If you got caught drifting a roundabout....

[Pork_n_Beem]

fluffnik said:

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...

Yep red smoke from memory, intended use, drifting, absolutely.....
Not sure if their grip performance is better when drifting and the margin performance but yes a road tyre designed for drifting.

Wonder if Mr Kuhmo would be an expert witness

[vonhosen]

Kawasicki said:

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.

He isn't done because of the size of the slip angle, that's not the test. It's because the driving is a demonstration that they have failed to meet the objective standard of care required & that may be evidenced in any number of ways.

[fluffnik]

Soren2 said:

fluffnik said:

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.

In the case of the Vixen I'm unsure that "designed" is the right term, "serendipitous consequence of using Triumph Herald steering gear upside-down and back to front" is closer to the mark.

Soren2 said:

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.

We're not talking all crossed up in a cloud of smoke or the howl of tortured rubber, more ~5-10deg of opposite lock and the body parallel to a tangent intersecting the circumference around the front bumper - ~15-18" ahead of the front axle - increasing the effective width of the car by ~6" at most.

Failure to power assist tight turns would result in the front wheels skipping outward thanks to the anti-Ackermann geometry...

Great car, miss it LOTS.

[fluffnik]

vonhosen said:

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.

Your view of what constitutes fact is frankly bizarre.

[GreenV8S]

fluffnik said:

vonhosen said:

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.

Your view of what constitutes fact is frankly bizarre.

Not sure what you mean there. Are you saying that vonhosen's post is factually inaccurate? I'd be very surprised if that was the case.

[flemke]

GreenV8S said:

fluffnik said:

vonhosen said:

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.

Your view of what constitutes fact is frankly bizarre.

Not sure what you mean there. Are you saying that vonhosen's post is factually inaccurate? I'd be very surprised if that was the case.

Perhaps what Fluffnik wrote was meant to be short and colloquial for, "Your view of what is worthy of being considered 'fact' is...".

[7db]

Von is slightly misleading as the fact of the driver's incapacity is admissible as a fact regarding the standard of driving... Milton left us unclear as to whether his capacity was relevant.

In short - do you think that you would pass your driving test if you drifted a roundabout. If not, then assume that it's a S3 offence.

I mean would you really do it with a tester aboard?

[fluffnik]

GreenV8S said:

fluffnik said:

vonhosen said:

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.

Your view of what constitutes fact is frankly bizarre.

Not sure what you mean there. Are you saying that vonhosen's post is factually inaccurate? I'd be very surprised if that was the case.

The view that the test for DWDCA is in any way objective or a test of "fact"...

[fluffnik]

flemke said:

Perhaps what Fluffnik wrote was meant to be short and colloquial for, "Your view of what is worthy of being considered 'fact' is...".

[Funky Teapot]

fluffnik said:

GreenV8S said:

fluffnik said:

vonhosen said:

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.

Your view of what constitutes fact is frankly bizarre.

Not sure what you mean there. Are you saying that vonhosen's post is factually inaccurate? I'd be very surprised if that was the case.

The view that the test for DWDCA is in any way objective or a test of "fact"...

Wow

You've managed to make a post without useing the word "arbitray" or calling for a revolution !!!!

Are you feeling well?

[flemke]

7db said:

In short - do you think that you would pass your driving test if you drifted a roundabout. If not, then assume that it's a S3 offence.

I mean would you really do it with a tester aboard?

In light of how badly many British drivers drive, almost all of whom have passed a UK driving test, one is not sure that "whether something would pass the driving test" is a meaningful measure of anything.

[vonhosen]

fluffnik said:

GreenV8S said:

fluffnik said:

vonhosen said:

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.

Your view of what constitutes fact is frankly bizarre.

Not sure what you mean there. Are you saying that vonhosen's post is factually inaccurate? I'd be very surprised if that was the case.

The view that the test for DWDCA is in any way objective or a test of "fact"...

It's an objective standard & a matter of fact as far as the court is concerned as to whether the driving fell below that standard.

[7db]

flemke said:

7db said:

In short - do you think that you would pass your driving test if you drifted a roundabout. If not, then assume that it's a S3 offence.

I mean would you really do it with a tester aboard?

In light of how badly many British drivers drive, almost all of whom have passed a UK driving test, one is not sure that "whether something would pass the driving test" is a meaningful measure of anything.

It's a bare minimum, I'd grant you - but do you think that drifting a roundabout would pass even that bare minimum?

[vonhosen]

flemke said:

7db said:

In short - do you think that you would pass your driving test if you drifted a roundabout. If not, then assume that it's a S3 offence.

I mean would you really do it with a tester aboard?

In light of how badly many British drivers drive, almost all of whom have passed a UK driving test, one is not sure that "whether something would pass the driving test" is a meaningful measure of anything.

And it can be said that their driving falls below the objective standard & amounts to without due care.

[fluffnik]

Funky Teapot said:

fluffnik said:

The view that the test for DWDCA is in any way objective or a test of "fact"...

Wow

You've managed to make a post without useing the word "arbitray" or calling for a revolution !!!!

Are you feeling well?

I never make arbitrary use of the word "arbitray"...

[Debaser]

flemke said:

7db said:

In short - do you think that you would pass your driving test if you drifted a roundabout. If not, then assume that it's a S3 offence.

I mean would you really do it with a tester aboard?

In light of how badly many British drivers drive, almost all of whom have passed a UK driving test, one is not sure that "whether something would pass the driving test" is a meaningful measure of anything.

Driving down a motorway at 70mph would probably cause you to fail your driving test.

Simon

[fluffnik]

vonhosen said:

It's an objective standard & a matter of fact as far as the court is concerned as to whether the driving fell below that standard.

That's as may be but the standard is not objective nor does it constitute fact anywhere else.

Time for new courts.

[fluffnik]

7db said:

It's a bare minimum, I'd grant you - but do you think that drifting a roundabout would pass even that bare minimum?

Should be part of the test.

[flemke]

7db said:

flemke said:

7db said:

In short - do you think that you would pass your driving test if you drifted a roundabout. If not, then assume that it's a S3 offence.

I mean would you really do it with a tester aboard?

In light of how badly many British drivers drive, almost all of whom have passed a UK driving test, one is not sure that "whether something would pass the driving test" is a meaningful measure of anything.

It's a bare minimum, I'd grant you - but do you think that drifting a roundabout would pass even that bare minimum?

If Sebastien Loeb were to take the driving test and in all respects drive safely and well, and if in addition he were to demonstrate to the examiner how to drift around a RAB safely, then I certainly do think that he would deserve to pass the test.
If you say that he would not pass the test, then perhaps the problem lies not with the driving, but with the "Joe Average" testing mentality.

vonhosen said:

And it can be said that their driving falls below the objective standard & amounts to without due care.

Pardon me for saying so, VH, but you truly are the Prince of Circularity.

You tell us that the "objective" standard, in some unspecified but inferred-by-you-and-your-colleagues way, does not permit intentional drifting whatsoever. I don't know what would be "objective" about that, both because it requires a subjective assessment to identify it and because that assessment is for something that is not literally proscribed in the first place.

If I understand the various posts on this thread right, the standard does not permit a drift simply because someone at some time decided that its kitchen-sink language should disallow a drift, and that notion has, apparently by unexamined custom, become Appendix A of the Ten Commandments of Hendon.
So, yes, if you say that that is the social and bureaucratic reality, I believe you. That does not mean that I accept the supposed logic on which it is based - of which we have seen very little evidence.

[mark69sheer]

I presume the word ' drift ' in this case refers to 'hanging' the tail out.

Sorry but I wouldn't defend that and would agree wholeheartedly should the police stop someone for that.

However.

When driven properly you can go round a roundabout very quickly and allthough your car will appear to be in a normal attitude you will in fact be involved in a 'drift' in that all four of your wheels may be slipping.
However by using the throttle to balance the car round you will appear to be going quickly but normally.
The givaway of course would be tyre noise allthough you can still be 'slipping' without making very much tyre noise either.

I would say that anyone actually hanging the back out round a roundabout really must expect a tug if seen.

I am a rather odd driver though in that allthough I enjoy technically improving my driving speed I do it within very defined parameters.
I never cross white lines, I don't drift and when I had motorbikes I never wheelied.
Wheelies and drifts I have allways considered 'gimmicky showboating' driving as both slow forward progress.