Am i the only person who indicates?

[cmaguire]

RobM77 said:

Just one more post here, as I think akirk has made a misunderstanding which is probably critical to our disagreement. We may even agree By advocating indicating almost all of the time, I am not suggesting that one doesn’t observe who and what is around. I described this earlier. Before indicating, I have a jolly good look at who is around me to judge a) whether I could confuse anyone and b) when those other people need to know.

For example, if I’m leaving a motorway junction I look at the person behind me in lane one and judge when and if they’ll catch me as I slow, and if there’s someone passing them that would mean they’d need to get out into lane 2 earlier. There’s a huge amount of thought involved in judging the timing of indicating. I won’t expatiate any further, but you’ll get my drift I’m sure.

The only thing I do that’s contraversial is if I don’t see anyone, in the above example, when I get to the III, or before I slow, I indicate anyway. Note that the environment determines much of the potential confusion that may delay your signal or stop you signalling; I regard the chance of an unknown person affecting my signal very minor compared to the need for that unknown person to know what I’m doing in a standard fashion.

I don't really care if I indicate and there is absolutely nobody there to see it, frankly I find it amusing. I've made all the relevant checks and observations, as far as I am aware, so maybe I have no need to indicate. So what? It costs me nothing. The suggestion that always indicating may lead to confusion is BS anyway, and only holds water if there is an assumption that those that always indicate never bother to give that indication any consideration, whereas in reality those that always indicate are quite capable of timing when they do it or on rare occasions choosing not to indicate.
However competent the driver thinks he is, it appears to me that as long as that driver has certain pre-conceptions then they are not infallible. Expect the unexpected the saying goes.
I'm wondering how well akirk is prepared for the bike (or more unlikely a car) that doesn't behave how he thinks it will, and arrives at speeds that are massively at odds with his expectations.

[akirk]

RobM77 said:

Just one more post here, as I think akirk has made a misunderstanding which is probably critical to our disagreement. We may even agree By advocating indicating almost all of the time, I am not suggesting that one doesn’t observe who and what is around. I described this earlier. Before indicating, I have a jolly good look at who is around me to judge a) whether I could confuse anyone and b) when those other people need to know.

For example, if I’m leaving a motorway junction I look at the person behind me in lane one and judge when and if they’ll catch me as I slow, and if there’s someone passing them that would mean they’d need to get out into lane 2 earlier. There’s a huge amount of thought involved in judging the timing of indicating. I won’t expatiate any further, but you’ll get my drift I’m sure.

The only thing I do that’s contraversial is if I don’t see anyone, in the above example, when I get to the III, or before I slow, I indicate anyway. Note that the environment determines much of the potential confusion that may delay your signal or stop you signalling; I regard the chance of an unknown person affecting my signal very minor compared to the need for that unknown person to know what I’m doing in a standard fashion.

I rarely disagree with anyone, but I do enjoy debate
the question to follow on from your above comment that you look around to judge whether there is anyone you could confuse, is at the heart of this...

- if there is someone who you could confuse
- and no-one where your indicating is of any benefit

do you still indicate?

[Clawdius]

[quote=daemon]And when they do bother ti indicate, why cant people grasp that its Mirror Signal Manoeuvre?

The amount of times you see people brake, oblivious to whats happening around them THEN indicate!!!

If you're behind them you dont know if they're slowing to a stop, about to perform an emergency stop, turn LEFT, turn RIGHT???

Totally agree but you missed a mirror.
It’s mirror signal mirror manoeuvre
(Sorry for being pedantic)

[akirk]

cmaguire said:

I'm wondering how well akirk is prepared for the bike (or more unlikely a car) that doesn't behave how he thinks it will, and arrives at speeds that are massively at odds with his expectations.

they would do well to catch me

more seriously, we are discussing situations where there aren't randomly appearing pedestrians, cars or bikes... the example I gave from my drive last night was a wide open road clear of hazards, if there are concerns, present or potential then it is simple, the overtake is not on - as is often quoted, it is never wrong to not overtake...

this is a highly theoretical discussion... in most instances where you would like to overtake, there will be a reason why it is not safe, to give some examples from today's driving:
- distant car park, without clear views of exit
- road dip which appeared to be shallow from road-side wall height, but no certainty
- car in front with passenger trying to show map to driver, no clarity on their plans or awareness
- slowish motorbike, but group in the distance (he did suddenly wake up and vanish to join them) I would have had to go far too fast to guarantee passing him
- several bicycles where there was doubt about road width and possible oncoming traffic
All those and more, where they could possibly all have been overtaken, but where there was a decision not to initiate... in each of those indicating would not have helped, the underlying decision on how to handle the context has nothing to do with indicating...

