If the car system can figure when a turn signal should be activated why engage the driver at all? Why not have the car activate the signal automatically?

I guess you cannot have the system activate the signal automatically becuase it would need to signal in advance while the device as described only detects the turn once you have completed it. Hence it is a post action control. How about a device that lets other road users ping you in a polite manner for failing to signal - flashing your headlights or blowing your horn don,t always do the trick as the errant driver may not understand why you are miffed with them. Nice idea!

Just thinking about sand's suggestion above. The decision to signal could be tied in with your sat nav system. It could prompt you to signal at the next turn on your progammed journey. The sat nav could act as your prompter in terms of some aspects of road etiquette.

As Bogrocker said. The first and last lines of the first paragraph clearly state that the system figures out when you should have used your signal. If I'd meant that the system could figure out when you should use your turn signal, I would have said so.

However, that does bring up an interesting question: could there be such a system? I posit no: the car can't automatically detect intent to U-turn instead of left turn, for example. This does lead to another interesting idea, although it might be a little weak. Well, let's throw it to the wolves and see what happens! (Another idea forthcoming)

Ha ha, Bogrocker. First of all, I like it. Second of all, you juuuust committed the kind of problem that I think my second-idea-from-now would solve, i.e. your idea would be better in a separate post/discussion, for visibility.

This increases the argument for surveillance in other areas of life. While I support the desire to have safer public spaces, I can't condone or support an idea that would enable other, similar arguments of automated surveillance.

Several places in Europe have increased the apparent danger to drivers, by doing things like removing stoplights and installing traffic circles. The accident rates plummet, as the actual danger does not increase appreciably while the precived danger skyrockets. Drivers slow down and obey traffic laws because they think they're going to die if they don't. Why don't we just do that instead?

We already do that, and everyone I've ever talked to about traffic circles hates them. I don't have any data available, nor will I conjure any up, but I would bet that there would be a lot of resistance to switching over. In New Jersey, sometimes smaller two lane highways will intersect at traffic circles, to avoid the problem of the light, but everyone hates them, no one knows what to do at them, and if you end up going the wrong way, you're on that road for quite some time before you can turn around. That said, maybe these problems can be overcome.

I'm going to cry foul at your masterfully executed slippery slope fallacious argument. Just because something enables a chain of events to occur that could lead to something bad eventually maybe, doesn't mean that the thing is bad itself. Classical "argumentum ad consequentiam" mistake. Also, I really think "privacy" is far, far overrated. "Oh noes, you're trampling on my right to break sensible laws because it's convenient for me to do so even though it endangers others..." It's immature to think that the "gub'mint" is telling you what to do because it gets a kick out of it, and so therefore you don't have to, hmph; a government wants its people to be safe and it wants to prevent accidents, and it seems that we as drivers don't really care about that, or at least our collective behavior doesn't reflect it.

Having said that, I still like the idea of some kind of warning to at least let you, personally, know that you don't know how to use your blinker correctly. I can't think of any objections to that.

People who complain about traffic circles are almost universally bad drivers. Any professional driver I've spoken with, from cab drivers to truckers, love traffic circles. It's pretty easy to pick someone out who can't drive when you bring up the subject. Circles are more stressful, as people believe them to be far more dangerous than they really are. Circles flow more traffic per hour than lights do. It's been tested in other countries, and it works extremely well.

I'd support removing blinkers, period. A good driver can read a car, and with great accuracy, tell if the other driver is going to turn or continue forward. Without a blinker, drivers have to drive even more cautiously, as they would have no idea what other drivers are about to do. Danger increases, people respond.

But then again, I'm just well read on driver psychology, vehicle dynamics, and traffic flow. What do I know?

I can see the logic in toastydeath's argument however I don't believe removing blinkers would necessarily be progressive. Given that many motorists seem to be unable to get their signalling up to par it is also likely that there will be motorists who are unable to read the intentions of other road users and accidents will therefore continue. Remember signalling is a courtesy to other road users that helps them to navigate their journey. I think we should show more courtesy not less. If consideration is shown to us by other road users are we not more likely to reciprocate in kind making the roads a safer place for everyone?

CYI, as the original idea was yours would you care to post the separate post/discussion as per your comment above?

I'm not sure what you mean, Bogrocker; I'm not sure what the new idea is. Do you mean getting rid of blinkers altogether, or maybe moving to traffic circles, or the combination of the two? As that is toastydeath's idea, I would suggest he post it.

Toasty: That's another classical mistake that you've just made. Perhaps your claim that those who complain about traffic circles are bad drivers is true. I'd even say that's likely. However, so what? :) That doesn't suddenly neutralize bad drivers. "You're just a bad driver." "Oh no, I'm melting!" I'd say undercut the problem entirely by introducing systems that make people into better drivers, and that one of the methods in which this could be done is introduce a system that calibrates your ability to tell when you need to signal (I would find it useful because I try to be courteous and I try to signal but I can't estimate 300 feet to save my life, and without any kind of feedback, it's impossible to calibrate), and that could perhaps penalize someone for constantly shirking his or her responsibility (like the jerks who can't be bothered to use their lights at all).

I think that these are real problems and that this could be a real solution. Complaints about privacy often don't sit well with me because I don't think "the right to shirk one's civic duty" falls under private right. With this system, as with all systems, I think that it can be set so that we can do a reasonably good job separating those who screw up once or twice on accident, which could happen over time, sure, from the chronic offenders.

Perhaps even switching to traffic circles would be a great idea one day, but instead of waiting for changes to the entire nation's road infrastructure to occur, perhaps an invention that can be installed in a car, one at a time is an effective stop-gap solution? Slippery slope thinking again: X would be good, Y would be better, so just skip X and move to Y. Ok, sure, but what if X is easy t o implement, and Y would take years to implement? Not to get all mystical on you, but knowing the path isn't the same as walking the path.

I say easy to implement because this would/ought to be one of the functions of the car blackbox, which I fully support, and which is already being used by several car insurance companies. "A device that allows me to prove my claims that I'm a good driver, and then lowers my insurance based on that? Sign me up!" And as I've mentioned, I myself would be interested in such a device, purely as a calibration tool. Maybe not so many other people would be. But hey, if you make it available, maybe people will sign up. To encourage purchase of such a device, I would say give an insurance break and/or tax break to those who have it installed. (Like the ones we get for having car alarms installed, because, you know, THAT'S helpful...) Thus, no one is forced to have it, but there is an even stronger incentive. I would then argue for the installation of these things into all rental and government vehicles.

Now, having said that, let's come full (traffic, ha ha) circle, and I suggest that you post about traffic circles. If you believe in them so much, you should be tirelessly campaigning for them, and raising awareness and acceptance, instead of sitting there with your data, waiting for it to happen. Go MAKE it happen! (I would slap you on the back at this point)

Unfortunately, my empirical evidence suggests that approximately 50% of drivers have very little predisposition to use their turn signal at all. This is just one characteristic of the much greater problem; that being, the majority of all licensed drivers today are egocentric, self-absorbed twits who possess, either consciously or unconsciously, precious little awareness or concern for others. When it comes to great ideas for cars & drivers, the best ones, like many other ideas/solutions of the past, minimize/eliminate the human element.

Current traffic law and what's actually safe have nothing in common. "Civic duty," at present, entails following practices that increase danger to life and property. Pardon me while I practice "civil disobedience" and ignore these laws. I am willing to risk tickets and other monetary penalties to decrease the probability that I will be involved or killed in an accident. The United States Department of Transportation has done a couple studies on this, as well as numerous other bodies, both independent and government funded. I'm going to trust the folks that do the research over the lawmakers.

You may criticize me, but I've spent a great amount of my time studying traffic and driving. Enough time to grasp at least a few of the reasons why the situation is the way it is at present, and why it isn't changing. The monetary risk to insurance companies of strict enforcement of traffic laws is too great, and insurance companies will not have it.

I'm not going to tirelessly campaign for something when I understand the financial interest in keeping things the way they are. Increased safety has no offer of financial benefit to any involved party except the driver, and that's not the issue. Basic economics at work. Why would you, as a business owner, support something that would ultimately erode your bottom line?

A better question than blinkers or traffic circles: Why are we allowing drivers on the road with minimal understanding of how traffic flows, or how a vehicle behaves? Why is anyone allowed on a highway without understanding what "synchronized flow" is? Why is anyone allowed to drive a car without understanding the traction circle? We allow uneducated drivers on the road, and permit horrible habits to develop. And an entire industry has cropped up to support the situation. Everyone believes they are an excellent driver, without outside input or corroboration. Yet, ask them even the most basic question on vehicle dynamics, and they falter. How can you be a good driver without understanding how a car will behave, or how your actions will effect those around you? Isn't that like being an painter with no idea how to put oils on a canvas?

And no, I'm not going to post on traffic circles. I have no interest in hearing what people with no background or education on the subject have to say on the matter.

CYI I was referring to your comment in which you stated: "Second of all, you juuuust committed the kind of problem that I think my second-idea-from-now would solve, i.e. your idea would be better in a separate post/discussion, for visibility." Perhaps I misunderstood?

I agreed, maybe just an annoying voice that says "I guess you forgot to use your signal back there. Again". You can use my wife's voice if you like.

Perhaps there could be a market for data collection that could be used by auto insurancers to give good drivers a good rate based on such habits... or even for drivers who let the "nag" voice stay on.

Whoo! Traffic circles! I've only run across one once. It was unexpected, so there was some confusion at first on my part, but it wasn't bad. I think I prefer that to, say, four way stops. Too many people not signalling where they are going. Too many people not following the rules on who goes first. Too much confusion if three or four vehicles show up at once and no blinkers are used. Bring on the circles!

Also, can we have driving tests more often? Can the scoring for both the driving tests and written tests be more strict? Maybe also give more weight to the questions pertaining to safety and less weight to those on the questions about the amount of fines? I have only had the one driving test and that was nearly 14 years ago. I have another three years before I have to renew my license and that most likely isn't going to involve a driving test. That will be 20 years of driving on only one simple driving test in a small town in Missouri! How do they know I haven't fallen into a number of bad habits? How do they know if I haven't turned into an unsafe driver? Is anyone ever made to take the driving test again after they pass it the first time?

Stay off cell phone while driving so you can remember to turn signal off!!! LOT SAFER ALSO

How would the car know who's driving, where the fail-to-signal occurred, what the situation was? Also, the DMV would hire a bunch more people to evaluate this.In the USA, we have a right to our accuser, which invalidates this idea, and in many states signaling is NOT mandatory.

People who don't use turn indicators aren't thinking about others and their responsibilities to share the road. They may not be thinking at all. It isn't a technical problem, especially not one to be solved after the fact, unless a little gloved hand could pop out from behind the steering wheel and slap them 'up side the head'!