Advice on dangerous over taking situation

[jcochrane]

I think he is referring to the possibility of oncoming traffic on his side of the road which obviously requires more than being able to stop before the limit point.

Yes I see what you mean, ie. back to his earlier post. On that point I remember a traffic officer saying to me that "if there is somenone out there determined to hit you there is not a lot you can do about it." Similarly the "System of Car Control" can only to ensure the avoidance of an accident of your own making.

However my own experience is that most people don't slow enough for hazards. Not that it would have likely made any difference to avoid Pontineer's accident.

[MGF]

So what do people look for when assessing the possibility of oncoming traffic being on the wrong side of the road (apart from the obvious narrowness) if anything?

[Ancient]

On Wednesday I was descending a three-lane single carriageway (NSL) with oncoming overtaking. I tried to judge my speed so that the outside car would be returning to his nearside lane. I failed; the driver took the whole hill to complete the overtake.
It felt horribly uncomfortable, worryingly so.
Central barriers are in place on busy high speed roads for a good reason: To catch cross-overs (and sometimes they fail). Three lane roads with central overtaking lane (whether available to both directions or not) exist because a certain proportion of road casualties is deemed acceptable.

[Kimosabe]

The way I have always considered overtaking is that there is the possibility that I cannot see a car/bike travelling towards me because it isn't yet in view but that it could be travelling at high speed and suddenly appear. This attitude has put me at variance with IAM /RoADAR observers who have insisted that I not only drive behind a target vehicle with less than a 2 second gap, but that I also then overtake it in what feels to me to be a very disjointed affair.

Just because I cannot see it, does not mean it might not suddenly appear. I'm generally very cautious of other drivers and always assume they are about to do something ridiculous. This attitude has kept me both safe and sane when driving.

The way I ideally prefer to overtake is to observe the driver(s) infront for as long as possible while looking for how they drive ie do they swerve manholes and drains or does their speed vary and why, then find a safe time to pull out for a look at a safe following distance. When I'm sure I can make the overtake I'll pass the car at speed so I'm already at the speed I need to be at to pass them and not in the early stages of acceleration. I recently discovered that this is the method being taught to Police Advanced Drivers in Sussex. Who knew?

Sorry I cannot specifically comment on Ancients' situation except to say that I thought the powers that be were doing away with such roads.

[Pontoneer]

I think he is referring to the possibility of oncoming traffic on his side of the road which obviously requires more than being able to stop before the limit point.

Yes , hence I mentioned the possibility of being able to stop in half the distance you could see to be clear : to allow for someone coming the other way to be able to do the same .

[Pontoneer]

I guess we could always say 'what if' , and that by going a little slower we would have that little bit more time to think and react to something .

However , four desirable principles of Advanced Driving , back when I did my training , were to drive safely , smoothly , progressively and well .

While we could all slow almost to the point of stopping every time we came to a bend we could not see round , and it might be safer in one sense ( that we would be less likely to be unable to stop before hitting something ) , it would be impractical to slow unrealistically for every bend and there would perhaps be a new danger of being hit from behind by another driver who either did not expect us to slow so much , or arrived at high speed and was too late to react .

Clearly , the basic principles apply to much more than bends , but we all strike a balance between caution and progress .

I may be slightly miss reading you but to slow down almost to a stop I would say is not unrealistic but essential if required to match the limit point. Where I think progressive comes in is that as the limit point improves/extends acceleration is applied to accurately match its rate of change. One aspect I admire in the best drivers and try to aspire to has been this ability to have an excellent and extensive display of "light and shade" in the drive that swiftly and smoothly changes pace to always match the limit point for complete safety. Resulting in a seamless flow and rhythm that I enjoy and admire in their drives.

Well , slowing 'almost to a stop' is indeed neccessary in some circumstances ( sharp , unsighted bends on narrow country roads , for example ) , but I was referring to the type of bend ( no more than , say , 45 degrees on a typical A road where the car could comfortably corner at NSL with no risk of losing control , but visibility may not be safe for that speed .

It may be all very well that you could safely come to rest within the distance you could see to be clear at any given point - but what if there is , just out of sight , an unseen very fast vehicle coming the other way which is going to eat into your stopping distance and may close that gap before you can stop ? That is what happened to me .

I have only twice in my lifetime ( approx 40 years driving , and probably now a 'mile millionaire' ) encountered a vehicle coming round a bend on my side of the road : once was the incident I described earlier , and the other was at lower speed in a built up area where the I braked and the other car swerved back to the correct side without colliding .

If I were to drive as though that was going to happen at every bend , I would not make reasonable progress . You drive according to what you can see/what you cannot see/and circumstances you can reasonably expect to develop . I don't think it is reasonable to expect an oncoming car on collision course to be coming around every bend , so I think it is reasonable to plan and allow for what seems likely to happen .

As for the term 'progressive' - it was used in connection to 'making good progress' , although an adaptable and safe method of acceleration/deceleration , applied smoothly and increasingly/decreasingly as required would certainly be part of that .

[Pontoneer]

The way I have always considered overtaking is that there is the possibility that I cannot see a car/bike travelling towards me because it isn't yet in view but that it could be travelling at high speed and suddenly appear. This attitude has put me at variance with IAM /RoADAR observers who have insisted that I not only drive behind a target vehicle with less than a 2 second gap, but that I also then overtake it in what feels to me to be a very disjointed affair.

Just because I cannot see it, does not mean it might not suddenly appear. I'm generally very cautious of other drivers and always assume they are about to do something ridiculous. This attitude has kept me both safe and sane when driving.

The way I ideally prefer to overtake is to observe the driver(s) infront for as long as possible while looking for how they drive ie do they swerve manholes and drains or does their speed vary and why, then find a safe time to pull out for a look at a safe following distance. When I'm sure I can make the overtake I'll pass the car at speed so I'm already at the speed I need to be at to pass them and not in the early stages of acceleration. I recently discovered that this is the method being taught to Police Advanced Drivers in Sussex. Who knew?

Sorry I cannot specifically comment on Ancients' situation except to say that I thought the powers that be were doing away with such roads.

I agree with the above , just to add that the period of observation of the driver in front might either be while I catch up with him from a distance behind , or while I follow him awaiting a safe opportunity for the overtake . When planning an overtake , one important factor is to always have a 'plan B' should something unexpected happen .

[trashbat]

The way I ideally prefer to overtake is to observe the driver(s) infront for as long as possible while looking for how they drive ie do they swerve manholes and drains or does their speed vary and why, then find a safe time to pull out for a look at a safe following distance. When I'm sure I can make the overtake I'll pass the car at speed so I'm already at the speed I need to be at to pass them and not in the early stages of acceleration. I recently discovered that this is the method being taught to Police Advanced Drivers in Sussex. Who knew?

Somebody is surely going to pull you up on this, so I think I'll be today's volunteer, assuming I understand you correctly.

Why do you think this is better?

If your potential out-of-nowhere hazard appears while you're doing this, you have to dispense with your closing speed on the overtakee before you can return to the following position. Additionally if the overtakee breaks the trend and moves into your path while you're taking your run up, you're going to hit them and it's going to be your fault.

I can eschew various pieces of AD teachings but I hold the Roadcraft overtaking method in quite high esteem.

[Kimosabe]

The way I ideally prefer to overtake is to observe the driver(s) infront for as long as possible while looking for how they drive ie do they swerve manholes and drains or does their speed vary and why, then find a safe time to pull out for a look at a safe following distance. When I'm sure I can make the overtake I'll pass the car at speed so I'm already at the speed I need to be at to pass them and not in the early stages of acceleration. I recently discovered that this is the method being taught to Police Advanced Drivers in Sussex. Who knew?

Somebody is surely going to pull you up on this, so I think I'll be today's volunteer, assuming I understand you correctly.

Why do you think this is better?

If your potential out-of-nowhere hazard appears while you're doing this, you have to dispense with your closing speed on the overtakee before you can return to the following position. Additionally if the overtakee breaks the trend and moves into your path while you're taking your run up, you're going to hit them and it's going to be your fault.

I can eschew various pieces of AD teachings but I hold the Roadcraft overtaking method in quite high esteem.

Hmmmm.... But you didn't pull me up on anything and why would you want to anyway? Just out of interest, do you relate to perceived mistakes other road users make as a need to 'pull them up'? I'd suggest a more friendly approach would achieve far more than being defensive. Your choice.

How I overtake depends on the situation, so for me, there is no one true way. I did say 'ideally' after all and even emboldened it for emphasis to show support for the Roadcraft method.

Overtakes are a rare thing in a Freelander 2 and the amount of planning, forward vision, time and space needed to move it from say 40mph ish to 60mph is vast, so relying on the car's ability to shift itself from match-catch-dispatch isn't always ideal, though it is sometimes possible and I do use it sometimes when appropriate, just like other methods of steering than PP.

If the hazard from hell appears, while passing the overtakee, don't the same rules apply in either method? If they move into my path and side-swipe me, don't the same rules apply? Forward obs, planning and creating choices pay dividends.

While we're discussing the merits and faults of both methods mentioned, while engaging the random 'what if' generator of AD possibilities, what if while you're tailgating the car infront with a fraction of a second between you and it with the intention of overtaking it, what if the car infront suddenly brakes and you slam into the back of it before you move out because you were too close to it? This could happen if they react negatively to someone looming in their rear view mirror by braking to teach you a lesson. It happens. In fact I've seen that happen more times than I have ever seen either of the outcomes you mentioned.

While being driven in a Porsche Cayman recently, the overtakee decided to block the overtake by vindictively accelerating. The choice left to the driver sat next to me was to abort (which he did) or out accelerate the overtakee for doing so. We had followed, observed and chatted about where and when to do this and once we pulled in behind them again after the aborted overtake, they slowed to their original speed. Had my friend passed them at a speed which would have negated this, we would have safely passed them. Better to have more than one tool in the box, no?

So yes, I am in disagreement with being less than a couple of seconds directly behind the car infront, at any speed. This is what the IAM and RoADAR teach associates to do and I'd say this can be far more potentially dangerous than dogmatically interfering with how someone holds the steering wheel or banging on about balancing a car at 6mph before and during a turn, sans BGOL, because 'it's unstable' etc. But we've done that to death in other threads.

I'd really like to get straight on that too because it still troubles me and if I want to train as an observer, I need to be congruent with this.

Thanks for engaging in this.

[trashbat]

Well, there's about three points to discuss there.

Overtakes are a rare thing in a Freelander 2 and the amount of planning, forward vision, time and space needed to move it from say 40mph ish to 60mph is vast

I sympathise, but I'm fairly sure a Fiat 500 1.2 is slower, and yet I still manage full Roadcraft overtakes in one. It just takes more space and planning as you point out.

If the hazard from hell appears, while passing the overtakee, don't the same rules apply in either method? If they move into my path and side-swipe me, don't the same rules apply? Forward obs, planning and creating choices pay dividends.

For one, it won't be you crashing into the back of something, so from a liability perspective your situation is improved. I'm not suggesting we care very much about that, but there it is.

Perhaps more importantly, if you've been sat offside at a matching speed, you might have seen the hazard that prompted this (e.g. a pothole or debris), and been left having to do almost nothing, rather than again having to shave off that closing speed with nowhere to go.

So yes, I am in disagreement with being less than a couple of seconds directly behind the car infront, at any speed.

This is up to you. I'm not personally all that interested in telling anyone to do it. It's a flexible parameter; you close the gap and you decrease the time spent offside, but you might increase risks as you point out.

What I will say is it takes place in a tightly defined context.

If you bimble along a road for a while behind someone at 1 second following distance, then when they brake hard for something you haven't seen, it's going to take about a second for you to react and you're going to hit them.

If you've been following at a safe distance, and just this moment closed the gap to prepare for an overtake, then what's going on? Well, your reaction time is probably decreased, there's a good chance the road is clear, there's a fair chance you're going to be out there before the overtakee even notices, and the whole affair has been planned.

Does that make it objectively safe? No. Does it make it significantly safer than breaking the two second rule in any arbitrary situation? Yes.

[sussex2]

The way I have always considered overtaking is that there is the possibility that I cannot see a car/bike travelling towards me because it isn't yet in view but that it could be travelling at high speed and suddenly appear. This attitude has put me at variance with IAM /RoADAR observers who have insisted that I not only drive behind a target vehicle with less than a 2 second gap, but that I also then overtake it in what feels to me to be a very disjointed affair.

Just because I cannot see it, does not mean it might not suddenly appear. I'm generally very cautious of other drivers and always assume they are about to do something ridiculous. This attitude has kept me both safe and sane when driving.

The way I ideally prefer to overtake is to observe the driver(s) infront for as long as possible while looking for how they drive ie do they swerve manholes and drains or does their speed vary and why, then find a safe time to pull out for a look at a safe following distance. When I'm sure I can make the overtake I'll pass the car at speed so I'm already at the speed I need to be at to pass them and not in the early stages of acceleration. I recently discovered that this is the method being taught to Police Advanced Drivers in Sussex. Who knew?

Sorry I cannot specifically comment on Ancients' situation except to say that I thought the powers that be were doing away with such roads.

Just because I cannot see it, does not mean it might not suddenly appear

Would you expand on that a bit please.

[waremark]

The important point is to recognise when exposure to danger starts. With a higher closing speed, it is when you cannot stop behind if the overtakee brakes.

[Kimosabe]

Just because I cannot see it, does not mean it might not suddenly appear

Would you expand on that a bit please.[/quote]

I'm assuming that there may be an imminent hazard, such as a fast moving vehicle, just out of sight, coming towards me and that they aren't expecting to find me in their lane. This is where 'plan b' generation comes into play, if not, aborting the idea before it goes any further altogether on a hunch. As many others have said, not overtaking is never a mistake, or equivalent.

[Kimosabe]

The way I ideally prefer to overtake is to observe the driver(s) infront for as long as possible while looking for how they drive ie do they swerve manholes and drains or does their speed vary and why, then find a safe time to pull out for a look at a safe following distance. When I'm sure I can make the overtake I'll pass the car at speed so I'm already at the speed I need to be at to pass them and not in the early stages of acceleration. I recently discovered that this is the method being taught to Police Advanced Drivers in Sussex. Who knew? :wink

I think that actually misrepresents the technique that you saw somewhat. Just because the overtakes that you experienced were planned to be taken with speed in hand does not mean that where catch-n-match is necessary they would not close the gap *before* moving out to confirm the view and only then commit to the overtake. They also had the advantage of the much higher position of an X5, as do you in a Freelander. Something that is not enjoyed by the majority of road users and particularly those in cars that make overtakes more often. MX5.

You're right about the height/ view advantage of the Freelander/ X5 but the method I saw being used was a faster approach after the decision to overtake had been assessed and accepted as necessary and not follow-out for a look-accelerate. Perhaps this was just something being practiced on the day and not the only way but that's not the impression I got. Yes, the car infront was followed but the amounts of time this was done for varied and much of the time, I recall either straddling the lines regardless of the presence of cars ahead or not or as far onto the right hand side of the road as necessary to maintain the view ahead, whether or not an overtake followed. As I say, the more tools I have in my box, the more choices I have and that is surely a good thing. I'm not putting Roadcraft down at all, just some of the limitations of those who dismiss anything not in it, who then project their choices onto me.

[trashbat]

Everything has its place; I wouldn't appreciate a flying banana overtake on a twisty B-road of my choosing, but then I wouldn't expect the whole Roadcraft triangular process on an otherwise empty motorway either.

Maybe I'm extrapolating too much based on your post but it seemed a little like you were looking to justify a habitual shortcut/deviation of a good rule. I'm sure subscription to a particular method can get a bit Church of the Latter Day Overtakes, but for me, whilst a lot of the style guide can go in the bin, that piece is worth something.

After all it concerns the bit of driving that for most people is the most high risk, 'fraught with difficulty' thing they'll do on the road, and so optimising the safety element is important. You yourself identify the possibility of the late developing hazard, but your self-described ideal method could very well make it worse.

All verbose and TL;DR? What waremark said.

The important point is to recognise when exposure to danger starts. With a higher closing speed, it is when you cannot stop behind if the overtakee brakes.