Overtaking with approaching junctions

[Lady Godiva]

As an aside, I think you need 6s and about 160M to overtake a car doing 40, if you're doing 60. If the target's doing 50 that increases to 12s and 320M. To meet stressed_dave's criteria, that means the junction needs to be either 320 or 640M away.

This is my concern really. Assuming that the vehicle is doing 50mph, and I want to do a lawful 60mph overtake (PLEASE don't get into that debate again, I BEG you) then the junction or driveway or field exit etc has to be 640 metres away. That is 0.4 of a mile.

I sometimes wonder if everyone knows what 0.4 mile looks like. It is interesting to get some idea by driving it and noting the mileage, then saying "I wouldn't overtake a car doing 50 if there was a junction within that distance". It is a considerable distance. If you say the words to someone else it brings it home. If you said "if I'm overtaking and I saw a junction just less than 1/2 a mile away I would not overtake" it doesn't sound right somehow. I know that it IS right. It just doesn't seem it.

Can I emphasise that I am not saying the drivers on here wouldn't do the correct thing, it's just that for me the actual practice is harder than the theory. I'm wondering if everyone who says they definitely wouldn't overtake, would if they were physically out there with nearly 1/2 mile of road in front of them.

Try it and see. It's one heck of a long way.

Regards
Sally

P.S. I'm only voicing my thoughts, to hep me get a clear understanding of what I'm trying to learn. I appreciate everyone's comments, and I am NOT suggesting anyone isn't driving to the highest standards. I only ever criticise me, no-one else.

[Roadcraft]

Genuine question though: Could it be that my alternative technique works well for me because I weigh up situations pretty quickly and accurately through experience and practice?

Absolutely....and you can do that because you know your limitations and have covered enough miles and circumstances to answer the 'what ifs' extremely quickly...

The 'professional' way of overtaking which I describe...(and I hate to use the word professional..but I will)...takes some practice to fully appreciate...and is very alien to drivers at first...and for a long time afterwards...

[rlmr]

If it's a "I think I can make it safely" then the overtake is NOT on.
If in doubt hold back.

Far better to be a few minutes late in this world rather than a few years early in the next

[TripleS]

.

[MikeG]

The 'professional' way of overtaking which I describe...(and I hate to use the word professional..but I will)...takes some practice to fully appreciate...and is very alien to drivers at first...and for a long time afterwards...

Very true. Having driven a fair few miles with Safety......sorry Roadcraft and had this demonstrated and then talked through the manoeuver I use the technique all the time now. So far I have'nt seen any other drivers employing this method while out and about.
Some of the overtakes I have witnessed lately make me cringe, approaching the brow of a hill, hidden dips in the road and today crossing double whites. So far they have gotten away with it but one day I fear the worst.
As Roadcraft mentioned the procedure needs to be practiced and preferably
demonstrated by someone skilled in the 'art' rather than attempting to try it having just read about it. IMHO.

Mike

[TripleS]

.

[crr003]

This is my concern really. Assuming that the vehicle is doing 50mph, and I want to do a lawful 60mph overtake (PLEASE don't get into that debate again, I BEG you) then the junction or driveway or field exit etc has to be 640 metres away. That is 0.4 of a mile.

I sometimes wonder if everyone knows what 0.4 mile looks like. It is interesting to get some idea by driving it and noting the mileage, then saying "I wouldn't overtake a car doing 50 if there was a junction within that distance". It is a considerable distance. If you say the words to someone else it brings it home. If you said "if I'm overtaking and I saw a junction just less than 1/2 a mile away I would not overtake" it doesn't sound right somehow. I know that it IS right. It just doesn't seem it.

First - I'm not 100% sure of the figures, but you can get some idea by looking at the distance using marker posts on a motorway - the little white/blue plastic posts are every 100M.

Another interesting thing to do is overtake a lorry in lane 1 going flat out at 56mph and you go past at 66mph and see how long/far it takes.

[TripleS]

.

[vonhosen]

After moving into the overtaking position (i.e. closer than normal and over the central line) you take a good long look forward. In the distance you now see that there is a junction (lets assume that it wasn't visible before due t o road layout). For the purpose of this example you cannot see along the road forming the junction, so you don't know if another vehicle will be at the junction by the time you get there. There is nothing there yet, but who knows, and you would reach the junction before fully pulling back in (an overtake on an NSL can take longer than many drivers realise).

Sally...

This is why proper overtaking procedures should be learned and practised....

ie: an 'overtaking position' for me in those circumstances would be in the opposite lane...looking down the road....neither gaining nor dropping back on the vehicle I intended to pass....But allowing me a proper view of the road ahead, (nearside and offside)....

and of course my wheels would be pointing in the right direction when I decided to apply power...

Well of course I would take that last point more seriously if I had any power to apply! <big sigh from a driver of a clapped out 406>

Never mind though, some very useful reminders have emerged above about how keep out of trouble when overtaking, though as usual there can always be some new little quirk to look out for and add to our defence mechanisms. This is what is so nice about these forums - we can help each other quite a bit without having to find everything out the hard way.

I know the recommended technique is to match speed at the contact position, go offside, have a good look and then start to accelerate positively, but I must admit I don't usually do that quite so formally. When I've seen this demonstrated it seems to take about three weeks* to have a look and decide it's on, and I just don't feel to have that time available, the chance would be gone even if it was a goer to start with.

What I often do is weigh up the situation as I close on the target vehicle, constantly updating the plan as I approach, and then if everything looks OK at decision time I go straight past without matching speed - I retain and exploit my speed advantage.

Now I know I may get criticised for this method, but I think there is a legitimate use for my flying start techinique if applied with caution, and I feel it enables me to do safe overtakes that would not otherwise be feasible.

It has been pointed out to me that one of the dangers of my flying start (or slingshot) technique is that I am closing on the target vehicle at a time when he may be going into a hazard situation - so what happens if he needs to brake suddenly? That is a very fair point, which is why I say the technique needs to be used with caution, so you need to be wary and have no large speed differential when you get close to the target vehicle. Once again it's a matter of balance, and having time and space to make adjustments in the light of what may reasonably be expected to happen.

* slight exaggeration there.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Dave

I do similar in some circumstances.
I explain overtakes as mostly boiling down to two types.

The "Classic overtake" & the "Momentum overtake".

You are describing the "Momentum overtake" & it really is only an extension of what you do when passing a stationary vehicle. You don't match speed you are always traveling quicker than it, observant & vigilant on approach & ready to match speed should you spot danger or concern on your approach (just as you would stop behind the stationary vehicle if one came towards).

With the "Classic overtake" that immeadiacy of overtake isn't an option & we have to match speed first whilst we wait for the safe opportunity.

[Lady Godiva]

What I often do is weigh up the situation as I close on the target vehicle, constantly updating the plan as I approach, and then if everything looks OK at decision time I go straight past without matching speed - I retain and exploit my speed advantage.

Now I know I may get criticised for this method, but I think there is a legitimate use for my flying start techinique if applied with caution, and I feel it enables me to do safe overtakes that would not otherwise be feasible.

It has been pointed out to me that one of the dangers of my flying start (or slingshot) technique is that I am closing on the target vehicle at a time when he may be going into a hazard situation - so what happens if he needs to brake suddenly? That is a very fair point, which is why I say the technique needs to be used with caution, so you need to be wary and have no large speed differential when you get close to the target vehicle. Once again it's a matter of balance, and having time and space to make adjustments in the light of what may reasonably be expected to happen.

* slight exaggeration there.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Dear Triple - if I remember correctly, your method is discussed and allowed in Roadcraft. For some reason, only the second method (matching speed0 is mentioned in the IAM 'pass your advanced test' book.

However (and this is a very big however) the 'slingshot' method is discussed as a method on the understanding that it is not done due to lack of power. In other words it is a conscious decision based on the correct method at the correct time, rather than being the only way to get an underpowered car past another.

I'm not suggesting you do it for this reason, I'm just highlighting it on here as an interesting adjunct. By the way, what did you think about my question above. Do you think most drivers would genuinely abort with the junction just less than 1/2 mile away, or are we kidding ourselves, and most of us would do it, rationalsing that it was safe?

Regards
Sally

[waremark]

I think that most would decide not to attempt to overtake a vehicle travelling at 50 unless they were willing to accelerate to a higher speed than 60 in order to complete the overtake safely. The exception to this might be if they could see it to be clear for 'one heck of a long way'!

However, unlike Stressed Dave I might be prepared to use more than half the distance to the junction to complete the overtake, on the basis that even if a Bugatti appeared at the junction mouth he still could not cover as much distance towards me as I would towards him starting at 60.

[Gareth]

unlike Stressed Dave I might be prepared to use more than half the distance to the junction to complete the overtake, on the basis that even if a Bugatti appeared at the junction mouth he still could not cover as much distance towards me as I would towards him starting at 60.

That is a very good point, since the half the distance rule of thumb is most applicable when planning an overtake before a hazard from which there could be an on-coming vehicle already travelling at a similar speed.

I often think that half the distance is overly optimistic, and a better guide would be to consider how much space there would be if a fast motorbike was approaching.

[7db]

To balance Gareth, I think "half the distance" is pessimistic.

In any position you generate options, and these are often mis-evaluated (I happen to know from financial options) -- ie the world looks slightly different when you are out there and something either happens or doesn't. Should you go for the overtake, and another car does not immediately hove into view, appear at junction, etc then the "half the distance remaining" starts running with you (like Zeno's tortoise) until it does.

All we are saying here is that for a single track road (which is what you are creating by going out to the offside) the limiting point is halfway to the nearest point from which a surprise can emerge.

Pessimism is a good survival trait in drivers.

[TripleS]

Dear Triple - if I remember correctly, your method is discussed and allowed in Roadcraft. For some reason, only the second method (matching speed) is mentioned in the IAM 'pass your advanced test' book.

However (and this is a very big however) the 'slingshot' method is discussed as a method on the understanding that it is not done due to lack of power. In other words it is a conscious decision based on the correct method at the correct time, rather than being the only way to get an underpowered car past another.

I'm not suggesting you do it for this reason, I'm just highlighting it on here as an interesting adjunct. By the way, what did you think about my question above. Do you think most drivers would genuinely abort with the junction just less than 1/2 mile away, or are we kidding ourselves, and most of us would do it, rationalising that it was safe?

Regards
Sally

Hello Sally,

I will read again what "Roadcraft" says about overtaking, but at the moment I don't see what is wrong with using my 'slingshot' technique to aid overtaking with a low powered car. Surely the key factor is ensuring that we apply the technique safely, the reason for doing it seems largely irrelevant to me at the moment, but I'm open to other explanations on the subject.

With regard to your other question, what Stressed Dave said will sound a bit on the conservative side to many people. That is not to suggest that he is wrong, but I feel sure most drivers would not restrict themselves to that extent. With the junction half a mile away most normal drivers, and perhaps some advanced ones, would overtake without hesitation. It largely depends on how much of the side road (for example) you can see, and thus be able to satisfy yourself that nobody is likely to emerge from it. I'm not trying to dodge the question, but situations vary so much and each case must be judged separately.

The best general rule - 'if in doubt, don't' - still seems to be the best in relation to overtaking.

There have been times when I've looked at an overtake and decided not to go, and then somebody from behind goes past me and the one in front! My mistake? Maybe so, but not one I worry about these days. I would rather miss a few than get one badly wrong.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Gareth]

To balance Gareth, I think "half the distance" is pessimistic.

[...]

Pessimism is a good survival trait in drivers.

Maybe I didn't put what I think very lucidly. My feeling is that relying on half the distance is taking a risk, because it doesn't work well if an oncoming vehicle is travelling at a substantially higher speed, and so a greater margin of safety would probably be a good idea.

On the other hand, if you're the fastest thing out there, ...