Indicating when changing lanes - do you?

[ismellburning]

LFAwhoosh said:

As another example - airline pilots have anti collision lights and a TCAS system to help avoid near misses. For example in a head on scenario, TCAS will exchange data between the two converging aircraft and instruct one pilot to dive and another to climb( to avoid them both deciding to go the same way).

TCAS isn't really there to replace observation, though. Commercial jets have enormous blindspots, plus threats can come from in front, behind, either side and from above and below. It would be possible, with the most observant pilot in the world, to still have closing traffic cause a threat.

It would be possible to safely drive hundreds of miles without indication as long as you were practising very diligent observation. The same would not be true of switching off a TCAS system.

[SK425]

LFAwhoosh said:

Mirror, signal, manoeuvre is in the Highway Code and it is what other drivers expect you to do.

Nobody has suggested not indicating when there's another driver who would benefit from some communication. I think everybody would agree that that would be an error.

LFAwhoosh said:

Not indicating is being complacent

We're not talking about not indicating. We're talking about thinking about indicating. If nothing else, looking all around, establishing there is nobody to communicate with and then communicating anyway just feels weird. And how do you do it? Questions like when to start and stop signalling, how long to wait before moving etc. are part of the process of planning communication because they are sometimes important - but when there's nobody you're talking to they are unanswerable questions. For how long should you say "I am intending to change lanes" to nobody before just getting on and doing it? How far through the manoeuvre should you get before you cancel the signal?

What's the chance that I might drive along thinking that it's not raining and I can see where I'm going so I leave the windscreen wipers off, when in fact it is raining and I can't see where I'm going? Should I protect against that possibility by having the wipers on at all times?

[johnao]

SK425 said:

We're not talking about not indicating. We're talking about thinking about indicating. If nothing else, looking all around, establishing there is nobody to communicate with and then communicating anyway just feels weird.

+1

Reminds me of a story out of one of the police advanced driving schools. When explaining this concept to the new recruits the instructor posed a rhetorical question... "Would you go in to a room, have a look around, find that's it was empty and then shout HELLO; I don't think you would"

But, of course, there is always the one who says... "why not? It wouldn't do any harm". But that would be the person who hasn't fully checked out the room.

[SK425]

johnao said:

SK425 said:

We're not talking about not indicating. We're talking about thinking about indicating. If nothing else, looking all around, establishing there is nobody to communicate with and then communicating anyway just feels weird.

+1

Reminds me of a story out of one of the police advanced driving schools. When explaining this concept to the new recruits the instructor posed a rhetorical question... "Would you go in to a room, have a look around, find that's it was empty and then shout HELLO; I don't think you would"

But, of course, there is always the one who says... "why not? It wouldn't do any harm". But that would be the person who hasn't fully checked out the room.

To be fair, if you really have checked out the room and you want to say "hello" anyway, that's not a problem in itself. Much as I might think it feels weird, I wouldn't argue that signalling when there is nobody to benefit is an error itself. If it comes about because signalling is an unthinking, automatic process, that's an error (a thinking error though, not a signalling error) - and I don't think there's any disagreement on that point in this thread either.

My problem, as I've said, is that if I started making myself say "hello" even after I'd fully checked out the room and it was empty, I'm not confident I'd be able to maintain my standards of checking out the room properly or the subtleties of my communication (indicating being a bit more than just "hello") in the face of such incongruity. It's a risk I'm not comfortable taking. Others may feel differently.

[DonkeyApple]

I am able to habitually indicate at all times while also still being able to use a selection of mirrors dotted around the car, while also remembering the most recent positions and attitudes of all other cars in the immediate vicinity, while also making a judgement call as to whether it's one of those anomalous situations where indicating could actually cause confusion, and all while being prepared to change the plan if the dynamic adjusts. And this can all be done without anyone having to change their direction or speed. I can also do this in a BMW or Mercedes.

I am clearly either a godlike being of all greatness and power or just a normal driver who considers those around them and the ramifications of their actions. Ie normal.

[0000]

johnao said:

Reminds me of a story out of one of the police advanced driving schools. When explaining this concept to the new recruits the instructor posed a rhetorical question... "Would you go in to a room, have a look around, find that's it was empty and then shout HELLO; I don't think you would"

If I'd ever encountered a motorbike with a closing speed of 50mph on that room, I might think differently. The ramifications of missing something in a blind spot behind a cupboard aren't exactly comparable either.

[trashbat]

On most multi-lane roads, especially those with only two lanes, it's just not that hard to find out if someone is there. A motorbike with a 50mph closing speed is no exception.

[7mike]

Just arrived in Cumbria after a little jaunt up the M6 and then onto the A590. If at any point during the journey I wasn't aware of other road users within at least 1/4 mile of me I would have dumped the motor, ripped up my driving licence and walked home. I didn't see one vehicle indicate that I hadn't already figured out was going to change lane & most had started the manoeuvre before indicating anyway. For those that haven't yet realised that LGVs are restricted to 56mph and only figure out they need to change lanes to keep going at 65mph when it all goes shady behind a truck; I'd figured it out for them in advance & got out of their way.

Roll on next year's indicator thread

[SK425]

0000 said:

If I'd ever encountered a motorbike with a closing speed of 50mph on that room, I might think differently. The ramifications of missing something in a blind spot behind a cupboard aren't exactly comparable either.

What blind spot behind a cupboard? Checking blind spots is part of the necessary observation. You're making johnao's point for him - saying "hello" because you haven't fully checked out the room.

[0000]

No, I'm not saying the checking is different, but that the ramifications of missing something are different.

[trashbat]

Sure. So make sure you look.

I don't quite understand this attitude of 'what if I've made a mistake'. Well, if you have, your indicator might save the man on the motorbike or you might kill him anyway.

Don't make mistakes, don't kill motorcyclists. Anything else is just hoping for the best.

[johnao]

SK425 said:

My problem, as I've said, is that if I started making myself say "hello" even after I'd fully checked out the room and it was empty, I'm not confident I'd be able to maintain my ....

...sanity?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Your point is important. The following was pointed out to me many years ago and comes from from "Road Sense" by Doug Holland - Sigma Publishing 1993.

An argument often levelled against this principle of 'discretionary’ or 'thoughtful' signalling, and which is often said to support the principle of, ‘habitual’ signalling (i.e. signalling for every manoeuvre irrespective of whether there is another road user to benefit from it) runs as follows: “there is no harm in giving a signal which is not, strictly speaking, necessary. If it is proposed to turn left and there is nobody about, what possible danger could be caused by giving a signal?” This is a superficially appealing argument, and it is valid as far as it goes. However, it fails to take account of one important factor - human nature. It is generally found that the driver who gives a signal when a signal is not necessary is the driver who has not taken effective observation all around his vehicle and seen that a signal is not necessary. In other words, the mirrors-signals-manoeuvre routine has been abbreviated to 'signals, manoeuvre'. As will be seen later this is undesirable and potentially dangerous. On the other hand, the driver who wishes to consider the question "Is a signal necessary?" is the driver who is required to take effective all round observation in order to do so. Put yet another way, if unnecessary signals are given, it is not the signal itself which is the problem (unless it is misleading); rather it is the mental attitude of the driver immediately before the application of that signal. If a signal is given which was not necessary, it is unlikely that the thought process of the driver immediately before its application was: “I have taken effective all round observation; I have satisfied myself that I know the position and movements of all other road users around my vehicle. Clearly a signal is not necessary, but I will give one anyway”. It is much more likely to be: “I will not bother to take effective all round observation because I will signal no matter what I see”.

[0000]

trashbat said:

Anything else is just hoping for the best.

It's layered security. You don't just build a castle wall, you dig a moat too. That doesn't mean that people who dig moats are trying to get away with a picket fence for a castle wall. You don't just use a password for online banking, you have two factor authentication. That doesn't mean you should use a weak password. Etc, etc.

[trashbat]

0000 said:

It's layered security. You don't just build a castle wall, you dig a moat too. That doesn't mean that people who dig moats are trying to get away with a picket fence for a castle wall. You don't just use a password for online banking, you have two factor authentication. That doesn't mean you should use a weak password. Etc, etc.

I understand the merits of a layered approach but there is no comparison with security. Security is about two way relationships with others, whether you know it or not, and it's about protection without constant personal vigilance.

In normal driving, you are wholly, solely and actively responsible for not bringing harm to others through your actions, and it is very reasonably within your power to achieve that goal without forcing others to assist you.

In other words, it's quite possible to not make mistakes, especially in this simple context. I agree that you might mitigate an error with indication but you should never have got into that situation. If you have, it's beyond your control whether someone comes to harm.

[SK425]

trashbat said:

In other words, it's quite possible to not make mistakes, especially in this simple context. I agree that you might mitigate an error with indication but you should never have got into that situation.

That's the point, and what I was getting at with my windscreen wiper analogy. You can mitigate the error of failing to notice that it's raining and you can't see out of the windscreen any more by adopting a policy of always having the wipers on regardless of the weather. But how on earth did you manage to make that error in the first place?

[otolith]

One could apply similar logic to a habitual "lifesaver" before making a manoeuvre.

[trashbat]

otolith said:

One could apply similar logic to a habitual "lifesaver" before making a manoeuvre.

Not at all, because that gives you the driver information, rather than being a finger-crossing exercise.

Of course, if you habitually go through the motions without seeing, that'd be different.

[SK425]

otolith said:

One could apply similar logic to a habitual "lifesaver" before making a manoeuvre.

Yes, obviously. Shoulder checks came up recently in this thread.

[otolith]

But if your observation is correct, you will know there is nothing there to see, so you have no more need to do a lifesaver than you have to give a signal.

[0000]

trashbat said:

I agree that you might mitigate an error with indication but you should never have got into that situation.

Agreed, but that error mitigation I think is sufficient to justify the minimal cost of indicating. It is the weakest of safety nets, dependent on others and does not transfer responsibility, but the cost of indicating is so negligible I think it's worth it, in general.