Safe Speed Forums

Ahhh. Well I 'crossed over' from your side to the IAM side many years ago.

I realised that signals are best when used to communicate with specific other road users. Whne planning a move one stage should be to assess the need for a signal. If a signal *may* benefit another road user then one should be given. If there's no benefit then no signal should be given.

This helps keep us safe because it forces us to consider the effect of our planned move on other road users who may be nearby.

If we signal automatically this layer of planning and observation is skipped. That's bad.

If we signal automatically we add to 'signal clutter' and devalue all signals.

But there's no excuse for the millions who fail to signal through laziness.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Your assumption is only partly correct, someone might be trying the 'no need to signal' philosophy because they'd heard of it from elsewhere. More likely they're just situationally unaware.
If they had received IAM training then they would be fully appreciative of their environment and situation, and would be signalling if maneouvring. The only time they wouldn't be signalling is when you (or anyone else who may be affected for that matter) are not around to see them.

I have some logical difficulty with the IAM view.

It seems unarguable to me that the error in signalling when not really necessary (because there is no-one around to benefit) is less than the error in not signalling when it is necessary. So - if in doubt, give a signal.

Having said that, I also observe that the occasions on which I can be 100% sure that a signal is not necessary occur more often in my day to day driving than, judging by some of the responses above, it would appear is the case for others. If I am sure, I don't signal.

I agree with some qualification. The limitation of this view is that it may mean that we consider only those road users who we observe at the planning stage. However, there are plenty of examples where a signal would benefit another road user who we did not observe (oversight) or could not observe (were not in line of sight or out of visible range). For example, if driving on a residential road I intend to take the next turning left. There is no traffic behind or approaching and no pedestrians, cyclists or other road users visible. Is a signal necessary? Maybe not at the time I plan the turn but say a pedestrian I could not have seem emerges from a driveway just beyond the turning with the intention of crossing the road. Or an emerging vehicle arrives at the junction? Both of those users would benefit from my signal, had I given it. Certainly I can re-assess and make the signal but it is probably less useful than it would have been if there had been no re-assessment delay.

Observer - e.g. when I turn into my drive, at say 11pm with not a car in sight I will probably signal, because more often than not, I haven't seen the cyclist without lights, or the pedestrian that's come around the bushes. So I would in most cases prefer to signal because I don't always trust that I've seen everything because sometimes it's not possible.

I will always indicate unless the either of the follwing criterea are met:

1) I am confidant there is no-one around to view my signal, and in the unlikely event I have missed someone the signal would have offererd no real benefit.

2) The signal maybe misleading.

The second point is important I feel because it's possible that to signal could be more dangerous then not to, as it although you know what it means, it could mean several things to the road users around you.

I must say though that I have been inconvenienced on many more occasions by people not signalling then 'over signalling' so I think we'd see more benefit from encouraging people to signal on all appropiate occasions then only when it is considered important.

[quote="Rigpig

If they had received IAM training then they would be fully appreciative of their environment and situation, and would be signalling if maneouvring. The only time they wouldn't be signalling is when you (or anyone else who may be affected for that matter) are not around to see them. [/quote]

The trouble with making assumptions is that is exactly what they are -
firstly can you assume that someone seeing you signal or lack of it has had IAM training - they could equally be a newly passed driver going home after their test and be lo0king for a signal.
Secondly what happens if someone enters scene after you start to manouver without the signal that would have made all things clear to them?
There is the other school of thought that goes by the teaching that used to be in old Highwaycodes and should be applied to signals that baffle -"if in doubt slow down" or hang back till all becomes clear. That way you assume nothing.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Advanced drivers und RoSPA/RoADA goldy girlies likle me are COAST drivers. So we always know what ist around us at any one time. Ist a systematically smooth drive at all time - ist what ist taught und what you demonstrated to person testing you und assessing you on later drives after the test..




Per "DSA - Driving Essential Skill"

You signal in good time so the other road user know what you intend und you underpin by your road positioning.

A left signal can mean "I intend to turn left or I intend to pull in at kerb und stop at left" - so to the other road user your road position can tell them a lot about the real intention.

Und if you intend to stop at kerb after the left junction - then you indicate after you pass the junction und you feather the brake to let chap behind you know you intend to stop car.

Und if person ist approaching junction indicating left - I look closely at approach speed und road postion und I do not set off until 100% sure they really turn left..

You do not give late signals und you never indicate too early as this mislead another road user.

But best practice avoids an overzealous use. If you are on an empty road - who are you indicating intent to? You do not need to - so gesture ist superfluous. Am frequently on empty road on approach to my home both here und in Wildhaus, Appenzell.

We do not need to indicate each time we pass a parked car - road position of all cars in same predicament render a void gesture as we all move out. I may use hand signal to make sure if I indicate to pass the first parked car that I do not intend to turn right if there ist a junction - but I check the road position give right signal und message as well.


If I spy cyclist und need to pass him (only if safe to do as will take into account oncoming cars und I will drop back und shield cyclist from the numpty twazak tailgating me in this instance ) - then I would indicate to tell bloke behind we need to give space to "hazard" of cyclist. (Ist not to annoy our cycling" Pet trolling" lurker that I call them "hazard" - but they are a risk which I have to assess when planning how to deal with them sympathetically und safely )

Also - if I finish overtake on motorway - ist only useful to indicate a return to L2/L1 if driver behind me - as he need to know this.

Und you also have to be aware to the self cancel as this also compromise intention

So - if you are COAST driver - you are aware of all around you und IAM drivers are COASTY types - so you use signals carefully und with planned thoughts und if you are on absolutely empty road then - gesture ist superflous und empty gesture - so we need not bother - especially if on bicycle

ist ganz einfach. simple

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

My point exactly.

Er, whats yours again?




If there was a 'scratchy head' smiley I'd be using it here; as it is the best I can do is....

If someone sees me, or anyone else for that matter, signal then with respect to the question regarding the use of indicators in a given situation, it makes no difference what training the observer has had. Does it?
Equally, if they see someone not signaling then its quite unlikely they'll think "hmm, there's an IAM driver who has just misapplied the no need to signal rule".
If an IAM driver doesn't signal, nobody who is playing a role in the scenario will be there to see it.



The decision isn't one you make just once during a maneouvre and then boldly proceed having made one assessment, its an ongoing process of evaluation. I have encountered situations where I flick on a signal as the maneouvre develops.



It is not in any way a question of assumption. If it becomes that then you've got it wrong.

Look ist very simple

1. If no one ist there - I do not need to signal - so no one can comment if I doo not use it.

2. If person on busy road or road which another ist sharing fail to signal und other road user ist confused und has to defend or crunc occurs because person shift lane without indicating, using mirror, failing to observe - then person ist right TWAZAK!

That make difference in argument clear?

Empty road - sole driver/rider/cyclist for miles und know it - no need to indicate - especially if on bicycle.

Road with other road users - they need to know from indications und obvious road positioning in good time.

Ist so logical to me that argument beggar all reason!

Und I think I speak for Mad Doc who ist swamped by lurgy panic attacks If no joy at GP - people invade Mad Doc's department und he gets shot over any "fails".

ist nightmare politics und media hype

My company made enough lurgy vaccine to jab entire population. Ist off topic rant - know this - but ist NHS mismanagement in some areas as per usual. Und media hype does not help. Stay calm folks! Und if you catch a chill or bad cold - spend day in bed with hot toddies, hot lemon, chicken und veggie broth, hot water bottle und just sweat it out for day in bed at home. Ist way to get better quickly und productively to economy in any case If partner has same symptom - all the better

Our youngest son should really be called "very bad cold" if we followed modern naming procedures

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

I agree entirely that there maybe no need to do it, but what harm is it causing? The only harm is it may provoke the lizzard brain to indicate when it really is important, but I'd say the bigger problem is those that allow this to creep more and more into their general driving. E.g, what starts off as nobody around turns into nobody who needs to know, which then turns into "I'll only indicate if I have something to gain, or to prevent someone crashing into me"

I appriciate the last jump is fairly big, but I know my mate openly says he'll only indicate when it will benefit him, or to protect him. He has no concept that an indicator may only be of assistance to others. And yes, I have told him!

Yep, in a nutshell, or nussschale even

Like the tree falling over the forest etc. etc.

However, it takes one fricking finger to indicate - is it that much of a physical strain? Better safe than sorry. You never know who can see you, who you can't see.

On this basis, I suspect crewcab 4x4's have exceptionally heavy indicator stalks, judging by the infrequency in which their drivers indicate, even when their use would be most informative.

WRT the IAM philosophy on indicating, its not a question of not being bothered, its the thought process that goes into the decision, or lack of thought in too many cases, that is important.



The whole ethos of advanced driving is built upon the foundation that you do know what is going on around you. Indicating when theres nothing to indicate to can be the result of 'by rote unobservant driving'; thats been the entire point of the discussion that has developed since Wildcat first brought it up.
I have seen plenty of drivers indicate and then maneouvre regardless of what is around them.

Although I am a member of the IAM, I disagree with their approach to indicating. When turning off, or on to, a major road, I believe indicating is something that something that should be dealt with by the lizard brain and done automatically. There is no disbenefit from indicating when there is nobody there to observe it, there is a major disbenefit from failing to indicate when someone is there.

Obviously there are other situations such as lane changing where thought and discretion is needed.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Quite! And that applies to the average driver.
Some think an indication is a licence to do as they please.
And the majority of those that do indicate just flash and manoeuvre at the same time anyway.
I think that looking for reason to signal definitely raises observation.

M.S.M.

Manoeuvre, Signal, Mirror

That's right, which is why I wrote: "If a signal *may* benefit another road user then one should be given."

In practice this usually means giving signals in urban areas because there may be other road users out of your direct sight who would benefit from a signal.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I can tell you for sure that 'planned signalling' has sharpened up my pre-manouver observation routines. That's the benefit that's worth grabbing.

I suppose one might ask: "Is there any other approach that would provide the same benefit?" But I have a feeling that 'any other approach' would end up with pointless signals being rejected. Indeed that was my personal route to accepting the wisdom that 'planned signalling' was the way to go. After efforts to increase observation I started to feel faintly silly indicating when no one was there. Since then I believe that I have raised the quality of my observation still further.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I agree with nearly all you've said (except the above statements, which I'll return to) if the driver concerned exercises a sufficiently high standard of observation and anticipation. However, the reality is that 95% (at a guess) of drivers do not reach that standard. For that 95%, is it not better that the default condition is to always signal a manoeuvre?

Your first objection to 'automatic signalling' is valid only if automatic signalling causes a lower level of consideration/planning/observation. That is possible but not inevitable.

Your second objection, I think, is not at all valid. If another road user is present to observe the 'unnecessary' signal, it is (arguably) not unnecessary. If no person is present who could be affected by an unnecessary signal, it cannot, by definition, add to signal clutter and devalue all signals.

I'll give you an example. I'm on a medium-busy motorway. I have just passed several vehicles in L2 with a 20mph speed differential and I'm planning to return to L1. There's now nothing nearby in L2 or L1. Do I signal? There are people in L1 and L2 behind who will see the signal - but it can't help them because I'm already going away.

My signal might draw attention away from something that's happening between the vehicles in L1 and L2. After all if a signal doesn't draw attention it's no use is it?

The same applies when returning after overtaking in an 'open' situation. I'll have a decent speed differential and a decent gap before I return. Why signal? It's just clutter.

(Of course in both scenarios there may be someone directly behind me who would benefit from a signal.)

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety