MGF wrote:Your misunderstanding is founded on an erroneous assumption that the risk of conflict where there are no road markings is equal to the risk where there are road markings.
My assumption is that the risk of conflict is independent of the presence of road markings. I do not believe the addition of road markings increases the risk of collision and I do not believe the removal of them reduces the risk.
You may state that my assumption is erroneous until you are blue in the face, but unless you can explain how the risk of collision on a particular stretch of road would be altered by the addition of paint where there is none or the removal of paint where it is present then a blue face and no credibility is all you will get.
MGF wrote:It is demonstrably the case that this premise is flawed. Road markings are put in places where traffic is more likely to come into conflict and can avoid doing so by keeping nearside of them. They do not cover every possibility of conflict but they do cover most of them.
You're thinking about it the wrong way round. I don't think anyone disputes that it is possible to bring yourself into conflict with oncoming traffic on roads that have a centre marking. The dispute is over the suggestion that the absence of centre markings indicates that conflict is less likely or easier to avoid.
MGF wrote:If it was the case, as you assert, that generally there is no relationship between road markings and risk your argument would have some force.
And I will continue to be satisfied of the force of my argument only for as long as nobody is able to explain what relationship there is.
MGF wrote:As Michael pointed out, you are simply disagreeing with the rule because it doesn't accord with what you believe is 'advanced' (I might add with good cause) but it is absurd to attack the logic and consistency of the rule itself.
That is not the basis of my attack. RoSPA's rule has two elements:
"When you drive round bends and corners you should not cross marked centre lines."
and
"If there are no centre markings then some movement over the centre of the road may be acceptable."
Delete that last part (and amend the first part to say "...not cross the centre of the road") and the inconsistency vanishes. I would still, personally, disagree with that version of the rule for not according with what I believe is 'advanced', but I would have no grounds to attack the consistency.
A RoSPA associate who read the rule would perfectly justified in immediately asking what the hell difference the presence of absence of paint is supposed to make to their ability to get it wrong. That is the obvious and reasonable question. RoSPA's attempt to justify the rule is pathetic:
"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"
Not only does that fail to even attempt to address the question - it raises further questions, no less obvious and no less reasonable. What if it isn't the result of entering the hazard too fast? What if there are no oncoming and following drivers? Are they suggesting that entering the hazard too fast or confusing other drivers are more acceptable when there is no centre line?