So, is overtaking illegal now????

Mitch Connor

GreeBo wrote:

You were saying that you don't take the cars your over took yesterday into account when you go to perform an overtake today - i was pointing out the two incidents are not related, your goal wasn't to overtake the car yesterday and follow it up with the one today, they simply are not relevant to each other.

Well if you pass each car in turn you end up in front.

So you objective is to pass all 4 cars, at some point

But there is always going to be a car in front of you somewhere.

And if they are going a significant speed under the speedlimit, i would look to overtake them too when it came time to do so.

Stop fixating on a convoy, how small does the space between each car have to be to be a "convoy" in your mind?

If four cars are travelling at the same speed, in the same direction, within close proximity of each other, i class them as travellingin convoy

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.

If there is room to safely complete the overtake of all 4 cars, i don't see why it is a better option to acclerate to a speed that gets you past the first car in good time, then hit the brakes so you can get back in (notice, you CAN get back in without killing anyone) only to have to perform the same again, and again, and again.

GreeBo

MrPudding wrote:

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.

And using fairly basic reasoning I can see that you are not comparing like with like.
Each step of the 4 individual overtakes is compared to your single one.
Again, the fact that 4 of them occur in close proximity to each other has no relevance what so ever
How can they?After each one you are back in your own lane as if you never left it.

How can you not see this?

Mitch Connor

GreeBo wrote:

And using fairly basic reasoning I can see that you are not comparing like with like.
Each step of the 4 individual overtakes is compared to your single one.
Again, the fact that 4 of them occur in close proximity to each other has no relevance what so ever
How can they?After each one you are back in your own lane as if you never left it.

How can you not see this?

but you want to be making progress, not being right back where you were.

GreeBo

Tauren wrote:

You were saying that you don't take the cars your over took yesterday into account when you go to perform an overtake today - i was pointing out the two incidents are not related, your goal wasn't to overtake the car yesterday and follow it up with the one today, they simply are not relevant to each other.

Bingo. Using exactly the same logic the each of the individial overtaking moves you make has no relation to the preceeding ones.

Tauren wrote:

And if they are going a significant speed under the speedlimit, i would look to overtake them too when it came time to do so.

so why not just stay on the other side of the road going as fast as you can, that way you will reduce the number of moves you need to make...

Tauren wrote:

If four cars are travelling at the same speed, in the same direction, within close proximity of each other, i class them as travellingin convoy

Define close proximity, is there space for your vehicle to safe pull in between them?

Tauren wrote:

If there is room to safely complete the overtake of all 4 cars, i don't see why it is a better option to acclerate to a speed that gets you past the first car in good time, then hit the brakes so you can get back in (notice, you CAN get back in without killing anyone) only to have to perform the same again, and again, and again.

It is a better option as you are back to your correct position on the road and can once again start the process of deciding if its safe to overtake. Its exactly the same as my example of staying in the opposite lane. The longer you are there the more dangerous it is.
Its not the cumulative effect of how long you are there its how long you are consecutively on the wrong side of the road.

MrPudding

GreeBo wrote:

If there is room for your vehicle between the cars then you should pass each one in turn.

Can you please show me where it says this anywhere? Is it in the rules of the road?

Seriously, this is getting quite tedious. I actually specifically mentioned this thread to my instructor last night, he actually did laugh.

You have no obligation to pull in between cars when overtaking unless circumstances dictate it is not safe to continue.

MrP

GreeBo

MrPudding wrote:

Can you please show me where it says this anywhere? Is it in the rules of the road?

I never said it was a rule of the road, if it was a rule of the road I would have used the word "must" not "should".

The whole point of this argument is that I think overtaking multiple cars is more dangerous than overtaking 1 car multiple times. I can hardly be expected to argue my point without giving an example of what I think you *should* do in the situation.

MrPudding

GreeBo wrote:

And using fairly basic reasoning I can see that you are not comparing like with like.
Each step of the 4 individual overtakes is compared to your single one.
Again, the fact that 4 of them occur in close proximity to each other has no relevance what so ever
How can they?After each one you are back in your own lane as if you never left it.

How can you not see this?

I am sorry, I see what you are saying but it is total crap. It is relevent. The ultimate aim is to pass all 4 with the minimun off fuss. It is perfectly relevent to compare the single overtake with 4 individual ones, the goal is the same, pass all cars.

After each overtake you have to actually scrub off speed, you are overtaking faster than they are driving therefore to slip back in between you need to slow down.

MrP

MrPudding

GreeBo wrote:

It is a better option as you are back to your correct position on the road and can once again start the process of deciding if its safe to overtake.

In your opinion it is better. According to advanced driving instructors it is not always the better option. it is perfectly possible decide it is safe to overtake all 4 cars at the begining.

GreeBo wrote:

Its not the cumulative effect of how long you are there its how long you are consecutively on the wrong side of the road.

Why?

MrP

GreeBo

MrPudding wrote:

In your opinion it is better. According to advanced driving instructors it is not always the better option. it is perfectly possible decide it is safe to overtake all 4 cars at the begining.

It might be safe in some cases but its never safer IMO.

MrPudding wrote:

Why?

Well because you get to evaluate each time, if its not on you just do nothing, if you hare halfway past car #2 and you something changes to make it "not on" then you have to take emergency action.

GreeBo

MrPudding wrote:

I am sorry, I see what you are saying but it is total crap. It is relevent. The ultimate aim is to pass all 4 with the minimun off fuss. It is perfectly relevent to compare the single overtake with 4 individual ones, the goal is the same, pass all cars.

Its relevent for some comparisons (time taken, hassle etc) but not for safety.
Safety wise each of the four cars is unrelated and has no impact on forthcoming events, not true when overtaking multiple cars in a single move.

The argument is not about how easy it is or how long it takes its about which is safer.

OldmanMondeo

GreeBo wrote:

Its relevent for some comparisons (time taken, hassle etc) but not for safety.
Safety wise each of the four cars is unrelated and has no impact on forthcoming events, not true when overtaking multiple cars in a single move.

The argument is not about how easy it is or how long it takes its about which is safer.

That said, sometimes it is safer to pass more than 1 car at a time.

The most I have overtaken was 8 and a artic, but the cars were on the back of it....:D

gyppo

Final time.:rolleyes:

This is my last post, edited slightly to make things a little clearer for some.

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 any one of 4 individual single manouvres. (which are not related to each other)

GreeBo

gyppo wrote:

Final time.:rolleyes:

This is my last post, edited slightly to make things a little clearer for some.

Hey! get your own brick wall, this ones mine!

saobh_ie

When I approac a group of cars, 4 seems to be the number we're using, I will overtake them all at once. However, the way I do this is to approach the first (or last) one with a view to overtaking him alone.

During that overtake I will decide if its safe to proceed, no oncoming traffic, no other problems, I can see the distance that myself and an oncoming vechile can stop gently in, theres no or limited entry points to the road, no junctions and I have three escape routes (in, back and forward).

I'll continue past the second car without pulling in behind him and decide if its safe to proceed before I pass my target, which is a nice safe spot in the 'convoy', if its safe I'll continue past the third car, if its still safe I'll continue past the fourth car and pull in in front and let off the gas, using engine braking or the brakes depending on how quickly I need to get back to a cruising speed.

No drama, the bare minimun of movements and the least work for the car.

Seth Brundle

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 any one of 4 individual single manouvres. (which are not related to each other)

I would be inclined to disagree. With one long manouvre, you must pull out, pass and pull in whereas with 4 overtaking manouvres you have to do this four times so in total there would be more time spent across the road.

GreeBo

kbannon wrote:

I would be inclined to disagree. With one long manouvre, you must pull out, pass and pull in whereas with 4 overtaking manouvres you have to do this four times so in total there would be more time spent across the road.

But you are adding up 4 separate moves together!
Where is the logic in this?
If you pass four cars in four moves then its four totally unrelated moves.
Otherwise (taking an extreme case) you can start adding together time spent overtaking 2 hours ago.

