Discussion
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?
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?
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.
With regards to the HC or the RAC... It's the Highway Code you'll be prosecuted under, not the RACs web site.
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.With regards to the HC or the RAC... It's the Highway Code you'll be prosecuted under, not the RACs web site.
Vipers said:
The question 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.
Per TSRGD 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.
To summarise:
You may be prosecuted under the relevant Road Traffic Act, not the Highway Code (although the HC refers to any RTAct
Other websites often simplify the HCode, missing out some subtle differences.
The HC says double white lines, WHERE THE NEAREST TO YOU IS SOLID. Therefore this covers a solid white line near to you, and a broken white line on the other side of it; and also two solid white lines
Therefore:
Rule 129
Double white lines where the line nearer to 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 or less.
Means that the rule applies at BOTH red arrowed positions, if you are travelling in the direction of the yellow arrow shown below.
You may be prosecuted under the relevant Road Traffic Act, not the Highway Code (although the HC refers to any RTAct
Other websites often simplify the HCode, missing out some subtle differences.
The HC says double white lines, WHERE THE NEAREST TO YOU IS SOLID. Therefore this covers a solid white line near to you, and a broken white line on the other side of it; and also two solid white lines
Therefore:
Rule 129
Double white lines where the line nearer to 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 or less.
Means that the rule applies at BOTH red arrowed positions, if you are travelling in the direction of the yellow arrow shown below.
Vipers said:
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 
Not sure where the formatting went a bit 'RAC'. But I am looking forward to be directed to cross a solid white by a traffic warden, it's back to the 60 - 80s for me.
s. Not all the staff, just the organisation, which has decided the best way to make money is selling overpriced batteries from their vans. Any other sVipers said:
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
Ignore a lot of the stuff on the RAC website, they have history. A lot would argue that double solids actually makes the manoeuvre safer 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.
No you won't, you will be prosecuted if you contravene the relevant legislation, the HC is Advice and guidelines, no moreWith regards to the HC or the RAC... It's the Highway Code you'll be prosecuted under, not the RACs web site.
Edited by martinbiz on Wednesday 21st February 22:09
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.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
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
Correct. It has always been so (with caveats about safety, and about being allowed to pass slow moving road users)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
martinbiz said:
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.
No you won't, you will be prosecuted if you contravene the relevant legislation, the HC is Advice and guidelines, no moreWith regards to the HC or the RAC... It's the Highway Code you'll be prosecuted under, not the RACs web site.
Edited by martinbiz on Wednesday 21st February 22:09
"Must" and "Must not" rules have actual penalties attached to them.
Should and should not rules are guidelines.
captain_cynic said:
martinbiz said:
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.
No you won't, you will be prosecuted if you contravene the relevant legislation, the HC is Advice and guidelines, no moreWith regards to the HC or the RAC... It's the Highway Code you'll be prosecuted under, not the RACs web site.
Edited by martinbiz on Wednesday 21st February 22:09
"Must" and "Must not" rules have actual penalties attached to them.
Should and should not rules are guidelines.
The Highway Code is a publication listing guidance,information and law.
The offence of failing to conform to a solid white line is enacted by a combination of the Road Traffic Act, Road Traffic Offenders Act and the TSRGD.
I've prosecuted loads of folks under the legislation but never have I prosecuted anyone for said offence under the Highway Code.
It's a bit like saying you'll be prosecuted under The Times because they mentioned a piece of legislation......
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.
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.
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
An Exquisite way of putting itso 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
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)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
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)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
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff