# Indicators should be banned, to improve road safety.



## Arfcollins (10 May 2012)

Years ago, when big companies had a paternal attitude to their staff, and cash was swilling around, my employer sent me on a 'defensive driving' course. One thing I learnt that changed the way I drive for the better, was the idea that you should only indicate when there is someone to indicate to. It sounds obvious, but point is that to find out if there is someone to indicate to, you have to look for them, so the importance of being observant when manoovering (never could spell that!) is reinforced. I therefore indicate as little as possible, in the car or on the bike. On the bike I hardly ever indicate when I turn left (I'd rather have both hands on the bars) and I cringe when I see other cyclists who think being polite is better than being in control.

Taking this to its logical conclusion, if indicators were banned road users would just have to wait for a safe gap for their manooover, and accidents would be reduced. The first step will be to ban left hand indicating for all vehicles. To start the ball rolling I invite fellow CCers to walk the streets with a small hammer to take out all those nasty little nearside lights on their neighbours' cars. It's for the common good.


----------



## 400bhp (10 May 2012)

What are your thoughts on lane positioning on motorways?


----------



## Arfcollins (10 May 2012)

I've had medical treatment for that, and I no longer have any thoughts about the matter. And I feel much better for it.


----------



## musa (10 May 2012)

no left indicators at all, I fail to see the level of left hooks reducing accidents (or is it me being tired to read between the lines?)


----------



## 400bhp (10 May 2012)

Good 

I like indicators - it's part of the armoury used to defend or attack drivers when there has been an accident/infringment.


----------



## Andrew_Culture (10 May 2012)

I was taught the same way; it still makes me think.


----------



## musa (10 May 2012)

Yeah I see the logic in indicating when necessary. I thought that was what you was taught by instructors, to give awareness/warning tell the driver behind or whatever what your move is


----------



## TonyEnjoyD (10 May 2012)

I agree to a certain extent, especially on motorways.
I was on a DD course two years ago and the tutor asked me each time when I didn't indicate, and I said I was taught old school no need to use them when no-one to see.
Also motorways, only if you need to warn or advise drivers, especially moving back to the left lane... no need.

Regarding smashing lights, there's a few estates in Newcastle will do it for us without asking!


----------



## 400bhp (10 May 2012)

TonyEnjoyD said:


> I agree to a certain extent, especially on motorways.
> I was on a DD course two years ago and the tutor asked me each time when I didn't indicate, and I said I was taught old school no need to use them when no-one to see.


 
What's a DD course?

I was taught the same as part of the IaM advanced driving course. FWIW I think it would benefit many cyclists to do an advanced driving course.


----------



## Arfcollins (10 May 2012)

musa said:


> Yeah I see the logic in indicating when necessary. I thought that was what you was taught by instructors, to give awareness/warning tell the driver behind or whatever what your move is


Yes but how many times do you hear 'but didn't you see my indicators' from some plonker who thinks that pulling down on that lever discharges his reponsibilty to drive safely?


----------



## gaz (10 May 2012)




----------



## TonyEnjoyD (10 May 2012)

Sorry Defensive Driving course is what they used to call it. It is the Advanced Driving course.
It was delivered by an ex Police instructor/ex special branch protection detail driver so really knew his stuff.
The mad part was heading back in, came onto the A1 at Durham and I had to drive back to Newcastle (Gosforth) without using my brakes so really had to read the road well!.


----------



## 400bhp (10 May 2012)

TonyEnjoyD said:


> Sorry Defensive Driving course is what they used to call it. It is the Advanced Driving course.
> It was delivered by an ex Police instructor/ex special branch protection detail driver so really knew his stuff.
> *The mad part was heading back in, came onto the A1 at Durham and I had to drive back to Newcastle (Gosforth) without using my brakes so really had to read the road well!*.


 
Ah, yes, a good way to focus the mind.

I remember heading down Route Napoleon several years ago and playing that game in a powerful car - I hit the brakes twice IIRC over about 10 miles - the car in front (Merc SL55 AMG IIRC) hit the brakes > 50 times.


----------



## Hawk (10 May 2012)

Isn't there a chance that you might be looking around but happen not to see another road user, in which case an indicator may forewarn said other road user of your intentions and thus allow them time to manoeuvre away from a situation of conflict?


----------



## totallyfixed (10 May 2012)

Not using indicators causes traffic congestion, think about it.


----------



## machew (10 May 2012)

Thought that indicators were optional extras on some BMWs


----------



## Pat "5mph" (10 May 2012)

totallyfixed said:


> Not using indicators causes traffic congestion, think about it.


Yeah, the roads leading to cemeteries/crematoria will be packet!


----------



## Mushroomgodmat (10 May 2012)

I suppose it's an intresting way to look at it, but I also think its flawed. 

Couple of points (personal opinion ofcourse)

1: I never indicate (cycling) going around a corner. I indicate before the corner so when I make the turn both hands are on the bars.

2: as a pedestrian I totally rely on cars indicating for me to negotiate crossing the road/path (see point4)

3: it's (unfortunatly) natural for drivers to fill any available gap... So I honestly think that removing indicators would not in any way stop car drivers driving too close. 

4: as for not using them when there is no one about....this drives me mad. I was nearly hit by a car last year because the car did not indicate when turning into a corner while I was crossing the road. For whatever reason he didn't see me, but I saw him, and had he indicated I would have waited to cross. I personally indicate at all times, I don't see it as not a distraction, it's practically muscle memory reaction now.


----------



## lukesdad (11 May 2012)

400bhp said:


> What's a DD course?
> 
> I was taught the same as part of the IaM advanced driving course. FWIW I think it would benefit many cyclists to do an advanced driving course.


I m quite advanced, does that count ?


----------



## classic33 (11 May 2012)

What way the front wheels are pointing(when you can see them) can give a better indication of any intended course alteration than the indicators in many cases.


----------



## snorri (11 May 2012)

Mushroomgodmat said:


> it's practically muscle memory reaction now.


In other words driving on auto-pilot? IIRC, driving on auto is considered a no no by experts in that field.


----------



## Hawk (11 May 2012)

snorri said:


> In other words driving on auto-pilot? IIRC, driving on auto is considered a no no by experts in that field.


 
I don't need to think about balancing my bike when I'm busy reading the traffic situation around me; is that also a bad thing?


----------



## Ian Cooper (11 May 2012)

Arfcollins said:


> ...Taking this to its logical conclusion, if indicators were banned road users would just have to wait for a safe gap for their manooover, and accidents would be reduced.


 
Good points. Recently, I've been mulling over the issue of left turn indicating on a bike (or rather right turn indicating, but I'm in the US, so that translates to left for most of you folks). I'm leaning towards the conclusion that it's best never to indicate such a turn, as it can only encourage drivers to try to share the turn with you, which is never a good idea (at least not for the cyclist). Making them think I'm going straight is always a better policy, I reckon.


----------



## snorri (11 May 2012)

[QUOTE 1843663, member: 9609"]Jeez.... sometimes I wonder if i am the only person who can drive properly![/quote]
A nice big mug of Ovaltine in the late evening can help
It won't tell you if you are the best driver in the world, but it will make the question seem completely irrelevant


----------



## BentMikey (11 May 2012)

AFAIK BikeAbility/National Standards cycle training teaches not to indicate unless there's someone to whom that indication would be beneficial.


----------



## Mushroomgodmat (11 May 2012)

snorri said:


> In other words driving on auto-pilot? IIRC, driving on auto is considered a no no by experts in that field.



Nope, the exact opposite infact. The fact that I do it on "auto pilot" means Im able to dedicate more time to actualy paying attention to the roads. Turning the strearing wheel, or using the brake are also elements of car driving I don't need to think about


----------



## Mushroomgodmat (11 May 2012)

[QUOTE 1843663, member: 9609"]I always view it as a sign of incompetence when a car overtakes me on an otherwise deserted road then indicates to come back onto the left[/quote]

Then I'm an incompetent driver then. I indicate at every turn, and at every lane change. , be I on busy or a non busy roads. I think it's a good attatude to have, and airs on the side of caution as its possible I may have not seen something or someone (blinds pots, minor obstructions etc). I would not assume that just because I think no ones around that it's really the case.


----------



## Manonabike (11 May 2012)

Arfcollins said:


> I've had medical treatment for that, and I no longer have any thoughts about the matter. And I feel much better for it.


 
 I liked the reply to the question:



400bhp said:


> What are your thoughts on lane positioning on motorways?


----------



## The Eco Worrier (11 May 2012)

I'm with Mushroomgodmat ( you're going to have to explain that one!) Quick look, indicate in advance, both hands back on the bars.

I did however have an interesting crash a few months ago coming down a hill to a roandabout, probably (definately) going a bit too quick. I indicated left, my subconcious suggested I slowed down so squeezed the right brake handle and popped over the handlebars. When the car behind asked me if I'd injured anything I could only mutter "just my pride" and hobble off. Lesson is probably - slow down a bit.


----------



## Linford (11 May 2012)

Arfcollins said:


> . On the bike I hardly ever indicate when I turn left (I'd rather have both hands on the bars) and I cringe when I see other cyclists who think being polite is better than being in control.
> 
> quote]
> 
> In the absence of indicators, you should use your arms and indicate your intention before you make your manouver, and then that gives you time to make it with both hands on the bars. I'd call it good planning, and that goes along the same line as road positioning on a junction, ot turning right across a carriageway.


----------



## 400bhp (11 May 2012)

Linford said:


> In the absence of indicators, you should use your arms and indicate your intention before you make your manouver, and then that gives you time to make it with both hands on the bars. I'd call it good planning, and that goes along the same line as road positioning on a junction, ot turning right across a carriageway.


 
It's not always possible to do that - e.g if there are two turnings close to each other.

I think it was Greg Collins a while ago on here who said that he doesn't signal to turn left as you often get cars [who are waiting in the opposite direction to turn right into the road you want to go] taking a chance and pulling across you when they see you indicating to turn left (and to a lesser extent, cars overtaking you when you haven't finished your manouver). I think this is a very good point and I now generally take this stance.


----------



## 400bhp (11 May 2012)

Mushroomgodmat said:


> Then I'm an incompetent driver then. I indicate at every turn, and at every lane change. , be I on busy or a non busy roads. I think it's a good attatude to have, and airs on the side of caution as its possible I may have not seen something or someone (blinds pots, minor obstructions etc). I would not assume that just because I think no ones around that it's really the case.


 
If you can't see them they can't see you.


----------



## byegad (11 May 2012)

A friend, a police trained driver has the same attitude to signalling as the OP. I on the other hand ws trained to signal no matter what by the now defunct RAC/ACU Motorcycle training scheme. Even though we didn't know each other at the time and met some 20 years after our initial training we both think we are good drivers.We are both 60 now.

Our insurance claims record, and speeding fines records come out in favour of signalling. As does the fact that two of our none driving friends will no longer get into his car for a lift, preferring the bus or a taxi to riding with him, whereas they'll happily jump into my car for the same journey.

Not a statistically significant sample I know but I won't be not signalling my intentions any time soon. There is one exception I make when I'm cycling, and that is with only me and a following car in sight, I don't signal a left if the driver is too close to me as I get to my signalling point and is slowing or accelerating for no apparent reason. I take this a sign that the driver intends to turn left and is either going to come around the turn on my tail or try to beat me to the corner and then throw the car in front of me.


----------



## 400bhp (11 May 2012)

byegad said:


> A friend, a police trained driver has the same attitude to signalling as the OP. I on the other hand ws trained to signal no matter what by the now defunct RAC/ACU Motorcycle training scheme. Even though we didn't know each other at the time and met some 20 years after our initial training we both think we are good drivers.We are both 60 now.
> 
> Our insurance claims record, and speeding fines records come out in favour of signalling. As does the fact that two of our none driving friends will no longer get into his car for a lift, preferring the bus or a taxi to riding with him, whereas they'll happily jump into my car for the same journey.
> 
> *Not a statistically significant sample I know* but I won't be not signalling my intentions any time soon. There is one exception I make when I'm cycling, and that is with only me and a following car in sight, I don't signal a left if the driver is too close to me as I get to my signalling point and is slowing or accelerating for no apparent reason. I take this a sign that the driver intends to turn left and is either going to come around the turn on my tail or try to beat me to the corner and then throw the car in front of me.


 
Really


----------



## Mushroomgodmat (11 May 2012)

400bhp said:


> If you can't see them they can't see you.


 
I assume that's in reply to my comment about blind spots...I should therefore point out that my blind spot comment was just to illustrate one possible reason you may not see everything on, or predict everything you see on the roads when making the judgement to indicate.


Also...If everyone stopped indicating, wouldn't we all move as fast as the slowest car in built up areas? (maybe not a bad thing) As a cyclist I'm not sure I would ever overtake a slow moving car If I didn't know their intentions.. So as a result I would travel as slow as that car. And while we are getting rid of indicators, why not get rid of brake lights too?


----------



## GrasB (11 May 2012)

400bhp said:


> If you can't see them they can't see you.


Not true actually. Hedgerows etc. can give effective one way vision (for instance I can clearly see 3 cars from my office window through a hedge, however you can't see me from the car park due o the same hedge). Also there are blind spots.

That said I do think people over-indicate these days. There's no need to signal around every single obstacle in your path & also if you're unsure it's genrally better to not signal than signal.


----------



## GrasB (11 May 2012)

1843844 said:


> or just polite, considerate road users.


Indication is to give extra information to other road users, exactly what extra information signalling to move back in actually give? Answer... none! So why signal? I am assuming we're talking on a single-lane carriageway road here. On a multi-lane carriageway there's good reason to signal; so that people are aware of any road space conflicts which may occur.


----------



## Brandane (11 May 2012)

Arfcollins said:


> One thing I learnt that changed the way I drive for the better, was the idea that you should only indicate when there is someone to indicate to. It sounds obvious, but point is that to find out if there is someone to indicate to, you have to look for them, so the importance of being observant when manoovering (never could spell that!) is reinforced.


 
Is it too much to ask that people learn to indicate AND be observant at the same time? I did my Police driving course in 1986 when I was still serving with them. We were taught to indicate whether or not you could actually see someone who would benefit from it. The theory is that you don't know at what point someone (pedestrian, cyclist, or driver) is going to appear. Case in point; you are approaching a roundabout and intend to turn left but don't bother indicating because there is no-one to indicate to. Meantime I am approaching the roundabout from your left (on the road you are about to turn into), unseen because of buildings, bushes or whatever. I get to the roundabout just before you and have to stop to give way to you approaching from my right, because you are not indicating and I have to assume you are going straight on. You then perform a left turn and I call you a few names.......

Not indicating is bad driving and laziness. There is nothing "advanced" about it. I agree with the point made about people overtaking on single carriageways and then indicating left when they have passed. That is just stupidity; it goes without saying that you are going to pull back into the left, where you are meant to be!

REMEMBER: Mirror - SIGNAL - Manoeuvre. It is the basic principle of driving!


----------



## GrasB (11 May 2012)

Brandane, Current roadcraft is that you indicate only when you observe someone to be present. This is something I don't entirely agree with.


----------



## Mushroomgodmat (11 May 2012)

GrasB said:


> Brandane, Current roadcraft is that you indicate only when you observe someone to be present. This is something I don't entirely agree with.


 

This could be out of date, but I don't suspect it is (see first point)
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/travelandtransport/highwaycode/dg_070338


----------



## GrasB (11 May 2012)

Mushroomgodmat said:


> This could be out of date, but I don't suspect it is (see first point)
> http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/travelandtransport/highwaycode/dg_070338


and?.. Road craft almost completely agree with that but simply adds that you should only signal when you can see another road user which would benefit from your information (cyclist, ped, motorist etc.). They don't have to be on the road just the fact that they may benefit from your signal.


----------



## Brandane (11 May 2012)

GrasB said:


> Brandane, Current roadcraft is that you indicate only when you observe someone to be present. This is something I don't entirely agree with.


 
A change for the worse then, IMHO. I did a driving instructors course a few years ago. I couldn't believe one of the things they teach nowadays.... When going round a roundabout which does NOT have a straight ahead option (i.e. only 2 exits, one going left and the other right), you can use the LEFT lane if you are turning RIGHT!! Having been a full time driver of artics for 6 years I find that rule absolutely unbelievably stupid and badly thought out.


----------



## GrasB (11 May 2012)

As I said before, it's a part of road craft I don't agree with.


----------



## 400bhp (11 May 2012)

GrasB said:


> Not true actually. Hedgerows etc. can give effective one way vision (for instance I can clearly see 3 cars from my office window through a hedge, however you can't see me from the car park due o the same hedge). Also there are blind spots.


 
What has that got top do with indicating?


----------



## 400bhp (11 May 2012)

Brandane said:


> Is it too much to ask that people learn to indicate AND be observant at the same time? I did my Police driving course in 1986 when I was still serving with them. We were taught to indicate whether or not you could actually see someone who would benefit from it. The theory is that you don't know at what point someone (pedestrian, cyclist, or driver) is going to appear. Case in point; you are approaching a roundabout and intend to turn left but don't bother indicating because there is no-one to indicate to. Meantime I am approaching the roundabout from your left (on the road you are about to turn into), unseen because of buildings, bushes or whatever. I get to the roundabout just before you and have to stop to give way to you approaching from my right, because you are not indicating and I have to assume you are going straight on. You then perform a left turn and I call you a few names.......
> 
> Not indicating is bad driving and laziness. There is nothing "advanced" about it. I agree with the point made about people overtaking on single carriageways and then indicating left when they have passed. That is just stupidity; it goes without saying that you are going to pull back into the left, where you are meant to be!
> 
> REMEMBER: Mirror - SIGNAL - Manoeuvre. It is the basic principle of driving!


 
Are you an driving expert then? I'd rather listen to those thank you.


----------



## atbman (11 May 2012)

I've pretty much always signalled, car or bike, regardless. It doesn't cost me anything and, if I haven't noticed someone, gives them suitable warning.

As for not signalling left, it seems to me that if there's someone waitning to come out of the road you're turning into, you give them the opportunity to pull out while you'r still approaching the turn-off. Courtesy, really.


----------



## Brandane (11 May 2012)

400bhp said:


> Are you an driving expert then? I'd rather listen to those thank you.


 
Personally, I don't think there is such a thing as a "driving expert". Some people might think they are, but I am not one of them. I make mistakes, same as EVERYBODY else. I have had a few accidents over the years that have been my fault. What I DO have is experience (on bicycles, motorbikes, cars, and HGVs of all classes). You don't need to be a "driving expert" to know when indicators should or should not be used.


----------



## BentMikey (11 May 2012)

The point is that if you're not absolutely certain whether there's someone around to signal to, then DON'T 'KING MANOEUVRE!!!!


----------



## 400bhp (11 May 2012)

Brandane said:


> Personally, I don't think there is such a thing as a "driving expert". Some people might think they are, but I am not one of them. I make mistakes, same as EVERYBODY else. I have had a few accidents over the years that have been my fault. What I DO have is experience (on bicycles, motorbikes, cars, and HGVs of all classes). You don't need to be a "driving expert" to know when indicators should or should not be used.


 
:sigh:


----------



## doug (11 May 2012)

I tried the "not indicating unless you can see there is someone who will benefit" thing a while ago and although it is a good exercise to force you into taking a good look at every junction, after a while I came to the conclusion that it was very rare that I could be 100% certain I had observed absolutely everything (is there someone in that parked car you can't see due to the dark tinted windows, is there someone about to step out from behind that hedge?) and therefore had to indicate at every junction anyway. I came to the conclusion it was much better to indicate by default as this is at least a failsafe option. I still make sure I observe correctly and rather than asking myself "is there anyone who will benefit ?" I instead ask myself "is there anyone who I may confuse by indicating here?".

One thing I hate more than no indicators is someone indicating wrongly or confusingly, I sometime hear myself muttering under my breath "Oh you meant the 2nd left - not the first left !"

Far too many people do not indicate even when there is someone who will benefit, that I'd rather they indicated correctly and automatically than not at all


----------



## gambatte (11 May 2012)

From the point of view of the observer as opposed to the indicator, I always see indicators as just that. An indication that a driver 'may' be preparing to turn or change position. To be taken into consideration with other factors, slowing, visible driver observations etc.
I can't count the number of times I've followed a driver along a straight, clear road when they've had their indicator on for no apparant reason. Done it myself, usually after I've had to reapply them after they've knocked off too soon.
As to no indicators..... I reckon Cavendish can think of one Ferrari he wishes had them!


----------



## doug (11 May 2012)

BentMikey said:


> The point is that if you're not absolutely certain whether there's someone around to signal to, then DON'T 'KING MANOEUVRE!!!!


 
I disagree - I don't think you can ever be 100% certain there is no one around to signal to, if you had to be 100% certain no one could ever move anywhere !
However, you can be sufficiently certain that you can stop in the distance that you have observed to be clear, and can react in time to anything you can reasonably expect.


----------



## GrasB (11 May 2012)

1843967 said:


> There is no evidence to support your assumption in Reiver's post.


Which assumption? The fact the driver is on a single-lane carriageway or that they're on a multi-lane carriageway? Both situational assumptions are clearly covered with the requisite qualifications.


----------



## BentMikey (11 May 2012)

I suspect that if you can't be so close to 100% certain as makes no difference that there are no road users around to be impacted by your manoeuvre, then you probably haven't looked properly and/or are going too fast for the situation.


----------



## GrasB (11 May 2012)

gambatte said:


> As to no indicators..... I reckon Cavendish can think of one Ferrari he wishes had them!


Racing, both pedal powered & engine powered requires trust between you & your competitors. To race closely you're in an zone where you can't react to every possible manoeuvre your competitors are capable of. This is where the concept of 'racing room' comes in, space that allows your competitor space to avoid an incident, but not necessarily the space to pass you.


----------



## byegad (11 May 2012)

1843844 said:


> or just polite, considerate road users.


Absolutely! It drives me mad when you wait to cross traffic and the complete buffoon stops or turns off without signalling before they reach you.


----------



## doug (11 May 2012)

BentMikey said:


> I suspect that if you can't be so close to 100% certain as makes no difference that there are no road users around to be impacted by your manoeuvre, then you probably haven't looked properly and/or are going too fast for the situation.


 
I don't believe it is possible to be "so close to 100% certain as makes no difference" without having xray vision or ESP. The problem is not the people you can see, it is the people you can't - so I made the judgement to always indicate (unless there is a good reason not to) as there is always the slight possibility that there is someone I couldn't possibly have seen that may be impacted by my manoeuvre - and to travel at a speed where I can avoid any probable situation that may arise.

I also don't believe that anyone is capable of being completely observant all the time, so therefore think that indicating should be the default option.


----------



## Mushroomgodmat (11 May 2012)

BentMikey said:


> I suspect that if you can't be so close to 100% certain as makes no difference that there are no road users around to be impacted by your manoeuvre, then you probably haven't looked properly and/or are going too fast for the situation.


 

I notice you said "probably" in "you probably haven't looked properly"... Which to me is a good enough reason to indicate just in case you missed something when looking properly.


----------



## BentMikey (11 May 2012)

Actually, no, I'm allowing for the possibility of missing someone who is far enough away that the indication is only useful but not necessary.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Why don't you explain to us all why several high profile road/cycle craft schemes teach to only indicate if someone would benefit?


----------



## Mushroomgodmat (11 May 2012)

BentMikey said:


> Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Why don't you explain to us all why several high profile road/cycle craft schemes teach to only indicate if someone would benefit?


 
I genuinely have no idea, I cannot think of a single reason where not indicating would ever make more sense than to indicate. Speaking personally (maybe other people a different in their telepathic abilities) but I think someone would have to be very foolish or dangerously arrogant to assume that he/she has seen everyone who might suddenly appear, or assume that because you cannot see then they cannot see you. And its in those situations that I indicate.

and in addition.... its still the part of the highway code (surly trumps every other scheme) to Signal, mirror, maneuver.


----------



## doug (11 May 2012)

BentMikey said:


> Actually, no, I'm allowing for the possibility of missing someone who is far enough away that the indication is only useful but not necessary.
> 
> Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Why don't you explain to us all why several high profile road/cycle craft schemes teach to only indicate if someone would benefit?


 
As I said earlier it is a useful technique to force you into making good observation part of your routine, however for me it places to much faith on human fallibilities, I know I am not 100% perfect. I prefer to turn it on its head and rather than think "is there reason why I should indicate?" and instead think "is there any reason why I shouldn't indicate?", that way you still have to observe correctly and as a bonus get indicating being your default action.

There will be a time for everyone when they fail to observe correctly and, in those situations I would prefer that they indicated.


----------



## bridgy (11 May 2012)

Mushroomgodmat said:


> and in addition.... its still the part of the highway code (surly trumps every other scheme) to *Signal, mirror, maneuver*.


 
I assume you mean *mirror, signal, manoeuvre?!*


----------



## Mushroomgodmat (11 May 2012)

bridgy said:


> I assume you mean *mirror, signal, manoeuvre?!*


 
lol, exactly


----------



## guitarpete247 (11 May 2012)

I am another that always indicates. I've even been know to indicate before a left bend, but it's usually where there is the choice of going straight on into a side road like here. I do it automatically. But I also use my mirrors and check around me automatically too.
Here is another indicating dilema. I want to go straight on up the road towards Donisthorpe (follow the road in street veiw). I don't indicate automatically but wait till I've passed the turn into the country park. I'm constantly checking for other road users but still indicate even if I don't see anyone, _just in case_.

Years ago I knew someone (the meanest man in the world) who told me. "You know Pete, when you've got your own car you don't indicate as much."
"Why's that Keith?"
"Cos it wears the bulbs out."


----------



## GrasB (11 May 2012)

1844150 said:


> The one where you wrote "I am assuming........................"


Re-read the post, all of it, then contemplate all 4 sentences of the paragraph until you understand all of them fully. Then come back to me once you've got a clue.

Hint, sentence 1 & 2 refer to one assumption within the situation. The remaining sentences refer to the alternative situation.


----------



## gaz (11 May 2012)

1843771 said:


> I hate to have to point this out but you appear to be reading a copy of the Daily Mail there.


which is worse? hmm


----------



## ferret fur (11 May 2012)

> The reason being given is that deciding whether or not to indicate makes the driver drive better because they are thinking more rather than doing it automatically.


 
If that is the case I think it shows a very poor understanding of the pyschology involved. To me that just adds to the cognitive task load in an unecessary way: While you are trying to decide whether to use your indicators your attention could be diverted from something else.
My take on it is that the problem of people _not_ indicating is widespread, anything that discourages people from doing so is therefore a bad idea.


----------



## Ashtrayhead (11 May 2012)

ferret fur said:


> If that is the case I think it shows a very poor understanding of the pyschology involved. To me that just adds to the cognitive task load in an unecessary way: _*While you are trying to decide whether to use your indicators your attention could be diverted from something else.*_
> My take on it is that the problem of people _not_ indicating is widespread, anything that discourages people from doing so is therefore a bad idea.


 
The decision to use your indicators or not would be made on all the information that you had observed. If you act on that information and decide that no indicator is needed you have saved yourself an unnecessary action and has shown that you have made full and correct use of mirrors, all-round observation and forward planning. Personally I think that indicating automatically is sloppy because you're not doing it as a result of what you've seen.


----------



## Arfcollins (12 May 2012)

atbman said:


> I've pretty much always signalled, car or bike, regardless. It doesn't cost me anything and, if I haven't noticed someone, gives them suitable warning.
> 
> As for not signalling left, it seems to me that if there's someone waitning to come out of the road you're turning into, you give them the opportunity to pull out while you'r still approaching the turn-off. Courtesy, really.


I take the view that courtesy has no relevance to road safety.


----------



## ferret fur (12 May 2012)

Arfcollins said:


> I take the view that courtesy has no relevance to road safety.


It defuses aggression. Aggressive driving is dangerous driving.


----------



## BentMikey (12 May 2012)

That's focusing attention on the symptom of the problem, not the cause. Aggressive drivers should be persuaded to change their ways, and if they don't, they should be taken off the roads. Simples.


----------



## kevin_cambs_uk (12 May 2012)

Following on, I find that junctions where the traffic lights have broken, everyone seems to slow down and take more care


----------



## ferret fur (12 May 2012)

Good luck with that one Mikey. Aggression is part of the human condition & any consideration of real world road use needs to take that into account. Everyone at some point can suffer from flashes of irritation & it only takes a second to cause an incident.


----------



## 400bhp (12 May 2012)

Arfcollins said:


> I take the view that courtesy has no relevance to road safety.


 
Absolutely.


----------



## atbman (12 May 2012)

Ashtrayhead said:


> The decision to use your indicators or not would be made on all the information that you had observed. If you act on that information and decide that no indicator is needed you have saved yourself an unnecessary action and has shown that you have made full and correct use of mirrors, all-round observation and forward planning. Personally I think that indicating automatically is sloppy because you're not doing it as a result of what you've seen.


On the other hand, if you signal pretty much automatically, as I do, you have saved yourself unnecessary decision making and free your mind up to observe the traffic conditions, while making sure that anyone whose behaviour you may not have correctly analysed is aware of your inentions


----------



## atbman (12 May 2012)

Arfcollins said:


> I take the view that courtesy has no relevance to road safety.


 If someone behaves courteously towards you, they have demonstrated their awareness of your existence and intended actions. If they're wrong about your intended actions, you can indicate (electrically, facially or handwise) what you wish to do.

This is particularly noticeable on High St., Morley, where there is often parking on both sides. People courteously flashing you thro' make your decision making safer


----------



## Arfcollins (13 May 2012)

atbman said:


> If someone behaves courteously towards you, they have demonstrated their awareness of your existence and intended actions. If they're wrong about your intended actions, you can indicate (electrically, facially or handwise) what you wish to do.
> 
> This is particularly noticeable on High St., Morley, where there is often parking on both sides. People courteously flashing you thro' make your decision making safer


But conversely, the courteous but unobservant driver in slow traffic may flash a right turning driver to pull across in front, who then collides with a cyclist coming up the bus lane. I've seen the videos here of that happening. So who benefitted from that courtesy?


----------



## Arfcollins (13 May 2012)

atbman said:


> On the other hand, if you signal pretty much automatically, as I do, you have saved yourself unnecessary decision making and free your mind up to observe the traffic conditions, while making sure that anyone whose behaviour you may not have correctly analysed is aware of your inentions


To turn into my street you take a right-angled left off the main road. 10 yards past it is another left turn that forks off the main road. Many drivers indicate left before they reach my street and then go past it to take the left fork. Not indicating is safer. A mile away is a large 2 laned and fast roundabout. Many drivers start to indicate for their exit as they are approaching the exit before theirs. Not indicating is safer.
In both cases the indicating does not accurately reflect the driver's intentions and so is pointless.


----------



## Arfcollins (13 May 2012)

byegad said:


> Absolutely! It drives me mad when you wait to cross traffic and the complete buffoon stops or turns off without signalling before they reach you.


But probably wouldn't drive you as mad as the buffoon who is signalling left and then ploughs straight through you as you pull out, cos he couldn't hear his uncancelled indicator over his car stereo.


----------



## Arfcollins (13 May 2012)

guitarpete247 said:


> I am another that always indicates. I've even been know to indicate before a left bend, but it's usually where there is the choice of going straight on into a side road like here. I do it automatically. But I also use my mirrors and check around me automatically too.
> Here is another indicating dilema. I want to go straight on up the road towards Donisthorpe (follow the road in street veiw). I don't indicate automatically but wait till I've passed the turn into the country park. I'm constantly checking for other road users but still indicate even if I don't see anyone, _just in case_.
> 
> "


No dilemma there, I think that is perfectly unambiguous and safe indicating because you are waiting until the right time to do it.


----------



## Arfcollins (13 May 2012)

Brandane said:


> Is it too much to ask that people learn to indicate AND be observant at the same time? I did my Police driving course in 1986 when I was still serving with them. We were taught to indicate whether or not you could actually see someone who would benefit from it. The theory is that you don't know at what point someone (pedestrian, cyclist, or driver) is going to appear. Case in point; you are approaching a roundabout and intend to turn left but don't bother indicating because there is no-one to indicate to. Meantime I am approaching the roundabout from your left (on the road you are about to turn into), unseen because of buildings, bushes or whatever. I get to the roundabout just before you and have to stop to give way to you approaching from my right, because you are not indicating and I have to assume you are going straight on. You then perform a left turn and I call you a few names.......


I can see how having to stop like that would be an inconvenience, but personally I wouldn't pull out onto a roundabout in front of a left indicating driver unless there was enough safe space to do it no matter what his intentions were. And if the space is large enough to for me to pull out safely, it doesn't matter if the other guy is indicating or not.


----------



## the snail (14 May 2012)

Arfcollins said:


> I can see how having to stop like that would be an inconvenience, but personally I wouldn't pull out onto a roundabout in front of a left indicating driver unless there was enough safe space to do it no matter what his intentions were. And if the space is large enough to for me to pull out safely, it doesn't matter if the other guy is indicating or not.


Well I have to cross a rab every day on foot/bike, and due to drivers being too lazy to indicate, I have two choices: either wait all day for a gap that's safe to cross, or try and mind-read what the cars are going to do and dart across the road risking life and limb. It's not that hard to indicate, all you've got to do is flick that little lever, if you're lucky it'll even turn itself off. But no, that's too much trouble for most folk it seems. self-gratification artists.


----------



## doug (14 May 2012)

Arfcollins said:


> To turn into my street you take a right-angled left off the main road. 10 yards past it is another left turn that forks off the main road. Many drivers indicate left before they reach my street and then go past it to take the left fork. Not indicating is safer. A mile away is a large 2 laned and fast roundabout. Many drivers start to indicate for their exit as they are approaching the exit before theirs. Not indicating is safer.
> In both cases the indicating does not accurately reflect the driver's intentions and so is pointless.


 
That is a false dichotomy - you are implying that the only possibilities are indicating wrongly or not indicating at all. The third and best option is to indicate correctly, which sounds perfectly feasible in those scenarios - I know not enough people will do it though !


----------



## Francesca (14 May 2012)

errrmmm, how about pedestrians? They need to see were a car is turning in order to cross a road safetly, wouldnt you agree?


----------



## Kestevan (14 May 2012)

Francesca said:


> errrmmm, how about pedestrians? They need to see were a car is turning in order to cross a road safetly, wouldnt you agree?


 
No - I've taught my kids that the only thing a flashing yellow light on a car means, is that the bulb in the indicator is working. It doesnt mean the cars going to turn, and stepping out in front of it believing it will may well be the last assumption you ever make.

Remember, all drivers are either asleep or blind, psychotic and actively trying to kill you..... trust no-one.


----------



## BentMikey (14 May 2012)

Francesca said:


> errrmmm, how about pedestrians? They need to see were a car is turning in order to cross a road safetly, wouldnt you agree?


 
Are pedestrians not road users that can benefit from signalling? Their presence is exactly the sort of thing that should prompt indication.


----------



## Arfcollins (14 May 2012)

BentMikey said:


> Are pedestrians not road users that can benefit from signalling? Their presence is exactly the sort of thing that should prompt indication.


I think Kestevan has it right. I also told my sons when they were learning to drive to assume everyone on the road is an idiot and you are more likely to survive. What is the benefit that yiou think pedestrians get from drivers indicating vs. not indicating.


----------



## Boris Bajic (14 May 2012)

I am a keen driver and cyclist. In my youth I was also a keen motorcyclist.

I signal a lot. I like to be given a clue what other road users are planning to do and I like to return the courtesy.

Of course there are complete turnips out there, but they are relatively few.

There are many ways to tell which way a car, bicycle or motorcycle might be about to turn or move, but among the clearest signals in most circumstances is the indicator. Just because indicators can be poorll employed or unused, doesn't mean they should be removed. I too was taught not to trust them. I taught my eldest (now a driver) likewise. All my children have a healthy respect for the absentmindedly-left-on indicator, as they are all keen cyclists.

I live in the Welsh Marches, where use of the indicator is seldom used until after the turn is made. 

But... How that leads us to a proposition that they ought to be banned I do not know.

In the days when cafe racers were what fixies are now, I removed the indicators from a bike and put clip-ons on the fork legs... but that was youth and stupidity at work.

If cars today had no indicators, somebody would win themselves an OBE by inventing them.


----------



## BentMikey (14 May 2012)

Arfcollins said:


> I think Kestevan has it right. I also told my sons when they were learning to drive to assume everyone on the road is an idiot and you are more likely to survive. What is the benefit that yiou think pedestrians get from drivers indicating vs. not indicating.


 
The obvious example is when pedestrians decide whether or not to cross a side road. It gives them a decision point on whether to decide to wait or cross, it aids that process of negotiation we all use every day on the roads.

Largely, I'm also with Kestevan, I'm very untrusting of indicators on motor vehicles as they're too easily left indicating when the turn is long gone. I'd be a little bit more trusting of a cyclist indicating since it takes positive effort to indicate on a bicycle.


----------



## Arfcollins (14 May 2012)

doug said:


> That is a false dichotomy - you are implying that the only possibilities are indicating wrongly or not indicating at all. The third and best option is to indicate correctly, which sounds perfectly feasible in those scenarios - I know not enough people will do it though !


OK, but I think you are looking only from the viewpoint of the person indicating who, afterall, is the only one who knows what is going to happen. The road-users around him have to make their best guess of this, based on his speed, direction and indicators.
In my local roundabout example it takes less than 3 seconds at 40mph for a car to pass across one exit and on to the one they are taking, about 50 yards. If you were a cyclist watching that car indicating left would you assume it was safe to pull out? Maybe you do, but I don't. And as I do not believe the indicating it is therefore useless and has as much value as no indicating.
In my other example the left fork is about 10 yards on from the sharp left. The only correct indicating would be to do it immediately after the sharp left, which at 40 mph is about half a second before turning. That would be one flash. Who would benefit from this?


----------



## Arfcollins (14 May 2012)

BentMikey said:


> The obvious example is when pedestrians decide whether or not to cross a side road. It gives them a decision point on whether to decide to wait or cross, it aids that process of negotiation we all use every day on the roads.
> 
> Largely, I'm also with Kestevan, I'm very untrusting of indicators on motor vehicles as they're too easily left indicating when the turn is long gone. I'd be a little bit more trusting of a cyclist indicating since it takes positive effort to indicate on a bicycle.


They have some use in a case like that, but the better and more reliable aid is the distance of the car and it's assumed speed. Most people are pretty good at doing that mental calculation very quickly and unconciously. I stress the 'assumed' because that mental calculation is usually based on a quick glance at the vehicle and a general awareness of the road type, eg suburban etc to decide it's speed. It is the reason that I believe it is unforgivable to speed on roads that might contain pedestrians - but that's another topic!
And yes, I too would trust an indicating cyclist.


----------



## ferret fur (14 May 2012)

Arfcollins said:


> OK, but I think you are looking only from the viewpoint of the person indicating who, afterall, is the only one who knows what is going to happen. The road-users around him have to make their best guess of this, based on his speed, direction and indicators.
> In my local roundabout example it takes less than 3 seconds at 40mph for a car to pass across one exit and on to the one they are taking, about 50 yards. If you were a cyclist watching that car indicating left would you assume it was safe to pull out? Maybe you do, but I don't. And as I do not believe the indicating it is therefore useless and has as much value as no indicating.
> In my other example the left fork is about 10 yards on from the sharp left. The only correct indicating would be to do it immediately after the sharp left, which at 40 mph is about half a second before turning. That would be one flash. Who would benefit from this?


 
Yeah but.. that still doesn't meant that helping people to understand your intentions has no value. You keep giving examples where people indicate incorrectly or where the 'correct' indication may be impossible. Doesn't mean that you can't indicate correctly when it is appropriate. I don't drive behind someone & assume that their brake lights necessarily work. Does that mean we should take brakelights off cars as well? Things can be useful even if you should not rely on them 100%.


----------



## Boris Bajic (14 May 2012)

BentMikey said:


> ....
> 
> Largely, I'm also with Kestevan, *I'm very untrusting of indicators on motor vehicles as they're too easily left indicating when the turn is long gone*. I'd be a little bit more trusting of a cyclist indicating since it takes positive effort to indicate on a bicycle.


 
Modern indicators can be left on after a lane change or similar, as the wheel is barely turned, but not if the wheel is turned far enough to activate the self-cancel. However, more and more cars today have a system not unlike the older self-cancellers on motorcycles, where a quick flick results in only four flashes or so. It may be that some drivers are too unspeakably dull to understand how they work, but they should largely solve that problem.

In my youth I drove FX4s (not as an LTDA driver!) and older Citroens, both of whose indicators were non-self-cancelling. Citroen were convinced it was a safety issue. They believed that the driver should decide both when to activate and when to de-activate the turn signal.

I agree with them on that. The design department at Citroen were madder than a box of frogs, but they wewre also usually right. They only started to fit self-cancelling indicators (2nd-generation BX?) when market resistance to the dash-top rocker switch was clearly costing them sales.

Market resistance is a bastard and (in collusion with fiscal reality and a shortage of certifiable engineers) it sucked the very soul out of Citroen.

Having made that point, I do accept that rare is the day when I accidentally continue to indicate for a mile or so on a bicycle....


----------



## Arfcollins (14 May 2012)

ferret fur said:


> Yeah but.. that still doesn't meant that helping people to understand your intentions has no value. You keep giving examples where people indicate incorrectly or where the 'correct' indication may be impossible. Doesn't mean that you can't indicate correctly when it is appropriate. I don't drive behind someone & assume that their brake lights necessarily work. Does that mean we should take brakelights off cars as well? Things can be useful even if you should not rely on them 100%.


No I wouldn't suggest we take brakelights off too. Please only use a small hammer to smash the indicators - I wouldn't want any collateral damage to the brakelights. Even stupid and unobservant drivers can use them correctly, and they tell what is actually happening - not what might or might not happen.

In the examples I've given would you agree that that the indicating would be the least reliable piece of information available and that placing any credence in it could cause an accident?


----------



## BentMikey (14 May 2012)

Here's a good example of why not to indicate left with an oncoming right turning car:


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNa7XRTfxfI&feature=colike


----------



## Recycler (14 May 2012)

I'm sure that far more accidents are prevented by the correct use of indicators than are caused by their incorrect use. It's a no-brainer.

It's wise to assume that an indicator is simply an indication of what might happen but it would be chaos if people stopped using the things.


----------



## byegad (14 May 2012)

Indicators on other road users are useful to inform me of their intentions. If I'm sat waiting to turn out and a car approaches with his left indicator flashing I wait until I see him brake and start to turn in. The moment he does I'm ready to go. If the pillock doesn't indicate I'm not ready to go. Saying that indicating is useless or worse dangerous is a simplistic statement that is in itself dangerous, as it will encourage bad drivers to be worse drivers.


----------



## boydj (14 May 2012)

BM's example above is why Cyclecraft distinguishes between 'courtesy' signals, such as indicating a left turn to a vehicle waiting to exit a side-street, and 'safety'' signals, such as making a right turn with traffic coming from behind. Personally, I only ever signal left if the only other vehicle present is the one waiting to exit the road I'm about to turn into - or possibly on a busy roundabout, for safety reasons.


----------



## CotterPin (14 May 2012)

The Bikeability scheme is all about communicating with other road users. Signalling is one way of doing this. As others have mentioned, the scheme trains cyclists to indicate only when there is someone to indicate to. It is very often combined with gaining eye contact with the other road user so you are actually having a one-to-one conversation with that person. If there is nobody around then you are talking to yourself! The key outcome from the training is not the signalling but the looking and then making a decision whether to signal or not based upon what you have seen.


----------



## doug (14 May 2012)

Arfcollins said:


> OK, but I think you are looking only from the viewpoint of the person indicating who, afterall, is the only one who knows what is going to happen. The road-users around him have to make their best guess of this, based on his speed, direction and indicators.
> In my local roundabout example it takes less than 3 seconds at 40mph for a car to pass across one exit and on to the one they are taking, about 50 yards. If you were a cyclist watching that car indicating left would you assume it was safe to pull out? Maybe you do, but I don't. And as I do not believe the indicating it is therefore useless and has as much value as no indicating.
> In my other example the left fork is about 10 yards on from the sharp left. The only correct indicating would be to do it immediately after the sharp left, which at 40 mph is about half a second before turning. That would be one flash. Who would benefit from this?


 
For your first example on the roundabout, it would depend on the situation (distance and speed), if they indicated I would prepare to pull out, but wait until they confirmed this by changing direction. If they didn't indicate, I'd assume the weren't taking that exit, I wouldn't prepare to pull out and then curse them under my breath for being discourteous and wasting my time.

As for the second one, now you bring in the extra detail that they are approaching at 40mph, it is quite possible that in such an instance an indication may not be very useful, but it doesn't cause confusion and may help someone, so why not do it ?

Indication is a courtesy and when it is safe to do so we should be courteous on the road.


----------



## Arfcollins (15 May 2012)

doug said:


> For your first example on the roundabout, it would depend on the situation (distance and speed), if they indicated I would prepare to pull out, but wait until they confirmed this by changing direction. If they didn't indicate, I'd assume the weren't taking that exit, I wouldn't prepare to pull out and then curse them under my breath for being discourteous and wasting my time.


I gave the distance and speed and also that it takes less than 3 seconds from indicating to turning off. So the time that has been wasted by ignoring the indication is a maximum of 3 seconds, plus the second or two it takes to accelerate onto the roundabout.



doug said:


> As for the second one, now you bring in the extra detail that they are approaching at 40mph, it is quite possible that in such an instance an indication may not be very useful, but it doesn't cause confusion and may help someone, so why not do it ?


The extra detail doesn't significantly change the scenario. One indicator flash at 40 mph would be one and a bit flashes at 30 mph. I'm not sure how seeing this could help someone, but I'm willing to listen if you can explain.



doug said:


> Indication is a courtesy and when it is safe to do so we should be courteous on the road.


 
I disagree, as you'd expect. Behaviour on the roads should be strictly analytical, there is no place for such fluff.


----------



## doug (15 May 2012)

Arfcollins said:


> I gave the distance and speed and also that it takes less than 3 seconds from indicating to turning off. So the time that has been wasted by ignoring the indication is a maximum of 3 seconds, plus the second or two it takes to accelerate onto the roundabout.


 
For one vehicle that is not a huge loss only a minor irritaion, but if there is a stream of traffic, they may have missed their only chance to enter the roundabout for a lot longer than 3 or 5 seconds. Missing that opportunity may result in frustration and possibly excessive risk taking in order to get onto the roundabout, correct indication could have avoided this.



Arfcollins said:


> The extra detail doesn't significantly change the scenario. One indicator flash at 40 mph would be one and a bit flashes at 30 mph. I'm not sure how seeing this could help someone, but I'm willing to listen if you can explain.


 
Again, if there is only one vehicle it is probably not a big issue, but in heavy traffic the person further along the road waiting to cross has missed their opportunity. It is quite possible to construct scenarios where it doesn't matter if you indicate or not, but in my experience I'd rather people did indicate (correctly) as it reduces frustration and makes travelling on our roads more pleasant.



Arfcollins said:


> I disagree, as you'd expect. Behaviour on the roads should be strictly analytical, there is no place for such fluff.


 
I feel such "fluff" reduces frustration and aggression, encourages courtesy in others and can make the roads more pleasant. Of course it should be secondary to proper observation and following the other rules of the roads, but I still feel it can be useful part of road safety in the majority of situations I see on the roads.


----------



## Arfcollins (15 May 2012)

Doug, I appreciate your full and patient replies, but it looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I'll continue to keep my indicating to a minimum and ignore other's in certain situations. I suspect we both actually behave in a similar way, but come to it from opposite viewpoints.


----------



## PBB (29 May 2013)

Ian Cooper said:


> Good points. Recently, I've been mulling over the issue of left turn indicating on a bike (or rather right turn indicating, but I'm in the US, so that translates to left for most of you folks). I'm leaning towards the conclusion that it's best never to indicate such a turn, as it can only encourage drivers to try to share the turn with you, which is never a good idea (at least not for the cyclist). Making them think I'm going straight is always a better policy, I reckon.


 
I agree -as from tomorrow will not be indicating left when I turn left, at least at a certain junction where yesterday and today the turning was shared with me, today literally inches from me.


----------



## Ian Cooper (29 May 2013)

PBB said:


> I agree -as from tomorrow will not be indicating left when I turn left, at least at a certain junction where yesterday and today the turning was shared with me, today literally inches from me.


 
I find an Airzound appropriately startles the morons in situations like these.


----------



## Buddfox (29 May 2013)

Holy thread resurrection!!


----------



## Peter Armstrong (29 May 2013)

I hate people who dont indicate, more so them dicks on the motorway when changing lanes, dicks


----------



## Peter Armstrong (29 May 2013)

or the one that dont indicate when turning left at a junction, you know when your trying to filter.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (29 May 2013)

or when your going to enter a roundabout and the doosh dont indicate to let ou know they are coming off, selfish son of a guns


----------



## Peter Armstrong (29 May 2013)

Or when they slow down in the middle of the road, my balls arnt crystal, let me know what your doing fool


----------



## Peter Armstrong (29 May 2013)

Or when im at the shop, pulling out onto the road, some idoit trys to pull out just before me, how the feck do I know your also wanting to pull out if you dont indicate


----------



## dodd82 (29 May 2013)

There seems to be more than one debate going on here.

There is no question in my mind that no indication leads to reduced traffic flow, and for that reason, I would be against any suggestion to remove it.

I think ultimately that all problems discussed on here, that have arisen because indicators, are the result of bad indication - not indication itself.

On that basis, I'm sure there are other things we could discuss removing. Changing lanes on a matorway? If not done properly, it can cause an accident. So lets ban it.

Okay, so that's being a little facetious, but hopefully you see my point.

There has to be consideration for the positives and the negatives, and then a common sense discussion about what is most appropriate.


----------



## donnydave (29 May 2013)

How about:

1) observe the sh*t out of the situation,
2) convince ourselves that we are awesome and have seen there's no one who would benefit from some indication and the thought process behind deciding such has improved our observation and increased our awareness
3) indicate anyway just in case we haven't got the Jesus Vision that we believe we possess and there's some other road user (who we didn't see in step 1) or pedestrian (who we didn't see in step 1) who was somehow obscured by road layout/street furniture who would be really interested to know what manouvre you're planning to do

Do people not indicate because they think "If I indicate where there's no one to indicate too, and someone sees me indicating to no one, then they might think that I'm driving without thinking what I'm doing, and I don't want them to get the impression I'm going through the motions without thinking, I'm an advanced driver doncherknow"

I'm struggling to see why people go out of their way to justify not doing something which is minimal effort in a car. Assuming its done properly at the correct time, i'm struggling to see how indicating can hinder. Others have spoken about other signals like road position, angle of wheels etc for determining what a car is about to do. Anything extra to help clarify (such as indicators) can only be a good thing?


----------



## Amanda P (29 May 2013)

One point no-one's mentioned: a fresh signal may convey more meaning than an old one. 

I'll explain.

Imagine I'm waiting (on foot, on a bike, in a lorry, doesn't really matter) to cross a road or a junction. A car approaches round a bend to my right. If the car is going to turn left before it reaches me, it'll be safe for me to cross. If not, it won't be.

If that car has its left-hand indicator flashing merrily away when it first comes into sight around the bend (because the driver, despite not being able to see whether there's anyone who might benefit from the signal, has helpfully switched it on anyway before he could even see the turn he was going to take), then I don't know whether he's been driving around with it flashing for the past half-hour, or if he really is going to make that turn.

If, as the car approaches, the driver sees me (possibly making eye contact in the process), and _then_ puts on the indicator (a 'fresh' signal), I'm much more likely to believe him. If I'm a prudent person, I'll probably wait to see if he slows or changes direction as well, but the _fresh_ signal has given me more information than the old one would have.


----------



## subaqua (29 May 2013)

Peter Armstrong said:


> or the one that dont indicate when turning left at a junction, you know when your trying to filter.


 as taught when i learnt to drive " assume the driver in front will doi the unexpected" or in safe cycling speak

DONT FILTER UP THE LEFT AT JUNCTIONS


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (29 May 2013)

Uncle Phil said:


> One point no-one's mentioned: a fresh signal may convey more meaning than an old one.
> 
> I'll explain.
> 
> ...


 

As I've been told, always assume that the indicator is stuck on with superglue for the past 3 weeks and five days, and therefore don't do anything until the vehicle actually does the turn.
Always assume the daftest, weirdest event will occur.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (29 May 2013)

subaqua said:


> as taught when i learnt to drive " assume the driver in front will doi the unexpected" or in safe cycling speak
> 
> DONT FILTER UP THE LEFT AT JUNCTIONS


 
No


----------



## subaqua (29 May 2013)

Peter Armstrong said:


> No


 care to expand further than something that couild be read either way.

would you go up the inside of a car in a car if there was a small space just big enough. I know i wouldn't.

would you ride in the door zone on the right. I know I wouldn't.

we all have a part to play and that starts with not riding stupidly.

cycling mikey caught a proper plonker.


----------



## Arfcollins (29 May 2013)

I missed my string's birthday! Maybe I'll bake it a cake when it's two.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (30 May 2013)

subaqua said:


> care to expand further than something that couild be read either way.
> 
> would you go up the inside of a car in a car if there was a small space just big enough. I know i wouldn't.
> 
> ...





No as in its perfectly safe to filter up the inside,

Don’t filter on the inside of a Large Vehicle

Don’t filter on the inside of a car indicating left

Don’t filter on the inside if there’s no space

Don’t filter on the inside in the door zone

Don’t filter on the left all together



There’s plenty of junctions you can legally and safely filter up the inside, especially when there a cycle lane there to with space. Just annoying when the people up near the front in cars don’t indicate that they are turning left as I would filter and stop just behind the car indicating left. They are usually sat in the cycle stop area too stopping you from going in front.
Posting 1 video of someone trying to undertake a truck is pointless.


----------



## recumbentpanda (30 May 2013)

OK, <rant on> I have been brewing this one since the thread began . . . I think this 'only indicate if there is someone to indicate to' drivel is an example of the kind of health and safety git-wizardry which people involved in safety training sometimes like to deploy, ostensibly to achieve some clever psychological end, but in fact more to fulfil a need to convince the rest of us that they have the keys to some profound esoteric counter-intuitive wisdom. 

The alleged justification is that it causes people to concentrate on pre-manoevre observation. This fails abjectly on two counts: 1. Nobody has what an earlier poster amusingly referred to as 'Jesus Vision'. 2. Lazy, half-trained driving instructors (of which, IMO, there are far, far too many) translate it as: 'Don't bother indicating most of the time', and this passes down to a terrifying number of socially challenged learner drivers as: 'Don't bother indicating'.

The result of this cluster-fail is an epidemic of drivers who, as in the rest of their miserable lives, work on the 'devil take the hindmost' principle. <rant off> There. I feel cleansed . . . :-)


----------



## deanE (30 May 2013)

Arfcollins said:


> Yes but how many times do you hear 'but didn't you see my indicators' from some plonker who thinks that pulling down on that lever discharges his reponsibilty to drive safely?


Yes, I think that is the point. Many drivers seem to think that the use of the indicator gives a right to carry out the manoeuvre, not just one part of a process. Indication comes only after the driver has checked to see if the intended manoeuvre is safe to carry out, not instead.


----------



## Davidsw8 (30 May 2013)

I partly agree with the OP, I prefer to keep both hands on my handlebars (those no-handed cycling idiots get on my left tit but that's another debate) but will ALWAYS look and indicate if there's someone to indicate to.

However, I can't agree that indicating should be banned, in fact I think it should be legally enforced - and indicating isn't just for other cars and cycles, it's for peds as well (IMO). I realise an indication is in no way a guarantee that the person is going the way they've indicated but it does give me a rough idea of what they're about to do. What I find really annoying cycling around London is those people who don't indicate at all, so I'm left to guess. Even they're road positioning doesn't give it away sometimes.

I'm also convinced indicator lights have already been disabled in 99% of most Black cabs.


----------



## dodd82 (4 Jun 2013)

Thought about this thread yesterday evening, as I passed by a busy mini-roundabout.

The idea that no indicators would help the flow or traffic and safety of people using that mini-roundabout is rather misguided, in my view.

It would be bedlam.


----------



## Arfcollins (4 Jun 2013)

dodd82 said:


> Thought about this thread yesterday evening, as I passed by a busy mini-roundabout.
> 
> The idea that no indicators would help the flow or traffic and safety of people using that mini-roundabout is rather misguided, in my view.
> 
> It would be bedlam.


You may well be right in that instance, but if you recall I gave examples way back in this thread where indication cannot be trusted. If it can't be trusted it is less than useless, it is potentially dangerous. And therefore we would be better off without it and the sensible course of action is to ignore it, even if this means waiting a little longer and, heaven forbid, slow down the flow of traffic.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (5 Jun 2013)

These are the roundabouts I cross, they have multiple challenges.
First of all they are at Heathrow Airport as such attempted by people in hire cars who have never driven in the UK or on the side of the road we do.
Secondly you can go either direction to get to your exit.
I fail to see how removing indication showing intent of direction would either speed up traffic flow on this roundabout or make it safer.


----------



## recumbentpanda (5 Jun 2013)

[QUOTE 2487023, member: 30090"]Without reading the thread I do think it is fairly simple.

Mirror signal manoeuvre, with the manoeuvre part further broken down into position speed look.

If there is no one benefiting from your signal then there is no need to give one. [/quote]

Hello Jesus! Before pulling out into a thread it is advisable to do a shoulder-check as well. :-)


----------



## albion (5 Jun 2013)

To save police money I would arm pedestrains with a camera to film and spot fine cars turning left at a junction and failing to indicate.

Fact is that in some instances it is near suicidal to cross that road because a major percentage fail to indicate.


----------



## dodd82 (5 Jun 2013)

Arfcollins said:


> You may well be right in that instance, but if you recall I gave examples way back in this thread where indication cannot be trusted. If it can't be trusted it is less than useless, it is potentially dangerous. And therefore we would be better off without it and the sensible course of action is to ignore it, even if this means waiting a little longer and, heaven forbid, slow down the flow of traffic.


 
So, because it can't be trusted implicity, ban the whole thing?

The more I think about it, the more ridiculous it sounds.

Mini-roundabouts, in particular, would ground to a halt. I know several where indication is the only way traffic can flow.

It seems you have a desire to remove incidents/accidents from the road. This won't happen.

Banning indicators will only raise problems elsewhere.

You have to look at the bigger picture. For all you know, we could be talking about less than 100 hundreds incidents a year, with no serious injury or death, yet you think it's feasible to call for it to be removed.

Bizarre.


----------



## albion (5 Jun 2013)

Ever observed that your observational faculties decay as you get older?

Catch 22 there methinks.


----------



## donnydave (5 Jun 2013)

Just because a small number of people can't get the hang of indicating properly is no reason to suggest it should be abolished entirely. Interesting debate though, same goes for lots of things I guess. I would be more supportive of getting rid of traffic lights at certain junctions. There's a junction near my work and the half dozen times that the lights have failed, traffic has actually flowed better as people seem to wake up, work out what's going on and get on with it without too much fuss.


----------



## albion (5 Jun 2013)

Like failing to indicate, are the likely resulting pedestrain deaths worth it?


Saying that, compulsory red light cameras would help too.


----------



## donnydave (5 Jun 2013)

Ah no you misundestand, although its a good point that traffic lights also serve as pedestrian crossings. I'm not saying ditch all of them. The particular junction that I'm referring to is at the end of a bit of dual carriageway, there's no pedestrian route across any of the roads at the junction. There are pedestrian crossings further down each road which do a sterling job.


----------



## Arfcollins (5 Jun 2013)

dodd82 said:


> So, because it can't be trusted implicity, ban the whole thing?
> 
> The more I think about it, the more ridiculous it sounds.


Apart from my attention grabbing headline, and my ironic (did you spot that?) suggestion to take a hammer to every indicator, I have never seriously suggested that there is no place for indication. What I say and I stand by is that placing your faith in the quality and relevance of many drivers' indicating is stupid and dnagerous. You would be just as well off if they don't indicate at all. I previously invited you to comment on specific examples I gave, but you refused to do so at the time, I guess because your answer would either suggest you were an idiot or would fly in the face of your previous statements. Time to man up maybe.



dodd82 said:


> Mini-roundabouts, in particular, would ground to a halt. I know several where indication is the only way traffic can flow.


 
It seems such a short time ago that I replied to your point about mini-roundabouts by saying "You may well be right in that instance". Are you deliberately misquoting me or is your memory going?



dodd82 said:


> It seems you have a desire to remove incidents/accidents from the road. This won't happen.


 
Don't be so negative. It would be great if there were no accidents, but having a few less is good too. Makes a difference to the victims that's for sure.




dodd82 said:


> You have to look at the bigger picture. For all you know, we could be talking about less than 100 hundreds incidents a year, with no serious injury or death, yet you think it's feasible to call for it to be removed.


That's rubbish. The small pictures make up the whole and it's the small changes in awareness and attitude that will make the difference.



dodd82 said:


> Bizarre.


.
Nope


----------



## dodd82 (6 Jun 2013)

Here we go again.

Arfcollins decides he doesn't like the Highway Code, so he forms his own version.

Your original post did not talk about specific circumstances, it talked about indication in general.

So where are we at now? Indication should be ignored when you say so, but on other occasions - such as mini roundabouts - it shouldn't be ignored. You might want to work on the criteria for your new highway code, as it's not making much sense at the moment.

You seem to think that the only options are placing complete faith in the quality and relevance of indicators or completely ignoring them.

And that is where your logic falls apart.

Driving is about taking care. I can see your signal, interpret it and proceed with care, so that if the signal is incorrect or misplaced, no one is in any danger. It is possible, you know.

And no, my comment wasn't rubbish. You do have to look at the bigger picture. For example, if we reduced the speed limit to 10mph on every road in Britain, and enforced it, accident rates would fall dramatically.

Doesn't make it sensible, practical or the correct thing to do though, does it?

Perhaps you can justify your bizarre claims by doing two things:

1. Can you give us any indication (pun intended) of the number of injuries and deaths that are caused by acting on the basis of an incorrect signal?
2. Can you explain how we are to interpret your suggestion of ignoring indicators, if you tell us that your examples show situations when we should ignore indication, yet you accept there are occasions where we shouldn't ignore it?


----------



## Arfcollins (6 Jun 2013)

dodd82 said:


> Here we go again.
> 
> Arfcollins decides he doesn't like the Highway Code, so he forms his own version.


That's a fair comment. There are sometimes occassions when the HC is safely ignored or re-interpreted.An example that has frequent mention in CC is filtering on the left, which is illegal:
*Rule 63*

*Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should*
*<snip>*

*only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so*
*<snip>*

I recall that you posted a question on CC about filtering, and I pointed out to you that it is illegal. Does this mean that you have not filtered on the left since? This, by the way, would include filtering between lanes of traffic, as you will be to the left of the right hand lane. Now, I may be mistaken here regarding the law, and if so would appreciate your correction.



dodd82 said:


> Your original post did not talk about specific circumstances, it talked about indication in general.


That's true. As I mentioned above, it was an attention grabbing tongue-in-cheek post. You are selectively quoting again, as later in the string you will have seen:
Arfcollins said: ↑
One thing I learnt that changed the way I drive for the better, was the idea that you should only indicate when there is someone to indicate to. It sounds obvious, but point is that to find out if there is someone to indicate to, you have to look for them, so the importance of being observant when manoovering (never could spell that!) isreinforced.​Clearly not saying no indication at all.



dodd82 said:


> So where are we at now? Indication should be ignored when you say so, but on other occasions - such as mini roundabouts - it shouldn't be ignored. You might want to work on the criteria for your new highway code, as it's not making much sense at the moment.You seem to think that the only options are placing complete faith in the quality and relevance of indicators or completely ignoring them. And that is where your logic falls apart. Driving is about taking care. I can see your signal, interpret it and proceed with care, so that if the signal is incorrect or misplaced, no one is in any danger. It is possible, you know.


 
Here we have some sort of agreement but I can give you the examples again of where indication can cause accidents. This was from another thread on signalling and is the one I referred to yesterday where you have avoided answering my questions. This is what I asked you to man up about, so do give it a go:

*What you have still failed to grasp is the value of a right indication on roundabouts, even if it doesn't match your interpretation of the highway code. I can give an example, which is not unique, of a local roundabout where there have been several accidents caused by vehicles leaving the roundabout from the right hand lane into the right lane of the exit, cutting across a vehicle in the left lane that was leaving the roundabout by the following exit. I'm having to guess here as I haven't been able to ask the offending drivers, but I suspect that driver 1 thought that driver 2 was going to leave into lane 1 of the same exit. If driver 2 had been signalling right as he approached exit 1 the accident probably wouldn't happen. So the question for you in this circumstance is: which is better, making a signal that is not recommended by the highway code or having an accident?*

* Another example is on that same roundabout, and between the same 2 exits many drivers indicate left before exit 1 but leave at exit 2. There are some drivers entering from exit 1 that might assume that the driver on the roundabout is precisely following the signalling recommendation of the highway code and so will believe that they can safely enter the roundabout in front of the car that is exitting. The question for you here is would it be safer for the driver on the roundabout to be indicating right prior to exit 1, or would this be stupid as you have previously stated.*



dodd82 said:


> And no, my comment wasn't rubbish. You do have to look at the bigger picture. For example, if we reduced the speed limit to 10mph on every road in Britain, and enforced it, accident rates would fall dramatically.
> Doesn't make it sensible, practical or the correct thing to do though, does it?
> Perhaps you can justify your bizarre claims by doing two things:
> 
> ...


Answers:
1. I have no idea but I have seen accidents relating directly to this, see above. I don't have any figures relating to cyclists being injured or killed when filtering illegally on the inside of traffic either, or cyclists being injured or killed when using badly designed cyclepaths, but my lack of data doesn't make those accidents any less relevant or avoidable.
2. See my roundabout examples above.

I look forward to you answers regarding my examples. You've said before this would be a waste of time, but it will only take a couple of minutes, honestly.


----------



## Dan B (6 Jun 2013)

Arfcollins said:


> That's a fair comment. There are sometimes occassions when the HC is safely ignored or re-interpreted.An example that has frequent mention in CC is filtering on the left, which is illegal


You will of course be able to quote from the relevant legislation? No, the Highway Code is not the law.


----------



## dodd82 (7 Jun 2013)

As has been pointed out to you, arfcollins, you are wrong about the legalities of filtering.

But you missed the point (the first of many times). My point was that, not for the first time, you are advocating ignoring the highway code because you think you know better, failing to take into account the constructive criticism that you receive.

This happened with your ludicrous posts on the roundabout discussion, where four or five separate people made points as to why your comments were naive and foolish.

Did you listen? Nope.

So as I say, here we are again.

You failed to interpret my question correctly. I am asking you how you think your suggestion should be written into constructive advice for drivers.

Currently, it just seems to be that whatever you decide at the time goes.

You accept that at mini roundabouts signalling is required, yet you tell us that you do not signal when leaving other roundabouts. So what's the general advice? Can you sum it up? It might make more sense if you did.

You have admitted that you have no idea about the number of accidents, or indeed injuries, arising from this 'problem'. It's quite absurd that you would advocate a change of advice to drivers without even knowing why.

You have tunnel vision. You can see one 'problem' and one solution. Sod the consequences for everyone else. Lets hope you don't work in government.

You return to the discussion regarding right signals at roundabouts.

How mature of you to ask me to 'man up'. Are you trying to point score because you're becoming frustrated?

We have covered your examples. It was explained to you that in example one, the driver in the left hand lane is in the wrong lane. So yes, if that person has made an error and needs to move across, if they're too lazy to rectify the situation by changing route, then signalling to show their intent is the right thing to do.

But that's not remotely relevant to what we were discussing.

We discussed that if you approach a roundabout in the left lane of two and signal right because you intend to turn right, you are in the wrong lane, and your signal is a danger to other road users because it is incorrect confusing.

If you are signalling right but you're going straight on, yes, it probably removes all doubt from the cars approaching from the next junction as to whether you are leaving the roundabout. But your signal remains a danger to other road users because it is incorrect and confusing.

I could ask my wife to stand on her seat, stick her head out of the sun roof and gesture that I'm going to straight on. That would probably help too. But guess what? It's dangerous, so we don't do it.

With this and with the suggestion not to signal, you are advocating a solution to a problem that you don't know the extent of, which will have a direct affect on the safety and/or traffic flow of other road users, and which ultimately is/would be caused by the bad driving of someone else.

Do I expect you to take on board any criticism of your point?

Not a chance.

As I say, the last time this discussion came up you stuck your fingers in your ears and ignored several people giving you good reasons why your suggestion was flawed.


----------



## Arfcollins (7 Jun 2013)

User said:


> Two points:
> 
> 1.What you have quoted is *not* Rule 63 of the Highway Code.


Sorry, bad editting on my part, should have said rule 163.


User said:


> 2. It is *not* illegal to filter. If you insist it is, then please provide the link to the piece of legislation* which prohibits it (thus making it illegal).
> Given these two glaring errors in one post, why should we give any credence to what you say?
> *The Highway Code is not legislation. It is guidance.


My mistake, I thought the HC was law, and this is dodd82's opinion too. What's your take on User's post dodd82? It would probably be best if you answer this before I reply to your post.


----------



## Arfcollins (8 Jun 2013)

User said:


> Really? Where does he say that? The only person who seems to completely misunderstand the Highway Code and be intent of making a tit of himself is you...


I had relied on my memory of an earlier post from dodd42 when I though he had said this. I checked back and found I was wrong, what he actually said was 'Here's your mistake: you are speaking as if the Highway Code is a list of don'ts. It's not. It's a list of do's, primarily.'

So, dodd42, please accept my apologies for misrepresenting what you had written.


----------



## BenM (9 Jun 2013)

As a way to look at the proposal from another angle... there is a trend on certain camp sites to insist that vehicles drive everywhere with their hazard warning lights (also known as park anywhere lights) on so rendering indicators useless.
In my experience (as a ped and a driver) on those same camp sites, not knowing where the vehicle is going is far more hazardous than clear indication - you have no idea where a car is going so can't take appropriate action.
Not indicating on a highway is, in effect, the same as driving everywhere with your park anywhere lights on... others can't tell where you are going or are about to go.
Arguments about only indicate when there is someone around to benefit are, imho, just about excusing lazy driving - Mirror *Signal* Manoeuvre is what I was taught and attempt to stick to every time I drive/ride (depending on the path I even "lifesaver" check when walking and am about to change course/side of the path!)


----------



## atbman (10 Jun 2013)

Not read whole thread, so apologies if someone's already said this. I signal a left turn on bike or in car if there's someone waiting to come out. If it's safe for them to do so because there's no other traffic to interfere, they can get going sooner than if they'd had to wait to see if I turned.

Not a HC rule, just simple courtesy


----------

