What does a solid double white centre line mean?

[mackie1]

Highway code 129 says:

"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."

240 says:

"You MUST NOT stop or park on a road marked with double white lines, except to pick up or set down passengers"

The latter is the most applicable to the question.

Edited by mackie1 on Wednesday 17th December 13:21

[jackal]

mackie1 said:

240 says:

"You MUST NOT stop or park on a road marked with double white lines, except to pick up or set down passengers"

The latter is the most applicable to the question.

Edited by mackie1 on Wednesday 17th December 13:21

except its referring to double yellow parking lines

[Strangely Brown]

jackal said:

mackie1 said:

240 says:

"You MUST NOT stop or park on a road marked with double white lines, except to pick up or set down passengers"

The latter is the most applicable to the question.

except its referring to double yellow parking lines

No it isn't. mackie is right.

[TankRizzo]

Strangely Brown said:

except its referring to double yellow parking lines

No it isn't. mackie is right.

I never knew that. So when the council paints double solid whites on a road, it's primarily to stop people parking on it, and the secondary purpose is to stop people crossing the line unless exceptional circumstances?

ETA: the rolleyes is by accident, it's a sincere comment.

Edited by TankRizzo on Wednesday 17th December 13:31

[Darkslider]

As I could only select one answer I went for Overtaking, however it is also illegal to park on a road with double white lines I believe?

[triggersbroom]

tomTVR said:

People shouldnt be driving if they dont know that!

Agreed - also applies to those morons who park on a zig-zag and block box sections.

[StevenB]

You should treat the solid white line on your side of the road as a brick wall unless as others have said you are passing an obstuction etc

[Skyrat]

No overtaking, at least that's what I thought.

And now it's no overtaking, unless you can do it without crossing the line? How many cars could do that? Not many, which effectively means, no overtaking.


Highway code Rule 165
You MUST NOT overtake:

-if you would have to cross or straddle double white lines with a solid line nearest to you (but see Rule 129)
-if you would have to enter an area designed to divide traffic, if it is surrounded by a solid white line
-the nearest vehicle to a pedestrian crossing, especially when it has stopped to let pedestrians cross
-if you would have to enter a lane reserved for buses, trams or cycles during its hours of operation
-after a ‘No Overtaking’ sign and until you pass a sign cancelling the restriction

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.

Rule 129 is a little ambiguous if you ask me and would appear to rule out ANY overtaking in a solid white line zone, but Rule 165 appears to say it's ok IF you can do it without crossing the line. That's just asking for trouble, cos some eejit might try to squeeze past when he really has no business overtaking.

[Strangely Brown]

TankRizzo said:

Strangely Brown said:

jackal said:

except its referring to double yellow parking lines

No it isn't. mackie is right.

I never knew that. So when the council paints double solid whites on a road, it's primarily to stop people parking on it, and the secondary purpose is to stop people crossing the line unless exceptional circumstances?

That's not what the question is asking. You need to read the question and pick one of the answers. Only one is correct.


edit: to sort out quoting.

Edited by Strangely Brown on Wednesday 17th December 13:39

[mackie1]

Darkslider said:

As I could only select one answer I went for Overtaking, however it is also illegal to park on a road with double white lines I believe?

See above, the "MUST NOT" is their emphasis and has no exceptions therefore it's the most applicable.

[Lemoncurd]

Skyrat said:

No overtaking, at least that's what I thought.

And now it's no overtaking, unless you can do it without crossing the line? How many cars could do that? Not many, which effectively means, no overtaking.

But just because it isn't practical for most cars, doesn't mean that it is illegal to overtake. As mentioned earlier in the thread, a motorbike could overtake all day long on double whites...

[TankRizzo]

Strangely Brown said:

That's not what the question is asking. You need to read the question and pick one of the answers. Only one is correct.


edit: to sort out quoting.

Edited by Strangely Brown on Wednesday 17th December 13:39

Got it now. I can see why it would cause arguments.

[Mr Gear]

HRG said:

matchmaker][pedant said:

I thought it meant you couldn't cross it? Not the same as no overtaking [/pedant]

Motorcycles can overtake as long as they don't cross the line.

100% this. I overtook a police car on my bike on Monday in this exact circumstance and they didn't bat an eyelid.

[Strangely Brown]

mackie1 said:

Darkslider said:

As I could only select one answer I went for Overtaking, however it is also illegal to park on a road with double white lines I believe?

See above, the "MUST NOT" is their emphasis and has no exceptions therefore it's the most applicable.

The MUST NOT is qualified by the "if".

[paulsm]

A and B

[Skyrat]

Lemoncurd said:

Skyrat said:

No overtaking, at least that's what I thought.

And now it's no overtaking, unless you can do it without crossing the line? How many cars could do that? Not many, which effectively means, no overtaking.

But just because it isn't practical for most cars, doesn't mean that it is illegal to overtake. As mentioned earlier in the thread, a motorbike could overtake all day long on double whites...

That's splitting hairs. I'm not talking about bikes. My point was that, for cars, it's effectively the same thing as no car could really overtake on a normal single lane road. Still, I always thought it meant no overtaking under any circumstances (other than the exceptions for slow moving / stationary vehicles) so you live and learn. I'll still not be trying it.

[TonyHetherington]

I've gone for B).

And I suspect this is where the confusion has arisen.

Double white lines, as has been discussed, do not mean "NO OVERTAKING". They signify "NO CROSSING.....unless etc.".

Therefore the statement "Double white lines mean no overtaking" is incorrect.

However, they do signify also "Do not park where there are double white lines", which is why I went for B).

But, I will be completely honest and say that if I didn't sit and think about it I would certainly have gone for A) as my first reaction.

[TonyHetherington]

paulsm said:

A and B

You are able to overtake a slow moving or stationary vehicle. So it does not mean "no overtaking" (which is A).

[Herman Toothrot]

Well its not "no Overtaking" as Highway code says:-

"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."

and so it could well be, "no parking" as highway code, says :-

"You MUST NOT stop or park


but then they confuse the issue with an except :-

road marked with double white lines, except to pick up or set down passengers"

so its got to be "no reversing", as it doesn't even bother mentioning that so it must be assumed that you'd have to be mad to consider reversing along such a road.

[Strangely Brown]

TonyHetherington said:

I've gone for B).

And I suspect this is where the confusion has arisen.

Double white lines, as has been discussed, do not mean "NO OVERTAKING". They signify "NO CROSSING.....unless etc.".

Therefore the statement "Double white lines mean no overtaking" is incorrect.

However, they do signify also "Do not park where there are double white lines", which is why I went for B).

But, I will be completely honest and say that if I didn't sit and think about it I would certainly have gone for A) as my first reaction.

Correct!

That is where the argument came from when the question appeared on Channel 5 (I think is was 5... it might have been ITV).

The person who entered the competition could see that the obvious answer of "No Overtaking" was incorrect but that the lines DID mean "No Parking". He entered on that basis and, naturally, when the competition was drawn he wasn't in the winning group.

He complained but was told that the correct answer was "No Overtaking" despite showing them the Highway Code to support his case. He took it to the regulator who, unfortunately, upheld the decision of the TV company stating that it was the commonly accepted meaning of the lines that was used and not the actual, correct meaning.

He was offered free entry into another draw which was a complete nonsense given that he would have a statistically much lower chance of winning. The prize was a car.

The same thing has happened here.

As of this writing 96% of respondents have the wrong answer.