joining a motorway

[Nige Danton]

+1 I always indicate.

[The Natural Philosopher]

-1 he is wrong I dont indicate when there is no one there to see it. Like turning out of my drive onto a road with no one visible and no side roads for a mile or so.

Like changing lanes on a deserted motorway at 3 a. m. to overtake a single lorry in the slow lane

Lie exiting a roundabout that has no one waiting to enter it and no one one it

[Roger Hayter]

Possibly someone walking their dog 200m away might like to know which way you are turning, especially if it is a young dog being trained?

Early reassurance you are not going to blindly drive into the back of him my make the lorry driver's BP lower.

And no pedestrian just round the corner waiting to cross the road you are *not* exiting on?

[Vir Campestris]

a few years ago (by our standards...) my employer did a deal with Vauxhall. I had three Cavaliers in 5 years.

The first one was an auto; it was at its best in traffic where I could idly flick it between N and D without using the pedals at all to crawl along.

A later one developed warped discs. The new discs failed after only a month, and Vauxhall paid for replacements. It was only then that it occurred to me that perhaps the A5 to Bangor was a bit much for the "uprated" brakes...

Ever since I've used the engine more on steep long descents - far steeper than that in the Pyrenees - and had no problems (with later cars)

Andy

[michael adams]

Life is a lot easier for motorists who've maintained the habit of always indicating rather than having to decide whether to do so or not on an individual basis.

Motorists already have enough things to think about and decisions to make which could have serious consequences if misjudged - indicating when it may not be strictly necessary isn't one of them. And its not as if any great physical effort is involved in flicking an indicator.

There might I suppose be a saving on replacement indicator bulbs for the truly impecunious but that's about it as far as I can see.

michael adams

...

.

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

no such thing as warped discs .......

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

the stupid amber bulbs you get these days in the name of fashion will fade and fail the mot before they go pop .......

[nightjar]

...

What do you think you should be doing, if it does not include constantly scanning the area and assessing both how your actions will affect others and how their possible actions might affect you?

[Robin]

The 'Roadcraft' advice has long been the source of debate (if not confusion). The missing question is often "just how confident are you that there'd be no benefit to anyone in signalling? 100 per cent sure?"

Part 2 police drivers may think they are so good that the benefits of not signalling (presumably the time/attention taken to move the stalk) outweigh the risk of collision with an unseen road user. But I'd be interested to know the authors' views on the position of a driver who manoeuvres without signalling and kills or injures a pedestrian or cyclist who might well have avoided the collision had a signal been made. ISTM at the very least to reduce the driver's chance of arguing contributory negligence.

[michael adams]

Making decisions

A person is only capable of making a finite number of decisions at any one time

Many of the decisions you make while"constantly scanning the area and assessing both how your actions will affect others and how their possible actions might affect you" could have dire consequences if you get them wrong, obviously including injury or death.

The habit of indicating, whether its necessary or not can have no bad consequences apart from the additional cost in indicator bulbs.

IIRR When learning to drive or at least when taking the test it was necessary to indicate automatically whether it was necessary or not. And so this should have become an automatic habit, which frees up the drivers mind to make the more important decisions.

Otherwise from what you say above it could be easily be argued that according to you

The *only" reason that you're constantly scanning the area and assessing both how your actions will affect others and how their possible actions might affect you" is because this provides you with the information you need in order to decide whether to indicate or not. As otherwise why would you bother? That's what you seem to be arguing, anyway.

michael adams

...

[nightjar]

You have to be. That is why it requires a very good awareness of the road situation.

There is no inherent benefit of not signalling. The benefit lies in the fact that they have consciously made that decision after carefully assessing the road conditions. That requires a greater attention to the situation than is required by simply signally every manoeuvre.

That is not a situation where a signal would not have been of benefit to another road user.

To take an example, a car is approaching a roundabout, with the intention of leaving at the first exit. There is a clear view of the whole roundabout on approach and sufficient view of all the exits to allow the driver to see that there are no vehicles that are likely to reach them before the car reaches the roundabout. The closest vehicle is about half a mile behind the car. Nobody is going to benefit from the car giving a signal. However, if there is a vehicle waiting to enter the roundabout from the first exit, the driver of that vehicle would benefit from an indication that the car is about to turn into that exit.

[Swer]

Checking for what you might run into or what might do something stupid that you need to avoid.

No point in adding to that who might see your indication who isnt obvious.

[nightjar]

It is far more likely that somebody who is not doing that is going to cause an accident. In 2017, 41% of all traffic collisions reported to the police had as a contributory factor of driver or rider failed to look properly; by far the largest single factor. While the second largest, at 22%, was driver failed to judge other person's path or speed.

It can result in people manoeuvring without first thinking about whether or not it is safe to do so. The driver who has made a conscious decision about whether or not to signal has also first made a conscious decision about whether the manoeuvrer is safe.

The reason for scanning and assessing is to make driving safer. Deciding whether or not to give a signal is simply part of the discipline that ensures you are doing that properly.

[Chris Green]

Yes there is, as I said elsewhere, reduction of distracting 'noise'.

This applies most obviously to, for example, a busy motorway junction with a stream of cars entering from a slip-road. One more flashing indicator on the slip-road isn't helping anyone.

So it's not necessarily that there's 'no one' to signal to but that the signal isn't useful to anyone.

[Andrew]

What happened to 'Clunk, Click, every trip' ?.

Oh, I forgot, he died.

[nightjar]

Which is exactly what constantly scanning the area and assessing both how your actions will affect others and how their possible actions might affect you involves.

It is not who might see your indication; it is to whom might it be useful. If you have properly assessed the road situation, you will know that without any additional effort being required.

[michael adams]

Whereas as a result of drivers losing the habit of not signalling automatically many no longer do so when they should. As an example at a crossroads with two lanes, many drivers on the inside lane on one road assume that their intention to turn left can be inferred from that very fact by pedestrians crossing the other road without any need on thieir part to signal. Despite the fact that as the pedestrian if not them wil know that many cars on the inside lane of that road also drive straight across.

How many serious accidents do you think are caused by the latter, motorists failing to signal when they should do so, as against your example.

But such decisions can by their very nature be borderline. So for example how many yards or metres away does another car or pedestrian need to be and what speed do they need to be travelling for you to consider it "advisable" to signal ?

And more to the point how exactly do you know if you've got such decisions correct ?

Given the number of motorists who don't bother to signal at all when they should do how confident are you that you don't fall into that category on at least some occasions.

This isn't being a goody two shoes for no good reason. It seems plain common sense to me.

michael adams

...

[michael adams]

Surely anyone who finds themselves being distracted by streams of cars at motorway junctions, many of whom are signalling unneccessarily, which is often more or less the norm, should quite possibly give driving on motorways a miss.

michael adams

...

[The Natural Philosopher]

What part of 'no one visble ' do you not understand?

Unlike you I do not tailaget traffic on an empty motiorway at 3 a.m

I will be in the next lane before he is even aware of me

No, that is obvious. I see you have never driven out of a town #

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

you call wagga a town ? ....