Page 3 of 4
Re: Smee's test - specifics
Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2016 10:37 pm
by hir
fungus wrote:... Similarly when joining a motorway, is a signal really necessary? It's obvious that your joining the carriageway, your not going to crash through the Armco barrier, are you?
I would always signal to change lane, except possibly moving back from lane two into lane one.
Is there an inconsistency here? Joining lane 1 of a motorway from the on-slip can be considered a change of lane - for which you say you wouldn't necessarily signal. However, you then say that you... "would always signal to change lane".
I think it's sometimes beneficial for drivers in lane 1 of a motorway who are approaching an on-slip, to see a right-hand, lane changing signal from a joining vehicle up ahead, if for no other reason than to wake them out of their stupor and make them aware that there is a vehicle joining the motorway which will shortly be in "their" lane.
Re: Smee's test - specifics
Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2016 8:09 am
by GTR1400MAN
Ah yes, the early 'wake them up' signal when on the joining slip. I do this. Always a debate generator. If the slip is visible to lane one drivers then I tend to get the signal on nice and early, rather than wait until I'm about to move right into lane 1.
Re: Smee's test - specifics
Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2016 11:01 am
by Astraist
Yes, it's just using the signals to produce conspiciousness during a maneuver. Following the same logic, if I'm pulled at a queue for a right or left turn I'd also keep the signal on until a car comes up behind me.
I don't signal at a certain amount of yards or feet ahead of the action - I much rather think in terms of time. I generally signal between two to four seconds ahead of the action.
If the signal isn't meaningfull to anyone (even for purposes of conspiciousness) or if there isn't anyone around to see it, I still rather provide a very brief signal. Some cars allow that by a quick tug on the control.
Re: Smee's test - specifics
Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2016 11:58 am
by Rolyan
Astraist wrote:If the signal isn't meaningfull to anyone (even for purposes of conspiciousness) or if there isn't anyone around to see it, I still rather provide a very brief signal.
Why?
Re: Smee's test - specifics
Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2016 12:49 pm
by devonutopia
I'm one of those people who is a fairly habitual right indicator on early on slip roads type - at least when it's looking relatively busy. At night and early mornings I won't unless I've already checked and nothing is on the carriageway at all (A rarity on the M5 in Devon in the summer...)
But in essence my general rule is - if someone is there to see me, and me putting on a signal is beneficial, no matter how trivially beneficial, it will be done.
Re: Smee's test - specifics
Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2016 1:26 pm
by Smeeagain
GTR1400MAN wrote:Ah yes, the early 'wake them up' signal when on the joining slip. I do this. Always a debate generator. If the slip is visible to lane one drivers then I tend to get the signal on nice and early, rather than wait until I'm about to move right into lane 1.
I do this too and I like the 'wake them up' concept, but ......surely the sole purpose of the joining slip is to join..... it's not like we're there to park, get the car washed by east european ladies and gentlemen (other ethnicities are available) or even have a picnic, so why do we indicate, or indeed need to... ?
Smee
Re: Smee's test - specifics
Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2016 1:26 pm
by Smeeagain
Smeeagain wrote:GTR1400MAN wrote:Ah yes, the early 'wake them up' signal when on the joining slip. I do this. Always a debate generator. If the slip is visible to lane one drivers then I tend to get the signal on nice and early, rather than wait until I'm about to move right into lane 1.
I do this too and I like the 'wake them up' concept, but ......surely the sole purpose of the joining slip is to join..... it's not like we're there to park, get the car washed by east european ladies and gentlemen (other ethnicities are available) or even have a picnic, so why do we indicate, or indeed need to... ?
Apologies if that sounds in any way flippant - it's not meant to at all.
Smee
Re: Smee's test - specifics
Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2016 1:51 pm
by akirk
Smeeagain wrote:so why do we indicate, or indeed need to... ?
Smee
Have you seen the way others drive?
If all other motorists were awake / intelligent / thoughtful / observant / etc. then there should be no issue...
as they are not it becomes necessary!
Alasdair
Re: Smee's test - specifics
Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2016 2:44 pm
by Horse
Rolyan wrote:Astraist wrote:If the signal isn't meaningfull to anyone (even for purposes of conspiciousness) or if there isn't anyone around to see it, I still rather provide a very brief signal.
Why?
Perhaps add " . . . or in circumstances where someone could arrive, who might find the signal beneficial"?
Re: Smee's test - specifics
Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2016 5:12 pm
by hir
Smeeagain wrote:
I do this too and I like the 'wake them up' concept, but ......surely the sole purpose of the joining slip is to join..... it's not like we're there to park, get the car washed by east european ladies and gentlemen (other ethnicities are available) or even have a picnic, so why do we indicate, or indeed need to... ?
Smee
Why do we signal?
I think you've already answered that question.
It's...
pour encourager les autres to wake up and take notice that you're there, in front of them, and pretty soon you're going to be in their lane!
