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.

::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

[jpssantos]

I agree with the above posts… that’s how I’ve been told to do.

Stay in the “danger zone” for as little as possible.
Also, years ago talking to police bikers, that was their views as well, break the speed limit for a safe overtake, back into the lane and back to the speed limit..

Of course this is not to be done overtaking cars doing 20mph on a 30mph! lol

And as long as you are not overtaking a car doing 50mph on a 60 and you blast past at 130…it should be alright.

[freddieb]

Ahem, I would just like to point out, the discussion between me and Mark was about the use of excessive speed during an overtake. I could'nt agree more with mark, you do 'what's necessary' to get past the slower moving vehicle.. but is it then necessary to go 85mph past something thats going 50mph.. If you're considering going that fast, then surely there has to be other factors happening in front of you like, on coming traffic, junctions..maybe and quite possibly, in the cold light of day, the overtake was'nt really on..

[Jon_W]

but is it then necessary to go 85mph past something thats going 50mph.. If you're considering going that fast, then surely there has to be other factors happening in front of you like, on coming traffic, junctions..maybe and quite possibly, in the cold light of day, the overtake was'nt really on..

But surely, you'd consider that before the overtake regardless of the speeds involved? As you are going into the oncoming lane, other users including the vehicle you are overtaking are not going to expect you therem and you should account for rh turns and potential oncoming vehicles. I was taught you should never overtake over a rh junction for that very reason.

I agree that if you NEED to do 85 in a 50 to overtake, the manouver probably wasn't worth it, but maintain that the amount of time spent in the oncoming lane should be kept to a minimum.

[BB]

I would agree, don't stay out there longer than you have to. But - be reasonable with speed - if you are overtaking a very slow vehicle at very high speed it gets us all a bad name!

BB

[Snowy]

If only my bike could go from 50mph to 130mph during an overtake ;D

Same as others have said, I will overtake as fast as I can, but will always assess the overtake beforehand based on observation, experience and caution. Once I decide to go, I go. 99% of the time I will break the speed limit during the overtake, but common sense should prevail. If the only way you can overtake is by more than doubling the speed limit to do it, I would suggest the overtake is a dumb choice.

[Squashed_Fly]

If only my bike could go from 50mph to 130mph during an overtake ;D

Same as others have said, I will overtake as fast as I can, but will always assess the overtake beforehand based on observation, experience and caution. Once I decide to go, I go. 99% of the time I will break the speed limit during the overtake, but common sense should prevail. If the only way you can overtake is by more than doubling the speed limit to do it, I would suggest the overtake is a dumb choice.

My thoughts too. If you have to double the NSL to overtake (assuming it's a single carriageway A road), then you're probably already doing 90-100mph so is it worth overtaking?

If the car you were overtaking was stationery, you could get past it pretty quick at 15mph, so your overtake speed probably shouldn't exceed 20mph above the current speed. Assuming you want to overtake a van doing 60 on a country road, you would only need 80 to get past swiftly...

[jpssantos]

the 130 was only a figure of speach..., not to be taken literaly.. :)

[Si]

I agree. I will overtake if I feel its safe to do so and if necessary. When doing an overtake Im not sure I would be looking at the speedo? Even if I was I wouldnt stop accelerating if I hit the limit for that road! Thats just silly! As Snowy says, if you need to drastically break the limit to get past dont do it as you are obviously being impatient. :)

[coopmick]

This is a quote from a book called The Assessment of Advanced Motorcycling

"Failing to observe a speed limit will result in a test failure
all signs must be seen and complied with
the speedometer is permitted to show the speed limit and up to 4MPH over, but not continually in excess
when in the national speed limit, and above still applies, however, if the is a vehicle ahead travelling below that limit it should be overtaken at a suitable opportunity. In these circumstances the overtake takes priority over the speed limit, only for the duration of the overtake and with due discretion. (if there is a line of vehicles to be overtaken then each vehicle should be assessed in turn but not necessarily overtaken individually - the should not go blasting passed all of them because they are travelling at 57MPH)."

When I went to a RoSPA Talk from a RoSPA examiner(ex police rider) he clearly stated you can not speed on an overtake but when he took me on my test I was told to ask about this, his answer was "as long has the speed is not to excessive". So I agree with Both Mark And Fred, Add a bit of extra speed to do the overtake but it doesn't need to be much just enough to get passed safely then return to the speed limit.

[Snowy]

Another thing to bear in mind is that if the rider is already in a low gear and maxing it out on the throttle, should something happen during the overtake that was unforeseen, there are fewer options left to get out of trouble. Leaving some extra just in case can be very useful sometimes.....

[wiltshire builders]

Another thing to bear in mind is that if the rider is already in a low gear and maxing it out on the throttle, should something happen during the overtake that was unforeseen, there are fewer options left to get out of trouble. Leaving some extra just in case can be very useful sometimes.....
My bike will do 106mph in first gear, so not really an issue ;D but a good point anyway.

[Scaredy_Cat]

I'm sure in some of the RoSPA literature I've been reading (I have trouble sleeping ;D ), their advanced riders are not taught in terms of "right side of the road" versus "wrong side of the road".

If it's safe to do so, why wouldn't you venture into the offside lane for a better view of the road ahead?

The offside only becomes the wrong side if you come into conflict with oncoming traffic, and if you come into conflict with oncoming traffic does that not indicate that your overtake planning was pretty poor (or non-existent in some cases)?

Resident RoSPA tutors please feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted this. :)

[Geordie Stu]

I was told to make good progress....!!! If you have to exceed the speed limit in order to get past a slower moving vehicle then "Do So" as long as you bring the speed now again when back in positoin on the correct side of the carriageway.
"Bike Safe" Told by the following officer & repeated on IAM test.

[redken1]

I agree with you Mark 100 per cent. An earlier contributor made the point about reasonable speed to overtake a vehicle travelling at 60mph. Off course, by the letter of the law an overtake should not be considered in such circumstances as the vehicle in front is travelling at the maximum legal speed limit. We are Bikers - Let’s get real hear – I would never condone breaking the national speed limit on a public forum, but most of us are riding 100 plus BHP motorcycles. If I wanted to get stuck out on the opposite side of the road during an overtake I’d buy a bubble-car or the like. In my view, overtaking at too slow a speed is a risky pastime.

[Mark_Able]

This is an interesting debate. I think the general concensus is it's ok if it's not over the top. However, when I did my IAM about 12 years ago, I came to a situation where I had three cars, each seperated by a 50 metre gap, travelling at about 45mph. My choices were to overtake each vehicle individually, reassessing the opportunity each time (and possible losing the chance to pass all three). Or going for it, on a long straight, but going a considerable amount over the limit, but achieving my goal. As you can probably imagine, I went for it. The examiner heaped praise on me at the end of the test, so I guessed my decision to be the right one.

One more thing to add. I trained a local traffic cop, who was happy to tell me of how he pulled a guy for overtaking at 85mph (but slowing back to 60 after), just to tell him that if he told all his mates to overtake like that, he wouldn't pull them. Traffic cop was a local character well-known to this forum. The guy pulled happened to be one of my instructors (I didn't tell him that at the time)... :)

[wiltshire builders]

I'm sure in some of the RoSPA literature I've been reading (I have trouble sleeping ;D ), their advanced riders are not taught in terms of "right side of the road" versus "wrong side of the road".

If it's safe to do so, why wouldn't you venture into the offside lane for a better view of the road ahead?

The offside only becomes the wrong side if you come into conflict with oncoming traffic, and if you come into conflict with oncoming traffic does that not indicate that your overtake planning was pretty poor (or non-existent in some cases)?

Resident RoSPA tutors please feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted this. :)
I was taught that it is ok to do so if it increases visability but don't do it to gain visability.

[Morticia]

I was told on my speed awareness course that you're simply not allowed to exceed speed limits. EVER. :'(

No, seriously, while I agree with you (get it over and done with quickly yet safely) that's not what the others will say.

[Nooj]

I'm sure in some of the RoSPA literature I've been reading (I have trouble sleeping ;D ), their advanced riders are not taught in terms of "right side of the road" versus "wrong side of the road".

If it's safe to do so, why wouldn't you venture into the offside lane for a better view of the road ahead?

The offside only becomes the wrong side if you come into conflict with oncoming traffic, and if you come into conflict with oncoming traffic does that not indicate that your overtake planning was pretty poor (or non-existent in some cases)?

Resident RoSPA tutors please feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted this. :)
I was taught that it is ok to do so if it increases visability but don't do it to gain visability.

Eh? Increasing/gaining visability? You've lost me there, are they not the same thing?

[wiltshire builders]

I'm sure in some of the RoSPA literature I've been reading (I have trouble sleeping ;D ), their advanced riders are not taught in terms of "right side of the road" versus "wrong side of the road".

If it's safe to do so, why wouldn't you venture into the offside lane for a better view of the road ahead?

The offside only becomes the wrong side if you come into conflict with oncoming traffic, and if you come into conflict with oncoming traffic does that not indicate that your overtake planning was pretty poor (or non-existent in some cases)?

Resident RoSPA tutors please feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted this. :)
I was taught that it is ok to do so if it increases visability but don't do it to gain visability.

Eh? Increasing/gaining visability? You've lost me there, are they not the same thing?

No.
If you can see the road ahead is clear and moving out more will increase your visability that is ok. It's not ok to venture into the offside lane to get initial visability. Like if you're right behind a lorry you can't see the road ahead. If you pull into the offside lane to gain visibilty you could hit oncoming traffic.
If you drop back you can see further ahead so going into the offside lane will increase your view and you can safely judge if an overtake is possible.
Sorry, I could've worded it better. :-[

[bobf279]

Well I was taught on my DAS course that it was safer to overtake a vehicle travelling less than the NSL briskly. If that did mean venturing over the speed limit it was ok as long as you dropped back down to the limit on returning to the right side of the road.

[Mark_Able]

Having had a good conversation about this, Freddie and I are in agreement, that if you can see the road ahead is clear for a considerable distance, there should be no reason to go over the top with the speed whilst over taking. However, if there is a good chance of an over take, but not much space or time to do it, then it should be done as quickly (and safely) as possible. Imagine having a clear road on the Frome bypass. Would it be necessary to exceed, lets say, 70mph to over take a truck doing 56mph? Whereas, to over take a similar vehicle travelling at a similar speed on the Semington to Devizes road, with only a few short straights, the manouevre would need to be carried out a lot quicker. Agreed? :-/

[Jon_W]

I think the key is giving yourself adequate time and space to pull out, overtake and get a safe distance in front before pulling back in.

If this requires going over the speed limit for a brief period, then so be it. But the overding concern must be the safety of the manouver regardless of the speed involved, and having the room to either abort or get out of the way should somthing go wrong.

[Chappers]

If the length of this thread is anything to go by, it may be there's maybe too much thinking going on! As the risk profile of any overtaking maneuvre is significantly higher than normal riding I want to keep it as simple as possible. I want to concentrate on doing it safely, quickly and on staying alive rather than staring at the speedo and wondering what AIM might pick me up on.

If it's safe to overtake then I want to give it the beans to the extent it is safe to do so.

What speed that might top out at will depend on myriad factors - I don't think hard and fast rules should apply in those situations. An art rather than a science.

Just my tuppence :)

[Mark_Able]

If the length of this thread is anything to go by, it may be there's maybe too much thinking going on! As the risk profile of any overtaking maneuvre is significantly higher than normal riding I want to keep it as simple as possible. I want to concentrate on doing it safely, quickly and on staying alive rather than staring at the speedo and wondering what AIM might pick me up on.

If it's safe to overtake then I want to give it the beans to the extent it is safe to do so.

What speed that might top out at will depend on myriad factors - I don't think hard and fast rules should apply in those situations. An art rather than a science.

Just my tuppence :)

That's why I started the thread really. I wanted to hear everyone's opinion... [smiley=thumbsup.gif]