Only Signal when needed
Discussion
gdaybruce said:
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!
It isn't a major issue, providing the signals aren't missing where needed or misleading (which is of greater concern.)
You don't drive outside your own limitations, you've got to drive safely within yours (not to other people's limits). It's a conscious decision on your part to signal just in case, if you doubt your judgement.
If you want to reach the highest levels though, then you achieve that through attaining the greatest levels of accuracy in respect of your actions to the prevailing circumstances.
GreenV8S 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.
But it is you who said that you can't always deal with the potential fast closing vehicle behind because of the hazards ahead.
The answer is lose speed to where you can deal safely with both.
If your speed to the hazard infront is no longer a problem, you won't be missing the required systematic use of the mirrors & subsequently the ever changing picture behind.
If your speed to the hazard infront is too high, it will affect your ability to know what is closing behind, because problems ahead will sap a disproportionate amount of your time.
Your speed shouldn't be the cause of compromise in safety or system issues.
This is what is a give away when you start to go beyond your limits. You can no longer remain systematic & become ragged. You must deal with the cause of what is making you unsystematic.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 6th April 16:37
7db said:
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".
The system will allow you to sacrifice for your own defeciencies where safety is concerned. As I said where you are looking to perform at the highest levels it will cost you marks, but that is all.
However (at the highest levels) insufficient mirrors & awareness of others, will result in safety being or potentially being compromised, followed by test failure.
For me personally the greatest dangers come from behind. I'll back myself to deal with those ahead of me & can control my interaction with them with positioning and speed adjustment, far easier than doing so with those approaching behind. They are a greater threat.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 6th April 16:30
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.
.
Apart from other sensible things that you did say I do feel I need to pick up on this point. You can check your mirror frequently (and you probably do) but on an almost sub conscious level only picking up major hazards that leap into your observation. There have been plenty of occasions when I've been bimbling along quietly and a dirty great lorry appears in the rear view, right up my chuff, whereupon I tend to slow it right down in order to increase my braking distance to hazard distance ratio (if you see what I mean).
Coming back to the main point of the discussion, I still cannot see why it isnt desirable to let signalling become an automatic subconscious process thus allowing your consciuous mind to concentrate on potential hazards.
xm5er 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.
.
Apart from other sensible things that you did say I do feel I need to pick up on this point. You can check your mirror frequently (and you probably do) but on an almost sub conscious level only picking up major hazards that leap into your observation. There have been plenty of occasions when I've been bimbling along quietly and a dirty great lorry appears in the rear view, right up my chuff, whereupon I tend to slow it right down in order to increase my braking distance to hazard distance ratio (if you see what I mean).
Coming back to the main point of the discussion, I still cannot see why it isnt desirable to let signalling become an automatic subconscious process thus allowing your consciuous mind to concentrate on potential hazards.
Unless the signal is going to be misleading it isn't going to be a problem per se, but if it is performed as a reflex action how can you be sure it isn't going to be misleading without that prior consideration ? If you have considered and it was not going to be misleading then fine, but why give it if not need ? You would only be marked down in some tests because you would be less accurate than others who manage to only signal where there is actual need/benefit to be had, outside of higher test standards provided it is not misleading (& you have considered that) it is a non issue.
The lack of not knowing what is around you at all times is not a non issue though.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 6th April 17:12
xm5er said:
How is a signal misleading if properly applied?
If you haven't considered whether it will be misleading, it could be.
I'm not saying that all unnecessary signals will be misleading.
If you apply a left signal on approach to a roundabout, because you have seen a roundabout & wish to take the first exit, but a car appears at a junction just prior to the roundabout (a junction you didn't consider at the time of indicator application as a reflex action) it could lead the driver at the junction to think you are turning in & pull out infront of you.
If you pass a vehicle in lane 1 on a 3 lane dual carriageway & indicate to return to lane 1 (but then don't cancel the signal) because you intend to take the next left turn, the vehicle you have passed may mistakenly think you have just failed to cancel your indicator on return to lane 1 & not think you are taking the available left turn.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 6th April 17:45
vonhosen said:But if it is misleading, then it isn't properly applied. xm5er says "how can it be wrong if its done right", and you reply "because it might be done wrong". That ain't a logical response.
How is a signal misleading if properly applied?
If you haven't considered whether it will be misleading, it could be.
ATG said:
How is a signal misleading if properly applied?
If you haven't considered whether it will be misleading, it could be.
I also said that
"I'm not saying that all unnecessary signals will be misleading."
It's just not properly applied for advanced driving, if it's not necessary.
There are two seperate issues , misleading signals & unnecessary but not misleading signals.
Misleading signals are a problem or potential problem.
Unnecessary but not misleading signals are not a potential safety problem, but they will lead to you losing marks in a lot of advanced tests because they were applied where not necessary.
In the second circumstances it is more a matter of driving accuracy.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 6th April 20:29
xm5er said:
Coming back to the main point of the discussion, I still cannot see why it isnt desirable to let signalling become an automatic subconscious process thus allowing your consciuous mind to concentrate on potential hazards.
Quite simply because if you allow the signal to become automatic you will almost certainly neglect the associated observation that goes before it. Automatic processes are, by definition, performed without thinking.
It should also be noted that omission of unnecessary signals is NOT an advanced driving thing. It is recommended best practice in the DSA publication "Driving, The essential skills" so is also expected for the basic "L" test.
The point is that you must "consider whether a signal is necessary" and you can ONLY do that having taken effective all round observation. The one ensures the other. The converse being that by signalling automaticall you remove the decision making process, "is it necessary?", and in doing that you subconciously remove the action required to answer that question. And that is precisely what tends to happen - people who signal automatically almost invariably do not observe properly.
A quick reflection on signals. I used to signal everywhere. It was rare that I misled anyone.
Then I got edukated.
Now I find that I am more likely to not signal where a signal might, in fact, have been useful -- particularly in London traffic other road users appear from all over the place after the time when a signal might normally be applied and when ones hands are full doing other things.
Must try harder.
To echo the other thread, I've no desire to be a scratch golfer, but perhaps I would like to be a scratch driver. I think I'm in a worse than before moment.
Then I got edukated.
Now I find that I am more likely to not signal where a signal might, in fact, have been useful -- particularly in London traffic other road users appear from all over the place after the time when a signal might normally be applied and when ones hands are full doing other things.
Must try harder.
To echo the other thread, I've no desire to be a scratch golfer, but perhaps I would like to be a scratch driver. I think I'm in a worse than before moment.
vonhosen said:
But it is you who said that you can't always deal with the potential fast closing vehicle behind because of the hazards ahead.
The answer is lose speed to where you can deal safely with both.
Not quite.
What I said was that I may choose to focus on a hazard that could require immediate action, in preference to routine surveillance of my surroundings. Is that dog about to run out, is the car I'm passing going to pull out and sidewsipe me. The conflict (between the different things that need my attention) is not caused by speed, this situation could occur at 100 mph or at walking speed, and slowing down isn't always the best way to respond. Perhaps if we were all as good a driver as you then there would never be a need to compromise any aspect of driving, but for me a short-term need sometimes takes precedence over other routine activities. I would be quite concerned to be driven by somebody who felt they *must* look in the rear view mirror at precise intervals regardless of the hazards around them.
A thought just struck me re "Blind spots", on older cars with those flat side mirros, it is easy to have a car almost alongside you, and you cant see it in your mirror, I know from experience of my "L" reg Granada, (thats why I used to have a quick look as far round to the right as my head would go before changing lanes), so doesnt hurt to indicate, and in the event ther is a car alongside you, hopefully you will hear his horn as he beeps you.
An amazing cross section of opinions on this I have to say!!
If I may put my 2p's worth in here..........
I was taught on a defensive driving course by an ex-police driving instructor who, (at the time!), tore my driving etiquete apart at the seams.
He promoted the mindset of 'indicating only if there's someone to indicate to and only if it's not misleading' primarily to demote 'habitual' driving. In so much as, if you're actually thinking about the hazards and the progress you're trying to make considering the conditions you're driving in, then you don't join the myriads of morons who just indicate for the hell of it.
Indicating is used these days as more of a request in many cases than an indication of your intent. (Granted, it does come in useful for the former from time to time, but if motorists were trained better in the first instance that wouldn't be an issue.)
In my opinion, an indication is a signal that you have assessed the conditions and made a conscious decision to execute a manouvre to promote your safe progress.
This ethos also doubles as making a conscious decision to cancel your indication. (How many of you have followed a car with their flasher going for no reason other than the muppet has forgotten to press the button!!
The other train of thought was that, not signalling where no signal was necessary, reduced the unecessary wear and tear on vehicle components.
Great forum this! Lots to digest.
>> Edited by Big Rod on Thursday 6th April 21:49
If I may put my 2p's worth in here..........
I was taught on a defensive driving course by an ex-police driving instructor who, (at the time!), tore my driving etiquete apart at the seams.
He promoted the mindset of 'indicating only if there's someone to indicate to and only if it's not misleading' primarily to demote 'habitual' driving. In so much as, if you're actually thinking about the hazards and the progress you're trying to make considering the conditions you're driving in, then you don't join the myriads of morons who just indicate for the hell of it.
Indicating is used these days as more of a request in many cases than an indication of your intent. (Granted, it does come in useful for the former from time to time, but if motorists were trained better in the first instance that wouldn't be an issue.)
In my opinion, an indication is a signal that you have assessed the conditions and made a conscious decision to execute a manouvre to promote your safe progress.
This ethos also doubles as making a conscious decision to cancel your indication. (How many of you have followed a car with their flasher going for no reason other than the muppet has forgotten to press the button!!
The other train of thought was that, not signalling where no signal was necessary, reduced the unecessary wear and tear on vehicle components.
Great forum this! Lots to digest.
>> Edited by Big Rod on Thursday 6th April 21:49
ATG said:
If you haven't considered whether it will be misleading, it could be.
I was coming back to say just that, cheers. The scenarios described by vonhausen are just bad signalling and non defensive driving/riding. When you aproach a hazardous situation like that you should be thinking about how you signal, how you position yourself, covering the brake etc, but adding a descision layer to a nonhazardous situation is pointless over complication.
xm5er said:
Coming back to the main point of the discussion, I still cannot see why it isnt desirable to let signalling become an automatic subconscious process thus allowing your consciuous mind to concentrate on potential hazards.
mefoster said:
Quite simply because if you allow the signal to become automatic you will almost certainly neglect the associated observation that goes before it. Automatic processes are, by definition, performed without thinking.
It should also be noted that omission of unnecessary signals is NOT an advanced driving thing. It is recommended best practice in the DSA publication "Driving, The essential skills" so is also expected for the basic "L" test.
The point is that you must "consider whether a signal is necessary" and you can ONLY do that having taken effective all round observation. The one ensures the other. The converse being that by signalling automaticall you remove the decision making process, "is it necessary?", and in doing that you subconciously remove the action required to answer that question. And that is precisely what tends to happen - people who signal automatically almost invariably do not observe properly.
We'll just have to disagree on this one, particularly "people who signal automatically almost invariably do not observe properly". Signalling as a matter of course isn't detrimental except in the clearly dogmatic mind of some testers.
"consider whether a signal is necessary" should become, "consider how a signal should be applied in a potentially hazardous situation" IMO.
>> Edited by xm5er on Friday 7th April 12:45
vipers said:
A thought just struck me re "Blind spots", on older cars with those flat side mirros, it is easy to have a car almost alongside you, and you cant see it in your mirror, I know from experience of my "L" reg Granada, (thats why I used to have a quick look as far round to the right as my head would go before changing lanes), so doesnt hurt to indicate, and in the event ther is a car alongside you, hopefully you will hear his horn as he beeps you.
I say again, don't do things in a hurry, then we all have time to sort it out between ourselves, before the paint swapping starts.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
mefoster said:
Quite simply because if you allow the signal to become automatic you will almost certainly neglect the associated observation that goes before it. Automatic processes are, by definition, performed without thinking.
I'm sorry I don't get it.
