Traffic Officer tells me I must always, always, indicate!
Discussion
JQ said:
I always indicate no matter what I'm doing and no matter who's on the road. My reason being that it makes no difference to me, however, if I only indicated when it affected other road users I might occasionally miss another road user (small child dressed in black, nutter driving at 90 in a 30) and the result of that could be fatal. I really don't find flicking the indicator stalk very difficult.
If you just do it on instinct without thought it can also result in fatality (not saying YOU do).A misleading signal can be just as bad as no signal.
JQ said:
I always indicate no matter what I'm doing and no matter who's on the road. My reason being that it makes no difference to me, however, if I only indicated when it affected other road users I might occasionally miss another road user (small child dressed in black, nutter driving at 90 in a 30) and the result of that could be fatal. I really don't find flicking the indicator stalk very difficult.
Completely agree with that. Always indicating appropriately means you never place yourself in a position whereby another roaduser that you may not have seen, particularly a padestrian, misunderstands your intentions. In what can be infinately changing circumstances, you remove the unnecessary extra thought process of 'should I indicate this time or not'. As with many other driving skills, it becomes second nature.pacman1 said:
JQ said:
I always indicate no matter what I'm doing and no matter who's on the road. My reason being that it makes no difference to me, however, if I only indicated when it affected other road users I might occasionally miss another road user (small child dressed in black, nutter driving at 90 in a 30) and the result of that could be fatal. I really don't find flicking the indicator stalk very difficult.
Completely agree with that. Always indicating appropriately means you never place yourself in a position whereby another roaduser that you may not have seen, particularly a padestrian, misunderstands your intentions. In what can be infinately changing circumstances, you remove the unnecessary extra thought process of 'should I indicate this time or not'. As with many other driving skills, it becomes second nature.pacman1 said:
In what can be infinately changing circumstances, you remove the unnecessary extra thought process of 'should I indicate this time or not'. As with many other driving skills, it becomes second nature.
The thought process is not 'should I indicate this time or not? it is 'might there be anyone affected by my proposed manoeuve?'.Hardly unnnecessary, that thought process is what driving is all about.
Dr Jekyll said:
pacman1 said:
In what can be infinately changing circumstances, you remove the unnecessary extra thought process of 'should I indicate this time or not'. As with many other driving skills, it becomes second nature.
The thought process is not 'should I indicate this time or not? it is 'might there be anyone affected by my proposed manoeuve?'.Hardly unnnecessary, that thought process is what driving is all about.
There should be at least two thought processes going on there
1) Is a signal going to mislead if I give it now ?
2) Is there someone to benefit if I give a signal now ?
The timing of the signal is important. Giving a signal (having considered 1) ) is a lot less burdensome than having to consider both aspects. As far as I'm concerned 1) is the more important consideration. If somebody in trying to not signal, misses someone who needs it & doesn't give that that signal, that is a greater sin than giving a signal when no-one was there (after all that didn't impact on anyone).
In my experience when people try not to signal, they get it wrong (when it matters to others) more than people who signal having only considered 1).
Also in my experience of the people who try not to signal, they never get it right all of the time.
The brain is a limited resource & if it's overloaded on the issue of signalling to the point that signalling is suffering, then I believe in a lot of circumstances you are better considering 1) & signalling where you see no misleading from it, rather than trying not to signal.
If you can do both 1) & 2) then great, but there are far more important things to consider & trying to do 2) has far too high a priority in certain circles to the detriment of the driver & others.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 17th January 10:39
F i F said:
I could see his point in that it's a case of the interpretation of the rule is "don't indicate if you are sure there is no one now who will benefit from the signal and sure there will be no one that is not yet visible." Quite diffiicult to achieve on most roundabouts tbh.
If you were the driver of the "not yet visible" car, would you trust that signal?Would you trust that signal a bit more if you saw the signal come on?
vonhosen said:
If somebody in trying to not signal, ...
In my experience when people try not to signal, they get it wrong (when it matters to others) more than people who signal having only considered 1).
Also in my experience of the people who try not to signal, they never get it right all of the time.
... rather than trying not to signal.
Not sure that I understand your emphasis on the negative. I've never met anyone who ..."tries not to signal". My understanding of Roadcraft is that it advocates a positive approach to giving signals (to quote)..."Give a signal whenever it could benefit other road users" ..."Consider the need to give a signal on the approach to every hazard..." (end of quotes). It doesn't say "Consider not giving a signal if no one would benefit". In my experience when people try not to signal, they get it wrong (when it matters to others) more than people who signal having only considered 1).
Also in my experience of the people who try not to signal, they never get it right all of the time.
... rather than trying not to signal.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 17th January 10:39
You may consider that this is just semantics, but to redefine a positive instruction as a negative one, in my opinion, in this instance, gives a wholly misleading emphasis.
johnao said:
vonhosen said:
If somebody in trying to not signal, ...
In my experience when people try not to signal, they get it wrong (when it matters to others) more than people who signal having only considered 1).
Also in my experience of the people who try not to signal, they never get it right all of the time.
... rather than trying not to signal.
Not sure that I understand your emphasis on the negative. I've never met anyone who ..."tries not to signal". My understanding of Roadcraft is that it advocates a positive approach to giving signals (to quote)..."Give a signal whenever it could benefit other road users" ..."Consider the need to give a signal on the approach to every hazard..." (end of quotes). It doesn't say "Consider not giving a signal if no one would benefit". In my experience when people try not to signal, they get it wrong (when it matters to others) more than people who signal having only considered 1).
Also in my experience of the people who try not to signal, they never get it right all of the time.
... rather than trying not to signal.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 17th January 10:39
You may consider that this is just semantics, but to redefine a positive instruction as a negative one, in my opinion, in this instance, gives a wholly misleading emphasis.
Why make it more complicated than it is just for the sake of it ?
If people are looking to see if the signal would mislead & at what time they should give it, why give them the extra unnecessary burden that only results in potential compromise in their interactions with others ?
A signal that doesn't mislead but benefits no-one, doesn't hurt anyone.
The purpose of the signal is to help in our interactions with others & as I've already said, in my experience people trying to limit their signalling to when there is someone to benefit come worse off in those interactions than those who only consider if it will mislead at the time they are looking to give it.
I don't really care which approach people take, it's the reliable outcome that matters & again as I've said I've never met anyone who adopts the 'signal only if there is someone to benefit' approach who gets it right all of the time, they invariably end up not signalling when there is somebody to benefit, something which if they'd adopted the other simpler culture wouldn't have happened.
In certain circles people being assessed are criticised for signalling when they give signals & in the opinion of the assessor there wasn't someone to benefit. This places an unnecessary disproportionately valued burden on them to try & conform. I'd much rather they use the limited resource to try to eliminate some real mistakes, because none of us are good enough to be giving such a high priority to such trivial contrived matters.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 17th January 13:02
vonhosen said:
A signal that doesn't mislead but benefits no-one, doesn't hurt anyone.
I don't expect that you will agree with the sentiments expressed in the following extract, but it is, in my opinion, a valid alternative view to the principle that you espouse.An extract from ..."Road Sense" by Doug Holland - Sigma Publishing 1993.
An argument often levelled against this principle of 'discretionary’ or 'thoughtful' signalling, and which is often said to support the principle of, ‘habitual’ signalling (i.e. signalling for every manoeuvre irrespective of whether there is another road user to benefit from it) runs as follows: “there is no harm in giving a signal which is not, strictly speaking, necessary. If it is proposed to turn left and there is nobody about, what possible danger could be caused by giving a signal?” This is a superficially appealing argument, and it is valid as far as it goes. However, it fails to take account of one important factor - human nature. It is generally found that the driver who gives a signal when a signal is not necessary is the driver who has not taken effective observation all around his vehicle and seen that a signal is not necessary. In other words, the mirrors-signals-manoeuvre routine has been abbreviated to 'signals, manoeuvre'. As will be seen later this is undesirable and potentially dangerous. On the other hand, the driver who wishes to consider the question "Is a signal necessary?" is the driver who is required to take effective all round observation in order to do so. Put yet another way, if unnecessary signals are given, it is not the signal itself which is the problem (unless it is misleading); rather it is the mental attitude of the driver immediately before the application of that signal. If a signal is given which was not necessary, it is unlikely that the thought process of the driver immediately before its application was: ...“I have taken effective all round observation; I have satisfied myself that I know the position and movements of all other road users around my vehicle. Clearly a signal is not necessary, but I will give one anyway”. It is much more likely to be: “I will not bother to take effective all round observation because I will signal no matter what I see”.(my emphasis)
johnao said:
vonhosen said:
A signal that doesn't mislead but benefits no-one, doesn't hurt anyone.
I don't expect that you will agree with the sentiments expressed in the following extract, but it is, in my opinion, a valid alternative view to the principle that you espouse.An extract from ..."Road Sense" by Doug Holland - Sigma Publishing 1993.
An argument often levelled against this principle of 'discretionary’ or 'thoughtful' signalling, and which is often said to support the principle of, ‘habitual’ signalling (i.e. signalling for every manoeuvre irrespective of whether there is another road user to benefit from it) runs as follows: “there is no harm in giving a signal which is not, strictly speaking, necessary. If it is proposed to turn left and there is nobody about, what possible danger could be caused by giving a signal?” This is a superficially appealing argument, and it is valid as far as it goes. However, it fails to take account of one important factor - human nature. It is generally found that the driver who gives a signal when a signal is not necessary is the driver who has not taken effective observation all around his vehicle and seen that a signal is not necessary. In other words, the mirrors-signals-manoeuvre routine has been abbreviated to 'signals, manoeuvre'. As will be seen later this is undesirable and potentially dangerous. On the other hand, the driver who wishes to consider the question "Is a signal necessary?" is the driver who is required to take effective all round observation in order to do so. Put yet another way, if unnecessary signals are given, it is not the signal itself which is the problem (unless it is misleading); rather it is the mental attitude of the driver immediately before the application of that signal. If a signal is given which was not necessary, it is unlikely that the thought process of the driver immediately before its application was: ...“I have taken effective all round observation; I have satisfied myself that I know the position and movements of all other road users around my vehicle. Clearly a signal is not necessary, but I will give one anyway”. It is much more likely to be: “I will not bother to take effective all round observation because I will signal no matter what I see”.(my emphasis)
If someone has considered carefully whether their signal will mislead & at what time it is best given, they have done everything they need to for safety (in terms of signalling) & in order to ease their interaction with others. The extra step adds nothing positive to safety or their interaction with others. It adds only something that is superficially stylised, whilst at the same time increasing the risk of conflict with others by virtue that nobody can get it right all the time when trying to abide by that ethos.
You can concentrate your assessment of whether there is sufficient thought by judging the circumstances where it is not given & the timing where it is given, because they are what really matter.
As a result If I'm assessing someone's driving & they don't indicate when there is nobody to benefit, I won't worry about it.
If I'm assessing someone's driving & they do indicate but there is nobody to benefit, I won't worry about.
If I'm assessing someone's driving & they don't indicate & there is someone to benefit, that's the one I'll worry about.
It makes sense to play the odds in your favour rather than try for an ideal that is ultimately unattainable & as a result only actually undermines your odds.
To say that somebody who gives sufficient thought to both whether a signal will mislead & it's timing (& then gives it after such consideration), is not giving sufficient thought or is blindly signalling, is nonsense.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 17th January 14:12
vonhosen said:
I'm not advocating blind signalling, I'm advocating careful observation & thought about it.
If I'm assessing someone's driving & they do indicate but there is nobody to benefit, I won't worry about.
Question: if you are ..."assessing someone's driving & they do indicate but there is nobody to benefit", and therefore, as you say, you don't worry about it...how do you determine that they have taken..."careful observation & thought about it"? And if you can't determine the cause of the signal when there are no other road users present, how do you know that "careful observation & thought" has been given when other road users are present and that the signal was not simply "blind signalling"?If I'm assessing someone's driving & they do indicate but there is nobody to benefit, I won't worry about.
In other words, how do you determine whether a driver that you are assessing is "blind signalling" or exercising "careful observation & thought about it"? Whether it's "blind signalling" or "careful observation & thought" it would seem to me that the outcome is the same, ie. a signal is given. How do you know when assessing, whether or not it's a case of “I will not bother to take effective all round observation because I will signal no matter what I see”. I'm not saying that it necessarily will be the case of automatic signalling, but how do you know for assessment purposes?
Edited by johnao on Sunday 17th January 16:08
Edited by johnao on Sunday 17th January 16:09
johnao said:
vonhosen said:
I'm not advocating blind signalling, I'm advocating careful observation & thought about it.
If I'm assessing someone's driving & they do indicate but there is nobody to benefit, I won't worry about.
Question: if you are ..."assessing someone's driving & they do indicate but there is nobody to benefit", and therefore, as you say, you don't worry about it...how do you determine that they have taken..."careful observation & thought about it"? And if you can't determine the cause of the signal when there are no other road users present, how do you know that "careful observation & thought" has been given when other road users are present and that the signal was not simply "blind signalling"?If I'm assessing someone's driving & they do indicate but there is nobody to benefit, I won't worry about.
In other words, how do you determine whether a driver that you are assessing is "blind signalling" or exercising "careful observation & thought about it"? Whether it's "blind signalling" or "careful observation & thought" it would seem to me that the outcome is the same, ie. a signal is given. How do you know when assessing, whether or not it's a case of “I will not bother to take effective all round observation because I will signal no matter what I see”. I'm not saying that it necessarily will be the case of automatic signalling, but how do you know for assessment purposes?
Any assessment will be over a decent length period & it will become obvious from their exposure to interactions with others whether there is sufficient thought & planning going into whether they shouldn't signal because it would be misleading, or the timing of such signals where they do give them.
If they are just signalling blind, issues are likely to arise in relation to those matters during any reasonable length assessment.
Of course if they are commentating it will be even easier for me.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 17th January 16:32
And whether to indicate would "benefit" anyone is an extra subjective decision, which is not needed (and therefore cannot be got wrong) by always indicating. For example, the OP clearly got this decision wrong. If he had decided to indicate, I take it he would have benefited both himself and the police car, by avoiding the "stop"?
To answer the original question, of course you just say what is needed to pass the attitude test, and be on your way.
To answer the original question, of course you just say what is needed to pass the attitude test, and be on your way.
deeen said:
To answer the original question, of course you just say what is needed to pass the attitude test, and be on your way.
I've already answered that. You can't say because it will depend who it is stopping you & it could even vary for each of those individuals depending on how they feel that particular day. vonhosen said:
deeen said:
To answer the original question, of course you just say what is needed to pass the attitude test, and be on your way.
I've already answered that. You can't say because it will depend who it is stopping you & it could even vary for each of those individuals depending on how they feel that particular day. vonhosen said:
As I said I'm concerned with reliable outcomes rather than slavish adherence to a dictated style.
Nobody would disagree with you with regard to a wish for a reliable outcome.This is interesting, because you appear to be offering an alternative to the Roadcraft approach to signalling, one that I haven't come across before; yes I know I should get out more!
But, in my opinion, neither system of ..."planning whether the driver shouldn't signal because it would be misleading", or alternatively..."only give a signal if, in your opinion, another road user would benefit" constitutes a "slavish adherence to a dictated style." Or, alternatively, if you prefer, they are both a "slavish adherence to a dictated style." Either they both are or they both are not, it doesn't matter, what is important is that it is not a case that one is and the other isn't; a "slavish adherence to a dictated style", that is.
So, on the one hand we have, If I've understood correctly, your approach, which broadly states ..."a default position of always signalling but, within the driving plan there must always be a decision as to whether the driver shouldn't signal because it would be misleading".
A shorthand version would be: Always signal, unless it would be misleading
On the other hand we have the Roadcraft approach of ..."Only give a signal, if in your opinion, another road user would benefit".
A shorthand version would be: Only signal for the benefit of another, identified, road user.
If used correctly both approaches would have the benefit of a reliable outcome.
To sum up then:
Your concern about using the Roadcraft approach is that its adherents might not always identify the "other road user who would benefit", therefore you consider it preferable to have a default position of always signalling, unless it would be misleading. Given that to signal is the default, it follows that consideration of the potential to mislead will be the signalling aspect of your driving plan.
On the other hand, my preferred approach is to build into my driving plan a decision to signal if, in my opinion, another road user would benefit. For me this has the advantage of making me acutely aware that I must, really must, check 360 degrees around the vehicle on every occasion before formulating my driving plan to deal with any hazard. I combine the search for another road user "who might benefit" with my search for hazards, actually the priority is the other way round, find the hazard and you'll find the other road user who might benefit. It's one mental action, search for hazards, which by definition includes other road users, and you'll find the "other road user who might benefit", and at the same time assess whether a signal would be misleading and decide on the timing. For me this has the advantage that I know I can't rely on an automatic signal to cover lack of observation, a habit I might fall into if I adopted your approach.
So it's a question of priorities, you are concerned that the Roadcraft approach may lead to a missed hazard (another road user) for whom a signal will not be given.
Whereas my concern, with your approach, is that its adherents may use the default signalling aspect as a cover for lack of observation.
It seems that, you pays your money and takes your choice; an interesting discussion.
Many thanks.
To re-iterate what I said early on in the thread, I think always indicating is important because no-one correctly observes every single road user and pedestrian they drive past.
To give an example, let's say you're driving down an urban road in broad daylight on a Sunday morning and plan to turn down a side road to the left. There's no other road users in sight - behind you, in front of you, or on the side road to the left. Do you indicate? My answer is yes, because what if there's a pedestrian waiting to cross that side road that you haven't spotted? If they don't see a signal they'll assume you're continuing straight on and cross right into your path. The other situation is that you can't see them and they can't see you, but at a critical moment just before the turn you can suddenly see each other - that pedestrian is going to flick their head over their shoulder and need to know straight away whether you're turning into the road he's crossing, and that need to know comes quicker than you could spot them and flick the indicator whilst your hands are busy steering...
Everything in advanced driving should have at least two levels of safety, so if one safety check fails you've got another to fall back on.
Always indicate - it's the safest way.
To give an example, let's say you're driving down an urban road in broad daylight on a Sunday morning and plan to turn down a side road to the left. There's no other road users in sight - behind you, in front of you, or on the side road to the left. Do you indicate? My answer is yes, because what if there's a pedestrian waiting to cross that side road that you haven't spotted? If they don't see a signal they'll assume you're continuing straight on and cross right into your path. The other situation is that you can't see them and they can't see you, but at a critical moment just before the turn you can suddenly see each other - that pedestrian is going to flick their head over their shoulder and need to know straight away whether you're turning into the road he's crossing, and that need to know comes quicker than you could spot them and flick the indicator whilst your hands are busy steering...
Everything in advanced driving should have at least two levels of safety, so if one safety check fails you've got another to fall back on.
Always indicate - it's the safest way.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff