Can I overtake?

[TripleS]

vonhosen said:

GreenV8S said:

One advantage of driving a car with huge acceleration on tap, is that you can achieve your desired average speed differential during the overtake by accelerating hard at the start and then slowing down progressively during the manoeuver. This means that you end up with a much lower terminal speed than somebody who achieves the same average speed by accelerating all the way past, so it's much easier to slot back into the stream of traffic.

Did that make any sense at all?

Yes it's what I'm effectively talking about. You are actually off the drive & decelerating on acceleration sense when passing the overtaken vehicle. You reach the required desired speed to match the overtaken vehicle (& the one infront of it) as you slip into your stop over gap with no braking.

Yes fair enough, that makes sense, but with my low powered car I do not have the facility to do these 'acceleration sense only' overtakes to that extent.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[TripleS]

7db said:

Where's StressedDave with his take-it-on-the-chin advice for dealing with closed gaps? That's one that always runs through my mind before committing to a multiple overtake.

Sorry, I don't recall that. Can you remind us?

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Crippo]

The faster the over taking car the more static every thing else around it, which means that gaps become much larger relatively. -If you get my drift. The slower you go the more exposed to danger you are and the longer traffic has to flow back wards an forwards. I know people will slate me for saying this but executing an overtake in a couple of seconds means that not a lot is going to change in those seconds. I am assuming that the over taker is a totally switched on driver doing all the proper checks and not an idiot. It also depends hugely on what car you are driving. I have access to an Impreza STI wihich can accelerate very quickly and stop very quickly and can go round bends so much quicker than anything else that to be honest other cars sometimes seem like slow moving cattle.
Over taking in that car is quite different to overtaking in most others.

[SVS]

Crippo said:

It also depends hugely on what car you are driving.

Yes, especially if you're on a 'bike!

[Chris71]

Its very simple - you want to be exposed to danger for the shortest time possible. The faster you can get past someone without causing any problems with up comming corners etc the better. I suppose if you have miles of space, you might choose to save fuel by not blatting past quite so quickly, but on a b-road I'd say it was foot to the boards!

As for the IAM recomendation - what a load of pants. Some limits are as safe to exceed as some are dangerous to try and equal. If you're supposed to be an advanced motorist, surely you can judge the road conditions and decide on a suitable speed for the road and conditions. Speed limits seem largely irrelevant as 30mph can be very dangerous say in a village on market day, but 70mph on a deserted, dry motorway is conservtaive to say the least.

Whatsmore if the average motorist (and this isn't aimed at people on here) wasn't so scared to overtake, perhaps we wouldn't have such huge backlogs behind slow moving traffic.

[vonhosen]

Chris71 said:

Its very simple - you want to be exposed to danger for the shortest time possible. The faster you can get past someone without causing any problems with up comming corners etc the better. I suppose if you have miles of space, you might choose to save fuel by not blatting past quite so quickly, but on a b-road I'd say it was foot to the boards!

As for the IAM recomendation - what a load of pants. Some limits are as safe to exceed as some are dangerous to try and equal. If you're supposed to be an advanced motorist, surely you can judge the road conditions and decide on a suitable speed for the road and conditions. Speed limits seem largely irrelevant as 30mph can be very dangerous say in a village on market day, but 70mph on a deserted, dry motorway is conservtaive to say the least.

Whatsmore if the average motorist (and this isn't aimed at people on here) wasn't so scared to overtake, perhaps we wouldn't have such huge backlogs behind slow moving traffic.

If you really don't want to be exposed to danger on the offside (at all let alone for the shortest time possible) then you don't overtake.

There isn't an advanced licence, all are judged under the same light to the same standard.
The advanced tuition is for your benefit & safety, it doesn't infere any extra privileges on you.
If you exceed the limit overtaking you leave yourself open to prosecution. You know it when you set out on the journey, it's a matter of choice for you if you commit offences, it's a matter for the Police if they prosecute you for it.
What you should ideally be doing is remaining safe & legal.
If you can do the overtake safely whilst remaining legal, then do it.
If you can't do the overtake safely without remaining legal, then don't do it. (This won't be a consideration if you don't care about legality or what happens to you if you were to be prosecuted).

Perhaps those who choose not to overtake, do so because there is no benefit for them in doing so. Paerhaps they are more legality orientated than progress orientated.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 23 August 18:24

[GreenV8S]

vonhosen said:

If you can't do the overtake safely without remaining legal, then don't do it. (This won't be a consideration if you don't care about legality or what happens to you if you were to be prosecuted).

I think we've covered this before, but ...

If I feel that a law is useful and valuable, I will be inclined to comply with it because it's right. I don't steal, because I believe that it is wrong, not because I might get caught. If I feel that a law serves no useful purpose, I might feel obliged to comply with it because of the danger of being penalised for breaking it. I suspect that for most people, speed limits fall into the latter category. That being the case, a sensible driver will aim to strike a balance between convenience, safety and legality. For me, and probably for most people, safety and legality are far more important than convenience but not infinitely more important. In other words, I still strike a balance between these different constraints and don't aim to maximise performance with respect to one regardless of the impact on the others. So yes, breaking the speed limit is a conscious, rational and sensible choice for some people in some circumstances. The idea that thou shalt not break any law under any circumstances for no better reason than that it is the law, is stupid.

[vonhosen]

GreenV8S said:

vonhosen said:

If you can't do the overtake safely without remaining legal, then don't do it. (This won't be a consideration if you don't care about legality or what happens to you if you were to be prosecuted).

I think we've covered this before, but ...

If I feel that a law is useful and valuable, I will be inclined to comply with it because it's right. I don't steal, because I believe that it is wrong, not because I might get caught. If I feel that a law serves no useful purpose, I might feel obliged to comply with it because of the danger of being penalised for breaking it. I suspect that for most people, speed limits fall into the latter category. That being the case, a sensible driver will aim to strike a balance between convenience, safety and legality. For me, and probably for most people, safety and legality are far more important than convenience but not infinitely more important. In other words, I still strike a balance between these different constraints and don't aim to maximise performance with respect to one regardless of the impact on the others. So yes, breaking the speed limit is a conscious, rational and sensible choice for some people in some circumstances. The idea that thou shalt not break any law under any circumstances for no better reason than that it is the law, is stupid.

Nobody can physically stop you doing it (without fitting a limiter), if your choice is to go for covenience over legality then you make it knowing full well the potential consequences of that choice. I'd regard risking my licence for a few minutes stupid personally.

You don't get to choose which offences you should/will be prosecuted for.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 23 August 21:23

[imbecile]

vonhosen said:

I'd regard risking my licence for a few minutes stupid personally.

But you're not risking it for a few minutes - you're risking it for many hours saved per conviction (if you are ever convicted), unless you are monumentally unlucky or reckless - despite the recent insane crackdown the chances of being caught speeding during any paticular violation remain very low.

[vonhosen]

imbecile said:

vonhosen said:

I'd regard risking my licence for a few minutes stupid personally.

But you're not risking it for a few minutes - you're risking it for many hours saved per conviction (if you are ever convicted), unless you are monumentally unlucky or reckless - despite the recent insane crackdown the chances of being caught speeding during any paticular violation remain very low.

I'll give up the time happily
I don't want to risk losing my licence. As the bumper sticker says "**** happens".

[GreenV8S]

vonhosen said:

Nobody can physically stop you doing it (without fitting a limiter), if your choice is to go for covenience over legality then you make it knowing full well the potential consequences of that choice. I'd regard risking my licence for a few minutes stupid personally.

You keep talking about it as if it's black and white, legal or illegal, safe or unsafe. The world is actually grey. There is *always* a trade-off of between safety, legality, convenience. You might not recognise it, but it's always there.

[alphadog]

Interesting thread - slightly O/T response but recently, whenever I've needed to drive a long distance, I've tried to pick routes that avoid long runs down single carriageway trunk roads, instead opting for non-primary 'A' roads and 'B' roads.

There generally a lot less traffic to contend with, better overtaking opportunities, fewer convoys caused by people unable/unwilling to overtake slow vehicles and also less activities from the local partnerships.

A52/A46 in Lincs and the A49 in Shropshire/Herefordshire are 2 roads, in particular that can be avoided very successfully this way!

Edited by alphadog on Thursday 24th August 06:58

[vonhosen]

GreenV8S said:

vonhosen said:

Nobody can physically stop you doing it (without fitting a limiter), if your choice is to go for covenience over legality then you make it knowing full well the potential consequences of that choice. I'd regard risking my licence for a few minutes stupid personally.

You keep talking about it as if it's black and white, legal or illegal, safe or unsafe. The world is actually grey. There is *always* a trade-off of between safety, legality, convenience. You might not recognise it, but it's always there.

Like I said, "I'll trade convenience (progress) for safety & legality" that's the trade I'll make.
In court speeding is black & white, you did it or you didn't. "I was just doing a safe overtake" will not result in an aquital, because they'll view it as you should have sacrificed convenience instead of legality.
Whether you personally think that legality was useful or not & was unjustly inconvenient, will be of no consequence to the court.

Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 24th August 07:23

[Mr Whippy]

vonhosen said:

If you can't do the overtake safely without remaining legal, then don't do it. (This won't be a consideration if you don't care about legality or what happens to you if you were to be prosecuted).

Yep, overtake a person going 30mph in a 40mph zone and they speed upto 40mph.

What do you do if the gap behind closes up with other traffic and the car ahead won't let you in with oncoming traffic in the distance?

Is it worth risking going a bit quicker to get ahead and across, or do you just stop in the offside lane with hazards on?

What is the said legal practice for dealing with numpties acting illegaly?

Dave

[GreenV8S]

vonhosen said:

Like I said, "I'll trade convenience (progress) for safety & legality" that's the trade I'll make.

Regardless of the amount of each? That strikes me as absurd. If that were true, the logical consequence would be that you don't drive at all.

[polus]

Mr Whippy said:

splatspeed said:

what do you do if the b*****d puts their foot down don't break the speed limit and go along side by side at 60 ????

Happened today to me bimbling along at 30 in a 40 behind a woman for a few mins, taking it nice and steady, so overtook as the road opened up, they speed up to 50mph+ so I carry on overtaking as I'm past, but not past enough to pull in. I'm also in top gear as I anticipated a swift manoeuvre as they were bimbling along steadily.

It's safe to go faster at this point in my mind to complete what I've already completed, I just want to get far enough ahead to pull infront without causing them to have to slow down to leave an adequate gap (has been safe for a good 100 yards as I check it's clear and safe to proceed past still).
However I now enter a 30mph zone with the person following ~ 60mph, a good 300 yards before I started my overtake and slowing down now with them pushing me along and getting close behind (why??) (please note the zoning of 30mph in this position is not your urban sprawl type, it's relevant about 500 yards later though at which point I adhere to it strictly and find the person following me closely behind)

Anyway she stops at my work round the bend and 200 yards on and lectured me about speed limits. I mentioned she made my safe overtake more dangerous by speeding up, which she apparently did because I was being obnoxious for overtaking initially, and in doing so also exceeded the posted limit too she seemed to miss this point that her two wrongs vs my one wrong didn't add up to her having any authority when commenting on my driving.

Ah well, you'll never please some people, especially the type to follow you to work and confront your simple safe overtake that they turned into a much more risky situation.

Dave

Edited by Mr Whippy on Thursday 29th June 14:33

I had this on a single carriageway which opened into a dual carriageway. The guy was doing 50mph and continued at that speed into the D.C. This guy thought he would match my speed as I overtook. Why? What’s the frigging is the point? In the end I just booted it past him waving on the way. I think that really hacked him off

[vonhosen]

Mr Whippy said:

vonhosen said:

If you can't do the overtake safely without remaining legal, then don't do it. (This won't be a consideration if you don't care about legality or what happens to you if you were to be prosecuted).

Yep, overtake a person going 30mph in a 40mph zone and they speed upto 40mph.

What do you do if the gap behind closes up with other traffic and the car ahead won't let you in with oncoming traffic in the distance?

Is it worth risking going a bit quicker to get ahead and across, or do you just stop in the offside lane with hazards on?

What is the said legal practice for dealing with numpties acting illegaly?

Dave

Someone doing 30 in a 40 with a gap that they could potentially close on me I wouldn't be bothering to overtake. I rarely overtake on SC roads as it happens, unless there is a sizeable differential between their speed & the limit.

Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 24th August 16:09

[vonhosen]

GreenV8S said:

vonhosen said:

Like I said, "I'll trade convenience (progress) for safety & legality" that's the trade I'll make.

Regardless of the amount of each? That strikes me as absurd. If that were true, the logical consequence would be that you don't drive at all.

I get by fine thanks & I don't need to rely on exceeding the limit to overtake.
I can't ever remember having found myself in a situation where in respect of speed during an overtake, I would have to trade legality for safety. Sacrificing convenience does the job.

[GreenV8S]

vonhosen said:

I get by fine thanks & I don't need to rely on exceeding the limit to overtake.
I can't ever remember having found myself in a situation where in respect of speed during an overtake, I would have to trade legality for safety. Sacrificing convenience does the job.

Ah, so this philosophy only applies to overtaking? I thought you were making a more general statement.

[Chris71]

Surely this is a bit irrelevant - the only occasion you're likely to get caught speeding whilst overtaking is if its an unmarked police car. To be honest on most of the roads I'd be likely to overtake on (principally 60 limit A or B roads) there aren't goig to be speed cameras and I find it hard to believe that anyone here really does 70 on a desserted dual carriageway or motorway where you are likely to encounter them, so in terms of 'loosing my license' I'd say "overtaking roads" aren't a big threat.

As for the morality of the law - well, as I said before, under certain circumstances trying to equal even a 30mph limit can be extremely dangerous (say on market day in a village with people milling around) however I fail to see why an experienced driver in a well maintained modern car can't do the ton on an empty motorway in reasonable weather. Especially, when police seem to think its ok to 'try out' their cars at ....what was it... 169mph?

Heres another way of looking at it. If you aim to stick rigidly to the speed limit and so currently do more or less 60 on the suitable parts of a local A road, you will presumably go down there at somewhat under 40mph if the government get there way and reduce the rural speed limits to 40mph. Does this mean you were driving reclessly before? Of course not.

Likewise if a rural road has a long, wide straight with good visibility then a sharp, blind corner the appropriate speed is obviously very different at these two points that may be within 100yds of each other, yet the speed limit will almost certainly be a fixed across the whole length. The moral is simple - use your own judgement and if in doubt, slow down.