Advanced Driving confuses normal motorists!!

[NuddyRap]

RoSPA advice differs from IAM in a few areas. Progress and positioning seems to be one of those areas that repeatedly crops up in discussions.

From a fluent driving perspective for retaining stability of the vehicle, the fewer driving inputs you provide, the more stable the car. Everything you do to make a change with regards to speed or trajectory vs the natural direction of the vehicle's momentum negatively impacts stability. Reducing driving inputs and methods of ensuring future reduction should therefore be high on the agenda of anybody who wants to drive smoothly, well and safely. The key to that is observation.

Regardless of the institution, significantly improved observation, therefore thought before action, is the most important thing to be gleaned from any advanced driver training.

As an advanced driver if there are absolutely no questions to be answered with regards to the situation ahead of and around me, if making use of the available road space enables me to improve the stability of my car or better observe the road further ahead (Again to reduce inputs/severity) then I will do that because there is at that point no logical reason not to.

With regards to the advice of RoSPA, it is of course always safer to say "Just say no" than to explain something complex and new, in case the person being explained to doesn't fully get it. Safety by the lowest denominator is what the organisation is about as after all, that is the safest thing.

To draw an inference regarding a level of study however demonstrates a similar level of ignorance to that which one has perceived. This is not a willy-waving game of "I am SIGNIFICANTLY better than YOW", it's just about driving. Unfortunately, pomposity rises with perceived elevation. Absolute compliance regardless of the situation does not demonstrate learning, it demonstrates an ability to follow an instruction.

I therefore, like the OP, won't be winding my way around on the left-side of a perfectly sighted bit of road when driving straight on will enable me to see the tractor pulling out of the field soon enough that I can brake very gently indeed.

I won't drop my phone that way.

[waremark]

vonhosen said:

waremark said:

vonhosen said:

The Taxi can be hailed from the street & pull up to pick up the passenger, uber can't.

Is that relevant to the use of bus lanes? They are both similar kinds of public transport, in terms of ease of use calling on an app has become a more convenient way of hailing than standing out in the cold and holding up an arm.

I am now wondering what the logic is of allowing taxis to use bus lanes at all.

Of course it's relevant, how else are they going to safely pick up a pedestrian on the footway when hailed without being in the bus lane?

I thought the bus lane could be used for pick up and drop off, absent markings to the contrary?

[dvenman]

waremark said:

I thought the bus lane could be used for pick up and drop off, absent markings to the contrary?

Not according to https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/red-routes/rules-...

[7mike]

dvenman said:

waremark said:

I thought the bus lane could be used for pick up and drop off, absent markings to the contrary?

Not according to https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/red-routes/rules-...

What about the rest of the country? rule 141?

[dvenman]

7mike said:

dvenman said:

waremark said:

I thought the bus lane could be used for pick up and drop off, absent markings to the contrary?

Not according to https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/red-routes/rules-...

What about the rest of the country? rule 141?

Good catch - lazy me chose the first Google result

[vonhosen]

Each bus lane is created with it's own traffic order, it depends on the wording of the traffic order which aren't all identical. The only safe way (fine wise) it to only do what you know the individual order says you can (not very practical) & if you don't know what the individual order says Re exemptions etc is to go by what the signage says you can do (as in positive instruction as to who can use it shown by the signage etc).

[7mike]

vonhosen said:

Each bus lane is created with it's own traffic order, it depends on the wording of the traffic order which aren't all identical. The only safe way (fine wise) it to only do what you know the individual order says you can (not very practical) & if you don't know what the individual order says Re exemptions etc is to go by what the signage says you can do (as in positive instruction as to who can use it shown by the signage etc).

So the bit about "where not prohibited" is subject to an individual traffic order and there's not necessarily any signage?

[johnao]

Don said:

Whilst I don't have any time for fkwits like the OP mentioned, nor any time for them becoming confused, I should point out that the Advanced Driving advice has changed...at least according to the last Rospa Examiner I met for the test.

Positioning the car for best visibility up the road should be done within your lane: i.e. not crossing the white line. My latest Rospa Examiner pulled me up on this as, if it is legal and safe to do so I will happily position all the way to the offside.

This will no longer pass a Rospa test. You should not cross over a white line.

I challenged the advice if there were no lines present then could I position right to the offside and the Examiner accepted that technically I could with the aforementioned legal and safe provisos.

Having no desire to meet mentalists who think they know best about a subject they haven't bothered to study to the same level I would follow current advice, personally.

It would seem that your RoSPA Examiner is incorrect in his advice. The RoSPA website gives, inter alia, the following advice with regard to their advanced driving test:

RoSPA: Advanced Car Test Guidelines for Candidates and Tutors

18 April 2016

The practice of crossing the centre of the road to straighten a series of bends is one that causes
significant discussion. If the circumstances are appropriate it can contribute to safety, stability and
progress. This is however an action that requires a high level of skill, observation and planning to
execute correctly. Whilst there are positives the potential for coming into conflict with, or causing
confusion to other road users can be significant and must always be taken into consideration. If in
the opinion of the Examiner, the candidate causes their own or another road user’s safety to be
compromised, they will fail the test. You must also ensure that crossing any road markings at any
time does not compromise safety or stability.

So, it is acceptable on test for a candidate to cross the centre line, for purposes of straight-lining, if safe to do so; only if it's unsafe will he be failed. This seems an eminently sensible approach. In my experience the safe execution of an obvious straight-lining opportunity may increase the likelihood of a gold instead of a silver award.

[Don]

johnao said:

Don said:

Whilst I don't have any time for fkwits like the OP mentioned, nor any time for them becoming confused, I should point out that the Advanced Driving advice has changed...at least according to the last Rospa Examiner I met for the test.

Positioning the car for best visibility up the road should be done within your lane: i.e. not crossing the white line. My latest Rospa Examiner pulled me up on this as, if it is legal and safe to do so I will happily position all the way to the offside.

This will no longer pass a Rospa test. You should not cross over a white line.

I challenged the advice if there were no lines present then could I position right to the offside and the Examiner accepted that technically I could with the aforementioned legal and safe provisos.

Having no desire to meet mentalists who think they know best about a subject they haven't bothered to study to the same level I would follow current advice, personally.

It would seem that your RoSPA Examiner is incorrect in his advice. The RoSPA website gives, inter alia, the following advice with regard to their advanced driving test:

RoSPA: Advanced Car Test Guidelines for Candidates and Tutors

18 April 2016

The practice of crossing the centre of the road to straighten a series of bends is one that causes
significant discussion. If the circumstances are appropriate it can contribute to safety, stability and
progress. This is however an action that requires a high level of skill, observation and planning to
execute correctly. Whilst there are positives the potential for coming into conflict with, or causing
confusion to other road users can be significant and must always be taken into consideration. If in
the opinion of the Examiner, the candidate causes their own or another road user’s safety to be
compromised, they will fail the test. You must also ensure that crossing any road markings at any
time does not compromise safety or stability.

So, it is acceptable on test for a candidate to cross the centre line, for purposes of straight-lining, if safe to do so; only if it's unsafe will he be failed. This seems an eminently sensible approach. In my experience the safe execution of an obvious straight-lining opportunity may increase the likelihood of a gold instead of a silver award.

Thanks for posting that. Seems sensible to me.

I straight line when safe and legal. I also position full offside when it is safe, legal and to my advantage. So the rules suit me fine...

[johnao]

johnao said:

Don said:

Whilst I don't have any time for fkwits like the OP mentioned, nor any time for them becoming confused, I should point out that the Advanced Driving advice has changed...at least according to the last Rospa Examiner I met for the test.

Positioning the car for best visibility up the road should be done within your lane: i.e. not crossing the white line. My latest Rospa Examiner pulled me up on this as, if it is legal and safe to do so I will happily position all the way to the offside.

This will no longer pass a Rospa test. You should not cross over a white line.

I challenged the advice if there were no lines present then could I position right to the offside and the Examiner accepted that technically I could with the aforementioned legal and safe provisos.

Having no desire to meet mentalists who think they know best about a subject they haven't bothered to study to the same level I would follow current advice, personally.

It would seem that your RoSPA Examiner is incorrect in his advice. The RoSPA website gives, inter alia, the following advice with regard to their advanced driving test:

"etc. etc. etc"

I think where the RoSPA confusion arises, and I've come across this quite often, is that the terms "off-siding" and "straight-lining" are frequently confused and treated as synonymous in the minds of many examiners and RoSPA tutors. However, they are in fact two quite separate and distinct techniques. Albeit going "offside" is a necessary requirement during the execution of both techniques, and therein lies the confusion.

RoSPA make a distinction, but aren't particularly good at explaining it, between "straight-lining", which is permissible if safe and obtains an advantage and which they cover in the bit that I quoted in my earlier post, and "off-siding". Historically, "straight-lining", if safe, has never been an issue with RoSPA. The technique that they have proscribed in the past, but don't seem to mention in their 2016 guidelines, is going "off-side", across the centre line, on the approach to a left-hand bend; this technique is known as "off-siding" and is subject to the proscription that your examiner alluded to. Incidentally, the IAM have also proscribed this for their courses. Many RoSPA examiners, possibly yours included, and RoSPA tutors, read the words "mustn't cross the white line" and "mustn't off-side" in relation to the approach to a left-hand bend and then apply that prohibition, incorrectly, to "going on the other side of the road" to "straight-line" a series of bends.

Hope that helps to clarify the situation.

Straight-lining has been described as nothing more than overtaking an imaginary stationery vehicle on your side of the road. If there had been a stationary vehicle parked on your side of the road within the curve of the bend that you have "straight-lined" you would have been forced on to the other side of the road anyway, ie. you would have been forced to straight-line. So, the same rules apply to straight-lining as are applicable to overtaking stationary vehicles. Never straight-line if it could lead you in to conflict with vehicles that might emerge from driveways, entrances and junctions. You must be “back on your side of the road" long before you might come in to conflict with, as yet, unseen oncoming vehicles.

[Technomad]

johnao said:

I think where the RoSPA confusion arises, and I've come across this quite often, is that the terms "off-siding" and "straight-lining" are frequently confused and treated as synonymous in the minds of many examiners and RoSPA tutors. However, they are in fact two quite separate and distinct techniques. Albeit going "offside" is a necessary requirement during the execution of both techniques, and therein lies the confusion.

RoSPA make a distinction, but aren't particularly good at explaining it, between "straight-lining", which is permissible if safe and obtains an advantage and which they cover in the bit that I quoted in my earlier post, and "off-siding". Historically, "straight-lining", if safe, has never been an issue with RoSPA. The technique that they have proscribed in the past, but don't seem to mention in their 2016 guidelines, is going "off-side", across the centre line, on the approach to a left-hand bend; this technique is known as "off-siding" and is subject to the proscription that your examiner alluded to. Incidentally, the IAM have also proscribed this for their courses. Many RoSPA examiners, possibly yours included, and RoSPA tutors, read the words "mustn't cross the white line" and "mustn't off-side" in relation to the approach to a left-hand bend and then apply that prohibition, incorrectly, to "going on the other side of the road" to "straight-line" a series of bends.

Hope that helps to clarify the situation.

Straight-lining has been described as nothing more than overtaking an imaginary stationery vehicle on your side of the road. If there had been a stationary vehicle parked on your side of the road within the curve of the bend that you have "straight-lined" you would have been forced on to the other side of the road anyway, ie. you would have been forced to straight-line. So, the same rules apply to straight-lining as are applicable to overtaking stationary vehicles. Never straight-line if it could lead you in to conflict with vehicles that might emerge from driveways, entrances and junctions. You must be “back on your side of the road" long before you might come in to conflict with, as yet, unseen oncoming vehicles.

There's a fundamental oxymoron here: the IAM's purported mantra is to producing "Thinking" riders and drivers. Unfortunately, their (and RoSPA's) approach becomes ever more prescriptive and and dogmatic, to the point where many very experienced Observers (myself included) have given up in frustration. Offsiding and straightlining are classic examples of this: I have zero issue with either if they improve safety and flow. What you obviously don't do is offside when you don't have a sightline that enables you to start the process safely. As a rule of thumb, I always suggest that you may choose to offside to maintain or extend a sightline, but not to obtain one that isn't already there. And obviously if you have (as with everything else) a good reason for doing so.

And yes, if you've the ability to see, plan and anticipate, you're already far ahead of the curve of most drivers (regardless of the label 'advanced') but we all need to remember that one of the things you have to assume and plan for is the sort of utter, blind stupidity of many drivers and riders, exactly as described on this thread.

[titian]

Well said Technomad

[Technomad]

NuddyRap said:

RoSPA advice differs from IAM in a few areas. Progress and positioning seems to be one of those areas that repeatedly crops up in discussions.

From a fluent driving perspective for retaining stability of the vehicle, the fewer driving inputs you provide, the more stable the car. Everything you do to make a change with regards to speed or trajectory vs the natural direction of the vehicle's momentum negatively impacts stability. Reducing driving inputs and methods of ensuring future reduction should therefore be high on the agenda of anybody who wants to drive smoothly, well and safely. The key to that is observation.

Regardless of the institution, significantly improved observation, therefore thought before action, is the most important thing to be gleaned from any advanced driver training.

As an advanced driver if there are absolutely no questions to be answered with regards to the situation ahead of and around me, if making use of the available road space enables me to improve the stability of my car or better observe the road further ahead (Again to reduce inputs/severity) then I will do that because there is at that point no logical reason not to.

With regards to the advice of RoSPA, it is of course always safer to say "Just say no" than to explain something complex and new, in case the person being explained to doesn't fully get it. Safety by the lowest denominator is what the organisation is about as after all, that is the safest thing.

To draw an inference regarding a level of study however demonstrates a similar level of ignorance to that which one has perceived. This is not a willy-waving game of "I am SIGNIFICANTLY better than YOW", it's just about driving. Unfortunately, pomposity rises with perceived elevation. Absolute compliance regardless of the situation does not demonstrate learning, it demonstrates an ability to follow an instruction.

I therefore, like the OP, won't be winding my way around on the left-side of a perfectly sighted bit of road when driving straight on will enable me to see the tractor pulling out of the field soon enough that I can brake very gently indeed.

Good post. That observation and forward planning is key to the minimum number of inputs, and positioning for both observation and line are important parts of that. Like you, I'm not going to wiggle down a sighted series of bends if an early offside position can provide and maintain and sight line that enables the whole to be taken in a single fluent arc (or indeed a straight line).

And yes, we've all seen the pomposity creep in. I do try to take the view that we're all idiots, but that the idiot whose actions I have some control over is me, so I should do what I can, remembering that I can and will make mistakes. What the training and thought does is reduce the number of times that happens and, when I do cock it up, I've a far, far better chance of failing safe.

A little more on IAM and RoSPA: I've been an IAM Observer for 16 years and RoSPA Gold for nearly as long (having passed my IAM test in 1987 (car) and 1999 (bike). I've been a bike instructor on and off since the late 1970s. I have now however given up on both IAM and RoSPA because of their dumbing down of their training - both moving to a procedural checkbox approach rather than teaching principle and judgement alongside the necessary awareness of statute. The only training I've had in the last few years that actually did me any good were with Rapid Training (bike) and HPC (car). Both of which I will now use more, subject only to the fact that they're a long, long way from me.

My last throw with the car side of the IAM was to have an introductory drive for their Masters course with one of the nominated mentors. We were out for about two hours and got out of 30/40 limits for a total of about two miles, which didn't exactly demonstrate much. In the debrief however, I got the full criticism for not using the IAM shuffle when steering at all times: as i take the view that you have a portfolio of steering techniques to use as the situation demands (and can be justified), I wasn't having that - I'd thought that had gone out years ago. Then we got on to those two miles when we were in an NSL: he firstly had a go at me for double-declutching and changing gear to keep revs matched to conditions. In fact that's what he was complaining about - by doing so I wasn't apparently following The System. That didn't go well, and his next pass sealed the debate: I'd committed the heinous sin of BGOL and braking to the apex (quite deliberately, I may add) on entry to a bend. I suggested that, as I was driving a car with a 60% rear bias in static weight distribution, light trail braking was a well known technique for killing turn-in understeer and - at 'Masters' level, shouldn't we be using techniques that demonstrate an awareness of both external conditions and the characteristics of the vehicle? His only response to that was a slightly sulky, "We don't teach that sort of thing at the IAM". At which point I was out of there.

[DocSteve]

Positioning offside to improve available vision is always fine if it does not compromise safety (and that can be due to a number of factors). Where it does not help, and a lot of "advanced" drivers fall into this trap, is on the approach to a truly blind left hand bend. As I was told once - it will simply give you a clearer view of the front of the vehicle you are about to crash into.

The discussion above puts me off getting involved with RoSPA or the IAM. Incidentally, I've not seen John Lyon for a few years and he left a message asking me if I wanted to accompany him at a Silverstone test day ahead of some sort of classic event he's running in. Has anyone else had the call? I don't think he uses the internet so fair to say I think he may be getting a bit lonely. I might take him up on it and see how the old boy is doing...

Steve

[Rick101]

I have cancelled my IAM membership this year as I simply don't feel I get anything meaningful from it. The magazine goes straight in the bin nowadays. The 'special' insurance is a joke. I did get a response when cancelling along the lines of how I should continue, so others could have the benefit I had. I'm pretty sure that's what thy pay £150 or so for so I couldn't agree.
It seems to me that subscription money goes towards to support the political side of IAM and to be honest I often question the direction they are going in.

I will continue membership with my local group at the cost of £6 as they usually put on a talk each month and I try and go along to two or three a year.

I'm in two minds about ROSPA. Again, I haven't learnt anything but the group do seem to be trying to do more recently so I may stick out another year.

[titian]

Again, some excellent posts.

It's so sad to hear on this web site and on others that the IAM and ROSPA, to a lesser degree, are dumbing down and becoming "box ticking" orgainisations to the extent that their long standing qualified, excellent mentors and coaches are "walking" due to the fustrations casued by the organisation's lack of interest in the core element of their membership.

That aside, I must say that "Masters" is a great product. Your coaching experience I trust is not typical of what aspiring Masters will encounter.

[NuddyRap]

Technomad said:

Good post. That observation and forward planning is key to the minimum number of inputs, and positioning for both observation and line are important parts of that. Like you, I'm not going to wiggle down a sighted series of bends if an early offside position can provide and maintain and sight line that enables the whole to be taken in a single fluent arc (or indeed a straight line).

And yes, we've all seen the pomposity creep in. I do try to take the view that we're all idiots, but that the idiot whose actions I have some control over is me, so I should do what I can, remembering that I can and will make mistakes. What the training and thought does is reduce the number of times that happens and, when I do cock it up, I've a far, far better chance of failing safe.

A little more on IAM and RoSPA: I've been an IAM Observer for 16 years and RoSPA Gold for nearly as long (having passed my IAM test in 1987 (car) and 1999 (bike). I've been a bike instructor on and off since the late 1970s. I have now however given up on both IAM and RoSPA because of their dumbing down of their training - both moving to a procedural checkbox approach rather than teaching principle and judgement alongside the necessary awareness of statute. The only training I've had in the last few years that actually did me any good were with Rapid Training (bike) and HPC (car). Both of which I will now use more, subject only to the fact that they're a long, long way from me.

My last throw with the car side of the IAM was to have an introductory drive for their Masters course with one of the nominated mentors. We were out for about two hours and got out of 30/40 limits for a total of about two miles, which didn't exactly demonstrate much. In the debrief however, I got the full criticism for not using the IAM shuffle when steering at all times: as i take the view that you have a portfolio of steering techniques to use as the situation demands (and can be justified), I wasn't having that - I'd thought that had gone out years ago. Then we got on to those two miles when we were in an NSL: he firstly had a go at me for double-declutching and changing gear to keep revs matched to conditions. In fact that's what he was complaining about - by doing so I wasn't apparently following The System. That didn't go well, and his next pass sealed the debate: I'd committed the heinous sin of BGOL and braking to the apex (quite deliberately, I may add) on entry to a bend. I suggested that, as I was driving a car with a 60% rear bias in static weight distribution, light trail braking was a well known technique for killing turn-in understeer and - at 'Masters' level, shouldn't we be using techniques that demonstrate an awareness of both external conditions and the characteristics of the vehicle? His only response to that was a slightly sulky, "We don't teach that sort of thing at the IAM". At which point I was out of there.

At the risk of sounding pretentious, I absolutely agree with everything you said. I also count myself as nothing less than an idiot who will hopefully fail more safely.

Many aspects of the IAM training I undertook were in my view disappointing and contrary to good sense. I also observed these same disappointments during my time in the Police as a passenger on response runs.

Brake-gear overlap is something I was surprised not to see in the IAM training and it's something I was surprised to find out is not 'tolerated'. I've posted a good few times on PH voicing my support and advice with regards to use of heel-toe. The wobbly car effect from not using BGOL in a police car approaching an island at 100mph and seeing a driver struggling to get everything done in time whilst not having proper control of the car during the turn was a too-frequent discomfort.

... Ditto for the steering. I agree there are many instances when the PC shuffle is not the best method to use.

[nonsequitur]

Max_Torque said:

Let me tell you a little story:

This morning, on my usual commute to work, which is about 20 miles of mostly National Limit B road between villages (which are all 30mph), i caught a queue of 4 cars, doing approx 40-45mph. As the section i caught them up at is straight an well sighted, i had been half offside (straddling white line) for probably 500m or more on my approach, and hence could see the road was clear ahead, and an overtake was on. However, i could also see the car immediately behind the slow "follow my leader" car would probably also be looking for an overtake. Predictably, he was far too close to the lead car and had very poor visibility as a result. Hence, i didn't go "Blasting past" as i expected him to pull out in front of me. Sure enough, he pulls out (using the classic rush up behind the obsticle, swerve out whilst flooring it, and hope" overtaking technique) but i could simply back off a little and let him go. He completed his overtake, and continued to accelerate to around 85mph, which on this bit of road is a pace i would classify as a "making progress" but not mad kind of speed. So, not wishing to go much faster, i simply far followed (probably 50 to 75m behind) for a bit.

So far, so good.

However, the road narrows slightly, and dips down into a sweeping left had bend, which is still a bend you can negogiate in excess of the national limit, but one that has a T junction in the bend. Here, it is critical to ensure both that the junction is empty (no one about to pull out onto the main road) AND that no one is turning off the main road onto the smaller road and so will be braking to a much lower speed that the natural speed of the bend. As we approach this bend / junction, the car ahead has caught a Van and is probably less than 5m behind them (hence has NO visibility of anything), so i hang back, (probably still about 75m behind) and as i can see there are no on-coming traffic (the elevation of the road makes this possible) i move pretty much full offside to give me full visibility of the bend/junction and what the Van is possibly about to do. At this point i see the guy in the car ahead drop his drivers window and start to gesticulate out the window. Needless to say, his distraction("waving" at me) and his close follow of the Van results in him having to brake late and hard as the Van suddenly brakes and indicates to turn off the main road (totally predictably tbh), i stay full offside, and can now see around the corner that the road is clear on the other side. At this point, the car ahead is down to around 30ph, i am carrying a leastt 20 mph more (having started way back, and positioned for visibility / not caught up in the van turning off) so as we crest the next small rise in the road, and with a clear road ahead, i perform an overtake, which due to our differential speed and the performance of my car is over and done before you can say "coming through".....


Job done i think.

Unfortunately, unknown to me, there are temporary traffic lights in the next village, so said irate man catches back up, tailgates me (horrendously close, think <1 foot behind i estimate), waving and gesticulating some more.

when we stop for the lights (me leaving a massive gap ahead, due to his tailgating and obvious angry/ careless driving) i do what i generally never do, and get out to ask him what the problem is.

And the problem was "I was on the wrong side of the road, like dangerous maniac, into a blind corner"

Of course, you can't reason with people in these situations, so i simply asked him not to tailgate me please, and got into me car and drove off when the lights changed.



So, there you go, positioning your car so you can actually see stuff, leaving large gaps in front, and driving at a constant speed without having to brake or cause other drivers obstruction are now classed as "dangerous and maniacal" by normal drivers.

Oh, the irony.....

Sorry max, but how to over complicate a 20 mile, 45 mins?, daily commute is what you are describing. A queue of 40-45 mph drivers is not going to delay you by that much and you go on to describe crossing the centre line for obsevation purposes,(irresponsible) overtaking, but expecting the car in front to also overtake, hills with blind bends,junctions and traffic lights.

Then you get out to confront another driver.

For goodness sake, calm, and slow, down.

The main road into my local town is also a 40/50 mph type of road, but it is very rare that anyone does an O/T, it's that kind of road.

[Dr Jekyll]

nonsequitur said:

Sorry max, but how to over complicate a 20 mile, 45 mins?, daily commute is what you are describing. A queue of 40-45 mph drivers is not going to delay you by that much and you go on to describe crossing the centre line for obsevation purposes,(irresponsible) overtaking, but expecting the car in front to also overtake, hills with blind bends,junctions and traffic lights.

Then you get out to confront another driver.

For goodness sake, calm, and slow, down.

The main road into my local town is also a 40/50 mph type of road, but it is very rare that anyone does an O/T, it's that kind of road.

Nothing wrong with crossing the centre line for a better view, nothing wrong with the overtake as he describes it. Surely better than thinking 'it's all too much trouble' and following along in convoy.
If someone is gesticulating at you it's perfectly reasonable to enquire as to their issue. Why else would they be trying to attract your attention?

[SVS]

Depending on the circumstances, I'd argue that it can sometimes be safer to cross the centre line for observation purposes (e.g. during a 3-stage overtake).