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

[johnao]

Some while ago I was stopped by a Cambridgeshire traffic officer, (10:30pm, NSL, virtually no traffic about). I'm fairly certain that the reason he wanted to talk to me was to find out if I had been drinking, this was his very first question. I hadn't had a drop to drink of course, promise.

The interesting thing was that the reason, or excuse, he gave for stopping me was that ..."he was concerned about my driving" and his concern was that I hadn't indicated when exiting a roundabout. Now, I know that as advanced drivers we ..."only give a signal if in our opinion another road user would benefit", and the incident that he was alluding to concerned my exiting a very large roundabout just as he was entering it on the far side to me. I knew he was there, I knew it was a fully marked police car, but I didn't consider that he would benefit from a signal, so I didn't give one.

As soon as he realised that I hadn't been drinking, he didn't even bother to breathalyse me, I got an almighty lecture about always, always, always, without fail, always signal when exiting a roundabout.

I didn't argue with him, or attempt to explain my decision not to give a signal, because I simply wanted to be on my way. So I lied through my teeth and promised him I would always, always, always signal when exiting a roundabout in future.

I'm curious to know if anyone else has had a similar experience to this and how did you deal with it. Did you explain that you were using advanced driving techniques and perhaps referred the officer to Roadcraft page 100 on signalling, , and what was the officer's response?

Perhaps some of the traffic officers who frequent this forum could advise as to which response they would rather hear in this situation, a compliant "yes officer, whatever you say officer", or a reasoned, advanced driving, explanation of the driver's decision not to give a signal. I suspect it's the former because it seems to me that the excuse given for stopping the driver is just that, an excuse. From a psychological point of view I would guess that the officer may not take too kindly to a reasoned response as it would appear to be an attempt to undermine his dominant position in this situation

I'd be interested to hear anyone's comments.

[johnao]

vonhosen said:

So was he saying he felt he would have benefited from it, whilst you didn't think he would ?

Absolutely not. The question of "benefit" was never raised and was therefore not at issue.

The tirade, and I can only describe it as a tirade, was purely and simply, and I quote ..."always, always, always signal when exiting from a roundabout". This was repeated at least three times. It may have been my silence that caused him to keep repeating himself; I was somewhat taken aback by his rather forceful expression of belief and it was sometime before I could splutter ..."yes, of course, officer".
He was initially quite aggressive in his tone and attitude, which surprised me greatly, and only calmed down when he realised that I was going to be totally compliant and listen, and agree, with his every word. I sensed from his tone and attitude that he was a little "disappointed" that he hadn't caught a drink driver and that he was trying to justify to me why he had stopped me. Or, maybe, he really did feel that all drivers should signal automatically.

Edited by johnao on Thursday 14th January 18:28

[johnao]

Johnnytheboy said:

SeanyD said:

deeen said:

Why not indicate?

Because the o/p actively made the informed decision no-one would benefit from it, therefore was fully aware of who was around him, and rightly so did not indicate.

The OP's informed decision was based on the misguided opinion that no-one would see him, effectively.

So why not just indicate, and account for the possibility that he may not have seen someone that may benefit?

I have no desire to stifle any debate, but my post was aimed at those who apply the "Roadcraft" approach to signalling and how they have, if ever, dealt with the type of situation that I encountered; and also how would a traffic officer deal with a "Roadcraft" explanation response. I fully accept that anyone who subscribes to the automatic or habitual signalling approach would clearly not have the same dilemma of whether or not to "explain themselves" that I experienced.

[johnao]

Johnnytheboy said:

In my opinion, ascribing a form of behaviour (not always indicating) to that belonging to a predefined set of rules (roadcraft) does not insulate it from comparative criticism from adherents (policeman) of another set of rules (the highway code, I guess).

I completely agree with your statement regarding comparative criticism.

An interesting aspect of this story though is that I happened to meet the officer in charge of Cambridgeshire police traffic division some months later and asked his opinion on my little "incident" with one of his officers. He was, not surprisingly, somewhat circumspect about what he said, but the gist of it was ..."I wasn't there so I can't comment, but what I can say is that all of our traffic officers are trained in strict accordance with Roadcraft". He repeated this statement twice, repetition seems to be a strong characteristic of Cambridgeshire police

So it would seem that my approach to signalling (as per Roadcraft and the Highway code for that matter) was exactly the same as the training received by, and I would suspect the practice of, the traffic officer who stopped me.

I've read of criminal prosecutions where it has been said in court that the traffic officer observed a driver not indicating when exiting a roundabout and this gave him (the police officer) cause to stop the driver and have a chat... the police officer then went on to discover some criminal activity, drugs, stolen goods, etc etc.

It just intrigues me that traffic officers who are trained to signal in the Roadcraft way also seem to be briefed to use non-signalling on the part of the general public as a reason/excuse to stop them and "have a chat".

[johnao]

Deva Link said:

johnao said:

It just intrigues me that traffic officers who are trained to signal in the Roadcraft way also seem to be briefed to use non-signalling on the part of the general public as a reason/excuse to stop them and "have a chat".

They don't need an excuse to stop drivers, but I guess that rather than completely randomly stopping people, they stop people who catch their eye for one reason or another.

I'm sure you're right.

As I understand it they can randomly stop any mechanically propelled vehicle without reason and ask to see the drivers documents and to establish ownership of the vehicle.

However, again, as I understand it, they are not empowered to randomly stop a vehicle for the purpose of a breath test. The officer must have reasonable grounds for believing that alcohol has been consumed before a stop can be made for a breath test; a moving traffic offence would be sufficient grounds for this belief. Like you, I suspect that they use "non-signalling" as "evidence of poor driving" in order to have "reasonable grounds for believing that alcohol has been consumed" in order to stop drivers and administer a breath test if they have any suspicions. If the driver then gets himself a smart solicitor who argues that this was a random stop in order to administer a breath test and that consequently the breath test is invalid, the traffic officer will be in a position to counter that argument. That's not to say that they can't breath test a driver who is stopped for a random documents test and who then smells of alcohol.

I'd be happy to be disabused of any of my opinions by any traffic officers who subscribe to this forum.

[johnao]

vonhosen said:

Just because he was trained that way it doesn't follow that he agreed with that training.

Good point.

Can I take it that you're therefore suggesting that it wouldn't have been a good idea to try and explain my actions, as to have done so might have irritated him even further?

This is the point that I'm really trying to get at, by trying to explain oneself would an officer think that you're a bit of a smart arse, someone who thinks he knows it all but actually knows nothing, would he regard you as being argumentative and therefore perhaps give you a little bit of extra grief, a vehicle inspection, a producer, a further ear bashing? After all they are human just like the rest of us and will be coming into this situation from a dominant position of authority borne of their Roadcraft training, whether they agree with it or not, and of course their natural authority as police officers.

My reading of the various postings and further reflection on all of this is that with the situation that I described its probably just best to leave it be, agree with whatever he says and go on your way as soon as possible.

However, if accused of an offence, which clearly I wasn't, it might be worth putting up an explanation. For example I've spoken to a non-advanced police driver who considered off-siding/straight-lining as an offence of "driving without due care and attention" and told me that he would stop anyone he saw doing it and issue them with a ticket. This was until I took him out for a drive and showed him how to straight-line safely, after which he was quite happy to use the technique himself!

[johnao]

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.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 17th January 10:39

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".

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]

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]

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"?

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]

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.

[johnao]

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 like your attitude, sir, one that I will remember to adopt.

[johnao]

RobM77 said:

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?

This might be termed signalling "just in case", as opposed to "automatic" signalling. I might use "signalling just in case" in very rare and exceptional circumstances, for example if forced to pull out on a "creep and peep" basis.

For me, the potential problem with "signalling just in case", as proposed by RobM77, and the reason I won't use it as a matter of course, is that having made the "just in case" signal there may then be a temptation to reduce one's observation on the basis that the signal will be sufficient to cover the situation. If one decides not to give a "just in case" signal, then in order to know whether a signal has become necessary at a later stage the advanced driver must continue to take effective observation all around his vehicle. It may be a temptation for the habitual and/or "just in case" signaller to cease making fully effective observation once the signal has been applied.

[johnao]

vonhosen said:

I deal with a lot of drivers trying the only signalling if there is somebody to benefit approach & my experience is that not only their interactions through signalling tend to suffer, but also it negatively impacts other areas of their driving because of the extra burden they are putting themselves under. They spend so much valuable energy & time trying to adhere to it that would be better spent developing more important areas of their driving.

Von, are you at liberty to tell us in what context you ..."deal with a lot of drivers"?

What standard are these drivers at when they come to you and what, higher, standard are they at after they have benefited from your expertise?

[johnao]

RobM77 said:

It seems to me that this "not indicating when there's no-one around" is purely just showing off one's observation and decision making skills at the expense of removing a layer of safety.

..."purely just showing off one's observation and decision making skills" ...an interesting opinion.

Would you care to give your critique of the comments that I made earlier, and quoted below, please? Even if you think my approach is complete rubbish, I think you might have difficulty equating it to "showing off". But please feel free to explain.

For the avoidance of doubt, I would like to make it clear that I'm not suggesting that you in particular will be reducing your observation in these situations, just that it might be the case with less skilful advanced drivers.

Quote:
For me, the potential problem with "signalling just in case", as proposed by RobM77, and the reason I won't use it as a matter of course, is that having made the "just in case" signal there may then be a temptation to reduce one's observation on the basis that the signal will be sufficient to cover the situation. If one decides not to give a "just in case" signal, then in order to know whether a signal has become necessary at a later stage the advanced driver must continue to take effective observation all around his vehicle. It may be a temptation for the habitual and/or "just in case" signaller to cease making fully effective observation once the signal has been applied.

Edited by johnao on Monday 18th January 11:01

[johnao]

RobM77 said:

I suppose it's like the argument that wearing a seatbelt makes you complacent and take more risks. This is probably true statistically, but the safest driver is one that wears the seatbelt and drives with care (again, that's an example of doubling up safety).

my emphasis, johnao

Rob, I can’t let the seatbelt analogy go unchallenged, and as no one else seems willing to do so I’ll have go.

This analogy appears at first sight to be compelling and conclusive.

Given that an analogy is a process of reasoning from parallel cases your analogy of comparing your approach to signalling, (ie. automatic signalling, with the caveat of not signalling if it would mislead, lets call it “signalling just in case”), with the wearing of a seatbelt, is a good one; “the safest driver is one that wears the seatbelt and drives with care”. The analogy works well in this instance.

The analogy works something like this:

(Don’t be concerned by the forthright and rather superior tone of the words used, I’m not trying to put words into your mouth. I’m just being a little colourful in my choice of words simply to try and get your point across. The choice of words isn’t intended to be arrogant and would not be my choice of words if I was discussing this with a non-advanced driver. This is a philosophical discussion not a statement of superiority )

In support of your contention that “just in case signalling” is preferable to the Roadcraft approach of “discretionary” signalling, one could restate your analogy thus:

“I am an advanced driver, I’m a very good driver, I don’t expect to have a crash, but I’ll wear a seatbelt “just in case””

And by inference, the analogy would then put my approach of “discretionary” signalling, ie. the Roadcraft approach, in a very poor light, thus:

“I am an advanced driver, I’m a very good driver, I don’t expect to have a crash, so I won’t bother to wear a seatbelt.

At first sight this makes an apparently compelling analogy in support of your case for “signalling just in case”. As I said before, the analogy works really well. However, it doesn’t demolish the case for “discretionary” signalling.

The analogy fails when comparing the wearing of a seat belt with the use of “discretionary” signalling, because as far as "discretionary" signalling is concerned it is a false analogy, as I shall demonstrate. If you try and apply the seat belt analogy to the “discretionary” approach to signalling you will not be reasoning from parallel cases. The wearing of a seat belt and the use of “discretionary” signalling are not analogous and therefore the analogy doesn’t work as intended.

To explain my thinking more fully; the fitting of a seat belt is an automatic mechanical process and is nicely analogous with the automatic mechanical process involved with “signalling just in case”. I’ll concede that it’s not totally analogous because of the thought process required to ensure that the signal is not mis-leading, but close enough for the broad purpose of your analogy.

However, unlike the “just in case” approach, the “discretionary” approach to signalling is that the giving of a signal is not an automatic mechanical process. The “discretionary” approach to signalling is part of a thought through sequence of events and is inextricably linked to, and determined by, the information phase where heightened observation is interwoven with taking information, using information and giving information. For the avoidance of doubt, I’m not for one minute suggesting that an advocate of the “just in case” approach to signalling does not necessarily also apply an information phase where heightened observation is linked to taking information, using information and giving information. It’s just that what you seem to be suggesting is that you have removed the requirement to consider giving a signal from the “give information” phase, this being because you have already given the signal “just in case” and the giving of that signal was not dependent upon the presence of another road user.

Therefore, if, as I am suggesting, the fitting of a seat belt is an automatic mechanical process it cannot be considered as a suitable subject for the purpose of reasoning from parallel cases for comparison with a process that requires very careful consideration before an action is taken and which is determined as a direct consequence of the driver having to form an opinion …(ie. as to whether another road user would benefit). And for this reason I would argue that the seat belt analogy does not demolish the case for "discretionary" signalling.

I know that by such reasoning I will not persuade you to alter your approach to signalling, nor is it my desire to do so. Equally, it is unlikely that your arguments will change my mind as to which approach I prefer. My reason for this posting is simply to try and put across to anyone who is undecided as to which approach to signalling they should adopt, that the seatbelt analogy is not necessarily the compelling and conclusive argument that settles the dispute between the two factions that it at first might seem.

[johnao]

Ceylon said:

I notice when I indicate when exiting a roundabout and there is no one to benefit from that indication. I realise it is a habit but I am entirely aware of my surroundings and aware of why I am doing it and the fact that on that occasion there was no one to benefit.

...so, can you explain then why you deem it necessary to give a signal if you are fully aware that ... "there was no one to benefit".

Advocates of the "just in case" approach to signalling argue in support of their technique that a signal is given just in case another road user hasn't been seen by the driver giving the signal. But, in your case, you say, and I am fully prepared to accept your assertion, that you are ..."entirely aware of my surroundings".

Interestingly, your technique seems to fit neither the "just in case" approach, because, as you say, you are fully aware that, on occasion, there is no one to benefit, nor the discretionary approach of signalling only if, in your opinion, another road user would benefit. Could it be the case that although you feel that you are entirely aware of your surroundings and aware of why you are doing it (ie. signalling) and the fact that on occasion there was no one to benefit, you still don't completely trust your judgement and are consequently signalling "just in case".

Whilst I understand the "just in case" approach, without necessarily agreeing with it, I'm afraid I'm struggling for an understanding of your approach.

Enlightenment would be gratefully received.

[johnao]

Ceylon said:

The first point I made was that making a habit of indicating was a good thing.

The response to this was a that a habit is something done unconsciously so doing this while driving means the driver is not paying attention.

My response to this was to illustrate a circumstance where indicating through habit was not done without paying attention.

Anything else you are trying to make out of it is your either a desire for an argument or an inability to understand something simple. Neither of which I can help you with.

If only it was as simple as you suggest.

I've never, ever, suggested that you or anyone else on this forum is not paying attention when driving. If you re-read my posting you will find that I go out of my way to make it clear that I accept your assertion that you are, in your words ..."entirely aware of my surroundings". The question I posed, and which is repeated below, was predicated on my acceptance that you are entirely aware of your surroundings. My comment was intended to be read as stated and was not intended to convey either a sardonic or ironic meaning.

Also, please don't read in to the question that I posed, that perhaps you signal because..."you still don't completely trust your judgement and are consequently signalling "just in case"", as a suggestion that I believe you are not paying attention. What I think is irrelevant, what I'm genuinely interested in is why you give an habitual signal.

So, to return to my original question, "can you explain then why you deem it necessary to give a signal if you are fully aware that ... "there was no one to benefit"."

If the answer to this question is "habit" and that you don't link signalling to the presence of other road users, then that's fine. All I was wishing to explore was whether you were able to expand on why you considered this approach to be a good thing in the context of advanced driving and the generally, but not universally, accepted principles of discretionary signalling as expounded in Roadcraft.

I trust you will agree, a not unreasonable attempt to explore a not so simple matter.

[johnao]

Graham said:

Man amazed to see 7 pages of comments... Plod pulled you over as they hadnt seen anyone in ages and the law says you cant do random breath tests, which is obviously what they were doing. So needed to reinforce an excuse, end off.

As you weren't a piss head in a car, thats fine... I used to get stopped all the time for a quick look to see if i was drinking when my gf/wife lived elsewhere and i was always driving home at 3am on a monday morning.. no bother.. only held me up for a mo... actually after a few months they got used to me and me to them, so i could have driven home totally legless and never got stopped... but i didnt..

This was exactly how I saw the situation at the time I was stopped. I posted this topic simply because I wanted to see how widespread is this police tactic and whether people thought it was worth "debating" the signalling point with the police officer. Consensus says, "NO". Best to say "yes officer" and be on your way!

I, like you, was surprised how the topic developed. But, nevertheless, some interesting viewpoints emerged from the ensuing debate.

Thanks to everyone for their contributions.

[johnao]

vonhosen said:

It's folly to say a signal that has been given when there was nobody to benefit, is an error merely on that basis.
I'd much rather somebody give a signal that doesn't mislead but is not of benefit, than somebody not signal when there was somebody to benefit.

Firstly, no sensible advocate of the “Roadcraft” method is suggesting that … a signal that has been given when there was nobody to benefit, is an error merely on that basis.

Secondly, when you say … I'd much rather somebody give a signal that doesn't mislead but is not of benefit, than somebody not signal when there was somebody to benefit …you seem to be missing the point, or perhaps not accepting the point, that the driver who gives a signal just because they might not have seen another road user, (the “we all make mistakes” argument), may be using the giving of a signal to cover inadequate observation. 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 another way, if unnecessary signals are given, it is not the signal itself which is the problem (unless it is misleading); rather it may be the mental attitude of the driver immediately before the application of that signal that is a problem. It seems to me that you are advocating the giving of a signal "just in case the driver’s observation is not fully effective", although you choose to describe it as "just in case there is an unseen road user". This seems a poor argument when someone is teaching advanced driving techniques. In these circumstances, my main concern would be the effectiveness of my student’s observational skills, not their signalling skills, and I would concentrate on improving observation rather than giving them the “get out of jail free" card of always signalling. If, and only if, I was still concerned that they couldn’t take effective observation, then I might be tempted to employ your method of always signalling, but, I would certainly be questioning their driving ability.

You often say that you are more concerned with outcomes rather than the strict following of rules and dogma. I’ve never regarded the "Roadcraft" approach to signalling as dogma, merely as a small part of a means to achieve an outcome of effective observation.

[johnao]

vonhosen said:

I am saying that I don't see that a signal that doesn't mislead & was given following consideration should be considered as an error, even if the examiner doesn't feel there was somebody to benefit. It has caused no problem.

Again, I think you’re missing the point that waremark, myself, et al, are making. Nobody on this side of the argument is in the least bit concerned about tests and test marks. What we are concerned about is that there is an outcome of effective observation by the driver. The emphasis being on effective observation, not on compensating for a consequence of ineffective observation, ie. your suggestion of giving a signal just in case another road user has not been observed by the driver.

vonhosen said:

It is my experience that in attempting to not signal, candidates frequently omit signals that would have been of benefit to others.

The statement quoted above leads me to think that you are bringing an element of “comfort” to the driver in your technique of giving a signal just in case another road user has not been observed. How else would you describe a method that advocates a driver making effective observation in order to ensure that no other road user would be misled by a signal and then giving a signal regardless of whether or not any other road user would benefit.

If a student said to me … “I have taken effective all round observation, there is no one that would be mislead by a signal, there is no one that would benefit from a signal, I am now going to give a signal”,… I think any rational bystander, ie myself, might be tempted to say “why”, please note I didn't say it was wrong, I just asked "why". Unless the signal is given as part of the driving plan based upon... what can be seen, what can't be seen and what might reasonably be expected to happen, eg. the roundabout situation dealt with by waremark,...then the conclusion must be that the reason for the signal is that it gives “comfort” to the driver just in case there is another road user he hasn’t seen. If that is the case then one has to question the earlier statement of the driver … “I have taken effective all round observation”.

Clearly in your experience some drivers have a problem with the concept of giving a signal only if another road user would benefit, my concern would be why are they having a problem with this concept and specifically is it because of an inability to take effective all round observation. I would want to satisfy myself on this first before I suggested that they… choose what option they are happiest with & gives them the most reliable results in their interactions with others. If their observation is not fully effective they would not be aware of just how reliable or unreliable their results were in their interactions with others; until that is they have a near miss or come into direct contact with another road user.

Edited by johnao on Tuesday 16th February 19:11