Only Signal when needed
Discussion
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
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
I think the rule is there to encourage you to observe your surrounding to make sure that no-one will benefit from a signal. If you haven't seen a hazard, then a lack of signal may not help the situation, it may even make it worse.
Also, consider signalling if you are turning off the road whilst on a blind corner. You might not see traffic behind or in front, but the could be travelling in your direction and just around the corner.
Also, consider signalling if you are turning off the road whilst on a blind corner. You might not see traffic behind or in front, but the could be travelling in your direction and just around the corner.
Yes, I understand the point and agree. In cars, I don't bother signalling without need. However, driving vans or trucks I always signal. In particular, I signal lane changes. Not because I'm paying any less attention - the fact of the matter is I'll be paying more attention to my mirrors whether I'm intending to move or not - rather because I am aware of my blind spots and I can't turn my head to check my angles.
So, like many statements, this needs to be made with a qualification.
So, like many statements, this needs to be made with a qualification.
There are very few situations where I can be absolutely certain that nobody else needs to know what I am about to do, and nobody will need to know for the duration of the manoeuver. In all other cases, signalling is the right answer. Personally I think that signalling in all cases is a good habit to get into. It is far better to make a redundant signal than miss a necessary one.
I did find this odd at first - but I have become convinced of its utility.
The argument goes like this:
1) Always know who you are signalling to. Spot someone who can benefit.
2) Always have a *good reason* to signal.
If there is no good reason and there is absolutely no-one about it is a demonstration of correct observation and logical reasoning that you do not make a signal.
But consider (2) above. Lets say we are making a right turn into a side road. Just after this right turn is a greater than 90 degree left hand bend. I would consider and make a signal in that case - even if there was no-one I could currently see. Why? Because in the event of someone rounding that left hand corner a little too quickly at the wrong moment there is a good chance that seeing my signal could help them avoid me and prevent an accident.
In your commentary, if your reasoning is good enough, an IAM examiner will almost certainly accept it.
What an examiner will not accept is blindly making a signal with no thought or prior observation. Particularly needing to cancel a signal as subsequent observation concludes that the manouever is not on. This demonstrates incorrect use of the system: and not following the old classic: Mirror, Signal, Manouever.
So. When Observing if the Associate can logically argue *why* they have made a signal and demonstrate prior observation and thinking behind the signal (or lack of!) I'm happy. Very few times have I ever encountered a road environment and a manouever combination where it was unclear as to whether a signal should or should not be made.
The argument goes like this:
1) Always know who you are signalling to. Spot someone who can benefit.
2) Always have a *good reason* to signal.
If there is no good reason and there is absolutely no-one about it is a demonstration of correct observation and logical reasoning that you do not make a signal.
But consider (2) above. Lets say we are making a right turn into a side road. Just after this right turn is a greater than 90 degree left hand bend. I would consider and make a signal in that case - even if there was no-one I could currently see. Why? Because in the event of someone rounding that left hand corner a little too quickly at the wrong moment there is a good chance that seeing my signal could help them avoid me and prevent an accident.
In your commentary, if your reasoning is good enough, an IAM examiner will almost certainly accept it.
What an examiner will not accept is blindly making a signal with no thought or prior observation. Particularly needing to cancel a signal as subsequent observation concludes that the manouever is not on. This demonstrates incorrect use of the system: and not following the old classic: Mirror, Signal, Manouever.
So. When Observing if the Associate can logically argue *why* they have made a signal and demonstrate prior observation and thinking behind the signal (or lack of!) I'm happy. Very few times have I ever encountered a road environment and a manouever combination where it was unclear as to whether a signal should or should not be made.
I'll just add this part of the debrief from a recent check test.
Plod examiner to FiF: Signalling; you gave consistently accurate, timely and appropriate signals at all times.
FiF (thinks): Sounds OK then.
PE: but when I did my class 1 we were expected to signal at all roundabouts regardless; you didn't do that and must consider doing so in future.
FiF: Do you mean consider giving a signal on all roundabouts, or actually giving a signal.
PE: Actually giving a signal
FiF: Even if there is nobody there?
PE: Yes
FiF: Was there a roundabout where I missed giving a signal to someone that may have benefited?
PE: No, as I said (slightly irritated voice) you gave consistently accurate, timely and appropriate signals at all times.
FiF (thinks): In a hole stop digging.
Still got marked down for it though. His argument clarified later over a tea and sticky bun is that not signalling might occasionally be OK on a very large island, eg motorway junctions where each exit can be treated as an individual junction, but that on smaller islands you have so many people coming at you from so many directions its impossible to keep track. Anyway it has changed how I drive, though quietly a bit miffed to be marked down considering the opening comment.
Any comments from TPTB?
Plod examiner to FiF: Signalling; you gave consistently accurate, timely and appropriate signals at all times.
FiF (thinks): Sounds OK then.
PE: but when I did my class 1 we were expected to signal at all roundabouts regardless; you didn't do that and must consider doing so in future.
FiF: Do you mean consider giving a signal on all roundabouts, or actually giving a signal.
PE: Actually giving a signal
FiF: Even if there is nobody there?
PE: Yes
FiF: Was there a roundabout where I missed giving a signal to someone that may have benefited?
PE: No, as I said (slightly irritated voice) you gave consistently accurate, timely and appropriate signals at all times.
FiF (thinks): In a hole stop digging.
Still got marked down for it though. His argument clarified later over a tea and sticky bun is that not signalling might occasionally be OK on a very large island, eg motorway junctions where each exit can be treated as an individual junction, but that on smaller islands you have so many people coming at you from so many directions its impossible to keep track. Anyway it has changed how I drive, though quietly a bit miffed to be marked down considering the opening comment.
Any comments from TPTB?
afrofish said:
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
I don't see how that follows. It just means that if you are not looking around you properly other road users get no warning of your intentions.
Instead of the advice being 'signal when you are sure someone would benefit' I think it should be 'signal unless you are sure nobody would benefit'.
Don said:
What an examiner will not accept is blindly making a signal with no thought or prior observation. Particularly needing to cancel a signal as subsequent observation concludes that the manouever is not on. This demonstrates incorrect use of the system: and not following the old classic: Mirror, Signal, Manouever.
Is this meant to imply that no signal should be made until you have committed to the manouever?
I would have thought that making a signal and then cancelling it was a perfectly healthy way of making other road users aware of your intentions and then subsequently of those intentions changing as the situation unfolds.
Edited to add: Oops, on re-reading I think you are actually describing the case where the driver signals an intended manouever before checking whether it is viable e.g. signal right on a motorway before checking for space in the destination lane, i.e. signal mirror manouever.
You would think by now I would have learned to spell that word!
>> Edited by GreenV8S on Wednesday 5th April 16:33
GreenV8S said:
Edited to add: Oops, on re-reading I think you are actually describing the case where the driver signals an intended manouever before checking whether it is viable e.g. signal right on a motorway before checking for space in the destination lane, i.e. signal mirror manouever.
Indeed that is exactly what I meant. A driver should not commit to any manouever until they have satisfactorily carried out the complete Information phase of the system. The sub-phases of the Information phase is to take in and gather information, then to plan accordingly, then to give information using the full range of signalling equipment available.
And further: The Information phase runs through the remainder of the System's phases like lettering through Blackpool Rock. Information must continue to be gathered continually. Should, during the subsequent phases of the System, some new Information become available that necessitates a change of plan - one simply aborts what one is up to and starts the system again... including deciding whether or not to make a signal!
It is this constant looping through the System that provides an Advanced Drive with its flexibility.
There again: I have found with experience the occasions on which I need to abort my first plan have reduced to almost never. Still happens though.
Andrew Noakes said:
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
I don't see how that follows. It just means that if you are not looking around you properly other road users get no warning of your intentions.
Instead of the advice being 'signal when you are sure someone would benefit' I think it should be 'signal unless you are sure nobody would benefit'.
Both those phrases should - with the correct level of observation and planning - amount to the same result. In our busy towns and cities there is nearly always someone who will benefit from your signal around. There again on a deserted A road with superb cross-views and absolutely no-one about then making a signal would be tantamount to talking to oneself - and we know what that's the first sign of!
This issue is you should *know* to whom and why you are signalling: its an important sign of good observation. Signalling by rote is simply a sign that there is an ingrained habit - tells you nothing about the quality of observation and planning going on.
Flat in Fifth said:
I'll just add this part of the debrief from a recent check test.
Plod examiner to FiF: Signalling; you gave consistently accurate, timely and appropriate signals at all times.
FiF (thinks): Sounds OK then.
PE: but when I did my class 1 we were expected to signal at all roundabouts regardless; you didn't do that and must consider doing so in future.
FiF: Do you mean consider giving a signal on all roundabouts, or actually giving a signal.
PE: Actually giving a signal
FiF: Even if there is nobody there?
PE: Yes
FiF: Was there a roundabout where I missed giving a signal to someone that may have benefited?
PE: No, as I said (slightly irritated voice) you gave consistently accurate, timely and appropriate signals at all times.
FiF (thinks): In a hole stop digging.
Still got marked down for it though. His argument clarified later over a tea and sticky bun is that not signalling might occasionally be OK on a very large island, eg motorway junctions where each exit can be treated as an individual junction, but that on smaller islands you have so many people coming at you from so many directions its impossible to keep track. Anyway it has changed how I drive, though quietly a bit miffed to be marked down considering the opening comment.
Any comments from TPTB?
Best to find out the view of your examiner before being examined. Their view should of course always be consistant with any IAM syllabus (provided the examiner's competency is checked regularly). Any IAM examiner shouldn't be marking you against criteria they may have been marked against for their Police advanced test, but against that outlined IAM criteria instead.
My personal thoughts (which won't necessarily be anything like IAM)
Don't blanket signal (some could be misleading), only signal where there is someone to benefit from it & you have considered fully whether any signal given could be misinterpreted by the time & position it is given in.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 5th April 16:59
vonhosen said:
My personal thoughts (which won't be necessarily be anything like IAM)
Don't blanket signal (some could be misleading), only signal where there is someone to benefit from it & you have considered fully whether any signal given could be misinterpreted by the time & position it is given in.
Another very good point. When signalling one should strive to make sure that the signal given is as unambiguous as possible. Vonhosen's point about time & position is well made.
Don said:
you should *know* to whom and why you are signalling: its an important sign of good observation. Signalling by rote is simply a sign that there is an ingrained habit - tells you nothing about the quality of observation and planning going on.
Agreed. Either piece of advice works fine if the driver is observant.
But in the real world drivers don't always display perfect observation. If they've got into the habit of signalling more often than not at least other road users are given a clue about what they are doing next.
It's a fail-safe(r) system, which the alternative isn't.
Firstly thanks for all the replies guys,
It is good to see so many people taking an interest. Now to my replies..
Excellent comment Don. That is the essence of my argument
While I agree with the sentiment above I am not entirely convinced you can ever say that you are SURE nobody would benefit. In almost any case there is a possibility that you have missed something or that a hazard could appear from the most unlikely place.
The fact is that people are not perfect and mistakes are made.
My attitude is that a manoeuvre is either always worth signalling for, or it isn’t.
If the manoeuvre is worth signalling for, then once you have decided it is safe to make the manoeuvre you signal at all times regardless of whether you have spotted a hazard (to account for the unexpected).
Provided the driver still uses their observational skills prior to making a manoeuvre, I believe that in 100% of cases it is safer to signal your intentions prior to making the manoeuvre rather than the alternative.
I am hoping somebody can give me a convincing argument to disprove my opinion but as yet I have not seen one.
I do not consider “it forces people to think” a valid argument.
It might show other people in the car with you that you don’t perceive any hazards but that is all it does.
As Andrew said, One is a fail-safe system...
the other in my mind is a system destined to fail!
It is good to see so many people taking an interest. Now to my replies..
Don said:
“It is far better to make a redundant signal than miss a necessary one.”
Excellent comment Don. That is the essence of my argument
Andrew Noakes said:
“Instead of the advice being 'signal when you are sure someone would benefit' I think it should be 'signal unless you are sure nobody would benefit'.”
While I agree with the sentiment above I am not entirely convinced you can ever say that you are SURE nobody would benefit. In almost any case there is a possibility that you have missed something or that a hazard could appear from the most unlikely place.
The fact is that people are not perfect and mistakes are made.
My attitude is that a manoeuvre is either always worth signalling for, or it isn’t.
If the manoeuvre is worth signalling for, then once you have decided it is safe to make the manoeuvre you signal at all times regardless of whether you have spotted a hazard (to account for the unexpected).
Provided the driver still uses their observational skills prior to making a manoeuvre, I believe that in 100% of cases it is safer to signal your intentions prior to making the manoeuvre rather than the alternative.
I am hoping somebody can give me a convincing argument to disprove my opinion but as yet I have not seen one.
I do not consider “it forces people to think” a valid argument.
It might show other people in the car with you that you don’t perceive any hazards but that is all it does.
As Andrew said, One is a fail-safe system...
the other in my mind is a system destined to fail!
afrofish said:
If the manoeuvre is worth signalling for, then once you have decided it is safe to make the manoeuvre you signal at all times regardless of whether you have spotted a hazard (to account for the unexpected).
I feel the same way, but tempered with the potential problem that Vonhosen referred to about signals being potentially ambiguous or misleading. There may be times where you might deliberately decide not to make a signal (or just to delay it), where the signal could be misleading to some of the people who could see it and this outweighs the desire to make a signal 'just in case' somebody you haven't seen needs to know.
afrofish said:
Firstly thanks for all the replies guys,
It is good to see so many people taking an interest. Now to my replies..
Don said:
“It is far better to make a redundant signal than miss a necessary one.”
Excellent comment Don. That is the essence of my argument
Andrew Noakes said:
“Instead of the advice being 'signal when you are sure someone would benefit' I think it should be 'signal unless you are sure nobody would benefit'.”
While I agree with the sentiment above I am not entirely convinced you can ever say that you are SURE nobody would benefit. In almost any case there is a possibility that you have missed something or that a hazard could appear from the most unlikely place.
The fact is that people are not perfect and mistakes are made.
When the hazard appears you give it, it is redundant until they can view it.
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 wouldn't argue that for a basic driver the other advice given may be of more use, but if you want to consider yourself advanced, then you have to be able to safely & accurately go the extra mile & consider that everything you do should be for a considered positive benefit & not a negative.
No driver is perfect (agreed) but an advanced driver will reliably perform closer to that level of performance (still to varying standards) than a basic driver would be exptected to.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 5th April 18:51
afrofish said:I quite agree. It may be useful for an examiner to get an idea of your hazard awareness, but (rather obviously) it is possible to assess the situation as fully as possible and still indicate just in case you've missed something. And, again obviously, this isn't the same thing as blanket signalling. You are still quite capable of deciding whether or not a signal might be dangerously ambiguous and taking appropriate action.
... I do not consider “it forces people to think” a valid argument.
It might show other people in the car with you that you don’t perceive any hazards but that is all it does.
>> Edited by ATG on Wednesday 5th April 19:23
(Personal bugbear that is off topic ... driving straight on at roundabouts and not indicating your intention to leave the roundabaout ... yes, you aren't turning left or right ... but in most circumstances you should still indicate left to leave the roundabout because the chances are the other morons on the roundabout won't have noticed where you entered and won't be able to interpret your intention from your road position ... so indicate coz it can't possibly do any harm and it might do some good)
ATG said:
(Personal bugbear that is off topic ... driving straight on at roundabouts and not indicating your intention to leave the roundabaout ... yes, you aren't turning left or right ... but in most circumstances you should still indicate left to leave the roundabout because the chances are the other morons on the roundabout won't have noticed where you entered and won't be able to interpret your intention from your road position ... so indicate coz it can't possibly do any harm and it might do some good)
Agreed about signalling exiting straight on at RAs', but again with the caveat that an advanced driver would only do it where there is a benefit to someone, not out of rote.
I should add (that on other points made earlier) the need to indicate is likely to vary somewhat, dependent on vehicle you are driving at the time.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 5th April 20:20
vonhosen 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
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff