Indicating on motorways advice needed
Discussion
cmaguire said:
JM said:
All the time, every time.
Would you fine or otherwise sanction a driver on a deserted (no following or visible vehicles ahead) motorway for not indicating he was leaving at the upcoming junction?
Why?
The idea that not indicating occurs as a conscious decision AFTER performing any necessary other actions prior to changing direction/lane makes me wonder why an individual would not just indicate anyway.Would you fine or otherwise sanction a driver on a deserted (no following or visible vehicles ahead) motorway for not indicating he was leaving at the upcoming junction?
Why?
Are you worried about wearing your bulbs/LEDs or the indicator stalk out?
I wonder how many of the drivers that pull out on me without indicating are 'advanced drivers'. Maybe they are just lazy and apathetic. Who knows?
As far as the law and fines goes, I'd rather they buggered off and left us to it. They micro-manage way too much already.
JM said:
All the time, every time.
Would you fine or otherwise sanction a driver on a deserted (no following or visible vehicles ahead) motorway for not indicating he was leaving at the upcoming junction?
Why?
Because he's a brain-dead idiot who wants to drag everyone else down to the lowest common denominator.Would you fine or otherwise sanction a driver on a deserted (no following or visible vehicles ahead) motorway for not indicating he was leaving at the upcoming junction?
Why?
This has been covered many times (like most PH topics).
My personal stance is that I've plenty of experience of drivers who in attempting to live by the 'advanced' ethos of not signalling where there is no-one to benefit, end up making mistakes on occasions resulting in them not signalling when somebody could have benefited.
I consider signalling when there is nobody to benefit a nil problem , but failing to signal when there is somebody to benefit a positive problem.
I understand the argument that the practice of positively looking to see if there is somebody to benefit is a tool to increase awareness but disagree that when they say that looking to see if the signal could be misleading to somebody isn't such a tool.
I don't have a problem with people not signalling if there isn't anyone to benefit if they get it right 100% of the time, but I've yet to meet somebody who does.
As such I believe a better system/approaach is to first consider if the signal will mislead & if it won't give it.
The benefits being
1) It promotes actively looking for others who could be misled
2) It is a lower workload than with the extra unnecessary consideration of 'is there someone to benefit?'
3) Giving a signal when there is nobody to benefit harms no-one.
4) You won't have the not signalling when there was somebody to benefit mistakes that inevitably happen.
That's not an argument for non-thinking blanket signalling, because that will result in misleading signals through poor timing/application.
It's an argument for getting the best out of effective communication between drivers with a system that is simpler, load reducing for the driver & provides fewer mistakes.
Signalling when there is no-one to benefit isn't evidence that the driver is unaware of what's around them, it can just be they are driving to a different systematic belief.
My personal stance is that I've plenty of experience of drivers who in attempting to live by the 'advanced' ethos of not signalling where there is no-one to benefit, end up making mistakes on occasions resulting in them not signalling when somebody could have benefited.
I consider signalling when there is nobody to benefit a nil problem , but failing to signal when there is somebody to benefit a positive problem.
I understand the argument that the practice of positively looking to see if there is somebody to benefit is a tool to increase awareness but disagree that when they say that looking to see if the signal could be misleading to somebody isn't such a tool.
I don't have a problem with people not signalling if there isn't anyone to benefit if they get it right 100% of the time, but I've yet to meet somebody who does.
As such I believe a better system/approaach is to first consider if the signal will mislead & if it won't give it.
The benefits being
1) It promotes actively looking for others who could be misled
2) It is a lower workload than with the extra unnecessary consideration of 'is there someone to benefit?'
3) Giving a signal when there is nobody to benefit harms no-one.
4) You won't have the not signalling when there was somebody to benefit mistakes that inevitably happen.
That's not an argument for non-thinking blanket signalling, because that will result in misleading signals through poor timing/application.
It's an argument for getting the best out of effective communication between drivers with a system that is simpler, load reducing for the driver & provides fewer mistakes.
Signalling when there is no-one to benefit isn't evidence that the driver is unaware of what's around them, it can just be they are driving to a different systematic belief.
Not to side step the thread, it I am just amazed at the number of drivers who don't bother to keep their rear lights clean, yes it rains, and yes they get muddy, our Royal Marine instructor always said -
In the morning you have a wash, do the same to your vehicle, clean the windows, mirrors and lights.
Little rant over, now back to signalling with a "clean" indicator.
In the morning you have a wash, do the same to your vehicle, clean the windows, mirrors and lights.
Little rant over, now back to signalling with a "clean" indicator.
vonhosen said:
This has been covered many times (like most PH topics).
My personal stance is that I've plenty of experience of drivers who in attempting to live by the 'advanced' ethos of not signalling where there is no-one to benefit, end up making mistakes on occasions resulting in them not signalling when somebody could have benefited.
I consider signalling when there is nobody to benefit a nil problem , but failing to signal when there is somebody to benefit a positive problem.
I understand the argument that the practice of positively looking to see if there is somebody to benefit is a tool to increase awareness but disagree that when they say that looking to see if the signal could be misleading to somebody isn't such a tool.
I don't have a problem with people not signalling if there isn't anyone to benefit if they get it right 100% of the time, but I've yet to meet somebody who does.
As such I believe a better system/approaach is to first consider if the signal will mislead & if it won't give it.
The benefits being
1) It promotes actively looking for others who could be misled
2) It is a lower workload than with the extra unnecessary consideration of 'is there someone to benefit?'
3) Giving a signal when there is nobody to benefit harms no-one.
4) You won't have the not signalling when there was somebody to benefit mistakes that inevitably happen.
That's not an argument for non-thinking blanket signalling, because that will result in misleading signals through poor timing/application.
It's an argument for getting the best out of effective communication between drivers with a system that is simpler, load reducing for the driver & provides fewer mistakes.
Signalling when there is no-one to benefit isn't evidence that the driver is unaware of what's around them, it can just be they are driving to a different systematic belief.
Well I never, I agree with you entirely.My personal stance is that I've plenty of experience of drivers who in attempting to live by the 'advanced' ethos of not signalling where there is no-one to benefit, end up making mistakes on occasions resulting in them not signalling when somebody could have benefited.
I consider signalling when there is nobody to benefit a nil problem , but failing to signal when there is somebody to benefit a positive problem.
I understand the argument that the practice of positively looking to see if there is somebody to benefit is a tool to increase awareness but disagree that when they say that looking to see if the signal could be misleading to somebody isn't such a tool.
I don't have a problem with people not signalling if there isn't anyone to benefit if they get it right 100% of the time, but I've yet to meet somebody who does.
As such I believe a better system/approaach is to first consider if the signal will mislead & if it won't give it.
The benefits being
1) It promotes actively looking for others who could be misled
2) It is a lower workload than with the extra unnecessary consideration of 'is there someone to benefit?'
3) Giving a signal when there is nobody to benefit harms no-one.
4) You won't have the not signalling when there was somebody to benefit mistakes that inevitably happen.
That's not an argument for non-thinking blanket signalling, because that will result in misleading signals through poor timing/application.
It's an argument for getting the best out of effective communication between drivers with a system that is simpler, load reducing for the driver & provides fewer mistakes.
Signalling when there is no-one to benefit isn't evidence that the driver is unaware of what's around them, it can just be they are driving to a different systematic belief.
Perhaps we are both braindead idiots that are trying to drag everybody down to the lowest common denominator.
Or perhaps, as I suspect, 'advanced' when applied to road users shouldn't be taken literally but hypothetically.
Edited by cmaguire on Sunday 22 January 12:17
I try to avoid signalling when there is nobody to benefit, and yes, I occasionally get it wrong and make a pointless signal when there is nobody about. But this at least warns me that my concentration has slipped and I need to raise my game before I make a mistake that might have consequences. Without the additional discipline I'd make more mistakes.
When most drivers talk about signalling what they really mean is use of indicators. There are loads of ways to signal intent & whatever deep grained beliefs anyone has on the use of signals (indicators) I don't think many give much thought to the rest. Think of the one's who dab the brakes every few seconds; do they realise they're signalling to the world what a s
t driver they really are. How many experienced (or advanced if you're into labels)drivers would trust an indicator without also considering such things as position, speed, or even where the other driver is looking? The most useful signal imho is eye contact; when approaching a busy road with crawling traffic and you want letting out; try approaching VERY slowly with your window open.
t driver they really are. How many experienced (or advanced if you're into labels)drivers would trust an indicator without also considering such things as position, speed, or even where the other driver is looking? The most useful signal imho is eye contact; when approaching a busy road with crawling traffic and you want letting out; try approaching VERY slowly with your window open. I try to always indicate, except where it is clearly misleading.
Not being a perfect driver, there always might be someone I have failed to see, or whose action I failed to predict-my indication is then a warning to that other driver that I am about to do something which might require him/her to take avoiding action. If this avoids one collision in 40 years driving, surely it is worthwhile?
That is how I interpret other people's last minute indication- I assume they have not seen me, and I try to be ready to take avoiding action.
Surely that is the simplest and safest approach?
Not being a perfect driver, there always might be someone I have failed to see, or whose action I failed to predict-my indication is then a warning to that other driver that I am about to do something which might require him/her to take avoiding action. If this avoids one collision in 40 years driving, surely it is worthwhile?
That is how I interpret other people's last minute indication- I assume they have not seen me, and I try to be ready to take avoiding action.
Surely that is the simplest and safest approach?
7mike said:
When most drivers talk about signalling what they really mean is use of indicators. There are loads of ways to signal intent & whatever deep grained beliefs anyone has on the use of signals (indicators) I don't think many give much thought to the rest. Think of the one's who dab the brakes every few seconds; do they realise they're signalling to the world what a st driver they really are. How many experienced (or advanced if you're into labels)drivers would trust an indicator without also considering such things as position, speed, or even where the other driver is looking? The most useful signal imho is eye contact; when approaching a busy road with crawling traffic and you want letting out; try approaching VERY slowly with your window open.
That's another 'advancedism' I'm a tad sceptical about. The adverseness to show a vehicle behind brake lights & how it somehow should be considered poor driving to do so.t driver they really are. How many experienced (or advanced if you're into labels)drivers would trust an indicator without also considering such things as position, speed, or even where the other driver is looking? The most useful signal imho is eye contact; when approaching a busy road with crawling traffic and you want letting out; try approaching VERY slowly with your window open. Yes I could when approaching a slower vehicle ahead come off the throttle and get to a place where I've matched speed at my chosen distance from the slower vehicle ahead solely on acceleration sense, but whilst doing so I don't know the driver behind & how alert to it all they are, including the fact that I am losing speed (depending on vehicle/gear at the time, acceleration sense may still result in quite marked deceleration that could potentially catch them out) . I don't consider alerting them to the fact that I'm losing speed by simply activating the brake lights (rather than any meaningful application of the brakes) to automatically be poor or an unconsidered decision. At times the showing of brake lights can just be a considered communication to another as part of a planned approach.
I do agree that a flashing indicator shouldn't be considered in isolation but in conjunction with position, speed, available options, wheels etc.
Eye contact is also no guarantee only an indication, somebody looking in your direction maybe looking past you not at you, so again look for supporting evidence.
Do people who indicate all the time and advocate it even if there is no other vehicles or people present, drive around with their windscreen wipers on all the time?
I indicate if in traffic or there is someone else around who may benefit etc. I also use headlights (dipped beam) when it may be of benefit to others, but not necessarily to me (daytime but rain/spray or bright sunshine etc) I'll use wipers to clear my windscreen if it's dirty, wet/covered in snow or similar, but I don't leave them on all the time just incase there may be rain round the next corner.
I don't indicate if there is nobody else around, as in the example I gave earlier, empty motorway (or any other road) nobody following or visible ahead and I'm leaving at the coming exit (or other turning or lay-by or similar)
I'd like to know why you would indicate in such a situation?
I indicate if in traffic or there is someone else around who may benefit etc. I also use headlights (dipped beam) when it may be of benefit to others, but not necessarily to me (daytime but rain/spray or bright sunshine etc) I'll use wipers to clear my windscreen if it's dirty, wet/covered in snow or similar, but I don't leave them on all the time just incase there may be rain round the next corner.
I don't indicate if there is nobody else around, as in the example I gave earlier, empty motorway (or any other road) nobody following or visible ahead and I'm leaving at the coming exit (or other turning or lay-by or similar)
I'd like to know why you would indicate in such a situation?
JM said:
Do people who indicate all the time and advocate it even if there is no other vehicles or people present, drive around with their windscreen wipers on all the time?
I indicate if in traffic or there is someone else around who may benefit etc. I also use headlights (dipped beam) when it may be of benefit to others, but not necessarily to me (daytime but rain/spray or bright sunshine etc) I'll use wipers to clear my windscreen if it's dirty, wet/covered in snow or similar, but I don't leave them on all the time just incase there may be rain round the next corner.
I don't indicate if there is nobody else around, as in the example I gave earlier, empty motorway (or any other road) nobody following or visible ahead and I'm leaving at the coming exit (or other turning or lay-by or similar)
I'd like to know why you would indicate in such a situation?
For the reasons I gave earlier.I indicate if in traffic or there is someone else around who may benefit etc. I also use headlights (dipped beam) when it may be of benefit to others, but not necessarily to me (daytime but rain/spray or bright sunshine etc) I'll use wipers to clear my windscreen if it's dirty, wet/covered in snow or similar, but I don't leave them on all the time just incase there may be rain round the next corner.
I don't indicate if there is nobody else around, as in the example I gave earlier, empty motorway (or any other road) nobody following or visible ahead and I'm leaving at the coming exit (or other turning or lay-by or similar)
I'd like to know why you would indicate in such a situation?
1) I don't have a problem with people who do indicate as long as it won't mislead (even if there is nobody around). Why would I have a problem with them?
2) I don't have a problem with people who only indicate when there is somebody to benefit either, why would I?
I have more of a problem with people who fail to indicate when there is somebody to benefit.
I see more errors in relation to that from the group following ethos 2) than ethos 1).
JM said:
vonhosen said:
For the reasons I gave earlier.
So, you would indicate to nobody to save you from having to decide if there was anyone there to signal to. Quality & consistency of output is what's important, the input is not of itself important, only in so much as to how it serves the output.
JM said:
So, you would indicate to nobody to save you from having to decide if there was anyone there to signal to.
The flaws in your logic would indicate a lack of advanced thinking.You go ahead and carry on not indicating if you feel or even know that there is no one there to benefit, but if you think that somehow contributes towards you belonging to a mythical group of superior road users known as 'advanced motorists' then think again.
JM said:
I don't indicate if there is nobody else around, as in the example I gave earlier, empty motorway (or any other road) nobody following or visible ahead and I'm leaving at the coming exit (or other turning or lay-by or similar)
I'd like to know why you would indicate in such a situation?
If you're interested in additional input on that question:I'd like to know why you would indicate in such a situation?
I usually would indicate even on a completely empty motorway because it feels like a natural part of the process of changing lanes and neglecting it out feels a bit lazy and unrefined. Clearly there's no social or safety issue if you're the only thing on the road.
Totally empty motorways aren't really the issue though and I'm certain that that situation isn't what any advocates of consistent signalling are concerned about.
vonhosen said:
7mike said:
When most drivers talk about signalling what they really mean is use of indicators. There are loads of ways to signal intent & whatever deep grained beliefs anyone has on the use of signals (indicators) I don't think many give much thought to the rest. Think of the one's who dab the brakes every few seconds; do they realise they're signalling to the world what a st driver they really are. How many experienced (or advanced if you're into labels)drivers would trust an indicator without also considering such things as position, speed, or even where the other driver is looking? The most useful signal imho is eye contact; when approaching a busy road with crawling traffic and you want letting out; try approaching VERY slowly with your window open.
That's another 'advancedism' I'm a tad sceptical about. The adverseness to show a vehicle behind brake lights & how it somehow should be considered poor driving to do so.t driver they really are. How many experienced (or advanced if you're into labels)drivers would trust an indicator without also considering such things as position, speed, or even where the other driver is looking? The most useful signal imho is eye contact; when approaching a busy road with crawling traffic and you want letting out; try approaching VERY slowly with your window open. Yes I could when approaching a slower vehicle ahead come off the throttle and get to a place where I've matched speed at my chosen distance from the slower vehicle ahead solely on acceleration sense, but whilst doing so I don't know the driver behind & how alert to it all they are, including the fact that I am losing speed (depending on vehicle/gear at the time, acceleration sense may still result in quite marked deceleration that could potentially catch them out) . I don't consider alerting them to the fact that I'm losing speed by simply activating the brake lights (rather than any meaningful application of the brakes) to automatically be poor or an unconsidered decision. At times the showing of brake lights can just be a considered communication to another as part of a planned approach.
I do agree that a flashing indicator shouldn't be considered in isolation but in conjunction with position, speed, available options, wheels etc.
Eye contact is also no guarantee only an indication, somebody looking in your direction maybe looking past you not at you, so again look for supporting evidence.
The example I used regarding brake lights did not (in my mind) imply we should rely solely on acceleration sense; quite the opposite, that they are an important signal and could be used in a more considered manner. Unlike those whose driving style generally involves accelerating up the arse of the vehicle in front, usually to guard their space only to have to brake every few seconds in reaction to slowing traffic ahead. I agree fully regarding eye contact, I've met a few bikers who were taken out by drivers who supposedly were looking at them; nevertheless I happen to think it can be a very useful method of communication with other road users.vonhosen said:
For the reasons I gave earlier.
1) I don't have a problem with people who do indicate as long as it won't mislead (even if there is nobody around). Why would I have a problem with them?
2) I don't have a problem with people who only indicate when there is somebody to benefit either, why would I?
I have more of a problem with people who fail to indicate when there is somebody to benefit.
I see more errors in relation to that from the group following ethos 2) than ethos 1).
If I understand correctly from what you have said in the above quote, you see the main problem in this debate about automatic signalling as being drivers who fail to indicate when there is someone to benefit. This in itself is not necessarily unsafe, just a bit annoying for the other driver. 1) I don't have a problem with people who do indicate as long as it won't mislead (even if there is nobody around). Why would I have a problem with them?
2) I don't have a problem with people who only indicate when there is somebody to benefit either, why would I?
I have more of a problem with people who fail to indicate when there is somebody to benefit.
I see more errors in relation to that from the group following ethos 2) than ethos 1).
But, what I don't understand is that when you see... "people who fail to indicate when there is somebody to benefit" how do you know that these drivers are... "people who [follow an ethos whereby they]only indicate when there is somebody to benefit"? The failure to indicate might just be a mistake by someone who follows the ethos of signaling automatically, but just forgot to do so on that occasion?
johnao said:
vonhosen said:
For the reasons I gave earlier.
1) I don't have a problem with people who do indicate as long as it won't mislead (even if there is nobody around). Why would I have a problem with them?
2) I don't have a problem with people who only indicate when there is somebody to benefit either, why would I?
I have more of a problem with people who fail to indicate when there is somebody to benefit.
I see more errors in relation to that from the group following ethos 2) than ethos 1).
If I understand correctly from what you have said in the above quote, you see the main problem in this debate about automatic signalling as being drivers who fail to indicate when there is someone to benefit. This in itself is not necessarily unsafe, just a bit annoying for the other driver. 1) I don't have a problem with people who do indicate as long as it won't mislead (even if there is nobody around). Why would I have a problem with them?
2) I don't have a problem with people who only indicate when there is somebody to benefit either, why would I?
I have more of a problem with people who fail to indicate when there is somebody to benefit.
I see more errors in relation to that from the group following ethos 2) than ethos 1).
But, what I don't understand is that when you see... "people who fail to indicate when there is somebody to benefit" how do you know that these drivers are... "people who [follow an ethos whereby they]only indicate when there is somebody to benefit"? The failure to indicate might just be a mistake by someone who follows the ethos of signaling automatically, but just forgot to do so on that occasion?
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff