Why have you stopped indicating?

[Graveworm]

Tigger2050 said:

Graveworm

"Ah that's easy you didn't read what I said.
I said Already crossing if there was or might be a pedestrian about to cross then a lovely orange light would have been being proudly displayed for ages for their road using benefit."

Already crossing you say! Did he just beam down into the road, a la star trek, did you?

You say you would not be signalling necessarily. So presumably you could not have been signalling as he was approaching the junction, otherwise what you are saying does not make an ounce of sense.

Again total disregard for other road users, based on his BELIEF about the current position.

In an example I have given previously he was unable to deny he would have killed a motorcyclist if his BELIEF was wrong and he didn't indicate anyway. Kind of tried to obfuscate by trying to indicate his observational skills are perfect, always have been and always will be and anyway his car would prevent him making the killer manoeuvre, yeah right!

We all believe him of course because he is an 'advanced' driver dontcha know!

We drive based on our beliefs all the time in every other way, but you think indicating should be different because you want to treat it differently. I don't drive along with my headlamps flashing and my horn going in case I may have missed a motorcyclist right in front of me but somehow all that changes if it's indicators.

But you keep moving those goal pots, anything, so that you who wasn't there, can decide that it wasn't as I, who was there, said it was. Similarly that you who has never been shown how to do it this way, must know better than all the people who have been shown both methods, no matter how much safer they are or how many expert bodies support their way.

Questioning something to test it is excellent, no matter how much evidence there is for it. But if you approach a subject with, it must be wrong, let's look for why it might be then you sometimes miss the - it might be right - and fall into the confirmation bias trap. But what if X Y and Z were happening then it might be wrong so X Y and Z were happening..

There are a hundred reasons I wouldn't indicate too early - to let an oncoming car pass that or a previous entrance or junction, to not confuse someone in that or a previous entrance of junction, to not let a vehicle, using another lane, think there was going to be a gap they could move into... or just at slow speed so, any following driver would be less likely wonder if I was turning or pulling over to the side. This is not something that is hypothetical it happens sometimes.

Occasionally very close to where I live. There, it's even more complicated, because there is a painted cycle path on the pavement that continues across the mouth of the junction. It's a real nightmare as cyclists have right of way and no requirement to stop for the junction, but many motorists don't realise this and turn in expecting them to stop or if turning out treat the cycle lane markings like an advanced give way line.

So if it doesn't affect any other road users, I don't indicate so the approaching cyclist is less likely to worry that I am going to do that. Having done that I would then look at the benefits or otherwise for pedestrians which, depending on my view, could be a long way down the road into which I am turning.

Hard to explain here is a pic but maybe I am making it all up.

Edited by Graveworm on Friday 29th March 14:20

[lyonspride]

Twisting the subject slightly.....

I like to use my horn if I observe that someone is exiting a drive, a side road, a parking space, etc and might not have seen me, basically as recommended in the highway code...... Does this mean I should drive along using my horn constantly just in case someone might benefit from it?

[Graveworm]

8bit said:

I'm with Vipers. s in attempting to defend your earlier and nonsensical assertion that not indicating at certain times equates with being a better driver.
.

Did I?

[anonymous-user]

I've not read all the thread, but I too have noticed the lack of indication. Going round my local motorway junction I'm one of about 10% of people indicating their exit. Lanes are marked, but on each exit they carry on, or peel off. It's madly annoying not knowing what anyone is doing.

I also agree that people over-indicate. A classic is overtaking cyclists on straight roads. I mean, I know you are going to go round them, so why indicate? - unless you are turning right, which never happens. I do wonder if some of the people who literally cross completely into the other lane to overtake cyclists are indicating to warn oncming traffic that they are about to kill them.

[SVS]

RogerDodger said:

I do wonder if some of the people who literally cross completely into the other lane to overtake cyclists

Depending on the circumstances, I often cross well into the other lane to overtake cyclists, because ...

Highway Code said:

You should give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car

[Tigger2050]

RogerDodger said:

I've not read all the thread, but I too have noticed the lack of indication. Going round my local motorway junction I'm one of about 10% of people indicating their exit. Lanes are marked, but on each exit they carry on, or peel off. It's madly annoying not knowing what anyone is doing.

I also agree that people over-indicate. A classic is overtaking cyclists on straight roads. I mean, I know you are going to go round them, so why indicate? - unless you are turning right, which never happens. I do wonder if some of the people who literally cross completely into the other lane to overtake cyclists are indicating to warn oncming traffic that they are about to kill them.

Hmm........the cyclist doesn't count then?

When I am on the way to work I do come up behind cyclists on a single carriageway road and sometimes I have to sit behind them because there is traffic coming the other way and no, you shouldn't attempt to squeeze past him, you may unsettle him and cause him to fall beneath your wheels, when you do overtake you give him plenty of room and on those roads that does mean crossing partially on to the other side of the carriageway and when I can see that there is going to sufficient space between oncoming traffic shortly I do indicate my intention to overtake always. The cyclist then knows you are coming, as do do all other vehicles in the vicinity.

[henrycrun]

RogerDodger said:

I also agree that people over-indicate. A classic is overtaking cyclists on straight roads. I mean, I know you are going to go round them, so why indicate? - unless you are turning right, which never happens. I do wonder if some of the people who literally cross completely into the other lane to overtake cyclists are indicating to warn oncming traffic that they are about to kill them.

It's just simple communication. Cyclists have been KSI when the first car overtakes without a signal and the second car just ploughs straight on.

Edited by henrycrun on Friday 29th March 16:07

[lyonspride]

henrycrun said:

RogerDodger said:

I also agree that people over-indicate. A classic is overtaking cyclists on straight roads. I mean, I know you are going to go round them, so why indicate? - unless you are turning right, which never happens. I do wonder if some of the people who literally cross completely into the other lane to overtake cyclists are indicating to warn oncming traffic that they are about to kill them.

It's just simple communication. Cyclists have been KSI when the first car overtakes without a signal and the second car just ploughs straight on.

Have to admit that not indicating to go around a cyclist is probably one of my biggest pet hates, especially in 4x4s and SUVs with blacked out windows, Vans, trucks, anything taller than a Fiesta.
Vans being the worst for approaching fast, then simply and suddenly swerving around the cyclist, it doesn't leave you many options. It's rare that I won't have clocked the cyclist before hand, but on certain roads in certain circumstances it can come as a surprise.

[Vipers]

captain_cynic said:

nonsequitur said:

Vipers said:

I am loosing the will to live, mirror, signal, manoeuvre, if there is no one there to see, who give a rats arse.

Succinctly put. But the 'non indicators' are not listening. They seem to be slaves to ' motoring organisations' of various persuasions that teach driving tactics which are followed with feverish devotion. To say only indicate when it benefits another driver, when it is vitually impossible to quantify such benefit, is a nebulous instruction and should be avoided.
As many posters have said, if no-one sees your indication, nothing is lost and everything is gained, if only your own personal satisfaction.

If you're thinking about whether you should be indicating, you're wasting precious time that you should be using to look for potential hazards. No one has 100% perception and the hidden car/pedestrian/cyclist behind the van/wall/other obstruction will see your indicator long before you see them.

I think I can multi task.

[Hol]

Monkeylegend said:

Graveworm said:

Hol said:

I don't believe he is an advanced driver, because no professional organisation would allow someone to walk away with the opinion that as indicating might confuses people in 0.00001% of situations, you can claim you don't have to do it the rest of the time..

I think we have to conclude he either got his certificate form a cornflake packet or totally ignore all the stuff he was actually taught.

How is your blind faith in your other beliefs coming on.

Edited by Graveworm on Friday 29th March 10:50

Now lets see Hol eat some of that humble pie with his custard.

With custard, if they truly teach someone to walk away with the opinion that as indicating might confuses people in 0.00001% of situations, you can claim you don't have to do it the rest of the time..

The bit in bold is still probable.

Edited by Hol on Friday 29th March 17:52

[Kuji]

Pica-Pica said:

lyonspride said:

Basically what's going on here, is a few drivers are frustrated by drivers who they see not using their indicators, trying in vain to vent on people who they would NEVER actually catch not using their indicators.
Most stupid thread i've seen for years.... OK months.

...days?

Since Graveworm joined PH.

[SVS]

Graveworm’s coming from a perspective of being a very highly trained driver and some things are harder to convey in words than in-car.

[anonymous-user]

lyonspride said:

Have to admit that not indicating to go around a cyclist is probably one of my biggest pet hates, especially in 4x4s and SUVs with blacked out windows, Vans, trucks, anything taller than a Fiesta.
Vans being the worst for approaching fast, then simply and suddenly swerving around the cyclist, it doesn't leave you many options. It's rare that I won't have clocked the cyclist before hand, but on certain roads in certain circumstances it can come as a surprise.

Seems you are going to hate me then.

When I overtake a cyclist I leave plenty of room, but I don't go far over into the other lane. No need to. And I certainly don't overtake as if the cyclist was a car. Highway code or not.

If you are behind me and plough into a cyclist because I didn't indicate then you need your eyes tested, and to back off and drive further back.

[Hol]

Graveworm said:

Well partly because since I passed my "Test" I have been regularly retested and refresher trained numerous times. How about you?

Also because mirrors let me see what is behind me and my ears would let me hear the horns.

Further, if I tried, my current car would, in most cases, let me know if I was going to cut someone up and refuse to let me if I did try.

Finally if this were the case I would probably, in the 28 years, I have been driving this way some in pretty challenging situations and relatively high speeds or 37 years of driving had an accident?

But of course in keeping with the thought processes demonstrated by you, and others who have never tried anything else or even seen it demonstrated and with no evidence to support it continue to "Think" you know what happens when we do.

My driving and my eyesight haven’t deteriorated to the point that I need one since passing my ADI.

If i ever start getting beeped a lot or pulled out on, I’ll follow your example. The excuses it gives will come in handy.

[WJNB]

I only never indicate when being tailgated, slowing down to almost walking pace well before changing direction or coming to a standstill. It drives them mad (pun intended).

[Centurion07]

SVS said:

Graveworm’s coming from a perspective of being a very highly trained driver and some things are harder to convey in words than in-car.

I'm starting to think this. Given his actual examples I can see what he's talking about but I don't think he's explaining it very well.

[nonsequitur]

M666 EVO said:

Wait, I have indicators?

Yes. They are standard on all BMW automobiles.

[anonymous-user]

henrycrun said:

RogerDodger said:

I also agree that people over-indicate. A classic is overtaking cyclists on straight roads. I mean, I know you are going to go round them, so why indicate? - unless you are turning right, which never happens. I do wonder if some of the people who literally cross completely into the other lane to overtake cyclists are indicating to warn oncming traffic that they are about to kill them.

It's just simple communication. Cyclists have been KSI when the first car overtakes without a signal and the second car just ploughs straight on.

Edited by henrycrun on Friday 29th March 16:07

+1, if you're going to change lanes you indicate, no matter what the reason. What seems obvious to one person could take someone else completely by surprise (esp. given how little attention most of the brain-dead UK motorists pay to the actual task of driving and not using their phone).

Also, if there are 2 lanes on a road and you're passing a cyclist, you move completely to the other lane to give them as much space as possible. Why wouldn't you? What do you think you are doing better by staying partially within the left lane? Saving on wear to the white lines?

It boggles the mind that anyone can think crossing into the other lane to pass a cyclist is anything other than the best possible way to do it.

[nonsequitur]

RogerDodger said:

I've not read all the thread, but I too have noticed the lack of indication. Going round my local motorway junction I'm one of about 10% of people indicating their exit. Lanes are marked, but on each exit they carry on, or peel off. It's madly annoying not knowing what anyone is doing.

I also agree that people over-indicate. A classic is overtaking cyclists on straight roads. I mean, I know you are going to go round them, so why indicate? - unless you are turning right, which never happens. I do wonder if some of the people who literally cross completely into the other lane to overtake cyclists are indicating to warn oncming traffic that they are about to kill them.

How do you know that I will be overtakng the cyclists if I'm not indicating? I may be out on a Sunday cruise and not bothering to O/T. You would be in for a lengthy wait behind me.

Anything involving cyclist requires the utmost attention and indicating to O/T is top of the list.

[SVS]

RogerDodger said:

I certainly don't overtake as if the cyclist was a car. Highway code or not.

If you were a cyclist, then you’d probably drive to the Highway Code. (There’s a good reason for this Highway Code rule.)

Highway Code said:

You should give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car

JimSuperSix said:

if there are 2 lanes on a road and you're passing a cyclist, you move completely to the other lane to give them as much space as possible. Why wouldn't you? What do you think you are doing better by staying partially within the left lane? Saving on wear to the white lines?

It boggles the mind that anyone can think crossing into the other lane to pass a cyclist is anything other than the best possible way to do it.

^ this