Indicate left after overtaking, or lane change on a motorway

[toon10]

RobM77 said:

I always indicate, because I assume my observation isn't perfect and it's a safety net. With many bikers hanging in blind spots, I think it's a pretty prudent thing to do.

Indeed. The only time I don't indicate left is on a single carriageway where I'm overtaking a car. I indicate to pull out but there's no point when pulling back in. When there are more driving lanes, it takes the guess work out of what someone is going to do and generally good manners.

[Solocle]

Indicate left. I had a fairly close one on the M1 where I returned to L2 (with signal), to find that a RR repmobile had started pulling out from L1 without signalling, was close on my bumper and flashing! I dare say it would have been closer had I not signalled.
Vehicles are powerful enough these days that they can close gaps on you/change what they're doing quickly. Indicating when it's not strictly necessary can help keep idiots at bay nonetheless.

Quiet motorways are maybe a different ball game, but busy motorways, absolutely.

Edited by Solocle on Thursday 1st August 11:41

[SpeckledJim]

RobM77 said:

I always indicate, because I assume my observation isn't perfect and it's a safety net. With many bikers hanging in blind spots, I think it's a pretty prudent thing to do.

Do you honk you horn when you drive through a green light?

It would be a safety net...

With many cyclists running reds, it would be prudent, no?

[RobM77]

SpeckledJim said:

RobM77 said:

I always indicate, because I assume my observation isn't perfect and it's a safety net. With many bikers hanging in blind spots, I think it's a pretty prudent thing to do.

Do you honk you horn when you drive through a green light?

It would be a safety net...

With many cyclists running reds, it would be prudent, no?

No, because hooting is so mis-used now as a form of aggression, that it might push a stationary driver at a light into moving, thinking someone is upset with them. I do look both ways though, as a check for light jumpers and emergency vehicles (standard advanced driving practise).

[SpeckledJim]

RobM77 said:

SpeckledJim said:

RobM77 said:

I always indicate, because I assume my observation isn't perfect and it's a safety net. With many bikers hanging in blind spots, I think it's a pretty prudent thing to do.

Do you honk you horn when you drive through a green light?

It would be a safety net...

With many cyclists running reds, it would be prudent, no?

No, because hooting is so mis-used now as a form of aggression, that it might push a stationary driver at a light into moving, thinking someone is upset with them. I do look both ways though, as a check for light jumpers and emergency vehicles (standard advanced driving practise).

Hazard lights then, maybe? Or a bit of gutsy old-fashioned shouting?

Or do you just trust your vision and obs at traffic lights? That's all I do.

I mean, we can all trust you not to run a red light, and we all trust you not to swerve into the oncoming traffic. So surely we can trust you not to pull recklessly and potentially lethally into my lane on a motorway? You'll have seen me, right?

You're surely not leaving it up to me to keep both of us safe while you change lanes, because I'm bloody useless! Trusting me with that important job would be crazy indeed.

[RobM77]

SpeckledJim said:

RobM77 said:

SpeckledJim said:

RobM77 said:

I always indicate, because I assume my observation isn't perfect and it's a safety net. With many bikers hanging in blind spots, I think it's a pretty prudent thing to do.

Do you honk you horn when you drive through a green light?

It would be a safety net...

With many cyclists running reds, it would be prudent, no?

No, because hooting is so mis-used now as a form of aggression, that it might push a stationary driver at a light into moving, thinking someone is upset with them. I do look both ways though, as a check for light jumpers and emergency vehicles (standard advanced driving practise).

Hazard lights then, maybe? Or a bit of gutsy old-fashioned shouting?

Or do you just trust your vision and obs at traffic lights? That's all I do.

I mean, we can all trust you not to run a red light, and we all trust you not to swerve into the oncoming traffic. So surely we can trust you not to pull recklessly and potentially lethally into my lane on a motorway? You'll have seen me, right?

You're surely not leaving it up to me to keep both of us safe while you change lanes, because I'm bloody useless! Trusting me with that important job would be crazy indeed.

