Hand signals on bike

[Si]

For instance, a left turn on a car-less road might also need a signal if there is a ped about to cross the road I'm going into.

Shouldn't you give way to the ped?

Give way to people who have already started crossing, but if they are on the pavement (i.e. about to cross) then they ought to wait for you...otherwise, if you stop every time you see someone loitering, about to cross you'll end up (a) confusing them (with plenty of mutual "you first Claude"s), and (b) getting some other half asleep road user ramming you up the 'arris.

[boliston]

its best to always assume that any ped will simply walk into your path regardless of what you signal lol

[Mistik-ka]

Question from an innocent colonial: is it not legally required to signal your intention to turn or change lanes?

Legal requirement or not, I think it is a good idea to provide other drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians with the information they need so that they can conduct themselves safely. Whether I'm on my bike, on foot, or in a car, I find unpredictable behaviour by others can be stressful/infuriating/downright dangerous. On the guiding principle of do-as-you-would-be-done-by I try to signal my intention consistently.

[kwackers]

Legal requirement or not, I think it is a good idea to provide other drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians with the information

The problem isn't the information - it's what they do with it.
Indicating left whilst there's traffic behind you who also wants to turn left can result in them making a last second dash to get to the corner before you for fear of being stuck behind a bicycle.
Ditto cars waiting to turn right in front of you can sometimes use your left indication as an OK for them to go - even if they actually can't.
This is such a problem that a number of cycling 'manuals' advise against it.

Obviously that doesn't mean you should never indicate, just that you should be aware of the dangers and factor them in.

[Bicycler]

For instance, a left turn on a car-less road might also need a signal if there is a ped about to cross the road I'm going into.

Shouldn't you give way to the ped?

Give way to people who have already started crossing, but if they are on the pavement (i.e. about to cross) then they ought to wait for you...otherwise, if you stop every time you see someone loitering, about to cross you'll end up (a) confusing them (with plenty of mutual "you first Claude"s), and (b) getting some other half asleep road user ramming you up the 'arris.

We've had long threads on this topic haven't we? Whilst we all seem to agree on the priority of pedestrians already crossing and that pedestrians shouldn't step out in front of vehicles in the process turning there seems to be disagreement about whether pedestrians ought to give way to traffic which is intending to turn left. No-one has yet convinced me of the existence of an exception to the general rule that those travelling along a road have priority over those turning.

[Si]

If you are already turning then it's too late to signal.

[reohn2]

........as a foot note how many cyclist use hand signals

Everytime I manoeuvre,but it doesn't stop some maniacs from overtaking in some of the most dangeous circumstances,I could write a book.......

BTW it doesn't appear you did anything wrong,other than commit th cardinal sin of holding up someone who's more important than you

[honwal]

........as a foot note how many cyclist use hand signals

Everytime I manoeuvre,but it doesn't stop some maniacs from overtaking in some of the most dangeous circumstances,I could write a book.......

BTW it doesn't appear you did anything wrong,other than commit th cardinal sin of holding up someone who's more important than you

spot on

[Bicycler]

If you are already turning then it's too late to signal.

That's why you signal in advance and don't turn when there is someone crossing. The signal means "I am intending to turn left", it doesn't give you priority. Think about turning right, you signal your intention to turn right but it doesn't mean you don't wait for the traffic across whose path you are turning

[Si]

If you are already turning then it's too late to signal.

That's why you signal in advance and don't turn when there is someone crossing. The signal means "I am intending to turn left", it doesn't give you priority. Think about turning right, you signal your intention to turn right but it doesn't mean you don't wait for the traffic across whose path you are turning

Er, who said that it did give you priority? You appear to be trying very hard to disagree with things that no one has said here!

[Bicycler]

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity... I'm probably just confused

I was wondering why you believed pedestrians ought to give way to vehicles intending to turn. That was the bit in your earlier comment I was questioning. I wasn't sure what the later comment about being unable to signal mid-turn was getting at.

[Si]

Short answer - because they'll get them selves flatted otherwise

Longer answer.....peds on the pavement (or, indeed, vehicles coming out of driveways or entrances) should give way to vehicles on the road (assuming there is not a crossing or some other feature that gives the ped priority). However, if the ped is already in the road then the vehicle should yield, and if they step into the road in front of the vehicle the vehicle should do all that it can to avoid running them down - having priority does not give one the right to ride or drive over anyone. Of cause there is the grey area of what's the difference between 'already started to cross' and 'stepping out in front of the vehicle'....which is probably thread in itself.

Regarding signalling mid turn - if you have already started the turn then generally the signal becomes pointless as everyone can see where you are going, plus it reducest your control.

[Bicycler]

Okay I get ya. I think your summary is fair enough in that pedestrians crossing a carriageway should give way to traffic travelling along the carriageway but I'm not sure that is what you have in the case of a side road junction with a main road. There the pedestrian is travelling straight on along a road and a vehicle is turning across its path. it is the vehicle not the pedestrian which is deviating from its course. Assuming that your view is correct would this situation be reversed on roads with no pavements or must pedestrians always be submissive?

and yes I understand why cyclists often don't signal mid-turn. Saw one go head over heels once trying that whilst going right on the wet painted surface of a mini-roundabout

[Si]

170 states "watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way" but does state that pedestrians about to cross (ie still on the pavement) have priority, thus I take it as saying that the person turning in has priority if the ped is on the pavement.

As to peds going straight on on a road with no pavement...anyone's guess as to that one!

[Si]

Likewise, 8 states: "At a junction. When crossing the road, look out for traffic turning into the road, especially from behind you. If you have started crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, you have priority and they should give way (see Rule 170)." . If we apply logic to it it doesn't actually state that the in-turning traffic has priority over a not yet crossing ped, however it specifically goes to the trouble of saying those already in the road have priority but doesn't go to the trouble of saying that those waiting to enter the road have priority, thus I would interpret that as saying that they don't....if that makes any sense?