ADUK Archive

I always leave a 2 second gap, I'm not sure I'd say it was too close, other than in wet or otherwise treacherous conditions. However, they do say the two second gap is the minimum, so obviously leaving a bigger gap is safer still!

Sru_1980 wrote:I always leave a 2 second gap, I'm not sure I'd say it was too close, other than in wet or otherwise treacherous conditions.

When following other vehicles who are in the same conditions, does extending the gap actually make any difference as they has the same conditions to stop in

Obviously, it will take longer to stop for stationary, or near stationary, objects when grip is reduced.

ROG wrote:

Sru_1980 wrote:I always leave a 2 second gap, I'm not sure I'd say it was too close, other than in wet or otherwise treacherous conditions.

When following other vehicles who are in the same conditions, does extending the gap actually make any difference as they has the same conditions to stop in

Obviously, it will take longer to stop for stationary, or near stationary, objects when grip is reduced.

Unless they stop dead in a multi car pile up, i would say if you can't stop the car safley without needing to slam the anchors on your too close.

Hello people,

Ive been lurking for a while now but this is my first post.

Really its a quick question ive just watched the clip of the Saab overtaking, and towards the end of the clip he overtakes the car that pulls out in front of him. While completing this overtake he crosses into the chevron area. I can see the line around the chevron area is broken so my understanding is he can enter the area if it is necessary and it is safe to do so.

My question is, is over taking considered to be a necessary action therefore allowing him to enter the chevron area?

Sorry this is a bit of topic.

Thanks Kris.

fungus wrote:I think two seconds is too close, and like JB, I prefer a three to four second gap. There are obvious advantages to the larger gap. Firstly it affords a much better forward view, allowing more time to react to developing situations.

Secondly you can plan overtakes better, as you can see the gap oppening up where you can move offside for that final view before committing to the overtake.

See http:/www.youtube.com/watch?=KRrAdlDt5Tk

Note the car following the LGV is not able to get a forward view, and can't even move slightly off side. Of course if you have a powerfull car it is much easier. But if you don't have the power, should you be attempting the overtake anyway?

Nigel ADI
IAM trainee observer

You shouldn't be attempting overtakes that are not on, whatever the reason - lack of acceleration capacity - or whatever. I was merely pointing out that hanging a long way back does create added difficulties for the drivers of low powered cars, which may offset the benefits of the enhanced forward view.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Fully agree Dave. Overtaking is more difficult in a low powered car, and opportunities nowadays are few and far between, especialy as so many drivers follow too close, effectively creating one long vehicle to pass.

Nigel ADI
IAM trainee observer

oxtondriver wrote:Hello people,

Ive been lurking for a while now but this is my first post.

Really its a quick question ive just watched the clip of the Saab overtaking, and towards the end of the clip he overtakes the car that pulls out in front of him. While completing this overtake he crosses into the chevron area. I can see the line around the chevron area is broken so my understanding is he can enter the area if it is necessary and it is safe to do so.

My question is, is over taking considered to be a necessary action therefore allowing him to enter the chevron area?

Sorry this is a bit of topic.

Thanks Kris.

The justification would be that entering that area is necessary in order to overtake, this being safe legal and convenient at the time.

I don't take the view that the overtake itself has to be 'necessary' in the sense of being imperative; this would seldom be the case.

oxtondriver wrote:Hello people,

Ive been lurking for a while now but this is my first post.

Really its a quick question ive just watched the clip of the Saab overtaking, and towards the end of the clip he overtakes the car that pulls out in front of him. While completing this overtake he crosses into the chevron area. I can see the line around the chevron area is broken so my understanding is he can enter the area if it is necessary and it is safe to do so.

My question is, is over taking considered to be a necessary action therefore allowing him to enter the chevron area?

Sorry this is a bit of topic.

Thanks Kris.

I saw nothing wrong with that overtake. The immediate threat is that the red car would be using both the lane one and the ghost lane to turn right (and by implication have a claim on the oncoming lane) so he might have had to stop prior to it, had it got itself into difficulty. However, that was quite a long way off, and seemed ok to me. He could have pulled in a lot sooner in front of target vehicle had it been necessary.

On necessity - it's not what it used to be. Essentially there's no line offence available for those sort of chevrons (nor indeed had they had solid borders) -- simply a question of careful and considerate driving.

Had he caused an oncomer to change course or speed by being there, then that owuld be a different matter, but I saw nothing illegal or indeed unsafe with that maneouvre.

The driver of the white car, however, may have labelled him a dangerous nutter.

There has been quite a bit of talk about a ghost lane.

What does this phrase refer to?

Nigel

Thanks for the replies.

It all seems to be a lot clearer now. There have been many a time when the overtake has been on for me but ive decided not to go for it, because in doing so would of meant moving over into the chevron area.

I always thought overtaking would not be classed as a nesassery reason to enter the chevroned area so I have never done it.

I now feel if it is safe and convenient to overtake using the chevron area then im going to take advantage of it.

Thanks
Kris.

oxtondriver wrote:I always thought overtaking would not be classed as a nesassery reason to enter the chevroned area so I have never done it.

You may well have been correct. The word necessary doesn't appear in the regulations. It is something added by whoever writes the HC and it isn't clear what they are getting at. I presume it is nothing more than discouragement.

I do however agree with zadocbrown that 'necessary' should be taken to relate to the effective execution of a chosen manouevre rather than the choice of manouevre. In principle I can't see the difference between entering such an area to pass stationary vehicles and overtaking moving ones.

adiNigel wrote:There has been quite a bit of talk about a ghost lane.

What does this phrase refer to?

Nigel

It's used to refer to the right-turn lane marked out in the centre of the road

oxtondriver wrote:I now feel if it is safe and convenient to overtake using the chevron area then im going to take advantage of it.

Thanks
Kris.

Kris - beware. Take into account the views of the overtaken motorist as well when undertaking this sort of manoeuvre. Whilst it might be safe and legal, that's sadly not always enough not to get people's backs up (and the consequentials). If you judge those not to be an issue, then by all means go for it. Do have a read of the prison blog thread if you need any sobering thoughts about the statements of overtakees.

adiNigel wrote:There has been quite a bit of talk about a [color=red]ghost lane[/color

My misuse - sorry.

Ghost islands are the chevroned sections fore and aft of a turn right refuge. You could imagine that this refuge could equally be protected by physical islands and keep left signs. Instead the ghost of these remain.

I've rather sloppily termed that whole lane - fore and aft ghost islands and the right turn as the ghost lane.

I have also heard them described as up-ladder and down-ladder, with the further simplification that you can enter the down-ladder freely (which follows the refuge) but not the up-ladder.

7db wrote:On necessity - it's not what it used to be. Essentially there's no line offence available for those sort of chevrons (nor indeed had they had solid borders) -- simply a question of careful and considerate driving.

7db, about the solid borders. Are you saying there is no problem entering those? HC rule 130 expressly forbids it unless it is an emergency. Or maybe I am reading you wrong.

Thanks, never heard of either terminology before.

Nigel