The darkest of the dark arts - overtaking

[vonhosen]

TripleS said:

JonRB said:

TripleS said:

The required distance is lessened by the use of some momentum, but that seems to be outside the scope of the syllabus.

Hmmm, yes. The "accelerate at the rear of the car in front and swerve out at the last second if it is clear or slam on the anchors if it's not". We've all been there as young drivers in underpowered cars. Now as a middle-aged driver in an over-powered car I can observe that it's bloody dangerous and if you need that technique to complete the overtake then it is simply not on and you are unnecessarily putting yourself and other road users in danger.

No, please reconsider that. You have given a very distorted version of what I'm referring to.

The technique does need to be used carefully, but it is legitimate and can be a useful aid. I'm not talking about the more extreme 'banana' overtakes, but using some momentum can be perfectly safe if you make sure it is combined with getting optimum vision, not swerving out at the last second!

Best wishes all,
Dave.

It can indeed, you need a differential to pass & the longer it takes you to get it, the longer it takes you to pass. Of course again good judgement is required, because you don't want to be carrying too high a differential in most circumstances or you end up committed too early.

Again there are really two types with these, one where you approach from offside from a long way out to keep visibility beyond the intended overtake(no oncomer visible), if you aren't offside the vision gets worse the closer you get, not better (of course with the caveat that the road layout supports holding this position). And one where you look to arrive as the oncomer & vehicle to be overtaken actually pass one another to minimise the space needed for the overtake. Ideally if timed right the second will require no braking on approach.

With the first make sure you don't carry too much speed or commit too early.
With the second don't fall into the trap of just focusing on the two vehicles, scan for where other danger is or could be hidden while you are holding back your arrival until the optimum moment.

If in doubt hold back & don't go.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 10th March 09:38

[Vaux]

R_U_LOCAL said:

..... This is very important, as you shouldn't be getting any closer to the vehicle in front than 2 seconds (or 1 1/2 on a right-hand bend).

This is interesting, as it's not classic Roadcraft is it?
The book talks about the following position, then moving up to a closer overtaking or "contact" position.
Being say, one second closer could make the difference between the overtake being on or not on? I suppose it depends on the performance of your vehicle and how quick you can make up the gap. I can see the following position is "safer" and gives a better view.

Edited by Vaux on Saturday 10th March 10:47

[R_U_LOCAL]

Vaux said:

R_U_LOCAL said:

..... This is very important, as you shouldn't be getting any closer to the vehicle in front than 2 seconds (or 1 1/2 on a right-hand bend).

This is interesting, as it's not classic Roadcraft is it?
The book talks about the following position, then moving up to a closer overtaking or "contact" position.
Being say, one second closer could make the difference between the overtake being on or not on? I suppose it depends on the performance of your vehicle and how quick you can make up the gap. I can see the following position is "safer" and gives a better view.

Edited by Vaux on Saturday 10th March 10:47

I'm glad you've noticed that as it's an interesting point.

*Puts controversial head on*

I don't agree with the "overtaking position" or the "contact position" or whatever you want to call it. Neither does my force driving school - pick up any of the copies of roadcraft in the school library, flick to the page which describes the overtaking position and you'll find a big red line through it, and a note saying "we don't do this".

But why not, if it's a roadcraft approved technique?

It's because the small benefit of closing up to the vehicle in front is outweighed by the increased risk of a rear-end shunt.

Now, I'm an independent thinker, and I like to make my own mind up about things - many of my own driving techniques differ from those taught at the school and if I thought the overtaking position was correct, then I'd use it. But I don't.

I know mine isn't the only Police driving school to have ditched the overtaking position, but I also know that more schools teach it than don't.

A colleague of mine transferred to my force from the Met, where he'd been a traffic officer with an advanced permit. Transferees have to undergo a driving test to assess their competency, and I was assigned to test him at advanced level. He was a nice driver, smooth, systematic and exactly what you'd expect from an experienced driver, but he used the overtaking position and it made me feel extremely uncomfortable. It felt far too close, even for the brief periods that he was using it for (he'd either commit to the overtake, or drop back to 2 seconds if it wasn't on), and I'm sure I wasn't the only one who felt like that, judging from the reactions of some of the people we overtook. I pulled him over halfway through the test and had a chat with him about it, and he assured me that was how the Met taught the overtaking position. I pointed out my forces policy and asked him to leave that aspect out of his driving. The second half of the drive was much nicer, we managed just as many overtakes in a far more relaxed style, and he told me that he felt far more comfortable at the wheel.

he's now a close friend of mine and also my new gaffer and I've asked him about it since. He insists that that was how he was taught, but says that our way is better, and that he was never very comfortable with the overtaking position.

I've been out and tried it for myself, as I'm always open to trying different things, and I don't feel you should comment on something unless you've tried it yourself. Like my transferee colleague, I found it a more stressful method of overtaking, I didn't like the momentary loss of view caused by closing up, I felt uncomfortable being that close to the car in front, and I felt as though it was excessively aggressive along with some of the people I overtook.

So, with all those points considered, I don't recommend the "overtaking" or "contact" position.

Oh, and as for this…

deevlash said:

r_u_local said:

but motorcyclists aren't usually too bothered about the complexities of overtaking - breath in and wind it on is the normal motorcyclist's overtaking technique, so us drivers have to compensate for them

In general a useful post but why denegrate bikers? Obviously there are several who overtake and ride like idiots but on the whole I would suggest the vast majority are far more aware of their surroundings and spacings than the majority of car drivers. I did notice that throughout youre post you failed to make any mention of the necessity of checking your blind spot for our 2 wheeled friends, after all they dont have the benefit of 2 tonnes of metal to protect them from badly driven cars. I personally dont ride a bike but hope to one day and the IAMS bike division is generally recognised as being a far more informed group of road users than their car equivalents.

A combination of an ironic sense of humour and a mild dislike of the more reckless motorcyclists seems to have gone over your head.

Don’t take things so seriously.

I did mention, in detail, why you need to know exactly what's happening behind prior to overtaking. If I mentioned every mirror check, shoulder check, blind-spot check and testicle adjustment required before an overtake, I'd still be typing the original post now.

[vonhosen]

R_U_LOCAL said:

.....comments on contact position

This is one where we definitely differ.

Would I use the contact position in my car ?
No, because I'm not looking to make that degree of progress, the importance of progress is not high.

Does it help in achieving greater progress by getting more overtakes when responding in an emergency without the assistance of blue lights & two tones ?
Yes it definitely does.

Does it present an unacceptable risk in doing so, thereby compromising safety ?
No, I don't believe it does where used appropriately.

If used appropriately does it result in adverse losses of vision ?
No it doesn't, because you will still be able to see both sides of the road ahead of the other vehicle with an intelligent approach.


Is the risk of a rear end shunt from doing this where appropriate high ?
No I don't believe it is, I don't know of one collision resulting from it's appropriate use & I don't see adverse reactions from others where it is used appropriately.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 10th March 13:56

[Enfield]

18 vehicles? Bloody hell!

And there was me thinking that my 9 cars plus 1 tractor was good!

[R_U_LOCAL]

vonhosen said:

R_U_LOCAL said:

.....comments on contact position

This is one where we definitely differ.

It is, and I expect it's one that quite a few people will disagree with me over.

vonhosen said:

Would I use the contact position in my car ?
No, because I'm not looking to make that degree of progress, the importance of progress is not high.

If I wouldn't do it in my own car, then I wouldn't do it in a works car. Personally, I've got one standard of driving. I can switch between different styles if needed - a pursuit requires a far different style of driving than a VIP escort run, but I only have one standard of driving, which I try to apply whatever the circumstances.

vonhosen said:

Does it help in achieving greater progress by getting more overtakes when responding in an emergency without the assistance of blue lights & two tones ?
Yes it definitetly does.

Does it present an unacceptable risk in doing so, thereby compromising safety ?
No, I don't believe it does where used appropriately.

If used appropriately does it result in adverse losses of vision ?
No it doesn't, because you will be able to see both sides of the road ahead of the other vehicle.

Interesting questions, but how about this one - is it more stressful for a driver who is already in a stressful situation in having to drive to an emergency incident? That's the one time when a driver should be trying to keep their stress levels to a minimum, and concentrate on their driving above everything else. The added difficulty of driving very close to moving vehicles, and the inevitable "clog and anchor" style of driving that it encourages only adds to, rather than diminishing the drivers stress levels.

When teaching response driving, I prefer my students to hold back and wait, either for a reaction from the driver in front, or for an opportunity to overtake safely, rather than getting into the overtaking position.

vonhosen said:

The risk of a rear end shunt from doing this where appropriate ?
I don't know of one collision resulting from it's appropriate use.

A fair point - no, I've never heard of one either, but the first advantage of the following position is that it allows you to stop safely, should the vehicle in front brake sharply, without warning. Get within that 2 second gap, and if the worst comes to the worst and the driver in front does brake suddenly and unexpectedly (as, I'm sure you agree, they're prone to do when you're on a response run), then you've much less time and space in which to react, and a rear-end shunt is more likely.

Also, don't forget, I'm writing these articles with motoring enthusiasts in mind. You may advocate the overtaking position for Police drivers on response runs, but you've admitted you don't do it in your own car, so would you want the general motoring public using the technique?

I wouldn't.

[vonhosen]

R_U_LOCAL said:

vonhosen said:

Would I use the contact position in my car ?
No, because I'm not looking to make that degree of progress, the importance of progress is not high.

If I wouldn't do it in my own car, then I wouldn't do it in a works car. Personally, I've got one standard of driving. I can switch between different styles if needed - a pursuit requires a far different style of driving than a VIP escort run, but I only have one standard of driving, which I try to apply whatever the circumstances.

I'm not saying it's a different standard at all.
I'll exceed the speed limit by a considerable margin to assist progress in the works car where appropriate, but I won't in my car even if it is safe to.
Likewise I'll use the contact position in the works car to assist progress where appropriate, but I won't in my own car even if safe to do so.
No inference with regards to the relative safety can be drawn from what I consider appropriate for an emergency drive compared to driving in my own car.

R_U_LOCAL said:

vonhosen said:

Does it help in achieving greater progress by getting more overtakes when responding in an emergency without the assistance of blue lights & two tones ?
Yes it definitetly does.

Does it present an unacceptable risk in doing so, thereby compromising safety ?
No, I don't believe it does where used appropriately.

If used appropriately does it result in adverse losses of vision ?
No it doesn't, because you will be able to see both sides of the road ahead of the other vehicle.

Interesting questions, but how about this one - is it more stressful for a driver who is already in a stressful situation in having to drive to an emergency incident? That's the one time when a driver should be trying to keep their stress levels to a minimum, and concentrate on their driving above everything else. The added difficulty of driving very close to moving vehicles, and the inevitable "clog and anchor" style of driving that it encourages only adds to, rather than diminishing the drivers stress levels.

When teaching response driving, I prefer my students to hold back and wait, either for a reaction from the driver in front, or for an opportunity to overtake safely, rather than getting into the overtaking position.

You seem to assume it results in clog & anchor, it most certainly is not inevitable that it does & does not happen with a skilled exponent of the art. I'll be marking down accordingly any driver that resorts to that.

I don't find it stressful at all using the contact position, because I'll only be using it at times that I am comfortable with it. If anything it alieviates stress by reducing unnecessary hold ups & every possibility for safe progress is utilised rather than thinking "If I'd been in a contact position I could have easily made that one", we are trying to respond as quickly as is safely possible. Of course there is also the benefit of a reduction in offside TED when you do go from a contact position as opposed to a follow.

R_U_LOCAL said:

vonhosen said:

The risk of a rear end shunt from doing this where appropriate ?
I don't know of one collision resulting from it's appropriate use.

A fair point - no, I've never heard of one either, but the first advantage of the following position is that it allows you to stop safely, should the vehicle in front brake sharply, without warning. Get within that 2 second gap, and if the worst comes to the worst and the driver in front does brake suddenly and unexpectedly (as, I'm sure you agree, they're prone to do when you're on a response run), then you've much less time and space in which to react, and a rear-end shunt is more likely.

Also, don't forget, I'm writing these articles with motoring enthusiasts in mind. You may advocate the overtaking position for Police drivers on response runs, but you've admitted you don't do it in your own car, so would you want the general motoring public using the technique?

I wouldn't.

It's not a technique taught with blues & twos use, because it is not necessary & will result in adverse reactions. You don't have to actively hunt the progress with blues & twos, you just go with the progress they assist you with. It is the far easier of the two disciplines. As I've said though, without blue lights & two tones in an unmarked car, I don't experience such adverse reactions & neither do my colleagues.

You are quite right that I wouldn't advocate it in the normal course of events for non emergency diving, but I don't advocate exceeding the speed limit for overtakes either. As I've already said progress has a much lower priority in non emergency driving, but even in emergency driving it is still low on the scale compared to safe, system & smooth.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 10th March 14:17

[R_U_LOCAL]

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree then - I have my reasons for not using it, which I believe are valid, and you have your reasons for advocating it, which you believe are valid. I can see your point of view as, I'm sure, you can see mine.

People will just have to make their own minds up.

[GreenV8S]

Doesn't the issue of vehicle separation ultimately come down to concentration and reaction times? Normally I aim to be far enough back from the car in front that I don't need to brake at all under normal circumstances and can comfortably out-brake them even if they do something unexpected. In the dry at motorway speeds for example that typically means a 2-3 second gap. I'm quite comfortable reducing the gap below that, but the shorter the gap the more vulnerable I am to the actions of the car in front and the more alert I need to be in order to be able to respond to them in time. When the gap gets within a second then if the driver in front surprised me and braked as hard as possible then I may need to brake as hard as possible to avoid running into them, and that's really as close as I'd want to be unless I trusted the driver in front and had sufficient visibility to anticipate their actions. That doesn't mean it's unacceptably dangerous (imo) to be that close, just that as the gap comes down the required concentration goes up and close following requires higher levels of attention that I'm not willing to sustain in normal driving. I don't mind doing it for a few seconds though, if I have a reason to. Shortening an overtake by several seconds would be one possible reason.

[TripleS]

R_U_LOCAL said:

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree then - I have my reasons for not using it, which I believe are valid, and you have your reasons for advocating it, which you believe are valid. I can see your point of view as, I'm sure, you can see mine.

People will just have to make their own minds up.

If it's any help I suppose I could force myself to have a ride out with both of you, and see what happens.

You first, Reg - you're nearest.

Best wishes all,
Dave - always eager to help, in between the clowning.

[vonhosen]

GreenV8S said:

Doesn't the issue of vehicle separation ultimately come down to concentration and reaction times? Normally I aim to be far enough back from the car in front that I don't need to brake at all under normal circumstances and can comfortably out-brake them even if they do something unexpected. In the dry at motorway speeds for example that typically means a 2-3 second gap. I'm quite comfortable reducing the gap below that, but the shorter the gap the more vulnerable I am to the actions of the car in front and the more alert I need to be in order to be able to respond to them in time. When the gap gets within a second then if the driver in front surprised me and braked as hard as possible then I may need to brake as hard as possible to avoid running into them, and that's really as close as I'd want to be unless I trusted the driver in front and had sufficient visibility to anticipate their actions. That doesn't mean it's unacceptably dangerous (imo) to be that close, just that as the gap comes down the required concentration goes up and close following requires higher levels of attention that I'm not willing to sustain in normal driving. I don't mind doing it for a few seconds though, if I have a reason to. Shortening an overtake by several seconds would be one possible reason.

You should only be close where you have sufficient visibility ahead & it's only going to be for short times.
Much of our driving is based on plans around what with experience we can reasonably expect to happen.
If you have vision beyond the intended overtake & can see all they can see, when they see it. Then you can reasonably anticipate their responses to it. Provided you act as soon as you see (thinking defensively) then invariably you do so before them. People are in the main very predictable & careful observation of them means you will be able to anticipate their actions by their previously oberved behaviour. What there is a *small* risk of is where someone will do something criminally stupid, such as brake test you. I say small risk because even people brake testing you, won't want to put themselves in "real" physical danger of being struck. I've never experienced anyone acting in such a manner whilst in such a contact position (& I don't know of any colleague experiencing that either). I've been practicing for a long time too.

[vonhosen]

R_U_LOCAL said:

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree then - I have my reasons for not using it, which I believe are valid, and you have your reasons for advocating it, which you believe are valid. I can see your point of view as, I'm sure, you can see mine.

People will just have to make their own minds up.

Agreed.

I know some forces similarly don't allow any apexing at all. That is also an unnecessary restriction IMHO.

[R_U_LOCAL]

TripleS said:

If it's any help I suppose I could force myself to have a ride out with both of you, and see what happens.

You first, Reg - you're nearest.

*Puts kettle on*

Tea or coffee?

[R_U_LOCAL]

vonhosen said:

R_U_LOCAL said:

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree then - I have my reasons for not using it, which I believe are valid, and you have your reasons for advocating it, which you believe are valid. I can see your point of view as, I'm sure, you can see mine.

People will just have to make their own minds up.

Agreed.

I know some forces similarly don't allow any apexing at all. That is also an unnecessary restriction IMHO.

Are you thinking of Scottish Police driver training by any chance?

[vonhosen]

R_U_LOCAL said:

vonhosen said:

R_U_LOCAL said:

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree then - I have my reasons for not using it, which I believe are valid, and you have your reasons for advocating it, which you believe are valid. I can see your point of view as, I'm sure, you can see mine.

People will just have to make their own minds up.

Agreed.

I know some forces similarly don't allow any apexing at all. That is also an unnecessary restriction IMHO.

Are you thinking of Scottish Police driver training by any chance?

There are others also I believe.

[TripleS]

R_U_LOCAL said:

TripleS said:

If it's any help I suppose I could force myself to have a ride out with both of you, and see what happens.

You first, Reg - you're nearest.

*Puts kettle on*

Tea or coffee?

That's very kind of you, whichever is most convenient. No sugar please.

We can discuss further details when you're ready. Being retired I'm a pretty accomplished skiver, so the timing will need to suit you really.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[GreenV8S]

vonhosen said:

You should only be close where you have sufficient visibility ahead & it's only going to be for short times.

That depends how you define 'close' though doesn't it? You need to be prepared to respond to any reasonably forseeable event, and if you're so close that this means you have to be poised to react at a moment's notice then it might be OK for short times. The reason it's not OK for longer periods is imo that the driver is unlikely to be willing and able to sustain that level of concentration/focus. If I'm at a comfortable distance on the motorway I know I can perform routine mirror and instrument checks and glance at the radio etc without compromising my ability to respond to events in front of me. I sure as hell wouldn't be playing with the radio if I was pushing forward in preparation for an overtake.

I don't think I'm disagreeing with you, just restating that it is the driver's ability to maintain adequately fast reactions that defines how close they can follow safely and for how long.

[7db]

Nice post, Reg.

I think I'm with Von on the contact position, but the issue of whether you pressure the other driver is one that concerns me. I've noticed that if you position clearly out on the offside in a little sports car, then the target oftens speeds up a lot and there's no need to go for the overtake, drop back and relax.

I do worry that they might out-drive their abilities in these circumstances.


I did the maths in a different thread about the relative commitment points of banana overtakes vs Classic Roadcraft overtakes. The point was that if you banana or carry momentum into the overtake then you are committed (in the sense that you can't tuck back in behind the target should he brake firmly) considerably earlier and so for longer unless you have a really high speed differential.

[vonhosen]

GreenV8S said:

vonhosen said:

You should only be close where you have sufficient visibility ahead & it's only going to be for short times.

That depends how you define 'close' though doesn't it? You need to be prepared to respond to any reasonably forseeable event, and if you're so close that this means you have to be poised to react at a moment's notice then it might be OK for short times. The reason it's not OK for longer periods is imo that the driver is unlikely to be willing and able to sustain that level of concentration/focus. If I'm at a comfortable distance on the motorway I know I can perform routine mirror and instrument checks and glance at the radio etc without compromising my ability to respond to events in front of me. I sure as hell wouldn't be playing with the radio if I was pushing forward in preparation for an overtake.

I don't think I'm disagreeing with you, just restating that it is the driver's ability to maintain adequately fast reactions that defines how close they can follow safely and for how long.

I don't disagree. I'm talking about a style of purposeful driving that demands total concentration on the task in hand. It is not what could be considered normal driving & to be able to do so for lengthy periods requires conditioning for that task, just like any other physically or mentally demanding activity. It is very tiring & you have to work to acquire the stamina needed.

[TripleS]

Enfield said:

18 vehicles? Bloody hell!

And there was me thinking that my 9 cars plus 1 tractor was good!

Yes, my best was 10 or 11, but it sure puts that in the shade.

Best wishes all,
Dave.