Changes to Highway Code as regards roundabouts

[NY]

There have been newspaper articles publicising the changes to the rules on
roundabouts as regards cyclists and horse-riders, but the descriptions of
the changes are all rather vague.

In simple terms, what has changed? What could I previously do as a driver
which I will now need to do differently? I presume "give priority to
cyclists" means that they still have to stop and wait for a gap when joining
a roundabout - that there is no need for traffic on a roundabout to give way
to cyclists (but not motor vehicles) that are waiting to join. Once cyclists
are on the roundabout, you are not supposed to overtake them unless there is
a spare lane that is signposted your way, but then that is implied by the
general advice about allowing so-many metres of space when overtaking a
cyclist anywhere.

My feeling is that the *fact* that there is a change in the rules has been
publicised fairly well, but the exact do/don't of *what* drivers need to do
differently could do with being explained a lot better (maybe with diagrams
and examples).

As a matter of interest, is there anything in the HC which prohibits a car
that wants to turn left at a roundabout but faces a long queue in the
left-turn approach lane, from approaching in the right-hand lane and going
all the way round and then leaving at the desired exit? It might be regarded
as bending the rules, but is it actually prohibited?

[Ken]

Post by NY
There have been newspaper articles publicising the changes to the rules on
roundabouts as regards cyclists and horse-riders, but the descriptions of
the changes are all rather vague.
In simple terms, what has changed? What could I previously do as a driver
which I will now need to do differently? I presume "give priority to
cyclists" means that they still have to stop and wait for a gap when joining
a roundabout - that there is no need for traffic on a roundabout to give way
to cyclists (but not motor vehicles) that are waiting to join. Once cyclists
are on the roundabout, you are not supposed to overtake them unless there is
a spare lane that is signposted your way, but then that is implied by the
general advice about allowing so-many metres of space when overtaking a
cyclist anywhere.
My feeling is that the *fact* that there is a change in the rules has been
publicised fairly well, but the exact do/don't of *what* drivers need to do
differently could do with being explained a lot better (maybe with diagrams
and examples).
As a matter of interest, is there anything in the HC which prohibits a car
that wants to turn left at a roundabout but faces a long queue in the
left-turn approach lane, from approaching in the right-hand lane and going
all the way round and then leaving at the desired exit? It might be regarded
as bending the rules, but is it actually prohibited?

What a waste of time! Round here they use the right-hand lane,
accelerate like mad then turn left.

[Nick Finnigan]

Post by NY
There have been newspaper articles publicising the changes to the rules on
roundabouts as regards cyclists and horse-riders, but the descriptions of
the changes are all rather vague.
In simple terms, what has changed? What could I previously do as a driver
which I will now need to do differently? I presume "give priority to

I couldn't find out either - only 'proposals' seems to be on the gov
website. Allegedly, wait for a gap in any undertaking queue of cyclists
before turning left.

Post by NY
cyclists" means that they still have to stop and wait for a gap when
joining a roundabout - that there is no need for traffic on a roundabout to
give way to cyclists (but not motor vehicles) that are waiting to join.
Once cyclists are on the roundabout, you are not supposed to overtake them
unless there is a spare lane that is signposted your way, but then that is
implied by the general advice about allowing so-many metres of space when
overtaking a cyclist anywhere.
My feeling is that the *fact* that there is a change in the rules has been
publicised fairly well, but the exact do/don't of *what* drivers need to do
differently could do with being explained a lot better (maybe with diagrams
and examples).
As a matter of interest, is there anything in the HC which prohibits a car
that wants to turn left at a roundabout but faces a long queue in the
left-turn approach lane, from approaching in the right-hand lane and going
all the way round and then leaving at the desired exit? It might be
regarded as bending the rules, but is it actually prohibited?

No. If there is a long queue in the left lane, most of which is taking
the second exit which is blocked, I will go all the way round to take the
first exit. Everybody wins.

[NY]

Post by Nick Finnigan

Post by NY
There have been newspaper articles publicising the changes to the rules
on roundabouts as regards cyclists and horse-riders, but the descriptions
of the changes are all rather vague.
In simple terms, what has changed? What could I previously do as a driver
which I will now need to do differently? I presume "give priority to

I couldn't find out either - only 'proposals' seems to be on the gov
website. Allegedly, wait for a gap in any undertaking queue of cyclists
before turning left.

That is one of those rules, like the giving way to pedestrians who are
crossing a side road into which I am turning, which seems to be utterly
bizarre - one of those "what were they smoking when they came up with that
one?" rules. But our lords and masters have spoken, and we have to obey it.
I disagree with it in the strongest terms: if I am in front of someone, I
shouldn't have to check in case someone tries to overtake me on the side
that I am indicating to turn, because overtaking in those circumstances
should be banned. But modern road layouts, with a cycle lane to the *left*
of traffic wanting to turn left, encourage that rule. If I was in charge I
would make it an absolute rule that no-one must *ever* overtake a vehicle on
the side that it is indicating to turn; I would also discontinue all cycle
lanes within (for example) 100 yards of every junction, to allow
left-turning traffic to position itself correctly close to the kerb instead
of "turning left from the right-hand lane".

I tend to check anyway for people overtaking on my left, but I am conscious
that there is a *huge* blind spot in the passenger mirror, so I look over my
left shoulder through the rear passenger-side window. In the absence of a
cycle lane, I position myself close enough to the kerb that cyclists can't
get through when I am about to turn left. If they want to overtake me on the
opposite side, they are welcome to.

When I'm approaching a left-turn I check to see if left-turners ahead of me
are being held up by traffic on that side road, and if so I will tend not to
overtake a cyclist in advance of the junction because I will only then have
to stop ahead of him until I can turn. But if I *have* overtaken a cyclist
and circumstances then change, I do expect that the cyclist will not
overtake me on my blind side.

As an occasional cyclist, the one place where I would never overtake a
vehicle on the left is close to a junction: if there is a queue, I do they
same as in a car - I *wait*. Cyclists seem to want to have their cake and to
eat it: they want to be treated as part of the general flow of traffic
(which is right) but they also want to be exempt from some of the rules of
the road and to be given priority over other traffic (which I strongly
disagree with).

When I'm cycling in slow traffic (traffic which is moving so slowly that I
can easily keep up with it) I have always tended to cycle in the middle of
the lane so I am clearly visible to traffic ahead (via the rear-view mirror)
and to the traffic behind (through the window), so I'm in clear view and not
peripheral vision. If the traffic starts to move more quickly than I can
cycle, I move back towards the left to make it as easy for them to overtake.
That's blindingly obvious and a matter of being aware of the needs of other
road users. Riding much slower than the speed limit in the centre of a lane
is just plain selfish and IMHO the HC should not be condoning or encouraging
it.


Sad that the HC is relaxing the rule on the use of separate cycle lane (ie
on a segregated part of the pavement). In the Netherlands, which is very
cycle-conscious, I understand that there it is the law that cyclists must
always use a separate cycle lane alongside the road if one exists. So they
don't impede the flow of faster vehicles.


I was checking really about this "priority to cyclists" on roundabouts
thing, in case the HC had gone *really* loopy and was actually suggesting
that traffic on the roundabout should ever give way to cyclists wanting to
join the roundabout from a side road. Hopefully if that had been the case
there would have been a very prominent advertising campaign because it is
even more counter-intuitive than some of the other concessions that they are
making.

[Colin Bignell]

Post by NY

Post by NY
There have been newspaper articles publicising the changes to the
rules on roundabouts as regards cyclists and horse-riders, but the
descriptions of the changes are all rather vague.
In simple terms, what has changed? What could I previously do as a
driver which I will now need to do differently? I presume "give
priority to

 I couldn't find out either - only 'proposals' seems to be on the gov
website. Allegedly, wait for a gap in any undertaking queue of
cyclists before turning left.

That is one of those rules, like the giving way to pedestrians who are
crossing a side road into which I am turning, which seems to be utterly
bizarre ....

Giving way to pedestrians crossing a side road you are turning into was
in the Highway Code when I was learning to drive and probably long
before that. Streams of undertaking cyclists is a London orientated
thing I think. I rarely see even two together.

--

Colin Bignell

[NY]

Post by NY

Post by Nick Finnigan

Post by NY
There have been newspaper articles publicising the changes to the rules
on roundabouts as regards cyclists and horse-riders, but the
descriptions of the changes are all rather vague.
In simple terms, what has changed? What could I previously do as a
driver which I will now need to do differently? I presume "give
priority to

I couldn't find out either - only 'proposals' seems to be on the gov
website. Allegedly, wait for a gap in any undertaking queue of cyclists
before turning left.

That is one of those rules, like the giving way to pedestrians who are
crossing a side road into which I am turning, which seems to be utterly
bizarre ....

Giving way to pedestrians crossing a side road you are turning into was in
the Highway Code when I was learning to drive and probably long before
that.

Yes it has been. It was mentioned again recently, so maybe the HC is
reiterating the point. Evidently the wacky backy was smoked a long time ago.
A junction is the one place where I would never just cross without checking
that the road was clear, because I know that drivers have many other things
on their minds without looking out for pedestrians crossing.

Streams of undertaking cyclists is a London orientated thing I think. I
rarely see even two together.

The more normal thing is the cyclists who think that it's OK to ride
straight through red traffic lights or zebra crossings, without even
checking whether there is any traffic approaching from right angles which
has a green light, or without checking that there aren't pedestrians on the
crossing. When crossing on a zebra I've been shouted at by cyclists who have
swerved around cars that have stopped as the law requires and who seem to
take offence that a pedestrian has dared to get in the way of a cyclist. I
once witnessed a cyclist who rode at a woman pushing a pushchair across a
zebra, having squeezed between the central bollard and the leading car, and
who came off and skidded into the path of an oncoming lorry. He got up and
looked as if he was going to attack the woman, so a mate of mine who was
built like a brick shithouse restrained him and held him until the police
got there. It is that very small minority of "I'm not going to stop for
*anything*" cyclists who give the rest a bad name.

[Nick Finnigan]

Post by NY

Post by NY
There have been newspaper articles publicising the changes to the rules
on roundabouts as regards cyclists and horse-riders, but the
descriptions of the changes are all rather vague.
In simple terms, what has changed? What could I previously do as a
driver which I will now need to do differently? I presume "give priority to

 I couldn't find out either - only 'proposals' seems to be on the gov
website. Allegedly, wait for a gap in any undertaking queue of cyclists
before turning left.

That is one of those rules, like the giving way to pedestrians who are
crossing a side road into which I am turning, which seems to be utterly

Allegedly, we will have to'give way' to pedestrians who are waiting to
cross, even if they have pressed the button for the pelicon.

Post by NY
I tend to check anyway for people overtaking on my left, but I am conscious
that there is a *huge* blind spot in the passenger mirror, so I look over
my left shoulder through the rear passenger-side window. In the absence of
a cycle lane, I position myself close enough to the kerb that cyclists
can't get through when I am about to turn left. If they want to overtake me
on the opposite side, they are welcome to.

I appeared to be a rare exception when driving that way in London,
whether or not I was about to turn left. Even when passing queues of
traffic by using the part-time bus lanes.

[Colin Bignell]

Post by NY

Post by NY
There have been newspaper articles publicising the changes to the
rules on roundabouts as regards cyclists and horse-riders, but the
descriptions of the changes are all rather vague.
In simple terms, what has changed? What could I previously do as a
driver which I will now need to do differently? I presume "give priority to

 I couldn't find out either - only 'proposals' seems to be on the gov
website. Allegedly, wait for a gap in any undertaking queue of
cyclists before turning left.

That is one of those rules, like the giving way to pedestrians who are
crossing a side road into which I am turning, which seems to be utterly

 Allegedly, we will have to'give way' to pedestrians who are waiting to
cross, even if they have pressed the button for the pelicon.

'Should' not 'must', so simply advisory.

--

Colin Bignell

[NY]

Post by Colin Bignell

Post by Nick Finnigan
Allegedly, we will have to'give way' to pedestrians who are waiting to
cross, even if they have pressed the button for the pelicon.

'Should' not 'must', so simply advisory.

