Er, there are no pedestrians, and taking in the scenic views does NOT equate to not looking where you are going.



There is a fool in the conversation, but it isn't me. The fact is, you can't help but take in the views, and this is because, as a human, you have both central and peripheral vision, and a wide expanse of view is within your field of view. Even if at all times you keep your eyes right on the centre of the tarmac, it will not stop you from seeing those mountains. I can't believe you are seriously suggesting otherwise, to be honest. It's silly.

You obviously look at the thread as well as you drive.



I'm not suggesting that you cannot see the scenery, but if you're driving at 30mph in a 60mph limit area to "take in the scenery" like you suggested, your concentration clearly isn't on driving that ~1 tonne piece of machinery.

Like I said, driving as you described, is similarly bad driving to texting while driving, using a mobile phone, checking in a glovebox and terrible driving like that. Yes, hundreds of thousands of people do get away with these stupid acts every day, but there's also the numerous accidents that are caused every day because too much attention is paid to distractions rather than driving.

Nope, there really are NO pedestrians to be seen in the picture. None. Zilch. Zero. A total absence of pedestrians.

However, the scenic driver would I suggest be safer than you; acording to you, your eyes are fixated on the road. IF there were pedestrians lurking in the scenery, then the scenic driver would see them (seeing as he is taking in the scenery) but you would not see them (seeing as you refuse to take in the scenery) until presumably the moment they stepped on to the tarmac.


A complete [inon sequitur[/i. I would suggest that the overwhelming majority of drivers would feel perfectly competent to take their car on a gentle scenic drive on country roads, and your suggestion that doing so is dangerous and hinders safe driving is novel. It may be for you, but I think you're on your own.

The AA is hardly known for advocating dangerous driving, and they publish a list of top ten scenic drives, as do many motorist and touring organisations in many countries. If you are that rare person (I've never previously met one) who doesn't feel they can partake in a scenic drive safely, then certainly don't do it, but spare the rest of us your ludicrous worries.


No it is not, it is not remotely like that, it is pretty much the direct opposite. The danger of texting etc is TAKING YOUR EYES OFF THE ROAD. Taking in the scenery on a scenic drive does not involve any such thing, (for normal people) as their brain is designed to, and does, take in the whole picture, not just some tiny part of it.


The scenic view is NOT a "distraction". It is just "the view". The point you seem to somehow miss is that the field of view ahead is EXACTLY the same size and shape, whatever is in it.

I love driving places like the Highlands, the Lakes, the Dales, the European mountain ranges etc for many reasons but one constant is that the drives can be so bloody enjoyable, the views brilliant.

I have done the Hard Knott and Wry Nose passes many times over m,any years, and you certainly wouldn't want to distract yourself from the road on those, nor on Alpine hairpins or roads with a mammoth drop on one side, but I do not find it detracts at all from the breathtaking scenery.

Have a look at the hundred or so images [url=http://www.petrolheadnirvana.com/2011/10/alpine-north-2011/here[/url. If you are seriously saying you could drive that route but not appreciate the scenery then I don't believe a word of it.

If this view would not send a shiver down your spine as you descended, then I'm sorry but you're not normal.

I always like taking in the scenery of the Howgill Fells from the M6 at 70+ when I'm up that way.

I've driven through there many times, if you can't take in the view while driving then you shouldn't be behind the bloody wheel.

Has anyone ever had a Field Test done on their eyes?

I only ask because I have one every nine months as part of my glaucoma testing (haven't got it, yet, but its hereditary and my father had it), its a test on each eye to see how wide your field of vision is, I pass it every time (so far) so I know better than anyone that my field of vision is normal and so can categorically tell you all that in that photo above, you would actually have even more of a field of vision than that shown (a photographer would probably confirm what that particular angle is for that lens).

Its impossible to not see things in an almost 180 degree field, whether you want to or not.

Actually, further processing of the image reveals that both you and I owe LGJM an apology:

According to that the driver and a front seat passenger looking out of the windscreen are seeing similar things. But that's complete horse crap and anyone with any experience of driving knows that. The driver should be concentrating on driving and the passenger will simply be taking in the views. They will see completely different things.

This whole argument started because someone said it was annoying when people dawdle at 30mph in a 60 limit and FA argued it was perfectly fine to look at beautiful scenery while driving. There have been some beautiful pictures of roads on here. FA obviously thinks they are so beautiful they are worth slowing down for, but not actually stopping for.

Of course most people who drive poorly and take in too much scenery while they're driving will get away with it. It's probably a 1/100,000 chance that the precise moment that your looking at the scenery is when a deer runs across your path. But it is still shoddy driving to be driving at 30mph in a 60mph limit road just because you want to look at the scenery.

Even without Bigfoot ignoring the green cross code and stepping out in front of you, it's convenient that the road and mountain have been perfectly placed so you can drive. I'm confident that the road designers and god have collaborated so that the beautiful scenery isn't at a 90 degree angle so the driver has to turn his head to take it in.

LGJM has finally lost it, and is rambling. A convenient point to exit his silliness as there's really nothing to add.

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark":1utwcpd2 as there's really nothing to add.'" :1utwcpd2 Except this: www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road ... iving/#a31 [u:1utwcpd2Driving without reasonable consideration[/u:1utwcpd2 The offence of driving without reasonable consideration under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is committed only when other persons are inconvenienced by the manner of the defendants driving, see section 3ZA(4) RTA 1988. The maximum penalty is a level 5 fine. The court must also either endorse the drivers licence with between 3 and 9 penalty points (unless there are "special reasons" not to do so), or impose disqualification for a fixed period and/or until a driving test has been passed. The penalty is the same as for driving without due care and attention. A driving without due consideration charge is more appropriate where the inconvenience is aimed at and suffered by other road users. Note the essential difference between the two offences under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is that in cases of careless driving the prosecution need not show that any other person was inconvenienced. In cases of inconsiderate driving, there must be evidence that some other user of the road or public place was actually inconvenienced; Dilks v Bowman-Shaw [1981 RTR 4 DC Charging Practice This offence is appropriate when the driving amounts to a clear act of incompetence, selfishness, impatience or aggressiveness in addition to some other inconvenience to road users. The following examples are typical of actions likely to be regarded as inconsiderate driving: flashing of lights to force other drivers in front to give way; misuse of any lane (including cycling lanes) to avoid queuing or gain some other advantage over other drivers; unnecessarily remaining in an overtaking lane; :1utwcpd2unnecessarily slow driving or braking without good cause;:1utwcpd2 driving with un-dipped headlights which dazzle oncoming drivers, cyclists or pedestrians; driving through a puddle causing pedestrians to be splashed; driving a bus in such a way as to alarm passengers. Prosecutors must decide which version of the offence to charge as the section creates two separate offences and there is no alternative verdict provision in the magistrates/youth court 1 K.B. 340.

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark":1utwcpd2 as there's really nothing to add.'" :1utwcpd2 Except this: www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road ... iving/#a31 [u:1utwcpd2Driving without reasonable consideration[/u:1utwcpd2 The offence of driving without reasonable consideration under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is committed only when other persons are inconvenienced by the manner of the defendants driving, see section 3ZA(4) RTA 1988. The maximum penalty is a level 5 fine. The court must also either endorse the drivers licence with between 3 and 9 penalty points (unless there are "special reasons" not to do so), or impose disqualification for a fixed period and/or until a driving test has been passed. The penalty is the same as for driving without due care and attention. A driving without due consideration charge is more appropriate where the inconvenience is aimed at and suffered by other road users. Note the essential difference between the two offences under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is that in cases of careless driving the prosecution need not show that any other person was inconvenienced. In cases of inconsiderate driving, there must be evidence that some other user of the road or public place was actually inconvenienced; Dilks v Bowman-Shaw [1981 RTR 4 DC Charging Practice This offence is appropriate when the driving amounts to a clear act of incompetence, selfishness, impatience or aggressiveness in addition to some other inconvenience to road users. The following examples are typical of actions likely to be regarded as inconsiderate driving: flashing of lights to force other drivers in front to give way; misuse of any lane (including cycling lanes) to avoid queuing or gain some other advantage over other drivers; unnecessarily remaining in an overtaking lane; :1utwcpd2unnecessarily slow driving or braking without good cause;:1utwcpd2 driving with un-dipped headlights which dazzle oncoming drivers, cyclists or pedestrians; driving through a puddle causing pedestrians to be splashed; driving a bus in such a way as to alarm passengers. Prosecutors must decide which version of the offence to charge as the section creates two separate offences and there is no alternative verdict provision in the magistrates/youth court 1 K.B. 340.

If you genuinely think that driving at 30 mph along a winding country road is, or could ever amount to, a criminal offence of inconsiderate driving, then you are comprehensively befuddled. It's a monumentally stupid suggestion, which could only be made by someone with not the first clue about driving offences.

No one had mentioned [iwinding[/i country roads when you first waded into the argument. Therefore it is you who is clueless.

How subjective do you think the relevant part you quoted is?

What constitutes "unnecessarily slow driving"?

Is that right?

So, the post that I actually responded to that stated said what. exactly? Let' see, shall we? :


Well, I never. Perhaps you could look at it again, and come back any time you like (after you've picked up your bollock) to see if you can make an even bigger prat of yourself, as it is amusing.

I do hope your powers of observation when driving are better than when reading.

I was thinking of this thread yesterday while driving and realised that I can see in my wing mirrors whilst looking directly ahead. Not that I could give it my full attention but when you think about it you can actually see far more than you realise you can (if that makes any sense).

While concentrating on an object directly in front of you, you should have a field of vision of almost 180 degrees especially if the object on the periphery is moving.

Having something in your field of vision doesn't mean you are *SEEING* something. If a terrible driver refuses to look in their mirrors to actually see what is driving around them then they aren't going to know what's around them. Having the wide field of vision doesn't make up for the awful practice of not looking in your mirrors often.

A more pertinent experiment would be to properly look at a building on every road you drive on. The same level of looking that you'd give to the beautiful scenes that FA would drop from 60mph to 30 for. Do that on each road you drive on and I think you'll quickly realise that it is terrible driving, and driving a car deserves more attention than allowing your gaze to be focused on something else for vital seconds.

Do I think most people can get away with doing that for a long time before having an accident? Yes. I think you can do it and get away with it. But then people have driven while drunk for years before getting busted for it. Thousands of idiots will use their mobile to talk and text and not cause an accident. But that doesn't mean you should do it.

I think most guys on here will have checked out some hottie while moving in city traffic and had to drop anchor because the cars had stopped in front of them. There might even be a couple of people who have gone into the back of someone after doing it.

I think there's a middle ground here. It certainly wouldn't be safe to give the scenery your full attention whilst driving - you wouldn't stare in wonder at the top of a mountain, or watch a bird of prey as it swooped down to make a kill - but you can still appreciate that you are in a place of natural beauty as opposed to, say, a council estate in Runcorn. With that in mind, it wouldn't be unreasonable to slow down and enjoy that beauty for a little longer, would it?

No, I can't let that go.

* WHERE exactly did I say that I "would drop from 60 to 30" for anything?

* What exactly is this "same level of looking" you claim on my behalf, and where did I explain this "level"?

* And how on earth is "properly looking at a building", whatever that might mean, equal to taking in a vista spread right across your field of view? These are two completely different things. You wouldn't be "properly looking" at the details in the view. I'd have thought it was bleedin' obvious that it is all about the view - and not at all about any fine details anywhere within it.


Really? So clearly YOU have, anyway. I doubt anyone else does. Clearly, it appears you don't practice what you preach.

You are just as bad as a driving texter. It would be disgraceful and downright dangerous to take your eyes off the road to ogle some unsuspecting "hottie", as you put it, whilst driving, in such a way that when you can finally tear your lechy eyes away, you are almost up the back end of the poor bugger in front. Each post you make strengthens the impression that you are a rotten driver.

Summer is here. Nothing wrong with driving around eyeing up scantily clad members of the opposite sex. And anyone who is straight and says they don't do it is probably lying.

I think the whole point is what you can look at whilst driving safely.

We have one nutter who pretty much admits running into the back of people while not looking where he is going.

The point I would make is that it is an essential part of careful driving to look for, and see, potential hazards such as pedestrians. If you like the pedestrians you see, well, that's just a bonus. But as a careful driver you should be perfectly capable of seeing pedestrians safely. It shouldn't make you crash, or almost crash.

The sooner that cars that drive themselves become the norm, the better.
Then we can all read, text, look at the view, ogle the passing totty, hold conference calls or have a little snooze without killing each other.

Driving ... it's the past.

We used to have things like that and they were used by people all the time. We called them buses

Aye, that's the way to go. Bus driver - eye on the road ahead at all times.