The "golden rule" of advanced driving

[Horse]

Arguing for its own sake; people state their position, others disagree. This can go on indefinitely, just a waste of space. If it weren't for the fact that I needed to stick around to rebut the spurious arguments of certain members, I'd be off ( and may nevertheless choose to do so).

Your first (as far as I can see) post on this thread is to demand that it's locked. That seems odd, to say the least (and saying the least may be a novelty in this thread ).

[Horse]

Your first (as far as I can see) post on this thread is to demand that it's locked. That seems odd, to say the least (and saying the least may be a novelty in this thread ).

I didn't demand; I asked.

Don't Qs normally have a '?'

[hir]

Your first (as far as I can see) post on this thread is to demand that it's locked. That seems odd, to say the least (and saying the least may be a novelty in this thread ).

I didn't demand; I asked.

Don't Qs normally have a '?'

It wasn't a question. It was a polite request.

[jont]

This can go on indefinitely

Oh no it can't.

Oh yes it can.

Oh no it can't <finger hovering over the "lock thread" option>

[Horse]

So a reasonable time to boing my earlier post:

Adjust your speed so that you can stop in the distance which it is reasonable to expect remain clear.

If you want it shorter:

"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.

[Silk]

Oh no it can't <finger hovering over the "lock thread" option>

"When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk."

[Silk]

Arguing for its own sake; people state their position, others disagree. This can go on indefinitely, just a waste of space.

Ok...

If it weren't for the fact that I needed to stick around to rebut the spurious arguments of certain members, I'd be off ( and may nevertheless choose to do so).

The irony.

[7db]

Don't Qs normally have a '?'

That one didn't.

[TripleS]

Well I have to say I agree with Chris.

I know we are perfectly free to ignore them, but some of these threads go on far too long and they get nowhere useful.

When the Land Registry has done its stuff and the legal processes finally get completed, I think I shall be spending most of my time in our new, and very large, and wild, garden, rather than here!

Maybe the rest of you are happy with how things are done here, but quite frankly it's all becoming hard work, and not especially rewarding.

Sorry, and all that....

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Silk]

Well I have to say I agree with Chris.

I know we are perfectly free to ignore them, but some of these threads go on far too long and they get nowhere useful.

Tell me, what's stopping you ignoring them? Do you suffer from some kind of compulsive mental disorder that prevents it?

I'm sure the thread will end up being locked soon, only for the same old arguments to start all over again on a new one, and so it goes on. If people enjoy it, where's the harm?

[fungus]

I'm sure the thread will end up being locked soon, only for the same old arguments to start all over again on a new one, and so it goes on. If people enjoy it, where's the harm?

After all, we can always ignore it if we wish, and let those who wish to carry on arguing, ague away to their hearts content. It does us no harm. We can always start a new thread if we wish, or alternatively resurect an old thread.

[Silk]

I'm sure the thread will end up being locked soon, only for the same old arguments to start all over again on a new one, and so it goes on. If people enjoy it, where's the harm?

After all, we can always ignore it if we wish, and let those who wish to carry on arguing, ague away to their hearts content. It does us no harm. We can always start a new thread if we wish, or alternatively resurect an old thread.

You may have a point there.

[michael769]

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.

I have never seen it written down in an "official" source. It is something that I understand is routinely presented in in many police driving schools and I have always felt it a shame that the IAM and RoADAR have never encouraged it.

I always present it to my associates, and I am quite happy to justify it's use. Does not take long to come up with examples where one can be able to stop within the distance one can see to be clear but would still be travelling far to fast.

[MGF]

I haven't bothered reading since I last posted but it is probably worthwhile picking up on this point.

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. As a rule it tells us nothing about advanced driving.

What it can do, is remind those of us who are familiar with Roadcraft/HTBABD, the process of identifying an approprite speed. Briefly; looking ahead, behind, laterally, identifying what you can see; what you cannot see; considering what might happen; prioritising hazards.

This process is underpinned by the rule that one must be able to stop in the distance seen to be clear.

The process cannot be condensed into half a sentence. There is no point in trying to achieve the impossible.

The problem, identified by hir and others is that we can focus too much on the underlying rule and not give enough attention to the rather more complex process, (arguably the essence of advanced driving) of identifying an appropriate speed.

The so-called unofficial 'rule' is simply a reminder to put the 'official' rule in the context of the process described above.


When a contributor asks a question that implies he has little or no knowledge of advanced driving such as,

Hello, i wondered if someone who has undertaken the advanced driving course could advise on what the advanced driving course teaches as regards dealing with cars overtaking in dangerous places.

how is it helpful to use a phrase that simply gives a nod to what is written in Roadcraft/HTBABD, rather than explaining its content?

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.

[GJD]

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.