Audi active lane assist.

[Jassyo06]

Why would you not indicate when changing lanes? It's a good habit to keep to even if no-one is around.... (it soon becomes second nature)

From my own personal experience most of these Drivers Aids are not necessary,l dont need them,perhaps other do,each to their own,but a Audi S3 is a expensive hatchback/Saloon,so most peeps will spec it with luxury options....SS seats,B&O...long before these unnecessary gadgets

 

[veeeight]

The other very dangerous "habit" signal situation that is so common on the roads -

(Situation dependent)
Signalling right to pass a cyclist.
In most cases, this can lead to the following car assuming you are turning right, and they drive up the left side of you, taking the cyclist out (especially in the dark).

Do not just signal out of habit, or because you think you should signal for everything.


Lots of discussions about unnecessary signalling:
http://advanced-driving.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3614
http://www.advanced-driving.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=154&t=1416631&mid=0&nmt=Indicating when changing lanes - do you?



It's very simple.

Signal only when there is someone to signal to
or
Where there is a benefit to someone else.

If a driver can't follow these 2 simple rules - what hope is there for them?

 

[a3_phil]

By way of an example...

Overtaking a lorry on a DC / Motorway and then moving back to the inside lane, not realising that there's a car right on the lorry's front bumper. Obviously you should be aware of the car, but just suppose you weren't paying enough attention and start the manoeuvre.

If you do it without indicating first, the car might initially think you're just weaving a bit and not to worry. They may react too late then when you just pull across into their front wing.

If you start indicating first and then pull across the car's more likely to think "he hasn't seen me" and take defensive action.


The argument about doing it only when it benefits other road users doesn't really work if you're not aware of them in the first place...

 

[veeeight]

Overtaking a lorry on a DC / Motorway and then moving back to the inside lane, not realising that there's a car right on the lorry's front bumper.

You've just overtaken a lorry and not realised you've gone past a lorry AND a car?
You shouldn't be driving

If you do it without indicating first, the car might initially think you're just weaving a bit and not to worry. They may react too late then when you just pull across into their front wing.

React? By doing what? Tooting their horn?

If you start indicating first and then pull across the car's more likely to think "he hasn't seen me" and take defensive action.

What defensive action could this car take, if he was "right on the lorry's front bumper" ?



Again, you're not just arguing with me, you're arguing against the Highway Code, DSA, IAM, Police, ADI, ROSPA, etc. etc. etc. who might, just have more wisdom in these situations.


It's very simple.

Signal only when there is someone to signal to
or
Where there is a benefit to someone else.

If a driver can't follow these 2 simple rules - what hope is there for them?

 

[a3_phil]

Signal only when there is someone to signal to
or
Where there is a benefit to someone else.

If a driver can't follow these 2 simple rules - what hope is there for them?

You're missing my point. I agree entirely with the two points above, but I'm saying that there are circumstances where your indicating might benefit someone but you might not realise it. Habitually indicating where it's possible you've missed a car in a blind spot etc. might just give said car a chance to avoid an incident.

And for what it's worth in the last ten years I've only hit 5 cars like this on the motorway, and one of those times I was eating a sandwich, so mitigating circumstances and all that.

 

[veeeight]

Just to be pedantic for a change - my take on your example above

1. If you overtake a lorry but hadn't realised you had overtaken both a lorry and car - you shouldn't be driving
2. Even if you didn't account for the car "right on the lorry's front bumper" - you are returning to your lane far too soon - indicating is not going to solve this
3. Why didn't you look before returning to your own lane (lifesaver)
4. If you had or hadn't indicated on returning to your own lane and "pull across their front wing" - there is very little (given that they are right on the lorry's front bumper) that they can do

Habitually indicating can also be misleading in the wrong set of circumstances

 

[cemerson]

You're not just arguing with me, you're arguing against the Highway Code, DSA, IAM, Police, ADI, ROSPA, etc. etc. etc.

Appeal to authority is a well known logical fallacy. Like I keep saying, human factors hasn't been a consideration up until now, and aviation is leading the way here, with a proven reduction in accidents as a result of the work there. One can only hope the above organisations catch on and implement similar things too.

 

[veeeight]

I would argue that the better professional drivers are making a better job at driving, than your determination for automation and habit

Does your fallacy of appealing to authority include the CAA/FAA too?

You have a blind belief that human factors is new, and hasn't been considered.
Human factors isn't new, and the rule/guidance not to signal blindly has most likely resulted from studies that consider human factors in driving and road conditions, from all the organisations above.

Aviation isn't doing too well.

New commercial pilots (on a budget) are being trained to follow automation and process blindly, with the fallacy of "it's safer". Probably is, when everything runs smoothly.

With the result that they forget to aviate when something out of the ordinary goes wrong


http://www.wsj.com/articles/automation-makes-us-dumb-1416589342
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...iant-on-computers-they-forget-how-to-fly.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pilots-...ependance-on-automation-expected-report-says/

 

[sunscreemer]

I just always have in my mind "what would help other road users" and/or "what would i expect or appreciate" that dictates my signalling.

Roundabouts are meant to keep traffic flowing and there are a few on my commute where you really need to know people's intentions or you'd literally be sat there for hours assuming every car is going straight across your path. The amount of cars that just turn left without indication frustrate me.

Also, i remember clearly my driving instructor many years ago saying you do NOT indicate when going around parked cars. Indicating in such circumstances is for turning right he would say.

 

[cemerson]

Quite, but I wouldn't indicate right there if there was a right hand turn coming up that people could get confused over. Like I keep saying, unambiguous signals!

 

[cemerson]

I would argue that the better professional drivers are making a better job at driving, than your determination for automation and habit

Does your fallacy of appealing to authority include the CAA/FAA too?

You have a blind belief that human factors is new, and hasn't been considered.
Human factors isn't new, and the rule/guidance not to signal blindly has most likely resulted from studies that consider human factors in driving and road conditions, from all the organisations above.

Aviation isn't doing too well.

New commercial pilots (on a budget) are being trained to follow automation and process blindly, with the fallacy of "it's safer". Probably is, when everything runs smoothly.

With the result that they forget to aviate when something out of the ordinary goes wrong


http://www.wsj.com/articles/automation-makes-us-dumb-1416589342
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...iant-on-computers-they-forget-how-to-fly.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pilots-...ependance-on-automation-expected-report-says/

Yep, this is all covered under the umbrella 'human factors' - one of those being that you need some hands-on time quite often to get the practice in. I'm not appealing to authority, I'm not saying "they are doing it because the CAA said so" - I'm saying that it results in a lower accident rate, which it has. This all started with the Kegworth disaster, where a significant human judgement error occurred and contributed to the accident, and pilots since are trained in human factors, illusions and where judgement can let you down or tell you things that aren't the case. Unfortunately there are still incidents (see Air France 2009) of Pilots thinking they know better than the information around them is telling them, or missing things because they believe they knew the environment around them and ignored warnings as a result.

My point all along has been - you can only be sure up to a point about what is going on around you. You can check as thoroughly as you like, but you can never be totally sure, so saying things like "If you indicate and there's noone there it means you don't know what's going on" is treading on very dodgy ground. What about the pedestrian you didn't see because it's dark and they didn't stand out at all? What about the car that comes around a corner just after you looked in that area?

All I see from you is an attitude of "When I look around and check things then I 100% know my environment", which is complacent and dangerous. I just think you should have a think about all the things you don't see, or think you see, or think you didn't see... because you'd be surprised how easily the human brain can be fooled into making what it sees fit the picture it thinks it already knows!

Noone has given me a single reason why indicating all the time (unambiguously...) is a bad idea (other than they think lifting their hand a few inches to move the lever is too much effort...), other than some speculative BS that developing the muscle memory for it is somehow bad?!

 

[a3_phil]

Is this why BMW drivers traditionally don't indicate at all?

An advanced driving technique that guarantees they, and all drivers around them, are hyper-alert of their surroundings?

 

[sunscreemer]

Is this why BMW drivers traditionally don't indicate at all?

An advanced driving technique that guarantees they, and all drivers around them, are hyper-alert of their surroundings?

Hey! I drive a BMW and I indicate!! ;-)

 

[cemerson]

Well there are bound to be exceptions You are 1 in a million if you do...

 

[veeeight]

Noone has given me a single reason why indicating all the time (unambiguously...) is a bad idea (other than they think lifting their hand a few inches to move the lever is too much effort...), other than some speculative BS that developing the muscle memory for it is somehow bad?!

They have, you just haven't seen it


It's very simple.

Signal only when there is someone to signal to
or
Where there is a benefit to someone else.

If a driver can't follow these 2 simple rules - what hope is there for them?


(As for CAA/FAA - they have both issued bulletins recently advising that increasing automation is leading to awareness and skilling and training shortfalls, and incidents).

 

[cemerson]

No, that's not a reason not to do it, that's just a reason why (in your opinion) you think it's reasonable not to do (and I disagree with).

 

[veeeight]

Again...... not my opinion, but instruction and guidance from those that do know better about cars, traffic, behavior and human factors.

 

[WeeDram]

I think cemerson gave some good examples. You're in a low traffic residential area at night and there is nobody to signal to, so you turn left (in the UK) into a side street without indicating. Bam! The cyclist wearing all black with no lights or reflectors is now embedded in your passenger door. Nobody could possibly have seen them. So the rule "Signal only when there is someone to signal to" has a fatal flaw. Had you signalled to "nobody" the invisible cyclist would have had a chance to brake.

 

[veeeight]

So now

You are driving without lights

And you have impaired vision

Going too fast for the conditions

And you still have a driving licence?

Besides
Exactly how would this invisible cyclist, facing forward, have benefitted from your indicator, which would be behind him/her? Do they have eyes in the back of their head?

By the time you are alongside them at close quarters a signal or not would not have averted the accident. If they had their wits about them they would realise that you are making the left turn, signal or not.

 

[WeeDram]

I have my headlights on and am driving within the limits of my vision at a speed appropriate to conditions plus a reasonable margin of error. If we drove everywhere anticipating statistical outlier conditions such as black-clad cyclists at night we'd never exceed 5 mph on city streets, which is unreasonable. Another example: you'd never change lanes if you drove anticipating the tiny chance a driver might appear at 3x the posted limit after your shoulder/mirror check confirmed the lane was supposedly vacant. (If you had signalled they might have braked though...)

In the cyclist example I have overtaken them so they are behind me where they would have seen my signals and braked. It doesn't matter why I didn't see them, but my signal would have prevented a collision. If there was nobody there, this unambiguous signal wouldn't have caused any harm, nor led me to become less vigilant in future.

I think there's always opportunities to advance the state of the art. Not long ago in CPR training one alternated chest compressions with mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Now it's all chest compressions. Knowledge advances and advanced driver training shouldn't be immune.

 

[veeeight]

IIn the cyclist example I have overtaken them so they are behind me where they would have seen my signals and braked.

If you had already overtaken them then they would have seen your brake lights before you made the left turn.


All I'm hearing are excuses and mitigation for poor and bad driving.


Whereas if you actually observed and were aware of your surroundings and had to think about signalling and act cautious, you'd be a better driver, improve road conditions and traffic flow.

UK roads are already full of numpties who indicate blindly out of habit without actually being aware of their surroundings.

Travel on any UK motorway and you'll witness that many drivers actually use the indicator as a right of way to change lanes.

The guidance of signal only if there is someone to signal to, and only if it is of benefit to someone else is an education based approach to better driving, better road safety and conditions.


As opposed to just blindly signalling out of habit. Telling people to signal blindly, regardless of whether they need it or not, isn't going to cut it. Because that never improves driver performance.

 

[WeeDram]

Well, call it poor driving then but since I'm not perfect I'm going to continue signalling when nobody is there, just in case I make a mistake and somebody actually is. I might avoid running into cemerson lol! Those who never make mistakes about the position of other vehicles should consider connecting their brake lamps to a lever too, same principle.

The new guy who started this thread must be wondering what he/she got themselves into

 

[cemerson]

The failure to admit that sometimes mistakes can be made is very telling indeed about a person I think

 

[s4mmie_]

Wow this thread got a bit OT

It's very simple.
Signal only when there is someone to signal to or Where there is a benefit to someone else.
If a driver can't follow these 2 simple rules - what hope is there for them?

That's assuming you have eyes in the back of your head and know the conditions of everything behind you. Unlikely.
There's always a chance there's a car you're not aware of behind or around you. I think it's a bit silly to say that you should only use your indicators when you're aware that there's someone about. Signalling your intentions on the road can only be a good thing. I'd much prefer an indicator than an accident because someone assumed "that there wasn't anyone to signal to or it wasn't any benefit".

 

[veeeight]

Again, that is encouragement for habit and robotic based behaviour.

Whereas an education based approach for drivers to only signal if there is someone to signal to, or where someone will benefit from it, will only improve driver performance and road safety.


Two simple rules.
As advocated and practiced by Advanced Drivers, Police, IAM, ROSPA, ADI, Highway Code, DSA etc.


I don't see any advanced driving body, or safety body, or indeed, driving instructors, advocating "signal whether you need to or not". This is a mantra made up and passed around by lazy or inattentive road users who clearly need driving refreshers


It's not difficult to be aware of your surroundings.
Anyone who has done a commentary during an advanced driving session will know this.



Be my guest if you wish to remain mediocre drivers

Or actually try it for yourselves next time you're on the road. Before you automatically reach for that indicator stalk, look around you and ask yourself those 2 questions - you might find it makes you a better, safer and more attentive driver

 

[veeeight]

Look wider than your own surroundings.

Indicating without thought runs the risk of misleading signals being given.

Eg
Pulling out to pass a parked car - right indicator on and move towards centre of road - just the procedure that would be used to turn into road on the right. There is such a road and a car is waiting to exit and turn to his right. That driver observes your change in speed, thinks you are about to turn into 'his' road, so he pulls out.

Thinking before every use of the indicators avoids misleading signals and requires more observation and planning - the basis of safe driving.

 

[veeeight]

From "Road Sense" by Doug Holland - Sigma Publishing 1993.

An argument often levelled against this principle of 'discretionary’ or 'thoughtful' signalling, and which is often said to support the principle of, ‘habitual’ signalling (i.e. signalling for every manoeuvre irrespective of whether there is another road user to benefit from it) runs as follows: “there is no harm in giving a signal which is not, strictly speaking, necessary. If it is proposed to turn left and there is nobody about, what possible danger could be caused by giving a signal?”

This is a superficially appealing argument, and it is valid as far as it goes. However, it fails to take account of one important factor - human nature. It is generally found that the driver who gives a signal when a signal is not necessary is the driver who has not taken effective observation all around his vehicle and seen that a signal is not necessary. In other words, the mirrors-signals-manoeuvre routine has been abbreviated to 'signals, manoeuvre'. As will be seen later this is undesirable and potentially dangerous.

On the other hand, the driver who wishes to consider the question "Is a signal necessary?" is the driver who is required to take effective all round observation in order to do so. Put yet another way, if unnecessary signals are given, it is not the signal itself which is the problem (unless it is misleading); rather it is the mental attitude of the driver immediately before the application of that signal. If a signal is given which was not necessary, it is unlikely that the thought process of the driver immediately before its application was: “I have taken effective all round observation; I have satisfied myself that I know the position and movements of all other road users around my vehicle. Clearly a signal is not necessary, but I will give one anyway”. It is much more likely to be: “I will not bother to take effective all round observation because I will signal no matter what I see”.