Near Miss of the Day 642: No mirror, no signal, left-hook manoeuvre

Awavey wrote:

Whilst I might agree with your assessment of the IAM on the whole, on the aspect of blindly always signalling I certainly dont on my bike if I assess it to be of no benefit to anyone else & my driving instructor taught me that as well. It always bugs me when a vehicle overtakes you and then indicates left to retake a road position, I always wonder if it's some passive aggressive hint to me to be more left on the road. But its probably they just arent thinking,its automatic muscle memory and I think that's the key you are missing, it's not just dont indicate if theres no need, its get in the mindset of always assessing if there is a need, as you are then far more likely to spot hazards/dangers by doing that check, than just letting your brain drive you on autopilot, and if you feel that takes too much time than just automatically indicating, it probably tells you, you need to give yourself more time&space by slowing down.

But again you're mistaking the drivers behind / around you for other advanced drivers. Your "automatic" pointless signal may be the first time they become aware of you...

How so ? If there are drivers behind or around you, theyd clearly benefit from your signalling, so you signal, but you are now aware those drivers are behind or around you. If you just automatically signalled would you even know those drivers were there or what they were doing ? Maybe, maybe not, by running through the do I need to offer a signal thought process, you know for certain. That's the point.

Awavey wrote:

How so ? If there are drivers behind or around you, theyd clearly benefit from your signalling, so you signal, but you are now aware those drivers are behind or around you. If you just automatically signalled would you even know those drivers were there or what they were doing ? Maybe, maybe not, by running through the do I need to offer a signal thought process, you know for certain. That's the point.

I understand the reasoning, but I think that not indicating leads to more danger than automatic indicating. Being aware of other road users (and pedestrians) is obviously important, so maybe drivers should be taught to say why they're indicating (e.g. "indicating for van behind", "indicating for old lady waiting to cross", "indicating for no-one") which would trigger the same thought process of being aware, but without the trap of failing to indicate when there's a cyclist in your blind-spot.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Awavey wrote:

How so ? If there are drivers behind or around you, theyd clearly benefit from your signalling, so you signal, but you are now aware those drivers are behind or around you. If you just automatically signalled would you even know those drivers were there or what they were doing ? Maybe, maybe not, by running through the do I need to offer a signal thought process, you know for certain. That's the point.

I understand the reasoning, but I think that not indicating leads to more danger than automatic indicating. Being aware of other road users (and pedestrians) is obviously important, so maybe drivers should be taught to say why they're indicating (e.g. "indicating for van behind", "indicating for old lady waiting to cross", "indicating for no-one") which would trigger the same thought process of being aware, but without the trap of failing to indicate when there's a cyclist in your blind-spot.

This is the way this should go. For me Awavey's point about "If you just automatically signalled..." misses that the signalling process involves two parties. Yes absolutely the signaller can use this as a prompt to update their situational awareness. (Mirrors, signal ... right?) But teaching people to signal by default has almost zero "cost" to the signaller (in a car at least) while mitigating lapses by the signaller (because human, genuinely didn't see etc.) and "unknown unknowns" (someone appearing after you checked, someone the signaller saw but who wasn't paying attention at that point). If you don't make a signal it's all on you to fix any problem that may occur because no-one else can know your intention.

chrisonatrike wrote:

This is the way this should go. For me Awavey's point about "If you just automatically signalled..." 

Indeed, he seems to be suggesting there is a straight choice between mirror, manouvre and signal manouvre. When what I want is the full mirror, signal, manouvre. I don't expect people to signal without checking.

Check what is around, give everyone a clear indication of what you are doing. If you have priority or if someone yields to you, then complete the manouvre.

"Mirror, signal, mirror, manoeuvre"

"Mirror..., mirror..., mirror..., mirror, signal, mirror, manoeuvre, mirror..., mirror..."

mdavidford wrote:

"Mirror..., mirror..., mirror..., mirror, signal, mirror, manoeuvre, mirror..., mirror..."

I think you might need a bit of forward observation there too

I'd hope that that's the default, but you may be right - there are probably some drivers who would need to be told not to look at their phones during the ellipses.

And perhaps a shoulder check and moving the head to see beyond the a pillar?

er...she, actually. Im not suggesting there is a choice of either/or here, I was just trying to explain the IAM position on this, even though I dont like their members that much. Because its more nuanced than simply dont indicate if you dont have to, which seems to be the impression people have picked up as they fling counter examples of why thats a bad thing left, right and centre at it.

Its built around the concept that its very easy to slip into autopilot mode whilst driving, which is a bad habit in some circumstances, though we all do it, because driving is a complex yet also familiar repetative task that your brain literally puts into the background for you, so you can concentrate on other things like shouting at the radio phone in on LBC, and why often youll drive somewhere but have no real concious recall of any of the multitude of safety decisions you seemingly made to get there or could describe the journey in any detail.

so you dont want the autopilot kicking in all the time, you dont want to just automatically signal because its step 2 on your always this is what I do when turn process, you want to disconnect the autopilot in those moments and understand you are signalling, because youve looked in the mirror and not just looked, but processed what youve seen around you and that you are making a concious choice to signal based on that information.

and thats the distinction, its about forcing you to think about your decisions when driving (or cycling as its applicable as well) rather than letting the autopilot handle it, because that should make you a safer, though the IAM would claim better, driver, and thats certainly why my driving instructor taught me that, always pose the question do I need to signal, 999 out of 1000 time the answer is still yes, it doesnt matter its not about avoiding indicating as if thats some onerous task, its about the thought process to force you to make a concious decision about taking that action.

Awavey wrote:

er...she, actually. 

apologies

no need to apologise

So you're saying "you shouldn't drive on autopilot". Completely agree. They teach you to link "awareness" prompts into different driving activities? Good idea.

I hear that you're just "telling us what they told you". I still think the only benefits of not finally flipping the stick after you've done all that is to you - signalling your "advanced" understanding to your advanced driving instructor / police examiner though. The "forcing you to think about your decisions" bit everyone should be doing anyway - I'd say that goes with the "mirrors" in MSM. So you're "out of autopilot" and looked and didn't see anyone - great, a signal would be pointless. But it doesn't cost you and you might be mistaken or something may happen to take your attention elsewhere.

That's all I've got - just put the blinkers on.

EDIT - pedantism aside on another thread someone reminded me that in situations where it could be ambiguous you shouldn't signal - that's sensible.

Taking, and if needed, giving information.......As you say, it's designed to make drivers think, and be aware of what's happening around them - rather than automatically signalling out of habit.

Awavey wrote:

Whilst I might agree with your assessment of the IAM on the whole, on the aspect of blindly always signalling I certainly dont on my bike if I assess it to be of no benefit to anyone else & my driving instructor taught me that as well. It always bugs me when a vehicle overtakes you and then indicates left to retake a road position, I always wonder if it's some passive aggressive hint to me to be more left on the road. But its probably they just arent thinking,its automatic muscle memory and I think that's the key you are missing, it's not just dont indicate if theres no need, its get in the mindset of always assessing if there is a need, as you are then far more likely to spot hazards/dangers by doing that check, than just letting your brain drive you on autopilot, and if you feel that takes too much time than just automatically indicating, it probably tells you, you need to give yourself more time&space by slowing down.

No you are right, I mentioned in another string that signalling every time is not necessarily appropriate on a bike due to balance (not BBC...). As the majority of bike collisions are single user, that would be sensible. For cars and m'cycles though this is not the case - if you are too fast, or have failed to plan sufficiently , so that a flick of a switch is impossible, in that instance the driver is guilty poor driving.

I agree that you should always assess the turn, however that is independent from actively making an (unnecessary, from a drivers perspective) decision whether to signal. If IAM are intertwining the two, it is poor pedagogy.

HWC states that you should always signal, therefore there needs to be a good reason not to. I've not seen that for a driver.

Rendel Harris wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

Although driving instructers will tell learners not to signal where there are no other motor vehicles as it is unnecesary and implies they are unaware of their surroundings

Do they? The Highway Code says (Rule 103) "You should always give clear signals in plenty of time" - it doesn't say anything about "unless nobody's about". My excellent motorcycle instructor always instilled in me that you should always signal "because there's always a chance, however much you've looked around, that you've missed someone who might need it, and if you haven't, what harm's it done?"

I agree entirely with your reasoning, but I hear that people have been pulled up on advanced motoring tests for signalling without checking, even though they do check.

As a pedestrian it drives me nuts when waiting to cross a road and the driver I'm waiting for will turn off before reaching me. Leaving me stood waiting (possibly in the rain) for no reason. Or when they turn into the road you are crossing without signalling their intent to do so.

wycombewheeler wrote:

I agree entirely with your reasoning, but I hear that people have been pulled up on advanced motoring tests for signalling without checking, even though they do check.

As a pedestrian it drives me nuts when waiting to cross a road and the driver I'm waiting for will turn off before I get there. Leaving me stood still (possibly in the rain) waiting for no reason. Or when they turn into the road you are crossing without signalling their intent to do so.

I think it's a dumb thing to teach apart from being aware of what's around. If someone indicates when there's no-one to see it, there is exactly zero problems caused for other road users, but the opposite mistake of not indicating when there is other traffic does cause problems.