Drivers who don't indicate

[Globalti]

the nature of a housing estate, surely is that of a twisty road with parked cars and children playing, surely indicating, incase someone is backing off a driveway or children are crossing the road etc, its good practice and you are taught to do it on your test.

No. Driving through a housing estate you should be aware of all possible hazards including any that would benefit from knowing your intentions. Therefore mindlessly signalling for no reason shows that you don't understand the Highway Code and you don't know what is going on around you.

 

[jimboalee]

The highway code, rule103 states-------You should always----This a play on words. Surely the effective word is always?

http://www.direct.go...ycode/DG_070289

The effective word here is "should". A rule with "Should" has no law to enforce it. It is not an offence to manouver without signalling. A rule which says "should", SHOULD be followed as good practice.

Rules with "must" have laws to enforce them, as donated by the relavant act in squared brackets.

Rule 103 says "Should". It is not unlawful to neglect signalling to other roadusers.


An unwritten rule here is "A vehicle that is not signalling, or a vehicle which IS signalling, can be expected to do anything."

 

[Alien8]

You chose not to indicate because you think it's safer not to do so, which I'm questioning...

Okay, my assertion is that indicating left can give the numpties out there just a little bit more encouragement to do something stupid - hence that's why, in the situations already mentioned, I tend not to indicate left.

You believe otherwise - that's of course fine.

I don't think my perception is that unusual amongst the cycling fraternity.

 

[User269]

If a tree falls in a forest but there's no-one to hear, does it make a sound?

Same with indicating; only indicate if there's someone you're indicating to. If there's no-one around and the indicator goes on, the driver is driving automatically and not assessing each situation on its merits. It is as lazy to use indicators when there's no-one around as to not indicate when there is.

My old IAM teacher taught me that. And he's spot on.

My IAM instructor taught me to always give an indication of my intentions, until I've developed psychic abilities and can be absolutely sure there isn't another road user out of my sight or awareness who may depend on my signals.
I really don't see what the issue is here. Just look, signal, and move, in your car or on your bike. And like others here, I'm sick of waiting at roundabouts for cyclists and motorists who not only don't bother indicating, but whose position gives no clue as to there intended direction. Just reading the posts here with all the different opinions, attitudes, and ideas makes me .............. oh wtf.

 

[4F]

Okay, my assertion is that indicating left can give the numpties out there just a little bit more encouragement to do something stupid - hence that's why, in the situations already mentioned, I tend not to indicate left.

You believe otherwise - that's of course fine.

I don't think my perception is that unusual amongst the cycling fraternity.

In the instance you describe I will often do exactly the same .

 

[bobg]

Will those of you who dont indicate when there are no other road users about please spare a thought for pavement users...

 

[Davidc]

The UK rules for signalling and interpretation of other vehicle's signals:

(please feel free to add more)

Flashing orange lights on the left hand side of the vehicle: I've accidentally knocked this lever by the steering wheel. Does it matter?
Flashing orange lights on the right hand side of the vehicle: I've accidentally knocked this lever by the steering wheel. Does it matter?
No orange lights flashing: I'm either about to turn left or turn right but may go straight on instead.
Any orange lights flashing: I'm either about to turn left or turn right but may go straight on instead.

Cyclist with either arm in the air: I'm going to manoeuvre so please overtake me and immediately turn left.
Cyclist with right arm in the air: I'm going to turn right so try to overtake me before I do.
Cyclist with left arm in the air: I'm gong to turn left so pulling out in front of me from your side turning won't work

Flashing orange lights on all corners of a stationary vehicle: I'm parked illegally.
Flashing orange lights on all corners of a moving vehicle: I'm doing something stupid but as I own the road get out of my way.

Green light on a pole: Keep going
Red light on a pole: Keep going

 

[guitarpete247]

Orange light on a pole: Put your foot down and force your way and sod all others.
Red and Orange light on a pole: Grand Prix style, wheel spin start and hope not to meet someone going though on Orange light.

 

[661-Pete]

My bugbear is a junction on my commute - a T-junction for motorists but with a straight-on cycle/ped/only lane. I go straight on but of course a motorist has to turn left or right. There are TLs and an ASL. Will a motorist ever signal if they're the only one waiting, and I'm coming along? Of course not! - after all cyclists don't need to be signalled to, do they? Sometimes when I'm feeling particularly p***ed off, I plant myself in the ASL (or what's left of it) and stick both arms out in an umpire's 'wide' signal. Then eyeball the motorist and shrug. Christ knows what they make of it.

This is the rule for indicating when approaching and going round a roundabout.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070338

In France, it's common practice for a motorist to signal left when actually going straight on at a 4-exit roundabout. They then flip to a right indication after passing the first exit. In British usage, you need to, of course, mentally flip the directions, so visualise a motorist signalling right on entry, then changing to left after the first exit.

The British HC doesn't say do this, but would it make sense?

I think this thread belongs better in Commuting, but ah well...

 

[Glow worm]

Will those of you who dont indicate when there are no other road users about please spare a thought for pavement users...

Yeah that's what I was thinking. When I learnt to drive I got into the habit of never turning without indicating prior to braking and manoevering. Luckily I rarely have to drive these days, but when I do I'm kind of programmed now to indicate, even if I'm pretty sure there's no one about as I'm not psychic and also peds as well as drivers and cyclists also need to know what I'm about to do. Not indicating just feels all wrong to me- I'd never thought that was a bad habit til reading this thread!

 

[summerdays]

I don't always signal especially when turning left, as others have said it can plant the idea in the motorists head that you may be going straight on and so they don't try and turn right (from the opposite direction), or left at the same time (from behind). But if there is someone waiting in the side road and they would be able to go then I do signal.Also using your position on the road can be a very good indicator of where you are intending to go.

As others said sometimes you don't want to lift your hand off the handlebar to signal - down hill on a poor road surface is one of the times - since I came off the bike in that situation. And I don't have a problem with cycling one handed it is in combination with the poor road surface.

I also agree with someone's comments that you need to see if there are pedestrians that would benefit from seeing your signal. Its about analysing each situation and seeing whether you need to or not, rather than automatically signalling or not signalling. Similarly I don't signal to go around parked cars (in most situations), but instead look behind and start moving out well in advance of the obstacle.

 

[PaulB]

My IAM instructor taught me to always give an indication of my intentions, until I've developed psychic abilities and can be absolutely sure there isn't another road user out of my sight or awareness who may depend on my signals.

That sounds incredibly lazy.

 

[stavros]

The highway code, rule103 states-------You should always----This a play on words. Surely the effective word is always?

http://www.direct.go...ycode/DG_070289

Does this not infer it's mandatory?.

 

[vernon]

Does this not infer it's mandatory?.

Nope.

If 'must always' replaced 'should always' then you've got mandatory.

 

[stavros]

Nope.

If 'must always' replaced 'should always' then you've got mandatory.

Semantics I'm afraid.