Why do so few drivers indicate these days?

Heliflyguy

No point in indicating on some cars as the indicator light is so small (Audi) or placed (range rover) in a thin line around the brake light that you cant see it when the brake light is on. :mad:

almillar

I tried to tell my daughter she should always indicate but she says her instructor told her she doesn't need to if no-one is about!

An instructor for the 'L' test shouldn't say that - for the 'L' test it's simply 'always indicate'. Instructor is quoting Roadcraft, and IAM training, the idea is that you're supponsed to look around, decide whether there's anyone worth indicating to (as in ANY road user), and do so if appropriate. It's meant to keep your observation sharp. IAM groups would argue about it all the time, and I just come away thinking, why not just indicate anyway. What if someone appers and you have to do it suddenly. It's not difficult to do!

I then stated I'd often still indicate.

Agreed!

One thing as bad as not indicating is someone indicating out of habit and blindly start to manoeuvre without looking first.

Poor observation is bad, but why tie it into indicating? Won't this then 'train' people to only look around them when they want to indicate?

I don't understand how people turning right don't indicate

You're right, they're wrong, but some people think, and may even have been taught to indicate left if leaving the roundabout, don't indicate if staying on. Some people also simply indicate right when staying on, and left to leave.

People only have two hands, one on the steering wheel, one holding the iPhone. How are they supposed to indicate as well?

I know you're joking, but literally just extending a finger on the steering wheel hand would do the job! That's why it's so annoying that people don't do it!

However, they (BMW) have changed the way the indicators work,

And lots of other manufacturers too. At worst, you fudge it too far down or up, and cancel it yourself. No harm done, and if a driver can't work it out, maybe they shouldn't be driving.

I firmly believe that indicating out of habit is a very bad thing. It's important to have the spacial awareness and make indicating a concious decision

I think everything you do in a car should be a concious decision. Remember there are good habits and bad habits.

As a pedestrian, I find it hugely helpful when people in turn only lanes indicate. I find it difficult to know which lanes are turn only when they're full of cars covering the markings!

Bingo. Pedestrians are road users too. And they may not be drivers, or familiar with that particular junction, and aren't required to be giving as much attention to their movements as drivers - a flashing orange light could help them greatly.

The purpose of signals is to ‘...inform other road users of your presence and intentions. Think before you signal; indiscriminate signalling is not helpful to anyone.' Roadcraft page 100.

These are not the rules of the road - this is the police driving manual, for a higher standard of driving than is expected of 'normal' drivers. You can't expect this of everyone. Despite revisions, it's also an old book, and perhaps doesn't take account of traffic conditions, especially in cities, these days. But there's absolutely NOTHING wrong with how you do it either, following Roadcraft's advice.

Of all the bad driving I see on the roads, 'indicating when you didn't need to' is WAY down the list of priorities to fix!

Car_54

almillar wrote: »

An instructor for the 'L' test shouldn't say that - for the 'L' test it's simply 'always indicate'.

When I learned to drive 100 years ago that was true.

These days, L-drivers are expected to consider whether a signal is necessary, or could confuse. Unnecessary signals when moving off or stopping, or passing stationary vehicles, are normally regarded as a fault.

"Always indicate" is acceptable at junctions.

The official guidance for examiners states "Signals shown in the Highway Code should only be used if it would help other road users (including pedestrians)."

JustAnotherSaver

I think the answer to this one is real simple.

It reflects the modern day attitude of so many people these days & that is .... F it, I'm lazy & I'll do as I please.

And that's it in a nutshell.

It's like those people who walk out in front of you & make no effort to pick their knees up. They shouldn't be crossing so you beep at them & then they start shouting abuse at you, giving you hand gestures & telling you to F off.

It's just the I'll do what I want when I want modern day mentality.

Richard53

Signalling is intended to communicate an intention, not an action. So you should indicate to show when you intend to do, not what you are actually doing. Lots of people ignore this (or didn't know it in the first place) so you get the people who indicate as they are changing lanes and not before, which is no use to anyone. Or, worse, they regard the indicator as a statement of their right to move out. "It can't be my fault; I was indicating!"


The idea behind the Roadcraft advice is that all actions when negotiating a hazard should be considered, not automatic. I haven't got it in front of me, but the wording is something like 'consider giving a signal', after ensuring the positioning is correct and due observation has been made. If you signal when there is no need, what other things are you doing unthinkingly? Each hazard should be treated as a new event, and dealt with methodically. This may be OTT for a new driver (who needs simple routines to be safe) but it is something that more experienced drivers should aspire to.


I signal only if there is a benefit in doing so, but I would define that quite broadly - following traffic, other traffic at junctions, pedestrians, and so on - and also if the road layout is such that vehicles may come into view unexpectedly. Turning into my driveway is like this, just below the blind brow of a hill. I reckon a signal there is vital, even if there is no-one around, and might give a speeding car that hoves into view mid-manoeuvre a second extra to slow down. But my default is 'no signal', unless there is a reason to give one.

Strider590

Biggles wrote: »

I don't think that's 'normal' advice at all. But the trouble with your suggestion is that when the driver behind sees your brake lights he may think you are about to 'stand on the brakes' and carry out an emergency stop himself, causing havoc behind him.

My technique is to ignore tailgating unless it's dangerously close, then - very, very gradually - slow down until one of three things happens:-
1 He gets the message and drops back;
2 We are going so slowly that the gap is no longer dangerous; or
3 (most likely) He gets fed up and overtakes me.

Whichever way it goes, problem solved.

You see that's all very well, but very likely to enrage the driver and yes he may overtake and be off on his way, but 5 miles down the road he may have taken his anger out on someone else and ended up ploughing through a bus-stop full of children.

Car_54

Strider590 wrote: »

You see that's all very well, but very likely to enrage the driver and yes he may overtake and be off on his way, but 5 miles down the road he may have taken his anger out on someone else and ended up ploughing through a bus-stop full of children.

Very true, or even nuns and kittens.

However, Biggles' advice is the textbook answer. Do you have a better idea?

Richard53

Strider590 wrote: »

You see that's all very well, but very likely to enrage the driver and yes he may overtake and be off on his way, but 5 miles down the road he may have taken his anger out on someone else and ended up ploughing through a bus-stop full of children.

I had a very salutary lesson in this when I was about 15. I was in a car with a friend and his father, who was the driver, going through Leeds city centre mid-evening. A minivan with a couple of lads in it was following very closely, and the father decided to 'teach him a lesson' by dabbing his brakes on. There was a squeal of brakes from behind, and I turned to see the minivan cross two lanes of traffic, mount the pavement, and crash into a shop window. He missed a bus queue of about six people by a matter of a few feet.


Now of course the minivan driver was in the wrong here - too close, too fast, not able to keep control of the vehicle in an emergency. But if someone had been killed (quite possible), I wonder what share of the blame would be attached to the actions of the driver who 'brake tested' the other? Legally, maybe not at all, but morally I would have thought it was 50/50 - if he hadn't done it, the accident would not have happened. There are much better ways of dealing with tailgaters as stated above here by Biggles. Safer, more effective, less confrontational, but perhaps not as satisfying to a driver's inner warrior.

prowla

Me, if someone is driving too close (and I often get that when I'm out in my sports car) is to just ease off the throttle slightly.

Incidentally, on the weekend I was out for a drive and someone decided to race me, but I stuck to the speed limit whilst he went off into the distance. Coincidentally, I decided I was a bit thirsty and elected to stop off at a pub; when I pulled in the other driver just came in behind me (he must've taken a different route), when we were waiting at the bar we had a friendly chat and I said he must've been more thirsty than me and that I tend to stick to the speed limit; he let me get served first.

Biggles

NBLondon wrote: »

I'm pretty sure I remember being taught "You don't always need to indicate if there is no-one to benefit from the signal" - but there have been very few circumstances where I've actively been able to judge that. Pretty much only if driving in the small hours.

I also err on the side of 'If in doubt, indicate'. Since I don't have 360-degree x-ray vision, I normally assume that there might be someone to benefit from it, even if I can't presently see them.

You are driving in Lane 1 of a 2 lane dual carriageway at a sensible speed of 67mph and approaching a LGV on it's limiter at 56mph. You check your mirrors and there is a sporty saloon overtaking in Lane 2 at 78mph. You can see a gap behind them, so there will be space to move out behind them to overtake safely. When do you indicate to start the move out? If you indicate early - will the overtaking car think you are about to dive in front? If you indicate late, any vehicle behind you at a similar speed may start their overtake and you end up slowing to avoid running into the back of the wagon.

Exactly. Timing is everything. In such cases, where there's not a great speed difference between the two lanes and often not very large gaps left to pull into, my manoeuvre may begin almost immediately after starting to indicate but other drivers understand this, as do I when it happens to me.

The problem with failing to act (in your scenario) is that you will then have to slow down to the speed of the lorry and the difference between your speed and that of the outer lane will then be 22mph instead of the original 11mph, making the whole procedure more difficult.