The "golden rule" of advanced driving

[TheInsanity1234]

Is there anything that I need to do to be an advanced driver other than try to follow the Golden Rule?

Be able to be very pompous.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

Is there anything that I need to do to be an advanced driver other than try to follow the Golden Rule?

Be able to be very pompous.

Oh, he can!

[GJD]

,.. Without the qualification, the rule might remain clear and concise, but to the point of uselessness.

The rule against assuming that the road will remain clear beyond what you can see to be clear cannot be described as useless by even a remote application of common sense.

Failing to rule against assuming that a currently clear piece of road will remain clear makes it useless as a rule for identifying an appropriate speed.

If what you want is a rule for identifying an upper bound - a speed above which you will definitely be too fast, and at which you might or might not be too fast, possibly much too fast - then it'll do that for you. But what use is a rule that can only do that?

[Ancient]

As I see it:

"Travel at a speed which enables you to stop in a distance you can see to be clear, and can reasonably expect to remain so"

This rule is perfectly simple, and makes sense. At the same time, it is not simple, and gives the risk of leading you into selecting an inappropriate speed.

Driving along a country road, armed with the local knowledge that a lot of horses use it, you would drive slower, as you would reasonably expect there to be a horse using it.

Driving along a country road, not armed with the local knowledge that horses are ridden on it, you may drive faster, as you may not be expecting to see a horse around every corner.

Well, that's my take on it, and I'm prepared to be mobbed by various Advanced Drivers telling me I'm very wrong

Why would you drive slower if you thought there might be horses using it? Why would you drive faster if you thought they wouldn't be?
Either way you need to be able to stop (safely and on your own side of the road) in the distance you can see to be clear (or half that (or less) on narrow roads). If you are doing that, you can stop in time if you come around a corner and see a horse (with or without rider), or indeed a rider without a horse.

The caveat 'and can reasonably expect to remain so' draws attention not to what is already in your path, but to places where things can enter your path. It draws attention to visible activity to the side of your path where something can enter your braking distance (Roadcraft uses examples of children playing, pedestrians standing beside the road, vehicles parked with engines running etc. etc.) and to places where such activity could be hidden (e.g. where machinary or people could emerge into your previously clear space from blind entrances). Where such potential hazards exist it is not reasonable to expect your path to remain clear.

I'm truly surprised this is so difficult for some ADs to grasp, it is pretty basic stuff: Observation of potential hazards means we cannot reasonably expect the road to remain as clear as it would on a race track. Observation that there are no such hazards and that we have clear sightlines with nowhere they can be hidden allows the rule in its unmodified form (so you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear) to be used (subject to legal limits).

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

Created to clean up kitkatbrown's thread about overtaking. Please keep the discussion separate from now on. Thanks.

[Grahar]

These are all valid things to include in a driving plan but please read my previous post below (again if necessary) and you will see that my gripe is with how it is badly explained by the language and its inclusion in the same sentence as the golden rule. Please take particular note of my last paragraph as I think it offers a solution to the problem. Again I repeat that I agree in principle that the golden rule should not be used exclusively, but to include 'or reasonably remain so' caveat in the same sentence adds confusion...

'The problem with the addition of 'and can reasonably expect to remain so' is that it tries to explain 'a slower speed may be necessary according to conditions' in a very unclear way.

By appearing clumsily in the same sentence as 'you should drive at a speed so that you can stop well within the distance you can see to be clear' it frustrates the whole point of the rule.

Why? Because the intention of the rule in its original form is to allow a driver to select a maximum definite speed that enables them to stop comfortably by the end of the road space that is currently clear!

You can retain this simple rule (without contradicting it) by training a driver that they can add extra 'road space' to this rule (by slowing further) when there are additional hazards'.

We all understand what the principle is behind the added caveat, but that doesn't stop it being poor use of language and confusing to someone who is learning....

[MGF]

I think your last sentence sums the problem up nicely.

If someone is new to advanced driving and is told the golden rule, their understanding of it will be much the same as any advanced driver's (although its application may take some practice).

If you tell the same driver to be able to stop within the distance they can reasonably expect to remain clear their perception of that will be, in all probability, very different to an experienced advanced driver.

That is because the amendment simply reminds us of other aspects of advanced driving - of no less importance - rather than informing us anything about what is required.

[hir]

Again I repeat that I agree in principle that the golden rule should not be used exclusively, but to include 'or reasonably remain so' caveat in the same sentence adds confusion...

There's no added confusion about it. I am not confused; you are not confused; he, she or it is not confused. (Oh my goodness, that sounded extraordinarily pompous; mods.) (You haven't heard anything yet!; hir)

'The problem with the addition of 'and can reasonably expect to remain so' is that it tries to explain 'a slower speed may be necessary according to conditions' in a very unclear way.

Nope. It's perfectly clear to everyone, including yourself.

By appearing clumsily in the same sentence as 'you should drive at a speed so that you can stop well within the distance you can see to be clear' it frustrates the whole point of the rule.

I don't see that's its use is clumsy. I don't see that it frustrates the point of the rule. In fact it adds to the rule in a very practical and logical way.

Why? Because the intention of the rule in its original form is to allow a driver to select a maximum definite speed that enables them to stop comfortably by the end of the road space that is currently clear!

Indeed it does. But that doesn't obviate the need for the caveat. The rule in its original form is incomplete and misleading without the caveat. "Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools" (one more attempt at pomposity and you're banned. mods.)

You can retain this simple rule (without contradicting it) by training a driver that they can add extra 'road space' to this rule (by slowing further) when there are additional hazards'.

Now, that really is confusing. I much prefer Ancient's example of Sarah wanting an ice cream. That's much easier to understand and explains why the caveat is there.

We all understand what the principle is behind the added caveat, but that doesn't stop it being poor use of language and confusing to someone who is learning....

Not at all. As you say everyone on this forum understands it. Insofar as students are concerned, if you find that the person you are trying to explain this principle to is confused by your explanation of the caveat then tell them about Sarah and her craving for ice cream. Then it all becomes perfectly clear.

This debate needs cooling down; I'm off to get an ice cream.

[MGF]

Insofar as students are concerned, if you find that the person you are trying to explain this principle to is confused by your explanation of the caveat then tell them about Sarah and her craving for ice cream. Then it all becomes perfectly clear.

That's the point. The rule doesn't explain the principle. If you have to explain the principle separately it isn't a useful rule. Sounds good though.

[7db]

I think it's useful to have both bits for a new ADer.

One asks them to look.
The other asks them to think.

Both are important.

[Grahar]

Again I repeat that I agree in principle that the golden rule should not be used exclusively, but to include 'or reasonably remain so' caveat in the same sentence adds confusion...

There's no added confusion about it. I am not confused; you are not confused; he, she or it is not confused. (Oh my goodness, that sounded extraordinarily pompous; mods.) (You haven't heard anything yet!; hir)

'The problem with the addition of 'and can reasonably expect to remain so' is that it tries to explain 'a slower speed may be necessary according to conditions' in a very unclear way.

Nope. It's perfectly clear to everyone, including yourself.

By appearing clumsily in the same sentence as 'you should drive at a speed so that you can stop well within the distance you can see to be clear' it frustrates the whole point of the rule.

I don't see that's its use is clumsy. I don't see that it frustrates the point of the rule. In fact it adds to the rule in a very practical and logical way.

Why? Because the intention of the rule in its original form is to allow a driver to select a maximum definite speed that enables them to stop comfortably by the end of the road space that is currently clear!

Indeed it does. But that doesn't obviate the need for the caveat. The rule in its original form is incomplete and misleading without the caveat. "Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools" (one more attempt at pomposity and you're banned. mods.)

You can retain this simple rule (without contradicting it) by training a driver that they can add extra 'road space' to this rule (by slowing further) when there are additional hazards'.

Now, that really is confusing. I much prefer Ancient's example of Sarah wanting an ice cream. That's much easier to understand and explains why the caveat is there.

We all understand what the principle is behind the added caveat, but that doesn't stop it being poor use of language and confusing to someone who is learning....

Not at all. As you say everyone on this forum understands it. Insofar as students are concerned, if you find that the person you are trying to explain this principle to is confused by your explanation of the caveat then tell them about Sarah and her craving for ice cream. Then it all becomes perfectly clear.

This debate needs cooling down; I'm off to get an ice cream.

I'm not heated (and I'm not going for an ice cream in this rain!). I'm essentially arguing for accurate and logical use of the English language. I agree with what you've said, but the fact is as a written rule (or indeed spoken) it is easier to understand without what is essentially a quite complicated caveat.

All that needs to be said or after the golden rule is; 'your speed may be need to be reduced further if there are junctions and/or other hazards'.

The practice of taking a rule and adding a caveat without restructuring (or at least considering how it might read) is lazy and ungrammatical. It may, (and in this case does) cause potential complication and/or misunderstanding.

I'm sure that all of the contributors here would explain the caveat in their own words (and give examples) if they were mentoring someone, but in its written form I would suggest that it could be better put.

In fact, it would at least be grammatically correct if it read 'so that you can stop well within the distance you can see and reasonably expect to remain clear'.

[hir]

Insofar as students are concerned, if you find that the person you are trying to explain this principle to is confused by your explanation of the caveat then tell them about Sarah and her craving for ice cream. Then it all becomes perfectly clear.

That's the point. The rule doesn't explain the principle. If you have to explain the principle separately it isn't a useful rule. Sounds good though.

Being serious, and non-pompous, just for a moment if I may. Obviously I have no idea to what degree you or Grahar are involved with the coaching of new associates. But, from my own experience it often happens that when I first introduce the principle of... "you must always be able to stop in the distance seen to be clear" I do so in the context of limit point technique. I usually goes something like... "the limit point is the furthest distance on the surface of the road seen to be clear [without the caveat], and the reason we're continually seeking the limit point is that... we must be able to stop on our side of the road in that distance seen to be clear". Now, what often happens is, the associate says... "Ok, so the limit point is 500 yards (metres, if they're younger than me, which is nearly everyone) but what if there's someone about to cross the road 100 yards ahead of me? Where's the limit point then?" Then I introduce the caveat. Which to all intents and purposes they've unwittingly identified for themselves, which is good.

I find it useful to make the distinction between the "physical" limit point (the surface of the road 500 yards ahead) and the "potential" limit point (100 yards up the road).

If they don't work it out for themselves and don't raise the question just noted I then casually introduce Sarah or someone similar to make the point.

Hope that helps in some practical way.

[GJD]

These are all valid things to include in a driving plan but please read my previous post below (again if necessary) and you will see that my gripe is with how it is badly explained by the language and its inclusion in the same sentence as the golden rule. Please take particular note of my last paragraph as I think it offers a solution to the problem. Again I repeat that I agree in principle that the golden rule should not be used exclusively, but to include 'or reasonably remain so' caveat in the same sentence adds confusion...

'The problem with the addition of 'and can reasonably expect to remain so' is that it tries to explain 'a slower speed may be necessary according to conditions' in a very unclear way.

By appearing clumsily in the same sentence as 'you should drive at a speed so that you can stop well within the distance you can see to be clear' it frustrates the whole point of the rule.

Why? Because the intention of the rule in its original form is to allow a driver to select a maximum definite speed that enables them to stop comfortably by the end of the road space that is currently clear!

But given how often that will be too fast, sometimes a lot too fast, what is the value of that maximum definite speed? To me that has little more value than telling someone they definitely won't be driving faster than 300mph on the grounds that cars don't go that fast.

You can retain this simple rule (without contradicting it) by training a driver that they can add extra 'road space' to this rule (by slowing further) when there are additional hazards'.

We all understand what the principle is behind the added caveat, but that doesn't stop it being poor use of language and confusing to someone who is learning....

I don't think anyone suggests that simply reciting the golden rule to a learner is enough to convey understanding of the principle behind it. The point of summarising it in a single rule, and of referring to that rule as 'golden', is to emphasise just how important and fundamental that principle is (to someone who is learning (or has learnt - if any of us ever finish learning) what it means, obviously).

[Grahar]

Insofar as students are concerned, if you find that the person you are trying to explain this principle to is confused by your explanation of the caveat then tell them about Sarah and her craving for ice cream. Then it all becomes perfectly clear.

That's the point. The rule doesn't explain the principle. If you have to explain the principle separately it isn't a useful rule. Sounds good though.

Being serious, and non-pompous, just for a moment if I may. Obviously I have no idea to what degree you or Grahar are involved with the coaching of new associates. But, from my own experience it often happens that when I first introduce the principle of... "you must always be able to stop in the distance seen to be clear" I do so in the context of limit point technique. I usually goes something like... "the limit point is the furthest distance on the surface of the road seen to be clear [without the caveat], and the reason we're continually seeking the limit point is that... we must be able to stop on our side of the road in that distance seen to be clear". Now, what often happens is, the associate says... "Ok, so the limit point is 500 yards (metres, if they're younger than me, which is nearly everyone) but what if there's someone about to cross the road 100 yards ahead of me? Where's the limit point then?" Then I introduce the caveat. Which to all intents and purposes they've unwittingly identified for themselves, which is good.

I find it useful to make the distinction between the "physical" limit point (the surface of the road 500 yards ahead) and the "potential" limit point (100 yards up the road).

If they don't work it out for themselves and don't raise the question just noted I then casually introduce Sarah or someone similar to make the point.

Hope that helps in some practical way.

That's a good discovery to initiate from a pupil but we must be clear that a person about to cross the road is a hazard (that you may well slow down or stop for) and only becomes a a limit point it they obscure your view of the road ahead or step into the road.

Again I agree with your methods but think it is important to define terms precisely. Once we start calling hazards which don't obscure our view of the road or obstruct it 'limit points' the term 'limit point' begins to lose its meaning.

The point I'm making is that a limit point is where something is blocking the road or obscuring our view of it, not something which might or might not. That still means we might reduce out speed, stop (or otherwise alter our driving plan) but that is different to something that is already blocking our view or a definite obstacle.

[jcochrane]

Being serious, and non-pompous, just for a moment if I may. Obviously I have no idea to what degree you or Grahar are involved with the coaching of new associates. But, from my own experience it often happens that when I first introduce the principle of... "you must always be able to stop in the distance seen to be clear" I do so in the context of limit point technique. I usually goes something like... "the limit point is the furthest distance on the surface of the road seen to be clear [without the caveat], and the reason we're continually seeking the limit point is that... we must be able to stop on our side of the road in that distance seen to be clear". Now, what often happens is, the associate says... "Ok, so the limit point is 500 yards (metres, if they're younger than me, which is nearly everyone) but what if there's someone about to cross the road 100 yards ahead of me? Where's the limit point then?" Then I introduce the caveat. Which to all intents and purposes they've unwittingly identified for themselves, which is good.

I find it useful to make the distinction between the "physical" limit point (the surface of the road 500 yards ahead) and the "potential" limit point (100 yards up the road).

If they don't work it out for themselves and don't raise the question just noted I then casually introduce Sarah or someone similar to make the point.

Hope that helps in some practical way.

I was going to say much the same thing. For me there is the "horizon" limit point (the furthest point of tarmac I can see) and the "hazard" limit point (could be little Sarah wanting to dash across the road for an ice cream, a junction, driveway etc.) "Clear road" is up to the "hazard" limit point (also see the following paragraphs below) and is what I have available to stop within.

There are exceptions for example a bend sign may indicate a junction part way round and so I would factor this information into my speed/stopping distance.

To throw a spanner into the works I'm not a great lover of the "golden rule" as quoted (with or without the added phrase) as it does not mention the "hazard" limit point which I think is a crucial consideration (in addition to other factors such as road conditions, risk assessment of the hazard etc,) in making good speed decisions.