Overtaking in a built up 40 limit

[michael769]

You definitely know someone isn't going to emerge if there's no-one there.

But based on the GSV you didn't have the visibility to conclude that no one was there. Not being able to see anyone does not mean they are not there.

[TripleS]

First I read the description of the scene, then I looked at the GSV.

With a vehicle in front travelling at about 30 mph, I wouldn't have gone for the overtake in that situation.

[jlsmith]

You definitely know someone isn't going to emerge if there's no-one there.

But based on the GSV you didn't have the visibility to conclude that no one was there. Not being able to see anyone does not mean they are not there.

The GSV car was likely in a slightly different place to where I was at the point (as I suggested earlier) but I did conclude (with sufficient visibility and also correctly) that no-one was there. Promise

[jlsmith]

Thanks again everyone. I am genuinely surprised so many of you would have held back at this point, given the complete lack of traffic (although I know some of you don't believe I could have known that to be the case), width of road, length of clear road ahead etc.

But I so thank you all for committing not to have road-raged me had I passed you on such an occasion!

[akirk]

I don't think that for many of us the absence or otherwise of traffic was the deciding factor - I would have no issue in overtaking in that length of clear road at those speeds, more than double the distance I need is clear...

It was concern for all the unpredictable / potential hazards and in particular - house drives in the dark at a time of year when children without road sense might run out... for me the risk is too high - the likelihood would be that there is no issue, but the result if something did happen would be too horrendous for me to risk it...

It is a judgement call we all have to make...

Would def. not have complained - I let other road users make their own decisions... and try not to get involved...

Alasdair

[waremark]

Unsurprisingly I go with most of the others - would definitely not have overtaken here, but would have cooperated with another driver choosing to overtake me.

[jcochrane]

Unsurprisingly I go with most of the others - would definitely not have overtaken here, but would have cooperated with another driver choosing to overtake me.

I agree. Definitely I would not even contemplate an overtake here.

[triquet]

The big problem with overtaking a 30 driver in a 40 limit is that you have no idea how the overtakee will respond. The chances are that the 30 driver is pootling along and is not really on the lookout for anybody wanting to overtake. They may be looking for somewhere, yacking or texting. He (or she) will be surprised or even alarmed by somebody overtaking. Voluntarily or otherwise he (or she) may increase speed when they notice the overtaker, which means you will either be creeping past with only a couple of mph in hand (lengthy exposure time), or you have to floor it to get past ("briskly accelerate" is I believe the correct AD-speak). This will get you comfortably over the 40 even in an old shed.

The overtakee will then suck his (or her) teeth and exclaim "look at that mad bugger", and the BIB in the van up the road will smile knowingly ....

[jont]

On my last Rospa test, the examiner encourage me to overtake a car towing a horse trailer in a 40 limit (it was doing about 30). Had I been on my own, I probably wouldn't have bothered, but I seem to remember his words as something along the lines of "I don't really want to be following that down the next section of NSL..."

[trashbat]

I don't know about the specific road in the OP, but I would happily overtake someone doing 30 in a 40, and can remember various instances where I have.

[trashbat]

However...

The GSV car was likely in a slightly different place to where I was at the point (as I suggested earlier) but I did conclude (with sufficient visibility and also correctly) that no-one was there. Promise

That noone was actually there is not a good indicator that you were correct, no more than me predicting green on roulette and getting it would make me a fortune teller. The proper tests are firstly whether you could actually see what you thought you could see before committing, and then whether that information was actually enough to be suitably sure of your safety. Not whether anyone turned up on this occasion.

[jlsmith]

"The proper tests are firstly whether you could actually see what you thought you could see before committing, and then whether that information was actually enough to be suitably sure of your safety."

Yes, quite confident of that on both counts.

[kfae8959]

Perhaps the driver of the target vehicle reacted adversely because he believed that he was driving at the speed limit?

David