sussex2 wrote:If you can see the road is clear and no confusion or disturbance will be given to other road users (for the sake of argument you have the place to yourself) then cut or straight line away.
Should you not be capable of making that decision you should jack in any advanced qualifications you have.
MGF wrote:Road markings are not simply the product of paint spilled randomly on the road surface as you suggest. They have meaning.
waremark wrote:Does the presence or absence of centre line markings on a rural road really have meaning? More than whether there was enough paint left in the local authority paint store? Is there an expert on road markings around who can answer authoritatively?
MGF wrote:waremark wrote:Does the presence or absence of centre line markings on a rural road really have meaning? More than whether there was enough paint left in the local authority paint store? Is there an expert on road markings around who can answer authoritatively?
Do you need an 'expert' to tell you that? The alternative is that the paint is chucked around on a whim without any thought to utility.
MGF wrote:waremark wrote:Does the presence or absence of centre line markings on a rural road really have meaning? More than whether there was enough paint left in the local authority paint store? Is there an expert on road markings around who can answer authoritatively?
....paint is chucked around on a whim without any thought to utility.
MGF wrote:Your misunderstanding is founded on an erroneous assumption that the risk of conflict where there are no road markings is equal to the risk where there are road markings.
MGF wrote:It is demonstrably the case that this premise is flawed. Road markings are put in places where traffic is more likely to come into conflict and can avoid doing so by keeping nearside of them. They do not cover every possibility of conflict but they do cover most of them.
MGF wrote:If it was the case, as you assert, that generally there is no relationship between road markings and risk your argument would have some force.
MGF wrote:As Michael pointed out, you are simply disagreeing with the rule because it doesn't accord with what you believe is 'advanced' (I might add with good cause) but it is absurd to attack the logic and consistency of the rule itself.
GJD wrote:MGF wrote:Your misunderstanding is founded on an erroneous assumption that the risk of conflict where there are no road markings is equal to the risk where there are road markings.
My assumption is that the risk of conflict is independent of the presence of road markings. I do not believe the addition of road markings increases the risk of collision and I do not believe the removal of them reduces the risk.
waremark wrote:Now now, Mr D, you are ignoring MGF's assertion that centre line markings are painted on roads where it is judged there is a higher risk of conflict. Personally, I doubt that is so, but if it were to be so then he is justified in arguing that Rospa's position is not - or is less - inconsistent. Even if not very advanced.
Return to Advanced Driving Forum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest