Cover not available
Article published In:
Interaction Studies
Vol. 24:3 (2023) ► pp.362–379

Coordination between vehicles in traffic

Accounting for the use of direction lights based on observations in North-East Italy

ORCID logo | HIT, Human Inspired Technologies Research Centre | Università degli Studi di Padova
ORCID logo | HIT, Human Inspired Technologies Research Centre | Università degli Studi di Padova
This study belongs to the ethnomethodological tradition of identifying the everyday practices accounting for the oiled machinery of social organization and applies this approach to understanding direction light usage. We observe a set of episodes videorecorded in North-East Italy in the urban traffic. We first unpack the meaning of direction light usage from a pragmatic perspective and then test our interpretation against the cases in our collection that seem to deviate from it. We argue that direction lights’ usage works as an announcement to some road users and a request to a subset of them; in both cases, direction lights convey contextualized (indexical) coordinates about the vehicle’s prospective trajectory. We then explain the cases in which signaling is omitted and draw some implications for traffic coordination and safety.
Keywords: coordination practices, driver-to-driver interaction, traffic, direction lights
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Materials and method
  • Results
    • Actions performed when using direction lights
    • Omissions
    • Impossibilities
  • Conclusions
  • Declarations of interest
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 15 February 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.22014.mas
References (39)
References
Arminen, I. (2017). Institutional interaction: Studies of talk at work. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arminen, I., Licoppe, C., & Spagnolli, A. (2016). Respecifying mediated interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49 (4), 290–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, B., & Laurier, E. (2017, May). The trouble with autopilots: Assisted and autonomous driving on the social road. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 416–429). ACM. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dant, T. (2004). The driver-car. Theory, Culture & Society, 21 (4–5), 61–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Department of Transportation (2007). Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Federal Register, 72(232), p.711). Retrieved at: [URL]
Deppermann, A., Laurier, E., Mondada, L., Broth, M., Cromdal, J., De Stefani, E., Haddington, P., Levin, L., Nevile, M., and Rauniomaa, M. (2018). Overtaking as an interactional achievement: video analyses of participants’ practices in traffic. Gesprächsforschung 19 1, 1–131.Google Scholar
DeStefani, E., Gazin, A. D. (2014). Instructional sequences in driving lessons: Mobile participants and the temporal and sequential organization of actions. Journal of Pragmatics 65 1, 63–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
European Union (2019). Acts adopted by bodies created by international agreements: Regulation No 48 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UNECE) – Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the installation of lighting and light-signaling devices [2019/57]. Official Journal of the European Union. Retrieved at: [URL]
Gamberini, L., & Spagnolli, A. (2015). An Action-Based Approach to Presence: Foundations and Methods. In Immersed in Media (pp. 101–114). Springer, Cham. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, Paul. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P., Morgan, J. (eds.). Syntax and semantics. Vol. 3: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press. pp. 41–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guo, Y., Li, Z., Wu, Y., & Xu, C. (2018). Exploring unobserved heterogeneity in bicyclists’ red-light running behaviors at different crossing facilities. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 115 1, 118–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haddington, P. (2010). Turn-taking for turn-taking: Mobility, time and action in the sequential organization of junction-negotiations in cars. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43 (4), 372–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Movement in action: Initiating social navigation in cars. Semiotica, 191 1, 137–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haddington, P., & Rauniomaa, M. (2014). Interaction between road users: offering space in traffic. Space and culture, 17 (2), 176–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanks, P. (1990). Referential practice. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kauffmann, N., Winkler, F., & Vollrath, M. (2018). What Makes an Automated Vehicle a Good Driver?. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (p. 168). ACM. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laurier, E., Lorimer, H., Brown, B., Jones, O., Juhlin, O., Noble, A., ... & Weilenmann, A. (2008). Driving and ‘passengering’: Notes on the ordinary organization of car travel. Mobilities, 3 (1), 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laurier, E. (2013). Before, in and after: Cars making their way through roundabouts. In Haddington, P., Mondada, L. (2014). The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 65 1, 137–156.Google Scholar
(2019). Civility and mobility: drivers (and passengers) appreciating the actions of other drivers. Language & Communication 65 (2019): 79–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, T. C., Polak, J. W., Bell, M. G., & Wigan, M. R. (2012). The kinematic features of motorcycles in congested urban networks. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 49 1, 203–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, L., Cromdal, J., Broth, M., Gazin, A. D., Haddington, P., McIlvenny, P., Melander, H., & Rauniomaa, M. (2017). Unpacking corrections in mobile instruction: Error-occasioned learning opportunities in driving, cycling and aviation training. Linguistics and Education, 381, 11–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity (Vol. 51). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McIlvenny, P., Broth, M., and Haddington, P. (2014). Moving together: Mobile formations in interaction. Space and culture, 17 (2), 104–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merlino, S., Mondada, L. (2018). Crossing the street: How pedestrians interact with cars. Language & Communication, 65 1, 131–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Monahan, T., & Fisher, J. A. (2010). Benefits of ‘observer effects’: lessons from the field. Qualitative research, 10(3), 357–376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haddington, P., Mondada, L., & Nevile, M. (Eds.). (2013). Interaction and mobility: Language and the body in motion (pp. 212–242). Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
Perterer, N., Meerwald-Stadler, S., Trösterer, S., Meschtscherjakov, A., & Tscheligi, M. (2018). Follow Me: Exploring Strategies and Challenges for Collaborative Driving. In B. Donmez, B. N. Walker and P. Froehlich (eds). Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (pp. 176–187). New York: ACM. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pink, S., Fors, V., & Glöss, M. (2019). Automated futures and the mobile present: In-car video ethnographies. Ethnography, 20(1), 88–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Risto, M., Emmenegger, C., Vinkhuyzen, E., Cefkin, M. & Hollan, J. (2017). Human-Vehicle Interfaces: The Power of Vehicle Movement Gestures in Human Road User Coordination. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sagberg, F., Selpi Bianchi Piccinini, G. F., & Engström, J. (2015). A review of research on driving styles and road safety. Human factors, 57(7), 1248–1275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse processes, 23 (3), 499–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis (Vol.11). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott-Parker, B., & Weston, L. (2017). Sensitivity to reward and risky driving, risky decision making, and risky health behaviour: A literature review. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 49 1, 93–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. J. (2017). Membership categorisation, category-relevant spaces, and perception-in-action: The case of disputes between cyclists and drivers. Journal of Pragmatics, 118 1, 120–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Terasaki, A. (2004). Pre-announcement sequences in conversation. In G. Lerner (ed) Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp.125–171), Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Nes, N., Christoph, M., Hoedemaeker, M., & van der Horst, R. A. (2013). The value of site-based observations complementary to naturalistic driving observations: A pilot study on the right turn maneuver. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 58 1, 318–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vanderbilt, T. (2008). Traffic. Why we drive the way we do (and what it says about us). New York: A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Vinkhuyzen, E., and Cefkin, M. (2016). Developing socially acceptable autonomous vehicles.” In Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference Proceedings, pp. 522–534. 2016. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vissers, L. K., van der Schagen, S., & INLG van & Hagenzieker, M. P. (2016). Safe interaction between cyclists, pedestrians and automated vehicles: what do we know and what do we need to know? SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, R-2016-16, [URL]