More about overtaking

Author
Discussion

Dr Jekyll

Original Poster:

23,820 posts

267 months

Saturday 14th May 2011
quotequote all
There is a letter in the latest MCN from someone who aupports advanced training as a way of improving hazard perception, but objects to the principle of trying to overtake any slower vehicle you come up behind.

He talks of not overtaking some lorries because he just couldn't be bothered.

What bothers me is that the effort in overtaking is almost entirely in spotting the safe opportunity, in other words hazard perception. Once you've spotted that the overtake is on it's easy especially on a bike.

Perhaps I'm being unfair on the guy, but my suspicion is that he's being a bit lazy and kidding himself that if he isn't looking to overtake he doesn't need to concentrate so hard on spotting what's coming up.

Obviously if there is something like a built up area or change of speed limit coming up it's worth waiting to see whether the vehicle is front will continue to impede your progress, you don't want to overtake and impede him. But my attitude is generally that if I've caught up with someone they are going slower than me, so I look to overtake.

What's the PH consensus?


sinizter

3,348 posts

192 months

Saturday 14th May 2011
quotequote all
Is this a bike only question ?

Dr Jekyll

Original Poster:

23,820 posts

267 months

Saturday 14th May 2011
quotequote all
No, but obviously it's more of an issue on bikes because overtaking is easier.

vonhosen

40,429 posts

223 months

Saturday 14th May 2011
quotequote all
Taking every safe opportunity to overtake doesn't define advanced riding/driving does it ?

Benbay001

5,807 posts

163 months

Saturday 14th May 2011
quotequote all
His observation is obviously quite poor, either that or he rides a 125 and one or two hairy overtakes have put him off for life. He is not a true biker if he will sit behind a lorry when its safe to pass.
As someone said though (may have been OP), if i know there is a 30 limit ahead i wont overtake as it seems to me that no one except my self sticks to the speed limit :-/ Although if you ask people, 90% of them claim they do.

Dr Jekyll

Original Poster:

23,820 posts

267 months

Saturday 14th May 2011
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
Taking every safe opportunity to overtake doesn't define advanced riding/driving does it ?
Nobody is saying it does. The question is why wouldn't you take them.

vonhosen

40,429 posts

223 months

Saturday 14th May 2011
quotequote all
Dr Jekyll said:
Nobody is saying it does. The question is why wouldn't you take them.
Because you aren't that bothered about progress today & don't want to arrive too early is good enough.

Puddenchucker

4,385 posts

224 months

Saturday 14th May 2011
quotequote all
Dr Jekyll said:
vonhosen said:
Taking every safe opportunity to overtake doesn't define advanced riding/driving does it ?
Nobody is saying it does. The question is why wouldn't you take them.
If I know that I'm within a few miles of my destination, or turn-off on to another road, then unless the vehicle I'm following is relatively slow (e.g Tractor in an NSL), then I usually won't bother overtaking.
Similarly, I probably won't bother overtaking if I'm following one slow vehicle, but can see a line of vehicles a few hundred yards further along the road that we're slowly catching up with.

Benbay001

5,807 posts

163 months

Saturday 14th May 2011
quotequote all
sinizter said:
Is this a bike only question ?
I think the answer to this should have been yes, as overtaking in a car is considerably different.

Dr Jekyll

Original Poster:

23,820 posts

267 months

Saturday 14th May 2011
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Nobody is saying it does. The question is why wouldn't you take them.
Because you aren't that bothered about progress today & don't want to arrive too early is good enough.
That's a reason for going alowly in the first place not for not overtaking.

I can understand someone deciding to drive at 30 where 60 would be reasonable because they have time in hand. What I cannot understand is someone who has decided that say 50 is 'good enough' coming up behind someone doing 37.5, and instantly deciding that the correct speed so as not to arrive too early now coincidentally happens to be exactly 37.5 so there is no need to look for an overtake and it's appropriate to admire the guy's rear number plate for the next 20 miles.

If the vehicle in front is making sufficient progress for your purposes you don't catch it up in the first place so the question of overtaking doesn't arise.

vonhosen

40,429 posts

223 months

Saturday 14th May 2011
quotequote all
Dr Jekyll said:
That's a reason for going alowly in the first place not for not overtaking.

I can understand someone deciding to drive at 30 where 60 would be reasonable because they have time in hand. What I cannot understand is someone who has decided that say 50 is 'good enough' coming up behind someone doing 37.5, and instantly deciding that the correct speed so as not to arrive too early now coincidentally happens to be exactly 37.5 so there is no need to look for an overtake and it's appropriate to admire the guy's rear number plate for the next 20 miles.

If the vehicle in front is making sufficient progress for your purposes you don't catch it up in the first place so the question of overtaking doesn't arise.
I'll often slowly catch up with something but I've then got the choice of increase speed to pass or drop speed to follow & I'll choose drop speed & follow. So what I'm in no rush. I don't have to try & maintain a single speed throughout the journey. What approach I take will vary depending on (amongst other things) the reason I'm out driving.

7mike

3,075 posts

199 months

Saturday 14th May 2011
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
I'll often slowly catch up with something but I've then got the choice of increase speed to pass or drop speed to follow & I'll choose drop speed & follow. So what I'm in no rush. I don't have to try & maintain a single speed throughout the journey. What approach I take will vary depending on (amongst other things) the reason I'm out driving.
I agree with this, and sometimes take it a step further and pull off the road for a break. However, if I've caught up with a slower vehicle (and by that I mean a safe following distance up to...) I would usually take any safe overtaking opportunity to get past rather than hang around to be number two in a snail procession. If managing the space around me = safe driving then imo I've done something to increase my safety margins. I realy can't see why a biker would consider the number two slot in such a situation a safe place to be.

SVS

3,824 posts

277 months

Sunday 15th May 2011
quotequote all
I found that a lot of advanced bike training does focus on overtaking. (By no means all of it, obviously!)

I believe this is partly because civilian advanced training is generally passed down from police training, where making progress is important.

When I did my IAM bike, the Examiner failed me the first time because I missed an overtake that he considered obvious. I passed second time round and went on to RoSPA. My RoSPA Examiner was delighted with my overtaking and this contributed greatly to my Gold grade.

However, I don't believe my improved overtaking prowess had much to do with safety. I do wonder whether civilian advanced riding should focus as much as it does on riding 'progressively'.

Dr Jekyll

Original Poster:

23,820 posts

267 months

Sunday 15th May 2011
quotequote all
SVS said:
I found that a lot of advanced bike training does focus on overtaking. (By no means all of it, obviously!)

I believe this is partly because civilian advanced training is generally passed down from police training, where making progress is important.

When I did my IAM bike, the Examiner failed me the first time because I missed an overtake that he considered obvious. I passed second time round and went on to RoSPA. My RoSPA Examiner was delighted with my overtaking and this contributed greatly to my Gold grade.

However, I don't believe my improved overtaking prowess had much to do with safety. I do wonder whether civilian advanced riding should focus as much as it does on riding 'progressively'.
Overtaking is potentially the most hazardous manoeuvre we regularly make and yet it's one we are unlikely to get any training in unless we go for some advanced training, so I can understand why they are anxious to cover it.

ScoobyChris

1,782 posts

208 months

Sunday 15th May 2011
quotequote all
Dr Jekyll said:
Overtaking is potentially the most hazardous manoeuvre we regularly make and yet it's one we are unlikely to get any training in unless we go for some advanced training, so I can understand why they are anxious to cover it.
I wonder how many tutors/observers cover overtaking during advanced training, at least from a car perspective, as opportunities tend to be fairly infrequent while keeping it strictly legal.

Chris

davepoth

29,395 posts

205 months

Sunday 15th May 2011
quotequote all
If I was driving at 60mph and came across someone doing 55, I would most likely sit back behind them until I got to my destination unless one of those marvellous overtaking spots with miles of visibility presented itself. 5mph is not going to make a big difference to a journey in the UK, no matter how far you are going.

If they were a "37.5mph everywhere" person, I would actively be looking for spots to make the move, not least because the "37.5mph everywhere" person is not paying attention to the road, the conditions or hazards.


Steve Evil

10,688 posts

235 months

Monday 16th May 2011
quotequote all
As a biker, any overtaking opportunity that presents itself will be taken, I'm not one for sitting happily behind a truck. Also, if I'm behind a slower vehicle and there is an even slower queue up ahead, I'll still overtake, as it's one less obstacle to get past.

Hooli

32,278 posts

206 months

Wednesday 18th May 2011
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Nobody is saying it does. The question is why wouldn't you take them.
Because you aren't that bothered about progress today & don't want to arrive too early is good enough.
My god, I agree with Von!

Depends on the speed differential and how much further I've got to go for me. Someone doing 5mph slower when I'm feeling lazy & don't have far to do will get followed. Someone asleep at walking speed will be overtaken even if I'm turning off 1/2 a mile in front.

MX5guy

22,824 posts

207 months

Monday 6th June 2011
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
I'll often slowly catch up with something but I've then got the choice of increase speed to pass or drop speed to follow & I'll choose drop speed & follow. So what I'm in no rush. I don't have to try & maintain a single speed throughout the journey. What approach I take will vary depending on (amongst other things) the reason I'm out driving.
I agree. For my normal journey to work it is mostly single carriageway at 80kmph. There are a few places that are 90kmph limits with dual lanes. Sometimes I overtake in these if the person is a bit slower, but other times I won't bother. There's very little time made up even if you overtake at the first one, due to lorries/ unconfidant drivers slowing down in tunnels/ places with more corners. It almost ends in small convoys behind the slowest driver.

Pontoneer

3,643 posts

192 months

Saturday 25th June 2011
quotequote all
If it is just a matter of overtaking one or two vehicles , I will normally take the first available safe opportunity .

On the other hand , if I catch up with a queue of slow moving traffic which extends as far as the eye can see ( perhaps a tractor or caravanner at the front ? ) and it would entail an endless series of overtakes to get ahead , I might decide it is just not worth it .

Somewhere between the two extremes , or if in a hurry , there can be a case for making a series of overtakes .