A safe overtake, but against the highway code, opinions
Discussion
Sounds like you performed a perfectly safe illegal manoeuvre, as apposed to, a legal yet less safe manoeuvre elsewhere on the same journey.
Best stay clear of the clowns on the road like the one you happened across, much rather take the points for a fair cop than risk getting caught up in someones accident.
possibly to echo that,
stay well back prior to doing it next time,
and give no warning beyond indicators that this is your intention
Best stay clear of the clowns on the road like the one you happened across, much rather take the points for a fair cop than risk getting caught up in someones accident.
possibly to echo that,
stay well back prior to doing it next time,
and give no warning beyond indicators that this is your intention
Edited by rich 36 on Sunday 18th February 19:33
How much time did you save? Assume average speed of other driver to be 35mph. They will cover the four miles to your place in 7 mins approx. You doing NSL all the way will save no more than 3 minutes assuming they don't turn off and you don't enter a 30 zone (where his speed is unlikely to change anyway!
)
If he had a young impressionable passenger whom you might not have seen the message you are sending out is it's okay to break the law where you don't think you'll be caught or perhaps its okay to overtake on double lines. The context won't necessarily be recognised and factored into copycat behaviour. That is the difference between fast and expert driving.
The question now is, will you ever do it again?
) If he had a young impressionable passenger whom you might not have seen the message you are sending out is it's okay to break the law where you don't think you'll be caught or perhaps its okay to overtake on double lines. The context won't necessarily be recognised and factored into copycat behaviour. That is the difference between fast and expert driving.
The question now is, will you ever do it again?
R_U_LOCAL said:
I've never seen a double white line system that I disagree with.
Well I find that absolutely amazing, Reg. You seem to be sharing Von's view that the DWL system, based on the lowest common denominator principle, is completely logical and always applied appropriately.
On that basis I could understand you disagreeing with me if I only complained about being prevented from overtaking in some places where I judge it to be safe, but that is not the situation.
I am equally complaining about numerous examples where the linework indicates that an overtake would be legal, and yet I think it would be unsafe for anybody except perhaps a very skilled driver in a very powerful car. There's not much LCD thinking applied in these cases, quite the reverse in fact, and if you were to see some of these examples, I would be very surprised if you could see the sense in what has been done.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
TripleS said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
I've never seen a double white line system that I disagree with.
Well I find that absolutely amazing, Reg. You seem to be sharing Von's view that the DWL system, based on the lowest common denominator principle, is completely logical and always applied appropriately.
On that basis I could understand you disagreeing with me if I only complained about being prevented from overtaking in some places where I judge it to be safe, but that is not the situation.
I am equally complaining about numerous examples where the linework indicates that an overtake would be legal, and yet I think it would be unsafe for anybody except perhaps a very skilled driver in a very powerful car. There's not much LCD thinking applied in these cases, quite the reverse in fact, and if you were to see some of these examples, I would be very surprised if you could see the sense in what has been done.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
An interesting point, but how many of us base our overtaking decisions solely on the basis of what centre-lines are present at the time?
Like any other decision we make when driving, a decision about whether to overtake or not should be based on a combination of numerous factors - is there somewhere to "land"? How quickly will my car accelerate? what's happening behind? Etc, etc.
One of the most important considerations, though, is "is there something I can't see that will make the overtake dangerous?
White line systems are a very useful indicator that there is a zone of invisibility ahead, and that's something you should never even accelerate into, let alone overtake into.
R_U_LOCAL said:
....how many of us base our overtaking decisions solely on the basis of what centre-lines are present at the time?
Like any other decision we make when driving, a decision about whether to overtake or not should be based on a combination of numerous factors - is there somewhere to "land"? How quickly will my car accelerate? what's happening behind? Etc, etc.
One of the most important considerations, though, is "is there something I can't see that will make the overtake dangerous?
White line systems are a very useful indicator that there is a zone of invisibility ahead, and that's something you should never even accelerate into, let alone overtake into.
Like any other decision we make when driving, a decision about whether to overtake or not should be based on a combination of numerous factors - is there somewhere to "land"? How quickly will my car accelerate? what's happening behind? Etc, etc.
One of the most important considerations, though, is "is there something I can't see that will make the overtake dangerous?
White line systems are a very useful indicator that there is a zone of invisibility ahead, and that's something you should never even accelerate into, let alone overtake into.
All of that is fair enough in principle, Reg - but I don't see how anybody can reasonably maintain that there are no incorrect applications of the DWL system. Have a look round this area with me sometime and then we'll see what you make of it, and I shall be amazed if you don't agree that some of the linework is ridiculous.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Sometimes I'll 'anticipate' the end of a DWL restriction where it's obviously safe to do so, but only by yards, and I wouldn't consider overtaking against a DWL restriction under any normal circumstances even if I believed it was safe. I won't pretend they're all perfect, but in my experience they tend to be reasonable.
R_U_LOCAL said:
The highway code actually does allow us to cross double white lines under certain conditions. Without referring to it directly (my copy is at work), I think the full list of circumstances when you can cross double white (solid) lines is...
In an emergency
To pass a stationary vehicle
To pass a works vehicle, cyclist or horse rider travelling at less than 10mph
Reg.
In an emergency
To pass a stationary vehicle
To pass a works vehicle, cyclist or horse rider travelling at less than 10mph
Reg.
Without referring to my copy (the moths are guarding it jealously), I hope and believe that you can add:
To turn right.
WilliBetz
TripleS said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
I've never seen a double white line system that I disagree with.
Well I find that absolutely amazing, Reg. You seem to be sharing Von's view that the DWL system, based on the lowest common denominator principle, is completely logical and always applied appropriately.
On that basis I could understand you disagreeing with me if I only complained about being prevented from overtaking in some places where I judge it to be safe, but that is not the situation.
I am equally complaining about numerous examples where the linework indicates that an overtake would be legal, and yet I think it would be unsafe for anybody except perhaps a very skilled driver in a very powerful car. There's not much LCD thinking applied in these cases, quite the reverse in fact, and if you were to see some of these examples, I would be very surprised if you could see the sense in what has been done.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Dave has already beat me to a reply to this. So I will just add:-
I HAVE seen DWLs which I disagree with (a few new ones have sprung up around our way). But...
I will not break that particular driving law, as that is (IIRC) instant-ban territory, and above all else I need my license. What it DOES indicate to me is either significantly reduced visibility or, if not, potential hazards I haven't seen, so I use their presence as a reason to pay extra care to what's ahead of me...
In my experience, when giving tuition, solid white lines are often overlooked by drivers - whether in the centre of the road or at controlled junctions. Typically, in a half day drive, virtually every driver on session commits an offence without realising, for this particular transgression and is suprised when it is pointed out. Straightening corners also very often causes the offence. "That'll be 3 points then" comes as a bit of a wake-up call.
In addition, the broken centre line is rarely used by the driver to give notice of an impending hazard. HC108 "When this line lengthens and the gaps shorten, it means that there is a hazard ahead. Do not cross it unless you can see the road is clear well ahead and wish to overtake or turn off". Similarly with diagonal striped areas. Remember the HC can be used against you in a court of law.
It's a very dangerous approach to think that, as an experienced driver, one can choose where to take heed of traffic markings. Centre line markings are used by Highways to tell you something that you may not necessarily be able to see yourself, from your current vantage point. Hence, because you can't see any "issue", this does NOT mean you can safely perform an overtake.
Personally, I'd be much less concerned by a transient speed transgression than a white line, from a safety point of view.
In addition, the broken centre line is rarely used by the driver to give notice of an impending hazard. HC108 "When this line lengthens and the gaps shorten, it means that there is a hazard ahead. Do not cross it unless you can see the road is clear well ahead and wish to overtake or turn off". Similarly with diagonal striped areas. Remember the HC can be used against you in a court of law.
It's a very dangerous approach to think that, as an experienced driver, one can choose where to take heed of traffic markings. Centre line markings are used by Highways to tell you something that you may not necessarily be able to see yourself, from your current vantage point. Hence, because you can't see any "issue", this does NOT mean you can safely perform an overtake.
Personally, I'd be much less concerned by a transient speed transgression than a white line, from a safety point of view.
Edited by instructormike on Monday 19th February 17:09
instructormike said:
Similarly with diagonal striped areas.
I have to be honest I've noticed these springing up in LOTS of unnecessary places recently...such as down the middle of wide, straight A-roads. Dashed boundaries to them, so I can legally overtake (as I always did), but it frustrates me that some council numpty has spent money on it, AND it reduces respect for the ones that do need obeying...
willibetz said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
The highway code actually does allow us to cross double white lines under certain conditions. Without referring to it directly (my copy is at work), I think the full list of circumstances when you can cross double white (solid) lines is...
In an emergency
To pass a stationary vehicle
To pass a works vehicle, cyclist or horse rider travelling at less than 10mph
Reg.
In an emergency
To pass a stationary vehicle
To pass a works vehicle, cyclist or horse rider travelling at less than 10mph
Reg.
Without referring to my copy (the moths are guarding it jealously), I hope and believe that you can add:
To turn right.
WilliBetz
The list is
(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 appropriate (keep right) sign.
(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 or a traffic warden etc.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 19th February 17:38
vonhosen said:
willibetz said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
The highway code actually does allow us to cross double white lines under certain conditions. Without referring to it directly (my copy is at work), I think the full list of circumstances when you can cross double white (solid) lines is...
In an emergency
To pass a stationary vehicle
To pass a works vehicle, cyclist or horse rider travelling at less than 10mph
Reg.
In an emergency
To pass a stationary vehicle
To pass a works vehicle, cyclist or horse rider travelling at less than 10mph
Reg.
Without referring to my copy (the moths are guarding it jealously), I hope and believe that you can add:
To turn right.
WilliBetz
The list is
(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 appropriate (keep right) sign.
(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 or a traffic warden etc.
Crikey! How old is your copy of the Highway Code?!
The modern highway code says...
The Highway Code said:
108: 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 to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10mph or less.
Laws RTA sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26
Laws RTA sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26
I'd get a more up-to-date copy if I were you.
I knew the old "to comply with the directions of a Constable" line had been removed, and I think the cover-all "in an emergency" is much better than listing several cicumstances where you might have to cross them.
vonhosen said:
(h) for the purposes of complying with any direction of a constable in uniform or a traffic warden etc.
I tend to think of traffic wardens as being primarily responsible for enforcing parking restrictions, although hopefully there is more to their job than being a glorified parking attendant. I'm surprised to find that they are authorised to direct me to cross solid white lines though.
R_U_LOCAL said:
vonhosen said:
willibetz said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
The highway code actually does allow us to cross double white lines under certain conditions. Without referring to it directly (my copy is at work), I think the full list of circumstances when you can cross double white (solid) lines is...
In an emergency
To pass a stationary vehicle
To pass a works vehicle, cyclist or horse rider travelling at less than 10mph
Reg.
In an emergency
To pass a stationary vehicle
To pass a works vehicle, cyclist or horse rider travelling at less than 10mph
Reg.
Without referring to my copy (the moths are guarding it jealously), I hope and believe that you can add:
To turn right.
WilliBetz
The list is
(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 appropriate (keep right) sign.
(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 or a traffic warden etc.
Crikey! How old is your copy of the Highway Code?!
The modern highway code says...
The Highway Code said:
108: 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 to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10mph or less.
Laws RTA sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26
Laws RTA sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26
I'd get a more up-to-date copy if I were you.
I knew the old "to comply with the directions of a Constable" line had been removed, and I think the cover-all "in an emergency" is much better than listing several cicumstances where you might have to cross them.
That's the more definitive list, because it's from the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions, not the highway code.
GreenV8S said:
vonhosen said:
(h) for the purposes of complying with any direction of a constable in uniform or a traffic warden etc.
I tend to think of traffic wardens as being primarily responsible for enforcing parking restrictions, although hopefully there is more to their job than being a glorified parking attendant. I'm surprised to find that they are authorised to direct me to cross solid white lines though.
They can also direct you to pass a red traffic light.
Failing to comply with the traffic directions given by a traffic warden is an offence under Sec 35 Road Traffic Act 1988 (The same offence as failing to comply with the directions of a Constable).
But that is traffic wardens (& PCSOs) of course, not council parking attendants which are something quite different.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 19th February 18:57
vonhosen said:
GreenV8S said:
vonhosen said:
(h) for the purposes of complying with any direction of a constable in uniform or a traffic warden etc.
I tend to think of traffic wardens as being primarily responsible for enforcing parking restrictions, although hopefully there is more to their job than being a glorified parking attendant. I'm surprised to find that they are authorised to direct me to cross solid white lines though.
They can also direct you to pass a red traffic light.
Failing to comply with the traffic directions given by a traffic warden is an offence under Sec 35 Road Traffic Act 1988 (The same offence as failing to comply with the directions of a Constable).
The new, private-company, local authority run parking wardens don't have the same powers as the old, Police-employed, yellow-band-round-the-hat traffic wardens, which have largely been replaced with PCSOs.
PCSOs, however, do have powers to direct traffic.
instructormike said:
It's a very dangerous approach to think that, as an experienced driver, one can choose where to take heed of traffic markings. Centre line markings are used by Highways to tell you something that you may not necessarily be able to see yourself, from your current vantage point. Hence, because you can't see any "issue", this does NOT mean you can safely perform an overtake.
OK, I'll use the linework (if there's nothing more important to look at) as a reminder of the need for added caution and wariness, but then if it's clear I think the driver who is there at the time and seeing what needs seeing now should decide on appropriate action, rather than somebody who 'designed' the markings 20 years ago while sitting in an office.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
havoc said:
instructormike said:
Similarly with diagonal striped areas.
I have to be honest I've noticed these springing up in LOTS of unnecessary places recently...such as down the middle of wide, straight A-roads. Dashed boundaries to them, so I can legally overtake (as I always did), but it frustrates me that some council numpty has spent money on it, AND it reduces respect for the ones that do need obeying...
It's the 'we must be seen to be doing something' mentality - even if there is no need to do anything. Unfortunately a good deal of it is a sheer waste of money. We're seriously overloaded with signs and road painting schemes, and it should not surprise us if a great many drivers ignore most of it.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff