Hashed off white zones in the centre of A roads?
Discussion
Not the best thread title ever so apologies for that 
I've noticed a few of these areas springing up in the last few years and am unsure of the law relating to them.
Example - if they are there to stop overtaking, white not just use solid double whites? I've noticed they are quite often on wide bits of road where it would be completely safe to go for an overtake.
What's the reasoning, can anyone shed light?
I've noticed a few of these areas springing up in the last few years and am unsure of the law relating to them.
Example - if they are there to stop overtaking, white not just use solid double whites? I've noticed they are quite often on wide bits of road where it would be completely safe to go for an overtake.
What's the reasoning, can anyone shed light?
Fair and accurate comments above.
I'll add one more thing as people have been caught by this. White paint doth not a central reservation make! Thus the road is not a dual carriageway.
A number of people, inlcuding some on PH have been on roads with, say, two lanes in each direction separated by a central hatched area surrounded by continuous white lines.
The road is still classed as single carriageway and thus the higher NSL limits do not apply.
Some speed camera pratnerships deliberately target such roads in order to up theirincome detection rate. 
I'll add one more thing as people have been caught by this. White paint doth not a central reservation make! Thus the road is not a dual carriageway.
A number of people, inlcuding some on PH have been on roads with, say, two lanes in each direction separated by a central hatched area surrounded by continuous white lines.
The road is still classed as single carriageway and thus the higher NSL limits do not apply.
Some speed camera pratnerships deliberately target such roads in order to up their
They are there to move the traffic streams further apart. As long as they have a dotted edge not solid then you can overtake. I know this from my wifes experience a few years back. Solid traffic queue waiting to turn left, hashed area with dashed lines outside it leading up to a right turn only lane. Mrs overtakes the line of cars within the limit (30, and she was being careful doing about 15 ish) while indicating right , gets to the right turn bit and muppet in the left lane decides to turn right without indicating or checking their mirror. Muppet gets really arsey, blames my Mrs or overtakig where its not allowed. They then bolt off to the nearest plod shop to complain. The result ? Plod not interested as its the muppets mistake. Insurance give my Mrs no fault found, legal boys jump on muppet who ends up paying my Mrs her excess back and we dont lose any no claims.
I suspect the majority of drivers think it means no overtaking.
I suspect the majority of drivers think it means no overtaking.
bigdods said:
They are there to move the traffic streams further apart. As long as they have a dotted edge not solid then you can overtake. I know this from my wifes experience a few years back.
[ ... ]
I suspect the majority of drivers think it means no overtaking.
It does not mean "no overtaking", but an unbroken line does not mean no overtaking either. A broken line may be crossed, an unbroken line may not be crossed (except certain limited purposes and circumstances) - Streaky[ ... ]
I suspect the majority of drivers think it means no overtaking.
I was stopped by an unfriendly Bib a couple of weeks ago for overtaking on the 'hatchings' ( A30 Sunningdale to Bagshot for those that know it ) and was told I would be reported, let him give his little talk and when I asked him what part of the overtake was illegal he pointed to the centre section and said I wasnt allowed to enter the marked area. I think he learnt a little that day once I pointed out the error of his ways. And very nicely he checked all my tyres for me and ensured my RFL was in date too afterwards. 
hornetrider said:
What's the reasoning, can anyone shed light?
No reasoning, just the mindless twuntery of parasitic jobsworths.The real problem is that we employ too many people in non-jobs who have to do something in case they're rumbled.
They should be redeployed to filling potholes, I care not whether as labour or aggregate, or similar useful tasks.
...or possibly just plain sacked.
Less government, less expense, less grief - what's not to like?
bmwdrivernigel said:
I was stopped by an unfriendly Bib a couple of weeks ago for overtaking on the 'hatchings' ( A30 Sunningdale to Bagshot for those that know it ) and was told I would be reported, let him give his little talk and when I asked him what part of the overtake was illegal he pointed to the centre section and said I wasnt allowed to enter the marked area. I think he learnt a little that day once I pointed out the error of his ways. And very nicely he checked all my tyres for me and ensured my RFL was in date too afterwards.
Formal complaint made I trust.fluffnik said:
bmwdrivernigel said:
I was stopped by an unfriendly Bib a couple of weeks ago for overtaking on the 'hatchings' ( A30 Sunningdale to Bagshot for those that know it ) and was told I would be reported, let him give his little talk and when I asked him what part of the overtake was illegal he pointed to the centre section and said I wasnt allowed to enter the marked area. I think he learnt a little that day once I pointed out the error of his ways. And very nicely he checked all my tyres for me and ensured my RFL was in date too afterwards.
Formal complaint made I trust.
bmwdrivernigel said:
fluffnik said:
bmwdrivernigel said:
I was stopped by an unfriendly Bib a couple of weeks ago for overtaking on the 'hatchings' ( A30 Sunningdale to Bagshot for those that know it ) and was told I would be reported, let him give his little talk and when I asked him what part of the overtake was illegal he pointed to the centre section and said I wasnt allowed to enter the marked area. I think he learnt a little that day once I pointed out the error of his ways. And very nicely he checked all my tyres for me and ensured my RFL was in date too afterwards.
Formal complaint made I trust.F i F said:
...and yet another thread where somebody asks a sensible question ends up as plod bashing. It's beyond just getting tedious.
Nobody's doing any "bashing". A poster commented that a constable pulled him and then chastised him for having done precisely what the OP was asking about. In this case, the problem was that the constable was ignorant of the law that he himself was presuming to enforce.It is hardly "bashing" to object to that.
F i F said:
...and yet another thread where somebody asks a sensible question ends up as plod bashing. It's beyond just getting tedious.
My intention was not to Bib bash, but to point out that everyone can make mistakes. If I had been in the wrong then I would have accepted the punishment due, but when the policeman was proved wrong he spent another 15 minutes trying to find something else to 'do' me for which is not right. I have the utmost respect for the police but they also have to earn that respect, in this case the man forfeited that respect.And it also gets tedious when the Bib on here try to justify actions that are questionable
flemke said:
F i F said:
...and yet another thread where somebody asks a sensible question ends up as plod bashing. It's beyond just getting tedious.
Nobody's doing any "bashing". A poster commented that a constable pulled him and then chastised him for having done precisely what the OP was asking about. In this case, the problem was that the constable was ignorant of the law that he himself was presuming to enforce.It is hardly "bashing" to object to that.
te that is PH these days.btw nobody is attempting to justify plod's actions, taken on face value purely as the post is written he was wrong and possibly could have handled it differently. One side of the story of course, but is that being an apologist?
fluffnik said:
hornetrider said:
What's the reasoning, can anyone shed light?
No reasoning, just the mindless twuntery of parasitic jobsworths.The real problem is that we employ too many people in non-jobs who have to do something in case they're rumbled.
They should be redeployed to filling potholes, I care not whether as labour or aggregate, or similar useful tasks.
...or possibly just plain sacked.
Less government, less expense, less grief - what's not to like?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff