If you got caught drifting a roundabout....

[MrFlibbles]

What would you get done for?

Careless/ Dangerous?

ETA: Not that I ever had or would condone such behaviour.

Edited by MrFlibbles on Wednesday 16th January 19:08

[Soren2]

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.

[flemke]

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.

Would that be if there were no other vehicles, persons, or things to damage within, say, 200 metres of the RAB?
That is to say, if there is literally nothing to harm, then what is the harm?

[MrFlibbles]

flemke said:

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.

Would that be if there were no other vehicles, persons, or things to damage within, say, 200 metres of the RAB?
That is to say, if there is literally nothing to harm, then what is the harm?

To play devils advocate to my own question - if you got caught, then you clearly hadnt seen the copper who'd most likely be in a car.

[T_Pot]

rackless driving
driving without due care and attention,

as technically, your in a skid, and as far as the law see's it your not in control, we all know it takes control, but law says no

[MrFlibbles]

T_Pot said:

rackless driving

I'd take that one to court, you've got to have a rack to get the lock on!

[T_Pot]

MrFlibbles said:

T_Pot said:

rackless driving

I'd take that one to court, you've got to have a rack to get the lock on!

thats your opinion, so now you have a rack and opinion lmao

ill get me coat

[vonhosen]

You can add a Sec 59 warning into the mix as well as Sec 3 RTA.

[7db]

Oh no let's not start that again...

As officers elsewhere are at pains to point out, that not "getting done" - it's a crime prevention measure, not a punishment or an offence.

[Sheriff JWPepper]

MrFlibbles said:

What would you get done for?

Careless/ Dangerous?

ETA: Not that I ever had or would condone such behaviour.

Edited by MrFlibbles on Wednesday 16th January 19:08

If it was quality drifting, the road was quiet and the vehicle was in good nick - at the very least I'd be looking to pick up some tips.

[spikeyhead]

I came very close to getting done for this many years ago. Traffic car behind me as I'd got very very sideways going round the roundabout where the A1M meets the M25. I found myself thinking that I'm gonna get pulled here when a little old lady in a white metro drove towards me, coming the wrong way round the roundabout. Easy enough to change direction when a car is sideways so I had no problem avoiding her.

I didn't hang about to see what BiB discussed with that little old lady but I'm very glad she was there getting it soooo much more wrong than I was.

[cptsideways]

Sheriff JWPepper said:

MrFlibbles said:

What would you get done for?

Careless/ Dangerous?

ETA: Not that I ever had or would condone such behaviour.

Edited by MrFlibbles on Wednesday 16th January 19:08

If it was quality drifting, the road was quiet and the vehicle was in good nick - at the very least I'd be looking to pick up some tips.

I'll bear it mind should such a scenario ever possibly occur

[flemke]

MrFlibbles said:

flemke said:

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.

Would that be if there were no other vehicles, persons, or things to damage within, say, 200 metres of the RAB?
That is to say, if there is literally nothing to harm, then what is the harm?

To play devils advocate to my own question - if you got caught, then you clearly hadnt seen the copper who'd most likely be in a car.

That is assuming that the observing police officer was in a nearby car. That would be outside the scenario that I described.
Suppose the drift were viewed in CCTV. Alternatively, it might have been recorded on an onboard camera and posted on youtube.

[flemke]

T_Pot said:

rackless driving
driving without due care and attention,

as technically, your in a skid, and as far as the law see's it your not in control, we all know it takes control, but law says no

So the law literally says something like, "If the tyres of your car are drifting, then by definition you are not in control"?
If the law is poorly drafted enough to say something like that, then it is what it is - idiotic, as usual.
I'd like to see the CPS try to prosecute someone such as Sebastian Loeb in his street car on the basis that he was not in control of the vehicle!

[vonhosen]

flemke said:

T_Pot said:

rackless driving
driving without due care and attention,

as technically, your in a skid, and as far as the law see's it your not in control, we all know it takes control, but law says no

So the law literally says something like, "If the tyres of your car are drifting, then by definition you are not in control"?
If the law is poorly drafted enough to say something like that, then it is what it is - idiotic, as usual.
I'd like to see the CPS try to prosecute someone such as Sebastian Loeb in his street car on the basis that he was not in control of the vehicle!

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.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 16th January 21:37

[flemke]

vonhosen said:

flemke said:

T_Pot said:

rackless driving
driving without due care and attention,

as technically, your in a skid, and as far as the law see's it your not in control, we all know it takes control, but law says no

So the law literally says something like, "If the tyres of your car are drifting, then by definition you are not in control"?
If the law is poorly drafted enough to say something like that, then it is what it is - idiotic, as usual.
I'd like to see the CPS try to prosecute someone such as Sebastian Loeb in his street car on the basis that he was not in control of the vehicle!

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.

As I said, it is what it is - idiotic.
What possible public benefit is there to having a law whose purpose is to identify and contain unacceptable risk, but whose "objective" measure is nothing but a token that may or may well not represent the unacceptable risk that the law exists to prevent?

And of course the officer's assessment is necessarily subjective anyhow. Are they now going to start fitting private cars with telemetry that records slip angles?

I'm not objecting to proper policing, in which I would happily rely on an officer's professional opinion as to whether the car was being handled within the control of Sebastien Loeb's driving, or beyond the control of Johnnie Toerag's attempted driving. By all means let the police do their job. But equally by all means let us have a set of laws that are logical, consistent, and connected to reality.
Even great police officers will have trouble working within a crap system that contains perverse incentives to enforce crap laws.

[MrFlibbles]

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?

[vonhosen]

flemke said:

vonhosen said:

flemke said:

T_Pot said:

rackless driving
driving without due care and attention,

as technically, your in a skid, and as far as the law see's it your not in control, we all know it takes control, but law says no

So the law literally says something like, "If the tyres of your car are drifting, then by definition you are not in control"?
If the law is poorly drafted enough to say something like that, then it is what it is - idiotic, as usual.
I'd like to see the CPS try to prosecute someone such as Sebastian Loeb in his street car on the basis that he was not in control of the vehicle!

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.

As I said, it is what it is - idiotic.
What possible public benefit is there to having a law whose purpose is to identify and contain unacceptable risk, but whose "objective" measure is nothing but a token that may or may well not represent the unacceptable risk that the law exists to prevent?

And of course the officer's assessment is necessarily subjective anyhow. Are they now going to start fitting private cars with telemetry that records slip angles?

I'm not objecting to proper policing, in which I would happily rely on an officer's professional opinion as to whether the car was being handled within the control of Sebastien Loeb's driving, or beyond the control of Johnnie Toerag's attempted driving. By all means let the police do their job. But equally by all means let us have a set of laws that are logical, consistent, and connected to reality.
Even great police officers will have trouble working within a crap system that contains perverse incentives to enforce crap laws.

The reality is that intentionally drifting for amusement on public roundabouts is not acceptable behaviour.

[flemke]

vonhosen said:

The reality is that intentionally drifting for amusement on public roundabouts is not acceptable behaviour.

Is that somewhere in the Ten Commandments?

[marlinmunro]

Diesel on the road officer !