New video - overtaking

[GreenV8S]

Brother Mycroft said:

vonhosen said:

As far as overtaking goes, it's not enough to say "I couldn't see a junction/entrance", it needs to be in the positive "I could see there wasn't a junction/entrance"

That looks to me as if vonhosen is making the distinction between not seeing something (an obscured entrance, or an approaching car hidden by a dip) and seeing that there is nothing (you can see that there is no dip, or no side entrance, or no car likely to enter or leave the side entrance). I wouldn't conclude from that quote that the mere presence of the junction is sufficient to prevent the overtake. Vonhosen has made it clear many times that you must make sure there is no conflict, and a junction or side road is an example of a potential conflict. I've given you several quotes illustrating that, and while you were searching back through his posts trying to find one that supported your claims I'm sure you will have seen many more.

Edited by GreenV8S on Monday 29th October 18:48

[vonhosen]

GreenV8S said:

Brother Mycroft said:

vonhosen said:

As far as overtaking goes, it's not enough to say "I couldn't see a junction/entrance", it needs to be in the positive "I could see there wasn't a junction/entrance"

That looks to me as if vonhosen is making the distinction between not seeing something (an obscured entrance, or an approaching car hidden by a dip) and seeing that there is nothing (you can see that there is no dip, or no side entrance, or no car likely to enter or leave the side entrance). I wouldn't conclude from that quote that the mere presence of the junction is sufficient to prevent the overtake. Vonhosen has made it clear many times that you must make sure there is no conflict, and a junction or side road is an example of a potential conflict. I've given you several quotes illustrating that, and while you were searching back through his posts trying to find one that supported your claims I'm sure you will have seen many more.

Edited by GreenV8S on Monday 29th October 18:48

Indeed, but unless you place in every single reply all eventualities (even if you've covered the other pertinent matters elsewhere in the threads), BM just reads what is written in that one reply in isolation (which may be replying to a specific point being made by someone else, rather than in broader terms) instead of referring to the body of replies to establish your position.

When this is pointed out, he ignores any explanation & the only parallel I can draw to his response is a small child sticking their fingers in their ears screaming "I can't hear you, I can't hear you", as he repeats the same "but you said in the post" quoting it ad nauseum

It's why I really can't be bothered to converse with him anymore (that and his inability to answer a straight question).

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 29th October 23:41

[GreenV8S]

The problem with straight answers to straight questions is that you very quickly run out ways to hide from the argument. Hence all this nonsense from Brother Mycroft about R_U_LOCAL's video - diversionary tactics intended to hide the fact that he hasn't got a leg to stand on.

[7db]

GreenV8S said:

...the fact that he hasn't got a leg to stand on.

Or indeed a bridge to hide under.

[Brother Mycroft]

vonhosen said:

Indeed, but unless you place in every single reply all eventualities (even if you've covered the other pertinent matters elsewhere in the threads), BM just reads what is written in that one reply in isolation (which may be replying to a specific point being made by someone else, rather than in broader terms) instead of referring to the body of replies to establish your position.

When this is pointed out, he ignores any explanation & the only parallel I can draw to his response is a small child sticking their fingers in their ears screaming "I can't hear you, I can't hear you", as he repeats the same "but you said in the post" quoting it ad nauseum

It's why I really can't be bothered to converse with him anymore (that and his inability to answer a straight question).

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 29th October 23:41

So, von let me get this clear, you are now saying that if there are junctions in the overtaking zone and they are clear then it is OK to overtake?

This is different to your view on the other thread.

There you were quite clear saying that any junctions means you don't go, you can be quoted [and have been] taking that view.

So which is right, your view for nearly 25 pages on that thread or this one?

[GreenV8S]

Brother Mycroft said:

So, von let me get this clear, you are now saying that if there are junctions in the overtaking zone and they are clear then it is OK to overtake?

This is different to your view on the other thread.

There you were quite clear saying that any junctions means you don't go, you can be quoted [and have been] taking that view.

So which is right, your view for nearly 25 pages on that thread or this one?

Vonhosen's position has been clear and consistent from the outset. You have repeatedly misrepresented his position and he has repeatedly corrected you. Stop trying to prove him wrong and actually read and think about what he says and you may learn something that will one day save your life, and more importantly stop you from hurting somebody else.

A person overtaking has a responsibility to ensure that the overtake will not put them in conflict with anyone else. It is not enough that you can't see anyone in conflict; you must see that there will be no conflict. A driver in a position to pull out of a driveway or entrance is an example of somebody who could come into conflict with you.

The highway code ways this.

RoSPA and IAM say this.

Vonhosen says this.

R_U_LOCAL says this (and the video shows him doing it, although you keep saying it doesn't).

This is the standard of driving that is expected. If you don't fulfill this responsibility then your driving is dangerous. If this results in an accident then you will be at fault. (It may be that the other driver is at fault too, but that doesn't exonerate you.) Serving police officers have said that under those circumstances they WOULD consider charges against you. Stop your pointless attempts to twist people's words to 'prove' your point, and face the simple fact that you're wrong.

Edited by GreenV8S on Tuesday 30th October 12:21

[Yung Man]

Can I just make a comment here?, to restore peace and harmony it seems to me there is a misunderstanding somewhere, either Von doesn't understand the question or BM doesn't understand the answer.
My suggestion is you both have one more go at getting to the bottom of it with no interference from Von or BM's mates. BM asks and Von answers, one go each, will it work?.

Oh yes and then GreenV8S can have the final word (no change there then. .)


It's only a suggestion, ignore it if you like.

[Brother Mycroft]

Yung Man said:

Can I just make a comment here?, to restore peace and harmony it seems to me there is a misunderstanding somewhere, either Von doesn't understand the question or BM doesn't understand the answer.
My suggestion is you both have one more go at getting to the bottom of it with no interference from Von or BM's mates. BM asks and Von answers, one go each, will it work?.

Oh yes and then GreenV8S can have the final word (no change there then. .)


It's only a suggestion, ignore it if you like.

I agree to that... von can choose to ask first or last... don't mind.

[vonhosen]

Does a driver who wishes to overtake, have any responsibility to ensure that either there are no junctions/entrances ahead, or if there are such junctions/entrances, that they have sufficient vision to be sure that no conflict can arise from another's use of those junction/entrances during the overtake (irrespective of whether that other person is, or is not, visible at the time the overtake is to be commenced)?

Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 30th October 17:33

[Big Fat F'r]

This may be wishful thinking, but has he died?

BFF

[GreenV8S]

Big Fat F'r said:

This may be wishful thinking, but has he died?

BFF

Hopefully he has just gone to Troll Heaven, where you can post any rubbish you like without being banned.

[7db]

Big Fat F'r said:

This may be wishful thinking, but has he died?

BFF

Ooh you are naughty.

[Yung Man]

Yung Man said:

with no interference from Von or BM's mates.

Some of us(well me anyway) are keen to get an answer to this anomaly.

[Observer2]

vonhosen said:

Does a driver who wishes to overtake, have any responsibility to ensure that either there are no junctions/entrances ahead, or if there are such junctions/entrances, that they have sufficient vision to be sure that no conflict can arise from another's use of those junction/entrances during the overtake (irrespective of whether that other person is, or is not, visible at the time the overtake is to be commenced)?

Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 30th October 17:33

I don't hold any truck for BM, who is unbelievably argumentative, but I feel you overstate the degree of certainty that is expected of the "reasonable, prudent and competent driver". Specifically, I think "to be sure that.." should be qualified by the word "reasonably". (An 'advanced' driver may set a higher standard.)

Also, without wishing to criticise your language solely for style, I think the principle you're advocating could be expressed more concisely and with greater clarity. I would suggest (but acknowledge there is probably still room for improvement):

Before committing to overtake [on a part of a road normally used by oncoming traffic], a driver should [must?] be sure either that there is no junction or other road entrance in the expected overtaking zone from which oncoming traffic may emerge or, if there is any such junction or entrance, that he has sufficient vision to be reasonably certain that no potentially conflicting traffic can emerge before he has passed that junction or other road entrance.

[Square brackets where I have not formed a settled view.]

[edit]I see my language is not any shorter but it does incorporate a couple of concepts/qualifications not present in yours

Edited by Observer2 on Thursday 1st November 11:15

[Big Fat F'r]

Yung Man said:

Yung Man said:

with no interference from Von or BM's mates.

Some of us(well me anyway) are keen to get an answer to this anomaly.

What was the question?

BFF

[monthefish]

ipsg.glf said:

An interesting Video - Thanks, Reg.

Just a couple of queries:

01:44 Hidden entrance on offside

...and at 1:12 (nearside).

He was committed to the overtake at 1:07 - something could easily have emerged from the junction (turning right), seeing the van coming (slowly) and deciding he could just make it before van arrived, not seeing the overtaking car on the opposite side of the road.

[Funk]

Holy necro-posting..!!

18 months - pretty good going.

[monthefish]

Never saw it forst time round. Alerted to it by this thread.

Realising now that I may be opeing a huge can of worms by posting on it.....

[scoobydude]

I've had a watch of this. Most of it seems fairly standard and the overtakes look clean and well executed. However right at the start of the video you seemed to cut the right hand turn quite badly. In one of the overtakes on a right hand bend you appeared to apply the power whilst your left wheels would have still been loaded, my slight concern there would have been if there was any contamination on the road surface the car would have twitched quite badly. I personaly would have waited for another second or two before applying the power. You had a lot of fatih in the big lorry with the green cab you passed exiting the left hook roundabout didn't you? I'm not trying to be overly critical here I'm just making observations

[rsv gone!]

He doesn't post any more. (I think he got a bit fed up!) Our loss.