A question of good progress
Discussion
GreenV8S said:In about 1990 a friend of mine bought an Uno Turbo - a car that was substantially faster than the average car back then. Even given my inexperience at the time I could see that full chat overtaking meant he passed the queue TOO FAST - not that a 19 year old will listen too much to criticism!
There's something else that goes wrong with multiple overtakes. If you accelerate during the whole overtake, you end up with potentially very high closing speeds, eveything happens much quicker (less time for them to notice you, less time for you to avoid them if they don't), you have to commit much further back, you need much longer to slow down and fit back into a gap, all the risks are increased.
In the car or on the bike, I try to keep my passing speed proportional to the queue.
rsvmilly said:
There's something else that goes wrong with multiple overtakes. If you accelerate during the whole overtake, you end up with potentially very high closing speeds, eveything happens much quicker (less time for them to notice you, less time for you to avoid them if they don't), you have to commit much further back, you need much longer to slow down and fit back into a gap, all the risks are increased.
In the car or on the bike, I try to keep my passing speed proportional to the queue.
With multiple overtakes you naturally feel the need to get on with it, minimum TED etc., but the speed differential still needs to be restrained to a moderate level. Apart from anything else, it is then easier to get into a return gap, as Peter says, should you need to do so. It is also a matter of keeping a wary eye on the overtakees, and being alert to the possibility of sudden action by any of them. I hope that makes reasonable sense.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
TripleS said:
IMHO:
1. Nobody should be expected to be 'making progress' all the time, though the ability to do it when appropriate is, I accept, a quality that advanced drivers should have
The Advanced driver is expected to make progress where possible. I'm talking about a 'formal' Advanced (IAM, Roada, etc), rather than 'informal' advanced (i.e. a good driver self trained). Whether on a civilian Advanced course or through the Forces or whatever, you should take the opportunity. The examiner will reasonably be expected to fail you if you fail to take advantage of overtaking opportunities, or fail to drive up to the limit.
TripleS said:
2. In the eyes of the law OK, but otherwise... No
In the eyes of the law, and also the Advanced groups, clubs, methods, systems and approaches.
By the way, some have said it's dangerous to overtake slowly (by which I think they mean at the speed limit). I would suggest they try and get out with a Class 1 driver, and ask them to demonstrate overtakes conforming to the Advanced mantra. You will feel safe, and you will also realise why they are Class 1.
If you can only get past the car in front by speeding, then you shouldn't do it. You may decide to do so, and it doesn't make you an evil person. But it does mean you are not 'Advanced'.
>> Edited by Big Fat F'er on Thursday 1st June 17:09
>> Edited by Big Fat F'er on Thursday 1st June 17:10
Big Fat F'er said:Tell that to the Class 1s when they're on a call
If you can only get past the car in front by speeding, then you shouldn't do it. You may decide to do so, and it doesn't make you an evil person. But it does mean you are not 'Advanced'.
Failure to comply with a traffic law doesn't necessarily preclude you from being Advanced. I presume it would mean you wouldn't pass your IAM test but the term Advanced has a much broader meaning than that. For example, there are slightly different approaches taken by IAM and ROSPA aren't there?
(Incidentally, I've been out riding with Class Ones and they do make effortless progress)
7db said:
Still don't buy the minimising TED argument, as I'd rather make sure it was less dangerous and I was there longer than be exposed to a short moment of extreme danger.
Yes, my reply was carelessly worded. There are indeed other considerations, it is not a matter of TED. I don't get too hung up myself on this minimum TED factor, but I was recognising that many people do seem to be preoccupied with it. For a simple example, when overtaking a single vehicle on a long straight road, I do not always rush the process with the aim of minimising TED. If there is plenty of straight left for you to complete your overtake before an oncoming vehicle can appear and affect the issue, and no other hazard situations, junctions etc., what's the rush? After all, care might be needed to avoid exceeding the speed limit.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
I have heard several examples of people being criticised on their IAM tests for not overtaking, when the sole reason they refused the overtake would be because to do it safely they would probably have had to exceed the NSL.
I was advised, before taking my test, that if an opportunity of the type discussed presented itself (i.e car in front travelling at 50 in a NSL, safe overtaking opportunity) I should mention to the examiner that it was likely I would exceed the NSL briefly, and ask him for his view. My understanding from several observers (both long-standing and recently-qualified) was that the vast majority of examiners would simply say "what are you waiting for?" if they were happy the overtake was on, and ignore the slight breach of the NSL in favour of progress.
This seems to fly in the face of what BFF is saying - But I'm not speaking from personal experience - Anyone had any experience of a similar attitude from IAM Examiners?
>> Edited by _Neal_ on Thursday 1st June 14:17
I was advised, before taking my test, that if an opportunity of the type discussed presented itself (i.e car in front travelling at 50 in a NSL, safe overtaking opportunity) I should mention to the examiner that it was likely I would exceed the NSL briefly, and ask him for his view. My understanding from several observers (both long-standing and recently-qualified) was that the vast majority of examiners would simply say "what are you waiting for?" if they were happy the overtake was on, and ignore the slight breach of the NSL in favour of progress.
This seems to fly in the face of what BFF is saying - But I'm not speaking from personal experience - Anyone had any experience of a similar attitude from IAM Examiners?
>> Edited by _Neal_ on Thursday 1st June 14:17
Big Fat F'er said:
IMHO:
1. Nobody should be expected to be 'making progress' all the time, though the ability to do it when appropriate is, I accept, a quality that advanced drivers should haveBig Fat F'er said:
The Advanced driver is expected to make progress where possible. I'm talking about a 'formal' Advanced (IAM, Roada, etc), rather than 'informal' advanced (i.e. a good driver self trained). Whether on a civilian Advanced course or through the Forces or whatever, you should take the opportunity. The examiner will reasonably be expected to fail you if you fail to take advantage of overtaking opportunities, or fail to drive up to the limit.
Yes, for the purposes of an advanced test, but I don't think that should be expected throughout the remainder of your non-test driving. Incidentally, I like your 'good driver self trained' category. Just for a moment I did wonder if that could include mebut no, probably not.
TripleS said:
2. In the eyes of the law OK, but otherwise... NoBig Fat F'er said:
In the eyes of the law, and also the Advanced groups, clubs, methods, systems and approaches.TripleS said:
Eh, pardon?
If you can only get past the car in front by speeding, then you shouldn't do it. You may decide to do so, and it doesn't make you an evil person. But it does mean you are not 'Advanced'.
Well I'm not too bothered about acquiring the 'Advanced' label, whatever that means. All I am concerned to do is achieve and maintain a driving style that is easy and natural, while giving safe, reliable and pleasant travelling for me and my passengers, and harmony with other road users - at whatever speed I choose. Rightly or wrongly I feel I'm not too far off that, but if that is not good enough to give me 'Advanced' status, well too bad.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
TripleS said:
Well I'm not too bothered about acquiring the 'Advanced' label, whatever that means. All I am concerned to do is achieve and maintain a driving style that is easy and natural, while giving safe, reliable and pleasant travelling for me and my passengers, and harmony with other road users - at whatever speed I choose. Rightly or wrongly I feel I'm not too far off that, but if that is not good enough to give me 'Advanced' status, well too bad.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
When it comes down to it, the Advanced methods all support pretty much the same things.
They go to great lengths to point out that you shouldn't speed. So that's clear. They also point out that you should make progress where possible. So that's also clear. So I would expect any IAM driver (to select one 'qualification' at random) to make progress, without breaking the limit.
It never fails to surprise me how many 'Advanced' drivers proudly claim not to BGOL, to use the limit point, have mechanical sympathy, etc, etc, etc, but then say that they think it's okay to break the limit.
Tell you summatt else an' all. Some drivers claim they overtake above the limit because they beleive it's 'best'. Well I've been with some of them (not PH'ers to the best of my knowledge) and the truth is they actually can't overtake within the limit. They can't judge distances and relative speeds, and cover it by getting past as quickly as possible. Try it out sometime, and you will see what I mean. When done right, if you are in the passenger seat reading a book, you won't even notice that an overtake has been completed. Now thats clever (not big, just clever).
Dave, let's agree to disagree. Just wave at me as I sail past (you'll recognise me...the babe in the passenger seat will be reading a book!!!)
I can see that officials can't be seen to condone breaking the law even on a technicality, but I'm baffled by private individuals who show this same obsession with the speed limit. Absolute and strict compliance with the speed limit is irrelevent to road safety.
The only reason to obey the speed limit scrupulously is that it is a law.
I think it's obvious that the purpose of the law is to improve road safety. It's open to debate exactly how effective it is at doing this, but in principle that's a sound reason to comply with the speed limit. But there are some situations where staying within the speed limit gives no safety benefit and may actually reduce safety.
It seems to me that the aim of advanced training is to optimise the process of driving within the applicable constraints such as safety, convenience and legality. None of these constraints fundamentally override all the others. I may be willing to incur a small reduction in safety to gain a large increase in convenience, or a small reduction in legality in order to gain a large increase in safety. Blind obedience with the speed limit just because it is there is a sign of a very unadvanced driver in my opinion.
If you decide to scrupulously obey the speed limit then good for you well done, but I don't agree that this is a fundamental requirement in order to achieve the covetted status of Advanced Driver. It may be legal, but it doesn't sound very advanced to me.
The only reason to obey the speed limit scrupulously is that it is a law.
I think it's obvious that the purpose of the law is to improve road safety. It's open to debate exactly how effective it is at doing this, but in principle that's a sound reason to comply with the speed limit. But there are some situations where staying within the speed limit gives no safety benefit and may actually reduce safety.
It seems to me that the aim of advanced training is to optimise the process of driving within the applicable constraints such as safety, convenience and legality. None of these constraints fundamentally override all the others. I may be willing to incur a small reduction in safety to gain a large increase in convenience, or a small reduction in legality in order to gain a large increase in safety. Blind obedience with the speed limit just because it is there is a sign of a very unadvanced driver in my opinion.
If you decide to scrupulously obey the speed limit then good for you well done, but I don't agree that this is a fundamental requirement in order to achieve the covetted status of Advanced Driver. It may be legal, but it doesn't sound very advanced to me.
gridgway said:
whether it's right or not, how does one judge an overtake as to whether it'll be within the limit. The IAM book btw is hopeless on the subject of overtaking. All it can manage is the advice "to practice"!
Thanks
GRaham
Distance available for the manoeuver, combined with your current speed, gives you an idea how much time you have available. You know the distance you have to gain over the car in front, which tells you the relative speed required. Making allowance for acceleration and deceleration you can judge the maximum speed that would be required to complete the manoeuver within that distance. In principle it would be possible to work it out numerically but in practice I think it's something that you just learn to judge, just like estimating braking distances and separation.
Some years ago now, I overtook a entire row of about 15 cars by mistake. They were waiting for a roadworks traffic light to change and becuase the end of the queue was the other side of the brow of a hill, I just thought they were all badly parked [sun was shining at me and visor was down]. I realised my error just as I came accros the traffic light, which by the way, was just changing to green, and I sped on past. The other drivers must have thought that I was ...
1) a real cool dude - overtaking at just the right moment, or
2) an arrogant SOB road hog b@st@rd.
Strangly, no one honked. Perhaps they were agast.
1) a real cool dude - overtaking at just the right moment, or
2) an arrogant SOB road hog b@st@rd.
Strangly, no one honked. Perhaps they were agast.
Narvanath said:
Some years ago now, I overtook a entire row of about 15 cars by mistake. They were waiting for a roadworks traffic light to change and becuase the end of the queue was the other side of the brow of a hill, I just thought they were all badly parked [sun was shining at me and visor was down]. I realised my error just as I came accros the traffic light, which by the way, was just changing to green, and I sped on past. The other drivers must have thought that I was ...
1) a real cool dude - overtaking at just the right moment, or
2) an arrogant SOB road hog b@st@rd.
Strangly, no one honked. Perhaps they were agast.
Everyone makes mistakes.
But I think I know which one they were thinking!!!!!!!!
Big Fat F'er said:If you were to break the NSL whilst, unknown to you, your driving were being observed by an unmarked trafpol, and the trafpol thought that what you'd just done was reasonable and safe and therefore he took no action, are you still "in the wrong"?
2) You shouldn't break the limit when overtaking. There isn't a "ha ha, what about..." exception. You shouldn't do it. So if you are at 50mph, in the NSL, and there isn't sufficient space to safely overtake without going above 60mph, then you shouldn't overtake. Same on the motorway, at 70mph limit. Etc., etc., etc. All the Advanced Systems are very clear on this. You dont break the limit to overtake. You may decide to do so. Then you are in the wrong.
flemke said:
2) You shouldn't break the limit when overtaking. There isn't a "ha ha, what about..." exception. You shouldn't do it. So if you are at 50mph, in the NSL, and there isn't sufficient space to safely overtake without going above 60mph, then you shouldn't overtake. Same on the motorway, at 70mph limit. Etc., etc., etc. All the Advanced Systems are very clear on this. You dont break the limit to overtake. You may decide to do so. Then you are in the wrong.
Yes
The fact that the officer has used their discretion, doesn't turn the wrong into a right.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff