Overtaking debate.

[Mark_Able]

After some discussions with myself and Freddie, I thought I'd ask anyone else's opinion on what is a safe way to overtake. Now I'm talking about National Speed limit roads, and single carriageways.

My opinion is that, an overtake should be achieved as quickly and safely as possible. If that means breaching the speed limit on a single carriageway, then so be it. Typical senario being an articulated truck, travelling at say 50mph, should be overtaken allowing for the shortest amount of time in the opposite lane. If that means doing 85mph to get past safely, as long as the speed is reduced once back on our side of the road, then that is fine.

However, RoSPA believe that no speed limit should be exceeded by more than 5-6mph on an overtake.

Quite frankly, I think this is dangerous. This never used to be the case with IAM or RoSPA, and think this has only come about by the odd rider getting caught on a camera, and now IAM and RoSPA having to cover their backsides. They don't want a biker standing up in court and saying 'RoSPA said it was ok'.

Every Police Officer I know has been taught to overtake 'briskly'. The Police generally advocate quick and safe overtakes (Bikesafe).

Am I wrong, or is RoSPA wrong? Opinions invited...

P.S. We're not talking about 30/40/50mph roads.

[Nelly]

I have always been of the opinion that the sooner you get back to the right side of the road the better as well. Seems to make perfect sense to me.
When i did my bike safe the officer looking after me also told me to overtake along the lines of "swiftly".

[Nooj]

I agree, assuming it's not a dead straight road and you are the only two vehicles on it (how often does that happen in this country?). Get out and back in again as quickly as you can... while still remaining safe, allowing for road surfaces, up coming hazards etc.

It does sound like RoSPA are just toeing the line, which is a crying shame, they are the experts the courts and law makers should be listening to, they shouldn't be dictated to by the uninitiated/uneducated.

[Moo]

I would agree and would say that was the way I try to do it. Minimise the exposure time and then get back in Lane.

[Ducatista]

Personally I think it makes a lot of sense to exceed the speed limit to get away from risk.

A friend of mine recently (an IAM observer) was driving his car at 50 on cruise control on a motorway section (with 50 speed limit). A lorry tried to overtake but it was uphill and the lorry had to pull back in behind the car.
Unfortunately the lorry clipped the car and then the car which was flipped horizontally across the front of the lorry being pushed along.
Fortunately my friend had the presence of mind to hold the stearing wheel straight so the lorry did not simply roll them (these incidents are quite often fatal when the lorry rolls the car over with the driver often unaware that they have a car stuck on the front).
They ended up on the wrong side of the motoway.
A passer by stopped to help.
A van then came the other way, missing their car by inches. My friend pulled his wife over the car bonnet out of the way of the van. This gave her back injuries but at least she didn't get hit. The passer by was hit and had a factured pelvis and other serious injuries.

His view - get away from touble - "better to be convicted by 12 than carried off by 6".

Natually as a ROSPA tutor I am very clear on what is expected of students on the test and tell them to clarify with the examiner what his view is before they start.
I don't think anyone could expect ROSPA to condone breaking the speed limit publicly but naturally you will find many views like mine amongst the membership.
You will find a difference between private views and official policy.
Is this hypocritical - yes I think so.

On a lighter note my husband and I went on a training weekend with Rapid Training in Wales (they are mostly police class 1 riders).
Natually we did the first section within the speed limits as we were being followed by a police rider.
After about 40 miles he took us to one side and said "I wouldn't want to encourage you to break the law but I'm just saying this is going to be rather boring if we stick to the speed limits".

[Robf]

i was told when going for my IAM test that if the examiner asks what speed you were doing to say, "i don't know i was looking where i was going" but i would defiantly agree that an overtake should be done as quickly and as safely as possible, however thats within reason, because if a vehicle was doing 55mph in a 60 i wouldn't expect you to do over 100mph to overtake as it is un-necessary, as 70-75 is usually suffice, and if you need to go faster cause the gaps too small why go for the overtake in the first place.

[Squashed_Fly]

i was told when going for my IAM test that if the examiner asks what speed you were doing to say, "i don't know i was looking where i was going"

Would that work if plod pulls you over do you think? It should do. I think most riders have a sense of roughly what speed they are doing by engine noise, wind rush, scenery speeed etc. I would much rather riders are around the 70 (+/- 10-15mph) mark but acutely observant, riding within their capabilities and very aware of what traffic & hazards are around them.

It's just my opinion, but I think they would be the riders I'd want on our roads

[Bornagain]

Totally agree Mark.

Unfortunately common sense just isn't that common anymore, in fact i'd go so far to say that it's a skill that is slowly being eroded by bureaucracy!

I like to advance while i'm riding and progress through traffic. Time spent on "the wrong side of the road" should be limited with a swift overtake and if that requires a brief trip over the designated limit then that's how i proceed.

It's a shame Rospa and the other 'bodies' are changing their tune, but at the same time it's to be expected these days.

I'm on a Bikesafe day in August and will see what we're recommended

[Jon_W]

However, RoSPA believe that no speed limit should be exceeded by more than 5-6mph on an overtake.
.

F**k THAT!!! I'm not staying in the wrong lane, facing 1.5 tonnes of car, with a collision speed in excess of 120mph for any longer that I have to!!!

Two second gap, pull out, plenty of beans, get a two second gap in front of the overtaken vehicle, pull in reduce speed to limit or under.

[Squashed_Fly]

Common Sense vs Health & Safety.

This little snippet is taken from a Telegraph article on H&S vs Common Sense:

For 16 years, Hilaire Purbrick lived in a 7ft cave that he had dug out of rock on his allotment in Brighton. Largely isolated from the outside world and surviving on what he grew on the land, he caused no one any bother. Until, that is, Brighton & Hove City Council stepped in. It had Mr Purbrick's dwelling checked by the fire brigade, which discovered – surprise, surprise – that it did not have enough exits; so an injunction was sought against Mr Purbrick, 45, banning him from entering the cave on the grounds of health and safety.

Mr Purbrick is unquestionably eccentric; he may even have been squatting on land that he does not own, and this was a ruse by the council to get him off it. However, the idea that he cannot live in a cave because it has no fire exits simply defies belief. It is one of those stories that over the years has had us all shaking our heads in bewilderment and asking how, and why, we have become so preposterously risk-averse. As Lord Young of Graffham, the former Tory chairman who has been asked to carry out a review of health and safety laws, says, they have become a joke and a rich source of material for the "you couldn't make it up" school of journalism.

: : : : :