Only Signal when needed
Discussion
Afro - I think you're missing the point here.
Information phase is take, use, give. The 'give' includes the indicator signal, but is only a part of the giving. The rest include: The position on the road. The absolute speed of the vehicle. The acceleration/decelaration. Brake lights. Hand signals. Head movements. Etc. Etc.
Therefore, if you have applied the System correctly, it's almost impossible to be in a position such that the indicator alone will clarify a 'sudden' hazard (sudden!!!..unseen!!!...read Roadcraft).
Give an indicator signal when it would benefit other road users (and that includes potential benefit) as part of a complete planned system.
Blanket coverage is not good because it negates the need to think "I am signalling because...". We need more thinking on the roads, not less. Also, when folk signal without any analysis, you tend to get them signalling for a turn, ignoring the smaller turn before it. Or signalling to overtake a parked car but ignoring the right turn after it. Etc. Etc.
With proper forward observation, anticipation and concentration, the driving plan, including any signalling, should cover all the information you need to give out.
Lets face it, you are an Advanced driver; be proud that you have the skills and training such that you can take relevant action, rather than the blind 'whatevers' done by all the other numptys on the road today.
Information phase is take, use, give. The 'give' includes the indicator signal, but is only a part of the giving. The rest include: The position on the road. The absolute speed of the vehicle. The acceleration/decelaration. Brake lights. Hand signals. Head movements. Etc. Etc.
Therefore, if you have applied the System correctly, it's almost impossible to be in a position such that the indicator alone will clarify a 'sudden' hazard (sudden!!!..unseen!!!...read Roadcraft).
Give an indicator signal when it would benefit other road users (and that includes potential benefit) as part of a complete planned system.
Blanket coverage is not good because it negates the need to think "I am signalling because...". We need more thinking on the roads, not less. Also, when folk signal without any analysis, you tend to get them signalling for a turn, ignoring the smaller turn before it. Or signalling to overtake a parked car but ignoring the right turn after it. Etc. Etc.
With proper forward observation, anticipation and concentration, the driving plan, including any signalling, should cover all the information you need to give out.
Lets face it, you are an Advanced driver; be proud that you have the skills and training such that you can take relevant action, rather than the blind 'whatevers' done by all the other numptys on the road today.
afrofish said:
If you blanket signal you are not, as I said earlier, giving any thought to the negative impact the signal could have or that it could mislead when you are giving it. Any driving decisions by an "advanced driver" should be made with full consideration of their need & impact. That is one of the things that will seperate an advanced driver from other drivers.
I still fail to see a situation where any signal could give a negative impact unless you have signalled too early or given an inappropriate signal anyway.
If you can give me an example of a time when it would be appropriate to signal only on certain occasions I would be greatly appreciative.
Cheers,
Afro
That's exactly it though. The negative impact will come from where it misleads, either too early or inappropriate etc.
Even if you give a signal where it isn't misleading, but where instead there is no positive benefit either, you will be losing marks. The idea of being an advanced driver is that you are seeking to do the perfect drive & a part of that is going to be that you will only ever be taking actions that have a positive benefit associated with them (not unnecessary ones). Although it is not entirely related to this issue another example could be overt positioning. If you position overtly where safe & there is positive benefit, that will be positively received. But if you position overtly where there is no benefit, it will be negatively received, because it was not necessary or of benefit & as such an advanced driver would be expected to realise that & therefore not do it.
Being an advanced driver is about accuracy in what you do. The perfect drive is a 100% mark & where you fall short of perfections (whether that be failing to give signal when needed OR signalling when not needed) you will be losing marks because of your lack of accuracy. You should be able to say who the signal is for, not just that it is being given incase. That is not accuracy.
Of course all of these things will be dependent on the syllabus of the organisation to which you belong. But the rules for marking should be consistantly applied by all examiners within that organisation.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 5th April 21:09
afrofish said:
Hi Everyone,
I was hoping for everyone elses take on the "only signal when there is someone to benefit from that signal" philosophy.
I was first introduced to this practice when I was training for my IAM membership and objected at the time.
The IAM stance is that by only indicating when there is a requirement it forces the driver to considder their situation prior to taking action, and if there is anyone to signal for you will anyway.
My arguement is that EVERYONE MAKES MISTAKES! It is possible (not likely but possible) that the finest drivers in the world could fail to see a hazard and as a result of not indicating the hazard (be it person or vehicle) would have less warning of the impending situation.
What do you all think on the subject
Whether or not you see anyone, or not, does it matter if you signal your intended manouevour? the answer is no, Golden rule in the highway code is MIRROR, SIGNAL, MANOUEVOUR.
Not that many drivers seem aware of the first action......or the second for that matter.
Thanks for comments above vonhosen, it wasn't IAM though but thats by the by.
Number of other inconsistencies in other tests which prompted post match analysis canteen discussion.
As an example he picked another driver up on failing to signal after a motorway overtake. I wasn't there so this is second hand but apparently candidate had made overtake on motorway, well clear ahead of vehicle in lane 1. No other vehicles ahead or behind except the overtaken vehicle. Marked down for failing to indicate return to lane 1.
As I say personally not there so only one side of the story and you are hearing it second hand.
Number of other inconsistencies in other tests which prompted post match analysis canteen discussion.
As an example he picked another driver up on failing to signal after a motorway overtake. I wasn't there so this is second hand but apparently candidate had made overtake on motorway, well clear ahead of vehicle in lane 1. No other vehicles ahead or behind except the overtaken vehicle. Marked down for failing to indicate return to lane 1.
As I say personally not there so only one side of the story and you are hearing it second hand.
I think it is verging almost on arrogance to believe that any one of us , advanced drivers or not, can possibly believe we are fully aware of all other road users all of the time.
A prime example of this, which I'm sure many will freely admit to, is missing the stealthy sports bike out for a thrash, and the first time you become aware of it's presence is as you're startled by it leaping by at Mach 3.
I will always indicate to alert other road users of my intended manoervre, THINK, KIN FAST BIKE !
A prime example of this, which I'm sure many will freely admit to, is missing the stealthy sports bike out for a thrash, and the first time you become aware of it's presence is as you're startled by it leaping by at Mach 3.
I will always indicate to alert other road users of my intended manoervre, THINK, KIN FAST BIKE !
freddytin said:
I think it is verging almost on arrogance to believe that any one of us , advanced drivers or not, can possibly believe we are fully aware of all other road users all of the time.
Shouldn't we all be striving for just that ?
freddytin said:
A prime example of this, which I'm sure many will freely admit to, is missing the stealthy sports bike out for a thrash, and the first time you become aware of it's presence is as you're startled by it leaping by at Mach 3.
I will always indicate to alert other road users of my intended manoervre, THINK, KIN FAST BIKE !
That's very worrying if that's happening though & shows a more general lack of awareness of others, not just in the decision for signals.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 5th April 22:36
vonhosen said:
That's very worrying if that's happening though & shows a more general lack of awareness of others, not just in the decision for signals.
Easily done though, if there are hazards in the immediate vicinity it's easy to take your eye off the rear view mirror for ten seconds and a fast bike can go a long way in that time. Even if you aim to be aware of the position and movement of every single vehicle around you, you have to allow for the fact that you won't achieve this perfectly all the time.
Afro: Actually the comment you attribute to me was Peter's.
I'm afraid I actually think giving redundant signals is a sign of a deeper problem: that of a lack of observation.
With keen observation (or anticipation and planning) comes thinking signalling.
An Advanced Driver should be a thinking driver. Do nothing by rote. Do everything with forethought and planning.
I'm afraid I actually think giving redundant signals is a sign of a deeper problem: that of a lack of observation.
With keen observation (or anticipation and planning) comes thinking signalling.
An Advanced Driver should be a thinking driver. Do nothing by rote. Do everything with forethought and planning.
GreenV8S said:
That's very worrying if that's happening though & shows a more general lack of awareness of others, not just in the decision for signals.
Easily done though, if there are hazards in the immediate vicinity it's easy to take your eye off the rear view mirror for ten seconds and a fast bike can go a long way in that time. Even if you aim to be aware of the position and movement of every single vehicle around you, you have to allow for the fact that you won't achieve this perfectly all the time.
This is what I have been talking about with people being allowed to drive at high speeds on our roads. (No speed limits)
You shouldn't have ten seconds between mirror checks if you are driving systematically.
The situation you describe shouldn't happen if you are the sort of safe competent driver that is up to driving at high speeds on public roads. You can't sacrifice these things as an advanced driver, or have defeciencies in your mirror work. The mirrors are the foundation of an advanced drivers system & are necessary safety requirement.
Simple rules for commentary,
Every action has a forename of "mirror" (i.e. mirror before every position change & before every speed change (which includes going onto or off the brake/accelerator, not just before braking))
&
Every hazard worth talking about has a surname of mirror (ie junction, mirror)
The Mirrors are the skeleton of the commentary & drive.
The System is the muscle around the skeleton.
The Observation, Anticpation & Planning is the skin on top.
If you don't have the skeleton, it all becomes a messy mush.
Why do you think our emergency services are required to be trained to these levels so that they can safely travel at speeds in excess of our speed limits ?
Why would that be necessary for them to have that training to do higher speeds on our roads, but not for the general public ?
Are the general public all much better drivers to start with so they don't need that training, or are Police drivers actually representative of the public & therefore the general public would require training to the same levels in order to be able to drive at higher speeds safely ?
>> Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 5th April 23:50
vonhosen said:
You shouldn't have ten seconds between mirror checks if you are driving systematically.
I only have one pair of eyes to keep track of the things around me. When a potentially hazardous situation is unfolding in front of me then that takes priority over general 'situation awareness' checks. Sometimes I spend more than ten seconds without looking in the mirror. For example if I'm driving down a narrow street with pedestrian hazards on both sides then I will be checking shadows and blind spots for all I'm worth, what's behind me gets peripheral vision if it is lucky. The price is that I lose track of what is behind me (and in a motorway context, who is in the blind spots etc). It's a price I pay happily. If I kept looking into the rear view mirror every few seconds then my ability to respond immediately to events in front of me would be significantly compromised. (Same goes for speedo checks by the way. I aim to drive with due regard to the law but if push comes to shove I'll do what's safe first and we can argue the toss over the legality later.)
GreenV8S said:
You shouldn't have ten seconds between mirror checks if you are driving systematically.
I only have one pair of eyes to keep track of the things around me. When a potentially hazardous situation is unfolding in front of me then that takes priority over general 'situation awareness' checks. Sometimes I spend more than ten seconds without looking in the mirror. For example if I'm driving down a narrow street with pedestrian hazards on both sides then I will be checking shadows and blind spots for all I'm worth, what's behind me gets peripheral vision if it is lucky. The price is that I lose track of what is behind me (and in a motorway context, who is in the blind spots etc). It's a price I pay happily. If I kept looking into the rear view mirror every few seconds then my ability to respond immediately to events in front of me would be significantly compromised. (Same goes for speedo checks by the way. I aim to drive with due regard to the law but if push comes to shove I'll do what's safe first and we can argue the toss over the legality later.)
Where you can no longer maintain all of the systems required, you lose speed so that you can retain them to the required level. That is what being an advanced driver is all about. Speed (progress) is the least important aspect & the first to be sacrificed. You can only drive at a speed where it doesn't adversely affect all the important S's that come before it, namely being Safety, System & Smoothness. The mirror work is contained within both of those first two S's , Safety & System, so it can't be sacrificed for Speed. You lose speed (with a mirror check first) so that you don't get to the hazards that are infront & concern you, leaving you with sufficient time to deal with both the hazards infront & the required all round awareness (including mirror checks).
>> Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 6th April 00:09
I've been following this thread from a position of neutral interest, since I generally don't signal when unnecessary but have often thought that it is a minor issue and it's hardly a crime to routinely signal, whatever.
Vonhosen, your logic is almost unarguable but you obviously reflect a council of perfection. Nothing wrong with that since perfection is what we're all aiming for but equally, by definition perfection is something we aspire to but cannot expect to achieve every time. I think that's why many contributors feel uncomfortable with the "never signal unless you need to" part of your creed. They recognise that, being human, just once in a while they'll get it wrong!
I like Don's comment about an advanced driver being a thinking driver. You don't drive on autopilot, ever. Instead, you make a conscious decision to signal, or not. Occasionally I make a conscious decision to signal, even though I cannot see anyone who would benefit, "just in case". On the other hand, I never make a conscious decision not to signal when I can see there is someone who would benefit. In other words, I err on the side of caution.
