Highway Code Rule 129

[Vipers]

Mave said:

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.

And the other question is would you bother to even look at what speed you are doing keeping up with the cyclist, I would be looking ahead and behind planning a safe overtake.

[Somewhatfoolish]

Sherpa Kev said:

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?

Ah yes, constantly held up by traction engines me. Practically every decade. An absolute bloody menance they are.

[Vipers]

Somewhatfoolish said:

Sherpa Kev said:

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?

Ah yes, constantly held up by traction engines me. Practically every decade. An absolute bloody menance they are.

Would you overtake a low loader (long trailer) doing 10 mph?

A bike is relatively small in terms of passing quickly and getting back in your lane as is a horse, you have to draw a line somewhere.

As a lot of drivers break the rules daily I suppose they would pass it, but don't t moan when you get a ticket.

[robemcdonald]

The rule everyone seems to have missed if169

If you’re a slow moving vehicle holding up traffic you need to pull over to facilitate faster vehicles overtaking.

If this rule is followed then the other one shouldn’t be an issue.

[vonhosen]

robemcdonald said:

The rule everyone seems to have missed if169

If you’re a slow moving vehicle holding up traffic you need to pull over to facilitate faster vehicles overtaking.

If this rule is followed then the other one shouldn’t be an issue.

They've got to have somewhere safe to pull over & they are not expected to do it as soon as they have another vehicle behind but only reasonably periodically (the highway code only says when you have a long queue behind & what's long defined as?)

[robemcdonald]

vonhosen said:

robemcdonald said:

The rule everyone seems to have missed if169

If you’re a slow moving vehicle holding up traffic you need to pull over to facilitate faster vehicles overtaking.

If this rule is followed then the other one shouldn’t be an issue.

They've got to have somewhere safe to pull over & they are not expected to do it as soon as they have another vehicle behind but only reasonably periodically (the highway code only says when you have a long queue behind & what's long defined as?)

I would say let traffic pass at every opportunity.

The Highway Code needs to be viewed as a holistic set of rules. Looking at them individually won’t provide a definitive answer in most cases.

[donkmeister]

Somewhatfoolish said:

Sherpa Kev said:

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?

Ah yes, constantly held up by traction engines me. Practically every decade. An absolute bloody menance they are.

Many of this country's main roads were improved from their turnpike era to more or less what we have now with the use of steam power. Traction engines for haulage, steam shovels for digging, steam rollers for compaction and no doubt many many other steam powered plant.

So any steam engine on the road could conceivably be a road maintenance vehicle to those of us who don't know all about them. Overtake away!

[vonhosen]

robemcdonald said:

vonhosen said:

robemcdonald said:

The rule everyone seems to have missed if169

If you’re a slow moving vehicle holding up traffic you need to pull over to facilitate faster vehicles overtaking.

If this rule is followed then the other one shouldn’t be an issue.

They've got to have somewhere safe to pull over & they are not expected to do it as soon as they have another vehicle behind but only reasonably periodically (the highway code only says when you have a long queue behind & what's long defined as?)

I would say let traffic pass at every opportunity.

The Highway Code needs to be viewed as a holistic set of rules. Looking at them individually won’t provide a definitive answer in most cases.

I disagree that it's pull over at every opportunity or when any vehicle is behind, so where does that leave us?

[robemcdonald]

With rule 168. Never obstruct vehicles trying to overtake.

If you’re not pulling over when you could you’re causing an obstruction and contravening rule 168.

[Solocle]

vonhosen said:

I disagree that it's pull over at every opportunity or when any vehicle is behind, so where does that leave us?

Indeed. When cycling, I consider the following:

• Safety
• Legality
• Advantage

A gravelly driveway isn't a safe opportunity.

As for this layby here, I went cycling right past it. Why?
No advantage to traffic behind, which was using the dedicated overtaking lane. And keeping a high speed of 25-30 mph was how I was coping with that short section of road. Pulling into the layby or off at some of the access slips, would have meant slowing to a stop, and therefore being on the dual carriageway for considerably longer. Whereas, had a queue accumulated behind, that would actually have been a possible safety feature.

When appropriate, I do pull over - but the judgement of that lies with the driver of the slow vehicle.

[vonhosen]

robemcdonald said:

With rule 168. Never obstruct vehicles trying to overtake.

If you’re not pulling over when you could you’re causing an obstruction and contravening rule 168.

That's your interpretation, not one I share.
Again where does that leave us, if we interpret it differently?

[Solocle]

vonhosen said:

That's your interpretation, not one I share.
Again where does that leave us, if we interpret it differently?

I assume he always pulls in at laybys and driveways when someone wants to overtake him when driving

[robemcdonald]

https://youtu.be/FzOv14fA-BI

[Oilchange]

robemcdonald said:

With rule 168. Never obstruct vehicles trying to overtake.

If you’re not pulling over when you could you’re causing an obstruction and contravening rule 168.

I wish the guys that push me out further or accelerate as I overtake would take heed...

[vonhosen]

robemcdonald said:

https://youtu.be/FzOv14fA-BI

But it's you that's out of step with those that enforce it.
The DSA, the Police, the CPS & the courts don't share your interpretation.
You're the outlier.

Their interpretation is what ultimately matters & affects us.
Your (or my) individual interpretation doesn't count for much.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 23 July 19:30

[robemcdonald]

vonhosen said:

robemcdonald said:

https://youtu.be/FzOv14fA-BI

But it's you that's out of step with those that enforce it.
The DSA, the Police, the CPS & the courts don't share your interpretation.
You're the outlier.

Isn’t it a hypothetical situation?

Where’s your evidence?

[vonhosen]

robemcdonald said:

vonhosen said:

robemcdonald said:

https://youtu.be/FzOv14fA-BI

But it's you that's out of step with those that enforce it.
The DSA, the Police, the CPS & the courts don't share your interpretation.
You're the outlier.

Isn’t it a hypothetical situation?

Where’s your evidence?

Experience of having worked in the above fields (enforcement, DSA training & testing) for four decades.

Yours?

[robemcdonald]

vonhosen said:

robemcdonald said:

vonhosen said:

robemcdonald said:

https://youtu.be/FzOv14fA-BI

But it's you that's out of step with those that enforce it.
The DSA, the Police, the CPS & the courts don't share your interpretation.
You're the outlier.

Isn’t it a hypothetical situation?

Where’s your evidence?

Experience of having worked in the above fields (enforcement, DSA training & testing) for four decades.

Yours?

So can you give details of a case where someone was prosecuted for crossing a double white line to overtake a cyclist that had failed to give way and let faster vehicles overtake?

As for me I used to be an advisor in the IAM, but stopped when I had kids.

[vonhosen]

robemcdonald said:

vonhosen said:

robemcdonald said:

vonhosen said:

robemcdonald said:

https://youtu.be/FzOv14fA-BI

But it's you that's out of step with those that enforce it.
The DSA, the Police, the CPS & the courts don't share your interpretation.
You're the outlier.

Isn’t it a hypothetical situation?

Where’s your evidence?

Experience of having worked in the above fields (enforcement, DSA training & testing) for four decades.

Yours?

So can you give details of a case where someone was prosecuted for crossing a double white line to overtake a cyclist that had failed to give way and let faster vehicles overtake?

Eh?

What's that got to do with what we were talking about?

The law is clear in relation to solid white lines & passing cyclists, it's not open to interpretation, it's pretty black/white.
Individual officers have discretion in case disposal but that doesn't alter the law.

We were talking about people not pulling over as soon as they've got somebody who wants to travel faster behind them.

robemcdonald said:

As for me I used to be an advisor in the IAM, but stopped when I had kids.

Advisor in what capacity?
What were you advising them about?
Or do you mean you were a (volunteer) observer in the IAM rather than a professional advisor?

[robemcdonald]

vonhosen said:

robemcdonald said:

vonhosen said:

robemcdonald said:

vonhosen said:

robemcdonald said:

https://youtu.be/FzOv14fA-BI

But it's you that's out of step with those that enforce it.
The DSA, the Police, the CPS & the courts don't share your interpretation.
You're the outlier.

Isn’t it a hypothetical situation?

Where’s your evidence?

Experience of having worked in the above fields (enforcement, DSA training & testing) for four decades.

Yours?

So can you give details of a case where someone was prosecuted for crossing a double white line to overtake a cyclist that had failed to give way and let faster vehicles overtake?

Eh?

What's that got to do with what we were talking about?

The law is clear in relation to solid white lines & passing cyclists, it's not open to interpretation, it's pretty black/white.
Individual officers have discretion in case disposal but that doesn't alter the law.

We were talking about people not pulling over as soon as they've got somebody who wants to travel faster behind them.

robemcdonald said:

As for me I used to be an advisor in the IAM, but stopped when I had kids.

Advisor in what capacity?
What were you advising them about?
Or do you mean you were a (volunteer) observer in the IAM rather than a professional advisor?

Yes I was a volunteer. They are typically called observers., but the group I was in called them advisors for some historical reason, I don’t know why.

I’ll see if I can find the badge for the record.