The "golden rule" of advanced driving

[Horse]

All drivers drive at a speed they believe they can stop in the distance they can reasonably expect to remain clear unless they admit to driving recklessly.

If one seeks an unofficial rule that does a bit of both no one would use the expression 'you can reasonably expect to remain clear' unless they were trying to do something more than make a helpful statement.

As a 'rule' anything like that is a waste of breath unless 'calibrated', typically by an examiner or jury. Hence why I said:

"Be able to stop in the distance which it is reasonable to expect remain clear"

I deliberately didn't include 'which you can', as 'you' may lack the necessary imagination, observation, scanning, etc.

[Grahar]

All drivers drive at a speed they believe they can stop in the distance they can reasonably expect to remain clear unless they admit to driving recklessly.

If one seeks an unofficial rule that does a bit of both no one would use the expression 'you can reasonably expect to remain clear' unless they were trying to do something more than make a helpful statement.

As a 'rule' anything like that is a waste of breath unless 'calibrated', typically by an examiner or jury. Hence why I said:

"Be able to stop in the distance which it is reasonable to expect remain clear"

I deliberately didn't include 'which you can', as 'you' may lack the necessary imagination, observation, scanning, etc.

Horse: Can you define under what conditions it is 'reasonable to expect' a stretch of road 'to remain clear'?

[trashbat]

Are you a lawyer?

[Horse]

Horse: Can you define under what conditions it is 'reasonable to expect' a stretch of road 'to remain clear'?

I could have a go, but I'm a gent, so "After you"

[Grahar]

Horse: Can you define under what conditions it is 'reasonable to expect' a stretch of road 'to remain clear'?

I could have a go, but I'm a gent, so "After you"

I was asking for a definition based on your wording above so I think it is best that you define what you understand it to mean...

[trashbat]

At least committing such swathes of time and effort towards an exhaustive attempt to determine a precise, legally watertight and universally accepted definition of basic common sense for no reason means that one probably can't be out smashing into things around bends.

[Gareth]

Horse: Can you define under what conditions it is 'reasonable to expect' a stretch of road 'to remain clear'?

I could have a go, but I'm a gent, so "After you"

I was asking for a definition based on your wording above so I think it is best that you define what you understand it to mean...

I would think it is reasonable to expect a road to remain clear when it can be readily seen that there are no factors that could obscure something which could interpose itself between where I am and the extent of the road surface that I can see to be clear, or where there are no other road users whose activities might extend onto the part of the road I intend using.

Factors that might be reasonable to imagine might include a fast vehicle towards that might encroach on my side of the road, thereby nibbling away at the farthest end of the section that is currently clear, or a side turning or entrance that affords a limited view, or children playing on the footpath with scant regard for passing traffic, or loose animals, or ...

[Grahar]

I would think it is reasonable to expect a road to remain clear when it can be readily seen that there are no factors that could obscure something which could interpose itself between where I am and the extent of the road surface that I can see to be clear, or where there are no other road users whose activities might extend onto the part of the road I intend using.

Factors that might be reasonable to imagine might include a fast vehicle towards that might encroach on my side of the road, thereby nibbling away at the farthest end of the section that is currently clear, or a side turning or entrance that affords a limited view, or children playing on the footpath with scant regard for passing traffic, or loose animals, or ...

How would you say your understanding would differ if the 'rule' were posed in its original form? (without the 'reasonably expect to remain so' bit)?

[jcochrane]

This thread is still active.

To lighten things up or perhaps start another lengthy discussion (I speak politely) I have already said I'm not a great lover of the supposed "golden rule". It is only one aspect in my mind to consider. For me the "rule of three" is my prefered golden rule:

Rule of Three.
Never excede any one of these three...
1. The limit of the driver
2. The limit of the road.
3. The limit of the car.


I think that just about covers everything.

[MGF]

What it can do, is remind those of us who are familiar with Roadcraft/HTBABD, the process of identifying an approprite speed.

It can do that, and it's not intended to do anything beyond that.

It obviously is as in the example above and you have been arguing that it is more than noise used to remind us of the process. That's the problem with trying to raise its status by repeating it without thinking about what it actually means.

I think it can be positive for us to come up with rules/statements to help us drive effectively but it's the petty competition to have one creation accepted over another, particularly an informal one over a formal one that is counter-productive and an unattractive part of the advanced driving community.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

I would think it is reasonable to expect a road to remain clear when it can be readily seen that there are no factors that could obscure something which could interpose itself between where I am and the extent of the road surface that I can see to be clear, or where there are no other road users whose activities might extend onto the part of the road I intend using.

Factors that might be reasonable to imagine might include a fast vehicle towards that might encroach on my side of the road, thereby nibbling away at the farthest end of the section that is currently clear, or a side turning or entrance that affords a limited view, or children playing on the footpath with scant regard for passing traffic, or loose animals, or ...

How would you say your understanding would differ if the 'rule' were posed in its original form? (without the 'reasonably expect to remain so' bit)?

<Jumps in>

Why should his understanding differ? He's an intelligent, thinking driver. He will continue to apply his mind to analysing the hazard density of the bit of road he's seeing, regardless of any rule wording.

I'm sure I, Gareth, and even you, all work the same way. The bit of black tarmac in front of you is not the only hazard. You have to include those other factors, seen and unseen (hence the "reasonably expect" bit) that might change the situation, and force you to have to stop before the limit point.

What's so difficult about that? I suspect there must be something that I've not understood, otherwise there wouldn't be 12 pages of this thread

[Gareth]

How would you say your understanding would differ if the 'rule' were posed in its original form? (without the 'reasonably expect to remain so' bit)?

In the original form it's a simplistic aide-memoire that discusses a theoretical concept. In the augmented form it has practical application.

On one hand I like simple phrases to encapsulate a concept, while understanding that I must integrate and appropriately apply many simple concepts as I drive. On the other hand I like pithy phrases that convey practically useful information that may be directly applied without the need to think further.

[GJD]

How would you say your understanding would differ if the 'rule' were posed in its original form? (without the 'reasonably expect to remain so' bit)?

Like Mr C-W, I have no idea what I'm missing here. Whatever flaws you think there are in the phrasing of the full rule, if you just lop off the 'reasonably expect to remain so' bit it's no longer even an attempt to describe how to drive at an appropriate speed.

If you adhere to the principle behind the full rule, your speed will be appropriate. If you adhere to the principle behind the truncated rule, your speed will sometimes be (far) too fast. It's that simple. Is that not obvious to you?

There is plenty in this thread to make me realise that the traditional phrasing of the golden rule is something of an issue, but nothing has been said to make me question the golden-ness of the principle of always driving at an appropriate speed, nor whether achieving that requires more than just looking at how much road is clear at this moment.

[hir]

This discussion has placed far too much emphasis on regarding the words in question as being a "rule". They're not. They're nothing more than a reminder, amongst many others, to drive sensibly.

A reminder is just that, a reminder. We don't need dictionaries, grammar checkers or lectures in semantics in order to work out what the reminder means in practical terms.

As Stressed Dave said... It's not even a rule of advanced driving but a reiteration of Rule 126 in the Highway Code

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

As Stressed Dave said... It's not even a rule of advanced driving but a reiteration of Rule 126 in the Highway Code

You missed out the important bit, FFS