Overtaking, Just how hard it is to do it Safely and Legally!

[prydey]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Try the Newell where you need to add an extra zero.

unless you ride a motorbike. around the parkes area they have a special middle lane for motorbikes now don't they?

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by prydey

unless you ride a motorbike. around the parkes area they have a special middle lane for motorbikes now don't they?

Thats cute, I like that one

Originally Posted by Silver Ghia

they slow right down as if they are frightened of the traffic going the other way.

They are frightened, the same as they are scared of corners and oncoming traffic at night.
(I'm talking country roads, not city streets)

[danmc]

Some of you guys are going to hate me. I recall doing 60kph on trips in the north of WA and the NT. I had an old xc wagon that overheated if I went too fast. I got well over 700km to a tank I think and it was great rolling along in the quiet in the big old armchair xc. I would just sit back with the music on and admire the stars you get way out there. Lots of wildlife when you whisper along quietly too.

Mind you, I liked to drive after midnight and I just pulled over if someone else came along. I was on holidays, I had all the time I needed.

But then I have been multinovarised just when I blatted it in a modern car to overtake someone.

[danmc]

And for my standard multi post - the best thing to do is get a modern car with radar cruise. My van just matches speed with the car in front so cruise control is no issue.

[grandpa_spec_F6]

danmc, at least you have the decency to pull off to the side and let the pack through.

The ones I've encountered REFUSE to let ANYONE past because THEY are the rightful speed limit enforcers. When this goes on for 50km+... my foot gets itchy and sometimes, just sometimes, I engage missile mode.

Funny how signs all over Bruce Highway currently have "Speeding while overtaking is against the law!"... yet half the people I see overtaking are doing so on the left because some nitwit is sitting in the right hand lane.

Me thinks the law makers need to stop sucking on the 'flash for cash' teat and do some edyamuhkating of da peepul! Fo reel

[danmc]

Its much easier to get money out of law abiding people that arent sure what the rules are. If you educate them they might start asking about the real road toll stats related to speed. They might get real educated and just ask why only a portion of revenue gets used on road safety. Also, education costs money and doesn't really get much back into the kitty. So that plan wont last past the first committee I'm afraid.

[danmc]

On that note, and because I heard someone on the radio blithering on about how speed OFFENCES have reduced. Not crashes, or fatalities, just the number of people they catch speeding.
I wondered about the actual crashes. Turns out they have some nice stats in WA on fatalities and critical injuries. But not number of accidents. So you cant tell if injuries are down even though crash rates stay the same - which could be a functiion of air bags.

Interestingly, fatalities in the metro area havent really changed much since 2009. Oh well ok so theyve gone up from 46 in 09 to 60 in 2012. All the speed fines are doing a great job eh?

http://www.police.wa.gov.au/Aboutus/...3/Default.aspx

So yep, critical injuries down. No definition on how they determine that figure so I wonder why fatalities are going in the opposite direction? Maybe some changed definitions?

Also interesting to look at crime stats - about the same number of homicides per year as road fatalities. But 20 to 30 000 actual crimes per year. Hard to get cash out of crime tho.

http://www.police.wa.gov.au/Aboutus/...9/Default.aspx


This was what annoyed me about the gun buy back. How many people died at Port Arthur? about ten less than died in a nursing home fire in the same month I recall. Both sad, was one much more preventable than the other? Did we spend 200 million on nursing homes? Nope, go for the easy targets.

[xtremerus]

Originally Posted by Silver Ghia

Just an observation I've made for some years is that a number of drivers who travel at the speed limit or a bit more on divided roads, but when they get to a 2 way section, they slow right down as if they are frightened of the traffic going the other way.

So when they reach an overtaking area, they accelerate again because they are not directly facing the oncoming traffic.

Yep. Some drivers/steerers have got use to just duel lane roads and can't cope with single lane.
This speeding up when the roadway gets wider, just shows the lack of driver skills and confidence.
This behaviour has been developing for the last 20 years.

[IDT]

Originally Posted by tweeked

You are totally missing the point of the thread. I am not complaining about the guy going slower. I am happy for anyone to travel 5-10 k's under the limit, as long as they AND the law allow me to pass safely. I am pointing out the danger of 10 odd cars banking up behind this car. It is more dangerous than just making it easier and legal to perform a perfectly safe overtake.

The "just be patient" responses just amaze me. If you think you can make the whole world patient i will tip my hat to you. Do you pick the longest queue out of those available because you are patient? Walk behind someone who is walking slowly in the street because you are patient? No, I am sure you dont. If the guys speedo is out, let me with a GPS confirmed correct one pass him safely please!!!!

Passing people is a fact of life, sometimes I wish I was a tree!

No I respect other people and dont simply assume people are out to **** me off. If I am the last guy to arrive at the counter I dont hate the person in front because their trolley is full and I dont think I am missing the point at all, you either want people to get out of your way or the law changed to allow you to overtake because someone doing 97 in a 100 zone (your example) is making traffic bank up. So lets examine your kind of ideas. Scenario 1.The guy slows enough for you and the cars behind to overtake under the limit. Its a friday and everyone is heading south for the weekend and there are 20 cars banked up, this is safe? Scenario 2. He pulls over and waits for everyone to go past. Busy road the poor bastard sit on the side of the road till midnight, but hey you got to where you are going so screw him. Scenario 3. Everyone is allowed to speed 20kph over the limit to overtake, I can just see the M4 now. Scenario 4. The proper thing to do. You leave earlier, allow for traffic, and wait til its either safe to overtake and when the opportunity arises to overtake do it safely, legally and courteously. Yes it is frustrating and to be honest I accept it can be a real pain in the $%#@. But lets face it, it is the right thing to do.

[302 XC]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Thats cute, I like that one
They are frightened, the same as they are scared of corners and oncoming traffic at night.
(I'm talking country roads, not city streets)

Country roads out my way , you have to slow down for the corners,cause theres many who overtake on corners ...

Nearly every trip to the big smoke theres at least 2 or 3 who pass me on corners
Funny part is when theres a crash out here, they shut the road,one road in one road out
Detour is a 100 k round trip
Surely the few seconds or minutes to a safe overtake area isnt hard
I always wonder why someone spend all that research and money painting lines on the road when obviously the smarter folk dont read them

[tweeked]

Originally Posted by IDT

No I respect other people and dont simply assume people are out to **** me off. If I am the last guy to arrive at the counter I dont hate the person in front because their trolley is full and I dont think I am missing the point at all, you either want people to get out of your way or the law changed to allow you to overtake because someone doing 97 in a 100 zone (your example) is making traffic bank up. So lets examine your kind of ideas. Scenario 1.The guy slows enough for you and the cars behind to overtake under the limit. Its a friday and everyone is heading south for the weekend and there are 20 cars banked up, this is safe? Scenario 2. He pulls over and waits for everyone to go past. Busy road the poor bastard sit on the side of the road till midnight, but hey you got to where you are going so screw him. Scenario 3. Everyone is allowed to speed 20kph over the limit to overtake, I can just see the M4 now. Scenario 4. The proper thing to do. You leave earlier, allow for traffic, and wait til its either safe to overtake and when the opportunity arises to overtake do it safely, legally and courteously. Yes it is frustrating and to be honest I accept it can be a real pain in the $%#@. But lets face it, it is the right thing to do.

No, in my scenario you don't get 20 people banked up.

But going back to post the opening post, to pass legally and safely I need to see if there is a car coming from the other way over 7 km up the road.

[graham7773]

I read virtually all of this thread and have come to a conclusion... IMO It is not safe or legal to overtake another vehicle on a single lane road. No matter what you do, you have to either speed (illegal) or put yourself and your passengers in extreme danger by overtaking at the posted speed limit. Dual carriageways are entirely different story except where people who should not even have a licence sit in the right hand lane because they have a god given right to do so. Queensland have a law for their freeways etc that simply says "keep left unless overtaking", especially trucks. Only problem is that they do not do much to enforce it

[grandpa_spec_F6]

fixed

Originally Posted by graham7773

.... Queensland have a law for their freeways etc that simply says "keep left unless overtaking", especially trucks. Only problem is that they NEVER enforce it

No joke, drove 3 different highways today, had one spanner for each highway who wouldn't keep left...

[Silver Ghia]

^^^^ Quite irrelevant to the thread.

Originally Posted by graham7773

I read virtually all of this thread and have come to a conclusion... IMO It is not safe or legal to overtake another vehicle on a single lane road. No matter what you do, you have to either speed (illegal) or put yourself and your passengers in extreme danger by overtaking at the posted speed limit.

Not necessarily. Depends entirely on what speed the car that is being overtaken is doing.

[graham7773]

Silver Ghia, original post speed, 97kph. It becomes much safer to overtake if the car in front is well below the speed limit. IE 60 in a 100 zone. But that's stating the bleeding obvious, isn't it. Myself, if the car in front is doing 97 in a 100 zone, I would not bother. What is 3kph when your life is at risk.

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by graham7773

I read virtually all of this thread and have come to a conclusion... IMO It is not safe or legal to overtake another vehicle on a single lane road. No matter what you do, you have to either speed (illegal) or put yourself and your passengers in extreme danger by overtaking at the posted speed limit. Dual carriageways are entirely different story except where people who should not even have a licence sit in the right hand lane because they have a god given right to do so. Queensland have a law for their freeways etc that simply says "keep left unless overtaking", especially trucks. Only problem is that they do not do much to enforce it

That's a neat summary, except as Silver Ghia says if the vehicle being overtaken is well below the speed limit.

However, I do think that booking people for exceeding the speed limit while trying to overtake safely and quickly seriously sucks. That's quite contrary to any road safety rationale and exposes the simplistic, revenue-dependent attitude of authorities.

[Silver Ghia]

Originally Posted by graham7773

Silver Ghia, original post speed, 97kph.

Sorry, didnt realise you were referring to the scenario in the original post. Wasn't mentioned in your conclusion.

Originally Posted by new2ford

However, I do think that booking people for exceeding the speed limit while trying to overtake safely and quickly seriously sucks. That's quite contrary to any road safety rationale and exposes the simplistic, revenue-dependent attitude of authorities.

Thats a neat summary as well.

[graham7773]

General comment re overtaking. I have been driving for about 54 years and with some of the things that have I have seen/been involved in on the road I am surprised I am alive. One that sticks out in my mind involved another car overtaking a car coming toward me on the old Pacific Highway (single lane both ways) going to Brisbane. If I don't stand on my brakes and steer off , I die. I assume. the car coming toward me doing 120/130, I am doing 100 slowing down. It was a long straight stretch of road at night and I still do not understand why the fool was overtaking into oncoming traffic

[Silver Ghia]

Originally Posted by graham7773

General comment re overtaking. I have been driving for about 54 years and with some of the things that have I have seen/been involved in on the road I am surprised I am alive. One that sticks out in my mind involved another car overtaking a car coming toward me on the old Pacific Highway (single lane both ways) going to Brisbane. If I don't stand on my brakes and steer off , I die. I assume. the car coming toward me doing 120/130, I am doing 100 slowing down. It was a long straight stretch of road at night and I still do not understand why the fool was overtaking into oncoming traffic

Must have given you quite a fright at the time. But even if they were overtaking within the speed limit if you hit, it would have been a major crash.

I've only been driving about 40 years, much of it on 2 way 100kph country roads, some are now divided multi lane highways. In the past I've never had to worry about speeding while overtaking, especially in the days I had my turbo which gave effortless and safe overtaking, this having to stick to the speed limit while overtaking is just a recent thing. Once or twice while cruising along at 100kph, I've had an oncoming car suddenly veer out for no apparent reason, they weren't even overtaking.

Which is why I believe inattention and stupidity is a big killer on the roads, regardless of speed. Which I think also covers your situation. However excessive speed in a particular instance or situation, including overtaking, to me is considered another form of stupidity.

[xtremerus]

Some of the replies to the OP just proves that the "speed kills " mantra, is working.
They think that travelling at a speed up to the arbitary posted speed limit is safe. A Km or two over, is certain death. No matter what the road condition are.
If a driver has to overtake a truck that is doing 90 Kph in a 100 zone, and is sooooo worried about going over 100 kph to pass it, they shouldn't have a licence IMO. I would doubt their driving skills
If you respond, and say that it is just illegal to go over 100, you have proved my first sentence.

[danmc]

Originally Posted by xtremerus

Some of the replies to the OP just proves that the "speed kills " mantra, is working.
They think that travelling at a speed up to the arbitary posted speed limit is safe. A Km or two over, is certain death. No matter what the road condition are.
If a driver has to overtake a truck that is doing 90 Kph in a 100 zone, and is sooooo worried about going over 100 kph to pass it, they shouldn't have a licence IMO. I would doubt their driving skills
If you respond, and say that it is just illegal to go over 100, you have proved my first sentence.

I would like to see statistics that relate drivers that have been fined vs accidents. Lots of people regurgitate the speed kills mantra and then go on to say they have never had an acccident. I know lots of people that are fined all the time that haven't ever been in an accident.

[seedywagon]

Referring to my training in transport/traffic engineering, overtaking is one of the most risky maneuvers undertaken on the road. Road engineers go to considerable length, trawling through a tonne of traffic data, which includes casualty rates caused by various overtaking situations, in order to assign a solution that best fits the situation at hand. There are *so* many factors at play here, everything from traffic volumes, stopping-sight distance, superelevation rate-of-rotation and road operating speeds. Speed limits are assigned based on an innumerate set of variables, they aren't set 'on a whim' just to **** people off or to defy 'logic'
I have a problem with members of the public who say things like 'this speed limit is too slow' based on what feels right to them. The figures just don't lie when it comes to speed, if you don't believe me, get out your calculator and physics textbooks and crunch the numbers yourself. Your roads are designed to be traveled at the posted speed limits, and they're not going to show you any sympathy if you're speeding, even whilst overtaking.

[MITCHAY]

It's of concern to me those who focus on the speedo when overtaking instead of the road ahead.

If you pull out, commit to it and be willing to accept any ticket that comes with it.

[danmc]

Originally Posted by seedywagon

Referring to my training in transport/traffic engineering, overtaking is one of the most risky maneuvers undertaken on the road. Road engineers go to considerable length, trawling through a tonne of traffic data, which includes casualty rates caused by various overtaking situations, in order to assign a solution that best fits the situation at hand. There are *so* many factors at play here, everything from traffic volumes, stopping-sight distance, superelevation rate-of-rotation and road operating speeds. Speed limits are assigned based on an innumerate set of variables, they aren't set 'on a whim' just to **** people off or to defy 'logic'
I have a problem with members of the public who say things like 'this speed limit is too slow' based on what feels right to them. The figures just don't lie when it comes to speed, if you don't believe me, get out your calculator and physics textbooks and crunch the numbers yourself. Your roads are designed to be traveled at the posted speed limits, and they're not going to show you any sympathy if you're speeding, even whilst overtaking.

Hahahaha. I better go hire an engineer to drive my car for me. Actually I pulled out the calculator and apparently the safest speed is zero. Seedywagon, I suggest you and everyone else that thinks watching the speedo is more important than watching the road just sit in your cars and make sure the speedo says 0kmh at all times.

[302 XC]

Originally Posted by seedywagon

Referring to my training in transport/traffic engineering, overtaking is one of the most risky maneuvers undertaken on the road. Road engineers go to considerable length, trawling through a tonne of traffic data, which includes casualty rates caused by various overtaking situations, in order to assign a solution that best fits the situation at hand. There are *so* many factors at play here, everything from traffic volumes, stopping-sight distance, superelevation rate-of-rotation and road operating speeds. Speed limits are assigned based on an innumerate set of variables, they aren't set 'on a whim' just to **** people off or to defy 'logic'
I have a problem with members of the public who say things like 'this speed limit is too slow' based on what feels right to them. The figures just don't lie when it comes to speed, if you don't believe me, get out your calculator and physics textbooks and crunch the numbers yourself. Your roads are designed to be traveled at the posted speed limits, and they're not going to show you any sympathy if you're speeding, even whilst overtaking.

Road engineers,logics, its all irrelevant IF the roads arent maintained ???
I drive on roads signed 60/80 ks and IF i didnt drive a 4x4 id be picking up dentures of the road,even some of our major highways are a joke
If cars and roads are only safe to travel at the max 100/110 ks, why can you buy even the smallest car on the market that can go beyond that limit
People have to be fully accountable for their actions, logic and engineers aside
You speed, you get caught you get a fine
You walk out in front of my 4x4 and get hit its gunna hurt
Logic,engineers will never out trump plain stupidity

[tweeked]

Originally Posted by graham7773

Silver Ghia, original post speed, 97kph. It becomes much safer to overtake if the car in front is well below the speed limit. IE 60 in a 100 zone. But that's stating the bleeding obvious, isn't it. Myself, if the car in front is doing 97 in a 100 zone, I would not bother. What is 3kph when your life is at risk.

I too would not bother over overtaking a car doing 97 either, except for the new issues created explained in the opening post.

Everyone with this veiw is ignoring the real life scenarios created by this thought process. If you and the other car are the only vehicles on the road, there are no issues and i would happily adjust my cruise control and go 3 kph slower.

But the reality is withing half an hour there will be at least 5 cars and most probably more right up my boot. I now become a passenger in a 5-10 car freight train and a slave to the weakest link, the biggest loser ,the lowest denominator. dumbest cow, kangaroo or wombat. (the last three are by no means always wildlife!)

Those who say pull over and let the wolf pack past also just haven't thought it through to what will happen on the road out in reality land. I will just catch up to the back of them, or have to slow down further again so I dont catch them, which means I will become 90kph road block with the same problems again!!!!

[The G6ET Spot]

Originally Posted by grandpa_spec_F6

fixed




No joke, drove 3 different highways today, had one spanner for each highway who wouldn't keep left...

try driving the freeways around Sydney. No one keeps left,the fastest lane is always the left lane.

The brain dead drivers think that they are keeping left by being in the middle lane while travelling up to 15k's below the speed limit.

Infuriates me no end.

When I go to Newcastle I set the truck cruise control onto 100kph and just sit in the left lane and the number of people I go past sitting merrily out in the other lanes amuses me. But the upside is I don't have to change lanes to get past them. But that is not the point.

I finally worked out a while ago why I think they do it. When I spoke to my neice who recently (4months) got her licence and I was telling her not to do what other do and sit in the outside lanes.

Her reply was that she thought the left lane was just for trucks as they are slower than cars.

My god what are they teaching people when they learn to drive.

[JC]

Originally Posted by seedywagon

Referring to my training in transport/traffic engineering, overtaking is one of the most risky maneuvers undertaken on the road. Road engineers go to considerable length, trawling through a tonne of traffic data, which includes casualty rates caused by various overtaking situations, in order to assign a solution that best fits the situation at hand. There are *so* many factors at play here, everything from traffic volumes, stopping-sight distance, superelevation rate-of-rotation and road operating speeds. Speed limits are assigned based on an innumerate set of variables, they aren't set 'on a whim' just to **** people off or to defy 'logic'
I have a problem with members of the public who say things like 'this speed limit is too slow' based on what feels right to them. The figures just don't lie when it comes to speed, if you don't believe me, get out your calculator and physics textbooks and crunch the numbers yourself. Your roads are designed to be traveled at the posted speed limits, and they're not going to show you any sympathy if you're speeding, even whilst overtaking.

This ^^^^ may sound good in theory, but according to this, any person who travels at 1km/h over the arbitrarily set speed limit is going to die. What a load of rubbish. For example, police legally travelling above the posted limit - say while they're in a pursuit - seem to do a good job of surviving the posted limit instant death scenario you say will happen.

Acceptable speeds that a road can handle are calculated by engineers. Speed limits are set by 'governments. Sometimes they match, often they don't. For example, care to explain how a couple of years ago, a road in the NT suddenly lost it's ability to host unrestricted speed and an arbitrary limit of 130 was set (no doubt resulting in a spike in fatalities due to fatigue.)

If sections of the Hume Highway in Vic (the long, flat straight bits) were assessed at 150, do you really think the government would increase the limit? Are the central areas of a city really only capable of supporting traffic going 40, when a few years ago, 60 was the limit on the same roads? Of course not, so don't try telling us that speed limits are only based on calculations - because while as a theory that might sound good, here in the real world, it's simply not the case.

Back to the OPs question though, yes, sometimes you have to speed a little to overtake effectively and efficiently - as long as you are not going too fast and doing a dangerous move, the police usually allow this, even if it's just turning a blind eye.

[pottery beige]

wow.. cant believe how over complicated overtaking has become..

[GTpilot]

My theory is get it over with!
Drop a gear (or two) nail the go pedal, get by the offending slow coach, merge back and settle back in to a comfy 107.