Indicators should be banned, to improve road safety.

[recumbentpanda]

OK, <rant on> I have been brewing this one since the thread began . . . I think this 'only indicate if there is someone to indicate to' drivel is an example of the kind of health and safety git-wizardry which people involved in safety training sometimes like to deploy, ostensibly to achieve some clever psychological end, but in fact more to fulfil a need to convince the rest of us that they have the keys to some profound esoteric counter-intuitive wisdom.

The alleged justification is that it causes people to concentrate on pre-manoevre observation. This fails abjectly on two counts: 1. Nobody has what an earlier poster amusingly referred to as 'Jesus Vision'. 2. Lazy, half-trained driving instructors (of which, IMO, there are far, far too many) translate it as: 'Don't bother indicating most of the time', and this passes down to a terrifying number of socially challenged learner drivers as: 'Don't bother indicating'.

The result of this cluster-fail is an epidemic of drivers who, as in the rest of their miserable lives, work on the 'devil take the hindmost' principle. <rant off> There. I feel cleansed . . . :-)

 

[deanE]

Yes but how many times do you hear 'but didn't you see my indicators' from some plonker who thinks that pulling down on that lever discharges his reponsibilty to drive safely?

Yes, I think that is the point. Many drivers seem to think that the use of the indicator gives a right to carry out the manoeuvre, not just one part of a process. Indication comes only after the driver has checked to see if the intended manoeuvre is safe to carry out, not instead.

 

[Davidsw8]

I partly agree with the OP, I prefer to keep both hands on my handlebars (those no-handed cycling idiots get on my left tit but that's another debate) but will ALWAYS look and indicate if there's someone to indicate to.

However, I can't agree that indicating should be banned, in fact I think it should be legally enforced - and indicating isn't just for other cars and cycles, it's for peds as well (IMO). I realise an indication is in no way a guarantee that the person is going the way they've indicated but it does give me a rough idea of what they're about to do. What I find really annoying cycling around London is those people who don't indicate at all, so I'm left to guess. Even they're road positioning doesn't give it away sometimes.

I'm also convinced indicator lights have already been disabled in 99% of most Black cabs.

 

[dodd82]

Thought about this thread yesterday evening, as I passed by a busy mini-roundabout.

The idea that no indicators would help the flow or traffic and safety of people using that mini-roundabout is rather misguided, in my view.

It would be bedlam.

 

[Arfcollins]

Thought about this thread yesterday evening, as I passed by a busy mini-roundabout.

The idea that no indicators would help the flow or traffic and safety of people using that mini-roundabout is rather misguided, in my view.

It would be bedlam.

You may well be right in that instance, but if you recall I gave examples way back in this thread where indication cannot be trusted. If it can't be trusted it is less than useless, it is potentially dangerous. And therefore we would be better off without it and the sensible course of action is to ignore it, even if this means waiting a little longer and, heaven forbid, slow down the flow of traffic.

 

[Mr Haematocrit]

These are the roundabouts I cross, they have multiple challenges.
First of all they are at Heathrow Airport as such attempted by people in hire cars who have never driven in the UK or on the side of the road we do.
Secondly you can go either direction to get to your exit.
I fail to see how removing indication showing intent of direction would either speed up traffic flow on this roundabout or make it safer.

 

[recumbentpanda]

[QUOTE 2487023, member: 30090"]Without reading the thread I do think it is fairly simple.

Mirror signal manoeuvre, with the manoeuvre part further broken down into position speed look.

If there is no one benefiting from your signal then there is no need to give one. [/quote]

Hello Jesus! Before pulling out into a thread it is advisable to do a shoulder-check as well. :-)

 

[albion]

To save police money I would arm pedestrains with a camera to film and spot fine cars turning left at a junction and failing to indicate.

Fact is that in some instances it is near suicidal to cross that road because a major percentage fail to indicate.

 

[dodd82]

You may well be right in that instance, but if you recall I gave examples way back in this thread where indication cannot be trusted. If it can't be trusted it is less than useless, it is potentially dangerous. And therefore we would be better off without it and the sensible course of action is to ignore it, even if this means waiting a little longer and, heaven forbid, slow down the flow of traffic.

So, because it can't be trusted implicity, ban the whole thing?

The more I think about it, the more ridiculous it sounds.

Mini-roundabouts, in particular, would ground to a halt. I know several where indication is the only way traffic can flow.

It seems you have a desire to remove incidents/accidents from the road. This won't happen.

Banning indicators will only raise problems elsewhere.

You have to look at the bigger picture. For all you know, we could be talking about less than 100 hundreds incidents a year, with no serious injury or death, yet you think it's feasible to call for it to be removed.

Bizarre.

 

[albion]

Ever observed that your observational faculties decay as you get older?

Catch 22 there methinks.

 

[donnydave]

Just because a small number of people can't get the hang of indicating properly is no reason to suggest it should be abolished entirely. Interesting debate though, same goes for lots of things I guess. I would be more supportive of getting rid of traffic lights at certain junctions. There's a junction near my work and the half dozen times that the lights have failed, traffic has actually flowed better as people seem to wake up, work out what's going on and get on with it without too much fuss.

 

[albion]

Like failing to indicate, are the likely resulting pedestrain deaths worth it?


Saying that, compulsory red light cameras would help too.

 

[donnydave]

Ah no you misundestand, although its a good point that traffic lights also serve as pedestrian crossings. I'm not saying ditch all of them. The particular junction that I'm referring to is at the end of a bit of dual carriageway, there's no pedestrian route across any of the roads at the junction. There are pedestrian crossings further down each road which do a sterling job.

 

[Arfcollins]

So, because it can't be trusted implicity, ban the whole thing?

The more I think about it, the more ridiculous it sounds.

Apart from my attention grabbing headline, and my ironic (did you spot that?) suggestion to take a hammer to every indicator, I have never seriously suggested that there is no place for indication. What I say and I stand by is that placing your faith in the quality and relevance of many drivers' indicating is stupid and dnagerous. You would be just as well off if they don't indicate at all. I previously invited you to comment on specific examples I gave, but you refused to do so at the time, I guess because your answer would either suggest you were an idiot or would fly in the face of your previous statements. Time to man up maybe.

Mini-roundabouts, in particular, would ground to a halt. I know several where indication is the only way traffic can flow.

It seems such a short time ago that I replied to your point about mini-roundabouts by saying "You may well be right in that instance". Are you deliberately misquoting me or is your memory going?

It seems you have a desire to remove incidents/accidents from the road. This won't happen.

Don't be so negative. It would be great if there were no accidents, but having a few less is good too. Makes a difference to the victims that's for sure.

You have to look at the bigger picture. For all you know, we could be talking about less than 100 hundreds incidents a year, with no serious injury or death, yet you think it's feasible to call for it to be removed.

That's rubbish. The small pictures make up the whole and it's the small changes in awareness and attitude that will make the difference.

Bizarre.

.
Nope

 

[dodd82]

Here we go again.

Arfcollins decides he doesn't like the Highway Code, so he forms his own version.

Your original post did not talk about specific circumstances, it talked about indication in general.

So where are we at now? Indication should be ignored when you say so, but on other occasions - such as mini roundabouts - it shouldn't be ignored. You might want to work on the criteria for your new highway code, as it's not making much sense at the moment.

You seem to think that the only options are placing complete faith in the quality and relevance of indicators or completely ignoring them.

And that is where your logic falls apart.

Driving is about taking care. I can see your signal, interpret it and proceed with care, so that if the signal is incorrect or misplaced, no one is in any danger. It is possible, you know.

And no, my comment wasn't rubbish. You do have to look at the bigger picture. For example, if we reduced the speed limit to 10mph on every road in Britain, and enforced it, accident rates would fall dramatically.

Doesn't make it sensible, practical or the correct thing to do though, does it?

Perhaps you can justify your bizarre claims by doing two things:

1. Can you give us any indication (pun intended) of the number of injuries and deaths that are caused by acting on the basis of an incorrect signal?
2. Can you explain how we are to interpret your suggestion of ignoring indicators, if you tell us that your examples show situations when we should ignore indication, yet you accept there are occasions where we shouldn't ignore it?