If you got caught drifting a roundabout....
Discussion
vonhosen said:
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?
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?
Because it's not always dangerous, so I don't understand why it would always be punishable.Does anyone actually disagree with that? If so why?
And to describe a roundabout as a "hazard" is interesting in itself.
It depends on the roundabout, the visibility, the level of traffic, etc, etc. In many (most) cases it could legitimately be seen as increasing the level of danger to other road users. But "always"? I don't think so.
This seems to me like another speeding debate. Is speeding always dangerous? No. Is it sometimes? Yes. So punish it always to account for the sometimes. It's so much easier than applying the discretion required to determine whether a particular manouvre is dangerous or not.
Peter Ward said:
Because it's not always dangerous, so I don't understand why it would always be punishable.
And to describe a roundabout as a "hazard" is interesting in itself.
It depends on the roundabout, the visibility, the level of traffic, etc, etc. In many (most) cases it could legitimately be seen as increasing the level of danger to other road users. But "always"? I don't think so.
This seems to me like another speeding debate. Is speeding always dangerous? No. Is it sometimes? Yes. So punish it always to account for the sometimes. It's so much easier than applying the discretion required to determine whether a particular manouvre is dangerous or not.
I think I agree that there is no such thing as a definitive view of this, but nonetheless we're expected as drivers to maintain control of our vehicles at all times on the public road. There will be occasions where one gets "caught out" and I'm sure that officers use thier discretion in not prosecuting people who momentarily lose control due to slippery conditions etc.And to describe a roundabout as a "hazard" is interesting in itself.
It depends on the roundabout, the visibility, the level of traffic, etc, etc. In many (most) cases it could legitimately be seen as increasing the level of danger to other road users. But "always"? I don't think so.
This seems to me like another speeding debate. Is speeding always dangerous? No. Is it sometimes? Yes. So punish it always to account for the sometimes. It's so much easier than applying the discretion required to determine whether a particular manouvre is dangerous or not.
However I don't think it's fair to equate that situation with piling into a roundabout with the intention of pulling off a majestic smoky drift. I don't think many drivers or Police Officer would agree that doing that on a public road is either safe, lawful or shows regard for other road users.
I mean if it's ok, then perhaps we should all start drifting... and donuts, and burnouts, and J-turns...
There are lots of people who could maintain a controlled slide, roundabout or no roundabout.
Explaining that it's controlled and safe on the road, to a magistrate, is another thing entirely, and I suspect a prosecution for careless would be successful.
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.
Explaining that it's controlled and safe on the road, to a magistrate, is another thing entirely, and I suspect a prosecution for careless would be successful.
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.
Edited by 10 Pence Short on Thursday 17th January 14:13
corozin said:
I think I agree that there is no such thing as a definitive view of this, but nonetheless we're expected as drivers to maintain control of our vehicles at all times on the public road. There will be occasions where one gets "caught out" and I'm sure that officers use thier discretion in not prosecuting people who momentarily lose control due to slippery conditions etc.
But surely, if the letter of the law is to be applied (which VH seems to be advocating), then the driver who momentarily loses control as above should be punished for the very fact that he is out of control whilst the driftmeister should be allowed on his way with nothing more than expressions of praise from the green-eyed officer 
because he is very palpably in control - he has induced a slide, controlled it and come out of it on the path he originally intended, the very definition of control!10 pence short said:
Explaining that it's controlled and safe on the road, to a magistrate, is another thing entirely
But should one be prosecuted for something the magistrate is incapable of understanding? Paul
edited because I can drift round roundabouts far better than I can type, apparently
Edited by cmsapms on Thursday 17th January 14:20
cmsapms said:
10 pence short said:
Explaining that it's controlled and safe on the road, to a magistrate, is another thing entirely
But should one be prosecuted for something the magistrate is incapable of understanding? Paul
We find you guilty of driving at the not inconsiderable speed of 83mph on the M1 at 3am. You clearly showed no consideration for all the disabled children you harmed during this horrendous crime. 3 points, £60 fine, £40 costs and £15 victim surcharge"
10 Pence Short said:
We find you guilty of driving at the not inconsiderable speed of 83mph on the M1 at 3am. You clearly showed no consideration for all the disabled children you harmed during this horrendous crime. 3 points, £60 fine, £40 costs and £15 victim surcharge"
"If you'll just point out the victim, your honour, I'll hand the 15 smackers over directly. Save all that bothersome paperwork. OK?"
they'd be looking for a long time given that speeding is the perfect example of a victimless crime!Paul
cmsapms said:
corozin said:
I think I agree that there is no such thing as a definitive view of this, but nonetheless we're expected as drivers to maintain control of our vehicles at all times on the public road. There will be occasions where one gets "caught out" and I'm sure that officers use thier discretion in not prosecuting people who momentarily lose control due to slippery conditions etc.
But surely, if the letter of the law is to be applied (which VH seems to be advocating), then the driver who momentarily loses control as above should be punished for the very fact that he is out of control whilst the driftmeister should be allowed on his way with nothing more than expressions of praise from the green-eyed officer because he is very palpably in control - he has induced a slide, controlled it and come out of it on the path he originally intended, the very definition of control!10 pence short said:
Explaining that it's controlled and safe on the road, to a magistrate, is another thing entirely
But should one be prosecuted for something the magistrate is incapable of understanding? Paul
edited because I can drift round roundabouts far better than I can type, apparently
Edited by cmsapms on Thursday 17th January 14:20
The point I thought I clearly made (but apparently it wasn't clear) is that discretion to prosecute in these cases rightly centres around intention. If you accidentally get into a slide as a one-off because of conditions then that is a completely different situation to those where one intends to put a car into a slide, or is driving in such a manner for the conditions that the resulting slide is inevitable.
I don't think you have to agree with VH's viewpoint to accept that 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. But what I think (and for that matter you think) is irrelevant. If you get caught drifting by the Police you should expect no mercy either from them or a Magistrate. The law on driving with due care & attention is pretty straightforward.
Edited by corozin on Thursday 17th January 14:38
Edited by corozin on Thursday 17th January 14:40
corozin said:
The point I thought I clearly made (but apparently it wasn't clear) is that discretion to prosecute in these cases rightly centres around intention.
Quite. But the way this thread seemed to be heading is whether it should, or whether the question of control would be a more just benchmark.Why should the question of intention be relevant here, but not in the case of speeding? It is perfectly possible to drift (see what I did there?) a few mph above the posted limit, especially with the current rash of artificially low limits, without intending to, but you could be prosecuted regardless.
On congested roundabouts, deliberately setting the tail awagging could give rise to concern amongst your fellow motorists but, by the very nature of being "in control", the chances of it ending in tears are much lower than a slide caused by even a momentary loss of control. I am bound to say that doing either anywhere except a completely deserted road/roundabout would mark you out as a retard of monumental proportions, but this thread is about empty roundabouts (and semantics?):
On a completely deserted roundabout, as postulated in the OP, the same thing is true. The deliberately provoked slide is much less likely to end in grief than a slide initiated by a loss of control.
The law, however, would treat the miscreants the wrong way round. The "showboater" would get the shitty end of the legal stick for having maintained control, whilst the dullard in the beige morris marina would get not much more than a "word" in their shell-like, right up to the point that a collision had occurred.
The law is, as so often, made an ass by its blunt edge. Justice and common sense are what we are accelerating (sideways?) away from.
Paul
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.trackdemon said:
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.
If a police officer saw a high performance car (which if its rwd with an lsd than it must be these days) drifting, or otherwise driving joyfully in the early hours of the morning, wouldn't we all expect them to at least pull it over? 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.how annoyed would you be if your very recently stolen car was seen drifting around islands by police, but they chose to let it pass as it was well executed?
cmsapms said:
corozin said:
The point I thought I clearly made (but apparently it wasn't clear) is that discretion to prosecute in these cases rightly centres around intention.
Quite. But the way this thread seemed to be heading is whether it should, or whether the question of control would be a more just benchmark.Why should the question of intention be relevant here, but not in the case of speeding? It is perfectly possible to drift (see what I did there?) a few mph above the posted limit, especially with the current rash of artificially low limits, without intending to, but you could be prosecuted regardless.
On congested roundabouts, deliberately setting the tail awagging could give rise to concern amongst your fellow motorists but, by the very nature of being "in control", the chances of it ending in tears are much lower than a slide caused by even a momentary loss of control. I am bound to say that doing either anywhere except a completely deserted road/roundabout would mark you out as a retard of monumental proportions, but this thread is about empty roundabouts (and semantics?):
On a completely deserted roundabout, as postulated in the OP, the same thing is true. The deliberately provoked slide is much less likely to end in grief than a slide initiated by a loss of control.
The law, however, would treat the miscreants the wrong way round. The "showboater" would get the shitty end of the legal stick for having maintained control, whilst the dullard in the beige morris marina would get not much more than a "word" in their shell-like, right up to the point that a collision had occurred.
The law is, as so often, made an ass by its blunt edge. Justice and common sense are what we are accelerating (sideways?) away from.
Paul
A momentary loss of control in adverse conditions, such as on spilt diesel, may end up with no action.
A momentary loss of control exhibited in no adverse conditions, just through poor driving such as hugely over cooking it, may end up in a Sec 3.
It therefore isn't just a consideration of intent, you can still end up getting prosecuted where you are being unintentionally daft.
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 17th January 17:07
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.I don't think it's about intent at all. I think ultimately, it's about whether the CPS can secure a conviction. How many written statements taken after traffic incidents end with that immortal phrase "I am reporting you for any offences disclosed"? The CPS then have a look and decide whether to bin it or take it further.
I'm a paramedic, I drive a response car. Obviously, driving over the speed limit on the way to a job I'm more likely to be involved in any kind of incident than if I were driving at or under the limit. Last year, in the middle of the night, on a deserted road, I clipped the kerb going round a corner. Yes, I was going faster than the speed limit, yes it was entirely my fault, but that was all I did - clip a kerb.
Joe Busybody peering from his bedroom window decided to call the police and report me. 6 months later, I was leaving the court with a handful of points and a hefty fine and a CD conviction.
The circumstances surrounding the incident were almost completely ignored - the CPS lawyer presented the simple fact that I had hit the kerb and therefore was not in control of the car. Nothing my barrister said made any difference. Case closed.
I'm a paramedic, I drive a response car. Obviously, driving over the speed limit on the way to a job I'm more likely to be involved in any kind of incident than if I were driving at or under the limit. Last year, in the middle of the night, on a deserted road, I clipped the kerb going round a corner. Yes, I was going faster than the speed limit, yes it was entirely my fault, but that was all I did - clip a kerb.
Joe Busybody peering from his bedroom window decided to call the police and report me. 6 months later, I was leaving the court with a handful of points and a hefty fine and a CD conviction.
The circumstances surrounding the incident were almost completely ignored - the CPS lawyer presented the simple fact that I had hit the kerb and therefore was not in control of the car. Nothing my barrister said made any difference. Case closed.
Soren2 said:
Depends on circumstances, but would usually start at a consideration of dangerous driving. Ultimately CPS would realise they'll probably get a guilty plea for careless, and go with that.
So:What if you're driving something like a chain-gang Frazer-Nash or an 85.5" wheelbase TVR that will only go round a roundabout sideways..?
parapaul said:
The circumstances surrounding the incident were almost completely ignored - the CPS lawyer presented the simple fact that I had hit the kerb and therefore was not in control of the car. Nothing my barrister said made any difference.
You neglected to mention the large dog you swerved to avoid?Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff