# pass / overtake / get past



## sunyaer

What would a native speaker who is driving his car on the road say:

I am trying to pass the car in front me.

I am trying to overtake the car in front me.

 I am trying to get past the car in front me.


----------



## owlman5

I think a native speaker would be most likely to use the first or third sentences, Sunyaer.  Using "overtake" would be unusual in the colloquial speech of many native speakers.


----------



## natkretep

There might be a regional difference here.

_Overtaking_ is the normal term in BrE. I think _passing_ is the normal term in AmE.

Have a look at the wikipedia entry.



> *Overtaking* or *passing* is the act of driving around another slower automobile on a road.



Apparently in Australia, _overtaking_ and _passing_ mean different things. You _overtake_ a vehicle moving in the same direction, but _pass_ a vehicle that is stationary or moving in the opposite direction.


----------



## Copyright

Interesting. I would use 1 and 2, never 3.


----------



## owlman5

Well, Copyright, we members seem to be all over the map with this one.  Nat likes "overtake" but not "pass", you like "pass" and "overtake", and I'd probably say "pass" or maybe "get past" in a spontaneous utterance.  I might well use "overtake" in writing, but it's not the sort of verb that leaps to my tongue when I'm fighting traffic.


----------



## ribran

natkretep said:


> There might be a regional difference here.
> 
> _Overtaking_ is the normal term in BrE. I think _passing_ is the normal term in AmE.
> 
> Have a look at the wikipedia entry.
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently in Australia, _overtaking_ and _passing_ mean different things. You _overtake_ a vehicle moving in the same direction, but _pass_ a vehicle that is stationary or moving in the opposite direction.



So if I'm driving in London, am I overtaking all the cars parked on the street?


----------



## Copyright

ribran said:


> So if I'm driving in London, am I overtaking all the cars parked on the street?



I only overtake _moving _vehicles, for what it's worth.


----------



## natkretep

ribran said:


> So if I'm driving in London, am I overtaking all the cars parked on the street?



No, I would say _going past all the parked cars_. And I only _overtake_ cars moving in the same direction, like Copyright.


----------



## ribran

natkretep said:


> No, I would say _going past all the parked cars_. And I only _overtake_ cars moving in the same direction, like Copyright.



OK, thanks.  We're all in agreement, then.


----------



## eni8ma

Personally, if I was driving, and there was a slower car in front, I might say any of those three sentences.

I am Australian, and while it is true that the road rules distinguish between overtaking and passing, that's only for the actual rules. In everyday speech, no one cares too much about any such fine distinction.


----------



## boozer

eni8ma said:


> Personally, if I was driving, and there was a slower car in front, I might say any of those three sentences..


Same here. 

However, my first choice would be "overtake". Then "pass" and then "get past" in the example given by the OP. In different contexts, I would use the phrases differently. I would always say "an overtaking menoeuvre", as opposed to "passing manoeuvre", for example. In the passive voice, for the sake of brevity, I would be more likely to say "He was passed by..." instead of "He was overtaken by...". There are situations where my first preference would be "get past", e.g. "Schumacher squeezed Hill into the corner and didn't let him get past."


----------



## Archstudent

In the UK overtake is the most common term.  I've never heard anyone use pass, because pass is usually for oncoming traffic.  If you said I passed 3 blue cars on the way to work, I would probably assume they were travelling in the opposite direction to you.


----------



## boozer

Archstudent said:


> I've never heard anyone use pass, because pass is usually for oncoming traffic. If you said I passed 3 blue cars on the way to work, I would probably assume they were travelling in the opposite direction to you.


It's strange you should say that, Archstudent.  British Formula 1 commentators would certianly not agree with you. And this example is from the Cambridge dictionary:
_to go past something or someone or move in relation to it or them: _
_You should only pass a slower vehicle if it is safe to do so._
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/pass_1?q=pass

In fact, I'm pretty sure you've heard _pass_ used this way without even paying attention...


----------



## Archstudent

Perhaps you are right! I am only giving anecdotal evidence after all, and I'm sure my experience is limited.. In any case overtake is definitely the most commonly used (I don't know about f1 I don't follow it).


----------



## George French

sunyaer said:


> I am trying to pass the car in front me.
> I am trying to overtake the car in front me.
> I am trying to get past the car in front me.


 
All 3 are used. My usage is the second and third. But then I was brought up in the UK.

GF..

Unfortunately my choice of language gets worse the longer I am stuck behind the f. idiot in front of me.


----------



## yarique

Today for whatever reason I wanted to refresh my memory on this matter, only to find out that even the Aussie and Kiwi road authorities can't seem to agree on the meaning of 'passing' vs 'overtaking'.
NZ:


> passing - the driver of slower vehicles uses passing facilities (such as passing lanes, slow vehicle bays and diagonally marked sealed shoulders) to let faster following vehicles pass.
> overtaking - the driver crosses the centreline and uses the opposing traffic lane to pass a slower vehicle.
> Note: *These NZ definitions are different from the AUSTROADS definitions.*


Aussie, e.g., SA:



> Overtaking is when you approach from behind and pass a vehicle travelling in the same direction. Most drivers and riders consider overtaking to be crossing to the 'wrong' side of the road to pass a vehicle in front. But, even if you do not cross to the 'wrong' side of the road, you are overtaking if you move into another lane or line of traffic either side of you to pass another vehicle.


So this seems to be a highly regional thing even when formal language is concerned.


----------



## natkretep

Yarique, I don't think the definitions are incompatible. The definition of 'passing' for New Zealand suggests that the slow vehicles pull over at what I would call lay-bys (this is a BrE term), making that vehicle stationary. You'd _pass_ a stationary vehicle but _overtake_ a vehicle moving in the same direction.


----------



## RM1(SS)

Yarique's NZ quote includes mention of "passing lanes."  Here in the States, at least, we have "slow vehicle" lanes on steep hills - an extra lane will open up, and slower vehicles (bigger ones, or those with less powerful engines) are expected to stay in the right lane, permitting faster vehicles to pass them in the left lane.


----------



## yarique

natkretep said:


> Yarique, I don't think the definitions are incompatible. The definition of 'passing' for New Zealand suggests that the slow vehicles pull over at what I would call lay-bys (this is a BrE term), making that vehicle stationary. You'd _pass_ a stationary vehicle but _overtake_ a vehicle moving in the same direction.



*Natkretep*, you are absolutely right as far as rigorous logic is concerned. Still, I find it mildly amusing that the NZ road authority wanted to point out that their definition wasn't exactly the same as the Aussie one. Also, when in formal context, 'passing' involves an oncoming vehicle in Australia. (I can confirm this, being an Aussie driver license holder.) E.g., 'No Passing or Overtaking' seems to be a very Aussie road sign to me, usually seen before a narrow bridge or causeway. (In colloquial speech no such sharp distinction is made, of course, as kindly confirmed by *eni8ma*.) The bottom line here should probably be that, if one's own or somebody else's life ever depends on the interpretation of 'passing' or 'overtaking', one shouldn't hesitate to ask for the word to be clarified.


----------



## zhonglin

Hi,

Can you please check my attached picture to see if it's considered as overtaking? If not, is it just "passing"?


----------



## owlman5

I'd call that "passing", zhonglin.  The cars you drew to illustrate the idea seem to be in the same lane.  If that is true, I'd call it "dangerous driving."


----------



## tunaafi

I'd say I was overtaking. I'd probably, as a British driver, have my eyes closed in terror - all the cars are driving on the wrong side of the road.


----------



## MeBenji

Which noun do Americans use? *An overtaking* or *a passing*?


----------



## owlman5

I generally use "passing", MeBenji.  There are about 330 million people in the U.S., so some of them may use "overtake".  I haven't noticed anybody using that word, however.


----------



## MeBenji

owlman5 said:


> I generally use "passing", MeBenji.  There are about 330 million people in the U.S., so some of them may use "overtake".  I haven't noticed anybody using that word, however.


Thank you!

However, I don't know why *get past* can't be used according to most of native speakers. If you want to pass (or overtake) the car in front of you, it's because it goes more slowly than yours, so we can considered that this car is kind of an obstacle you have to get past....no??


----------



## Andygc

I want to overtake - he's going slower than I want to go.
I want to get past - he's going a lot slower than I want to go, and I've been stuck behind him for far too long.


----------



## MeBenji

Andygc said:


> I want to overtake - he's going slower than I want to go.
> I want to get past - he's going a lot slower than I want to go, and I've been stuck behind him for far too long.


The difference is indeed kind of subtle, then. Anyway, great explanation, Andygc.


----------



## TheRealMcCoy

You get past, say, a house, not a moving car.


----------



## natkretep

As mentioned in a number of posts above, some of us think of _passing_ or _going past_ as being to do with something stationary. That's why it won't work with non-AmE speakers.


----------



## sunyaer

"The left lane is for passing."
That's one of the highway traffic warnings in Toronto, in which "passing" is to do with moving vehicles.


----------



## natkretep

Yes, I think it is clear that this is how _passing _is used in North American English. I was thinking of post 25 which suggested that this worked for most native speakers of English and wanted to say that it doesn't work for BrE and AusE, for example. For us (who keep left), the right lane is for _overtaking_.


----------



## Andygc

TheRealMcCoy said:


> You get past, say, a house, not a moving car.


I don't. I *get* past an obstruction, such as a parked car, or a slow-moving vehicle. We, in the UK, don't build houses on our roads, we build them beside our roads. I *go* past houses.

We do use "passing" in BE, usually in the context of lanes of traffic moving at different speeds, and sometimes also to mean "overtaking", but it lacks the implication of something being in the way that is expressed by "getting past".


----------



## Andygc

< Response to deleted post removed. Cagey, moderator. >



TheRealMcCoy said:


> *You* get past, say, a house, not a moving car.


If I'm driving my car I can only *get past* a house if it's partially blocking the road. As I said, if it's in the usual place for a house, I *go past* it.


----------



## MeBenji

I suppose you can *get past* a broken down car which is on your way...


----------



## Andygc

MeBenji said:


> I suppose you can *get past* a broken down car which is on your way...


You certainly can in BE, but it's "*in* your way".


----------



## jokaec

This question has been added to a previous thread.  Cagey, moderator 

I call the insurance company for claiming a accident and say "The other driver 'overtook' or 'passed' my car illegally from my right side."

Are they both correct in AmE? If so, which is more formal in accident claims? Thank you.


----------



## Delvo

Americans use "pass". The only people I've seen using "overtake" were British or Australian.

The issue with "overtake" in the USA isn't that it would be wrong; it's that people might not ever have even heard of it at all so they wouldn't know what you meant. (I didn't know that "overtake" existed until I saw a few foreigners using it on the internet.)


----------



## Keith Bradford

This is fascinating.  So what if it's a metaphorical use?  I'd normally say things like "The Ruritanian economy is rapidly *overtaking *that of other east European countries" or "John's French is improving and he has *overtaken *most of the others in his class.".  What would you say in the USA?  Pass?


----------



## Myridon

In my experience, "overtake" is used in AmE but almost always in the sense in which you must increase your speed and catch up to them for some reason - perhaps I'm racing the other car or I want get in front of the other car to stop it (the police overtook the bank robber's car) or figuratively as in Keith's examples.  The normal situation (the other car is going more slowly than I would like to go) is just "passing."


----------



## PaulQ

sunyaer said:


> I am trying to pass the car in front me.
> 
> I am trying to overtake the car in front me.
> 
> I am trying to get past the car in front me.


For a while, I used to investigate accidents and I interviewed hundreds of drivers:

Usually, at this point I would have had the answers concerning whether both cars were moving, or only one car (your car) was moving. There is no context, so:

*I am trying to pass the car in front me.* -> I would see this as slightly ambiguous and ask more questions. “Were both cars moving?”

*I am trying to overtake the car in front me.* -> I would assume that both you and the car in front were travelling but confirm this was the case.

*I am trying to get past the car in front me.* -> This indicates to me that there might have been some difficulty or danger in the manoeuvre and I would assume that the car in front of you was (i) stationary but in an awkward position or, (ii) was moving or manoeuvring slowly or (iii) you were in a desperate hurry and liable to take a risk...  but I would ask more questions.


----------



## Glenfarclas

Keith Bradford said:


> "The Ruritanian economy is rapidly *overtaking *that of other east European countries" or "John's French is improving and he has *overtaken *most of the others in his class.". What would you say in the USA? Pass?



"Overtake" or "surpass," I suppose.


----------



## natkretep

jokaec said:


> This question has been added to a previous thread.  Cagey, moderator
> 
> I call the insurance company for claiming a accident and say "The other driver 'overtook' or 'passed' my car illegally from my right side."
> 
> Are they both correct in AmE? If so, which is more formal in accident claims? Thank you.


You're putting in an insurance claim in Hong Kong? I would use _overtake_ because I think the British usage is dominant in Hong Kong. 

But there's a puzzle there. Traffic is on the left in Hong Kong. Therefore, if you overtake from the left, it's illegal. The right lane is for overtaking. So where are you?


----------



## PA_System

Hi,
This question concerns traffic regulations. In the code of my country three particular definitions regarding car movement are distinguished: overtaking (catching up with and passing while travelling in the same direction), passing (catching up with and passing an immobile vehicle) and the third one is going next to a vehicle coming from the opposite direction. Is there also a verb which has the meaning of the third definition?


----------



## Glenfarclas

PA_System said:


> Is there also a verb which has the meaning of the third definition?



Not to my knowledge; I would call it "passing an oncoming vehicle."


----------



## e2efour

The vehicle coming from the opposite direction is known as an _oncoming vehicle._
I can only think of saying _to pass an oncoming/approaching vehicle.

(cross-posted)_


----------



## natkretep

PA System's thread (from post 43) has been added here.

Please scroll up, to take note of British, American and Australian use.


----------



## PA_System

I have, nat. Thanks. The thread is fascinating. I think it's important to note the road conditions are different in various countries. In mine, for example, where multilane roads are still few and far between, the instance of passing a moving vehicle in another lane (in the same direction) is quite rare. Most roads have one lane in each direction so this:
"*In my experience, "overtake" is used in AmE but almost always in the sense in which you must increase your speed and catch up to them for some reason - [...]"*
occurs much more often than passing. 
Interesting!


----------



## natkretep

Just a thought about the third scenario. You can say, 'The cars crossed each other' too, though Glen's and e2's suggestions are more common.


----------



## RM1(SS)

PaulQ said:


> *I am trying to get past the car in front me.* -> This indicates to me that there might have been some difficulty or danger in the manoeuvre and I would assume that the car in front of you was (i) stationary but in an awkward position or, (ii) was moving or manoeuvring slowly or (iii) you were in a desperate hurry and liable to take a risk...


or (iv) there was too much oncoming traffic.


----------



## zaffy

So this road sign would say "Do not overtake" in BrE, right?


----------



## Andygc

No, it would "say" this







That's called the "no overtaking" sign.


----------



## Keith Bradford

Quite right.  The message "Do not pass" might well alarm a British driver: " What the §%$*!?  Am I not supposed to pass this sign?  Must I jam on my brakes here?"


----------



## yarique

zaffy said:


> So this road sign would say "Do not overtake" in BrE, right?



I think it would read: "No overtaking please", since BrE is normally less direct than AmE.


----------



## Andygc

yarique said:


> I think it would read: "No overtaking please", since BrE is normally less direct than AmE.


There would be no "please" on a road sign.


----------



## yarique

By the way, the only official New South Wales, Australia road sign related to overtaking or passing looks like this:



 

Description: "You must give way to any vehicle travelling in the opposite direction on the bridge. You must not overtake any vehicle travelling in the same direction." That is, the description is back to front, as appropriate to the Great Down Under. 

Source: Bridges - Road rules - Safety & rules - Roads - Roads and Maritime Services


----------



## natkretep

Road signs in the UK have become less language based, in common with much of Europe. (See Road signs in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia.) There are variations on the 'no overtaking' sign (given by Andy) in other places. This is the Singapore sign:



And this is the South African one:



And this is the Japanese one:



(In all these places, traffic goes on the left, and overtaking is from the right.)


----------



## kentix

There is also this sign in the U.S., which reinforces the idea that you should stay to the right and not pass with the arrow shape.

Passing on a two lane road is done on the left. There is no need for this sign on a four lane road where using the opposite lanes is never allowed.


----------



## zaffy

When an AE speaker hears this sentence with no context at all, just a single sentence, would they know what is being meant?

"A woman overtook me and I felt embarrassed"


----------



## kentix

No.


----------



## zaffy

And what would your imagination tell you that could mean?


----------



## kentix

Nothing. Overtook makes no sense with the word embarrassed.


----------



## zaffy

And if a BrE speaker hears the AE version, "Some woman passed me", they would think she was a passer-by and she passed me walking by, right?


----------



## natkretep

_Passing _for me can involve someone/something stationary and someone/something moving past. Maybe I stood still to let someone (say a jogger) go past me (in the same or opposite direction).

_Passing _can also involve me going in one direction and someone else going the other way.


----------



## zaffy

natkretep said:


> _Passing _for me can involve someone/something stationary and someone/something moving past. Maybe I stood still to let someone (say a jogger) go past me (in the same or opposite direction).
> 
> _Passing _can also involve me going in one direction and someone else going the other way.


And doesn't matter if that person was walking, running, riding a bike or driving a car, right?


----------



## sereine

Well, this has really put the cat among the pigeons. Can I add a red herring to the mix and point out that the three original sentences should include 'of' - ' in front of me'?


----------



## Myridon

zaffy said:


> When an AE speaker hears this sentence with no context at all, just a single sentence, would they know what is being meant?
> 
> "A woman overtook me and I felt embarrassed"


Only if you were in a race and you had bragged about how it would be impossible for a woman to pass you.


----------



## Andygc

zaffy said:


> And if a BrE speaker hears the AE version, "Some woman passed me", they would think she was a passer-by and she passed me walking by, right?


Without context it would mean nothing. You can't expect any rational reply to your question if you insist on an irrational question. If we were talking about driving, she overtook me, probably in a car or van, or on a motorbike. If we were talking about sitting on a park bench or going for a stroll, I'd think it likely that she was walking and went by me. If we were talking about a brisk walk in the park, or going for a run, she probably overtook me and was probably running. Not that I'd say "some woman".


----------



## zaffy

So if, for example, I was sitting on a bench and a woman ran past me, I could say these two, right?

-I was sitting on a bench when suddenly some running woman passed me.
-I was sitting on a bench when suddenly some woman ran past me.


----------



## zaffy

"Pass with care"

So you should overtake carefully, right? Well, it's interesting that you have verbal signs. Here in Poland they are not seen. 

A scene from 'Prison Break'


----------



## kentix

People speak English 3000 miles (4800 km) in every direction here so historically our signs in the U.S. have been written in English. Over the last few decades there has been some migration toward more symbolism.

This is an old yield sign:




And this is a new one:


----------



## PaulQ

British signs follow European signs - the emphasis is on symbols: https://www.easypacelearning.com/design/images/roadsigns.jpg

Some have additional information below



In Wales, there is also Welsh:




And then there is this sign:


----------



## kentix

You can also note that the sign in #69 is in white, which tends to indicate an advisory sign, not a warning of any kind. Those are in yellow or red. It's a sign that is not essential for you to notice. You should always pass with care anyway.


----------



## elroy

sunyaer said:


> I am trying to pass the car in front me.
> 
> I am trying to overtake the car in front me.
> 
> I am trying to get past the car in front me.


 I would only say 1.


----------



## kentix

One more example of old and new:


----------

