd82]

This will probably be my last post on the subject unless you can offer more than waffle.

By the way - please don't write such moronic comments. I have quoted several official sources as part of my reasoning... you've quoted the 'arfcollins' book of signalling.

I think I know which of us can be accused of offering nothing more than waffle.