Indicating on motorways advice needed
Discussion
Hugo a Gogo said:
filtering is illegal in Germany though
That doesn't mean someone won't do it though... I still always signal to that person who might be there. It's like quickly looking left and right when you drive through traffic lights; granted you do it for emergency vehicles, but it's also important to check for people running red lights, even though that is of course illegal.RobM77 said:
Ah, I meant on the right 
The hidden person undertaking you basically. Advanced drivers love to go on about how they only signal to people they can see, but they always seem to forget the people they can't see...
No, they go on about only signaling if someone might benefit. That obviously includes those who are currently out of sight. The hidden person undertaking you basically. Advanced drivers love to go on about how they only signal to people they can see, but they always seem to forget the people they can't see...Dr Jekyll said:
RobM77 said:
Ah, I meant on the right The hidden person undertaking you basically. Advanced drivers love to go on about how they only signal to people they can see, but they always seem to forget the people they can't see...
No, they go on about only signaling if someone might benefit. That obviously includes those who are currently out of sight. The hidden person undertaking you basically. Advanced drivers love to go on about how they only signal to people they can see, but they always seem to forget the people they can't see...Good to see we all take an idenical approach to communicating with each other on the road 
Personally, I feel that "only indicating if it will benefit another road user" causes more problems than it solves. I much prefer to indicate unless the signal could confuse another road user.
I prefer to indicate because it's possible to miss seeing another road user. Our eyes don't work by seeing everything. They work by seeing parts of the picture. Then our brain fills in the gaps with what it expects to see. Consequently, it's possible to miss another road user, however much you try to maintain good observation.
Personally, I feel that "only indicating if it will benefit another road user" causes more problems than it solves. I much prefer to indicate unless the signal could confuse another road user.
I prefer to indicate because it's possible to miss seeing another road user. Our eyes don't work by seeing everything. They work by seeing parts of the picture. Then our brain fills in the gaps with what it expects to see. Consequently, it's possible to miss another road user, however much you try to maintain good observation.
Vipers said:
check mirrors, as always, signal before manouevour, if there is no one there, nothing is lost
+1. This doesn't mean I drive like a robot Edited by SVS on Thursday 5th January 23:18
What a weird thread. Not the concept, just the replies.
So many examples of "I never indicate because you're always supposed to be in the left lane anyway". Hmm..
Except people never are - they sit in pretty much every other lane. I don't see the logic in "I can't be arsed to use the indicators", as it would be chaos if everyone just 'assumed' that a car could enter their lane at any point, just because "you're supposed to be as far left as possible".
You should always indicate to inform other drivers of your intention to change lanes, regardless. Not only is it good manners, and safe practice, but to not do so makes about as much sense as people who walk past the sink without washing their hands after emerging from a dump in a public toilet.
So many examples of "I never indicate because you're always supposed to be in the left lane anyway". Hmm..
Except people never are - they sit in pretty much every other lane. I don't see the logic in "I can't be arsed to use the indicators", as it would be chaos if everyone just 'assumed' that a car could enter their lane at any point, just because "you're supposed to be as far left as possible".
You should always indicate to inform other drivers of your intention to change lanes, regardless. Not only is it good manners, and safe practice, but to not do so makes about as much sense as people who walk past the sink without washing their hands after emerging from a dump in a public toilet.
vonhosen said:
The cognitive load is always there in both systems to be considerate in the lane change.
The ability to survey your surroundings is not tied to or dependent on the use of a 'not giving signal unless there is somebody to benefit from it' system. It can't be assumed that because somebody signals when you don't consider there is anybody necessary that they haven't deployed adequate vision scans. It can just be a philosophical choice.
.
In the system that I am advocating the cognitive load in relation to the signal itself is in relation to the question 'having taken in everything around you, what is the optimum time of using the signal so that it will not mislead?'
In the alternate system there is that consideration, plus the extra load of 'I want to avoid signalling so who is there present that I can justify as benefitting from the signal if given'.
An example I often see is say coming down to a roundabout intending to turn left taking the first exit.
Using the system I'm advocating I checked there is nobody behind, I've also checked there are no junctions on the approach to the roundabout, so there will be nobody to suddenly appear in it & be misled by that left signal, so I give the left signal now. I am now free to concentrate on the roundabout approach (with less focus required on exit 1 to my left & more available for what's approaching from right), entry, gear change etc & if anybody looms into view on the roundabout or approaching it from my exit 1, they can have a good idea of my intention & the signal is visible immediately I am in their view.
