Advanced Driving: Overtaking

[MKH9130]

Evening.

I'm not an advanced driver, but I am intending to do the Skills For Life course this year with a view to becoming an IAM member. I have the Skills for Life book which I have been reading through and I'm pleased to say 99% of it makes perfect sense to me and 80% I do already.

However, I strongly disagree with the overtaking as described by the book.

My preferred overtaking manoeuvre would be as follows:-

1. Approach car (the 'overtakee') but hold back a good distance to allow you to see past the vehicle. More so if there is a lack of viability due to the type of vehicle (Van, caravan, boot full of rubbish etc).

2. Check my mirrors and if appropriate an 'over the shoulder' lifesaver (I have a motorcycle licence, so lifesavers in the car come as second nature).

3. Indicate that I am pulling out to overtake. Usually a further lifesaver.

4. Accelerate smoothly but briskly and pull into the oncoming lane whilst closing on the car I am overtaking.

5. Once past the vehicle, indicate and pull in smoothly in a suitable time giving the car I have overtaken plenty of room.

This differs to the IAM method of getting closer to the overtakee, doing the usual observation checks before pulling into the oncoming lane *before* accelerating, and then accelerating once you are sure there is suitable time to overtake.

My points:

A. Conducting an IAM overtake is likely to piss off the car you're overtaking (Unless they are an advanced driver and can recognise the manoeuvre), they may speed up which would mean you have to cut back into the previous position unless you can easily outpace their acceleration from the same standing speed (which would be contrary to several other IAM advisories).

B. I would prefer to be 100% sure the coast is clear by holding back before pulling into the oncoming lane rather than pulling out to double check.

C. My way seems smoother over all; which is the reasoning behind most of the IAM advice - i.e. encouraging smoother driving.

I have tried overtaking both ways, and I simply do not feel confident doing it the IAM way - although I accept this may show a lack of ability on my part?

Can anyone explain in simple terms why my way is bad, and the reasoning behind the IAM method and what it is supposed to achieve over and above the method I use??

[7db]

Just a few thoughts:-
- you are accelerating and steering at the same time
- you are committing to the overtake earlier than the other method so your TED is higher
- if you are safe accelerating, why not be offside?
- you don't have the pause and see how the other guy responds phase


There's no right or wrong way just think about the above issues. I think there is a lot to be said for the triangle over the banana.

[MKH9130]

7db said:

Just a few thoughts:-
- you are accelerating and steering at the same time
- you are committing to the overtake earlier than the other method so your TED is higher
- if you are safe accelerating, why not be offside?
- you don't have the pause and see how the other guy responds phase


There's no right or wrong way just think about the above issues. I think there is a lot to be said for the triangle over the banana.

1. Yes, although very gentle steering no more than a medium right-hander. I accelerate and steer all the time through corners - brake, change into right gear, accelerate through the corner etc. I don't mean accelerating hard up behind the overtakee followed by swerving into the oncoming lane

2. TED? Committing earlier, granted. But the overtake will be shorter in terms of actual time - by the time you are fully committed you will be travelling faster than the triangle method so the process of passing the overtakee will be shorter - you will be exposed for a shorter period of time, surely?

3. I see the 'banana method', as you put it, as being much smoother than the triangle method. Pulling out and then accelerating seems a bit alien to me when as to match the speed of the overtake using the banana method you will have to accelerate harsher (reaching the same speed over a shorter distance).

4. I do not understand the benefit of waiting to see how the overtakee responds. Most of the time they do not notice until you're alongside, regardless of method of overtake despite clear indications of your intentions!

[WeirdNeville]

To be honest it's very rare I use a "pure" IAM- style overtake. I use the principles of it, but not necessarily the manouver in it's "Overtaking position, Offside, commit, accelerate" regimented order.

The most likely part to go is the close follow overtake position. I often find that with larger vehicles this is detrimental to forwards vision and can also be seen as agressive, forcing the other car to accelerate when you least want them to.

I also give my overtakes good leeway, so I usually find that my acceleration phase does start when I am on the nearside, and I have already committed to the overtake and ensured that the road ahead is clear for the duration of my manouver. In these circumstances I see nothing to be gained from pulling to the offside to check what I already know, or in delaying the start of my acceleration and am quite happy to make the manouver in more of a flow. Think long right hand bend or a road that goes down a hill then up the other side in a straight line.

It's useful to know the "correct" textbook overtake, and to practice it, but IMO part of the beausty of a good overtake is making is flexible according to the conditons. If you're gaining on the target vehicle at 20 Mph and can see that the overtake is safe, are you going to match it's speed, then close on it, then pull out and re-accelerate? Or are you going to build a nice flowing overtake with the minimum of fuss into your driving plan?

FOr a few examples of overtakes, have a look: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

MKH9130 said:

4. I do not understand the benefit of waiting to see how the overtakee responds. Most of the time they do not notice until you're alongside, regardless of method of overtake despite clear indications of your intentions!

I would say this is one of the principle benefits of the "IAM" triangle overtake. Whenever I have a vehilce that I think is being agressively or carelessly driven I will adopt the more formal overtaking procedure. THe attitude of the target car can be read by their reaction, or lack of it, to you moving to the offside. By presenting yourself in ther offside mirror, you force them to show their hand as it were. If you see the puff of smoke and the rear dip under acceleration, you know you've got someone who is going to try and out accelerate you as you come by. If you see them actually move towards you, you are still in a position to simply move back to the nearside and give them plenty of room. I won't even attempt an overtake if it loks like it's going to get an openly hostile response from the target car.

All of these really need demonstrating. Perhaps you could blag an evening out with an observer from your local IAM group and see if you "get it" after a few overtakes?

Edited by WeirdNeville on Tuesday 15th April 22:40

[Vaux]

MKH9130 said:

This differs to the IAM method.....

Evening,
Just to point out it's not the "IAM" method.
It's the Roadcraft method.

(Although some Police I understand don't teach the overtaking position part.)

Edited by Vaux on Tuesday 15th April 22:46

[Vaux]

WeirdNeville said:

It's useful to know the "correct" textbook overtake, and to practice it, but IMO part of the beausty of a good overtake is making is flexible according to the conditons. If you're gaining on the target vehicle at 20 Mph and can see that the overtake is safe, are you going to match it's speed, then close on it, then pull out and re-accelerate? Or are you going to build a nice flowing overtake with the minimum of fuss into your driving plan?

Which is accounted for on page 132 of Roadcraft.
The System is flexible.

[vonhosen]

MKH9130 said:

7db said:

Just a few thoughts:-
- you are accelerating and steering at the same time
- you are committing to the overtake earlier than the other method so your TED is higher
- if you are safe accelerating, why not be offside?
- you don't have the pause and see how the other guy responds phase


There's no right or wrong way just think about the above issues. I think there is a lot to be said for the triangle over the banana.

1. Yes, although very gentle steering no more than a medium right-hander. I accelerate and steer all the time through corners - brake, change into right gear, accelerate through the corner etc. I don't mean accelerating hard up behind the overtakee followed by swerving into the oncoming lane

2. TED? Committing earlier, granted. But the overtake will be shorter in terms of actual time - by the time you are fully committed you will be travelling faster than the triangle method so the process of passing the overtakee will be shorter - you will be exposed for a shorter period of time, surely?

3. I see the 'banana method', as you put it, as being much smoother than the triangle method. Pulling out and then accelerating seems a bit alien to me when as to match the speed of the overtake using the banana method you will have to accelerate harsher (reaching the same speed over a shorter distance).

4. I do not understand the benefit of waiting to see how the overtakee responds. Most of the time they do not notice until you're alongside, regardless of method of overtake despite clear indications of your intentions!

You are committing from further back, hence longer TED.

Look at the difference in obstructed view from n/s & o/s position before you commit to overtake. Don't you want as much information as possible before you commit ?

Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 15th April 22:59

[BertBert]

The thing is that there is a different level of being "committed" in the overtake if you are accelerating behind the car on the LHS where Von has rightly drawn the much poorer visibility.

You start to accelerate much earlier, butactually you are not committed. You can still move out to do the "check before going", but you have a positive speed delta on the overtakee.

You can still call off the manoeuvre, but to do so you have to brake to remove the positive speed delta and stay back. That is not a great thing to do, but provided it's part of your plan and conducted properly, there is no real problem. You do not increase your TED at all.

The problem for the latter re the "roadcraft system" is that an instructor cannot tell the difference between you doing it in control with a proper safety margin and the ability to call off the overtake from having to panic brake to reduce speed and pull back in.

Also philosophically the final decision you end up having to make at the committment point is to call the manoeuvre off. In the Roadcraft method your final decision is the other way round. A positive decision to go. That is undoubtedly more conservative.

It of course depends on your car. In my GT3RS, it's pretty easy to move out with no speed delta, check, decide and go. In the Fiat Panda, you are not going to overtake anything without a run-up. For the latter the text-book answer is don't do it!

BErt

[vonhosen]

BertBert said:

The thing is that there is a different level of being "committed" in the overtake if you are accelerating behind the car on the LHS where Von has rightly drawn the much poorer visibility.

You start to accelerate much earlier, butactually you are not committed. You can still move out to do the "check before going", but you have a positive speed delta on the overtakee.

You can still call off the manoeuvre, but to do so you have to brake to remove the positive speed delta and stay back. That is not a great thing to do, but provided it's part of your plan and conducted properly, there is no real problem. You do not increase your TED at all.

The problem for the latter re the "roadcraft system" is that an instructor cannot tell the difference between you doing it in control with a proper safety margin and the ability to call off the overtake from having to panic brake to reduce speed and pull back in.

Also philosophically the final decision you end up having to make at the committment point is to call the manoeuvre off. In the Roadcraft method your final decision is the other way round. A positive decision to go. That is undoubtedly more conservative.

It of course depends on your car. In my GT3RS, it's pretty easy to move out with no speed delta, check, decide and go. In the Fiat Panda, you are not going to overtake anything without a run-up. For the latter the text-book answer is don't do it!

BErt

The other problem with going from the nearside (poorer view position) is that if you are accelerating out & there is a problem, it's OK saying you can brake & come back in, but what if your intended overtake also sees all this problem developing (with their better view) & takes your acceleration to mean you are committing ? They can end up braking the same time you do as you try to come back in & it all gets very messy.

The being offside early gives you the better vision & gives you longer to assess the response of your intended overtake. If they are spooked & brake, it makes your overtake easy & no conflict. If they speed up you are going to pick this up earlier & it will be easier to slip back in nearside behind them.

Rather than 'banana' for a momentum overtake, where ever possible I prefer to approach from some way back in the offside position, that way the vision is improving all the time on approach, as opposed to deteriorating as it is when you close from a nearside position.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 16th April 06:39

[Lady Godiva]

MKH9130 said:

Can anyone explain in simple terms why my way is bad, and the reasoning behind the IAM method and what it is supposed to achieve over and above the method I use??

Dear MKH9130

The idea is that you go out for one last look before committing to go. If something is wrong, you get a chance to call off the overtake before it has started.

It's a bit like doing the lifesaver. Do you do it before you move out, or do you move out and then do your lifesaver.

Therein lies the enlightenment (possibly).

Regards
Sally

[7db]

I consider that you are committed to the overtake at the point where you could not stop behind the target vehicle on your side of the road if he used full braking force.

This is quite different from being able to tuck in again if you don't fancy it and he keeps going at the same speed. As soon as you have a speed differential, this requires you to be quite a long way back if you are not to be committed.

Given this definition of committed...once you are committed you might as well be offside, since you'll have to be there anyway if he brakes hard. Given the view advantage, I'd rather look before I leap and have the view before committing. So that would put me offside either a long way back with a speed differential (the momentum overtake), or closer with little speed differential (the triangle).

On steering and accelerating, I found that in the snow and ice on new tyres, as I was at Easter, overtakes were considerably more comfortable when I could use full power without risking a unplanned steering event - and that absolutely meant being straight before accelerating briskly past the target vehicle. Frankly the last thing I need to be worrying about as I pass another vehicle is being overtaken myself by my rear wheels.

You won't get as many overtakes done by using the triangle as the banana. Like a lot of unsafe techniques, it can give you more progress. But then you'll not find yourself accelerating towards brake lights with the triangle either. Although until that happens to you and your trousers change colour, you can either believe what is written or continue with your existing behaviour.

[stewie732]

MKH9130 said:

7db said:

Just a few thoughts:-
- you are accelerating and steering at the same time
- you are committing to the overtake earlier than the other method so your TED is higher
- if you are safe accelerating, why not be offside?
- you don't have the pause and see how the other guy responds phase


There's no right or wrong way just think about the above issues. I think there is a lot to be said for the triangle over the banana.

1. Yes, although very gentle steering no more than a medium right-hander. I accelerate and steer all the time through corners - brake, change into right gear, accelerate through the corner etc. I don't mean accelerating hard up behind the overtakee followed by swerving into the oncoming lane

2. TED? Committing earlier, granted. But the overtake will be shorter in terms of actual time - by the time you are fully committed you will be travelling faster than the triangle method so the process of passing the overtakee will be shorter - you will be exposed for a shorter period of time, surely?

3. I see the 'banana method', as you put it, as being much smoother than the triangle method. Pulling out and then accelerating seems a bit alien to me when as to match the speed of the overtake using the banana method you will have to accelerate harsher (reaching the same speed over a shorter distance).

4. I do not understand the benefit of waiting to see how the overtakee responds. Most of the time they do not notice until you're alongside, regardless of method of overtake despite clear indications of your intentions!

precisely. is there some sort of problem with accelerating and steering? what am I supposed to do in zig zag roads?!

sometimes i pull out then accelerate, as it depends on the situation. i usually do that when there is more time.

the response of the overtakee has no effect as I avoid overtaking faster cars in most situations. in day to day driving, these cars are very few and very far between.
saying that I did overtake an m5 today, as he wasnt playing ball, so i went for it.

i have a 230bhp 06 type r civic ep3.

[BertBert]

vonhosen said:

BertBert said:

The thing is that there is a different level of being "committed" in the overtake if you are accelerating behind the car on the LHS where Von has rightly drawn the much poorer visibility.

You start to accelerate much earlier, butactually you are not committed. You can still move out to do the "check before going", but you have a positive speed delta on the overtakee.

You can still call off the manoeuvre, but to do so you have to brake to remove the positive speed delta and stay back. That is not a great thing to do, but provided it's part of your plan and conducted properly, there is no real problem. You do not increase your TED at all.

The problem for the latter re the "roadcraft system" is that an instructor cannot tell the difference between you doing it in control with a proper safety margin and the ability to call off the overtake from having to panic brake to reduce speed and pull back in.

Also philosophically the final decision you end up having to make at the committment point is to call the manoeuvre off. In the Roadcraft method your final decision is the other way round. A positive decision to go. That is undoubtedly more conservative.

It of course depends on your car. In my GT3RS, it's pretty easy to move out with no speed delta, check, decide and go. In the Fiat Panda, you are not going to overtake anything without a run-up. For the latter the text-book answer is don't do it!

BErt

The other problem with going from the nearside (poorer view position) is that if you are accelerating out & there is a problem, it's OK saying you can brake & come back in, but what if your intended overtake also sees all this problem developing (with their better view) & takes your acceleration to mean you are committing ? They can end up braking the same time you do as you try to come back in & it all gets very messy.

The being offside early gives you the better vision & gives you longer to assess the response of your intended overtake. If they are spooked & brake, it makes your overtake easy & no conflict. If they speed up you are going to pick this up earlier & it will be easier to slip back in nearside behind them.

Rather than 'banana' for a momentum overtake, where ever possible I prefer to approach from some way back in the offside position, that way the vision is improving all the time on approach, as opposed to deteriorating as it is when you close from a nearside position.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 16th April 06:39

Yep, agree with all that. You will still have issues in the "proper" method if you call the overtake off and the overtakee decides to help or hinder by braking. It's much less of a problem though if you don't have the speed delta!

I did a perfect proper overtake yesterday past a vile old recovery truck taking good time to go out, assess the time and distance available as well as the suitability of the gap in front of the truck. I even managed to keep to the speed limit. Nothing went wrong until the truck driver awoke from his reverie as I went past. He then tried to close the gap in front of him (to no effect as I was in the suitably sized gap before he worked out what was going on). He then went completely nuts - flashing his lights, hand signals, closing up to within inches. What a tt!

Bert

[MKH9130]

Thank you for the responses, I can understand the theory behind the triangle maneuver as opposed to a 'banana', although I guess the key is to be flexible depending on the circumstances.

In vonhosens images above, it is clear that the triangle maneuver would give greater visibility, although I would not consider a banana overtake from the point shown as the move from nearside to offside would be too severe and the lack of visibility would be an issue. I would instead move out much further back in order to gain maximum visibility before I was fully committed to the overtake, and at a point where the speed delta was minimal and that I could safely lower my speed and pull back behind the overtakee.

My main point is that by holding back, the visibility is (usually) much better than being closer to the overtakee negating the need to pull to the offside to check as with the triangle maneuver provided that you do not overcommit and are in a position to abort the overtake before drawing alongside the overtakee and are fully committed

I think I need some IAM runs to see the light!

[GreenV8S]

Another advantage of the 'triangle' overtake is that from the point of view of oncoming traffic they see you start to move back towards your side of the road much earlier. I think this is less intimidating to the oncoming traffic, especially if you're taking advantage of a large performance differential to overtake in a gap that other drivers might think is a bit tight.

[MKH9130]

BertBert said:

Nothing went wrong until the truck driver awoke from his reverie as I went past. He then tried to close the gap in front of him (to no effect as I was in the suitably sized gap before he worked out what was going on). He then went completely nuts - flashing his lights, hand signals, closing up to within inches. What a tt!

Bert

Bert

Surely in this scenario having a speed delta is beneficial as, as you put it ' you were in the suitably sized gab before he worked out what was going on'. Had you not had a speed delta, you would be less likely to have been in that gap and would have had to decide to

a) Overtake the car in front, depending on the circumstances or
b) Abort the overtake and resume previous position, assuming the car behind you had not closed the gap behind the lorry.

[7db]

MKH9130 said:

provided that you do not overcommit and are in a position to abort the overtake before drawing alongside the overtakee and are fully committed

If you modify that to include the idea that the target is fully on the brakes at this point, then I'd be ok with that.

Consider the bunny rabbit dashing out. The target brakes hard and swerves across the road, stopping side-on across both lanes.

If you've no choice but to hit him then I think you're committed to the pass.

You can't account for the bunny and at some point you'll have to risk it, but don't underestimate how early you are committed if there is a speed differential.

[Distant]

Having been a life long bananarer(!) I've recently started using the triangle overtake and I generally find the target car is more receptive and (dare I say) even helpful when this method is properly used. As long as a good distance is maintained from the target vehicle during the move off side and before burying the loud pedal, I much prefer the triangle approach.

Because you are making your intentions to pass clear to everyone without driving up their boot lid, it's not entirely uncommon to move off side for a look, decide against it, but before you've moved back in, the target car sees you off side (even though your speed is the same) and brakes and moves/signals to the left. Thereby reducing the space needed to pass and making the overtake on after all.

The only exception to this I can think of would be coming off a right hand bend where you can see clearly past the target car from the nearside position, in this case the move offside and acceleration can be simultaneous as nothing will be gained from holding the position offside. Keeping in mind the grip required for steering off side and, what will probably be brisk acceleration.

I'd much rather have a car 1 - 2 seconds behind me, moving out repeatedly for a look, and aborting when not safe than someone repeatedly charging towards the back of my car and stomping on the brakes when he decides against it. I know which driver I'd help past.

[p1esk]

Distant said:

Having been a life long bananarer(!) I've recently started using the triangle overtake and I generally find the target car is more receptive and (dare I say) even helpful when this method is properly used. As long as a good distance is maintained from the target vehicle during the move off side and before burying the loud pedal, I much prefer the triangle approach.

Because you are making your intentions to pass clear to everyone without driving up their boot lid, it's not entirely uncommon to move off side for a look, decide against it, but before you've moved back in, the target car sees you off side (even though your speed is the same) and brakes and moves/signals to the left. Thereby reducing the space needed to pass and making the overtake on after all.

The only exception to this I can think of would be coming off a right hand bend where you can see clearly past the target car from the nearside position, in this case the move offside and acceleration can be simultaneous as nothing will be gained from holding the position offside. Keeping in mind the grip required for steering off side and, what will probably be brisk acceleration.

I'd much rather have a car 1 - 2 seconds behind me, moving out repeatedly for a look, and aborting when not safe than someone repeatedly charging towards the back of my car and stomping on the brakes when he decides against it. I know which driver I'd help past.

I'd help them both past, but for different reasons.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Distant]

Fair point!