If you come out of Chamberlain road and want to cross Holy corner to Colinton Rd. even if you're dead centre in the ASL, you can just feel the drivers 'expecting' you to turn, and trying to cut you off. How I wish i could signal 'straight on'. This is why I signal religiously whenever I turn -- in vain hopes that if everyone did that, cars would realize that not signalling means I am going straight, and likelihood of me being splatted in the intersection might decrease.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
Indicating / signalling
(67 posts)-
Posted 14 years ago #
-
A better idea than not signalling might be to give whichever signal 'blocks' at that particular layout. I can't say I'm up that way often but there's a left and right lane there at Holy Cross, I think?
Have you tried either riding way to the right of the left lane but with your left arm out, or more towards the left (not so much that people can squeeze past) with your right arm out?
There should be a combination that works, might require a little experimentation though.
Posted 14 years ago # -
Gee. Silly me. I thought signalling was about communicating with other cyclists/drivers, not messing with their heads.
Posted 14 years ago # -
Dave, at Chamberlain Rd it's a left/straight on lane and a right-only lane. SRD, maybe the best technique is to stay fairly wide as you go through the junction onto Colinton Rd, and only ceding primary position once you get past the chiropractor and the joiners. I'd probably not signal at all while waiting in the ASL box, but like you, occupy the middle of it or just to the left of the middle.
Signalwise it's more straightforward turning right out of Colinton Rd onto Morningside Rd, but unlike Craiglockhart Ave to Colinton Rd there's no right filter, so you get about two vehicles through per phase, and it's so narrow that sometimes the ASL box is inaccessible on a bike.
Posted 14 years ago # -
Arellcat - this is exactly what I do, but the oncoming traffic (turning right down Morningside rd) is always edging forward, and the traffic behind would dearly love to overtake (esp if turning left).
The intersection is not a perfect cross as can be seen here, so there is always an element of dodge-ball and second-guessing in both directions.
Not a safe place for gully-huggers!
Posted 14 years ago # -
If there's no cars or pedestrians around, I don't bother signalling.
If there are, then I do signal.
Common courtesy.
Posted 14 years ago # -
Gee. Silly me. I thought signalling was about communicating with other cyclists/drivers, not messing with their heads.
Whatever makes you think that messing with people's heads isn't communicating with them? :)
On a serious note, there is often a fundamental tension between doing what is safe, and what is "right". In this instance, needlessly indicating left in a left-turn lane (or indicating right to go straight on) are both in the grey zone.
Yet, what is the purpose of signalling if not to make other road users aware that you are going to manouvre and would like not to be smeared on their bonnet?
Posted 14 years ago # -
"but the oncoming traffic (turning right down Morningside rd) is always edging forward"
This is an unusual junction in that it's fairly easy for the first couple of cars in the queue to turn right before the traffic approaching from the opposite side gets onto the junction.
I tend to think that some drivers get a bit twitchy here if they think that someone in front of them (e.g. a cyclist) might stop them from doing this. However I usually find that the cars don't catch me until almost the Churhhill Theatre.Posted 14 years ago # -
A signal I got wrong on my cycling proficiency test was "What does it mean when a driver at a junction places the palm of the left hand flat against their windscreen?"
I said "Saying hello". I was quite young.Holy Corner is a nightmare, I try and pre-empt the lights changing (more when the green man goes off than when the traffic light changes) and get ahead of the traffic before they lift the clutch (keeping an eye out for vehicles jumping the red light Mornigside-Bruntsfield way of course).
Posted 14 years ago # -
"I try and pre-empt the lights changing"
Yep my strategy there (and places like turning right Bridges/Chambers St.)
Probably illegal, 'gives cyclists a bad name' - seems safer, but maybe means 'I'm in too much of a hurry to be "normal traffic"'.
Posted 14 years ago # -
"I try and pre-empt the lights changing"
It really is the only thing to do. I try not to go on red, but right after.
At the not dissimilar intersection of Tarvit/Home - going across to Gilmour Place, there is really no time lag between the lights going red, and a green to cross.
Had someone walk out in front of me on the Tarvit rd side (i had green light) last week, dodged them (just) and then while I was in the intersection it went yellow. Then had 5 or 6 people try to cross on the Gilmour place side (they did not have a green man). I barrelled into the middle of them (shouting, slamming brakes on), and ended up hitting one. Not nice and they claimed it was my fault, even though they were crossing against the light??!! Not sure what else I could have done. If I stopped in the middle of Home St, I would have been hit by cars going North-South, not that there was time to think about that.
Posted 14 years ago # -
You should have rung your bell? ;-)
Sometimes people just end up getting hit. When I was a student I ended up bloody in the road after I hit a child who stepped out in front of me. Naturally I didn't get much sympathy even though I was basically toddling along minding my own business in Patrick's Sq when it happened (not very fast in those days!).
The kid jumped up, shouted, "sorry mister" and scarpered, leaving me to nurse a chipped elbow (the most painful thing I've ever experienced!).
Probably if it happened now the EEN would enjoy reporting the speeding pavement cyclist who jumped red lights, scythed down children (while screaming "get out of the way, I'm not stopping"). And I didn't have a headcam to prove otherwise back then either ;-)
Posted 14 years ago # -
I can't speak for the IAM but when I took my training signalling was not optional!
If there is no-one around to see your signal, then there is no need to signal, if there are other road users to see the signal then it is courteous and sensible to signal clearly your intentions using standard signals, and it is what is instructed in the highway code.
QED, signal, use the standard signals, and you are communicating your intentions to other road users in the most efficient manner. Anything else at best runs the risk of confusing other road users or at worst causing them to mis-interpret your signal in a dangerous way.
Posted 14 years ago # -
If there is no-one around to see your signal, then there is no need to signal
This is the controversial bit, as it seems to imply that the driver should indicate only if they have noticed someone who could benefit (but as we know, the average motorist can barely handle the contents of their own lane, never mind what is all around them).
However in practice I don't disagree as I follow this exactly when I'm driving myself (bit hypocritical otherwise!)
We should bear in mind, of course, that motorists can signal without having to hang one arm out of the window. If they signalled as we do, I think a lot of road safety advise would change to signal only when necessary, rather than merely because it is "courteous or polite".
It is interesting that the government's own cycle training manual advises not signalling in certain circumstances (but relevantly, signalling left in particular). The HC wouldn't seem to agree - although I can't recall if it says anything about taking your hands off the bars while manouvreing?
Posted 14 years ago # -
Signal, brake, maneouvre. Choose any two.
Posted 14 years ago # -
At the risk of generating great venom from the speedsters, I am inclined to say that if you can't do all three, you're probably travelling too fast for your bike/terrain.
Personally, I do them in sequence rather than all at the same time!
Posted 14 years ago # -
On good roads I would agree but add cobbles, gravel, potholes etc. and I would hesitate to brake, indicate and turn at the same time. I've certainly stopped the traffic coming off while trying to do just that and not at speed either. Like you say Smudge, if there's no-one around why do it. I was asked that by the examiner when I was sitting my mini-bus driving test at CEC so I guess it must be considered good practice somewhere. Personally, I try to signal as much as I can but if something has to give then I'll not signal if it means putting myself at risk unless it means putting someone else at greater risk e.g. turning left into a side street with pedestrians trying to cross. That would be pretty nasty.
Posted 14 years ago # -
"unless it means putting someone else at greater risk e.g. turning left into a side street with pedestrians trying to cross"
They have right of way (though most don't realise - or expect traffic to stop), so signalling might suggest that you intend to 'go through them'(?)
Posted 14 years ago # -
"They have right of way (though most don't realise - or expect traffic to stop), so signalling might suggest that you intend to 'go through them'(?)"
Yes, I'd forgotten that. Oops.Posted 14 years ago # -
"Yes, I'd forgotten that"
most people do...
The trouble is it's not easy to deal with (especially turning right)- having to stop in the road you are turning from.
Posted 14 years ago # -
We've spent 15 years trying to figure out if pedestrians have have right of way or not.
Coming from Canada, where pedestrians always have right of way, as long as they are at a junction, this has always seemed a bit odd.
But, have now looked at online highway code (thanks for the link Kim) which says "If you have started crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, you have priority and they should give way" (see also 170). So, I guess the answer is that pedestrians do not have right of way, unless they are already in the road.
Posted 14 years ago # -
"So, I guess the answer is that pedestrians do not have right of way, unless they are already in the road"
Well yes, but some drivers still think you shouldn't cross if it slows them down!
It's certainly not like (some parts) of US (and presumably Canada) where you can just stand on the edge of the pavement and cars stop!
Posted 14 years ago # -
@Dave "If there is no-one around to see your signal, then there is no need to signal
This is the controversial bit, as it seems to imply that the driver should indicate only if they have noticed someone who could benefit (but as we know, the average motorist can barely handle the contents of their own lane, never mind what is all around them). "
It is not controversial, it is the standard teaching on Advanced Driving courses, you have to remember the driver have a Legal duty to drive with due care and attention, and drive reasonable consideration for other road users see HC Rule 144. Just because the law is not being enforced doesn't mean that it is not there.
As for "taking your hands off the bars while manouvreing" HC Rule 66 keep both hands on the handlebars except when signalling or changing gear. In general the HC is very badly written where it deals directly with cyclist and is badly in need of revision.
Posted 14 years ago # -
"In general the HC is very badly written where it deals directly with cyclist and is badly in need of revision."
Thought that was done a couple of years ago with a (successful) campaign to stop some of the proposals.
(I'm not disagreeing that it could be better!)
Posted 14 years ago # -
It is not controversial, it is the standard teaching on Advanced Driving courses, you have to remember the driver have a Legal duty to drive with due care and attention, and drive reasonable consideration for other road users see HC Rule 144. Just because the law is not being enforced doesn't mean that it is not there.
Just because it's taught doesn't make it uncontroversial. Take for example the way that so many people ride around the very edge of roundabouts* - but it's not called the zone of death for nothing.
However, I don't quite follow your point as a whole. The reason people find it dodgy that drivers are advised not to signal is precisely because so many (all?) drivers sometimes (often/always?) fall below the standards we might wish for.
Here's the nub: I don't want bus drivers to be squinting in their mirrors trying to judge how fast I'm going to decide whether or not to indicate before pulling out. I just want them to indicate before doing so (and let me worry about whether they're indicating unnecessarily soon!).
I once asked an advanced driving instructor whether he would support manually-activated brake lights which the driver could switch on "only if it was of benefit to another road user" at which point he changed the subject!
* this is a bad example because the HC actually warns you against doing so, but seems widely misunderstood.
As for "taking your hands off the bars while manouvreing" HC Rule 66 keep both hands on the handlebars except when signalling or changing gear. In general the HC is very badly written where it deals directly with cyclist and is badly in need of revision.
Quite, as we can well imagine a situation where cyclists must choose between signalling and retaining good control of their bike (if you don't think this is common, we can hold a trial on the cobbles next to our office, which are bad enough that I go around three sides of a square to avoid them).
The HC is pretty rubbish. If you ride with panniers your pedal reflectors are not "plainly visible from the rear", being obscured for much of the time and so you could get a ticket. Irrespective of how much better your lights might be than the "scrape the barrel" standard.
Posted 14 years ago # -
"If you ride with panniers your pedal reflectors are not "plainly visible from the rear", being obscured for much of the time and so you could get a ticket."
This is back to the difference between the HC and the law.
Posted 14 years ago # -
Of course if you ride with clipless pedals (as I do) then it's likely you won't even have pedal reflectors. I always thought it was an odd legal requirement given I've got a VERY bright light on the back, a smaller backup one flashing, and reflective strips all over the back of my jacket (and even a flashing light in that if I really wanted) - but I could still be done for not having pedal reflectors.
Posted 14 years ago # -
"but I could still be done for not having pedal reflectors."
But COULD you?
Is this the law?
Is it one which 'only applies to bikes made after 19??'?
Posted 14 years ago # -
'ang on, I'll dig it out - yip, tis the law.
Posted 14 years ago # -
Yeah, it's from the RVLR (whichever year) which is the authority behind those bits of "MUST" in the HC.
Posted 14 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