Using the 'only signal if someone visible to benefit system' I've checked there is nobody behind. I've checked there are no junctions on the approach to the roundabout, but I am not going to be giving a signal at this stage as there is nobody visible to benefit from it yet. I am now concentrating on the roundabout approach (but I also have to use more of my focus than strictly necessary on exit 1 to the left), entry & gear change, but still having to also consider & be ready to signal if somebody appears & ask myself the question if they'll benefit from it from their position before I give it. That's an unnecessarily increased workload & increases the chance of me missing giving the signal that was needed because I'm busy with the other stuff, or the signal not being on as early as it could be for a vehicle that comes into view because it's not on when they first see me.
I realise this is from some time ago but there seems to have been a thread revival leading me to read it. This is one of the strongest arguments I've heard against the "signal only when someone will benefit from it", which is a concept I have largely subscribed to; my rationale being that adopting a system where signalling is the default position can lead to an unconscious reliance on it as a safety net that encourages a lower observation threshold for making a manoeuvre. However, you have presented another system approach that still promotes skilled observation but might be less risky than the traditional AD view.The ability to survey your surroundings is not tied to or dependent on the use of a 'not giving signal unless there is somebody to benefit from it' system. It can't be assumed that because somebody signals when you don't consider there is anybody necessary that they haven't deployed adequate vision scans. It can just be a philosophical choice.
.
In the system that I am advocating the cognitive load in relation to the signal itself is in relation to the question 'having taken in everything around you, what is the optimum time of using the signal so that it will not mislead?'
In the alternate system there is that consideration, plus the extra load of 'I want to avoid signalling so who is there present that I can justify as benefitting from the signal if given'.
An example I often see is say coming down to a roundabout intending to turn left taking the first exit.
Using the system I'm advocating I checked there is nobody behind, I've also checked there are no junctions on the approach to the roundabout, so there will be nobody to suddenly appear in it & be misled by that left signal, so I give the left signal now. I am now free to concentrate on the roundabout approach (with less focus required on exit 1 to my left & more available for what's approaching from right), entry, gear change etc & if anybody looms into view on the roundabout or approaching it from my exit 1, they can have a good idea of my intention & the signal is visible immediately I am in their view.
Using the 'only signal if someone visible to benefit system' I've checked there is nobody behind. I've checked there are no junctions on the approach to the roundabout, but I am not going to be giving a signal at this stage as there is nobody visible to benefit from it yet. I am now concentrating on the roundabout approach (but I also have to use more of my focus than strictly necessary on exit 1 to the left), entry & gear change, but still having to also consider & be ready to signal if somebody appears & ask myself the question if they'll benefit from it from their position before I give it. That's an unnecessarily increased workload & increases the chance of me missing giving the signal that was needed because I'm busy with the other stuff, or the signal not being on as early as it could be for a vehicle that comes into view because it's not on when they first see me.
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 29th October 17:20
However, like anything where skilled humans are involved dogma should be avoided in my view. If you are in the middle of nowhere in the Arizona desert and turning then would you signal because it is part of the system? I guess you might argue that a system only works if it is consistently applied but that then makes it more difficult for people to respond to unexpected situations. You allude to unique situations you are involved in (presumably Police driving) where those systems cannot apply. Although not all of us are police drivers we may experience other types of "unique" situations and high quality advanced driving should prepare people for those situations. In my field of work we have guidelines, protocols etc that should be adhered to where they are applicable but when situations fall outside outside of those guidelines that is where experience and training come into their own. I would say the same spectrum applies to AD.
Just some musings.
Steve
Edited by DocSteve on Friday 6th January 01:06
cj2013 said:
What a weird thread. Not the concept, just the replies.
So many examples of "I never indicate because you're always supposed to be in the left lane anyway". Hmm..
Except people never are - they sit in pretty much every other lane. I don't see the logic in "I can't be arsed to use the indicators", as it would be chaos if everyone just 'assumed' that a car could enter their lane at any point, just because "you're supposed to be as far left as possible".
You should always indicate to inform other drivers of your intention to change lanes, regardless. Not only is it good manners, and safe practice, but to not do so makes about as much sense as people who walk past the sink without washing their hands after emerging from a dump in a public toilet.
If you're in a situation where you've completed your overtake and the move to the left won't affect anyone else, why is it good manners to indicate your intention to do what should be obvious anyway and that won't affect them? That's real 'hello to an empty room' territory.So many examples of "I never indicate because you're always supposed to be in the left lane anyway". Hmm..
Except people never are - they sit in pretty much every other lane. I don't see the logic in "I can't be arsed to use the indicators", as it would be chaos if everyone just 'assumed' that a car could enter their lane at any point, just because "you're supposed to be as far left as possible".
You should always indicate to inform other drivers of your intention to change lanes, regardless. Not only is it good manners, and safe practice, but to not do so makes about as much sense as people who walk past the sink without washing their hands after emerging from a dump in a public toilet.
Obviously not everyone moves left after overtaking, but then not everyone moves left after signalling. Either way they probably will, but might not, so the overtaken driver can't assume either.
And if your move to the left might affect the overtaken vehicle, should you really be moving left at this point?
Dr Jekyll said:
cj2013 said:
What a weird thread. Not the concept, just the replies.
So many examples of "I never indicate because you're always supposed to be in the left lane anyway". Hmm..
Except people never are - they sit in pretty much every other lane. I don't see the logic in "I can't be arsed to use the indicators", as it would be chaos if everyone just 'assumed' that a car could enter their lane at any point, just because "you're supposed to be as far left as possible".
You should always indicate to inform other drivers of your intention to change lanes, regardless. Not only is it good manners, and safe practice, but to not do so makes about as much sense as people who walk past the sink without washing their hands after emerging from a dump in a public toilet.
If you're in a situation where you've completed your overtake and the move to the left won't affect anyone else, why is it good manners to indicate your intention to do what should be obvious anyway and that won't affect them? That's real 'hello to an empty room' territory.So many examples of "I never indicate because you're always supposed to be in the left lane anyway". Hmm..
Except people never are - they sit in pretty much every other lane. I don't see the logic in "I can't be arsed to use the indicators", as it would be chaos if everyone just 'assumed' that a car could enter their lane at any point, just because "you're supposed to be as far left as possible".
You should always indicate to inform other drivers of your intention to change lanes, regardless. Not only is it good manners, and safe practice, but to not do so makes about as much sense as people who walk past the sink without washing their hands after emerging from a dump in a public toilet.
Obviously not everyone moves left after overtaking, but then not everyone moves left after signalling. Either way they probably will, but might not, so the overtaken driver can't assume either.
And if your move to the left might affect the overtaken vehicle, should you really be moving left at this point?
- What about the motorbike in your left rear quarter blind spot?
- Imagine your above description is for a lane 2-3 overtake and there's someone in lane 1 matching your speed moving from lane 1 to 2? You may not have seen them either.
- How about the guy coming up behind you who doesn't know if you're going to move back in or stay in your lane after the overtake. I get this several times every morning - someone just sits there after the overtake. If they indicate, then I don't bother backing off because I know they'll be safely gone by the time I get there, but if they don't indicate and I assume they'll just sit there, then I back off early enough to maintain a safe stopping distance without having to brake. If, at that point, you move in anyway, I have to accelerate back up to the speed I was cruising at, which is very bloody annoying if it keeps happening!
RobM77 said:
- What about the motorbike in your left rear quarter blind spot?
- Imagine your above description is for a lane 2-3 overtake and there's someone in lane 1 matching your speed moving from lane 1 to 2? You may not have seen them either.
- How about the guy coming up behind you who doesn't know if you're going to move back in or stay in your lane after the overtake. I get this several times every morning - someone just sits there after the overtake. If they indicate, then I don't bother backing off because I know they'll be safely gone by the time I get there, but if they don't indicate and I assume they'll just sit there, then I back off early enough to maintain a safe stopping distance without having to brake. If, at that point, you move in anyway, I have to accelerate back up to the speed I was cruising at, which is very bloody annoying if it keeps happening!
Assumption is an underrated problem in today's society
RobM77 said:
- What about the motorbike in your left rear quarter blind spot?
If there might be a motorbike in you left quarter blind spot, then check the bloody blind spot before moving, don't rely in a signal to avoid a collision.
RobM77 said:
- Imagine your above description is for a lane 2-3 overtake and there's someone in lane 1 matching your speed moving from lane 1 to 2? You may not have seen them either.
RobM77 said:
- How about the guy coming up behind you who doesn't know if you're going to move back in or stay in your lane after the overtake. I get this several times every morning - someone just sits there after the overtake. If they indicate, then I don't bother backing off because I know they'll be safely gone by the time I get there, but if they don't indicate and I assume they'll just sit there, then I back off early enough to maintain a safe stopping distance without having to brake. If, at that point, you move in anyway, I have to accelerate back up to the speed I was cruising at, which is very bloody annoying if it keeps happening!
Dr Jekyll said:
RobM77 said:
- What about the motorbike in your left rear quarter blind spot?
If there might be a motorbike in you left quarter blind spot, then check the bloody blind spot before moving, don't rely in a signal to avoid a collision.
Dr Jekyll said:
RobM77 said:
- Imagine your above description is for a lane 2-3 overtake and there's someone in lane 1 matching your speed moving from lane 1 to 2? You may not have seen them either.
Dr Jekyll said:
RobM77 said:
- How about the guy coming up behind you who doesn't know if you're going to move back in or stay in your lane after the overtake. I get this several times every morning - someone just sits there after the overtake. If they indicate, then I don't bother backing off because I know they'll be safely gone by the time I get there, but if they don't indicate and I assume they'll just sit there, then I back off early enough to maintain a safe stopping distance without having to brake. If, at that point, you move in anyway, I have to accelerate back up to the speed I was cruising at, which is very bloody annoying if it keeps happening!
RobM77 said:
Dr Jekyll said:
RobM77 said:
- How about the guy coming up behind you who doesn't know if you're going to move back in or stay in your lane after the overtake. I get this several times every morning - someone just sits there after the overtake. If they indicate, then I don't bother backing off because I know they'll be safely gone by the time I get there, but if they don't indicate and I assume they'll just sit there, then I back off early enough to maintain a safe stopping distance without having to brake. If, at that point, you move in anyway, I have to accelerate back up to the speed I was cruising at, which is very bloody annoying if it keeps happening!
If there really is a practical difference between someone who is probably going to pull into the left but might not, and someone who is probably going to turn pull into the left and is giving a signal but still might not, then that is an example of a signal that would benefit another road user. Not an argument for giving signals that benefit nobody.
Obviously there is a judgement call as to whether the move would affect anyone, but that applies signal or no signal.
Dr Jekyll said:
RobM77 said:
Dr Jekyll said:
RobM77 said:
- How about the guy coming up behind you who doesn't know if you're going to move back in or stay in your lane after the overtake. I get this several times every morning - someone just sits there after the overtake. If they indicate, then I don't bother backing off because I know they'll be safely gone by the time I get there, but if they don't indicate and I assume they'll just sit there, then I back off early enough to maintain a safe stopping distance without having to brake. If, at that point, you move in anyway, I have to accelerate back up to the speed I was cruising at, which is very bloody annoying if it keeps happening!
If there really is a practical difference between someone who is probably going to pull into the left but might not, and someone who is probably going to turn pull into the left and is giving a signal but still might not, then that is an example of a signal that would benefit another road user. Not an argument for giving signals that benefit nobody.
Obviously there is a judgement call as to whether the move would affect anyone, but that applies signal or no signal.
It's all about probabilities:If the approaching car sees a left indicator, they know it's very likely that car will move back in, so they'll continue in the knowledge that they may have to brake to maintain a safe distance, but it's pretty unlikely. In most cases, the car will move in and they'll continue at the same speed. If he doesn't move, no big deal, you just have to brake, but at no point is anyone in any danger, it's just annoying.
If the approaching car doesn't see a left indicator, then the balance of probability shifts, and it's likely that car will be staying out. So, rather than continue and then brake, they'll back off to save fuel. Then when that car does move back over, they'll have to accelerate again. This is what you're describing and it's bloody annoying!
It's unwise to make critical decisions based on an indicator, but the correct use of them greatly improves the flow of traffic and helps keep irritation at a minimum. This is about an approaching driver/rider working out what's most likely to happen and arranging his approach to be smoothest and most fuel efficient based on that - if the other driver is signalling wrongly, there won't be an unsafe moment, just a bit of annoyance. By not signalling a driver is potentially causing that annoyance all around him.
Edited by RobM77 on Friday 6th January 13:53
Ahbefive said:
People that don't signal are quite simply ignorant idiots.
I seem to recall (ridiculous reference warning) an episode of Neighbours many moons ago where Stu Parker was a cop and he often ticketed people for incorrect signalling. I've never looked it up, but I assume it's standard practice in Australia to enforce such simple things. Of course we are a bit thin on the ground for traffic policing lately.I was stuck behind a taxi on my commute yesterday who didn't seem to know what he was doing - indicating right then turning left etc. Boils my wee wee.
SVS said:
I agree with RobM77 about the importance of the cost:benefit. The cost of a human error could be very high (e.g. not seeing the motorcycle in Rob's example). Whereas the benefit of not indicating is small.
It's not difficult is it? As to the excuses for not indicating by drivers that think they are clever (as opposed to the straightforward ignorant ones) I would much prefer to come up on a driver with indicator on that ultimately doesn't actually make the move for whatever the reason, as it prepares me for the possibility of a move, than the driver that cuts across me because I haven't been seen and their default action is to indicate only if anyone is there to benefit.If someone indicates and makes the move across me because I have not been seen (very relevant on a motorcycle) then at least I have a fighting chance of a defensive manoeuvre because there is at least an obvious warning, albeit at very short notice.
JM said:
Ahbefive said:
People that don't signal are quite simply ignorant idiots.
Even if there is nobody to signal to? Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff