If you got caught drifting a roundabout....

[Funky Teapot]

mark69sheer said:

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.

[Sheriff JWPepper]

FT, Have another one.

[Kawasicki]

fluffnik said:

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.

agreed. It's subjective.

[marlinmunro]

I would feel much happier seeing a lad giving it some on a R/B in control than some old giffer that has not the wit to operate his ventilation on his car. You know the type all windows steamed up.

[theCreeper]

"The following clip is for 'information' purposes only and is not in any way shown to condone such behaviour on the public roads."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh3fC03x9_I


(but by golly, if you are going to do it, you might as well do it properly!)

[Debaser]

theCreeper said:

"The following clip is for 'information' purposes only and is not in any way shown to condone such behaviour on the public roads."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh3fC03x9_I


(but by golly, if you are going to do it, you might as well do it properly!)

As well as attempting to track down people who speed and put videos on YouTube, are the police now going to track down people in videos who are driving with large slip angles? In fact, in the latest copy of evo there are several pictures of cars with large slip angles and the driver's face is clearly visible.

Simon

[theCreeper]

Your profile says that you are an 'automotive evaluation/development engineer'

So....you get paid for doing this sort of thing on Proving Grounds, do you?

.....Btw I would have no shame in calling myself a Test Driver!

[Soren2]

Kawasicki said:

fluffnik said:

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.

agreed. It's subjective.

McCrone v Riding is the case law on this.

PNLD said:

R was driving a car round a left hand bend. As he got round the bend he knocked over a pedestrian who was walking down the left hand side of the road. He was charged with driving without due care and attention and the justices dismissed the charge on the grounds that the accident was due to the inexperience and lack of skill of the driver, who became confused and failed to steer so as to avoid the pedestrian. The prosecution appealed by way of case stated.

HELD

Appeal allowed. Case remitted back to the justices with a direction to convict.

The standard of driving required by a driver is an objective one, impersonal and universal, fixed in relation to the safety of other users of the highway. It is in no way related to the degree of proficiency or degree of experience attained by the individual driver. The justices were wrong to imply that two standards could be applied.

[RtdRacer]

Also, can I say all this 'if you can do it safely blah blah blah' is a massive red herring.

You are not Seb Loeb. You are not Carlos Sainz. You are none of the Macrae family.

I am, I think, a good driver. I have extensive race and trackday experience (as instructor and participant) on bikes and in cars. I have owned and driven many differently configured 'fast' cars - Impreza/Porsche/M3/TVR/specialist trackday cars etc. I have also participated in drift days and so on.

Now, if I had to drift a car round a roundabout, I could pretty much do it. About 4 times out of 5. Or maybe 9 times out of 10. But every now and again, I'd it up and spin off. And if you spin off on a roundabout, you'll probably mount a curb.

So, to all you 'drifting controllably is okay' people, I put it to you that unless you are a professional world level driver or stuntman, you actually have a pretty good chance of screwing it up and endangering someone. And if you are really that good - and I'll bet damn good money you're not - then you will not how easy it is to cock it up.

My speciality is racing large capacity bikes. Can I get my knee down? Of course - every sodding corner on a track. Do I do it on the road? No, simply because the road surface is simply too variable and untrustworthy, and because it increases my chance of falling off *too much IMO* to do it. If I'm cornering that fast, I'm getting to a risk level that a reasonable person would not think is reasonable on a public road. i.e. I am breaking the law of the land and my own 'common sense' law.

[flemke]

RtdRacer said:

So, to all you 'drifting controllably is okay' people, I put it to you that unless you are a professional world level driver or stuntman, you actually have a pretty good chance of screwing it up and endangering someone. And if you are really that good - and I'll bet damn good money you're not - then you will not how easy it is to cock it up.

The point was that "drifting" is an absolute offence, according to those on this thread who should be in a position to know. Perhaps I should say, "drifting with the intention to drift" is an absolute offence.
I don't know that anyone made the blanket statement, "drifting controllably is okay". Rather, the objection was to the idea that no person in this world should be allowed to drift ever, even when there is not another soul within a mile and maybe not even a road sign to hit.
The concept of "driving without due care and attention" must have some sort of context. If there is no possibility of doing harm, and the driver has established that as a fact, then he has taken due care and attention of the reality around him.

In addition, many of us have argued here on SP&L that the present structure of speed limits is conceptually wrong. At least with speed limits, however, there is a fixed, objective measure, a black-and-white which - so long as the limits are properly posted - the driver will choose consciously to heed or to ignore.
The same cannot apply to getting the back end of a car loose. If you're exiting a RAB and the road surface is a bit polished, and the back moves a few inches before you've caught it, was that the driver's fault? He could have been going more slowly. In fact, he could have avoided driving a RWD car with anything more than a feeble P/W ratio. He could go around with sandbags in the boot of his car (no, wait, that'll upset the Greens).
Alternatively, was that the LA's fault, for not maintaining the road properly?
Or, maybe, that wasn't anybody's fault.

Bad driving, careless driving, over-agressive driving - they're like how a Supreme Court justice once described pornography: "I may not be able to define it in words, but I know it when I see it."
I think most of us are in favour of the police's having more freedom and more discretion to do what they believe is right. Part of that discretion would be to come down hard on bad or careless or over-aggressive driving, but not robotically to enforce lowest-common-denominator traffic laws in those situations, however rare, when they are totally irrelevant to reality.

[fluffnik]

Soren2 said:

McCrone v Riding is the case law on this.

PNLD said:

R was driving a car round a left hand bend. As he got round the bend he knocked over a pedestrian who was walking down the left hand side of the road. He was charged with driving without due care and attention and the justices dismissed the charge on the grounds that the accident was due to the inexperience and lack of skill of the driver, who became confused and failed to steer so as to avoid the pedestrian. The prosecution appealed by way of case stated.

HELD

Appeal allowed. Case remitted back to the justices with a direction to convict.

The standard of driving required by a driver is an objective one, impersonal and universal, fixed in relation to the safety of other users of the highway. It is in no way related to the degree of proficiency or degree of experience attained by the individual driver. The justices were wrong to imply that two standards could be applied.

I think the courts boobed twice.

Surely part of the drivers duty of care is to drive safely within their own performance envelope which will vary with the driver.

I do not see that any test can claim to be objective if it fails to consider all circumstances.

I think the law is once more an ass.

I also think most drifting on roundabouts should be discouraged...

[flemke]

fluffnik said:

Soren2 said:

McCrone v Riding is the case law on this.

PNLD said:

R was driving a car round a left hand bend. As he got round the bend he knocked over a pedestrian who was walking down the left hand side of the road. He was charged with driving without due care and attention and the justices dismissed the charge on the grounds that the accident was due to the inexperience and lack of skill of the driver, who became confused and failed to steer so as to avoid the pedestrian. The prosecution appealed by way of case stated.

HELD

Appeal allowed. Case remitted back to the justices with a direction to convict.

The standard of driving required by a driver is an objective one, impersonal and universal, fixed in relation to the safety of other users of the highway. It is in no way related to the degree of proficiency or degree of experience attained by the individual driver. The justices were wrong to imply that two standards could be applied.

I think the courts boobed twice.

Surely part of the drivers duty of care is to drive safely within their own performance envelope which will vary with the driver.

I do not see that any test can claim to be objective if it fails to consider all circumstances.

I think the law is once more an ass.

I also think most drifting on roundabouts should be discouraged...

This appears to suggest that driving to below the standard cannot be mitigated by lack of skill and experience. Isn't that the opposite to what we're talking about?
None of us wants drivers on the road whose lack of skill and experience makes them dangerous. I'm surprised that the justices originally dismissed the charges. Cocking up what is normally a rudimentary action, with no extenuating circumstances, would seem a prima facie example of DWDCA.

The question is not whether the outward behaviour of the car conforms to conventional expectations. Just as with speed limits, the question should be whether the risk to people and property had been raised to an unreasonable level. If the driver had been in as much control as "the standard" that is expected, then the car's yaw in itself proves nothing.

In the example from case law, the driver manifestly was not in control of the car.
If Seb Loeb were in control of his car, then he'd be in control of his car.

[Pork_n_Beem]

fluffnik said:

Soren2 said:

McCrone v Riding is the case law on this.

PNLD said:

R was driving a car round a left hand bend. As he got round the bend he knocked over a pedestrian who was walking down the left hand side of the road. He was charged with driving without due care and attention and the justices dismissed the charge on the grounds that the accident was due to the inexperience and lack of skill of the driver, who became confused and failed to steer so as to avoid the pedestrian. The prosecution appealed by way of case stated.

HELD

Appeal allowed. Case remitted back to the justices with a direction to convict.

The standard of driving required by a driver is an objective one, impersonal and universal, fixed in relation to the safety of other users of the highway. It is in no way related to the degree of proficiency or degree of experience attained by the individual driver. The justices were wrong to imply that two standards could be applied.

I think the courts boobed twice.

Surely part of the drivers duty of care is to drive safely within their own performance envelope which will vary with the driver.

I do not see that any test can claim to be objective if it fails to consider all circumstances.

I think the law is once more an ass.

I also think most drifting on roundabouts should be discouraged...

I would hope running over a pedestrian who is walking down the side of the road is an absolute offence. Although if it was at night and they were wearing dark clothing and a car was coming the other way reducing momentarily a drivers vision then who knows, very unfortunate at any rate

[mark69sheer]

drifting and crashing seem to be synonymous

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=drifting+crash&search=Search 

this is a particularly nice one..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DsAcNUkpco&feature=related 

Edited by mark69sheer on Monday 21st January 15:11

[trackdemon]

mark69sheer said:

drifting and crashing seem to be synonymous

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=drifting+crash&search=Search 

this is a particularly nice one..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DsAcNUkpco&feature=related 

Edited by mark69sheer on Monday 21st January 15:11

Just how much are you trying to miss the point by?

[flemke]

mark69sheer said:

drifting and crashing seem to be synonymous

Not necessarily:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGIiarIrUCI

Amazingly enough, it seems that speed does not kill, either.

[10 Pence Short]

flemke said:

mark69sheer said:

drifting and crashing seem to be synonymous

Not necessarily:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGIiarIrUCI

Amazingly enough, it seems that speed does not kill, either.

Is your point attempting to suggest that you are no more likely to be involved in an accident by puposely drifting?

If so, I don't agree.

If I remember rightly the test for Careless is the standard falling below that of a competent and careful driver. It would be difficult to argue you were being careful, by drifting your car.

[Funky Teapot]

flemke said:

mark69sheer said:

drifting and crashing seem to be synonymous

Not necessarily:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGIiarIrUCI

Amazingly enough, it seems that speed does not kill, either.

Not every time, but sometimes it does

[vonhosen]

flemke said:

mark69sheer said:

drifting and crashing seem to be synonymous

Not necessarily:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGIiarIrUCI

Amazingly enough, it seems that speed does not kill, either.

Some people can drive very quickly in acceptable safety, but they are human & as such they can still make mistakes. Because the chance of this exists & the risks involved (particularly when you level it out over the driving population) people legally aren't allowed to choose whatever speed they like.

Some people can drift very accurately, most can't (particularly in confined spaces & where others may pop up), as a result of this it's to be discouraged & it's likely you'll get prosecuted where you are caught doing it. It's about taking preventative action because even the best sometimes get it wrong.

You might call it pandering to the lowest common denominator, but if you have to trade a minor inconvenience to a few skilled people, in order to provide an easy means to dissuade the masses from playing & getting it wrong, I'll take that thank you very much. It's no good saying well just prosecute those that do get it wrong, because there's no preventative measure then.

[flemke]

10 Pence Short said:

flemke said:

mark69sheer said:

drifting and crashing seem to be synonymous

Not necessarily:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGIiarIrUCI

Amazingly enough, it seems that speed does not kill, either.

Is your point attempting to suggest that you are no more likely to be involved in an accident by puposely drifting?

If so, I don't agree.

If I remember rightly the test for Careless is the standard falling below that of a competent and careful driver. It would be difficult to argue you were being careful, by drifting your car.

I am supposing that there is a RAB in the middle of open fields with clear views.
The driver carefully observes that there is no human being or vulnerable property that his car could possibly either contact or even bother from a distance. That is to say, it is physically impossible, in the next 30 seconds, for the car to do any damage, because there is nothing to damage.
The driver happens to be Walter Rohrl. He decides, for whatever reason he may have, to execute a drift between an adjacent two of the four junctions of the RAB. That is, this drift lasts for perhaps 2 seconds.
The BIBs who have contributed to this thread have said that, if Rohrl's drift had been observed by, say, a TrafPol who happened to be in a balloon above the RAB, Rohrl would have committed an absolute offence and as such would be liable for a charge of DWDCA.
That outcome seems to me to be absurd. The driver was always in control. Even if he had not been in control, he had applied due care and attention to establish that there was no conceivable danger to anyone or anything, and that form of DCA is surely the form that matters most.

The BIB argument, if I understand it, is that the drift is illegal because in their interpretation they say it's illegal. Yet, unlike speed limits or solid lines, there seems to be no mention in law that an intentional drift is an absolute offence. So how can it be an absolute offence?