Is it just me, or is indicating going out of fashion?

Strider590

alastairq wrote: »

well...you'll only find me using the indicator [to inform of an intended change of position]...to overtake a cycles,..... IF......I deem there are other road users who need to know/be told what I intend to do.

I think the worst offenders are vans and large 4x4's, any vehicle that's tall, wide, fast and short. Nothing worse than following a van at 60, only to have them suddenly swerve (without any indication) passed a cyclist giving them very little room, because you find yourself either having to pass in the same manner OR practically pull an e-stop to avoid hitting the shaken up cyclist or any oncoming vehicle.

zagfles

Lum wrote: »

How about indicating because on the off chance that a cyclist ever actually does a shoulder check at least they'll know what your intent is?

But surely an "advanced" driver would be aware enough of his surroundings to be able to predict that the cyclist will do a shoulder check :rotfl:

almillar

If you're overtaking a cyclist, and someone is following you, I can identify 2 road users that need you to indicate - the cyclist and the road user behind you. You may be blocking their view of the cyclist and your indicator might make them aware.
Again, this is snobbery about flashing orange lights, not indicating does not make you a better driver!

NBLondon

zagfles wrote: »

For a start, it wasn't a filter lane, both lanes could go straight.

It was in your original post - hence I'm sure the HC says (or used to) that indication may not be necessary. My point was that in the case as described, the lack of indication was the lesser evil.

zagfles wrote: »

Secondly, even it it was, that doesn't mean every other road user knows it is. How is a pedestrian crossing the side road expected to know it's a filter lane?

Well - I look at the whole junction for that very reason (and the cyclists jumping red lights) - but I concede your point that the signs may not be visible to a pedestrian.

If there's a pelican - it would be synchronised with the filters and stay red - but I bet we've both seen pedestrians who would cross anyway...

zagfles

NBLondon wrote: »

It was in your original post - hence I'm sure the HC says (or used to) that indication may not be necessary. My point was that in the case as described, the lack of indication was the lesser evil.

I said it had a right filter, ie a green light with a green arrow pointing right indicating traffic could turn right without giving way to oncoming traffic. Not a filter lane, traffic going straight on can legitimately use the right lane and often do. It's not a filter lane, therefore nobody can assume the traffic in the right lane is turning right.

Well - I look at the whole junction for that very reason (and the cyclists jumping red lights) - but I concede your point that the signs may not be visible to a pedestrian.

Indeed. And of course pedestrians shouldn't even need to understand motoring signs. They are far more likely to understand indicators. Even if they can see the signs.

If there's a pelican - it would be synchronised with the filters and stay red - but I bet we've both seen pedestrians who would cross anyway...

Which isn't illegal. Personally I think we should adopt the system in most other countries where turning traffic has to give way to pedestrians. It would mean we wouldn't have these stupid crossings where all directions of traffic have to stop to let one person cross, would improve traffic flow and be less waiting for pedestrians.

leosayer

Prothet_of_Doom wrote: »

So try ignoring the indicators of other people and see how good your power of prediction is.

That's my approach as well. I've been told and see for myself that it's foolish to rely on other driver's indication.

In some ways, I think we'd make better drivers if indicators were removed from all cars.

alastairq

If you're overtaking a cyclist, and someone is following you, I can identify 2 road users that need you to indicate - the cyclist and the road user behind you. You may be blocking their view of the cyclist and your indicator might make them aware.

That's strange..I can't identify anyone who needs to know.

Maybe you're driving in a differnt part of the word to me?

Robisere

There are so many people here in agreement about this, makes me wonder who are all the ones NOT indicating!

It is just part of the same problem today: a lack of thought for the other person, a complete, selfish disregard for anyone else. And it is not confined to the road user, but since that is the topic here, this is my own pet hate - drivers at a roundabout, who not only fail to indicate their intended direction, but do not appear to know the priority rule at roundabouts, whether major or mini-roundabouts it is the same rule. GIVE WAY TO TRAFFIC FROM YOUR RIGHT!
It's just so simple, if everyone does that, there would be no problem. Instead of which, there are the inconsiderate, selfish ones (as described above) who just sail across as if they own the road. Then the other morons, totally clueless, who have priority but sit there waiting for everybody else to move.

There is so much bad, inconsiderate and downright dangerous driving today that I could give many examples, but the only other I will mention is the driver who 'tailgates' me, as if they would very much like to possess my rear bumper. I usually tap my brake pedal sharply at least twice and mouth "Back Off!!!" (or similar) in the mirror, which sometimes does the trick. Failing that, I just go slower. And slower. They are doing this because they think I am not going fast enough, it usually penetrates their dim faculties that I am trying to demonstrate that they are in the wrong.

alastairq

Strider590 wrote: »

I think the worst offenders are vans and large 4x4's, any vehicle that's tall, wide, fast and short. Nothing worse than following a van at 60, only to have them suddenly swerve (without any indication) passed a cyclist giving them very little room, because you find yourself either having to pass in the same manner OR practically pull an e-stop to avoid hitting the shaken up cyclist or any oncoming vehicle.

That's what happens when one drives 'blind'.....?

Ie, are either too close, or not in the best road position to see past the vehicle in front.

As I said, I signal, if I deem it necessary.

Which means, that might be every time I pass a cyclist, or at no time.....with all the huge range of options in between.

The indication really has little to do with the actual presence of a cyclist...everything to do with informing others who I deem need to know, of my intention to change position.

The ability to decide what needs to be done in any situation, is what is looked-for by those who assess my driving.

I would get no benefit of the doubt. [and, I expect none]

The point I make is..simply because others do not do, what we ourselves feel should have been done..does not make them wrong.

Or us.

alastairq

GIVE WAY TO TRAFFIC FROM YOUR RIGHT!

In itself a very broad statement.

For, what is actually meant by 'giving way?'

Your idea of 'give way' may not be mine.

And this difference is looked-for on every type of driving test.

If a driver moves off and is in front, and such action causes no problems whatsoever to us, have they still 'failed to give way?'

Always, especially on a roundabout, we will have to reduce speed because of a slower vehicle. It's a fact of life that, at some point we become a following vehicle, to someone who has emerged ahead of us.

Just as there is a chunter about drivers failing to give way, so we can chunter about drivers haring round r/bouts convinced they have an absolute priority over everyone else trying to enter, thereby failing to exercise due care.[Usually by moving far too fast for their ability to see clearly ahead.]

Drivers often feel someone has 'failed to give way' simply because the other driver has occupied what we see as our own, personal road-space in front of us. Where as, the reality is, they have actually created no problems whatsoever by moving off when they did, apart from affronting our personal dignity by daring to do what they did.

And horns get hit!


If a driver has not had to slow, stop, or change course..dramatically..there is no failure to give-way.

For sure, there may be adjustments of speed, or direction......but if there is plenty of warning of the need to do the above, no failure to give-way.

Of course, if one is actually moving too fast, then one is going to create problems for oneself.