Signalling when joining the motorway
Discussion
I'm currently waiting to book my RoADAR/RoSPA test, as I have a new car being delivered this week and I want to be familiar with it first. I'm going from a Mazda 6 2.0 NA manual to a Skoda Superb 2.0 TSI DSG 220ps so it's not something I'd be comfortable just jumping into and taking a test in.
As part of this week's group drive out, we headed down the M57 before breaking off to a more rural setting. Approaching the motorway, I took the first exit from the roundabout and entered the two lane slip. Said slip has a slight superelevation camber, is on a pronounced downhill gradient, and as it was about 11am conditions were bright and clear. Being Sunday, the motorway itself was empty except for a heavy slightly ahead of us in lane one. On the slip road, about 100 metres ahead of me, was a Mokka in the nearside lane travelling at approximately 50mph and not accelerating.
Taking advantage of being 'above' the motorway I scanned around and confirmed that there was only the heavy to worry about. I did the usual mirrors/shoulder checks and moved into lane 2 of the slip and used 'firm acceleration'. My driving plan being to overtake the Mokka on the slip and slot into lane one of the motorway, well ahead of the heavy. Since the heavy is speed restricted, the slip was long and I was driving a suitably powerful motor this wasn't an issue. I remained aware that the Mokka may adjust his speed or course and had a backup plan.
As it happened things worked as planned. I sailed past the Mokka in a few seconds, noting that the HGV driver had given me eye contact and actually eased off a little rather than move to the empty lane 2. Mirrors, shoulder check, and onto the carriageway just before the slip ended. The observer said nothing but asked me to take the next exit from the motorway and to pull over by the side of the road. He told me that he wouldn't have handled things the way I did, and that in his opinion it was safer to sit behind the Mokka at 50ish, let the heavy pass, and then eventually join the motorway behind the Mokka - and to signal whilst doing so.
Bear in mind my RoSPA group isn't at all dogmatic, and things are always presented in a 'This is my way, everyone has different ideas, go out with each member and make up your own mind' sort of style. I explained that I had a perfectly good view of the road, and that it seemed foolish to lose safe progress just to sit at 50mph to suit others. Why would I indicate to join a motorway when the only vehicle on it had given me eye contact, and knew that the only way off the slip road was into lane one? I wasn't about to turn left onto the adjacent field, was I? Had the motorway been busier or the driver(s) hadn't looked at me, I'd have considered a signal just to wake up anyone half asleep in lane one before making the merge.
He agreed it was a viable alternative and that nothing was inherently wrong with my approach, but felt his way was better. He actually added that it was a very 'class one' way to drive but that it wasn't the RoSPA way (LOL). He also added that a motorbike might have been riding in lane 2, obscured alongside the heavy. My counter was that if there was a bike on the otherwise empty motorway, he'd be infinitesimally likely to be sitting alongside a heavy and matching its speed for the whole 20 seconds it took us to travel the slip and merge, and isn't that what the mirror and shoulder checks are for before merging (to ensure no new traffic has appeared, by changing their direction or speed)?
Back at the pub at the end of the session, the group's lead tutor/ADI agreed that if I didn't signal off a motorway slip on test then I'd likely be downgraded to a silver for it, even if conditions didn't require it (?!).
I know our Reg recommends only giving a signal when joining a motorway where it's actually required, as explained in his Motorway Driving thread. However, since this section is usually a bit slow I thought it wouldn't do any harm to get some discussion going. What do you all think? Should I have sat in behind the Mokka and joined at 50, and overtaken them after establishing myself on the motorway? Or was it right to maintain safe progress despite it being more 'proactive'? Maybe my idea of 'safe progress' is too aggressive?...
As part of this week's group drive out, we headed down the M57 before breaking off to a more rural setting. Approaching the motorway, I took the first exit from the roundabout and entered the two lane slip. Said slip has a slight superelevation camber, is on a pronounced downhill gradient, and as it was about 11am conditions were bright and clear. Being Sunday, the motorway itself was empty except for a heavy slightly ahead of us in lane one. On the slip road, about 100 metres ahead of me, was a Mokka in the nearside lane travelling at approximately 50mph and not accelerating.
Taking advantage of being 'above' the motorway I scanned around and confirmed that there was only the heavy to worry about. I did the usual mirrors/shoulder checks and moved into lane 2 of the slip and used 'firm acceleration'. My driving plan being to overtake the Mokka on the slip and slot into lane one of the motorway, well ahead of the heavy. Since the heavy is speed restricted, the slip was long and I was driving a suitably powerful motor this wasn't an issue. I remained aware that the Mokka may adjust his speed or course and had a backup plan.
As it happened things worked as planned. I sailed past the Mokka in a few seconds, noting that the HGV driver had given me eye contact and actually eased off a little rather than move to the empty lane 2. Mirrors, shoulder check, and onto the carriageway just before the slip ended. The observer said nothing but asked me to take the next exit from the motorway and to pull over by the side of the road. He told me that he wouldn't have handled things the way I did, and that in his opinion it was safer to sit behind the Mokka at 50ish, let the heavy pass, and then eventually join the motorway behind the Mokka - and to signal whilst doing so.
Bear in mind my RoSPA group isn't at all dogmatic, and things are always presented in a 'This is my way, everyone has different ideas, go out with each member and make up your own mind' sort of style. I explained that I had a perfectly good view of the road, and that it seemed foolish to lose safe progress just to sit at 50mph to suit others. Why would I indicate to join a motorway when the only vehicle on it had given me eye contact, and knew that the only way off the slip road was into lane one? I wasn't about to turn left onto the adjacent field, was I? Had the motorway been busier or the driver(s) hadn't looked at me, I'd have considered a signal just to wake up anyone half asleep in lane one before making the merge.
He agreed it was a viable alternative and that nothing was inherently wrong with my approach, but felt his way was better. He actually added that it was a very 'class one' way to drive but that it wasn't the RoSPA way (LOL). He also added that a motorbike might have been riding in lane 2, obscured alongside the heavy. My counter was that if there was a bike on the otherwise empty motorway, he'd be infinitesimally likely to be sitting alongside a heavy and matching its speed for the whole 20 seconds it took us to travel the slip and merge, and isn't that what the mirror and shoulder checks are for before merging (to ensure no new traffic has appeared, by changing their direction or speed)?
Back at the pub at the end of the session, the group's lead tutor/ADI agreed that if I didn't signal off a motorway slip on test then I'd likely be downgraded to a silver for it, even if conditions didn't require it (?!).
I know our Reg recommends only giving a signal when joining a motorway where it's actually required, as explained in his Motorway Driving thread. However, since this section is usually a bit slow I thought it wouldn't do any harm to get some discussion going. What do you all think? Should I have sat in behind the Mokka and joined at 50, and overtaken them after establishing myself on the motorway? Or was it right to maintain safe progress despite it being more 'proactive'? Maybe my idea of 'safe progress' is too aggressive?...
rainmakerraw said:
I'm currently waiting to book my RoADAR/RoSPA test, as I have a new car being delivered this week and I want to be familiar with it first. I'm going from a Mazda 6 2.0 NA manual to a Skoda Superb 2.0 TSI DSG 220ps so it's not something I'd be comfortable just jumping into and taking a test in.
As part of this week's group drive out, we headed down the M57 before breaking off to a more rural setting. Approaching the motorway, I took the first exit from the roundabout and entered the two lane slip. Said slip has a slight superelevation camber, is on a pronounced downhill gradient, and as it was about 11am conditions were bright and clear. Being Sunday, the motorway itself was empty except for a heavy slightly ahead of us in lane one. On the slip road, about 100 metres ahead of me, was a Mokka in the nearside lane travelling at approximately 50mph and not accelerating.
Taking advantage of being 'above' the motorway I scanned around and confirmed that there was only the heavy to worry about. I did the usual mirrors/shoulder checks and moved into lane 2 of the slip and used 'firm acceleration'. My driving plan being to overtake the Mokka on the slip and slot into lane one of the motorway, well ahead of the heavy. Since the heavy is speed restricted, the slip was long and I was driving a suitably powerful motor this wasn't an issue. I remained aware that the Mokka may adjust his speed or course and had a backup plan.
As it happened things worked as planned. I sailed past the Mokka in a few seconds, noting that the HGV driver had given me eye contact and actually eased off a little rather than move to the empty lane 2. Mirrors, shoulder check, and onto the carriageway just before the slip ended. The observer said nothing but asked me to take the next exit from the motorway and to pull over by the side of the road. He told me that he wouldn't have handled things the way I did, and that in his opinion it was safer to sit behind the Mokka at 50ish, let the heavy pass, and then eventually join the motorway behind the Mokka - and to signal whilst doing so.
Bear in mind my RoSPA group isn't at all dogmatic, and things are always presented in a 'This is my way, everyone has different ideas, go out with each member and make up your own mind' sort of style. I explained that I had a perfectly good view of the road, and that it seemed foolish to lose safe progress just to sit at 50mph to suit others. Why would I indicate to join a motorway when the only vehicle on it had given me eye contact, and knew that the only way off the slip road was into lane one? I wasn't about to turn left onto the adjacent field, was I? Had the motorway been busier or the driver(s) hadn't looked at me, I'd have considered a signal just to wake up anyone half asleep in lane one before making the merge.
He agreed it was a viable alternative and that nothing was inherently wrong with my approach, but felt his way was better. He actually added that it was a very 'class one' way to drive but that it wasn't the RoSPA way (LOL). He also added that a motorbike might have been riding in lane 2, obscured alongside the heavy. My counter was that if there was a bike on the otherwise empty motorway, he'd be infinitesimally likely to be sitting alongside a heavy and matching its speed for the whole 20 seconds it took us to travel the slip and merge, and isn't that what the mirror and shoulder checks are for before merging (to ensure no new traffic has appeared, by changing their direction or speed)?
Back at the pub at the end of the session, the group's lead tutor/ADI agreed that if I didn't signal off a motorway slip on test then I'd likely be downgraded to a silver for it, even if conditions didn't require it (?!).
I know our Reg recommends only giving a signal when joining a motorway where it's actually required, as explained in his Motorway Driving thread. However, since this section is usually a bit slow I thought it wouldn't do any harm to get some discussion going. What do you all think? Should I have sat in behind the Mokka and joined at 50, and overtaken them after establishing myself on the motorway? Or was it right to maintain safe progress despite it being more 'proactive'? Maybe my idea of 'safe progress' is too aggressive?...
I think I'd have done the same as you, but I would have signalled.As part of this week's group drive out, we headed down the M57 before breaking off to a more rural setting. Approaching the motorway, I took the first exit from the roundabout and entered the two lane slip. Said slip has a slight superelevation camber, is on a pronounced downhill gradient, and as it was about 11am conditions were bright and clear. Being Sunday, the motorway itself was empty except for a heavy slightly ahead of us in lane one. On the slip road, about 100 metres ahead of me, was a Mokka in the nearside lane travelling at approximately 50mph and not accelerating.
Taking advantage of being 'above' the motorway I scanned around and confirmed that there was only the heavy to worry about. I did the usual mirrors/shoulder checks and moved into lane 2 of the slip and used 'firm acceleration'. My driving plan being to overtake the Mokka on the slip and slot into lane one of the motorway, well ahead of the heavy. Since the heavy is speed restricted, the slip was long and I was driving a suitably powerful motor this wasn't an issue. I remained aware that the Mokka may adjust his speed or course and had a backup plan.
As it happened things worked as planned. I sailed past the Mokka in a few seconds, noting that the HGV driver had given me eye contact and actually eased off a little rather than move to the empty lane 2. Mirrors, shoulder check, and onto the carriageway just before the slip ended. The observer said nothing but asked me to take the next exit from the motorway and to pull over by the side of the road. He told me that he wouldn't have handled things the way I did, and that in his opinion it was safer to sit behind the Mokka at 50ish, let the heavy pass, and then eventually join the motorway behind the Mokka - and to signal whilst doing so.
Bear in mind my RoSPA group isn't at all dogmatic, and things are always presented in a 'This is my way, everyone has different ideas, go out with each member and make up your own mind' sort of style. I explained that I had a perfectly good view of the road, and that it seemed foolish to lose safe progress just to sit at 50mph to suit others. Why would I indicate to join a motorway when the only vehicle on it had given me eye contact, and knew that the only way off the slip road was into lane one? I wasn't about to turn left onto the adjacent field, was I? Had the motorway been busier or the driver(s) hadn't looked at me, I'd have considered a signal just to wake up anyone half asleep in lane one before making the merge.
He agreed it was a viable alternative and that nothing was inherently wrong with my approach, but felt his way was better. He actually added that it was a very 'class one' way to drive but that it wasn't the RoSPA way (LOL). He also added that a motorbike might have been riding in lane 2, obscured alongside the heavy. My counter was that if there was a bike on the otherwise empty motorway, he'd be infinitesimally likely to be sitting alongside a heavy and matching its speed for the whole 20 seconds it took us to travel the slip and merge, and isn't that what the mirror and shoulder checks are for before merging (to ensure no new traffic has appeared, by changing their direction or speed)?
Back at the pub at the end of the session, the group's lead tutor/ADI agreed that if I didn't signal off a motorway slip on test then I'd likely be downgraded to a silver for it, even if conditions didn't require it (?!).
I know our Reg recommends only giving a signal when joining a motorway where it's actually required, as explained in his Motorway Driving thread. However, since this section is usually a bit slow I thought it wouldn't do any harm to get some discussion going. What do you all think? Should I have sat in behind the Mokka and joined at 50, and overtaken them after establishing myself on the motorway? Or was it right to maintain safe progress despite it being more 'proactive'? Maybe my idea of 'safe progress' is too aggressive?...
TooMany2cvs said:
I think I'd have done the same as you, but I would have signalled.
+1, except to add that I would signal only if, in my opinion, another road user would benefit. As would a RoSPA examiner, despite what your RoSPA Group tutors say.Let this be your first lesson in realising that when it comes to advanced driving diktats and the, "I would have done it better than you", type of feedback, actually nobody really knows what they're talking about, even if they tell you that they do.
The only person who really knows what's right is you. [that's a bit too philosophical for a Thursday morning! Ed.
]Edited by johnao on Thursday 31st March 11:10
Had there been something behind me when joining the motorway I would have probably signaled, though I understand your reasoning for not doing so. Reg only seems to promote not signalling when there is nothing else around, though only he can clarify that.
I would have probably chosen to overtake the Mokka on the sliproad though, being ready to ease off and stay behind if the driver started playing silly beggars and accelerating to stop me, as I feel vulnerable joining a motorway behind someone who seems dithery. I was caught behind a taxi driver in a Zafira the other day going from the M65 onto the M61 Northbound where the sliproad only has one lane. He was going very slowly and decided to nearly come to a halt as we'd both joined the carriageway in front of traffic coming down behind.
When sliproads have overtaking lanes it's to allow drivers to overtake anything that is approaching the motorway slowly,thereby allowing them to slot into traffic smoothly and safely. Overtaking something slow on the sliproad means you have more capacity to adjust your speed to slot into a gap on the main carriageway, you don't have to worry about the driver in front having a confidence failure and suddenly braking when you've sized up a gap to accelerate into and drivers on the main carriageway aren't presented with a long convoy of vehicles behind the slow coach that they have to accommodate the entry onto the main carriageway of.
Having said that, you need to be sure you can get past the vehicle on the sliproad if it's one where the two lanes merge at the end rather than joining the main carriageway at separate points. You also have to be able to adjust your speed without entering the main carriageway too fast to enter the traffic safely and without conflict.
It seems you'd planned out your move and there was little other traffic to conflict with, so I don't know why your instructor was advocating a plan which would have delayed progress and potentially created more difficulty unless he thought there was more conflict with the HGV than there was in practice because he didn't know you'd had that moment of communication with the HGV driver.
I would have probably chosen to overtake the Mokka on the sliproad though, being ready to ease off and stay behind if the driver started playing silly beggars and accelerating to stop me, as I feel vulnerable joining a motorway behind someone who seems dithery. I was caught behind a taxi driver in a Zafira the other day going from the M65 onto the M61 Northbound where the sliproad only has one lane. He was going very slowly and decided to nearly come to a halt as we'd both joined the carriageway in front of traffic coming down behind.
When sliproads have overtaking lanes it's to allow drivers to overtake anything that is approaching the motorway slowly,thereby allowing them to slot into traffic smoothly and safely. Overtaking something slow on the sliproad means you have more capacity to adjust your speed to slot into a gap on the main carriageway, you don't have to worry about the driver in front having a confidence failure and suddenly braking when you've sized up a gap to accelerate into and drivers on the main carriageway aren't presented with a long convoy of vehicles behind the slow coach that they have to accommodate the entry onto the main carriageway of.
Having said that, you need to be sure you can get past the vehicle on the sliproad if it's one where the two lanes merge at the end rather than joining the main carriageway at separate points. You also have to be able to adjust your speed without entering the main carriageway too fast to enter the traffic safely and without conflict.
It seems you'd planned out your move and there was little other traffic to conflict with, so I don't know why your instructor was advocating a plan which would have delayed progress and potentially created more difficulty unless he thought there was more conflict with the HGV than there was in practice because he didn't know you'd had that moment of communication with the HGV driver.
I've quoted your post and edited it down to the most salient point:
In reality, there are many different ways to approach the same scenario and I'd probably approach a hazard in a different way than other "experts". Would I be right and would they be wrong? No - of course not.
