Safe Speed Forums

Cheers. And be safe out there (whichever way one chooses to indicate) because thats the overall aim even though we don't necessarily agree on the methods

[quote="Rigpig]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]

Sorry, missed that one! Ha!
Maybe it is very arrogant of me, but then I've never been run over by a safety-improving opinion that wasn't indicating because it didn't see me.

Said this on another post - will say it again --





On the rear of HGVs a sign is appearing , for the benifit of the blind here , i will repeat it

[/b]"IF YOU CAN'T SEE MY MIRRORS , I CAN'T SEE YOU"


So perhaps there is some one behind you - you can't see them , but they're too reckless as to rided too close .
Now , isn't that a good incentive to indicate??

_________________
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

With all due respect*, is it reasonable to suggest that when there is a conflict of view between a largish group such as the IAM, and an individual, it is that individual who is deemed to be arrogant? I do not think so.

The majority are not always right.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

* from me to you Rigpig , not from me to the IAM in its current form.

If you don't ask the question: "Do I need to indicate?" then a valuable observation trigger is missed. It's about psychological self-management.



If in doubt a singal should be given. This is common in town where you can't see round corners.



Quite the opposite actually. We're tricking ourselves into better observation. It's a question of minimising human weakness.

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

Quite honestly - the arguement - why be arrogent -why not indicate , just in case /To be on the safe side/ because youre behind a hgv - does it cost any thing -( oh hang on a minute , indicating does cost me 5 p in fuel - why - is it worth that in terms of road safety, unless you live in aberdeen)

COME OFF IT - INDICATING COST NOTHING, LETS OTHER DRIVERS KNOW YOUR INTENTIONS AND IS GOOD PRACTICE


YES , I'M SHOUTING COZ I BELIEVE ITS RIGHT( I ALSO BELIEVE THA PRATTS DON'T INDICATE, COS IT COSTS MONEY)

ARE YOU A PRATT??

_________________
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

Hi Paul,
I'm not saying "don't ask the question." I'm suggesting the belt and braces approach; Skip nothing - ask all the questions, do the observation, accept all the triggers, then indicate anyway just for good measure.

Indicating at all times after doing all the other things may be safer. Not indicating because the driver thinks it's OK cannot ever be safer. If we have to trick ourselves into looking properly then we're accepting we are prone to error. Logic says do everything possible regardless.

I'd still like to hear from someone how this approach could be applied to seatbelts - "there's no hazard because I've observed properly therefore I'm taking off my seatbelt and I'm telling my passengers to take theirs off too. We'll put them back on when I believe there is a hazard."
I doubt the IAM would condone that practice because the driver may be wrong in their assessment of the road and put others at pointless risk. Not so different a trigger.

We either give planned signals or we give automatic signals. If we signal automatically the extra observation trigger is lost.

Anyway, signals should give useful and exact information to specific other road users. The 'automatic' apprroach gives signal into the ether. The planned approach communicates directly.



Logic says do everything to minimise the chance of error, and when you've done your best at that, try to pick smaller errors to make. This fits precisely with a planned approach to signalling.



I don't see any connection with seat belts. I do see a connection with 'comfort braking' where many underconfident drivers brake 'just in case' there's a hazard.

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

Sorry mate, you've lost me on that one. I've got your point on the indication and observation idea, although I still don't agree with it, I see where you're going.
We're talking about drivers who don't "comfort brake", because if they do then they certainly are not in the league of those who can judge when not to indicate.
With seatbelts I was making the point that if it's OK to trust the driver's judgement to the point that they can skip signalling when there's no apparent need to do so, then we can use the same thinking to ditch other unneeded things at certain times. Such as, removing seatbelts, turning off traction control and/or ABS, or turning off lights. Because leaving such measures in place would mean the driver has not done the other steps correctly, whereas removing these things would be acceptable given proper assessment and observation?
If the "don't do it logic" is true for signals then it has to also be true for other safety measures too. If not, why not?

You advocate indicating 'just in case' yes? What else should we do 'just in case'? I say actions should be planned on the basis of real or potential dangers.



I don't see indicators as safety devices. (As least not in any greater sense that transparent windows are safety devices.) Indicators don't say: "get out of my way, I'm coming through" or anything like it. Indicators are a communications device that can be used to make everyone's life a little easier and makes driving even more predictable. Indicators, used properly, give a warning of intention.

Indicators don't protect you from collisions, in collisions, or make collisions less likely...

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

Sorry, but that's ducking the question. Back to you on that.





Actually, I think they do make collisions less likely in many situations if used properly, but again, I'd like to know your opinion on the questions I was asking about driver skills allowing the ditching of other defensive / safety measures.

Top marks for triggering a proper debate on a precisely bracketed topic.

My "take" is that driving is all a percentages game. There is always a risk, and the task open to us is to reduce that risk to its lowest possible value.

When we make a conscious decision not to indicate we are saying to ourselves that we take full responsibility for that decision, and justifying this decision each and every time. In other words the decision to not indicate is like popping up a virtual "pre-manoeuvre" checklist on a little mental clipboard. We tick the boxes marked "observation" and that gives us the clearance not to indicate.

And as Paul said above, observation is more important than signalling, so if we trade in the signalling for better observation our overall risk reduces. The argument that we should do both doesn't hold water, as our brains are too intelligent to be tricked in this way. If we force ourselves to take the responsibility for not indicating then this in turn commits us to going the extra mile with the observation, but the one is necessary to lead to the other.

But to pick up on another point, I don't agree with the notion that it is wrong to question the teachings of the IAM, solely on the grounds that they are the IAM. On the contrary, I think it's good to question anything and everything we are taught, if we don't then the best we can ever aspire to be is as good as the teacher. If we take their ideas and think about them ourselves then we can aspire to be better...

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

I'm not ducking any question. What question? I don't see one I haven't answered.



I don't think this is going anywhere, but hell yes. I'd turn off ABS on gravel or freshly fallen snow (given the chance). I take off the seat belt for reversing.

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

No I'm not a prat, I actually think about what I'm writing and doing, and take the time to make sure its done properly.
You clearly lack the perspicacity to look beyond the immediately obvious and can only perceive the 'not indicating' issue as being attributable to bad driving practice. Do you really think the IAM advocates not indicating because it wants to inculcate a philosophy of laziness or fuel saving practices into the driving culture? Don't be so bloomin' daft
And am I arrogant. If switching from a pro-camera stance to an anti one because I thought about it is arrogant, then yeah I'm arrogant.
And if possessing the depth of thought to look beyond the superficial and 'apparently obvious' is arrogant, then yeah I'm friggin arrogant OK?

BTW TripleS, thats not aimed at you sir. You are quite right though, the majority can be wrong

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Hi Paul,

You're right, that was getting way too complex and I was dragging out the point too long. Thank you for answering the second part of the question. The first part was me still banging on that it can't hurt to indicate anyway even after you've done all the other stuff; if you'll pardon me hijacking your thoughts, your view and that of another poster in the meantime is that our brains are fooled and we lose an element of observation if we use or intend to use indicators even if we're sure we don't need them.

I still don't buy that concept, although I see where it comes from, but this thread has become tedious work for all concerned! Clearly we're not going to agree, so let's please instead all be as safe as we can using our individual methods.

Thank you for all your input on this, I may not agree with it all but I still value your experience. And yes, I'll continue to oppose the IAM view on this indication issue - as well as that of wheel shuffling, but that's another story! Better not get started there...

Oh, and Paul, to your point about switching off ABS on gravel and snow, I readily agree completely with you - I've found that ABS is a positive hazard on snow, ice, ice with snow on top, and loose surfaces as well. No wonder the police can disable theirs when they choose - wish we could too. I wonder how may accidents have been caused by the inability to stop because of ABS in such conditions?

Hi mate, thanks for the exchange it's always more interesting when opposing points of view meet

Speaking generally (i.e. I'm not referring to anyone in particular), I think its easy for us in here to forget that, with regards to the speed camera issue, there are huge numbers of people who hold the same strength of feeling that they do work, as each of us does about this indicating issue. From the comfort of a near unilateral standpoint, is easy to forget that the 'opposition' are not all dimwitted, blinkered idiots (as folks in here are wont to call them); many will be just as thoughtful on the subject as ourselves.
When chucking the invective around its easy to forget that!

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Hi Rigpig,
Yes, I think that was a useful discussion. I've certainly got more of a view on the other side of the thinking than I had before.
Definitely agree on your camera point too - no matter how much I hate them and for how many reasons there may be some cases where they actually do some good (probably by mistake though!) and those in favour may have issues of their own that I'd not considered.
We see them as conformist surveillance-obsessed nuts, but I guess the pro-camera segment in its turn tends to see us, the antis, as a bunch of people who just want to be allowed to speed everywhere. Either that or they're looking after their own street / area first and don't care about the downside of cameras. Or speed bumps, or...... stop it and take your medication!

It doesn't make any difference how much of an Advanced Motororist you are - sooner or later you WILL make a mistake. It happens because you are human. It has to be better to indicate just in case you fail to see something.

I'm sure at 6 O'Clock on Sunday morning the people monitoring the plant at Buncefield thought that they had observed evrything and that it was safe. Three minutes later they were not so sure

I can tell you that it took me about ten years to change sides on the 'planned signalling' debate. I too thought the advice was wrong. But one night on a deserted roundabout it suddenly dawned on me that I knew full well that I was signalling to no one and I felt slightly foolish. I think that was about 1994 or 1995. Over the next few weeks (months) I came to accept that the 'planned signalling' recommendation was in fact correct.

It was never explained to me very well in the first place. If it had been I think I would have swapped sides more quickly...

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