Indicators should be banned, to improve road safety.

[doug]

Actually, no, I'm allowing for the possibility of missing someone who is far enough away that the indication is only useful but not necessary.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Why don't you explain to us all why several high profile road/cycle craft schemes teach to only indicate if someone would benefit?

As I said earlier it is a useful technique to force you into making good observation part of your routine, however for me it places to much faith on human fallibilities, I know I am not 100% perfect. I prefer to turn it on its head and rather than think "is there reason why I should indicate?" and instead think "is there any reason why I shouldn't indicate?", that way you still have to observe correctly and as a bonus get indicating being your default action.

There will be a time for everyone when they fail to observe correctly and, in those situations I would prefer that they indicated.

 

[bridgy]

and in addition.... its still the part of the highway code (surly trumps every other scheme) to Signal, mirror, maneuver.

I assume you mean mirror, signal, manoeuvre?!

 

[Mushroomgodmat]

I assume you mean mirror, signal, manoeuvre?!

lol, exactly

 

[guitarpete247]

I am another that always indicates. I've even been know to indicate before a left bend, but it's usually where there is the choice of going straight on into a side road like here. I do it automatically. But I also use my mirrors and check around me automatically too.
Here is another indicating dilema. I want to go straight on up the road towards Donisthorpe (follow the road in street veiw). I don't indicate automatically but wait till I've passed the turn into the country park. I'm constantly checking for other road users but still indicate even if I don't see anyone, just in case.

Years ago I knew someone (the meanest man in the world) who told me. "You know Pete, when you've got your own car you don't indicate as much."
"Why's that Keith?"
"Cos it wears the bulbs out."

 

[GrasB]

The one where you wrote "I am assuming........................"

Re-read the post, all of it, then contemplate all 4 sentences of the paragraph until you understand all of them fully. Then come back to me once you've got a clue.

Hint, sentence 1 & 2 refer to one assumption within the situation. The remaining sentences refer to the alternative situation.

 

[gaz]

I hate to have to point this out but you appear to be reading a copy of the Daily Mail there.

which is worse? hmm

 

[ferret fur]

The reason being given is that deciding whether or not to indicate makes the driver drive better because they are thinking more rather than doing it automatically.

If that is the case I think it shows a very poor understanding of the pyschology involved. To me that just adds to the cognitive task load in an unecessary way: While you are trying to decide whether to use your indicators your attention could be diverted from something else.
My take on it is that the problem of people not indicating is widespread, anything that discourages people from doing so is therefore a bad idea.

 

[Ashtrayhead]

If that is the case I think it shows a very poor understanding of the pyschology involved. To me that just adds to the cognitive task load in an unecessary way: While you are trying to decide whether to use your indicators your attention could be diverted from something else.
My take on it is that the problem of people not indicating is widespread, anything that discourages people from doing so is therefore a bad idea.

The decision to use your indicators or not would be made on all the information that you had observed. If you act on that information and decide that no indicator is needed you have saved yourself an unnecessary action and has shown that you have made full and correct use of mirrors, all-round observation and forward planning. Personally I think that indicating automatically is sloppy because you're not doing it as a result of what you've seen.

 

[Arfcollins]

I've pretty much always signalled, car or bike, regardless. It doesn't cost me anything and, if I haven't noticed someone, gives them suitable warning.

As for not signalling left, it seems to me that if there's someone waitning to come out of the road you're turning into, you give them the opportunity to pull out while you'r still approaching the turn-off. Courtesy, really.

I take the view that courtesy has no relevance to road safety.

 

[ferret fur]

I take the view that courtesy has no relevance to road safety.

It defuses aggression. Aggressive driving is dangerous driving.

 

[BentMikey]

That's focusing attention on the symptom of the problem, not the cause. Aggressive drivers should be persuaded to change their ways, and if they don't, they should be taken off the roads. Simples.

 

[kevin_cambs_uk]

Following on, I find that junctions where the traffic lights have broken, everyone seems to slow down and take more care

 

[ferret fur]

Good luck with that one Mikey. Aggression is part of the human condition & any consideration of real world road use needs to take that into account. Everyone at some point can suffer from flashes of irritation & it only takes a second to cause an incident.

 

[400bhp]

I take the view that courtesy has no relevance to road safety.

Absolutely.

 

[atbman]

The decision to use your indicators or not would be made on all the information that you had observed. If you act on that information and decide that no indicator is needed you have saved yourself an unnecessary action and has shown that you have made full and correct use of mirrors, all-round observation and forward planning. Personally I think that indicating automatically is sloppy because you're not doing it as a result of what you've seen.

On the other hand, if you signal pretty much automatically, as I do, you have saved yourself unnecessary decision making and free your mind up to observe the traffic conditions, while making sure that anyone whose behaviour you may not have correctly analysed is aware of your inentions