Responsibility not to scare oncoming traffic
Discussion
The majority of drivers have no idea, or at least seem not to have, of how quickly one can overtake in even a not especially quick car, but faster than they know about.
Is there any responsibilty on the behalf of an advanced driver to moderate tight overtakes? I made one today that was entirely safe; I actually made it towards an car that was already at the head of a queue and travellign quite slowly, and it was within a fairly restricted piece of space which I could already see - so it was a perfect overtake from my POV - but from theirs it may have been worrying as it was from a gap in traffic here - it was perfectly safe in my car but would have been suicidal in a 1.4 litre citroen or something.
Anyhow there was a look of terror in the peopel I was overtaking towards, even though there were several seconds between my leaving their side of the road and when we'd have hit. Actually there was a bit more thna that but I could see they'd done a comfort brake - not a proper emergency brake but a tap thing... the thing that emergency brake assist is for.
But they could have floored it and not hit me. From a purely physical POV, there was nothing wrong with my overtake.
I am wondering though... what' the A/D perspective on worrying peopel who are driving towards you when overtaking. Now I am driving reasonably powerful cars this is happening more and more often and it seems almost a moral question... should us that have reasonable speed/distance/time computation slow down just to avoid worrying basically senile or generally confused people?
It's a conundrum.
Is there any responsibilty on the behalf of an advanced driver to moderate tight overtakes? I made one today that was entirely safe; I actually made it towards an car that was already at the head of a queue and travellign quite slowly, and it was within a fairly restricted piece of space which I could already see - so it was a perfect overtake from my POV - but from theirs it may have been worrying as it was from a gap in traffic here - it was perfectly safe in my car but would have been suicidal in a 1.4 litre citroen or something.
Anyhow there was a look of terror in the peopel I was overtaking towards, even though there were several seconds between my leaving their side of the road and when we'd have hit. Actually there was a bit more thna that but I could see they'd done a comfort brake - not a proper emergency brake but a tap thing... the thing that emergency brake assist is for.
But they could have floored it and not hit me. From a purely physical POV, there was nothing wrong with my overtake.
I am wondering though... what' the A/D perspective on worrying peopel who are driving towards you when overtaking. Now I am driving reasonably powerful cars this is happening more and more often and it seems almost a moral question... should us that have reasonable speed/distance/time computation slow down just to avoid worrying basically senile or generally confused people?
It's a conundrum.
From a safety point of view, I guess the position is that you should not do anything on the road that causes others to have to take action - this includes overtaking where YOU know you have room, but they don't (and they brake accordingly)
Think of it from their perspective - they see a car hurtling towards them - they don't know that you have xxx bhp and they simply assume you're not going to make it, so they dab the brakes. This then causes a ripple effect for all the cars behind them, with the end result that thirty cars that were originally doing 45mph in a NSL are now all doing 30mph - bloody infuriating.
However, from a personal rant perspective, it grieves me how few people know what a car can really do and are so scared of themselves and their cars that they end up holding up dozens or even hundreds of cars.
I was about 10th in a queue of slow moving traffic on my commute home last week - about 6:30pm, so getting quite dark - at the head of the queue was a small Fiesta-sized hatch. Despite only doing around 30mph in a NSL, it was braking almost every time a car came the other way and for EVERY bend, no matter how gentle. The final straw came when it braked three times down to around 20mph for a bend that can easily be taken at 30mph ABOVE the NSL - despite a generally decent tolerance of driving muppetry, it makes my blood boil that people like this are still driving, so I found myself shouting at them - pointless and stupid, I know, but it maed me feel better! A cracking example for compulsory re-testing, if ever there was one....
Think of it from their perspective - they see a car hurtling towards them - they don't know that you have xxx bhp and they simply assume you're not going to make it, so they dab the brakes. This then causes a ripple effect for all the cars behind them, with the end result that thirty cars that were originally doing 45mph in a NSL are now all doing 30mph - bloody infuriating.
However, from a personal rant perspective, it grieves me how few people know what a car can really do and are so scared of themselves and their cars that they end up holding up dozens or even hundreds of cars.
I was about 10th in a queue of slow moving traffic on my commute home last week - about 6:30pm, so getting quite dark - at the head of the queue was a small Fiesta-sized hatch. Despite only doing around 30mph in a NSL, it was braking almost every time a car came the other way and for EVERY bend, no matter how gentle. The final straw came when it braked three times down to around 20mph for a bend that can easily be taken at 30mph ABOVE the NSL - despite a generally decent tolerance of driving muppetry, it makes my blood boil that people like this are still driving, so I found myself shouting at them - pointless and stupid, I know, but it maed me feel better! A cracking example for compulsory re-testing, if ever there was one....
Tiggsy said:
If you overtake and cause the oncoming traffic to brake then you are in the wrong.....irrespective of the "yeah, but my car is fast so its fine" attitude.
The problem with that statement is that you cannot know whether the oncoming traffic is Enid out for her annual fun to Doris's and will slam on if she sees lights on her side of the road a mile away.Equally, we should not use ourselves as the reference point, as we are people who overtake, and thus these days form a minority.
That's where the ambiguous "reasonable person" test comes in. I think the OP passed it, given the statement about them not hitting even if they floored it. Shows anticipation of a worst case scenario, and thoughtful decision making.
randlemarcus said:
The problem with that statement is that you cannot know whether the oncoming traffic is Enid out for her annual fun to Doris's and will slam on if she sees lights on her side of the road a mile away.
He passed them with a "look of terror" on their face - I think it's safe to say this wasnt Enid a mile down the roadTiggsy said:
randlemarcus said:
The problem with that statement is that you cannot know whether the oncoming traffic is Enid out for her annual fun to Doris's and will slam on if she sees lights on her side of the road a mile away.
He passed them with a "look of terror" on their face - I think it's safe to say this wasnt Enid a mile down the roadHowever, that several seconds (assuming 60ish) would be 2-300 feet - perhps too far to discern emotions on their face, so I will provisionally agree that a disinterested 3rd party might have deemed it dubious.
I'm a bit of a pansy when overtaking and I can see traffic approaching fairly near me. Even though I know I can get past them ("VTEC jus' kicked in 'yo") I always think that something terrible will go wrong, such as me not putting my clutch in properly and missing a gear, or my clutch going or my leg going into a spasm etc etc... Yes I'm a "what if" person hehe 
I think the hindsight rule of thumb can safely be considered as 'if the oncoming driver / passengers have a look of terror on their faces and / or felt the need to brake, then your overtake wasn't appropriate'
erring on the side of caution when you are going on the wrong side of the road into oncoming traffic is probably no bad thing
erring on the side of caution when you are going on the wrong side of the road into oncoming traffic is probably no bad thing
Part of advanced driving is to put yourself in the seat of other drivers and to recognise that they may not have the same skillset or perception as yourself
The same is true when on a DSA LGV test - the one on test knows there is room for his truck and the car to pass each other but the car driver feels there is not and stops with the result = test failed
The same is true when on a DSA LGV test - the one on test knows there is room for his truck and the car to pass each other but the car driver feels there is not and stops with the result = test failed
davepoth said:
On the off-chance that something goes wrong and you end up on your roof in a field, it's the witness testimony of Doris that will decide whether you get prosecuted or not. In this situation it's not the act but the perception.
and not just on that over take - you have a bump down the road Dorris will first on the phone to the police to say you were driving like a loon just before. Not far from what happened to the PH'er who ended up in prison over it.Tiggsy said:
davepoth said:
On the off-chance that something goes wrong and you end up on your roof in a field, it's the witness testimony of Doris that will decide whether you get prosecuted or not. In this situation it's not the act but the perception.
and not just on that over take - you have a bump down the road Dorris will first on the phone to the police to say you were driving like a loon just before. Not far from what happened to the PH'er who ended up in prison over it.davepoth said:
Indeed. They may be awful at driving and have only not been caught after parking scrapes through good luck, but they represent "the careful driver" in court.
I agree with this, but as above the truly careful driver acknowledges the attitudes and skills of those he's likely to interact with around him. As an example, there is a mile or so of straight road coming out of my home town with a broken white line in the middle.
You could fit 8 cars abreast down this road, and I remember safe overtakes being done by my Dad and may others, people coming the other way just moved left a little in recognition (and still had miles of room as to overtake you didn't need to cross the white line).
Now, I wouldn't dream of doing this on the same road with traffic coming the other way as I have seen other drivers do so and get the flashed headlights from both sides of the road, horns used. Madness.
It's a shame, but at the end of the day one should drive to the expectations and standards of the morons around you.
Oncoming traffic often thinks overtaking is dangerous per se, why I generally wait until it's completely clear before going or don't go at all.
0a said:
Oncoming traffic often thinks overtaking is dangerous per se, why I generally wait until it's completely clear before going or don't go at all.
I do this. Also I've noticed a fair proportion of drivers think any overtaking is dangerous per se, let alone with oncoming traffic.I noticed it this evening - I was following an Alfa 147 who was driving quite spiritedly (the route was all nice B roads), as such I was happy to stay behind him. We closed on a slower car in front and after a short while came to a long straight, junction-free section of road. There was no oncoming traffic. I waited to see if the Alfa would overtake, but he suddenly seemed quite happy to pootle along NSL roads at 30-35. I overtook them both and he was still sat there behind as I rounded the next bend.
Seems a little bizarre that a driver who was previously happy to drive at 60 would drop to half the speed just to avoid a safe overtake.
Tiggsy said:
If you overtake and cause the oncoming traffic to brake then you are in the wrong.....irrespective of the "yeah, but my car is fast so its fine" attitude.
But if they brake when there was absolutely no need, then did the overtaker "cause" it? I'd say no. If they had to brake to avoid having an accident (or very near miss) with you, then yes. But having seen the (over)reaction from people a long way off from time-to-time, I'm with the OP.So you saw a gap in the oncoming traffic and thought 'I can make it, I have the power'
You didn't for a moment think that you may shock the oncoming traffic into swerving, braking, or any other panic related move. You never gave a thought that you may miss a gear, your car may misfire, lose power, or that the cars you were overtaking were also 'powerful' and driven by knobs that want to 'have a go' and stop you making it.
All this on a relatively short section of not quite straight road.
Well played, you have fallen into the classic 'boy racer' mould
You didn't for a moment think that you may shock the oncoming traffic into swerving, braking, or any other panic related move. You never gave a thought that you may miss a gear, your car may misfire, lose power, or that the cars you were overtaking were also 'powerful' and driven by knobs that want to 'have a go' and stop you making it.
All this on a relatively short section of not quite straight road.
Well played, you have fallen into the classic 'boy racer' mould
silvagod said:
You didn't for a moment think that you may shock the oncoming traffic into swerving, braking, or any other panic related move. You never gave a thought that you may miss a gear, your car may misfire, lose power, or that the cars you were overtaking were also 'powerful' and driven by knobs that want to 'have a go' and stop you making it.
Back when I was investigating RTAs for a career, we'd get at least one of these a year - oncoming driver suddenly (feel free to insert argument about 'they should be looking further ahead' - it always sounded really, really good in Court) seeing car performing overtake on their side of the road, swerves to their offside just as the oncomer moves back to their side. One swift head-on later and a trip to the cells for a long stay. Not nice and so often the defendant had no idea what he was doing was in any way wrong.Your description sounds scarily just like one of these cases, albeit without the mangled steel and dead bodies. If you've caused an oncomer distress, or required them (irrespective of whether they needed to do it or not) to change direction or speed, then you've misjudged it and blaming them is a poor idea.
</rant over>
One of the worst "Look at me I drive a fast car" threads ever
The OP answers his own concerns too with the comments "it was a perfect overtake from my POV - but from theirs it may have been worrying" followed by "Anyhow there was a look of terror in the peopel I was overtaking towards".
Admittedly it has been a while since my driver training (makes mental note to do some more) but I was always told about the dangers of overtaking on single carriageways as this is the one time when you cross the white lines onto the oncoming traffic side of the road.
I would not go as far as to say what you did was dangerous, but as others have suggested it was not what I would call advanced driving either.
The OP answers his own concerns too with the comments "it was a perfect overtake from my POV - but from theirs it may have been worrying" followed by "Anyhow there was a look of terror in the peopel I was overtaking towards".
Admittedly it has been a while since my driver training (makes mental note to do some more) but I was always told about the dangers of overtaking on single carriageways as this is the one time when you cross the white lines onto the oncoming traffic side of the road.
I would not go as far as to say what you did was dangerous, but as others have suggested it was not what I would call advanced driving either.
defblade said:
Tiggsy said:
If you overtake and cause the oncoming traffic to brake then you are in the wrong.....irrespective of the "yeah, but my car is fast so its fine" attitude.
But if they brake when there was absolutely no need, then did the overtaker "cause" it? I'd say no. If they had to brake to avoid having an accident (or very near miss) with you, then yes. But having seen the (over)reaction from people a long way off from time-to-time, I'm with the OP.If a parent lets there kid hop into the road while cars are going past, causing them to break/swerve in panic we'd all say the parent was an idiot - if the parent said "but he only jumps by the kerb, there was no way a car could hit him there" while they may be right, they'd still be stupid.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff