Crossing double white lines

[Vipers]

GSP said:

Gutted, I always overtake if I can get by without crossing the solid white. Most car people I know presume the solid white means 'no over taking' which is amusing.

Problen us a lot of drivers pass their test, and throw the HC away. Doesn't hurt to flick through it now and again.

I for one didn't appreciate the bit about crossing a solid white line to pass a cyclists doing less than 10 mph, as pointed out earlier.

[Hooli]

GSP said:

Quinny said:

defblade said:

Quinny said:

I got done for NOT crossing the white lines

Came up behind a car on my bike, he moved over and flashed his left indicator for me to pass....

Plenty of room between him and the solid white, so I did..... 3 points and £60 for NOT going over a white line....

Did you leave the scene at something over the posted limit? Otherwise, it doesn't sound as if you did anything wrong.....

Nope..... My mistake was not knowing any better, and taking what the cop said as gospel......

A mistake I won't be making again

Gutted, I always overtake if I can get by without crossing the solid white. Most car people I know presume the solid white means 'no over taking' which is amusing.

As far as I'm aware you can pass without crossing the white line. I'm not sure if any of your bike is allowed to overhang the white line though.

[Petemate]

S10 GTA said:

Lets see if this works

I overtook near the lights on Jacobs Gutter Lane, the police van was parked in the industrial estate.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&a...

If you zoom in to the street view near the lights (Jacobs Gutter Lane) you will see the two lane section.

[Petemate]

S10 GTA said:

Lets see if this works

I overtook near the lights on Jacobs Gutter Lane, the police van was parked in the industrial estate.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&a...

If you zoom in to the street view near the lights (Jacobs Gutter Lane) you will see the two lane section.

Maybe it's my PC, but all I can see on the link are a few sections of hatch lines with BROKEN borders. AFAIR, one is supposed not to cross hatch areas with CONTINUOUS bordering lines but these all seem to be broken.

[Richard C]

RegMolehusband said:

I think solid white lines are mostly sensibly implemented by traffic engineers .....

Really ? They might have been once upon a time.

[Davidonly]

RegMolehusband said:

I think solid white lines are mostly sensibly implemented by traffic engineers so if you crossed them then I should just take it on the chin and try not to do it again.

Not any more. You can see many an overtake recently re-painted all over the country. They are in the process of undermining the principle that the lines are painted sensibly and should be observed.

You can see the old broken lines down the middle most of the time!

[Davidonly]

tvrgit said:

The Traffic Signs Manual sets out precise circumstances, measurements of restricted forward visibility etc, where solid white line systems may be used. The Manual specifically states that solid white line systems should NOT be used where those criteria are not met, as it devalues their message elsewhere (the message being that you can't see very far).

The TSM applies nationally, so it's not really up to individual councils to decide where to use them.

Check out the A1 north of Morpeth, same bit of road gone from broken single to double white on numerous sections. No changes other to layout. Infact recently resurfaced is the only other feature. They are dumbing down, simple as that. Ditto North Yorkshire.

Not QUITE as endemic as groundless 50 and 40 mph in NSL, but catching up fast and far more dangerous a principle to fiddle with!!

Edited by Davidonly on Monday 8th November 20:53

[saaby93]

S10 GTA said:

rs1952 said:

RegMolehusband said:

I think solid white lines are mostly sensibly implemented by traffic engineers so if you crossed them then I should just take it on the chin and try not to do it again.

Wandering off on a tangent, I feel that's rather a strong statement.

Solid white lines have been increasingly used in recenty years to take out safe overtaking opportunities, often on dubious pretexts eg. "there's a field entrance that gets used a couple of times a month down that long straight stretch, so we must stop people overtaking there"

Have a look at the street view....does this road need double white lines? I don't think so.

Mill Wheel said:

RegMolehusband said:

I think solid white lines are mostly sensibly implemented by traffic engineers so if you crossed them then I should just take it on the chin and try not to do it again.

You're 'avin a larff!
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?num=50&hl=en&amp...
The double whites along this section suddenly jump from right to left with no warning.
I watched a driver passing a slow tractor suddenly find himself on the wrong side of the double lines here - tractor was towing slowly - I was passing it on the adjacent cycle path!
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

The roads engineer responsible for this set up is worse than useless, and is universally despised by nearly all who have to work with him or his hairbrained schemes.

Echo above and tvrgit comments
DWLs are increasingly being used where they shouldnt and it is reducing the impact of where theyre really needed, e.g. after miles of being stuck behind for no apparant reason overtake in the wrong place
How long before some bright spark comes up with the idea of DWL cameras

[Red Devil]

Vipers said:

GSP said:

Gutted, I always overtake if I can get by without crossing the solid white. Most car people I know presume the solid white means 'no over taking' which is amusing.

Problen us a lot of drivers pass their test, and throw the HC away. Doesn't hurt to flick through it now and again.

I for one didn't appreciate the bit about crossing a solid white line to pass a cyclists doing less than 10 mph, as pointed out earlier.

Given that neither of the undermentioned modes of travel have any means of measuring how fast they are going how is it possible to prove that they were exceeding 10mph and that therefore the overtaker has committed an offence?

(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;

saaby93 said:

How long before some bright spark comes up with the idea of DWL cameras

Don't give them ideas.....

[streaky]

Red Devil said:

Vipers said:

GSP said:

Gutted, I always overtake if I can get by without crossing the solid white. Most car people I know presume the solid white means 'no over taking' which is amusing.

Problen us a lot of drivers pass their test, and throw the HC away. Doesn't hurt to flick through it now and again.

I for one didn't appreciate the bit about crossing a solid white line to pass a cyclists doing less than 10 mph, as pointed out earlier.

Given that neither of the undermentioned modes of travel have any means of measuring how fast they are going how is it possible to prove that they were exceeding 10mph and that therefore the overtaker has committed an offence?

(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;

The opinion of a police officer will do in most Magistrates' Courts - Streaky

[Red Devil]

streaky said:

Red Devil said:

Vipers said:

GSP said:

Gutted, I always overtake if I can get by without crossing the solid white. Most car people I know presume the solid white means 'no over taking' which is amusing.

Problen us a lot of drivers pass their test, and throw the HC away. Doesn't hurt to flick through it now and again.

I for one didn't appreciate the bit about crossing a solid white line to pass a cyclists doing less than 10 mph, as pointed out earlier.

Given that neither of the undermentioned modes of travel have any means of measuring how fast they are going how is it possible to prove that they were exceeding 10mph and that therefore the overtaker has committed an offence?

(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;

The opinion of a police officer will do in most Magistrates' Courts - Streaky

Would they need to be from the mounted branch?

[saaby93]

S10 GTA said:

I got stopped the other night on the A326 spur road, after overtaking a tanker. There was a police dog van parked up who stopped me. The road has a tiny bit of dual lane which is where I passed him, although he didn't make it easy which caused me to half cross the double white line. I was given a fixed penalty, but wondered if I could argue the toss because it was just him in his dog van against me. Help?

SS2. said:

TSRGD 2002 said:

(c) owing to circumstances outside the control of the driver;
(d) in order to avoid an accident;

What did the OP mean by the tanker not making it easy?
If the tanker moved over so as the OP was forced over the DWLs would that satisfy (c) and (d)?

[S10 GTA]

Exactly that. He sped up as I passed, and didn't sit over to the left as far as he could, thus causing me to cross the dwl

[Citizen09]

Davidonly said:

Check out the A1 north of Morpeth, same bit of road gone from broken single to double white on numerous sections. No changes other to layout. Infact recently resurfaced is the only other feature. They are dumbing down, simple as that.

In relation to the A1 in Northumberland, AFAIK, it's (relatively speaking) been the scene of quite a few head-on fatals over recent years, which might have something to do with the changes to the white line system there. I know some of the reporting coroners have been drawn to write* to HMG and other parties with an interest in this particular road.

• In respect of increasing the priority for this road to be substantially upgraded to dual carriageway status.

Edited by Citizen09 on Tuesday 9th November 12:55

[Citizen09]

S10 GTA said:

He .. didn't sit over to the left as far as he could, thus causing me to cross the dwl

I would imagine that if you argue that ^ in court, the likely conclusion is that you didn't have sufficient space in the first place.

[Kitchski]

Citizen09 said:

S10 GTA said:

He .. didn't sit over to the left as far as he could, thus causing me to cross the dwl

I would imagine that if you argue that ^ in court, the likely conclusion is that you didn't have sufficient space in the first place.

+1

Gutted Si!

[saaby93]

Citizen09 said:

S10 GTA said:

He .. didn't sit over to the left as far as he could, thus causing me to cross the dwl

I would imagine that if you argue that ^ in court, the likely conclusion is that you didn't have sufficient space in the first place.

Unless it happened half way through the overtake, or at the point he was committed i.e. less than stopping distance to the tanker

[Citizen09]

saaby93 said:

Citizen09 said:

S10 GTA said:

He .. didn't sit over to the left as far as he could, thus causing me to cross the dwl

I would imagine that if you argue that ^ in court, the likely conclusion is that you didn't have sufficient space in the first place.

Unless it happened half way through the overtake, or at the point he was committed i.e. less than stopping distance to the tanker

Then he didn't have enough space in the first place.

[streaky]

Red Devil said:

streaky said:

Red Devil said:

Vipers said:

GSP said:

Gutted, I always overtake if I can get by without crossing the solid white. Most car people I know presume the solid white means 'no over taking' which is amusing.

Problen us a lot of drivers pass their test, and throw the HC away. Doesn't hurt to flick through it now and again.

I for one didn't appreciate the bit about crossing a solid white line to pass a cyclists doing less than 10 mph, as pointed out earlier.

Given that neither of the undermentioned modes of travel have any means of measuring how fast they are going how is it possible to prove that they were exceeding 10mph and that therefore the overtaker has committed an offence?

(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;

The opinion of a police officer will do in most Magistrates' Courts - Streaky

Would they need to be from the mounted branch?

Are we back to Denzil again? [In a manner of speaking. ] - Streaky

[saaby93]

Citizen09 said:

saaby93 said:

Citizen09 said:

S10 GTA said:

He .. didn't sit over to the left as far as he could, thus causing me to cross the dwl

I would imagine that if you argue that ^ in court, the likely conclusion is that you didn't have sufficient space in the first place.

Unless it happened half way through the overtake, or at the point he was committed i.e. less than stopping distance to the tanker

Then he didn't have enough space in the first place.

Without being there, assume he did have enough space to begin the manouvre but the tanker moved out on him after the point where he was committed.