Indicating on motorways advice needed

[rb5er]

Pontoneer said:

rb5er said:

I agree, just indicate if you are changing lane. Its not hard and although another poster seems to struggle with this its easy to keep driving smoothly.

If you 'just indicate' , without taking the trouble to look properly first and think about it , therein lies the path to collisions .

It really isn't hard to take observation , apply some thought , then act as appropriate - that makes for a smooth and uneventful drive ; I related in an earlier post about the idiots I saw on my way back from Dundee the other week who saw an obstruction ahead , just threw on signals and blundered into conflict with other vehicles , with one or other then having to take evasive action : these were people who 'just indicate' and a prime example of why it is such a bad habit .

I didnt mean just indicate without looking at whats going on

[RobM77]

I completely agree. However, observation is usually not perfect and there are always things you don't think of. Whilst I agree with the IAM/Roadcraft approach to indicating in principle, in practise one should end up indicating most of the time. Accidents are rare things, they don't happen everyday, and just because you've not missed a motorbike in your blind spot in 10, 20 or 30 years of driving doesn't mean it won't happen in your lifetime...

There's also not thinking things through away from the car, like now. You may think of most things, but I've lost count of the number of times on this forum that someone's said something like "you don't need to indicate joining a motorway when it's obvious what you're doing" without actually thinking in that example that the people on the dual carriageway or motorway have no idea whether the sliproad turns into a lane or terminates in a give way, so they don't know whether the cars on the sliproad are coming into their lane or not.

As you might guess, indicating is probably my number one gripe on the road - I reckon 30% of people on my commute don't indicate at all, 69-70% indicate as or after they move and a fraction of 1% indicate properly. For the 99% of people who don't indicate properly it causes congestion, accidents and annoyance.

[vonhosen]

Pontoneer said:

WD39 said:

Put simply, it is good driving practice to indicate at all times when you change direction, or change lanes or carry out any manoevre that means moving from the position that you are currently in.

Put simply - it isn't .

It is good practice to give signals where they would be of benefit to other road users ( which is a lot of the time , but not always ) and good practice to always think about them , since it heightens your awareness of others , but it is bad practice to always signal robotically since that is the path to not looking properly and falling to adapt to different situations .

Driving to a system where you try not to indicate unless it will benefit does not demonstrate greater awareness than somebody who doesn't drive to that system & employs an effective alternative. It simply demonstrates a different choice with a greater cognitive workload. That's cognitively less efficient & in my personal experience often less accurate/consistent in positive outcomes when applied.
In your belief system it may be good practice, others have belief systems that alternatives are good practice.
I'm not advocating not looking sufficiently or robotically signalling, far from it.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 23 September 18:00

[RobM77]

Well said as usual vh

[Pontoneer]

vonhosen said:

Driving to a system where you try not to indicate unless it will benefit does not demonstrate greater awareness than somebody who doesn't drive to that system & employs an effective alternative. It simply demonstrates a different choice with a greater cognitive workload. That's cognitively less efficient & in my personal experience often less accurate/consistent in positive outcomes when applied.
In your belief system it may be good practice, others have belief systems that alternatives are good practice.
I'm not advocating not looking sufficiently or robotically signalling, far from it.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 23 September 18:00

I don't 'try not to signal' or anything else ; however there is always a considered reason for everything I choose to do .

Automatically signalling at every movement is not an effective alternative to considered signalling because it will inevitably involve less thought and will lead in the direction of misleading messages which can cause problems , or indeed taking actions without proper consideration .

[vonhosen]

Pontoneer said:

vonhosen said:

Driving to a system where you try not to indicate unless it will benefit does not demonstrate greater awareness than somebody who doesn't drive to that system & employs an effective alternative. It simply demonstrates a different choice with a greater cognitive workload. That's cognitively less efficient & in my personal experience often less accurate/consistent in positive outcomes when applied.
In your belief system it may be good practice, others have belief systems that alternatives are good practice.
I'm not advocating not looking sufficiently or robotically signalling, far from it.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 23 September 18:00

I don't 'try not to signal' or anything else ; however there is always a considered reason for everything I choose to do .

Automatically signalling at every movement is not an effective alternative to considered signalling because it will inevitably involve less thought and will lead in the direction of misleading messages which can cause problems , or indeed taking actions without proper consideration .

As I said I'm not advocating automatically signalling.

I'm suggesting effective observation & considered signalling. Considering if the signal will mislead prior to giving.
If it's given but doesn't mislead then no harm done. just a lower cognitive load & in my experience (of a great many drivers trying to drive to the system you are advocating) less chance of them missing giving a signal that is needed. In other words more positive outcomes from lower cognitive load. A win win.

Signal given that doesn't mislead or benefit another = No harm done.
Signal not given that misleads or would have benefited another = Harm done.

I've seen very highly trained & qualified drivers miss giving signals that were required driving to the system you are advocating (they are unlikely to get it right 100% of the time), where as if they'd been driving to an alternative they'd have given the signal where it was of benefit & not misled.

[RobM77]

vonhosen said:

Pontoneer said:

vonhosen said:

Driving to a system where you try not to indicate unless it will benefit does not demonstrate greater awareness than somebody who doesn't drive to that system & employs an effective alternative. It simply demonstrates a different choice with a greater cognitive workload. That's cognitively less efficient & in my personal experience often less accurate/consistent in positive outcomes when applied.
In your belief system it may be good practice, others have belief systems that alternatives are good practice.
I'm not advocating not looking sufficiently or robotically signalling, far from it.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 23 September 18:00

I don't 'try not to signal' or anything else ; however there is always a considered reason for everything I choose to do .

Automatically signalling at every movement is not an effective alternative to considered signalling because it will inevitably involve less thought and will lead in the direction of misleading messages which can cause problems , or indeed taking actions without proper consideration .

As I said I'm not advocating automatically signalling.

I'm suggesting effective observation & considered signalling. Considering if the signal will mislead prior to giving.
If it's given but doesn't mislead then no harm done. just a lower cognitive load & in my experience (of a great many drivers trying to drive to the system you are advocating) less chance of them missing giving a signal that is needed. In other words more positive outcomes from lower cognitive load. A win win.

Plus to that I would add that the advanced driving thinking can go into the timing of the signal, or perhaps additional signals at confusing junctions. For example, if I'm in lane one planning to leave a motorway and someone behind me is catching me, then I'll signal early so they know I'm going to slow further; or at a confusing junction I'll signal to show the direction I'm going, even though technically I may not need to. Advanced driving should build on the basic Highway Code and DSA test imho, not diverge from it.

[vonhosen]

RobM77 said:

vonhosen said:

Pontoneer said:

vonhosen said:

Driving to a system where you try not to indicate unless it will benefit does not demonstrate greater awareness than somebody who doesn't drive to that system & employs an effective alternative. It simply demonstrates a different choice with a greater cognitive workload. That's cognitively less efficient & in my personal experience often less accurate/consistent in positive outcomes when applied.
In your belief system it may be good practice, others have belief systems that alternatives are good practice.
I'm not advocating not looking sufficiently or robotically signalling, far from it.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 23 September 18:00

I don't 'try not to signal' or anything else ; however there is always a considered reason for everything I choose to do .

Automatically signalling at every movement is not an effective alternative to considered signalling because it will inevitably involve less thought and will lead in the direction of misleading messages which can cause problems , or indeed taking actions without proper consideration .

As I said I'm not advocating automatically signalling.

I'm suggesting effective observation & considered signalling. Considering if the signal will mislead prior to giving.
If it's given but doesn't mislead then no harm done. just a lower cognitive load & in my experience (of a great many drivers trying to drive to the system you are advocating) less chance of them missing giving a signal that is needed. In other words more positive outcomes from lower cognitive load. A win win.

Plus to that I would add that the advanced driving thinking can go into the timing of the signal, or perhaps additional signals at confusing junctions. For example, if I'm in lane one planning to leave a motorway and someone behind me is catching me, then I'll signal early so they know I'm going to slow further; or at a confusing junction I'll signal to show the direction I'm going, even though technically I may not need to. Advanced driving should build on the basic Highway Code and DSA test imho, not diverge from it.

I'd count that as all part of the consideration into whether the signal would/could mislead (it covers not only whether giving it or not would mislead but also the timing of it).

[Vipers]

JM said:

No need to indicate when returning to your lane after overtaking another vehicle.
(though at times it may be useful to do so)

HC says you should, but no one really bothers, but I would if I had used L3 to pass a vehicle in L2, just in case someone is moving from L1 into L2 as I was going to move back into it.

Rule 133

If you need to change lane, first use your mirrors and if necessary take a quick sideways glance to make sure you will not force another road user to change course or speed. When it is safe to do so, signal to indicate your intentions to other road users and when clear, move over.

Edited by Vipers on Wednesday 23 September 22:42

[TurboHatchback]

I indicate for every single lane change (left and right) for the following reasons:

• Whilst I always check mirrors and blind spot before moving it is possible I could miss someone, indicating would give them a warning that I'm about to occupy their bit of road
• It gives drivers in other lanes than the one I'm about to move into warning that I'm going to do so. That car in lane 3 is less likely to move left into the same spot I'm moving into from lane 1 if I signal.
• It gives other drivers more time to plan around my actions (even though they should be very predictable)
• It takes no effort whatsoever (one touch wipers) and there is no downside to doing so

I never 'let people out' when overtaking, if there is space I will move right but if not I will continue as planned.

Edited for missing words

Edited by TurboHatchback on Thursday 24th September 09:29

[waremark]

We have been here before but I will repeat my position. I try to change drivers from travelling on autopilot without much observation or planning to drivers with a higher level of concentration observation and planning. I firmly believe that changing from a system of automatic signalling to one of only signalling if useful plays a useful part in this process. A person who has to decide whether to signal with time to react before changing lanes is far less likely to change lanes without reliable confidence about surrounding traffic. I find it hard to believe that signalling unless it will mislead would have the same effect. In fact, VH's argument that it creates less cognitive load is precisely the reason I expect it to be less helpful.

As to the downside of the selective signaller making a poor signalling decision, in a world where most drivers make poor signalling decisions I don't expect an occasional poor decision by an advanced driver to have adverse consequences.

[vonhosen]

waremark said:

We have been here before but I will repeat my position. I try to change drivers from travelling on autopilot without much observation or planning to drivers with a higher level of concentration observation and planning. I firmly believe that changing from a system of automatic signalling to one of only signalling if useful plays a useful part in this process. A person who has to decide whether to signal with time to react before changing lanes is far less likely to change lanes without reliable confidence about surrounding traffic. I find it hard to believe that signalling unless it will mislead would have the same effect. In fact, VH's argument that it creates less cognitive load is precisely the reason I expect it to be less helpful.

As to the downside of the selective signaller making a poor signalling decision, in a world where most drivers make poor signalling decisions I don't expect an occasional poor decision by an advanced driver to have adverse consequences.

Why?
If they aren't managing it & giving signals that will mislead, mistakes are being made & will be visible, like when the drivers make mistakes trying not to signal & missing giving them when necessary. Deal with the mistakes don't create them.
The spare cognitive load can be used to deal with other areas that need improvement rather than promote something that is actually resulting in the production of unnecessary errors in their driving..

Giving a signal that benefits no-one is not wrong, it just doesn't satisfy a strict stylistic approach. There will be no potential adverse consequence from it.
Deal with what is causing a problem, not what isn't & may (as I often witness even from highly trained & qualified drivers) actually be producing them.
If they are not giving signals that mislead they are demonstrating effective observation and signalling.

I'd much rather a signal that doesn't mislead & benefits no-one, than a signal missed that would have benefited & in my experience with lots of drivers of all ability levels the advocating of a system of no signal unless it benefits often results in an unnecessary faults being present in the drive which can be laid at the system being advocated.
Find an alternative way of increasing observation that doesn't result in incidence of missed signals that would have benefited.

[Vipers]

TurboHatchback said:

I indicate for every single lane change (left and right) for the following reasons:

• Whilst I always check mirrors and blind spot before moving it is possible I could miss someone, indicating would give them a warning that I'm about to occupy their bit of road
• It gives in other lanes than the one I'm about to move into warning that I'm going to do so. That car in lane 3 is less likely to move left into the same spot I'm moving into from lane 1 if I signal.
• It gives other drivers more time to plan around my actions (even though they should be very predictable)
• It takes no effort whatsoever (one touch wipers) and there is no downside to doing so

I never 'let people out' when overtaking, if there is space I will move right but if not I will continue as planned.

Cant argue with that, one other thing to add, for our newer drivers, when I am approaching a slower vehicle in L1, and change to L2, if I then see the vehicle I am about to overtake is catching up with another slower vehicle, I will, (traffic allowing), move into L3 in plenty of time to allow the car in L1 to move out to L2 to pass the other vehicloe, just common sense of looking ahead, oberservation and anticipation.

[RobM77]

waremark said:

We have been here before but I will repeat my position. I try to change drivers from travelling on autopilot without much observation or planning to drivers with a higher level of concentration observation and planning. I firmly believe that changing from a system of automatic signalling to one of only signalling if useful plays a useful part in this process. A person who has to decide whether to signal with time to react before changing lanes is far less likely to change lanes without reliable confidence about surrounding traffic. I find it hard to believe that signalling unless it will mislead would have the same effect. In fact, VH's argument that it creates less cognitive load is precisely the reason I expect it to be less helpful.

As to the downside of the selective signaller making a poor signalling decision, in a world where most drivers make poor signalling decisions I don't expect an occasional poor decision by an advanced driver to have adverse consequences.

I agree with the core of what you're saying for a driver of sufficient skill, but what worries me is that many of the examples given on threads like this one are quite clearly flawed and even potentially dangerous. For example, people frequently say two things that concern me: 1) That they don't think it's necessary to indicate when returning to their lane after a motorway overtake (e.g. lane 1 -> 2 -> 1), which ignores the motorbike undertaking you that you may have missed, or the driver you've overtaken suddenly accelerating, or the driver in lane 3 who was planning to come back to lane 2 but couldn't because you're there so had to go to all the trouble of changing his plan (not dangerous, but it would just irritate him) and 2) that they don't think it's necessary to indicate joining a motorway, which completely ignores the differentiation between a sliproad that becomes an extra lane and a sliproad that ends, neither of which are apparent to the driver already on the motorway, and of course discounts the sleepy lane one motorist who needs reminding what's happening! People just don't think deeply enough about things. The other thing that concerns me is the irony that situations 1 & 2 are of course rules, rather than independent thinking...

I'd probably argue this point less strongly, or not at all, if people not indicating wasn't such a major problem on the roads. If someone, like you, genuinely knows what they're doing and is a very safe driver, that's great, but I've ridden with so many so called 'advanced' drivers who are just plain dangerous and lack of indicating is one of those dangerous things - most people just don't think enough.

[Dr Jekyll]

RobM77 said:

For example, people frequently say two things that concern me: 1) That they don't think it's necessary to indicate when returning to their lane after a motorway overtake (e.g. lane 1 -> 2 -> 1), which ignores the motorbike undertaking you that you may have missed, or the driver you've overtaken suddenly accelerating, or the driver in lane 3 who was planning to come back to lane 2 but couldn't because you're there so had to go to all the trouble of changing his plan (not dangerous, but it would just irritate him)

What information is provided by the signal that isn't provided by the fact that your overtake is complete and there is space in lane 1?

[RobM77]

Dr Jekyll said:

RobM77 said:

For example, people frequently say two things that concern me: 1) That they don't think it's necessary to indicate when returning to their lane after a motorway overtake (e.g. lane 1 -> 2 -> 1), which ignores the motorbike undertaking you that you may have missed, or the driver you've overtaken suddenly accelerating, or the driver in lane 3 who was planning to come back to lane 2 but couldn't because you're there so had to go to all the trouble of changing his plan (not dangerous, but it would just irritate him)

What information is provided by the signal that isn't provided by the fact that your overtake is complete and there is space in lane 1?

The space means you could be moving back, whilst the indicator strengthens that enormously to say that you're extremely likely to move back, which would make that risk taking biker less likely to charge up your inside; it'll make the guy you've overtaken less likely to accelerate (some people vary their speed all the time); and it'll make the guy in lane 3 more likely to continue with his plan to move back to lane 2, or at the least indicate left to stop the guy on his bootlid from harassing him further or undertaking him through frustration.

