So annoyinmg

Quite.

Ah, another good (bad) one.

If you are new to that area you either have to commit to that lane a go wherever it then takes you or hold back a bit (so as to indicate you aren't trying to take advantage) and hope someone let's you in.

Then you see those who *regularly* take advantage of others by diving into a motorway exit at the last minute, after 'jumping' maybe half a mile of traffic, or those cutting up access roads to push in further ahead.

The worst I've seen for a long time was just a few days ago when a builders van went down the outside of a long row of queuing traffic (past us and on the wrong side of the road) to turn right into a shed carpark. I said to the Mrs, 'I bet he'll be out again in a second' (even though the place was open), and he was, only to push back into the queue again. I placed that bet because only someone looking to jump the queue would overtake that much queuing traffic in the first place.

The only other thing that stops me doing something in those circumstances (other than common sense) is the knowledge that they will get their uppance somewhere else at some time.

Cheers, T i m

Reply to
T i m
Loading thread data ...

It's not pecking order but an "as well" or also. Highlighting that signals are needed not just for other vehicles, or bikes, or horse riders but to inform peds as well.

Reply to
Peter Hill

OTOH, anything that gets more people indicating, instead of just not being arsed to, has to be a good thing :-)

Reply to
Dan S. MacAbre

I think we were always advised to check that the road is 'clear'.

formatting link
"Before moving off you should

use all mirrors to check the road is clear look round to check the blind spots (the areas you are unable to see in the mirrors) signal if necessary before moving out"

... and to indicate right in a filter lane ...

"only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so"

Reply to
Nick Finnigan

Yup, that last bit is the 'you shouldn't be pulling away if something is there to indicate to'. ;-)

Sure, but that's not "pulling away from the kerb". ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Reply to
T i m

you should always signal, that way you keep the habit of signalling.

Reply to
critcher

Not true at all. A car signal is worth diddly squat to a pedestrian. They have no obligation to understand what the signal means at all. They might also be partially sighted or mentally incapable of understanding a signal.

If there is no one around, then a

Reply to
Tom

Wrong.

True.

Also true.

That doesn't mean that it means diddly squat to the vast majority of pedestrians. Many pedestrians are also motorists and understand full well the meaning of signals. Clearly you assertion that "A car signal is worth diddly squat to a pedestrian" is wrong for a great many pedestrians. The important thing is that the information conveyed by a signal *might* be useful to a pedestrian consequently it's worth making.

Tim

Reply to
Tim+

Yes, and whilst there are plenty of FW 4WD drivers around, there are few FW pedestrians around, they are mostly dead.

Reply to
Gordon H

It is only when I get out of my car that I really appreciate how dangerous it is to be a pedestrian, especially when trying to cross a side road.

Reply to
Gordon H

I think it should be part of the driving test(s) that you spend a day on a cycle or even on a moped (given that most of us are already pedestrians), and even towing a trailer.

As a lad I used to cycle everywhere, including to school and youth hostel trips and therefore learned what it's like to be a cyclist amongst cars and lorries. Then I moved onto a moped and so learned the new problems that riders of such have to deal with (possibly greater than that of a cyclist and the speed differentials between you and cars aren't as large as with most solo cycles). Riding a tandem brings another set of issues (again typically because the speed differential between urban traffic is less than that of a solo cycle. eg. People still 'see' a solo cycle and assume they can overtake it as easily).

Once on a motorcycle there seemed to be fewer problems because your bulk / presence was greater and you could generally keep up with the general traffic, even on the fast bits. ;-)

I guess the only other thing could be to drive a vehicle emulating how it might be for someone with a disability. Maybe 'walking a mile in their shoes' may help others realise what others have to deal with and

*may* just make them a bit more tolerant?

Cheers, T i m

Reply to
T i m
[...]

You have very unrealistic expectations of the human race.

Chris

Reply to
Chris Whelan

I suggest it should be mandatory to have held a full motorcycle licence for a year and have demonstrated riding a motorcycle several times during that period before being able to get a provisional for a car.

Clearly there should be an exception for those physically disabled to the extent that riding a motorcycle would be impossible.

Reply to
Graham J

Maybe for a minority. However, if the majority weren't generally 'good people' I think we really would be in a very different position compared to what we have now.

Glass half full possibly ... ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Reply to
T i m

Yup, I'd agree with that. ;-)

And that there are some perfectly able bodied people out there who currently hold full car driving licences that I am convinced would never be able to ride a motorbike sufficiently well to pass the test (and I'm not talking about elderly people etc).

I think many of the problems we see in peoples driving is down to a lack of respect (but again, only by / from a minority) and a form of cowardice. The sort of people who jump queues in their cars who wouldn't dare do the same in person ... or maybe they would still do it because they don't understand (or don't care) that it's 'antisocial', and only might not do it because they knew they wouldn't be allowed to get away with it.

It's just a shame there aren't as many systems in place to catch people who clearly DGAF about anyone else on the road as easily as they can with those who find themselves trapped on a box junction or in a bus lane because they didn't realise that bit of that lane was active at that time etc.

Cheers, T i m

Reply to
T i m

I can relate to all of that, but I gave up cycling (Club, touring and Time Trialing) as I left my teens.

As for car driving, FWD as per the Mini should have eliminated the possibility of a car "going out of control", but new generations of drivers have pushed the limits and it happens quite frequently now. It happened to me, once. ;)

Then seat belts were introduced, and drivers could climb out of written-off cars without a scratch.. It happened to me. Once...

An old friend of our family used to regret that the main safety feature which would improve driving standards was never implemented, a steel spike mounted in the centre of the steering wheel.

Reply to
Gordon H
[...]

Wouldn't help everyone:

formatting link
Two things cause cars to hurt people - stupidity, and intolerance.

Although society can have some influence over the latter, the former is incurable.

Chris

Reply to
Chris Whelan

Saved. :)

True

Reply to
Gordon H

Worse, the negative / physical consequences of stupidity or possibly more accurately, inability ... are now often fixed by our medical system, stopping Darwin from doing his thing. ;-(

The steel spike thing might fix that though. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Reply to
T i m
[...]

LOL!

Chris

Reply to
Chris Whelan

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.