Which laws are you prepared to break when driving?

[somewhatfoolish]

How do you know staying still will be safe when the other driver may be going faster than they could stop in the entire distance they can see to be clear? Are you sure you shouldn't be reversing for added safety? The key is on what you can reasonably expect (and that is far different from what you can LIKELY expect - the latter standard is what most drivers seem to drive by, especially the ones who "know this road" and that is why they get in to grief and so many reasons so many accidents are close to home)

It must be said that for that reason, around tight, no visibility single track bends where I have not had a chance to look at the road ahead and so on I always am going slower than the "half a distance" standard because I can reasonably expect an oncoming driver to be going faster. But there are single carriageway roads that open up well past that; I can point you to single track roads in the Highlands I have done 150 on safely.

Ultimately a sufficiently deranged driver/person/natural event can make any road unsafe at any speed.

Actually I came across a cracking stretch of road today to illustrate safe speeds, again - no speed limit - but honestly what felt like over a mile where even 15 would be dangerous, and stretches where I think SEVEN was about as fast as was prudent. And it had a level crossing on it!

Was amazed, don't think I've seen any road like it (in terms of sustained max safe speed) in a rural setting. But maybe that's cause I've spent most my "single track" driving career in the fens, NE england and scotland, all of which are full of single track roads but not many with grass banks 7 foot high around them

Edit: Just measured it on Google Maps and it's 600 yards. That says something too, but I'm not sure what...

[jameslb101]

Glad we're agreed on the first point then.

"Not compromising the safety of other road users" - Again, who decides this? How can you tell if there is a child walking down a NSL road just around that bend that you're belting round at 90+?

Refer to what others have said, but I'll add a couple of caveats to it. You should be able to stop, without drama, in the distance you can see to, and can reasonably can expect to, remain clear.

So you'll probably ask what I mean by "reasonably" now. Well as an ADer, I expect you'll be more capable that most of judging each situation. Unfortunately, not everyone can make a suitable judgement on this, hence why speed limits exist.

I also have an issue with that statement. What when something enters the distance you can see to be clear?

Even saying that we should be able to stop within half the distance we can see to be clear doesn't work because how do know that the other driver would see me when I saw him and have equal/better breaks

Dom

If something enters the distance you can see to be clear then you should have reasonably expected it. Advanced driving is about observation and anticipation, so with these tools you can alter you position, speed and gear for the hazard. Since you got a F1RST you should know all this anyway.

I'm not advocating driving at 'reckless' speeds. Just that in the case of an inappropriate limit, in certain weather, traffic, and other condition (e.g. condition of driver and condition of car), for a stretch of road, some drivers may only be risking their own license (in terms of points rather than a ban I would expect) by exceeding the speed limit.

As I've said before, it's my personal choice not to exceed the speed limit, but if someone else wants to, and it doesn't endanger any other road users, then who am I to criticise.

[dombooth]

As we're permenently going round in circles with this I give up on this thread

[waremark]

I expect that a high proportion of those who say they may exceed speed limits have clean driving licenses. What does that say, if anything?

[michael769]

I expect that a high proportion of those who say they may exceed speed limits have clean driving licenses. What does that say, if anything?

That they don't get caught?

[waremark]

I expect that a high proportion of those who say they may exceed speed limits have clean driving licenses. What does that say, if anything?

That they don't get caught?

...Because their observation is good

And?

(remembering that this is all hypothesis)

[jameslb101]

I expect that a high proportion of those who say they may exceed speed limits have clean driving licenses. What does that say, if anything?

That they don't get caught?

...Because their observation is good.

Except for the fact that by the time you've seen a LiDAR (mobile) trap, you've most likely already been 'zapped'. Also, an unmarked car could be following at a distance that one couldn't see the clues that's it's plod - remember is not just Omegas they use any more...

[jameslb101]

As we're permenently going round in circles with this I give up on this thread

Probably because you talk rubbish...

[dombooth]

As we're permenently going round in circles with this I give up on this thread

Probably because you talk rubbish...

Lovely attitude.

[somewhatfoolish]

As we're permenently going round in circles with this I give up on this thread

Probably because you talk rubbish...

Lovely attitude.

To be fair you started it!

I don't think you intended to though. The internet can really change how someone comes over, and your posts in this thread make you come over very much like a "know it all" 19 or so years old petty bureaucrat, convinced he is god of driving because he has this "F1RST" thing that no one has ever heard of.

I'm sure you're no such thing though - just be aware that it's possible to come over very peculiarly on the net! In fact this post probably makes me look like a prick, but it is intended to be helpful advice

[dombooth]

Probably because you talk rubbish...

Lovely attitude.

To be fair you started it!

I don't think you intended to though. The internet can really change how someone comes over, and your posts in this thread make you come over very much like a "know it all" 19 or so years old petty bureaucrat, convinced he is god of driving because he has this "F1RST" thing that no one has ever heard of.

I'm sure you're no such thing though - just be aware that it's possible to come over very peculiarly on the net! In fact this post probably makes me look like a prick, but it is intended to be helpful advice

I'm glad you put the last part!!

[brianhaddon]

Consider the scenario. You are driving along a sweeping bend at the road maximum speed of 50mph. There is a solid white line against you. You come upon a cyclist and slow to match its speed. You slow to 15mph. The only way to get past the cyclist safely is to go over the line. Do you pass? Behind you is a car/pickup thingy. The car, which was previously following at a reasonable distance comes close and the driver is obviously anxious to pass. The car weaves from the gutter to over the white line. Traffic towards is light with plenty of spaces to pass, albeit going over the line to do so. Do you pass? Eventually you round the bend and the centre line becomes unbroken. You pass the cyclist and accelerate back to the road maximum of 50mph (I gave a clear early signal). Car/pickup thingy then comes past a rate that is probably a tad over 60mph. Up ahead is 40mph and we both slow for the limit.

