Highway Code Rule 129

[Sherpa Kev]

Just looking for some clarity on 'Highway Code Rule 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 traveling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less].

It mentions stationary vehicles, pedal cycles, horses, and road maintenance vehicles but it omits to mention tractors/farm machinery. I know modern tractors can go at a fair lick but there are still some areas where I live in North Yorkshire where farmers are still using older machines that may be going a lot slower.

How would the police react if I was to overtake a slow moving farm vehicle?

Just as an afterthought, it is the time of year for steam rallies. what about overtaking a steam engine on solid white lines as they are not mentioned in the highway code?

[Vipers]

Having passed a few cyclists at the weekend knowing what the rule said, you have raised an interesting question. I just hope someone knows the answer, also as I was driving slowly, watching the road ahead for my overtake, how on earth am I supposed to know how fast the cyclist is going, but I suppose they need a figure in the rule.

[vonhosen]

Sherpa Kev said:

Just looking for some clarity on 'Highway Code Rule 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 traveling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less].

It mentions stationary vehicles, pedal cycles, horses, and road maintenance vehicles but it omits to mention tractors/farm machinery. I know modern tractors can go at a fair lick but there are still some areas where I live in North Yorkshire where farmers are still using older machines that may be going a lot slower.

How would the police react if I was to overtake a slow moving farm vehicle?

Just as an afterthought, it is the time of year for steam rallies. what about overtaking a steam engine on solid white lines as they are not mentioned in the highway code?

How long is a piece of string?
How they react will be down to the individual & what they've got going on.

There isn't an exemption for when passing farm machinery etc & the exemption for 'road maintenance vehicles' also requires them to have the appropriate keep right arrow on the rear for it to qualify for the exemption when passing them.

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 13th June 20:17

[M4cruiser]

This rule is so specific and detailed that I wouldn't want to (deliberately) contravene it. There must be reasons for al that detail. Also, of course, if anything went wrong, you'd be in deep trouble.

[Vipers]

I can sort of see some logic when you read in conjunction with rule 225 Vehicles with flashing amber beacons.

Wheras 129 says you can cross over to pass a stationary vehicle or overtake a pedel cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph or less -

225 Says on unrestricted dual carriageways motor vehicles first used on or after 1 Jan 1947 with a maximum of 25 mph (such as tractors) MUST use a flashing amber beacon.

So bikes, horse or road maintenance travelling at 10 mph or less, you can cross the white line.

So I am wondering anything moving at more that 10 mph may constitute a hazard if overtaken by crossing the white line, so rather than define length of the vehicle and speed, ie tractor pulling a trailor, its just not mentioned, but anything regardless of length if they move less than 25mph they must have a flashing amber beacon.

Having watched so many dash cams on PH's its may be better to leave it as is, too many idiots already overtaking faster vehicles where they shouldn't.

Then again reading rule 224 Electric Vehicles. Be careful of electric vehicles such as milk floats and trams. Trams move quickly but silently and cannot steer to avoid you, this to me seems to indicate some of the HC wasnt considered when they updated it.

Having read what I have said, I don't think we are any further forward, but again, visibility past a cyclist is much better than trying to see ahead of a slow tractor with a trailor.

If we mention steam rollers and slow moving farm traffic, do we have to mention trucks, (not that you would encounter many of the ),best keep it simple.

Anyway take care out there people.

Edited by Vipers on Tuesday 14th June 17:46

[huytonman]

My twopenth worth - the rule is specific and if you ignore the definition you are on breach of the law. I asked about this rule after completing my last RoSPA test, the examiner was a serving traffic cop and to my question about overtaking, say a cyclist doing 15 mph he said "speed cameras dont know about lines" and then I asked if he was following and saw me overtake what would he do, to this he said if you overtake safely I would be happy with that. He added that the 10mph limit was changed (dropped) some years ago with no justification that he new of so in his eyes it was arbitrary but the law is the law. Now keep in mind that he was a very experienced traffic cop and may react differently to a normal bobby in a diesel astra.plus it was his personal opinion and the next guy may view the situation very differently.

[Vipers]

huytonman said:

My twopenth worth - the rule is specific and if you ignore the definition you are on breach of the law. I asked about this rule after completing my last RoSPA test, the examiner was a serving traffic cop and to my question about overtaking, say a cyclist doing 15 mph he said "speed cameras dont know about lines" and then I asked if he was following and saw me overtake what would he do, to this he said if you overtake safely I would be happy with that. He added that the 10mph limit was changed (dropped) some years ago with no justification that he new of so in his eyes it was arbitrary but the law is the law. Now keep in mind that he was a very experienced traffic cop and may react differently to a normal bobby in a diesel astra.plus it was his personal opinion and the next guy may view the situation very differently.

Thanks for that, but I don't understand the bit about the "He added that the 10mph limit was changed (dropped) some years ago", I thought that had been in the HC for years?

But what he said makes perfect sense.

[huytonman]

Vipers said:

Thanks for that, but I don't understand the bit about the "He added that the 10mph limit was changed (dropped) some years ago", I thought that had been in the HC for years?

But what he said makes perfect sense.

I dont recall when he said it had changed, 20 years back or maybe a bit longer, he was a traffic cop for 30 years so presumably during that time.

[Vipers]

huytonman said:

Vipers said:

Thanks for that, but I don't understand the bit about the "He added that the 10mph limit was changed (dropped) some years ago", I thought that had been in the HC for years?

But what he said makes perfect sense.

I dont recall when he said it had changed, 20 years back or maybe a bit longer, he was a traffic cop for 30 years so presumably during that time.

Thank you.

[IJWS15]

The traffic officer was wrong.

Highway Code references TSRGD 2016 which includes on page 167/8

"(5) Nothing in sub-paragraph (1)(b) 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."

As a cyclist I am regularly passed by drivers who cross double lines while I am doing over 10mph - I have a speedo on my cycle computer. How does the driver know how fast I am going - he should use his speedo.

Do I object to them doing this or will I report them - no . . . . . as long as they leave the proper gap.

If this rule was enforced it really would piss the motorists off.

[Vipers]

IJWS15 said:

The traffic officer was wrong.

As a cyclist I am regularly passed by drivers who cross double lines while I am doing over 10mph - I have a speedo on my cycle computer. How does the driver know how fast I am going - he should use his speedo.

Do I object to them doing this or will I report them - no . . . . . as long as they leave the proper gap.

If this rule was enforced it really would piss the motorists off.

Good post, as a cyclist and car driver, if I am behind a cyclist looking for a safe passing place, I am not looking at my Speedo to work out your speed, too busy checking the road both ahead and behind.

[Sherpa Kev]

Let's push this a little further. Presuming the road is clear, would you follow a cyclist or tractor traveling at 20mph on this section of road with a double solid white line system in place and a clear view to the tree line in the distance?
For me, I can't even understand why the solid lines are even there.

[Solocle]

Sherpa Kev said:

Let's push this a little further. Presuming the road is clear, would you follow a cyclist or tractor traveling at 20mph on this section of road with a double solid white line system in place and a clear view to the tree line in the distance?
For me, I can't even understand why the solid lines are even there.

Here's the local section of excessive double white lines, on the A30. Their raison d'être is the blind summit about halfway through. There are definitely opportunities to safely overtake a cyclist doing more than 10 mph.

And as for one with actual overtakes, how about the A31 Trunk Road?

I think the core issue is shared with a lot of road infrastructure. Cyclists aren't considered. You have a place where it's risky to overtake slowpoke motorists, and traffic density such that crashes occur, and bam, double white lines.

[whiteyB]

Sherpa Kev said:

Let's push this a little further. Presuming the road is clear, would you follow a cyclist or tractor traveling at 20mph on this section of road with a double solid white line system in place and a clear view to the tree line in the distance?
For me, I can't even understand why the solid lines are even there.

Yes, the rule is clear cut so I would follow. Even if I thought the solid line shouldn't be there and I could safely overtake, I'm not going to break the law.

[Pica-Pica]

IJWS15 said:

As a cyclist I am regularly passed by drivers who cross double lines while I am doing over 10mph - I have a speedo on my cycle computer. How does the driver know how fast I am going - he should use his speedo.

Do I object to them doing this or will I report them - no . . . . . as long as they leave the proper gap.

If this rule was enforced it really would piss the motorists off.

Speedometers are only validly regulated above 40kph (approx. 25 mph). Speedometer start markings can be at 10mph or 20 mph.
UNECE reg 39

[Dixy]

To be enforced traffic signage has to comply with the regulations. Continuous whit lines are laid out in Chapter 5 TSM. Many do not comply, the whole section states that they should not be used so freely that they are widely ignored, there are strict rules about the minimum width of the carriage way and the visibility distance at the designated speed limit, many are far from compliant.
We have a situation near us with both continuous white lines and a sign saying beware on coming traffic in the middle of the road.

[Sherpa Kev]

whiteyB said:

Sherpa Kev said:

Let's push this a little further. Presuming the road is clear, would you follow a cyclist or tractor traveling at 20mph on this section of road with a double solid white line system in place and a clear view to the tree line in the distance?
For me, I can't even understand why the solid lines are even there.

Yes, the rule is clear cut so I would follow. Even if I thought the solid line shouldn't be there and I could safely overtake, I'm not going to break the law.

So observing the road layout, it is an easy NSL and approaching the rear of the cyclist at 60mph. There is nothing oncoming.
Are you going to slow down behind the cyclist and go at his pace to determine whether you can overtake legally?

PS. I'm not looking for an argument, just looking for other people's opinions.

[Mave]

The basic rule of the double white lines is "no overtaking". As I understand it, the purpose of the exceptions is to recognise that there are scenarios such as stationary, or exceptionally slow traffic, that this rule might bring the road to a standstill - the exceptions are there to prevent this situation.

If you've got a regular cyclist travelling along a flat, or downhill road, you don't need to slow down to their speed to find out if they're doing more than 10mph as they probably are doing more than 10mph. I don't think that overtaking a regular cyclist is one of the circumstances which the exception was envisaged for.

If you've got a cyclist grinding up a hill in a low gear however, then they probably aren't doing 10 mph, and I think that this is one of the situations the exception was envisaged for.

[Solocle]

Mave said:

The basic rule of the double white lines is "no overtaking". As I understand it, the purpose of the exceptions is to recognise that there are scenarios such as stationary, or exceptionally slow traffic, that this rule might bring the road to a standstill - the exceptions are there to prevent this situation.

If you've got a regular cyclist travelling along a flat, or downhill road, you don't need to slow down to their speed to find out if they're doing more than 10mph as they probably are doing more than 10mph. I don't think that overtaking a regular cyclist is one of the circumstances which the exception was envisaged for.

If you've got a cyclist grinding up a hill in a low gear however, then they probably aren't doing 10 mph, and I think that this is one of the situations the exception was envisaged for.

Problem is that that's as envisaged for the legislation.

Whereas the problem being envisaged by the drafters of the TROs all too often is idiot motorists overtaking other motorists doing far more than 10 mph. Hence the double white lines where you can quite safely overtake a cyclist who is doing 20 mph.

[Mave]

Solocle said:

Mave said:

The basic rule of the double white lines is "no overtaking". As I understand it, the purpose of the exceptions is to recognise that there are scenarios such as stationary, or exceptionally slow traffic, that this rule might bring the road to a standstill - the exceptions are there to prevent this situation.

If you've got a regular cyclist travelling along a flat, or downhill road, you don't need to slow down to their speed to find out if they're doing more than 10mph as they probably are doing more than 10mph. I don't think that overtaking a regular cyclist is one of the circumstances which the exception was envisaged for.

If you've got a cyclist grinding up a hill in a low gear however, then they probably aren't doing 10 mph, and I think that this is one of the situations the exception was envisaged for.

Problem is that that's as envisaged for the legislation.

Whereas the problem being envisaged by the drafters of the TROs all too often is idiot motorists overtaking other motorists doing far more than 10 mph. Hence the double white lines where you can quite safely overtake a cyclist who is doing 20 mph.

I agree. But to the question posed - ie whether or not you need to slow down to the speed of the cyclist to determine if its legal to overtake them, no I don't think it is. They are probably doing over 10mph so it's probably illegal to overtake them, safe or not.