Is this too fast for the road?

[moanthebairns]

Dr Jekyll said:

moanthebairns said:

not that I want to sound preachy or that but knowing the highway code is probably the best, easiest piece of advance riding/driving you can do. im fking amazed that so many are clueless over it. Read it once to pass a test then never again.

the other half failed her theory test last night by 11 points, she didnt understand why I was so pissed that she wants to learn how to drive and not learn the rules of the road.

Ironic from someone who thought a solid white line meant No Overtaking.

oh take a fk at yourself, I used overtaking instead of pass, I still accurately described the conditions in which your allowed to pass WITHOUT GOOGLE or referring to the book.

[theshrew]

moanthebairns said:

N Dentressangle said:

moanthebairns said:

unbroken lines - NO OVERTAKING unless you are overtaking a vehicle, horse, cyclist, mad old age pensioner out for a hoon in their mobility scooter traveling at under 10 mph.

Not quite.:

Highway Code said:

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

The word 'overtaking' isn't mentioned. If you can pass without crossing the line, that's OK.

The overtaking rules are summarised here:

https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/overt...

Note Rule 165.

if they are doing under 10 mph.

overtaking/passing there the same thing really

i suppose you call tomato sauce ketchup

Surely that just means you can overtake going over the white line if they are doing under 10mph - for cars really as you would have to cross the line to overtake.

It doesnt state anything about overtaking within the limits of your own lane not crossing the line.

[black-k1]

What is the fuss in relation to solid white lines? Crossing them is against the law (except in stated circumstances) and RC8 chap broke the law. I'm pretty sure he knew that and I know many on BB would have made similar decisions. Like wise. RC8 chap exceeded the speed limit. I'm sure he knew that was against the law too. I also know many on BB would have made a similar decision.

The question is not whether such actions were illegal (we all know they were) but were they safe?

For me, from the pictures above, only the speed on the approach to the junction with the van waiting appears to fail my definition of safe.

[SpeckledJim]

sc0tt said:

tezzer said:

Illegal overtake just after passing the NSL sign.

Look how dangerous this is.

Think of the children. Looks more like the council had too much paint to use.

Quite. The road markings are there to make some decisions for you. But those decisions are very different for different road users.

I can see that attempting a 45-to-60mph overtake there in a 1.4 Golf might not be on. It might take 10 seconds.

But on a superbike it'll take 2 seconds. A completely different go/no go decision.

[moanthebairns]

I think its pretty clear to be honest.

you try overtaking a bike doing 55 in double whites while still staying in your lane with the police behind you and see if he "has a word" or not.

the highway code could/can be picked to pieces and is by lawyers like "loophole" it would need to be as thick as a phone book to cover them all.

[Dr Jekyll]

moanthebairns said:

I think its pretty clear to be honest.

you try overtaking a bike doing 55 in double whites while still staying in your lane with the police behind you and see if he "has a word" or not.

the highway code could/can be picked to pieces and is by lawyers like "loophole" it would need to be as thick as a phone book to cover them all.

Yes, it's perfectly clear, it clearly doesn't prohibit overtaking, it prohibits (generally) crossing the line. I regularly overtake alongside solid white lines and have no problem. I was on a stretch of A40 the other day with double solid white lines between the two eastbound lanes and the westbound lane. Why have 2 lanes if you can't overtake?

[moanthebairns]

so in that picture tezler posted if a bike was there you would over take aslong as you didnt go over the solid white line?

[rich_b]

I got 3 points once for coming back in post-overtake about 2 metres(!) after a solid line started again on my side of the road. Unmarked car, who was obviously in a bad mood after seeing mates I was with speeding - 3 points for them too.

I don't really see the need to wilfully cross solid lines. If the road is a reasonable width and you give cars a couple of seconds (which bikers like the KTM rider can't seem to spare) they will often drift slightly to the left and you can pass in your own lane. Everybody's happy.

Edited by rich_b on Friday 11th April 12:35

[Dr Jekyll]

moanthebairns said:

so in that picture tezler posted if a bike was there you would over take aslong as you didnt go over the solid white line?

If there was room, yes of course.

Are you saying you wouldn't overtake here?

[mister_ee]

moanthebairns said:

I think its pretty clear to be honest.

you try overtaking a bike doing 55 in double whites while still staying in your lane with the police behind you and see if he "has a word" or not.

the highway code could/can be picked to pieces and is by lawyers like "loophole" it would need to be as thick as a phone book to cover them all.

Done that, and spent 15 minutes arguing with the copper about the legality of it, until he went to his car and got his Highway Code, read it and then told me "I am unable to deal with this matter by way of a fixed penalty notice ,you can go on your way" what he should have said was " I don't know what I'm talking about and I was trying to stiff you for 3 points and a £60 fine"

[moanthebairns]

in the two lanes section yes but because I wouldnt be going over a solid white if i was on the inside lane

if i was in the single lane then no

so a bike is in the middle of the road, how much room do you need for an overtake because to do it safely according to the highway code you would need to be on the otherside of the road

rule 163

give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car

are you????? you are not so even if what you said (which is bks its illegal to overtake anything above 10mph) you could get done for dangerous driving for a dangerous overtake.

[moanthebairns]

mister_ee said:

moanthebairns said:

I think its pretty clear to be honest.

you try overtaking a bike doing 55 in double whites while still staying in your lane with the police behind you and see if he "has a word" or not.

the highway code could/can be picked to pieces and is by lawyers like "loophole" it would need to be as thick as a phone book to cover them all.

Done that, and spent 15 minutes arguing with the copper about the legality of it, until he went to his car and got his Highway Code, read it and then told me "I am unable to deal with this matter by way of a fixed penalty notice ,you can go on your way" what he should have said was " I don't know what I'm talking about and I was trying to stiff you for 3 points and a £60 fine"

if that was the case he could have done you for rule 163 as i stated

[Dr Jekyll]

moanthebairns said:

in the two lanes section yes but because I wouldnt be going over a solid white if i was on the inside lane

if i was in the single lane then no

so a bike is in the middle of the road, how much room do you need for an overtake because to do it safely according to the highway code you would need to be on the otherside of the road

rule 163

give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car

are you????? you are not so even if what you said (which is bks its illegal to overtake anything above 10mph) you could get done for dangerous driving for a dangerous overtake.

I said I would overtake a bike IF THERE WAS ROOM.
Are you now conceding that double lines don't prohibit overtaking? You must be if you would overtake on the piece of road in the picture.

[moanthebairns]

Dr Jekyll said:

moanthebairns said:

in the two lanes section yes but because I wouldnt be going over a solid white if i was on the inside lane

if i was in the single lane then no

so a bike is in the middle of the road, how much room do you need for an overtake because to do it safely according to the highway code you would need to be on the otherside of the road

rule 163

give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car

are you????? you are not so even if what you said (which is bks its illegal to overtake anything above 10mph) you could get done for dangerous driving for a dangerous overtake.

I said I would overtake a bike IF THERE WAS ROOM.
Are you now conceding that double lines don't prohibit overtaking? You must be if you would overtake on the piece of road in the picture.

your being a pedantic bd now. would you over take if you were in lane two and go into the lane of traffic heading in your direction.

I very much doubt ON A SINGLE LANE with double whites you could overtake a bike with enough room without clipping the double whites, unless they were in the gutter for a left hander coming up or waved you through.

[Dr Jekyll]

moanthebairns said:

I very much doubt ON A SINGLE LANE with double whites you could overtake a bike with enough room without clipping the double whites, unless they were in the gutter for a left hander coming up or waved you through.

Which is irrelevant to the original question of whether solid lines prohibit overtaking. They don't.

[black-k1]

rich_b said:

I got 3 points once for coming back in post-overtake about 2 metres(!) after a solid line started again on my side of the road. Unmarked car, who was obviously in a bad mood after seeing mates I was with speeding - 3 points for them too.

I don't really see the need to wilfully cross solid lines. If the road is a reasonable width and you give cars a couple of seconds (which bikers like the KTM rider can't seem to spare) they will often drift slightly to the left and you can pass in your own lane. Everybody's happy.

Edited by rich_b on Friday 11th April 12:35

Personally, if I make the call to overtake when there is a solid white line, I'd rather risk 3 points and move to the other lane than try an squeeze past between the line and the car with the driver who has drifted to the near side while reading the text from their mate! The implications of a sideswipe when the driver corrects their line are much greater than 3 points.

Edited by black-k1 on Friday 11th April 13:21

[moanthebairns]

Dr Jekyll said:

moanthebairns said:

I very much doubt ON A SINGLE LANE with double whites you could overtake a bike with enough room without clipping the double whites, unless they were in the gutter for a left hander coming up or waved you through.

Which is irrelevant to the original question of whether solid lines prohibit overtaking. They don't.

ok technically you're correct, the way in which i worded my response wasn't correct, congratulations you win the pedantic bd of the year award. I wonder who will be next to scrutinise ever word of another posters email in a vain attempt to win a pedantic bd award from you or will you retain the honors?

Even though we all thought single lane carriageways, I merely didnt think to categorise every possible foreseeable event/road that could occur in a post on pistonheads. shudder......

doesnt change the fact however on a single carriageway you cant legally.

[Dr Jekyll]

moanthebairns said:

Dr Jekyll said:

moanthebairns said:

I very much doubt ON A SINGLE LANE with double whites you could overtake a bike with enough room without clipping the double whites, unless they were in the gutter for a left hander coming up or waved you through.

Which is irrelevant to the original question of whether solid lines prohibit overtaking. They don't.

ok technically you're correct, the way in which i worded my response wasn't correct, congratulations you win the pedantic bd of the year award. I wonder who will be next to scrutinise ever word of another posters email in a vain attempt to win a pedantic bd award from you or will you retain the honors?

Even though we all thought single lane carriageways, I merely didnt think to categorise every possible foreseeable event/road that could occur in a post on pistonheads. shudder......

doesnt change the fact however on a single carriageway you cant legally.

How am I being pedantic? You invented a non existent law and called me a fking bd when I pointed out that it didn't exist. Distinguishing between PROHIBITED and LEGAL is hardly pedantry.

Doesn't alter the fact that on a single carriageway you can legally. Otherwise why have 2 lanes on the road in the picture?

[_Neal_]

GTIR said:

I stopped watching after he started weaving around like he was a WSB rider.

I watched a bit, then noticed he had "Hoonigan" in his user name. At which point I cringed and stopped watching.

[rich_b]

moanthebairns said:

if that was the case he could have done you for rule 163 as i stated

163 states you should do something, not you must. Big difference.