Hypothetical solid white line question
Discussion
I was driving a back road this morning and I came to a tight left hand bend. It had a double solid white line, but it was extremely worn to the point of being broken in places. As I drove the corner I moved over the crown to gain better visibility and crossed the white line. It was safer to move and gain sight round the bend although I may have comitted an offence in so doing.
So, to the question. Is it an offence to cross what was once a solid white line but due to wear and tear it is no longer solid? You can see that it should have been solid, but it no longer is.
Just got me wondering, that's all.
So, to the question. Is it an offence to cross what was once a solid white line but due to wear and tear it is no longer solid? You can see that it should have been solid, but it no longer is.
Just got me wondering, that's all.
Ahh.........DWL's
The Bible - Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002 can answer this.
Reg 11 states that a sign conveying a .....prohibition,.... shall be of the size, colour and type as shown in the diagram.
Diagram 1013.1 is that for DWL and shows a CONTINUOUS white line, no breaks etc.
Reg 26 makes the stipulation (prohibition) that one should not cross or straddle a DWL except....
which the poster makes no reference to and from what stated not claimed.
Reg 10 states that Section 36 RTA 88 applies in relation to sign 1013.1.
Section 36 RTA 88 states Where a traffic sign, being a sign—
(a) of the prescribed size, colour and type,
has been lawfully placed on or near a road, a person driving or propelling a vehicle who fails to comply with the indication given by the sign (prohibition) is guilty of an offence.
But it isn't the sign 1013.1. is it because there are parts missing so it isn't the prescribed type, shape etc is it?
No offence......?
dvd
The Bible - Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002 can answer this.
Reg 11 states that a sign conveying a .....prohibition,.... shall be of the size, colour and type as shown in the diagram.
Diagram 1013.1 is that for DWL and shows a CONTINUOUS white line, no breaks etc.
Reg 26 makes the stipulation (prohibition) that one should not cross or straddle a DWL except....
which the poster makes no reference to and from what stated not claimed.
Reg 10 states that Section 36 RTA 88 applies in relation to sign 1013.1.
Section 36 RTA 88 states Where a traffic sign, being a sign—
(a) of the prescribed size, colour and type,
has been lawfully placed on or near a road, a person driving or propelling a vehicle who fails to comply with the indication given by the sign (prohibition) is guilty of an offence.
But it isn't the sign 1013.1. is it because there are parts missing so it isn't the prescribed type, shape etc is it?
No offence......?
dvd
I didn't notice a sign.... I know, shocking observational skills 
I only thought about it as I crossed the ex DWL as i will refer to it from now on. I would have thought no offence as the line is no longer solid although the obvious intention was for it to be solid. Is a solid white line any different to a double yellow? Ie. if they're not maintained they're not enforceable.
My interpretation is it would have to be classed as a broken white line and therefore lawful to cross. Correct course of action in case of a spotted, flea in the ear and told not to do it again, report to council for repainting.
DWL's are normally a no go as far as I'm concerned, even when visibility is good. It was just that in this case the corner was safer when approached from a position the "wrong" side of the DWL.
I only thought about it as I crossed the ex DWL as i will refer to it from now on. I would have thought no offence as the line is no longer solid although the obvious intention was for it to be solid. Is a solid white line any different to a double yellow? Ie. if they're not maintained they're not enforceable. My interpretation is it would have to be classed as a broken white line and therefore lawful to cross. Correct course of action in case of a spotted, flea in the ear and told not to do it again, report to council for repainting.
DWL's are normally a no go as far as I'm concerned, even when visibility is good. It was just that in this case the corner was safer when approached from a position the "wrong" side of the DWL.
Basically, you've disobeyed the spirit of the law but not the letter.
As DvD says, all signage (including lines) have to be as prescribed in order to be enforceable.
However, I would say that you knew full well that the line was supposed to be a double solid and therefore was there in order to warn you of something... You say "As I drove the corner I moved over the crown to gain better visibility" which does sound fair enough but maube, just maybe, there's a hidden hazard just around the corner that the line was trying to save you from?
In the good old days when police motorbikes (iirc) used to set the start and end points of different centre lines, you could be fairly sure that a double white meant that it really was in your best interest not to cross it. Nowadays with numpty, traffic-hating, joy-killing local councils making all the decisions, I'd probably have done the same as you!
As DvD says, all signage (including lines) have to be as prescribed in order to be enforceable.
However, I would say that you knew full well that the line was supposed to be a double solid and therefore was there in order to warn you of something... You say "As I drove the corner I moved over the crown to gain better visibility" which does sound fair enough but maube, just maybe, there's a hidden hazard just around the corner that the line was trying to save you from?
In the good old days when police motorbikes (iirc) used to set the start and end points of different centre lines, you could be fairly sure that a double white meant that it really was in your best interest not to cross it. Nowadays with numpty, traffic-hating, joy-killing local councils making all the decisions, I'd probably have done the same as you!
There could indeed have been hazards galore, as I was deep in the heart of tractor territory. If I had stayed religiously on my side of the DWL then I would be completely unsighted as it's a tight bend round a walled corner. However a cheeky nip to the right on the approach lets you see what perils await.
I was just curious as this is one of the most severly worn lines I've come across and wondered if it was still legally enforceable.
I was just curious as this is one of the most severly worn lines I've come across and wondered if it was still legally enforceable.
pdV6 said:I never said there was no run off
I'd have thought that an unsighted corner with no run-off would have meant a lower entry speed... what if the cheeky nip to the right had revealed a tractor in your lane alongside an oncoming one?
*pulls handle to transform into vertical flight mode*
It was a very slow corner anyway, probably only 20 MPH or so. [FenDrivingMode]
Of course had there been unflattened mud on the road then I would have been expecting an obstruction, as no other vehicles would have been down the road since the last tractor.
[/FenDrivingMode]
BliarOut said:You did the right thing. It is frequently safer and more efficient to cross a solid line than to be forced unnaturally to one side because of it.
DWL's are normally a no go as far as I'm concerned, even when visibility is good. It was just that in this case the corner was safer when approached from a position the "wrong" side of the DWL.
I tend to use my own judgement about DWLs because, as pdV6 says, we now seem to have many examples of what appears to be inappropriate application of the system.
Obviously if we disregard the lining, we need to be very careful, but I see plenty of situations where the lines can be crossed with no risk of any problems being caused.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Obviously if we disregard the lining, we need to be very careful, but I see plenty of situations where the lines can be crossed with no risk of any problems being caused.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
BliarOut said:
............ However a cheeky nip to the right on the approach lets you see what perils await.
I was just curious as this is one of the most severly worn lines I've come across and wondered if it was still legally enforceable.
Seems lots of other driver would agree with you.
Just how many cars does it take to wear a white line away .........
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff