Is my advanced driving tuition dangerous?
Discussion
I don't think you're looking at this in simplistically enough.
If someone is (stuck) behind you pootling, then you are in the way, and causing stress.
You may not be causing danger; they may be pressing in a dangerous manner.
But you are in the way.
Everyone needs to demonstrate consideration all round I agree, but I'd advocate not being the pebble in the stream that causes a ripple in the flow.
It winds idiots up, as well you know.
If someone is (stuck) behind you pootling, then you are in the way, and causing stress.
You may not be causing danger; they may be pressing in a dangerous manner.
But you are in the way.
Everyone needs to demonstrate consideration all round I agree, but I'd advocate not being the pebble in the stream that causes a ripple in the flow.
It winds idiots up, as well you know.
ph123 said:
I don't think you're looking at this in simplistically enough.
If someone is (stuck) behind you pootling, then you are in the way, and causing stress.
You may not be causing danger; they may be pressing in a dangerous manner.
But you are in the way.
Everyone needs to demonstrate consideration all round I agree, but I'd advocate not being the pebble in the stream that causes a ripple in the flow.
It winds idiots up, as well you know.
If someone is (stuck) behind you pootling, then you are in the way, and causing stress.
You may not be causing danger; they may be pressing in a dangerous manner.
But you are in the way.
Everyone needs to demonstrate consideration all round I agree, but I'd advocate not being the pebble in the stream that causes a ripple in the flow.
It winds idiots up, as well you know.
Yes, those driving and holding up should show some consideration, I agree, but that was not the original point of my post.
Martin
ph123 said:
I don't think you're looking at this in simplistically enough.
If someone is (stuck) behind you pootling, then you are in the way, and causing stress.
You may not be causing danger; they may be pressing in a dangerous manner.
But you are in the way.
Everyone needs to demonstrate consideration all round I agree, but I'd advocate not being the pebble in the stream that causes a ripple in the flow.
It winds idiots up, as well you know.
If someone is (stuck) behind you pootling, then you are in the way, and causing stress.
You may not be causing danger; they may be pressing in a dangerous manner.
But you are in the way.
Everyone needs to demonstrate consideration all round I agree, but I'd advocate not being the pebble in the stream that causes a ripple in the flow.
It winds idiots up, as well you know.
There may be lots of reasons why a driver may not be driving at the maximum allowed limit on that particular road, he may have had a hard day, may be under stress himself for reasons unbeknown to others, and doesnt feel up to driving at 70 mph, I'v done it, and I am sure others have also. Remember a posted MAXIMUM SPEED LIMIT, does not mean you have to drive at that limit.
If the driver behind you cant pass and is geting stressed out, maybe it is they who shouldnt be on the road, but as alredy been pointed out that wasnt the point of the posting anywy. But on a personal basis, I just click on the cruise control at whatever the maximum speed it, and let the car cruise along. If the driver behind me doesnt like that, he can lump it.
Hi ph123,
I sympathise with you. It can be frustrating to be stuck behind some slow coach who needlessly breaks up the flow. Now you have some insight into what it's like to ride a motorcycle
This is what it feels like when a motorcyclist gets stuck behind every car. However, I do try not to get too frustrated when stuck behind those pesky 4-wheelers
In my experience, making progress (i.e. getting on with it) and flow are two of the essential qualities in advanced driving/riding. Hence why overtaking is one of the key skills taught in advanced driving and riding. Another key quality is lane discipline, because it's not advanced to hold up another road user.
Nonetheless, driving that's inconsiderate and "definitely aggressive" is poor driving in my book. (However alert you may be.) Getting on with it and making headway are to be applauded, but there's no need to add to the levels of agression we already suffer.
I sympathise with you. It can be frustrating to be stuck behind some slow coach who needlessly breaks up the flow. Now you have some insight into what it's like to ride a motorcycle
This is what it feels like when a motorcyclist gets stuck behind every car. However, I do try not to get too frustrated when stuck behind those pesky 4-wheelers ph123 said:
For example, at non peak times, I actually think that there is a lot of good driving goes on particularly on the antiquated motorway system, not necessarily legal or considerate and definitely aggressive but 'good', alert, satisfying and non-time wasting.
But in the modern world and with so much progress in road design, the values are in favour of flow, rhythm, getting on with it.
But in the modern world and with so much progress in road design, the values are in favour of flow, rhythm, getting on with it.
In my experience, making progress (i.e. getting on with it) and flow are two of the essential qualities in advanced driving/riding. Hence why overtaking is one of the key skills taught in advanced driving and riding. Another key quality is lane discipline, because it's not advanced to hold up another road user.
Nonetheless, driving that's inconsiderate and "definitely aggressive" is poor driving in my book. (However alert you may be.) Getting on with it and making headway are to be applauded, but there's no need to add to the levels of agression we already suffer.
ph123 said:
So yes, some of your advance driving tuition IS (likely to be) dangerous.
If you can't control your emotions when behind someone who is driving legally, then you are dangerous.
If your frustrations at someone in the limit affects your abilty to drive, then you are dangerous.
If you wish to drive faster than someone who is driving legally, and this makes you lose control, then you are dangerous.
All you. Always.
BFF
Don’t disagree with you BFF.
If YOU drive legally and slowly, you will cause less ‘advanced’ drivers frustration which can be dangerous, you are quite right.
Could we hazard a guess at 98% of drivers are not ‘advanced’ and say 20% habitually drive too fast?
So I do agree with er I think the point we started with.
YOU could be the cause of a dangerous situation building.
All you. Always. Quite right.
If YOU drive legally and slowly, you will cause less ‘advanced’ drivers frustration which can be dangerous, you are quite right.
Could we hazard a guess at 98% of drivers are not ‘advanced’ and say 20% habitually drive too fast?
So I do agree with er I think the point we started with.
YOU could be the cause of a dangerous situation building.
All you. Always. Quite right.
Big Fat F'r said:
All you. Always.
BFF
I'm sure you're right, in the same sense that somebody who pulls out in front of you is at fault if you have priority. But you still carry some moral blame (if not legal blame) since your actions affected them and contributed to their actions. If you wave somebody out in front of you and then drive into them, it would be hard to argue that it is all their fault. Similarly if they *thought* you had waved them out, or perhaps thought that you were waiting for them even though you haven't waved, imo you would carry some blame for the misunderstanding if your actions had not made your intentions clear. On the same basis, if your actions cause frustration in the drivers around you then it may be they are at fault, but you still carry some blame for provoking them.
Don said:
gridgway said:
The Advanced Driver would have to ask themselves whether it would have been better to use the brakes for the 30 zone andn cause less frustration.
Graham
Graham
Never, ever feel pushed to drive poorly by someone behind you. Instead get them past as quickly as possible. If necessary by slowing to a halt (safely!) and pulling over. Its not worth it having a frustrated driver behind you planning on doing something dumb. Get them in front where you can see them and deal with whatever they want to do.
They'll feel better at having got past and you can relax instead of needing to deal with a tailgater.
The corollary of this is that if I am in a hurry out in an NSL I hope the guy in front has the same attitude. I won't tailgate - but I will be going past. I don't mind if the other guy thinks I'm a knob for wanting to drive fast - just so long as he takes care to let me by as quickly and as safely as practical. Personally I am scrupulous not to cause the guy in front any inconvenience but I will be going by...
I concur with your subjective approach to either drivers mindset
ph123 said:
Don’t disagree with you BFF.
If YOU drive legally and slowly, you will cause less ‘advanced’ drivers frustration which can be dangerous, you are quite right.
Could we hazard a guess at 98% of drivers are not ‘advanced’ and say 20% habitually drive too fast?
So I do agree with er I think the point we started with.
YOU could be the cause of a dangerous situation building.
All you. Always. Quite right.
If YOU drive legally and slowly, you will cause less ‘advanced’ drivers frustration which can be dangerous, you are quite right.
Could we hazard a guess at 98% of drivers are not ‘advanced’ and say 20% habitually drive too fast?
So I do agree with er I think the point we started with.
YOU could be the cause of a dangerous situation building.
All you. Always. Quite right.
No, the driver who is losing control, and allowing other drivers to antagonise them, is the poor, unsafe driver.
If you are behind someone who is driving within the limit, this should not in itself cause you to become frustrated, angry or anything else. If it does, it is a sign of your lack of skill. That can be addressed if recognised, but the answer is not to blame someone else for your errors.
BFF
GreenV8S said:
Big Fat F'r said:
All you. Always.
BFF
I'm sure you're right, in the same sense that somebody who pulls out in front of you is at fault if you have priority. But you still carry some moral blame (if not legal blame) since your actions affected them and contributed to their actions. If you wave somebody out in front of you and then drive into them, it would be hard to argue that it is all their fault. Similarly if they *thought* you had waved them out, or perhaps thought that you were waiting for them even though you haven't waved, imo you would carry some blame for the misunderstanding if your actions had not made your intentions clear. On the same basis, if your actions cause frustration in the drivers around you then it may be they are at fault, but you still carry some blame for provoking them.
Green - I understand where you are coming from, but you cannot be blamed for driving within the law, morrally or otherwise. Waving someone out is different. It's bizarre that some on here want to blame others for their poor driving, when all the drivers in front have done is obey the law.
The quicker we lay the blame solely where it lies, the quicker we can address it. If you (not you personally) find that you do something dangerous simply because you are behind a driver who is driving within the limits, then I think deep down you know you are 100% at fault. You just need someone to blame. It's natural, because otherwise you have to accept your personal shortcomings. It just needs recognising.
BFF
Rubbish BFF.
Since when have we established that anyone is driving poorly or losing control? Nonsense.
The fact does remain though that for the majority of undisciplined drivers in a hurry, faced with someone learning advanced driving technique that is occasionally at a lesser pace than high speed traffic flow, will thereby cause frustration.
We're talking about modern day reality which most of us dislike but are stuck with.
Your attitude is 'bugger you, I'm legal so I can I'll drive as I see fit'.
Fact is, you are in the way. So is your mindset. So you drive up a motorway at 70 mph do you?
Since when have we established that anyone is driving poorly or losing control? Nonsense.
The fact does remain though that for the majority of undisciplined drivers in a hurry, faced with someone learning advanced driving technique that is occasionally at a lesser pace than high speed traffic flow, will thereby cause frustration.
We're talking about modern day reality which most of us dislike but are stuck with.
Your attitude is 'bugger you, I'm legal so I can I'll drive as I see fit'.
Fact is, you are in the way. So is your mindset. So you drive up a motorway at 70 mph do you?
I think that we have lost the perspective of the OP. Lots of people are saying here:
1 If you as the driver get frustrated behind a slower car, then you are a poor driver - agreed but irrelevant to the debate
2 If you cause frustration by driving at any speed you feel, below the limit, it's all ok as you are within the law - wrong. Regardless of the law or not, you have been part of that frustration. Could that be dangerous? Too right.
So as an advanced driver driving in a 30 limit built up area (for example), at or below 30 when the majority flow is at 35, you will generate a situation where people will be frustrated. Noone else, you will generate the situation. You were driving in that manner. The excuse that it is within the law is true, well and good. It has no bearing at all on how dangerous the situation is.
So the key question is how does the advanced driver recognise this and mitigate the situation, reduce frustration and make the situation safer? Many have suggested that you let people by. Good but if you did that in many built up areas you would make no progress at all.
Are there any other mitigation techniques? Well one is to drive faster. Other than the fact that it is illegal, it is quite a good strategy. Doesn't work well if you end up driving too fast for the circs (but we have an advanced driving method to judge that)!
Any others?
I just don't buy the argument - if it's legal it's safe and if it's not safe then as long as it's legal that's fine
Bert
1 If you as the driver get frustrated behind a slower car, then you are a poor driver - agreed but irrelevant to the debate
2 If you cause frustration by driving at any speed you feel, below the limit, it's all ok as you are within the law - wrong. Regardless of the law or not, you have been part of that frustration. Could that be dangerous? Too right.
So as an advanced driver driving in a 30 limit built up area (for example), at or below 30 when the majority flow is at 35, you will generate a situation where people will be frustrated. Noone else, you will generate the situation. You were driving in that manner. The excuse that it is within the law is true, well and good. It has no bearing at all on how dangerous the situation is.
So the key question is how does the advanced driver recognise this and mitigate the situation, reduce frustration and make the situation safer? Many have suggested that you let people by. Good but if you did that in many built up areas you would make no progress at all.
Are there any other mitigation techniques? Well one is to drive faster. Other than the fact that it is illegal, it is quite a good strategy. Doesn't work well if you end up driving too fast for the circs (but we have an advanced driving method to judge that)!
Any others?
I just don't buy the argument - if it's legal it's safe and if it's not safe then as long as it's legal that's fine
Bert
bertbert said:
I think that we have lost the perspective of the OP. Lots of people are saying here:
1 If you as the driver get frustrated behind a slower car, then you are a poor driver - agreed but irrelevant to the debate
2 If you cause frustration by driving at any speed you feel, below the limit, it's all ok as you are within the law - wrong. Regardless of the law or not, you have been part of that frustration. Could that be dangerous? Too right.
So as an advanced driver driving in a 30 limit built up area (for example), at or below 30 when the majority flow is at 35, you will generate a situation where people will be frustrated. Noone else, you will generate the situation. You were driving in that manner. The excuse that it is within the law is true, well and good. It has no bearing at all on how dangerous the situation is.
So the key question is how does the advanced driver recognise this and mitigate the situation, reduce frustration and make the situation safer? Many have suggested that you let people by. Good but if you did that in many built up areas you would make no progress at all.
Are there any other mitigation techniques? Well one is to drive faster. Other than the fact that it is illegal, it is quite a good strategy. Doesn't work well if you end up driving too fast for the circs (but we have an advanced driving method to judge that)!
Any others?
I just don't buy the argument - if it's legal it's safe and if it's not safe then as long as it's legal that's fine
Bert
1 If you as the driver get frustrated behind a slower car, then you are a poor driver - agreed but irrelevant to the debate
2 If you cause frustration by driving at any speed you feel, below the limit, it's all ok as you are within the law - wrong. Regardless of the law or not, you have been part of that frustration. Could that be dangerous? Too right.
So as an advanced driver driving in a 30 limit built up area (for example), at or below 30 when the majority flow is at 35, you will generate a situation where people will be frustrated. Noone else, you will generate the situation. You were driving in that manner. The excuse that it is within the law is true, well and good. It has no bearing at all on how dangerous the situation is.
So the key question is how does the advanced driver recognise this and mitigate the situation, reduce frustration and make the situation safer? Many have suggested that you let people by. Good but if you did that in many built up areas you would make no progress at all.
Are there any other mitigation techniques? Well one is to drive faster. Other than the fact that it is illegal, it is quite a good strategy. Doesn't work well if you end up driving too fast for the circs (but we have an advanced driving method to judge that)!
Any others?
I just don't buy the argument - if it's legal it's safe and if it's not safe then as long as it's legal that's fine
Bert
What is expected of us all on the roads is clearly defined.
Your desire to drive outside the bounds of defined acceptability creates the danger.
You will carry the can & you will be the one whose licence is under threat.
If people unnecessarily impede your "legal" process, then they can be dealt with where necessary.
vonhosen said:
bertbert said:
I think that we have lost the perspective of the OP. Lots of people are saying here:
1 If you as the driver get frustrated behind a slower car, then you are a poor driver - agreed but irrelevant to the debate
2 If you cause frustration by driving at any speed you feel, below the limit, it's all ok as you are within the law - wrong. Regardless of the law or not, you have been part of that frustration. Could that be dangerous? Too right.
So as an advanced driver driving in a 30 limit built up area (for example), at or below 30 when the majority flow is at 35, you will generate a situation where people will be frustrated. Noone else, you will generate the situation. You were driving in that manner. The excuse that it is within the law is true, well and good. It has no bearing at all on how dangerous the situation is.
So the key question is how does the advanced driver recognise this and mitigate the situation, reduce frustration and make the situation safer? Many have suggested that you let people by. Good but if you did that in many built up areas you would make no progress at all.
Are there any other mitigation techniques? Well one is to drive faster. Other than the fact that it is illegal, it is quite a good strategy. Doesn't work well if you end up driving too fast for the circs (but we have an advanced driving method to judge that)!
Any others?
I just don't buy the argument - if it's legal it's safe and if it's not safe then as long as it's legal that's fine
Bert
1 If you as the driver get frustrated behind a slower car, then you are a poor driver - agreed but irrelevant to the debate
2 If you cause frustration by driving at any speed you feel, below the limit, it's all ok as you are within the law - wrong. Regardless of the law or not, you have been part of that frustration. Could that be dangerous? Too right.
So as an advanced driver driving in a 30 limit built up area (for example), at or below 30 when the majority flow is at 35, you will generate a situation where people will be frustrated. Noone else, you will generate the situation. You were driving in that manner. The excuse that it is within the law is true, well and good. It has no bearing at all on how dangerous the situation is.
So the key question is how does the advanced driver recognise this and mitigate the situation, reduce frustration and make the situation safer? Many have suggested that you let people by. Good but if you did that in many built up areas you would make no progress at all.
Are there any other mitigation techniques? Well one is to drive faster. Other than the fact that it is illegal, it is quite a good strategy. Doesn't work well if you end up driving too fast for the circs (but we have an advanced driving method to judge that)!
Any others?
I just don't buy the argument - if it's legal it's safe and if it's not safe then as long as it's legal that's fine
Bert
What is expected of us all on the roads is clearly defined.
Your desire to drive outside the bounds of defined acceptability creates the danger.
You will carry the can & you will be the one whose licence is under threat.
If people unnecessarily impede your "legal" process, then they can be dealt with where necessary.
No, no VH you have missed my point entirely. This is not a debate about legality, it is about danger factors. It's just facile to say that the slower legal driver plays no part in the creation of a situation of greater danger just because the faster drivers are breaking the law. And of course when they are stuck behind they are not breaking the law!
When I was driving at 30 in a built up area in my evo and the repmobile behind became so angry that he dangerously overtook, swerved in and halted with an emergency stop, I was in the right and he was in the wrong. But that's not the point! I played a part in creating that situation and an advanced driver should not create greater danger.
Bert
bertbert said:
vonhosen said:
bertbert said:
I think that we have lost the perspective of the OP. Lots of people are saying here:
1 If you as the driver get frustrated behind a slower car, then you are a poor driver - agreed but irrelevant to the debate
2 If you cause frustration by driving at any speed you feel, below the limit, it's all ok as you are within the law - wrong. Regardless of the law or not, you have been part of that frustration. Could that be dangerous? Too right.
So as an advanced driver driving in a 30 limit built up area (for example), at or below 30 when the majority flow is at 35, you will generate a situation where people will be frustrated. Noone else, you will generate the situation. You were driving in that manner. The excuse that it is within the law is true, well and good. It has no bearing at all on how dangerous the situation is.
So the key question is how does the advanced driver recognise this and mitigate the situation, reduce frustration and make the situation safer? Many have suggested that you let people by. Good but if you did that in many built up areas you would make no progress at all.
Are there any other mitigation techniques? Well one is to drive faster. Other than the fact that it is illegal, it is quite a good strategy. Doesn't work well if you end up driving too fast for the circs (but we have an advanced driving method to judge that)!
Any others?
I just don't buy the argument - if it's legal it's safe and if it's not safe then as long as it's legal that's fine
Bert
1 If you as the driver get frustrated behind a slower car, then you are a poor driver - agreed but irrelevant to the debate
2 If you cause frustration by driving at any speed you feel, below the limit, it's all ok as you are within the law - wrong. Regardless of the law or not, you have been part of that frustration. Could that be dangerous? Too right.
So as an advanced driver driving in a 30 limit built up area (for example), at or below 30 when the majority flow is at 35, you will generate a situation where people will be frustrated. Noone else, you will generate the situation. You were driving in that manner. The excuse that it is within the law is true, well and good. It has no bearing at all on how dangerous the situation is.
So the key question is how does the advanced driver recognise this and mitigate the situation, reduce frustration and make the situation safer? Many have suggested that you let people by. Good but if you did that in many built up areas you would make no progress at all.
Are there any other mitigation techniques? Well one is to drive faster. Other than the fact that it is illegal, it is quite a good strategy. Doesn't work well if you end up driving too fast for the circs (but we have an advanced driving method to judge that)!
Any others?
I just don't buy the argument - if it's legal it's safe and if it's not safe then as long as it's legal that's fine
Bert
What is expected of us all on the roads is clearly defined.
Your desire to drive outside the bounds of defined acceptability creates the danger.
You will carry the can & you will be the one whose licence is under threat.
If people unnecessarily impede your "legal" process, then they can be dealt with where necessary.
No, no VH you have missed my point entirely. This is not a debate about legality, it is about danger factors. It's just facile to say that the slower legal driver plays no part in the creation of a situation of greater danger just because the faster drivers are breaking the law. And of course when they are stuck behind they are not breaking the law!
When I was driving at 30 in a built up area in my evo and the repmobile behind became so angry that he dangerously overtook, swerved in and halted with an emergency stop, I was in the right and he was in the wrong. But that's not the point! I played a part in creating that situation and an advanced driver should not create greater danger.
Bert
That's like saying because a woman wears a skirt above the knee, she has played a part in creating the situation of her rape. Doesn't wash with me I'm afraid.
Those getting a court date are the one losing their rag behind a car doing 30 in a 30 & the one doing the rape.
And they may be breaking the law when they are stuck behind, such as if they are aggressively tailgating.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 3rd March 17:12
vonhosen said:
That's like saying because a woman wears a skirt above the knee, she has played a part in creating the situation of her rape. Doesn't wash with me I'm afraid.
And yet it seems obvious to me that a young woman who dresses and behaves provocatively while in the company of drunken young men *does* contribute to the situation. That doesn't mean it's her fault, but she has put herself at risk, just as the mugged pensioner has put themselves at risk by walking alone down a dark alleyway at night, and just as the advanced driver has caused avoidable aggravation by sticking scrupulously to the speed limit in circumstances where other drivers would typically go faster while baulking people around them who clearly do want to go faster. It seems to me that advanced driving is all about achieving the best compromise between conflicting factors (convenience, safety etc) and one of the factors is inconvenience to drivers around them. We seem to be back to the view that no degree of illegality can be tolerated regardless of any inconvenience caused. The world is not that black and white imo.
VH - sometimes we do not see eye to eye. But on this you are bang on the money.
NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO EXPECT SOMEONE ELSE TO BREAK THE LAW FOR THEIR CONVENIENCE!
I just can't believe that when its put as above anyone can argue with that!
Now. I remember having an argument with Madcop on here a few years back about a young lass who wouldn't do more than 40. I made the same argument about causing frustration and therefore being partly to blame for the antics of following drivers. The only justification I had in that case was that in a NSL she wouldn't get up to 60.
Personally I think its reasonable to expect drivers to manage to travel at the speed limit where it is safe to do so. But its STILL MY PROBLEM to make a safe overtake if she can't.
If she does drive at 60 and I want to (illegally) drive faster its MY problem to make a safe overtake.
But I've no right to expect the lass in front to do more than that.
Whilst I understand Peter's argument that its silly to wear a provocative skirt in a bad area of town "she was asking for it" is still no excuse. And I bet all of us here would happily punch the lights out of anyone who decided it was.
Well. Sorry: but its the same way with any expectation that a driver in front should break the law. Not on.
NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO EXPECT SOMEONE ELSE TO BREAK THE LAW FOR THEIR CONVENIENCE!
I just can't believe that when its put as above anyone can argue with that!
Now. I remember having an argument with Madcop on here a few years back about a young lass who wouldn't do more than 40. I made the same argument about causing frustration and therefore being partly to blame for the antics of following drivers. The only justification I had in that case was that in a NSL she wouldn't get up to 60.
Personally I think its reasonable to expect drivers to manage to travel at the speed limit where it is safe to do so. But its STILL MY PROBLEM to make a safe overtake if she can't.
If she does drive at 60 and I want to (illegally) drive faster its MY problem to make a safe overtake.
But I've no right to expect the lass in front to do more than that.
Whilst I understand Peter's argument that its silly to wear a provocative skirt in a bad area of town "she was asking for it" is still no excuse. And I bet all of us here would happily punch the lights out of anyone who decided it was.
Well. Sorry: but its the same way with any expectation that a driver in front should break the law. Not on.
GreenV8S said:
vonhosen said:
That's like saying because a woman wears a skirt above the knee, she has played a part in creating the situation of her rape. Doesn't wash with me I'm afraid.
And yet it seems obvious to me that a young woman who dresses and behaves provocatively while in the company of drunken young men *does* contribute to the situation. That doesn't mean it's her fault, but she has put herself at risk, just as the mugged pensioner has put themselves at risk by walking alone down a dark alleyway at night, and just as the advanced driver has caused avoidable aggravation by sticking scrupulously to the speed limit in circumstances where other drivers would typically go faster while baulking people around them who clearly do want to go faster. It seems to me that advanced driving is all about achieving the best compromise between conflicting factors (convenience, safety etc) and one of the factors is inconvenience to drivers around them. We seem to be back to the view that no degree of illegality can be tolerated regardless of any inconvenience caused. The world is not that black and white imo.
So you are asking for it by having a nice car ?
By buying a nice car you are responsible for creating a climate where those who can't afford it may steal it, damage it out of jealousy, or rob you ?
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff