Why do so few people ‘use all of the road’?

[Dr Jekyll]

Munter said:

I disagree.

Either you could safely negotiate the road on the left. Or you needed to improve your safety. In which case my second paragraph applies, and you're probably pushing things harder than is wise on the public highway.* Or (and given your post) you genuinely are "one of them" and showing off just how much cleverer you are... At which point, pride, and fall, are the words that spring to mind.

• take the picture used further up the page. There's way too much "yompyness" to that stretch of road to be able to carry enough speed to need to use the right side, and everything can be seen when sitting on the left of the road anyway. Using the right there is either unwise, or not required.

That's basically the situation for any piece of road in the UK. Where you could use the right, you generally don't need to. Where you need to, you already did something unwise.

But what about where you don't need to, but doing so further improves visibility of the nearside round the bend?

[Munter]

Dr Jekyll said:

Munter said:

I disagree.

Either you could safely negotiate the road on the left. Or you needed to improve your safety. In which case my second paragraph applies, and you're probably pushing things harder than is wise on the public highway.* Or (and given your post) you genuinely are "one of them" and showing off just how much cleverer you are... At which point, pride, and fall, are the words that spring to mind.

• take the picture used further up the page. There's way too much "yompyness" to that stretch of road to be able to carry enough speed to need to use the right side, and everything can be seen when sitting on the left of the road anyway. Using the right there is either unwise, or not required.

That's basically the situation for any piece of road in the UK. Where you could use the right, you generally don't need to. Where you need to, you already did something unwise.

But what about where you don't need to, but doing so further improves visibility of the nearside round the bend?

Did you need it? If you did you probably already did something unwise. If you didn't...why do it?

[Dr Jekyll]

Munter said:

Did you need it? If you did you probably already did something unwise. If you didn't...why do it?

Because the longer I know in advance about the parked tractor just round the bend, the more smoothly I can avoid it. Much the same logic as using full beam headlamps where possible.

[S. Gonzales Esq.]

Munter said:

I disagree.

Fair enough - I'm not going to tell you how you should be doing things.

Munter said:

* take the picture used further up the page. There's way too much "yompyness" to that stretch of road to be able to carry enough speed to need to use the right side, and everything can be seen when sitting on the left of the road anyway. Using the right there is either unwise, or not required.

We're going to disagree about that too then. The red vehicle in the distant nearside layby gives an excellent reason to straighten the right hand bend. The 'yompyness' isn't a problem if you're using the brakes to balance the car at the right points, and I think the crests will be much less of an issue if taken straight rather than whilst cornering.

[Haltamer]

Dr Jekyll said:

Much the same logic as using full beam headlamps where possible.

Uh oh, don't start on that one, or we'll get the eyeball brigade along proclaiming the virtue of using dip beam everywhere.. :eyeroll:

All arguments against offsiding are based on coming into conflict with oncoming traffic, however, as everyone with two braincells to rub together can tell you - driving towards oncoming traffic is having a head on collision, not off siding.

The benefits are, hopefully obvious - Enhanced vision into a corner, a reduction in bend radius meaning increased smoothness with the same speed, or the ability to carry additional speed.

I feel like this is stated quite well here: https://www.iamroadsmart.com/media-and-policy/news...

Applying the principles of SLAP as discussed in the article, whilst dependant on the individual situation will leave us with the real answer - If it is safe and legal, and achieves a benefit, without making you look like too much of a nutter, why not?

[Munter]

Dr Jekyll said:

Munter said:

Did you need it? If you did you probably already did something unwise. If you didn't...why do it?

Because the longer I know in advance about the parked tractor just round the bend, the more smoothly I can avoid it. Much the same logic as using full beam headlamps where possible.

So the only way you could approach this tractor scenario is by being on the right of the road. There are no other options open to you to achieve the same outcome? When making your decision, you must do this. If so, I'd suggest you've done something unwise before this point.

If you have another option, that fits with driving convention, is just as safe, and where if something did go wrong, witnesses (including your tyre marks) wouldn't say bad things. Wouldn't that sound a better option?

Edited by Munter on Friday 1st March 17:30

[waremark]

Munter said:

Did you need it? If you did you probably already did something unwise. If you didn't...why do it?

You may well not have needed it - but it may have been better driving to take advantage of a safe legal opportunity to improve either vision, stability or separation from nearside hazards than not to do so.

If you are a skilled and thinking driver who aims to drive as well as possible (rather than a munter on autopilot) why wouldn't you?

[Pothole]

DoubleD said:

Most people dont drive quick enough to need to use the other side of the road. For most people a car is a means of getting from A-B. Geeks who properly enjoy cars are a tiny minority.

Nailed it. Close thread.

I do it. My wife says I "drive like a biker". I am a biker.

[Dr Jekyll]

Munter said:

So the only way you could approach this tractor scenario is by being on the right of the road. There are no other options open to you to achieve the same outcome? When making your decision, you must do this. If so, I'd suggest you've done something unwise before this point.

If you have another option, that fits with driving convention, is just as safe, and where if something did go wrong, witnesses (including your tyre marks) wouldn't say bad things. Wouldn't that sound a better option?

There is no other option in the scenario I describe for getting an improved view. If something went wrong and I was asked why I was using the full width of the road I would tell them. What would you say if something went wrong and you were asked why you hadn't taken the opportunity for a better view? I'll concentrate on getting as much warning of hazards as possible thereby reducing the chance of things going wrong, rather than concentrate on trying to second guess potential witnesses.


"Well you honour, I could have gone over the white line and therefore seen the escaped racehorse running towards me in time to avoid it, but I thought you'd be too thick and ignorant to understand offsiding so I crashed into the animal secure in the knowledge I was fitting driving convention, at least Munter's convention if nobody else's, and that was obviously more important."

[66mpg]

This thread is starting to resemble two bald men fighting over a comb. Time to go for a drive.

[Len Woodman]

It's simple here in New South Wales, Straya - It's illegal!

[otolith]

Not big on nuance, aussie lawmakers.

[otolith]

otolith said:

So, one of Reg's videos, where he uses the offside a fair bit and explains what he's doing, why he's doing it, and why he isn't doing it.

Looks perfectly reasonable to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJgll4p9QJc

No feedback from the naysayers?

Reg was a plod instructor, wasn’t he?

[Reg Local]

This one explores the appropriateness of “offsiding” in more detail on a much less well-sighted road:

https://youtu.be/L13E7ou-BhY

[Len Woodman]

otolith said:

Not big on nuance, aussie lawmakers.

Not big on anything!

[SOL111]

Len Woodman said:

It's simple here in New South Wales, Straya - It's illegal!

Yeah but the Aussies have a bizarre approach to driving to be fair.

In WA the police love to put open coffins on the side of the road and mashed cars up trees as a speed deterrent (oh, look what can happen).

Then there are roads as straight as the eye can see with nothing but red soil for miles. First class 360 degree visibility but the speed limits are ridiculously low (60km/h iirc), coupled with speed cameras. In the middle of freaking nowhere!

I'll take the UK driving laws anyday!

[Monkeylegend]

And then Skippy appears from nowhere and crosses right in front of you and bang........................ followed by many expletives usually starting with f.

[vantara]

The silence from the argumentative few since Reg posted has been deafening

[nonsequitur]

vantara said:

The silence from the argumentative few since Reg posted has been deafening

Although some threads continue for years, most threads fade and fizzle out eventually, this one is no exception. PHers have had their say and both sides realise that is no longer practical to continue.

I personally believe that when the insults start to fly it is the beginning of the end. Insults are the product of arguments running their course, with no rational comments are forthcoming.

I saw Reg's video and was very informative. He is an ex police driver instructor and I was not surprised to see that he was recommending straightlining, as we all realise is that police vehicles have to be somewhere else very quickly so cutting corners, and other tactics, by them was no surprise to me.

What I find puzzling is that 'regular' drivers need to do this with all the inherant hazards involved.

Edited by nonsequitur on Monday 4th March 11:30

[DoubleD]

What hazards? You are crossing the white line to increase the visibility of upcoming corners. You only cross the white line when it is clear to do so. So obviously this isnt hazardous.