Last time:
If overtake car number 1, complete the move and move back into the road then how can you add time spent in that move to me over taking car number 4? I could spend 30 minutes driving before I overtake car 4 but you still want to add that on!
Its not a logical argument. confused:

Gwynston

This is getting very repetitive.
gyppo and GreeBo are arguing that you should never have a target to overtake all 4 cars, only one at a time can be considered. They're not going to change their narrow minded POV, so just leave them to it....

As a side point, isn't it a law in some US states that if you're driving below the limit and have 3 or more cars held up behind you, you're obliged to pull over and let them past? And it's enforced by the police too.

GreeBo

Gwynston wrote:

They're not going to change their narrow minded POV, so just leave them to it....

Because you disagree ours is a narrow point of view?
You disagree with us so you are narrow minded also, n'est pas? :rolleyes:

Thats why people who can debate an argument dont make silly statements like that.

astraboy

Because greebo, when people argue they often at least make an attempt to see the other persons point of view, you seem to fail to do this.

If you over take 4 cars safety in one manover whats the issue? You just don't like the idea of it basically. If you have a clear road and enough power to let you pass out the 4 cars in a safe manner it is perferable to passing them out one at a time. Not only is this more time consumiong but you are spending more time on the other side of the road. It also means waiting for 4 seperate overtaking opportunities instead of 1 good one in which you can safety pass out all 4 cars.

astraboy

GreeBo wrote:

But you are adding up 4 separate moves together!
Where is the logic in this?
If you pass four cars in four moves then its four totally unrelated moves.
Otherwise (taking an extreme case) you can start adding together time spent overtaking 2 hours ago.

Last time:
If overtake car number 1, complete the move and move back into the road then how can you add time spent in that move to me over taking car number 4? I could spend 30 minutes driving before I overtake car 4 but you still want to add that on!
Its not a logical argument. confused:

It is, basically he is addin up the time spent on the other side of the road in one journey. Very simple my man.

Gwynston

GreeBo wrote:

Because you disagree ours is a narrow point of view?

OK, I worded that badly.
I'm just pointing out that the debate is getting repetitive because you keep going on about how each car passed has to be treated as a separate maneuver, while others insist on adding them together because the ultimate aim is to get past all 4 slower cars in the safest manner in totality

I don't see how the debate can continue without concession of that point.

GreeBo

astraboy wrote:

Very simple my man.

I hate to say it but you do indeed seem to be simple.

I am not saying that overtaking 4 cars is always dangerous I am saying that it is always safer to do it one at time.

astraboy wrote:

Because greebo, when people argue they often at least make an attempt to see the other persons point of view, you seem to fail to do this.

What POV am I not attempting to see?
Im not saying its always suicidal to over take multiple cars, Im not being extreme I am saying one simple fact.

"It is safer to overtake 1 car at a time than to overtake multiple cars."


You POV is that as a driver I am a slow, dithering, idiot who is afraid to get within 20 kph of the speed limit, has a fear of overtaking and believes that adhering to the posted limit automatically makes everyone a safer driver.

Yet you know zero about me, my driving ability, experience or habits.

GreeBo

Gwynston wrote:

OK, I worded that badly.

agreed but fair play for actually admitting it so we can move on.

Gwynston wrote:

I don't see how the debate can continue without concession of that point.

Which is a fair summation of the situation, but which side is going to concede the point?
I would say that this is (at least for me) the basis of my argument so if I concede I am conceding the arguement (which I do not!)
I dont think the other side will either so maybe its time to request a thread closure...

Seth Brundle

GreeBo wrote:

But you are adding up 4 separate moves together!
Where is the logic in this?...

Did you actually read my post?

astraboy wrote:

If you over take 4 cars safety in one manover whats the issue? You just don't like the idea of it basically. If you have a clear road and enough power to let you pass out the 4 cars in a safe manner it is perferable to passing them out one at a time. Not only is this more time consumiong but you are spending more time on the other side of the road. It also means waiting for 4 seperate overtaking opportunities instead of 1 good one in which you can safety pass out all 4 cars.

I agree. It is all dependant on the situation. To pass the 4 (or indeed any number) you would need to be able to answer the following:
* What speed are the 4 cars driving at?
* What kind of gap between the 4 cars is there (in case manouvre needs to be aborted)?
* What visibile stretch have you?
* Is there any junctions along the visible stretch?
* Is the visible stretch long enough to pass all 4?
* Has your car enough power to pass all 4, leaving enough room at the end to pull in before you meet the end of your visible stretch?
* Who/what else is along the road at the time (cyclists, pedestrians, speed cameras, tractors, cows etc.)?
* Who else is looking to overtake (in front or behind you)?
* What condition is the road in (new surface, etc.)?

astraboy

GreeBo wrote:

I .

Yet you know zero about me, my driving ability, experience or habits.

I can say the same, yet you call me "simple". If I was agreeing with you you would probably not result to name calling, so stick to the debate and quit being a clown. As for my POV on your driving style, I can only base it on you previous posts. I'm sure you are a safe a competent driver, we have had plenty of time arguing over speedlimits in another thread, when you failed over several pages to comment on other aspects of road safety. In my POV this is rather closed minded TBH.


As for
"It is safer to overtake 1 car at a time than to overtake multiple cars"
if your ultimate goal is to pass out 1 slow car in front of the other 3 cars, then making 1 manover instead of 4 seems logically safer to me. Then again the roads I drive are often twisty, followed by intermittent straights where it may be safe to pass out several cars. After the intermittent straights there is often little opportunity to pass out for several miles, so I am basing my assumptions on the roads I regulary drive. Surprize though, these roads are typical of what we have outside of towns and motorways in this country so its probably a secure assumption.

GreeBo

kbannon wrote:

Did you actually read my post?

yes I did

kbannon wrote:

I would be inclined to disagree. With one long manouvre, you must pull out, pass and pull in whereas with 4 overtaking manouvres you have to do this four times so in total there would be more time spent across the road.

The reason its more dangerous is that you spend more sequential time on the wrong side of the road.
If you think 4 single overtaking moves is dangerous then I presume you only ever overtake 3 times per journey?
No?
I wonder is that because you treat each overtaking move individually...

GreeBo

astraboy wrote:

there is often little opportunity to pass out for several miles,

but thats just tough luck!
You cant decide to overtake multiple cars becuase if you dont you might be stuck there for an extra 5 minutes. Thats putting impatience above safety.

As I asked someone earlier and was ignored, what way do you drive on a motorway?
Do you stay in the overtaking lane until you cant see any cars in the driving lane or do yo move in and out as you overtake each car/group of cars?

astraboy

I dont think hes saying 4 singe overtaking moves are dangerous, but in the case where you can pass out 4 cars at once or seperately, it would be perferrable to take advantage of the opportunity to pass them out all at once if it can be done safely. The process of checking the other side of the road, accelerating, pulling out and pulling back in again needs to be done once. Its a basic reduction of risk if you can view far enough ahead to give yourself the time needed to complete the manover.

Seth Brundle

GreeBo wrote:

If you think 4 single overtaking moves is dangerous

Im losing track now. Where did I say that?

GreeBo wrote:

I presume you only ever overtake 3 times per journey?

Why would you presume that?

GreeBo wrote:

I wonder is that because you treat each overtaking move individually...

I do treat each manouvre on the road individually. If I can pass only one car or 4 cars in one go and know that it can be done safely then I will do it. If I can't pass any then I won't!
You on the other hand are applying blanket statements across the board saying that it is better to do it all in separate manouvres.

Gwynston

GreeBo wrote:

Which is a fair summation of the situation, but which side is going to concede the point?

Well the opposition is saying that it is safer to overtake all 4 at once, so long as it is safe to do so because it takes less time. A self-enforcing argument, see?

But seriously, the point is that if it is safe (all things considered) to pass all 4 at once, then obviously it's not going to be safer to pull in and make 4 passes. That's the point you would have to concede...

Often, passing 4 close-together car takes no longer than passing one big artic. Surely you're not saying that passing those 4 cars individually is safer than passing one artic?