Bit of Christmas fun

[martine]

Try this quiz...

http://www.roadrule-ette.com/

...a few questions had me thinking.

[Ancient]

Seemed quite easy to get 100% TBH

[akirk]

some slightly strange wording in a few of them - but good fun

Alasdair

[jont]

Got fed up of slow graphics.

[MrToad]

The question writers seem confused - I'd like to hear evidence that the act of lighting a cigarette at the wheel could get you a dangerous driving conviction.

[Custom24]

Seemed quite easy to get 100% TBH

Assuming that the law would be as strict and in some cases as petty as possible would get you the right answer in all cases except for the one about the tax disc. So, yes, I agree.

[Ancient]

Taking a deep breath and ...ree.....laxing, or talking to a passenger or ... anything that distracts you could result in a DD conviction (were the law actually enforced properly): That's why the 'mobile phone' law should not be necesary (eh Gareth? ), the only reason we need it is because convictions have become difficult with juries (and CPS and police) deciding "There isn't a law against it so it is ok".

" It is therefore a matter of how the activity of smoking affects your capability to drive sensibly and safely." re lighting a cigarette; I'm sure most here are old enough to have heard tales of people dropping lit cigarettes/matches and hunting for them.
"Playing loud music in your car, especially with your windows down, could be regarded as distracted driving because it can prevent you from hearing what is going on around you. It can also cause a distraction to other road users." there are also places/situations where it would infract other nuisance laws (and places where it would be acceptable).
"In more serious instances, you could find yourself in court charged with driving without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other road users." re slow driving, my emphasis - which is hardly "the law [being] as strict and...petty as possible" but reasonably stopping people from driving so as to inconvenience others.

As with most tests, it's just about thinking what the question is actually asking, not imposing our own prejudgements to colour it; which often results in misreading where the negator acts - e.g. "Is it always OK to drink water whilst driving" - Answer = No: This is not the same as "It is never OK to drink water whilst driving" - Answer = Yes: The latter is false, the former is true.

[Custom24]

..."In more serious instances, you could find yourself in court charged with driving without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other road users." re slow driving, my emphasis - which is hardly "the law [being] as strict and...petty as possible" but reasonably stopping people from driving so as to inconvenience others.

You've read too much into my response.

I was commenting simply on the quiz, not the law. If you knew nothing about the answers, but simply for each and every question chose the answer that would pre-suppose the law to be as strict as possible, you would get all except the very first question correct. My point, I suppose, was that there were no examples of "Myth Busting" where the common myth about something being illegal turned out to be wrong, just for balance. And so I suspect the average person completing the test would be left with a slightly resentful feeling about the law and its pettiness.

In two cases I regard the law as petty, but that's my opinion. One was about being parked up using a mobile phone, but having the engine running. Normally, of course, you would switch off the engine, but there might be a genuine reason to keep the engine running if it were a brief call.

The other was about mounting the kerb to let a wide vehicle pass. It's never helpful when such advice fails to provide a useful alternative. The law clearly wasn't designed for certain parts of Oxford city.

[Rick101]

Only failed on the tailgating one. I was aware you could be done for careless/dangerous but it seems to ask if tailgating was a specific offence.

[MGF]

...The other was about mounting the kerb to let a wide vehicle pass. It's never helpful when such advice fails to provide a useful alternative. The law clearly wasn't designed for certain parts of Oxford city.

The comment concerned driving on the footway not mounting the kerb. If you carefully position your vehicle on the footway without making progress over it and with due consideration to pedestrians which offence would you be guilty of?

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

Agree with Mark - all you have to do is select the "stricter" option every time. It's not a quiz, per se. It's one of those "did you realise" things, intended to be a "lesson" to the foolish or ignorant. I'm not sure which kind of people would be:

a) fooled by the obvious one-sided nature of the questions
b) grateful for the "information" they provide
c) earnest enough to want to complete the whole thing - I got bored, I'm afraid