I presume Nick meant "even if they have NOT pressed the button". Makes you
wonder what the purpose of the red light is, if you have to stop at a
pelican when the light is green, never mind when it is red. Why not just
make it a zebra crossing?

I imagine all these rules will have a detrimental effect on traffic flow -
and perversely that will also affect buses which we are supposed to use
instead of cars.

[Colin Bignell]

Post by NY

Post by Colin Bignell

  Allegedly, we will have to'give way' to pedestrians who are waiting
to cross, even if they have pressed the button for the pelicon.

'Should' not 'must', so simply advisory.

I presume Nick meant "even if they have NOT pressed the button". Makes
you wonder what the purpose of the red light is, if you have to stop at
a pelican when the light is green, never mind when it is red. Why not
just make it a zebra crossing?

The point is, you don't have to, because it is only advisory. It is also
likely to confuse both the pedestrians and other car drivers if you do.
However, it is advisable to be ready to stop for the odd idiot who just
walks off the kerb without looking, which means you need to be aware of
people waiting to cross.

Post by NY
I imagine all these rules will have a detrimental effect on traffic flow
- and perversely that will also affect buses which we are supposed to
use instead of cars.

Not likely. Most people don't read the Highway Code, except when they
need to know it for their driving test. Mine still had whip signals for
drivers of horse drawn vehicles, which I thought I was unlikely to
encounter, and hand signals for car drivers in it. Few bother to read it
after their test and fewer bother to follow it.

--

Colin Bignell

[NY]

Most people don't read the Highway Code, except when they need to know it
for their driving test. Mine still had whip signals for drivers of horse
drawn vehicles, which I thought I was unlikely to encounter, and hand
signals for car drivers in it. Few bother to read it after their test and
fewer bother to follow it.

The problem is that drivers who haven't read the HC might be caught out by a
pedestrian or cyclist who *has* read the new rules and assumes that drivers
will stop for them as the HC says they must.

There is a world of difference between doing your damndest to stop when a
pedestrian is already in the road - it is irrelevant whether they have
priority - and having to stop to let some *start* to cross who isn't already
in the road and too far to step back.

I remember reading an article a few years ago when the HC changes were at
the proposal stage, and it suggested that drivers would have to stop
*anywhere* that a pedestrian was standing facing the road and wanting to
cross - even where there was no zebra crossing or red pelican light, and not
close to a junction with a major road. It was effectively turning the whole
road network into one big zebra crossing.

[Colin Bignell]

Post by NY

Most people don't read the Highway Code, except when they need to know
it for their driving test. Mine still had whip signals for drivers of
horse drawn vehicles, which I thought I was unlikely to encounter, and
hand signals for car drivers in it. Few bother to read it after their
test and fewer bother to follow it.

The problem is that drivers who haven't read the HC might be caught out
by a pedestrian or cyclist who *has* read the new rules and assumes that
drivers will stop for them as the HC says they must....

IF they have read it properly, they will know it doesn't say they must,
which means it is a legal requirement, but that they should, which is
merely a recommendation.

--

Colin Bignell

[JNugent]

Post by Colin Bignell

Post by NY

Post by Colin Bignell

  Allegedly, we will have to'give way' to pedestrians who are
waiting to cross, even if they have pressed the button for the pelicon.

'Should' not 'must', so simply advisory.

I presume Nick meant "even if they have NOT pressed the button". Makes
you wonder what the purpose of the red light is, if you have to stop
at a pelican when the light is green, never mind when it is red. Why
not just make it a zebra crossing?

The point is, you don't have to, because it is only advisory. It is also
likely to confuse both the pedestrians and other car drivers if you do.
However, it is advisable to be ready to stop for the odd idiot who just
walks off the kerb without looking, which means you need to be aware of
people waiting to cross.

Post by NY
I imagine all these rules will have a detrimental effect on traffic
flow - and perversely that will also affect buses which we are
supposed to use instead of cars.

Not likely. Most people don't read the Highway Code, except when they
need to know it for their driving test. Mine still had whip signals for
drivers of horse drawn vehicles, which I thought I was unlikely to
encounter, and hand signals for car drivers in it. Few bother to read it
after their test and fewer bother to follow it.

During my driving test - fifty years ago in a few months' time - I was
asked to drive for a few minutes using only hand signals, "as though the
indicators were not working".

[NY]

Post by JNugent
During my driving test - fifty years ago in a few months' time - I was
asked to drive for a few minutes using only hand signals, "as though the
indicators were not working".

On a journey with a lot of left and right turns in quick succession, and
with manual windows rather than electric ones, I bet drivers got used to
driving with the driver's window permanently down, because the alternative
was to spend a lot of time winding the window up and down, which would tend
to distract from the real job of controlling the car. Even with electric
windows that take maybe 3 seconds to wind fully down, you need to plan
further ahead than if you were just moving the indicator stalk. The only
time I use a right hand signal is to reinforce my right indicator when I'm
going right round a roundabout to come back in the opposite direction, to
say to the driver who was originally on my right as I approached the
roundabout "I haven't forgotten to cancel my indicator, I really *am* still
turning so you can't assume I'm turning off left before I get to you".

I'm trying to remember whether my test, forty one years ago, included
knowledge of hand signals. If it did, it was almost certainly just one
signal rather than a whole series "drive for a few minutes as though the
indicators weren't working". Nowadays if the indicators weren't working,
people would just give no signals :-(

[JNugent]

Post by NY

Post by JNugent
During my driving test - fifty years ago in a few months' time - I was
asked to drive for a few minutes using only hand signals, "as though
the indicators were not working".

On a journey with a lot of left and right turns in quick succession, and
with manual windows rather than electric ones, I bet drivers got used to
driving with the driver's window permanently down, because the
alternative was to spend a lot of time winding the window up and down,
which would tend to distract from the real job of controlling the car.

In warm weather, driving with the driver's window wound down was more or
less de rigeur. There was no other way of keeping cool.

Post by NY
Even with electric windows that take maybe 3 seconds to wind fully down,
you need to plan further ahead than if you were just moving the
indicator stalk. The only time I use a right hand signal is to reinforce
my right indicator when I'm going right round a roundabout to come back
in the opposite direction, to say to the driver who was originally on my
right as I approached the roundabout "I haven't forgotten to cancel my
indicator, I really *am* still turning so you can't assume I'm turning
off left before I get to you".

Good point.

Post by NY
I'm trying to remember whether my test, forty one years ago, included
knowledge of hand signals. If it did, it was almost certainly just one
signal rather than a whole series "drive for a few minutes as though the
indicators weren't working". Nowadays if the indicators weren't working,
people would just give no signals :-(

[NY]

Post by JNugent

Post by JNugent
During my driving test - fifty years ago in a few months' time - I was
asked to drive for a few minutes using only hand signals, "as though the
indicators were not working".

The only time I use a right hand signal is to reinforce my right
indicator when I'm going right round a roundabout to come back in the
opposite direction, to say to the driver who was originally on my right
as I approached the roundabout "I haven't forgotten to cancel my
indicator, I really *am* still turning so you can't assume I'm turning
off left before I get to you".

Good point.

The other similar situation is when I'm turn right a second time immediately
afterwards: turn off a major road into a minor road and then within a few
yards turning right a second time from the minor road into a driveway which
isn't obvious as somewhere that a car would turn. I tend to give a right
hand signal as I'm completing the first right turn. It tends to reinforce
the act of leaving my indicator on deliberately to convey "I'm turning
again" and to disambiguate it from the more common "my indicator stalk
hasn't cancelled yet".

[Colin Bignell]

On 05/02/2022 16:54, JNugent wrote:
...

Post by JNugent
During my driving test - fifty years ago in a few months' time - I was
asked to drive for a few minutes using only hand signals, "as though the
indicators were not working".

If driving a car with trafficators, hand signals were still needed, as
the trafficators were very easy to miss seeing.

[NY]

...

Post by JNugent
During my driving test - fifty years ago in a few months' time - I was
asked to drive for a few minutes using only hand signals, "as though the
indicators were not working".

If driving a car with trafficators, hand signals were still needed, as the
trafficators were very easy to miss seeing.

Which is why cars changed over to using flashing indicators which are easier
to see because the flashing grabs your visual attention.

And so things continued until a decade or so ago car designers had the
bright idea of locating the indicator lights in with the headlamp cluster at
the front or surrounded by the brake light at the rear, thus making it
difficult at night to see the indicator on a car that is coming towards you
with its headlights on or which is ahead of you and is braking.

Did any cars ever have *flashing* amber lights and/or brighter-than-glowworm
bulbs in the trafficator arms?

[Colin Bignell]

Post by NY

Post by Colin Bignell
...

Post by JNugent
During my driving test - fifty years ago in a few months' time - I
was asked to drive for a few minutes using only hand signals, "as
though the indicators were not working".

If driving a car with trafficators, hand signals were still needed, as
the trafficators were very easy to miss seeing.

Which is why cars changed over to using flashing indicators which are
easier to see because the flashing grabs your visual attention.

That is one reason that people didn't like them when they were first
introduced.

Post by NY
And so things continued until a decade or so ago car designers had the
bright idea of locating the indicator lights in with the headlamp
cluster at the front or surrounded by the brake light at the rear, thus
making it difficult at night to see the indicator on a car that is
coming towards you with its headlights on or which is ahead of you and
is braking.
Did any cars ever have *flashing* amber lights and/or
brighter-than-glowworm bulbs in the trafficator arms?

The trafficator started out as a manually operated semaphore arm.
Electric operation and illumination were later improvements.

I believe there is a flashing upgrade available for retrofitting to
vintage cars that have them. However, the wattage of the bulb in the
ones I remember was limited by the lighting regulations.

[NY]

Post by Colin Bignell
That is one reason that people didn't like them when they were first
introduced.

They were *too* visible? Yeah, right. There's no accounting for folks ;-)

When did the rules on indicators first require them to be amber, rather than
red at the back (eg flashing brake light) and white at the front (eg
flashing side light)? I can remember very early Mark 1 Cortinas had flashing
side lights.

Post by Colin Bignell

Post by NY
Did any cars ever have *flashing* amber lights and/or
brighter-than-glowworm bulbs in the trafficator arms?

The trafficator started out as a manually operated semaphore arm. Electric
operation and illumination were later improvements.
I believe there is a flashing upgrade available for retrofitting to
vintage cars that have them. However, the wattage of the bulb in the ones
I remember was limited by the lighting regulations.

So it's not the full 21 W (assuming tungsten bulb) of a flashing indicator?
Although I suppose a steady light doesn't need to be as bright as a flashing
light which is only on for part of the duty cycle. Trafficators do have one
advantage (*): they are positioned in a very different place to the brake
and tail lights (or the headlights when approaching a vehicle) so they are
less prone to being missed. I suppose the only car with flashing indicators
which partially emulated this placement was the Citroen DS where the rear
indicators were in chrome trim at the top left/right of the rear window -
made it very easy to see the indicator through the windows of the car
between you and the one that's indicating.


(*) They also have one *enormous* disadvantage: if the car is on a bend, the
trafficator on the outside of the bend is hidden by the car body - for
example if a car is on a right hand bend and is indicating to turn left.

[Colin Bignell]

Post by Colin Bignell
That is one reason that people didn't like them when they were first
introduced.

They were *too* visible? Yeah, right. There's no accounting for folks ;-) >
When did the rules on indicators first require them to be amber, rather
than red at the back (eg flashing brake light) and white at the front
(eg flashing side light)? I can remember very early Mark 1 Cortinas had
flashing side lights.

All cars registered from the end of 1958 onwards had to have amber
indicators, so the Mk1 Cortina must have had them. Perhaps, like the
Triumph Herald, they had a white outer glass with an amber inner glass
around the bulb.

https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2013/may/17/new-rules-car-indicators-1956

I think there was a relaxation for imported American cars, allowing them
to have white front and red rear indicators.

Post by Colin Bignell

Post by NY
Did any cars ever have *flashing* amber lights and/or
brighter-than-glowworm bulbs in the trafficator arms?

The trafficator started out as a manually operated semaphore arm.
Electric operation and illumination were later improvements.
I believe there is a flashing upgrade available for retrofitting to
vintage cars that have them. However, the wattage of the bulb in the
ones I remember was limited by the lighting regulations.

So it's not the full 21 W (assuming tungsten bulb) of a flashing indicator?

They were festoon bulbs, with a contact at each end, and 5 Watts, the
same as side and tail lights. Memory suggests that 21W festoon bulbs had
a larger diameter glass, so they might not have fitted inside a
trafficator, which was quite slim.


Although I suppose a steady light doesn't need to be as

bright as a flashing light which is only on for part of the duty cycle.
Trafficators do have one advantage (*): they are positioned in a very
different place to the brake and tail lights (or the headlights when
approaching a vehicle) so they are less prone to being missed. I suppose
the only car with flashing indicators which partially emulated this
placement was the Citroen DS where the rear indicators were in chrome
trim at the top left/right of the rear window - made it very easy to see
the indicator through the windows of the car between you and the one
that's indicating.
(*) They also have one *enormous* disadvantage: if the car is on a bend,
the trafficator on the outside of the bend is hidden by the car body -
for example if a car is on a right hand bend and is indicating to turn
left.

[NY]

Post by Colin Bignell

Post by NY
When did the rules on indicators first require them to be amber, rather
than red at the back (eg flashing brake light) and white at the front (eg
flashing side light)? I can remember very early Mark 1 Cortinas had
flashing side lights.

All cars registered from the end of 1958 onwards had to have amber
indicators, so the Mk1 Cortina must have had them. Perhaps, like the
Triumph Herald, they had a white outer glass with an amber inner glass
around the bulb.

Ah, I wonder if that was it. It was the pre-Aeroflow Cortinas (*) with oval
front side/indicator lights, rather than the post-Aeroflow facelift with the
separate rectangular side/indicators where the indicator was amber plastic.

I wonder why the modern trend is to revert to white plastic and an amber
bulb - which means keeping a special amber bulb as a spare, instead of a
plain 21 W bulb which can be used for either brake or indicator.

Post by Colin Bignell
https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2013/may/17/new-rules-car-indicators-1956
I think there was a relaxation for imported American cars, allowing them
to have white front and red rear indicators.

Yes, they had (and in some states IIRC still have) white/red indicators. And
it's only recently that the UK has allowed the scrolling sequential rear
indicators like some 1950s US cars had, which looked a bit weird but
actually worked really well as an indicator because the direction of the
scrolling was apparent even before you'd worked out which side of the car
was flashing.


(*) I remember my friend's dad had one: gear lever about three feet long
coming out of the transmission tunnel underneath the dashboard rather than
closer to the driver's hand, and big kneecapping metal arms protruding
either side of the steering column on which were tabs for operating
indicators and horn, and I think wipers and lights. The sort of Cortina seen
extensively in Carry on Cabby.

[Colin Bignell]

Post by NY

Post by Colin Bignell

Post by NY
When did the rules on indicators first require them to be amber,
rather than red at the back (eg flashing brake light) and white at
the front (eg flashing side light)? I can remember very early Mark 1
Cortinas had flashing side lights.

All cars registered from the end of 1958 onwards had to have amber
indicators, so the Mk1 Cortina must have had them. Perhaps, like the
Triumph Herald, they had a white outer glass with an amber inner glass
around the bulb.

Ah, I wonder if that was it. It was the pre-Aeroflow Cortinas (*) with
oval front side/indicator lights, rather than the post-Aeroflow facelift
with the separate rectangular side/indicators where the indicator was
amber plastic.
I wonder why the modern trend is to revert to white plastic and an amber
bulb - which means keeping a special amber bulb as a spare, instead of a
plain 21 W bulb which can be used for either brake or indicator.

I thought the modern trend was to use coloured LEDs. Very useful when
somebody damaged the lens over my rear lights and they still showed red,
even through the hole.

Post by NY

Post by Colin Bignell
https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2013/may/17/new-rules-car-indicators-1956
I think there was a relaxation for imported American cars, allowing
them to have white front and red rear indicators.

Yes, they had (and in some states IIRC still have) white/red indicators.
And it's only recently that the UK has allowed the scrolling sequential
rear indicators like some 1950s US cars had, which looked a bit weird
but actually worked really well as an indicator because the direction of
the scrolling was apparent even before you'd worked out which side of
the car was flashing.
(*) I remember my friend's dad had one: gear lever about three feet long
coming out of the transmission tunnel underneath the dashboard rather
than closer to the driver's hand, and big kneecapping metal arms
protruding either side of the steering column on which were tabs for
operating indicators and horn, and I think wipers and lights. The sort
of Cortina seen extensively in Carry on Cabby.

[Recliner]

Post by Colin Bignell

Post by NY

Post by Colin Bignell

Post by NY
When did the rules on indicators first require them to be amber,
rather than red at the back (eg flashing brake light) and white at
the front (eg flashing side light)? I can remember very early Mark 1
Cortinas had flashing side lights.

All cars registered from the end of 1958 onwards had to have amber
indicators, so the Mk1 Cortina must have had them. Perhaps, like the
Triumph Herald, they had a white outer glass with an amber inner glass
around the bulb.

Ah, I wonder if that was it. It was the pre-Aeroflow Cortinas (*) with
oval front side/indicator lights, rather than the post-Aeroflow facelift
with the separate rectangular side/indicators where the indicator was
amber plastic.
I wonder why the modern trend is to revert to white plastic and an amber
bulb - which means keeping a special amber bulb as a spare, instead of a
plain 21 W bulb which can be used for either brake or indicator.

I thought the modern trend was to use coloured LEDs. Very useful when
somebody damaged the lens over my rear lights and they still showed red,
even through the hole.

Yes, I think coloured LEDs became the norm years ago.

[NY]

Post by Recliner

Post by Colin Bignell

Post by NY
I wonder why the modern trend is to revert to white plastic and an amber
bulb - which means keeping a special amber bulb as a spare, instead of a
plain 21 W bulb which can be used for either brake or indicator.

I thought the modern trend was to use coloured LEDs. Very useful when
somebody damaged the lens over my rear lights and they still showed red,
even through the hole.

Yes, I think coloured LEDs became the norm years ago.

My 2008 (*) Peugeot and my wife's 2015 Honda both use tungsten bulbs - I
know because I've occasionally had to change them. I think the brake and
tail lights on the Honda are tungsten as well: only the headlights are HID
and the DRLs are LED. The Peugeot is old enough that no LEDs are used - even
its DRLs (**) are tungsten.



(*) As in the year, rather than Peugeot 2008 model ;-)

(**) I'd had the car about 10 years before I discovered that it even *had*
DRLs, configured deep down in a menu on the car's setup.

[JNugent]

Post by NY

Post by Colin Bignell

Post by NY
When did the rules on indicators first require them to be amber,
rather than red at the back (eg flashing brake light) and white at
the front (eg flashing side light)? I can remember very early Mark 1
Cortinas had flashing side lights.

All cars registered from the end of 1958 onwards had to have amber
indicators, so the Mk1 Cortina must have had them. Perhaps, like the
Triumph Herald, they had a white outer glass with an amber inner glass
around the bulb.

Ah, I wonder if that was it. It was the pre-Aeroflow Cortinas (*) with
oval front side/indicator lights, rather than the post-Aeroflow facelift
with the separate rectangular side/indicators where the indicator was
amber plastic.
I wonder why the modern trend is to revert to white plastic and an amber
bulb - which means keeping a special amber bulb as a spare, instead of a
plain 21 W bulb which can be used for either brake or indicator.

Post by Colin Bignell
https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2013/may/17/new-rules-car-indicators-1956
I think there was a relaxation for imported American cars, allowing
them to have white front and red rear indicators.

Yes, they had (and in some states IIRC still have) white/red indicators.
And it's only recently that the UK has allowed the scrolling sequential
rear indicators like some 1950s US cars had, which looked a bit weird
but actually worked really well as an indicator because the direction of
the scrolling was apparent even before you'd worked out which side of
the car was flashing.
(*) I remember my friend's dad had one: gear lever about three feet long
coming out of the transmission tunnel underneath the dashboard rather
than closer to the driver's hand, and big kneecapping metal arms
protruding either side of the steering column on which were tabs for
operating indicators and horn, and I think wipers and lights. The sort
of Cortina seen extensively in Carry on Cabby.

That was the Mk. I Consul Cortina (introduced in 1962, I think).

[NY]

Post by JNugent

Post by NY
(*) I remember my friend's dad had one: gear lever about three feet long
coming out of the transmission tunnel underneath the dashboard rather
than closer to the driver's hand, and big kneecapping metal arms
protruding either side of the steering column on which were tabs for
operating indicators and horn, and I think wipers and lights. The sort of
Cortina seen extensively in Carry on Cabby.

That was the Mk. I Consul Cortina (introduced in 1962, I think).

It was indeed. I used to live near Matthewson's classic car garage in
Thornton le Dale (as seen on Bangers and Cash) and I saw one there once.
That solid metal arm for the indicator/lights/horn tab-switches looked
lethal - just in the right position to kneecap the driver if he was in a
crash. The early Corsair had them as well.
Loading Image...
and Loading Image... are Cortinas
(RHD and LHD) with one of those, and a column gearchange which I imagine was
offered as an alternative to the very long gear lever coming out of the
transmission tunnel by the engine bulkhead.

I remember a friend's mum had a 1950s Ford Popular/Anglia/Prefect with a
long gear lever, and even at the age of 5 I was amazed at the very large
area that was described by the knob on the gear lever as it was moved
between it various positions: my friend's big sister (in the front) had to
sit with her legs to one side, to allow her mum to move the lever far enough
left to get the car into first and reverse, and mum had to make the opposite
contortion to select second and third. We're very pampered nowadays with
cars that have the gear lever coming out of the floor/transmission tunnel
close to the seats, and movement of only about 3" side-side and front-back.

[JNugent]

Post by NY

Post by JNugent

Post by NY
(*) I remember my friend's dad had one: gear lever about three feet
long coming out of the transmission tunnel underneath the dashboard
rather than closer to the driver's hand, and big kneecapping metal
arms protruding either side of the steering column on which were tabs
for operating indicators and horn, and I think wipers and lights. The
sort of Cortina seen extensively in Carry on Cabby.

That was the Mk. I Consul Cortina (introduced in 1962, I think).

It was indeed. I used to live near Matthewson's classic car garage in
Thornton le Dale (as seen on Bangers and Cash) and I saw one there once.
That solid metal arm for the indicator/lights/horn tab-switches looked
lethal - just in the right position to kneecap the driver if he was in a
crash. The early Corsair had them as well.
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/cca-prod-asset/images/_aliases/large/0/9/5/0/410590-1-eng-GB/cca%20010.JPG
and https://car-from-uk.com/ebay/carphotos/full/ebay333672.jpg are
Cortinas (RHD and LHD) with one of those, and a column gearchange which
I imagine was offered as an alternative to the very long gear lever
coming out of the transmission tunnel by the engine bulkhead.
I remember a friend's mum had a 1950s Ford Popular/Anglia/Prefect with a
long gear lever, and even at the age of 5 I was amazed at the very large
area that was described by the knob on the gear lever as it was moved
between it various positions: my friend's big sister (in the front) had
to sit with her legs to one side, to allow her mum to move the lever far
enough left to get the car into first and reverse, and mum had to make
the opposite contortion to select second and third. We're very pampered
nowadays with cars that have the gear lever coming out of the
floor/transmission tunnel close to the seats, and movement of only about
3" side-side and front-back.

I learned to drive and passed my test in a 1959 Anglia 105E (the last
model, with the rake-back window). I remember that gear lever, the far
end of which seemed to disappear under the dash.

I think the difference between the two types is that for the modern ones
(and to be fair, some older types), the gear lever drops into a remote
control mechanism which "gears up" the motion of the lever. The older
ones had a direct link and a small movement at the gearbox input needed
a big movement at the other end of the lever.

[NY]

Post by JNugent
I learned to drive and passed my test in a 1959 Anglia 105E (the last
model, with the rake-back window).

