Caught speeding while overtaking - mitigation?
Discussion
Just got the Notice when I got home tonight. 85 in a 60, it says.
I'm pretty sure I was either overtaking or just finished doing so at the time.
Is there any point in arguing it out? (the letter of the law says 60 max whatever the circumstances)
To my mind it's safer to get past and back to the correct side of the road as soon as possible.
I'm pretty sure I was either overtaking or just finished doing so at the time.
Is there any point in arguing it out? (the letter of the law says 60 max whatever the circumstances)
To my mind it's safer to get past and back to the correct side of the road as soon as possible.
Was it safer to not overtake at all though ?
In the circumstances would it have been better not to have done it & remain within the law (especially if to make it safe required to you to break the limit) ?
I'm sure that the court will consider, was the overtake so urgent & necessary that it required & justified you breaking the limit.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 3rd May 22:18
In the circumstances would it have been better not to have done it & remain within the law (especially if to make it safe required to you to break the limit) ?
I'm sure that the court will consider, was the overtake so urgent & necessary that it required & justified you breaking the limit.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 3rd May 22:18
Where did tulso say there was a maniac behind?
I've had a several situations where on a wide NSL with good visibility I've pulled out to overtake, and you know what? The self righteous
tosser that I'm overtaking has increased his speed from 45 to 60+. Well VH, what was so urgent that this driver thought that it was valid to force me into a tricky overtake?
Perhaps a driver wishing to make progress should *never* overtake on the off chance that the driver of the vehicle being passed is a beligerent tosser? Perhaps we should just all drive around at 30 and the circumstances?
VH - I suspect you are better than this and I'm sorry for the ranty reply. But seriously - have you seen so much carnage that you really believe the lowest common denomintator and the foam rubber car are the way forward?
>> Edited by 711 on Wednesday 3rd May 23:33
I've had a several situations where on a wide NSL with good visibility I've pulled out to overtake, and you know what? The self righteous
tosser that I'm overtaking has increased his speed from 45 to 60+. Well VH, what was so urgent that this driver thought that it was valid to force me into a tricky overtake? Perhaps a driver wishing to make progress should *never* overtake on the off chance that the driver of the vehicle being passed is a beligerent tosser? Perhaps we should just all drive around at 30 and
the circumstances? VH - I suspect you are better than this and I'm sorry for the ranty reply. But seriously - have you seen so much carnage that you really believe the lowest common denomintator and the foam rubber car are the way forward?
>> Edited by 711 on Wednesday 3rd May 23:33
Me again,
No, no maniac behind me.
I remember I jast wanted to get past a car doing around 50.
Approaching the corner BEFORE the straight (I know the road) I backed off then accelerated,so that I had some speed available. When the straight opened out and was clear, I floored it, passed and backed off again down to around 60.
I still maintain it was the safest way to get past (though not as safe as staying behind, I suppose)
No, no maniac behind me.
I remember I jast wanted to get past a car doing around 50.
Approaching the corner BEFORE the straight (I know the road) I backed off then accelerated,so that I had some speed available. When the straight opened out and was clear, I floored it, passed and backed off again down to around 60.
I still maintain it was the safest way to get past (though not as safe as staying behind, I suppose)
Relentless throttle not the way forward in overtakes that have become tricky *if possible*. I'd drop back if I could as I'm not interested in more life stress than I already have. Seriously, I'm not interested in getting killed for the sake of 5 minutes and even less so for a point of principle. 
My approach to the vehicle being overtaken would be a big factor - did I hang back, or spend the last 500 metres tailgating them with bad positioning? I am honest with myself on this one, I do not expect "the other cheek" if I've been hassling some poor sod with my nose cone
I take a point also, that speed is a numbers based offence, and that the magistrate will not give two hoots if the car in front had bad attitude or not. That is the way it is.
Morally, I just find it depressing that lowest common denominator driving forcers others into a 40 mph mindset...but that does not meant that I consider NSL or progress a victory. The only victory I find is in continuous improvement of my own skills...not a victory that appears to be on the agenda of current road safety policy
My approach to the vehicle being overtaken would be a big factor - did I hang back, or spend the last 500 metres tailgating them with bad positioning? I am honest with myself on this one, I do not expect "the other cheek" if I've been hassling some poor sod with my nose cone
I take a point also, that speed is a numbers based offence, and that the magistrate will not give two hoots if the car in front had bad attitude or not. That is the way it is.
Morally, I just find it depressing that lowest common denominator driving forcers others into a 40 mph mindset...but that does not meant that I consider NSL or progress a victory. The only victory I find is in continuous improvement of my own skills...not a victory that appears to be on the agenda of current road safety policy
thru5h said:
The only real situation I can see that jusitifies breaking a speed limit during an overtake is if the your space behind the lead vehicle has been closed and you have a rapidly oncoming unforeseen hazard.
The problem I have with this lies with drivers who, despite behaviour observed over several miles and a safe distance, increase their speed once they notice they are being overtaken. I have the pleasure of access to vehicles that acclerate quickly (motorcyle and car), so I make a point of not following closely as I have no "pressure" or "momemtum" to maintain for safe progress. Especially on the bike, most common accident is bashing the vehicle you're trying to pass, and I'm aware that biker stereotypes aren't good.
My observation does remain however, that some drivers gun it when you're along side. I plan for this, and believe it or not I plan a space for dropping back should I come across someone really up for a "race"
A couple of more points (things) - points is a bad word to use here : )
The car in front was behaving itself - calmly tootling along at a steady 50 throughout.
I kept well back (4 seconds behind - no need to be closer) until the time came to accelerate, in order to pass in as short a time as possible.
The straight was short-ish, but comfortably long enough.
I didn't want to dawdle past at just on or over the 60 limit, but instead get back to the LHS with as much clear road in front as possible.
Apart from actually breaking the limit, Isn't that what the textbooks say to do?
The car in front was behaving itself - calmly tootling along at a steady 50 throughout.
I kept well back (4 seconds behind - no need to be closer) until the time came to accelerate, in order to pass in as short a time as possible.
The straight was short-ish, but comfortably long enough.
I didn't want to dawdle past at just on or over the 60 limit, but instead get back to the LHS with as much clear road in front as possible.
Apart from actually breaking the limit, Isn't that what the textbooks say to do?
thru5h said:
The only real situation I can see that jusitifies breaking a speed limit during an overtake is if the your space behind the lead vehicle has been closed and you have a rapidly oncoming unforeseen hazard.
If the law was anything to do with safety it would encourage, as the HC does, or even require that overtakes be completed as quickly as possible.
But it is an ass, obsessed with numbers on sticks.
tulso said:
Apart from actually breaking the limit, Isn't that what the textbooks say to do?
I believe the HC actually states something like;
move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake. Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in
To me, that's WOT in the best gear possible to minimise time exposed on the incorrect side of the road. And if it means I pick up some points but avoid one nasty situation* in a driving career, it's an exchange I'm willing to make.
*yes, I'm aware that pre overtake observation and planning should eliminate all possibility of said nasty situation, but I never claim to be perfect, and would treat with suspicion anyone who does.
Tulso,
In reponse to your original post, sounds like you were to the letter of the HC, but the letter of the law is somewhat different, and you currently reside in the nasty gap in between. Would suggest that unless you have the funds and chutzpah to take this to a fairly high court, take the £60 plus points, and watch your estimation of the legal system drop a point or two.
Vonhosen, My interpretation of your response is that in a circumstance where the vehicle in front of you is significantly below NSL on an NSL road, you would NOT overtake, "just in case" the vehicle decided to accelerate up to NSL, thus preventing you from a safe overtake. If not, I apologise, as I have misinterpreted you. If so, you, sir, are an ass.
In reponse to your original post, sounds like you were to the letter of the HC, but the letter of the law is somewhat different, and you currently reside in the nasty gap in between. Would suggest that unless you have the funds and chutzpah to take this to a fairly high court, take the £60 plus points, and watch your estimation of the legal system drop a point or two.
Vonhosen, My interpretation of your response is that in a circumstance where the vehicle in front of you is significantly below NSL on an NSL road, you would NOT overtake, "just in case" the vehicle decided to accelerate up to NSL, thus preventing you from a safe overtake. If not, I apologise, as I have misinterpreted you. If so, you, sir, are an ass.
This subject was debated on the now-defunct Cumbria Silly Camera Pratnership forum some time ago.
The general consensus was that in terms of safety, the less time an overtaking vehicle spends on the 'wrong side of the road' the better and safer it is. However, the cash-cameras are not interested in this concept as it could interfere with their cash-collection and those who believe that absolute compliance with the law is sacrosanct would rather absolute compliance rather than increased safety and common sense.
VH advocates absolute compliance with the law and one might wonder if he/she applies this to all aspects of his/her life. For example, would he/she re-wire an electrical socket in his/her home in contravention of the new laws on electrical installations? Would he/she, if claiming tavelling expenses 'round up' a journey from, say, 57 miles to 60 miles? Has he/she ever 'thrown a sickie' and been paid for it? All those things are illegal.
How far does he/she take this absolute legal compliance? Are you some sort of would-be saint VH? I think your are probably a hypocrite, but that's a personal view, of course.
The general consensus was that in terms of safety, the less time an overtaking vehicle spends on the 'wrong side of the road' the better and safer it is. However, the cash-cameras are not interested in this concept as it could interfere with their cash-collection and those who believe that absolute compliance with the law is sacrosanct would rather absolute compliance rather than increased safety and common sense.
VH advocates absolute compliance with the law and one might wonder if he/she applies this to all aspects of his/her life. For example, would he/she re-wire an electrical socket in his/her home in contravention of the new laws on electrical installations? Would he/she, if claiming tavelling expenses 'round up' a journey from, say, 57 miles to 60 miles? Has he/she ever 'thrown a sickie' and been paid for it? All those things are illegal.
How far does he/she take this absolute legal compliance? Are you some sort of would-be saint VH? I think your are probably a hypocrite, but that's a personal view, of course.
If you were nabbed by a Scamera van then DEFINATELY ASK TO SEE THE EVIDENCE & the FULL VIDEO not just the sequence.
If it's an LTI unit they're operating then there is a very good chance you may have been pinged with something else in the viewfinder, like the other car. Lti's have a nasty habit of seeing refelected & refracted IR light & will give spurious readings all day long. The video will often show if the LTI was misaligned, another common problem giving way to all sorts of errors.
I have Dr Mike Clarke's contact details once you have the evidence (which they will be very very reluctant to give out) This was demostrated on the BBC's Inside Out Pragram and showed exactly this problem happening.
Pm me if you need a hand
If it's an LTI unit they're operating then there is a very good chance you may have been pinged with something else in the viewfinder, like the other car. Lti's have a nasty habit of seeing refelected & refracted IR light & will give spurious readings all day long. The video will often show if the LTI was misaligned, another common problem giving way to all sorts of errors.
I have Dr Mike Clarke's contact details once you have the evidence (which they will be very very reluctant to give out) This was demostrated on the BBC's Inside Out Pragram and showed exactly this problem happening.
Pm me if you need a hand
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff