Offsiding and straightlining - cut from 'Tailgating' thread

[TripleS]

That's just bizarre. Why does removing a bit of paint change how acceptable it is?

Because of how that paint influences the expectations of other drivers?

Which is certainly irrelevant on all the occasions that yo can see there are no other drivers.

Honestly RoADAR, the whole point of advanced driving is to use thinking as a replacement for silly rules!

Exactly!

Do we really need any further dumbing down and the destruction of inbuilt competence (especially by supposedly advanced driving organisations) on top of what has long been promoted by brain-dead officials, and 'road safety' charities that shouldn't be charities? You know who I mean.

Still, it might reduce the tendency for outsiders to criticise the AD community for being some kind of elite, and thus alien to the rest of the driving population. Don't get me wrong, I would very much like the AD community to be clearly seen as a bit special, promoting high standards, setting good examples, and something to aspire to etc., but they do need to get their house in order and be fairly clear and consistent about what they stand for.

[michael769]

but they do need to get their house in order and be fairly clear and consistent about what they stand for.

I fail to understand what is unclear or inconsistent about what I quoted.

Can I suggest that the problem is that not everyone agrees with their message (as is their prerogative).

[Grahar]

but they do need to get their house in order and be fairly clear and consistent about what they stand for.

I fail to understand what is unclear or inconsistent about what I quoted.

Here is an extended version of the same quote:

RoADAR: When you drive round bends and corners you should not cross marked centre lines. You should not cut corners when entering marked junctions. RoADAR believes that these actions are potentially dangerous because they may be the result of entering the hazard too fast and may confuse both oncoming and following drivers. This view is supported by The Highway Code. If there are no centre markings then some movement over the centre of the road may be acceptable.

It is unclear because RoADAR don't explain why crossing the centre of the road would be acceptable if there were no centre line markings.

It is illogical and inconsistent because if a motorist were to cross the centre of the road as a result of entering a hazard too fast and/or caused confusion to other road users, the absence of centre line markings wouldn't make it acceptable!

[TripleS]

but they do need to get their house in order and be fairly clear and consistent about what they stand for.

I fail to understand what is unclear or inconsistent about what I quoted.

Can I suggest that the problem is that not everyone agrees with their message (as is their prerogative).

I thought you were quoting the RoSPA guidance, which in itself might be clear, but I was saying it would be better if the AD community as a whole could get their house in order and be more of like mind. Maybe that would be easier to achieve if they were to concentrate on successful outcomes, rather than being in disarray relative to each other over practical details and methods used.

[Grahar]

but they do need to get their house in order and be fairly clear and consistent about what they stand for.

I fail to understand what is unclear or inconsistent about what I quoted.

Here is an extended version of the same quote:

RoADAR: When you drive round bends and corners you should not cross marked centre lines. You should not cut corners when entering marked junctions. RoADAR believes that these actions are potentially dangerous because they may be the result of entering the hazard too fast and may confuse both oncoming and following drivers. This view is supported by The Highway Code. If there are no centre markings then some movement over the centre of the road may be acceptable.

It is unclear because RoADAR don't explain why crossing the centre of the road would be acceptable if there were no centre line markings.

It is illogical and inconsistent because if a motorist were to cross the centre of the road as a result of entering a hazard too fast and/or caused confusion to other road users, the absence of centre line markings wouldn't make it acceptable!

I'd still like to challenge someone to defend/explain RoDAR's guidance quoted above!

[MGF]

It's hardly a challenge. It's quite obvious or at least it should be. The 'paint' - as it has been dismissively referred to - serves a function. It keeps traffic apart where it's considered necessary to keep traffic apart.

The fact you can dive back onto the nearside of the line to avoid a collision might be acceptable to you. It isn't to RoSPA.

The point you persist in failing to grasp is that AD isn't solely about judgement. It includes building in safety margins in case of error of judgement. You may disagree with it but that doesn't make RoSPA's position either unclear or inconsistent.

[GJD]

It's hardly a challenge. It's quite obvious or at least it should be. The 'paint' - as it has been dismissively referred to - serves a function. It keeps traffic apart where it's considered necessary to keep traffic apart.

Where on earth is it not considered necessary to keep traffic apart?!

Are you confusing the meanings of solid and broken white lines?

The point you persist in failing to grasp is that AD isn't solely about judgement. It includes building in safety margins in case of error of judgement.

And how, exactly, does the 'paint' (what would you prefer we call it?) help with that? Do you suggest that RoSPA believes the absence of paint confers temporary immunity from errors of judgement in lateral positioning?

You may disagree with it but that doesn't make RoSPA's position either unclear or inconsistent.

It's not unclear. It is inconsistent. All that's necessary to remove the inconsistency is to remove the last sentence from their statement: "If there are no centre markings then some movement over the centre
of the road may be acceptable."

All that would leave would be the question of how dumb RoSPA thought its advanced drivers were. The justification given for their policy is feeble to say the least: "RoADAR believes that these actions are potentially dangerous because they may be the result of entering the hazard too fast and may confuse both oncoming and following drivers." Drivel like that is hardly going to gain respect from anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

[Gareth]

It's not unclear. It is inconsistent. All that's necessary to remove the inconsistency is to remove the last sentence from their statement: "If there are no centre markings then some movement over the centre
of the road may be acceptable."

The last sentence is needed because when roads are too narrow to be marked with a centre line there may not be enough room to avoid part of the vehicle being to the right of the centre of the road.

I see it as no different to the HC text about mini-roundabouts, extolling drivers to pass around the white blob unless the size of their vehicle makes it physically impossible to do so.

Perhaps the last sentence in the RoADAR quote should be modified to differentiate the two situations?


... even though I disagree with the idea that 'advanced' means not using the whole road where it is safe to do so.

[fungus]

All that would leave would be the question of how dumb RoSPA thought its advanced drivers were. The justification given for their policy is feeble to say the least: "RoADAR believes that these actions are potentially dangerous because they may be the result of entering the hazard too fast and may confuse both oncoming and following drivers." Drivel like that is hardly going to gain respect from anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

I'm inclined to agree here. Anyone who is considered an advanced driver should be able to judge whether crossing the centre of the road, line or no line, based on the vision available, the presence of other traffic, potential hazards etc. is safe. The Rospa statement is the sort of thing that learners are advised to do, eg." do not go out to the centre line to gain extra view when approaching a LH bend, because it could put you in conflict with oncoming drivers." The reason for this advice is obviously because of a learners lack of experience and the probability of them having poor judgement of the speed and position of oncoming vehicles. Similarly, the advice not to straighten roundabouts, although, it's fair to say that many "normal" drivers do so without checking whether it is safe to do so. But we are talking about advanced drivers here, not "normal drivers.

[Ancient]

It is obvious drivel.
On a straight road with clear visibility ahead and a junction/entrance/exit on the left, one of the things taught to even learner motorcyclists (at least by RAC/ACU) was 'move out across his* vision to attract attention'. Across his vision because that's the way the human eye percieves motion best; outwards rather than towards the kerb because the latter can be seen as an invitation to pull out. Of course along with this goes 'expect him to pull out anyway and be prepared to take avoiding action'.
In a car this action is still valid (because the eye still works the same way) but on many roads this will put you across the centre line. Obviously this is not OK if the centre line is solid, nor if it would interfere with another road user. It is stll a useful technique (with the same provisos) to increase safety.
If the edict doesn't work in this scenario, it fails also in straightlining situations for the same reason, i.e. there is nothing beyond that line that necessarily increases the danger.
In any case, does whoever wrote that believe that there should be no distinction between broken and solid white lines?

*'His' and 'Him' because in those less-PC days, drivers were most often male.

[GJD]

It's not unclear. It is inconsistent. All that's necessary to remove the inconsistency is to remove the last sentence from their statement: "If there are no centre markings then some movement over the centre
of the road may be acceptable."

The last sentence is needed because when roads are too narrow to be marked with a centre line there may not be enough room to avoid part of the vehicle being to the right of the centre of the road.

I see it as no different to the HC text about mini-roundabouts, extolling drivers to pass around the white blob unless the size of their vehicle makes it physically impossible to do so.

Except that there are roads that are wide enough to be marked with a centre line but happen not to be.

Perhaps the last sentence in the RoADAR quote should be modified to differentiate the two situations?

If their meaning is what you suggest, then yes the sentence needs modifying. But there are three situations - not wide enough for a centre line, wide enough but no line, and wide enough with a line.

[zadocbrown]

I think we're reading too much into this. Rospa are just playing it safe on an issue which is potentially problematic. It shows the limitations of quality control by edict.

[Grahar]

It's hardly a challenge. It's quite obvious or at least it should be. The 'paint' - as it has been dismissively referred to - serves a function. It keeps traffic apart where it's considered necessary to keep traffic apart.

The fact you can dive back onto the nearside of the line to avoid a collision might be acceptable to you. It isn't to RoSPA.

A blatant misrepresentation: I have never advocated offsiding where 'diving' back to the nearside to avoid a collision would be necessary. You should retract this statement.

The point you persist in failing to grasp is that AD isn't solely about judgement. It includes building in safety margins in case of error of judgement. You may disagree with it but that doesn't make RoSPA's position either unclear or inconsistent.

I understand and agree that safety margins guard against error of judgement.

Nevertheless, Rospa's instructions are still unclear and inconsistent because they strictly forbid crossing the centre line and then immediately state that if there are no centre markings, it might be acceptable.

If they believe it would be unsafe to cross centre line markings (i.e. the centre of the road), and there is no other material change to the road, other than the absence of a centre line marking, then logically a centre line marking wouldn't make offsiding safe (in Rospas's eyes) would it?!!! Therefore illogical!

I expect MGF will conveniently ignore this post (as he did my last post and my very polite and gentle private message ) challenging him over the fact that he places my quotes in his imagined scenarios, misrepresents me and calls my judgement of safety margins into question....

That might depend on the trainee. If grahar was there he may well have been so impressed he would consequently declare "I'm always looking to offside".

Arbitrary rules are useful. Particularly for those who set the bar for safety at "... not doing alarming or dangerous things"

There is no need for anyone to feel sorry for me by the way...I enjoy the arguing too much.

[MGF]

It's hardly a challenge. It's quite obvious or at least it should be. The 'paint' - as it has been dismissively referred to - serves a function. It keeps traffic apart where it's considered necessary to keep traffic apart.

Where on earth is it not considered necessary to keep traffic apart?

When it keeps itself apart.

Are you confusing the meanings of solid and broken white lines?

No but you appear to be confusing your view of what advanced driving is with RoSPA's.

The point you persist in failing to grasp is that AD isn't solely about judgement. It includes building in safety margins in case of error of judgement.

And how, exactly, does the 'paint' (what would you prefer we call it?) help with that? Do you suggest that RoSPA believes the absence of paint confers temporary immunity from errors of judgement in lateral positioning?

Your use of the word 'paint' in this context is to dismiss the signifcance of road markings. You see little difference between paint and no paint unless the marking forms part of an offence. RoSPA takes a different view.

The RoSPA position simply removes the choice of offsiding where there are road markings. It is illogical to assert that this is the same as believing that offsiding where there are no road markings is inherently safe. The concept is similar to complying with speed limits.

You may disagree with it but that doesn't make RoSPA's position either unclear or inconsistent.

It's not unclear. It is inconsistent. All that's necessary to remove the inconsistency is to remove the last sentence from their statement: "If there are no centre markings then some movement over the centre of the road may be acceptable."

That presupposes that there is no distinction between a road with a road marking and one without. There is. You may not use that distinction in your driving or believe that doing so is 'advanced' but that does not make RoSPA's rule inconsistent in itself. (It is obviously inconsistent with your point of view but that is just another way of saying you disagree with them.)

FWIW I don't think it is particularly helpful rule to the individual although it is probably helpful to the organisation.

[GJD]

It's hardly a challenge. It's quite obvious or at least it should be. The 'paint' - as it has been dismissively referred to - serves a function. It keeps traffic apart where it's considered necessary to keep traffic apart.

Where on earth is it not considered necessary to keep traffic apart?

When it keeps itself apart.

I'm still not sure what you think the quite obvious purpose of the white paint is that is not necessary on roads that have no paint. It's important that traffic keeps apart whether there's paint or not.

The RoSPA position simply removes the choice of offsiding where there are road markings. It is illogical to assert that this is the same as believing that offsiding where there are no road markings is inherently safe.

It was you that suggested that RoSPA's position was about building in safety margins in case of error of judgement. I just posed the obvious question - why is the necessity or value of that safety margin dependent on the presence or absence of some paint? If I am being dismissive in my use of the word pant, it is because I am dismissive of the notion that there is any sensible answer to that question.

That presupposes that there is no distinction between a road with a road marking and one without. There is. You may not use that distinction in your driving or believe that doing so is 'advanced' but that does not make RoSPA's rule inconsistent in itself. (It is obviously inconsistent with your point of view but that is just another way of saying you disagree with them.)

I do disagree with them. Not because I tossed a coin to decide whether to disagree or not, but because there is good reason to disagree.

Can you think of a distinction that is pertinent to the question of when it might be OK to position across the centre of the road? I can't, so to me (and apparently others) RoSPA's position seems inconsistent between roads with and without centre lines. Moreover, RoSPA has provided a justification for its position which is obviously flawed.

I am open to the idea that a distinction between roads with and without paint could exist that would make RoSPA's position rational. However, RoSPA themselves don't offer one - very much the opposite - and so at the moment the evidence weighs very heavily in favour of the alternative conclusion - that RoSPA have invented a silly rule (perhaps driven by a desire to at least in some way acknowledge the existence of the benefits of offside positioning that I'm sure are covered in the police courses from which RoSPA's course is derived.) and are tying themselves in knots trying to retrospectively justify it.