I think this type of approach by observers is the sort of thing that puts many people off traditional advanced driving. There are, of course, many things you definitely shouldn't do when you're driving, and many things which could correctly be called "wrong". But when it comes down to minor differences in opinion about a straightforward maneuver, it should be the outcome that matters, rather than the process.
Did you join the motorway safely, progressively and without causing anyone else to change course or speed? Was your approach planned? Was your plan based on sound observations?
If the answer to all these questions is yes, then it was fine.
rainmakerraw said:
...in his opinion...
There are lots of different opinions in "advanced" driving and the holders of these opinions will often state them as though they are fact - their opinion is right and everyone else's is wrong.In reality, there are many different ways to approach the same scenario and I'd probably approach a hazard in a different way than other "experts". Would I be right and would they be wrong? No - of course not.
I think this type of approach by observers is the sort of thing that puts many people off traditional advanced driving. There are, of course, many things you definitely shouldn't do when you're driving, and many things which could correctly be called "wrong". But when it comes down to minor differences in opinion about a straightforward maneuver, it should be the outcome that matters, rather than the process.
Did you join the motorway safely, progressively and without causing anyone else to change course or speed? Was your approach planned? Was your plan based on sound observations?
If the answer to all these questions is yes, then it was fine.
As Blakewater says, two lane slip roads aid safety by allowing you to match the speed of motorway traffic when joining, even if there are slower cars on the sliproad, because you can overtake those slower cars. I have two single lane sliproads on my commute and having taken them twice a day for two years I have seen some pretty dodgy situations caused by the obligation of all cars behind a slow car to match their speed and create a train of cars joining the dual carriageway at 50, 40 or even 30 and below. I've even seen other drivers stop on these sliproads, and in rush hour the prospect of joining a busy dual carriageway with a 70mph limit from rest is quite daunting and dangerous, especially if you're behind someone who isn't really accelerating noticeably.
The quandary that you were in was to make a decision whether it was safer to 1) join the motorway at 50mph behind the slower car, or 2) as you described at a higher speed having overtaken the slower car on the slip road and joined in front of the lorry.
The possible dangers of situation 1 are that you'll need to change lanes between faster traffic twice (once when joining and once when passing the slow car and the lorry). Additionally, faster cars on the slip road behind you may try clumsily to overtake both of you as you do 50mph and cause a problem as three cars try to merge into a non existent space where the lorry is. There is also a negative of lost progress.
Situation two is nice because the lorry and slow car can continue as if you weren't even there. The negative is if the slow car changes lanes and tries to join early whilst you're overtaking, or if a vehicle is passing the lorry and moves back in just as you're joining.
Given the lack of cars behind you on the sliproad and apparently lightly trafficked motorway, many of the above risks reduce or even disappear. I therefore think the above situation resolve to be very similar indeed and I find it rather surprising that the observer saw the situation as so black and white. I'd say that both approaches have equal merits.
With regard to indicating, the two risks with that in this case are a) the situation I've just mentioned where another vehicle has overtaken the lorry and tries to move back in when you're joining - it may be too late to signal usefully or they may be in your blindspot. Signalling would guard against those scenarios and help warn that vehicle that you were there and coming out. 2) There could be a faster car in lane 1 of the mway behind the lorry and catching it. You may not see this faster car as it would be beneath you and off your right hand rear quarter. Finally, it's not always clear to existing motorway users whether a slip road ends or becomes another lane, and signalling helps inform other road users that you're moving into what is lane 1 before the junction.
Given all of the above, I would do either action, depending on my mood and need for progress, but I would always signal. Plus, nobody's observation is perfect; there could have been anyone around you who needed the signal (a bike in your blindspot since the roundabout maybe? A Caterham so low you can't see it, even on a shoulder check? When driving my 7 I was missed in a shoulder check once and nearly had a Range Rover on top of me!).
The quandary that you were in was to make a decision whether it was safer to 1) join the motorway at 50mph behind the slower car, or 2) as you described at a higher speed having overtaken the slower car on the slip road and joined in front of the lorry.
The possible dangers of situation 1 are that you'll need to change lanes between faster traffic twice (once when joining and once when passing the slow car and the lorry). Additionally, faster cars on the slip road behind you may try clumsily to overtake both of you as you do 50mph and cause a problem as three cars try to merge into a non existent space where the lorry is. There is also a negative of lost progress.
Situation two is nice because the lorry and slow car can continue as if you weren't even there. The negative is if the slow car changes lanes and tries to join early whilst you're overtaking, or if a vehicle is passing the lorry and moves back in just as you're joining.
