ADUK Archive

TR4ffic wrote: As an AD, can you see a scenario where you end up on the wrong side of a decision because those ‘judging’ you fail to see (understand) what you were doing/attempting to do… Where you effectively end up being penalised for having a driving standard higher than that of the general populous.!?

Trouble is, this all gets very 'circular' - indeed I may have posted the question on the wrong thread, since it was the Masters thread which prompted it!

The theme then moves to an ever-recurring question: what sets AD apart from 'DSA L'? Apart from 'higher' standards (smoother use of controls, better forward obs and planning, etc.), what 'actions' form a distinction between the two levels, and how can they be specified (for training) and assessed (for tests)?

The one which springs to mind is use of the road width, typically positioning for corners. Again, this crashes another thread, that on 'offsiding'. So let's use that to answer your question! I'm not a great fan of offsiding for view, although I do 'straightline' when safety and view permit.

But let's have a scenario where someone's offsiding; how might our jury perceive that?


As an aside, a friend was at a family get-together, and mentioned to a relly that he was a motorcyclists. The relative then told him about a motorcyclists he'd followed who was struggling to control his bike - indeed was weaving about horrendously. Some careful questioning by my friend eventually determined that the unknown rider was probably using 'cornering lines' to negotiate a set of bends!

Horse wrote:But let's have a scenario where someone's offsiding; how might our jury perceive that?

As an aside, a friend was at a family get-together, and mentioned to a relly that he was a motorcyclists. The relative then told him about a motorcyclists he'd followed who was struggling to control his bike - indeed was weaving about horrendously. Some careful questioning by my friend eventually determined that the unknown rider was probably using 'cornering lines' to negotiate a set of bends!

One might hope that counsel for the defence would be similarly skilled in the art of careful questioning and so be able draw out the truth to counter the misperception. Of course there is still the question of whether such cornering lines, even when appreciated for what they really are, are deemed to fall below the standard. And even if they are deemed not to fall below the standard, there is always the possibility of jury members basing their decisions on their own prejudices rather than the facts of the case.

Graham Wright wrote:Some thoughts applicable to overtaking on multi-lane roads...

I think we're talking about single carriageways - one lane in each direction.

GJD wrote: there is always the possibility of jury members basing their decisions on their own prejudices rather than the facts of the case.

Isn't that sort of idea the basis of a democracy . . . ?

Horse wrote:

GJD wrote: there is always the possibility of jury members basing their decisions on their own prejudices rather than the facts of the case.

Isn't that sort of idea the basis of a democracy . . . ?

Not sure what you mean. Jurors might allow their preconceptions and prejudices to influence their decisions even if that's contrary to the evidence. It's not what they're supposed to do, but how could you guarantee it wouldn't happen?

ETA: That's rhetorical. I posed that question to illustrate the point I was making in my previous post rather than to provoke great discussion of the point.

7db wrote:

MGF wrote:The perception that it is necessary to control other driver"s driving to be safe. That doezn't apper to be a particularly 'advanced' way of driving.

You seem either to misunderstand or we disagree on what constitutes advanced driving.

One wishes to control one's own drive. To be responsible for one's own safety. To maintain one's own bubble. To not leave the most important thing about driving to chance or the actions of another. When one's own chosen safety bubble is breached -- regardless of whether that bubble is over-cautiously selected -- it can be distressing -- particularly if one lacks the ability to act to reestablish that bubble of safety.

A definition that is causing you to become distressed probably needs re-evaluating.

When travelling around the NSL and you note a sharp bend in the road ahead to you become distressed that you have ceded control of your safety to the people who designed and built the road?

Or do you control your own safety by adjusting your driving to the hazard?

If a driver places himself too close to me and I am unable to increase the gap I find that this limits my choices and inevitably slows us both down. I manage my safety by braking earlier and more progressively than I might otherwise as well as reducing my speed.

I'm sure what you do is similar. By focusing on the hazard, rather than the cause, I find my response is directed to solving the problem rather than imagining what might go wrong if I have to brake suddenly.

Of course, this can be difficult if you have made eye contact with the cause of the hazard. I learned to view driving too close differently by driving in a country where everyone drives too close. Significantly, it is not perceived as aggressive.

No one else was taking it personally, so I decided neither should I.

Incidentally, I also noticed that overtaking is a social rather than anti-social activity (as it appears to be in the UK).

MGF wrote:I learned to view driving too close differently by driving in a country where everyone drives too close. Significantly, it is not perceived as aggressive.

No one else was taking it personally, so I decided neither should I.

Incidentally, I also noticed that overtaking is a social rather than anti-social activity (as it appears to be in the UK).

Go on - which country?

GJD wrote:

Graham Wright wrote:Some thoughts applicable to overtaking on multi-lane roads...

I think we're talking about single carriageways - one lane in each direction.

All right, I'm approaching senility but I don't remember writing that and I can't find it!

Help a decrepit?!

Graham Wright wrote:

GJD wrote:

Graham Wright wrote:Some thoughts applicable to overtaking on multi-lane roads...

I think we're talking about single carriageways - one lane in each direction.

All right, I'm approaching senility but I don't remember writing that and I can't find it!

Help a decrepit?!

Sorry - I paraphrased your post at the end of page 4 of the thread. Waremark quoted from Roadcraft:

Roadcraft wrote:As you move closer to the vehicle in front the driver is likely to realise that you want to overtake

and you responded with your thoughts, which seemed to me to be applicable to overtaking on multi-lane roads, whereas the Roadcraft quote comes, I think, from a section dealing with overtaking on single carriageway (single lane each way) roads.

Hope that's clearer .

Roadcraft wrote:As you move closer to the vehicle in front the driver is likely to realise that you want to overtake

and you responded with your thoughts, which seemed to me to be applicable to overtaking on multi-lane roads, whereas the Roadcraft quote comes, I think, from a section dealing with overtaking on single carriageway (single lane each way) roads.

Hope that's clearer .[/quote]

Not really!
On a single carriage way road, there is not much space to pull over anyway!

Graham Wright wrote:

GJD wrote:Hope that's clearer .

Not really!

Oh. When you said this...

Graham Wright wrote:The implication is that you are blocking a lane where all the good words tell us to return to the nearside after overtaking. If you intend to overtake a further vehicle but you are travelling more slowly than a vehicle approaching behind and there is sufficient room between the vehicle you have overtaken and the next, then, yes. If however, there is clear road ahead, there should be no need for a following vehicle to "indicate" he wishes to overtake you and thus "request" you to move over.

...were you talking about overtaking on multi-lane roads - two (or more) lanes in each direction?

...were you talking about overtaking on multi-lane roads - two (or more) lanes in each direction?[/quote]

Yes.

Graham Wright wrote:

GJD wrote:...were you talking about overtaking on multi-lane roads - two (or more) lanes in each direction?

Yes.

OK. And were your comments about overtaking on multi-lane roads a direct response to this quote from Roadcraft?

Roadcraft wrote:As you move closer to the vehicle in front the driver is likely to realise that you want to overtake.

My only point was that that Roadcraft quote and the Roadcraft 'overtaking position' that was being discussed at the same time are, as I understand it, specifically about overtaking on single carriageway (single lane each way) roads. That's all .

Horse wrote: I'm not a great fan of offsiding for view, although I do 'straightline' when safety and view permit.

Given that you are a very experienced advanced driver/trainer/rider I am curious to know why you are not keen on offsiding? Am I right to perceive that you only ever off-side to 'straightline'?

Is that a bike thing? They seems to have move view than grip, whilst the rest of us are languishing with more grip than view.