Indicating when changing lanes - do you?

[trashbat]

otolith said:

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.

This presumes that you can capably monitor all traffic around you and know for certain what's in your blind spot. Personally I think I can do a decent job of it but not one that should be relied upon for others' safety. I feel I can rely on the information I get from looking though.

Regardless, the difference is that in one case you're taking in information that lets you make a safer decision, for which you are responsible, and in the other you're giving out information that might help someone else do the same, which is delegation.

[otolith]

As drivers, we take in as much information as we can - should we not be glad of others offering more? If we admit that our observations are fallible (as we do with our blind spot check) is it not arrogant to deny that information?

It's largely an academic argument, IMO, but I think the arguments both for and against are weak, and the cost minimal. Someone who has an opinion either way is unlikely to use the signal as a substitute for being diligent.

[jimbop1]

ismellburning said:

Quiet Friday afternoon here. So:

Do you always, without fail, indicate when changing lanes on the motorway?

I used to, then read a thread (here if I'm not mistaken) that asked who benefits from signalling. Now I indicate if I'm in traffic, if there's someone close behind, or if I'm moving into lane two when lane three is also occupied. If there's no-one behind, i.e. no-one benefits from the indication, I don't do it.

Signalling to change lanes isn't one of the *MUST* bits of the highway code so I don't think this is illegal. My missus doesn't like it because when I indicate she gets advance warning we're going somewhere else. With no indication she gets taken a bit more by surprise. She's a nervous soul, mind.

What do you lot do?

Yeh those surprise motorway lane changes can be scary...

Obviously indicate when cars are close by. If no cars around then don't indicate, as there is absolutely no point.

I don't know why but I find it abit rude when people just change lanes on the motorway without indicating. They are either lazy or ignorant..people.

[SK425]

otolith said:

As drivers, we take in as much information as we can - should we not be glad of others offering more?

Not sure what you mean. Nobody denies that giving out useful information is great. But how's that relevant when there isn't somebody to give it to? That's not giving out information - that's just talking to yourself.

otolith said:

If we admit that our observations are fallible (as we do with our blind spot check) is it not arrogant to deny that information?

What do you mean when you say our observations are fallible? Certainly I'm fallible in the sense that it takes effort to keep my rearward situational awareness up to date and I can lapse in that effort and so lose the picture. But if I've let that happen, I'm not immediately in a position to execute a lane change at all, signalled or otherwise, so that fallibility is beside the point.

[otolith]

So you don't do a lifesaver?

[SK425]

otolith said:

So you don't do a lifesaver?

We're talking about this:

The postulated thought process said:

"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"

The observation to satisfy the questions of whether it's safe to change lane and who, if anyone, to signal to has been done. Obviously that might have included a shoulder check. If one was required, that could have been because the situation behind was too busy/complex/dynamic for previous mirror checks, even continual and thorough ones, to have been sufficient, it could have been because events ahead required too much of the driver's attention for them to have been able to maintain full awareness of what was happening behind, or it could have been because, not being infallible, they had simply let their rearward observation slip a bit as lane changing hadn't been on their mind for a while.

But once you've made the effective all round observation, if necessary having picked it up if you'd previously let it slip, I don't see where there is any arrogance in not signalling when it is clearly not necessary.

[Red Devil]

johnao said:

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”.

^^This^^

Works for me.

[mybrainhurts]

Is there a form of missile suitable for the tonks who overtake on a single carriageway, then signal left after the overtake?

[waremark]

DonkeyApple said:

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.

Godlike? Unlikely. Normal (as in 'a normal driver')? Most certainly not.

An Advanced Driver? Maybe.

[DonkeyApple]

waremark said:

DonkeyApple said:

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.

Godlike? Unlikely. Normal (as in 'a normal driver')? Most certainly not.

An Advanced Driver? Maybe.

I did use a small 'g'. Even I wouldn't be so presumptuous and arrogant to propose a capital 'G'

Although I do appreciate that indicating and owning a BMW does make me unusual.

I understand the logic of varying whether to indicate as it is logical that it implies continual attention but I also don't see why always indicating has to mean you aren't paying the same level of attention. I would generally hold the view that a st driver who at least indicates all the time is better than one who doesn't.

[Strangely Brown]

DonkeyApple said:

I understand the logic of varying whether to indicate as it is logical that it implies continual attention but I also don't see why always indicating has to mean you aren't paying the same level of attention.

It doesn't *have* to mean that. It does, however, *tend* to mean that. See the parts of the thread that mention human nature and the unthinking nature of habit.

What has been pointed out is that it is human nature to skip parts of a process that have no bearing on the end result. i.e. if you are going to indicate anyway, then why bother with the checks to see whether it is necessary. What happens is that people who indicate out of habit are less likely to be aware of those around them. Additionally, if they are not thinking about whether the signal is necessary, they are unlikely to be thinking about the timing and nature of the signal itself.

DonkeyApple said:

I would generally hold the view that a st driver who at least indicates all the time is better than one who doesn't.

With all else being equal, I would probably agree. Unfortunately, it rarely is. Signalling is far more than just blinky lights on the corner of the car.

[R0G]

As an IAM observer I explain to my associates that advanced driving requires the driver to consider the use of the indicate and not to do it as a habit

There is no must or must not in advanced driving - just a requirement of the driver to think about everything they do

[SK425]

DonkeyApple said:

I would generally hold the view that a st driver who at least indicates all the time is better than one who doesn't.

Against a backdrop of st observation and situational awareness, I think the difference is negligible compared to improving that observation and situational awareness.