# Roadcraft 1, overtaking



## Olly Buckle (Nov 3, 2007)

Note:- I am from England, road markings and traffic rules vary, get to know your local equivalent of the Highway Code  and read other people's if driving abroad 


I regularly drive a section of main road that is single carriageway with few chances to overtake. The people who miss these chances are of two types, those who drive well back from the vehicle in front and don't even try to get past and those who drive in the overtaking position, or closer, and still can't get past. The first is less at risk, at least he isn't the meat in the sandwich and has a view of the road coming up. 
 But good driving is about using the information got from the road, how should you do it? Stay well back where you can see the road ahead and not just someone's back end, most of this road is hazard warning lines or double white lines with no chance to overtake. Here you are in position to see the line change to the shorter, more spaced, center line, as they do so accelerate into the overtaking position. If it doesn't work out you can drop back again and nothing is lost.
 On the other hand if the road is clear you are already going faster than the vehicle in front when you reach the overtaking position and can pass, if you drive there all the time you can only be going the same speed as him and probably won't have the time and distance needed to accelerate and pass. Good drivers are alert, receptive and thinking ahead


----------



## The Backward OX (Nov 4, 2007)

Olly Buckle said:


> I regularly drive a section of main road that is single carriageway with few chances to overtake. The people who miss these chances are of two types, those who drive well back from the vehicle in front and don't even try to get past . . . . .


"Here's another fine mess you've gotten me into."

If he's not even trying to get past, chances (missed or otherwise) don't really come into the equation, do they now?

(Yeah, ok, I genderised it. Overtaking's a guy thing, right?)


----------



## Olly Buckle (Nov 4, 2007)

Thank you for reading and paying attention. There are a few things left unsaid. I only advocate legal overtaking, so the guy in front is driving well below the limit, next, good driving involves being on the ball, paying attention to the road from horizon to horizon and driving as close to the speed limit as conditions allow. People who are driving "on automatic" are less likely to spot unusual circumstances that cause accidents, and are more likely to run into things when they stop suddenly, give those ones plenty of brake light warning when you stop. It is good driving practice to overtake whenever it is safe and legal to do so. I could go into one here but it would only be tautology. 
I intended advocating good driving and starting off with examples of what is not it, that you did not recognise this gives me considerable cause for reflection, which is often a source of inspiration, thank you.
 I make it a rule never to make joking references to a persons name, they have always heard it before which kind of takes the point out of a joke, but aren't those two droll?
 You use the phrase "Come into the equation" and I made a mental note of it. The word equation is close enough to words such as equal to imply fairness and straight dealing which might be very useful for a certain type of characterisation, a good addition.
 For the reasons I gave above overtaking is a good driver thing, so no, if it is one of the gender related aspects of good driving I would expect more women to do it, they have less accidents which is the definition of better drivers.
   Having said that, personally I don't go along with mass studies much, there were some huge successes back in the fifties, like the smoking/ lung cancer one or the thalidomide one which generated enthusiasm but there have been a lot of inconclusive ones. I like to start from the premise that we are all different to such an extent that we can barely communicate about our experience, but I digress.
  I am forced to disagree with you without reservation in terms of the sort of overtaking I am talking about, however if you meant dodgy, chancing it, at illegal speeds, on blind bends, because of some slight he perceived in the attitude of the car in front, trying to impress the woman next to him sort of overtaking, yeah, he's probably a bloke.
 Once again, thank you for your post and I look forward to seeing your reaction to my future threads on this subject, oh and by the way the idea of AA and RAC magazines on my other thread is an excellent one, thankyou.


----------



## The Backward OX (Nov 5, 2007)

Another example of why your work may benefit from someone else reviewing it before you go public: 

_“People who are driving "on automatic" are less likely to spot unusual circumstances that cause accidents, and are more likely to run into things when they stop suddenly; give those ones plenty of brake light warning when you stop.”_

Firstly, the clause _“and are more likely to run into things when they stop suddenly.” _I did a quick poll here at home; it was agreed amongst us that _no one_, regardless of driving skill, runs into things when stopping suddenly; rather, _others run into the sudden stopper_. Your phrase is meaningless.

Secondly, the shortened sentence _“People who are driving "on automatic" are less likely to spot unusual circumstances that cause accidents; give those ones plenty of brake light warning when you stop.” _How are the drivers to whom you address your remarks – the ones advised to tap the Stop pedal a few times - able to discern that a _following_ driver is “on automatic”? This is also a nonsense.

Bottom line - eliminate the entire thirty-nine words. 

And just as a point of interest – on what do you base your comment that drivers “on automatic” are less likely to perceive the unusual? I’m not saying I disagree, I simply wonder why you said it.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Nov 5, 2007)

"Firstly": Thank you for pointing out the ambiguity, do you think "run into things that stop suddenly" is clear enough or do you think that "in front of them" should be added for clarity? My feeling is that the second is over egging it.

"Secondly"; Good drivers are as aware of what is behind as they are of what is in front, "continuously checking the road from horizon to horizon" is a phrase frequently used in training, another drivers attention levels should be equally obvious regardless of their relative road position. If your italicization of "following" is because you are quoting me rather than in order to differentiate them from other drivers however, my reply is that their general behavior, road positioning, signaling, maintaining appropriate distances between vehicles and so on, makes them stand out to a good driver as much as people who have taken advanced training or dick-head boy racers.
Your point of interest, my thesis is that good drivers are actively searching for hazards, potential dangers, and taking them into account before they realise their potential, people "on automatic" are likely to become aware of them and act on them after the event and so be caught out.

How do I get my work reviewed before I go public? You obviously would not exclude the forum, your remark about "drivers to whom you address your remarks" makes it clear that you are as aware of the wider audience as I was when I addressed my remarks to you. 
Your use of the word "may" to qualify the remark that my work would benefit from review is a politeness, understandable in an older gentleman but unnecessary, it is why I come here. A bit pedantic I know, I apologise, it is in my nature, don't get me wrong, your remarks are very welcome and I endeavour to use them to improve the quality of my writing. 
 Unrelated comment: does the American spell check drive you mad? It gets me doubting myself on words like endeavour to the extent that I have to go and get the English dictionary to check.


----------



## The Backward OX (Nov 5, 2007)

Olly Buckle said:


> "Firstly": Thank you for pointing out the ambiguity, do you think "run into things that stop suddenly" is clear enough or do you think that "in front of them" should be added for clarity? My feeling is that the second is over egging it.


 

Unless these “on automatic” drivers are in fact piloting Mussolini’s tanks, which have five gears – one forward and four reverse – the second is over egging it.

I stand corrected about checking horizon to horizon. In my dotage I grow forgetful; and this from an ex-taxidriver who “never once scratched Duco™”, as they used to say in the days when car bodies were made from 16-gauge steel and car _enamel _also had body.

(Shhh……way back when Gerry and The Pacemakers were ferrying ‘cross the Mersey I was a boy racer too) 

How do you get your work reviewed? _That_ is the sixty-four dollar question. Here on WF may seem the obvious answer, but . . . . . 

your stuff is going to include lots of insight based on experience. WF members might correct grammar, however the corrections of “experience talking” may prove beyond the capabilities of some. I fall back on my remark yesterday – talk to a magazine editor, who may have suggestions. And of course you can always endeavor, whoops endeavour, to wade through my nit-picking. 

Thanks for reminding me about spell check. I have just gone through some days of having my operating system re-formatted over and over. I was conned into trying a free version (don’t ask!) of Vista Ultimate, didn’t like the instability, and went back to XP. Now I have to delve deep to set my language preferences again. If you perchance have MS Office 2003, it’s possible to set up Word for English (UK). Tell me if interested, and I’ll see if I can write it all out in a pm. No promises though – it may become heavy going.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Nov 5, 2007)

Me too I guess, back when Sandy Shaw was going down town.

Comments here may well prove useful beyond the grammar, it's no use being insightful if it goes over the heads of my audience, the idea is to get people who only think they drive well to think a bit deeper. The ones who already drive well will follow me, though I am still interested in your comments if you are reading. Meanwhile "Wading through your nit picking" is a pleasure until someone else joins in, and even then.
 I am afraid I am a new comer to computers, I have had to save your last pm about keeping tabs on things until I can go through it with my daughter, but don't worry, I actually enjoy using old fashioned "hard copy" (I am starting to pick up the terminology at least) reference books. I have a pretty good collection, mostly from charity shops, there is an Oxfam Books in Hastings and a good selection of charity shops in Tonbridge I check out on my way to the station.


----------



## Pete_C (Nov 5, 2007)

I am also from England, where road markings vary, and I would like to add the following.

I have two overtaking styles. The first is predominantly practiced in the pick-up. It is sizeable, but not too fast. Therefore, I usually tend to overtake elderly people and those who obey speed limits. The method is known as the squeeze, whereby I tend to draw level then start inching back towards my side of the road. This is ideal for tight roads, country lanes and places with many pedestrians. The elderly/law abiding person fears their Nissan Micra will get barged off the road by the fat twat in the truck, and so yields. The road is yours my son; drive on!

The second overtaking method is saved for the Kawasaki. This simply revolves around taking any space, no matter how small, and pissing through it at around 150mph, with the front wheel waggling out of control. You might hate it, but it makes your wife moist and she wishes for a life less dreary than you deliver. Do I own the road? I think you'll find I do, so fuck off out of my way.

Next, I will explain the basics of cutting people up while gesticulating.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Nov 5, 2007)

Drivers like you Pete I always allow past so you can have the accident in front of me where I can clearly see it coming. My guess is that you are the type of motorcyclist police professionals refer to as butterflies, they come in bright colours, you only see them in good weather and they don't live long.
 Check out "Rapid training" they can show you how to ride a bike so you don't die and still have fun, seriously, did you see the stats. released by the M.O.T. when that coach overturned on the M25 slip road near Heathrow? Deaths per billion miles traveled for different vehicles, they ranged between 2 and 8 except for motor cycles which was 136


----------



## The Backward OX (Nov 5, 2007)

If I’m not incorrect wasn’t it Petula Clark who went down town? Ms Shaw from memory was the first person from England to win the Eurovision Song Contest (1967), with _“Puppet on a String”. _


----------



## Olly Buckle (Nov 6, 2007)

I do believe you are right Ox, memory is going, to be honest I was more into Zoot Mooney, Georgie Fame and the Blue Flames and Prince Buster and the All stars. Judge Dread means something quite different nowadays. "Time passes, time passes", "I grow old, I grow old", damned if I'll wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled though.


----------

