Am i the only person who indicates?

[akirk]

cmaguire said:

RobM77 said:

I'm with Mark on that one for most situations. There's no point in indicating when you've already started a manoeuvre, because everyone can see what you're doing, and it's too late for other drivers to react and plan anyway. That's the case most of the time - there are situations where it can add clarity, but usually it's pointless. Indicating is primarily a means of telling others what you are planning to do next, not what you're already doing.

People don't tend to indicate AS they move, what we are normally referring to here is indicating perhaps a second before the move and then making the move regardless.
I would prefer to have that second of warning as there is a lot I can do in that second to mitigate their behaviour.
Without that indication they may be changing a CD and drifting in lane for all I know.

I think though that the AD argument is that there will probably be other clues even before that:
- they are getting close to another car
- their lane positioning
- their speed
- previous pattern of their driving
- etc
So you should already be preparing - otherwise both are contributing to an accident, one through lack of communication and one through lack of awareness / planning

[RobM77]

cmaguire said:

People don't tend to indicate AS they move, what we are normally referring to here is indicating perhaps a second before the move and then making the move regardless.
I would prefer to have that second of warning as there is a lot I can do in that second to mitigate their behaviour.
Without that indication they may be changing a CD and drifting in lane for all I know.

In my experience that's what the vast majority of people do: coincide the steering wheel movement with an indicator. My wife does it, as does my Dad, all my friends and pretty much anyone I've ever ridden with outside of AD communities. Utterly stupid and pointless.

With regard to your last comment, drifting in lane and changing lanes warrant the same reaction from other drivers in the vicinity don't they? That's why indicating as one moves is pointless.

[Arrius]

And people wonder why there are so many accidents on the roads related to turning and overtaking. How are the other drivers supposed to know if you are going to make a turn if you are not indicating... IMO it should be a traffic offence, I always indicate and I do it properly giving the driver behind me to react accordingly. Most of the time I have my daughter with me in the car, I can't risk her well-being by being lazy. Everyone should do it no matter how fast their car is or how good a driver they think they are.

[Vipers]

Arrius said:

And people wonder why there are so many accidents on the roads related to turning and overtaking. How are the other drivers supposed to know if you are going to make a turn if you are not indicating... IMO it should be a traffic offence, I always indicate and I do it properly giving the driver behind me to react accordingly. Most of the time I have my daughter with me in the car, I can't risk her well-being by being lazy. Everyone should do it no matter how fast their car is or how good a driver they think they are.

Read of most posts, and I am with you, I always mirror, signal then manoeuvre, if there is no one there, so what.

[SVS]

What's wrong with 'always indicate unless it could confuse another road user'?

waremark said:

It is possible for those who always indicate also to carry out a high level of observation. [Former police instructor] VH has argued that a rule of indicating unless it may confuse has the same beneficial effect on observation as not indicating unless it may be useful.

This is why I'd rather indicate unless it could confuse:

RobM77 said:

the benefit is that ... you'll certainly prevent frustration from other road users too on the odd occasion your observation is not perfect.

We all make human errors. I've done numerous AD car and bike qualifications, but it's not humanly possible to have perfect observation 100% of the time. Whilst I make less mistakes thanks to advanced training, we're all human. That's why I always indicate unless it could confuse.

[akirk]

Arrius said:

And people wonder why there are so many accidents on the roads related to turning and overtaking. How are the other drivers supposed to know if you are going to make a turn if you are not indicating... IMO it should be a traffic offence, I always indicate and I do it properly giving the driver behind me to react accordingly. Most of the time I have my daughter with me in the car, I can't risk her well-being by being lazy. Everyone should do it no matter how fast their car is or how good a driver they think they are.

Have you read the thread?!

- people are advocating indicating when necessary to communicate
- people are advocating choosing when / how to indicate to ensure that there is no confusion
- people are saying that there are times when other forms of communication may be stronger (e.g. road positioning) and even times when indicating may cause issues - or where timing is critical...

Arrius said:

How are the other drivers supposed to know if you are going to make a turn if you are not indicating

other drivers can also learn to drive you do not need to have someone indicate to know what they do - and many drivers do things contrary to their indicator's message, so if you rely solely on indicators you will have issues - I can take you down a motorway and talk you through what other drivers are going to do before they indicate, and certainly before they move - or despite their not indicating - it is not particularly complex (e.g. car in lane 1 approaching a lorry is likely to move into lane 2).

As a driver you need to be anticipating what other drivers will be doing and drive accordingly - to not do that, but only react to their indicators is distinctly lazy and dangerous for your daughter

To never indicate would undoubtedly be wrong - but, to always indicate without thought or purpose is equally wrong - as has been said on several occasions - indicating is a form of communication - communicate (by indicating and other methods) with purpose and clarity.

Edited by akirk on Tuesday 3rd April 19:37

[RobM77]

SVS said:

What's wrong with 'always indicate unless it could confuse another road user'?

waremark said:

It is possible for those who always indicate also to carry out a high level of observation. [Former police instructor] VH has argued that a rule of indicating unless it may confuse has the same beneficial effect on observation as not indicating unless it may be useful.

This is why I'd rather indicate unless it could confuse:

RobM77 said:

the benefit is that ... you'll certainly prevent frustration from other road users too on the odd occasion your observation is not perfect.

We all make human errors. I've done numerous AD car and bike qualifications, but it's not humanly possible to have perfect observation 100% of the time. Whilst I make less mistakes thanks to advanced training, we're all human. That's why I always indicate unless it could confuse.

I agree entirely.

My thought process when I know I want to change speed or course is:

1) Look ahead, to the sides and in the mirror. Is there anyone visible who would benefit from the indicator? i.e. would they need to slow, change their course or would it change their possible future plans? If so, indicate at a time and place that would benefit them (before they plan their next action, or next to the sign etc).

2) If not the above, then prepare to indicate a couple of seconds before changing speed or course, but check to see if anyone could be misled or confused by the indicator. If so, alter the timing of the indicator.

3) If both of the above checks fail, indicate a couple of seconds before changing speed or course. Your observation may not have been perfect and you may have missed somebody.

[Len Woodman]

Vipers said:

Interesting, where does that come, just interested.

Sorry I forgot to qualify that - New South Wales Road Rules 2014:

Rule 46 Giving a left change of direction signal

(3) If the driver is about to change direction by moving from a stationary position at the
side of the road or in a median strip parking area, the driver must give the change of
direction signal for at least 5 seconds before the driver changes direction.

Len - Sydney, Australia

[lyonspride]

Len Woodman said:

Sorry I forgot to qualify that - New South Wales Road Rules 2014:

Rule 46 Giving a left change of direction signal

(3) If the driver is about to change direction by moving from a stationary position at the
side of the road or in a median strip parking area, the driver must give the change of
direction signal for at least 5 seconds before the driver changes direction.

Len - Sydney, Australia

If your at the side of the road, why would you indicate left? Surely you'd be indicating right to join traffic?

[Vipers]

Len Woodman said:

Vipers said:

Interesting, where does that come, just interested.

Sorry I forgot to qualify that - New South Wales Road Rules 2014:

Rule 46 Giving a left change of direction signal

(3) If the driver is about to change direction by moving from a stationary position at the
side of the road or in a median strip parking area, the driver must give the change of
direction signal for at least 5 seconds before the driver changes direction.

Len - Sydney, Australia

Thank you for the clarification.

[Vipers]

lyonspride said:

Len Woodman said:

Sorry I forgot to qualify that - New South Wales Road Rules 2014:

Rule 46 Giving a left change of direction signal

(3) If the driver is about to change direction by moving from a stationary position at the
side of the road or in a median strip parking area, the driver must give the change of
direction signal for at least 5 seconds before the driver changes direction.

Len - Sydney, Australia

If your at the side of the road, why would you indicate left? Surely you'd be indicating right to join traffic?

Rule 46 verbatum-

46 Giving a left change of direction signal

(1) Before a driver changes direction to the left, the driver must give a left change of direction signal in accordance with rule 47 for long enough to comply with subrule (2) and, if subrule (3) applies to the driver, that subrule.
Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.

Note. Changes direction to the left is defined in rule 45 (2).

(2) The driver must give the change of direction signal for long enough to give sufficient warning to other drivers and pedestrians

(3) If the driver is about to change direction by moving from a stationary position at the side of the road or in a median strip parking area, the driver must give the change of direction signal for at least 5 seconds before the driver changes direction.

Note. Median strip parking area is defined in the Dictionary.

(4) The driver must stop giving the change of direction signal as soon as the driver completes the change of direction.
Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.

(5) This rule does not apply to a driver if the driver’s vehicle is not fitted with direction indicator lights.

Note. Driver’s vehicle is defined in the Dictionary.

Link https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/regulati...

[Len Woodman]

Vipers said:

Rule 46 verbatum-

46 Giving a left change of direction signal

(1) Before a driver changes direction to the left, the driver must give a left change of direction signal in accordance with rule 47 for long enough to comply with subrule (2) and, if subrule (3) applies to the driver, that subrule.
Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.

Note. Changes direction to the left is defined in rule 45 (2).

(2) The driver must give the change of direction signal for long enough to give sufficient warning to other drivers and pedestrians

(3) If the driver is about to change direction by moving from a stationary position at the side of the road or in a median strip parking area, the driver must give the change of direction signal for at least 5 seconds before the driver changes direction.

Note. Median strip parking area is defined in the Dictionary.

(4) The driver must stop giving the change of direction signal as soon as the driver completes the change of direction.
Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.

(5) This rule does not apply to a driver if the driver’s vehicle is not fitted with direction indicator lights.

Note. Driver’s vehicle is defined in the Dictionary.

Link https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/regulati...

Sorry - I should have quoted Rule 48 as well:

48 Giving a right change of direction signal
(1) Before a driver changes direction to the right, the driver must give a right change of direction signal in accordance with rule 49 for long enough to comply with subrule (2) and, if subrule (3) applies to the driver, that subrule.
Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.
Note. Changes direction to the right is defined in rule 45 (3).
(2) The driver must give the change of direction signal for long enough to give sufficient warning to other drivers and pedestrians.
(3) If the driver is about to change direction by moving from a stationary position at the side of the road or in a median strip parking area, the driver must give the change of direction signal for at least 5 seconds before the driver changes direction.
Note. Median strip parking area is defined in the Dictionary.
(3A) Subrule (3) does not apply to the rider of a bicycle that is stopped in traffic but not parked.
(4) The driver must stop giving the change of direction signal as soon as the driver completes the change of direction.
Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.
(5) This rule does not apply to:
(a) the driver of a tram that is not fitted with direction indicator lights, or
(b) the rider of a bicycle making a hook turn.
Note 1. Bicycle and tram are defined in the Dictionary.
Note 2. Rules 34 and 35 deal with bicycles making hook turns.

[waremark]

RobM77 said:

3) If both of the above checks fail, indicate a couple of seconds before changing speed or course. Your observation may not have been perfect and you may have missed somebody.

Just as a matter of interest, can you remember when you last missed a road user who was affected by your manoeuver (and to whom therefore after the same careful observation you think I might have chosen not to signal)? I only choose not to signal if I am satisfied that no-one will be affected.

To the poster who thinks not signalling is lazy - are you completely missing the argument that a choice not always to signal is a choice to enhance observation, and indeed to observe much more carefully than many of those who do signal. It may or may not be the best way to drive, but there is certainly nothing lazy about it. How do you observe more carefully? Could be by monitoring a changing situation over time, or perhaps by moving or turning your head.

BTW - and sorry if I have said this before - one of my cars has a 'blind spot warning system'. It bleeps if I signal to change lanes when there is someone in my ! not blind spot !. Now, I only signal to change lanes if there is someone there, so by definition if I hear the blind spot warning system beep I already knew there was someone there.

Edited by waremark on Friday 6th April 10:36

[RobM77]

waremark said:

RobM77 said:

3) If both of the above checks fail, indicate a couple of seconds before changing speed or course. Your observation may not have been perfect and you may have missed somebody.

Just as a matter of interest, can you remember when you last missed a road user who was affected by your manoeuver (and to whom therefore after the same careful observation you think I might have chosen not to signal)? I only choose not to signal if I am satisfied that no-one will be affected.

To the poster who thinks not signalling is lazy - are you completing missing the argument that a choice not always to signal is a choice to enhance observation, and indeed to observe much more carefully than many of those who do signal It may or may not be the best way to drive, but there is certainly nothing lazy about it. How do you observe more carefully? Could be by monitoring a changing situation over time, or perhaps by moving or turning your head.

BTW - and sorry if I have said this before - one of my cars has a 'blind spot warning system'. It bleeps if I signal to change lanes when there is someone in my ! not blind spot !. Now, I only signal to change lanes if there is someone there, so by definition if I hear the blind spot warning system beep I already knew there was someone there.

Accidents are rare things. Most of the advanced driving we learn is reducing the odds of an accident from 1/10000000 to 1/100000000! It's easy to dismiss potential causes of accidents as rare, but that's because accidents and their causes are rare. We are talking about the time when you don't indicate and there's a bike you missed and he's sat on your blindspot and he's slow to react cause he's tired and your warning system has a glitch. These are rare events. In my anecdotal experience, someone who drives 6 days a week will have a minor mishap every 2-3 years if a poor driver, every 10 years if a good driver, and every 20+ years (maybe never) if they're an excellent driver.

I agree entirely, we can all learn to improve our observation - I see observation and anticipation as the key skill to advanced driving. Very few people crash into things that they see or that they expect to happen. We should always have safety nets though, just as we always have seatbelts.

[akirk]

RobM77 said:

Accidents are rare things. Most of the advanced driving we learn is reducing the odds of an accident from 1/10000000 to 1/100000000! It's easy to dismiss potential causes of accidents as rare, but that's because accidents and their causes are rare. We are talking about the time when you don't indicate and there's a bike you missed and he's sat on your blindspot and he's slow to react cause he's tired and your warning system has a glitch. These are rare events. In my anecdotal experience, someone who drives 6 days a week will have a minor mishap every 2-3 years if a poor driver, every 10 years if a good driver, and every 20+ years (maybe never) if they're an excellent driver.

I agree entirely, we can all learn to improve our observation - I see observation and anticipation as the key skill to advanced driving. Very few people crash into things that they see or that they expect to happen. We should always have safety nets though, just as we always have seatbelts.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/654962/quarterly-estimates-april-to-june-2017.pdf
176,500 casualties of all types and of those 27,130 deaths / serious injuries means that accidents aren't rare - and that won't include the huge number of accidents with no casualties...

I would be concerned if any bike was sitting in my blind spot without my knowing - the biker must have gone through my vision to get there - so there is an issue if I haven't spotted them approaching...

The reality is though that there is no argument to say never indicate - but I am sure you would agree that to do anything without thought is not advanced driving - which must be deliberate and purposeful - so, considering the communication needs each time and deciding whether an indicator is going to help / be irrelevant / confuse, must be the AD approach - and as long as there can be occasions where indicating reduces clarity, then the concept of always indicating must be flawed... always consider it, yes - always indicate without thought or intelligence - no, that is not advanced driving.

[RobM77]

akirk said:

RobM77 said:

Accidents are rare things. Most of the advanced driving we learn is reducing the odds of an accident from 1/10000000 to 1/100000000! It's easy to dismiss potential causes of accidents as rare, but that's because accidents and their causes are rare. We are talking about the time when you don't indicate and there's a bike you missed and he's sat on your blindspot and he's slow to react cause he's tired and your warning system has a glitch. These are rare events. In my anecdotal experience, someone who drives 6 days a week will have a minor mishap every 2-3 years if a poor driver, every 10 years if a good driver, and every 20+ years (maybe never) if they're an excellent driver.

I agree entirely, we can all learn to improve our observation - I see observation and anticipation as the key skill to advanced driving. Very few people crash into things that they see or that they expect to happen. We should always have safety nets though, just as we always have seatbelts.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/654962/quarterly-estimates-april-to-june-2017.pdf
176,500 casualties of all types and of those 27,130 deaths / serious injuries means that accidents aren't rare - and that won't include the huge number of accidents with no casualties...

I would be concerned if any bike was sitting in my blind spot without my knowing - the biker must have gone through my vision to get there - so there is an issue if I haven't spotted them approaching...

The reality is though that there is no argument to say never indicate - but I am sure you would agree that to do anything without thought is not advanced driving - which must be deliberate and purposeful - so, considering the communication needs each time and deciding whether an indicator is going to help / be irrelevant / confuse, must be the AD approach - and as long as there can be occasions where indicating reduces clarity, then the concept of always indicating must be flawed... always consider it, yes - always indicate without thought or intelligence - no, that is not advanced driving.

I obviously meant rare per person The driving population is in the tens of millions.

I can see your point in your final paragraph, and this is obviously a case of weighing up the consequences of a misleading indication against the consequences of indicating anyway to cover your back if your observation isn't perfect. The key point is that you will have taken into account a misleading indication to all that you observe, so with both risks we are talking about the set of unobserved road users. Given that these road users are unobserved, we have to think statistically, and I would always contest that for a given number of 'by rote' indications, the misleading ones would always be in a minority compared to genuinely helpful ones, thus my conclusion - we have to go with the majority.

[akirk]

RobM77 said:

I obviously meant rare per person The driving population is in the tens of millions.

I can see your point in your final paragraph, and this is obviously a case of weighing up the consequences of a misleading indication against the consequences of indicating anyway to cover your back if your observation isn't perfect. The key point is that you will have taken into account a misleading indication to all that you observe, so with both risks we are talking about the set of unobserved road users. Given that these road users are unobserved, we have to think statistically, and I would always contest that for a given number of 'by rote' indications, the misleading ones would always be in a minority compared to genuinely helpful ones, thus my conclusion - we have to go with the majority.

I think though that your logic is flawed
- you advocate the option of indicating anyway to 'cover your back'
- you reckon the balance is in favour of less 'misleading' indications v. indications to unobserved road users...

two points here:
- if you advocate indicating to cover your back, yet also allow that you may include misleading indications - there is an issue as in those instances you may hold liability for bad / incorrect communication
- you shouldn't have unobserved road users - where are they coming from that you haven't seen them - I would be hugely concerned that any driver might be making a manoeuvre without being aware of some relevant road users... If this is really a potential issue, then the priority is improving observation before worrying about indicators! Once it is no longer an issue, then I see no reason to indicate just because there might be someone there we don't know about!

[captain_cynic]

lyonspride said:

Len Woodman said:

Sorry I forgot to qualify that - New South Wales Road Rules 2014:

Rule 46 Giving a left change of direction signal

(3) If the driver is about to change direction by moving from a stationary position at the
side of the road or in a median strip parking area, the driver must give the change of
direction signal for at least 5 seconds before the driver changes direction.

Len - Sydney, Australia

If your at the side of the road, why would you indicate left? Surely you'd be indicating right to join traffic?

You are required to indicate in the direction you're turning. If you're parked on the right hand side of the road (one way roads in Oz can have parallel parking spaces on both sides) then indicate left to join, if parked on the left, indicate right.

[RobM77]

akirk said:

RobM77 said:

I obviously meant rare per person The driving population is in the tens of millions.

I can see your point in your final paragraph, and this is obviously a case of weighing up the consequences of a misleading indication against the consequences of indicating anyway to cover your back if your observation isn't perfect. The key point is that you will have taken into account a misleading indication to all that you observe, so with both risks we are talking about the set of unobserved road users. Given that these road users are unobserved, we have to think statistically, and I would always contest that for a given number of 'by rote' indications, the misleading ones would always be in a minority compared to genuinely helpful ones, thus my conclusion - we have to go with the majority.

I think though that your logic is flawed
- you advocate the option of indicating anyway to 'cover your back'
- you reckon the balance is in favour of less 'misleading' indications v. indications to unobserved road users...

two points here:
- if you advocate indicating to cover your back, yet also allow that you may include misleading indications - there is an issue as in those instances you may hold liability for bad / incorrect communication
- you shouldn't have unobserved road users - where are they coming from that you haven't seen them - I would be hugely concerned that any driver might be making a manoeuvre without being aware of some relevant road users... If this is really a potential issue, then the priority is improving observation before worrying about indicators! Once it is no longer an issue, then I see no reason to indicate just because there might be someone there we don't know about!

My logic isn't flawed, you haven't understood it. That's probably partly my fault for not explaining it well enough. Basically, when you haven't observed anyone around you, the decision to just go ahead and indicate anyway comes with a quandary: you don't know who and where the road user/s you're indicating to are, so you have to decide whether it's more likely that your signal will inform or mislead. I think it's pretty obvious that in the vast majority of situations, a standard MSM signal prior to change of speed or course will inform, rather than mislead. Of all the signals I do when driving, very few deviate much from the standard advice given when learning for the basic test (MSM); and even fewer deviate for reasons linked to the target road user, rather than the road and environment (for example, going around a car parked opposite a junction).

[akirk]

RobM77 said:

akirk said:

RobM77 said:

I obviously meant rare per person The driving population is in the tens of millions.

I can see your point in your final paragraph, and this is obviously a case of weighing up the consequences of a misleading indication against the consequences of indicating anyway to cover your back if your observation isn't perfect. The key point is that you will have taken into account a misleading indication to all that you observe, so with both risks we are talking about the set of unobserved road users. Given that these road users are unobserved, we have to think statistically, and I would always contest that for a given number of 'by rote' indications, the misleading ones would always be in a minority compared to genuinely helpful ones, thus my conclusion - we have to go with the majority.

I think though that your logic is flawed
- you advocate the option of indicating anyway to 'cover your back'
- you reckon the balance is in favour of less 'misleading' indications v. indications to unobserved road users...

two points here:
- if you advocate indicating to cover your back, yet also allow that you may include misleading indications - there is an issue as in those instances you may hold liability for bad / incorrect communication
- you shouldn't have unobserved road users - where are they coming from that you haven't seen them - I would be hugely concerned that any driver might be making a manoeuvre without being aware of some relevant road users... If this is really a potential issue, then the priority is improving observation before worrying about indicators! Once it is no longer an issue, then I see no reason to indicate just because there might be someone there we don't know about!

My logic isn't flawed, you haven't understood it. That's probably partly my fault for not explaining it well enough. Basically, when you haven't observed anyone around you, the decision to just go ahead and indicate anyway comes with a quandary: you don't know who and where the road user/s you're indicating to are, so you have to decide whether it's more likely that your signal will inform or mislead. I think it's pretty obvious that in the vast majority of situations, a standard MSM signal prior to change of speed or course will inform, rather than mislead. Of all the signals I do when driving, very few deviate much from the standard advice given when learning for the basic test (MSM); and even fewer deviate for reasons linked to the target road user, rather than the road and environment (for example, going around a car parked opposite a junction).

I don't think I have misunderstood what you are saying
You are still basing your logic on the 'unobserved road user':

RobM77 said:

you don't know who and where the road user/s you're indicating to are

I am concerned that anyone who is interested in AD should be in a situation where there are relevant road users they haven't observed

sure there are those who may / may not be coming around a corner - but you consider those anyway, so if there is time for someone to come around a corner and be affected by your manoeuvre turning right across their path, then you think through the implications - but an indication is a signal of what is to come - if they are not yet present in the scene they do not need to be advised - by the time you have started your manoeuvre, the physical position of your car will give more communication than a flashing indicator which by that point may be hidden by your car turning... If you need to warn them in advance, then they are in the scene and known...

so, I will stand by my belief that one of the fundamentals of AD is knowing who and what is in the scene before you make changes to your behaviour
the next fundamental is that you think through and make decisions consciously and with purpose

so there should never be a time where you don't know who and where the road user/s you are indicating to are... that is gambling with the unknown and taking risks that someone might be affected, but you have no idea, so let's indicate just in case because then we are covering our back - that is not AD as I know it...

RobM77 said:

Basically, when you haven't observed anyone around you, the decision to just go ahead and indicate anyway comes with a quandary: you don't know who and where the road user/s you're indicating to are, so you have to decide whether it's more likely that your signal will inform or mislead.

No - if you haven't observed anyone around you, then there should be no-one around you, so why are you signalling? To whom are you communicating if there is no-one there... If as you suggested above you do it in case there is someone there, but not observed, then the signalling is the least of your worries - you are just as likely to run them over - because you are making a manoeuvre without any idea that someone might be there - that is bad driving...

If you believe that by signalling you have now covered your back (as suggested above) then that is the worst of driving - I don't know that someone is there, I will run them over anyway, but because I signalled I am okay Jack - it is their fault!!! That is the driver on the motorway who signals and moves out because somehow signalling is the magic that moves everyone else out of the way!!!

The whole MSM concept is flawed in how people use it, Mirror, Signal Manoeuvre does not mean that as long as you do that sequence without thought you will be fine - it is an order in which to do things, but it comes with caveats:
- Mirror - read the scene
- If it is going to be appropriate to make the manoeuvre, then signal to communicate (if needed)
- Manoeuvre if safe

Sorry - but AD is not how you are suggesting:
- know who is there first
- decide how you need to communicate
- communicate appropriately
- move if you can do so safely...

I was thinking of this thread the other day when coming up to a roundabout - no-one behind me / or approaching any of the junctions, all of which I could see into - if I were to indicate, to whom would I be communicating and why?