tinyurl.com/np2z7lq
It is a dangerous road at the best of times.
|
|
I think that's the first time I've ever seen an under/overtake in the same manouver.
|
Rep's gambit to give it its Sunday name.
More usually employed when joining a motorway. The objective then is to get from the slip road to lane 3 in one move.
Takes practice of course.
|
|
That's worth a good ban..what a goon.
|
|
You have to admit that a: the mimser with the camera was taking an age to overtake, and did the manoeuvre from a looooooong way back, and b: the reps gambit, as Humph says seen every morning on the motorway, was extremely well timed and carried out.
|
>> well timed and carried out.
A bit tight perhaps, but there's no change of engine note or apparent speed in the (very noisy and rattly) camera van or lorry. Its driver would have timed it all with an eye on n/s mirror most likely. And as Humph says, with a bit of luck and decent timing you can swoop down the slip road and across into the overtaking lane in one.
Used to do it all the time. Less often now. I just don't go as fast as I used to unless pressed for time.
|
|
My first thought was what's all the fuss about...........then I watched again. Cheeky..
|
I kind of lean the same way, it was of course discourteous and illegal. But I'm not sure it was *that* dangerous.
I suspect the slow-overtaking vehicle with the camera suffered from upset and insult more than fear of life endangerment.
|
Wouldn't have said it was news worthy.
Guy with the cam pulled out way to early - I wonder if the golf planned to overtake both and got caught out by the early overtake so just went for it
|
>> Guy with the cam pulled out way to early - I wonder if the golf
>> planned to overtake both and got caught out by the early overtake so just went
>> for it
I was thinking the same thing myself.
|
>> I kind of lean the same way, it was of course discourteous and illegal. But
>> I'm not sure it was *that* dangerous.
>>
As it turned out it was fine - Golf would have had a good view once the truck pulled into the right lane.
Of course would have been a pretty massive problem if the truck had aborted for some reason and pulled back to the left lane - he wouldn't have expected a car to be there.
|
Here's another one who is too important to wait
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-30007433
Last edited by: Westpig on Wed 12 Nov 14 at 22:17
|
|
Not really comparable tho is it.
|
Would they likely be axe-wielding types?
|
Nowt wrong with a bit of creative driving !
|
I didn't mean the Audi driver...he wants slapping daft !
|
|
Obviously not a BMW. The car indicated. Twice.
|
>> You have to admit that a: the mimser with the camera was taking an age
>> to overtake, and did the manoeuvre from a looooooong way back
>>
You must delight in cutting things fine, the overtaking manouevre of the guy with the camera looked OK to me. Drew out from far enough back to ensure the road was clear, then overtook at a reasonable speed. No need to dive sharply out then back in again unnecessarily. Looks like I'm in the minority though.
|
|
I partly agree. Best to pull out from aways back, in the correct gear to accelerate past safely. Hardly reasonable speed though. My pathetically slow 1.6 diesel can overtake faster than that.
|
>> >> You have to admit that a: the mimser with the camera was taking an
>> age
>> >> to overtake, and did the manoeuvre from a looooooong way back
>> >>
>> You must delight in cutting things fine, the overtaking manouevre of the guy with the
>> camera looked OK to me.
You spend as little time on the wrong side of the road as possible.
You do hang back, because you get the best view, but once you have checked its safe then you accelerate smartly till you are near the target then pull out onto the wrong side of the road.
That bloke looked like he was practising driving in europe! It was a stupidly long overtake and stupidly slow.
|
|
There's something a bit "off" about the driving style. Do you reckon he'd seen the other car coming and was blocking it?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 12 Nov 14 at 23:16
|
>> There's something a bit "off" about the driving style. Do you reckon he'd seen the
>> other car coming and was blocking it?
I thought much along the same lines, maybe leading to the impatient "this will teach you" response
|
100% agree with you Mr Z
Spend as little time as possible on the 'wrong' side of the road
You just never know when some nutter might appear heading towards you at a three figure speed. It happens.
|
>> Spend as little time as possible on the 'wrong' side of the road
Of course, but the road in the video is a 2-lanes-each-way dual carriageway, isn't it? So it doesn't have a wrong side.
If that was an ordinary 2-lane A road the Golf driver would be completely insane.
|
...the road in the video is a 2-lanes-each-way dual carriageway, isn't it?
No. I'd remembered it that way too, AC, and that would have made the move questionable but generally safe and even legal, on the grounds of 'keep up with traffic in your own lane' and 'do not move to the left to overtake'. But the clip begins with passing traffic on the right and ends with a view of oncoming headlights on the same carriageway. It's a long straight but it is single carriageway.
So you'd have to say that the Golf driver's manoeuvre was dangerous because he couldn't possibly have seen before pulling out that the road ahead was clear. Hardly newsworthy, though; just shows how much capacity the media have to fill these days.
|
>
>> So you'd have to say that the Golf driver's manoeuvre was dangerous because he couldn't
>> possibly have seen before pulling out that the road ahead was clear.
Not so. As discussed with Mark he was probably behind overtaking mimser and could see down the road before mimser started his long slow move, and the fact that mimser was still out there as he undertook means the road was still clear.
|
All right, he couldn't possibly have seen immediately before pulling out that the road ahead was clear. Yes, the camera vehicle was still out on the wrong side, but the Golf driver couldn't know that once he was alongside on the camera vehicle's left, the other driver wouldn't see something (car entering from side road, perhaps) that would force him back to his own side where, of course, he'd have nowhere to go.
Following another vehicle on to a roundabout, past a parked car, or as here means assuming that its driver has not made a potentially catastrophic error. The single-carriageway overtake is probably the most hazardous manoeuvre most of us ever perform, so adding further risks to the situation is not to be encouraged.
|
>> All right, he couldn't possibly have seen immediately before pulling out that the road ahead
>> was clear. Yes, the camera vehicle was still out on the wrong side, but the
>> Golf driver couldn't know that once he was alongside on the camera vehicle's left, the
>> other driver wouldn't see something (car entering from side road, perhaps) that would force him
>> back to his own side where, of course, he'd have nowhere to go.
Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating that the golf driver was was safe, and that this was an advisable manoeuvre. It was extremely hot headed and risky albeit carried out with some aplomb.
I am merely pointing out that a: this would never have happened to me because of the way I would have undertaken the overtake. (ho ho ho) ( knowing it was a golf GTI I might even have allowed him to nip past me and follow him) and b: the camera driver did not perform the overtake in a smart swift and responsible manner.
|
>>
>>
>>
>> So you'd have to say that the Golf driver's manoeuvre was dangerous because he couldn't
>> possibly have seen before pulling out that the road ahead was clear.
Perhaps that why the camera car was hanging back - he couldn't see beyond the van which was still overtaking. If he'd followed on immediately a fast oncoming car might suddenly have appeared.
It's the correct thing to do, isn't it - wait until you can see the road is clear for the whole manoeuvre, don't just blindly follow someone else?
|
SQ again!
>> Perhaps that why the camera car was hanging back - he couldn't see beyond the
>> van which was still overtaking.
Well I could see between the van and the lorry all the way up the road and all I have is the crappy video.
If he'd followed on immediately a fast oncoming car might
>> suddenly have appeared.
>> It's the correct thing to do, isn't it - wait until you can see the
>> road is clear for the whole manoeuvre, don't just blindly follow someone else?
Yes but you don't do it from 50 yards back on the wrong side of the road. You are seated near the centre of the road, you merely need to have your front wheel over the centre line to have an excellent view.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 13 Nov 14 at 10:13
|
>>
>> Well I could see between the van and the lorry all the way up the
>> road and all I have is the crappy video.
>>
Yes, sort of. But there was an oncoming vehicle in the distance, as it happens going quite slowly.
But as soon as you are in the far lane with the van ahead blocking the view you cannot tell how fast it is approaching. The van pulling in might have suddenly revealed that it was coming on fast.
I'm sure the proper thing is to hang back until you can a) see your exit is clear, and b) you have a clear road ahead and can form a proper judgement of the speed of distantly approaching vehicles.
Am I right in my hunch that the biggest cause of accidents during overtaking is a follow-on driver misjudging or not seeing an oncoming vehicle until it is too late?
|
>> Am I right in my hunch that the biggest cause of accidents during overtaking is
>> a follow-on driver misjudging or not seeing an oncoming vehicle until it is too late?
I suspect not. I suspect most overtaking accidents are because of choosing the wrong place at the wrong time. I guess everyone here has seen a brow of the hill or overtake on a bend manoeuvre, not to mention the car emerging from a side road surprise.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 13 Nov 14 at 10:47
|
>>
>> Am I right in my hunch that the biggest cause of accidents during overtaking is
>> a follow-on driver misjudging or not seeing an oncoming vehicle until it is too late?
>>
I was always taught that if you can't see you don't go.The driver in that clip got away with it because he was lucky, not because he was an exceptionally good driver. Factor in a motorcycle coming the other way, or perhaps a car overtaking a cyclist, and you'd likely have had a considerably worse result.
Last edited by: Harleyman on Thu 13 Nov 14 at 11:31
|
>>Factor in a motorcycle coming the other way, or perhaps a car overtaking
>> a cyclist, and you'd likely have had a considerably worse result.
A problem faced by the overtaker with the camera as well surely?
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 13 Nov 14 at 11:40
|
|
I would say that the camera chap had a better view and more time to react than the Golf driver.
|
>> A problem faced by the overtaker with the camera as well surely?
>>
Indeed; but now with the added complication of another vehicle travelling too fast. Where the camera car was concerned, he'd got enough time and room to complete the overtake although I agree he seemed to take his time about it. The Golf didn't have that luxury; further to points above, it's my experience that cars which effectively jump the queue when overtaking pose the greatest risk.
My take on the Golf driver's actions is that he came hooning up behind the camera car at considerable speed, realised that he would have to brake sharply to avoid tailending the camera car which was taking more time to overtake than he'd allowed for, spotted the gap and took the chance.
The greatest risk of course would have been if the camera car driver had glanced in his mirror, seen him coming, panicked and swerved back in hence closing the gap. It's a circumstance I've experienced several times on SC roads due to my keeping to the 40 limit in my lorry; as I have to by the way both by law and by company policy.
|
>> >>Factor in a motorcycle coming the other way, or perhaps a car overtaking
>> >> a cyclist, and you'd likely have had a considerably worse result.
>>
>> A problem faced by the overtaker with the camera as well surely?
The camera vehicle had a much better view, for long enough to have a proper look.
He had a much better chance of seeing a moped/cyclist ahead of the lorry, or anything oncoming - the Golf driver's view when he made that jink was very limited indeed, even though he might have had a reasonable look from further back beforehand.
Incidentally, there are laybys every mile or so on that road too. Not unknown for traffic to rejoin too slowly ahead, or appear in the opposite lane from a layby on that side, having looked behind but not ahead properly.
|
>> No. I'd remembered it that way too,
Quite right of course WDB, careless viewing on my part, not unusual alas. So the manoeuvre was dangerous, given the possibility raised by Manatee of something coming out of a layby further down the road.
However, the Golf driver would certainly have had a proper look down the road, and the steady speed maintained by the camera vehicle suggests that its driver knew what was going on and wasn't surprised.
|
Worth pointing out that the police in Scotland tend to enforce the 40 mph limit on HGV's quite rigidly, and I'm willing to guess that a queue had built up behind that one.
Whilst there might indeed be a lay-by every mile or so, and it is right that slow-moving vehicles should pull over every so often, it would be unreasonable to expect lorries to pull in at every one to let traffic past, assuming that is that there's room in said lay-by to allow it. For one thing the lorry wouldn't make any progress, for another lorries exiting lay-bys cause problems of their own.
Trouble is, as we all know, some people think their journey has priority over everyone else's regardless of the potential cost.
Last edited by: Harleyman on Thu 13 Nov 14 at 14:50
|
>> You spend as little time on the wrong side of the road as possible.
Try telling that to this pensioner who travelled 8 miles up the A23 on the wrong side of the road.
tinyurl.com/kbbbrmk - Daily Wail (other sources are available)
youtu.be/xw7PeYModZo
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 13 Nov 14 at 01:44
|
>> You spend as little time on the wrong side of the road as possible.
>>
>> You do hang back, because you get the best view, but once you have checked
>> its safe then you accelerate smartly till you are near the target then pull out
>> onto the wrong side of the road.
>>
>> That bloke looked like he was practising driving in europe! It was a stupidly long
>> overtake and stupidly slow.
>>
I agree with everything you say. The point I was making was that given what we actually know from the video, i.e. the road and traffic conditions, plus the capabilities of the overtaking vehicle, which we suspect is a lorry of some sort and can only surmise, there was nothing wrong in the manouevre.
I don't think that you can class it as "stupidly long" and "stupidly slow". It may not have been what you would have done, and it's not what I would have done, but in the circumstances it doesn't make it "wrong".
Saab used to have the philosophy that "the less time spent on the wrong side of the road the better", hence their range of higher performance models. Seems my car has better mid-range (50mph-80mph) acceleration than a Ferrari according to the advertising blurb, but as I said in a post some months ago, it's not necessary to aggressively flaunt it every time I overtake.
|
>> Looks like I'm in the minority though.
>>
The same minority that I'm in. If time is so precious for the Golf driver, he/she should start out earlier.
|
|
But that argument excludes all overtaking, JB. There are drivers who - for practical purposes at least - subscribe to that view, but I don't suppose anyone here does, do they?
|
|
Seems to some of the dive in dive out brigade ignore the two second rule. Driving up to the tail of the target vehicle doesn't allow any room to brake if somehing untoward happens. Hard to tell on my PC if the camera vehicle was missing as the motion is a tad slow and jerky but it didn't look as if he pulled out much too early- again having regard to the two second rule.
|
|
Mimsing. ......darned spell check
|
This isn't a motorway or dual carriageway, it's the A9 which is a road with a reputation for serious high speed accidents.
I love the road when it's quiet, but it's 100+ miles from Perth to Inverness and when it's busy one can be stuck for miles behind slow moving LGVs in convoys. Good overtaking skills are needed - not dangerous, unpredictable lunges.
I certainly don't think the first overtaker pulled out too early, nor do I think he was mimsing. We don't know what he was driving.
He made his intentions clear to following traffic by booking slightly early, avoided potentially having to brake behind the lorry, and had room to complete the manoeuvre.
The Golf driver was massively irresponsible, carrying far too much speed and cutting it too fine in fast moving traffic. With that car he had a much better tool for overtaking than most and even less justification for driving like an idiot.
He quite likely had been frustrated by the prospect of slowing behind the first overtaker (who he would probably otherwise have been happy to force to brake).
He displayed the kind of aggression, impatience and snap decision making that causes the horrendous accidents for which the A9 is famous. He's not the driving god he clearly thinks he is, he's just a very naughty boy who will come unstuck eventually if he doesn't mend his ways.
On the scale of punishments applied for minor speed infringements and driving in bus lanes, a month's ban would not be unreasonable.
|
He's not the driving god...he's just a very naughty boy...
Shouldn't that be 'driving messiah'?
|
|
Thank you, Manatee. That says it all as far as I'm concerned. I'm baffled as to why so many forum members are defending such appalling driving.
|
>> Thank you, Manatee. That says it all as far as I'm concerned. I'm baffled as
>> to why so many forum members are defending such appalling driving.
You will notice that no-one has defended it.
|
>> You will notice that no-one has defended it.
If that's the case, then your first post in this topic certainly had me fooled.
|
>> >> You will notice that no-one has defended it.
>>
>> If that's the case, then your first post in this topic certainly had me fooled.
And you conveniently ignore the one where I said
Quote "Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating that the golf driver was was safe, and that this was an advisable manoeuvre. It was extremely hot headed and risky albeit carried out with some aplomb.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 13 Nov 14 at 14:57
|
Point of order M'lud, it's not the A9 it's the A90 Aberdeen to Peterhead. But I'm not defending anyone either. Looked illegal enough, for sure, quite rude too, not sure how dangerous it was though or indeed what led to it. Looks like it might have been the end play of some road rage exchange but of course it's impossible to be sure.
No doubt someone qualified to do so will decide what happens next.
|
>> But that argument excludes all overtaking, JB. There are drivers who - for practical purposes
>> at least - subscribe to that view, but I don't suppose anyone here does, do
>> they?
>>
Not quite. But I do try never to time a journey on the basis that it matters whether I get held up or not.
I don't want my last ever thoughts on earth to be "Oh dear, why did I think it was so important to get past?"
|
www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9kzKjqWNaA
>>
>> Takes practice of course.
>>
Sure does.
|
That is perfectly normal driving in Australia, no exaggeration. Moreover if you inadvertently closed the Golf's 'gap' the driver would feel aggrieved by your lack of observation. When 'undertaking' is allowed, anything goes.
To be clear, I am not defending the Golf driver's actions as I think they were selfish at best, reckless at worst.
Last edited by: idle_chatterer on Thu 13 Nov 14 at 12:20
|
>> That is perfectly normal driving in Australia, no exaggeration. Moreover if you inadvertently closed the
>> Golf's 'gap' the driver would feel aggrieved by your lack of observation. When 'undertaking' is
>> allowed, anything goes.
On a single carriageway, really? This is not a multilane highway. There's one lane in each direction, separated by a white line.
|
>>
>> On a single carriageway, really? This is not a multilane highway. There's one lane in
>> each direction, separated by a white line.
>>
Yes, really, perhaps not quite as demonstrated in this footage but I've seen cars perform similar manoeuvres utilising cycle lanes, verges, on ramps etc. In fact on one single lane carriageway maybe 100Km from me there are speed/rumble strips on the tarmac verge to discourage drivers from using it.
|
|
In Australia you can pass your test and get a license, never having driven on a tarmac road!
|
Police advanced driving courses will have you come out well early for an overtake, if that is required, so you are where the best vision is.
The length of time on the wrong side isn't a problem if you have the vision. If you haven't, fair enough, get it done and get back in again.
I take the point about the potential for there to have been some 'previous' in this incidence and possibly the slower vehicle was being bolshy...however:
-If if wasn't an ongoing incident, the Golf driver is a moron
-If it was an ongoing incident the Golf driver is foolish, he could easily have waited and then blasted past.
The Golf would have had considerably restricted vision from the angle he was at.. and if any of the following happened he'd have been potentially doomed:
- animal runs out (stag springs to mind)
- slow overtaker changes his mind and pulls back in for whatever reason
- original vehicle being overtaken decides to turn or pull over to the right
...and further to the above, the Golf driver put himself and his car under unnecessary risk, he didn't need to swerve like that..if he'd had one tyre down on pressure, that would have been enough for a spin.
|
|
Also if the original overtaker had to abort his move and move to his left, he could have collided with the undertaking Golf. Hope they catch the idiot.
|
This driver got his comeuppance for almost wiping out two bikers during an overtake manoeuvre.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhwSTpAhbl4
|
Bit late to this but that Golf driver was an utter fool... it wasn't neat, skilful or well timed... just very risky.
I've said before but if you want to drive briskly on the public highway (i.e pushing and/or exceeding the limits of the law) there is a duty not to impose your "risk" on fellow road users and this includes potentially confusing others by undertaking actions outside the norm in close proximity to them.
|
Undertaker + overtaker!!! caught on camera - sooty123
