Breaking the speed limit whilst overtaking

[nigelc]

Example occured yesterday: Following a car in lane 3 at 70mph overtaking several cars in lane 2 doing 60 ish. Lane 3 disappears in about 400 yards, car in front moves over after completing the overtake and slows down to 67 ish. Meanwhile the lead car in lane 2 has started to accelerate so there is no gap to move into. I booted it to get past before the lane ran out as there was nowhere to go other than barge into a small gap and brake because the car in front had slowed.

I had no intention of breaking the speed limit until circumstances changed but considered it the safest option at the time.

[GJD]

If you are on a motorway, overtaking someone who is slower but decides to speed up to the same speed as you- what do you do? Stay right next to the other one in the middle or outside lane? Hope not...
Slow down? That would be more dangerous then getting past the other one breaking the limit to get into the safer position of the inside lane.

Why do you say slowing down would be more dangerous? What's going on behind to make slowing dangerous? (I imagine slowing gently, not slamming on the anchors).

[swatchways]

If you are on a motorway, overtaking someone who is slower but decides to speed up to the same speed as you- what do you do? Stay right next to the other one in the middle or outside lane? Hope not...
Slow down? That would be more dangerous then getting past the other one breaking the limit to get into the safer position of the inside lane.

Um, I'm not quite sure I understand your last point. Why would it necessarily be more dangerous to slow down and slot back behind said vehicle that decided to speed up?

[gannet]

If you are on a motorway, overtaking someone who is slower but decides to speed up to the same speed as you- what do you do? Stay right next to the other one in the middle or outside lane? Hope not...
Slow down? That would be more dangerous then getting past the other one breaking the limit to get into the safer position of the inside lane.

Um, I'm not quite sure I understand your last point. Why would it necessarily be more dangerous to slow down and slot back behind said vehicle that decided to speed up?

Following cars in your lane won't be expecting you to slow down, they will be expecting you to complete the overtake...

[Gareth]

Um, I'm not quite sure I understand your last point. Why would it necessarily be more dangerous to slow down and slot back behind said vehicle that decided to speed up?

Following cars in your lane won't be expecting you to slow down, they will be expecting you to complete the overtake...

Easily mitigated by indicating left.

[Slink_Pink]

Example occured yesterday...I had no intention of breaking the speed limit until circumstances changed but considered it the safest option at the time.

+1
I think that it is reasonable to temporarily increase speed by up to 10% over a speedometer reading, against a posted limit. Use it, but don't abuse it. (This being subject to the usual caveats of being SAFE to do so)

[GJD]

Following cars in your lane won't be expecting you to slow down, they will be expecting you to complete the overtake...

That's true I suppose, but hardly a difficult thing to manage.

[jc2012]

.

[GJD]

Assuming you're not a lorry driver, is it really necessary to pull out to overtake a vehicle if the speed differential is slow small it's going to take half an hour to get past?

I think it was somewhere buried in this thread where I said that I don't find trying to discuss this sort of thing in terms of 'necessity' very easy or helpful. When I catch a slower vehicle, I don't know how I would evaluate whether overtaking it was necessary. I don't know how to think of overtaking in terms of necessity. Sometimes when I catch a slower vehicle I want to get past them, sometimes I am happy to slow and stay behind.

I think I'd put your point differently, and leave necessity out of it. I'd say that taking an age to get past a slower vehicle is generally a bad idea - from the point of view of safety and from the point of view of holding other people up behind you. So if you come up behind someone cruising slightly slower than you want to cruise, and you decide you want to overtake them, you should be prepared to exceed your cruising speed a bit to do it. If you're not prepared to do that, you should consider slowing and staying behind, even if you would have preferred to cruise a little faster.

[brianhaddon]

Assuming you're not a lorry driver, is it really necessary to pull out to overtake a vehicle if the speed differential is slow small it's going to take half an hour to get past?

'Necessary' is very subjective. To quote 7db's example (I think it was 7db qho has written it in a post - if not I apologise to the originator) if you are taking your pregnant wife to hospital to give birth overtakes, even exceeding limits may seem very necessary. If you are catching up time to catch a plane for a holiday of a lifetime maximum progress is necessary. And yes getting past the car even at snail like differentials is necessary to some. What is not necessary to one person is necessary to another - it is very subjective
Regards
Brian Haddon

[jc2012]

.

[TripleS]

Turned out to be quite a long debate this one...

However, in summary, the question was "are you allowed to exceed the speed limit when overtaking". The simple answer to this by popular consensus and supported by the law is "no, you're not".

It seems that in light of this, people's personal opinions place them in one of three categories on this topic:

1) Those who think the law is the law, and won't deliberately break the speed limit under any circumstances
2) Those who don't intend to break the speed limit but will do so if they get caught out and it's the safest way of correcting the situation
3) Those who set out with the willingness to exceed the speed limit where they judge its safe to do so

Perhaps 2 demonstrates the most rounded point of view and a sensible compromise. I tend to lie somewhere between 1 and 2. I agree whole heartedly with the principle of 1, but in reality, am human and through personal error may drift into category 2 on occasions.

I strongly believe that the opinion of those in category 3 is wholly unacceptable. Such people shouldn't consider themselves to be advanced drivers....

I don't.

Best wishes all,
Dave - a long term holder of a wholly unacceptable opinion.

[waremark]

I strongly believe that the opinion of those in category 3 is wholly unacceptable. Such people shouldn't consider themselves to be advanced drivers if they cannot yet accept the law and at least set out with the intention of obeying it. They fall short of the requirements even to pass the basic "L" test.

I suspect that may have put you in the minority camp of the posters on this thread. Why did you decide to reopen the debate?

[GJD]

They fall short of the requirements even to pass the basic "L" test.

That's nonsense. I don't remember anything in my 'L' test, RoSPA test or IAM test where I was assessed on my attitude to the law, only on my ability to adhere to the law should I choose to do so. The roads are full of drivers who have passed their basic 'L' test and constantly demonstrate their willingness to break all sorts of regulations.

[jont]

They fall short of the requirements even to pass the basic "L" test.

That's nonsense. I don't remember anything in my 'L' test, RoSPA test or IAM test where I was assessed on my attitude to the law, only on my ability to adhere to the law should I choose to do so. The roads are full of drivers who have passed their basic 'L' test and constantly demonstrate their willingness to break all sorts of regulations.

Although arguably their behaviour is one of the causes of ever more restrictions being introduced (as if those who are already behaving outside the law will pay any more attention to ever stricter laws )