and then there were plenty of overtakes that were on, move out parallel to check, then go... In virtually all cases, indicating not being required... one of the few was were I had a car behind me (I was following a bicycle), edging out, looking to go past both of us, and it would have been dangerous... I indicated to show that I was planning to pass... he backed off, I waited, and then overtook when safe, at the actual point of overtaking I didn't need to indicate as moving right was enough to show the car behind what I was doing, and then, power on and go... the poor cyclist was just in pain trying to get up a steep hill, and wouldn't have noticed the presence or lack of indication!

[RobM77]

Indicating is required to let the person you’re overtaking know what you’re about to do. You said earlier that your movement out to have a look lets them know; that’s too late, you should be indicatimg your intentions before you change your speed or course (the latter applies here). This can actually help you; if I see an indicator behind me then I’ll move over to the left to improve the overtaker’s visibility and improve their safety - it also lets them know I’m not going to accelerate or do somethimg stupid, amd that I’m compliant. If it’s a bike, they know they can easily make the manouvre even if somethimg comes the other way. All that starts with your indicator; it’s safer, aids convenience and is polite.

[akirk]

RobM77 said:

Indicating is required to let the person you’re overtaking know what you’re about to do. You said earlier that your movement out to have a look lets them know; that’s too late, you should be indicatimg your intentions before you change your speed or course (the latter applies here). This can actually help you; if I see an indicator behind me then I’ll move over to the left to improve the overtaker’s visibility and improve their safety - it also lets them know I’m not going to accelerate or do somethimg stupid, amd that I’m compliant. If it’s a bike, they know they can easily make the manouvre even if somethimg comes the other way. All that starts with your indicator; it’s safer, aids convenience and is polite.

No.

As mentioned above, the first stage of an overtake, moving out for final check / confirmation that the road is clear / etc. is not the overtake, indicating for that move is wrong:
- it says you are going to overtake, you are not you are checking before deciding
- you may move back
- you might do this several times before overtaking, what message are you giving to the car in front, how do they have any idea what you are planning if you keep indicating but not overtaking?!
- you might wrongly suggest to the car behind that you are definitely going, they move up and you have now lost your return space and have to go even if not safe...
several reasons why it can reduce clarity...

of course I can understand why someone who just goes without first checking might feel that indicate and go is appropriate, but that opens a whole new can of worms on the dangers of bad overtakes

pethaps this thread needs to morph into a discussion on how to overtake?

[cmaguire]

akirk said:

No.

As mentioned above, the first stage of an overtake, moving out for final check / confirmation that the road is clear / etc. is not the overtake, indicating for that move is wrong:
- it says you are going to overtake, you are not you are checking before deciding
- you may move back
- you might do this several times before overtaking, what message are you giving to the car in front, how do they have any idea what you are planning if you keep indicating but not overtaking?!
- you might wrongly suggest to the car behind that you are definitely going, they move up and you have now lost your return space and have to go even if not safe...
several reasons why it can reduce clarity...

of course I can understand why someone who just goes without first checking might feel that indicate and go is appropriate, but that opens a whole new can of worms on the dangers of bad overtakes

pethaps this thread needs to morph into a discussion on how to overtake?

If you indicate as you move right to gain a view past a vehicle in front with a view to overtaking but return to following as the overtake is not on, then should the vehicle in front have observed this then why would they not at least understand that your intention is to overtake? They should at least be aware of an approaching vehicle or bend in the road that would potentially prevent your overtake, in the event they actually notice you at all (as the less competent aren't always in the habit of using mirrors regularly so may not even notice you at all). And a flashing indicator also increases the likely of you being noticed by peripheral vision if nothing else.

You appear to be looking for reasons to justify not indicating, when indicating is almost always the belt-and-braces option with the fewest arguments against it..

[akirk]

cmaguire said:

If you indicate as you move right to gain a view past a vehicle in front with a view to overtaking but return to following as the overtake is not on, then should the vehicle in front have observed this then why would they not at least understand that your intention is to overtake? They should at least be aware of an approaching vehicle or bend in the road that would potentially prevent your overtake, in the event they actually notice you at all (as the less competent aren't always in the habit of using mirrors regularly so may not even notice you at all). And a flashing indicator also increases the likely of you being noticed by peripheral vision if nothing else.

You appear to be looking for reasons to justify not indicating, when indicating is almost always the belt-and-braces option with the fewest arguments against it..

I think partly because it appears as a more agressive set of moves, and can put pressure on the car in front which I would not want... the manoeuvre I am describing is not on top of the car in front, slightly back and a gentle move to the right, a slightly bigger move than the normal adjusting for sight lines... indicating at that point says I am going, yet I have not made that decision as it is contingent on what is seen, so indicating would be wrong - it would be giving an inaccurate message..

that is one of the reasons, and yet probably not the most significant which is the potential issue with the car behind, as explained above. If there is no upside to indicating, but a potential downside, then don't indicate...

your acknowledgment of 'almost always' recognises that there are times when it is not the best choice, that is the point being made, so I am glad we agree

I do wonder whether some people assume that the minute you move out you will be overtaking, i.e. the decision is made before moving across, if so, then indicating first makes sense as you are communicating a decision... I on the other hand am describing a manoeuvre which is checking for an overtake, it is possible that I will choose not to as I am generally quite risk-adverse / manage risk, so if the overtake is not on, I will move back - no overtake needs no indicating... so to have indicated before the decision is made risks poor communication...

Edited by akirk on Sunday 8th April 08:58

[Dr Jekyll]

akirk said:

As mentioned above, the first stage of an overtake, moving out for final check / confirmation that the road is clear / etc. is not the overtake, indicating for that move is wrong:

+1

[Veryoldbear]

This thread may run and run, but just thinking about things ...

Road positioning is becoming more difficult to "read" as people now may be moving about alarmingly to avoid potholes. It certainly is the case in Occupied North Berkshire.

Different rules day and night. I don't usually indicate joining a motorway or DC in the daytime, but do so at night. Ditto returning after an overtake

[Vipers]

And do not forget, when you park on DYL's or blocking a dropped kerb whilst you nip in the shop for fags, totally ignoring the parking space two metres further on you must

PUT BOTH INDICATORS ON



Yes I am joking........

[SVS]

akirk said:

the question to follow on from your above comment that you look around to judge whether there is anyone you could confuse, is at the heart of this...

- if there is someone who you could confuse
- and no-one where your indicating is of any benefit

do you still indicate?

Not if it could confuse someone.

My reasons for generally indicating unless it could confuse are:

• The thought processes for "would someone benefit from my indicating" and "I'll indicate unless it could confuse" are different. Try it for while and notice the difference. I've found rare but important circumstances where I've not signaled because I was thinking "could this signal confuse", where previously I would have signaled because someone else could benefit.
• Eye science: It doesn't matter how hard we concentrate, our eyes don't see everything because of a phenomenon called saccadic masking. Our brain fills in the gaps that our eyes miss, so it seems like we're seeing a continuous picture. It's one of the reasons that a driver waiting at a junction can look right at you, then pull into your path nonetheless.
• Brain science: We tend to see only what we expect to see. If you're not expecting to see a bicycle or motorbike, then your brain probably won't see it bearing down on you. It's called cognitive blindness and exacerbated by motion camouflage or 'looming'. It's another key reason that a driver waiting at a junction can look right at a cyclist or motorcyclist, then pull into its path.

When Lord Cottenham first devised Roadcraft and what we now call advanced driving, nobody knew about things like saccadic masking, motion camouflage or cognitive blindness.

Edited by SVS on Monday 9th April 12:23

[Pica-Pica]

Vipers said:

And do not forget, when you park on DYL's or blocking a dropped kerb whilst you nip in the shop for fags, totally ignoring the parking space two metres further on you must

PUT BOTH INDICATORS ON



Yes I am joking........

..indeed you are, you meant all 6 indicators (or 8 if they are spilt across a boot-lid/tailgate).

[Dr Jekyll]

SVS said:

When Lord Cottenham first devised Roadcraft and what we now call advanced driving, nobody knew about things like saccadic masking, motion camouflage or cognitive blindness.

If flashing amber lights are an effective countermeasure to those things, that's an argument for having flashing amber lights on all the time. It's nothing to do with the question of whether to indicate a manoeuvre when there is nobody going to be affected by it.

This morning I was planning an overtake on a long straight SC road. I moved offside for a final check (no signal) and the driver in front not only saw me, but concluded I was overtaking already and slowed down, exactly what I didn't want in that situation. It would have been better if he hadn't seen me at all.

[SVS]

Dr Jekyll said:

the question of whether to indicate a manoeuvre when there is nobody going to be affected by it.

In short, I'm arguing that two things favour "always indicate unless it could confuse":

• 1. Modern neuroscience shows that you can't always know 100% of the time when there is nobody going to be affected by indicating. Even advanced drivers aren't immune to how our eyes and brain work.
• 2. "Always indicate unless it could confuse" isn't the same decision as "only indicate where it could benefit another road user", although both approaches improve concentration. I encourage you to try both methods for a prolonged period and notice the difference. I've found rare but important circumstances where "always indicate unless it could confuse" has proven safer.

Like many here, I invested considerable time and effort in AD (doing a bunch of RoSPA Golds and HPC in the process). Consequently, I found it hard to go against AD canon and change my ways. Having tried the "always indicate unless it could confuse" approach, however, I've found it works better than the traditional AD way.

[Len Woodman]

SVS said:

In short, I'm arguing that two things favour "always indicate unless it could confuse":

• 1. Modern neuroscience shows that you can't always know 100% of the time when there is nobody going to be affected by indicating. Even advanced drivers aren't immune to how our eyes and brain work.
• 2. "Always indicate unless it could confuse" isn't the same decision as "only indicate where it could benefit another road user", although both approaches improve concentration. I encourage you to try both methods for a prolonged period and notice the difference. I've found rare but important circumstances where "always indicate unless it could confuse" has proven safer.

Like many here, I invested considerable time and effort in AD (doing a bunch of RoSPA Golds and HPC in the process). Consequently, I found it hard to go against AD canon and change my ways. Having tried the "always indicate unless it could confuse" approach, however, I've found it works better than the traditional AD way.

Just watch out though. I've been in the land of "Always signal" for 30 years now. There was a period some years back when I started to just signal and then question, "Did I look first?". That's when I was a Road Safety Officer. Thankfully I now instruct more and it's easier to maintain standards. And there's probably too much "research" and papers written by pseudo-road safety exspurts.

[Vipers]

Len Woodman said:

Just watch out though. I've been in the land of "Always signal" for 30 years now. There was a period some years back when I started to just signal and then question, "Did I look first?". That's when I was a Road Safety Officer. Thankfully I now instruct more and it's easier to maintain standards. And there's probably too much "research" and papers written by pseudo-road safety exspurts.

Agree. I have always followed Mirror, Signal, Manouevour.

If no ones there, so what. If there is no one there and you decide there is no reason to indicate and don't, so what.

At the end of the day do what you feel is good for you as long as it's safe.

[akirk]

SVS said:

Having tried the "always indicate unless it could confuse" approach, however, I've found it works better than the traditional AD way.

but in your answer to my question above (someone you could confuse, no-one who would benefit) you state you would still indicate, which isn't “always indicate unless it could confuse”

I think I am now confused

ultimately, everyone on here is saying that there could be times when it is appropriate to NOT indicate, so we all agree on that...
the difference seems to be that one set of people say that by default they will indicate... the other group says that they will consider each situation and then make a decision...

as long as the appropriate communication (including signalling / not signalling) takes place then I am sure that all will be happy, ultimately we have a tool box at our disposal and many options as we drive, matching tools and context is a part of the art of driving...

I think I will continue to choose the appropriate solution for each occasion...

[vonhosen]

People should adopt formulae that help them (personally) obtain positive outcomes as much as possible & by virtue of that minimise the likelihood of negative or confusing encounters.

As long as it's not negative or confusing, beyond that it's mostly window dressing & there isn't a right/wrong.

There will even be times that there isn't a clear easy win to be had & it may be a case of choosing what you see as the lesser of evils in that particular situation.

Signal or not, the above is what's important, not the method that you personally choose to help you reliably achieve your best results.

Judge by results (outcomes), not the method (inputs).

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 8th April 23:03

[Vipers]

Odd situation near me, the A90 is NSL, as you join it from a T-junction 30 mph turning left to join the dual carriageway, you immediately come across a bus stop in a lay by, bus's stopping there indicate on approach as they are going to slow down and turn into the lay by.

For any one not familiar with that and exiting the 30 mph onto the dual carriageway may think the bus is going to turn into the road your exiting.

Piss poor planning by who ever put the bus stop there.

Not sure how to post map reference, but it's the junction of Bruntland Road, Portlethen, where it joins the A90. Might work (57.0539174,-2.1508865)

Whilst the bus is indicating to pull into the bay, it can also confuse anyone exiting Bruntland Rd.

I don't see an easy way out of this short of moving the bus stop.

Edited by Vipers on Sunday 8th April 22:24