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

zagfles

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.

What about pedestrians crossing the side road?

So I still say the cyclist was more to blame.

More, yes, but they were both to blame. Driving on the basis that everyone obeys all the rules of the road is pretty stupid when it's well known that people don't.

If you were driving at exactly 70 on the motorway in lane 2, do you think it's OK to move into lane 3 without indicating or checking your mirrors, on the basis that nobody will be overtaking you because they'd be breaking the speed limit? That's just as daft as assuming no cyclists jump red lights.

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

At busy junctions it's not so sensible, but there's plenty of crossings that aren't so busy where all traffic from all 4 directions is stopped so one person can cross. And often traffic is stopped for no-one because they've nipped across in a gap in the traffic before getting the green man!

SCO

Strider590 wrote: »

Curious as to how actively checking all mirrors and blind spots and then deciding a signal is not needed, is lazy????

The alternative being signal automatically (as a lot of people do) and then blindly hope there's no body in the way?

The point is half the time a signal is required, why do all the other checks and then not signal when other road users are around you?

The only time a signal could be considered not required in my view is if you are the only vechicle on the road.

Strider590

SCO wrote: »

The point is half the time a signal is required, why do all the other checks and then not signal when other road users are around you?

The only time a signal could be considered not required in my view is if you are the only vechicle on the road.

Because actively thinking "do I need to signal?" insures that you do those checks every single time, instead of what most people seem to do, which is to brake, signal and hope they don't hit anyone.

If I just ate pies/chocolate/cake, instead of thinking "do I need to eat that pie/chocolate/cake?" i'd be the size of a small house by now......

The number of people who drive down dual carriageways and straight line a roundabout because they haven't checked their mirrors and seen ME next to them, it literally happens at least once every single day. People DO NOT check their surroundings anymore and im 100% sure that it's through laziness and/or through subconscious, automatic indicating. If they indicate every time, they don't need to check their mirrors, therefore if they indicate every time, whatever happens is someone else's fault.

alastairq

SCO wrote: »

The point is half the time a signal is required, why do all the other checks and then not signal when other road users are around you?

The only time a signal could be considered not required in my view is if you are the only vehicle on the road.

Then you are entirely missing the point.....!

You should not simply be 'checking'!

That is not what good observation is about.

The driver should be 'looking'....ie, 'seeking information', identifying whether any other road user.....[not necessarily a driver]....actually needs to know what your intentions are.

There may well be other road users around...but..do they need to know?


And..when you've decided someone needs to know..and you indicate.......is that it?

Most definitely not!

YOU then need to confirm the road user you are 'talking to' has seen your indication, and is acting on it.

Do you bother with that?

This is especially important when changing lane [perhaps to overtake, or make a turn ahead]....on a dual carriageway. If you're talking to a vehicle behind, and in the next lane....once you've 'informed' them of your intention, the above needs to be done before carrying out your intention.

Just one, simple, everyday example?

Whether I indicate, or remain silent, will depend on whether I think you, or anyone else, needs to know....!

That in itself will depend entirely on the environment, traffic situation and a million other factors.

Like I said earlier.....if I intend to do something with my vehicle, firstly I identify if anyone needs to be told beforehand.

I identify, who needs to know. It's not a 'check'..its a pro-active process.
[a 'check' is a confirmation of an existing condition].

I do not indicate, wherever or whenever, simply because, that was what I was taught/teach.

That would imply a driver has no intention of advancing their skills beyond those basic items required to pass the test....an minimum competency.

And their driving licence becomes a mere travel pass.

Strider590

Let's face it, most people will never have seen this ^^ type of driving, because if you were there, then they probably would have indicated.

So what's happening is people in SCO's group, have only ever seen people that simply cannot be ar5ed to indicate and as such do not understand what's being explained above.

zagfles

Strider590 wrote: »

Because actively thinking "do I need to signal?" insures that you do those checks every single time, instead of what most people seem to do, which is to brake, signal and hope they don't hit anyone.

But as I'm not an "advanced" driver, merely an amateur with 25 years no-claims, I don't have ESP nor am I able to see through brick walls (see my example in post #42).

Therefore I always indicate and will carry on doing so. Whatever any supposedly "advanced" driver tries to tell me.

SCO

alastairq wrote: »

Then you are entirely missing the point.....!

You should not simply be 'checking'!

That is not what good observation is about.

The driver should be 'looking'....ie, 'seeking information', identifying whether any other road user.....[not necessarily a driver]....actually needs to know what your intentions are.

There may well be other road users around...but..do they need to know?


And..when you've decided someone needs to know..and you indicate.......is that it?

Most definitely not!

YOU then need to confirm the road user you are 'talking to' has seen your indication, and is acting on it.

Do you bother with that?

This is especially important when changing lane [perhaps to overtake, or make a turn ahead]....on a dual carriageway. If you're talking to a vehicle behind, and in the next lane....once you've 'informed' them of your intention, the above needs to be done before carrying out your intention.

Just one, simple, everyday example?

Whether I indicate, or remain silent, will depend on whether I think you, or anyone else, needs to know....!

That in itself will depend entirely on the environment, traffic situation and a million other factors.

Like I said earlier.....if I intend to do something with my vehicle, firstly I identify if anyone needs to be told beforehand.

I identify, who needs to know. It's not a 'check'..its a pro-active process.
[a 'check' is a confirmation of an existing condition].

I do not indicate, wherever or whenever, simply because, that was what I was taught/teach.

That would imply a driver has no intention of advancing their skills beyond those basic items required to pass the test....an minimum competency.

And their driving licence becomes a mere travel pass.

My point is when you say you identify who needs to know you are therefore telling us there is other road users around you so you should be signalling, what if you miss someone?

Imagine the situation on the motorway you look in your mirror see a car a wee bit further back in the outer lane and just move out without indication, say this car is doing 90 (not condoning that) it will be at you in no time and you gave no indication of your intention so you could then cause a high speed accident.

As i said before if there is other road users around any change of lane, direction etc should always be indicated.

SCO

Strider590 wrote: »

Let's face it, most people will never have seen this ^^ type of driving, because if you were there, then they probably would have indicated.

So what's happening is people in SCO's group, have only ever seen people that simply cannot be ar5ed to indicate and as such do not understand what's being explained above.

If no indication is given other road users can only assume that no checks were made, as you will have seen when driving a lot of people are in there own world.

zagfles

SCO wrote: »

My point is when you say you identify who needs to know you are therefore telling us there is other road users around you so you should be signalling, what if you miss someone?

It's not something us mere mortals can ever understand. They have the ability to see through brick walls and read the mind of every other road user. In the example I gave they would have known about the cyclist haring out of the blind alleyway, a mere few buildings in the way is no obstacle to their powers of observation.

Imagine the situation on the motorway you look in your mirror see a car a wee bit further back in the outer lane and just move out without indication, say this car is doing 90 (not condoning that) it will be at you in no time and you gave no indication of your intention so you could then cause a high speed accident.

As i said before if there is other road users around any change of lane, direction etc should always be indicated.

Or even if there isn't. There was no-one visible when I put my indicator on in the post #42 example, had I not been indicating I could have killed a cyclist. I really need to improve my observational skills, do the IAM do an x-ray vision course?

alastairq

Imagine the situation on the motorway you look in your mirror see a car a wee bit further back in the outer lane and just move out without indication, say this car is doing 90 (not condoning that) it will be at you in no time and you gave no indication of your intention so you could then cause a high speed accident.

As i said before if there is other road users around any change of lane, direction etc should always be indicated.

In your example [a valid one] it is highly unlikely such an approaching vehicle would even be able to see your indicator, let alone act on it...if it were in fact far enough away from your vehicle for you to consider indication un-necessary.

Equally, your movement into the next lane would be in sufficient time for the following [high-speed] driver to have plenty of time to respond to your presence.

If they were in fact close enough to your rear for you to 'see' them doing 90, then you would consider they 'need to be informed?'

Remember, it isn't their individual speed that matters...it is the 'closing speed' of theirs, and your, vehicle.

So, [for the sake of example] you are travelling at 70 mph..and they are ..in your opinion, far enough behind you to ignore as far as signalling is concerned [ie, far enough behind that if you carry out your intention, they will have plenty of time to respond....then it matters not much if they are travelling at 90 mph. The closing speed will be a mere 20 mph....about the speed of a reasonable cyclist?

Now, if you think that carrying out your intention will place you closer in front of said vehicle, they become someone who 'needs to know' your intention. Probably also because they are initially closer to your rear than the first example.

Same when moving from right [overtaking] lane to centre lane [or, left, on the M18?]...once past and clear of the vehicle you have overtaken, is there a need to signal 'left' prior to moving left?

Probably not. Therefore. not signalling in such a situation is not 'incorrect'.

However, on a 3 lane M/way, for example, if intending to return to the centre lane...having passed clear of the vehicle you've overtaken.....who else needs to know you intend moving left into the centre lane?
Well..for me, if the left lane had vehicles in it, up ahead.....[especially]..and I suspected one of them might wish to move right, into the centre lane [but, as is usual with basic drivers, they don't indicate their intentions in good time, ie when they start to think about it..and ,yes, I mean you lorry drivers too].....then I will indicate..in good time, before moving left.....just to inform those up ahead, the centre lane will soon have another vehicle in it, closer to them!

Much will depend on my assessment of the situation, as to whether I will indicate, or not.

Indication, in itself...is no guarantee it is being observed, and acted upon.

Ask the tractor driver who indicated briefly to turn right, but failed to do a final visual check to the right side before turning...and collected one of my earlier wives cars in the process.....we got a very nice payout from their insurer, thank you..and tractor driver got a day in Court for failing to exercise due care.
He admitted, 3 times, in a Police statement, he did not check behind before turning..[he had no mirrors [broken], and an obscured [but still visible on close inspection] rear indicator].

He stated, in Court when asked....that he 'did not think he needed to visually check, as as far as he was concerned, he was indicating''.

Indicate on every conceivable occasion by all means.....just make sure all the other tasks associated with that indication are carried out as well.

But, don't start criticising others who don't always indicate, regardless.....for they are perfectly correct too.

There are those who don't indicate because they cannot be bothered.

Equally, there are those who indicate, incorrectly and in a misleading manner.

Both can take one by surprise, if one is not fully aware of what's going on.