Not using an indicator has become the majority now?

[ClichéGuevara]

[QUOTE 3189161, member: 45"]What, in this thread or the HC rule that tells you to signal when overtaking and is accompanied by a picture of a car overtaking a bicycle with its indicator on?[/QUOTE]

Bicycles with indicators are just wrong.

 

[up hill struggle]

have to admit people here are only to willing to use indicators, just fail to do it properly.

driving along the road no junctions insight indicators blazing, approaching a junction left indicator goes on car drives past junction then takes left turn up the road, or car gets half way round a corner then indicates, my personal favorite is when the pull on to a roundabout turn on left indicator the drive past the next 2 or 3 exits that may be more of a time/energy saver though, after all whats the point wasting all that time energy by informing everybody that you intend to travel round the roundabout before taking the 3rd exit when you can save energy by just indicating that at some point your going to turn left & leave the roundabout.

best about that is if i pull out in front of that prick its all my fault because im suppose to wait until they commit to the turn before proceeding on to the roundabout.

 

[Dmcd33]

My experience is usually Urban, where cars turn up to left or right turning Junctions (no straight ahead) and fail to indicate. When filtering down the left hand side (blue cycle superhighways in London) this makes life a lot more difficult and prevents people reading the traffic (pedestrians/bikes/cars). The other one is when I'm crossing to road with my children, and the car fails to indicate, meaning guesswork with regards to where they are going and a long stand at the roadside because of their laziness/arrogance.

I'm quite surprised at the number of people suggesting that indicating is optional depending on who's around you. The point is (especially in cities) that you can't see who's around you, the point being - use the indicator?

The best one is in the car when the lights turn green and the car in front suddenly decides they are going to turn right! causing you to become stuct behind it as the traffic in the left lane carrys on through. If they had the indicator on then people would get in the correct lane.

 

[Amanda P]

Interesting thread this. A few points haven't been made yet.

It IS interesting that many newer cars have the indicators so close to (or even within) other lights that they're very hard to see. Especially when those other lights are on all the time in the daytime anyway.

There is a lot of genuine confusion about the correct way to signal on roundabouts, particularly mini-roundabouts. Lots of folk I've talked to will argue that they're turning right at the roundabout - how can it ever be correct to use the left indicator? In the face of that kind of mentality, it's almost useless to continue any discussion.

In many places, this persistent and widespread failure to use indicators at roundabouts has led to the roundabout effectively failing to function - traffic can never join the roundabout smoothly as no-one knows whether vehicles approaching from their right is going to turn off or not. To counter this, roundabouts are being re-engineered with kerbs or barriers separating the lanes into which traffic has to separate depending on where it's going. This means that you don't have to signal, or relyl on anyone else doing it.... but it's a very expensive way of tackling the problem.

Finally, on the point of signalling or not signalling when there is or isn't anyone who could benefit from the signal. When you see a motor vehicle signalling, yes, the only safe interpretation is that the indicator works. But if the first time you see a vehicle signalling, the indicator is already flashing, it's possible that this is because the driver has been negligently driving along with it on for some time. But if it only comes on when you've seen each other, it's reassuring.

The fresh signal, made in response to the recognition that another person needs the information, is so much more believable. It not only tells you a manouvre's likely to take place, but that the driver in question has probably seen you (or someone) and is paying attention to what they're doing. Okay, you'd still be wise to wait for other evidence that there's no likelihood of a collision before committing yourself...

I realise that in most urban situations, there'll almost always be someone around who could do with knowing what you're going to do, but that's not the case elsewhere.

Oh, and finally, sometimes when cycling, it might sometimes be wise deliberately NOT to signal - it's best to keep others guessing as this gives you space you mightn't otherwise get.

 

[Archie_tect]

As Bob Newhart's "Driving Instructor" sketch goes... "You were in the left hand lane, you were signalling left, so I more or less assumed you were going to turn left...

 

[Mugshot]

If a vehicle indicates and there is nobody there to see it does the light actually flash?

 

[Archie_tect]

Only on the dashboard....

 

[clockman]

I'm quite surprised at the number of people suggesting that indicating is optional depending on who's around you. The point is (especially in cities) that you can't see who's around you, the point being - use the indicator?

The point is, (especially in cities) why don't don't you know who's around you! Surely, in this instance, as a car driver you should constantly update yourself by making direct observations and regular use of mirrors.
The very nature of cities would dictate the use of signals, because there will always be someone who would get some benefit, be it vehicle driver, cyclist or perish the thought that pedestrians are taken into account!

 

[Accy cyclist]

I'm quite surprised at the number of people suggesting that indicating is optional depending on who's around you. The point is (especially in cities) that you can't see who's around you, the point being - use the indicator?

The point is, (especially in cities) why don't don't you know who's around you! Surely, in this instance, as a car driver you should constantly update yourself by making direct observations and regular use of mirrors.
The very nature of cities would dictate the use of signals, because there will always be someone who would get some benefit, be it vehicle driver, cyclist or perish the thought that pedestrians are taken into account!

I did a driving instructor course through the BSM many years ago. I failed one of the tests for being over cautious because i indicated when there was no one around according to the examiner. I told him that i indicated because there might have been someone around i hadn't seen and that flicking a switch cost nothing. He still failed me.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

I did a driving instructor course through the BSM many years ago. I failed one of the tests for being over cautious because i indicated when there was no one around according to the examiner. I told him that i indicated because there might have been someone around i hadn't seen and that flicking a switch cost nothing. He still failed me.

You should have chastised his lack of observation for not spotting the pedestrian you saw.

More seriously, I've sat in my car, looking in the mirror for an opportunity to pull out. A car coming along wouldn't know I was there, so presumably wouldn't indicate if they turned left before they reached me?

If they had, I could have pulled out. Personally, I don't see any benefit in not indicating. It's not exactly hard work, I'm only sat listening to the radio anyway.

 

[mick1836]

The object of signalling ONLY if there is someone to benefit shows that you are paying full attention to your driving or riding and basing your observations on what you see rather than indicating automatically.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

The object of signalling ONLY if there is someone to benefit shows that you are paying full attention to your driving or riding and basing your observations on what you see rather than indicating automatically.

I can see that, but as in the example I gave, you can't always know if someone would benefit, because you can't always see them. If nobody's there to see you not indicate, there's nobody to demonstrate this awareness to. The assumption that indicating shows you haven't made observations is a tad flawed too, in my opinion.

 

[mick1836]

I can see that, but as in the example I gave, you can't always know if someone would benefit, because you can't always see them. If nobody's there to see you not indicate, there's nobody to demonstrate this awareness to. The assumption that indicating shows you haven't made observations is a tad flawed too, in my opinion.

May I respectfully suggest you obtain a copy of

all will become clear then.

 

[Dmcd33]

Mr R passed his test (finally, after 6 attempts) a couple of years ago. He was told by one instructor that you should only indicate when there is someone there to see it - and that appears to be fairly standard speil these days. I pointed out to the instructor that many motorists only see what is within the 50' ft in front or behind them. They don't see anything or anyone else around them, who might benefit from that signal...

I would reply "but what harm does indicating do if nothing is around you?"

 

[ClichéGuevara]

May I respectfully suggest you obtain a copy of

all will become clear then.

That'll be the same Police that give talks will false information on many other issues such as helmet use? They're not the be all and end all.

As someone else says, what advantage to anyone is there in not signalling?

I've given one example where not signalling would inconvenience other road users that you would not possibly know were there. There are plenty of others. Why take the risk?