Hazard lights on a moving vehicle aren't permitted (Highway Code rule 116).

The whole principle of driving safely is built upon layers of safety. If it's practical and easy to add a layer (an indication, a mirror check etc), then do it. Obviously we all have to draw a line somewhere, otherwise we'd never get moving in the first place. Indicating though is a great thing because it's just so easy to do and yes, if one day you make a mistake (as we all do, yes, even you!) at the same time as a biker makes a mistake (as they all do) by sitting in your blindspot and then passing you down the inside, there's less chance of an accident because you've announced your intentions before you've made the lane change, so that biker is less likely to pass you.

[amancalledrob]

Although I didn't previously, I do now indicate left when returning to my lane because I've bought a car with lane assist that tries to stop me crossing the lane dividing line if I'm not indicating. It's just easier to indicate now than it is to persuade it that I know what I'm doing

[Graveworm]

RobM77 said:

Hazard lights on a moving vehicle aren't permitted (Highway Code rule 116).

The whole principle of driving safely is built upon layers of safety. If it's practical and easy to add a layer (an indication, a mirror check etc), then do it. Obviously we all have to draw a line somewhere, otherwise we'd never get moving in the first place. Indicating though is a great thing because it's just so easy to do and yes, if one day you make a mistake (as we all do, yes, even you!) at the same time as a biker makes a mistake (as they all do) by sitting in your blindspot and then passing you down the inside, there's less chance of an accident because you've announced your intentions before you've made the lane change, so that biker is less likely to pass you.

All of which is predicated on unecessary indicating having no downside; which, of course, is one of the reasons it's not recommended. Otherwise everytime you don't make a mistake, when indicating would help, it's having a detrimental effect which hopefully is infinitely more frequent.

[RobM77]

Graveworm said:

RobM77 said:

Hazard lights on a moving vehicle aren't permitted (Highway Code rule 116).

The whole principle of driving safely is built upon layers of safety. If it's practical and easy to add a layer (an indication, a mirror check etc), then do it. Obviously we all have to draw a line somewhere, otherwise we'd never get moving in the first place. Indicating though is a great thing because it's just so easy to do and yes, if one day you make a mistake (as we all do, yes, even you!) at the same time as a biker makes a mistake (as they all do) by sitting in your blindspot and then passing you down the inside, there's less chance of an accident because you've announced your intentions before you've made the lane change, so that biker is less likely to pass you.

All of which is predicated on unecessary indicating having no downside; which, of course, is one of the reasons it's not recommended. Otherwise everytime you don't make a mistake, when indicating would help, it's having a detrimental effect which hopefully is infinitely more frequent.

I'm confused. What's wrong with indicating when it subsequently proves unnecessary?

My seatbelts have never actually proved necessary whilst driving. Am I going to drive around without my seatbelts on? No.

[SpeckledJim]

RobM77 said:

I'm confused. What's wrong with indicating when it subsequently proves unnecessary?

My seatbelts have never actually proved necessary whilst driving. Am I going to drive around without my seatbelts on? No.

If you're assigning some potential use to indicating when you think nobody is there to see it, then you're accepting that you're not completely sure you're not about to ram a motorcyclist into the central reservation at 90mph, but, fk it, you're doing the lane change anyway and the motorcyclist can enjoy the benefit of your blinking light.

You're recognising you may be about to do something that could just kill someone, and deciding that because of that risk, you'll do something that will pass the chance of taking avoiding action to some other poor bugger. That person may or may not be able to do something useful with the information that you're changing lane. You don't know. But still you're changing lane anyway.

When another option is simply to do proper obs and be 100% sure you're not about to cause a pile-up. Just like you do when you stop at red lights.

[RobM77]

SpeckledJim said:

RobM77 said:

I'm confused. What's wrong with indicating when it subsequently proves unnecessary?

My seatbelts have never actually proved necessary whilst driving. Am I going to drive around without my seatbelts on? No.

If you're assigning some potential use to indicating when you think nobody is there to see it, then you're accepting that you're not completely sure you're not about to ram a motorcyclist into the central reservation at 90mph, but, fk it, you're doing the lane change anyway and the motorcyclist can enjoy the benefit of your blinking light.

You're recognising you may be about to do something that could just kill someone, and deciding that because of that risk, you'll do something that will pass the chance of taking avoiding action to some other poor bugger. That person may or may not be able to do something useful with the information that you're changing lane. You don't know. But still you're changing lane anyway.

When another option is simply to do proper obs and be 100% sure you're not about to cause a pile-up. Just like you do when you stop at red lights.

Don't be daft. Of course you do proper observation, but nobody is 100% perfect are they? (or maybe you think you are?..).

What you're saying above is like saying that wearing a seatbelt is admitting you might crash, or keeping two points of contact on a ladder is admitting you're probably going to fall. We all try not to crash cars or fall off ladders (I've never done either), but we still follow proper procedures to make these activities safer, just in case the worst happens (or at least I do).

Your analogy with crossing through a red light has some weight behind it, because yes, a good driver will always check left and right, even if the lights are green. A bad driver will just sail through without looking first. With regard to indicating, you are in the latter category; you are choosing to ignore the advice of the Highway Code because you have blind faith in your observation being perfect. These procedures (in this case, mirror signal manoeuvre) were put there for a reason: to introduce layers of safety, so that yes, each part may not seem necessary, but that's the whole point - it's a safety net that hopefully will never be used, but having it makes things safer.

Edited by RobM77 on Thursday 1st August 15:15

[SpeckledJim]

RobM77 said:

Don't be daft. Of course you do proper observation, but nobody is 100% perfect are they? (or maybe you think you are?..).

What you're saying above is like saying that wearing a seatbelt is admitting you might crash, or keeping two points of contact on a ladder is admitting you're probably going to fall. We all try not to crash cars or fall off ladders (I've never done either), but we still follow proper procedures to make these activities safer, just in case the worst happens (or at least I do). Your analogy with crossing through a red light has some weight behind it, because yes, a good driver will always check left and right, even if the lights are green. A bad driver will just sail through without looking first. With regard to indicating, you are in the latter category. You are choosing to ignore the advice of the Highway Code because you have blind faith in your observation being perfect.

I can see there's two ways of working at this, and there's a route by which each party can see the other as irresponsible.

But whether the 'safety net' may be needed or not is entirely up to the person in charge of the decision on whether to deploy it.

They can drive in such a way that a safety net may be useful (by using poor obs) or they can drive in such a way that they're taking full responsibility for the safety of themselves and others, and as such their safety net isn't needed.

The highway code might tell every 17 year old to indicate every time, everywhere, because they recognise that their obs are probably crap.

The elevated levels of driving instruction tend towards favouring knowing who is around you as a primary goal - and from that the requirement of an indicator is obviously not always needed.

Establishing properly that there's absolutely nobody there, and then positively deciding to flash a light into that void, is clearly inefficient.

[Graveworm]

RobM77 said:

I'm confused. What's wrong with indicating when it subsequently proves unnecessary?

My seatbelts have never actually proved necessary whilst driving. Am I going to drive around without my seatbelts on? No.

As I said there are claimed downsides to unnecessary indication. They are listed in Roadcraft. The most relevant one for me is information overload. People can process very few things at once. Deciding what an unnecessary signal means and if it might impact them could distract them from something that could.

[InitialDave]

RobM77 said:

Don't be daft. Of course you do proper observation, but nobody is 100% perfect are they? (or maybe you think you are?..).

Some people do think that, and they worry me as much as dozy muppets who don't even think about their driving in the slightest.

The idea of not giving unnecessary signals with your lights sounds like it has merit, though. Will have to look into wiring a cutout to my brake lights...

[vonhosen]

SpeckledJim said:

RobM77 said:

I'm confused. What's wrong with indicating when it subsequently proves unnecessary?

My seatbelts have never actually proved necessary whilst driving. Am I going to drive around without my seatbelts on? No.

If you're assigning some potential use to indicating when you think nobody is there to see it, then you're accepting that you're not completely sure you're not about to ram a motorcyclist into the central reservation at 90mph, but, fk it, you're doing the lane change anyway and the motorcyclist can enjoy the benefit of your blinking light.

You're recognising you may be about to do something that could just kill someone, and deciding that because of that risk, you'll do something that will pass the chance of taking avoiding action to some other poor bugger. That person may or may not be able to do something useful with the information that you're changing lane. You don't know. But still you're changing lane anyway.

When another option is simply to do proper obs and be 100% sure you're not about to cause a pile-up. Just like you do when you stop at red lights.

The associated use is free capacity for something else, something more important.

I really can't get worked up over somebody who signals when there is no-one to benefit & there has been no negative effect to that signal being given.

This work flow
1) Will a signal mislead?
2) Give an appropriately timed signal if it won't @ 1)

is lighter than this work flow
1) Will a signal mislead?
2) Will someone benefit from it?
3) Give an appropriately timed signal or not based on the answers to 1) & 2) above.

The way I see it is that if it doesn't mislead it isn't a problem & lighter work flow means more spare capacity for other important problems.

I've trained 'advanced' (I hate the term though) drivers for 20 years & in my experience I see more signalling mistakes (that's negative encounters due to it not being given or given) resulting from people trying to adopt the second work flow in preference to the first work flow.

I don't see the first work flow as inferior to the second, I just (through assessing other's signal use) observe it is simpler & less likely to result in mistakes.

Of course if people use the second work flow reliably & don't make mistakes then great, I have no problem with that.
Equally if people use the first work flow reliably & don't make mistakes then great, I have no problem with that.
The problem is when people insist that others should use the second work flow & that results in them making more mistakes (negative encounters) than using the first work flow.

Do what works reliably for you by all means, but let others do what works reliably for them & don't judge them for it.
No misleading signals & always giving a useful signal where appropriate is the goal.
A signal you view as unnecessary that doesn't mislead does not adversely affect that goal.

[SpeckledJim]

vonhosen said:

The associated use is free capacity for something else, something more important.

I really can't get worked up over somebody who signals when there is no-one to benefit & there has been no negative effect to that signal being given.

This work flow
1) Will a signal mislead?
2) Give an appropriately timed signal if it won't @ 1)

is lighter than this work flow
1) Will a signal mislead?
2) Will someone benefit from it?
3) Give an appropriately timed signal or not based on the answers to 1) & 2) above.

The way I see it is that if it doesn't mislead it isn't a problem.

I've trained 'advanced' (I hate the term though) drivers for 20 years & in my experience I see more signalling mistakes (that's negative encounters due to it not being given or given) resulting from people trying to adopt the second work flow in preference to the first work flow.

I don't see the first work flow as inferior to the second, I just (through assessing other's signal use) observe it is simpler & less likely to result in mistakes.

Of course if people use the second work flow reliably & don't make mistakes then great, I have no problem with that.
Equally if people use the first work flow reliably & don't make mistakes then great, I have no problem with that.
The problem is when people insist that others should use the second work flow & that results in them making more mistakes (negative encounters) than using the first work flow.

Do what works reliably for you by all means, but let others do what works for reliably for them & don't judge them for it.
No misleading signals & always giving a useful signal where appropriate is the goal.

No dispute with any of that, vonhosen.

But the proponents of automatic indication aren't doing it in line with your workflow 1 bolded above.

They're doing it out of recognition that they may have made a mistake and may be about to pull out on someone, so thoughtfully they are giving the poor bugger they haven't seen an extra second to take his own avoiding action.

My position is that this somewhat careless situation is one that can be avoided not with flashing lights and the resulting emergency braking and swerving, etc, but simply with better obs.

We trust each other to comply with traffic lights with 100% accuracy. We should expect the same of high-speed lane changes.

[RobM77]

My reasoning, as described above, is when observation isn't perfect, because not everyone is perfect all of the time, no matter how "advanced" we think we are. However, Vonhosen has reminded me of another reason behind my viewpoint on this: when judgement isn't perfect. I've been in a lot of cars with so called "advanced" drivers where a lack of signalling has actually caused frustration and annoyance for other road users.

For example, on this forum we frequently hear people saying that they don't signal to join a motorway "because it's obvious what you're doing". Well, actually, it's not obvious. Many slip roads become an extra lane on the road they're joining, and not everyone on that road will be aware of this happening. The signal is a clear sign to these people of what you're about to do. Equally, I'm a keen runner and spend 2-3 hours every week running on roads and pavements - I regularly (as in every few minutes!) find it useful to know what a car's about to do so I can plan ahead, but I often don't get to find out because that driver doesn't see me as another road user, or misjudges my speed. The most that's going to happen is frustration, because you should never believe a signal 100%, but that frustration is often unnecessary if people would just use their indicators!

When this doesn't become such a common problem, even when I passenger with self-proclaimed "advanced" drivers, I will relax my viewpoint. I wouldn't hold your breath!

Edited by RobM77 on Thursday 1st August 15:33

[SpeckledJim]

RobM77 said:

My reasoning, as described above, is when observation isn't perfect, because not everyone is perfect all of the time, no matter how "advanced" we think we are. However, Vonhosen has reminded me of another reason behind my viewpoint on this: when judgement isn't perfect. I've been in a lot of cars with so called "advanced" drivers where a lack of signalling has actually caused frustration and annoyance for other road users.

For example, on this forum we frequently hear people saying that they don't signal to join a motorway "because it's obvious what you're doing". Well, actually, it's not obvious. Many slip roads become an extra lane on the road they're joining, and not everyone on that road will be aware of this happening. The signal is a clear sign to these people of what you're about to do. Equally, I'm a keen runner and spend 2-3 hours every week running on roads and pavements - I regularly (as in every few minutes!) find it useful to know what a car's about to do so I can plan ahead, but I often don't get to find out because that driver doesn't see me as another road user, or misjudges my speed. The most that's going to happen is frustration, because you should never believe a signal 100%, but that frustration is often unnecessary if people would just use their indicators!

Well, in those cases then indications should be used.

[InitialDave]

Their position is that an unnecessary but not confusing indication should still be made, as they are only human and might still make a mistake. That indication might just be what changes the outcome from that mistake.

Your position appears to be you'd never make such a mistake.

They are not trying to get out of making proper observation or passing the buck for sorting a situation out onto someone else, that's very much a mischaracterisation of what they're saying.

[Graveworm]

RobM77 said:

Don't be daft. Of course you do proper observation, but nobody is 100% perfect are they? (or maybe you think you are?..).

What you're saying above is like saying that wearing a seatbelt is admitting you might crash, or keeping two points of contact on a ladder is admitting you're probably going to fall. We all try not to crash cars or fall off ladders (I've never done either), but we still follow proper procedures to make these activities safer, just in case the worst happens (or at least I do).

Your analogy with crossing through a red light has some weight behind it, because yes, a good driver will always check left and right, even if the lights are green. A bad driver will just sail through without looking first. With regard to indicating, you are in the latter category; you are choosing to ignore the advice of the Highway Code because you have blind faith in your observation being perfect. These procedures (in this case, mirror signal manoeuvre) were put there for a reason: to introduce layers of safety, so that yes, each part may not seem necessary, but that's the whole point - it's a safety net that hopefully will never be used, but having it makes things safer.

Edited by RobM77 on Thursday 1st August 15:15

It's mirror SIGNAL manoeuvre not mirror indicate manoeuvre. Since you clearly don't use hand signals, sound your horn or flash your headlights before every manoeuvre there is decision making required. Indeed negotiating a bend or going straight across are manoeuvres, yet no indication. Each time you use your mirrors do you have to follow it with a signal or do you just consider if one is necessary? It's part of the INFORMATION phase of roadcraft. Completely in keeping with the Highway Code which under signals says to use them to advise and (elsewhere) warn and inform . It's endorsed by the DVSA so not at odds with the Highway code at all.