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

Lum

Aha, this is like the old classic one of indicating that you're going to park at the side of the road just after the left turn that someone is waiting to pull out of, then being surprised when the person pulls in front of you. Would be nice if there was a way to only fire the rear indicators at that point

alastairq

Lum wrote: »

Aha, this is like the old classic one of indicating that you're going to park at the side of the road just after the left turn that someone is waiting to pull out of, then being surprised when the person pulls in front of you. Would be nice if there was a way to only fire the rear indicators at that point

take the bulbs out of the front one's? :T

Lum

alastairq wrote: »

take the bulbs out of the front one's? :T

So indicate left to say you're going to pull over, remove bulb, pull out and then you can fire your rear left signal only so as not to confuse the guy waiting to pull out, only he's already left now because I obstructed the road by stopping early to remove an indicator bulb.

I do, however, wish that cars came with a straight ahead indicator so that at roundabouts and similar, we can tell the difference between someone who is actually going straight on and who is the muppet who forgot to signal.

alastairq

Lum wrote: »

So indicate left to say you're going to pull over, remove bulb, pull out and then you can fire your rear left signal only so as not to confuse the guy waiting to pull out, only he's already left now because I obstructed the road by stopping early to remove an indicator bulb.

I suggest removing it entirely...a Sunday morning should be all it takes? Then you would be no different to all the trillions of motorists this thread seems to be complaining about?

I do, however, wish that cars came with a straight ahead indicator so that at roundabouts and similar, we can tell the difference between someone who is actually going straight on and who is the muppet who forgot to signal.

There is no difference....just like, there's no difference between a highly-trained specialist driver sat at the traffic lights in a Ford Fiesta...and a numpty sat at the same lights in a Ford Fiesta?

Anyway, even if we all had 'straight-ahead' indicators [whatever 'straight-ahead' is, really?]....no-one apparently, according to this thread, would use them...

So we're back to square-one?

Do what you all think is right...simples?



For your parking thing..I'd simply not indicate until level with the junction.....slowing down beforehand is the key really....

As long as the tailgaters behind have at least a half dozen flashes to wake them up, that's all they should need? Simply drive slow enough as the parking point approaches, to get those half dozen flashes in?

[It's the approach speed that's important...controlling the berkshires behind.]


If, then 8 of them are stopped behind your parked vehicle, just give them a knowingly disdainful look, and walk off!

Lum

alastairq wrote: »

There is no difference....just like, there's no difference between a highly-trained specialist driver sat at the traffic lights in a Ford Fiesta...and a numpty sat at the same lights in a Ford Fiesta?

There's a reason why I want one.

There is a busy roundabout near me that previously had no lane markings but was generally treated as three lanes. The council have now painted lane markings on it dropping it to two lanes.

So every road has two lanes in, one lane out and it's a two lane roundabout, two roads crossing each other at 90 degree angles, the textbook roundabout that you'd find in the HC.

I go straight ahead at this roundabout, and so as a textbook roundabout I follow the textbook, enter from the left hand lane, go around it in the left lane, signal left once alongside exit #1 and then exit. Many folk enter from the left lane and ignore the lane markings, straddling two lanes or just cutting all the way into L2 in front of the poor sod trying to turn right. I've even watched a police car enter from L2, attempt to go straight on and then get cut off by two people who entered from L1 and went around in L1.

What normally happens to me though, I enter from L1, start going around and because I've decided to actually stick in the damn lanes, the person waiting to enter from the next road thinks "Oh she's turning left and hasn't bothered to signal" and so pulls out in front of me. Only way I've found to sometimes prevent it is to give it some welly and get my right wheels as close to the centre line as possible, but depending on the conditions that isn't always suitable.

Hence, I'd like a straight ahead signal on cars


As for the parking thing... I know, was just giving a slightly easier to understand example of what you were describing.

NBLondon

zagfles wrote: »

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.

Thanks for the clarification. However, in that case, there should be no oncoming traffic (their light was at red) so no need to signal to them (right alastairq?). The signal could only be for the vehicle behind. So I still say the cyclist was more to blame.

zagfles wrote: »

. 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.

I sort of half agree with you, that it would improve the flow, but on the other hand, if a crossing point is too busy - it could lead to the stopped traffic filling the junction. Here's a roundabout near me in South London which has pelicans on each approach because the roads are trunk routes. Great, except that the one nearest the McDonald's is so busy that the queuing traffic backs up onto the roundabout. If it had been 25 metres further away - it wouldn't happen - but then the burger lovers probably wouldn't use it. As it is, many just lumber in the straightest diagonal line from the bus stop to the doorway.

The all-red cycle needs to be combined with intelligent signals that balance the numbers of pedestrians waiting with the number of vehicles passing and doesn't stop a traffic flow where no-one is waiting. Co-ordinating a sequence of these is technically possible given enough computing power - after all Turin was doing it in 1969 until Michael Caine and Benny Hill mucked it up

Lum

NBLondon wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification. However, in that case, there should be no oncoming traffic (their light was at red) so no need to signal to them (right alastairq?). The signal could only be for the vehicle behind. So I still say the cyclist was more to blame.

Legally yes this one is super simple, cyclist went through a red light and got splatted by someone who correctly proceeded through a green light. Result = one dented car and one dead or injured cyclist and possible Darwin Award candidate.

Reality? If the driver had signalled the collision might not have even happened.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather be in the wrong and avoid an accident completely than be in the right but now having to spend time picking bits of bicycle out of my radiator and dealing with incompetent insurance companies who want to write my car off because they can't find me a new front bumper.

NBLondon

Well of course you would... like any competent driver. Me, being a cynical London motorist, I'd take an extra look as I turned because I know plenty of cyclists dash through on red especially if they themselves are turning left.

What I'm doubting is whether the indicator would have stopped the cyclist... Based on some I have seen, they may have decided that they could get across before the car started turning - but got it wrong.

Does a large vehicle indicating left and carrying a sign saying "Do not undertake" stop some cyclists from trying to do so? Nope. I've seen it happen.

Before some of you start frothing - I know it's probably more likely that a vehicle will turn left without looking to see if a cyclist is already there - but that doesn't mean that there aren't some cyclists who don't look for indicators.

NBLondon

Lum wrote: »

Hence, I'd like a straight ahead signal on cars

How about wiring an extra flasher unit behind the badge? You could actually do this with an old Wolseley. Or a Rover P4.

Hands up anyone who knows the correct hand signal for straight ahead!

Lum

NBLondon wrote: »

How about wiring an extra flasher unit behind the badge? You could actually do this with an old Wolseley. Or a Rover P4.

Hands up anyone who knows the correct hand signal for straight ahead!

It's a middle finger given shortly after the first exit after the plonker pulls in front of you.

The actual hand signal, even google doesn't know, it only knows the one for cyclists which no-one is going to see through a windscreen and isn't in the highway code anyway.