Swoop overtakes - the DSA preferred method

[SVS]

Hi all,

Has anyone else spotted the DIA's article about overtaking in the current issue of Driving magazine? If so, what did you think?

It seemed to me there was an underlying message that could be interpreted as "anti-Roadcraft" ... ? The article promoted swoop overtakes as the preferred method (as opposed to 3-stage overtakes being an option). Since Driving magazine targets advanced drivers and riders for its readership, I wondered about this.

Has anyone else read it? Thoughts?

[Zod]

What, the banana method? Quite extraordinary if they're advocating that. Accelerating, not in a straight line, before you've had the opportunity to take a proper look and assess the overtake.

[SVS]

Yes, the banana method. There's a double-page spread of a banana-shaped overtake on pages 14-15 in the April/May issue of Driving.

The written advice is largely sound. It even talks about determining position, speed and gear in that order (but not mentioning Roadcraft, of course). However, the diagram looks like this ...
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.f...

"This method reflects the DSA's preferred method, which can be found in The Official DSA Guide to Driving: The Essential Skills."

[Vaux]

SVS said:

Yes, the banana method. There's a double-page spread of a banana-shaped overtake on pages 14-15 in the April/May issue of Driving.

The written advice is largely sound. It even talks about determining position, speed and gear in that order (but not mentioning Roadcraft, of course). However, the diagram looks like this ...
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.f...

"This method reflects the DSA's preferred method, which can be found in The Official DSA Guide to Driving: The Essential Skills."

D:tes says "pull out on a smooth easy line"

[Z.B]

I guess the authors are thinking about 'easy' overtakes where technique is less important.

[Blakewater]

What exactly do you mean by a swoop overtake? I can't see the sense in hanging back and then accelerating out onto the opposite side of the road before seeing if it's clear. Though I can see the temptation to give yourself a run up in a lower powered car.

[MC Bodge]

Travelling at a steady speed, then 'swooping' out to overtake is surely fine?

Anyway, who has *never* built-up a bit of speed before pulling out (having made good observations) to overtake? Unless your car is fast (or a bike), it is a practical method.

[AyBee]

Not everyone has the power for the method used by the IAM so sometimes it's safer to use this method!

[Mastodon2]

In my old Fiesta this was the only method that worked, such was it's lack of power. As with any overtake, a lot of planning and observation was needed, but given the low power of the car, a banana overtake on a long straight was often the only way to overtake.

In my current car I can use the "Up behind them, pull out, check to go, accelerate past, pull back in" method, but if I have a long view ahead and a clear run, then I find it's just as safe and often a lot smoother to curve the overtake rather than slotting in and out of my lane like rigid, compartmentalised moves. For a start, it's much easier to maintain speed doing this, rather than driving up behind the car you intend to overtake, possibly having to slow and then speeding up again for the overtake. It's something I've put a fair bit of thought into now that I have the power to use the second method, but it's often smoother to swoop the overtake (assuming you are giving proper observation first, and making certain your intentions by means of signals) as a single, smooth motion. I know Roadcraft et al often advise breaking driving down into a load of separate steps, but in the real world it can be easier and just as safe to make your own decisions about things.

[Benbay001]

AyBee said:

Not everyone has the power for the method used by the IAM so sometimes it's safer to use this method!

+1

[Dr Jekyll]

MC Bodge said:

Travelling at a steady speed, then 'swooping' out to overtake is surely fine?

Anyway, who has *never* built-up a bit of speed before pulling out (having made good observations) to overtake? Unless your car is fast (or a bike), it is a practical method.

I don't think I ever have. If there is nothing coming I pull out and build up speed on the other side of the road, if there is someone coming the other way it's unusual to be able to see an overtaking oppotunity behind them.

[SVS]

Mastodon2 said:

I know Roadcraft et al often advise breaking driving down into a load of separate steps, but in the real world it can be easier and just as safe to make your own decisions about things.

Actually, Roadcraft advises a flexible approach. Both methods are outlined in 'the blue book'

[218g]

SVS said:

Mastodon2 said:

I know Roadcraft et al often advise breaking driving down into a load of separate steps, but in the real world it can be easier and just as safe to make your own decisions about things.

Actually, Roadcraft advises a flexible approach. Both methods are outlined in 'the blue book'

Roadcraft seems to mix two issues. It starts by distinguishing the situation "where you are able to overtake immediately" from the situation "where other hazards require you to follow before you can safely overtake", using a banana-like diagram for the first and multi-stage approach for the second. But it seems to me that the banana diagram is appropriate when you can observe enough to commit from your own side of the road while you're still behind the vehicle you want to pass, regardless of whether you're looking to overtake immediately or you've been following it for the last ten miles. Whereas the multi-stage approach is for when you need observation from the other side of the road before you can commit (and Roadcraft talks about moving out for a look before you commit when it discusses the multi-stage approach in more detail). But again, you might need that observation from the other side of the road when you want to overtake immediately you catch someone, or when you've been following them for ages. Whether you can overtake immediately (vs needing to follow for a bit) and whether you can commit from your side of the road (vs needing to move out for observation before you commit) are, I think, different questions.

Edited by 218g on Saturday 9th April 08:49

[7mike]

Or there's the Brake! prefered line; one long slooow one

[johnao]

218g said:

But again, you might need that observation from the other side of the road when you want to overtake immediately you catch someone, or when you've been following them for ages. Whether you can overtake immediately (vs needing to follow for a bit) and whether you can commit from your side of the road (vs needing to move out for observation before you commit) are, I think, different questions.

I agree. I think the "Roadcraft" diagram of a "banana" overtake on page 132 is bonkers and potentially dangerous. There is no way that the car driver could possibly consider that his position as shown behind the lorry would be the "appropriate point [to] take a position to overtake the vehicle in front. This [being] the position that gives you the best view and opportunity to overtake". Look at the diagram and you will see that from the launch position there is absolutly no view of the road in front of the lorry! This is an area that could contain a cyclist or other obstruction for which the lorry would have to change position, a road junction or garage entrance etc.

If I was considering the so called "banana" overtake I would be making an offside approach to the lorry from a relatively long way back. The offside approach simply replacing the "following position" and the "overtaking position" as shown on page 133 of "Roadcraft" but, the offside position would be adopted from much further back. I would still have to make a decision to "commit" to the overtake just as I would if I was using the triangle approach, the "commit" decision just has to be made further back from the lorry, but will always be made from the offside position on the road.

[Vaux]

johnao said:

I agree. I think the "Roadcraft" diagram of a "banana" overtake on page 132 is bonkers and potentially dangerous. There is no way that the car driver could possibly consider that his position as shown behind the lorry would be the "appropriate point [to] take a position to overtake the vehicle in front. This [being] the position that gives you the best view and opportunity to overtake". Look at the diagram and you will see that from the launch position there is absolutly no view of the road in front of the lorry! This is an area that could contain a cyclist or other obstruction for which the lorry would have to change position, a road junction or garage entrance etc.

What/where have you been looking as you approached the lorry? Might you not have been able to figure out there was no bike?
Of course, you're correct that there might be a big hole in the road that might make the lorry swerve, but, you won't get to see that using the other method either, depending on timing?

[johnao]

Vaux said:

What/where have you been looking as you approached the lorry? Might you not have been able to figure out there was no bike?

With reference to the diagram on page 132, I am assuming that there has, as yet, been no offside positioning for vision. That just leaves a view along the nearside of the lorry. The diagram shows a straight road - I would be very reluctant, no that's the wrong word, I would counsel against committing from the launch position in the diagram based upon an earlier view along the nearside of the lorry (it's a very big, long, lorry!).

I would be interested to hear how you would be able to figure out there was no bike etc.

[Vaux]

johnao said:

With reference to the diagram on page 132, I am assuming that there has, as yet, been no offside positioning for vision. That just leaves a view along the nearside of the lorry. The diagram shows a straight road - I would be very reluctant, no that's the wrong word, I would counsel against committing from the launch position in the diagram based upon an earlier view along the nearside of the lorry (it's a very big, long, lorry!).

I would be interested to hear how you would be able to figure out there was no bike etc.

Are we talking US interstate straight here? I'm thinking the road will be or has been a bit bendy, giving the opportunity to have seen something when positioning behind the lorry as shown on page 135?

[johnao]

Vaux said:

I'm thinking the road will be or has been a bit bendy, giving the opportunity to have seen something when positioning behind the lorry as shown on page 135?

Ah, at last we agree! This is exactly my point, the diagram on page 132 in itself does not tell the whole story, we need to invoke the scenario illustrated on page 135 before the overtake illustrated on page 132 can be considered safe. But, there is no "health warning" to this effect that I can find on page 132.

Have a look on page 128 of the 1997 edition of Roadcraft to see an excellent illustration of a perfectly safe "banana" overtake of a car. In my opinion, the editors of the 2007 edition have erred in trying to improve an already perfectly good illustration. In my opinion, by using in this illustration the largest, longest and tallest vehicle in the entire book the editors appear to have not only obscured the car driver's view but also obscured from the general reader the real essence of why, when and how one would use this technique.