Given the lack of cars behind you on the sliproad and apparently lightly trafficked motorway, many of the above risks reduce or even disappear. I therefore think the above situation resolve to be very similar indeed and I find it rather surprising that the observer saw the situation as so black and white. I'd say that both approaches have equal merits.
With regard to indicating, the two risks with that in this case are a) the situation I've just mentioned where another vehicle has overtaken the lorry and tries to move back in when you're joining - it may be too late to signal usefully or they may be in your blindspot. Signalling would guard against those scenarios and help warn that vehicle that you were there and coming out. 2) There could be a faster car in lane 1 of the mway behind the lorry and catching it. You may not see this faster car as it would be beneath you and off your right hand rear quarter. Finally, it's not always clear to existing motorway users whether a slip road ends or becomes another lane, and signalling helps inform other road users that you're moving into what is lane 1 before the junction.
Given all of the above, I would do either action, depending on my mood and need for progress, but I would always signal. Plus, nobody's observation is perfect; there could have been anyone around you who needed the signal (a bike in your blindspot since the roundabout maybe? A Caterham so low you can't see it, even on a shoulder check? When driving my 7 I was missed in a shoulder check once and nearly had a Range Rover on top of me!).
Reg Local said:
I've quoted your post and edited it down to the most salient point:
In reality, there are many different ways to approach the same scenario and I'd probably approach a hazard in a different way than other "experts". Would I be right and would they be wrong? No - of course not.
I think this type of approach by observers is the sort of thing that puts many people off traditional advanced driving. There are, of course, many things you definitely shouldn't do when you're driving, and many things which could correctly be called "wrong". But when it comes down to minor differences in opinion about a straightforward maneuver, it should be the outcome that matters, rather than the process.
Did you join the motorway safely, progressively and without causing anyone else to change course or speed? Was your approach planned? Was your plan based on sound observations?
If the answer to all these questions is yes, then it was fine.
Thanks Reg. I was hoping you might chime in on this one. rainmakerraw said:
...in his opinion...
There are lots of different opinions in "advanced" driving and the holders of these opinions will often state them as though they are fact - their opinion is right and everyone else's is wrong.In reality, there are many different ways to approach the same scenario and I'd probably approach a hazard in a different way than other "experts". Would I be right and would they be wrong? No - of course not.
I think this type of approach by observers is the sort of thing that puts many people off traditional advanced driving. There are, of course, many things you definitely shouldn't do when you're driving, and many things which could correctly be called "wrong". But when it comes down to minor differences in opinion about a straightforward maneuver, it should be the outcome that matters, rather than the process.
Did you join the motorway safely, progressively and without causing anyone else to change course or speed? Was your approach planned? Was your plan based on sound observations?
If the answer to all these questions is yes, then it was fine.
RobM77, thanks also for the detailed post and explanation of your reasoning. Again, all valid opinions and I can still see both sides of it. It certainly never causes any harm to give a signal, even on an 'empty' road. I don't think anyone would reasonably try to argue that one. However for me part of AD is (hopefully) knowing the difference between when one is, or isn't, required versus just blindly signalling because (1) DSA said so when you learnt 20+ years ago and (2) you weren't really looking anyway and aren't sure what's around your vehicle.
Firstly, I would have done precisely what you did and for the same reasons that you give. I would be interested to know the background of your observer; it does not sound as though he has Police experience, or indeed much common sense. As another has pointed out, this kind of misguided pedantry puts many people off improving their driving enjoyment and safety.
xpc316e said:
Firstly, I would have done precisely what you did and for the same reasons that you give. I would be interested to know the background of your observer; it does not sound as though he has Police experience, or indeed much common sense. As another has pointed out, this kind of misguided pedantry puts many people off improving their driving enjoyment and safety.
As far as I know, he's a RoSPA Gold holder who is currently awaiting his ADI part 2 test. He was a thoroughly pleasant chap, don't get me wrong, and apart from this one minor point we had a great drive out. But I do think pedantry (however unintentional) about covers it in this instance. I went out with a different tutor this week, the group's senior tutor as it happens. He's an older gent, retired ADI and RoSPA Gold holder. He said he couldn't fault my drills or driving at all, except to slow down the NSL roundabouts a little when taking U-turns (he slid in his seat a little lol). After doing a full hour commentary drive he said I'd missed out a single road sign - no footpath ahead - but my positioning and driving still reflected I'd taken it on board so he 'left me off'. 
He's told me to book my test this week, so we'll see. Thanks again to all contributors.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff