Is it because the driving instructors are rubbish?
Discussion
crisisjez said:
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.That kind of driver is clearly on automatic pilot.
Suppose the candidate is turning into a one way street?
His signal was a way of you discovering there was a hazard ahead which you'd have to move out for. You obviously didn't need the hint but I'll bet if you take 1000 cars one of them wouldn't have noticed as he moved out from eclipsing it and crashed right into it.
Seems on balance to be a reasonable and courteous move considering it cost him nothing.
I often wonder why hazards like that are put into roads to create danger, but that's another subject altogether...
SM
Seems on balance to be a reasonable and courteous move considering it cost him nothing.
I often wonder why hazards like that are put into roads to create danger, but that's another subject altogether...
SM
heebeegeetee said:
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?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.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
heebeegeetee said:
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?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.
You need to know who you are signalling for, to know if it is done at the correct time, for the correct duration. If you cannot identify any road user anywhere that will benefit, how will you determine that you have signalled at the correct time and duration for them.
BFF
Big Fat F'r said:
If you cannot identify any road user anywhere that will benefit, how will you determine that you have signalled at the correct time and duration for them.
BFF
You can't, you can only go by the information you recieve, ie see, and not being able to see another road user is not a good reason for not signaling. I presume the IAM count peds as road users?BFF
To me its like saying don't bother with the life-saver look over the shoulder, its not needed because you should already have been observant enough.
It's not a question of not being able to see another road user, it's a question of being able to see that there aren't any other road users.
The advantage of not signalling by rote is that it helps you spot when your concentration has slipped. Like the associate doing a commentary who said 'signalling for the benefit of, err, the cat on the verge.'
The advantage of not signalling by rote is that it helps you spot when your concentration has slipped. Like the associate doing a commentary who said 'signalling for the benefit of, err, the cat on the verge.'
Dr Jekyll said:
It's not a question of not being able to see another road user, it's a question of being able to see that there aren't any other road users.
But you can't always see other road users, and so you drive accordingly (and peds are road users too, of course). I can only assume that the IAM doesn't classify pedestrians as road users.Yesterday i passed some peds on the pavement, and then i turned left. If i had not indicated, and then immediately afterwards got involved in an incident, would the evidence of the peds seeing me turn without indicating not be proof of poor driving?
Why do the life-saver then? You should already have determined what other road users there are and where they are, so why do the life-saver? (I'm thinking bikes here, but are car drivers supposed to do it too?)
heebeegeetee said:
I can only assume that the IAM doesn't classify pedestrians as road users.
. . . are car drivers supposed to do it (the lifesaver) too?)
Another invalid assumption, . . . are car drivers supposed to do it (the lifesaver) too?)
and
Yes.
Why are you arguing against a practice that forms such a small part of Advanced training?
I repeat that which I posted earlier -
If I (having carefully checked there are no other road users to benefit)
choose NOT to signal - how would you ever know what I have done?
(apart from hearing it as part of a demo commentary)
Edited by 1950trevorP on Wednesday 6th August 16:18
Dr Jekyll said:
crisisjez said:
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.That kind of driver is clearly on automatic pilot.
Suppose the candidate is turning into a one way street?
1950trevorP said:
Why are you arguing against a practice that forms such a small part of Advanced training?
Why are you arguing for a practise that forms such a small part of Advanced training? Or maybe that's what these discussion forums are for? These topics are thought-provoking and surely that's the whole point?1950trevorP said:
If I (having carefully checked there are no other road users to benefit) choose NOT to signal - how would you ever know what I have done?
Because you could have missed someone. You are not so perfect as to be able to categorically rule out that possibility in the majority of environments in which we drive.1950trevorP said:
(apart from hearing it as part of a demo commentary)
So what are the benefits of not signaling in a situation where you are fairly certain that there's nobody to signal to? Enhancing the life of the indicator stalk and bulbs? Saving a tiny amount of energy, perhaps enough decrease your fuel consumption by one part in seventy-three million, and increase the lifespan of your alternator by three nanoseconds? Or being able to focus on something more important? The latter is perhaps the only worthwhile reason not to signal. Having said that I don't find switching on the indicators a particularly challenging task. I mean, I don't even have to think about which way to move the stalk for a left signal or vice versa... What absolutely astounds me is that you think it's preferable to say, "I don't need to signal because there's no one to signal to" than simply giving a signal and then getting on with the task in hand. heebeegeetee said:
Big Fat F'r said:
If you cannot identify any road user anywhere that will benefit, how will you determine that you have signalled at the correct time and duration for them.
BFF
You can't, you can only go by the information you recieve, ie see, and not being able to see another road user is not a good reason for not signaling.BFF
heebeegeetee said:
I presume the IAM count peds as road users?
All Advanced Driving Institutions, civilian and otherwise, including IAM, Rospa, Bespoke, BiB, Forces, et al, include peds as road users.heebeegeetee said:
To me its like saying don't bother with the life-saver look over the shoulder, its not needed because you should already have been observant enough.
The over the shoulder check is part of the observation, not an extra bit added on.BFF
heebeegeetee said:
Dr Jekyll said:
It's not a question of not being able to see another road user, it's a question of being able to see that there aren't any other road users.
But you can't always see other road users, and so you drive accordingly (and peds are road users too, of course). I can only assume that the IAM doesn't classify pedestrians as road users.Yesterday i passed some peds on the pavement, and then i turned left. If i had not indicated, and then immediately afterwards got involved in an incident, would the evidence of the peds seeing me turn without indicating not be proof of poor driving?
Why do the life-saver then? You should already have determined what other road users there are and where they are, so why do the life-saver? (I'm thinking bikes here, but are car drivers supposed to do it too?)
You said yourself a couple of posts ago that avoiding unnecessary signals makes driving more difficult. If you are checking around you before signalling just as carefully as the person who doesn't always signal, you are working just as hard as them. Signalling by rote seems easier because you can do it without concentrating as much and that is the problem.
If you really are just as aware of other road users as the person who knows exactly who they are signalling to and why, then there is nothing wrong with rote signalling. But no point either.
RT106 said:
So what are the benefits of not signaling in a situation where you are fairly certain that there's nobody to signal to?
Its part of a complete process, designed to make you consider every action, and be attentive to what is going on (it's behind you......).It reduces signal clutter.
It reduces hand movement.
BFF
Dr Jekyll said:
It's not a question of not being able to see another road user, it's a question of being able to see that there aren't any other road users.
Surely you are arguing against yourself, as you were observing this mind numbingly poor driving surely he/she could see you also and classified you as another road user and decided TO use indicators.Perhaps your own position on the road may also have been a factor, perhaps they felt you were looking for an opportunity to pass.
Not having a go, just giving it the INDEPENDANT perspective as an alternate viewpoint.
Unless you had a Klingon cloak on of course.
RT106 said:
What absolutely astounds me is that you think it's preferable to say, "I don't need to signal because there's no one to signal to" than simply giving a signal and then getting on with the task in hand.
Continue to be astounded then.The "aim" is to promote Advanced Driving as an "engage brain" exercise.
THINKING rather than just doing.
Commentary being one of the best ways of showing mental process.
FFSake,
It is quite simply a discipline, among others, which we try to teach...as mentioned above, many numpties that we all encounter daily seem to think (if that is the word) that throwing on the flasher gives them immunity - I have indicated = I can change lane.
It is not exactly meant to be rocket science, or presented as such by the IAM or RoSPA...just another tool in the box for those drivers who have the interest...or the mental capacity, to realise that there are things to learn that they might not have considered..we get very few Perfect Drivers in my mob...including the Observers.
BOF
It is quite simply a discipline, among others, which we try to teach...as mentioned above, many numpties that we all encounter daily seem to think (if that is the word) that throwing on the flasher gives them immunity - I have indicated = I can change lane.
It is not exactly meant to be rocket science, or presented as such by the IAM or RoSPA...just another tool in the box for those drivers who have the interest...or the mental capacity, to realise that there are things to learn that they might not have considered..we get very few Perfect Drivers in my mob...including the Observers.
BOF
crisisjez said:
Dr Jekyll said:
It's not a question of not being able to see another road user, it's a question of being able to see that there aren't any other road users.
Surely you are arguing against yourself, as you were observing this mind numbingly poor driving surely he/she could see you also and classified you as another road user and decided TO use indicators.Perhaps your own position on the road may also have been a factor, perhaps they felt you were looking for an opportunity to pass.
Not having a go, just giving it the INDEPENDANT perspective as an alternate viewpoint.
Unless you had a Klingon cloak on of course.
Incidentally my 'point' about the one way street was actually a question. If you are turning the only way you are allowed to go then there is no point in signalling to anyone who knows it's a one way street. (They still have to allow for the remote possibility that you might be a nutcase going the wrong way whatever signals you give.) But if you are expected to give an 'I am not going to drive over this chicane and into the sign' signal on DSA test as you state, then does this mean you are also expected to signal your intention to enter the one way street legally rather tha illegally?
Speed Matters | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff