New video - overtaking

[Bagman]

Great vid. Smoother than a Cashmere codpiece as usual but sack the sound man. Quick question. In the other vid you put up with that 6 wheeled Manta, are they the original sub-titles?

[waremark]

WilliBetz said:

A great demonstration of varying the following position to preserve a view. Bravo.

A speciality of yours, I think, Willi? And

said:

With hindsight, are you happy about your penultimate pass on the Alfa?

WilliBetz

Willi, what was your concern about this overtake?

[rsv gone!]

On the wrong thread I said:

Lovely stuff, Reg. The camera can be a bit deceptive of speeds and distances. And when you were overtaking the Alfa, I thought there was alorry coming. Turned out to be a tree.

My faves were the blue van on the twisty road and the caravan combo - bet that worried them. The following car probably related tales of BMWs overtaking blind because they'd not taken in the whole view.

[R_U_LOCAL]

ironictwist said:

Many thanks for uploading the vid and providing some informative posts there RU. Watching that video and comparing it to how I personally perform overtaking in similar scenario's, it's nice to know that im doing it in a respectable manner.

I also was surprised with Overtake 6, I always assumed like most that area was always a no go zone, whatever the scenario. One other thing which struck me was you held back waiting for the Pug to safely overtake before you did. Countless times I've found myself with someone behind me right on my bumper in situations like that, and I'm sure I've done the same throughout the short time I've been driving. My question is..Is it illegal in any form to do that, or just generally frowned upon? I mean i get the impression, it's not how it should be done (going by the book), but in such scenario's it's so easy to get caught up in the moment and pile your way through behind the car in front as any later would've meant leaving yourself in a bit of a pickle.

I'd never advise you to follow anyone into an overtake. Firstly, just because the driver in front has assessed the overtake as safe doesn't mean that it is - you've usually no idea of their level of experience or skill, and relying on an unknown person's ability to assess an overtake is risky in the extreme.

Secondly, even though it may be on for the car in front, doesn't mean that there will be enough room for you to go too. The driver in front will only have assessed the overtake for their car, not for two.

The best advice is to let the vehicle in front complete their overtake first, and then plan your own overtake seperately.

henrycrun said:

I'm assuming that you are indicating for each overtake (but it can't be heard cos of the sound interference) ?

No, I didn't indicate for any of the overtakes.

[naetype]

Couple of things I've been thinking about:

The overtake in the hatched area? I would have avoided that as the amount of crud that accumulates in that area is significant; I'm sure I've even seen a video of trafpol on a response call end up crashing as his tyre deflated as a result of some nail(?) he picked up when he went into a hatched area at the end of a d/c. Is that not a significant concern for you?

I may have picked up some of your advice wrong. I move out to the offside for a clear view without accelerating then make a definite decision. It's only when I'm there do I press the loud pedal properly. You seem to have made the decision to overtake when following then start accelerating and then confirm it when you're in the offside position. Am I prolonging needlessly my offside position?

Or is my hearing in need of a test?

Edited by naetype on Monday 1st October 10:03

[WilliBetz]

waremark said:

WilliBetz said:

With hindsight, are you happy about your penultimate pass on the Alfa?

WilliBetz

Willi, what was your concern about this overtake?

Given the view as presented, it looked well iffy.

We couldn't see the road surface that we intended to use when the throttle was opened; then the lead car completely disappeared from view. From our point of view, the Tour de France could have been hiding in the dip.

Given that this was at the start of a reasonable straight, it appeared (from our point of view) that it would have been prudent and no less progressive to clear the dip then take the pass.

However, as RUL points out, our view isn't his view. He's a tall bloke.

WilliBetz

[TripleS]

naetype said:

Couple of things I've been thinking about:

The overtake in the hatched area? I would have avoided that as the amount of crud that accumulates in that area is significant; I'm sure I've even seen a video of trafpol on a response call end up crashing as his tyre deflated as a result of some nail(?) he picked up when he went into a hatched area at the end of a d/c. Is that not a significant concern for you?

I may have picked up some of your advice wrong. I move out to the offside for a clear view without accelerating then make a definite decision. It's only when I'm there do I press the loud pedal properly. You seem to have made the decision to overtake when following then start accelerating and then confirm it when you're in the offside position. Am I prolonging needlessly my offside position?

Or is my hearing in need of a test?

Edited by naetype on Monday 1st October 10:03

Maybe a touch of 'momentum' overtake had crept into Reg's normally preferred 'classic' overtake?

That seems fair enough to me; I've never felt it right to insist that all overtakes should follow the classic style, which what some people seem to advocate.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Flintstone]

WilliBetz said:

However, as RUL points out, our view isn't his view. He's a tall bloke.

WilliBetz

The camera is at dashboard height.

[R_U_LOCAL]

naetype said:

Couple of things I've been thinking about:

The overtake in the hatched area? I would have avoided that as the amount of crud that accumulates in that area is significant; I'm sure I've even seen a video of trafpol on a response call end up crashing as his tyre deflated as a result of some nail(?) he picked up when he went into a hatched area at the end of a d/c. Is that not a significant concern for you?

It's certainly something I consider, and I specifically remember checking out the road surface in the hatched area for this particular overtake. The reduction in picture quality doesn't help, but on the original, you can see a definite line where the debris has been swept towards the centre of the hatchings, just after the end of the central reservation. I was able to complete the overtake whilst staying well away from any road debris.

Trust me - I've just put two new tyres on the front of my car, so I'm extremely cautious about road surface and debris!

naetype said:

I may have picked up some of your advice wrong. I move out to the offside for a clear view without accelerating then make a definite decision. It's only when I'm there do I press the loud pedal properly. You seem to have made the decision to overtake when following then start accelerating and then confirm it when you're in the offside position. Am I prolonging needlessly my offside position?

Or is my hearing in need of a test?

Firstly, remember that I'm not an advocate of the "contact" or "overtaking" position. There are many people on here who are, including some who hold the same qualifications as me, so it's not worth opening another debate on the subject, other than to say that my preferred method is to overtake straight from the following position.

Now, let's look at this "offside before acceleration" aspect. There are two main reasons behind the principle of moving offside before accelerating. Firstly, the offside move is to confirm the view before committing to the overtake. Secondly, it's to avoid the driver getting closer than the following position, and therefore losing the ability to stop safely should the vehicle in front brake suddenly without warning.

On the first point,think about how far you need to move offside to obtain that view. You don't need to go fully onto the offside of the road - you just need to move out by the width of the vehicle in front.

On the second point, to avoid accelerating within your following position, you don't need to go fully onto the offside of the road - you just need to move out by the width of the vehicle in front.

See the similarity?

On some of the overtakes in that video, I've had plenty of time, and I've been able to move completely offside before accelerating. On others, they've been a little bit tighter for various reasons, and I've only moved a vehicles width offside before accelerating. Having looked back through the video, I can't see any where I've accelerated within my following position, but I can see a couple where it's not as obvious as others.

One other thing - as you get better at the systematic approach of advanced driving, the separation of different elements becomes more natural, and you develop the ability to "blend" the phases slightly when going from one to another. During overtaking, this blending of phases means that, whilst moving offside, the driver might not wait until they're fully offside before accelerating, but instead, will delay the acceleration until they've moved the vehicle's width to the offside, then start accelerating, but still keep moving offside whilst accelerating. I think this is possibly why it may look as though I'm accelerating early on a couple of the overtakes.

[stuthemong]

I must admit, I was very surprised to see you use the hatchings to 'do' the truck too.

Do you think that a normal MOP would be able to argue his case to a policeman for pulling them over for a similar manouvre? (I can think of man roads I use where similar cheeky dips into the broken line hatchings could enable an extra overtake).

The Caravan overtake was immense, though even though you get a very clear view around the bend preceeding the move, do you not have to make allowances for an bansaii motorcyclist or suchlike coming around there? I daresay a 1000cc bike driven by a nutter could have been facing you as you were alongside the caravan, as you were 'darkside' for a good few seconds.

Thanks for the post.

Kidnest,

stu

[R_U_LOCAL]

stuthemong said:

I must admit, I was very surprised to see you use the hatchings to 'do' the truck too.

Do you think that a normal MOP would be able to argue his case to a policeman for pulling them over for a similar manouvre? (I can think of man roads I use where similar cheeky dips into the broken line hatchings could enable an extra overtake).

There would be no case to argue - it's a perfectly legitimate place to overtake. I wasn't driving a Police car when I made the video - I was a member of the public like everyone else.

stuthemong said:

The Caravan overtake was immense, though even though you get a very clear view around the bend preceeding the move, do you not have to make allowances for an bansaii motorcyclist or suchlike coming around there? I daresay a 1000cc bike driven by a nutter could have been facing you as you were alongside the caravan, as you were 'darkside' for a good few seconds.

It's a fair point - I always use the theoretical fast on-coming motorcyclist as an example to students as to what they should be imagining when planning an overtake. As is often pressed home in advanced driving, what you can't see is often more important than what you can see.

In this case, however, the imaginary motorcyclist was part of my plan, and I was happy that I could return to the nearside in plenty of time. Trust me - these overtakes can look dramatic, but I don't take any risks when driving.

[stuthemong]

R_U_LOCAL said:

There would be no case to argue - it's a perfectly legitimate place to overtake. I wasn't driving a Police car when I made the video - I was a member of the public like everyone else.

I'm really not trying to be faceious, just trying to learn, so please don't think I'm trying to annoy here RULocal.

HighwayCode said:

if the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is *necessary* and you can see that it is safe to do so.

Now my interpretation of this, would be that overtaking a car is never really necessary, ergo passing into hatched area to do this could not be justified in this respect. I had read the rule and interpreted it to mean something like that if there was a ambulance or police car with sirens flying along, if you thought it necessary, you were legally allowed to pull into the hatched area to let them pass.

To the same token, I'd be very wary to ever enter a solid lined, chevroned area in aid progression of emergency services, unless I was directed by a police officer in uniform. By extrapolation, if you think that overtaking is necessary, is it then legal to use common sense to enter 'illegal' areas of the roadway in an approaching emergency services situation, or do you open yourself for conviction again (like red light camera incidents)?

The reason I'm hammering this point home is that on my commute there is a monster overtaking opportunity ruined by a central broken line hashed area (infilled in red, does this make any difference btw?) that, if I were able to use as part of the overtake, would make a lot more overtakes 'on'.

Ths position in question is here, eastbound

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&ge...

As you can see, the hatching scuppers an overtake initiated just about level with the left filter, which, if the road is clear it totally safe to do. I usually hold off until I have passed the end of the hatches, but sometimes there will be an oncoming by that point, and even though timing wise it is probably still possible to get past, overtakes with <300m visible oncomings tend to scare other road users, so I often opt to not bother (often the overtakee can do very werid things, and oncomings try to blind you).
___________


FWIW, this was also the scene of my funniest moment on a road. I was travelling eastbound behind a bevvy of 47mph morons, maybe 9 of them. Conditions were OK, there had just been a bit of a downpour, but the roads were not greasy. I had planned to overtake the lot in the next couple of straights (easily possible, although travelling in excess of nsl would have been a possibility !)

Unfortunately, just as I was clearing the end of the hatches, and getting ready to drop a cog and go, I saw a police car pull out the junction behind me, and I suspected they may not have been overly impressed with 8KRPM progress, so hung back. Annoyed at missing a perfect overtaking opportunity.

As we daudled along the next straight, just as an oncoming truck was about to pass me, a bird flew from the rhs of the road across the face of the truck, got caught in the truck's turbulence, and was flipped upside down. The bird then absolutely nailed itself into the top of my windscreen with a thud. I quickly looked in the mirror to see the carcass flying, but just saw a MASSIVE cloud of white feathers, punctuated by the police car driving through it. I pulled over at the next layby to check my car over, and he (nice guy), pulled in behind to check I was all OK.

The police car literally looked like it had been tarred and feathed, as all the plumage had stuck onto the wet paint. It was absolutely hilarious, and I Think he got his for driving behind me and disuading me from that overtake. hehe.

Kindest,

Stu

[R_U_LOCAL]

stuthemong said:

R_U_LOCAL said:

There would be no case to argue - it's a perfectly legitimate place to overtake. I wasn't driving a Police car when I made the video - I was a member of the public like everyone else.

I'm really not trying to be faceious, just trying to learn, so please don't think I'm trying to annoy here RULocal.

I'm not annoyed - just answering the question.

stuthemong said:

HighwayCode said:

if the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is *necessary* and you can see that it is safe to do so.

Now my interpretation of this, would be that overtaking a car is never really necessary, ergo passing into hatched area to do this could not be justified in this respect. I had read the rule and interpreted it to mean something like that if there was a ambulance or police car with sirens flying along, if you thought it necessary, you were legally allowed to pull into the hatched area to let them pass.

I've never seen a definition of "necessary" as applied to that highway code rule. In the absence of such a definition, we're left to use our own interpretation of "necessary". In this case, I felt it was necessary for me to overtake the lorry, and I could see that it was safe to do so.

stuthemong said:

To the same token, I'd be very wary to ever enter a solid lined, chevroned area in aid progression of emergency services, unless I was directed by a police officer in uniform. By extrapolation, if you think that overtaking is necessary, is it then legal to use common sense to enter 'illegal' areas of the roadway in an approaching emergency services situation, or do you open yourself for conviction again (like red light camera incidents)?

Areas of chevrons bordered by a solid white line have a specific exemption. That is that you can only cross into them in an emergency. It can safely be assumed by a member of the public that an emergency vehicle displaying blue lights and sirens is on route to an emergency of some description, so if it's safe for you to do so, crossing solid-bordered hatch markings to allow them to pass is perfectly legal.

The same is true of double-white line systems, but normally it would be the emergency vehicle which crosses them if you pull to the nearside.

I can't think of any other areas of the road which could be classed as "illegal".

stuthemong said:

The reason I'm hammering this point home is that on my commute there is a monster overtaking opportunity ruined by a central broken line hashed area (infilled in red, does this make any difference btw?) that, if I were able to use as part of the overtake, would make a lot more overtakes 'on'.

Ths position in question is here, eastbound

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&ge...

As you can see, the hatching scuppers an overtake initiated just about level with the left filter, which, if the road is clear it totally safe to do. I usually hold off until I have passed the end of the hatches, but sometimes there will be an oncoming by that point, and even though timing wise it is probably still possible to get past, overtakes with <300m visible oncomings tend to scare other road users, so I often opt to not bother (often the overtakee can do very werid things, and oncomings try to blind you).

The red paint is there just to make the hatch markings stand out a little more, and has no relevance as to whether you can cross them or not. If you're travelling from left to right, the only problem I could envisage with overtaking there is the off-slip to the right. Now, under normal circumstances, if everyone is driving correctly, there shouldn't be a problem, as it's only there for on-coming vehicles to turn left into. However, there's always a slight risk that the vehicle you're planning to pass could have missed the first junction and will decide to turn right into that off-slip. If I were considering overtaking, the hatch markings wouldn't stop me from doing so, but I'd probably delay the pass until I was sure the vehicle in front wasn't going to turn right.

[stuthemong]

Great, I must admit that I had assumed that there would be some sort of definition of what 'necessary' meant somewhere, if there is scope for one to justify it like you have - great

Thanks aswell for looking at that link, I would also be wary of that filter lane, but this is a bit of a case of google distorting the view on the ground, I doubt anyone would ever try that move, it's like a knife edge there.

Thanks very much for your help and posting the vid up

[Vaux]

R_U_LOCAL said:

Overtakes 14 and 15 - Volvo and caravanner.

This was my favourite. The Volvo was obviously looking for the overtake, but was losing the view by being too close. I'd spotted the opportunity early, but waited until the cars were on the left-hander to avoid being squeezed.

Did you consider/apply any kind of warning for the Volvo driver (lights/horn)?
You note he was looking to overtake and might have moved out as the road straightened?

PS - Actually recognized part as I drive A59 a bit!

Edited by Vaux on Thursday 4th October 14:51

[R_U_LOCAL]

Vaux said:

R_U_LOCAL said:

Overtakes 14 and 15 - Volvo and caravanner.

This was my favourite. The Volvo was obviously looking for the overtake, but was losing the view by being too close. I'd spotted the opportunity early, but waited until the cars were on the left-hander to avoid being squeezed.

Did you consider/apply any kind of warning for the Volvo driver (lights/horn)?
You note he was looking to overtake and might have moved out as the road straightened?

PS - Actually recognized part as I drive A59 a bit!

No, I didn't give a signal. I considered it unnecessary, as I'd been following the two vehicles for a good mile-and-a-half prior to the overtake. Despite looking keen to get past, the Volvo driver had missed a couple of glaringly obvious opportunities to pass the BBC (blasted bloody caravanner), and so I was more than happy that he wouldn't consider an overtake in the area that I took them.

[ipsg.glf]

An interesting Video - Thanks, Reg.

Just a couple of queries:

01:44 Hidden entrance on offside
07:08 Just looks a little "tight" from the angle of the camera

[Observer2]

All very nice Reg (what on earth was that Galaxy doing braking for that 'bend' (kink) FFS!!!), with, imo, one exception.

The overtake of the truck as you came off off the roundabout was, imo, a touch risky. At the time you committed, you could not (I would submit) be sure that the truck would not drift to the offside, forcing you into the armco. Why would it do that? Several possibilities including: natural drift wide on the lefthanded bend of the exit, bicycle on the exit, pedestrian about to cross. It did not appear (although I'm willing to be corrected) that you could have been sure that was not going to happen.

In that situation, I hang back until I'm sure that the truck has settled on its course.

Hope you don't mind the comment.

[RT106]

The Highway Code said:

if the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is *necessary* and you can see that it is safe to do so.

That's an impressively vague sentence. The most important word there is 'should'; legally it doesn't mean a thing. It's an advisory marking designed by some plebe at the local highway authority (I can make that statement, I am one).

Dashed lines are there to be crossed, be they centre lines, hatched areas, advisory cycle lanes, or any number of other things you find splattered over the country's roads.

[R_U_LOCAL]

ipsg.glf said:

An interesting Video - Thanks, Reg.

Just a couple of queries:

01:44 Hidden entrance on offside

The key word that you've used is "hidden". If it had been a proper junction, It's highly likely that I'd have seen it much earlier and possibly delayed the overtake. As it was, I genuinely didn't see it until I was halfway past the truck, at which point it was safer to continue past. As it was, I was past the truck and returning to the nearside before I reached the entrance, but in hindsight, dropping to a lower gear would have seen me past the truck more quickly and completely back to the nearside prior to the entrance.

ipsg.glf said:

07:08 Just looks a little "tight" from the angle of the camera

Rather than moving out and accelerating from a following position, this was a "rolling" or "momentum" overtake, where I had considerable plus-speed on the Renault well before the overtake. This plus speed allowed me to be exposed for much less time - from moving offside to having passed the car was less than three seconds. With that in mind, I was 100% happy with the overtake.

Observer2 said:

All very nice Reg (what on earth was that Galaxy doing braking for that 'bend' (kink) FFS!!!).

It's called "comfort braking" - you'll see it all the time on roads like that. Drivers somehow associate corners with a need to reduce speed, irrespective of what speed they're already doing. They gently brush the brake pedal, but lose virtually no speed whatsoever - sometimes none at all. They just seem to feel more comfortable entering a corner with some brakes applied. Some are even worse and apply braking all the way round a corner. It's utterly pointless, of course, and most people won't even realise they're doing it.

Observer2 said:

The overtake of the truck as you came off off the roundabout was, imo, a touch risky. At the time you committed, you could not (I would submit) be sure that the truck would not drift to the offside, forcing you into the armco. Why would it do that? Several possibilities including: natural drift wide on the lefthanded bend of the exit, bicycle on the exit, pedestrian about to cross. It did not appear (although I'm willing to be corrected) that you could have been sure that was not going to happen.

In that situation, I hang back until I'm sure that the truck has settled on its course.

Hope you don't mind the comment.

Not at all - let me explain my thought processes and observations at the time.

Firstly, watch how the lorry driver negotiates the roundabout. They're extremely careful to stay towards the nearside, and in reality (although I never would do), I could have passed the truck on the roundabout itself. I got the impression that the driver was acutely aware of the possibility that I may try to take him on the roundabout having seen my faster approach, and he's more than likely had plenty of other car drivers try to pass him there previously.
Having seen how carefully the driver remained nearside, I was confident that they would remain nearside when leaving the roundabout, as the left-hander off the roundabout wasn't as tight as the roundabout itself.
As for the possibility of cyclists, pedestrians etc, you're quite correct - it's a dual carriageway, not a motorway, and they could always be present.
However, as I entered the roundabout, and my steering input went from left to right, I had a good view to my right, in front of the truck, and I was able to check for nearside hazards. This view was unfortunately too far off to the right to be caught on the forward-facing camera, but I can assure you that they were possibilities that I'd considered.