If you got caught drifting a roundabout....
Discussion
marlinmunro said:
Diesel on the road officer ! 
MrFlibbles said:
The other way of looking at it would be the scenario whereby an inexperienced driver loses control of a RWD car, say on a diesel spill, but manages to keep control by steering into the skid.
Would this also lead to a charge?
I think its interesting how and where the line would be drawn?Would this also lead to a charge?
MrFlibbles said:
The other way of looking at it would be the scenario whereby an inexperienced driver loses control of a RWD car, say on a diesel spill, but manages to keep control by steering into the skid.
Would this also lead to a charge?
There are plenty of ways to break the law in innocent circumstances, where technically the law has been broken but which the spirit of the legislation was not intended to encompass. I’m in an advanced state of refreshment, my car keys are in the same room which theoretically means I drunk in charge. No BiB let alone the CPS would ever look to prosecute.Would this also lead to a charge?
Us BiBs are no different to most of you, DG & Fluffers excepted, we're not looking to screw anyone for anything. For some offences, rightly or wrongly, our hands are tied and we have to act. Where we are able to exercise our discretion BiBs will look at a situation, as would you, and think – is this person taking the mick and does the matter need to be dealt with.
If the matter can be dealt with with words of advice then happy days, saves us both time and everyone wins.
MrFlibbles said:
marlinmunro said:
Diesel on the road officer !
MrFlibbles said:
The other way of looking at it would be the scenario whereby an inexperienced driver loses control of a RWD car, say on a diesel spill, but manages to keep control by steering into the skid.
Would this also lead to a charge?
I think its interesting how and where the line would be drawn?Would this also lead to a charge?
vonhosen said:
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
The reality is that intentionally drifting for amusement on public roundabouts is not acceptable behaviour.
Is that somewhere in the Ten Commandments?Seriously, you're just saying that it's not acceptable because someone at some time said so. Thus it may well be against present UK law, and "unacceptable " in that highly limited, technical, impermanent sense.
Whether it is "acceptable" in a broader, more meaningful context of common sense and reasonableness is another story altogether.
Chimjunkie said:
"Glad you are here officer, i nearly lost control swerving to miss the cat". End of. Prove it otherwise! 
They'll tell the magistrate their side of the story, you get a chance to tell them yours & then the magistrate decides. You don't dictate where it ends & the outcome, the court does.MrFlibbles said:
What would you get done for?
Careless/ Dangerous?
ETA: Not that I ever had or would condone such behaviour.
Might depend on whether you've poured some diesel down first on said roundabout to aid your aforementioned drift.Careless/ Dangerous?
ETA: Not that I ever had or would condone such behaviour.
Edited by MrFlibbles on Wednesday 16th January 19:08
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
The reality is that intentionally drifting for amusement on public roundabouts is not acceptable behaviour.
Is that somewhere in the Ten Commandments?Seriously, you're just saying that it's not acceptable because someone at some time said so. Thus it may well be against present UK law, and "unacceptable " in that highly limited, technical, impermanent sense.
Whether it is "acceptable" in a broader, more meaningful context of common sense and reasonableness is another story altogether.
von, do you mean it's not acceptable behaviour to you personally, or it's not acceptable full stop? Is it never open to judgement, logic and discretion, but rather always condemned?
If you witnessed from a distance an incident of a lone car drifting an empty roundabout and executed perfectly, would you automatically deem that driver a danger? Would circumstances come into play at all? To me it's like comparing a driver doing 100 along a motorway in fine quiet conditions, with a driver doing 70 tailgating blindly in heavy rain. One is safe the other isn't. How can an act be deemed automatically dangerous when it is safe? Observe and decide yes (and that's obviously where scameras fail miserably), but to declare certain acts always punishable just because they could be dangerous in entirely different circumstances can't be right, can it?
mickken said:
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
The reality is that intentionally drifting for amusement on public roundabouts is not acceptable behaviour.
Is that somewhere in the Ten Commandments?Chimjunkie said:
"Glad you are here officer, i nearly lost control swerving to miss the cat". End of. Prove it otherwise!
It's surprising how few people at the time would come up with an implausible solution such as that, and even when they do, and then are told that we didn't come down in the last shower, they usually relent and offer a truer account.Granted it might work if the only evidence of your drifting is that your rear end is now concealed in the adjacent hedge, and the police have been called because of that.
deeps said:
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
The reality is that intentionally drifting for amusement on public roundabouts is not acceptable behaviour.
Is that somewhere in the Ten Commandments?Seriously, you're just saying that it's not acceptable because someone at some time said so. Thus it may well be against present UK law, and "unacceptable " in that highly limited, technical, impermanent sense.
Whether it is "acceptable" in a broader, more meaningful context of common sense and reasonableness is another story altogether.
von, do you mean it's not acceptable behaviour to you personally, or it's not acceptable full stop? Is it never open to judgement, logic and discretion, but rather always condemned?
If you witnessed from a distance an incident of a lone car drifting an empty roundabout and executed perfectly, would you automatically deem that driver a danger? Would circumstances come into play at all? To me it's like comparing a driver doing 100 along a motorway in fine quiet conditions, with a driver doing 70 tailgating blindly in heavy rain. One is safe the other isn't. How can an act be deemed automatically dangerous when it is safe? Observe and decide yes (and that's obviously where scameras fail miserably), but to declare certain acts always punishable just because they could be dangerous in entirely different circumstances can't be right, can it?
Does anyone actually disagree with that? If so why?
Edited by Soren2 on Thursday 17th January 05:39
Soren2 said:
deeps said:
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
The reality is that intentionally drifting for amusement on public roundabouts is not acceptable behaviour.
Is that somewhere in the Ten Commandments?Seriously, you're just saying that it's not acceptable because someone at some time said so. Thus it may well be against present UK law, and "unacceptable " in that highly limited, technical, impermanent sense.
Whether it is "acceptable" in a broader, more meaningful context of common sense and reasonableness is another story altogether.
von, do you mean it's not acceptable behaviour to you personally, or it's not acceptable full stop? Is it never open to judgement, logic and discretion, but rather always condemned?
If you witnessed from a distance an incident of a lone car drifting an empty roundabout and executed perfectly, would you automatically deem that driver a danger? Would circumstances come into play at all? To me it's like comparing a driver doing 100 along a motorway in fine quiet conditions, with a driver doing 70 tailgating blindly in heavy rain. One is safe the other isn't. How can an act be deemed automatically dangerous when it is safe? Observe and decide yes (and that's obviously where scameras fail miserably), but to declare certain acts always punishable just because they could be dangerous in entirely different circumstances can't be right, can it?
Does anyone actually disagree with that? If so why?
Of course people who do competition drifting like Nick Hogan don't crash on public roads do they ?
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 17th January 07:01
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.
Does anyone actually disagree with that? If so why?
We have tried above to articulate why we disagree.Does anyone actually disagree with that? If so why?
One can accept or reject the argument in favour of speed limits per se, and from there the argument in favour of tiered licences. The unique thing about speed limits is that they represent an unambiguous parameter. There is normally no doubt about what speed a car is doing. We can measure it even without a human being in attendance.
"Drifting" around a quarter of a RAB is not, so far as I know, something that is readily measurable by machine. It requires human recognition and assessment.
If it requires the active participation of a human to identify a drift, and that human is a professional at assessing driving, then why at the same time cannot that professional assess whether the driver has control of the vehicle? That same professional's testimony will be relied on in court in many other situations to determine DWDC, CD, etc. If the professional is qualified to make these judgments, and surely he or she must be, by definition, then why should not the test of how one circumnavigates a RAB be on the basis of control, rather that according to another arbitrary, one-size-fits-all law?
The issue is not the yaw of the vehicle. The issue is control. They are not the same thing.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff