Perhaps signalling is less crucial in those lanes Rudedog, as it is when your intention is obvious from the position of your car and the angle of the front wheels.
But it is my belief that a redundant signal does no harm, while a necessary one forgotten can cause all sorts of things.
|
Another vote for the redundant signal.
It's not always obvious, especially in slow-moving traffic, where the lane you're in is going to someone coming towards you.
If it's light-controlled - ie absolutely no possibility of someone hitting me - I usually don't bother.
|
|
|
|
Not getting into the rights/wrongs of signalling when there is nowhere else to go-I was taught by the Police only to signal when someone can benefit from that signal.Right and left turn lanes-unless controlled by traffic lights-are advisory only.
|
|
|
Indeed.
What you have to remember, your intentions could have a bearing on another's actions whether they in a car, walking or any other means of getting about. And since that person could only come in to your sight part way though the manoeuvre, the practise of always indicating is the safest and costs peanuts.
Granted not indicating can be ok, but if you think things all the way through, a surprisingly small amount of the time.
|
|
|
|
I suppose those of us that try to drive reasonably indicate automatically.
Unlike the IAM lot Lud refers to who only indicate if someone will benefit, which is fine but there will always be the moments when someone appears unexpectedly and could have gone but for that same IAM bod.
Those that don't indicate at all cause unnecessary delays at junctions, as you're never quite sure where they are going, can't always rely on their road positioning either, though you'd never be able to get that through their thick skulls, not as they would be remotely interested.
|
|
Signalling automatically says you're either not thinking what you're doing or not observing.
|
Signalling automatically says you're either not thinking what you're doing or not observing.
No it doesn't. It says you have the habit of signalling automatically because once or twice over the years you have noticed that there are limits to the value of observation sometimes caused by unfamiliar road layouts and landscapes. It says that statistically you know damn well that signalling is better than not signalling.
The view quoted above is more or less what I meant about arrogant PITA IAM stuff, asking for trouble.
|
|
|
jc2
Politely but cod's wallop. Not indicating when you should implies rather less thought. (Yes I know i don't agree with some IAM members but then again, I don't have to!)
|
|
|
Except that you don't signal automatically, it's a manual action which requires thought & reasoning!
I fell out with IAM over this as they said only signal if someone benefits; what happens if there is someone I can't see?; then you haven't looked properly says IAM.
Always signal then you can't go wrong.
My particular annoyance is drivers not signalling on islands
|
|
|
Signalling automatically says you're either not thinking what you're doing or not observing.
Turn your brake lights off if there is no one behind you. :)
|
|
|
|
|
As you have said before GB, some people automatically leave side roads clear when stopped in traffic, some indicate, some dont, its all just an indication of the standard of driver. I would not be surprised if 80% of drivers did not know what road positioning is
Edited by Old Navy on 16/07/2009 at 18:05
|
. I would not be surprised if 80% of drivers did not know what roadpositioning is
And i'd agree with that, surprising just how smooth and swift flowing the roads can be when a few competent thoughtful drivers come together, it's not exaggerated politeness we're talking about just basic common road manners.
It takes but a moment to spot them as they stand miles out from the rest.
In answer to jc2, driving should be a more or less automatic thing as one becomes more experienced, so knowing you're turning/changing lanes/stopping/starting off is second nature and therefore signalling at the same time becomes part of the basic control of the vehicle...or should.
Leaving you free to look for real hazards, and to concentrate on the important things.
|
Leaving you free to look for real hazards, and to concentrate on the important things.
Quite, gb. The IAM view is that if you remember not to signal when you don't seem to need to, this shows that you have your mind on the whole enterprise in a fully conscious manner.
Sounds like a good idea in principle. But there's another way of looking at it: what is the point of burdening yourself with another conscious task when it can safely be left to your well-adjusted autopilot?
At any moment on the road you may have to deal with a very complex, life-threatening situation very promptly and correctly. Best to leave your conscious mind free for that, seems to me.
|
|
|
In answer to jc2 driving should be a more or less automatic thing as one becomes more experienced
The automatic part of driving is about car control, Learning to drive is bringing your car contol to a standard where you can devote most of your attention to your surroundings. This should cover all aspects of car control including indicators. I would think this applies to most forms of travel, pilots spring to mind.
|
I suppose redundant signaling does no real harm but am always amused by a row of cars in a traffic light controlled right/left filter lane with their indicators on even though there is nowhere else to go. A touch of the mindless zombie about them. Don't always agree with IAM but "automatic" signaling can lead some into he frame of mind "I have signaled" therefore I can pull out. If you are taught to think and observe before you signal and part of that process is looking to see if there is anyone to benefit from the signal you will probably be a safer driver.
|
am always amused by a rowof cars in a traffic light controlled right/left filter lane with their indicators on even though there is nowhere else to go. A touch of the mindless zombie about them.
Have you considered non-driving pedestrians?
It may not be obvious to them what course you will be taking.
As for "only signalling when someone can benefit fom it", how can you be absolutely sure-unless of couse you are driving on an airfield!
|
Have you considered non-driving pedestrians?
If there is anybody around including pedestrians who could benefit from a signal then of course you should signal. If there is no one who could benefit then a signal is unnecessary. How do I know? I look and check my mirrors.
|
|
|
|
Yes, in the signal on auto-pilot camp myself.
This IAM doctrine is, in my view, flawed - although I don't imagine they (or 'it') would admit as much
If the IAM driver makes the assumption that he/she always observes enough to be aware of dangers/emerging situations/other road users etc., thay assume they're perfect & make perfect observations all the time. That's a very dangerous assumption to make of course.
My assumption is that I will make mistakes & it might very well save my dunderhead if, when that happens, I've made a 'redundant' auto-pilot signalling action. It may be that one in one hundred thousandth turn I make & don't see the grey car in the gloom - thankfully, even though I didn't see him he saw my indicator... Or that silly pedestrian making a dash across the road after lighting his fag behind that parked van sees my 'redundant' indication coming off the mini-roundabout & just catches the orange blink in time to save his bacon.
It doesn't take alot of imagination to envisage the usefulness of signalling 'redundancy'.
Edited by woodbines on 16/07/2009 at 19:32
|
Just for the record, IAM training is based around Roadcraft, the Police Drivers handbook, not any "IAM doctrine".
Some of you seem to have odd opinions of "IAM drivers". All it really means is that you have formally taken your training, knowledge and experience a stage further than most drivers do, and can prove it by way of having a Pass certificate. It doesn't make them expert drivers.
In my mind, much of the training is about getting you thinking continually about what you are doing and why you are doing it - i.e. concentrating, which many drivers don't.
|
I always signal out of habit, even if there's no traffic about. It costs nothing.
It makes up for all those people who don't signal at mini roundabouts!!!!
Nobody can tell me that redundant signalling is a bad habit, I've always done that for 37 years and it's never once led to any problem.
I was brought up on 'mirror-signal-manoevre' and 'position-speed-look'
Edited by Sofa Spud on 16/07/2009 at 21:10
|
|
As opposed to 'manoevre - swear - accelerate'!
|
In general, I always signal, but I am with the OP on this. In particular, I am thinking of those occasions when in a right turn only lane at lights when there is no point indicating because you are a. stationary and b. can only go one way. The needless flashing only serves to irritate the driver behind in my experience. Rather like sitting there with ones foot on the brake rather than using the hand brake.
The only time one needs to signal in such a lane is when you are in the wrong one, and need to force your way into another (not that I would ever try this, honest...)
|
|
What about the times when the left/right turn arrows painted on the road are obscured by stationary vehicles? I can think of places where road side signage is not obvious/non existant. A row of cars with indicators flashing does rather show where a lane of traffic is headed.
|
|
I can't visualise who needs to know, but if anyone does, then indicate.
Edited by smokie on 17/07/2009 at 01:15
|
My father is a police driver, and I know a few others. This area of his driving is something I have always taken issue with, vocally.
I can see the logic to only indicating where others can benefit from your signal, but if the drivers I know are representative of Roadcraft I fundamentally disagree with the interpretation of the rule. As far as I am concerned the default action should be to indicate. I don't care what Roadcraft/IAM says on this point -- there will always be occasions, regardless of how good a driver you are, where you cannot be 100% sure whether anyone else will benefit.
The police drivers' (that I know) attitude to such scenarios is not to indicate.
I respectfully disagree. If you are not sure, ALWAYS indicate.
Indeed, I would go so far as to state that any driver who fails to indicate where it would benefit others is a BAD DRIVER, and this would appear to include the majority of IAM/Roadcraft followers.
As for the OP's scenario:
* If there are pedestrians around, indicate.
* If there is a car coming towards you who may choose to cross your path, indicate.
* If there is a car behind you, indicate.
* Crucially, if there is a corner you cannot see around (because, last I checked, light does not generally bend around solid objects), indicate if there is any chance whatsoever that the first three may be around.
Taking those on board, the possibilities for not indicating become rather slim IME, and IMO expose the simple fact that a lot of these so-called advanced drivers aren't as good as they think they are, for they neglect to indicate quite often in scenarios that would match the above.
That said of course, if the *only* course of action is to turn left when approaching a T, and there is *no-one* behind you who might benefit from the reminder, then by all means don't bother.
It's not rocket science. It's simple common sense, and the fact that many drivers have the blinkers on on this issue says a lot really.
Edited by jase1 on 17/07/2009 at 02:48
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