If *you allow the signal to become automatic*
That translates to *you allow the signal to be performed without thinking*
Surely any action you undertake as a driver requires some level of thinking? If not, then surely we would actively do things like turn on our indicators, or flash our lights for no reason, because they require no thought or concious decision to do so? I certainly make some decision before I do anything.
No process is "automatic", so I don't think we can make the assumption you made there. Clarifying it by degree's of ignorance to the requirements of observation before signalling would be more realistic.
Ie, "I always use my indicators approaching a junction, but never check the rear view mirror", well they observe at least infront of them to see the junction they intend to turn into, so some thought process and observation has occured... it wasn't just "automatic", though it may well have been a lacking degree of observation for the intended manoeuvre.
Personally I signal everywhere that I was taught to do on my driving lessons and which allowed me to pass my driving test. It's not hard to do so, and I genuinely believe that even if there is no one to see it, it is good practice to signal anyway.
There are PLENTY of times I could just not signal, but I still automatically DO signal, but only after I have observed if I have to or not to begin with.
I think it'd be almost impossible to approach a junction and tell yourself your not going to observe as if you were about to turn into it, and then just signal without observing the possibility of the turn-in, and then literally turn without observing again.
Sorry, but observation always occurs before any action, even if the subsequent action of the observation is to signal, it doesn't mean it's wrong. It's the quality of the observation initially that we need to focus on, through good commentary, not simply questioning the use of a signal full stop and using that to determine adequate observation... which it seems we are saying here?
It's almost like saying don't turn on your headlights in the dark in a built up area, if you are observing correctly then why bother, there is no one else that will benefit from your visiblity, and you can see clearly yourself at that time!
How can that not be justified in the same manner?
Dave
TripleS said:
A thought just struck me re "Blind spots", on older cars with those flat side mirros, it is easy to have a car almost alongside you, and you cant see it in your mirror, I know from experience of my "L" reg Granada, (thats why I used to have a quick look as far round to the right as my head would go before changing lanes), so doesnt hurt to indicate, and in the event ther is a car alongside you, hopefully you will hear his horn as he beeps you.
I say again, don't do things in a hurry, then we all have time to sort it out between ourselves, before the paint swapping starts.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Totally agree Dave, but I supose my thinking was "Belt and Braces", but now that I have progressed from the Granada to a Volvo S80 with those luvely new type of mirros, I KNOW that if you cant see a car in your offside mirror, there aint one there, pity they dont make the nearside mirrors the same. Probaly like your good self, I practice MIRROR, SIGNAL, MANOUVER.
Big Rod said:
Indicating is used these days as more of a request in many cases than an indication of your intent
I think you are saying, "This is saying, I want to move out, so let me out, rather than this is my intend when the road is clear"
In which case, with respect, I think this is wrong, an indicator is clearly YOUR INTENT, not sort of SOD YOU, OUT I COME, which seems to be the norm these days, especially on vehicles nipping down the slip road onto a dual carriageway.
Maybe I mis-interpreted your thoughts on this, personaly, I will only indicate on dual carriageways, once the gap in the other lane appears, if there is a lot of traffic in the lane I want to move into, I will wait until a gap appears, MIRROR, SIGNAL, MANOUEVOUR, I dont see any point in putting the indicator on, if theres no chance of a gap coming up whereby I can safely move out.
vipers said:I remember a chat with John Lyons where he spoke about his recent (at the time) encounter with some HGV drivers. iirc John is qualified to instruct on just about every class of vehicle in existence, never mind drive it. When he spoke about this issue of timely intent rather than imminent action, one chap replied "nah, you gotta give em the f
Indicating is used these days as more of a request in many cases than an indication of your intent
I think you are saying, "This is saying, I want to move out, so let me out, rather than this is my intend when the road is clear"
In which case, with respect, I think this is wrong, an indicator is clearly YOUR INTENT, not sort of SOD YOU, OUT I COME, which seems to be the norm these days, especially on vehicles nipping down the slip road onto a dual carriageway.
g chop and fg move aht, or you'll be there all fg day". Just can't remember what John's reply was 
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff