If you got caught drifting a roundabout....
Discussion
flemke said:
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.
I was genuinely interested when I posted the question - but I also knew it was going to be subject to controvesy and debate. Such discussions all add to lifes rich tapestry!
Mg6b said:
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.
Actually I used to be anti-hunting, as it does seem rather barbaric, but I've changed my mind about supporting the ban. I'd still rather people didn't do it, but I'm so fed up of things being banned.
fluffnik said:
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.Democracy should not be about the biggest gang bullying the others.
MrFlibbles said:
flemke said:
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.
I was genuinely interested when I posted the question - but I also knew it was going to be subject to controvesy and debate. Such discussions all add to lifes rich tapestry!
Hope what I said did not seem directed at your question, which was obviously quite successful at stimulating discussion. Perhaps I should have expressed myself differently.
What I meant was that, when one asked a question, the expectation (I thought) was not that replies would be limited exclusively to answering it.
Cheers.
flemke said:
MrFlibbles said:
flemke said:
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.
I was genuinely interested when I posted the question - but I also knew it was going to be subject to controvesy and debate. Such discussions all add to lifes rich tapestry!
Hope what I said did not seem directed at your question, which was obviously quite successful at stimulating discussion. Perhaps I should have expressed myself differently.
What I meant was that, when one asked a question, the expectation (I thought) was not that replies would be limited exclusively to answering it.
Cheers.
flemke said:
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.
Flemke said:
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.
All good points, and I like the 'plus points' idea especially - there was a brief experiment in Dorset or Devon years ago with Police stopping motorists to award them a keyring for good driving. Well worth five miles of shitting yourself because of a trailing police car followed by a minor heart attack when the lights went on, I'd say!- 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.
But all of those points relate to the enforcement, not the law. Can anyone come up with a better law than the 'reasonable behaviour as defined by reasonable people'? Within the law as it is framed, the hypothetical constable in your final paragraph can (in theory) act as you suggest. I agree that there is little incentive within the system for them to do so, but we need some MPs on here if we're going to have a meaningful debate about that, surely? What's Jacqui Smith's PH name I wonder?
ajcj said:
But all of those points relate to the enforcement, not the law. Can anyone come up with a better law than the 'reasonable behaviour as defined by reasonable people'? Within the law as it is framed, the hypothetical constable in your final paragraph can (in theory) act as you suggest.
If the hypothetical constable were free to act as I suggested, then would there be a need for the law to be changed? If there is no legal barrier to his acting in that way, then perhaps it is the enforcement context (not a small subject) that requires change.I hope we don't need more laws to guide authorities in the enforcement of existing laws; as it is, we've got about ten times more laws than we need.
I do think that, in the case where it is physically impossible for a driver to harm or bother any other person or property, he or she should have a statutory exemption from liability for most traffic offences.
ajcj said:
I agree that there is little incentive within the system for them to do so, but we need some MPs on here if we're going to have a meaningful debate about that, surely?
MPs in a meaningful debate? Is that possible, or merely unprecedented?
ajcj said:
What's Jacqui Smith's PH name I wonder?
One or two posters do seem to stand out as the most likely suspects...s2art said:
Sheriff JWPepper said:
Chimjunkie said:
i nearly lost control swerving to miss the cat.
That'a an absolute offence.IIRC you can swerve for Dogs, Horses and a few others.
Cats are one of the species you can't swerve for. Can any BiB confirm?
10 Pence Short said:
As an aside, part of the technical evidence in the accident report against me opened my eyes to how things can easily be misinterpreted.
When my (front wheel drive) car snapped sideways unexpectedly, I applied the opposite lock and buried the throttle. This was having the desired affect when the unfortunate biker came the other way and the rest, as they say, is history.
At the point of impact, my foot was still buried, the force stopped my car entirely and as the front wheels gained straight forward traction, it launched me into the nearside verge. This left a pair of 'wheelspin' skidmarks on the road.
It was because of this that one of the possible suggestions from the accident investigation was that I may have been inducing a powerslide. In my case I certainly wasn't, and the point was never pushed in the court case, but it did worry me that because I didn't panic and slam on the anchors when the back went, instead trying to pull myself out of the skid using experience, I could have been landed in even more hot water.
10PS - having read (with great interest) your open and honest thread regarding your incident, I thought you were almost stationary at the time of impact (or have I got my wires crossed somewhere?)When my (front wheel drive) car snapped sideways unexpectedly, I applied the opposite lock and buried the throttle. This was having the desired affect when the unfortunate biker came the other way and the rest, as they say, is history.
At the point of impact, my foot was still buried, the force stopped my car entirely and as the front wheels gained straight forward traction, it launched me into the nearside verge. This left a pair of 'wheelspin' skidmarks on the road.
It was because of this that one of the possible suggestions from the accident investigation was that I may have been inducing a powerslide. In my case I certainly wasn't, and the point was never pushed in the court case, but it did worry me that because I didn't panic and slam on the anchors when the back went, instead trying to pull myself out of the skid using experience, I could have been landed in even more hot water.
p1esk said:
Might is right ? Not always, I would say.
Actually I used to be anti-hunting, as it does seem rather barbaric, but I've changed my mind about supporting the ban. I'd still rather people didn't do it, but I'm so fed up of things being banned.
I hate to say it but find myself in the same positionActually I used to be anti-hunting, as it does seem rather barbaric, but I've changed my mind about supporting the ban. I'd still rather people didn't do it, but I'm so fed up of things being banned.
Sorry to resurrect an old topic but I have found myself in a situation (possibly).
I recently bought a new Golf R with a Haldex 4wd system. I have to say despite my driving experience so far with various types of vehicles I was uncertain how this car would handle under different throttle, steering and braking inputs. I came across a rural roundabout near but outside a village where there was no traffic. The roundabout was sighted well enough to be able in my view to investigate the characteristics of the car under relatively hard cornering with various different inputs, so I took the opportunity. I did not exceed the speed limit, or get anywhere near it. I did not get the car "sideways" or at any point lose control of the vehicle and I had enough visibility to see the other approach roads and never drove at a speed that was excessive in terms of available vision and grip.
However, further up an approach road there is a pavement which ends a fair distance from the roundabout. I became aware of a dog walker who had emerged onto that pavement and I realised he was filming me using a mobile phone camera. I exited the roundabout then drove off past him courteously and he shook his head whilst obviously continuing to film me. I suspect he would have captured a vehicle that in the most looked like it was going fairly quickly with a little bit of movement but there was a fair amount of tyre noise. It certainly wasn't a "drift" or any gratuitous attempt at exuberance, rather an educational exercise.
I am worried that if this is submitted to the establishment it could land me in hot water. Do those in the know think that anything will be made of this and, if so, how should I respond? My intention is to apologise, honestly state what I was doing and that it was because it was a new car plus highlighting my training and interest in road safety to date. I do have better things to do than hoon around roundabouts aimlessly and if I want to have fun I will drive my track car on the track. It really was an educational exercise and that was that. Regrettable that I annoyed or worried someone with my driving - something I generally take pride in not doing.
agtlaw - am I likely to need to call on your services??
I recently bought a new Golf R with a Haldex 4wd system. I have to say despite my driving experience so far with various types of vehicles I was uncertain how this car would handle under different throttle, steering and braking inputs. I came across a rural roundabout near but outside a village where there was no traffic. The roundabout was sighted well enough to be able in my view to investigate the characteristics of the car under relatively hard cornering with various different inputs, so I took the opportunity. I did not exceed the speed limit, or get anywhere near it. I did not get the car "sideways" or at any point lose control of the vehicle and I had enough visibility to see the other approach roads and never drove at a speed that was excessive in terms of available vision and grip.
However, further up an approach road there is a pavement which ends a fair distance from the roundabout. I became aware of a dog walker who had emerged onto that pavement and I realised he was filming me using a mobile phone camera. I exited the roundabout then drove off past him courteously and he shook his head whilst obviously continuing to film me. I suspect he would have captured a vehicle that in the most looked like it was going fairly quickly with a little bit of movement but there was a fair amount of tyre noise. It certainly wasn't a "drift" or any gratuitous attempt at exuberance, rather an educational exercise.
I am worried that if this is submitted to the establishment it could land me in hot water. Do those in the know think that anything will be made of this and, if so, how should I respond? My intention is to apologise, honestly state what I was doing and that it was because it was a new car plus highlighting my training and interest in road safety to date. I do have better things to do than hoon around roundabouts aimlessly and if I want to have fun I will drive my track car on the track. It really was an educational exercise and that was that. Regrettable that I annoyed or worried someone with my driving - something I generally take pride in not doing.
agtlaw - am I likely to need to call on your services??
DocSteve said:
Sorry to resurrect an old topic but I have found myself in a situation (possibly).
I recently bought a new Golf R with a Haldex 4wd system. I have to say despite my driving experience so far with various types of vehicles I was uncertain how this car would handle under different throttle, steering and braking inputs. I came across a rural roundabout near but outside a village where there was no traffic. The roundabout was sighted well enough to be able in my view to investigate the characteristics of the car under relatively hard cornering with various different inputs, so I took the opportunity. I did not exceed the speed limit, or get anywhere near it. I did not get the car "sideways" or at any point lose control of the vehicle and I had enough visibility to see the other approach roads and never drove at a speed that was excessive in terms of available vision and grip.
However, further up an approach road there is a pavement which ends a fair distance from the roundabout. I became aware of a dog walker who had emerged onto that pavement and I realised he was filming me using a mobile phone camera. I exited the roundabout then drove off past him courteously and he shook his head whilst obviously continuing to film me. I suspect he would have captured a vehicle that in the most looked like it was going fairly quickly with a little bit of movement but there was a fair amount of tyre noise. It certainly wasn't a "drift" or any gratuitous attempt at exuberance, rather an educational exercise.
I am worried that if this is submitted to the establishment it could land me in hot water. Do those in the know think that anything will be made of this and, if so, how should I respond? My intention is to apologise, honestly state what I was doing and that it was because it was a new car plus highlighting my training and interest in road safety to date. I do have better things to do than hoon around roundabouts aimlessly and if I want to have fun I will drive my track car on the track. It really was an educational exercise and that was that. Regrettable that I annoyed or worried someone with my driving - something I generally take pride in not doing.
agtlaw - am I likely to need to call on your services??
I doubt anything will happen from it. A friend has been in a similar situation before, and nothing ever happened. Whether the person ever sent the video onto the Police or not I don't know.I recently bought a new Golf R with a Haldex 4wd system. I have to say despite my driving experience so far with various types of vehicles I was uncertain how this car would handle under different throttle, steering and braking inputs. I came across a rural roundabout near but outside a village where there was no traffic. The roundabout was sighted well enough to be able in my view to investigate the characteristics of the car under relatively hard cornering with various different inputs, so I took the opportunity. I did not exceed the speed limit, or get anywhere near it. I did not get the car "sideways" or at any point lose control of the vehicle and I had enough visibility to see the other approach roads and never drove at a speed that was excessive in terms of available vision and grip.
However, further up an approach road there is a pavement which ends a fair distance from the roundabout. I became aware of a dog walker who had emerged onto that pavement and I realised he was filming me using a mobile phone camera. I exited the roundabout then drove off past him courteously and he shook his head whilst obviously continuing to film me. I suspect he would have captured a vehicle that in the most looked like it was going fairly quickly with a little bit of movement but there was a fair amount of tyre noise. It certainly wasn't a "drift" or any gratuitous attempt at exuberance, rather an educational exercise.
I am worried that if this is submitted to the establishment it could land me in hot water. Do those in the know think that anything will be made of this and, if so, how should I respond? My intention is to apologise, honestly state what I was doing and that it was because it was a new car plus highlighting my training and interest in road safety to date. I do have better things to do than hoon around roundabouts aimlessly and if I want to have fun I will drive my track car on the track. It really was an educational exercise and that was that. Regrettable that I annoyed or worried someone with my driving - something I generally take pride in not doing.
agtlaw - am I likely to need to call on your services??
I'd say if you're unlucky, you'll maybe get a knock at the door, an a 'Don't do it again'.
I doubt anything will come of it though.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff