Being overtaken...
Discussion
FiF said:
Speaking as someone who regularly travels through an area where there is regular open and covert enforcement of NSL roads, it's amusing and depressing in equal measures to read the usual accusations that choosing to keep within permitted limits, even to the point of not making an overtake which is physically possible bit not legally so, is proof that someone believes keeping to the limit is the be all of road safety.
Licence preservation may be a factor as much as it might stick in the craw, so quit the juvenile accusations please.
I'm presuming that's aimed at me so I'll clarify my point.Licence preservation may be a factor as much as it might stick in the craw, so quit the juvenile accusations please.
I wasn't trying to say that people who stick to the speed limit are being daft for doing so - license preservation forms a significant part of my driving style as well and there's a decent level of enforcement near where I live so I have no issue with people travelling at the speed limit. I would not judge somebody for not making an overtake, especially if there's a camera van pointed at them
but, if one says that you're being dangerous purely because you chose to exceed the speed limit by whatever margin when overtaking then that is effectively saying that speed limit = safety, where clearly neither are necessarily the case. Go past me at the speed limit, squirt past, or stay behind me - as long as it's safe I personally don't find myself fussed about whether it's by the book legal, and I'd hope the same courtesy would be extended.sjc said:
Indeed, looks like you can't win going by the above.
I always pull to the left/right of my lane if it's apparent that the biker is wanting to squeeze past in that suicidal way they do between two lines of traffic.I'll generally flick the indicator as well so they know I've seen them and I'm not going to suddenly dive back. Nearly to a man they wave their leg or give a thumbs up once past.
I do both - in the car shuffle over a bit and flick the indicator, on the bike give a wave/leg wiggle if someone does the same. You can normally get a 'feel' for those who have seen you and want you to be aware of that, and those who notice at the last second, panic and swerve away. The former are happy whether you pass or not by and large, and I'm hopefully far enough behind the latter that they don't panic in the first place I always pull to the left/right of my lane if it's apparent that the biker is wanting to squeeze past in that suicidal way they do between two lines of traffic.I'll generally flick the indicator as well so they know I've seen them and I'm not going to suddenly dive back. Nearly to a man they wave their leg or give a thumbs up once past.
Here is why overtaking like a granny is dangerous - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nnt9MLVMOh0
The biker is pretty much chilling out in the overtakee's blind spot and gets bashed for his trouble.
The biker is pretty much chilling out in the overtakee's blind spot and gets bashed for his trouble.
sjc said:
it's apparent that the biker is wanting to squeeze past in that suicidal way they do between two lines of traffic.
To quote a biker I mentioned that to: "Its safer to be inbetween two cars who are moving ahead than to pass one with space who might move."I still think its mental personally!
ORD said:
Here is why overtaking like a granny is dangerous - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nnt9MLVMOh0
The biker is pretty much chilling out in the overtakee's blind spot and gets bashed for his trouble.
To be honest the Golf was edging to overtake all the way down and was first in line. The biker is pretty much chilling out in the overtakee's blind spot and gets bashed for his trouble.
The biker really should have waited his turn before moving on.
HOWEVER, Golf pulling out on a bend with no signal or mirror check. Knob.
luckystrike said:
mistakenplane said:
The biker really should have waited his turn before moving on.
Agreed. even then, second best option would have been to actually get past both of them, not just trundle up into a blind spot. 3 options and he picked the worst!Liquid Knight said:
luckystrike said:
mistakenplane said:
The biker really should have waited his turn before moving on.
Agreed. even then, second best option would have been to actually get past both of them, not just trundle up into a blind spot. 3 options and he picked the worst!I think it's an excellent example of why you have to be an idiot to say "If you speed while overtaking, the overtake wasn't on". It may or may not be safe to briefly exceed the posted limit (depending on the conditions), but it will often be safer than overtaking slowly.
In the actual example, it was pretty clear to me that the Golf intended to overtake - although he was a complete idiot about it even before pulling into the bike! The safest way to overtake in that kind of circumstance is to get reasonably close to the Golf (but still a safe distance), indicate to overtake, pull over to the left and then indicate that you are happy for him to go first if he wants; if he clocks you and goes, good, if he clocks you and stays, shoot past; if he doesn't clock you, it's probably not safe to go anywhere near him!
In the actual example, it was pretty clear to me that the Golf intended to overtake - although he was a complete idiot about it even before pulling into the bike! The safest way to overtake in that kind of circumstance is to get reasonably close to the Golf (but still a safe distance), indicate to overtake, pull over to the left and then indicate that you are happy for him to go first if he wants; if he clocks you and goes, good, if he clocks you and stays, shoot past; if he doesn't clock you, it's probably not safe to go anywhere near him!
SteveSteveson said:
It's not when your filtering that it's odd (Thats appreciated). It's the people that do it when they are going along at a decent speed. You will come up behind a car doing just under the NSL (Because obviously they would not be doing exactly 60, because otherwise you would not have caught them...) and they dive to the left. If your traveling at speed a bike will get past without any problem when there is a gap.
And of course you still have plenty of room when you avoid a pothole or a bit of road kill, or something else that makes you suddenly adjust your position at 70 mph+ won't you?Can't believe there's bikers that don't understand someone trying to give them plenty of room.
luckystrike said:
This sounds like you're assuming rigidly sticking to the speed limit is the be-all and end-all of safe driving. I'm sure plenty of people can in your words 'safely complete and overtake without exceeding the speed limit', but the tradeoff between an extra 5-10mph speed vs. a quicker opportunity to return to the correct and thus safe side of the road is often very useful. I'd rather feel your wrath at exceeding a speed limit than find myself neck and neck with the espace that saw red with me beside him and decided to roar up to the speed limit as I was passing.
Similarly on the motorway - cruise control is king but if I'm passing someone and a car ends up approaching at a faster speed then despite my right to stay in the passing lane and at the safe speed I choose I'll give it a bit of a squirt if I can get out of their way without forcing them to slow.
I exepcted that some powerfully buuilt be-goateedd pHer would come along as post exactly this Similarly on the motorway - cruise control is king but if I'm passing someone and a car ends up approaching at a faster speed then despite my right to stay in the passing lane and at the safe speed I choose I'll give it a bit of a squirt if I can get out of their way without forcing them to slow.
Edited by luckystrike on Friday 3rd October 12:44
It remains the case that people are justifying criminality with a spurious argument that reducing TED is greater imperative than driving within the law ...
your risk assessment is at fault for normal driving , especially if you haven;t had at least 120 hours of specific additional training ... but even then without the legals and employer support it and give reason for the abnormal driving that supports such actions it all means nothing ...
luckystrike said:
FiF said:
Speaking as someone who regularly travels through an area where there is regular open and covert enforcement of NSL roads, it's amusing and depressing in equal measures to read the usual accusations that choosing to keep within permitted limits, even to the point of not making an overtake which is physically possible bit not legally so, is proof that someone believes keeping to the limit is the be all of road safety.
Licence preservation may be a factor as much as it might stick in the craw, so quit the juvenile accusations please.
I'm presuming that's aimed at me so I'll clarify my point.Licence preservation may be a factor as much as it might stick in the craw, so quit the juvenile accusations please.
I wasn't trying to say that people who stick to the speed limit are being daft for doing so - license preservation forms a significant part of my driving style as well and there's a decent level of enforcement near where I live so I have no issue with people travelling at the speed limit. I would not judge somebody for not making an overtake, especially if there's a camera van pointed at them
but, if one says that you're being dangerous purely because you chose to exceed the speed limit by whatever margin when overtaking then that is effectively saying that speed limit = safety, where clearly neither are necessarily the case. Go past me at the speed limit, squirt past, or stay behind me - as long as it's safe I personally don't find myself fussed about whether it's by the book legal, and I'd hope the same courtesy would be extended.Far be it from me to defend that particular poster as 99% of the time they are on my ignore and scroll past list but what was said is safely completing an overtake within the limit. This is very different from saying that keeping to the limit makes it safe, in reality the opposite should the go decision be made.
If significant excess over the limit is required to safely complete an overtake then it does suggest things may be somewhat marginal.
Pan Pan said:
ORD said:
I'm not sure whether or not this has been mentioned already, but I find it irritating when people say that the overtaker was unnecessarily loud or fast.
If I drop into 2nd and get past as quickly as possible, it is not to be intimidating, it is because I do not trust the person I am overtaking not to (a) otherwise fail to notice that I am moving alongside and (b) drift all over the road. I don't know whether or not that helps, really, as I am essentially saying "If I overtake loudly, it's because I think you are a f+cking terrible driver"
Unfortunately no matter how slow they might go, ANYONE who overtakes `them' will be seen in their eyes as a reckless speeder. As posted on another similar subject, if someone does not have the ability to drive at the low set posted limits or at least at the speeds most of the drivers around them want to travel at, they need to consider if they are suited to driving a motor vehicle at all.If I drop into 2nd and get past as quickly as possible, it is not to be intimidating, it is because I do not trust the person I am overtaking not to (a) otherwise fail to notice that I am moving alongside and (b) drift all over the road. I don't know whether or not that helps, really, as I am essentially saying "If I overtake loudly, it's because I think you are a f+cking terrible driver"
Any driver who allows a huge queue of (often frustrated) motorists to build up behind them, whilst the vehicles in front have disappeared off into the distance is the problem / dangerous driver on that stretch of road.
JagXJR said:
I fully agree with this. However the problem is getting this message across to the crappy drivers who, as they are not driving fast think they are driving safely!
They are driving as quickly as they feel safe to do so given the conditions in place, on the road, in the car and the drivers head. Just because someone is more cautious on the road don't mistake them for a crap driver. One of the chaps I met in my Stage Rallying days used to be bike racer with a rather well stocked trophy cabinet and was bloody good on the stages but in on the public road he was cautious.
If that were true, they feel safe going at a lower speed, why do they then speed up as you are overtaking them. Suddenly as you come past they want to go faster. Do they feel unsafe doing so? I doubt it.
Happened to me last week when I was out with the Mrs in the Alfa. Heading along downhill on the A57 following a Citroen people carrier travelling around 40 in a 50, car in front of it was maybe a quarter of a mile in front. Overtaking the Citroen it tried to speed up but I was in the powerband above 3k revs and no problem to pass. Did mean I had to brake harder than I would have liked to match the speed of the car in front so did inconvenience me slightly.
Just no need for it and cannot for the life of me understand why these poor drivers (I consider it to be poor driving at the very least) have to do these things?
When driving I aim to have always at least 2 options open, if you have one and someone closes the door on it you are toast! If I am reduced to only one option then I back off, slow down or whatever I have to do to to increase safety and open up options.
Also be aware early in the morning, some of these drivers that had a skinfull of alcohol the night before may be driving still impared (actually in the countryside with little police presence this could be at most times of the day)!
I seem to remember being flammed on a different thread for overtaking using maximum acceleration, was accused of being provocative. If it gets you past before a manouver like the Golf's above then it is more a safety procedure than anything else IMHO. If I have to excede the limit in the process then so be it. Better a moment above the limit than a spell in hospital as a casualty!
Happened to me last week when I was out with the Mrs in the Alfa. Heading along downhill on the A57 following a Citroen people carrier travelling around 40 in a 50, car in front of it was maybe a quarter of a mile in front. Overtaking the Citroen it tried to speed up but I was in the powerband above 3k revs and no problem to pass. Did mean I had to brake harder than I would have liked to match the speed of the car in front so did inconvenience me slightly.
Just no need for it and cannot for the life of me understand why these poor drivers (I consider it to be poor driving at the very least) have to do these things?
ORD said:
I think it's an excellent example of why you have to be an idiot to say "If you speed while overtaking, the overtake wasn't on". It may or may not be safe to briefly exceed the posted limit (depending on the conditions), but it will often be safer than overtaking slowly.
In the actual example, it was pretty clear to me that the Golf intended to overtake - although he was a complete idiot about it even before pulling into the bike! The safest way to overtake in that kind of circumstance is to get reasonably close to the Golf (but still a safe distance), indicate to overtake, pull over to the left and then indicate that you are happy for him to go first if he wants; if he clocks you and goes, good, if he clocks you and stays, shoot past; if he doesn't clock you, it's probably not safe to go anywhere near him!
Looking at the footage my internal alarm bells were ringing even before the Golf pulled out. Seems to me the motorbike rider was in-experienced as he could have braked, accelerated past, sounded his horn as a warning or swerved to give the Golf room, but did none of those things.In the actual example, it was pretty clear to me that the Golf intended to overtake - although he was a complete idiot about it even before pulling into the bike! The safest way to overtake in that kind of circumstance is to get reasonably close to the Golf (but still a safe distance), indicate to overtake, pull over to the left and then indicate that you are happy for him to go first if he wants; if he clocks you and goes, good, if he clocks you and stays, shoot past; if he doesn't clock you, it's probably not safe to go anywhere near him!
When driving I aim to have always at least 2 options open, if you have one and someone closes the door on it you are toast! If I am reduced to only one option then I back off, slow down or whatever I have to do to to increase safety and open up options.
Also be aware early in the morning, some of these drivers that had a skinfull of alcohol the night before may be driving still impared (actually in the countryside with little police presence this could be at most times of the day)!
I seem to remember being flammed on a different thread for overtaking using maximum acceleration, was accused of being provocative. If it gets you past before a manouver like the Golf's above then it is more a safety procedure than anything else IMHO. If I have to excede the limit in the process then so be it. Better a moment above the limit than a spell in hospital as a casualty!
Citroen Picasso? They are the most emasculating hateful wastes of metal out there (apart from the Nissan Qasqui). Only ever driven by pillocks.
I thought you were referring to people who drive slowly, not people who drive slowly then speed up as soon as you try to pass. These are cue keepers and probably think you're trying to barge past them to get to something interesting ahead.
The fact you had to brake to avoid the next vehicle suggests they may have just been marking time (two seconds-ish) and they were going as slow as whoever was in front.
This is something that sometimes happens me. I'm behind a 40 or 50mph truck on a single carriageway at a safe distance (I can see the mirrors so he/she can see me) then someone who has to be somewhere three seconds quicker overtakes and tailgates the truck for the next few miles until I overtake both because unlike the tailgater I can see ahead of the truck.
This enrages the tailgater so much it's hilarious; especially if I'm in my Panda. They will often look in their drivers mirror and deliberately try to cut me up. So to preempt this I make sure I am as far right as possible and have my hand ready to press the horn. As I pass the front of the truck I wait until I'm two seconds ahead before going back into the left lane (TED depending). The tailgater is by now tailgating me at 60-ish mph. I tuck into the left lane and they shoot off revving the guts out of whatever car they're in until they get to the next person to tailgate and I catch them up a short while later.
This may make me a bit of a knob but if it's safe to do so I overtake. If it's obvious the vehicle ahead of me is incapable of making a maneuver due to self inflicted line of sight issues I'll overtake both vehicles provided it's safe and within the rules to do so.
I thought you were referring to people who drive slowly, not people who drive slowly then speed up as soon as you try to pass. These are cue keepers and probably think you're trying to barge past them to get to something interesting ahead.
The fact you had to brake to avoid the next vehicle suggests they may have just been marking time (two seconds-ish) and they were going as slow as whoever was in front.
This is something that sometimes happens me. I'm behind a 40 or 50mph truck on a single carriageway at a safe distance (I can see the mirrors so he/she can see me) then someone who has to be somewhere three seconds quicker overtakes and tailgates the truck for the next few miles until I overtake both because unlike the tailgater I can see ahead of the truck.
This enrages the tailgater so much it's hilarious; especially if I'm in my Panda. They will often look in their drivers mirror and deliberately try to cut me up. So to preempt this I make sure I am as far right as possible and have my hand ready to press the horn. As I pass the front of the truck I wait until I'm two seconds ahead before going back into the left lane (TED depending). The tailgater is by now tailgating me at 60-ish mph. I tuck into the left lane and they shoot off revving the guts out of whatever car they're in until they get to the next person to tailgate and I catch them up a short while later.
This may make me a bit of a knob but if it's safe to do so I overtake. If it's obvious the vehicle ahead of me is incapable of making a maneuver due to self inflicted line of sight issues I'll overtake both vehicles provided it's safe and within the rules to do so.
The car in front was at least a quarter of a mile away, but approaching a 30mph-ish bend on a downhill stretch so would have been slowing for that (and so should the Citroen rather than speeding up) so not sure Citroen driver was a queue keeper, probably more in line with your comment about Picasso drivers if honest 
Why does it make you a knob, give the statement "if it's safe to do so I overtake"? You do the right thing, leave enough space to see round the obstacle and don't try to close the gap when they overtake. Sounds all good to me!
Why does it make you a knob, give the statement "if it's safe to do so I overtake"? You do the right thing, leave enough space to see round the obstacle and don't try to close the gap when they overtake. Sounds all good to me!
JagXJR said:
Why does it make you a knob, give the statement "if it's safe to do so I overtake"? You do the right thing, leave enough space to see round the obstacle and don't try to close the gap when they overtake. Sounds all good to me!
It may have come across as if I were doing it deliberately to annoy the tailgater. That's just a bonus. Given the option of being tailgated for a bit or cutting up an HGV is no contest.
Glad you agree.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff