Overtaking

[grkify]

Quick question been driving a few years now use this road fairly frequently am can I legally overtake here.




The road is dead straight but being unsure as to if i can overtake or not i haven't been. I have to be super careful when it comes to my license as I need it to make a living.

[grkify]

I am an idiot answered my own question, no according to this https://www.gov.uk/general-rules-all-drivers-rider... seems silly on the road above

[contractor]

broken, white line? looks OK to me (if the conditions allow).

[itcaptainslow]

130 seems open to interpretation... "unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so."

You could argue if the overtake is safe it is therefore necessary to enter the box section to perform it.

[Mandat]

It's perfectly fine to overtake here, conditions permitting. What makes you think otherwise?

[Dr Jekyll]

Perfectly legal.

[sherbertdip]

Perfectly legal, and safe as long you finish your overtaking before the bend on the "dead straight" road.

[JM]

itcaptainslow said:

130 seems open to interpretation... "unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so."

You could argue if the overtake is safe it is therefore necessary to enter the box section to perform it.

Indeed, to overtake there you would require to cross the chevrons. But is the overtake necessary?


That's the ambiguity in that 'rule', what is the necessary part? Using the chevrons, or the reason for using the chevrons?

[Mandat]

JM said:

Indeed, to overtake there you would require to cross the chevrons. But is the overtake necessary?


That's the ambiguity in that 'rule', what is the necessary part? Using the chevrons, or the reason for using the chevrons?

There is no ambiguity with this rule. It is irrelevant whether or not the overtake is necessary, only just that it is necessary (and safe) to enter the chevron area to perform the undertake.

[agtlaw]

JM said:

itcaptainslow said:

130 seems open to interpretation... "unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so."

You could argue if the overtake is safe it is therefore necessary to enter the box section to perform it.

Indeed, to overtake there you would require to cross the chevrons. But is the overtake necessary?


That's the ambiguity in that 'rule', what is the necessary part? Using the chevrons, or the reason for using the chevrons?

Forget about advice in the Highway Code. The law does not require necessity to overtake across broken lines.

[Dr Jekyll]

JM said:

Indeed, to overtake there you would require to cross the chevrons. But is the overtake necessary?


That's the ambiguity in that 'rule', what is the necessary part? Using the chevrons, or the reason for using the chevrons?

Using the chevrons has to be necessary in order to make the manoeuvre, the manoeuvre doesn't have to be necessary.

After all a similar 'you can only do it if safe and necessary' clause also applies to crossing solid white lines to pass cyclists horses and road maintenance vehicles doing less than 10MPH. Those overtakes could be argues to be unnecessary as well, but it doesn't matter.

[agtlaw]

Dr Jekyll said:

Using the chevrons has to be necessary in order to make the manoeuvre, the manoeuvre doesn't have to be necessary.

I can't find the reference (diagram 1040.2) so I'd be interested to know where you found this info. TSRGD refers to crossing where safe to do so - but no necessity test.

Dr Jekyll said:

After all a similar 'you can only do it if safe and necessary' clause also applies to crossing solid white lines to pass cyclists horses and road maintenance vehicles doing less than 10MPH. Those overtakes could be argues to be unnecessary as well, but it doesn't matter.

The aforementioned is a reference to TSRGD regulation 26.

(6) Nothing in paragraph (2)(b) shall be taken to prohibit a vehicle from being driven across, or so as to straddle, the continuous line referred to in that paragraph, if it is safe to do so and if necessary to do so
(a)
to enable the vehicle to enter, from the side of the road on which it is proceeding, land or premises adjacent to the length of road on which the line is placed, or another road joining that road;
(b)
in order to pass a stationary vehicle;
(c)
owing to circumstances outside the control of the driver;
(d)
in order to avoid an accident;
(e)
in order to pass a road maintenance vehicle which is in use, is moving at a speed not exceeding 10 mph, and is displaying to the rear the sign shown in diagram 610 or 7403;
(f)
in order to pass a pedal cycle moving at a speed not exceeding 10 mph;
(g)
in order to pass a horse that is being ridden or led at a speed not exceeding 10 mph; or
(h)
for the purposes of complying with any direction of a constable in uniform, traffic officer in uniform or a traffic warden.


Unsure what this has to do with diagram 1040.2

[Dr Jekyll]

agtlaw said:

The aforementioned is a reference to TSRGD regulation 26.

(6) Nothing in paragraph (2)(b) shall be taken to prohibit a vehicle from being driven across, or so as to straddle, the continuous line referred to in that paragraph, if it is safe to do so and if necessary to do so
(a)
to enable the vehicle to enter, from the side of the road on which it is proceeding, land or premises adjacent to the length of road on which the line is placed, or another road joining that road;
(b)
in order to pass a stationary vehicle;
(c)
owing to circumstances outside the control of the driver;
(d)
in order to avoid an accident;
(e)
in order to pass a road maintenance vehicle which is in use, is moving at a speed not exceeding 10 mph, and is displaying to the rear the sign shown in diagram 610 or 7403;
(f)
in order to pass a pedal cycle moving at a speed not exceeding 10 mph;
(g)
in order to pass a horse that is being ridden or led at a speed not exceeding 10 mph; or
(h)
for the purposes of complying with any direction of a constable in uniform, traffic officer in uniform or a traffic warden.


Unsure what this has to do with diagram 1040.2

I was addressing Mandats query about the meaning of the word 'necessary' in this context. I agree that even if you go for the alternative interpretation entering the marked area on the OPs road is at worst contravening a 'should not' in the HC.

[grkify]

Mandat said:

It's perfectly fine to overtake here, conditions permitting. What makes you think otherwise?

I honestly cant remember reading about it when I did my test and since I rely so much on driving for my job its better to ask rather than do and ask for forgiveness

[Jon1967x]

[quote]
(c)
owing to circumstances outside the control of the driver;

[/quote]

It's a shame we can't interpret that loosely to include someone driving slowly in front... After all they're outside our control

[Davidonly]

I would not hesitate to pass there if safe to proceed. As for any other overtake.

[vanordinaire]

We've got a similarly marked road nearby and I get angry flashes, beeps, and hand signals almost every time I pass someone on it. The only thing that is dangerous is that occasionally one of the Mr Angrys will try to block my overtake.

[Drawweight]

One has to ask if it's legal to overtake then why is the road marked up as it is?

Is this a well known accident blackspot or are we missing something out of range of the photo?

[Jon1967x]

Drawweight said:

One has to ask if it's legal to overtake then why is the road marked up as it is?

One has to ask if it was illegal, why use a broken line.

[R0G]

Perfectly legal but think of the simple rule - more paint = more danger