Traffic Officer tells me I must always, always, indicate!

[RobM77]

popeyewhite said:

RobM77 said:

Of course, the difference with that nurse is that she is 100% sure of the type of operation she's done.

The difference is a mistake in surgery is more likely to result in physical harm where blame can be clearly apportioned, than some lackadaisical or ambiguous approach to signalling. Always struck me as slightly OCD indicating off an empty roundabout, makes me smile though. I suppose there's no harm in it and it boils down to people's perception of what correct procedure should be.

You're missing the point. Unless you're god, you don't actually know 100% that nobody will benefit from your indication, you've just observed it to be the case. Humans are fallible, their eyesight isn't perfect, especially at night, and your car has lots of blind spots; these are the things that cause accidents and inconveniences.

What about the pedestrian waiting to cross the exit road that you've missed? Yes, that one dressed in black on a dark night that your headlights haven't swung round to illuminate. I can hear you saying she'd be a fool to rely 100% on your indication or lack of, but what if she is a fool? What if she steps out because she doesn't think you're leaving the roundabout?

What about the cyclist who quietly joined behind you and is now sat in your left rear quarter blind spot?


Lastly, what about simply being tired and making a mistake? We all make mistakes. Layers of safety, like indicating, are there to catch you when you fall. Assuming that you don't need a safety net or ropes is only going to end one way eventually.

[popeyewhite]

RobM77 said:

You're missing the point.

Thought I might be.

RobM77 said:

Unless you're god, you don't actually know 100% that nobody will benefit from your indication, y

I have 20/20 vision (Boots eye test last year), and I can determine whether a well lit roundabout at night is deserted or not. The question is not whether you're God Rob, but whether as an adult you're reasonably confident in your abilities and can make a decision based on all the available information. If you believe dogmatically that to indicate at every opportunity is the correct action then fine, the Police however suggest you should only do so at the benefit of other road users.

[RobM77]

popeyewhite said:

RobM77 said:

You're missing the point.

Thought I might be.

RobM77 said:

Unless you're god, you don't actually know 100% that nobody will benefit from your indication, y

I have 20/20 vision (Boots eye test last year), and I can determine whether a well lit roundabout at night is deserted or not. The question is not whether you're God Rob, but whether as an adult you're reasonably confident in your abilities and can make a decision based on all the available information. If you believe dogmatically that to indicate at every opportunity is the correct action then fine, the Police however suggest you should only do so at the benefit of other road users.

It's not just the roundabout, it's all the exits and all your blind spots - simultaneously. And we're not talking about obvious things - nobody's suggesting you're going to miss a bus or a Volvo estate - we're talking about unlit pedestrians and cyclists. Anyone who thinks that they're going to score 100% spotting all of that several times a day every day for the 60 years of their driving lives is deluding themselves, even if we're talking about someone with 20/20 vision. Even the simplest of tasks are hard to do perfectly thousands of times. My vision's actually better than 20/20 and I would never dream of making such a claim.

[popeyewhite]

RobM77 said:

It's not just the roundabout, it's all the exits and all your blind spots - simultaneously. And we're not talking about obvious things - nobody's suggesting you're going to miss a bus or a Volvo estate - we're talking about unlit pedestrians and cyclists. Anyone who thinks that they're going to score 100% spotting all of that several times a day every day for the 60 years of their driving lives is deluding themselves, even if we're talking about someone with 20/20 vision. Even the simplest of tasks are hard to do perfectly thousands of times. My vision's actually better than 20/20 and I would never dream of making such a claim.

You're overthinking this.The discussion really isn't about personal visual acuity (which was a joke I regret mentioning now), it's whether you need to indicate or not at a deserted roundabout. The Police suggest only when someone else will benefit.

[RobM77]

popeyewhite said:

RobM77 said:

It's not just the roundabout, it's all the exits and all your blind spots - simultaneously. And we're not talking about obvious things - nobody's suggesting you're going to miss a bus or a Volvo estate - we're talking about unlit pedestrians and cyclists. Anyone who thinks that they're going to score 100% spotting all of that several times a day every day for the 60 years of their driving lives is deluding themselves, even if we're talking about someone with 20/20 vision. Even the simplest of tasks are hard to do perfectly thousands of times. My vision's actually better than 20/20 and I would never dream of making such a claim.

