Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => Freewheeling => Topic started by: andyoxon on 23 August, 2020, 08:16:16 pm
-
What's to be done about the highway code/law on solid white lines & overtaking? Apparently it's not working at all. (thinks of forthcoming highway code review)
I don't know if anyone knows the A321 Wargrave Rd from Henley-o-T following the Thames, but it's a solid double white line extravaganza, and today pretty much every car overtook by crossing the lines. Not that flat but my av speed 16mph. No close passes to avoid crossing the line (they'd have had to mown me down for that), but had one kamikaze overtake effort on a blind rise corner! Normally I'd avoid a road like this but it was direct, and not that busy.
Rule 129
Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/general-rules-techniques-and-advice-for-all-drivers-and-riders-103-to-158
-
You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
I can see the driver's argument being that as you are riding a pedal cycle either you were in the wrong for doing more than 10mph or the speed difference between 16 and 60mph is such that the driver thought you were doing 10mph.
Probably the latter. Most of the time drivers tend to treat cyclists as if we're doing little more the walking speed, even when we're really not. I suspect it's because the difference in closing speed is negligable, and it's hard to determine the speed of a two-wheeler by looming at the best of times.
Indeed, when I'm driving, I tend to use cyclist knowledge to help guestmate the speed of distant cyclists (pedalling cadence, type of bike, clothing, road positioning, gradient and quality of road surface, etc.), which you can't reasonably expect most drivers to be able to do.
The law isn't really working, but I can't think of a sensible alternative. There are always going to be circumstances where it's reasonable for driver to cross solid lines to overtake something slow.
-
The only time I've ever had anyone observe that was on the road from Guardbridge to St Andrews; I knew it was white from shoulder checking.
They passed on one of the few bits that doesn't have a double white line variant after following me at 30ish kmh for ages.
When they passed the reason was obvious.
Traffic Polis.
They were obviously bored, they'd normally put their siren and lights on and blast past.
-
Cars were also overtaking across the solid lines down hills when I was doing 30mph ish too. Yes, I think it's a case of cyclist = overtake whatevva. I normally take the lane on blind corner/rises.
-
...Yes, I think it's a case of cyclist = overtake whatevva...
This.
-
All things being equal, I’d rather have a car in front of me, where I can see it than behind me, where I can’t.
-
I hear you on that. If HC read 'can overtake if they are travelling at 20 / 25 mph (or less)', updated you might say, would there be functional difference? It would legitimise most overtakes of cycles, but would it be safer/less safe/no change? There does always seem to be a subset of motorists that overtake 'blind' on any roads...
edit
-
I am sure that a year or two ago there was a campaign to raise that 10mph to 20mph in the next edition of the Highway Code. I've heard nothing about that for some time. In my view 20mph is quite reasonable.
-
As a cyclist I much prefer motorists who cross the solid white line and giving me a wide berth over the ones who are sticklers to the letter of the law and pass me with just inches to spare (usually without slowing down sufficiently) just to stay within the lane.
-
I hear you on that. If HC read 'can overtake if they are travelling at 20 / 25 mph (or less)', updated you might say, would there be functional difference? It would legitimise most overtakes of cycles, but would it be safer/less safe/no change? There does always seem to be a subset of motorists that overtake 'blind' on any roads...
edit
If it's safe to carry out an overtake of a horse or vehicle travelling at even 10mph where there's a double white line, you do have to start questioning whether the double white line is appropriate.
They're meant to be used as an aid to assist people in realizing it's unsafe to cross to the other side of the carriageway, not to ban overtaking for the hell of it (there's a sign for that, that also doesn't prohibit parking).
-
I'm going to hijack this thread (just a little) to ask a question I've been unable to get answered, even by the local roads police twitter feed.
Locally there is an undulating road that has single, non-continuous white lines, but has 'no overtaking' signs (black car / red car) over about a mile and a half.
What are the rules about passing cyclists and other 'slow moving' vehicles in this situation?
(Location is Leicestershire, between Anstey and Cropston, Dropped pin
Near Cropston Rd, Leicester
https://maps.app.goo.gl/CJxZAx32AdYUgxXV9 )
-
That sign means no overtaking, without digging into the RTA don't think there's any ifs or buts around the no part like there is for a double white line.
Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk
-
If it's safe to carry out an overtake of a horse or vehicle travelling at even 10mph where there's a double white line, you do have to start questioning whether the double white line is appropriate.
They're meant to be used as an aid to assist people in realizing it's unsafe to cross to the other side of the carriageway, not to ban overtaking for the hell of it (there's a sign for that, that also doesn't prohibit parking).
I get what you're saying. But, you will pass something travelling at 10mph in a lot shorter space, than something travelling at 40mph.
That's the part where you have to rely on the driver having a modicum of common sense, not a lack of, when deciding if it's safe to pass
-
The trouble with assuming common sense in drivers is that a significant proportion of them don't have any, or if they do, they lose some or all of it when getting into a car.
I include myself in the latter...
-
I'm going to hijack this thread (just a little) to ask a question I've been unable to get answered, even by the local roads police twitter feed.
Locally there is an undulating road that has single, non-continuous white lines, but has 'no overtaking' signs (black car / red car) over about a mile and a half.
What are the rules about passing cyclists and other 'slow moving' vehicles in this situation?
(Location is Leicestershire, between Anstey and Cropston, Dropped pin
Near Cropston Rd, Leicester
https://maps.app.goo.gl/CJxZAx32AdYUgxXV9 )
There's that bridge the Bryan Chapman riders go over (I think I mean the Menai Suspension Bridge), which famously has that sign with a plate underneath saying "Except one cyclist by another". So it would imply that normally it includes cyclists and horse riders – not sure about pedestrians?
-
Getting back to the white lines, if people are ignoring the 10mph rule (or more likely just thinking "double-white lines = no overtaking, but it's a cyclist so rules don't apply") and overtaking widely, as Andy describes, then is it really a problem for the cyclist? I don't think so. It can be a problem for oncoming traffic of course. What needs dealing with from our point of view is "must stay within the white line" overtakes.
-
I hear you on that. If HC read 'can overtake if they are travelling at 20 / 25 mph (or less)', updated you might say, would there be functional difference? It would legitimise most overtakes of cycles, but would it be safer/less safe/no change? There does always seem to be a subset of motorists that overtake 'blind' on any roads...
edit
I don't think so. I suspect that most motorists forget most of the Highway Code (or at least the "arcane" parts such as this) or at best remember the version that they needed to be familiar with when they took their test rather than the current version.
-
I only really found out that the double white line means "do not cross unless..." because of SABRE and IAM not because of anything in my driving practice or tests.
-
There's that bridge the Bryan Chapman riders go over (I think I mean the Menai Suspension Bridge), which famously has that sign with a plate underneath saying "Except one cyclist by another". So it would imply that normally it includes cyclists and horse riders – not sure about pedestrians?
https://goo.gl/maps/utJaRAoRj6R4YTDV8
-
UK Road traffic law is so ridiculously structured that although I can find that the No Overtaking sign is TSRGD diagram 632, I can't find the appropriate stuff in either the RTA or the regs relating to crossings as to the exact meaning of it (all vehicles, motor vehicles, the vehicle type depicted in the picture)
-
overtaking widely, as Andy describes, then is it really a problem for the cyclist? I don't think so.
It can become a problem for the cyclist when a vehicle appears round the blind bend that the solid line is warning about...
-
There's that bridge the Bryan Chapman riders go over (I think I mean the Menai Suspension Bridge), which famously has that sign with a plate underneath saying "Except one cyclist by another". So it would imply that normally it includes cyclists and horse riders – not sure about pedestrians?
https://goo.gl/maps/utJaRAoRj6R4YTDV8
:thumbsup:
-
In any event my guess is that the Highway code is unlikely to be changed re. the 10 mph rule, so vehicles will just continue to overtake cyclists travelling at any speed. Most of the time it will be ok, but probably the faster the cyclist the less safe the overtake; the real problem will be when the 'blind bend gamble' doesn't come off - as anywhere. A few weeks ago near Swinford Toll, I saw a van have to very quickly abort an overtake a cyclist, due to oncoming car. Far safer to simply hang back for the whole of the solid white line section. The fact remains that most drivers will break the RTAct here. How would the police prove the cyclist wasn't doing less than 10mph anyway....
-
The police would be overtaking too...
-
What alteration would you like to see made to the rule?
-
The law probably qualifies as an ass re. this overtaking rule. I can't see the enforcement regime changing, so either this means doing research & increasing the threshold to an updated '25' mph, which may be neutral or worse wrt cyclist safety. Status quo is more likely, with cyclists being deemed to forever be doing <10mph. I have heard that that 10mph was set aeons ago when most motor vehicles accelerated like slugs, but then the traffic density was far less than nowadays, which possibly partly nullifies the effect of faster accelerating vehicles(?)
Have I mentioned Presumed Liability..? :) As a potential general dampener on drivers doing stupid things around cyclists...
-
I think the exemption for overtaking cyclists was campaigned for CTC as then was in order to reduce close passes, but I don't know where the 10mph came from. I'm sceptical that raising it to 59mph or abolishing it completely would have much effect on driver behaviour.
-
In these days of EA bikes surely there would be a case for lifting the speed to the legal limit of the electric assistance, on the grounds that an increasing number of bicycles will be doing that speed as EA grows in popularity. BITD there was an assumption that "normal" cyclists went at 10mph!
-
From what I remember a sokitely ages ago double white lines should only be being used where there is a visibility issue and set so that they suit the overtaking abilities of around 80% of road users.
Based on that If used correctly no one should be able overtake a bike, horse or road roller travelling at 10mph safely either.
Can't remember if that was from a visit to roads polis in Forfar or the local trunk road operstor in Perth.
Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk
-
My impression is that double white lines have over the years over-extended to a point where many drivers ignore them, and they have become meaningless.
I don't know what the criteria are for painting them, but I think it has ratcheted down.
Personally, I'd prefer a safe wide overtake on an otherwise safe road than a needlessly close-pass so as to not step on the cracks.
-
I don't know what the criteria are for painting them, but I think it has ratcheted down.
I'm not sure how highway authorities ever found themselves in the business of deciding when it is or isn't safe to overtake. I supposed once you decide to ban overtaking in one particularly dangerous place, it's a slippery slope.
-
Arguably it all started when road safety came along, and that came along because leaving it up to road users to behave sensibly proved deadly.
Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk
-
I don't know what the criteria are for painting them, but I think it has ratcheted down.
I'm not sure how highway authorities ever found themselves in the business of deciding when it is or isn't safe to overtake. I supposed once you decide to ban overtaking in one particularly dangerous place, it's a slippery slope.
If you are going to start somewhere a slippery slope is as good as any.
-
The law probably qualifies as an ass re. this overtaking rule. I can't see the enforcement regime changing, so either this means doing research & increasing the threshold to an updated '25' mph, which may be neutral or worse wrt cyclist safety. Status quo is more likely, with cyclists being deemed to forever be doing <10mph. I have heard that that 10mph was set aeons ago when most motor vehicles accelerated like slugs, but then the traffic density was far less than nowadays, which possibly partly nullifies the effect of faster accelerating vehicles(?)
Have I mentioned Presumed Liability..? :) As a potential general dampener on drivers doing stupid things around cyclists...
It's not a great rule, partly because it is so complicated. However, it does say:
Rule 129
Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/general-rules-techniques-and-advice-for-all-drivers-and-riders-103-to-158
It should not be read in isolation, but in conjunction with the general rules on overtaking: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203, specifically:
Rule 162
Before overtaking you should make sure
- the road is sufficiently clear ahead
- road users are not beginning to overtake you
- there is a suitable gap in front of the road user you plan to overtake.
Rule 163
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should
- not get too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake
- use your mirrors, signal when it is safe to do so, take a quick sideways glance if necessary into the blind spot area and then start to move out
- not assume that you can simply follow a vehicle ahead which is overtaking; there may only be enough room for one vehicle
- move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake. Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in
- take extra care at night and in poor visibility when it is harder to judge speed and distance
- give way to oncoming vehicles before passing parked vehicles or other obstructions on your side of the road
- only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so
- stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left
- give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 215).
Frankly, if drivers heeded rules 162 and 163, you wouldn't need solid white lines.
-
What alteration would you like to see made to the rule?
If the law is unenforceable and an ass as it is then perhaps the rule should be simplified to no overtaking at any time. The enforcement element will not improve but in the event of accidents there will be a much clearer idea of who might have transgressed the rules.
Also make it strict liability if it is not already to make wriggling out of it harder.
My view of the rules of the road is that they should be there to enable safe road use for everybody and not just for a single class of person, i.e. motorists.
-
That would be an awful rule and would probably lead to pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders being social-pressured off the roads.
-
That would be an awful rule and would probably lead to pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders being social-pressured off the roads.
Tractors...
One of my mates was close to lifting a car out of the gateway to a livestock field yesterday.
-
That would be an awful rule and would probably lead to pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders being social-pressured off the roads.
Given that solid white lines are not overly common and occur in areas where it is deemed dangerous to overtake, I personally don't really think that would be any worse than it is now. The social pressure element is already here and already strong.
It's a bit like not using your mobile whilst driving: impossible to police but in the event of an accident it helps with determining what is likely to really have happened.
-
That would be an awful rule and would probably lead to pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders being social-pressured off the roads.
Given that solid white lines are not overly common and occur in areas where it is deemed dangerous to overtake, I personally don't really think that would be any worse than it is now. The social pressure element is already here and already strong.
It's a bit like not using your mobile whilst driving: impossible to police but in the event of an accident it helps with determining what is likely to really have happened.
Oh. So when you said
If the law is unenforceable and an ass as it is then perhaps the rule should be simplified to no overtaking at any time.
You meant the law on overtaking where there are solid white lines, whereas "at any time" implied to me "at any time" ie even where there are no solid white lines. In that case, it might be a good idea.
-
So where there are solid lines overtaking a broken down vehicle would be a illegal in the suggested revision ? What about cyclists overtaking the massive tailback ?
-
So where there are solid lines overtaking a broken down vehicle would be a illegal in the suggested revision ? What about cyclists overtaking the massive tailback ?
A tad pedantic. If you insist, why not simply say moving vehicle or other road user or specify "except stationary vehicles and other road users".
Does one in fact overtake a stationary vehicle or is that simply passing?
I forgot just how extreme people get in their vexed interpretations.
-
So where there are solid lines overtaking a broken down vehicle would be a illegal in the suggested revision ? What about cyclists overtaking the massive tailback ?
Isn't this partly why the double white line concept was introduced in the first place, the single solid "absolutely do not cross" line was proving problematic.
-
So where there are solid lines overtaking a broken down vehicle would be a illegal in the suggested revision ? What about cyclists overtaking the massive tailback ?
A tad pedantic. If you insist, why not simply say moving vehicle or other road user or specify "except stationary vehicles and other road users".
Does one in fact overtake a stationary vehicle or is that simply passing?
I forgot just how extreme people get in their vexed interpretations.
It's illegal to park on double whites.
It's not actually overtaking that is banned by double\single white lines but crossing the line that is (where double has exceptions to allow things to work)
What this means for breaking down... dunoh.
-
So where there are solid lines overtaking a broken down vehicle would be a illegal in the suggested revision ? What about cyclists overtaking the massive tailback ?
A tad pedantic. If you insist, why not simply say moving vehicle or other road user or specify "except stationary vehicles and other road users".
Does one in fact overtake a stationary vehicle or is that simply passing?
I forgot just how extreme people get in their vexed interpretations.
The current rule says not cross solid lines except “to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.”. Interestingly pedestrians and other very slow vehicles seem to be excluded from the exclusion and it is not clear whether the 10mph applies only to road maintenance vehicles.
-
So where there are solid lines overtaking a broken down vehicle would be a illegal in the suggested revision ? What about cyclists overtaking the massive tailback ?
Isn't this partly why the double white line concept was introduced in the first place, the single solid "absolutely do not cross" line was proving problematic.
When was that? I don't remember there ever being a single solid line.
-
So where there are solid lines overtaking a broken down vehicle would be a illegal in the suggested revision ? What about cyclists overtaking the massive tailback ?
Isn't this partly why the double white line concept was introduced in the first place, the single solid "absolutely do not cross" line was proving problematic.
When was that? I don't remember there ever being a single solid line.
You can have a single solid line accompanied by a dashed line meaning it is only ok to cross from one side. Always thought that was dangerous as you would not be able to get back.
-
So where there are solid lines overtaking a broken down vehicle would be a illegal in the suggested revision ? What about cyclists overtaking the massive tailback ?
Isn't this partly why the double white line concept was introduced in the first place, the single solid "absolutely do not cross" line was proving problematic.
When was that? I don't remember there ever being a single solid line.
Double white line came in in the 1960s iirc, there's a video somewhere on the interweb showing that the Scottish office were somewhat behind the MoT at implementing them.
You're more likely to find a single white line marking the lane division at a dual carriageway junction now that on a single carriageway road.
Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk
-
So where there are solid lines overtaking a broken down vehicle would be a illegal in the suggested revision ? What about cyclists overtaking the massive tailback ?
Isn't this partly why the double white line concept was introduced in the first place, the single solid "absolutely do not cross" line was proving problematic.
When was that? I don't remember there ever being a single solid line.
You can have a single solid line accompanied by a dashed line meaning it is only ok to cross from one side. Always thought that was dangerous as you would not be able to get back.
That's a variant of the double white line.
-
1959 they were introduced
http://www.trafficsignsandmeanings.co.uk/history-road-markings-how-were-first-designed.html
Can be found in the older Blackwall tunnel
https://goo.gl/maps/gPKFvQZkJy8tpxrp9
You'll also find a mega rare minimum speedlimit there too.
-
Yes, I knew they were a historical thing cos they can be seen in old photos etc.
-
So where there are solid lines overtaking a broken down vehicle would be a illegal in the suggested revision ? What about cyclists overtaking the massive tailback ?
Isn't this partly why the double white line concept was introduced in the first place, the single solid "absolutely do not cross" line was proving problematic.
When was that? I don't remember there ever being a single solid line.
You can have a single solid line accompanied by a dashed line meaning it is only ok to cross from one side. Always thought that was dangerous as you would not be able to get back.
That's a variant of the double white line.
Sorry I misunderstood.
-
So where there are solid lines overtaking a broken down vehicle would be a illegal in the suggested revision ? What about cyclists overtaking the massive tailback ?
The law for crossing solid white lines is not applicable to pedal cycles, including epacs. See paragraph 5 in the legislation. So cross at will, if you think it’s safe. Just don’t attach a side car to your bike!
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/26/made
-
So where there are solid lines overtaking a broken down vehicle would be a illegal in the suggested revision ? What about cyclists overtaking the massive tailback ?
The law for crossing solid white lines is not applicable to pedal cycles, including epacs. See paragraph 5 in the legislation. So cross at will, if you think it’s safe. Just don’t attach a side car to your bike!
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/26/made
The law about parking (paragraph 2(a)) does not apply to pedal cycles. The law about crossing the lines (2(b)) does.
-
So where there are solid lines overtaking a broken down vehicle would be a illegal in the suggested revision ? What about cyclists overtaking the massive tailback ?
The law for crossing solid white lines is not applicable to pedal cycles, including epacs. See paragraph 5 in the legislation. So cross at will, if you think it’s safe. Just don’t attach a side car to your bike!
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/26/made
The law about parking (paragraph 2(a)) does not apply to pedal cycles. The law about crossing the lines (2(b)) does.
Though the qualification to 2(b) in para 6 would appear to allow a pedal cycle to cross the line to filter past a stationary tailback.
-
So where there are solid lines overtaking a broken down vehicle would be a illegal in the suggested revision ? What about cyclists overtaking the massive tailback ?
The law for crossing solid white lines is not applicable to pedal cycles, including epacs. See paragraph 5 in the legislation. So cross at will, if you think it’s safe. Just don’t attach a side car to your bike!
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/26/made
The law about parking (paragraph 2(a)) does not apply to pedal cycles. The law about crossing the lines (2(b)) does.
Though the qualification to 2(b) in para 6 would appear to allow a pedal cycle to cross the line to filter past a stationary tailback.
Not just pedal cycles, any vehicle can cross the lines to pass a stationary vehicle. Not sure if a queue would count as “a stationary vehicle”. Certainly stopping in a queue doesn’t count as stopping. The long and short, is that there are no special exceptions specifically for pedal cycles regarding crossing solid white lines.
Edit: particularly if the queue was caused by a hypothetical change in the law to disallow any exceptions to the crossing white lines to overtake.
-
So where there are solid lines overtaking a broken down vehicle would be a illegal in the suggested revision ? What about cyclists overtaking the massive tailback ?
Well you couldn't cross the white lines, any more than any other vehicle. But you generally don't overtake stationery traffic on a bike; you filter past it. So, if you could get past without crossing the lines, and it was safe on other considerations, why not?
Filtering vs overtaking is generally misunderstood, as I see it, when people talk about cyclists "undertaking" in city traffic. Again, generally, they aren't; they are filtering. That's still not always safe, but it's not undertaking. In broad terms, you can only undertake a vehicle if it's moving freely, and very few cyclists are capable of doing that to a motor vehicle.
So the only mention in the HC of cyclists and undertaking is to warn us, when we are turning left, to watch out for other cyclists undertaking us ;D
-
So where there are solid lines overtaking a broken down vehicle would be a illegal in the suggested revision ? What about cyclists overtaking the massive tailback ?
Well you couldn't cross the white lines, any more than any other vehicle. But you generally don't overtake stationery traffic on a bike; you filter past it. So, if you could get past without crossing the lines, and it was safe on other considerations, why not?
Filtering vs overtaking is generally misunderstood, as I see it, when people talk about cyclists "undertaking" in city traffic. Again, generally, they aren't; they are filtering. That's still not always safe, but it's not undertaking. In broad terms, you can only undertake a vehicle if it's moving freely, and very few cyclists are capable of doing that to a motor vehicle.
So the only mention in the HC of cyclists and undertaking is to warn us, when we are turning left, to watch out for other cyclists undertaking us ;D
Filtering is just a type of overtaking or passing. I don’t believe the term filtering is used in the legislation, thought it does appear in the Highway Code. Unless it was a no overtaking zone and you did not cross the line to overtake, that would indeed be fine. Overtaking on the left hand side is not specifically an offense though discouraged in code apart from in exceptional circumstances.
-
Filtering vs overtaking is generally misunderstood, as I see it, when people talk about cyclists "undertaking" in city traffic. Again, generally, they aren't; they are filtering. That's still not always safe, but it's not undertaking. In broad terms, you can only undertake a vehicle if it's moving freely, and very few cyclists are capable of doing that to a motor vehicle.
I undertook a taxi yesterday. ;D It was trying to overtake a bus on a very short length of city-centre dual carriageway but a car just behind it had come off the roundabout in the r/h lane and got there first. In the meantime, he'd moved far enough right and still at bus speed that I'd got past him. In any case, it was a bus lane and the bus was stopping in the bus stop about 15m further on, with my turning immediately past the bus stop. (No white lines were crossed in the making of this post. Nor red lines.)
-
To be fair, my previous statement was based on trying to make sense of the HC, and on the premise that undertaking per se is not allowed. By contrast it's clear that (again, subject to general considerations of safety), two-wheelers are allowed to filter, on either side. The problem is that terms don't seem to be defined anywhere.
I'm prepared to be corrected, but I think that it is very unlikely that an exemption to the general rules on undertaking exists for two-wheelers - i.e. that we are allowed in general to undertake on the left, say pedal cyclists downhill when a motor vehicle was travelling at a (low) speed limit. And I'm pretty certain that motorbikes, which are allowed to filter between traffic lanes, are not allowed to undertake at the speed limit. All vehicles are allowed to filter, for example when two lanes of traffic are moving at different (low) speeds, so I've always seen the acceptance in the HC of filtering by two-wheelers as more of a recognition that we don't always need a painted lane to have space to do that safely. Specific exemptions to rules for particular classes of vehicle are, I think, quite rare.
So some people talk about undertaking by filtering as being permissible, where I've tried to use undertaking only in its obvious sense of overtaking on the left, in which case it's only ever allowed where lanes are dividing into separate roads and so on. As I noted, the HC never talks about bikes undertaking, except for the case I cited where bikes are undertaking other bikes, the point being as I see it that both are probably moving freely, whereas bikes don't often pass freely-moving cars on either side. (I did once catch a veteran car rally while riding a time trial, so I overtook a few that day, but in the usual way on the right!)
It would, I think, be useful if the HC could define its own terms!
-
Didn't know about the speed rules on overtaking on solid white lines, and I'd suspect most don't.
One thing that amazes me in the UK is the amount of single carriageway roads that are known death spots for head on collisions.
There are at least three near me with signs telling you how many deaths each year, do they call them red routes?
Why not adopt the USA style solid yellow line, no overtaking ever, and if you do you, then you loose your licence for a year say. maybe people would just accept they are in a queue and listen to their radio and relax rather than trying to save a few seconds overtaking.
-
Given the number of motorists that overtake and then screech to a halt because there's a junction/the road narrows and something is coming the other way I doubt any change will make any difference ...
I had a chance to ask a couple of them (when I caught them again) why they'd overtaken me and then braked.
motorist #1: ended with "get off the road"
me: you what?
I was slightly better prepared for motorist #2
motorist #2: what was I supposed to do, there was something coming the other way
me: well, either you could see the something coming the other way and you shouldn't overtake cos you can't finish overtaking safely, or you couldn't see far enough ahead and you shouldn't have overtaken because you didn't know it was safe
motorist #2: you mean I have to WAIT
me: that's what the highway code says, yes.
etc. Though we parted amicably enough.
-
Didn't know about the speed rules on overtaking on solid white lines, and I'd suspect most don't.
One thing that amazes me in the UK is the amount of single carriageway roads that are known death spots for head on collisions.
There are at least three near me with signs telling you how many deaths each year, do they call them red routes?
Why not adopt the USA style solid yellow line, no overtaking ever, and if you do you, then you loose your licence for a year say. maybe people would just accept they are in a queue and listen to their radio and relax rather than trying to save a few seconds overtaking.
Yeah: I sort of suggested that upthread and you can see how well that went amongst a group of cyclists. Just imagine how a bunch of motons applying good old British common sense will react ...
-
Sorry for the thread necromany, but I've just seen this thread while looking for something else.....
There's a length of road near me that has always confused me when it comes down to overtaking cyclists (and parking come to that).
It's a road perhaps slightly longer than the posted 1/2 mile with 'No overtaking signs' (red & black car, side by side) and a dotted white line (here : https://goo.gl/maps/FTLbqwvz3uAAcV939 ) - it's straight road, a bit lumpy which restricts sight lines a little.
May a motorist legally overtake a cyclist along here? Do the 'double white line' speed restrictions apply to overtaking slow moving vehicles?
For bonus points maybe you can tell me why the HA would use these signs rather than double white lines?
-
How about this
"Double white lines do not mean no overtaking! They mean that you must not cross the solid line if it is on your side. It is perfectly legal to overtake on DWLs if you can do so without crossing the white lines (for example passing a motorcycle on a WS2).
The no overtaking sign means just that even if you can do so without crossing the center line, so the restriction is different and sometimes is more appropriate than DWLs. There have been examples where both DWLs and no overtaking signs have been used. For example the now replaced Bailey Bridge on the A71 used to have both."
So, the signs are an absolute, including horses, cyclists and other slower moving vehicles.
-
They probably haven't used DWL there because the road is not quite wide enough to meet whatever the standard or recommendation is.
-
How about this
"Double white lines do not mean no overtaking! They mean that you must not cross the solid line if it is on your side. It is perfectly legal to overtake on DWLs if you can do so without crossing the white lines (for example passing a motorcycle on a WS2).
However you need to give a cyclist as least as much room as you would a car. So unlikely you can do it legally. If the cyclist is doing less than 10mph, you can cross the white line.
-
Double white lines also carry a no parking restriction (iirc)
A single white line is an absolutely must never cross even if instructed by polis
No overtaking just means that, so parking fine, passing it fine, boot it past someone crawling at 5mph bad sort of fine.
The weirdest must be the "no double white lines" sign between crathes and braemar
Sent from my IV2201 using Tapatalk
-
Double white lines also carry a no parking restriction (iirc)
A single white line is an absolutely must never cross even if instructed by polis
No overtaking just means that, so parking fine, passing it fine, boot it past someone crawling at 5mph bad sort of fine.
The weirdest must be the "no double white lines" sign between crathes and braemar
Sent from my IV2201 using Tapatalk
Single white lines in the centre of the carriageway aren't even defined in the TSRGD. They have no legal meaning without special authorisation.
Incidentally the same applies to double white lines where they're used in dual carriageway tunnels. The TSRGD is specific about them dividing two directions of travel:
(https://i.ibb.co/6XyCw3V/Capture1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/xF2TLpP)
And thus this is not kosher:
(https://i.ibb.co/g3KN411/image.png) (https://ibb.co/NsB5Thh)
Regardless, the police have the power to instruct you to contravene road laws, you'd be duty-bound to cycle on a motorway if they so told you to do.
-
Just thinking about any potential proposal to increase the 10 mph no overtake restriction to 20 mph.
I'd be concerned about the small speed differential and thus the greater length of time the overtaking manouvre takes, which increases risk when the manouvre is poorly judged.
If we take, for example, the scenario where the cyclist is doing evens and the driver approaching from behind is doing 40 mph (the NSL for articulated lorries on single carriageways - which seems to be the effective speed restriction most of the time around here on many well used unrestricted roads due to traffic etc..), that manouvre is going to take ~twice as long, versus cyclist travelling at less than 10 mph.
Also have to take into account that some roads will have one/more solid white lines and a speed restriction lower than NSL.
It would be nice if common sense did truly prevail, making the rule unnecessary.
-
I thought the NSL for HGVs had been raised to 50 a few years ago, other than in Scotland.
-
I thought the NSL for HGVs had been raised to 50 a few years ago, other than in Scotland.
You are correct (https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits#speed-limits-on-single-and-dual-carriageways-and-motorways).
I don't drive that much, but every couple of weeks I do 50 mile round trip across country, majority on NSL single carriageway - popular with HGVs. I set the speed limiter for 50 mph* (van) and often times I'm doing 40-45 in traffic.
*by GPS
-
Sorry for the thread necromany, but I've just seen this thread while looking for something else.....
There's a length of road near me that has always confused me when it comes down to overtaking cyclists (and parking come to that).
It's a road perhaps slightly longer than the posted 1/2 mile with 'No overtaking signs' (red & black car, side by side) and a dotted white line (here : https://goo.gl/maps/FTLbqwvz3uAAcV939 ) - it's straight road, a bit lumpy which restricts sight lines a little.
May a motorist legally overtake a cyclist along here? Do the 'double white line' speed restrictions apply to overtaking slow moving vehicles?
For bonus points maybe you can tell me why the HA would use these signs rather than double white lines?
This is an interesting question, and most of the answers seem to address the last sentence more than the main question. If there are "No overtaking" signs, is it permitted to overtake a cyclist? There's no obvious reason why the law would be different from that for overtaking another motor vehicle. The guidance in the HC for double-white lines clearly only applies to those. For that matter, the ban would apply equally to cyclists overtaking very-slow-moving vehicles, such as the veteran-car-rally participants I overtook in one time trial. Or, for that matter, to cyclists overtaking other cyclists!
-
I'm fairly sure that on Barmouth bridge there is a no overtaking sign, as described above, with the additional plate "Except of one cyclist by another cyclist." This implies that normally the sign would ban overtaking of cyclists (and horses etc) by motor vehicles and by cyclists of motor vehicles, horses, cyclists, etc.
-
I'm fairly sure that on Barmouth bridge there is a no overtaking sign, as described above, with the additional plate "Except of one cyclist by another cyclist." This implies that normally the sign would ban overtaking of cyclists (and horses etc) by motor vehicles and by cyclists of motor vehicles, horses, cyclists, etc.
The one I know of is is the Menai Bridge
(https://i.ibb.co/1rc9S4w/image.png) (https://ibb.co/x1ZM4rR)
-
I'm fairly sure that on Barmouth bridge there is a no overtaking sign, as described above, with the additional plate "Except of one cyclist by another cyclist." This implies that normally the sign would ban overtaking of cyclists (and horses etc) by motor vehicles and by cyclists of motor vehicles, horses, cyclists, etc.
Barmouth Bridge has only pedestrians, bicycles and trains. The trains, IIRC, are restricted to 10 mph lest they shake the wooden structure to pieces.
-
Yep, wrong bridge, sorry.