Is it because the driving instructors are rubbish?
Discussion
crisisjez said:
Yes you`re quite right, a pox on all those who indicate when you think its unnecessary 
It's not a question of whether I think it is unnecessary, it is whether it is really unnecessary. If the numpty really thought it was necessary to signal then fine, but if they don't think at all then that is the problem.I'm convinced that most of the people advocating nonsense like mindless signalling and unnecessary brake gear overlap know it's ridiculous, but just feel that taking a contrary attitude proves some obscure kind of point.
If the IAM starting advocating rote signalling and BGOL and said candidates would fail for using pull push steering. The forums would be full of people saying rotational steering was old fashioned, BGOL showed mechanical ignorance and that indicating must always be bad because F1 cars don't have indicators.
Dr Jekyll said:
I'm convinced that most of the people advocating nonsense like mindless signalling and unnecessary brake gear overlap know it's ridiculous, but just feel that taking a contrary attitude proves some obscure kind of point.
No, I just think you're wrong. I think about my driving as much as anyone, I'm just not so arrogant as to assume I'm so perfect that I don't need to signal when I think it's unnecessary. There are times when I'm confident enough in my observation to make that decision, but they are rare. There are many more situations in which I don't signal because I don't think it provides any information that isn't already absolutely apparent. Regardless of the situation, I think.I've never really grasped the extreme horror that's expressed whenever BGOL gets mentioned in these topics. I found this comment in another current thread particularly amusing...
Dr Jekyll said:
You stand a better chance of getting away without matching revs in a low powered FWD, but that doesn't make it right.
A better chance of getting away with it?! You make it sound as if the probability of death as a result of BGOL in a FWD shopping trolley is ~95%. Trust me, you'll 'get away with it' time and time again. I could go out now in my trusty Mondeo and change from fifth to first at 40mph with no rev matching and the most aggresive clutch action I can concieve and nothing untoward will happen, and said Mondeo will continue to be as trusty as ever. Sure, there are far better ways to do things, but worrying so obsessively about BGOL isn't going to get novice drivers there in any sort of hurry.
RT106 said:
No, I just think you're wrong.
I think about my driving as much as anyone
Think on this -I think about my driving as much as anyone
You are so sure your method - whatever it is - is not only good enough for you (which is of course fine)
but is somehow better than Roadcraft?
So much better that you vilify The System of Car Control and those choosing to improve their driving by using it as a tool?
May I suggest you getting a demo from someone using The System?
So that you may be more aware of that which you condemn?
Dr Jekyll said:
crisisjez said:
Yes you`re quite right, a pox on all those who indicate when you think its unnecessary
It's not a question of whether I think it is unnecessary, it is whether it is really unnecessary. If the numpty really thought it was necessary to signal then fine, but if they don't think at all then that is the problem.I'm convinced that most of the people advocating nonsense like mindless signalling and unnecessary brake gear overlap know it's ridiculous, but just feel that taking a contrary attitude proves some obscure kind of point.
If the IAM starting advocating rote signalling and BGOL and said candidates would fail for using pull push steering. The forums would be full of people saying rotational steering was old fashioned, BGOL showed mechanical ignorance and that indicating must always be bad because F1 cars don't have indicators.
Who is advocating signaling by rote, or signaling without thought? Can you put a name to one single person?
heebeegeetee said:
Dr Jekyll said:
crisisjez said:
Yes you`re quite right, a pox on all those who indicate when you think its unnecessary
It's not a question of whether I think it is unnecessary, it is whether it is really unnecessary. If the numpty really thought it was necessary to signal then fine, but if they don't think at all then that is the problem.I'm convinced that most of the people advocating nonsense like mindless signalling and unnecessary brake gear overlap know it's ridiculous, but just feel that taking a contrary attitude proves some obscure kind of point.
If the IAM starting advocating rote signalling and BGOL and said candidates would fail for using pull push steering. The forums would be full of people saying rotational steering was old fashioned, BGOL showed mechanical ignorance and that indicating must always be bad because F1 cars don't have indicators.
Who is advocating signaling by rote, or signaling without thought? Can you put a name to one single person?
heebeegeetee said:
Who is advocating signaling by rote, or signaling without thought? Can you put a name to one single person?
Naming people seems invidious, but at least one Police school now requires rote indicating. Not because it's better, but because it leaves them less open to complaints.Typically, other advanced motoring groups take their lead from the Police, so watch this space...
WilliBetz said:
RT106 said:
I could go out now in my trusty Mondeo and change from fifth to first at 40mph with no rev matching and the most aggresive clutch action I can concieve and nothing untoward will happen, and said Mondeo will continue to be as trusty as ever.
Do you have a video camera?
40mph in first is around 9000rpm in my Mondeo - quite a way past the red line. More interesting would be finding out how the synchromesh would cope.
RT106 said:
Big Fat F'r said:
It reduces signal clutter.
Doesn't that only apply if there are other vehicles signaling and other drivers who might observe your signal (and others)? In which case you would be signaling too...BFF
Big Fat F'r said:
RT106 said:
Big Fat F'r said:
It reduces signal clutter.
Doesn't that only apply if there are other vehicles signaling and other drivers who might observe your signal (and others)? In which case you would be signaling too...BFF
Gary
jaf01uk said:
Big Fat F'r said:
RT106 said:
Big Fat F'r said:
It reduces signal clutter.
Doesn't that only apply if there are other vehicles signaling and other drivers who might observe your signal (and others)? In which case you would be signaling too...BFF
Gary
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.
Correct me if I'm wrong but does that not imply that you advocate the practice?By allowing drivers to turn without indicating, lowers the importance that should be attached to indicating, imo.
Regards,
Gary
jaf01uk said:
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.
Correct me if I'm wrong but does that not imply that you advocate the practice?By allowing drivers to turn without indicating, lowers the importance that should be attached to indicating, imo.
Regards,
Gary
If by not indicating because you can't see anyone to indicate to, how can this possibly reduce clutter if there's no-one there to see it?
Last night i approached a T junction controlled by traffic lights in my vehicle, was turning right, couldn't see anyone to indicate to, due to buildings either side of the junction restricting the view. I indicated anyway. The moment i got into the middle of the junction a car to my right became visible and so i was glad that i was already indicating. Was i wrong to indicate?
But if the junction was light controlled it doesn't matter to the guy on the right as he will be sitting on red and therefore makes no odds to him at all whether you indicate or not, he's stationary and he knows because its a t junction your either going left or right and your road position would probably rid him of any doubt when you appear into view, it's like indicating to come back in after an overtake, if there is someone coming towards you it is courteous to give a left indicator to tell them you have completed your manoeuvre, otherwise you dont need to because the vehicle you have just overtaken "knows" your not going to stay over there and as such you wouldn't "help or warn" them by giving a left signal.
I am not saying for a second that there is never a case for an indicator, just that people are encouraged to think more about theyre driving if they decide whether or not one is required rather than just automatically shoving it on,
Regards,
Gary
I am not saying for a second that there is never a case for an indicator, just that people are encouraged to think more about theyre driving if they decide whether or not one is required rather than just automatically shoving it on,
Regards,
Gary
The car was approaching the lights, wasn't stationary. But its perfectly right to say my indication made no difference, providing of course the other driver has seen the lights - i reckon i see about 10 cars a month run red lights.
Having given this further thought though, i think i'd much rather people were indicating by rote than the situation thats been familiar to me in my 30 years, which is that people are barely indicating at all.
Another question though - where is the 'fail-safe' in not indicating?
And i'd repeat my earlier question - how does the practice of not signaling if there's no-one to signal to reduce signal clutter. In fact lets get down to basics, what is signal clutter?
Having given this further thought though, i think i'd much rather people were indicating by rote than the situation thats been familiar to me in my 30 years, which is that people are barely indicating at all.
Another question though - where is the 'fail-safe' in not indicating?
And i'd repeat my earlier question - how does the practice of not signaling if there's no-one to signal to reduce signal clutter. In fact lets get down to basics, what is signal clutter?
I have no idea what is meant by signal clutter but can only imagine that its the overuse and spurious use of indicators by the hard of thinking as mentioned previously?
The failsafe as in any part of the information phase is if someone comes into view at any point who will then benefit from a signal you apply it, encourages alertness,
Gary
The failsafe as in any part of the information phase is if someone comes into view at any point who will then benefit from a signal you apply it, encourages alertness,
Gary
Speed Matters | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff