Is it because the driving instructors are rubbish?

[supermono]

I know there's lots of problems on the roads but what's with this national passtime of failing to signal logically or at all on roundabouts?

To my mind it's essential as a minimum to signal left if you're going left, right if you're passing junctions where people may be waiting to come out. Even if you don't see cars you've got pedestrians to think about -- there's a roundabout I walk past very often and these deathmeisters carve round to their left without a signal and sometimes nearly mow me down.

So without getting into a discussion about how to signal on a roundabout or how to be a safe pedestrian, I'd like to understand how much weight instructors place on correct indication.

In my case, it was a bit like the speed limit where it was accepted that you only needed to follow the speed limit blindly for the driving test then you could start being sensible. I only discovered the true importance for myself later.

Signalling on roundabouts is a real safety thing not to mention a courtesy to other road users and I honestly think accidents (pulling out in front of, running into the back of, etc) are caused by this and therefore insurance ££££ are wasted.

Do instructors give the proper amout of weight to this but ignorant dumbfricks just can't be bothered or is it more of a just for the test thing?

SM

[rsv gone!]

The driving test is much harder to do now than certainly when I passed my test (1989). Poor driving isn't down to the test/examiners/instructors. (Obviously, there will be good and bad instructors - as in anything).

If an individual has no interest in keeping their standards up (or improving) then they won't. Unless they trigger a speed camera, there is no education that they're doing anything wrong.

We need more TrafPol.

A separate argument is whether the large influx of foreign drivers, whose national driving habits and tests are of a much lower standard than our own, are dragging down the average standards on our roads.

[heebeegeetee]

I think the IAM contribute in a small way with their ethos of only indicating if there someone to indicate to (or something like that) instead of just indicating every time you turn, as though it is a legal requirement.

By allowing drivers to turn without indicating, lowers the importance that should be attached to indicating, imo.

[Smiler.]

heebeegeetee said:

I think the IAM contribute in a small way with their ethos of only indicating if there someone to indicate to (or something like that) instead of just indicating every time you turn, as though it is a legal requirement.

By allowing drivers to turn without indicating, lowers the importance that should be attached to indicating, imo.

Makes perfect sense - it assumes that the driver has actually looked around & is aware of other users/conditions. That surely is the whole point, instead of monkey-see monkey-do, which is usually the case e.g. muppets changing lane right in front of another vehicle & flicking the indicators on at the same instant rather than mirror - signal - manoeuvre.

[Taita]

Hardly anyone indicates up here, especially saloon drivers.

[1950trevorP]

heebeegeetee said:

I think the IAM contribute in a small way with their ethos of only indicating if there someone to indicate to (or something like that) instead of just indicating every time you turn, as though it is a legal requirement.

By allowing drivers to turn without indicating, lowers the importance that should be attached to indicating, imo.

Interesting.

May I ask, Sir, if I follow that philosophy,
and have checked that there are NO other road users to benefit from a signal,
how you (or any other non-visible road user) know what I have done?

[Jonny671]

I'm just about to take my test..

I'd say they do put pressure on you to get it right, if you forget they'll take you to the next round-a-bout and make sure you do it correctly.

Sometimes when i've gone into a tight round-a-bout, changing gear.. Indicating right at the round-a-bout then left whilst i'm on it to signal that i'm coming off.. Sometimes I just cancel the right signal and then the left doesn't go on. But it's all practice.

[RT106]

heebeegeetee said:

I think the IAM contribute in a small way with their ethos of only indicating if there someone to indicate to (or something like that) instead of just indicating every time you turn, as though it is a legal requirement.

Isn't it arrogant to assume your observation is so flawless that you haven't over-looked someone who may benefit from a signal?

[Big Fat F'r]

supermono said:

Is it that ignorant dumbfricks just can't be bothered

Yes.

Phew, that's got that out of the way. Now let's get on to 20 pages of why the IAM is wrong to advocate signalling when it would benefit another road user.

BFF

[oggs]

supermono said:

Do instructors give the proper amount of weight to this but ignorant dumbfricks just can't be bothered

SM

bingo

rsv gone! said:

The driving test is much harder to do now than certainly when I passed my test (1989). Poor driving isn't down to the test/examiners/instructors. (Obviously, there will be good and bad instructors - as in anything).

If an individual has no interest in keeping their standards up (or improving) then they won't. Unless they trigger a speed camera, there is no education that they're doing anything wrong.

We need more TrafPol.

A separate argument is whether the large influx of foreign drivers, whose national driving habits and tests are of a much lower standard than our own, are dragging down the average standards on our roads.

[WilliBetz]

Big Fat F'r said:

supermono said:

Is it that ignorant dumbfricks just can't be bothered

Yes.

Phew, that's got that out of the way. Now let's get on to 20 pages of why the IAM is wrong to advocate signalling when it would benefit another road user.

BFF

I can't see the IAM's stance (signal when it would benefit another road user) generating 20 pages.

The corollary (don't signal if it won't benefit another road user) may pad things out a bit.

If that fails, the volte-face by some opinion formers in the advanced driving arena, who now signal by rote, could get us there...

However, to answer the OP's question probably doesn't require such rigorous analysis and protracted debate. He's right, lazy dumbfricks just can't be bothered.

[jaf01uk]

heebeegeetee said:

I think the IAM contribute in a small way with their ethos of only indicating if there someone to indicate to (or something like that) instead of just indicating every time you turn, as though it is a legal requirement.

By allowing drivers to turn without indicating, lowers the importance that should be attached to indicating, imo.

Funny you should say that, in my experience people use NOT checking around as the excuse for habitual signalling, I find that as soon as a direction is given "whack!" the indicator is on, no mirror checks or driving plan formed, nothing! Highway Code says "signal, if necessary to help or warn other road users inc pedestrians" The only way we know that someone is actually reading the road and conditions and forming proper driving plans is when they DON'T indicate, in my opinion habitual indicating is a bad thing for the reasons stated above,
Regards,
Gary

[crisisjez]

Laziness, lack of planning and most importantly, lack of interest.

[Big Fat F'r]

WilliBetz said:

Big Fat F'r said:

supermono said:

Is it that ignorant dumbfricks just can't be bothered

Yes.

Phew, that's got that out of the way. Now let's get on to 20 pages of why the IAM is wrong to advocate signalling when it would benefit another road user.

BFF

I can't see the IAM's stance (signal when it would benefit another road user) generating 20 pages.

The corollary (don't signal if it won't benefit another road user) may pad things out a bit.

Exactly. The idea that you should only signal if another road user will benefit does seem to generate considerable and protracted discussion, on here and elsewhere. It seems a simple enough idea, that most drivers have an opinion on, so it's surprising sometimes how involved it all gets.

WilliBetz said:

If that fails, the volte-face by some opinion formers in the advanced driving arena, who now signal by rote, could get us there...

The ones who advocate it for others are few and far between. The ones who admit to doing it themselves are even less.

WilliBetz said:

[However, to answer the OP's question probably doesn't require such rigorous analysis and protracted debate. He's right, lazy dumbfricks just can't be bothered.

Aye.

BFF

[heebeegeetee]

jaf01uk said:

The only way we know that someone is actually reading the road and conditions and forming proper driving plans is when they DON'T indicate, in my opinion habitual indicating is a bad thing for the reasons stated above,
Regards,
Gary

So the fact that as a nation we have practically stopped signaling, is indeed a sign of our good driving. I must say, i'd never thought of that. The fact that practically every driver I see who turns right at roundabouts without signaling is in fact a sign that they are apparently trying to do the right thing.

Smiler. said:

Makes perfect sense - it assumes that the driver has actually looked around & is aware of other users/conditions. That surely is the whole point, instead of monkey-see monkey-do, which is usually the case e.g. muppets changing lane right in front of another vehicle & flicking the indicators on at the same instant rather than mirror - signal - manoeuvre.

I have to say, that this is a prime example of why i dislike the advanced driving ethos as practiced. It seems to me that the simple act of driving a motor car along the highway is turned into an unbelievably difficult thing to do, and the measures taken to turn this simple act into a difficult one can be positively anal. This is a prime example - how anal do you have to be to turn an act of failing to signal into a sign of good driving/

When you have looked around and seen that there is no-one there to be signaled to, all it means, I mean ALL it can ever mean, is that you haven't seen anybody. The actual fact that somebody is there or not is not changed by you not seeing them. Thus, if you've failed to see someone, you then compound that error because you haven't signaled. No wonder there are accidents.

All this window dressing of the simple act of operating a turn signal is just hogwash. The idea that not indicating makes "perfect sense" is just a prime example for me of how you can turn driving into an anal, train-spotting, stamp-collecting type of exercise. It makes me wonder if as beard is necessary for good driving? C'mon guys, this is total bks and you know it. The nation is not using its turn signals, so lets do something about that instead of bolstering some kind of weirdy-beardy, closed club arse-about-face thinking to what really is something that is just not that hard.

[Dr Jekyll]

It isn't that failing to signal is good driving, it's that thinking about whether to signal is good driving. Always signalling irrespective of the circumstances, or never signalling irrespective of the circumstances, means not thinking and therefore is not good driving. Arguably it isn't driving at all.

Yesterday I was behind a car which stopped quite correctly at a chicane at the entrance to a village. When the oncoming car had gone he moved off, but had to steer to the right to avoid driving over the chicane and into the give way sign, and he signalled right!
That kind of driver is clearly on automatic pilot.

[heebeegeetee]

Dr Jekyll said:

It isn't that failing to signal is good driving, it's that thinking about whether to signal is good driving. Always signalling irrespective of the circumstances, or never signalling irrespective of the circumstances, means not thinking and therefore is not good driving. Arguably it isn't driving at all.

Yesterday I was behind a car which stopped quite correctly at a chicane at the entrance to a village. When the oncoming car had gone he moved off, but had to steer to the right to avoid driving over the chicane and into the give way sign, and he signalled right!
That kind of driver is clearly on automatic pilot.

Instead of thinking about whether to signal or not, why not signal anyway but give thought to ensuring you are signaling at the correct time and for the correct duration?

[jaf01uk]

heebeegeetee said:

jaf01uk said:

The only way we know that someone is actually reading the road and conditions and forming proper driving plans is when they DON'T indicate, in my opinion habitual indicating is a bad thing for the reasons stated above,
Regards,
Gary

So the fact that as a nation we have practically stopped signaling, is indeed a sign of our good driving. I must say, i'd never thought of that. The fact that practically every driver I see who turns right at roundabouts without signaling is in fact a sign that they are apparently trying to do the right thing.

What I meant was not indicating when there is nobody to indicate to as per the highway code reference, the example you give is obviously wrong because you are there and given that fact the people turning right should be indicating for you, I cannot possibly agree with your point about indicating regardless, that in my mind is lazy and is just an excuse for "of course I had the right away I had my indicator on!" Might as well take all the mirrors off and get on with it because habitually indicating when there is no-one about tells me that theyre not being used anyway?
Gary

[gazza_3]

Dr Jekyll said:

It isn't that failing to signal is good driving, it's that thinking about whether to signal is good driving. Always signalling irrespective of the circumstances, or never signalling irrespective of the circumstances, means not thinking and therefore is not good driving. Arguably it isn't driving at all.

Yesterday I was behind a car which stopped quite correctly at a chicane at the entrance to a village. When the oncoming car had gone he moved off, but had to steer to the right to avoid driving over the chicane and into the give way sign, and he signalled right!
That kind of driver is clearly on automatic pilot.

He may have done that to let you know, that he is moving off again? I know it sounds daft, however I stopped because of traffic stopped on my side of the road, went to pull off and someone was trying to go around me.

[crisisjez]

Dr Jekyll said:

Yesterday I was behind a car which stopped quite correctly at a chicane at the entrance to a village. When the oncoming car had gone he moved off, but had to steer to the right to avoid driving over the chicane and into the give way sign, and he signalled right!
That kind of driver is clearly on automatic pilot.

Or could have been driving home having just passed his DSA test where such practices are expected and have been taught.