Road layout, which is correct?

[L John]

Always safer to indicate, IMO.

Safer?
If driving in the left lane (a left turn only lane) and turning left, where is this danger you speak of that would be saved by the use of an indicator?

 

[Frosty149]

The indication (signal) in the scenario here serves as a confirmation of intent - if you need to take the 2nd exit (as described in the earlier posts) a signal may well avoid any uncertainty and lead to other road users giving you space?
I'm not saying it's a prerequisite just that it does no harm... To be honest I signal by instinct, whether required or not.
How many times have we all encountered a manouvre that is not signaled and considered it at least thoughtless, dangerous even?
Inexperienced drivers, don't have that cautionary 'reading' of road situations that the older hands take for granted?
I agree that there is no need to signal in the first exit scenario, just saying it does no harm and confirms your intention.

 

[Srdl]

... To be honest I signal by instinct, whether required or not.

^ Ditto - we were out late at night with no other traffic around and my wife asked why I was indicating - habit!

 

[L John]

I agree with you 100% and I would most likely signal by instinct too, the only need in my mind is if there are pedestrians as they wouldn't be expected to know about lane discipline.
If there are no pedestrians I just might choose not to signal but that depends on everything else around.

My comment about not signalling was because Gerald was saying...

No doubt the traffic in front of the OP intending to turn left did not signal their intention either..

There is no need to signal an intention when the lane is only going to one exit, so anyone not signalling are already showing their intention by their road position.

Bottom line, as we all know, signalling and road position are not proof of another drivers intention as people do weird things e.g. left signal but turn right.

 

[Frosty149]

Agree Gents, nothing rattles me as much as when you wait to pull out of a junction and the approaching car turns in front of you with no signal or signals to turn and doesn't!
Like I say, there is a sixth sense at times which just says 'I don't trust that vehicle or driver" and you just back away.

 

[L John]

Would you indicate right when following the road (bends 90 deg to the right) at this junction?
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.5...4!1s4HEVxL-QmVoekbOHMKILlw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

If there's a car waiting to come onto the main road, I always signal right to let them know I'm not going straight on but most people don't.
Also, people do'nt signal when they go straight on, I'd be signalling left to go straight on.

 

[geraldrobins]

Probably not. But I would signal left to go straight on as I was leaving the main carriageway.

 

[LostKiwi]

Ditto - I only signal if I am leaving the marked lane I am in. In the example above the marked lane turns right so no signal required if I'm following the road. Turning out of the lane (going straight ahead) would be cause for left indicator as I'm exiting the lane to the left.

 

[MisterMicawber]

we were out late at night with no other traffic around and my wife asked why I was indicating - habit!

I was taken aback by your wife's comment. I always indicate because it's the approach that requires the least thought! (Call it the lazy approach if you like.)

If I had to make a decision every time about whether to indicate or not, based on whether I thought anyone else could see me or not, it would just take up too much effort. In any case, I could never be sure whether or not there was someone I hadn't spotted who would benefit from my signalling - eg a pedestrian on a dark night who was about to cross the road.

So I always signal - it saves having to devote too much brain power to an unnecessary decision!

 

[Srdl]

I was taken aback by your wife's comment. I always indicate because it's the approach that requires the least thought! (Call it the lazy approach if you like.)

If I had to make a decision every time about whether to indicate or not, based on whether I thought anyone else could see me or not, it would just take up too much effort. In any case, I could never be sure whether or not there was someone I hadn't spotted who would benefit from my signalling - eg a pedestrian on a dark night who was about to cross the road.

So I always signal - it saves having to devote too much brain power to an unnecessary decision!

Totally agree

 

[Rappey69]

im going to buy a bmw, then i believe im exempt from signaling

 

[yorkshire1]

on another tack there are numerous instances where lane signage hinders the flow of traffic eg left lane for left and straight on and right for turning right when most of the LH lane traffic turns left and the straight aheaders are in a long queue. Simple trick is to go right around the r -about and straight ahead..does **** a few off though

 

[umblecumbuz]

So how annoying is the guy who uses the right lane because the queue is shorter/smarter taking off in a gap, and then turns hard left! White van man seems to be the main culprit.

Umble.

 

[davemercedes]

on another tack there are numerous instances where lane signage hinders the flow of traffic eg left lane for left and straight on and right for turning right when most of the LH lane traffic turns left and the straight aheaders are in a long queue. Simple trick is to go right around the r -about and straight ahead..does **** a few off though

Yes...
Round my way the nanny state managers have attacked the lane marking on every roundabout entry. They have painted lines areound every roundabout but most particularly, we have two big wide dual carriageways (three lanes) adjoining the motorway and if you were going to turn left on to the motorway the left lane was virtually empty for 200 rards so you could filter up and turn left - causing no problems to anyone. So what have they done? Closed the left lane off and grassed or tarmac'ed it and marked the new left lane with an ahead/left arrow. Result - at peak times the queue in the left lane is at least 6-700 yards and people turning left have to wait until they get right there before they can (usually immediately) turn left and go. So now there's a 1/2 mile queue where there was a couple of hundred yard and everyone wastes time and fuel while the fumes are polluting the atmosphere (especially from the murderous swines like me who are vicious enough to drive a "filthy" Mercedes diesel)!

 

[LostKiwi]

...murderous swines like me who are vicious enough to drive a "filthy" Mercedes diesel)!

The lynch mob should arrive shortly (they're stuck in traffic at a roundabout).

 

[davemercedes]

The lynch mob should arrive shortly (they're stuck in traffic at a roundabout).

Better still... They got nicked for ignoring the road markings!

 

[L John]

Yes...
Round my way the nanny state managers have attacked the lane marking on every roundabout entry. They have painted lines areound every roundabout but most particularly, we have two big wide dual carriageways (three lanes) adjoining the motorway and if you were going to turn left on to the motorway the left lane was virtually empty for 200 rards so you could filter up and turn left - causing no problems to anyone. So what have they done? Closed the left lane off and grassed or tarmac'ed it and marked the new left lane with an ahead/left arrow. Result - at peak times the queue in the left lane is at least 6-700 yards and people turning left have to wait until they get right there before they can (usually immediately) turn left and go. So now there's a 1/2 mile queue where there was a couple of hundred yard and everyone wastes time and fuel while the fumes are polluting the atmosphere (especially from the murderous swines like me who are vicious enough to drive a "filthy" Mercedes diesel)!

My guess is it's intentional to drip feed onto the motorway instead of too many joining the motorway all at once.