Breaking the speed limit whilst overtaking

[jc2012]

<<original post removed by author>>

[Renny]

Lots of previous discussions on this

try [url=http://www.advanced-driving.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3832&start=105&hilit=overtaking
]here[/url], here, here

[driverpete]

Do we really need to debate this? The clue is in the word "Limit".

[dombooth]

I would have thought the answer to this question was pretty clear cut, but an article I stumbled upon on Yahoo answers suggests there's some debate over this:

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/in ... 552AAHow5x

What is the consensus of opinion amongst people on this forum?

No, no, no and no.

The law is the law and that's that.

Dom

[Gareth]

With insufficient speed differential then from a practical point of view it can be a trade-off between safety and legality.

[Horse]

Your first sentence sums the situation up perfectly; the answer is a clear cut 'no' and there's an end of it. Having said that, some years ago I did exactly that on a RoSPA re-test and retained my Gold.

On my IAM bike test the examiner overtook me. I had to do 55 in a 30 to catch up with him . . .

I passed

[fungus]

Whilst it is illegal to break a speed limit, I would not hesitate to if I'd misjudged an overtake. As Gareth said, " It can be a trade off between safety and legality.

[Kevin]

Of course it is illegal to break the speed limit while overtaking, but if you're in a 60 NSL following a car doing 50, your speed differential, if you keep within the limit, could prevent you from overtaking in what otherwise might be perfectly safe locations. There will be some that say, well don't overtake then if you can't stay 100% legal, but then we could end up with a long line of cars travelling at 50 (indicated, probably 46 -47 true speed) and this risks having frustrated drivers attempting unsafe overtakes.

I am prepared to travel at speeds above an indicated 60, briefly, for a safe overtaking opportunity. I know that my speedometer reads over the true speed. An indicated 70 is about 65 true speed in my car.

[jc2012]

.

[C7GRN]

As many has indicated the simple answer is no & like others here to get passed a vehicle who is toodling along at 50MPH in a NSL then if safe to do so then pass.... the less time you spend on the opposing carriageway the better. I would pass any driving test obeying the speed limits & as a couple have indicated

With insufficient speed differential then from a practical point of view it can be a trade-off between safety and legality.

But you can often be illegal and perfectly safe.

I am a little surprised by

On my IAM bike test the examiner overtook me. I had to do 55 in a 30 to catch up with him . . .

..... as constantly when we have 'Meet The Examiner' sessions with the IAM associates without fail they will say exceed the speed limit & its a fail*. I would hope that both Bike & Car examiners sing from the same hymn sheet & I know that some examiners have a a foot in both camps.

* they have also said if you exceed the speed limit by a little (eg 43 in a 40) then as long as you correct this as soon as then nothing said - if this persistently happens then you might be looking at a fail

[Gumby]

On my test, one of the first things the examiner said was if you need to go over the speed limit to safely overtake someone, then do it. If you don't, I will tell you to!

If it's safe and you can justify doing so, then do it. If you can't and you know there isn't a good reason for doing so, then don't.

[Standard Dave]

Overtaking isn't a defence in law to a speeding offence this is true. Unless you are doing so through a fixed camera site or with a camera van in sight what do you think the chances or your offence being detected and prosecuted.

As others have said for traffic flow and other safety reasons I've exceeded the posted limit to overtake both with and without exemption to the speed regulations.

[dth]

Whenever this subject comes up, I think there is often confusion between ensuring that safety is maintained during an overtake and making a positive decision to break the law in order to achieve safety. The first may become necessary if the planning element has not been carried out correctly and it may be that an examiner may take a relaxed attitude to it if the rest of the drive was competent and safe and this might have been the only issue as regards a decision to pass or fail. The latter is where the planning is based on a decision to break the law and that should always be a fail because the attitude is wrong whatever the driving skills.

There is also the mistaken idea, in my opinion, that drivers may have some sort of responsibility to inject safety into a road situation by taking it upon themselves to do something illegal to prompt that safety. I can see no basis of safety on making such decisions except in the most extreme of cases - and I can't think of one - and I don't see how such a decision could be supported in safety terms where a vehicle is travelling below the limit at any level. Doesn't the attitude of the responsible driver have to be that we have to deal safely and legally with the actions of other drivers whatever they may be?

[martine]

On my test, one of the first things the examiner said was if you need to go over the speed limit to safely overtake someone, then do it. If you don't, I will tell you to!

If it's safe and you can justify doing so, then do it. If you can't and you know there isn't a good reason for doing so, then don't.

I take it this was quite a while ago? I can't imagine any current IAM examiners saying this now.

[GJD]

Whenever this subject comes up, I think there is often confusion between ensuring that safety is maintained during an overtake and making a positive decision to break the law in order to achieve safety.

I think I see what you're saying. The first case is where I incorrectly judge that I can overtake safely within the speed limit, then part-way through realise that my judgement was wrong and that I do in fact need to break the limit to remain safe, while the second case is where I correctly judge that I can only overtake safely by exceeding the limit, and decide to proceed with the safe but illegal overtake. Is that right?

I think there's a third case too (and I suspect this might be what the examiners people have referred to are getting at). I think there are instances where, whilst it would not be unacceptably dangerous to stay within the speed limit during a particular overtake, safety during the overtake can be optimised (at the expense of legality) by temporarily exceeding the limit to get the overtake completed more quickly.