Safe Speed Forums

I can safely say that I have never seen a road safety advert geared towards advising safety in overtaking. This advert sounds extremely effective and useful - you may well be 'showing your age', but perhaps it would be for the best if the advert makers could show their age a bit more often too!

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

The assumption here is we believe the the guy who was overtaken may have objected to the maneouvre you pulled off, or thought it a needless waste of time, or whatever and would take pleasure in seeing you failing to gain any real benefit from it.
This is an oddly anal mentality that we Brits seem to excel at, and in my experience leads to silly altercations over, well nothing really. I once found myself hammering along the Fosse Way at well over a ton because the driver I overtook decided to 'teach me lesson' and overtake back. He finally did it at a T-Junction (he simply didn't stop and just flew by presumably praying that nothing was coming). He clearly didn't wan't to drive at anything like that speed:

a. Because he was tootling along merrily when I first encountered him
b. I later caught him up again some mile down the road.

By this time I'd come to my senses and decided to stop at a Little Thief for a coffee. What a dickhead I was

Rest assured I'm far more philosophical now!

Precisely. Overtaking results in additional risk, 'safe' or otherwise. Driver behaviour plays an important part and cannot be discarded. This makes it difficult to argue for 'safe overtaking' unless we can show beyond doubt that the alternative (forcing a no-overtake culture) is worse. The Swedish solution of putting up a physical barrier down the middle of single carriageways clearly acknowledges that there would be a problem if the barrier were not there. But it would never catch on here - it costs real money whilst the 'savings' resulting from fewer accidents exist mostly on paper.

A.D.

_________________
DO NOT PANIC

My one and only speeding conviction was obtained while overtaking.

OK, it was 47 in a 30, but I had been following a ludicrously slow numpty for some time and decided to take advantage of a wide, straight stretch of road to pass him. Unfortunately there was a copper with a radar gun there - presumably because local residents had been complaining about speeding traffic.

Looking at the location 23 years later it does seem distinctly marginal, but on the other hand I remember the driver I overtook as having been really slow.

Incidentally, this conviction was gained while driving a Morris Marina - I thought of writing to BL to ask for a medal

Regards,

Peter

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Taking a strictly cost/benefit approach, it's probably hard to dispute that the time savings obtained from overtaking don't justify the additional risk involved by doing it. How many of the annual road fatalities result from overtaking accidents?

But if it were to be banned entirely, there would need to be a completely different code of etiquette about slower vehicles moving over. (I think this is anathema, but taking a wholly rational approach there's a case for it)

The Irish are planning to convert many of their major single-carriageway highways to an alternating 2+1 lanes configuration, with a central barrier. Perhaps on comparable British roads this could both improve safety and average journey times, given that overtaking is often impossible due to traffic volume?

Regards,

Peter

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Oh no it needn't. I spend my life overtaking specifically to reduce risk. Being tailgated? I'm gone. Bunch of traffic? I'm past and driving in a nice big space.

My overtaking is usually designed to get well away from other vehicles, and I'm quite certain that the net risk is considerably reduced.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Having started this debate because I may have been snapped exceeding the speed limit whilst overtaking, by a copper hiding with his gun on a 2 miles straight section of 60mph road in N Wales.

I can agree with those who claim overtaking is a greater risk than not overtaking however that would suggest that a better method of accident reduction than just fining drivers would be to make better use of central white lines.
I have dealt with many accidents involving overtaking drivers being suprised by other road users emerging from righthand driveways.

I overtook where there were no side exits into farms or lanes that I didn't have clear vision of,

but once I'd returned to the correct side of the road and started to reduce my speed because of A. farm entrances B. copper hiding in entrance with his gun,
there was no change in the broken central line.

If N Wales police wish to do anything positive for road safety at Cerrigydrudion then they should consider the cost of an unskilled labourer painting an unbroken central line near to the farm exits as a more permanent and probably more effective road safety measure than an expensive police officer doing the occasional visit.

But then it might be the revenue that's more important than road safety?

Not just Brit thing nor even just present day!

That old and early Steve Spielberg film with Dennis Weaver as the hapless rep plagued by the trucky from hell! Remeber he chortled and rejoiced when he passed the trucky - and then the dual between them started. Still classic stuff!

Trouble is - numpty brigade never read useful books like "Roadcraft", and courtesy does seem to be going out of fashion. Driving a car is simply means of getting from A to B safely - and is not meant to be F1 race with other road users.

If someone wishes to overtake me - I let them whether working or private- and was always the case if I happened to be tootling up the motorway at sedate 50mph in marked and unmarked cars! (Only went for twazaks - honest!)

You just keep look out in mirrors, allow distance to let them in once they overtake you and realise you are likely to be overtaken when you are decelerating to enter lower speed limit zone or whenyou are about to leave the lower speed limit area.

And of course there are the golden rules -

be sure it is safe, avoid annoying the other driver, be able to abort for hazard, be aware of all potential hazards etc etc etc - it is all in HC and Road/Fleetcraft.

Agreed, individuals can overtake safely and arguably by doing it even reduce other risks associated with being in a convoy of traffic for example. However not everybody is capable of being 100% on the ball 100% of the time and mistakes surely will be made. And what about the severity of accidents? A head-on/side-on collision or a rear-end shunt, I know which one I would prefer (unless there's a lorry behind me!!).

It is also worth mentioning that down here in overcrowded south-east of England one rarely succeeds in getting away from other vehicles by overtaking them.

The point I was making is that although it seems unfair to punish an individual who overtakes safely and responsibly, it could be that discouraging the general public from overtaking on average reduces fatalities and if so it would be hard to argue against such a policy. Saying that I doubt that this is in reality the rationale behind catching motorists out on long wide straights. What about Sweden and Ireland, were the decisions to erect barriers based on research or just 'a hunch'..
A.D.

_________________
DO NOT PANIC

I have been Reliably Informed that 'Overtaking Is No Defence To Excess Speed' You MUST Stay within in the Speed Limit at all times

Going by the letter of the law, yes.
But this is a prime example of where the letter of the law is in direct conflict with the spirit of the law - by which speed limits exist to make things safer. Limiting overtaking speed does not make things safer.

Regards
Peter

Same here in the W Midlands, doesn't stop the terminally impatient from trying though

Have been involved in two near misses whilst turning right off the A41, both involved some 'got to overtake' clown using the ghost island and filter lane in which I was sitting, to overtake. Not a nice feeling sitting helplessly in a filter, indicator going, watching somebody hurtling towards you in a suicidal attempt to get 12 ft further up the road at the next set of lights

Morons, only word for 'em.

Course - when you pull them over for this (And we do in our patch because we do not rely too much on PC Gatso!) - they get all huffy, defensive and aggressive - especially when you point out to them the dangers, the daftness of the manoeuvre.

Must admit - there is certain satisfaction is seeing these numpties squirm, and even more pleasure can be derived when you tell them of intention to prosecute

Derick is quite correct. You should weigh up the odds - if car in front is driving at speed limit - then you really do not need to overtake as this will bring you into conflict with the law.

You should also check for side streets, bridges, motorway junctions as there is good chance we will be larking about in one of them, and - of course - you should be looking far enough ahead for signs of strange vans, yellow scameras and speed limit signs! Then of course - you should look at the pavements - for those children and other hazards that just spring up suddenly and from nowhere! That is why we have speed limits! (And why there is section of HC for pedestrians to follow - hint - Mary and other lurks! )

We will get you speedy people for this - no fear!

PC Gatso will not be swayed by your overtaking a cyclist - even if the cyclist is pedalling furiously above the speed limit! Ideally,you should really hold back, even pull over to give him time and space to clear from you. In reality - you do not, because that seems illogical to you. That is basic difference between a real cop and a robot. A real cop may use discretion on safe overspeed to get past a cyclist - robot does not! Much depends on danger, amount of excess speed and length of the overtake. Blips and intelligent driving is one thing. Stupid behaviour is another!

We may even pull the cyclist for speeding - done that before now Long story - and he gobbed on me, tried to kick me in sensitive place too - which was not one of his better ideas! I arranged little night in cells!

Also,I was lead to believe that the only way to stay within the Legal speed Limit when overtaking is when the Vehicle you're passing is not going more than 45m.p.h (Not too Hot on Equations, I think that was right)

In other words, defiance and arrogance, defining attitudes of our time; whatever happened to humility, e.g "yes, you're right of course, I was behaving like a fool".
I find it remarkable, even frightening, that there is a cadre of drivers out there who won't accept that the crassly stupid maneouvre they just attempted/pulled off was, well inherently dangerous. Even when it is a police officer telling them as much
IMHO these people fall into the category of 'not temperamentaly suited to hold a driving licence', yet are the examples so often trotted out by the anti-car brigade when pointing to the need for scameras....aargghhh

Of course you should weigh up the odds, and never overtake unless it's safe to do so.
Besides, my point was that the law is sometimes in conflict with itself. And, in a contest between the letter and spirit of the law, the former always seems to win.

But:

1) It's generally the safer option to get up as much speed as you can while overtaking. Do you really want to spend more time on the wrong side of the road next to an artic doing 50 than you absolutely have to?

2) What about situations one often encounters where you're stuck behind someone doing 40 for miles, and then, as soon as you get to the only stretch along the whole road where it's safe to overtake, he speeds up to 55? Here, he was driving like a prat, not making sufficient progress and creating a hazardous situation, but you get done for safely passing him.

3) While you're overtaking, is it really such a good idea to be looking at your speedo?



Haven't you got your priorities wrong? Shouldn't one first and foremost be scanning for children and other real hazards? Too many people spend too much time scanning for scameras and things, and not enough time scanning for real hazards.

Regards
Peter

This family of petrolheads keep telling me to chill out, that law is ass and life is a bitch! I try to enforce the law with some common-sense - but that is difference between me and a robot!

But using judgement is a close call - and it boils down to experience and judgement of each individual circumstance. After all- am employed to enforce the law (and admit - I do not always agree with it!)



Ah! But if artic. truck is doing 50mph in a 50mph zone - do you really need to overtake it? If the overtake will take you above speed limit and perhaps in danger of getting pinged with no discretion and quite arbitrarily and by chance by a Prolaser3 a mile away -I would think twice! (This could show how dangerous to drivers (and perhaps safety) the Prolaser3 is likely to be! )



40 mph in the NSL? Or on twisty NSL which he is taking at steady pace?

Bite your tongue and wait till you get to the 70-mph stretch. (if it exists - but unlikely in Wales and Lancs from what I hear from asking the family!) Count your blessings that he decided to go a bit faster on the nice safe straight.




No! Feel the speed!



Well done! Deliberately posted in that way to show how absurd the scamera situation is getting. This does indeed to appear what is happening in certain areas and could even be reason why RTA rate is not reducing as significantly as it should.

Heck - even heard one bloke in a pub in Wales actually say he looked for Arrive Alive vans and scams before anything else because he needed clean licence for work!

That is why our patch is holding out!

Though we have combined armed cops, dog cops and load of other cops into one big trafpol unit! We want to give value for money!

And we do lark around with lasers and mobile traps - just the same as the others do!

You don't get aways with it!

If it is doing - at best - 50 mph in a 60 mph zone, and much less on the twisty bits, then I certainly will overtake it, if safe to do so. And if that involves doing 80 mph for a short while, then so be it. In a sub-100 bhp car, that requires a close acquaintance with the red line

Yes, the police could use it to get half the driving population banned within a year.

Would that be a good thing, do you think?

Regards,

Peter

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

No argument with you there, but you do get some BiBs who regard common sense as a foreign concept.



I didn't say it was a 50 zone, in fact I strongly implied that it was NSL.




Again, I strongly implied that he was going too slowly, and not that it was a very twisty bit where 40 would be reasonable. "Insufficient progress" is what I said.
Many NSL roads in the west have become 'no passing' zones in the last few years because of miles and miles of double white lines for no good reason, and dual sections nowhere to be seen.

Regards
Peter