If you got caught drifting a roundabout....
Discussion
Pork_n_Beem said:
flemke said:
Pork_n_Beem said:
Have you all gone mad !!
What do you think? 
Pork_n_Beem said:
If you were entering a RAB and loeb is coming around sideways would you consider filtering in or consider selecting reverse !
I think we have pushed the boundaries enough lets just settle for 90mph on a straight road.
Drifting on a public road....implications for the emergency stop, very messy when your crossed up, what about visibility, massively increases the blind spots when you are looking through the side windows across the passengers side, what lights, they will be facing the wrong direction, especially indicators.....
Guys, i think this one needs more thought
I did not think that anyone was suggesting, or even imagining, that all "drifting" (power oversteer) should be allowed.I think we have pushed the boundaries enough lets just settle for 90mph on a straight road.
Drifting on a public road....implications for the emergency stop, very messy when your crossed up, what about visibility, massively increases the blind spots when you are looking through the side windows across the passengers side, what lights, they will be facing the wrong direction, especially indicators.....
Guys, i think this one needs more thought
Rather, I think the question was whether any drifting might be allowed. It seemed that those who know the law and how the authorities think about such things viewed all intentional and perhaps also all unintentional drifting as an absolute offence.
At some point I raised the question of whether, if the person doing the drifting were Sebastien Loeb, and there were no living or dead things within the vicinity so that it was not physically possible for the drifting car to cause any harm whatsoever, a bit of drifting would ever be allowed.
The answer seemed to be "No - it's all proscribed."
The only time i can think off where its probably OK is on a snowy road, where you are powering up a hill and the road is straight and the car is tracking the camber of the road.
The question, I thought, was not what would or should happen to someone who incompetently did something in a car and caused damage. Rather, it was what would or should happen to someone who did something competently (and therefore would not have harmed or even endangered a vulnerable sign post), if that action were (only) superficially to resemble poor driving.
Soren2 said:
Sorry, work commitments.
"One size fits all" is how the law is usually drafted. It's a leveller, a school uniform for the road. A drift in the context of this conversation is either an intentional loss of grip with no safety dividend or an unintentional loss of control through an inappropriate action for the circumstance. There should be no need for it, and it's not difficult to avoid.
Either way it will be seen as an act that is below the standard required of a careful and competent driver. When induced intentionally it demands a fluid balance that presupposes road conditions and makes assumptions that will always require an (perhaps only tiny) element of luck, not a factor that has any place in a driving plan.
We generally only get to know about these actions if they go wrong or if the practitioner is an over-zealous exhibitionist prepared to compromise his licence for public display. I've only reported one person for trying such a manoeuvre at a local supermarket roundabout. I was behind him in a marked patrol car. It's the only attempt at a drift I've witnessed on the road while on duty. He ended up facing me on the roundabout!
If these activities take place out of the sight of the rest of the world, then no-one knows and no-one cares until it goes wrong. I don’t attend many accidents where this activity has obviously been the cause, but they will be responsible for a few bent motors shuffling quietly off, or holes in walls etc. If they are done in the full view of a police officer or Mrs Miggins walking round the RAB, then you will and should face the consequences. Like wheelies, J-turns do-nuts etc, they are party tricks in a public place. Any message that we are prepared to tolerate these activities will only have a seriously detrimental effect on road safety.
As you say, control is key. The control is the responsibility not to engage in such an activity that is likely to get you considered for the offence.
Like speeding, witnessed drifting will not get you prosecuted 100% of the time. Unlike speeding it’s more likely to be 33% to 50% of the witnessed events, rather than about 1% (guesses) in the case of speeding. Circumstances and prospect of convictions will play a part, along with officers being prepared to issue warnings, perhaps even Sec59s in lieu of prosecution.
I’d love to know how many in the group have been prosecuted for drifting. If the one chap I’ve reported is a contributor, I fancy he won’t want to ID himself!
Thanks for the reply. Although I can't agree with parts of it, I appreciate its thoughtfulness and nuances."One size fits all" is how the law is usually drafted. It's a leveller, a school uniform for the road. A drift in the context of this conversation is either an intentional loss of grip with no safety dividend or an unintentional loss of control through an inappropriate action for the circumstance. There should be no need for it, and it's not difficult to avoid.
Either way it will be seen as an act that is below the standard required of a careful and competent driver. When induced intentionally it demands a fluid balance that presupposes road conditions and makes assumptions that will always require an (perhaps only tiny) element of luck, not a factor that has any place in a driving plan.
We generally only get to know about these actions if they go wrong or if the practitioner is an over-zealous exhibitionist prepared to compromise his licence for public display. I've only reported one person for trying such a manoeuvre at a local supermarket roundabout. I was behind him in a marked patrol car. It's the only attempt at a drift I've witnessed on the road while on duty. He ended up facing me on the roundabout!
If these activities take place out of the sight of the rest of the world, then no-one knows and no-one cares until it goes wrong. I don’t attend many accidents where this activity has obviously been the cause, but they will be responsible for a few bent motors shuffling quietly off, or holes in walls etc. If they are done in the full view of a police officer or Mrs Miggins walking round the RAB, then you will and should face the consequences. Like wheelies, J-turns do-nuts etc, they are party tricks in a public place. Any message that we are prepared to tolerate these activities will only have a seriously detrimental effect on road safety.
As you say, control is key. The control is the responsibility not to engage in such an activity that is likely to get you considered for the offence.
Like speeding, witnessed drifting will not get you prosecuted 100% of the time. Unlike speeding it’s more likely to be 33% to 50% of the witnessed events, rather than about 1% (guesses) in the case of speeding. Circumstances and prospect of convictions will play a part, along with officers being prepared to issue warnings, perhaps even Sec59s in lieu of prosecution.
I’d love to know how many in the group have been prosecuted for drifting. If the one chap I’ve reported is a contributor, I fancy he won’t want to ID himself!
The thing that I cannot reconcile, and which for me is a blatant contradiction in how the law seems (if I understand our resident BIBs) to be interpreted/enforced, is this:
Speeding is an absolute offence, with no mens rea. The driver's intentions are irrelevant, and cannot be exculpatory.
On the statute books, however, there is no "drifting" equivalent to a speed limit; there is no absolute offence. The potential offence, as explained by BIBs above, relates to DWDCA or DD. To allege this offence, the witnessing professional must form an opinion as to the driver's intentions.
If the professional is to be relied on to assess the driver's intentions, then why shouldn't the professional be relied on to assess the driver's skill?
I have no doubt that Sebastien Loeb can execute a little tarmac drift with great control. In doing so, he might probably have been exercising great care and attention in order to do it well, and to threaten no one and nothing, not even a little old road sign.
How can doing something be an absolute offence, when its meaning is not written in law but is only a subjective interpretation of it?
"Constable, you say that you observed the defendant making an unconventional driving manoeuvre. In your professional opinion, at any time was the driver at risk of losing control of the vehicle or endangering any other person or property?"
"In my opinion, the driver was in control of the vehicle."
"Was the manoeuvre done away from all other road users and property?"
"Yes."
"Was it executed with care and attention?"
"It appeared to be."
"So, constable, if it endangered no one and nothing, and if it was done with care and attention, can you explain why you allege that the driving was either 'dangerous', or 'without due care and attention'?"
flemke said:
Soren2 said:
Sorry, work commitments.
"One size fits all" is how the law is usually drafted. It's a leveller, a school uniform for the road. A drift in the context of this conversation is either an intentional loss of grip with no safety dividend or an unintentional loss of control through an inappropriate action for the circumstance. There should be no need for it, and it's not difficult to avoid.
Either way it will be seen as an act that is below the standard required of a careful and competent driver. When induced intentionally it demands a fluid balance that presupposes road conditions and makes assumptions that will always require an (perhaps only tiny) element of luck, not a factor that has any place in a driving plan.
We generally only get to know about these actions if they go wrong or if the practitioner is an over-zealous exhibitionist prepared to compromise his licence for public display. I've only reported one person for trying such a manoeuvre at a local supermarket roundabout. I was behind him in a marked patrol car. It's the only attempt at a drift I've witnessed on the road while on duty. He ended up facing me on the roundabout!
If these activities take place out of the sight of the rest of the world, then no-one knows and no-one cares until it goes wrong. I don’t attend many accidents where this activity has obviously been the cause, but they will be responsible for a few bent motors shuffling quietly off, or holes in walls etc. If they are done in the full view of a police officer or Mrs Miggins walking round the RAB, then you will and should face the consequences. Like wheelies, J-turns do-nuts etc, they are party tricks in a public place. Any message that we are prepared to tolerate these activities will only have a seriously detrimental effect on road safety.
As you say, control is key. The control is the responsibility not to engage in such an activity that is likely to get you considered for the offence.
Like speeding, witnessed drifting will not get you prosecuted 100% of the time. Unlike speeding it’s more likely to be 33% to 50% of the witnessed events, rather than about 1% (guesses) in the case of speeding. Circumstances and prospect of convictions will play a part, along with officers being prepared to issue warnings, perhaps even Sec59s in lieu of prosecution.
I’d love to know how many in the group have been prosecuted for drifting. If the one chap I’ve reported is a contributor, I fancy he won’t want to ID himself!
Thanks for the reply. Although I can't agree with parts of it, I appreciate its thoughtfulness and nuances."One size fits all" is how the law is usually drafted. It's a leveller, a school uniform for the road. A drift in the context of this conversation is either an intentional loss of grip with no safety dividend or an unintentional loss of control through an inappropriate action for the circumstance. There should be no need for it, and it's not difficult to avoid.
Either way it will be seen as an act that is below the standard required of a careful and competent driver. When induced intentionally it demands a fluid balance that presupposes road conditions and makes assumptions that will always require an (perhaps only tiny) element of luck, not a factor that has any place in a driving plan.
We generally only get to know about these actions if they go wrong or if the practitioner is an over-zealous exhibitionist prepared to compromise his licence for public display. I've only reported one person for trying such a manoeuvre at a local supermarket roundabout. I was behind him in a marked patrol car. It's the only attempt at a drift I've witnessed on the road while on duty. He ended up facing me on the roundabout!
If these activities take place out of the sight of the rest of the world, then no-one knows and no-one cares until it goes wrong. I don’t attend many accidents where this activity has obviously been the cause, but they will be responsible for a few bent motors shuffling quietly off, or holes in walls etc. If they are done in the full view of a police officer or Mrs Miggins walking round the RAB, then you will and should face the consequences. Like wheelies, J-turns do-nuts etc, they are party tricks in a public place. Any message that we are prepared to tolerate these activities will only have a seriously detrimental effect on road safety.
As you say, control is key. The control is the responsibility not to engage in such an activity that is likely to get you considered for the offence.
Like speeding, witnessed drifting will not get you prosecuted 100% of the time. Unlike speeding it’s more likely to be 33% to 50% of the witnessed events, rather than about 1% (guesses) in the case of speeding. Circumstances and prospect of convictions will play a part, along with officers being prepared to issue warnings, perhaps even Sec59s in lieu of prosecution.
I’d love to know how many in the group have been prosecuted for drifting. If the one chap I’ve reported is a contributor, I fancy he won’t want to ID himself!
The thing that I cannot reconcile, and which for me is a blatant contradiction in how the law seems (if I understand our resident BIBs) to be interpreted/enforced, is this:
Speeding is an absolute offence, with no mens rea. The driver's intentions are irrelevant, and cannot be exculpatory.
On the statute books, however, there is no "drifting" equivalent to a speed limit; there is no absolute offence. The potential offence, as explained by BIBs above, relates to DWDCA or DD. To allege this offence, the witnessing professional must form an opinion as to the driver's intentions.
If the professional is to be relied on to assess the driver's intentions, then why shouldn't the professional be relied on to assess the driver's skill?
I have no doubt that Sebastien Loeb can execute a little tarmac drift with great control. In doing so, he might probably have been exercising great care and attention in order to do it well, and to threaten no one and nothing, not even a little old road sign.
How can doing something be an absolute offence, when its meaning is not written in law but is only a subjective interpretation of it?
"Constable, you say that you observed the defendant making an unconventional driving manoeuvre. In your professional opinion, at any time was the driver at risk of losing control of the vehicle or endangering any other person or property?"
"In my opinion, the driver was in control of the vehicle."
"Was the manoeuvre done away from all other road users and property?"
"Yes."
"Was it executed with care and attention?"
"It appeared to be."
"So, constable, if it endangered no one and nothing, and if it was done with care and attention, can you explain why you allege that the driving was either 'dangerous', or 'without due care and attention'?"
Funky Teapot said:
admit it, you just want to drive like a looney in your flash car
I want to use as much of the available performance envelope of my car as is consistent with the safety of others and their property as well as mine.Why should flemke or anyone else be different.
What right has the state to constrain our behaviour when it is harmless.
I contend it has none.
fluffnik said:
Funky Teapot said:
admit it, you just want to drive like a looney in your flash car
I want to use as much of the available performance envelope of my car as is consistent with the safety of others and their property as well as mine.Why should flemke or anyone else be different.
What right has the state to constrain our behaviour when it is harmless.
I contend it has none.
flemke said:
Pork_n_Beem said:
flemke said:
Pork_n_Beem said:
Have you all gone mad !!
What do you think? Pork_n_Beem said:
If you were entering a RAB and loeb is coming around sideways would you consider filtering in or consider selecting reverse !
I think we have pushed the boundaries enough lets just settle for 90mph on a straight road.
Drifting on a public road....implications for the emergency stop, very messy when your crossed up, what about visibility, massively increases the blind spots when you are looking through the side windows across the passengers side, what lights, they will be facing the wrong direction, especially indicators.....
Guys, i think this one needs more thought
I did not think that anyone was suggesting, or even imagining, that all "drifting" (power oversteer) should be allowed.I think we have pushed the boundaries enough lets just settle for 90mph on a straight road.
Drifting on a public road....implications for the emergency stop, very messy when your crossed up, what about visibility, massively increases the blind spots when you are looking through the side windows across the passengers side, what lights, they will be facing the wrong direction, especially indicators.....
Guys, i think this one needs more thought
Rather, I think the question was whether any drifting might be allowed. It seemed that those who know the law and how the authorities think about such things viewed all intentional and perhaps also all unintentional drifting as an absolute offence.
At some point I raised the question of whether, if the person doing the drifting were Sebastien Loeb, and there were no living or dead things within the vicinity so that it was not physically possible for the drifting car to cause any harm whatsoever, a bit of drifting would ever be allowed.
The answer seemed to be "No - it's all proscribed."
The only time i can think off where its probably OK is on a snowy road, where you are powering up a hill and the road is straight and the car is tracking the camber of the road.
The question, I thought, was not what would or should happen to someone who incompetently did something in a car and caused damage. Rather, it was what would or should happen to someone who did something competently (and therefore would not have harmed or even endangered a vulnerable sign post), if that action were (only) superficially to resemble poor driving.
Drifting on tarmac tyres, i.e. regular road tyres could easily be against the tyres intended use if say a Michelin expert witness was called, also that witness could establish that the margin of safety in the tyre had been reduced to zero, i.e. there was no more to give.
This could result in a dangerous driving charge simply because you have wilfully taken the tyre to zero margin and against its intended use. I don't think the skill level comes into it since you will need that extra skill to stop having an accident since your safety margins are now space alone, i.e. nothing left in the tyre.
However drifting on either a gravel road, some do exist and on snow is a different matter as, gravel and snow tyres operate best and are designed to operate when the car is pushing on the sidewall, i.e. sliding / drifting.
So if on gravel road, on a gravel tyre, Mr Michelin could argue that the tyre is being operated as intended and has the highest safety margin when being driven in this way, ditto snow tyres on a snowy road.
Its possible, i think, to argue that a road tyre can be driven with better safety margin on gravel and snow (depends on the tyre) if driven to slide the tyre across the surface.
So, my answer, in brief, is that you end up with a technical discussion with the tyre manufacturer as to exactly how the tyre is intended to be used, safety margins with tyres etc used in different manners. I don't really think its an argument about skill level.
Hope this makes sense
C
Edited by Pork_n_Beem on Saturday 19th January 11:11
Pork_n_Beem said:
I understand what you are trying to establish, see if i can reciprocate.
Drifting on tarmac tyres, i.e. regular road tyres could easily be against the tyres intended use if say a Michelin expert witness was called, also that witness could establish that the margin of safety in the tyre had been reduced to zero, i.e. there was no more to give.
This could result in a dangerous driving charge simply because you have wilfully taken the tyre to zero margin and against its intended use. I don't think the skill level comes into it since you will need that extra skill to stop having an accident since your safety margins are now space alone, i.e. nothing left in the tyre.
However drifting on either a gravel road, some do exist and on snow is a different matter as, gravel and snow tyres operate best and are designed to operate when the car is pushing on the sidewall, i.e. sliding / drifting.
So if on gravel road, on a gravel tyre, Mr Michelin could argue that the tyre is being operated as intended and has the highest safety margin when being driven in this way, ditto snow tyres on a snowy road.
Its possible, i think, to argue that a road tyre can be driven with better safety margin on gravel and snow (depends on the tyre) if driven to slide the tyre across the surface.
So, my answer, in brief, is that you end up with a technical discussion with the tyre manufacturer as to exactly how the tyre is intended to be used, safety margins with tyres etc used in different manners. I don't really think its an argument about skill level.
Hope this makes sense
C
Sir,Drifting on tarmac tyres, i.e. regular road tyres could easily be against the tyres intended use if say a Michelin expert witness was called, also that witness could establish that the margin of safety in the tyre had been reduced to zero, i.e. there was no more to give.
This could result in a dangerous driving charge simply because you have wilfully taken the tyre to zero margin and against its intended use. I don't think the skill level comes into it since you will need that extra skill to stop having an accident since your safety margins are now space alone, i.e. nothing left in the tyre.
However drifting on either a gravel road, some do exist and on snow is a different matter as, gravel and snow tyres operate best and are designed to operate when the car is pushing on the sidewall, i.e. sliding / drifting.
So if on gravel road, on a gravel tyre, Mr Michelin could argue that the tyre is being operated as intended and has the highest safety margin when being driven in this way, ditto snow tyres on a snowy road.
Its possible, i think, to argue that a road tyre can be driven with better safety margin on gravel and snow (depends on the tyre) if driven to slide the tyre across the surface.
So, my answer, in brief, is that you end up with a technical discussion with the tyre manufacturer as to exactly how the tyre is intended to be used, safety margins with tyres etc used in different manners. I don't really think its an argument about skill level.
Hope this makes sense
C
I don't think you've included the conditions which are the most common of all in which someone would attempt a drift: cold, wet tarmac, expecially on Britain's thousands of miles of polished road surfaces that should have been repaved decades ago.
Many (not all) of these surfaces are nowhere near grippy enough when cold and wet to cause a laterally-sliding tyre to exceed its structural safety margin.
I'm not advocating that it be a free-for-all out there. I'm objecting to the presumption that "drifting" should be an absolute offence, regardless of the conditions or the driving skill involved.
I note that none of the posters has addressed the point raised above, namely, that when grip levels are uncertain, I (and I presume many other people) will experiment on clear road with a few very hard stops, in order to establish how much grip really is there. If in the course of doing this one's brakes lock or the rear end shifts a bit, is that not "losing control" in the same sense that drifting is? Should testing for grip in the genuine interests of safety also be considered DWDCA?
Cheers.
Pork_n_Beem said:
flemke said:
Pork_n_Beem said:
flemke said:
Pork_n_Beem said:
Have you all gone mad !!
What do you think? Pork_n_Beem said:
If you were entering a RAB and loeb is coming around sideways would you consider filtering in or consider selecting reverse !
I think we have pushed the boundaries enough lets just settle for 90mph on a straight road.
Drifting on a public road....implications for the emergency stop, very messy when your crossed up, what about visibility, massively increases the blind spots when you are looking through the side windows across the passengers side, what lights, they will be facing the wrong direction, especially indicators.....
Guys, i think this one needs more thought
I did not think that anyone was suggesting, or even imagining, that all "drifting" (power oversteer) should be allowed.I think we have pushed the boundaries enough lets just settle for 90mph on a straight road.
Drifting on a public road....implications for the emergency stop, very messy when your crossed up, what about visibility, massively increases the blind spots when you are looking through the side windows across the passengers side, what lights, they will be facing the wrong direction, especially indicators.....
Guys, i think this one needs more thought
Rather, I think the question was whether any drifting might be allowed. It seemed that those who know the law and how the authorities think about such things viewed all intentional and perhaps also all unintentional drifting as an absolute offence.
At some point I raised the question of whether, if the person doing the drifting were Sebastien Loeb, and there were no living or dead things within the vicinity so that it was not physically possible for the drifting car to cause any harm whatsoever, a bit of drifting would ever be allowed.
The answer seemed to be "No - it's all proscribed."
The only time i can think off where its probably OK is on a snowy road, where you are powering up a hill and the road is straight and the car is tracking the camber of the road.
The question, I thought, was not what would or should happen to someone who incompetently did something in a car and caused damage. Rather, it was what would or should happen to someone who did something competently (and therefore would not have harmed or even endangered a vulnerable sign post), if that action were (only) superficially to resemble poor driving.
Drifting on tarmac tyres, i.e. regular road tyres could easily be against the tyres intended use if say a Michelin expert witness was called, also that witness could establish that the margin of safety in the tyre had been reduced to zero, i.e. there was no more to give.
This could result in a dangerous driving charge simply because you have wilfully taken the tyre to zero margin and against its intended use. I don't think the skill level comes into it since you will need that extra skill to stop having an accident since your safety margins are now space alone, i.e. nothing left in the tyre.
However drifting on either a gravel road, some do exist and on snow is a different matter as, gravel and snow tyres operate best and are designed to operate when the car is pushing on the sidewall, i.e. sliding / drifting.
So if on gravel road, on a gravel tyre, Mr Michelin could argue that the tyre is being operated as intended and has the highest safety margin when being driven in this way, ditto snow tyres on a snowy road.
Its possible, i think, to argue that a road tyre can be driven with better safety margin on gravel and snow (depends on the tyre) if driven to slide the tyre across the surface.
So, my answer, in brief, is that you end up with a technical discussion with the tyre manufacturer as to exactly how the tyre is intended to be used, safety margins with tyres etc used in different manners. I don't really think its an argument about skill level.
Hope this makes sense
C
Edited by Pork_n_Beem on Saturday 19th January 11:11
Pork_n_Beem said:
So, my answer, in brief, is that you end up with a technical discussion with the tyre manufacturer as to exactly how the tyre is intended to be used, safety margins with tyres etc used in different manners. I don't really think its an argument about skill level.
Hope this makes sense
C
Not an angle I'd considered before. It doesn't seem very likely to hold water in legal terms but you never know. On that basis, it could be argued that a very powerful sports car with rear wheel drive and a forward weight bias was clearly designed for power on oversteer so a quick tail-out blat round a roundabout is entirely consistent with its intended use. Somehow I doubt that any passing BiB would see things that way though!Hope this makes sense
C
flemke said:
Soren2 said:
Sorry, work commitments.
"One size fits all" is how the law is usually drafted. It's a leveller, a school uniform for the road. A drift in the context of this conversation is either an intentional loss of grip with no safety dividend or an unintentional loss of control through an inappropriate action for the circumstance. There should be no need for it, and it's not difficult to avoid.
Either way it will be seen as an act that is below the standard required of a careful and competent driver. When induced intentionally it demands a fluid balance that presupposes road conditions and makes assumptions that will always require an (perhaps only tiny) element of luck, not a factor that has any place in a driving plan.
We generally only get to know about these actions if they go wrong or if the practitioner is an over-zealous exhibitionist prepared to compromise his licence for public display. I've only reported one person for trying such a manoeuvre at a local supermarket roundabout. I was behind him in a marked patrol car. It's the only attempt at a drift I've witnessed on the road while on duty. He ended up facing me on the roundabout!
If these activities take place out of the sight of the rest of the world, then no-one knows and no-one cares until it goes wrong. I don’t attend many accidents where this activity has obviously been the cause, but they will be responsible for a few bent motors shuffling quietly off, or holes in walls etc. If they are done in the full view of a police officer or Mrs Miggins walking round the RAB, then you will and should face the consequences. Like wheelies, J-turns do-nuts etc, they are party tricks in a public place. Any message that we are prepared to tolerate these activities will only have a seriously detrimental effect on road safety.
As you say, control is key. The control is the responsibility not to engage in such an activity that is likely to get you considered for the offence.
Like speeding, witnessed drifting will not get you prosecuted 100% of the time. Unlike speeding it’s more likely to be 33% to 50% of the witnessed events, rather than about 1% (guesses) in the case of speeding. Circumstances and prospect of convictions will play a part, along with officers being prepared to issue warnings, perhaps even Sec59s in lieu of prosecution.
I’d love to know how many in the group have been prosecuted for drifting. If the one chap I’ve reported is a contributor, I fancy he won’t want to ID himself!
Thanks for the reply. Although I can't agree with parts of it, I appreciate its thoughtfulness and nuances."One size fits all" is how the law is usually drafted. It's a leveller, a school uniform for the road. A drift in the context of this conversation is either an intentional loss of grip with no safety dividend or an unintentional loss of control through an inappropriate action for the circumstance. There should be no need for it, and it's not difficult to avoid.
Either way it will be seen as an act that is below the standard required of a careful and competent driver. When induced intentionally it demands a fluid balance that presupposes road conditions and makes assumptions that will always require an (perhaps only tiny) element of luck, not a factor that has any place in a driving plan.
We generally only get to know about these actions if they go wrong or if the practitioner is an over-zealous exhibitionist prepared to compromise his licence for public display. I've only reported one person for trying such a manoeuvre at a local supermarket roundabout. I was behind him in a marked patrol car. It's the only attempt at a drift I've witnessed on the road while on duty. He ended up facing me on the roundabout!
If these activities take place out of the sight of the rest of the world, then no-one knows and no-one cares until it goes wrong. I don’t attend many accidents where this activity has obviously been the cause, but they will be responsible for a few bent motors shuffling quietly off, or holes in walls etc. If they are done in the full view of a police officer or Mrs Miggins walking round the RAB, then you will and should face the consequences. Like wheelies, J-turns do-nuts etc, they are party tricks in a public place. Any message that we are prepared to tolerate these activities will only have a seriously detrimental effect on road safety.
As you say, control is key. The control is the responsibility not to engage in such an activity that is likely to get you considered for the offence.
Like speeding, witnessed drifting will not get you prosecuted 100% of the time. Unlike speeding it’s more likely to be 33% to 50% of the witnessed events, rather than about 1% (guesses) in the case of speeding. Circumstances and prospect of convictions will play a part, along with officers being prepared to issue warnings, perhaps even Sec59s in lieu of prosecution.
I’d love to know how many in the group have been prosecuted for drifting. If the one chap I’ve reported is a contributor, I fancy he won’t want to ID himself!
The thing that I cannot reconcile, and which for me is a blatant contradiction in how the law seems (if I understand our resident BIBs) to be interpreted/enforced, is this:
Speeding is an absolute offence, with no mens rea. The driver's intentions are irrelevant, and cannot be exculpatory.
On the statute books, however, there is no "drifting" equivalent to a speed limit; there is no absolute offence. The potential offence, as explained by BIBs above, relates to DWDCA or DD. To allege this offence, the witnessing professional must form an opinion as to the driver's intentions.
If the professional is to be relied on to assess the driver's intentions, then why shouldn't the professional be relied on to assess the driver's skill?
I have no doubt that Sebastien Loeb can execute a little tarmac drift with great control. In doing so, he might probably have been exercising great care and attention in order to do it well, and to threaten no one and nothing, not even a little old road sign.
How can doing something be an absolute offence, when its meaning is not written in law but is only a subjective interpretation of it?
"Constable, you say that you observed the defendant making an unconventional driving manoeuvre. In your professional opinion, at any time was the driver at risk of losing control of the vehicle or endangering any other person or property?"
"In my opinion, the driver was in control of the vehicle."
"Was the manoeuvre done away from all other road users and property?"
"Yes."
"Was it executed with care and attention?"
"It appeared to be."
"So, constable, if it endangered no one and nothing, and if it was done with care and attention, can you explain why you allege that the driving was either 'dangerous', or 'without due care and attention'?"
Most drifting, by definition of the act, would fall within the boundaries of Sec3. If we deem it appropriate to stop the driver and ask them about it, that’s what we’ll do.
Q&As could be something like…
“Your rear end stepped out on that roundabout sir, what was the reason for that?”
“I was drifting, officer.”
“So was this an intentional loss of grip?
“Yes.”
“For what purpose?”
“A bit of fun.”
“Do you accept there is a significantly safer way to negotiate the roundabout?”
“Well, it depends on your skill level. If you can’t do it properly, then it’s much safer to drive normally. But if you are a skilled driver like me with track experience I believe the added risk is negligible, and indeed the extra skill developed may help me when faced with an unexpected grip loss.”
“Would your average careful, competent driver always be able to successfully complete this manoeuvre with no specific added training.”
“Unlikely, you need to practice the skill before it becomes safer.”
“If that average driver started such a manoeuvre would you say his percentage likelihood of completing this manoeuvre successfully would be much less than in your case.”
“Absolutely.”
“It would be careless of them to attempt to do so?”
“Absolutely”
“Even if they completed it successfully?”
“Yes”
“Do you accept that the law as it stands regarding careless driving says that the standard of care and attention is an objective one, in no way related to the degree of proficiency or degree of experience attained by the individual driver.”
“Yes, but I don’t necessarily agree with that.”
“So applying that to your previous statements that an untrained, but careful competent driver would be careless to attempt such a thing, you have in fact admitted to the offence of careless driving. “
“Technically I suppose so, but I don’t agree with it.”
“You’ll have your chance to debate the point as much as you like sir, I will report the facts of the case for the consideration of the question of prosecution for driving WDCA, and present the video, statement and interview as evidence. Do you have anything else to say”
“It seems so unfair that we who take the time, effort and money to train ourselves with extra driving skills, have no opportunity to practice this skill on the public road.”
“One for the politicians sir, but do you not think that we’d do well to encourage development of the basic control skills, along with the more important attributes of courtesy consideration and concentration, keeping the accepted motoring skills nice and simple to learn and master, and leave the particular skills you are keen to display for the private arena.”
Soren2 said:
“Do you accept that the law as it stands regarding careless driving says that the standard of care and attention is an objective one, in no way related to the degree of proficiency or degree of experience attained by the individual driver.”
"No, it cannot be objective if it fails to account for the drivers skill."...because it absolutely is not objective, it's subjective and contrived.
Soren2 said:
“Do you accept that the law as it stands regarding careless driving says that the standard of care and attention is an objective one, in no way related to the degree of proficiency or degree of experience attained by the individual driver.”
This seems to be the key passage, as I think Fluffnik is implying.It appears that, to drive on the roads, one is required to practise a certain degree of competency, but one is not allowed to do anything that requires a greater degree of competency, even if it is manifest that one possesses that greater degree of competency or even something beyond it.
I'm not aiming to be hyperbolic, but isn't that called "communism"?
fluffnik said:
Soren2 said:
“Do you accept that the law as it stands regarding careless driving says that the standard of care and attention is an objective one, in no way related to the degree of proficiency or degree of experience attained by the individual driver.”
"No, it cannot be objective if it fails to account for the drivers skill."...because it absolutely is not objective, it's subjective and contrived.
The above quote is well defined through statute and case law.
flemke said:
Many (not all) of these surfaces are nowhere near grippy enough when cold and wet to cause a laterally-sliding tyre to exceed its structural safety margin.
I'm not advocating that it be a free-for-all out there. I'm objecting to the presumption that "drifting" should be an absolute offence, regardless of the conditions or the driving skill involved.
I note that none of the posters has addressed the point raised above, namely, that when grip levels are uncertain, I (and I presume many other people) will experiment on clear road with a few very hard stops, in order to establish how much grip really is there. If in the course of doing this one's brakes lock or the rear end shifts a bit, is that not "losing control" in the same sense that drifting is? Should testing for grip in the genuine interests of safety also be considered DWDCA?
Cheers.
The tyre safety margin i was refering to was the grip margin not its construction margin. I would argue that driving on the limit of grip on a public road is absolutely wrong. In some cases its un-avoidable, i.e. snow, un-expected deep water / aquaplaning.I'm not advocating that it be a free-for-all out there. I'm objecting to the presumption that "drifting" should be an absolute offence, regardless of the conditions or the driving skill involved.
I note that none of the posters has addressed the point raised above, namely, that when grip levels are uncertain, I (and I presume many other people) will experiment on clear road with a few very hard stops, in order to establish how much grip really is there. If in the course of doing this one's brakes lock or the rear end shifts a bit, is that not "losing control" in the same sense that drifting is? Should testing for grip in the genuine interests of safety also be considered DWDCA?
Cheers.
So drifting is wrong absolutely for any driver no matter how good because its not the safest way around the roundabout by far.
Testing for grip nowadays involves hitting the brakes until ABS kicks in and feeling the g force created, works for both lateral and braking grip available and very sensible when you don't know whether your driving on a wet road or black ice. I don't think your need to skid nowadays to get this test done.
Sorry if i am not really helping even though i am a true enthusiast, i just don't believe its a skill level issue which can win an argument as mentioned the car is designed to go around corners a certain way.
Kawasicki said:
I have done tyre tests for a tyre company in the past and from my experience I can say that driving at huge slips angles was absolutely a part of the expected tyre usage for a small but significant proportion of drivers. It would be irresponsible not to check the tyre could deal this as safely as possible, not to forget that the tests were great fun.
I think you are mixing up intended use and various forms of destructive testing done. Of course just before an accident you will get some huge slip angles, last thing you need is the tyres letting go or coming off the rim, hence the testingflemke said:
It appears that, to drive on the roads, one is required to practise a certain degree of competency, but one is not allowed to do anything that requires a greater degree of competency, even if it is manifest that one possesses that greater degree of competency or even something beyond it.
That's about the sum of it, and I can't understand why it's so hard to see that it must be this way. Where would the line be drawn? How would or could we make judgements on ability, given that prevention is the goal, not punishment after the event? Would we have a tiered licence for drifting as well as speeding, or the right to cross double whites when the road seems clear. Perhaps bikers could get wheely licences. It's madness, and obviously so. The latitude you seek can be found in two ways. One is officer discretion, and he/she will normally only act if he/she believes it is appropriate to do so. The other and most significant point is that we all know that if someone chooses to drift or j-turn or whatever fills their sacs, you can bet your boots it will be out of sight of anyone who won't like it. So a problem really only arises when either the plan or the execution goes awry.
"Do you accept that the law as it stands regarding careless driving says that the standard of care and attention is an objective one?"
In what way is a person's interpretation of a standard objective? If you saw a driver corner at 1.5G on the public road would that be illegal? What if it was at 15mph around a mini-roundabout? Nobody can tell me what level of understeer or oversteer is acceptable. Surely if the law was objective then somebody could quote me a value? Am I braking the law if I apply enough power (in a rwd car) to allow me to unwind one degree of lock through a corner?
Finally some cars (and the tyres fitted to them) are designed to be driven in a drift. It is expected use of the vehicle.
Kawasicki said:
Finally some cars (and the tyres fitted to them) are designed to be driven in a drift. It is expected use of the vehicle.
Where can i buy one, whats it called, also what is the make and model of the tyre? Sounds intersting, hope we are not talking about a Caterham 
Edited by Pork_n_Beem on Saturday 19th January 20:35
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff