Signal at roundabout query

[Deleted member 66701]

Some of it is.

No, none of it is. The law is the law, not the HC.

To clarify, many sections in the HC start with SHOULD, for example:-

59. Clothing. You should wear
 a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and
securely fastened
 appropriate clothes for cycling. Avoid clothes which may get tangled in the
chain, or in a wheel or may obscure your lights
 light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in
daylight and poor light
 reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark.

So, not doing any of those those thing will not lead to a prosecution in any form whatsoever.

However, any "must" statement is backed with a refernce to the relevant statute, i.e.:-

60. At night your cycle MUST have white front and red rear lights lit. It MUST also be fitted
with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85).
White front reflectors and spoke reflectors will also help you to be seen. Flashing lights
are permitted but it is recommended that cyclists who are riding in areas without street
lighting use a steady front lamp.

Law RVLR regs 13, 18 & 24

So, whilst section 60 of the HC is not law in itself, not following it may put you at risk of prosecution under the relevant statute.

 

[Burnsy2023]

I'd ask the question whether anyone would be misled by the OP's signal? I highly doubt it. Regardless of the rules, they are there for a reason - a reason which simply doesn't apply here.

It's a pet hate of mine to follow rules for no reason. Sometimes the reasons aren't obvious, but I feel your sense of injustice.

 

[rhysduck]

A major fault is something that could potentially be dangerous.

Harsh but the examiner was correct in awarding a major here IMO.

 

[Burnsy2023]

So, whilst section 60 of the HC is not law in itself, not following it may put you at risk of prosecution under the relevant statute.

Your being pedantic. For all intents and purposes there's no difference.

 

[Burnsy2023]

A major fault is something that could potentially be dangerous.

Harsh but the examiner was correct in awarding a major here IMO.

How is potentially dangerous?

 

[rhysduck]

No idea - I'm not a driving instructor.

 

[lemonade]

Please don't follow what other motorists do, that is a recipe for disaster.

I would have drifted round that roundabout, dont do that!

 

[Howard]

No, none of it is. The law is the law, not the HC.

To clarify, many sections in the HC start with SHOULD, for example:-



So, not doing any of those those thing will not lead to a prosecution in any form whatsoever.

However, any "must" statement is backed with a refernce to the relevant statute, i.e.:-



So, whilst section 60 of the HC is not law in itself, not following it may put you at risk of prosecution under the relevant statute.

--

Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence.

Whilst I see what you're saying, it seems a bit nit-picky - you know I was referring to the "Musts" versus the "shoulds". The fact that disobeying these "must/must not" rules is a criminal offence means you'd be breaking the law, no?

 

[Dr Who]

The tester is correct in his explanation, but I'm of the opinion that a major fault is a little harsh in these exact circumstances.

With no other traffic about it would have been a false signal minor, if there were other vehicles around that could have been confused by the signal it can become a major.

 

[Dr Who]

How is potentially dangerous?

It doesn't need to be actually dangerous, there are 3 levels of fault in a driving test.

1, Minor Fault - 14 = failure.
2. Serious fault - 1 = failure.
3. Dangerous - 1 = Failure and probable end to the test.

A serious fault is one that could cause another driver to change course speed or direction, an example in this case would be had there been a driver waiting to pull out of that left hand junction who had seen your signal.

A dangerous fault would have been if a driver WAS waiting to pull out and did because he saw your signal.

 

[tom_e]

It doesn't need to be actually dangerous, there are 3 levels of fault in a driving test.

1, Minor Fault - 14 = failure.
2. Serious fault - 1 = failure.
3. Dangerous - 1 = Failure and probable end to the test.

A serious fault is one that could cause another driver to change course speed or direction, an example in this case would be had there been a driver waiting to pull out of that left hand junction who had seen your signal.

A dangerous fault would have been if a driver WAS waiting to pull out and did because he saw your signal.

That's it no else around to confuse then you're fine, as soon as there's another vehicle around you've failed.
The other guy I done my motorbike test with got lucky and picked up a minor for not cancelling his signal luckily there were no cars to be misled by his signal or else that would have failed him.