HC rule 129

[Vipers]

I am sure we are all aware of the conents of that rule, "Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid", I have been following another thread on another site and someone has said whilst it allows you to cross a solid white line for passing a cyclist doing less than 10 mph, or stationary vehicles, it is not allowed if both lines are solid.

Now my understanding is rule 129 does not mention double solid white lines, just the one on your side of the road, but is confusing when you read what the RAC say, this is from their web site:-

Double white lines where the nearest line is solid

Rule 129 of the Highway Code says you must not cross or straddle these lines unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road.

There is one exception however; you may cross the line 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.

Double white lines where both are solid

These are used to prohibit drivers from travelling in an area of the road used by the opposing flow of traffic, generally where overtaking visibility is restricted.

You must not overtake if it means crossing or straddling these double solid lines.

Whats your view, is my understanding right, or is the RAC right?

[Vipers]

captain_cynic said:

Not sure what your question is but I don't see a conflict. Double white lines where the nearest line is solid clearly includes solid double white lines, which in simple terms means no overtaking (do not cross unless turning).

With regards to the HC or the RAC... It's the Highway Code you'll be prosecuted under, not the RACs web site.

The quesrion is rule 129 says you can cross under circumstances, on the other siite I mentioned and RAC says you can’t if both lines are solid white lines, whereas rule 129 makes no mention of DOUBLE SOLID white lines, just the one nearest to you.

[Vipers]

Ye ha! Thank you very much for that, it’s what I always thought until someone made me rethink, and of course the RAC post is incorrect as well

[Vipers]

TooLateForAName said:

My view has always been that the line on your side defines the rule for you.

so solid your side dashed other side - you cant cross, people in other lane can.
dashed your side, solid other - you can cross they cant
double solid, neither can cross

Now we know better, as they say every day is a school day.

[Vipers]

As we all know now, you can cross double solid lines as laid out in rule 129 and The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 No.362.

I gave up discussing that point on another web site, one was adamant rule 192 didn’t apply to double solid lines, not that it mentioned them, so thank to one and all for your input.

[Vipers]

martinbiz said:

simon_harris said:

TooLateForAName said:

My view has always been that the line on your side defines the rule for you.

so solid your side dashed other side - you cant cross, people in other lane can.
dashed your side, solid other - you can cross they cant
double solid, neither can cross

that has always been my understanding, and that it is a no crossing rule not a no overtaking rule - ie so long as you don't cross the lines you can overtake (ie cycles, horses etc)

Your understanding would be wrong, read the thread or the relevant legislation

Absolutely correct, save him looking for it this is what the Legislation says, which mirrors rule 129 except 129 doesnt mention double white lines, which in my opinion is because it doesnt matter what line is on the opposite side of the road, so 129 says it all, except as I said earlier someone was adamant it didnt apply to double white lines, which was incorrectly shown on an RAC web page, anyhow, all sorted now, this is what the regulations say:-

2016 No. 362 The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016

Schedule 9 Part 8

"subject to sub-paragraph (5), every vehicle proceeding on any length of road along which the marking has been so placed, as viewed in the direction of travel of the vehicle, a continuous line is on the left of a broken line or of another continuous line, must be so driven as to keep the first-mentioned continuous line on the right hand or off side of the vehicle."

With the exceptions:

"Nothing is to 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 a sign provided for at item 9 or 10 of the sign table in Part 6 of Schedule 13;

(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, a traffic officer in uniform or a traffic warden.

[Vipers]

the cueball said:

I have a long section of double solid lines on my morning commute which is always tailed right back for around 2 miles... even worse at the moment due to ongoing roadworks.

I overtake all the time on my motorbike, had a few beeps from time to time and couple of people have tried to stop me, there are sometimes police vehicles in the queue and they have never done anything about it.

I just hate drivers who try to block motorcylists, on stationary traffic I always keep as far left as I can to leave a gap on the outside, others try their best to block.