ADUK Archive

michael769 wrote:so that you can stop well within the distance you can see to be clear and can reasonably expect to remain so.

Sorry to drift the thread, but..

The bit in italics. This makes complete sense and is always how I've understood the "Golden Rule" of driving.

However, recently I quoted it like this on another forum and was taken to task to provide my source for the italicised bit. Doesn't really matter why - my correspondent was just being difficult. I reached for my copies of Roadcraft (the Batenberg one and then the Jam Jar one) and couldn't find it in them. Did I just not check them thoroughly enough, or is this italicised bit something that came from somewhere else?

Custom24 wrote:

michael769 wrote:so that you can stop well within the distance you can see to be clear and can reasonably expect to remain so.

Sorry to drift the thread, but..

The bit in italics. This makes complete sense and is always how I've understood the "Golden Rule" of driving.

However, recently I quoted it like this on another forum and was taken to task to provide my source for the italicised bit. Doesn't really matter why - my correspondent was just being difficult. I reached for my copies of Roadcraft (the Batenberg one and then the Jam Jar one) and couldn't find it in them. Did I just not check them thoroughly enough, or is this italicised bit something that came from somewhere else?

Is there a formal source? Does there need to be? It'd be a pretty daft rule without the italicised bit, but I suppose someone must have been first to say it.

Custom24 wrote:

michael769 wrote:so that you can stop well within the distance you can see to be clear and can reasonably expect to remain so.

The bit in italics. This makes complete sense and is always how I've understood the "Golden Rule" of driving.

However, recently I quoted it like this on another forum and was taken to task to provide my source for the italicised bit.

In pointedly related material, the blue book says

Driving plans and decisions are made on a combination of:

1. What can be seen.
2. What cannot be seen.
3. The circumstances which may reasonably be expected to develop.

It seems to me, therefore, that if the third part is to be taken into account when considering stopping distance, then the italicised text must be part of the definition, (whether explicitly stated or not).

Gareth wrote:

Custom24 wrote:

michael769 wrote:so that you can stop well within the distance you can see to be clear and can reasonably expect to remain so.

The bit in italics. This makes complete sense and is always how I've understood the "Golden Rule" of driving.

However, recently I quoted it like this on another forum and was taken to task to provide my source for the italicised bit.

In pointedly related material, the blue book says

Driving plans and decisions are made on a combination of:

1. What can be seen.
2. What cannot be seen.
3. The circumstances which may reasonably be expected to develop.

It seems to me, therefore, that if the third part is to be taken into account when considering stopping distance, then the italicised text must be part of the definition, (whether explicitly stated or not).

Thank you Gareth. I knew it was in there somewhere.

'Reasonably' being sufficiently vague to be next to useless as a rule.

MGF wrote:'Reasonably' being sufficiently vague to be next to useless as a rule.

Isn't a reasonableness test used as a basis in UK law? As in, was it reasonable to expect <event> could happen?

Reasonable: Car or motorcycle coming the other way at speed
Agricultural vehicle coming other way slowly and occupying full width of road
One or more cyclists
Horse and rider (in horse country)
Cow or plurality of cows
Mud, cow or horse produce on road
Big pothole or other bad surface
If windy, fallen tree

Unreasonable: Asteroid strike
Alien abduction
Giant sinkhole
Herd of elephants

In law a reasonable test will be defined in each case.

The 'golden rule' is not the only rule that should be applied to one's driving. It doesn't need to be qualified. It needs to be put in context.


What dioes the unofficial extended version of the rule add to the offcial rule that cannot be found in the other advanced driving rules?

MGF wrote:The 'golden rule' is not the only rule that should be applied to one's driving. It doesn't need to be qualified. It needs to be put in context.

I think we've already had tinkers in this thread. Nice of you to introduce some cobblers, too.

The emphasis on "see" in the Golden Rule means that it is fact- and observation-based. It is not "think" or "know". Its inclusion requires the "reasonably remains so" qualification as a result. I can often see far enough in a single-track lane. It is a rule based on a piece of observation and piece of analysis.

Once the Golden Rule is established in advanced driving, I can't think right now of many other hard and fast rules that don't fall under the heading of technique and schism.

7db wrote:
The emphasis on "see" in the Golden Rule means that it is fact- and observation-based... Its inclusion requires the "reasonably remains so" qualification as a result.

That is a non-sequitor. It doesn't follow at all. The rule defines the maximum speed one can drive regardless of the circumstances.

The rule is founded on the doctrine of not making assumptions about the road clearing or being clear ahead.

Circumstances may dictate a lower speed.

The 'reasonably remains so' is a clumsy and inadequate attempt to factor in the other rules. It presupposes that one drives only to the golden rule and that is of course not the case.

That is why it isn't in the official version.

MGF wrote:The rule is founded on the doctrine of not making assumptions about the road clearing or being clear ahead.

I interpret that as meaning

1. the road isn't clear ahead, and the driver is cautioned against assuming it will become clear, and
2. it can't be seen if the road ahead is clear, and the driver is cautioned against assuming it is clear.

I see the explicit addition as being an attempt to cover the situation where the road ahead is seen to be clear but the driver is being encouraged to consider normal possibilities that might result in it becoming not clear.

A simple example is passing along a road where houses front directly onto the road without an intervening footpath. A driver might see the road ahead is clear and set a speed accordingly, but the guidance attempts to suggest the driver should also consider reasonably likely factors such as an occupant of a house opening a front door and stepping into the road.

MGF wrote:
What dioes the unofficial extended version of the rule add to the offcial rule that cannot be found in the other advanced driving rules?

All the bits people forget when they think they are 'driving to the view'.

I can't see any disadvantage in the qualification of the rule. Quite the opposite in fact. I find it an elegant way of tying the golden rule into reality.

Gareth wrote:I see the explicit addition as being an attempt to cover the situation where the road ahead is seen to be clear but the driver is being encouraged to consider normal possibilities that might result in it becoming not clear.

Well obviously. What else could the "and can reasonably expect to remain clear" bit (that's the explicit addition, right?) be about?

"Stop in the distance you can see to be clear"
- Yep, the High street is clear ahead, I can drive at the speed limit and stop in the distance I can see to be clear.

"...and reasonably expect to remain so"
- I can see little Sarah tugging at her mother's hand on the left pavement and an ice-cream van to my right; I cannot reasonably expect the road to remain clear and had better not drive at the speed limit but instead prepare for the possibility of having to make an emergency stop.


Similarly entrances directly alongside the road that you cannot see are blocked or clear, hedges behind which naughty children may be hiding - or indeed large farm machinary which might stick a lump of metal out 8 ft before the driver ...

Yes the qualification is needed.

Gareth wrote:...I interpret that as meaning

1. the road isn't clear ahead, and the driver is cautioned against assuming it will become clear, and
2. it can't be seen if the road ahead is clear, and the driver is cautioned against assuming it is clear.

I see the explicit addition as being an attempt to cover the situation where the road ahead is seen to be clear but the driver is being encouraged to consider normal possibilities that might result in it becoming not clear.

I agree. As a coaching tool or aide memoire it is useful to discourage the golden rule being misunderstood to mean the only rule to apply when choosing an appropriate speed.

Does the golden rule need to be qualified within the rule itself (unofficial) or outside of the rule by putting the rule in the context of other rules (official)?

I prefer the latter as it as the rule remains clear and concise.I have never assumed it is the only means to identify an appropriate speed.It also appears to be the official version hence why the rule cannot be supported by any official source.

A rule that covers every eventuality is necessarily vague.

I cannot see the point of Custom24, or anyone else trying to persuade others that the rule is different from the official one simply because some may prefer it.