I lose internet access for a few weeks and miss all the good discussions.
My understanding of advanced driving as postulated by the organisations that promote it (perhaps excluding hpc) is that it is about driving safely at all times, and unobtrusively making optimum progress.
However there is a caveat that all of this is done within the context of obeying the law.
So, as I leave a hazard I am expected to continue to accelerate until one of three things happen.
1) It would be unsafe to do so (huge category)
2) I am restricted by the legal limit. (an increasingly large category)
3) I cannot physically go any faster.(unlikely to happen very often)
Unfortunately it appears that point 2 is reached before point 1 more and more over the years, hence the debate.
I think enough has been said about the law. Suffice to say that all organisations that have an agenda decide whether they will pursue their aims lawfully or unlawfully.
The IAM and RoSPA have chosen which way they want to go. That is a politcal choice.
If I may I would just like to comment on this:-
Gareth wrote:When you try to change someone's driving, it is important to focus on only one thing at a time, because otherwise they may become confused and apt to do something dangerous.
If someone you are observing is driving too quickly to be safe you would advise him to slow down. If he drives too quickly for the limit why not do the same?
In any event if you only want to concentrate on one thing at a time why not concentrate on speed limits first?
Concentrating on the limit can be a distraction but in my view it helps to sharpen one's overall driving skill.
Ensuring I can safely and smoothly reduce my speed from 60 to 30 so that I am doing 30 at a specific point in the distance is a useful skill.
Maybe when I can get it right every time I will then know that if I don't, it will be a matter of choice and not because I am not capable.