ADUK Archive

Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:
Why should his understanding differ? He's an intelligent, thinking driver. He will continue to apply his mind to analysing the hazard density of the bit of road he's seeing, regardless of any rule wording.

Absolutely, and that is why I am suggesting that because the rule only is intended to determine a possible maximum speed for stretches of road that are clear (i.e. you have made a judgment what the distance is to the next hazard), it is not necessary to add the clumsy addition 'and will reasonably remains so' because a stretch of road can only be clear between hazards.

In short, the clumsy addition creates more doubt about what the original rule is hoping to achieve (calculating the maximum safe speed possible to the next hazard).

Grahar wrote:In short, the clumsy addition creates more doubt about what the original rule is hoping to achieve (calculating the maximum safe speed possible to the next hazard).

I think perhaps you're interpreting it backwards. If you stop thinking about the maximum possible speed, and instead think about the minimum possible stopping distance, I think the rule amendment makes much more sense. As Gareth said, in its original (unedited) form, it has only theoretical value. Modified, it applies to the real world.

I thought he must be a lawyer but perhaps he's the Google Car.

You're still reading, though, Dave

StressedDave wrote:Look can we all just stop feeding grahar? I know it's school holidays so he's presumably working less and having more time for the sin of Onan in front of the keyboard, but we reached Ouroboros 11 pages ago.

trashbat wrote:I thought he must be a lawyer but perhaps he's the Google Car.

How very dare you.

Grahar wrote:

StressedDave wrote:Look can we all just stop feeding grahar? I know it's school holidays so he's presumably working less and having more time for the sin of Onan in front of the keyboard, but we reached Ouroboros 11 pages ago.

or maybe ...

Grahar wrote:because a stretch of road can only be clear between hazards.

Blimey! What roads do you drive on??!!

The next hazard for the driver of the silver focus is way closer than the 150-odd metres of clear road he can see (unless you think 'clear' means 'clear and can reasonably be expected to remain so' I suppose )

Clearly [sic] "stop in the distance you can see to be clear" is not going to be of any use to him. What value is a rule that tells the Focus driver in that situation, "you definitely can't do more than 90mph"?

StressedDave wrote:
Look stop, just stop... let the thread gently swing down into obscurity.

Is it bed time?

Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:

Grahar wrote:In short, the clumsy addition creates more doubt about what the original rule is hoping to achieve (calculating the maximum safe speed possible to the next hazard).

I think perhaps you're interpreting it backwards. If you stop thinking about the maximum possible speed, and instead think about the minimum possible stopping distance, I think the rule amendment makes much more sense. As Gareth said, in its original (unedited) form, it has only theoretical value. Modified, it applies to the real world.

That is of course a valid point to make in terms of an approach, but I think the rule in its original from will actually produce a safer driving response.

Why? Because 'clear' means exactly what it should mean (hazard free stretches of road between hazards).

'Reasonably remains so' explains that mild hazards might form part of a 'clear' road which you are adjusting your speed for, i.e. you can disregard hazards which are not at their most dangerous state i.e. a junction free (clear) from vehicles, a pedestrian jogging with headphones on etc.

I suppose the problem is that some contributors here consider 'clear' to mean something less than what it does (to include hazards in their mildest state), which makes the 'and reasonable remains so' necessary (and in my understanding of 'clearly' unnecessary.

I think we can all agree that in the grand scheme of things, a persons driving is much more likely to depend on what they learn practically than what they understand from one rule in a book!

Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:

hir wrote:As Stressed Dave said... It's not even a rule of advanced driving but a reiteration of Rule 126 in the Highway Code

You missed out the important bit, FFS

Yes, I know. That was deliberate. I can't work out what it means.

edited to add: I can't find it in either the Danish or the Finnish dictionaries (where I found the other naughty words, incidentally). I'm going to have a look in the Greek dictionary next.

It's one of those internet acronyms. The word represented by the "S" is ''sake". Does that help?

FFS

GJD wrote:

Grahar wrote:because a stretch of road can only be clear between hazards.

Blimey! What roads do you drive on??!!

The next hazard for the driver of the silver focus is way closer than the 150-odd metres of clear road he can see (unless you think 'clear' means 'clear and can reasonably be expected to remain so' I suppose )

Clearly [sic] "stop in the distance you can see to be clear" is not going to be of any use to him. What value is a rule that tells the Focus driver in that situation, "you definitely can't do more than 90mph"?

None; I agree. But what about a stretch of road where there are no lateral hazards or things obscuring your view of the tarmac; here the rule is very useful? Because these instances might be rarer doesn't mean that the rule is never useful.

GJD wrote:unless you think 'clear' means 'clear and can reasonably be expected to remain so' I suppose

It turns out this is exactly what he does think.

Which leads us nicely into a discussion about what the word "clear" really means, and whether or not the "golden rule" should be expanded to read "clear of actual and potential hazards" in order to be clearer (in semantic terms, that is). Of course then we would have to include some words about what a "hazard" is, so as to be complete and ensure everybody understood ...

<hides from Dave>

PS I now need to modify an earlier post:

3 or 4 who take the debate seriously
3 or 4 who post mischievous titbits to ensure the discussion doesn't die
3 or 4 who carp from the sidelines

Grahar wrote:

GJD wrote:Clearly [sic] "stop in the distance you can see to be clear" is not going to be of any use to him. What value is a rule that tells the Focus driver in that situation, "you definitely can't do more than 90mph"?

None; I agree. But what about a stretch of road where there are no lateral hazards or things obscuring your view of the tarmac; here the rule is very useful? Because these instances might be rarer doesn't mean that the rule is never useful.

But that's just a special case where the distance you can reasonably expect to remain clear happens not to be less than the distance you can see to be clear.

The principle that appropriate speed needs consideration of the distance you can reasonably expect to remain clear as well as the distance you can see to be clear covers equally well the case where those two distances happen to coincide and the case where they don't.