Now if I had of passed the cyclist, which I could have done quite safely, car/pickup thingyman would have probably followed and more than likely stayed behind me at the road limit of 50mph. So could I have been accused of creating a situation which caused another driver to get agitated and possibly later on take further risks?

You may wonder why I ask such a question because obviously the law would not have allowed me to pass the cyclist, and haven't we had enough threads questioning the law? But to me it relates the kind of problems drivers face everyday and quite often resolve in their own way quite safely. Yes I know the lines are there for a reason and many are resolverd in a manner that ends badly. However, the two cars in front of me passed safely.

Here is the location and direction of travel.
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=de65+5bg&hl=en&ll=52.876331,-1.695156&spn=0.000104,0.054846&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=12.165846,28.081055&t=h&hnear=Foston+DE65+5BG,+United+Kingdom&z=14&layer=c&cbll=52.876363,-1.695253&panoid=uoWruHdmWZ78qBWttuAdfQ&cbp=12,118.46,,0,0

I caught up with the cyclist just after the road went into the trees.
Regards
Brian Haddon

[gannet]

Consider the scenario. You are driving along a sweeping bend at the road maximum speed of 50mph. There is a solid white line against you. You come upon a cyclist and slow to match its speed. You slow to 15mph. The only way to get past the cyclist safely is to go over the line. Do you pass? Behind you is a car/pickup thingy. The car, which was previously following at a reasonable distance comes close and the driver is obviously anxious to pass. The car weaves from the gutter to over the white line. Traffic towards is light with plenty of spaces to pass, albeit going over the line to do so. Do you pass? Eventually you round the bend and the centre line becomes unbroken. You pass the cyclist and accelerate back to the road maximum of 50mph (I gave a clear early signal). Car/pickup thingy then comes past a rate that is probably a tad over 60mph. Up ahead is 40mph and we both slow for the limit.

Now if I had of passed the cyclist, which I could have done quite safely, car/pickup thingyman would have probably followed and more than likely stayed behind me at the road limit of 50mph. So could I have been accused of creating a situation which caused another driver to get agitated and possibly later on take further risks?

You may wonder why I ask such a question because obviously the law would not have allowed me to pass the cyclist, and haven't we had enough threads questioning the law? But to me it relates the kind of problems drivers face everyday and quite often resolve in their own way quite safely. Yes I know the lines are there for a reason and many are resolverd in a manner that ends badly. However, the two cars in front of me passed safely.

Here is the location and direction of travel.
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=de65+5bg&hl=en&ll=52.876331,-1.695156&spn=0.000104,0.054846&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=12.165846,28.081055&t=h&hnear=Foston+DE65+5BG,+United+Kingdom&z=14&layer=c&cbll=52.876363,-1.695253&panoid=uoWruHdmWZ78qBWttuAdfQ&cbp=12,118.46,,0,0

I caught up with the cyclist just after the road went into the trees.
Regards
Brian Haddon

if the cyclist's speed had been 10mph or less you could have passed:

129
Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.

given it was 15mph or more, I wouldn't have passed regardless of how the driver behind felt...

[jont]

given it was 15mph or more, I wouldn't have passed regardless of how the driver behind felt...

My speedo isn't that accurate at those sorts of speeds to be able to differentiate between 10 and 15mph.

/fwiw I had this situation on a Rospa test. I asserted that the cyclist was doing 10mph or less therefore I had use of the exemption to cross the lines. The examiner was very happy and said that with a queue of cars behind and a safe opportunity to overtake the cyclist it was the correct thing to do.

[dombooth]

Consider the scenario. You are driving along a sweeping bend at the road maximum speed of 50mph. There is a solid white line against you. You come upon a cyclist and slow to match its speed. You slow to 15mph. The only way to get past the cyclist safely is to go over the line. Do you pass? Behind you is a car/pickup thingy. The car, which was previously following at a reasonable distance comes close and the driver is obviously anxious to pass. The car weaves from the gutter to over the white line. Traffic towards is light with plenty of spaces to pass, albeit going over the line to do so. Do you pass? Eventually you round the bend and the centre line becomes unbroken. You pass the cyclist and accelerate back to the road maximum of 50mph (I gave a clear early signal). Car/pickup thingy then comes past a rate that is probably a tad over 60mph. Up ahead is 40mph and we both slow for the limit.

Now if I had of passed the cyclist, which I could have done quite safely, car/pickup thingyman would have probably followed and more than likely stayed behind me at the road limit of 50mph. So could I have been accused of creating a situation which caused another driver to get agitated and possibly later on take further risks?

You may wonder why I ask such a question because obviously the law would not have allowed me to pass the cyclist, and haven't we had enough threads questioning the law? But to me it relates the kind of problems drivers face everyday and quite often resolve in their own way quite safely. Yes I know the lines are there for a reason and many are resolverd in a manner that ends badly. However, the two cars in front of me passed safely.

Here is the location and direction of travel.
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=de65+5bg&hl=en&ll=52.876331,-1.695156&spn=0.000104,0.054846&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=12.165846,28.081055&t=h&hnear=Foston+DE65+5BG,+United+Kingdom&z=14&layer=c&cbll=52.876363,-1.695253&panoid=uoWruHdmWZ78qBWttuAdfQ&cbp=12,118.46,,0,0

I caught up with the cyclist just after the road went into the trees.
Regards
Brian Haddon

I would've waited until the line broke off due to it being a bend and also that the line finishes not far ahead really.

Dom