# Overtaking



## Widget (May 7, 2002)

Are you permitted, by law, to go faster than the speed limit in order to overtake?


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

No


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Was this a serious question? :roll:


----------



## TTotal (Aug 12, 2002)

or go through a red light to overtake ?

I dont think so..... :roll:


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

This should be moved to the Joke Thread


----------



## KevinST (May 6, 2002)

No, but I think you are allowed to ram other drivers out of the way if they are slowing your progress :roll: :wink:


----------



## kingcutter (Aug 1, 2003)

you can also stop another driver shoot him and take his quicker car,then save the game and get more guns.


----------



## KevinST (May 6, 2002)

kingcutter said:


> you can also stop another driver shoot him and take his quicker car,then save the game and get more guns.


Ummm... you need to repeat this over and over again when playing GTA....
"this is only a game... this is only a game... the is only a game"


----------



## Widget (May 7, 2002)

So have I got this right? It's not allowed is it?


----------



## christtopher (May 7, 2002)

Maybe it's allowed in Norfork.... :wink:


----------



## jdn (Aug 26, 2002)

I came across this question in one of the Weekend motoring papers recently. Someone was trying to get out a speeding charge by claiming the highway code states it is correct to accelerate to sufficient speed to safely overtake before dropping back down to previous speed. Led to some discussion as to whether you could get off on this excuse. Can't remeber any more specifics or further discussion but suffice to say the consensus was if your going faster than the posted speed limit then you are fair game - overtaking or not.


----------



## ag (Sep 12, 2002)

The logic would be that if you need to exceed the speed limit to pass the vehicle in front, then the vehicle you are overtaking is travelling at, or near, the speed limit. Therefore why do you need to overtake him?

If you say, but I wanted to be on the incorrect side of the road for as short a time as possible, then the police would say that you should have waited for a safer place to overtake!


----------



## Rhod_TT (May 7, 2002)

Read something a while back along these lines:

If you are following a car at 50mph on a single carriageway national speed limit road and want to overtake. Without going over 60mph it would take about half a mile to get past (or some other such long distance). So overtaking is pretty well out of the question if you are doing 50mph but want to go that little bit quicker. Somebody care to cehck this out as I can't be bothered to do the calcs.

Rhod


----------



## dimitt (Apr 21, 2004)

without trying to 'steal' the thread is flashing someone to get out the way also illegal??


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

dimitt said:


> without trying to 'steal' the thread is flashing someone to get out the way also illegal??


No.

Your lights and horn are to warn other road users of your presence.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Rhod_TT said:


> Read something a while back along these lines:
> 
> If you are following a car at 50mph on a single carriageway national speed limit road and want to overtake. Without going over 60mph it would take about half a mile to get past (or some other such long distance). So overtaking is pretty well out of the question if you are doing 50mph but want to go that little bit quicker. Somebody care to cehck this out as I can't be bothered to do the calcs.
> 
> Rhod


I don't doubt your figures, but that still doesn't make it "legal".

Whether a policeman would acutally give you a tug for exceeding the speed limit briefly on 1 overtake is another matter entirely...


----------



## Dont I Recognise You (Oct 10, 2003)

overtaking someone doing 50 when you are doing 60.

Um. From my basic maths:

50mph = aprox 75,000 metres per hour
= 1,250 metres per min
= 21 metres per sec

60mph = 90,000 per hour
= 1,500 metres per min
= 25 metres per sec

so 4 metres per second faster

should be able to overtake comfortably in a few seconds?

got to be honest tho - this doesn't 'feel' right?

Flashing:
to paraphrase the highway code (as I recall it!), you flash your lights to make another person aware of your presence.
So not illegal, I think, but not to say they won't get p*ssed off at you


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

jampott said:


> dimitt said:
> 
> 
> > without trying to 'steal' the thread is flashing someone to get out the way also illegal??
> ...


...and many BMWs are now factory fitted with Auto Flash Function, saving the driver the irksome task of actually having to pull the stork (oooeer missus) when closing in on tardy drivers ahead. A distance detector senses the closing rate and automatically applies bi-xenon full beam at retinal-fusing levels in order to make sure that the driver ahead is fully "aware" of one's presence. A useful aid.

:wink:


----------



## TTotal (Aug 12, 2002)

Right Tim (as per usual :-* )

My Institute of Advanced Motorists training tells me that a flash of the lights or a toot of the horn says nothing more than *I am here*

Should you for example flash your lights whilst approaching a motorist waiting at an adjoining road junction, he will/could take this to mean "Please pull out in front of me"

What he doesnt know is that you flashed to acknowledge a fellow TT driver coming towards you.........so he pulls out and wallop ! Your nearside front clobbers his offside front.

Or you flash to actually let him out to pull across in front of you to drive along your offside (ie turn right whilst coming from your left)

What you didnt do was to look in your mirror to make sure that nothing was overtaking you , like the guy on his motorbike and then you hear the sickening crunch as they collide....

So the answer is never ever give any signal to any other motorist like this unless you are happy to take a chance that it can be misinterpretted !

IMOHO of course :wink:


----------



## dimitt (Apr 21, 2004)

garyc said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > dimitt said:
> ...


and they are usually in the slow lane too.... hah Beamer drivers... so gald i got rid of mine!!!


----------



## R6B TT (Feb 25, 2003)

They can and will do you - mate of mine was stuck behind a milkfloat or similar in his Caterham, saw an overtaking opportunity and nipped past him, slowing back down to 30 when he was clear.

He got done for 56MPH in a 30


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

R6B TT said:


> They can and will do you - mate of mine was stuck behind a milkfloat or similar in his Caterham, saw an overtaking opportunity and nipped past him, slowing back down to 30 when he was clear.
> 
> He got done for 56MPH in a 30


And another guy in this forum with the name Huw, was done exactly the same way.
I doubt that they will just turn a blind eye to such an exciting opportunity of getting another Â£60. :evil:


----------



## jam (May 8, 2002)

garyc said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > dimitt said:
> ...


Has yours got that too Gary? Great isn't it :wink:


----------



## CapTT (Mar 2, 2003)

Very contentious issue.The answer in law being a definite NO. You actually need an act of parliament specifically allowing you to break the speed limit on specific roads at specific times.

We went through this when trying to get roads closed to organise rallies for the BTRDA and BNRC championships. Closing the roads is easily arranged as can be witnessed by marathons , fun runs , cycle races etc. etc.. But even if the road is under your control you can`t break the speed limit on it without an act of parliament. So I say the cyclists are bound to break the law in city centre cycle races now aren`t they ?. But a blind eye is turned.

Birmingham had to get such an act of parliament to organise the "superprix" in the city centre a few years ago at huge expense.
The Jim Clark rally has one in place now for the annual July BNRC rally which is the only one on public roads in the mainland UK. (And is an awesome weekend.)

However for the Isle of Man , Isle of Mull and Ireland different laws apply again and they seem to organise events very very easily (and well) on a regular basis. Tynwald rocks for motorsport !.


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

CapTT said:


> We went through this when trying to get roads closed to organise rallies for the BTRDA and BNRC championships. Closing the roads is easily arranged as can be witnessed by marathons , fun runs , cycle races etc. etc.. But even if the road is under your control you can`t break the speed limit on it without an act of parliament. So I say the cyclists are bound to break the law in city centre cycle races now aren`t they ?. But a blind eye is turned.


No number-plates...


----------



## DXN (May 18, 2002)

police cameras/radar guns etc give a 10% plus 2 miles an hour over speed limit error margin

you could go 10% plus 2 miles an hour before the speed is deemed an offence and 3 pointable

therefor surely you can speed to overtake in the eyes of the law

"""Devils advocate"""


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

Don't I Recognise You? said:


> overtaking someone doing 50 when you are doing 60.
> 
> Um. From my basic maths:
> 
> ...


Wayne - your calculations have told you what you already knew - when you overtake someone, it takes a few seconds. Your maths is pretty much right - even with only a 10mph difference, it doesn't take long to travel the length of a car - after all, you could walk it in a couple of seconds. Of course, you also need to factor in your smooth movent to and from the overtaking lane, but lets say that a nice smooth overtake takes 10 seconds, that's still only 250 metres covered, so 1/4 of a KM. Try it out - dual carriage way, find a car doing about 50 and see how long and how far it takes to safely change lane, overtake and pull back - bet it's less than 0.2 miles.

Clive


----------



## Chip_iTT (Nov 14, 2003)

the flip side to that is those idiots that do pre-emptive overtaking.... approaching a 60mph lorry at 61mph and pull out to overtake 1/4 mile away... that 1mph relative speed means it will take 15min to actually catch up and overtake... meanwhile the q of 90mph TTs is building up behind :x


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Chip_iTT said:


> the flip side to that is those idiots that do pre-emptive overtaking.... approaching a 60mph lorry at 61mph and pull out to overtake 1/4 mile away... that 1mph relative speed means it will take 15min to actually catch up and overtake... meanwhile the q of 90mph TTs is building up behind :x


Your maths is flawed. The "queue" of 90mph TTs will have become a pile really quite quickly....


----------



## Chip_iTT (Nov 14, 2003)

Actually Tim the flaw was to assume we'd sit behind the pratt... we'd all go round the inside and be gone before said pratt knew we were there....


----------



## digimeisTTer (Apr 27, 2004)

Blimey! the bloke only asked a simple question which was succinctly answered by the 2nd post, what an intellectual lot you all are!

V. interesting to see how a thread can morph tho' :wink:


----------

