If you got caught drifting a roundabout....

[fluffnik]

Funky Teapot said:

flemke said:

10 Pence Short said:

But what if the danger was actually to yourself if it went wrong?

I see that as a complete non-issue, unless we're about to ban swimming, sailing, skiing, hiking, cycling and DIY.

sounds good to me, I detest those activities

Disliking something is no good reason to ban it.

[10 Pence Short]

flemke said:

10 Pence Short said:

But what if the danger was actually to yourself if it went wrong?

I see that as a complete non-issue, unless we're about to ban swimming, sailing, skiing, hiking, cycling and DIY.

I haven't trawled through any case law, but for Dangerous driving, the definition of dangerous is:

"“dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in determining for the purposes of those subsections what would be expected of, or obvious to, a competent and careful driver in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.

'Injury to any person', I imagine, could refer to the person committing the offence and their own property.

If you injure yourself doing a bit of DIY or swimming, the cost to the state and inconvenience to others is likely to be minimal, in comparison to dealing with a serious injury, one car RTA, hence the use of the Road Traffic Act for users of the road and no such equivalent for swimming. Mind you, even in a public swimming pool there are usually signs prohibiting certain actions for the safety of yourself and others, even though you may be able to do them safely yourself 99% of the time.

[flemke]

10 Pence Short said:

flemke said:

10 Pence Short said:

But what if the danger was actually to yourself if it went wrong?

I see that as a complete non-issue, unless we're about to ban swimming, sailing, skiing, hiking, cycling and DIY.

I haven't trawled through any case law, but for Dangerous driving, the definition of dangerous is:

"“dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in determining for the purposes of those subsections what would be expected of, or obvious to, a competent and careful driver in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.

'Injury to any person', I imagine, could refer to the person committing the offence and their own property.

If you injure yourself doing a bit of DIY or swimming, the cost to the state and inconvenience to others is likely to be minimal, in comparison to dealing with a serious injury, one car RTA, hence the use of the Road Traffic Act for users of the road and no such equivalent for swimming. Mind you, even in a public swimming pool there are usually signs prohibiting certain actions for the safety of yourself and others, even though you may be able to do them safely yourself 99% of the time.

I'm not arguing what the law is. The OP raised a question and the professionals on here have answered it. Of course I accept their assertion of the legal and enforcement realities.
I'm just saying that what the law appears to be is stupid.

[10 Pence Short]

flemke said:

I'm not arguing what the law is. The OP raised a question and the professionals on here have answered it. Of course I accept their assertion of the legal and enforcement realities.
I'm just saying that what the law appears to be is stupid.

If the only allegation was one purposely induced skid, no inconvenience to others, injury or damage occurred and you had a previous good record, I'd be surprised if the CPS ran with it even if you were reported. They have guidelines and I very much doubt it'd reach the demands for public interest.

[flemke]

10 Pence Short said:

flemke said:

I'm not arguing what the law is. The OP raised a question and the professionals on here have answered it. Of course I accept their assertion of the legal and enforcement realities.
I'm just saying that what the law appears to be is stupid.

If the only allegation was one purposely induced skid, no inconvenience to others, injury or damage occurred and you had a previous good record, I'd be surprised if the CPS ran with it even if you were reported. They have guidelines and I very much doubt it'd reach the demands for public interest.

Perhaps not, although that was certainly not the impression that I got from comments from von and others.

[10 Pence Short]

Getting reported is one thing, being prosecuted is another entirely! Especially in these days of CPS staff are under 3 miles of paperwork.

[flemke]

10 Pence Short said:

Getting reported is one thing, being prosecuted is another entirely! Especially in these days of CPS staff are under 3 miles of paperwork.

"I shall reporting you for the offence of Driving Without Due Car and Attention, although it will be up to the Crown Prosecution Service whether to prosecute you."
The possibility that the CPS may decline to proceed, notwithstanding the constable's recommendation, is cold comfort during the six months whilst one is waiting on tenterhooks to hear, and has perhaps retained and paid for a solicitor.

[10 Pence Short]

You pays yer money, you takes yer chance.

Or should that be 'you drifts yer car you wait for summons...'?

[flemke]

10 Pence Short said:

You pays yer money, you takes yer chance.

Or should that be 'you drifts yer car you wait for summons...'?

Perhaps so, but that isn't the way it ought to work.

[ajcj]

flemke said:

10 Pence Short said:

You pays yer money, you takes yer chance.

Or should that be 'you drifts yer car you wait for summons...'?

Perhaps so, but that isn't the way it ought to work.

How should it work then?

It seems to me that the standard thread operation on this forum is as follows:

OP posts interesting, many-layered question and asks for best opinion of BiBs.

BiBs and others respond, pointing out the law (for the words of which they are not responsible, only the enforcement thereof), and generally offer up angles and insights that the OP and subsequent seekers after truth might not have considered.

Various parties, often the same ones, then pile in with a series of ever more abstruse and unlikely examples designed to prove the injustice of the system. The original responses are examined minutely for inconsistency or ambiguity, and the ripostes laced with healthy doses of personal abuse. The OP, assuming he or she had a genuine worry, is pushed aside to clear the battleground.

So, asking as a regularly and frequently speeding, occasionally drifting (sometimes even on purpose), scamera-hating, was-once-on-nine-points TVR driver, how should it work then? On this issue, how would the PH massive frame a law that balanced the need for road safety with the desire for personal liberty to provoke the rear end of a car with the ability to enforce it in a consistent and meaningful way? Because I'm buggered if I know.

[RtdRacer]

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.

And whilst you are presumed innocent, you would have to have a *damn* good reason and explanation as to how skilled you are, and how you'd checked the road for diesel etc. before you did it.

It's not an absolute offence IMO, but I can't think of a 'safe' circumstance that might reasonably happen.

[p1esk]

fluffnik said:

Funky Teapot said:

flemke said:

10 Pence Short said:

But what if the danger was actually to yourself if it went wrong?

I see that as a complete non-issue, unless we're about to ban swimming, sailing, skiing, hiking, cycling and DIY.

sounds good to me, I detest those activities

Disliking something is no good reason to ban it.

I'm afraid all too many people appear to think it is.

[RtdRacer]

flemke said:

10 Pence Short said:

You pays yer money, you takes yer chance.

Or should that be 'you drifts yer car you wait for summons...'?

Perhaps so, but that isn't the way it ought to work.

How should it work then? The legal process has to balance fairness and consistency with pragmatism and practicality. The police are not the judiciary - Von is absolutely correct in saying he (as a policeman) would report you for a suspected crime, the state/CPS then decides if it's worthwhile prosecuting you on behalf of the people of the land, and the judiciary decides if you have actually committed a crime or not.

Seems reasonable to me - which bit of that do you change without breaking the overall system?

[RtdRacer]

ajcj said:

So, asking as a regularly and frequently speeding, occasionally drifting (sometimes even on purpose), scamera-hating, was-once-on-nine-points TVR driver, how should it work then? On this issue, how would the PH massive frame a law that balanced the need for road safety with the desire for personal liberty to provoke the rear end of a car with the ability to enforce it in a consistent and meaningful way? Because I'm buggered if I know.

Are you driving to a Reasonable standard as defined by the 'reasonable joe public' - can't see any way of improving that...

[p1esk]

flemke said:

10 Pence Short said:

flemke said:

I'm not arguing what the law is. The OP raised a question and the professionals on here have answered it. Of course I accept their assertion of the legal and enforcement realities.
I'm just saying that what the law appears to be is stupid.

If the only allegation was one purposely induced skid, no inconvenience to others, injury or damage occurred and you had a previous good record, I'd be surprised if the CPS ran with it even if you were reported. They have guidelines and I very much doubt it'd reach the demands for public interest.

Perhaps not, although that was certainly not the impression that I got from comments from von and others.

I can see that 'helping the tail round' in a not too spectacular manner could lead a police officer to have a word with the driver, but it seems to me they're rather too ready to prosecute in what I would think of as relatively harmless cases.

[Mg6b]

p1esk said:

fluffnik said:

Funky Teapot said:

flemke said:

10 Pence Short said:

But what if the danger was actually to yourself if it went wrong?

I see that as a complete non-issue, unless we're about to ban swimming, sailing, skiing, hiking, cycling and DIY.

sounds good to me, I detest those activities

Disliking something is no good reason to ban it.

I'm afraid all too many people appear to think it is.

It worked against fox hunting!

[fluffnik]

Mg6b said:

p1esk said:

fluffnik said:

Disliking something is no good reason to ban it.

I'm afraid all too many people appear to think it is.

It worked against fox hunting!

Only because we have a wannabe fascist government.

Democracy should not be about the biggest gang bullying the others.

[flemke]

ajcj said:

It seems to me that the standard thread operation on this forum is as follows:

OP posts interesting, many-layered question and asks for best opinion of BiBs.

Yes.

ajcj said:

BiBs and others respond, pointing out the law (for the words of which they are not responsible, only the enforcement thereof), and generally offer up angles and insights that the OP and subsequent seekers after truth might not have considered.

Yes.

ajcj said:

Various parties, often the same ones, then pile in with a series of ever more abstruse and unlikely examples designed to prove the injustice of the system.

Yes.

ajcj said:

The original responses are examined minutely for inconsistency or ambiguity, and the ripostes laced with healthy doses of personal abuse.

No.
The great majority of posts on SP&L are made by a core group of persons who seem to "know" one another pretty well by now. People might make strong arguments, and even become frustrated or annoyed, but personal abuse is rare and unwelcome.
Regarding inconsistency or ambiguity, I think you will find that that is pointed up if a poster appears to be making an absolute statement, or when an authority's black-and-white absoluteness is making it difficult for a police officer to do his job or a citizen to live his life.

ajcj said:

The OP, assuming he or she had a genuine worry, is pushed aside to clear the battleground.

It's a discussion forum, not a FAQ site.
No one should be pushed aside, but often the OP will have had his question answered before other participants have finished their discussion.

ajcj said:

flemke said:

10 Pence Short said:

You pays yer money, you takes yer chance.

Or should that be 'you drifts yer car you wait for summons...'?

Perhaps so, but that isn't the way it ought to work.

How should it work then?.................
So, asking as a regularly and frequently speeding, occasionally drifting (sometimes even on purpose), scamera-hating, was-once-on-nine-points TVR driver, how should it work then? On this issue, how would the PH massive frame a law that balanced the need for road safety with the desire for personal liberty to provoke the rear end of a car with the ability to enforce it in a consistent and meaningful way? Because I'm buggered if I know.

For starters, you could have:

- More legal and organisational freedom for police to differentiate and exercise discretion
- More intellectual encouragement for police to differentiate and exercise discretion
- Elimination of metrics culture in law enforcement
- De-politicisation of traffic law and enforcement.
- Recognition that, on those occasions when it is physically impossible to harm another person or property, most tests for driving "offences" should be suspended.
- Penalty "Plus Points" awarded for acts of good driving behaviour or judgment.
- Tiered licencing to liberate more skilful drivers and to motivate younger drivers to improve.

Those would lead me to say that drifting per se is no more dangerous than is movement per se. If, but only if, a driver is doing something that could possibly harm other persons or property, then a constable might assess whether there might be any actual risk in that potentiality.
If, but only if, the constable judges that that risk does exist, he should then assess whether it exists to an unacceptable degree.
If the constable confirms the final point, that there is an actual and unacceptable risk to which a driver is contributing, then he should intercede.

[Funky Teapot]

[s2art]

flemke said:

Those would lead me to say that drifting per se is no more dangerous than is movement per se. If, but only if, a driver is doing something that could possibly harm other persons or property, then a constable might assess whether there might be any actual risk in that potentiality.
If, but only if, the constable judges that that risk does exist, he should then assess whether it exists to an unacceptable degree.
If the constable confirms the final point, that there is an actual and unacceptable risk to which a driver is contributing, then he should intercede.

That seems sensible to me. There is nothing particularly wrong with practicing car control when there is no risk to any third party. On the contrary, such practice may save someones life. Finding a bit of empty road and trying out heavy braking/emergency stops falls into a similar category, if you dont do it now and again you will never know how the car responds. (One example that occured to me was that one of the brake pistons had seized up through lack of use, I am very light on the brakes in normal driving).