Which laws are you prepared to break when driving?

Discussion on Advanced and Defensive Driving. IAM, RoSPA/RoADA, High Performance Course. All associated training. Car training.

Which of the following laws are you prepared to break?

Parking with direction of traffic except in marked parking bay
13
14%
Breaking at least one statutory speed limit
27
28%
Driving over a mini roundabout
23
24%
Stop sign (i.e. treating it as a give way)
9
9%
Going through an amber traffic light when you could safely stop
11
12%
Crossing a solid white line in an illegal manner or offsiding a keep left bollard
4
4%
Flagrantly disregarding a red light - albeit when it is safe to do so
4
4%
PCOJ - i.e. taking points for someone, getting someone to take points for you, etc
1
1%
Going the wrong way for a significant distance down a one way street, albeit in a manner you believe to be safe
2
2%
Drink Driving
1
1%
 
Total votes : 95

Postby somewhatfoolish » Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:34 am


How do you know staying still will be safe when the other driver may be going faster than they could stop in the entire distance they can see to be clear? Are you sure you shouldn't be reversing for added safety? The key is on what you can reasonably expect (and that is far different from what you can LIKELY expect - the latter standard is what most drivers seem to drive by, especially the ones who "know this road" and that is why they get in to grief and so many reasons so many accidents are close to home)

It must be said that for that reason, around tight, no visibility single track bends where I have not had a chance to look at the road ahead and so on I always am going slower than the "half a distance" standard because I can reasonably expect an oncoming driver to be going faster. But there are single carriageway roads that open up well past that; I can point you to single track roads in the Highlands I have done 150 on safely.

Ultimately a sufficiently deranged driver/person/natural event can make any road unsafe at any speed.

Actually I came across a cracking stretch of road today to illustrate safe speeds, again - no speed limit - but honestly what felt like over a mile where even 15 would be dangerous, and stretches where I think SEVEN was about as fast as was prudent. And it had a level crossing on it!

Was amazed, don't think I've seen any road like it (in terms of sustained max safe speed) in a rural setting. But maybe that's cause I've spent most my "single track" driving career in the fens, NE england and scotland, all of which are full of single track roads but not many with grass banks 7 foot high around them

Edit: Just measured it on Google Maps and it's 600 yards. That says something too, but I'm not sure what...
somewhatfoolish
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:33 am

Postby jameslb101 » Fri Apr 20, 2012 9:22 am


Glad we're agreed on the first point then.
dombooth wrote:
jameslb101 wrote:
dombooth wrote:"Not compromising the safety of other road users" - Again, who decides this? How can you tell if there is a child walking down a NSL road just around that bend that you're belting round at 90+?


Refer to what others have said, but I'll add a couple of caveats to it. You should be able to stop, without drama, in the distance you can see to, and can reasonably can expect to, remain clear.

So you'll probably ask what I mean by "reasonably" now. Well as an ADer, I expect you'll be more capable that most of judging each situation. Unfortunately, not everyone can make a suitable judgement on this, hence why speed limits exist.


I also have an issue with that statement. What when something enters the distance you can see to be clear?

Even saying that we should be able to stop within half the distance we can see to be clear doesn't work because how do know that the other driver would see me when I saw him and have equal/better breaks

Dom


If something enters the distance you can see to be clear then you should have reasonably expected it. Advanced driving is about observation and anticipation, so with these tools you can alter you position, speed and gear for the hazard. Since you got a F1RST you should know all this anyway.

I'm not advocating driving at 'reckless' speeds. Just that in the case of an inappropriate limit, in certain weather, traffic, and other condition (e.g. condition of driver and condition of car), for a stretch of road, some drivers may only be risking their own license (in terms of points rather than a ban I would expect) by exceeding the speed limit.

As I've said before, it's my personal choice not to exceed the speed limit, but if someone else wants to, and it doesn't endanger any other road users, then who am I to criticise.
User avatar
jameslb101
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:02 pm
Location: Bristol / South East

Postby dombooth » Fri Apr 20, 2012 9:50 am


As we're permenently going round in circles with this I give up on this thread :!:
Dominic Booth
Chesterfield IAM Chairman & Webmaster
IAM F1RST

ALL OF MY POSTS ARE OF MY OPINION ONLY AND NOT THAT OF MY GROUP UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.
User avatar
dombooth
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 12:27 pm

Postby waremark » Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:37 pm


I expect that a high proportion of those who say they may exceed speed limits have clean driving licenses. What does that say, if anything?
waremark
 
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 5:18 pm

Postby michael769 » Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:56 pm


waremark wrote:I expect that a high proportion of those who say they may exceed speed limits have clean driving licenses. What does that say, if anything?


That they don't get caught?
Minds are like parachutes - they only function when open
Thomas Robert Dewar(1864-1930)
michael769
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:11 am
Location: Livingston

Postby chriskay » Fri Apr 20, 2012 3:20 pm


michael769 wrote:
waremark wrote:I expect that a high proportion of those who say they may exceed speed limits have clean driving licenses. What does that say, if anything?


That they don't get caught?


...Because their observation is good.
I can only please one person a day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow's not looking good either.
User avatar
chriskay
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:23 am
Location: Shrewsbury

Postby waremark » Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:00 pm


chriskay wrote:
michael769 wrote:
waremark wrote:I expect that a high proportion of those who say they may exceed speed limits have clean driving licenses. What does that say, if anything?


That they don't get caught?


...Because their observation is good

And?

(remembering that this is all hypothesis)
waremark
 
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 5:18 pm

Postby chriskay » Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:06 pm


waremark wrote:And?

(remembering that this is all hypothesis)


...that they were lucky.
I can only please one person a day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow's not looking good either.
User avatar
chriskay
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:23 am
Location: Shrewsbury

Postby jameslb101 » Fri Apr 20, 2012 5:49 pm


chriskay wrote:
michael769 wrote:
waremark wrote:I expect that a high proportion of those who say they may exceed speed limits have clean driving licenses. What does that say, if anything?


That they don't get caught?


...Because their observation is good.


Except for the fact that by the time you've seen a LiDAR (mobile) trap, you've most likely already been 'zapped'. Also, an unmarked car could be following at a distance that one couldn't see the clues that's it's plod - remember is not just Omegas they use any more...
User avatar
jameslb101
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:02 pm
Location: Bristol / South East

Postby jameslb101 » Fri Apr 20, 2012 5:51 pm


dombooth wrote:As we're permenently going round in circles with this I give up on this thread :!:

:roll:
Probably because you talk rubbish...
User avatar
jameslb101
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:02 pm
Location: Bristol / South East

Postby dombooth » Fri Apr 20, 2012 5:58 pm


jameslb101 wrote:
dombooth wrote:As we're permenently going round in circles with this I give up on this thread :!:

:roll:
Probably because you talk rubbish...


Lovely attitude.
Dominic Booth
Chesterfield IAM Chairman & Webmaster
IAM F1RST

ALL OF MY POSTS ARE OF MY OPINION ONLY AND NOT THAT OF MY GROUP UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.
User avatar
dombooth
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 12:27 pm

Postby somewhatfoolish » Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:15 pm


dombooth wrote:
jameslb101 wrote:
dombooth wrote:As we're permenently going round in circles with this I give up on this thread :!:

:roll:
Probably because you talk rubbish...


Lovely attitude.


To be fair you started it!

I don't think you intended to though. The internet can really change how someone comes over, and your posts in this thread make you come over very much like a "know it all" 19 or so years old petty bureaucrat, convinced he is god of driving because he has this "F1RST" thing that no one has ever heard of.

I'm sure you're no such thing though - just be aware that it's possible to come over very peculiarly on the net! In fact this post probably makes me look like a prick, but it is intended to be helpful advice :D
somewhatfoolish
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:33 am

Postby dombooth » Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:23 pm


somewhatfoolish wrote:
dombooth wrote:
jameslb101 wrote: :roll:
Probably because you talk rubbish...


Lovely attitude.


To be fair you started it!

I don't think you intended to though. The internet can really change how someone comes over, and your posts in this thread make you come over very much like a "know it all" 19 or so years old petty bureaucrat, convinced he is god of driving because he has this "F1RST" thing that no one has ever heard of.

I'm sure you're no such thing though - just be aware that it's possible to come over very peculiarly on the net! In fact this post probably makes me look like a prick, but it is intended to be helpful advice :D


I'm glad you put the last part!!
Dominic Booth
Chesterfield IAM Chairman & Webmaster
IAM F1RST

ALL OF MY POSTS ARE OF MY OPINION ONLY AND NOT THAT OF MY GROUP UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.
User avatar
dombooth
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 12:27 pm

Postby brianhaddon » Sat Apr 21, 2012 8:19 am


Consider the scenario. You are driving along a sweeping bend at the road maximum speed of 50mph. There is a solid white line against you. You come upon a cyclist and slow to match its speed. You slow to 15mph. The only way to get past the cyclist safely is to go over the line. Do you pass? Behind you is a car/pickup thingy. The car, which was previously following at a reasonable distance comes close and the driver is obviously anxious to pass. The car weaves from the gutter to over the white line. Traffic towards is light with plenty of spaces to pass, albeit going over the line to do so. Do you pass? Eventually you round the bend and the centre line becomes unbroken. You pass the cyclist and accelerate back to the road maximum of 50mph (I gave a clear early signal). Car/pickup thingy then comes past a rate that is probably a tad over 60mph. Up ahead is 40mph and we both slow for the limit.

Now if I had of passed the cyclist, which I could have done quite safely, car/pickup thingyman would have probably followed and more than likely stayed behind me at the road limit of 50mph. So could I have been accused of creating a situation which caused another driver to get agitated and possibly later on take further risks?

You may wonder why I ask such a question because obviously the law would not have allowed me to pass the cyclist, and haven't we had enough threads questioning the law? But to me it relates the kind of problems drivers face everyday and quite often resolve in their own way quite safely. Yes I know the lines are there for a reason and many are resolverd in a manner that ends badly. However, the two cars in front of me passed safely.

Here is the location and direction of travel.
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=de65+5bg&hl=en&ll=52.876331,-1.695156&spn=0.000104,0.054846&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=12.165846,28.081055&t=h&hnear=Foston+DE65+5BG,+United+Kingdom&z=14&layer=c&cbll=52.876363,-1.695253&panoid=uoWruHdmWZ78qBWttuAdfQ&cbp=12,118.46,,0,0

I caught up with the cyclist just after the road went into the trees.
Regards
Brian Haddon
brianhaddon
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: South Derbyshire

Postby gannet » Sat Apr 21, 2012 8:54 am


brianhaddon wrote:Consider the scenario. You are driving along a sweeping bend at the road maximum speed of 50mph. There is a solid white line against you. You come upon a cyclist and slow to match its speed. You slow to 15mph. The only way to get past the cyclist safely is to go over the line. Do you pass? Behind you is a car/pickup thingy. The car, which was previously following at a reasonable distance comes close and the driver is obviously anxious to pass. The car weaves from the gutter to over the white line. Traffic towards is light with plenty of spaces to pass, albeit going over the line to do so. Do you pass? Eventually you round the bend and the centre line becomes unbroken. You pass the cyclist and accelerate back to the road maximum of 50mph (I gave a clear early signal). Car/pickup thingy then comes past a rate that is probably a tad over 60mph. Up ahead is 40mph and we both slow for the limit.

Now if I had of passed the cyclist, which I could have done quite safely, car/pickup thingyman would have probably followed and more than likely stayed behind me at the road limit of 50mph. So could I have been accused of creating a situation which caused another driver to get agitated and possibly later on take further risks?

You may wonder why I ask such a question because obviously the law would not have allowed me to pass the cyclist, and haven't we had enough threads questioning the law? But to me it relates the kind of problems drivers face everyday and quite often resolve in their own way quite safely. Yes I know the lines are there for a reason and many are resolverd in a manner that ends badly. However, the two cars in front of me passed safely.

Here is the location and direction of travel.
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=de65+5bg&hl=en&ll=52.876331,-1.695156&spn=0.000104,0.054846&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=12.165846,28.081055&t=h&hnear=Foston+DE65+5BG,+United+Kingdom&z=14&layer=c&cbll=52.876363,-1.695253&panoid=uoWruHdmWZ78qBWttuAdfQ&cbp=12,118.46,,0,0

I caught up with the cyclist just after the road went into the trees.
Regards
Brian Haddon


if the cyclist's speed had been 10mph or less you could have passed:
Highway Code wrote:129
Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.


given it was 15mph or more, I wouldn't have passed regardless of how the driver behind felt...
-- Gannet.
Membership Secretary, East Surrey Group of Advanced Motorists
Driving: Citroen DS3 DSport 1.6THP :D
Riding: Airnimal Joey Sport... (helps with the commute into London during the week!)
RIP: Dahon Cadenza P18
ImageImage
gannet
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:19 pm
Location: Surrey

PreviousNext

Return to Advanced Driving Forum (Cars)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], kwaka jack and 2 guests


cron