Am i the only person who indicates?

[FiF]

RobM77 said:

"shouldn't be anyone driving up the inside"

Err... I hate to break it to you, but not everyone drives sensibly Assuming that everyone follows the Highway Code and has common sense isn't really going to work

Well precisely. Anecdote follows.

M1 in lane 3, overtaking a long line of slower moving traffic in lanes 2 and 1. I'm not exactly dead on the 70 limit, 10% and a bit over actually. Yet whilst making this overtake had been caught up by bikers who were intent on going much faster. Fair enough, will get out of their way first opportunity.

As passed the front vehicle then started indicating left to show intention to move into lane 2, yet though still not far enough in front to safely move left, when said bikers cranked left and undertook. Against a flashing left indicator! Organ donors, yet in their silly little tribal world it's cagers that cause all the trouble in the world.

[lyonspride]

RobM77 said:

"shouldn't be anyone driving up the inside"

Err... I hate to break it to you, but not everyone drives sensibly Assuming that everyone follows the Highway Code and has common sense isn't really going to work

And so you'd see this idiot and act appropriately.

I don't assume that people follow the highway code, most people follow their own version of it.
What I do assume is that everyone else is a complete idiot and as such I need to be fully aware of my surroundings, using indication whenever it is needed.

The situation of someone undertaking traffic shouldn't really pose a danger in itself, the danger (and the reason you shouldn't do it) comes from other drivers not paying attention, not checking their mirrors and simply flipping the indicator on whilst changing lane into the path of the undertaking vehicle.

Driving is full of dumb rules that only exist to account for stupid people not paying attention to the road.

[RobM77]

lyonspride said:

RobM77 said:

"shouldn't be anyone driving up the inside"

Err... I hate to break it to you, but not everyone drives sensibly Assuming that everyone follows the Highway Code and has common sense isn't really going to work

And so you'd see this idiot and act appropriately.

I don't assume that people follow the highway code, most people follow their own version of it.
What I do assume is that everyone else is a complete idiot and as such I need to be fully aware of my surroundings, using indication whenever it is needed.

The situation of someone undertaking traffic shouldn't really pose a danger in itself, the danger (and the reason you shouldn't do it) comes from other drivers not paying attention, not checking their mirrors and simply flipping the indicator on whilst changing lane into the path of the undertaking vehicle.

Driving is full of dumb rules that only exist to account for stupid people not paying attention to the road.

The reason they're an idiot is that they're doing something dangerous that's hard to spot. You're not superhuman; we can all only look so far and with a certain level of success. If you always indicate, then it covers your back for the odd times when you slip up and don't spot the idiot in your blind spot (because funnily enough, they're called blind spots for a reason!). Instead, by following your rationale you are voluntarily removing a layer of safety and running on the assumption that your observation is always perfect. You'll be fine most times, but it will catch up on you one day. It's really not hard and it's not much effort to always indicate, and one day when you miss someone if might just save you from having an accident.

What's the downside to indicating all the time anyway? Why not do it? It can't be because "indicating should never be a habit"; because provided you understand what it's for, then it'll never become automatic for you. Most of the time, I suspect that you and I indicate the same as each other - we look around, see who will benefit, and indicate to them at the time it serves then best. The only difference is that if I don't see anyone, I indicate anyway just in case, because I know that accidents are rare and it might be a rare slip up in my observation that causes one. The reason you don't indicate is because you assume your observation is perfect every hour of every day. It isn't - I know mine isn't!

Edited by RobM77 on Sunday 18th March 00:16

[Len Woodman]

SVS said:

I still fail to see the issue with “over-signalling”. Surely the downsides of under-signalling outweigh the downsides (if any) of over-signalling? A missed signal can cause a significant problem. Whereas over-signalling rarely does.

I know Roadcraft dislikes needless signalling (I’ve done HPC). However, things have moved on since Lord Cottenham’s day; traffic volume’s much heavier and it’s easier to miss someone who could benefit from a signal. We all make human errors, regardless of training.

Of course a failure to inform another road user of your intentions is high-risk. Roadcraft is the manual designed to accompany "Hendon-style" intensive training, still of considerable hours. At the completion of the appropriate courses a driver should be able to make the correct judgement consistently. If not up to this standard it may well require a driver to give a signal 'just-in-case' - refer to Fleetcraft (also Police Foundation publication) which assumes the target readership is not 'advanced'.

Whilst in the UK I picked up a rare copy of "Steering-wheel Papers". I've read it twice so far and used it for reference several times. I suppose it depends on how it is read (like the Bible) but to me the basics still seem very similar.

