I thought it was because with one hand turning the wheel, and the other holding the mobile..........
|
I sometimes wonder they bother to fit indicators to new cars, maybe they should offer them as an optional extra, so few people bother to use them these days.
How many times have you seen vehicle driving along the road whilst the driver is busy operating their toys/mobile phone and the indicator doesn't even get a flick ?
This whole business of people not indicatng their intentions is both thoughtless and selffish, you'd probably find the same people don't say thank you, please and hold doors open for others, a sad reflection of the society we now live in.
Also people who are listening to radios, CDs, and using mobile phones get distracted by the noise and as most people are hopeless at multitasking (men and women alike) it's no surprise they don't consider it's their responsiblity to inform other roads users of their intentions.
The Institute of Advanced Motorists also teaches bad practice in the use of indicators. Sure it's nice in theory to think of not using an indicator only when there is nothing else about and only use when necessary but their theory is wrong. There is no way any driver can guarantee they can observe their entire environment whilst driving such as a hidden child, someone in dark clothing about to cross the road which the driver doesn't pick up as can't actually see them, hence it's a lot safer to always use indicators rather than the lottery we currently have.
|
How many times have you seen vehicle driving along the road whilst the driver is busy operating their toys/mobile phone and the indicator doesn't even get a flick ?
... and is the converse not true? How many times have you seen some muppet driving along a road with the indicator going, though there is no turning for miles, or bowling straight on past junctions where YOU thought he was turning?
So, either he is too dimwitted to see the flashing lights on the dash and hear the tick-tock, or he is distracted by some other CD/mobile/satnav etc.
And IF you DARE to hoot and make 'flash flash' gestures, you're bound to get the middle finger in return.
|
I indicate whenever it will help any other road users -- not just motorists -- understand what I intend to do. Sometimes other road users may not be visible at decision time, so I err on the side of caution and indicate anyway. I am wary about the indication signals of others, especially at roundabouts, where they are notoriously unreliable.
Yes, there are many other signals that an observant driver can pick up from other road users, but indication remains the primary means of communicating with others and I think we should all encourage it. I would much rather have people indicating by default than not indicating at all. I agree with MikeTorque's criticism of the IAM in this respect.
|
|
|
|
The Institute of Advanced Motorists also teaches bad practice in the use of indicators. Sure it's nice in theory to think of not using an indicator only when there is nothing else about and only use when necessary but their theory is wrong. There is no way any driver can guarantee they can observe their entire environment whilst driving such as a hidden child someone in dark clothing about to cross the road which the driver doesn't pick up as can't actually see them hence it's a lot safer to always use indicators rather than the lottery we currently have.
I have a small amount of experience of advanced driving training (with RoSPA rather than IAM, but I imagine it's all similar) though I'm by no means an expert. As I understand it, the point they are making is not quite that simple.
From my own experience of trying it out, I don't find many instances in built up areas where I can see enough to know that there is nobody to benefit from a signal, but in other circumstances (e.g. leaving a motorway onto the slip road, or the more open roundabouts on trunk roads where you can see all the approaches for some distance) there are so few places another road user could be that it really isn't hard to know whether there is anyone who would benefit from your signal.
On the other hand, there are situations where giving a signal could be ambiguous or even potentially dangerous. Thinking first, rather than just assuming "it's nearly time to turn the steering wheel, so indicator on now" could save embarassment or worse.
I think the problem they are trying to get round is one of habit forming. Information (giving, taking and using it) is the first step and the running theme in the system of car control that I know RoSPA and I presume IAM teach to. The idea, as I understand it, is that as you approach a hazard, and throughout the manoeuvre, you are, amongst (many) other things, continuously assessing the need to give information to other road users. That could be road users that you know are there, and road users that might be somewhere you can't see yet. If you think there is (or you can't be sure there isn't) someone who could be helped if you communicated with them, then you do so. There are lots of ways of communicating: brake lights, position, speed, indicators for example - and you use whichever best communicates your intention.
What you don't do is just signal regardless because that is the first step to forgetting that signalling is just the outcome - or rather, just one possible outcome - of a continuous and complex thought process and judgement.
Now, there will be occasions where you misjudge your assessment and fail to signal when it could have helped. But as with any skill, if you don't practise it - which includes making the occasional mistake - how can you expect to improve? To me, the skill I'm practising is that of giving the right information at the right time while never giving ambiguous or misleading information, which I think is a skill worth improving.
Just to repeat the caveat - the views expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IAM or RoSPA. I am sure there are others here who know more about it than me, but I am equally sure that the "why not just signal all the time to avoid the situation when you should have signalled but didn't" is an oversimplification and misses the point.
|
People not signalling at roundabouts waste time, since you end up waiting for a car that turns into the road you're joining from.
But I've also had people signalling left then changing their mind and coming straight for me as I begin to pull out.
Another problem arises when there are two left turns close together. People who signal early to take the second left turn risk collision with vehicle pulling out of first turning because its driver assumes signalling vehicle is turning into first road.
But a following driver on main road gets annoyed if you leave siganlling till late to avoid sucha situation.
|
|
|
>> The Institute of Advanced Motorists also teaches bad practice in the use of indicators.
Just to add one more comment - I suspect that a driver who signals every time is far closer to the IAM ideal behaviour than the sort of drivers who prompted this thread - those who seem to have forgotten that they even have indicators. I wouldn't equate the IAM approach with those drivers, and I wouldn't regard the existence of the IAM approach as in any way the cause of the widespread indicator-based laziness.
|
I always indicate when there is more than one direction I could go in at any given point - it doesnt matter whether or not I can see anyone who could benefit - the whole point is that after I decide to make a move ( and not indicate ), someone else may arrive on the scene needing the relevant information. You may well be aware of the cars around you, but those on the footpaths and bikes are far easier to miss, esp at night.
I dont presume to be all knowing and all seeing so id rather do my bit to make absolutely sure those I share the road and streets with have the best chance of knowing my intentions.
I have noticed that most HGV drivers to their credit are far better at this aspect of driving than your average car driver although there are bad ones as with anything.
Indicating to go straight on is stupidity and not indicating when one is leaving a roundabout is just plain laziness and infact could be misleading to someone wanting to cross the road nearby.
The fact is, indicators are virtually no trouble to use and in situations where it adversely affects another driver, id like to see points awarded on licenses.
The whole point of having a set of rules and guidance for how to drive on the roads is to give other drivers the best chance of co-existing and being safe on the road.
I wonder who would like to fly in a plane that doesnt communicate with any other planes/control tower unless they think they might need to. I sure wouldnt wanna be on such a plane.
|
I agree stunorthants. Any competent driver can show off by remembering not to signal to show the IAM tester that he or she has been looking in the mirrors. I believe the IAM regards this practice as useful because it robs the driver of an automatism and forces him or her to think consciously all the time.
This is a bit stupid in my opinion. However partial and foxed his or her mental processes, driving is complex enough to force some sort of constant intellectual activity on any driver. Anything that can lighten the burden of conscious thought frees up some precious cognitive ability for what is important. So a signalling automatism - signalling automatically and in good time when a turn is about to be made - is safer because it means the driver is less likely to forget or fail to signal when a signal is really needed (which, as we all know, can be dangerous).
Of course very many drivers signal so late that they might as well not bother. One wonders what use people think it is to signal just as they start to turn the wheel, or (a pet hate of mine) only when the lights go green, having until that moment appeared to be going straight on. Both of these are signs of extreme stupidity in my book. Even worse than that poncy IAM stuff.
|
Both of these are signs of extreme stupidity in my book. Even worse than that poncy IAM stuff.
D'ye know Lud, anyone might be forgiven for thinking you felt quite strongly about this ?!
My pet hate is people who manage to not signal at roundabouts or do so too early or too late. Usually combined with a complete inability to choose the correct lane while doing so. Ends up being a sort of automotive Russian roulette at peak times. My car, while being delightful in many other ways, does take a bit of stirring from rest especially when fully laden. I suppose the guesswork keeps life interesting though. Days and opportunities to be seized and such, if that is not too much of cliche to work in to a moan about roundabouts and dimwits.
|
|
|
That said, one little caution: I doubt if there is a driver alive who hasn't quite a few times failed to signal, left it too late or changed his or her mind for some reason causing a moment of 'extreme stupidity'.
No doubt there are some here who will claim they have never done this. I am telling them in advance that I don't believe them.
|
|
Perfection is indeed a heavy cross to bear Lud. I have come to accept that most doubt its existence. It is, however, a burden I have learned to live with. ;-)
|
May I quote a treasured graffito, Shoespy, erased alas these many years since, that used to grace a concrete pillar somewhere down the back here?:
The Dyaks are watching you
:~/
|
Dyaks .......Were they not featured in some quasi ecclesiastical Russian variant on Dr Who? ;-)
Sorry about the topic Roy !
I always indicate, it's not just other motor vehicles who may need the info /warning. Even a savvy kid about to boot a football might just benefit.
|
|
Id certainly admit to doing it on the odd occasion - and cursing myself shortly afterwards.
I do however strive to get it right because it matters to me.
|
There used to be a time (long ago....) when you actually, yes 'actually' heard of people being pulled over by a now near extinct breed of police officer called a 'traffic officer'
and being lectured, penalised and even fined for failing to indicate their intentions to other road users.
I'm from the old school.
I indicate - even if I am the only vehicle in sight.
|
|
|
This is a bit stupid in my opinion. However partial and foxed his or her mental processes, driving is complex enough to force some sort of constant intellectual activity on any driver
Yes, totally agree. I get the feeling the IAM et al who advocate this make the mistake in thinking that 'remembering' not to signal somehow enforces extra vigilance - well, it may in the textbook-mind of an IAM examiner, but in the real world of the fractured & overloaded mind of a typical driver, it's just one more pre-amble to all the other (automatic ) checks one invariably goes through.
If a driver has decided (after due process of checks & 'procedures' etc.) to make a direction change or turn-off, to then have to 'switch-off' the signalling-response just adds time & potential confusion to the mix. If the driver needs the 'don't signal unless really necessary' mantra running to enforce 'vigilance', I would suggest there's already a lack of vigilance thereby making extra procedures redundant anyway!
|
|
|
Of course very many drivers signal so late that they might as well not bother. One wonders what use people think it is to signal just as they start to turn ... Both of these are signs of extreme stupidity in my book. Even worse than that poncy IAM stuff.
Again, this is a classic example of car-user versus driver.
The car user is just that - somebody who uses a car - they have passed the test, probably by rote, and do things absolutely by the book, without actually thinking WHY they have to do it, or HOW it happens.
Jasper Carrott, summed it up with one of his mother-in-law sketches.
"The highway code says "Look in the rearview mirror before pulling out". So she did. Doesn't matter what's coming!"
The car user, in this instance, knows that before turning, they must indicate.
So they do. They don't know WHY they should indicate, but it is all part of the little game of driving, isn't it?
Likewise a young lady of my acquaintance who knows she has to push the clutch in before changing gear. She does so - without the slightest clue what the pedal actually does. All she knows is the rote.
|
|
|
|
the whole point is that after I decide to make a move ( and not indicate ) someone else may arrive on the scene needing the relevant information.
If there is a route by which someone else may arrive which you cannot see to be clear, then you can't be sure that nobody would benefit from a signal. When I was asked "Who are you signalling to?", and I said something like "the person who might be about to emerge from that side road/driveway/footpath/behind the hedge where I can't see", that was regarded as a valid and correct answer and not signalling would have been a fault. What's the problem with that?
The point is to make signalling part of your "who do I need to communicate to" thought process, not your "how do I change the direction of the vehicle" actions. If you go through that thought process, identify that there is nobody who would benefit, then elect to signal anyway, that's up to you. If you simply signal because you're going to turn the steering wheel soon, and you don't bother to identify who is or might be around that might need information from you, you are making a potentially hazardous omission.
Signalling without thinking is exactly as bad as not signalling without thinking because the operative phrase in either case is "without thinking", which is not a state of mind conducive to safety.
I wonder who would like to fly in a plane that doesnt communicate with any other planes/control tower unless they think they might need to. I sure wouldnt wanna be on such a plane.
I think you've missed the point. When they think they might need to is exactly when a pilot DOES talk to a controller. What the pilot doesn't do, and what I believe the IAM is asking you not to do, is talk to the controller when you know that you do not need to.
|
|
My point is that the pilot talks to the controller when it is required that they do so - the pilot doesnt fly past the runway, say 'it looks clear' and land of their own accord. What they do, always, is signal their intention to land, ie indicate.
|
My point is that the pilot talks to the controller when it is required that they do so - the pilot doesnt fly past the runway say 'it looks clear' and land of their own accord. What they do always is signal their intention to land ie indicate.
Actually that's not true. Or more precisely, it's only true for certain runways - the ones we're used to at big airports. I've landed aircraft at plenty of tinpot runways where I've not talked to anyone - either because there's nobody there, or because I haven't got a radio - by just flying past it and deciding it looks OK. The difference for pilots is that it has been decided in advance which runways require a signal and which do not.
My objection (and I believe the IAM's) would be to a pilot who radios their intention to land at an airfield that has no controller to speak to (information that is available before they even took off). And that's not because I object to the useless radio chatter. It's because I object to the fact that they are putting so little thought into what they are doing that they haven't realised that there is nobody to talk to.
If you don't go through the full process of identifying everyone who might benefit from understanding your intentions, and your options for communicating those intentions to them - before the appropriate place to use the indicators - you are failing to assess what's going on around you to the extent that you could be. That failing makes your driving more hazardous than it needs to be and that's what my advanced driving instructor was trying to train me out of. I think he was doing a good thing.
|
|
Everything you say in the last paragraph of yr post seems quite right GJD. But having scanned the surroundings to the best of your ability before the time to signal arrives, why bother to not signal? The signalling automatism won't make a proper driver any less observant, but even an observant driver can sometimes be taken by surprise in an unfamiliar place. The IAM dogma, if such it be, is a sort of driving equivalent of 'over-engineering'. Or so it seems to me.
|
Everything you say in the last paragraph of yr post seems quite right GJD. But having scanned the surroundings to the best of your ability before the time to signal arrives why bother to not signal?
Why bother to signal? I'm not bothered either way. It's achieving the level of situational awareness that makes the yes/no decision on indicating trivial and obvious that's important.
Maybe making signal vs not signal a conscious decision every time in the light of your assessment could be a useful discipline to help the necessary level of situational awareness become more natural and automatic. Every time you catch yourself asking "do I need to signal for this manoeuvre" and answering yourself "gosh darn it, actually I'm not sure", you've identified an occasion where your observation wasn't what it could have been - perhaps an opportunity to self-critique that would otherwise have been missed.
Obviously this presupposes a certain level of commitment to improving, but if you're bothering with what the IAM or RoSPA say, it's probably safe to assume that commitment.
The IAM dogma if such it be is a sort of driving equivalent of 'over-engineering'. Or so it seems to me.
Dogma it isn't, was my impression. There was certainly no feeling of "the purpose of the lesson is to train you out of using your indicators". Nor were there very many occasions where not signalling was deemed appropriate. And despite this issue being about the only thing that advanced driving is known for, it wasn't even the area most emphasised, by any means. We covered stuff a lot more important than finesse in the use of indicators.
But as I said, I've only done a very small amount of it, so I'm prepared to learn that I'm being overly favourable in my speculation.
|
>>Every time you catch yourself asking "do I need tosignal for this manoeuvre" and answering yourself "gosh darn it actually I'm not sure" you've identified an occasion where your observation wasn't what it could have been - perhaps an opportunity to self-critique
It might be an occasion where your observation was all it could be, and where you still aren't sure. There are places and situations like that. Even more importantly, it is not dangerous to signal when there's no one to see the signal. So it seems to me that remembering not to signal is redundant and uses up brain power better kept in reserve for something else. However I accept that this is an argument without end (or indeed real purpose, as all parties are agreed that proper driving is best).
As for self-criticism, drivers who don't constantly do it, and ferociously at that, in the manner described by stunorthants, are in danger of becoming lost causes.
Edited by Lud on 30/06/2008 at 19:53
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
