Safe Speed Forums

Dear all,
Where does this idea come from.
There's nobody around because you've looked everywhere, so don't indicate. This makes you a safe driver who has good observation. Hmmm.
Conversely, bothering to indicate in such conditions means you've not looked and are therefore unsafe.
Call me mad, (others have), but I believe this last logic was dispensed direct from some "thought sphincter" somewhere, sometime.
Not indicating stands no investigation at all, unless of course you are a Supreme Being who has 18 eyes positioned all around your head, can see through walls, trees, hedges, buildings... and you have the gift of seeing the future too. How can it be safer? How does indicating make me a bad guy? Maybe I'll just stop indicating just like 80% of drivers, and therefore become safer - maybe I can claim an insurance discount when I start not indicating.

In my day we were told to indicate on all occasions. Nowadays only if there is someone to indicate to on some occasions. If there is no one to see you, why indicate? Makes sence I suppose but force of habit makes me indicate anyway. Rather that way around than to indicate without looking and change direction regardless which seems to be the norm.

The only one I am dubious about is not indicating if you are in a filter lane. it's not always possible to tell when the lane starts. I usualy indicate anyway.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

I've been told that having the habit of always indicating means you're "driving by rote" and therefore by definition you've not looked properly - that was the opinion which sparked my original post. I was also told the same bolleaux by an IAM instructor, so cancelled the course I'd booked with them.

I'm keeping an open mind about this one.

For some time now the 'experts' appear to have been saying that you should only indicate if there is someone around who can benefit from your signal.

My current feeling is that one should not be criticised for not adopting that policy. It's all very well being expected to see all there is to see all the time, but we may not always manage that. It is quite possible there may be someone around that you don't see, someone who might be helped by a signal, perhaps in ways you are not aware of.

So long as the signals we give are correct in relation to what we're doing, or seeking to do, it seems better to give signals, even if they appear to be unnecessary. At the moment I'm inclined to feel that is the safer way to operate.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Dear TripleS,
That's the single most intelligent version of the discussion I've heard. Thank you.

In another forum, one started on the premise that BMW drivers never indicate, I've been somewhat ripped for 1) owning a BMW, 2) for always indicating, 3) for disagreeing with the don't bother policy, then 4) for being ripped again for getting annoyed at the conflicting nonsense I've had laid on me by various posters. Tough to know where one stands when faced with such conflicting opinions.

No, you just lack a little perspicacity my friend.



Your belief is misplaced, you need to examine and think about (not just react with a gut instinct) what is being said in favour of deciding not to indicate when apropriate.



A full explanation of the philosophy that underpins the concept lies elsewhere. Nobody is advocating thoughtless non-indicating; many drivers simply don't indicate when they should. Please don't confuse this with the planned decision not to indicate, the two behaviours are utterly different.
Conversely, many drivers indicate and just move anyway demonstrating an 'indication by rote' approach, this is the habit that the process of deciding not indicate attempts to break.
In an urban environment, chances are that you will be indicating at most opportunities because there will invariably be something/someone there to benefit from it. If, in an otherwise empty environment, you are indicating 'just in case' then I'd suggest that anything that was close enough to you to benefit, you should have seen at the outset and your indication is a fallaceous 'safety valve' for that eventuality.
If you are on a deserted road, and arrive at a roundabout and your thorough observation, including checks of your blindspot where appropriate reveals that nobody else is around at all, would you indicate?

I believe that the debate arises as a defence of ill thought out crticsim against not indicating, not the other way around.
In order to explain the one, one has to communicate the reasons; this may appear to be criticsm of the other and I realise it has been taken as such.
The title of the thread suggests the preconception the author has when postulating his arguments.

Dear Rigpig,
Yes, you're making sense on all of that.
In the other thread I was obviously reacting to being stereotyped by car make, but of course that's a different story, hence a new thread.

The problem I have with the "don't indicate" scenario is that it assumes a perfect observation all the time - something nobody can ever achieve.

Let's say that:
1) a very conscientious driver who has done his observation but for any number of reasons has made an error, is turning right without indicating, and is hit in the side by another vehicle, one whose driver was not aware he or she was going to turn right. Big problem.
Same scenario, but the same driver who was in error did indicate, the oncoming driver would have a better clue as to their intentions and may have a better chance of avoiding the collision. Maybe no problem.

Now, knowing we can never be perfect all the time and errors are inevitable, isn't it simply better to take the assumption out of the equation and just indicate?
Thus, blame after the event is pointless. Defensive driving calls for indication of intentions at all times, because we know we will make errors sooner or later. The supposed benefits of not indicating are moot at best. Assumption is the mother of all... err.. mistakes. So why assume?

Oh, sorry, the other example I wanted to give was, would you tell an airline pilot " you've done all your observation properly so you should turn off your navigation lights" and "if your lights are still on, you've not looked"? What would the FAA tell the victims about that?

This is the crux of the matter isn't it? One of the precepts of advanced driving is that it comes as a package, not as a bag of tricks that one chooses to deploy in a given scenario.
One vital element of that package element of that package is constant, constant, constant observation. Lets not get distracted by your use of the word conscientious, if in the scenario you describe a driver fails to notice a vehicle which he may ultimately come into conflict with, or fails to prepare for the possibility of another vehicle materialising out of nowhere (they seldom do this, although many folks will swear blind they do) then they failed in the observation and preperation phases, not the 'not indicating' phase.

Not a good example my friend. Nav lights are there to show another aircraft that your are around and which direction you are travelling in, not to indicate your intention to do something. Aircraft can approach you from behind and below without you seeing them
And they don't have headlights at night.
And they move faster and are harder to spot if they don't change position relative to your aircraft.
And..

Yes, agreed, they failed. I'm not condoning that, or trying to distract. But we all fail sooner or later and I still don't see how the supposed perfectionist benefits of not indicating outweigh those of knowing we're falible and indicating anyway as a defensive measure - NOT as an excuse to avoid observation. I think we're getting hung up on the difference between average (read whatever you wish into that) and advanced driving, which is unfortunately for the very few.
I think IAM et al should set an example by doing what is safest for all and that means we should accept the reality that most drivers are pretty poor at observation and that means not proliferating the "don't indicate" philosophy, because it cannot possibly be the safest option in the real world and really cannot have serious benefits.

Yeah, but as a good pilot you've seen them with your radar so you've done good observation, so turn 'em off and if you all crash you can blame somebody else.

OK, I know it's getting silly there, so try this, which is not intended to be silly at all:

I should take off my seatbelt when there's no hazard around because that would show that I've assessed the risks properly and believe I'm OK. Keeping it on would mean I've not done things properly. Potential benefits = 0. Assumption and risk of being wrong = 1. Tell it to the coroner.

No offence, but can I suggest you pause for breathe and have a think about this?
I can see that you have a powerful gut feeling about this, but do you really think that the IAM haven't thought this through? After all these years?
I re-iterate, the IAM are not proliferating any 'don't indicate' philosophy to the masses, they teach it as part of a package.
And if after refelection you still feel that one of the nation's foremost advanced driving institutions is wrong, I dunno. Write to them and point out the error of their ways?

Yes, I do believe they've thought it through, and I thing they're wrong. If they're right, the seatbelt argument would hold equal water. In both cases the consequences of inevitable driver error are made worse.

The point is that driver error is made considerably less likely because observation must be increased.

And failing to indicate is far less serious than failing to observe.

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

Then there is nothing more to be said is there? I've done my best to explain the philosphy, which is genuinely sound else I think they'd have sussed it by now - i.e. loads of IAM members having 'didn't indicate' crashes. Nonetheless I cannot make you see things their way.
End of chat.
Thanks anyway.

Hi Paul, I agree, so why not do both things, all the time? It costs nothing. I still don't get how this logic comes about.
If we can observe and indicate when there are hazards we can see, and indicating in those circumstances is a good thing, why not continue to do both when there may just possibly be hazards we can't see?
It's arrogant and perfectionist to assume we've always seen everything.

Again, no offence but is this any more arrogant than suggesting a national motoring institue has got one of their philosphies completely wrong and that you are right?

[quote="Rigpig]Nonetheless I cannot make you see things their way.
End of chat.
Thanks anyway.[/quote]
Rigpig, thank you for your comments which I have taken on board; I do understand quite a bit more now of how the thinking works but I still can't completely square it with the real world of defensive driving. It feels more like idealism than good real-world practice. Appreciate your knowledge.