If one follows the practice of only signalling when [one feels that it is] necessary one gets lazy habits and sometimes forget to signal at all when it definitely is necessary.

I had a letter published in the IAM magazine in which I supported a previous letter questioning the 'only when necessary' mantra.

My argument was that if you always signal you will never fail to give necessary information. It is also obvious that no harm can be done whereas failing to indicate may result in disaster.

The result of the current way is the signficant number of motorists who fail to give signals when they are needed. This results in, at least, irritated drivers.

Always indicating can and does cause accidents. If you've taken the IAM test you'll know why.

"...I find your remarks offensive..."

I'm not sure if this is directed at me, but if it is I apologise for offending a respected member of the forum. Possibly I did not explain myself properly.

I did not intend to conflate not signalling with signalling only when necessary. I wanted to say that the latter led to the former in the driving habits of some people.

It seems to me the "signal only when necessary" position is fine as long as it is the result of a high level of concentration.

My point was that many drivers seem to think they're doing it, or were taught to do it, but in fact they seldom if ever signal at all. They are the lazy, unobservant drivers.

I stick to my point, though, that if you're unable to maintain a very high level of concentration (and most drivers won't), it's better to signal always and automatically than never signal at all.

I know there is a driving test but regular input on good driving I believe would be valuable.

Your right but, that would also need people like me who are willing to admit that we can make mistakes and also keen to try our best to be better drivers.

The problem is people (who are not interested in driving) take a driving test, Then they never look at the highway code again. They just do as they please with the thought "I've passed my test so it does not matter anymore" or "I've been driving since 1950 so I know everything there is to know" (but, have often forget pretty much everything including the meaning of 90% of road signs)

I am a firm believer of only indicating if neccesary. I got a fair bit of flack for it on some other threads. This does not encourage people to not bother indicating, It makes you indicate with thought rather than an automatic robotised action.

Typical example - I'm parked up at the side of the road, I get in the car start engine etc, Check mirrors and road ahead, there is no cars, pedestrians or cyclists. If I indicate, Who is going to benefit? answer is obviously nobody. So is there any point? If I did indicate it would prove that I was not really acting on the information I observed in mirrors and by looking around. So I could argue that it was not an indicating fault but, an observation fault.

That assumes people want to learn. I took some IAM lessons and they were of huge benefit, picking up some bad habits, and teaching me some new ideas. I once knew someone who described himself as a professional driver. Being in his car as a passenger was a terrifying experience. He would swear at other drivers, tail gate, speed, it was really horrible! I suspect this person would not watch programmes for amateurs. ;)