In NSW (Australia) Where basic driver training doesn't even include the routines MSP / PSL or anything similar and where signalling is a legal requirement we end up with a total confusion of signalling abilities. It seems the natural tendency is to signal, move and look. Drivers then assume (wrongly) that signals give them the right to move. "But I gave a signal" is often seen in the crash reports coming across my desk.

I evaluate approximately 20 average Australian drivers each month - from cars to HGV2 (do you still use that?). I haven't come across any who drive even to the same standard as UK IAM (apart from police instructors who were trained by others who trained at Hendon in the 1990s). Almost all need adjustments to their driving because of poor observation and signalling. This often includes dealing with unnecessary, misleading signalling. It is quite amazing to see the better performance of Brit ex-pats.

[RobM77]

I think there's a danger here of assuming that if an advanced driver decides to signal all/most of the time, his driving suddenly degrades and he signals through habit. That needn't be the case. I'd like to suggest that it takes more skill, not less, to account for things you haven't seen as well as those you have. This is a case of understanding where other road users might be hidden; so broad daylight in open ground with no hedgerows one probably wouldn't indicate, but on a road with lots of things for pedestrians to hide behind, or at night, that is when one may decide to signal to an unseen person.

[Dr Jekyll]

RobM77 said:

I think there's a danger here of assuming that if an advanced driver decides to signal all/most of the time, his driving suddenly degrades and he signals through habit. That needn't be the case. I'd like to suggest that it takes more skill, not less, to account for things you haven't seen as well as those you have. This is a case of understanding where other road users might be hidden; so broad daylight in open ground with no hedgerows one probably wouldn't indicate, but on a road with lots of things for pedestrians to hide behind, or at night, that is when one may decide to signal to an unseen person.

Exactly, this is the whole point. Nobody is suggesting refraining from signal just because you can't see anyone. The whole controversy is whether you should still signal even when you can see that nobody would be affected by the manoeuvre.

[Len Woodman]

RobM77 said:

I think there's a danger here of assuming that if an advanced driver decides to signal all/most of the time, his driving suddenly degrades and he signals through habit. That needn't be the case. I'd like to suggest that it takes more skill, not less, to account for things you haven't seen as well as those you have. This is a case of understanding where other road users might be hidden; so broad daylight in open ground with no hedgerows one probably wouldn't indicate, but on a road with lots of things for pedestrians to hide behind, or at night, that is when one may decide to signal to an unseen person.

That's it.

Under the Australian Road Rules a driver must always indicate. When I do a commentary drive out of town it may include, "Turning left at T-intersection; MIRRORS; no one behind, all roads ahead open, with clear views and no others around; SIGNAL as required; POSITION okay; early braking....." etc.

In the UK I would a) say junction and b) "SIGNAL not needed..."

[Note: I find it essential that drivers in Australia must indicate when overtaking AND returning back to left - It means; "I've got in front of you even if I passed on double white lines on a bend and I'm going to push in front of you so you can can see my big V8 Ute and then I'm going to slow right down so you can see my bumper bar better!"]

[Pica-Pica]

RobM77 said:

I think there's a danger here of assuming that if an advanced driver decides to signal all/most of the time, his driving suddenly degrades and he signals through habit. That needn't be the case. I'd like to suggest that it takes more skill, not less, to account for things you haven't seen as well as those you have. This is a case of understanding where other road users might be hidden; so broad daylight in open ground with no hedgerows one probably wouldn't indicate, but on a road with lots of things for pedestrians to hide behind, or at night, that is when one may decide to signal to an unseen person.

I am not an over-signaller,. For instance, I see little point in signalling to mover out to overtake on a motorway, when vehicles behind are a long way back, and there is nothing in front of the target vehicle. My attitude would change at night, when the target vehicle has fewer cues as to my position and distance. However, I am fully aware of the consideration of the hidden pedestrian who may appear, usually when both hands are on the wheel executing a turn. So yes, in those circumstances I indicate.

As a pedestrian, I have lost count of vehicles that do not indicate to move off from the kerbside - usually just as I am about to cross the road near them! (DRLs help now, at least they indicate that vehicle’s engine is running).

[Pica-Pica]

Len Woodman said:

RobM77 said:

I think there's a danger here of assuming that if an advanced driver decides to signal all/most of the time, his driving suddenly degrades and he signals through habit. That needn't be the case. I'd like to suggest that it takes more skill, not less, to account for things you haven't seen as well as those you have. This is a case of understanding where other road users might be hidden; so broad daylight in open ground with no hedgerows one probably wouldn't indicate, but on a road with lots of things for pedestrians to hide behind, or at night, that is when one may decide to signal to an unseen person.

That's it.

Under the Australian Road Rules a driver must always indicate. When I do a commentary drive out of town it may include, "Turning left at T-intersection; MIRRORS; no one behind, all roads ahead open, with clear views and no others around; SIGNAL as required; POSITION okay; early braking....." etc.

In the UK I would a) say junction and b) "SIGNAL not needed..."

[Note: I find it essential that drivers in Australia must indicate when overtaking AND returning back to left - It means; "I've got in front of you even if I passed on double white lines on a bend and I'm going to push in front of you so you can can see my big V8 Ute and then I'm going to slow right down so you can see my bumper bar better!"]

Indicating to pull back in seems very common in Wales, particularly on A road overtakes. To me it seems to be that driver’s way of letting on-coming traffic know that, ‘yes, I have made an overtake but, I am now pulling back in so as not to inconvenience you’. It is not a signal I do unless there is a clear need. It is also common to see this done by many on motorways, this signal to pull back in quite often is made just as a an exit slip road looms up!

[RobM77]

Dr Jekyll said:

RobM77 said:

I think there's a danger here of assuming that if an advanced driver decides to signal all/most of the time, his driving suddenly degrades and he signals through habit. That needn't be the case. I'd like to suggest that it takes more skill, not less, to account for things you haven't seen as well as those you have. This is a case of understanding where other road users might be hidden; so broad daylight in open ground with no hedgerows one probably wouldn't indicate, but on a road with lots of things for pedestrians to hide behind, or at night, that is when one may decide to signal to an unseen person.

Exactly, this is the whole point. Nobody is suggesting refraining from signal just because you can't see anyone. The whole controversy is whether you should still signal even when you can see that nobody would be affected by the manoeuvre.

Surely you've just worded the same thing differently? What if there is someone who would benefit, but you haven't seen them? For example, not signalling to pull back in after passing a lorry you think nobody will be affected, but failing to spot a motorbike that's undertaking you at the time (and perhaps in your blind spot).

The other problem of course is when the signalling driver sees the other road user just fine, but they don't think that other person needs the signal, when in fact they do. The classic example of this that we get a lot on this forum is drivers who don't think they need to signal when joining a motorway, because the sliproad ends and it's obvious what they're about to do. That's just a plain inability to think the problem through properly, because not all sliproads end - some become a new lane one. How are the other cars on the motorway supposed to know the difference? There may not have been a sign, or there may have been and it was obscured from them, or there may have been and they just weren't looking properly - either way, I always signal if I intend to move from a sliproad onto lane one, to tell those other drivers that I'm joining their lane. There are lots of other examples that we get on here, but I think you see my point?

[Dr Jekyll]

RobM77 said:

Dr Jekyll said:

RobM77 said:

I think there's a danger here of assuming that if an advanced driver decides to signal all/most of the time, his driving suddenly degrades and he signals through habit. That needn't be the case. I'd like to suggest that it takes more skill, not less, to account for things you haven't seen as well as those you have. This is a case of understanding where other road users might be hidden; so broad daylight in open ground with no hedgerows one probably wouldn't indicate, but on a road with lots of things for pedestrians to hide behind, or at night, that is when one may decide to signal to an unseen person.

Exactly, this is the whole point. Nobody is suggesting refraining from signal just because you can't see anyone. The whole controversy is whether you should still signal even when you can see that nobody would be affected by the manoeuvre.

Surely you've just worded the same thing differently? What if there is someone who would benefit, but you haven't seen them? For example, not signalling to pull back in after passing a lorry you think nobody will be affected, but failing to spot a motorbike that's undertaking you at the time (and perhaps in your blind spot).

No, I was pointing out the fundamental difference between not signalling because you can't see anyone who will be affected, and not signalling because you can see that nobody will be affected.

[Len Woodman]

Pica-Pica said:

I am not an over-signaller,. For instance, I see little point in signalling to mover out to overtake on a motorway, when vehicles behind are a long way back, and there is nothing in front of the target vehicle. My attitude would change at night, when the target vehicle has fewer cues as to my position and distance. However, I am fully aware of the consideration of the hidden pedestrian who may appear, usually when both hands are on the wheel executing a turn. So yes, in those circumstances I indicate.

As a pedestrian, I have lost count of vehicles that do not indicate to move off from the kerbside - usually just as I am about to cross the road near them! (DRLs help now, at least they indicate that vehicle’s engine is running).

Oz again! In NSW it is required that a driver indicates for five seconds before moving off! - Must be okay after five seconds!

[RobM77]

Dr Jekyll said:

RobM77 said:

Dr Jekyll said:

RobM77 said:

I think there's a danger here of assuming that if an advanced driver decides to signal all/most of the time, his driving suddenly degrades and he signals through habit. That needn't be the case. I'd like to suggest that it takes more skill, not less, to account for things you haven't seen as well as those you have. This is a case of understanding where other road users might be hidden; so broad daylight in open ground with no hedgerows one probably wouldn't indicate, but on a road with lots of things for pedestrians to hide behind, or at night, that is when one may decide to signal to an unseen person.

Exactly, this is the whole point. Nobody is suggesting refraining from signal just because you can't see anyone. The whole controversy is whether you should still signal even when you can see that nobody would be affected by the manoeuvre.

Surely you've just worded the same thing differently? What if there is someone who would benefit, but you haven't seen them? For example, not signalling to pull back in after passing a lorry you think nobody will be affected, but failing to spot a motorbike that's undertaking you at the time (and perhaps in your blind spot).

No, I was pointing out the fundamental difference between not signalling because you can't see anyone who will be affected, and not signalling because you can see that nobody will be affected.

Your two statements are only different if your observation is 100% perfect.

[Dr Jekyll]

RobM77 said:

Dr Jekyll said:

RobM77 said:

Dr Jekyll said:

RobM77 said:

I think there's a danger here of assuming that if an advanced driver decides to signal all/most of the time, his driving suddenly degrades and he signals through habit. That needn't be the case. I'd like to suggest that it takes more skill, not less, to account for things you haven't seen as well as those you have. This is a case of understanding where other road users might be hidden; so broad daylight in open ground with no hedgerows one probably wouldn't indicate, but on a road with lots of things for pedestrians to hide behind, or at night, that is when one may decide to signal to an unseen person.

Exactly, this is the whole point. Nobody is suggesting refraining from signal just because you can't see anyone. The whole controversy is whether you should still signal even when you can see that nobody would be affected by the manoeuvre.

Surely you've just worded the same thing differently? What if there is someone who would benefit, but you haven't seen them? For example, not signalling to pull back in after passing a lorry you think nobody will be affected, but failing to spot a motorbike that's undertaking you at the time (and perhaps in your blind spot).

No, I was pointing out the fundamental difference between not signalling because you can't see anyone who will be affected, and not signalling because you can see that nobody will be affected.

Your two statements are only different if your observation is 100% perfect.

If you decide it's safe to overtake because you can see that nobody is coming the other way, is that the same deciding it's safe just because you can't see anyone coming the other way? Of course not. Allowing for what cannot be seen is just as much part of driving as allowing for what can be seen.

[heebeegeetee]

Dr Jekyll said:

No, I was pointing out the fundamental difference between not signalling because you can't see anyone who will be affected, and not signalling because you can see that nobody will be affected.

And if you're wrong, what's your failsafe?

[Dr Jekyll]

heebeegeetee said:

Dr Jekyll said:

No, I was pointing out the fundamental difference between not signalling because you can't see anyone who will be affected, and not signalling because you can see that nobody will be affected.

And if you're wrong, what's your failsafe?

I don't have one, neither have you.

[RobM77]

Dr Jekyll said:

heebeegeetee said:

Dr Jekyll said:

No, I was pointing out the fundamental difference between not signalling because you can't see anyone who will be affected, and not signalling because you can see that nobody will be affected.

And if you're wrong, what's your failsafe?

I don't have one, neither have you.

"Failsafe" assumes 100% safety, which can never be achieved. Instead, advanced driving is about adding layers of safety, so if one thing fails you have fallback/s, which although that has a chance of failing too, because there's more than one of them you're safer. The way probability works is that if you have multiple events and both need to happen to get an outcome, you multiply the probabilities, so it's pretty effective. Like climbing a ladder always keeping three points of contact, you're much less likely to fall than if you have only two.

I'm not sure the overtaking example is relevant, because there are no situations where you wouldn't signal when overtaking someone, because the person being overtaken needs to know what's going on. Nevertheless, on this topic alone of signalling (for example, to exit a motorway or turn up a side road), the idea behind signalling when you can't see anyone is to account for the situation where you make a mistake in your observation and there is actually someone there - everyone makes mistakes. Signalling doesn't guarantee your safety, but you're much less likely to crash into the biker hidden in your blindspot if you've given him advance warning that you're changing your speed and course than if you haven't and just move anyway.

[MaxSo]

Just indicate.

[Dr Jekyll]

RobM77 said:

I'm not sure the overtaking example is relevant, because there are no situations where you wouldn't signal when overtaking someone, because the person being overtaken needs to know what's going on. Nevertheless, on this topic alone of signalling (for example, to exit a motorway or turn up a side road), the idea behind signalling when you can't see anyone is to account for the situation where you make a mistake in your observation and there is actually someone there - everyone makes mistakes. Signalling doesn't guarantee your safety, but you're much less likely to crash into the biker hidden in your blindspot if you've given him advance warning that you're changing your speed and course than if you haven't and just move anyway.

The point of the overtaking example is that you overtake when you can see there is nobody to come into conflict with, not just when you can't see anyone, that's the distinction I was making. If you overtake when it's perfectly safe you don't expect to be criticised because 'if there had been a blind bend then there might have been someone you didn't see'. If there is a possibility of an affected road user that you can't see, you take that possibility into consideration, for example by not making the overtake, or by signaling for the turn just as you would if you knew there was someone there. If you aren't confident in your observation, why make the manoeuvre at all?

Incidentally I very rarely signal when overtaking. If I do it tends to be for the benefit of traffic behind not the vehicle being overtaken.

[RobM77]

Dr Jekyll said:

RobM77 said:

I'm not sure the overtaking example is relevant, because there are no situations where you wouldn't signal when overtaking someone, because the person being overtaken needs to know what's going on. Nevertheless, on this topic alone of signalling (for example, to exit a motorway or turn up a side road), the idea behind signalling when you can't see anyone is to account for the situation where you make a mistake in your observation and there is actually someone there - everyone makes mistakes. Signalling doesn't guarantee your safety, but you're much less likely to crash into the biker hidden in your blindspot if you've given him advance warning that you're changing your speed and course than if you haven't and just move anyway.

The point of the overtaking example is that you overtake when you can see there is nobody to come into conflict with, not just when you can't see anyone, that's the distinction I was making. If you overtake when it's perfectly safe you don't expect to be criticised because 'if there had been a blind bend then there might have been someone you didn't see'. If there is a possibility of an affected road user that you can't see, you take that possibility into consideration, for example by not making the overtake, or by signaling for the turn just as you would if you knew there was someone there. If you aren't confident in your observation, why make the manoeuvre at all?

Incidentally I very rarely signal when overtaking. If I do it tends to be for the benefit of traffic behind not the vehicle being overtaken.

There is always the possibility that you've missed something with your observation. Nobody is perfect.

Second, you don't indicate when you're overtaking someone?! That's just unsafe. There are lots of reasons that person might need to know they're being overtaken.

• The motorbike in your blind spot that's in the process of overtaking you at the time and that you've failed to see.

• The underconfident driver in the slower car in front who is about to stop and let you past, but if he knew you were overtaking then he needn't bother looking at that opportunity coming up to stop, checking his mirrors, and preparing to slow.

• The deer crouched in the hedgerow up ahead that he's spotted but you haven't. The driver you're overtaking is planning to move over to the right to keep himself safer and 'herd' the deer back into the undergrowth (a standard technique that works well - the more angle you can get on wildlife the more likely they are to commit to a direction to run when they see your car). Yes, he may not indicate to do that, but does that give you the right to take you both out?

• The pothole that the driver is about to go round. If he knew you were overtaking then he'd run through the pothole instead.

• The driver you're overtaking is turning right up ahead into a hidden entrance you haven't spotted yet (hidden by grass perhaps).

• The driver is planning on pulling up on the right-hand side of the road to park. Yes, he should park on the left and yes, he should indicate to do this - but what if he's a bad driver? Does that give you the right to be in an almighty accident with him?

• The driver is going around a cyclist up ahead that you haven't seen yet.

• The pedestrian that you haven't seen who is planning on crossing the road from your right to left by strolling across the empty side of the road, waiting for you both to pass and the completing their crossing. Lots of pedestrians do this and when they glance left to cross and see two cars, neither of which is indicating, they may not bother to look again before crossing. You haven't seen the pedestrian by the way - because your observation isn't perfect.

• The driver of the car in front may want to prepare to help you with your overtake.

• The driver of the car in front may decide to speed up (for a variety of reasons) just before you commit to the manoeuvre. Just because he's not spotted you start the overtake doesn't mean he didn't glance in his mirror a second earlier to see if you were signalling - nobody looks in their mirrors all the time.

Convinced yet? I can think of more!