Only Signal when needed
Discussion
SLOWLY SLOWLY said:
The signal only when needed method has such tiny benefits it's not worth the bother, where as signal everytime might save a life (it might be yours).
Oh dear, he's gonna start on the think of the chil-duh-run in a minute.
The point went thataway --->
Signal every time is habit forming (unless you are exceptionally well disciplined) and tends to cause the decision making process and associated observation to be reduced or ignored. Signal clutter and tired fingers aside, the problem is one of natural human laziness and for the vast majority of drivers signalling every time = signal by rote and that's bad.
mefoster said:
SLOWLY SLOWLY said:
The signal only when needed method has such tiny benefits it's not worth the bother, where as signal everytime might save a life (it might be yours).
Oh dear, he's gonna start on the think of the chil-duh-run in a minute.
The point went thataway --->
Signal every time is habit forming (unless you are exceptionally well disciplined) and tends to cause the decision making process and associated observation to be reduced or ignored. Signal clutter and tired fingers aside, the problem is one of natural human laziness and for the vast majority of drivers signalling every time = signal by rote and that's bad.
"Assume also that both methods we be done correctly".
BFF said this and without going over old ground I was comparing one method and its benefits with another method and its benefits.
You just have to decide whther you are perfect or not, and I'm not.
GreenV8S said:
The three options I referred to are:
1: always signal
2: signal if you are confident it is necessary
3: signal unless you are confident it is unnecessary
1: always signal
2: signal if you are confident it is necessary
3: signal unless you are confident it is unnecessary
Oh yes, I know the three you are saying. I’m just suggesting that 2 and 3 are the same.
Roadcraft tells you to signal if you decide it is necessary. Which means don’t signal if you are confident it is unnecessary.
I believe that 2 and 3 are the same, but I feel that different drivers have different confidence levels about it being unnecessary. That is a different issue, with a different way to resolve it.
SLOWLY SLOWLY said:
The signal only when needed method has such tiny benefits it's not worth the bother….
To you. Everyone has different requirements. Very small benefits are required by some groups, and not others.
SLOWLY SLOWLY said:
.. where as signal every time might save a life.
Signal every time may save a life, but it may also cause an accident if done incorrectly. Signalling only when needed may save a life, but it may also cause an accident if done incorrectly.
The benefits to only signalling when required, and the methods for doing it safely and systematically, are well documented and available. However, if you are not confident that you can do it that way, and/or you do not need the benefits, then you have to signal your way.
Big Fat F'er said:
Roadcraft tells you to signal if you decide it is necessary. Which means don’t signal if you are confident it is unnecessary.
I would interpret that as meaning you don't need to indicate if you are, for example in a left filter lane at some traffic lights and are of course turning left, there are probably other examples but are you certain that your interpretation is right? (what a stupid question).
Slowly - it's pretty fair to assume that we (mefoster and I) will not persuade you that what we do is safe. I'm guessing that is your only issue. If someone could show you it was safe, then I assume you wouldn't have a problem.
The case has been well spoken me Lud on both sides. Is it possible for you to have a chat/drive/instruction/training with someone outside this forum who does the "only signal if needed" bit, so that you can see what they mean. You may then decide that it is still not right for you. Although I think that would be shame, well fair enough.
Before anyone jumps up on your behalf, or you take a bat home, I'm only suggesting the above as I'm under the impression you haven't had formal training. If you have, great, no problemo. We could tell you that every Police Officer and Member of the Forces and whooever that drives to the proven System is doing it a certain way. Repeating that fact won't change your mind, but if you could sit with them it might. They will also show you the drivers that signal every time, and have got tinto the habit of doing it by rote.
Just a thought.
The case has been well spoken me Lud on both sides. Is it possible for you to have a chat/drive/instruction/training with someone outside this forum who does the "only signal if needed" bit, so that you can see what they mean. You may then decide that it is still not right for you. Although I think that would be shame, well fair enough.
Before anyone jumps up on your behalf, or you take a bat home, I'm only suggesting the above as I'm under the impression you haven't had formal training. If you have, great, no problemo. We could tell you that every Police Officer and Member of the Forces and whooever that drives to the proven System is doing it a certain way. Repeating that fact won't change your mind, but if you could sit with them it might. They will also show you the drivers that signal every time, and have got tinto the habit of doing it by rote.
Just a thought.
Big Fat F'er said:
I believe that 2 and 3 are the same
In that case presumably you'll be happy to agree that drivers should signal unless they are confident that it is unnecessary.
But seriously, before you agree to that I should point out that I think the subtle difference between 2 and 3 does matter in two ways:
Firstly, in the presence of uncertainty, one would result in signalling and the other would result in not signalling. I guess we could debate the definition of 'confidence' and 'uncertainty', but hopefully you will agree that there are situations where drivers are not certain whether there is anyone who might benefit from a signal either initially (when the signal is started) or subsequently.
Secondly, in the case where the potential need for signalling only becomes a definite need after the signal becomes potentially useful, one results in a delay before the signal is applied and the other doesn't.
SLOWLY SLOWLY said:
mefoster said:
SLOWLY SLOWLY said:
The signal only when needed method has such tiny benefits it's not worth the bother, where as signal everytime might save a life (it might be yours).
Oh dear, he's gonna start on the think of the chil-duh-run in a minute.
The point went thataway --->
Signal every time is habit forming (unless you are exceptionally well disciplined) and tends to cause the decision making process and associated observation to be reduced or ignored. Signal clutter and tired fingers aside, the problem is one of natural human laziness and for the vast majority of drivers signalling every time = signal by rote and that's bad.
"Assume also that both methods we be done correctly".
BFF said this and without going over old ground I was comparing one method and its benefits with another method and its benefits.
You just have to decide whther you are perfect or not, and I'm not.
*IF* you accept that you're not perfect then you'll accept that you are succeptible to the process becoming habiyual and signalling by rote. Surely under those circumstances you'd want to adopt a method that encourages observation ratherthan the opposite.
SLOWLY SLOWLY said:
Big Fat F'er said:
Roadcraft tells you to signal if you decide it is necessary. Which means don’t signal if you are confident it is unnecessary.
I would interpret that as meaning you don't need to indicate if you are, for example in a left filter lane at some traffic lights and are of course turning left, there are probably other examples but are you certain that your interpretation is right? (what a stupid question).
Yes, there are circumstances where you don't need to indicate if you are, for example in a left filter lane at some traffic lights and are of course turning left. There are some where you do.
The training, study and experience will show you where to use the indicator to assist other road users. It's neither everywhere, or nowhere. It's somewhere in the middle.
GreenV8S said:
Big Fat F'er said:
I believe that 2 and 3 are the same
In that case presumably you'll be happy to agree that drivers should signal unless they are confident that it is unnecessary.
Oh yes, as long as you accept that it is unecessary if there is no other road user present who can benefit.
Now where's that Merry go Round....
I'm off for my tea.
BFF
GreenV8S said:
mefoster said:
Oh dear, he's gonna start on the think of the chil-duh-run in a minute.
The point went thataway --->
I'm disappointed to see such a cheap shot coming from you.
It's not a cheap shot. He did miss the point and if you want to start down the "might save a life" route then "think of the chil-duh-run" is invariably the outcome. Personally, I think that is the last refuge of someone with no other argument.
Besides, don't take things quite so seriously. Once things get to the point that everyone is afraid of offending anyone it's time to give it up.
Big Fat F'er said:
To you. Everyone has different requirements. Very small benefits are required by some groups, and not others
If benefits can be calculated on a scale of 1 to 10 what is the point of doing something that has a benefit of 1 and ignoring something that has a higher benefit( to keep the peace can I say 3)
If someone like you was apppointed by the DVLA to test peoples observational skills and if they got a score of 100 they could then indicate only when necessary don't you think that someone that monitors accident statistics would say, "whats the point of that, where are the benefits".
When the examiner has listened to the benefits he would be highly likely IMO to say something like, "re-arrange this well known English phrase, Off Fcuk".
mefoster said:
GreenV8S said:
mefoster said:
Oh dear, he's gonna start on the think of the chil-duh-run in a minute.
The point went thataway --->
I'm disappointed to see such a cheap shot coming from you.
It's not a cheap shot. He did miss the point and if you want to start down the "might save a life" route then "think of the chil-duh-run" is invariably the outcome. Personally, I think that is the last refuge of someone with no other argument.
Besides, don't take things quite so seriously. Once things get to the point that everyone is afraid of offending anyone it's time to give it up.
"He did miss the point" thats arrogant, why is it me that missed your point, could it not be you that has missed my point.
"Might save a life".
Link
"Think of the chil-duh-run"
Link
"Last refuge of someone with no other argument"
Well thats me done like a kipper.
I said one of them and you said the other two, when people start putting words in your mouth thats when they(meaning you)have lost the argument.
Seems to me that things have pretty much run their course here.
To summarise:
We all agree that automatic signalling (by rote) is bad.
Signal if necessary
and
Signal unless unnessary are the same thing with only some semantic differences depending on your point of view.
Both of the above require proper observation and decision making process.
All official advice, i.e. DSA (Highway code and Driving - The Essential Skills) says to use signals, if necessary, where they would help to inform another road user of your intended actions. This has an implied omission of signals where they are unnessary. This is accepted best practice and is intended for learners and expereicned drivers alike.
Every (UK) Police force and advanced driving organisation teaches according to the tenets of "Roadcraft" which advises that signals (as part of The System) are "considered" on the approach to any hazard, but not necessarily applied.
I don't know about the rest of you but I'm happy to be supported by all that and therefore I think I'll call it day on this one.
To summarise:
We all agree that automatic signalling (by rote) is bad.
Signal if necessary
and
Signal unless unnessary are the same thing with only some semantic differences depending on your point of view.
Both of the above require proper observation and decision making process.
All official advice, i.e. DSA (Highway code and Driving - The Essential Skills) says to use signals, if necessary, where they would help to inform another road user of your intended actions. This has an implied omission of signals where they are unnessary. This is accepted best practice and is intended for learners and expereicned drivers alike.
Every (UK) Police force and advanced driving organisation teaches according to the tenets of "Roadcraft" which advises that signals (as part of The System) are "considered" on the approach to any hazard, but not necessarily applied.
I don't know about the rest of you but I'm happy to be supported by all that and therefore I think I'll call it day on this one.
mefoster said:
Signal if necessary
and
Signal unless unnessary are the same thing with only some semantic differences depending on your point of view.
'same thing with only some semantic differences' implies that the differences are insignificant. I've given two reasons why I think they're significant.
mefoster said:
I don't know about the rest of you but I'm happy to be supported by all that and therefore I think I'll call it day on this one.
Mefoster – as you know I’m with you on this one. It’s a shame we’ve not been able to persuade anyone of the benefits. That’s the real failing here, not the System.
Slowly – all I can do is to support Mefosters comments. What we have discussed is the method used by every Police Force. The Armed Forces. Advanced Driving Schools. IAM. Rospa. Organisations have come from abroad to learn it. If you are unwilling to do it that way for any reason, then that is your decision. However, just ask yourself whether it is reasonable to assume that all those have got it wrong. Because you can’t have it both ways. We are all saying it is safe (when done correctly and within the System) and you are disagreeing. One side has to be wrong unfortunately. It can’t be both safe and unsafe.
Green – nice chatting. I know exactly where you are coming from, even though I disagree with your position. I would expect you to defend yours, I’m sure you would expect us to defend ‘The System’ and Roadcraft.
For me, you can (all) carry on with the sarcasm, the attempts at humour, the lighthearted comments, the silly baby statements, everything. I don’t take offence, it’s like water off a ducks back. Lets face it, if we took offence to every bit of silly comments supported by lack of knowledge and skills, we could never talk to Slowboy.
See ya
BFF.
Edited by Big Fat F'er on Wednesday 1st November 09:27
slowly slowly said:
Last week travelling north on the M6 at Midnight I witnessed a marked Police vehicle move from lane 2 to lane 3 with an Astra van 100 yards or so behind him in the same lane, there was no right indicator to say he was changing lanes, unless he can justify why he did'nt need to indicate when there was someone there it must be put down as unacceptable.
Indicate even when there is no one there and no harm is done, you can't say the driver is not paying attention "To ASSUME makes an ASS of U and ME".
On the one occasion when you don't indicate there could be an accident, it's no contest.
IMO Indicate every time, its a good habit to get into (from a professional, 34 years.)
I see this kind of driving from motorway police all to often and by that I meann 2 or 3 times a week whilst covering 2500k a week on motorways.
Indicate even when there is no one there and no harm is done, you can't say the driver is not paying attention "To ASSUME makes an ASS of U and ME".
On the one occasion when you don't indicate there could be an accident, it's no contest.
IMO Indicate every time, its a good habit to get into (from a professional, 34 years.)
I see this kind of driving from motorway police all to often and by that I meann 2 or 3 times a week whilst covering 2500k a week on motorways.
Listen Fat Lad, This is a quote I posted on 23/10/06, you and your mate mefoster are both saying that the Police are trained to the "system" standard along with various other organisations and so if it's good enough for them then it's good enough for you.
Now read my quote again and tell me all these motoring groups that swear by the "system "bible are better than the next man, they make mistakes like everybody else
You seem intent on comparing the "system" style with no faults to the "non system" with its faults.
If you drive by the "system" and you get it wrong then you are outside the "system",
and, If you signal every time then you obviously are'nt concentrating everytime.
Except in my case, I concentrate everytime.
By the way the highway code says about signals "use them, if necessary, before changing course or direction, stopping or moving off"
It does'nt say "ONLY use them, if necessay".
It's a bit like saying "Wear a coat in cold weather, if necessary", it does'nt automatically follow that you can "ONLY wear a coat in cold weather".
SLOWLY SLOWLY said:
Listen Fat Lad, this is a quote I posted on 23/10/06, you and your mate mefoster are both saying that the Police are trained to the "system" standard along with various other organisations and so if it's good enough for them then it's good enough for you.
Seem a reasonable proposition. All these recognised expert drivers recommending one thing, you saying another, hmmmmmmm.
SLOWLY SLOWLY said:
Now read my quote again and tell me all these motoring groups that swear by the "system "bible are better than the next man, they make mistakes like everybody else.
No one is denying that drivers make mistakes (although we haven’t had agreement on whether the Police Driver made a mistake). We are saying that the System works, you are saying it doesn’t.
SLOWLY SLOWLY said:
You seem intent on comparing the "system" style with no faults to the "non system" with its faults.
Not at all.
SLOWLY SLOWLY said:
If you drive by the "system" and you get it wrong then you are outside the "system", and, If you signal every time then you obviously are'nt concentrating everytime.
Correct
SLOWLY SLOWLY said:
Except in my case, I concentrate everytime.
Excellent. Well done.
SLOWLY SLOWLY said:
By the way the highway code says about signals "use them, if necessary, before changing course or direction, stopping or moving off" It does'nt say "ONLY use them, if necessay". It's a bit like saying "Wear a coat in cold weather, if necessary", it does'nt automatically follow that you can "ONLY wear a coat in cold weather".
That’s cleared that up then.
Slowly – its time you let go and moved on. The Association of Chief Police Officers will not be recommending that Roadcraft (the publication) and The Sytem (the process) are changed just because you don’t agree with it.
Nearly everyone involved with Advanced driving is a caring, thinking driver. All the options have been considered, including always signalling even if not required. After considerable research, development, and testing, it’s been agreed that for now, it is still best practice to only signal if required (working within the complete methodology).
Perhaps the best thing (rather than we disagree for ever on here) is for you to take an Advanced drive, and when the Observer (class1 or otherwise) questions you about your incorrect signalling method, you can try and change his/her mind.
Good luck.
BFF
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff