The "golden rule" of advanced driving

[Grahar]

I've read that three times now. I have no idea what you point is.

Always drive so that you are able to stop in the distance that you can see to be clear and reasonable expect to remain so. [Let's call this The Golden Rule -- if you want to avoid ambiguity: the Golden Rule with modifier]

Sums it all up nicely. I really have no clue why you don't like it. Perhaps if you are able to provide a counter-example of where that rule fails?

You have not come up with anything that addresses any of my explanations about why the rule in it's modified state is illogical. I have even underlined and highlighted the words which cause it to be illogical! None of your reply addresses any of the points I have made so I have to be curious as to why this is?

If we apply the rule with the modifier it means:

1. If the road is clear then the modifier adds nothing useful.
2. If the road may not remain clear the rule ceases to be useful as the words in the original part guarantee that you can stop. Not logical if the hazard may or may not appear unless you plan to actually stop before every hazard.

[7db]

You have not come up with anything that addresses any of my explanations about why the rule in it's modified state is illogical. I have even underlined and highlighted the words which cause it to be illogical! None of your reply addresses any of the points I have made so I have to be curious as to why this is?

I really couldn't understand the point you were making. Still can't.

If we apply the rule with the modifier it means:

1. If the road is clear then the modifier adds nothing useful.

Single track road. Junction left, occupied by vehicle, Horse sign, Child playing in garden.
All of these mean that you can't rely purely on your vision but require your brain to do some work.

2. If the road may not remain clear the rule ceases to be useful as the words in the original part guarantee that you can stop. Not logical if the hazard may or may not appear unless you plan to actually stop before every hazard.

I don't follow your logic, I'm afraid. If the road may not remain clear then your speed is limited by being able to stop in the bit that reasonably will.

Of course I plan to be able to stop before every hazard. I'd be driving like a moron if I didn't. I enjoy the moments where the hazard isn't hazardous any more and I can get on with it.

[Grahar]

Single track road. Junction left, occupied by vehicle, Horse sign, Child playing in garden.
All of these mean that you can't rely purely on your vision but require your brain to do some work.

The limit point rule (modification or not) would cease to apply here as the speed required to reduce the risk of a collision here would take priority.

Can you define what you understand by 'clear'? Does it mean free from obstructions (things you know you are going to have to stop for) or free from hazards (things you might have to slow or stop for) or both?

[waremark]

As I keep saying .....

How many times is it worth saying it, once we have all had the opportunity to know what you are saying, and some of us have decided we do not agree with you?

[Grahar]

As I keep saying .....

How many times is it worth saying it, once we have all had the opportunity to know what you are saying, and some of us have decided we do not agree with you?

Who are 'us'?

Speak now or forever hold your 'peace'. (that's not quite quoting Roger Moore!)

[Grahar]

I think I lost the will to live on this thread somewhere on the first page...

So why are you still reading it?

[triquet]

By the time you have carefully analysed all the hazards as they present themselves, adjusted your driving plan in accordance with some "golden rule" or other, decided on the correct course of action, it's twenty minutes later and you are in the next county (and the hazard has been turned into road kill). Use common sense, observation and just get on with the fairly simple task of driving. It's not rocket science.

[hir]

As I keep saying .....

How many times is it worth saying it, once we have all had the opportunity to know what you are saying, and some of us have decided we do not agree with you?

Who are 'us'?

As you've asked the question, so...

Based upon an analysis of the forum members' responses it is clear that.... "us" can be regarded as almost everyone except "you".

[Grahar]

As I keep saying .....

How many times is it worth saying it, once we have all had the opportunity to know what you are saying, and some of us have decided we do not agree with you?

Who are 'us'?

As you've asked the question, so...

Based upon an analysis of the forum members' responses it is clear that.... "us" can be regarded as almost everyone except "you".

(Well...I am so ashamed! )

I am debating with 7db so that doesn't matter to me...those who are finding this wearisome are not compelled to read or make anymore posts (and that might include myself and 7db! )

[Horse]

If it's just the two of you, take it to PMs?

However, how about a golden rule and gilded advice:

Adjust your speed so that you can stop in the distance which it is reasonable to expect remain clear.

The limit point can give you valuable information on where the road goes next (straight road, corners tightening or easing, crests or dips), information which cannot and should not be used in isolation.

[daz6215]

where's my anorak?

[Horse]

where's my anorak?

With your pipe and slippers?

[Horse]

Why?

[Silk]

Why?

+1

I'm starting to get really cross with people who have a problem with arguing online. Perhaps they should cancel their Internet subscription and take up knitting - it's obviously a bit too much for them.

[7db]

This can go on indefinitely

Oh no it can't.