If you got caught drifting a roundabout....
Discussion
flemke said:
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.
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.
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?
If I see them, then I'm there.
flemke said:
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.
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.
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?
Or does this magic roundabout have no kerbs either?
10 Pence Short said:
flemke said:
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.
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.
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?
Or does this magic roundabout have no kerbs either?
But what if....erm....what if......BUT WHAT IF....
damn it, i'm trying to think up some equally bizzare scenarios and i'm having trouble....
got it...
what if seb loeb drifted it round a round about, up the kerb....on to two wheels, back down again.... through a car park of Burger King.... then brought it to a stand still on the head of a child.... seeing as the skill involved would be out of this world, should he get done for it?
damn it, i'm trying to think up some equally bizzare scenarios and i'm having trouble....
got it...
what if seb loeb drifted it round a round about, up the kerb....on to two wheels, back down again.... through a car park of Burger King.... then brought it to a stand still on the head of a child.... seeing as the skill involved would be out of this world, should he get done for it?
Edited by Funky Teapot on Monday 21st January 18:22
vonhosen said:
There's no absolute offence of drifting & nobody has said there is, but if I saw someone who was doing it they'd get a summons for Sec 3 & a Sec 59 warning (that's what was said). The magistrate can decide if it amounts to a Sec 3 or not.
If I see them, then I'm there.
If I see them, then I'm there.
vonhosen said:
The standard of care and attention is an objective one & is in no way related to the degree of proficiency or degree of experience attained by the individual driver. The offence is committed where the driving has departed from the standard of care and skill that would, in the circumstances of the case, have been exercised by a reasonable, prudent and competent driver. We don't expect reasonable, prudent & competent drivers to show boat on public roads. Doesn't matter if it was Loeb, he wasn't driving in a manner befitting vehicle use on public roads as per above.
vonhosen said:
The reality is that intentionally drifting for amusement on public roundabouts is not acceptable behaviour.
Soren2 said:
I understand that some might be able to perform this manoeuvre more safely than others. But I'd agree with von that to approach a hazard with the intention of losing traction and grip to achieve nothing more than a car park trick is an action that will always render itself punishable.
vonhosen said:
trackdemon said:
corozin said:
...practicing your drifting technique on Britain's crowded roads, loaded as they are with enough piss-poor drivers as it is, is not exactly the brightest idea.
I dont think anyone is advocating drifting round the roundabout outside your local tesco's @ 2pm on a Saturday afternoon Even in the SE there are plenty of places that are fairly deserted at certain times of day (generally between 12-5am!) and you are well out of harms way (and other road users). You'd probably still cop a DWDC charge if the BiB saw you though, even if obviously under control.vonhosen said:
Kawasicki said:
Is there a oversteer angle limit then? Shouldn't we have an understeer limit too? How about a tyre slip in braking or acceleration limit?
All apply.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.
The above quote is well defined through statute and case law.
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.
vonhosen said:
Thanks for the link, because it is mildly amusing.It is also irrelevant to this discussion.
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
Thanks for the link, because it is mildly amusing.It is also irrelevant to this discussion.
Still he doesn't make mistakes eh.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 21st January 18:36
vonhosen said:
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
Thanks for the link, because it is mildly amusing.It is also irrelevant to this discussion.
Still he doesn't make mistakes eh.
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
Thanks for the link, because it is mildly amusing.It is also irrelevant to this discussion.
Still he doesn't make mistakes eh.
Can you categorically say he never would never fail on road ?
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 21st January 18:57
Funky Teapot said:
if seb loeb cam make mistakes, then ANYBODY can... no matter how good they think they are at drifting, etc
Thanks for another top comment, FT.What a racing driver does during a race when he is following the instructions of the co-driver is about as relevant to my example of driving at a legal speed in an open, hazard-free area with total visibility and no other human being around as this bit of policing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMaMYL_shxc
is relevant to how vonhosen, Mg6b and numerous other BIBs treat innocent persons whom they have stopped for minor traffic offences.
vonhosen said:
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
Thanks for the link, because it is mildly amusing.It is also irrelevant to this discussion.
Still he doesn't make mistakes eh.
Can you categorically say he never would never fail on road ?
What I can say is that, if as in my example a person were drifting a car in conditions of complete, uncompromised visibilty, and there were not a soul around, then if there is nothing that can be harmed, nothing will be harmed. That does seem categorical.
If the driver has taken care to establish that it is physically impossible to cause any harm, because of the unmistakable fact that there is nothing that could be harmed, then he has taken care. What then is the basis for alleging that he had not taken care?
Sorry to butt in, but it takes both of them to safely negotiate a rally stage, my French is a little rusty but it looks like a co-driver error. For info chicanes are impossible to work out as you approach them at 110mph, they can be taken at 70mph or as low as 4mph.
By the time the co-driver mentioned "chican" he was already braking, i.e. too late and the chicane was a slow one.
Sorry guys its largely not relevant.
By the time the co-driver mentioned "chican" he was already braking, i.e. too late and the chicane was a slow one.
Sorry guys its largely not relevant.
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
Thanks for the link, because it is mildly amusing.It is also irrelevant to this discussion.
Still he doesn't make mistakes eh.
Can you categorically say he never would never fail on road ?
What I can say is that, if as in my example a person were drifting a car in conditions of complete, uncompromised visibilty, and there were not a soul around, then if there is nothing that can be harmed, nothing will be harmed. That does seem categorical.
If the driver has taken care to establish that it is physically impossible to cause any harm, because of the unmistakable fact that there is nothing that could be harmed, then he has taken care. What then is the basis for alleging that he had not taken care?
flemke said:
Funky Teapot said:
if seb loeb cam make mistakes, then ANYBODY can... no matter how good they think they are at drifting, etc
Thanks for another top comment, FT.What a racing driver does during a race when he is following the instructions of the co-driver is about as relevant to my example of driving at a legal speed in an open, hazard-free area with total visibility and no other human being around as this bit of policing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMaMYL_shxc
is relevant to how vonhosen, Mg6b and numerous other BIBs treat innocent persons whom they have stopped for minor traffic offences.
IF YOU WANT LEGAL ADVICE ASK A LAWYER NOT A POLICEMAN
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff