Question about overtaking.

[vonhosen]

TripleS said:

Vaux said:

TripleS said:

You may give a headlight flash to warn somebody of your approach in accordance with the HC, but you know very well that in many (perhaps most) cases another driver will take that to mean you are according him precedence.

Getting away from the literal HC meaning for a second, I thought there was something to do with the length of flash - a short flash is taken as meaning "please come out" where a long flash means "stay there, I'm on a mission".

No one's mentioned length of flash. I think only short flashes are acceptable now or road rage ensues.

I'm not aware of anything official relating to the length of a flash, but that seems to me to be introducing further complexity and it's never going to be a precise thing anyhow.

This subject needs further thought, I would say.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

There is nothing official in the highway code with the length of headlamp flash, but where I am traveling at speed & want some aware of my approach it's generally given early & long.

Of course one other area that hasn't been discussed but where I use it, is when overtaking on SC roads in the dark, where the vehicle infront is not using main beam & there is nothing visible towards.
It can serve two purposes there, alerting of my presence & illuminating the road ahead of the vehicle infront.

[R_U_LOCAL]

I disagree - use of main beam, either permanent or by use of a flash at night can be just as dazzling in the rear-view mirror as when on-coming.

If I'm overtaking a car at night which isn't showing main beam, I'll switch to main beam only when I'm alongside it and not before, and I certainly won't give a headlight flash prior to the overtake.

[vonhosen]

R_U_LOCAL said:

I disagree - use of main beam, either permanent or by use of a flash at night can be just as dazzling in the rear-view mirror as when on-coming.

If I'm overtaking a car at night which isn't showing main beam, I'll switch to main beam only when I'm alongside it and not before, and I certainly won't give a headlight flash prior to the overtake.

I disagree.

For a start it will be in the offside mirror (holding position) not the rearview mirror.
I consider waiting until you are alongside even riskier, because of the difference in length of vision between dipped headlights & main beam. If you wait until you are alongside you are already committed to the overtake & you are only then going for the vision (with the use of the mainbeam) after committing. I want the vision before I commit.
I don't want to miss any hidden (by not having main beam on) offside junctions/entrances that are just beyond the limit of vision afforded by the vehicle infronts dipped headlights (which of course are alligned down & to the n/s).

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 22 April 21:53

[R_U_LOCAL]

vonhosen said:

R_U_LOCAL said:

I disagree - use of main beam, either permanent or by use of a flash at night can be just as dazzling in the rear-view mirror as when on-coming.

If I'm overtaking a car at night which isn't showing main beam, I'll switch to main beam only when I'm alongside it and not before, and I certainly won't give a headlight flash prior to the overtake.

I disagree.

For a start it will be in the offside mirror (holding position) not the rearview mirror.
I consider waiting until you are alongside even riskier, because of the difference in length of vision between dipped headlights & main beam. If you wait until you are alongside you are already committed to the overtake & you are only then going for the vision (with the use of the mainbeam) after committing. I want the vision before I commit.
I don't want to miss any hidden (by not having main beam on) offside junctions/entrances that are just beyond the limit of vision afforded by the vehicle infronts dipped headlights (which of course are alligned down & to the n/s).

I won't commit to an overtake until I've got the view either. It's just unfortunate that some drivers don't use their main beam and as such, they sometimes limit my view. If that's the case, then I won't go for an overtake until I'm sure it's clear to go. If their lack of main-beam use prevents me from taking some overtakes, then so be it.

I don't agree with use of main beam prior to being alongside the vehicle - it doesn't matter if it is only visible in the offside mirror - there's still a possibility that it will cause considerable dazzle for the overtaken driver and that's a risk I'm not prepared to take.

Mind you, we already know that you advocate the overtaking position and I don't, so I'm talking about main beam from a position 2 seconds back (albeit on the offside), and I'm assuming that you're talking about a position much closer than that.

Vision on unlit roads at night is mostly governed by how far your (or the car in front's) lights illuminate, and if the driver in front doesn't use main beam, well, to coin a phrase...

"You can only piss with the dick you've got".

[vonhosen]

R_U_LOCAL said:

vonhosen said:

R_U_LOCAL said:

I disagree - use of main beam, either permanent or by use of a flash at night can be just as dazzling in the rear-view mirror as when on-coming.

If I'm overtaking a car at night which isn't showing main beam, I'll switch to main beam only when I'm alongside it and not before, and I certainly won't give a headlight flash prior to the overtake.

I disagree.

For a start it will be in the offside mirror (holding position) not the rearview mirror.
I consider waiting until you are alongside even riskier, because of the difference in length of vision between dipped headlights & main beam. If you wait until you are alongside you are already committed to the overtake & you are only then going for the vision (with the use of the mainbeam) after committing. I want the vision before I commit.
I don't want to miss any hidden (by not having main beam on) offside junctions/entrances that are just beyond the limit of vision afforded by the vehicle infronts dipped headlights (which of course are alligned down & to the n/s).

I won't commit to an overtake until I've got the view either. It's just unfortunate that some drivers don't use their main beam and as such, they sometimes limit my view. If that's the case, then I won't go for an overtake until I'm sure it's clear to go. If their lack of main-beam use prevents me from taking some overtakes, then so be it.

I don't agree with use of main beam prior to being alongside the vehicle - it doesn't matter if it is only visible in the offside mirror - there's still a possibility that it will cause considerable dazzle for the overtaken driver and that's a risk I'm not prepared to take.

Mind you, we already know that you advocate the overtaking position and I don't, so I'm talking about main beam from a position 2 seconds back (albeit on the offside), and I'm assuming that you're talking about a position much closer than that.

Vision on unlit roads at night is mostly governed by how far your (or the car in front's) lights illuminate, and if the driver in front doesn't use main beam, well, to coin a phrase...

"You can only piss with the dick you've got".

No you are right, I won't be using it from a following position.


Oh & I prefer to use my long one as opposed to their short

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 22 April 22:38

[R_U_LOCAL]

vonhosen said:

No you are right, I won't be using it from a following position.


Oh & I prefer to use my long one as opposed to their short

True, but a lot of people get offended when you wave your long one in their faces.

[GreenV8S]

Vaux said:

No one's mentioned length of flash. I think only short flashes are acceptable now or road rage ensues.

In my experience a flash meant as a friendly acknowledgement or offering precedence to somebody is usually short. In cases where it means "I'm here" or "I'm here and GET OUT OF MY EFFING WAY" or other more general form of abuse it tends to be a longer flash.

When I want somebody to notice me I just put the lights on and leave them on until I'm sure the need has passed.

[IRM]

vonhosen said:

irm said:

Interesting replies cause when i suggested "lighting them up" as i was taught on and hp/advanced course

I got royally ed by the "great" and all "knowledgeable" that contribute

If it causes you no problems carry on, it is mentioned in Road craft I’ll find the exact page and phrase when I can be bothered

I'd say that is because the term "lighting them up" is ill advised as it doesn't adequtaely convey the intent, which is to make them aware of your presence (if they are not already) & ensure that any reaction to it is a positive one before committing.

As I said earlier headlamp flashing is something that is easy to abuse (which makes you look aggressive) & is a skill that many find difficult to master (because in most normal driving you won't get to practice it, as there is little need for it.)

The timing of any headlamp falsh is that it should be given in plenty of time & should certainly at least have been released some decent time prior to making that decision to go.

von in response to you though things have obviously moved on since i was last here


ok but there is a difference between a "flash" and holding the stalk back for a few seconds

I'd agree a "flash" is aggressive and on the drive I got flashed back with the usual gesticulation

but when I pulled out, looked and then held back the stalk back for a few seconds before i took off, the response was different

I also feel and have found out that if its done when out there its not as aggressive as when square on with someone (I think you know what I mean)


i don't do it when passing one or two but find it useful when passing several cars, particularly when passing a number of cars where there is a ditherer or someone who may use you as cover to attempt their maneuver

[tommundy]

vonhosen said:

TripleS said:

Vaux said:

tommundy said:

An example of when a flash is 100% understood by both parties would be something like an instance that happened to me last night. I was progressing along a 3 laned section of motorway, moving into lanes 1,2 and 3 when appropriate and there had been a car behind me making similar progress, I passed some cars that were in lane 2 and pulled back into lane 2 after the manouevre. The car behind didnt pull in but maintained a steady pace in lane 3, and as we approached some slower traffic in lane 2, I checked my mirrors, he maintained his speed, I pulled out and gave a hand up of appreciation and he gave a double flash. Perfect!

Huh? Now I have witnessed people in your position indicating in lane 2 and receiving an "invitation" to get into lane 3 from the following car by means of an inappropriate headlight flash. But flashing you for waving at them?

I think what Tom was describing was all rather nice. He wanted to move back into lane 3 to do further overtaking and the guy behind anticipated that and left room for him. Tom waves to say 'Thanks for your help' and the guy behind gives the double flash to say 'You're welcome.'

In this case AIUI the following driver didn't flash Tom to invite him back into lane 3. He merely held back and left space for Tom to move out.

Anyhow, they both then go on their way with a better feeling as a result of that, which increases the likelihood that they'll be in a mood to offer the same sort of courtesies to other drivers they meeet, and so it can spread from there. It seems good to me.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

How do you know that's what it meant & that it wasn't a rebuke because the one behind felt he'd pulled into too small a gap ?


Sender - Encode/Decode - Receiver

It's called the Highway Code, it's to assist in communication.
.
That's why it's compulsory reading for the driving test & recommended reading for all.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 22 April 12:44

Vaux
We had been driving in the same vicinity to each other for approximately 15 miles and I had seen he had good lane discipline as he was moving into lanes 1 and 2 when necessary as he was passing cars behind me. TripleS is correct in that there was no flash before my signalled overtake, but I saw that he had maintained a constant speed for me to signal and pull out perfectly safely. Only then did I first wave and then he doubled flashed. Sorry I didnt write that I explicitly indicated as I thought that would have been obvious with the style of my writing.

vonhosen
As I mentioned above we had been in proximity to each other for 15 miles or so and as such had gauged a level of understanding as our speed difference was neglegable.

Vaux said:

TripleS said:

I think what Tom was describing was all rather nice. He wanted to move back into lane 3 to do further overtaking and the guy behind anticipated that and left room for him. Tom waves to say 'Thanks for your help' and the guy behind gives the double flash to say 'You're welcome.'

In this case AIUI the following driver didn't flash Tom to invite him back into lane 3. He merely held back and left space for Tom to move out.

Anyhow, they both then go on their way with a better feeling as a result of that, which increases the likelihood that they'll be in a mood to offer the same sort of courtesies to other drivers they meeet, and so it can spread from there. It seems good to me.

Ahhh. This is all getting too pink and fluffy for me! "All rather nice"....!

What was Tom doing going back into lane 2 when it appears clear he needed to stay in lane 3?

Never mind all this waving /flashing malarky!

Nowhere does Tom say he indicated to go back into lane 3, which would have been a useful giving of information. As Von points out, the flash could have been a rebuke, as in "dozy bugger pulling out - why did you go back in in the first place?"

Good fun this advanced driving!

Now, who has never flashed in or out LGVs on motorways? I see that as a means of making congestion less.

Vaux
The gap that I went back into in lane 2 was over a mile long! ...and before you say what I`ll guess you`d say there was traffic in lane 1, otherwise I would have moved over again. I addressed the indicating situation in my previous note above. I hope that last comment was some kind of joke as although I agree they add to congestion if you do that its dangerous and very immature.

TripleS
You understood my story perfectly and shared my views throughout, and for that I`m happy to share the roads with you and a if the chance should ever arise.

Cheers
Tom

[TripleS]

tommundy said:

Vaux
The gap that I went back into in lane 2 was over a mile long! ...and before you say what I`ll guess you`d say there was traffic in lane 1, otherwise I would have moved over again. I addressed the indicating situation in my previous note above. I hope that last comment was some kind of joke as although I agree they add to congestion if you do that its dangerous and very immature.

TripleS
You understood my story perfectly and shared my views throughout, and for that I`m happy to share the roads with you and a if the chance should ever arise.

Cheers
Tom

Hiya Tom,

Yes, I think we're on the same wavelength for the moment, and our friend Vaux will be OK as well, when we've chatted to him a bit more and he sees how to make these things work a bit better.

Best wishes all,
Dave.