Notice the use of the phrases 'less likely' and 'more likely' there - it's all about probabilities, not certainties. If you ran this scenario in a computer simulation a million times then with everyone indicating properly I strongly suspect there would be less incidents than re-running it with people not indicating. That cuts to the core of safe driving - it's not like chess where you win or lose every time you play and learn from mistakes, car accidents are very rare (for each driver, perhaps one every 10 or 20 years) and success or failure as a safe driver therefore can't be based on the number of incidents that occur, we must instead think about what makes incidents more or less likely. Adding an indicator can only make it less likely, surely? (unless that indicator could mislead in which case it shouldn't be given).

Nobody should make a decision based on an indicator that would result in an accident if the indicator is wrong, but indicating aids traffic flow enormously and helps people keep a safe distance from those around them, which improves safety further. Lastly, we must always be mindful that some people do actually make critical decisions based on indicators and even though they're in the wrong, we still have a duty of care to them to make them and everyone else as safe as possible.

[Vipers]

WD39 said:

Loving this thread. But I feel we may be wasting our time arguing over indicating/signalling.

I have just driven from Nottingham to the south coast and return. I used all current road types and the level of indicating was abysmal. Roundabouts, using the wrong or no, signal. Leaving a motorway, no indication. I could go on, but the risk of boring my fellow PHers is high.

As stated earlier, I always indicate. At every turn/change/junction etc, whatever time of day.

This is not some robotic process on my part, it is cold and calculated after assessing the move/change of direction that I am about to make.

No other driver around you is going to criticise your actions. They can only be grateful that you have let them know, in advance, what you are about to do.

I don't have an answer to this epidimic of poor driving, only to watch look and listen. Very carefully.

Indicating on roundabouts in Aberdeen is just about none existent.

[waremark]

WD39 said:

Loving this thread. But I feel we may be wasting our time arguing over indicating/signalling.

I have just driven from Nottingham to the south coast and return. I used all current road types and the level of indicating was abysmal. Roundabouts, using the wrong or no, signal. Leaving a motorway, no indication. I could go on, but the risk of boring my fellow PH

And yet nobody crashed - or if they did you didn't mention it. I would far rather people drove with consideration and no indicating than that they change lanes at the last minute and push in with their indicator flashing. So many people indicate as their car starts moving, in which case the indicating is useless. For indicating to be useful at all there has to be time to react.

Why does not indicating bother you? As advanced drivers surely we hope to have anticipated what the other guy may do before he starts to indicate.

[WD39]

waremark said:

WD39 said:

Loving this thread. But I feel we may be wasting our time arguing over indicating/signalling.

I have just driven from Nottingham to the south coast and return. I used all current road types and the level of indicating was abysmal. Roundabouts, using the wrong or no, signal. Leaving a motorway, no indication. I could go on, but the risk of boring my fellow PH

And yet nobody crashed - or if they did you didn't mention it. I would far rather people drove with consideration and no indicating than that they change lanes at the last minute and push in with their indicator flashing. So many people indicate as their car starts moving, in which case the indicating is useless. For indicating to be useful at all there has to be time to react.

Why does not indicating bother you? As advanced drivers surely we hope to have anticipated what the other guy may do before he starts to indicate.

No, nobody crashed

This thread is discussing the merits and demerits of indicating, primarily on motorways. To expect a blow by blow account of any incidents as a coda of my trip to the south coast is off message.

I was highlighting the lack of indication, in all situations, from other drivers on that particular trip.

I am not an 'advanced' driver as such, just one that has been behind the wheel for 45 years, and now we have to include mind reading to my skill set.

We know what the other guy will do if he IS indicating, telling us his next move, not having to get inside his head.
I would suggest that driving with consideration AND indication is my preferred method.

Not indicating does not bother me, it is just a sad reflection of modern day motoring. It is going the way of several other driving practices that I adopted when learning all those years ago, that drivers now choose to ignore. (see the 'Knob' thread for numerous examples.)

Edited by WD39 on Saturday 26th September 18:23

[Vipers]

Small roundabout in our local Sainsbury's, me at 6, women comes in from 12, no indicators, so I assume she is going to exit at 6, so Impull on to the roundabout,.

Silly me she is exiting at 9, so toots me, silly me forgot to consult the crystal ball.

So as I am on the roundabout I continue, another woman joins from 12 and toots me because she thinks she has the right of way.