Overtaking with approaching junctions

[waremark]

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, ...

Sorry if I seem to have changed to the other side of the fence here. I normally say that you should expect to be able to return to your side of the road without cutting in on the overtaken vehicle in one third of the distance you can see will be clear - one third for you, one third for the guy towards you at the same speed, and one third for safety margin. It is this one third which I would adjust to take into account the possible vehicle from the 'closed' junction starting from rest.

[7db]

This could never end...

One could argue it should be even lower than a third...what happens if the target speeds up just as you draw level and a fast fleet of motorbikes rounds the corner?

And the bike behind you also committed to the overtake with you?

Don't forget the side-road - where a logging lorry is about to roll out across the entire road to the detriment of everyone. Can you still stop in the distance which is clear?

Argh!

Maybe the only thing that makes any overtakes possible at all is making sure that the point of commitment is as late as possible and slipping back in is as early as polite.

[crr003]

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.

Roadcraft Page 127 1997 ed.
Banana/slingshot is for "overtaking in the absence of other hazards" (not counting the vehicle you are planning to overtake).
What I would do on a DC or motorway. Or SC with excellent view and no discernable hazards.
Everthing else is three stage/triangle approach.
But then that's quite prescriptive eh?

[TripleS]

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.

What happens if the car you are closing on from behind suddenly jams the brakes on while you haven't moved out to the offside Suddenly having restricted space and having to get out of the gas and onto the brakes can result in a nasty equation to be solved. 'Momentum' overtakes (I prefer the term 'banana' myself ) are far more comfortable if there isn't a vehicle in front of you and being on the other side of the centre line means you can use all the paltry power of the car in a straight line rather than having to deal with a lane change while accelerating.

It has the side effect that if you come into a lottery win and buy a Porsche, the same technique will serve just as well.

Well I've always said that the slingshot technique needs to be used carefully, if at all. You are right, things could get unpleasant if you are not taking sufficient care over it.

I don't understand the bit about 'if there isn't a car in front of you' - in that case we're not needing to overtake, are we? As for applying power and accelerating while changing lanes, I don't find the lane changes sudden enough to cause any trouble.

I'll worry about the problems of coping with a Porsche when I've won the lottery, but in view of the fact that I don't buy lottery tickets that is not an immediate prospect.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[James]

Hi everyone, back from Honeymoon.

Just a quick entry on this one, I have been reading alot of your comments about one should allow "X" yards/metres or one should have a third of this or a half of that from the target vehicle and next hazard. I understand the logic, BUT, for two reasons this sort of maths NEVER enters my thought process when overtaking.

1)To try and evaluate the target vehicle, junctions, road and then analyse whether the distance in front of the car equates to "X" metres e.t.c. in my opinion takes far too much time which delays and may be a factor in aborting the O/T in the first place. I trust my subconcious judgement of speed, distance and hazard perception, and when in the contact position (behind the car ready to move out) or the overtake position ( on the offside having moved out, looking to confirm the O/T), make a calculated swift decision based on what I can see. If I take the time to compare sections of road length between things in too much detail, or as a fraction of each other, then I have already taken up time, time that may have been better spent getting on with the overtake if it was on.

2) If you rely on relative distances between vehicles and junctions remaining constant during the O/T, problems may occur. The "Human Aspects" part comes in here. Many people, I find, like to start speeding up to impede my O/T. Some will speed up for other reasons for example they just felt like it. It does happen, ,maybe rarely, but this will affect any O/T. Also some drivers will see you in bad light once you have overtaken them. They will not understand the thought process and may view you as impatient or dangerous. You are then left with someone driving behind you with Red Mist, which may alter their positioning, speed and all round behaviour towards you.

[Gareth]

1)To try and evaluate the target vehicle, junctions, road and then analyse whether the distance in front of the car equates to "X" metres e.t.c. in my opinion takes far too much time which delays and may be a factor in aborting the O/T in the first place. I trust my subconcious judgement of speed, distance and hazard perception, and when in the contact position (behind the car ready to move out) or the overtake position ( on the offside having moved out, looking to confirm the O/T), make a calculated swift decision based on what I can see. If I take the time to compare sections of road length between things in too much detail, or as a fraction of each other, then I have already taken up time, time that may have been better spent getting on with the overtake if it was on.

What bothers me about this approach is that subconscious judgement is based on experience. From what I've learned about driving, much of what seems right to untutored experience is inevitably wrong, and gaining the ingrained experience that makes it possible to reach the correct snap judgement without conscious thought takes some coaching of the right kind followed by lots of practice.

2) If you rely on relative distances between vehicles and junctions remaining constant during the O/T, problems may occur. The "Human Aspects" part comes in here. Many people, I find, like to start speeding up to impede my O/T. Some will speed up for other reasons for example they just felt like it. It does happen, ,maybe rarely, but this will affect any O/T. Also some drivers will see you in bad light once you have overtaken them. They will not understand the thought process and may view you as impatient or dangerous. You are then left with someone driving behind you with Red Mist, which may alter their positioning, speed and all round behaviour towards you.

If this happens to you a lot, then perhaps you are often overtaking in situations where the overtakee feels that the manouvre is risky? Anyway, I would have thought blue flashing lights would tend to inhibit the development of red mist by other drivers?

This leads me to another point, but I'll start a new thread for that ...

[TripleS]

Hi everyone, back from Honeymoon.

Just a quick entry on this one, I have been reading alot of your comments about one should allow "X" yards/metres or one should have a third of this or a half of that from the target vehicle and next hazard. I understand the logic, BUT, for two reasons this sort of maths NEVER enters my thought process when overtaking.

1)To try and evaluate the target vehicle, junctions, road and then analyse whether the distance in front of the car equates to "X" metres e.t.c. in my opinion takes far too much time which delays and may be a factor in aborting the O/T in the first place. I trust my subconcious judgement of speed, distance and hazard perception, and when in the contact position (behind the car ready to move out) or the overtake position ( on the offside having moved out, looking to confirm the O/T), make a calculated swift decision based on what I can see. If I take the time to compare sections of road length between things in too much detail, or as a fraction of each other, then I have already taken up time, time that may have been better spent getting on with the overtake if it was on.

Hello James, welcome back. I trust you had a good time - well I hope you did. It'll all be downhill from now on.

Anyhow you've reinforced what I said, thanks. Spending three weeks trying to decide whether to go or not just isn't on - well it won't be if you hang about long enough. There isn't time for all the mental arithmatic - it's a matter of judging the situation quickly and accurately, not formal calculations.

You've got to think ahead with these things, planning etc., all that stuff people keep telling me I ought to do. Weigh it up as you arrive say I, not while you're sitting out there on the wrong side of the road confusing everybody.

Bananas anyone - Dave T?

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[TripleS]

If I take the time to compare sections of road length between things in too much detail, or as a fraction of each other, then I have already taken up time, time that may have been better spent getting on with the overtake if it was on.

What bothers me about this approach is that subconscious judgement is based on experience. From what I've learned about driving, much of what seems right to untutored experience is inevitably wrong, and gaining the ingrained experience that makes it possible to reach the correct snap judgement without conscious thought takes some coaching of the right kind followed by lots of practice.

No, sorry, I don't buy that. Are you suggesting that I (for example) have spent 40+years making a complete hash of my overtaking?

I don't know how much of this is subconscious, as opposed to conscious judgement, but does it matter? What matters is collecting the relevant information, evaluating it and making a judgement - quickly. I don't doubt that formal tuition is best, but you imply that without that formal tuition our techniques are close to worthless, and that IMHO is not right.

"...untutored experience is inevitably wrong..." you say.

That looks to be too much of a sweeping statement for me. On reflection is that truly what you believe is right?

With respect I think this could do with further consideration - perhaps by both of us.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[James]

Gareth, when I discuss driving on here it is NOT on blue lights. I speak about my "off duty driving". With that in mind, please re read my entry. Blue lights change everything. By using warning equipment you are giving information that can't be given by other road users and the whole process of driving changes. I won't go into that now, it's too complicated.

Risky manouevres? No, I speak of things that have happened to me,Yes. And it can happen to anyone. It does not happen often but with each and every overtake you have to prepare for the possibility that it might.

[7db]

"...untutored experience is inevitably wrong..." you say.

Just a quick aphorism from my golf coach:-

Practice makes permanent

Worth bearing in mind that what we do each day is habit-forming and not always right. Untutored experience is often good enough for every day situations.

As discussed in many other places, bad accidents occur when a couple of coincidences occur simultaneously and are, as a result not everyday occurences.

Quick round of golf anyone? My slice is coming along just fine.

[crr003]

Just a quick entry on this one, I have been reading alot of your comments about one should allow "X" yards/metres or one should have a third of this or a half of that from the target vehicle and next hazard. I understand the logic, BUT, for two reasons this sort of maths NEVER enters my thought process when overtaking.

I threw the numbers in for effect - a brighter spark than me came up with this stuff - Doug Holland in his book Road Sense (and I'm still not sure they're correct!) I'm not saying that you go out, judge the required distance precisely and carry out the overtake. But, if the numbers can be verified, this is actually the distance you will need, whether you subconsciously evaluate it or not?

[James]

Just a quick entry on this one, I have been reading alot of your comments about one should allow "X" yards/metres or one should have a third of this or a half of that from the target vehicle and next hazard. I understand the logic, BUT, for two reasons this sort of maths NEVER enters my thought process when overtaking.

I threw the numbers in for effect - a brighter spark than me came up with this stuff - Doug Holland in his book Road Sense (and I'm still not sure they're correct!) I'm not saying that you go out, judge the required distance precisely and carry out the overtake. But, if the numbers can be verified, this is actually the distance you will need, whether you subconsciously evaluate it or not?

They are not the numbers I will need nor care about when I anticipate any vehicle emerging from a junction, a vehicle speeding up as I overtake or when on blue lights the 3 vehicles in front of me indicating left to allow me to pass!

[Lady Godiva]

They are not the numbers I will need nor care about when I anticipate any vehicle emerging from a junction, a vehicle speeding up as I overtake or when on blue lights the 3 vehicles in front of me indicating left to allow me to pass!

Dear Mr police Driver - with all due respect, can I suggest that they actually ARE the numbers you need, and I am a little perturbed that you suggest you do not care about them.

I wonder if what you actually mean is that you do not believe you need to consciously consider them as numbers. Well that is a different matter. However, if you are overtaking at a certain speed that dictates you need x-distance to complete it safely, then you definitely NEED to know that distance, even if you have got to know it through trial and error. You need to know it, and you need to care about it.

Also, it has been suggested on here that we do not require 'formal' instruction (not the exact words). When I am out on instruction re overtaking, if I ask a question about distances, i want someone to be able to tell me what to look for. In detail. Backed up by facts and figures, not someones opinion. I would not be happy if someone said, just rely on experience, and intuition. Because what if my experience and intuition is not good enough. For example, when cornering, I appreciated the help that came with Limit Point analysis. I didn't want someone to tell me to go by my experience.

I sometimes wonder if there would be less accidents if we took a more formal, structured approach, rather than the gut feel, I've been doing it a long time approach.

Just my thoughts by the way. Each to his or her own.

Regards
Sally

[TripleS]

I sometimes wonder if there would be less accidents if we took a more formal, structured approach, rather than the gut feel, I've been doing it a long time approach.

Regards
Sally

You're probably right, but I'm bound to wonder if you're getting at me again young lady. No worry if you are, I'm slowly developing a thicker skin!

Anyhow, once again there are various scenarios that one might recognise, for example:

1. Basically qualified drivers, even youngsters like PD could embark on sessions of tuition from advanced driving experts, people like StressedDave or Von, or Roadcraft - for example - and as they practice and gain experience they should end up being the best drivers, other things being equal. Whether this process should be deemed to be fully completed by the age of 24 is not clear to me, but it might be. More expert judgement would be needed to determine that.

2. Alternatively, we might have genuine driving enthusiasts who study the subject under their own steam, using whatever sources of guidance they can lay their hands on, practicing things cautiously, noting what happens, adjusting things, trying again, noting the difference(s) and so on. In other words they develop and evolve their knowledge and skills steadily over what might be a considerable period of time. I happen to believe a fairly good result can be obtained by this route, so long as logical thought processes are applied consistently along the way. Having said that, I do accept that this can never be as good as category 1 above.

3. Alternatively again, we have the vast majority of normal drivers who pass their test and from that point onwards give relatively little thought to their driving, not having any particular interest in the subject. They just get on with it and so long they don't have too many shunts or panic moments, all is taken as being normal and the notion of further learning does not enter their minds. These people may cover quite a large total mileage over a period of many years and have very little trouble, but luck is bound to have played some part in that, even if this is often due to them driving relatively slowly and being fortunate enough to have others take the evasive action to keep things right.

As you may have anticipated, I believe category 2 covers my situation fairly reasonably, but I am making no claims as to the result attained, although I tend to think it ought to be somewhat better than category 3. That is the main point I am trying to make here. HTH.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[JamesAllport]

Sally,

I agree that careful training in overtaking is necessary and that people need to know both the theory and the practice.

We need, as you say, a safe basis from which we can begin to build experience.

However, I don't think that it would have helped me if the person who taught me to overtake had painstakingly taken me through the maths and given me all the numbers.

They're intellectually interesting, and they drive home the point that to overtake with a small speed differential takes a very long time.

In fact, the person who taught me to overtake properly did it by getting me to count the number of seconds that it took from a car coming into view in the opposite direction until he passed us, and then doing some overtakes on dual carriageways (using the single carriageway "triangle" technique) and timing those.

The end result was that before I went out on my own to practice my overtaking he had developed in me:

(a) a "muscle memory" of what a car x seconds away in the distance looked like;

(b) the knowledge that I had (at most) half that time to get the overtake done; and

(c) a knowledge of how long an overtake was likely to take in my car in various gears and at various speeds.

The result is that, despite not being the most natural driver the world has ever seen, I managed not to kill myself while practicing my overtaking for RoADA, IAM and HPC entry. Of course the problem is that when I get into a strange car on an HPC event, I have to develop (c) from scratch as I settle into the drive, but that's the glory and the challenge of HPC membership

And it's how I now coach overtaking for beginners on IAM drives. Although finding a safe and legal single carriageway overtake is becoming ever harder... [retreats into the distance muttering politically incorrect things]

James