You're overthinking this.The discussion really isn't about personal visual acuity (which was a joke I regret mentioning now), it's whether you need to indicate or not at a deserted roundabout. The Police suggest only when someone else will benefit.

Obviously if the roundabout is deserted you don't need to indicate. The point I'm making is that you can never know that for certain, you can only ever estimate it.

[Pica-Pica]

My experience is that police drivers indicate less frequently than many drivers, especially when coming off a roundabout (to your right) when you are about to enter.

[waremark]

RobM77 said:

Obviously if the roundabout is deserted you don't need to indicate. The point I'm making is that you can never know that for certain, you can only ever estimate it.

I have debated this issue with Rob and VH several times in the past and have I think agreed to disagree.

The most important consideration is to minimise the number of occasions when you fail to be aware of the presence of another road user who will be affected by your manoeuver. My philosophy is that a decision to signal only if it will be helpful to another road user is a powerful aid to improving one's observation. Those who are sufficiently confident in the excellence of their observation may well have no need of such an aid. Therefore I don't signal if I think that no-one will benefit, and I encourage those I help prepare for an advanced driving test to adopt this policy.

I believe the harm caused by not signalling even if it would have been helpful to another road user is insignificant. No-one can rely on signals since so many are given wrongly or not at all.

[DocSteve]

waremark said:

RobM77 said:

Obviously if the roundabout is deserted you don't need to indicate. The point I'm making is that you can never know that for certain, you can only ever estimate it.

I have debated this issue with Rob and VH several times in the past and have I think agreed to disagree.

The most important consideration is to minimise the number of occasions when you fail to be aware of the presence of another road user who will be affected by your manoeuver. My philosophy is that a decision to signal only if it will be helpful to another road user is a powerful aid to improving one's observation. Those who are sufficiently confident in the excellence of their observation may well have no need of such an aid. Therefore I don't signal if I think that no-one will benefit, and I encourage those I help prepare for an advanced driving test to adopt this policy.

I believe the harm caused by not signalling even if it would have been helpful to another road user is insignificant. No-one can rely on signals since so many are given wrongly or not at all.

I would have agreed with you a few years ago but I read a post by VH a while ago and thought about it. You can still maintain good observation but if you consider "would anyone be confused/disadvantaged?" by a signal then this still enables you to think about what you are doing. However, I agree there will be some caveats; i.e. in the middle of the Nevada desert and an open junction then why indicate. The point made by a poster previously that they do it "by habit" is what advanced driver training should seek to avoid, rather than focusing on not indicating unless necessary (which is in my view a distraction from key driver training elements),

Steve

[WilliamWoollard]

A scenario for the folk who always indicate, you are approaching a large empty roundabout with good sight lines at around 30MPH, it looks clear so you are expecting to go, a car appears from your right indicating left (his first exit), as a decent driver you now have to be careful as it could be a false indication and he could go ahead or even right, meaning you have to slow until you are sure he is exiting. Now, imagine that same car is not signalling when you first see him, yet when he sees you, he indicates left. Do you trust that signal more or less than the first guy?

Edited by WilliamWoollard on Friday 16th November 09:15

[nonsequitur]

WilliamWoollard said:

A scenario for the folk who always indicate, you are approaching a large empty roundabout with good sight lines at around 30MPH, it looks clear so you are expecting to go, a car appears from your right indicating left (his first exit), as a decent driver you now have to be careful as it could be a false indication and he could go ahead or even right, meaning you have to slow until you are sure he is exiting. Now, imagine that same car is not signalling when you first see him, yet when he sees you, he indicates left. Do you trust that signal more or less than the first guy?

Edited by WilliamWoollard on Friday 16th November 09:15

Not sure whose side you are on, William. If a car appears from the right not indicating, I would give way to them. If they then turn left, you have lost, nor gained anything. Very poor driving from the other person, but that is RAB negotiation these days.

[popeyewhite]

RobM77 said:

Obviously if the roundabout is deserted you don't need to indicate. The point I'm making is that you can never know that for certain, you can only ever estimate it.

Of course you can! I appreciate that large roundabouts with multiple exits entail more caution, but really if you can't manage a flat, entirely visible medium sized roundabout then you shouldn't be driving.

[nonsequitur]

popeyewhite said:

RobM77 said:

Obviously if the roundabout is deserted you don't need to indicate. The point I'm making is that you can never know that for certain, you can only ever estimate it.

Of course you can! I appreciate that large roundabouts with multiple exits entail more caution, but really if you can't manage a flat, entirely visible medium sized roundabout then you shouldn't be driving.

If a large percentage of drivers cannot negotiate a mini RAB correctly, then there is no hope for a standard one. I would argue that a RAB is one place that you should indicate at all times. But I know that this is a forlorn hope.

[vonhosen]

waremark said:

RobM77 said:

Obviously if the roundabout is deserted you don't need to indicate. The point I'm making is that you can never know that for certain, you can only ever estimate it.

I have debated this issue with Rob and VH several times in the past and have I think agreed to disagree.

The most important consideration is to minimise the number of occasions when you fail to be aware of the presence of another road user who will be affected by your manoeuver. My philosophy is that a decision to signal only if it will be helpful to another road user is a powerful aid to improving one's observation. Those who are sufficiently confident in the excellence of their observation may well have no need of such an aid. Therefore I don't signal if I think that no-one will benefit, and I encourage those I help prepare for an advanced driving test to adopt this policy.

I believe the harm caused by not signalling even if it would have been helpful to another road user is insignificant. No-one can rely on signals since so many are given wrongly or not at all.

Actually I don't personally care whatever method or rationale anybody uses if it results in no misleading signals & no omitted signals where they would have benefited. If you get perfect interactional results with whatever methodology you choose to adopt then great.

Nobody around to be misled &/or benefit, where no signal is given, doesn't cause me any concern.
Somebody around to be misled &/or benefit, where either no signal is given or a misleading/sub-optimally timed signal is given, is of rather more concern.

People should adopt the method which provides greatest consistency & objective results for them personally (IMHO).

I'm more concerned in objective results than any philosophy used to achieve them.

[RobM77]

popeyewhite said:

RobM77 said:

Obviously if the roundabout is deserted you don't need to indicate. The point I'm making is that you can never know that for certain, you can only ever estimate it.

Of course you can! I appreciate that large roundabouts with multiple exits entail more caution, but really if you can't manage a flat, entirely visible medium sized roundabout then you shouldn't be driving.

Firstly, I'm not talking about me, I'm talking about the Advanced Driving Community. However, I am fairly typical, so the two amount to the same thing.

Your point is valid though, the percentage of doubt will vary according to the situation. There are situations where I won't indicate. What I'm objecting to is the commonality people seem to be referring to these situations occurring. I contest that they're extremely rare.

[BertBert]

vonhosen said:

I'm more concerned in objective results than any philosophy used to achieve them.

Whilst I fully agree with this, how do you objectively measure the results? Signals that mislead and signals that benefit?
Bert

[johnao]

vonhosen said:

... I'm more concerned in objective results than any philosophy used to achieve them.

The objective result sought by this debate is not actually about whether to signal or not to signal, that is not the question. The objective result [outcome] that we should be seeking is to force the driver to make a 360° observation around the vehicle in order to decide whether or not the intended manoeuvre is safe; the decision to signal is secondary and a matter of choice based upon the 360° observation. When approaching a hazard, and intending to change direction, the thought process which poses the question... "do I need to give a signal, would anyone benefit from a signal" may help to reinforce, and remind, the driver of the essential requirement to make that 360° check around the vehicle.

A potential problem with "habitual" signalling, as opposed to "thoughtful" signalling, is that the "habitual" signal becomes the substitute for a deliberate and careful 360° observation. All too frequently I hear the phrase... "I gave a signal just in case I'd missed something", which is just another way of saying... "I didn't do a full 360° observation check, so I gave a signal just in case I'd missed something or there was someone in my blind spot. I didn't think there was anyone there otherwise I wouldn't have done the manoeuvre, but you never know!"

In my experience most drivers don't do a full 360° check around their vehicle before embarking on their intended manoeuvre. Instead, they check the most obvious and imminent areas of threat and then use the "habitual" signal to cover for the areas they haven't checked.

[waremark]

johnao said:

The objective result sought by this debate is not actually about whether to signal or not to signal, that is not the question. The objective result [outcome] that we should be seeking is to force the driver to make a 360° observation around the vehicle in order to decide whether or not the intended manoeuvre is safe; the decision to signal is secondary and a matter of choice based upon the 360° observation. ......

Yes - entirely agree.

[vonhosen]

johnao said:

vonhosen said:

... I'm more concerned in objective results than any philosophy used to achieve them.

The objective result sought by this debate is not actually about whether to signal or not to signal, that is not the question. The objective result [outcome] that we should be seeking is to force the driver to make a 360° observation around the vehicle in order to decide whether or not the intended manoeuvre is safe; the decision to signal is secondary and a matter of choice based upon the 360° observation. When approaching a hazard, and intending to change direction, the thought process which poses the question... "do I need to give a signal, would anyone benefit from a signal" may help to reinforce, and remind, the driver of the essential requirement to make that 360° check around the vehicle.

Surely the contention is not that only people who follow such a philosophy are capable of 360° checks?
It may not be a necessary step in order to reinforce or remind people to make such a 360° check.
It may result in those people who can achieve the 360° check without resorting to it then producing poorer outcomes by introducing, what is for them personally, an unnecessary bureaucratic layer.

johnao said:

A potential problem with "habitual" signalling, as opposed to "thoughtful" signalling, is that the "habitual" signal becomes the substitute for a deliberate and careful 360° observation. All too frequently I hear the phrase... "I gave a signal just in case I'd missed something", which is just another way of saying... "I didn't do a full 360° observation check, so I gave a signal just in case I'd missed something or there was someone in my blind spot. I didn't think there was anyone there otherwise I wouldn't have done the manoeuvre, but you never know!"

Well I certainly haven't endorsed 'habitual unthoughtful' signalling, I'm endorsing people doing whatever (thoughtful & considered process that) results in the best results for them & judging them by the results they produce rather than philosophies used to underpin them.

johnao said:

In my experience most drivers don't do a full 360° check around their vehicle before embarking on their intended manoeuvre. Instead, they check the most obvious and imminent areas of threat and then use the "habitual" signal to cover for the areas they haven't checked.

Whilst personally in training others (both candidates & coaches) I've seen plenty of drivers make fewer mistakes, around omission & timing of signals, who utilised a thoughtful considered process about the timing of their signals rather than worrying themselves about attempting to never signal when there was nobody around.

I've also yet to see a driver who attempts to never signal unless there is somebody identifiably to benefit who does it perfectly, but I have seen plenty who perform poorer when trying to follow that ethos than when using alternatives philosophies.

As I say, whatever works best for you is surely best for you.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 16th November 13:28

[waremark]

RobM77 said:

Firstly, I'm not talking about me, I'm talking about the Advanced Driving Community. However, I am fairly typical, so the two amount to the same thing.

You think you are typical? You overrate the AD community!

[johnao]

vonhosen said:

Surely the contention is not that only people who follow such a philosophy are capable of 360° checks?

No, the contention is that "habitual" signalling may be a substitute for not making the 360° check. Anyway, who's suggested that... "only people who follow such a philosophy are capable of 360° checks"? I didn't. I think you may be being a bit contentious there!

vonhosen said:

It may not be a necessary step in order to reinforce or remind people to make such a 360° check.

I never said it was necessary. I said it may help to reinforce and remind. Attributing assertions to me that I never made, well, that is contentious.

vonhosen said:

It may result in those people who can achieve the 360° check without resorting to it then producing poorer outcomes by introducing, what is for them personally, an unnecessary bureaucratic layer.

If a driver is already capable of "achieving the 360° check without resorting to it"...then it would be pointless and just a bit stupid introducing it to them. If an instructor were to do so, that really would be contentious.

Edited by johnao on Friday 16th November 15:43