Only Signal when needed

[SLOWLY SLOWLY]

Big Fat F'er said:

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.



BFF

IMO all these experts seem to be saying "Use them, when necessary" and your interpretaion is that what they are actually saying is "ONLY use them, when necessary".
This means IMO (again)the experts are saying "use them when necessary" which is obvious and I can agree with and you are saying "ONLY use them when necessary" which is different from them(the experts)and I can't agree with.

Now we are getting somewhere, it's you thats saying "another",double hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[GreenV8S]

Big Fat F'er said:

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).

It's a shame that neither of you seem able to address the difference between the official Roadcraft position, and the variation that I have put forward. I'm coming to suspect that neither of you are answering because neither of you have an answer. I think I've been fairly clear about what the differences are and why I think the alternative approach is better. So far I haven't seen any substantive reply to those points, in fact it seems that despite detailed discussions spread over several pages and lasting days and days you still don't really understand the distinction.

Falling back to "It's in Roadcraft so it must be right" or "I don't think the difference is significant so I'll stick with Roadcraft" is a pretty poor way of dealing with a suggestion that contradicts Roadcraft. NOTHING in Roadcraft should be beyond question. If blind faith in Roadcraft is your only answer then we've all been wasting our time.

[Big Fat F'er]

SLOWLY SLOWLY said:

IMO all these experts seem to be saying "Use them, when necessary" and your interpretaion is that what they are actually saying is "ONLY use them, when necessary".
This means IMO (again)the experts are saying "use them when necessary" which is obvious and I can agree with and you are saying "ONLY use them when necessary" which is different from them(the experts)and I can't agree with.

Now we are getting somewhere, it's you thats saying "another",double hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Slowly – please get a copy of Roadcraft and read it.

You will find the instruction to only signal when another user will benefit. As in ‘only’. Using the word ‘only’.

The thing is, there is a very clear System that is taught to all advanced drivers, that includes only signalling when another road user will benefit. You disagree with it, and that is fine. But you will never twist the System around to suit your way of doing things. However much you try.

Although to be fair to you, it is quite amusing watching you trying.

Carry on, it is a good laugh (which as we all know is why you are really doing it).

BFF

[vipers]

Well despite what Roadcraft may say, I just have to say I personally disagree, (dont crucify me), on the odd occasion I have (and no doubt others have) been caught out, when you have done your observation bit, and either you missed the cyclist, or motorbike somewhere, modern cars have rather thick front window arches for example, so I would rather continue my driving carrer with the Observation bit, which I do to the best of my ability, (but are you absolutely sure its 100% secure, and you have absolutely missed nothing), and INDICATE.

I dont see as it hurts to INDICATE, and if you have inadvertantly missed something, it may help prevent an accident.

Just because the authors of Roadcraft say not to, doesnt mean its right, its just their opinion, and I have mine.

On the subject of driving techniques etc etc, we will all agree to differ on this subject, anyway, chaps be safe out there.

[Big Fat F'er]

GreenV8S said:

Big Fat F'er said:

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).

It's a shame that neither of you seem able to address the difference between the official Roadcraft position, and the variation that I have put forward. I'm coming to suspect that neither of you are answering because neither of you have an answer. I think I've been fairly clear about what the differences are and why I think the alternative approach is better. So far I haven't seen any substantive reply to those points, in fact it seems that despite detailed discussions spread over several pages and lasting days and days you still don't really understand the distinction.

Green – I though we had covered it. I disagree with your suggestion that it is easier and more effective (I can’t remember your exact words) to decide to signal unless you decide not to, than our method which is to only signal if needed. I think the end result is the same, IF you also agree that if there is no one there, then you won’t signal. If I understand you correctly, you would still signal, so no, I don’t agree with your method. I also don’t agree with your assessment of the value of thestated benefits.

GreenV8S said:

Falling back to "It's in Roadcraft so it must be right" or "I don't think the difference is significant so I'll stick with Roadcraft" is a pretty poor way of dealing with a suggestion that contradicts Roadcraft. NOTHING in Roadcraft should be beyond question. If blind faith in Roadcraft is your only answer then we've all been wasting our time.

I’m not saying “It’s in Roadcraft so it must be right”. That’s your interpretation of what I’m saying. I’m not relying on blind faith, I’m relying on my training, experience, study, constant application and learning. I presume you are doing the same, even though our end position is different.

What I’m trying to get across, is that firstly, you are not disagreeing with my suggestion, or mefosters, or the rest. You are disagreeing with the Police, Armed Forces, etc, etc, (you know them). That doesn’t mean that it is automatically correct. But surely you ought to take into consideration what the experts are all saying, even if you then discount it. Sometimes it helps to know the group of experts that support or disagree with your stance.

The reason I mention Roadcraft is twofold. Firstly, gentlemen drivers like Slowly often say “IMO what the experts are saying is…” but that isn’t true. Roadcraft says only signal, so disagree if you want, but don’t try and change it. Secondly, some drivers on here (not you or Slowboy) really take their bat home and do the affronted bit if anyone dare suggest that what they do could possibly not be the ‘best’. I try and refer it back to the System and Roadcraft so at least they don’t think that nasty little BFF is picking on them. I always find it really amusing when someone tries to claim that what they do is automatically just as valid as the proven methods. May be they are. But sometimes they are not.

I don’t agree with your position, but I’m not sure how to explain why any differently. Give it again (if you can be arsed) and I’ll try.

[SLOWLY SLOWLY]

Big Fat F'er said:

Slowly – please get a copy of Roadcraft and read it.



BFF

To be honest I know what it says in the HC but I've never read this "Roadcraft" book, but now that I know what it looks like I'll keep my eyes open for a copy.

[Big Fat F'er]

vipers said:

On the subject of driving techniques etc etc, we will all agree to differ on this subject, anyway, chaps be safe out there.

Aye.

[Big Fat F'er]

SLOWLY SLOWLY said:

To be honest I know what it says in the HC but I've never read this "Roadcraft" book, but now that I know what it looks like I'll keep my eyes open for a copy.

Excellent. Formal instruction would help you to get the most out of it (and is pretty cheap) but just reading and understanding it won’t go amiss. Let’s face it, the more you know, the more you can decide to ignore.

Enjoy.

BFF

[mefoster]

SLOWLY SLOWLY said:

To be honest I know what it says in the HC but I've never read this "Roadcraft" book, but now that I know what it looks like I'll keep my eyes open for a copy.

That looks like the 1960 edition. If I were you I would start with the current edition. Just go into any decent bookshop and pick up a copy.
http://tinyurl.com/uldyf

Of course, you'll have to forgive the slightly wordy, politically correct, style and the cringeworthy errors on the cover but you might find it more "readable".

Alternatively, If you want what is, IMHO, the ultimate evolution of the work then look for the 1977 edition (The Blue Book). It is the last edition before it was re-worked in 1994.
http://tinyurl.com/yx5r96

The covers of earlier editions and some history can be seen here:
www.worcadvmot10.fsnet.co.uk/history_of_roadcraft.html


As an aside, if anyone has a copy of the 1954 "Attention All Drivers" that they would be willing to part with (sell), I would be more than happy to give it a home along side all the others on my shelf.

[mefoster]

GreenV8S said:

Big Fat F'er said:

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).

It's a shame that neither of you seem able to address the difference between the official Roadcraft position, and the variation that I have put forward. I'm coming to suspect that neither of you are answering because neither of you have an answer. I think I've been fairly clear about what the differences are and why I think the alternative approach is better. So far I haven't seen any substantive reply to those points, in fact it seems that despite detailed discussions spread over several pages and lasting days and days you still don't really understand the distinction.

Falling back to "It's in Roadcraft so it must be right" or "I don't think the difference is significant so I'll stick with Roadcraft" is a pretty poor way of dealing with a suggestion that contradicts Roadcraft. NOTHING in Roadcraft should be beyond question. If blind faith in Roadcraft is your only answer then we've all been wasting our time.

I understand the distinction that you have made perfectly. I just happen to disagree that there is any substantive difference.

Assuming that all observation checks are made correctly and completely and that the decision making process is fully adhered to, then, in practice, signal if required is the same as signal unless not required.

I don't believe your last assertion is a fair representaion of my position. The main thrust of my argument has nothing at all to do with Roadcraft. Throughout this discussion I have been stating clearly that the problem is one of human nature. I have never advocated blindly following any advice or rules. Indeed I have previously quoted the 1st Duke of Wellington (the attribution is open to discussion) against such practice.

The argument that ALL official advice supports a particular viewpoint is simply put forward to show that, "Hey, look, these recognised experts cannot ALL be wrong." It's not a good debating technique by any means but the advice is that way for a reason. They COULD have simply said, "ALWAYS signal regardless". It would have been far simpler to teach, easier for people to learn and there would be no arguments. The point is that the advice is NOT that way. The accepted best practice is, "use them [signals], if necessary, ..." which, despite Slowly's lack of comprehension means unnecessary signals may be omitted.

IMO, [one of] the reasons for that advice is that automatic signalling tends to have detrimental effect on the decision making process and observation. As I have said before, this is not just hyperbole or assertion, it is an observable phenomenon.

If your method works for you and you are happy that there is sufficient difference to stick with it, then that is just grand. If Slowly wants to signal every time and he is one of the exceptions that is not succeptible to the effects of human nature then that is grand too.

As for me, I will stick to actively looking for someone to benefit from my signal or for somewhere that they could appear from. Yes, I make mistakes but in 16 years of regular re-tests none of my examiners has ever said that I have missed signals that I should have given or that I have signalled excessively.

Oooh.. home time now. TTFN

edit to correct rushed typing.

Edited by mefoster on Wednesday 1st November 17:22

[SLOWLY SLOWLY]

Big Fat F'er said:

The reason I mention Roadcraft is twofold. Firstly, gentlemen drivers like Slowly often say “IMO what the experts are saying is…”

Not only do you misquote yourself now you are misquoting me, I said "IMO all these experts seem to be saying", only one word different but this is'nt the first time you done it.

Edited by SLOWLY SLOWLY on Wednesday 1st November 16:49

[SLOWLY SLOWLY]

SLOWLY SLOWLY said:

Big Fat F'er said:

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.



BFF

IMO all these experts seem to be saying "Use them, when necessary" and your interpretaion is that what they are actually saying is "ONLY use them, when necessary".
This means IMO (again)the experts are saying "use them when necessary" which is obvious and I can agree with and you are saying "ONLY use them when necessary" which is different from them(the experts)and I can't agree with.

Now we are getting somewhere, it's you thats saying "another",double hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Here it is.

[Big Fat F'er]

SLOWLY SLOWLY said:

Not only do you misquote yourself now you are misquoting me, I said "IMO all these experts seem to be saying", only one word different but this is'nt the first time you done it.

It doesn't change the point I was making in any way whatsoever (which you know).

They say one thing. You say another.

Enjoy your read.
BFF

[Big Fat F'er]

mefoster said:

If your method works for you and you are happy that there is sufficient difference to stick with it, then that is just grand. If Slowly wants to signal every time and he is one of the exceptions that is not succeptible to the effects of human nature then that is grand too.

As for me, I will stick to actively looking for someone to benefit from my signal or for somewhere that they could appear from. Yes, I make mistakes but in 16 years of regular re-tests none of my examiners has ever said that I have missed signals that I should have given or that I have signalled excessively.

Well said that man.

Edited by Big Fat F'er on Wednesday 1st November 18:30

[Slowly Slowly]

Big Fat F'er said:

heebeegeetee said:

The highway code, FWIW, does give the implicit instruction 'mirror, signal, manouvre' which really does cover a lot of bases. Is it wise to suggest that the highway code can be disregarded?

No, I don’t think we should start to suggest the Highway Code can be disregarded. However, I think you’ll find that it (HC) tells you to give a signal where another would benefit. So the suggestion to signal only if required is not just Advanced, it is supported by the HC as well. Even basic new drivers are instructed to only give a signal if it will benefit others.

I have decided that me and you have been banging on about this subject long enough, I have also decided (and please correct me if you think I'm wrong on this) apart from you being economical with the facts when it comes to your quotes, the HC, which from your quote here seems to be a good thing says "use them, when necessary", but you have included "only" and then accepted that sentence as being the one that HC actually said.

If thats the case please have a look in your "roadcraft" book and give me the quote that says "only indicate when necessary" or "only use them, when necessary".

I genuinely don't know whether your book says those exact words or not.

[Slowly Slowly]

Big Fat F'er said:

However, don't you find that some drivers get confused. They forget that:

1) If you drive to the 'System' you ARE safe. Always. All the time. Without any exception. Unsafe happens when you move out of the System for whatever reason.





BFF

This is a quote you said on 24/10/06 page 6, what I did'nt agree with was the "always. All the time without any exceptions" bit. ok

[Slowly Slowly]

[quote=Big Fat F'er] We are all saying it is safe (when done correctly and within the System) and you are disagreeing.

/quote]




This is a qoute you made on page 16 and I do agree with it, I AM NOT DISAGREEING WITH YOU on this quote.


One word different in a quote can make hell of a difference.

Admittedly it's more than one word but you know what I mean.

Edited by Slowly Slowly on Wednesday 1st November 19:39

[Big Fat F'er]

Slowly Slowly said:

I have decided that me and you have been banging on about this subject long enough...

Hurrah, agreement at last.

Slowly Slowly said:

If thats the case please have a look in your "roadcraft" book and give me the quote that says "only indicate when necessary" or "only use them, when necessary".

The latest Roadcraft (I agree with Mefoster about the blue one being a classic, but you are likely to purchase the latest one one).

Chapter 6 - driver's signals, page 93, highlighted in yellow "Only give a signal when another road user will benefit from it".

Hope this helps.

Edited by Big Fat F'er on Wednesday 1st November 21:27

[Slowly Slowly]

Big Fat F'er said:

Chapter 6 - driver's signals, page 93, highlighted in yellow "Only give a signal when another road user will benefit from it".

Hope this helps.

Edited by Big Fat F'er on Wednesday 1st November 21:27

Ah but er but er er, it does'nt actually say............... Oh bollox forget it.

YOU WIN.

[Big Fat F'er]

Slowly Slowly said:

YOU WIN.

If you think that is what it is all about, then you are the poorer for it.

Lets call it a day, 'cos however you try and rearrange it, Roadcraft is as it is. It can't, and won't, change for you.

As you know we try and help the more naive drivers like yourself get a head start. So, to assist you in your never ending quest for self enlightenment (let's face it, its easier for you, you can only improve), I can recommend the following books as being suitable for you at your current level.

Roadcraft - the Police Foundation
Expert Driving the Police Way - John Miles
Expert Driving - Peter Ripley
Mind Driving - Stephen Haley
The Highway Code & Know Your Traffic Signs
Janet and John books 1, 2 and 3.
Rupert Bear Drives Out.
Signalling for Dummies.

Hope these help. Nice chatting Slowboy, remember there are no winners when you get it right, only losers when you get it wrong.

BFF