If you got caught drifting a roundabout....

[flemke]

Soren2 said:

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.

We're discussing what is, not what you would like it to be.

The above quote is well defined through statute and case law.

I thought we spent a lot of time here on PH, especially on SP&L, discussing both what is and what each of us would like it to be.

PHers in some lines of work may be constrained in what they may say here. Nonetheless, some law enforcement professionals here often assert the position of and reasoning behind the law with such unyielding argument that it appears that they not only uphold the law, but they believe in its near-infallibility.
A lot of us lay persons here genuinely appreciate having explained to us how the "system" works, both in theory and in practice. At the same time, if the intellectual foundation of that system were to be made of quicksand, it should not be surprising if some of us were to point that out. Indeed, one might say that we were morally obliged to do so.

[flemke]

Pork_n_Beem said:

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.

There are still many cars that do not have ABS or stability management systems. Indeed, the cars lacking such systems are likely to present the greatest need for the driver to test for available grip.
Even in a car with ABS, if the engine is much behind the front axle, ABS will do little to keep the back from starting to come around in very slippery conditions.

[trackdemon]

Here's a post I made a few days ago, apparently overlooked :

"If it is - as it would seem - a de-facto offence, then are we going to start seeing our favourite EVO,Autocar,et al... staffers being prosecuted? After all, there are depictions of cars sideways on public roads in almost every edition?"

If not, why not? Obviously I'm not advocating this course of action

[Pork_n_Beem]

flemke said:

Pork_n_Beem said:

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.

There are still many cars that do not have ABS or stability management systems. Indeed, the cars lacking such systems are likely to present the greatest need for the driver to test for available grip.
Even in a car with ABS, if the engine is much behind the front axle, ABS will do little to keep the back from starting to come around in very slippery conditions.

Yep, agreed. I am generalising.

What about an argument for handbrake turns.
Quicker than a regular three point turn / speeds traffic flow
Easier on the clutch
Less wear on the steering
Removes the need to reverse which is a dangerous manouever
Slight increase in rear tyre wear and handbrake mechanism, otherwise its all good.
Russ Swift can handbrake to park a car better than some can park normally.

[vonhosen]

trackdemon said:

Here's a post I made a few days ago, apparently overlooked :

"If it is - as it would seem - a de-facto offence, then are we going to start seeing our favourite EVO,Autocar,et al... staffers being prosecuted? After all, there are depictions of cars sideways on public roads in almost every edition?"

If not, why not? Obviously I'm not advocating this course of action

You'd have to identify where it is, when they did it etc etc.
If they were caught in the act by a Police officer there's every chance they could get prosecuted as well.

[fluffnik]

Soren2 said:

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.

We're discussing what is, not what you would like it to be.

The above quote is well defined through statute and case law.

I'm just illustrating my likely response were I involved in your conversation above...



I once owned a TVR Vixen, the first series with ban-the-bomb tailights and the 85.5" wheelbase, which could only safely be driven round roundabouts with a slightly tail out attitude - after decently crisp turn-in it did understeer or oversteer with nothing usably predictable in between...

Every other 85.5" TVR I've followed has exhibited the same handling; is it ilegal?

[fluffnik]

Pork_n_Beem said:

What about an argument for handbrake turns.
Quicker than a regular three point turn / speeds traffic flow
Easier on the clutch
Less wear on the steering
Removes the need to reverse which is a dangerous manouever
Slight increase in rear tyre wear and handbrake mechanism, otherwise its all good.
Russ Swift can handbrake to park a car better than some can park normally.

Seems reasonable.

I think there's more place for the throttle assisted U-turn though, especially as one need not carry momentum into the manoeuvre.

[flemke]

Pork_n_Beem said:

flemke said:

Pork_n_Beem said:

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.

There are still many cars that do not have ABS or stability management systems. Indeed, the cars lacking such systems are likely to present the greatest need for the driver to test for available grip.
Even in a car with ABS, if the engine is much behind the front axle, ABS will do little to keep the back from starting to come around in very slippery conditions.

Yep, agreed. I am generalising.

What about an argument for handbrake turns.
Quicker than a regular three point turn / speeds traffic flow
Easier on the clutch
Less wear on the steering
Removes the need to reverse which is a dangerous manouever
Slight increase in rear tyre wear and handbrake mechanism, otherwise its all good.
Russ Swift can handbrake to park a car better than some can park normally.

All I can say is that if something isn't dangerous in the way and in the circumstances in which a person is doing it and, furthermore, the specific thing that he is doing is not explicitly forbidden in law (the way that exceeding a speed limit is), then there is no true justification for penalising him for doing it.
That includes Russ Swift-level handbrake turns.

The logic, "What you just did wasn't dangerous, and it is not prohibited, but if someone else did it dangerously, then it would have been prohibited, so I'm going to try to get you prosecuted for it anyhow", simply does not wash.
It might be the way that the system works, but it does not wash.

[fluffnik]

Kawasicki said:

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?

...or lift a little to open the line by inducing a little understeer?

I would suggest that any competent driver should by aware of the effect of throttle application, both position and rate of change, on the handling of their vehicle and use it appropriately to maintain fine control.

[Soren2]

flemke said:

Soren2 said:

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.

We're discussing what is, not what you would like it to be.

The above quote is well defined through statute and case law.

I thought we spent a lot of time here on PH, especially on SP&L, discussing both what is and what each of us would like it to be.

PHers in some lines of work may be constrained in what they may say here. Nonetheless, some law enforcement professionals here often assert the position of and reasoning behind the law with such unyielding argument that it appears that they not only uphold the law, but they believe in its near-infallibility.
A lot of us lay persons here genuinely appreciate having explained to us how the "system" works, both in theory and in practice. At the same time, if the intellectual foundation of that system were to be made of quicksand, it should not be surprising if some of us were to point that out. Indeed, one might say that we were morally obliged to do so.

I didn't mean to sound abrupt with Fluffnik, but I did feel that the particular point we were discussing at the time was the practical application of the careless driving law as it stands. For the reasons I've given I don't believe that the written road traffic law can or should cope with or cater for tiered skill classifications (vocational or new driver excepted).

Discretionary policing will account for some of the slack you desire, and I believe that was always intended to be the case. But in the case of drifting I simply think you are pushing the boat out a little too far. I mentioned it to my work colleagues yesterday, and none would ignore it if witnessed. But it is hardly ever seen. It would be targeted if complaints were received about such an activity happening on a regular basis, but we won't be siting an unmarked at roundabouts on the offchance.

[vonhosen]

flemke said:

Pork_n_Beem said:

flemke said:

Pork_n_Beem said:

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.

There are still many cars that do not have ABS or stability management systems. Indeed, the cars lacking such systems are likely to present the greatest need for the driver to test for available grip.
Even in a car with ABS, if the engine is much behind the front axle, ABS will do little to keep the back from starting to come around in very slippery conditions.

Yep, agreed. I am generalising.

What about an argument for handbrake turns.
Quicker than a regular three point turn / speeds traffic flow
Easier on the clutch
Less wear on the steering
Removes the need to reverse which is a dangerous manouever
Slight increase in rear tyre wear and handbrake mechanism, otherwise its all good.
Russ Swift can handbrake to park a car better than some can park normally.

All I can say is that if something isn't dangerous [i]in the way and in the circumstances[i] in which a person is doing it and, furthermore, the specific thing that he is doing is not explicitly forbidden in law (the way that exceeding a speed limit is), then there is no true justification for penalising him for doing it.
That includes Russ Swift-level handbrake turns.

The logic, "What you just did wasn't dangerous, and it is not prohibited, but if someone else did it dangerously, then it would have been prohibited, so I'm going to try to get you prosecuted for it anyhow", simply does not wash.
It might be the way that the system works, but it does not wash.

That's prevention for you.
It may not wash with you, but I don't see any other realistic way of dissuading people from doing such things on public roads because they'll all say they are good enough to do it until they actually stack it & then of course it won't be their fault. It's enforced in that manner because Joe average will consider it inappropriate to arse around like that on public roads. They'll view it as nothing short of gratuitous yobbish behaviour or a lack of control. After all they manage to go from A to B without resorting to such methods & they'll say you should too.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 19th January 22:29

[fluffnik]

vonhosen said:

That's prevention for you.

No, that's oppression for you.

HTH

[fluffnik]

Pork_n_Beem said:

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

Someone (Kumho?) makes tyres that smoke in a choice of colours; I'm fairly certain they were designed for drifting...

[fluffnik]

vonhosen said:

It's enforced in that manner because Joe average will consider it inappropriate to arse around like that on public roads. They'll view it as nothing short of gratuitous yobbish behaviour or a lack of control. After all they manage to go from A to B without resorting to such methods & they'll say you should too.

What right has "Joe" to interfere in our lives?

[Soren2]

fluffnik said:

Soren2 said:

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.

We're discussing what is, not what you would like it to be.

The above quote is well defined through statute and case law.

I'm just illustrating my likely response were I involved in your conversation above...



I once owned a TVR Vixen, the first series with ban-the-bomb tailights and the 85.5" wheelbase, which could only safely be driven round roundabouts with a slightly tail out attitude - after decently crisp turn-in it did understeer or oversteer with nothing usably predictable in between...

Every other 85.5" TVR I've followed has exhibited the same handling; is it ilegal?

It really is not so prescriptive in practice. My view of the OP's definition of 'drift' was a significant slip and grip compromise round a roundabout, sufficient to be worthy of prosecution, and I said so. I have no significant experience of 'sports' cars other than occasional use of job Evos and Imprezas, so my opinion on their capability is limited. Some have suggested that their sports cars are designed to drift. If that is the case it's either an almost imperceptible action or the majority seem to manage not to do it, knowing that it's not what's expected on the road.

If what a traffic cop witnesses looks like an episode of careless driving, you will be questioned about it and perhaps reported for prosecution. Intent and skill play little or no part in the CPS deliberations in respect of careless driving, and I honestly believe that's entirely fair.

[Kawasicki]

Soren2 said:

fluffnik said:

Soren2 said:

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.

We're discussing what is, not what you would like it to be.

The above quote is well defined through statute and case law.

I'm just illustrating my likely response were I involved in your conversation above...



I once owned a TVR Vixen, the first series with ban-the-bomb tailights and the 85.5" wheelbase, which could only safely be driven round roundabouts with a slightly tail out attitude - after decently crisp turn-in it did understeer or oversteer with nothing usably predictable in between...

Every other 85.5" TVR I've followed has exhibited the same handling; is it ilegal?

It really is not so prescriptive in practice. My view of the OP's definition of 'drift' was a significant slip and grip compromise round a roundabout, sufficient to be worthy of prosecution, and I said so. I have no significant experience of 'sports' cars other than occasional use of job Evos and Imprezas, so my opinion on their capability is limited. Some have suggested that their sports cars are designed to drift. If that is the case it's either an almost imperceptible action or the majority seem to manage not to do it, knowing that it's not what's expected on the road.

If what a traffic cop witnesses looks like an episode of careless driving, you will be questioned about it and perhaps reported for prosecution. Intent and skill play little or no part in the CPS deliberations in respect of careless driving, and I honestly believe that's entirely fair.

Please define how significant the slip must be to be worthy of prosecution. If the law is objective then there must be a value of slip. If you can't give me a value, then the law is subjective, and it's just the opinion of one person versus another.

[flemke]

vonhosen said:

That's prevention for you.
It may not wash with you, but I don't see any other realistic way of dissuading people from doing such things on public roads because they'll all say they are good enough to do it until they actually stack it & then of course it won't be their fault. It's enforced in that manner because Joe average will consider it inappropriate to arse around like that on public roads. They'll view it as nothing short of gratuitous yobbish behaviour or a lack of control. After all they manage to go from A to B without resorting to such methods & they'll say you should too.

Ah, yes. I'm delighted to know that Joe Average makes the laws.
This would be the same Joe Average who would defend an older person's giving a yob a clip around the ears, the same Joe Average who is opposed to road-charging, and the same Joe Average who wants a referendum on the proposed EU treaty?

Joe Average rules!...(or so the authorities pretend in those cases when what Joe Average wants happens to coincide with what the authorities intend to impose.)

[vonhosen]

Kawasicki said:

Soren2 said:

fluffnik said:

Soren2 said:

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.

We're discussing what is, not what you would like it to be.

The above quote is well defined through statute and case law.

I'm just illustrating my likely response were I involved in your conversation above...



I once owned a TVR Vixen, the first series with ban-the-bomb tailights and the 85.5" wheelbase, which could only safely be driven round roundabouts with a slightly tail out attitude - after decently crisp turn-in it did understeer or oversteer with nothing usably predictable in between...

Every other 85.5" TVR I've followed has exhibited the same handling; is it ilegal?

It really is not so prescriptive in practice. My view of the OP's definition of 'drift' was a significant slip and grip compromise round a roundabout, sufficient to be worthy of prosecution, and I said so. I have no significant experience of 'sports' cars other than occasional use of job Evos and Imprezas, so my opinion on their capability is limited. Some have suggested that their sports cars are designed to drift. If that is the case it's either an almost imperceptible action or the majority seem to manage not to do it, knowing that it's not what's expected on the road.

If what a traffic cop witnesses looks like an episode of careless driving, you will be questioned about it and perhaps reported for prosecution. Intent and skill play little or no part in the CPS deliberations in respect of careless driving, and I honestly believe that's entirely fair.

Please define how significant the slip must be to be worthy of prosecution. If the law is objective then there must be a value of slip. If you can't give me a value, then the law is subjective, and it's just the opinion of one person versus another.

The objectiveness is that the driver's skill doesn't enter the equation, the standard of care & attention is an objective one. Whether it is without due care is a matter of fact or not, irrespective of whether the driver is a learner or has been driving for 50 years.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 19th January 23:31

[trackdemon]

Here's a thought: I am by definition Joe Average. I for one would take great pleasure in watching someone delicately control a rear slide round a roundabout.

On the other hand (still Joe average remember) I would love to see folks pulled over 'for a chat' for any of the following:

Unnecessary foglights
Incorrect lane usage
No indication (WDC&A?)
Speeding outside my ing front door (30 limit, should be 20 (one car width), oiks do 50+)
Er, thats a red light you've just driven through?
Tailgating
Being a road prick (good catch-all that one )

Likelyhood of the latter (which has undoubtedly greater impact on driving): almost zero
Likelyhood of being pulled for the former (which has no impact on anyone around you if done in the right way): draconian if seen regardless

Edited by trackdemon on Saturday 19th January 23:38

[Kawasicki]

vonhosen said:

Kawasicki said:

Soren2 said:

fluffnik said:

Soren2 said:

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.

We're discussing what is, not what you would like it to be.

The above quote is well defined through statute and case law.

I'm just illustrating my likely response were I involved in your conversation above...



I once owned a TVR Vixen, the first series with ban-the-bomb tailights and the 85.5" wheelbase, which could only safely be driven round roundabouts with a slightly tail out attitude - after decently crisp turn-in it did understeer or oversteer with nothing usably predictable in between...

Every other 85.5" TVR I've followed has exhibited the same handling; is it ilegal?

It really is not so prescriptive in practice. My view of the OP's definition of 'drift' was a significant slip and grip compromise round a roundabout, sufficient to be worthy of prosecution, and I said so. I have no significant experience of 'sports' cars other than occasional use of job Evos and Imprezas, so my opinion on their capability is limited. Some have suggested that their sports cars are designed to drift. If that is the case it's either an almost imperceptible action or the majority seem to manage not to do it, knowing that it's not what's expected on the road.

If what a traffic cop witnesses looks like an episode of careless driving, you will be questioned about it and perhaps reported for prosecution. Intent and skill play little or no part in the CPS deliberations in respect of careless driving, and I honestly believe that's entirely fair.

Please define how significant the slip must be to be worthy of prosecution. If the law is objective then there must be a value of slip. If you can't give me a value, then the law is subjective, and it's just the opinion of one person versus another.

The objectiveness is that the driver's skill doesn't enter the equation, the standard of care & attention is an objective one. Whether it is without due care is a matter of fact or not, irrespective of whether the driver is a learner or has been driving for 50 years.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 19th January 23:31

I am not talking about the driver, I am talking about the actual act of driving with high slip angles. If the law is objective there must be an angle limit.