Advanced Driving Hub

Stefluc1 wrote: It seems you are against extending /offsiding

It seems I'm either not writing clearly or you're reading in an expectation of certain content.

e.g.:

Horse wrote: The A832 example I would happily use the full width

Horse wrote:

Stefluc1 wrote: . . . the view is only restricted from a near side approach so by extending straddle the centre line on the approach gives you equal distance for safety

If you're saying 'move away from potential danger, or position equidistant from danger from either side', then 'yes'

Stefluc1 wrote: but please don’t try and stop anyone else doing it as we are all responsible for our own actions when we get we behind the wheel as everything we do when we drive is a calculated risk some more than others.

It seems I'm either not writing clearly or you're reading in an expectation of certain content.

e.g.

Horse wrote: However, as with most things, if you are clear about the circumstances when it should be used, what you might gain and the risks should it go wrong, the fair enough. If it's not easy to state clearly and concisely answers to the first two questions, then perhaps it needs more consideration.

What I'm against - and the need for IAM or RoSPA to actually publish any guidance on offsiding supports that view - is that uninformed, unthinking, unnecessary, implementation of offsiding is a high risk activity.

It is clear they done accept it at associate level but will accept it after that if done under the correct circumstances and safe and legal.

Stefluc1 wrote: will accept it after that if done under the correct circumstances and safe and legal.

I don't have a problem with that, as long as it really is safe. But, as someone else commented earlier (and I'm paraphrasing), is it worth including 'necessary' in that list? There has to be a real gain to justify use during tests taken under legal restraints, doesn't there?

If you are overtaking within the legal limit then there is no problem,sometimes watch what words I use here ,if your following a LGV along a country road at 40mph in a 60 then if you want to become a small lorry and follow it then fine but if you want to get to where you are going and perhaps enjoy the drive at the speed limit then you will have to make/take the calculated risk and attempt to pass it if not sit back and enjoy the view on the back of the truck.
Then what happens is traffic builds up as more and more remain behind and frustration sets in which leads to dangerous manoeuvres which could embroil others. If you train for one of the most dangerous manoeuvres to carry out on the road and become competent at it then there is no reason why you should get it wrong.
It goes wrong when two drivers interact with each other both wanting different things if people didn’t improve their driving then the roads would be far more dangerous than they are at present believe me and to reiterate why the road safety organisations won’t condone extending view/offsiding.

Stefluc1 wrote: If you train for one of the most dangerous manoeuvres to carry out on the road and become competent at it then there is no reason why you should get it wrong.

Ok, I read it carefully, and found that bit particularly interesting

No reason, ever? Do you really believe that?

Horse wrote:

Stefluc1 wrote: If you train for one of the most dangerous manoeuvres to carry out on the road and become competent at it then there is no reason why you should get it wrong.

Ok, I read it carefully, and found that bit particularly interesting

No reason, ever? Do you really believe that?

If you get it wrong, are you competent?

jont- wrote:

Horse wrote:

Stefluc1 wrote: If you train for one of the most dangerous manoeuvres to carry out on the road and become competent at it then there is no reason why you should get it wrong.

Ok, I read it carefully, and found that bit particularly interesting

No reason, ever? Do you really believe that?

If you get it wrong, are you competent?

Stefluc is suggesting, that a competent person will never be involved in an collision during overtaking, that there is no reason why it should go wrong. Since not everything is under your total control, that would seem optimistic.

What does 'competent' mean? Does it mean someone who has been trained, passed a test and holds a particular certificate? I don't know. Not for me to answer.

Horse wrote:....
What I'm against - and the need for IAM or RoSPA to actually publish any guidance on offsiding supports that view - is that uninformed, unthinking, unnecessary, implementation of offsiding is a high risk activity.

Some of your concerns are covered in this insightful and thought provoking topic (possibly):
viewtopic.php?f=28&t=710

To answer your comment - it's glaringly obvious that given the conditions you made up that offsiding is high risk. Same for overtaking. Or filtering.

crr003 wrote:

Horse wrote:....
What I'm against - and the need for IAM or RoSPA to actually publish any guidance on offsiding supports that view - is that uninformed, unthinking, unnecessary, implementation of offsiding is a high risk activity.

Some of your concerns are covered in this insightful and thought provoking topic (possibly):
viewtopic.php?f=28&t=710

To answer your comment - it's glaringly obvious that given the conditions you made up that offsiding is high risk. Same for overtaking. Or filtering.

Which bit that I made up, please?

I agree with AndyP.