Highway Code Rule 129
Discussion
robemcdonald said:
vonhosen said:
robemcdonald said:
vonhosen said:
robemcdonald said:
vonhosen said:
robemcdonald said:
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.
Where’s your evidence?
Yours?
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?
I’ll see if I can find the badge for the record.
I believe you.
robemcdonald said:
vonhosen said:
robemcdonald said:
That’s really inconvenient as it was to be a mic drop for me.
How's that?
Look I’ll see if I can find it and we’ll go from there.
I believe you if you say you were a member of the IAM & an observer for them.
I'm just failing to see how it's some kind of mic drop moment.
I happen to agree with Vonhosen. Although it’s a shame he’s correct – otherwise, cars would pull into lay-bys to let my motorcycle overtake them 
robemcdonald said:
Annoyingly the badge wasn’t where I thought it was.
That’s really inconvenient as it was to be a mic drop
I’m afraid several people have qualifications considerably higher than an IAM Observer certification. Vonhosen is one of them (he has been a police advanced instructor).That’s really inconvenient as it was to be a mic drop
robemcdonald said:
vonhosen said:
robemcdonald said:
That’s really inconvenient as it was to be a mic drop for me.
How's that?
Look I’ll see if I can find it and we’ll go from there.
That’s all good, I will always defer to someone with greater knowledge than me.
Also I’m not really up for a PH pile on, but just for clarity I was only referring to what the Highway Code actually says.
Not really my opinion, just well, you know, facts….
It’s meaningless anyway as it’s a hypothetical situation..
Also I’m not really up for a PH pile on, but just for clarity I was only referring to what the Highway Code actually says.
Not really my opinion, just well, you know, facts….
It’s meaningless anyway as it’s a hypothetical situation..
robemcdonald said:
Not really my opinion, just well, you know, facts….
I'm sorry, but that's not what you were doing, you were presenting your opinion as fact.Your interpretation of what the Highway Code was saying in relation to pulling over to allow faster vehicles to pass.
You were effectively stating that the rule required slower vehicles to pull over at every opportunity to allow any faster vehicle to pass.
I was saying not every opportunity & to do so where long queues were starting to develop.
I believed (my interpretation), that you were attributing things to it that simply weren't written into it.
After all the rules being spoken about are not 'MUST' rules, unlike the crossing of solid white lines which are 'MUST' rules, more prescriptive & not so open to interpretation.
Example.
You said
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.
You evidently read that as vehicles simply following & waiting for an opportunity to overtake.If you’re not pulling over when you could you’re causing an obstruction and contravening rule 168.
I take that as not actively physically obstructing those that are in the act of actually carrying out an overtake, more than just waiting to.
I also said that ultimately our (your & mine) individual interpretations of things that aren't written very specifically, won't count for much or matter to others.
What will matter is how the authorities interpret the written word & apply it in practice.
That will have an effect on others.
Anyway.
Have a good day.
That’s really interesting.
When I read the two rules:
Rule 168
Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous. Drop back to maintain a two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in front of you.
Rule 169
Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass.
To me it seems pretty black and white.
It’s not something you could ever test I guess as anyone unaware enough to attempt that sort of overtake whilst being followed by a police vehicle would have probably made a number of other mistakes too.
When I read the two rules:
Rule 168
Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous. Drop back to maintain a two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in front of you.
Rule 169
Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass.
To me it seems pretty black and white.
It’s not something you could ever test I guess as anyone unaware enough to attempt that sort of overtake whilst being followed by a police vehicle would have probably made a number of other mistakes too.
robemcdonald said:
Rule 169
Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass.
To me it seems pretty black and white.
For it to be as you're interpreting it (for me to interpret it in such a way) it would have to sayDo not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass.
To me it seems pretty black and white.
Rule 169
Do not hold up any traffic, whatever vehicle you are driving/riding. Check your mirrors frequently & pull in at any safe opportunity to let them pass.
robemcdonald said:
It’s not something you could ever test I guess as anyone unaware enough to attempt that sort of overtake whilst being followed by a police vehicle would have probably made a number of other mistakes too.
You wouldn't believe the clueless unaware 
that I've seen people do in front of me when driving a Police vehicle.robemcdonald said:
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.
Referring to "give way" implies "priority". Do you really think a following vehicle has priority over a vehicle in road user in front of them? As for me I used to be an advisor in the IAM, but stopped when I had kids.
Mave said:
robemcdonald said:
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.
Referring to "give way" implies "priority". Do you really think a following vehicle has priority over a vehicle in road user in front of them? As for me I used to be an advisor in the IAM, but stopped when I had kids.
robemcdonald said:
Mave said:
robemcdonald said:
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.
Referring to "give way" implies "priority". Do you really think a following vehicle has priority over a vehicle in road user in front of them? As for me I used to be an advisor in the IAM, but stopped when I had kids.
Anyway, in an advanced driving section of the forum, I think it's reasonable to try to understand why a highway code rule has been interpreted differently, don't you?
Edited by Mave on Thursday 28th July 18:41
The H/C clearly states you must not over take something if going faster than 10MPH.
I suspect the law was made when butchers bikes were around and they didn't pedal faster than that!
MAMILS (middle aged men in Lycra) are often a fair bit faster than that, and block the road. I had this last week between Ringwood and Salisbury. The tail back was very long. They had ample places to pull over and didn't. This made for some overtakes putting themselves at risk and the drivers potentially in trouble if an accident had occurred.
Some one mentioned earlier asked a traffic cop what he would do if he saw this happening. He would apply discretion. If the over take was on a bend, and dangerous, I suspect he would take action. If it was reasonable I suspect he would ignore.
We all have a responsibility to our selves (cyclists) and other road users who are held up by them. Trouble is everyone is always in a rush, and has little consideration to other road users. In my example the annoying thing for me is that parallel to the Ringwood/Salisbury road is a Wiltshire cycle suggested route which is far nicer to cycle on, less hazards, less traffic etc... Shame they didn't use it.
I suspect the law was made when butchers bikes were around and they didn't pedal faster than that!
MAMILS (middle aged men in Lycra) are often a fair bit faster than that, and block the road. I had this last week between Ringwood and Salisbury. The tail back was very long. They had ample places to pull over and didn't. This made for some overtakes putting themselves at risk and the drivers potentially in trouble if an accident had occurred.
Some one mentioned earlier asked a traffic cop what he would do if he saw this happening. He would apply discretion. If the over take was on a bend, and dangerous, I suspect he would take action. If it was reasonable I suspect he would ignore.
We all have a responsibility to our selves (cyclists) and other road users who are held up by them. Trouble is everyone is always in a rush, and has little consideration to other road users. In my example the annoying thing for me is that parallel to the Ringwood/Salisbury road is a Wiltshire cycle suggested route which is far nicer to cycle on, less hazards, less traffic etc... Shame they didn't use it.
Majorslow said:
The H/C clearly states you must not over take something if going faster than 10MPH.
I suspect the law was made when butchers bikes were around and they didn't pedal faster than that!
MAMILS (middle aged men in Lycra) are often a fair bit faster than that, and block the road. I had this last week between Ringwood and Salisbury. The tail back was very long. They had ample places to pull over and didn't. This made for some overtakes putting themselves at risk and the drivers potentially in trouble if an accident had occurred.
Some one mentioned earlier asked a traffic cop what he would do if he saw this happening. He would apply discretion. If the over take was on a bend, and dangerous, I suspect he would take action. If it was reasonable I suspect he would ignore.
We all have a responsibility to our selves (cyclists) and other road users who are held up by them. Trouble is everyone is always in a rush, and has little consideration to other road users. In my example the annoying thing for me is that parallel to the Ringwood/Salisbury road is a Wiltshire cycle suggested route which is far nicer to cycle on, less hazards, less traffic etc... Shame they didn't use it.
And quite a bit slower by being more disjointed. When I cycled that stretch as part of a 200 mile ride, I used the A338. Although I didn't see many cars around either...I suspect the law was made when butchers bikes were around and they didn't pedal faster than that!
MAMILS (middle aged men in Lycra) are often a fair bit faster than that, and block the road. I had this last week between Ringwood and Salisbury. The tail back was very long. They had ample places to pull over and didn't. This made for some overtakes putting themselves at risk and the drivers potentially in trouble if an accident had occurred.
Some one mentioned earlier asked a traffic cop what he would do if he saw this happening. He would apply discretion. If the over take was on a bend, and dangerous, I suspect he would take action. If it was reasonable I suspect he would ignore.
We all have a responsibility to our selves (cyclists) and other road users who are held up by them. Trouble is everyone is always in a rush, and has little consideration to other road users. In my example the annoying thing for me is that parallel to the Ringwood/Salisbury road is a Wiltshire cycle suggested route which is far nicer to cycle on, less hazards, less traffic etc... Shame they didn't use it.
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.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff