Is it time to ban overtaking?
Discussion
akirk said:
just because you don't understand overtaking doesn't mean others can't do it and do it well - I don't understand quantum mechanics - not going to ban it though!
This basically explains a problem I've noticed more and more over recent years in a wide range of topics. People not understanding things, but then rather than assume their own ignorance, they adopt arrogance instead and assume they're right and all the experts are wrong. This applies to the quantum mechanics, as per your example - there are plenty of deniers still out there, despite evidence that QM is how things work, and no, the deniers are not referring to an underlying theory, they are suggesting that the maths of QM does not describe things, even though it does! This also applies to the moon landing conspiracy theory, flat earth, Brexit, creationism, climate change denial etc: people who don't understand something outside of their sphere of knowledge think they know better than the overwhelming consensus of experts. Creationism is a good example to prove how recent a phenomenon this is, because Christianity's been around for over two thousand years, yet if you look into the history of creationism it's popularism is actually a very recent thing.Sorry to diverge the thread!
akirk said:
if you are happy with people overtaking on a dual carriageway, then the only negative about overtaking on a single carriageway is that people don't do it well - so teach them to overtake, don't ban what you don't understand / know how to do... And just because you don't understand overtaking doesn't mean others can't do it and do it well - I don't understand quantum mechanics - not going to ban it though!
Exactly this, couldn't have said it better. 
V8RX7 said:
It's impossible to comprehend because of course the "safe" drivers are leaving a 2 second gap to the car ahead and are aware of what's going on around them, so upon seeing the overtaker, aid him by creating a larger gap.
I was overtaken on Saturday... thankfully I was fully aware of where the other motorist was and fully allowed him to complete his overtake... although it surprised my passenger..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2dZ4Ve1UJQ
People should be more aware and considerate of other motorists instead of thinking someone else is queue jumping... IMHO the driving test should include some training and testing on attitude and consideration, even if it means a day in a classroom...
M4cruiser said:
It's obvious to most of us that many drivers do not possess the skills to conduct a safe overtake, yet they still try. I suggest it's not worth letting them try; and given those “safe/legal/benefit” considerations, it's not worth letting anyone try. If you find yourself closing up on a slower car, you need to ask why it's going slowly – there may be a valid reason for it, yet many drivers seem to just assume it's a slow-coach driver. Even if it is – what really is the problem in just staying behind it? You won't lose that much time – it may seem like you will, but try computing some figures. Have a bit more patience.
First point - my commute is about 50% single-carriageway trunk roads, and I see people overtaking every day. From my observations the vast majority of them manage it sensibly and safely.(not always exactly within the posted limit, but let's park that one for the minute - if you're able to HONESTLY claim you NEVER exceed the posted limit then I'll let you out of your particular glass house to throw stones)
So I refute your conjecture above that many drivers don't possess the required skills, at least in relation to those who actually perform overtakes. MANY might not...but from my empirical evidence very few of those who don't possess the skills actually seem to try.
Second - your image - 250yds is hardly a lot given that on many roads you can see clearly for over 1/4 mile, and in many cases over 1/2 mile - my commute includes a wide, SAFE stretch with >1,000yd visibility - guess where they put the camera van?!? Furthermore, on trunk roads which are wide enough it's possible with care to overtake whilst there is oncoming traffic...not always recommended, I grant you, but even that shouldn't be verboten, let alone overtaking at all.
So (ignoring the provocative nature of your post), you are quite wrong!
vonhosen said:
Road driving experts?
Who are they & what's their relevance to this thread?
My comment was entirely off topic, as I apologised for Who are they & what's their relevance to this thread?
It's a bug bear of mine when people assume they're all knowledgeable in areas they barely know anything about. In answer to your question, as a road traffic policeman (which I think you are?) you'd know more than me. I'd guess (but I don't know) that the experts in this instance are the people and organisations consulted by those responsible for the writing the Highway Code and the Law, which clearly state that overtaking is legal.RobM77 said:
vonhosen said:
Road driving experts?
Who are they & what's their relevance to this thread?
My comment was entirely off topic, as I apologised for Who are they & what's their relevance to this thread?
It's a bug bear of mine when people assume they're all knowledgeable in areas they barely know anything about. In answer to your question, as a road traffic policeman (which I think you are?) you'd know more than me. I'd guess (but I don't know) that the experts in this instance are the people and organisations consulted by those responsible for the writing the Highway Code and the Law, which clearly state that overtaking is legal.carguy143 said:
Banning overtaking will simply not work as there's too many slow vehicles on the roads that lead to driver frustration and unnecessary risk taking. In my opinion there should be more training on things like overtaking safely.
This. Just teach people how to do it properly. Perhaps then people doing 50mph everywhere wont be so surprised to be overtaken and maybe not take offence to it.vonhosen said:
Well if they are those that you'd bestow the title upon they'd include that for good overtaking, consideration in planning for the overtake should require that you remain within the speed limit when completing it (which havoc didn't seem to want to include as a prerequisite but M4cruiser was).
As I said von, 'let he who is without sin...'My view on speed limits, and I believe this is endorsed by most Class-1 Trafpol, is that the NSL sign should be interpreted as "drive safely to the conditions". We have a black-and-white law attempting to enforce what is clearly a shades-of-grey area - the safe speed on a single stretch of road can be very different at different times of the same day...
havoc said:
vonhosen said:
Well if they are those that you'd bestow the title upon they'd include that for good overtaking, consideration in planning for the overtake should require that you remain within the speed limit when completing it (which havoc didn't seem to want to include as a prerequisite but M4cruiser was).
As I said von, 'let he who is without sin...'My view on speed limits, and I believe this is endorsed by most Class-1 Trafpol, is that the NSL sign should be interpreted as "drive safely to the conditions". We have a black-and-white law attempting to enforce what is clearly a shades-of-grey area - the safe speed on a single stretch of road can be very different at different times of the same day...
The maximum safe speed on a single stretch of road will very rarely (if ever) exactly match the speed limit, but that isn't really the point. The limit doesn't define what is or isn't a safe speed, it defines a legal limit.
The point you've quoted from me (to Rob) above still stands. Those that advise resulting in the the Highway Code & Law make no separate allowance for exceeding the limit during overtakes.
RobM77 said:
This basically explains a problem I've noticed more and more over recent years in a wide range of topics. People not understanding things, but then rather than assume their own ignorance, they adopt arrogance instead and assume they're right and all the experts are wrong. This applies to the quantum mechanics, as per your example - there are plenty of deniers still out there, despite evidence that QM is how things work, and no, the deniers are not referring to an underlying theory, they are suggesting that the maths of QM does not describe things, even though it does! This also applies to the moon landing conspiracy theory, flat earth, Brexit, creationism, climate change denial etc: people who don't understand something outside of their sphere of knowledge think they know better than the overwhelming consensus of experts. Creationism is a good example to prove how recent a phenomenon this is, because Christianity's been around for over two thousand years, yet if you look into the history of creationism it's popularism is actually a very recent thing.
Sorry to diverge the thread!
This is the Dunning-Kreuger effect, no? Stupid people are too stupid to realise that they're stupid. Most recently explained with some aplomb by John Cleese.Sorry to diverge the thread!
RobM77 said:
akirk said:
just because you don't understand overtaking doesn't mean others can't do it and do it well - I don't understand quantum mechanics - not going to ban it though!
This basically explains a problem I've noticed more and more over recent years in a wide range of topics. People not understanding things, but then rather than assume their own ignorance, they adopt arrogance instead and assume they're right and all the experts are wrong. This applies to the quantum mechanics, as per your example - there are plenty of deniers still out there, despite evidence that QM is how things work, and no, the deniers are not referring to an underlying theory, they are suggesting that the maths of QM does not describe things, even though it does! This also applies to the moon landing conspiracy theory, flat earth, Brexit, creationism, climate change denial etc: people who don't understand something outside of their sphere of knowledge think they know better than the overwhelming consensus of experts. Creationism is a good example to prove how recent a phenomenon this is, because Christianity's been around for over two thousand years, yet if you look into the history of creationism it's popularism is actually a very recent thing.Sorry to diverge the thread!
Yipper said:
History shows over and over again the "overwhelming consensus of experts" is frequently wrong and subject to group-think and risky-shift. It is right that normos challenge the scientific herd. It keeps them on their toes. Recent examples, among many, where experts have herded like sheep from one trendy theory to another include diesel vehicles, low-fat diets, and WMD in Iraq.
You forgot "speed kills"Or Von's "the random number plucked from someone's arse that was never calculated and cannot be reasonably defended, must followed and enforced regardless"
It's the same limit for a 2CV or a Ferrari on a congested snowy commute or a deserted summer's morning and we're expected to respect that.
vonhosen said:
I don't know where you get that idea that the view of most Class-1 Trafpol is that NSL should be interpreted as 'drive safely to the conditions' (without any reference to the speed limit as you appear to be suggesting).
The maximum safe speed on a single stretch of road will very rarely (if ever) exactly match the speed limit, but that isn't really the point. The limit doesn't define what is or isn't a safe speed, it defines a legal limit.
The point you've quoted from me (to Rob) above still stands. Those that advise resulting in the the Highway Code & Law make no separate allowance for exceeding the limit during overtakes.
Talking to them. You should try it sometime...The maximum safe speed on a single stretch of road will very rarely (if ever) exactly match the speed limit, but that isn't really the point. The limit doesn't define what is or isn't a safe speed, it defines a legal limit.
The point you've quoted from me (to Rob) above still stands. Those that advise resulting in the the Highway Code & Law make no separate allowance for exceeding the limit during overtakes.
Your last sentence doesn't make any sense by the way - could you re-read and edit it?
I haven't read all of this thread, but OP, Dear Boy, 'Shirley you can't be serious' 
Cars are quicker than 30, 40, 50 years ago but, maybe due to demographics, the roads are clogged with Kias, Hyundais, Hondas etc being driven at 30-40mph everywhere, whether the limit is 20mph or 60mph. Average speed cameras in 30 mph limits result in a 15-20mph crawl.
No overtaking, you must be mad.
Cars are quicker than 30, 40, 50 years ago but, maybe due to demographics, the roads are clogged with Kias, Hyundais, Hondas etc being driven at 30-40mph everywhere, whether the limit is 20mph or 60mph. Average speed cameras in 30 mph limits result in a 15-20mph crawl.
No overtaking, you must be mad.
Edited by ruhall on Wednesday 31st May 20:37
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff