So, is overtaking illegal now????

gyppo

MrPudding wrote:

OK, then I give up. Maybe we should make overtaking illegal.

What would you suggest? I will not sit in a queue. I will use everything I have at my disposal to pass cars so I have a good view and make progress.

If we assumed that everyone would speed up and not let us in then we would never overtake. Whatever we do on the road carries a degree of risk. We can reduce this risk as much as possible by using a systematic approach to everything we try to do.

If you find your safety space closing find another, remember, you may not even need it. This is the belt and braces approach. If you have analysed things correctly you should not need it, it is there for an emergency in case something unexpected happens.

MrP

My point was that overtaking 3/4 vehicles takes time to complete, and the conditions that were there at the start of your manouvre might not exist 3/4 seconds later. If you are 150M back from the start of a 4 vehicle convoy, just starting to overtake, and the leading vehicle brakes hard for some reason, by the time your halfway through your manouvre, your gaps are gone.

Also, its a fact that occurs all too often - many drivers/assholes do speed up when someone else is overtaking them.

I agree with you, there is an inherent risk in everything done on the roads. Overtaking multiple vehicles increases this risk as you are on the wrong side of the road for X times longer.

GreeBo

MrPudding wrote:

Yes there is, I pointed it out earlier. To take you cars individually you have to make 4 moves to the offside, 4 accelerations and 4 returns. If you take them all at once it is one move to the offside, one acceleration and one move back. You will spend less time, in total, on the offside with the multiple overtake as you get up to speed and finish the move. With the other way you have to accelerate, pull back in, pull out, accelerate again as you have dropped backed to the speed of the traffic again and so on. So instead of going from traffic speed to overtaking speed once, you have to do it 4 times.

Over and above the fact that it is slower the individual method is more dangerous as you have more moves to make, each time you make a move you add risk.

MrP

But thats not really looking at the true picture.
When you have overtaken the first car then that incident is over and does not have any impact on the next overtaking section.

You have decided that because the 4 overtaking manoeuvers are close together that that adds danger.
You would think nothing of overtaking 4 times in 1 hour so why is 4 times in 10 minutes more dangerous?
Its an emotional but illogical deduction.

MrPudding

GreeBo wrote:

But thats not really looking at the true picture.
When you have overtaken the first car then that incident is over and does not have any impact on the next overtaking section.

You have decided that because the 4 overtaking manoeuvers are close together that that adds danger.
You would think nothing of overtaking 4 times in 1 hour so why is 4 times in 10 minutes more dangerous?
Its an emotional but illogical deduction.

What? The time is irrelevent. We are talking about four cars in a convoy. The point is the number of moves you have to make. there are less with one overtake.

MrP

GreeBo

MrPudding wrote:

What? The time is irrelevent. We are talking about four cars in a convoy. The point is the number of moves you have to make. there are less with one overtake.

But its not irrelevant to your argument!

You think that 4 individual moves is more dangerous than 1 prolonged move.
I disagree.
You think nothing of overtaking 4 times on a journey but you think 4 times on 1 stretch of road is more dangerous, this makes no sense!
I dont see how it possibly can be anything but safer if you apply the same rules (your overtaking rules) to each move.

You are using the distance between each car in a convoy (i.e the time between them) to argue that overtaking in one move is safer.

To look at it another way, do you stay in the overtaking lane on a motorway until there are no visible cars in the driving lane or do you move back in until you get behind the next "slower" car?

There are plenty of people who live in the overtaking lane citing the fact that there is another car that they are about to overtake , even if it will be minutes before they actually catch up to the next car.

Marcus.Aurelius

GreeBo wrote:

So there is some number of overtakes that it is only possible for you to do in a trip?
Thats what you are implying.
There is no difference between over taking 4 individual cars and overtaking multiple cars 4 times, you just think there is as the 4 individual cars happen to be close together.

A single acceleration and overtake on a long straight road with no obstacles and oncoming traffic is safer than 4 accelerations, pullouts, overtakes and returns.

You are quadrupling your movements, this is more dangerous than the single overtake I mentioned. Duh.

More importantly, MrP, GTC and I are advanced drivers, you are not. We were taught to do this safely, you were not.

End of story.

saobh_ie

maoleary wrote:

The oncoming car is supposed to use the hard shoulder to avoid YOU.

I know this has been settled already but the overriding rule before you perform any manouver in your car, be it an overtake or pulling out into a main road is that you should not cause any other vechile to change its speed or direction.

BrianD3 wrote:

Good, we're in agreement so! Looking back over the thread I think GTC responded to unkel when he meant to respond to the guy on the motorbike who says he like to use the opposite HS to put more space between him and the target. I'd agree that this is highly dangerous.

I think that was me, however I don't like using the hard shoulder. Ideally I will overtake in the center of the oncoming lane however if the situation requires it and the surface is uniform and I'm not placing myself in greater danger from entrances etc., I'm not going to let a strip of yellow paint prevent me from putting my wheels in a safe place.

I believe the only instance I actually used to the opposite hard shoulder as part of an over take on at some point on the N7 before Christmas to put some time and distance between myself and a complete muppet who had taken offense to an earlier over take and tailgated, overtaked me back, braked hard for no reason in front of me, and when he caught up with a line of slower traffic he couldn't overtake repeatedly pushed out into the offside when he saw me coming. Getting past him and the traffic ahead put a half dozen cars and quickly after than a number of HGV's between me and him.

In that kind of situation the law doesn't help me or hinder him be it the rules or the Gardaí, so getting the flock outta there seemed at the time to be my best course of action.

MrPudding wrote:

I can assure you that when I am riding my bike I make very, very few assumptions about other roads users intentions. I did not assume he wasn't speeding, I gathered information and made my decision to overtake based on that.

I always make assumptions about other road users, I assume they're totally incompetant, I assume they're going to do something crazy, I assume a tractor is going to parked around the next bend with a spikey thing pointing at me.

However, recently I've noticed a marked improvement in the behaviour of other motorists on our National routes and even in Dublin with regard to making space for and seeing me.

OldmanMondeo

maoleary wrote:

More importantly, MrP, GTC and I are advanced drivers, you are not. We were taught to do this safely, you were not.
End of story.

Her come the Super Drivers!!! Her to correct all our mistakes...

Advance driving courses are fine, but actually putting this into pratice in every day driving is different. We all learnt to pass our Driving test, we were not taught how to drive.

MrPudding

OldmanMondeo wrote:

Her come the Super Drivers!!! Her to correct all our mistakes...

None of us have said we are super drivers. We are simply trying to defend our position.

OldmanMondeo wrote:

Advance driving courses are fine, but actually putting this into pratice in every day driving is different.

What is the point of an advanced driving course if not to put into practice everyday?

OldmanMondeo wrote:

We all learnt to pass our Driving test, we were not taught how to drive.

Agreed. That is why I took up advanced training. I want to be better on the road.

MrP


MrP

MrPudding

saobh_ie wrote:

I always make assumptions about other road users, I assume they're totally incompetant, I assume they're going to do something crazy, I assume a tractor is going to parked around the next bend with a spikey thing pointing at me.

Absolutely. They are assumptions I am happy to make. As for the tractor round the corner? You should be able to come to a controlled stop, on your side of the road in the distance you can see to be clear. If you follow this the tractor will not be a problem.

MrP

Marcus.Aurelius

When we say advanced driving, we ain't talking about Hibernian's Ignition course, we mean actual defensive driving courses with places like the Institute of Advanced Motorists, which is a membership organisation, you must pass a series of rigorous tests to be made a member.

Advanced driving is not about being snobby or scared witless of everything on the road, its about avoiding these problems by choosing your position and speed carefully and maintaining good all-round vision. Notice the amount of people who never look in their rear-view mirrors? Its insane!

OldmanMondeo

MrPudding wrote:

None of us have said we are super drivers. We are simply trying to defend our position.

Thats perfectly fine, I only have a problem with people who try and look down their noses at other who haven't taken such courses.

As for putting into pratice, not everyone who has taken the advance driving course will actuall drive the type of raods being discussed here. i.e mainly city drivers. I do a combination of both, every day, works out over 400 miles a week. I don't feel I need an advance drivers course, because I alway try to judge what is on the road and it's surrounds. What possible dangers are there. When it is safe to and not safe to overtake. This does not make me a good or better driver, what I think makes me a good driver is the fact I always get to where I want to go without causing accident or heartache to other drivers.

I see a lot of what I call bad driving. Multiple overtaking because that person is in to much of a hurry to keep within speed limits and shows no consideration to other road users. Out of all multipul overtaking I have seen, more than 50% I would consider dangerous for several reasons, speeding, causeing oncoming traffic to brake hard / pull into hard shoulders, causeing withflow traffic to brake hard as well, junction on the road, hatched areas being crossed, double white line being crossed etc. None of these cars tend to be "Little 1.3's" as mentioned earlier in this topic, but usually latger BMW's Merc Mondeos, the 1.8plus cars. 9 time out of 10 there is a good reason why someone will not over take.

People on here are trying to preach good considerat driveing, but a lot of these are also giving out about drivers who drive within speed limits and within their out safety zone. If this is a problem for you, then it should be you off the road, not people who have a consideration for other road users.

Rant over, I'm going for lunch.

Marcus.Aurelius

It's not a problem to me if you drive the way you see fit. But for God's sake allow me to pass you if you have room to let me. You have every right to drive as you see fit, but no right to impede the progress of others.

I think people refusing to let others by on fine roads with massive hard shoulders are the problem. If they let people by (it ain't illegal, see the new Rules of the Road book) would more or less eliminate the problem we're discussing. Don't you think?

gyppo

maoleary wrote:

A single acceleration and overtake on a long straight road with no obstacles and oncoming traffic is safer than 4 accelerations, pullouts, overtakes and returns.

You are quadrupling your movements, this is more dangerous than the single overtake I mentioned. Duh.

More importantly, MrP, GTC and I are advanced drivers, you are not. We were taught to do this safely, you were not.

End of story.

You can argue the toss the other way - you are quadrupling the amount of time spent on the wrong side of the road. Duh to you too!:D

Marcus.Aurelius

Not in the overall. 4 x overtakes is still 4 times more than 1 overtake, since you have to pull out and accelerate each time. At any rate you seem to be unable to grasp the 4 vs. 1 argument. 4 x 1 = 4 , which ain't equal to 1.

I'll refrain from saying the obvious

gyppo

maoleary wrote:

I think people refusing to let others by on fine roads with massive hard shoulders are the problem. If they let people by (it ain't illegal, see the new Rules of the Road book) would more or less eliminate the problem we're discussing. Don't you think?

No way would I be coerced to move into the hard shoulder to let another car pass. I will move into the extreme left of the lane, but not into the hard shoulder.
I witnessed a nasty accident where a person who had pulled into the hard shoulder to let another car pass tore into the side of a car exiting a private entrance. Two kids hurt, one badly. The guy on the hard shoulder had nowhere to go, the guy who was overtaking was gone, and didnt even realise an accident had occured.

OldmanMondeo

maoleary wrote:

It's not a problem to me if you drive the way you see fit. But for God's sake allow me to pass you if you have room to let me. You have every right to drive as you see fit, but no right to impede the progress of others.

I think people refusing to let others by on fine roads with massive hard shoulders are the problem. If they let people by (it ain't illegal, see the new Rules of the Road book) would more or less eliminate the problem we're discussing. Don't you think?

As I said, I am considerate to other drivers. If someone comes up behind me looking to pass, I will not stop them. but I will not put myself in danger indoing so.
May I ask why, on a large wide road with good sized hard shoulders, I would need to move into to let a car pass? The only reason I can think off is there is on comming traffic.

Marcus.Aurelius

You would hardly move into the hard shoulder if there was estates and entrances around. I'm talking about straight roads without such entrances and junctions.

Not giving way to traffic behind you may become an offence like in the US. Not to mention its bad manners.

Marcus.Aurelius

OldmanMondeo wrote:

As I said, I am considerate to other drivers. If someone comes up behind me looking to pass, I will not stop them. but I will not put myself in danger indoing so.
May I ask why, on a large wide road with good sized hard shoulders, I would need to move into to let a car pass? The only reason I can think off is there is on comming traffic.

Exactly right. If the car behind can't go, and you have room to do so, its very polite to let them go. There are a lot of great people out there that do it, and I applaud them for it.

gyppo

maoleary wrote:

Not in the overall. 4 x overtakes is still 4 times more than 1 overtake, since you have to pull out and accelerate each time. At any rate you seem to be unable to grasp the 4 vs. 1 argument. 4 x 1 = 4 , which ain't equal to 1.

I'll refrain from saying the obvious

Please don't hold back. Maybe I am thick, but I;ll try my point again. 1overtake of 1 car might mean 70-80M on the wrong side of the road. OK, Job done, that overtake is now history.
1 overtake of 4 cars might mean 210-240M on the wrong side of the road - its a lonnnnger time to be on the wrong side of the road. Thats my arguement.

Marcus.Aurelius

Wrong, you are already up to speed when you approach the second one. Distance will remain the same, since the other cars are not changing velocity. Your speed means you will overtake them in a fraction of the time it would take to overtake them from their original velocity. (i.e. you are going faster when you approach the second, and you cover the distance in a much shorter time)

Is that any better?:(

gyppo

maoleary wrote:

You would hardly move into the hard shoulder if there was estates and entrances around. I'm talking about straight roads without such entrances and junctions.

Not giving way to traffic behind you may become an offence like in the US. Not to mention its bad manners.

Can you list any primary N routes where there are not any entrances and junctions? Because I don't know any.

OldmanMondeo

Basicly what this topic is about is who considers what to be dangerous and who doesn't. I have done things on the road that others would say are crazy, but at the time I would ahve felt it was fine and safe to do so, and vice versa.
My problem with overtaking, is that I have seen to many that were dangerous. There are to many drivers on the road that will make it arkward for you to overtake, may it be deliberate or not.

MrPudding

gyppo wrote:

Please don't hold back. Maybe I am thick, but I;ll try my point again. 1overtake of 1 car might mean 70-80M on the wrong side of the road. OK, Job done, that overtake is now history.
1 overtake of 4 cars might mean 210-240M on the wrong side of the road - its a lonnnnger time to be on the wrong side of the road. Thats my arguement.

But what is 4 x 70 or 80 metres? That is what you will spend overtaking all four cars individually.

MrP

Marcus.Aurelius

OldmanMondeo is right, a lot of overtaking is dangerous. All we are saying is that good drivers usually don't go if its too risky. There is such a thing as a safe overtake.

MrPudding

maoleary wrote:

OldmanMondeo is right, a lot of overtaking is dangerous. All we are saying is that good drivers usually don't go if its too risky. There is such a thing as a safe overtake.

Exactly. I think a lot of peoples opinions are coloured by seeing some really really bad driving.

I think all we are trying to say is, whether or not you agree with it, it is possible to overtake in a safe manner, be it one car or 6 cars and 2 artics.

MrP

gyppo

MrPudding wrote:

But what is 4 x 70 or 80 metres? That is what you will spend overtaking all four cars individually.

MrP

Yes, I agree, but you still have to cover the same distance if you overtake them all at once. I agree, all at the one time means you will cover the distance in a shorter lenght of time - BUT, you are still on the wrong side of the road for longer for that single manouvre, than if you carried out 4 individual single manouvres.

GreeBo

MrPudding wrote:

But what is 4 x 70 or 80 metres? That is what you will spend overtaking all four cars individually.

MrP

But its not!
These are four individual moves so they are not related!
You dont multiply them or add them or anything.
You dont consider how many cars you overtook yesterday when you are overtaking a car today do you?
So why pay any attention to the one you overtook 2 minutes ago?
Its the simple flaw in your logic that you are somehow refusing to see.

Mitch Connor

but when you were overtaking the car yesterday, you had not decided to overtake the car today, so it is not the same thing. the object is to get past the 4 cars that are impeding progress, not past just one of them so you can be in the middle of the convoy as opposed to behind it.

GreeBo

Tauren wrote:

but when you were overtaking the car yesterday, you had not decided to overtake the car today, so it is not the same thing.

Tauren wrote:

the object is to get past the 4 cars that are impeding progress, not past just one of them so you can be in the middle of the convoy as opposed to behind it.

Well if you pass each car in turn you end up in front.
But there is always going to be a car in front of you somewhere.

Stop fixating on a convoy, how small does the space between each car have to be to be a "convoy" in your mind?
If there is room for your vehicle between the cars then you should pass each one in turn. If there isnt room then you certainly shouldnt be passing as you have no where to go in case of emergency.

MrPudding

gyppo wrote:

Yes, I agree, but you still have to cover the same distance if you overtake them all at once. I agree, all at the one time means you will cover the distance in a shorter lenght of time - BUT, you are still on the wrong side of the road for longer for that single manouvre, than if you carried out 4 individual single manouvres.

How? I will try to break it down.

You are behind 4 cars, they are doing 40MPH in a 60 zone. Lets assume the road is straight and clear. As you are behind the cars you are also travelling at 45mph. You pull out to overtake and accelerate to 60MPH and take the first car. You now slow back down to 45 to pull in behind the 2nd car, you can’t continue at 60MPH as car 2 is only doing 45.

You then pull out to take the second car, again you accelerate to 60, pass car two and then slow back down again to 45 to pull in behind car 3. This continues until you have passed all 4 cars.

Compare that to this. You pull out to pass car one and accelerate to 60MPH, you pass the first car and continue at 60MPH and pass the 2nd, 3rd and 4th car. You then pull into you lane still doing 60 and continue on your way.

Now, let put some arbitrary figures on it. Let us say you car takes 10 second to get from 45 to 60 and 5 to get from 60 to 45. To carry out 4 individual overtakes you will spend 40 seconds accelerating and 15 decelerating. This is added to the time required to actually pass the cars.

Using the same arbitrary figures, when taking all 4 at once you spend 10 seconds accelerating and 0 deceleration, again added to the time taken to actually pass the cars which should be approximately the same for both scenarios.

You will be on the offside for longer time wise and also distance wise with the four individual overtakes. If it takes you longer time wise to pass a car you will cover more distance while passing it. We are talking fairly basic physics here.

MrP