I had to think about "the last model" until I remembered that a
badge-engineered version of the Ford Prefect was called the (original) Ford
Anglia.

Post by JNugent
I think the difference between the two types is that for the modern ones
(and to be fair, some older types), the gear lever drops into a remote
control mechanism which "gears up" the motion of the lever. The older ones
had a direct link and a small movement at the gearbox input needed a big
movement at the other end of the lever.

That's what I assumed - long lever implies a large movement at the knob end
(oo, matronnnnn) to achieve a fairly small angle of movement in the gear
lever, whereas a remote gear lever can have whatever "gearing" you want
between knob and gearbox.

I learned to drive (or at least, did most of my between-lessons practicing)
on my mum's Renault 6 which had a hockey-stick gear lever that came out of
the dashboard (like on the Citroen 2CV). This lever moved in and out to
simulate the up-down movement (eg 3rd to 4th) and rotated by about 45
degrees (anti)clockwise to simulate the side-to-side movement (eg 2nd to
3rd).

It was a very crude linkage under the bonnet: the gearbox was in front of
the engine and had a conventional rod protruding upward which moved in a
conventional H gate. The gear lever was a rod that ran horizontally over the
engine, with a plate welded to it which had a circular hole which engaged
with the gear lever coming from the gearbox. A rubber grommet lined the hole
to provide a small amount of play and to prevent metal-on-metal contact.

One day my dad (who was supervising my practice) got me to reverse into a
side road and then set off in the opposite direction. As I took my hand off
the gear lever after moving it from reverse (bottom-right) to first
(top-left), the lever went slack and flopped upside down, bashing me on the
knee. I am told that I uttered the immortal words "Daaaaaaaaad. Is it
supposed to do that?". The grommet had come out (luckily we found it under
the car) which allowed enough play for the flat plate to disengage from the
gearbox lever. After that, Dad cable-tied the grommet to the plate so if it
ever fell out, it wouldn't get lost.

I had a much more frightening experience with that car a few months later. I
was going up a steep hill in second gear. When I got to the top and changed
up into third, the engine raced a bit but I didn't pay too much attention
because I thought I'd just messed-up my accelerator/clutch coordination.
Once the road levelled out and I went into fourth, the car shot forward like
a scalded cat and carried on accelerating after I took my foot off the
accelerator - and that pedal felt a bit odd because it didn't rise up when I
took my foot off it. I diagnosed a stuck accelerator cable very quickly and
something told me that I should *not* press the clutch, otherwise the
engine, with no load on it and wide throttle left over from fast engine
speed in second, would overspeed. No overspeed protection on a car with a
carburettor! Surprisingly calmly I turned the ignition key gently to the
accessory position, being careful not to turn it fully off in case I engaged
the steering lock (apparently that can't happen, as long as the key is still
in the lock, but I didn't know that at the time) and braked hard to bring
the car to rest. The cable had frayed inside the sheath. Dad jury-rigged the
cable so it was stuck at about 2000 rpm, varying the engine speed a bit with
the slow-running control on the choke. It took a while to get home. All went
well until he set off into our drive after stopping in the middle of the
road waiting to turn right. Instinctively he accelerated with the throttle
to set off, and nearly went through the lounge window before he managed to
turn the engine off.

I got a certain amount of stick from mum - "why does my car only go wrong
when *you're* driving it?" ;-)


The hockey-stick gear lever looked a bit odd, but it was very easy to use:
smooth, not notchy, and very positive because there was a lot of rotation
between 1st/2nd, 3rd/4th and reverse planes, and there was a nice strong
bias spring so there was never any doubt whether the gear lever would go
from third into fourth (no sideways pressure on knob) or third to second
(rotate wrist anticlockwise against bias spring). The car I learned on and
took my test on had very weak bias spring (if any) so it was all too easy to
hit 2nd instead of 4th or vice-versa. Nowadays all cars have bias springs
for movement either side of the 3rd/4th plane, so it's hard to remember back
to cars that had no such bias spring, where you needed to be a lot more
careful.

[JNugent]

Post by NY

Post by Colin Bignell

Post by NY
When did the rules on indicators first require them to be amber,
rather than red at the back (eg flashing brake light) and white at
the front (eg flashing side light)? I can remember very early Mark 1
Cortinas had flashing side lights.

All cars registered from the end of 1958 onwards had to have amber
indicators, so the Mk1 Cortina must have had them. Perhaps, like the
Triumph Herald, they had a white outer glass with an amber inner glass
around the bulb.

Ah, I wonder if that was it. It was the pre-Aeroflow Cortinas (*) with
oval front side/indicator lights, rather than the post-Aeroflow facelift
with the separate rectangular side/indicators where the indicator was
amber plastic.

Soory for the delay in replying, but ISTR that the MkI Cortina had a
very distinctive and model-specific circular rear light cluster with the
"disc" split into three 120" sectors. Rear light [red] / indicator
[amber] / brake light [red and a more powerful lamp than the rear light].

See: <Loading Image...>

But... the Cortina Estate didn't use that cluster and had one where the
different lights were vertically stacked (IIRC).

Post by NY
I wonder why the modern trend is to revert to white plastic and an amber
bulb - which means keeping a special amber bulb as a spare, instead of a
plain 21 W bulb which can be used for either brake or indicator.

Post by Colin Bignell
https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2013/may/17/new-rules-car-indicators-1956
I think there was a relaxation for imported American cars, allowing
them to have white front and red rear indicators.

Yes, they had (and in some states IIRC still have) white/red indicators.
And it's only recently that the UK has allowed the scrolling sequential
rear indicators like some 1950s US cars had, which looked a bit weird
but actually worked really well as an indicator because the direction of
the scrolling was apparent even before you'd worked out which side of
the car was flashing.
(*) I remember my friend's dad had one: gear lever about three feet long
coming out of the transmission tunnel underneath the dashboard rather
than closer to the driver's hand, and big kneecapping metal arms
protruding either side of the steering column on which were tabs for
operating indicators and horn, and I think wipers and lights. The sort
of Cortina seen extensively in Carry on Cabby.

[NY]

Post by NY

Post by Colin Bignell

Post by NY
When did the rules on indicators first require them to be amber, rather
than red at the back (eg flashing brake light) and white at the front
(eg flashing side light)? I can remember very early Mark 1 Cortinas had
flashing side lights.

All cars registered from the end of 1958 onwards had to have amber
indicators, so the Mk1 Cortina must have had them. Perhaps, like the
Triumph Herald, they had a white outer glass with an amber inner glass
around the bulb.

Ah, I wonder if that was it. It was the pre-Aeroflow Cortinas (*) with
oval front side/indicator lights, rather than the post-Aeroflow facelift
with the separate rectangular side/indicators where the indicator was
amber plastic.

Soory for the delay in replying, but ISTR that the MkI Cortina had a very
distinctive and model-specific circular rear light cluster with the "disc"
split into three 120" sectors. Rear light [red] / indicator [amber] /
brake light [red and a more powerful lamp than the rear light].
See: <https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/k4MAAOSwzgFiZXhk/s-l500.jpg>
But... the Cortina Estate didn't use that cluster and had one where the
different lights were vertically stacked (IIRC).

Loading Image...



Yes those 120-degree "CND" or "Trivia Pursuit" rear lights on the Cortina
saloon were iconic. Although the brake and indicator lights were adjacent, I
don't remember ever having problems seeing the indicators when the brake
lights were on. Unlike many modern cars, where the indicators (front and
back) are very difficult to see. There have been many times at night when
I've been waiting at a roundabout and have erred on the side of caution
because I can't be certain whether or not a car already on the roundabout is
indicating to leave at the exit where I am joining. Never used to happen,
when the indicators were spaced a long way from the headlights - in a
separate housing, maybe within or even below the bumpers. It's not that the
headlights are too bright, it's that the indicators are housed right next to
the headlights.

Sadly, light clusters seem to be designed nowadays for aesthetics (ie to
*look* good) rather than putting clear visibility of all the lights as the
first priority.

[Nick Finnigan]

Post by NY

Post by Colin Bignell

  Allegedly, we will have to'give way' to pedestrians who are waiting to
cross, even if they have pressed the button for the pelicon.

'Should' not 'must', so simply advisory.

I presume Nick meant "even if they have NOT pressed the button". Makes you
wonder what the purpose of the red light is, if you have to stop at a
pelican when the light is green, never mind when it is red. Why not just
make it a zebra crossing?

No, I meant that even if it is blatantly obvious that the pedstrians are
waiting for a signal to cross, at a box junction, the highway code might
say that drivers turning right should 'give way'.


https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1041273/the-highway-code-alteration-to-the-highway-code.pdf

[Brian Gaff]

Yes and a lot of pedestrians are just hearing we have right of way, and
don't read the code in any case.
As I said, these continuous Copenhagen footways are the most dangerous
invention recently implemented by councils. As many blind people will not
be able to make eye contact with a driver, and splat.
Brian
--
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Post by Nick Finnigan

Post by NY

Post by Colin Bignell

Post by Nick Finnigan
Allegedly, we will have to'give way' to pedestrians who are waiting to
cross, even if they have pressed the button for the pelicon.

'Should' not 'must', so simply advisory.

I presume Nick meant "even if they have NOT pressed the button". Makes
you wonder what the purpose of the red light is, if you have to stop at a
pelican when the light is green, never mind when it is red. Why not just
make it a zebra crossing?

No, I meant that even if it is blatantly obvious that the pedstrians are
waiting for a signal to cross, at a box junction, the highway code might
say that drivers turning right should 'give way'.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1041273/the-highway-code-alteration-to-the-highway-code.pdf

[Brian Gaff]

I also feel there could be danger for pedestrians who have not read it, as
we are being told everywhere there is a turning, we can cross that road as
vehicles have to give way to us, but if the rules are so complicated, and
there is such a lack of detail about how on earth are blind folk supposed to
know what is safe. Add this to the continuous footways being installed with
no indication to the blind that they are even crossing a road as the level
is the same, I can see rather than making it safer it could add uncertainty
to an already complex situation.
Brian
--
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Post by NY
There have been newspaper articles publicising the changes to the rules on
roundabouts as regards cyclists and horse-riders, but the descriptions of
the changes are all rather vague.
In simple terms, what has changed? What could I previously do as a driver
which I will now need to do differently? I presume "give priority to
cyclists" means that they still have to stop and wait for a gap when
joining a roundabout - that there is no need for traffic on a roundabout
to give way to cyclists (but not motor vehicles) that are waiting to join.
Once cyclists are on the roundabout, you are not supposed to overtake them
unless there is a spare lane that is signposted your way, but then that is
implied by the general advice about allowing so-many metres of space when
overtaking a cyclist anywhere.
My feeling is that the *fact* that there is a change in the rules has been
publicised fairly well, but the exact do/don't of *what* drivers need to
do differently could do with being explained a lot better (maybe with
diagrams and examples).
As a matter of interest, is there anything in the HC which prohibits a car
that wants to turn left at a roundabout but faces a long queue in the
left-turn approach lane, from approaching in the right-hand lane and going
all the way round and then leaving at the desired exit? It might be
regarded as bending the rules, but is it actually prohibited?

[NY]

Post by Brian Gaff
I also feel there could be danger for pedestrians who have not read it, as
we are being told everywhere there is a turning, we can cross that road as
vehicles have to give way to us, but if the rules are so complicated, and
there is such a lack of detail about how on earth are blind folk supposed
to know what is safe. Add this to the continuous footways being installed
with no indication to the blind that they are even crossing a road as the
level is the same, I can see rather than making it safer it could add
uncertainty to an already complex situation.

Do continuous footways not even have a tactile edge in lieu of a kerbstone
for your stick to feel?

I do wonder what someone was smoking when they came up with a road layout
which makes no distinction, whether to a sighted or an unsighted person,
between the roadway which is the only place where vehicles can go and the
pavement where generally pedestrians go apart from the brief times that they
are crossing the road.

I like a road to have rules (whether or not I agree with all of them) as
opposed to a free-for-all where no-one has priority over anyone else.