crr003 wrote:vonhosen wrote:ie I have sufficient vision to ("can") see there are no junctions there so it's safe (a positive view of your vision), rather than I "can't" see a junction so it's safe (a negative view).
.......
If you can't see there isn't a junction (there are places for one to be hidden), hold back & wait for a better opportunity where you can see there isn't one.
Would you factor in some kind or probability to a vehicle being present, or 100% decide not to overtake; say you can see an open field gate set back in a hedge row. No activity in the field you can see; no mud on the road to indicate the field's being used. Would you teach to not overtake?
If you could see the gate was closed, would you teach to overtake?
If you can see nothing is there fine, if you can't say it isn't there, wait.
Just as you are at greatest danger from the vehicle towards you haven't seen, so it is with the junction you haven't seen or haven't had sufficient vision into.
When you do an overtake towards a loss of vision you should anticipate a quick quick vehicle towards in your planning. If you see a junction but don't have sufficient depth of vision to see it's clear you should expect the vehicle is there, will pull out & won't look for you.
The fact a junction is seen doesn't mean that an overtake is automatically not on. It's can you do the overtake safely if that unknown happens. If you've sufficient time & space to do it all without the junction or anything in it becoming a problem, then it's fine.
Missing some overtakes you could have done, is preferable to doing one you shouldn't have. You have to live first in order to fight another day.
I am cautious where dense vegetation close to the roadway & poor lateral vision are concerned. So many concealed entrances out there & just one mistake can be enough for tragedy.