Advanced Driving Hub

Jonquirk wrote:I wonder if that’s something that Chris Gilbert might have said on one of his DVDs. I don’t have time to rewatch them to confirm that.

I'm now beginning to doubt myself ...

However, I did find this:

hir wrote: ... which satisfies the mantra... "the furthest point on the surface of the road seen to be clear, and likely to remain so".

the "limit point", rather than being a meticulously, error-free assessment of a precise point on the surface of the road, becomes a patch of road which is currently empty and on which I must be able to stop if necessary.

Likely Vs Expect

Do they mean the same, in practical terms?

Horse wrote:

Jonquirk wrote:I wonder if that’s something that Chris Gilbert might have said on one of his DVDs. I don’t have time to rewatch them to confirm that.

I'm now beginning to doubt myself ...

However, I did find this:

hir wrote: ... which satisfies the mantra... "the furthest point on the surface of the road seen to be clear, and likely to remain so".

the "limit point", rather than being a meticulously, error-free assessment of a precise point on the surface of the road, becomes a patch of road which is currently empty and on which I must be able to stop if necessary.

Likely Vs Expect

Do they mean the same, in practical terms?

This is interesting - I can't find official mention of "and reasonably expect to remain so" or similar. Maybe this was something tacked on by an expensive driver trainer to "add value"?

Anyhow, as Masters uses Roadcraft, we will have to go with that.

(I know the first rule of Surprise Horizon is not to mention Surprise Horizon, but I just sense heading towards this rabbit hole....!) Thank God that's not in Roadcraft.

Horse wrote:Limit point. [...] Isn't it actually 'see is clear and expect to remain so'?

Worth asking what the extra words give. I imagine driving through a town and seeing no road users for a goodly distance but, perhaps, people on footpaths who might step into the road without looking.

GTR1400MAN wrote:What qualifier? I can't see it in my copy.

I've had a quick skim through a few books, I really can't recall where I got it from.

GTR1400MAN wrote:... those words don't actually exist.

However, just because the words aren't commonly-used or easy to find, doesn't mean the principle is wrong.

However however, apologies for the slight on Reg.

Jonquirk wrote:I wonder if that’s something that Chris Gilbert might have said on one of his DVDs.

hir wrote: ... which satisfies the mantra... "the furthest point on the surface of the road seen to be clear, and likely to remain so".

@hir any idea where you picked it up from?

Maybe this was something tacked on by an expensive driver trainer to "add value"?

Not how I would have heard it I borrowed CG's DVD and have only had a couple of AD days for post-test car training.

crr003 wrote:Anyhow, as Masters uses Roadcraft, we will have to go with that.

I'd rather not see Roadcraft as a limiting factor

Actually, although I had a substantial grounding in blue book I have made a point of looking outside of the 'usual' content, whether taking training or improving teaching.

crr003 wrote:(I know the rule of Surprise Horizon is not to mention Surprise Horizon, but I just sense heading towards this rabbit hole....!) Thank God that's not in Roadcraft.

Mornington Crescent!

Horse wrote:

hir wrote: ... which satisfies the mantra... "the furthest point on the surface of the road seen to be clear, and likely to remain so".

@hir any idea where you picked it up from?

I could only have been picked it up from police class 1 drivers; on different occasions and from different officers. It’s a mystery as to why it’s not in Roadcraft (I’ll check to see if it’s in earlier editions). However, it is undoubtedly taught in some, perhaps all, police driving schools.

The way I view it is the actual, physical, limit point maybe 300 yards away, but there maybe children on the nearside pavement about 200 yards away, they are larking about and not paying attention to the traffic, they have a loose dog with them. So, my virtual limit point is at 200 yards. By assessing the risk based on “likely to remain so” I have moved the limit point, and the distance in which I must be able to stop, closer than the physical limit point.

Now, we all know it’s not quite as simple as that. Using IPSGA, I might choose to move the car away from the nearside, to a place of safety away from the children, I might ease off the speed to ensure I can stop if child or canine step into the road. But what the mantra “and likely to remain so” has done is to make me consider potential hazards before I even get to the physical limit point at the bend. You may say that’s just part of the process of applying the “system”, and I wouldn’t disagree, but the mantra ensures that one doesn’t become target focused on the physical limit point.

Hope that helps.

Horse wrote:

GTR1400MAN wrote:What qualifier? I can't see it in my copy.

I've had a quick skim through a few books, I really can't recall where I got it from.

GTR1400MAN wrote:... those words don't actually exist.

However, just because the words aren't commonly-used or easy to find, doesn't mean the principle is wrong.

However however, apologies for the slight on Reg.

Gosh the internet moves in mysterious ways.

Just read this on PH from the famous Vonhosen;
"There are also the caveats of "& reasonably expect to remain so" & "on your side of the road", which can result in you having to be able stop in less than the distance you can currently see to be clear (sometimes less than half that distance)."

If Von says they're caveats, that's good enough for me.

I asked Kevin Williams (mentioned by GTR) who thought it might have been from a Thames Valley police Bikesafe video, from 2000. Which I definitely would have seen. I was at an event and they showed a rough cut of it.

hir wrote:Hope that helps.

Yes, it does. Thank you.

Oh, does this mean I'm allowed off the Roadcraft naughty step?