Only Signal when needed
Discussion
Hi Everyone,
I was hoping for everyone elses take on the "only signal when there is someone to benefit from that signal" philosophy.
I was first introduced to this practice when I was training for my IAM membership and objected at the time.
The IAM stance is that by only indicating when there is a requirement it forces the driver to considder their situation prior to taking action, and if there is anyone to signal for you will anyway.
My arguement is that EVERYONE MAKES MISTAKES! It is possible (not likely but possible) that the finest drivers in the world could fail to see a hazard and as a result of not indicating the hazard (be it person or vehicle) would have less warning of the impending situation.
What do you all think on the subject
I was hoping for everyone elses take on the "only signal when there is someone to benefit from that signal" philosophy.
I was first introduced to this practice when I was training for my IAM membership and objected at the time.
The IAM stance is that by only indicating when there is a requirement it forces the driver to considder their situation prior to taking action, and if there is anyone to signal for you will anyway.
My arguement is that EVERYONE MAKES MISTAKES! It is possible (not likely but possible) that the finest drivers in the world could fail to see a hazard and as a result of not indicating the hazard (be it person or vehicle) would have less warning of the impending situation.
What do you all think on the subject
Firstly thanks for all the replies guys,
It is good to see so many people taking an interest. Now to my replies..
Excellent comment Don. That is the essence of my argument
While I agree with the sentiment above I am not entirely convinced you can ever say that you are SURE nobody would benefit. In almost any case there is a possibility that you have missed something or that a hazard could appear from the most unlikely place.
The fact is that people are not perfect and mistakes are made.
My attitude is that a manoeuvre is either always worth signalling for, or it isn’t.
If the manoeuvre is worth signalling for, then once you have decided it is safe to make the manoeuvre you signal at all times regardless of whether you have spotted a hazard (to account for the unexpected).
Provided the driver still uses their observational skills prior to making a manoeuvre, I believe that in 100% of cases it is safer to signal your intentions prior to making the manoeuvre rather than the alternative.
I am hoping somebody can give me a convincing argument to disprove my opinion but as yet I have not seen one.
I do not consider “it forces people to think” a valid argument.
It might show other people in the car with you that you don’t perceive any hazards but that is all it does.
As Andrew said, One is a fail-safe system...
the other in my mind is a system destined to fail!
It is good to see so many people taking an interest. Now to my replies..
Don said:
“It is far better to make a redundant signal than miss a necessary one.”
Excellent comment Don. That is the essence of my argument
Andrew Noakes said:
“Instead of the advice being 'signal when you are sure someone would benefit' I think it should be 'signal unless you are sure nobody would benefit'.”
While I agree with the sentiment above I am not entirely convinced you can ever say that you are SURE nobody would benefit. In almost any case there is a possibility that you have missed something or that a hazard could appear from the most unlikely place.
The fact is that people are not perfect and mistakes are made.
My attitude is that a manoeuvre is either always worth signalling for, or it isn’t.
If the manoeuvre is worth signalling for, then once you have decided it is safe to make the manoeuvre you signal at all times regardless of whether you have spotted a hazard (to account for the unexpected).
Provided the driver still uses their observational skills prior to making a manoeuvre, I believe that in 100% of cases it is safer to signal your intentions prior to making the manoeuvre rather than the alternative.
I am hoping somebody can give me a convincing argument to disprove my opinion but as yet I have not seen one.
I do not consider “it forces people to think” a valid argument.
It might show other people in the car with you that you don’t perceive any hazards but that is all it does.
As Andrew said, One is a fail-safe system...
the other in my mind is a system destined to fail!
vonhosen said:
If you blanket signal you are not, as I said earlier, giving any thought to the negative impact the signal could have or that it could mislead when you are giving it. Any driving decisions by an "advanced driver" should be made with full consideration of their need & impact. That is one of the things that will seperate an advanced driver from other drivers.
I still fail to see a situation where any signal could give a negative impact unless you have signalled too early or given an inappropriate signal anyway.
If you can give me an example of a time when it would be appropriate to signal only on certain occasions I would be greatly appreciative.
Cheers,
Afro
Wow, what a response to my thread!
Thanks guys
Lot's of interesting debate but I have to confess to being firmly in the indicate anyway category.
I observe fully every time, not to decide whether to indicate, but to decide whether to make the manouvre atall. If I decide to make a manouvre I will indicate regardless so that the observed (and potentally unobserved) hazards have extra warning of what I am about to do.
The arguement that it encourages people not to observe is illogical. If you do not bother to observe then eventually you are going to get hit by something which will be very expensive not to mention dangerous. This is my incentive to observe, not my indicators.
To summarise I cannot think of any instance where an accurate indication of intent could cause you trouble (and plenty it can help avoid). On the contrary I can think of lots of instances where not signalling prior to a manouvre would be dangerous (even if the driver 'percieved' no hazard).
Humans are never perfect! Indicating every time (you have already determined it is safe to make the manouvre) is a fail-safe system. Better safe than sorry in my mind.
Thanks guys
Lot's of interesting debate but I have to confess to being firmly in the indicate anyway category.
I observe fully every time, not to decide whether to indicate, but to decide whether to make the manouvre atall. If I decide to make a manouvre I will indicate regardless so that the observed (and potentally unobserved) hazards have extra warning of what I am about to do.
The arguement that it encourages people not to observe is illogical. If you do not bother to observe then eventually you are going to get hit by something which will be very expensive not to mention dangerous. This is my incentive to observe, not my indicators.
To summarise I cannot think of any instance where an accurate indication of intent could cause you trouble (and plenty it can help avoid). On the contrary I can think of lots of instances where not signalling prior to a manouvre would be dangerous (even if the driver 'percieved' no hazard).
Humans are never perfect! Indicating every time (you have already determined it is safe to make the manouvre) is a fail-safe system. Better safe than sorry in my mind.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff