Undertaken

[MGF]

In that case it appears somewhat flawed as the riskiest place to be is in someone's blindspot isn't it? Not alongside them where they can see you.

With no speed differential? I'd view not being alongside as preferable to being alongside.

But speed differential isn't something you control on your own is it? Scenario 1. You choose to sit in someone's blinspot to your nearside. The driver behind is tailgating you. If I were you I would prefer the nearside driver to be aware of me. If he brakes and swerves to the right I would have nowhere to go. And driver's are more likely to suddenly move into a perceived gap than a lane occupied by another vehicle.

Scenario 2. You choose to be in nearside driver's blind spot. Driver behind him decides to tailgate him. You are now in 1st driver's blindspot and alongside 2nd driver. Driver behind is tailgating. What do you do now?

On your bog-standard roundabout with two unmarked lanes you should be aware of drivers cutting across you from the other 'lane' and drive accordingly but unless you wait until there is no traffic around you will be hard pressed not to drive alongside another vehicle whilst navigating the roundabout. That is why I think the maxim as you imagine it is flawed.

Especially as its meaning is unclear.

It's not unclear to me . I've never imagined that the necessary, brief period of alongside-ness involved in passing someone constitutes going around with them.

The meaning isn't defined in your imagination though is it? If the meaning does in fact coincide with the same then I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that it is "very necessary" to be reminded of the maxim in this thread. It is after all about overtaking on a roundabout which falls ouside of your understanding of its scope.

[GJD]

On your bog-standard roundabout with two unmarked lanes you should be aware of drivers cutting across you from the other 'lane' and drive accordingly

I believe that in that part-sentence you have fully expressed the concept behind the maxim. My belief may be wrong, but I think it isn't.

but unless you wait until there is no traffic around you will be hard pressed not to drive alongside another vehicle whilst navigating the roundabout. That is why I think the maxim as you imagine it is flawed.

Flawed, or just difficult to completely achieve in busy traffic?

The meaning isn't defined in your imagination though is it?

Well, no. It's Dave's maxim so I suppose it's defined in Dave's imagination .

If the meaning does in fact coincide with the same then I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that it is "very necessary" to be reminded of the maxim in this thread. It is after all about overtaking on a roundabout which falls ouside of your understanding of its scope.

Ah - misunderstanding. I didn't conclude that it's very necessary to be reminded of the maxim in this thread. I concluded that it's very necessary to remind the motoring population in general of the maxim. I based that conclusion on my perception of the number of threads, on various forums (fora?), about collisions and near-misses involving drivers who did not adhere to the maxim as I understand/imagine it.

[Ancient]

In that case it appears somewhat flawed as the riskiest place to be is in someone's blindspot isn't it? Not alongside them where they can see you.

With no speed differential? I'd view not being alongside as preferable to being alongside.

But speed differential isn't something you control on your own is it? Scenario 1. You choose to sit in someone's blinspot to your nearside. The driver behind is tailgating you. If I were you I would prefer the nearside driver to be aware of me. If he brakes and swerves to the right I would have nowhere to go. And driver's are more likely to suddenly move into a perceived gap than a lane occupied by another vehicle.

Scenario 2. You choose to be in nearside driver's blind spot. Driver behind him decides to tailgate him. You are now in 1st driver's blindspot and alongside 2nd driver. Driver behind is tailgating. What do you do now?

On your bog-standard roundabout with two unmarked lanes you should be aware of drivers cutting across you from the other 'lane' and drive accordingly but unless you wait until there is no traffic around you will be hard pressed not to drive alongside another vehicle whilst navigating the roundabout. That is why I think the maxim as you imagine it is flawed.

Especially as its meaning is unclear.

It's not unclear to me . I've never imagined that the necessary, brief period of alongside-ness involved in passing someone constitutes going around with them.

The meaning isn't defined in your imagination though is it? If the meaning does in fact coincide with the same then I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that it is "very necessary" to be reminded of the maxim in this thread. It is after all about overtaking on a roundabout which falls ouside of your understanding of its scope.

Where are all these blindspots coming from? With modern cars at least there should be no blindspot.

Of course we know that not everyone adjusts their mirrors correctly or uses them if they are adjusted, but similarly you can be in a driver's "blindspot" just as easily when alongside or even (as I've found to my cost) when in front of them, with three red flashing lights and a hivis vest!

I don't believe there is any one 'blindspot' that you can avoid, just minimise being near where someone might drive into. One way to do that is not to sit alongside someone, matching their speed (as many will unthinkingly swing in/out with no acceleration or braking).

[MGF]

but unless you wait until there is no traffic around you will be hard pressed not to drive alongside another vehicle whilst navigating the roundabout. That is why I think the maxim as you imagine it is flawed.

Flawed, or just difficult to completely achieve in busy traffic?

Flawed because it is prohibitively difficult to achieve in busy traffic to the point, in my view that you will cause more problems for yourself and others by trying to abide by it. "Never" go round with anyone else - which is how db quotes it - suggests you sit at the giveway line waiting for an empty rab or unnecessarily hold up traffic behind you by constantly slowing to get behind drivers in adjacent lanes. (In the latter case you will spend very little less time alongside other vehicles anyway).

Ah - misunderstanding. I didn't conclude that it's very necessary to be reminded of the maxim in this thread.

If you thought it was irrelevant to this thread it might have been preferable to suggest that when I asked how the scenario sits with the maxim.

I concluded that it's very necessary to remind the motoring population in general of the maxim. I based that conclusion on my perception of the number of threads, on various forums (fora?), about collisions and near-misses involving drivers who did not adhere to the maxim as I understand/imagine it.

But that's my point. You often can't adhere to the basic principle so it is of little use as a maxim.

Personally, I think it is more important not to pass or attempt to pass other road users at critical points on the roundabout.

[MGF]

Where are all these blindspots coming from? With modern cars at least there should be no blindspot.

Well I have blindspots in my car and whether it is a product of my inability to set my mirrors correctly or a design feature of the car it is still a problem

I don't believe there is any one 'blindspot' that you can avoid, just minimise being near where someone might drive into. One way to do that is not to sit alongside someone, matching their speed (as many will unthinkingly swing in/out with no acceleration or braking).

But that is different from saying "never go round with someone else" which is what the maxim exhorts us not to do.

[dth]

I would not go around with them !!

I would PASS them

A well timed brisk pass on the nearside when certain that the vehicle in lane 2 is holding it's line has never been a problem

If the pass cannot be done briskly then it will not give much of an advantage so I might as well wait

So when did the actions of other drivers become so certain?

[Ancient]

Where are all these blindspots coming from? With modern cars at least there should be no blindspot.

Well I have blindspots in my car and whether it is a product of my inability to set my mirrors correctly or a design feature of the car it is still a problem

Really? I have overlap between my side mirrors and my central mirror and can see cars alongside out of the corner of my eye before they leave the side mirror. The slightest turn of my head allows me to look at a driver who comes alongside. I've never had a problem getting this alignment either (although I've sometimes needed add-on mirrors with the older vehicles). That's driving motorbikes, MGB, MGA, Vitara, Bora, currently a Prius. The Prius does have fat front pillars, but that just means I have to occasionally move my head, not that I have a blindspot.
What are these cars with blindspots? Sounds to me like they shouldn't be on the road!

I don't believe there is any one 'blindspot' that you can avoid, just minimise being near where someone might drive into. One way to do that is not to sit alongside someone, matching their speed (as many will unthinkingly swing in/out with no acceleration or braking).

But that is different from saying "never go round with someone else" which is what the maxim exhorts us not to do.

Is it? To "go round with someone else" sounds (to me) like matching their speed as you "go round" .

[dth]

.............................. The Prius does have fat front pillars but that just means I have to occasionally move my head, not that I have a blindspot.

So, as you move to overcome the lack of vision ie blindspot, there is an acceptance that cars have blindspots?

What are these cars with blindspots? Sounds to me like they shouldn't be on the road!

I think a definition of a blindspot is needed. Cars definitely have them but you do things to overcome them as we all should do. Or are you being playful with your phrasing?

[Gareth]

I have overlap between my side mirrors and my central mirror and can see cars alongside out of the corner of my eye before they leave the side mirror. The slightest turn of my head allows me to look at a driver who comes alongside. I've never had a problem getting this alignment either (although I've sometimes needed add-on mirrors with the older vehicles).

I infer you are short, as often side mirrors don't allow a suitable range of adjustment for tall drivers.

If you have side mirrors set so that you can see the transition from the centre rear-view mirror into the appropriate side mirror as a vehicle catches up and begins to pass in an adjacent lane, you'll often have a blind spot that allows you to miss a vehicle that is two lanes across.

[MGF]

But that is different from saying "never go round with someone else" which is what the maxim exhorts us not to do.

Is it?

Certainly is to me.

To "go round with someone else" sounds (to me) like matching their speed as you "go round" .

To me, never go round with someone else means not allowing others to drive alongside you as well as not choosing a speed which means you unnecessarily drive around with someone else. Your definition implies the latter. Hence the difference. The use of the word 'never' in the maxim (as with all absolutes i guess) undermines its usefulness.

If the maxim was constructed as a shorthand version of something else, which it appears from others' understanding that it may well be, then the longhand version should be available too. So as not to confuse. Of course, the fact that both versions are wholly irrelevant to this thread yet someone sought to refer to the short version, adds to the confusion.

I also think that anyone with even a rudimentary experience of advanced driving necessarily applies your definition to their use of basic unmarked roundabouts. Try and get ahead of or drop behind a vehicle to your nearside or offside. On multilane rabs as with multi lane roads in general, try and keep space around you.

[GJD]

To me, never go round with someone else means not allowing others to drive alongside you as well as not choosing a speed which means you unnecessarily drive around with someone else.

I don't think it can mean that because, while you might have the option of reducing your speed instead of passing a slower vehicle (thereby avoiding ever being alongside it), you might not have the option of increasing your speed to avoid a faster vehicle passing (and thereby briefly being alongside) you.

To me, accepting that someone will be briefly alongside you at a different speed, as you pass them or as they pass you, does not constitute going around with them.

[ROG]

I would not go around with them !!

I would PASS them

A well timed brisk pass on the nearside when certain that the vehicle in lane 2 is holding it's line has never been a problem

If the pass cannot be done briskly then it will not give much of an advantage so I might as well wait

So when did the actions of other drivers become so certain?

By the manner of their driving learned by experience of observation

[MGF]

..you might not have the option of increasing your speed to avoid a faster vehicle passing (and thereby briefly being alongside) you.

But what if it is passing very slowly or decides to match your speed and there are vehicles very close behind it and each other?

So when did the actions of other drivers become so certain?

By the manner of their driving learned by experience of observation

There are no certainties in driving though so it must be a sufficient level of certainty or confidence that the other driver is not going to change position. It's a bit like passing an occupied junction or even meeting opposing traffic. How certain do you need to be before assessing the risk as insignificant?

[GJD]

..you might not have the option of increasing your speed to avoid a faster vehicle passing (and thereby briefly being alongside) you.

But what if it is passing very slowly or decides to match your speed and there are vehicles very close behind it and each other?

Well if accelerating to get ahead of the other vehicle again isn't an option (it might be, but it might not) then you're going to have someone alongside you whether you like it or not. You have the option of slowing a little so you're not matching speed. It's just the same as driving on a multi-lane road isn't it? You have lots of control over the space in front of you, some control over the space to the sides, and little control over the space behind. The busier the traffic, the harder it is to keep space around you in all directions.

But that's all fairly obvious and, other than concluding that busy traffic is more hazardous than light traffic, I'm not sure it tells us much - about the maxim or anything else.

[MGF]

...But that's all fairly obvious and, other than concluding that busy traffic is more hazardous than light traffic, I'm not sure it tells us much - about the maxim or anything else.

Busy traffic is only more hazardous because you will inevitably have to "go round with someone else." Something wholly forbidden by the maxim.

The maxim is unequivocal. It states "never go round with someone else. It doesn't state "try not to go round with someone else".

Consequently it is flawed.