No Overtaking signs

[Nick M]

Some months back, some 'no overtaking' signs were erected on a stretch of road near me, along with a distance limit sign underneath of around 400 yards.

Do the road markings have to be changed to double solid white lines to tie in with the signage, or are the signs sufficient in themselves ?

Tried to find an answer but to be honest, it looks like it's buried in legislation somewhere and I couldn't put my finger on it.

[Dwight VanDriver]

In a nut shell

Two ways of prohibiting overtaking.

1. The double white line system [Diagram 1013.1] that has criteria in relation to available vision. Road marking speaks for itself. Offence fail to comnform to Traffic Signs [NOIP required]

2. Where the criteria of 1 is not met then a Traffic Regulation Order backed up by the No Overtaking signs [Diag 632]. The offence being against not complying to Order.[No Noip]

dvd

[Puddenchucker]

IIRC, it's not allowed (not lawful?) to have both no overtaking signs and soild white lines on the same part of the road - it's one or the other.

From the Traffic Signs manual:

Traffic Signs said:

4.52 The sign to diagram 632 is used to give effect to an order which prohibits overtaking. Such orders will be exceptional as situations where forward visibility makes overtaking hazardous can normally be dealt with by double white lines. “No overtaking”signs must not be used along the same length of road as double white lines.

This hasn't stopped the local authority around here (or whoever is responsible) putting one no overtaking sign at the start of a double white line system on a A-road.


Edited for clarity

Edited by Puddenchucker on Saturday 21st November 11:12

[Dwight VanDriver]

.........thus giving the argument that DWL or No overtaking signs are unlawful so a get out clause if prosecuted.

dvd

[Nick M]

Thanks both.

This stretch of road is preceded by DWL (poor visibility round a bend) followed by a section of prohibited no-overtaking which is signed, but not lined (just normal dotted line).

Was trying to see if the local authority had cocked up because they are universally hated because it was one of the few sections of road where overtaking was possible.

[citizen_smith]

also interesting to know is that the two mean different things. the double white lines just mean that you can't cross them, ie a motorbike can still overtake as long as he doesn't cross the lines, or he can overtake on the inside. the no overtaking sign forbids all overtaking (exceptions listed in highway code)

[Nick M]

citizen_smith said:

also interesting to know is that the two mean different things. the double white lines just mean that you can't cross them, ie a motorbike can still overtake as long as he doesn't cross the lines, or he can overtake on the inside. the no overtaking sign forbids all overtaking (exceptions listed in highway code)

Thanks, and that's an interesting point because, largely born out of practicality, I think most people (me included) tend to see DWLs as meaning no overtaking rather than 'do not cross'.

Usually there are very few situations where a DWL exists where you could overtake anyway, but driving home yesterday I went down a section of 3 lane road - two lanes going one way, and one the other. The two lanes of opposing traffic were delineated by a DWL, but I could still pass cars who were in the left hand of the two lanes going in the same direction.