That approach might lose me points on a test (albeit not with Flat in Fith's examiner!) but I'm happy with it!
Vonhosen, your logic is almost unarguable but you obviously reflect a council of perfection. Nothing wrong with that since perfection is what we're all aiming for but equally, by definition perfection is something we aspire to but cannot expect to achieve every time. I think that's why many contributors feel uncomfortable with the "never signal unless you need to" part of your creed. They recognise that, being human, just once in a while they'll get it wrong!
I like Don's comment about an advanced driver being a thinking driver. You don't drive on autopilot, ever. Instead, you make a conscious decision to signal, or not. Occasionally I make a conscious decision to signal, even though I cannot see anyone who would benefit, "just in case". On the other hand, I never make a conscious decision not to signal when I can see there is someone who would benefit. In other words, I err on the side of caution.
That approach might lose me points on a test (albeit not with Flat in Fith's examiner!) but I'm happy with it!
afrofish said:
Hi Everyone,
I was hoping for everyone elses take on the "only signal when there is someone to benefit from that signal" philosophy.
I was first introduced to this practice when I was training for my IAM membership and objected at the time.
The IAM stance is that by only indicating when there is a requirement it forces the driver to considder their situation prior to taking action, and if there is anyone to signal for you will anyway.
My arguement is that EVERYONE MAKES MISTAKES! It is possible (not likely but possible) that the finest drivers in the world could fail to see a hazard and as a result of not indicating the hazard (be it person or vehicle) would have less warning of the impending situation.
What do you all think on the subject
It's what I was taught by my instructor and got me through my driving test (not advanced or IAM, just normal test). Makes sense but there's judgement required to understand who will benefit.
Obviously there are other cars/bikes/lorries/busses but one must consider pedestrians and, though ti pains me, cyclists
As a ped I use all the cues afforded to me by cars when deciding if it's safe to cross (side-roads particularly). If driver does not indicate and I decide to cross and the car then turns, being in the right or wrong doesn;t mean it won;t hurt. Bearing this in mind I generally indicate if there are peds around.
In situations where I'm leaving a dual carriageway and there's noone around then I won't indicate, same with turns where there's no one or lane changes. generally though, in London, there's always someone round so I indicate!
iaint said:
...there's judgement required to understand who will benefit.
Not really. Give a signal if it will benefit ANY ROAD USER. These include cars, cyclists, lorries, vans, buses, shoppers, walkers, children, dog walkers, someone stood at the corner, approaching the corner, looking at the corner, near the side junction, standing up to leave a bench, walking out of a shop, getting off a bus, trucks, road sweepers, workmen, drain cleaners, runners, joggers, people at bus stops, etc., etc., etc. All are road users. All may benefit
iaint said:
Bearing this in mind I generally indicate if there are peds around.
If they would benefit, you should ALWAYS indicate to give clarity.
iaint said:
In situations where I'm leaving a dual carriageway and there's noone around then I won't indicate, same with turns where there's no one or lane changes. generally though, in London, there's always someone round so I indicate!
So to summarise, if there is no one around to benefit, you don't signal. If there is, you do.
Exactly. Advanced Driving (and why haven't you taken your IAM/Rospa test?)
>> Edited by Big Fat F'er on Thursday 6th April 12:36
>> Edited by Big Fat F'er on Thursday 6th April 12:37
vonhosen said:
Where you can no longer maintain all of the systems required, you lose speed so that you can retain them to the required level. That is what being an advanced driver is all about. Speed (progress) is the least important aspect & the first to be sacrificed. You can only drive at a speed where it doesn't adversely affect all the important S's that come before it, namely being Safety, System & Smoothness. The mirror work is contained within both of those first two S's , Safety & System, so it can't be sacrificed for Speed. You lose speed (with a mirror check first) so that you don't get to the hazards that are infront & concern you, leaving you with sufficient time to deal with both the hazards infront & the required all round awareness (including mirror checks).
I drive at a speed which enables me to track and manage the hazards around me. But still, I spend my attention on the hazards that I consider important at the time. So if there are no immediate hazards then I will monitor the situation, paying more attention to areas of high risk, and less to areas of lower risk. For example I routinely pay more attention to this closer to me than to things further away, because any problems that crop up close to me will give me less time to notice react. Similarly if a situation developes where there are potential hazards close to me then that is where I will spend the bulk of my attention. Sometimes that means there will be gaps of several seconds or maybe even tens of seconds in my surveillance of the instruments, far distance, situation behind me and so on. I'd rather have that than take my eye off the immediate problem to have a general look around.
I'm still in two minds on this subject. When the idea of only signalling when necessary first emerged I didn't like it. My feeling was that you should always give a signal then anyone can benefit from it and that's OK, no harm is done. I also considered that there could be occasions where you had failed to see somebody, or they arrived on the scene late, and perhaps the lack of your signal could be detrimental.
Then I went to an IAM classroom session and the Chief Observer stated that the idea of signalling only when relevant was that it forced you to be more observant and check if there was anyone around who would benefit. I thought that was quite a good way of selling the idea.
I do take the point that signals should be suitably timed in order to minimise the risk of misunderstandings, but I tend to take signals from others as being advance information, and I prefer to see what people actually do, before I trust what the signal says.
For the moment I'm inclined to keep an open mind on this aspect, as there seem to be valid arguments on both sides, and at this stage I don't think it right that a particular approach should be insisted upon by, for example, IAM Observers and Examiners.
Peter (GreenV8S) - I'm rather of the same school as you with regard to mirrors. My use of mirrors could be thought to be inadequate in that I do not always check behind on a sufficiently frequent basis. Even so, I do always check before changing course, but so long as you do not change speed quickly it should not matter what is behind you IMHO.
I would suggest that a useful element of driving is to avoid doing anything in a hurry. If you're unhurried you are more likely to get it right, but if you do make a mistake then others have some time to make adjustments and help you out.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Then I went to an IAM classroom session and the Chief Observer stated that the idea of signalling only when relevant was that it forced you to be more observant and check if there was anyone around who would benefit. I thought that was quite a good way of selling the idea.
I do take the point that signals should be suitably timed in order to minimise the risk of misunderstandings, but I tend to take signals from others as being advance information, and I prefer to see what people actually do, before I trust what the signal says.
For the moment I'm inclined to keep an open mind on this aspect, as there seem to be valid arguments on both sides, and at this stage I don't think it right that a particular approach should be insisted upon by, for example, IAM Observers and Examiners.
Peter (GreenV8S) - I'm rather of the same school as you with regard to mirrors. My use of mirrors could be thought to be inadequate in that I do not always check behind on a sufficiently frequent basis. Even so, I do always check before changing course, but so long as you do not change speed quickly it should not matter what is behind you IMHO.
I would suggest that a useful element of driving is to avoid doing anything in a hurry. If you're unhurried you are more likely to get it right, but if you do make a mistake then others have some time to make adjustments and help you out.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
TripleS said:
Peter (GreenV8S) - I'm rather of the same school as you with regard to mirrors. My use of mirrors could be thought to be inadequate in that I do not always check behind on a sufficiently frequent basis. Even so, I do always check before changing course, but so long as you do not change speed quickly it should not matter what is behind you IMHO.
Just to clarify a possible misunderstanding: in the normal course of things I would expect to spend perhaps 20% of my time looking at things behind me, this reflects the fact that the vast majority of things that I need to react to happen in front of me.
It is only when some unusual situation requires a significant increase in attention that I will concentrate on that for a moment, relying on my previous awareness of the situation plus peripheral vision to informed of the other things around me. Because I'm no longer looking directly my situation awareness quickly goes 'out of date' which means that I will sometimes *need* to look elsewhere to keep track of my escape options, but that's looking for a specific purpose (is the gap still there, what options do I have for a lane change, do I need to commit now to avoid being boxed in to a potential crunch point etc) rather than general surveillance.
Does "needed" in "only signal when needed" include signalling when you accidentally sacrifice Something for Speed and therefore aaren't sure if you know what is going on around you?
It would strike me that it does, and so all is right with the world. The System must require us to compensate for our own deficiencies in its application. Otherwise there is no way that it could be described as "robust".
It would strike me that it does, and so all is right with the world. The System must require us to compensate for our own deficiencies in its application. Otherwise there is no way that it could be described as "robust".
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff