Attempted Overtake, Decided Not to, Handed $530 Fine

FINAL COMMENTS BEFORE I DELETE THIS ACCOUNT:
Hi all, thanks for everybody's input. I realise that I demonstrated poor judgement and I will learn from that.

However since uploading the footage, many people are comparing the complex thought processes and various other external factors involved in this situation in real life and are diminishing it a simple 2D video on youtube that you are free to pause and press your face up against. I appreciate everybody who offered sound reasoning for their comments (whether for my side or against) rather than just saying how idiotic I was.

I have not decided yet whether I will contest it in court. I have some time to think about it.

ORIGINAL POST:
I just want to say I know how posts here about speeding fines and not stopping at stop signs etc.. are blasted by this community and the OP is told to just cop the fine and pay up as they were in the wrong.

I'm not here for that, I just want to share my experience today and ask if I was actually in the wrong. If I am, I have no problem accepting the fine but if I am not, whether I should appeal in court and how successful these appeals usually are. Thanks everybody

I am travelling on a two lane highway in regional QLD. There is a large SUV in front of me (think Prado size but I don't remember the exact make and model) let's call it car A.

Car A is travelling around 90kmh in the 100kmh zone. I had just passed a dedicated overtaking zone where I had only managed to catch up to car A and I know it's at least another 5km or so until the next overtaking zone. Dotted centre line comes up. I can't see past car A due to it's wide body so I do a little peeking manoeuvre. I see no oncoming cars. I pull into the oncoming lane and immediately start to accelerate as one does when overtaking. I now see an oncoming car in the distance. I then notice that car A begins to accelerate too (which to my knowledge is illegal, but please correct me if I am wrong). I remain in the oncoming lane for a split second as my brain gauges whether I am able to overtake car A or not. I decide not to, brake and pull back in behind car A.

Now, turns out the oncoming car is highway patrol. They flash their lights, do a u-turn and pull me over. I am civil and respectful. I mention that I did not see the oncoming car before I tried to overtake car A but I don't mention that car A accelerated when I tried to overtake as I know that arguing with a cop usually doesn't work out in one's favour. They hand me a fine for "driving without due care and attention". 3 demerits and $530 fine, saying that what I did was dangerous behaviour and is the main reason there are high speed crashes on the highways. I say OK officer, have a nice day.

Did I commit any offence here? Again, please don't insult me or blast me for being some sort of hoon. I'm not. Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Edit: To anybody who has appealed traffic offences similar to this, where you are able to justify your actions: were you successful? And was it worth all the hassle and stress or did you look back and think you should have just accepted the fine and the increased insurance premiums?

EDIT: I've got access to my dashcam footage and I've uploaded it to youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfLfCSVOMOw


Combined Forum Post (from Node 558123)

Merged from Attempted Overtake, Decided Not to, Handed $530 Fine PART 2 NOW WITH FOOTAGE

closed Comments

  • I guess you shouldn't pull out to overtake unless you are sure the oncoming lane is clear. If you can't see then you should be patient.

    It's hard to get an idea of distances and times from your story - how long did it take for the cop to pass you once you pulled out?

  • +32 votes

    Based on your description here it does not appear that you did anything wrong.

    I suppose it depends on how far in the distance the on-coming car is, and the police offer just went by the appearance of erratic driving rather than taking into account your logical explanation for not completing the manoeuvre.

    If the oncoming car was sufficiently far in the distance then you did nothing wrong. If not, then it is fair.

    • +1 vote

      Oncoming car was probably around 200m away. It took them a fair few seconds to pass me and do the u-turn.

      • Do you have dashcam footage? Could help provide some context clarity (although may also work against you).

        I presume your vehicle didn't have enough grunt to accelerate and overtake quickly? I'll add this to my list of reasons not wanting a tiny engined 4-pot car that's unfortunately become the norm nowadays.

        • +115 votes

          It's no high yield investment I'll tell you that mate

        • I presume your vehicle didn't have enough grunt to accelerate and overtake quickly? I'll add this to my list of reasons not wanting a tiny engined 4-pot car that's unfortunately become the norm nowadays.

          I have upvoted your comment for the sentiment expressed as we're on the same page on that front. However, the size of an engine or the number of cylinders alone are not necessarily indicators of how much grunt it may have.

          I'm not sure how tiny is tiny, but the Peugeot 308 GTI has a turbo charged 1.6 litre 4 cylinder engine, and does the 0-100 run in 6 seconds flat. This is only one second slower than the Commonwh0r SSV which has a 6 LITRE dinosaur engine! And the Peugeot is actually faster than numerous other 6 cylinder engines that are at least twice as large as the Peugeot's 'tiny' engine.

          There's also the Rex, Type R, Focus RS, A45 AMG High Yield Thing, i30N, Megane RS, RS3, etc. each of which is powered by a 4 cylinder engine.

          When there's a bit of a rain, things like the STI will overtake the SSV on the outside of a corner without batting an eyelid. :-)

          Mod: Fixed inappropriate/derogatory wording.

          • @CocaKoala: Of course, it's just a generalisation. Most of the 4-cyl cars on the road are slow, just like most of the 6L cars are fast. Obviously there are exceptions.

          • @CocaKoala: Your point is fair, but that was excruciating to read.. not really doing yourself any favours with the childish names and ironically ignorant generalisations.

            Plus if you're going to have a go, at least pick the right car. A recent SSV is almost a 50% faster than your little pug at a typical overtaking move (80-120km/h).

            • @sovereign01:

              Your point is fair, but that was excruciating to read

              I don't need to know what you find easy or excruciating, but no worries. Some people cannot read beyond a few words, and nobody here expects everyone on the forum to read everything. Feel free not to read what you find excruciating in the future.

              not really doing yourself any favours with the childish names

              I wasn't asking for your advice on that (or on anything), but thanks anyways for your unsolicited opinion.

              ironically ignorant generalisations

              As if clubbing all 4 cylinder engines into one category isn't ignorant?! Talk about being ironic.

              A recent SSV is almost a 50% faster than your little pug at a typical overtaking move (80-120km/h).

              Great point, and an excellent win for the recent 6 litre engine against an older 1.6 litre engine. But if we're talking recent, how faster (or perhaps slower?) is that dinosaur at a typical overtaking manoeuvre than say, a recent A45 S AMG?

              • @CocaKoala: It's so funny you're taking the 4-cyl comment so personal. Relax man, it was just a generalisation of your average 4-cyl car. Everbody knows there are exceptions.

                • @snagseb: My daily is a 2.0L 4 cylinder NA Lancer but we take the 3.5L V6 Aurion when out highway driving (in Regional QLD). It is much much safer overtaking in the more powerful car.

                  No offence to alot of people on here but i think there is a real disconnect or lack of knowledge of the condition of the roads up this way and the lack of suitable overtaking areas. We also seem to be plagued by caravans cruising along at 80km/h.

                  The Bruce highway north of Gympie is ALL single lane road expect for the overtaking lanes which are few and far between, it gets worse the further north you go.

                  I am a confident driver and aim to spend as little time on the wrong side of the road as possible. I also hate driving near other cars on the highway as people sometimes do stupid and unpredictable things when confronted with kangaroos, cows, oncoming vehicles etc. If someone if going less than 100/kmh or can't maintain a constant speed i generally get around them quickly and then sit on 110km/h for a couple of mins to create a nice gap and drop back to 100.

                  It really shits me when people speed up as your overtake them, it is really common.

                  Also i've noticed over the years people when driving long distance people generally speed up as they hit overtaking lanes and the road widens up, they subconsciously increase speed. Usually the same people who don't have or use cruise control and can't maintain a constant speed.

                  I have been in the OP's situation a handful of times where you seem to have a decent stretch but have misjudged for whatever reason. The key is to make a QUICK decision to go or not and stick with it, if you have to plant the accelerator to keep the distance safe then so be it. Rather have a speeding fine than risk getting too close to an oncoming vehicle.

                  I have never put myself in an uncomfortable situation but have had to brake many times for oncoming traffic because the gap is not safe. I guess if HWP patrol felt the need to apply brakes their decision is justified, i think it is one of those things where you have to have been in the drivers seat to actually know.

            • @sovereign01:

              A recent SSV is almost a 50% faster than your little pug at a typical overtaking move (80-120km/h).

              Turns out that couldn't be more wrong. Perhaps you've set aside real world data in favour of your imagination to draw up this conclusion?

              Here are the actual times, and the ssv is nowhere even near twice as fast as the pug:
              Holden SSV: 80-120 km/h through gears (sec): 2.8
              Pug 308 GTI: 80-120 km/h through gears (sec): 3.1

              Gee, that holden monstrosity better overtake quicker by 0.3 seconds given the 6 litre engine vs the pug's 1.6 litre engine. The holden should perform the 80-120 KPH manoeuvre in under 1.6 seconds to be twice as fast as the pug. The only thing holden drove away that quickly was Australian tax payer money.

              I am happy to be proven wrong, but only with factual data.

              • @CocaKoala: Hilarious - Your arrogance is poetic.

                You know automobile-catalog makes up their figures using simulations right? You really nailed "real world" "actual" data. Go look at actual magazine tests, if you can make out the words from up on your high horse.

                Also, a maths lesson. "50% faster" does not equal "twice as fast"

                • @sovereign01: So much empty talk. My arrogance is as poetic as your ignorant claims that are purely based on imagination.

                  Why don't you back up your claim with data and win in style? Oh wait, that isn't possible because there's no way your claims were true. Go on, show me the data. May be that will be the best "lesson" you could teach me.

                  No hurry, I'm here all day.

                  • @CocaKoala: The best lesson I could teach you is humility. I think you may have learnt some. Thanks.

                    • @sovereign01: The Pug takes exactly 3.1 seconds to do the 80 to 120 KPH run in a real world scenario as proven by this video, and as predicted by the simulation (who would have thought a scientific simulation will be accurate - not you for sure): https://youtu.be/RB_ZAiv5Ces?t=343

                      Now I will wait for your self-proclaimed humble self to prove that the ssv is 50% faster in the 80 to 120 KPH run. If you can't prove it, feel free to take your own humility lesson, and one from me for good measure.

                      • @CocaKoala: Dude dont bother man. They wont get it. This is coming from someone who has a SSV and is also an owner of Abarth 595 Competizione. The difference is marginal.There are small engine cars which can easily keep up. I would argue that I can go faster on Great ocean road with my Abarth than the SSV. Also anyone owning a SSV will know their automatic transmission is garbage.Take it from a owner. There is reason I picked SSV and Abarth. One is a cruiser and the other is for proper driving pleasure.

                        • @RedDevil860: Yeah, I agree with everything you've said. No way a boat like commodore will keep up with something like the 595 competizione around the twisties. The commodore being an RWD will be fun in its own way, but it's no scalpel around the bends.

                          As to the commodore's auto transmission, completely agreed as well. The missus' ssv had a number of problems that were all thankfully sorted out with the warranty and we got rid of it after about 2 years of ownership. Best move ever. OTOH, a colleague has the SV6 manual that we drove up the dandenongs and loved its playful RWD around the twisties to bits.

                          • @CocaKoala: Commodores are so much more comfortable and cheaper to fix. Pug repair prices are ridiculous because it's a foreign car and parts need to be imported. Plus an SSV sounds so much better. Before you blow your top, remember most of this comment is just my opinion. The repair part is accurate.

                            • @snagseb: I don't have much to argue with you as I'm going to have to agree with everything you've said. With the SSV I couldn't get enough of the sound while we had it. Niece had a pug 307 that she had a minor crash in, and had to wait nearly 7 weeks before the parts arrived for the panel beaters to fix it. Mind you, this was not during any pandemic - she was told it just takes that long.

                            • @snagseb: they were cheaper, but with Holden gone you got to put up with Peugeot anyway, no thanks…

                        • @RedDevil860: Funnily enough I own a C63S and a Fiat 500, and I've owned a handful of other hot hatches (and modified them).
                          I'm not arguing capacity = faster, just that his post and attitude is childish and silly.

                          "Commonwh0r SSV" - Idiocy
                          "6 LITRE dinosaur engine!" - Idiocy
                          "The only thing holden drove away that quickly was Australian tax payer money." Idiocy
                          "When there's a bit of a rain, things like the STI will overtake the SSV on the outside of a corner without batting an eyelid" - Idiocy (And also not true, having owned both and spent plenty time on track in my STI. AWD doesn't magically increase tyre grip while holding a curve in the rain)

                          • @sovereign01:

                            Funnily enough I own a C63S and a Fiat 500, and I've owned a handful of other hot hatches

                            The 500 is as slow as 4 pots get, unless you yours is actually in the one of the abarth forms.

                            "Commonwh0r SSV" - Idiocy
                            "6 LITRE dinosaur engine!" - Idiocy

                            That is your personal opinion, which you have every right to have. I will call it for what it is, and my opinions are based on my personal experiences with the brand when it came to much needed support, and also with the reliability of car.

                            "The only thing holden drove away that quickly was Australian tax payer money." Idiocy

                            Your statement is demonstrating a complete disconnect from reality, and that you are living in denial. You also perhaps believe that Holden is somehow "Australian" - it's about as much Australian as KFC is. Holden took all the money they could from the government (which is taxpayer's money) claiming that they will keep the production going, sent the money off to the US, and then shut down the local manufacturing anyways. This is not exactly a secret.

                            "When there's a bit of a rain, things like the STI will overtake the SSV on the outside of a corner without batting an eyelid" - Idiocy

                            Arrant nonsense. Wet or dry, the STI is faster around the corners. One is a world renowned rally car for a reason and another is a goddamned boat around the bends.

                            • @CocaKoala:

                              That is your personal opinion, which you have every right to have. I will call it for what it is.

                              Thanks, my personal opinion is that those statements are idiocy.

                              Your statement is demonstrating a complete disconnect from reality, and that you are living in denial. You also perhaps believe that Holden is somehow "Australian" - it's about as much Australian as KFC. Holden took all the money they could from the government (which is taxpayer's money) claiming that they will keep the production going, sent the money off to the US, and then shut down the local manufacturing anyways. This is not exactly a secret.

                              Did you just make an argument based on 'perhaps' what I thought? Hilarious.

                              "A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person's argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making."

                              Arrant nonsense. Wet or dry, the STI is faster around the corners. One is a world renowned rally car for a reason and another is a goddamned boat around the bends.

                              I don't think you know as much about cars as you think you do.

                              • @sovereign01:

                                Thanks, my personal opinion is that those statements are idiocy.

                                Which is exactly what I said - it was just your personal opinion. What I stated however was based on my experience with the brand and the specific car in question.

                                Did you just make an argument based on 'perhaps' what I thought? Hilarious.

                                Ah, playing the tosser game now. You termed me calling out Holden's siphoning off of Austrlian taxpayer money as 'idiocy' - feel free to elaborate on what exactly you meant by that.

                                May be you will explain it in that same post where you will provide a link to the so called tests conducted by those Australian magazines that prove the ssv is 50% faster than the pug to do 80 to 120 KPH. The heat death of the universe will happen before you could provide that is my bet.

                                Sure the commodore goes quick around the corners. That's why it's a common car in world rally championship races.

                                I don't think you know as much about cars as you think you do.

                                You're welcome to think what you want - but not every thought that goes through your head is worth posting about unless you could prove it with data - especially those thoughts that are misaligned with reality. You know the magazines did the test, you know the data exists, and it's only 3 seconds of Googling away. So prove me wrong with links to those magazine tests, or this is just another personal opinion of your self-proclaimed 'humble' self that carries zero value.

                                • @CocaKoala:

                                  Ah, playing the tosser game now. You termed me calling out Holden's siphoning off of Austrlian taxpayer money as 'idiocy' - feel free to elaborate on what exactly you meant by that.

                                  The only thing I said was your statement is idiocy, which I stand behind.

                                  "The only thing holden drove away that quickly was Australian tax payer money."

                                  Holden make some very quick cars, regardless of their economic issues and their political implication. So idiotic statement.

                                  I didn't suggest anything about taxpayer funds so don't construct another straw man argument. Based on the one sided lunacy of every statement you've made in this thread so far, I don't think you'd be capable of having a ration discussion around the complicated issue of government funding.

                                  • @sovereign01:

                                    Holden make some very quick cars, regardless of their economic issues and their political implication. So idiotic statement.

                                    Fair opinion to have. Yes, holden did make some very quick cars as I understand that's what you meant then.

                                    Now if you would respond just as quickly with the data that claim/imagine that you readily have, that would be excellent.

                                    having a ration discussion

                                    Indeed, one would have to ration their time to respond to your unproven lunatic claims.

                          • @sovereign01: "And also not true, having owned both and spent plenty time on track in my STI. AWD doesn't magically increase tyre grip while holding a curve in the rain)"

                            I think you will find the AWD DCCD and torque vectoring helps stability. The overall traction coefficient doesn't increase but dynamic stability does. I own a STI and driven commo V8 in the wet, the commo will stab you in the back in the rain if heavy footed. Just far more confidence inspiring in the wet in a STI than a auto V8 RWD.

                            That said lower displacement engine (generally) are slower accelerating at high speeds, but this is depends on gearing.engine.weight etc…Small turbos run out of puff, again depending on gearing and turbo size. Good engine can be ruined by a trash gearbox

                            • @Bid Sniper: Thanks for engaging in an adult discussion - Million times better than

                              "When there's a bit of a rain, things like the STI will overtake the SSV on the outside of a corner without batting an eyelid"

                              Fair point re dynamic stability vs traction coefficient, although definitely huge for acceleration I'm not certain DCCD makes a huge difference holding a line through a corner - If torque vectoring contributes, SSVs have that too.

                              • @sovereign01: Massive difference in holding the line with DCCD (electronic centre diff) in the wet. Step up from AWD, you can stay on power with the STI through a corner in the wet, do that in a RWD car, you're toast. CocaKoala actually has a point there. In the dry however a properly setup manual transmission HSV will hold its own just fine.

                                But I like HSVs too, always wanted a GTO monaro, yeah dinosaur pushrod V8 but its a beautiful car in devil yellow.

                      • @CocaKoala: A YouTuber's autobahn run you've timed with your own stopwatch. Jesus, for all the science talk you're not doing a great job of it.

                        Actual 80-120km/h tests are significantly slower

                        • @sovereign01:

                          Actual 80-120km/h tests are significantly slower

                          Another steaming pile of b$ claim.

                          A simulator is not acceptable, a live video which isn't rocket science to calculate times with isn't acceptable, what the hell do you think is correct? Perhaps you could provide that secret sauce that you think is acceptable and enlighten me, which you can't do because you know your claims were plain wrong.

                          • @CocaKoala: I told you, magazine tests. 3 seconds on google netted a handful of Australian publications who've tested both. Are you choosing to ignore them because they don't support your argument?

                            A 80-120km/h test ala typical highway overtake is different from pulling a 80-120km/h figure mid 50-150+km/h test, especially for a tiny turbocharged engine running high boost that needs to spool up before delivering torque. Drive a large capacity NA engine and you may have a small appreciation for these differences and the pro/cons of both, rather than just blindly arguing ironically like the post that triggered you.

                            • @sovereign01:

                              handful of Australian publications who've tested both

                              Yeah? Just paste your link here like I did, and we will take it from there. I am happy to be corrected as I said, but do provide me the link to actual data where identical comparisons are done (after all you claim "they've tested both") so you can't claim again that I've clicked on something you don't agree with.

                            • @sovereign01: "specially for a tiny turbocharged engine running high boost that needs to spool up before delivering torque."

                              20 years ago yes but modern small displacement turbos boost early (twin scroll) and have direct injection. My daily GDI motor has 80% torque at 1500rpm, actually better than N/A.

                              • @Bid Sniper: Diesels are better than petrols but even modern turbos still have lag, and twin scroll turbos are still relatively uncommon. (eg. Civic Type R, Golf R etc are mono scroll) They can make bulk torque down low but need spool time to do it.

                                Even the 'perfect' turbo setup still exhibits lag, which is why Audi etc have messed with twin charging, and think their latest setups are using electric supercharging. All the exhaust manifold/turbo/intercooler design, AFR/EGT trickery etc and big budgets haven't helped them eliminate lag.

                                9 of my last ~10 cars have had modern turbocharged setups, they all still had lag. IMO most people find themselves anticipating needing power and stabbing the throttle early without evening thinking about it. A little 308 GTI will be running close to 40 pounds of boost to make as much power as it does out of a 1.6 and that's going to take some spooling.

                                • @sovereign01: Modern high end diesels have variable vein turbos, seeing these on petrol Porsches now. Dont like diesels, too slow even with 3 turbos like BMW

                                  Lot of lag and rev hand is an emission thing that a protune will tune out. my STI was laggy but once tuned out it was a weapon. Still needs to rev to 3K which sucks. twinscroll is uncommon but appearing in more models, Hyundai/Kia GDI motor, 1.6L found in their performance models and 3.3L in the stinger feels like a 5L. Current WRX is twin scroll direct injection, peak boost at 2K, EVOs had twinscroll since 6 i believe (?), previous Liberty were twin scroll as well.

                                  What transmissions did you have in your cars, sure its not the auto-box thats the problem? I only have manuals, think autos ruin cars fun and performance and just make them dull and unresponsive.

        • hey who you calling tiny engined 4 pot.
          my tiny engined 4 pot Golf R rips hard

        • The Mk8 Ford Fiesta ST has a 3 cylinder, 1.5 litre engine.
          It will overtake most cars in a few seconds. Put the foot down, and the engine rips along with a beautiful warbling roar, and a few pops and bangs to finish.

          No, the bang is not me running into the back of the other car.

          • @deek: Artifically induced exhaust notes are not the same as engine roar.

            Also it doesn't even break 200 hp. It has the same bhp/ton and 0-60 time as an FJ Cruiser… That's weak.

            • @Hybroid: Yes, the ST has a sound symposer. There's nothing artificial about it. It comes straight from the induction manifold.

              The FJ Cruiser apparently does 0-60 in 7.1 seconds (2011 model). Methinks you have a perverted view of "weak".

              Fiesta ST Mk8, 0-60 in 6.3 seconds.

            • @Hybroid: The difference is straight line vs twisty roads.

      • +16 votes

        At 100kmh that's only about 7 seconds.
        Probably not what you would call a safe distance for overtaking

        • Half that. Each vehicle travelling towards each other at 100kph will close a gap of 200m in 3.6 seconds

          • @steven6: Yep, good catch

          • @steven6: It was probably further away then that I suppose. I would trust my internal clock more than my internal laser distance measurer

            • +1 vote

              @cheaplee: Yep, in all honesty that number is really just a guess. I won't have access to my sd card reader until next weekend so I can't even review the footage right now

              • @DisabledUser360530: I had a similar situation in Tassie many years ago. Right down to overtakee speeding up snd oncoming was a patrol car. I was able to plead for a lessor point penalty as i was on golden point in Vic. But in thier view, it was dangerous of me, regardless of antics of the car i tried to overtake. Speeding up while being overtaken is not a offence, just a dick move. The oldies in Tassie get thier kicks doing this, i was told.
                (And i walked the next six months once the points hit my Vic license.)

                • @Book72: Increasing speed while being overtaken is an offence.

                  Eg. Qld in the OPs case is $80 fine and 2 demerits.

                  NSW is $298 and 2 demerits.

                  • @Sawtell: Should be the same fine as speeding and it is virtually never enforced. I had to buy an old diesel as the only places I could do 100 is usually blocked by dirks and a DFP needs to be burned or else it is expensive at the workshop.

          • @steven6: Off topic but putting it out there to see peoples responses. If vehicle A and B both travelling at 100km/hr collide head on. Is the force equal to an impact at 100km/hr or 200km/hr? I know the answer but some find it it is often a point of confusion.

            Also did you know that some clouds weigh as much as a blue whale? Reference: Connected - Netflix.

            TLDR: Fun fact!

            • @oO0Dam0Oo: Same as a car hitting at 100km/h. Equal and opposite reaction and all that. But in reality, it’s more to do with the mass of the vehicles. It’s fine if a Corolla hits an identical Corolla, but the outcome changes if it’s a Fiat 500 vs Kenworth.

            • @oO0Dam0Oo: If both vehicles weigh the same then it's 100kph. Bike vs B-double truck would be 199kph for the bike?

            • @oO0Dam0Oo: Relative velocity would be 200km/hr for each vehicle.
              So it's like 200km/hr into a wall.

            • @oO0Dam0Oo: Hitting an oncoming car at 100kmph would be similar to hitting an immovable object like a solid wall, you come to a dead stop.

              Now compare to hitting a stationary car at 100kmph. You will not come to a dead stop, momentum is conserved so both cars will now be moving off at around 50kmph. Your change in velocity is halved.

      • 200m actually seems way too short for a safe overtake. I have overtaken slow cars on 2 lane highways too, and most of the times I've done it it when I see no oncoming cars at all. It's wrong that car A also accelerated, they should have let you overtake. But this is what I expect - things to not go as expected. And so I only do it with no oncoming car in sight. It's unfortunate you got the fine though.. What are the chances the oncoming car happens to be a cop? I think if you told the cop what you posted here it's somewhat likely you wouldn't get a fine, just a warning.

      • Oncoming car 200m, you went 100km, police went 90kmh. 190Km/H = 52m/sec
        Difference of speed to overtaking car = 10kmh ( otherwise you exceed speed limit )10 km/h = 2.7 m/s
        If you want a bit of space to move in front, you would have to "travel" ( Your car length, other car length, + some margin ) = 15m
        with 2.7m/s travel time, that would be 5 seconds. in 5 seconds you and the police would have travelled towards each other about 250 meters.

        50 meters to short.

  • You can overtake only if:

    • you have a clear view of approaching traffic and

    • it is safe.

    I guess the cops might have you on the “is it safe part”…if they claim it wasn ‘t then it might be hard for you to produce evidence to the contrary in court.

    • I guess the cops might have you on the “is it safe part”…

      The OP didn't actually overtake though. The move was aborted when he saw the vehicle coming in the opposite direction (the one that turned out to be a police vehicle - pretty bad luck lol) and pulled back in.

      • He saw the oncoming car then accelerated for a while before deciding he couldn't pass, then pulled back in.

        It's the time between seeing the car and aborting the overtake that is the issue. Without the Dash Cam we don't know how long that was or how far away the cop car was.

        • I think that if he saw the car coming in the opposite direction and still insisted on overtaking, then the ticket was well deserved.

          The decision to abort and pull back without actually overtaking shows that he was constantly assessing the situation and paying attention.

          The number of people that speed up when being overtaken shits me to tears. I don't know what they get out of it.

          • @bobbified: A lot of people underestimate how long a safe overtaking manoeuvre actually takes to perform. Hence the claim the other driver "sped up".

            By OPs own admission, the other driver was doing 90km/h in a 100km/h zone.

            A car travelling 90km/h travels 25m in one second.

            A car travelling 100km/h travels 27.7m in one second.

            So it's only going to take a couple of seconds for that overtaking manoeuvre right?

            WRONG!

            At 90km/h the 3 second rule would mean the OP is already starting 75m behind the other car. So he has to make up 75m, plus the length of the vehicle plus get another 75m in front to safely pull back in. So all up (assuming Prado is 5m long) he has to gain 155m on the other vehicle yet he is only travelling 2.7m per second faster (and this is assuming he is doesn't have to accelerate to 100km/h either).

            155/2.7= 57 seconds for an overtaking move!

            So a "safe" overtaking move (where the overtaking car does not exceed the speed limit) would take almost 1 minute of the OP driving in the opposite lane! Yep sure, that sounds safe!

            • @bulletbill88:

              Hence the claim the other driver "sped up".

              Both of us weren't there when this happened, so I can't tell you whether the other driver actually sped up or not. However, there are a large number of d*heads out there who like to speed up to prevent other people overtaking them. It's a dangerous thing to do and I don't understand the reason. I've seen it myself many times and I'm sure many other people here have experienced the same thing. So when OP says that the other car sped up, I have no reason to doubt him/her.

              So it's only going to take a couple of seconds for that overtaking manoeuvre right?

              I don't disagree with what you're saying here. If you follow the rules exactly, it'll take forever to overtake someone. Hence, my earlier comment about how I, myself, don't follow those rules.

              I often look at some of the places where they put broken lines on the road (on the highways) to indicate that overtaking is allowed and I think to myself that there's no way anyone should be overtaking on that section. The broken lines sometimes for a "couple of seconds" and then they become double lines again.

              There's a lot of rules in place that I think are stupid, but I do still try to follow them. But I won't if it puts my own safety at risk. And it's not just me - this argument around the overtaking rules has been around for years.

              • @bobbified: I think both claims can be true. Some people probably do speed up and I am not defending that.

                But I also think that people underestimate how much time is actually needed to overtake a vehicle that is travelling at speed (albeit below the speed limit) because they don't account for the fact that it is only the speed differential that allows the overtaking move and not the vehicle's absolute speed.

                Unless you are prepared to really drop the hammer down and open up a wide gap in speed (and accept the risks and potential consequences that come with that), it is probably best to just wait until the next overtaking lane comes along and then you can perform an overtaking move of longer duration.

                OP doesn't indicate what speed he attempted the overtake at so I have assumed in my analysis that he was keeping to the speed limit.

            • @bulletbill88: Assuming this legal manoeuvre and a car is coming the other way at 100km/h how many meters of distance do you actually need to overtake legally?

              • @baller: In the scenario above, if the overtaking car is doing 100km/h and wants to safely pass a car doing 90km/h, the overtaking car needs to travel around 1.58km (i.e. 57*27.7) in the oncoming lane.

                If the car coming in the opposite direction is also travelling at 100km/h then in those same 57 seconds they will also travel 1.58km.

                To prevent those two distances overlapping (i.e a crash) the other car would therefore need to be around 3km up the road before the move was initiated.

                Now obviously this is all based on paper and static speeds and in the real world the overtaker would (on seeing a car coming in the opposite direction) either speed up to do the move more quickly, or abort like the OP did.

                However, it is clear that you need visibility a good distance up the road to make the pass in any way safely. A few hundred metres will simply not cut it.

                • @bulletbill88: The speed of overtaking is definitely one of those areas that police would have to be applying their discretion.
                  I personally get the overtake done as quick as possible so tend to be doing 140 (and coasting/braking) by the time I'm back in the left lane.

                  • @bmerigan: Even if you are doing 140km/h you are only gaining 14m per second on a car doing 90km/h. You could cut the zone so you are within 50m of the car pulling out and 50m pulling in (recognising at 140km/h this is less than 1.5 seconds equivalent in distance). Even then you are still in the opposite lane for around 7.6 seconds and almost 300m (and means you need a car coming in the opposite direction at 100km/h to be over 500m away). OP mentioned the police car was within 200m of him when he aborted the move. He simply was never going to make that overtake.

      • The OP didn't actually overtake though.

        So is OP just driving in the wrong direction/lane at ~100km/h for no reason?

        Or did he attempt an unsafe overtake

    • Yep. Safe is in the eye of the beholder.

      A similar thing happened to me near Arrarat in Vic.
      Someone pulled out in front of me from a servo on a 100km hr road, it was idiotic what they did. I was approaching so fast, I would have seriously had to hit the anchors to avoid rear ending this car. I looked, the road appeared clear to the horizon, dotted line, so I overtook.
      Of course, a cop car was coming in the other direction, was in a shallow enough dip that I couldn't see the cop, and shallow enough that the road looked continuous. I pulled in front of the dangerous car only about 6 seconds before the cop went past. I was still doing 100km/hr because the fool in front was only probably doing 40kmhr by the time I passed because he blindly pulled out in front of me.
      But as I said, it turned out that there was enough of a dip in the distance that the road looked continuous and clear. It looked completely fine and safe.
      So the cop does a u turn and pulls me over..
      I tell him what happened, wrt the other car and it looked clear. He lets me go without an on the spot fine, but says "you've got a clean record, I'll think about it some more. Drive safely.".
      So.. a fine comes in the mail. 29 days later. There's a statute of limitations of 30 days where a fine can't be issued.
      I'm cynical, smacks of a quota not being reached, and I was at the bottom of the pile. The fine was "failing to keep left".
      Nobody died, but may have if i ploughed into the back of the (profanity) who pulled out in front of me.
      Oh well. My driving record is clean since - this happened 6 years ago now.

  • shouldn't have back out , go head on with the oncoming car, see who chicken out 1st

  • +2 votes

    Cop had a bad day and you run into him, nearly.

  • Driving with without due care or attention is sooooooooooooooooooo vague and can cover nearly every situation.

    Nanny state we are in.

    • Which laws would you abolish?

      • 110 km/h on motorways is far too slow for modern vehicles and long journeys.

        • So how do we make laws that cover the wide range of vehicles using the road and their capability? Do some only travel at 80 on the freeway while others can do 140?

          • @Vote for Pedro: Yes, it works perfectly fine on the Autobahn. They don't have lane hoggers like here and UK and all drive in the correct lane at the speed that works for them. Some vehicles do have regulated limits though (trucks etc).

            40 km/h in built up areas is perfectly acceptable and should remain. On bridges/tunnels etc sure thing. Through the Blue Mountains single tracks definitely. No question there.

            However, speed limits on modern motorways are not required, especially long distance interstate.

            • @Hybroid: I think on our 4 lane (2 each way) this just won’t work. You’ve got the 95km/h drivers, then you’ll have the 110’s and then the 130’s+. Disaster waiting to happen.

              Perhaps we should start with sorting out right lane slow drivers before we move to faster limits. Would improve flow in itself.

            • @Hybroid: We would have to educate Australians to respect other road users.

              From the experience we have with COVID I'm going to say that simply isn't possible, our society likes it's laid back "what you going to do about it mate??" attitude

              We only respect our friends, not our neighbors. Ask anyone who has worked in retail - the stereotypical Australian is the most disrespectful customer

              Even look at the replies you get, no debate, straight to insults

              • @Superannuation: This is too true, unfortunately. OP wouldn't even be in this mess if Car A had not accelerated - which I assume was to prevent OP from overtaking out of spite. I think we forget that we are just bags of flesh moving at speed in 2 tonne rolling metal bricks.

                Funnily enough, from my experience in retail, the best customers were often your knockabout hi-vis guys.

                The worst were upper middle-class Karens. The kind that would actively call others Karen, who would buy organic, complain about excessive plastic use on items and who would likely believe themselves to be kind hearted and progressive.

        • 110km/hr is way too slow on first class motorways we have here…

          I remember my dad would drive his Datsun 120Y on the roads that still have the same speed from 35 years ago.