As an Associate Member, one is learning
to drive in a manner acceptable to the somewhat demanding IAM
examiner. However, rebellious souls such as myself will always
be asking "Why do it this way?" and failing to find
an answer. Just as the Jehovah's Witnesses start off with the
same book of Holy Scriptures as the rest of the world and come
to completely different conclusions, so does the afore-mentioned
rebellious soul diligently read the driving manuals and find
a different answer.
The first musing concerns Unnecessary Signals,
those given by the aspiring Associate when nobody else is around,
or nobody else would be influenced by the signal (see page 40
of the official IAM manual). These are considered grievous sins.
However, on my way home I must slow down
to enter a 40 m.p.h. zone, go over the crest of a hill with a
bend on it and turn right immediately after the crest. For years
I used routinely to signal right on approaching the hill. Now
I go through the planned system (page 16): Information, Position,
Speed, Gear, Acceleration. Because I look in the mirror, and
Take Information that there is no vehicle behind me, there is
no need to Give information with an Unnecessary Signal. I then
arrive at the cross-roads, only to find an on-coming lorry obstructing
my intended path. I now have hastily to signal, so that any vehicles
arriving up my rear from over the hill will know that there is
a reason for that idiot's stopping in the middle of the road.
The signal is out of sequence in the system.
Again let us suppose that an ordinary mortal
is driving along a dual carriageway in the nearside lane with
nothing in front of him. A car comes rapidly up behind him, moves
out into the next lane to overtake and finally drifts back across
his bows, all without giving a signal. Will his reaction be:
a) "That was a bit discourteous, old chap"
b) "You stupid b*@%*$d"
c) "Cor, you must be an Advanced Motorist" ?
Rule 169 of the Highway Code (1996 edition)
states explicitly in relation to motorway driving "... Signal
your intention to change lanes..."
I rest my case.
Copyright PHP Harris 1999
Chief Observer's reply
I read with interest the above comments
about being out of system when the signal is given later.
These are not correct for the
information phase goes all the way through until the hazard Is safely
negotiated. So if a vehicle appears that would benefit from a signal then
it is quite In order to give it and still comply with the system - (Note
the pink box in Roadcraft page 24), it is explained better in here than
our own book.
The next point Is later on when you
talk about the "ordinary mortal". A car moving
"rapidly" would be unlikely to do anything remotely like
"drift" across the bows of anyone. To do so, would be to involve
a certain amount of braking as he passed you. Would his driving be made
any the better if a signal had been used in this instance? i.e. a right
signal to pass you, kept on while he passes you, then a left to
"drift" in again?
He's still driving incorrectly either
way isn't he?
Now we at the lAM do not want any of
you to subscribe to the "I don't signal club" but to consider
correctly whether any other "road user" would benefit by our
giving one, having made effective use of our mirrors.
That might mean looking a bit harder
and seekIng out the problem, well before it happens rather than when it
does.
Remember nothing on the road happens
suddenly; it all takes time to build up!
