Discussion
RULE 130 "Areas of white diagonal stripes or chevrons painted on the road. These are to separate traffic lanes or to protect traffic turning right.
If the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so.
If the area is marked with chevrons and bordered by solid white lines you MUST NOT enter it except in an emergency.
Laws MT(E&W)R regs 5, 9, 10 & 16, MT(S)R regs 4, 8, 9 & 14, RTA sect 36 & TSRGD 10(1)"
Around my way dashed or dotted lines in the centre of the road have been replaced with a dashed set of lines either side of a very narrow strip of diagonal white stripes. Long sections of very straight roads with good visibility otherwise.
I made the mistake of doing an overtake with an 'unmarked' two cars behind. He pulled me over to say it was not permissible to cross the area for the overtake.
Apparently the 'necessary' stated in rule 130 which covers these areas does not include overtaking.
Any comments?
If the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so.
If the area is marked with chevrons and bordered by solid white lines you MUST NOT enter it except in an emergency.
Laws MT(E&W)R regs 5, 9, 10 & 16, MT(S)R regs 4, 8, 9 & 14, RTA sect 36 & TSRGD 10(1)"
Around my way dashed or dotted lines in the centre of the road have been replaced with a dashed set of lines either side of a very narrow strip of diagonal white stripes. Long sections of very straight roads with good visibility otherwise.
I made the mistake of doing an overtake with an 'unmarked' two cars behind. He pulled me over to say it was not permissible to cross the area for the overtake.
Apparently the 'necessary' stated in rule 130 which covers these areas does not include overtaking.
Any comments?
I had this question come up on an Advanced Driving Course I recently did and the answer (from the instructor) was "The markings are there to discourage you from overtaking, and ideally you shouldn't [overtake]. But there's no specific offence [of entering the hatched area] committed if you do.
I wonder what set of criteria for "necessary" would be put in front of the court?
If its not defined in the highway code and there is an absence of such a definition in public common knowledge then your own judgment of 'necessary' and 'safe' should be sufficient?
If not then the road design should have been a solid white line to remove that personal judgement.
Hopefully a member of the bill or our friendly practitioners in law can also make a comment on this.
edit to add : Agtlaw has already replied
If its not defined in the highway code and there is an absence of such a definition in public common knowledge then your own judgment of 'necessary' and 'safe' should be sufficient?
If not then the road design should have been a solid white line to remove that personal judgement.
Hopefully a member of the bill or our friendly practitioners in law can also make a comment on this.
edit to add : Agtlaw has already replied
The two coppers, took issue with the standard of my driving. They were in a brown range rover.
They told my I was repeatedly overtaking, and therefore they had trouble catching me. They formed the opinion I was obviously over the limit. They were happy with the first overtake M5 vs Quasqhi, not so happy with the second overtake because I travelled across those markings on the overtake, and this is when they decided to stop me. They also weren't happy that I preceeded along NSL road till I found a quiet left turn about 500yds after the lights went on to stop me.
Because the opening gambit was that 'they had trouble catching me', and there were two of them I was pretty much banged to rights.
I wasn't going to argue I was above the speed limit on the overtakes, because I make no secret of the fact I think thats sensible.
In the end I simply passed the attitude test by not arguing any of the points they posed, and simply appologising.
However since I have continued to overtake on said hatchings as my interpretation of 'necessary' includes the need from me to overtake.
Obviously I'm asking for a pull if the same bob sees me again, but wanted to know what would have happened if they had argued that in court.
Twas here
They told my I was repeatedly overtaking, and therefore they had trouble catching me. They formed the opinion I was obviously over the limit. They were happy with the first overtake M5 vs Quasqhi, not so happy with the second overtake because I travelled across those markings on the overtake, and this is when they decided to stop me. They also weren't happy that I preceeded along NSL road till I found a quiet left turn about 500yds after the lights went on to stop me.
Because the opening gambit was that 'they had trouble catching me', and there were two of them I was pretty much banged to rights.
I wasn't going to argue I was above the speed limit on the overtakes, because I make no secret of the fact I think thats sensible.
In the end I simply passed the attitude test by not arguing any of the points they posed, and simply appologising.
However since I have continued to overtake on said hatchings as my interpretation of 'necessary' includes the need from me to overtake.
Obviously I'm asking for a pull if the same bob sees me again, but wanted to know what would have happened if they had argued that in court.
Twas here
Edited by julian64 on Thursday 17th September 14:31
If it's got the curvy arrows pointing left just before the white chevrons they mean "don't overtake over the next markings", I never knew this until someone posted a link to a pdf on here a while back which I'm trying to find now...
edit - kinda...
Link to thread
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Link to regulations
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/sched...
(it's 1014 a third of the way down the page)
Though reading it back it's a 'should' rather than a 'must' so looks like I'm talking nonsense!
edit - kinda...
Link to thread
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Link to regulations
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/sched...
(it's 1014 a third of the way down the page)
Though reading it back it's a 'should' rather than a 'must' so looks like I'm talking nonsense!
Edited by FunkyNige on Thursday 17th September 14:45
Have to admit, I don't overtake on chevrons due to the 'necessary' wording in the HC. I've never fancied my chances of arguing that an overtake was necessary, which I assume a magistrate would view that wording to mean (as opposed to necessary to enter to overtake). Even if I'm right, I just don't fancy risking an appeal or hiring a solicitor to defend me and taking the same gamble.
Yup, just paint me white, perm my hair and call me Shaun.
Yup, just paint me white, perm my hair and call me Shaun.
julian64 said:
The two coppers, took issue with the standard of my driving. They were in a brown range rover.
They told my I was repeatedly overtaking, and therefore they had trouble catching me. They formed the opinion I was obviously over the limit. They were happy with the first overtake M5 vs Quasqhi, not so happy with the second overtake because I travelled across those markings on the overtake, and this is when they decided to stop me. They also weren't happy that I preceeded along NSL road till I found a quiet left turn about 500yds after the lights went on to stop me.
Because the opening gambit was that 'they had trouble catching me', and there were two of them I was pretty much banged to rights.
I wasn't going to argue I was above the speed limit on the overtakes, because I make no secret of the fact I think thats sensible.
In the end I simply passed the attitude test by not arguing any of the points they posed, and simply appologising.
However since I have continued to overtake on said hatchings as my interpretation of 'necessary' includes the need from me to overtake.
Obviously I'm asking for a pull if the same bob sees me again, but wanted to know what would have happened if they had argued that in court.
Twas here
It's a "should not" rather than a "must not" rule, therefore whether it was necessary or not has no legal bearing. They cannot prosecute you for crossing those lines or for overtaking as neither is illegal. There is nothing stopping them trying to pin speeding or driving without due care on you if they really wanted to charge you with something, but they'd have a much harder time making them stick.They told my I was repeatedly overtaking, and therefore they had trouble catching me. They formed the opinion I was obviously over the limit. They were happy with the first overtake M5 vs Quasqhi, not so happy with the second overtake because I travelled across those markings on the overtake, and this is when they decided to stop me. They also weren't happy that I preceeded along NSL road till I found a quiet left turn about 500yds after the lights went on to stop me.
Because the opening gambit was that 'they had trouble catching me', and there were two of them I was pretty much banged to rights.
I wasn't going to argue I was above the speed limit on the overtakes, because I make no secret of the fact I think thats sensible.
In the end I simply passed the attitude test by not arguing any of the points they posed, and simply appologising.
However since I have continued to overtake on said hatchings as my interpretation of 'necessary' includes the need from me to overtake.
Obviously I'm asking for a pull if the same bob sees me again, but wanted to know what would have happened if they had argued that in court.
Twas here
(AFAIK - IANAL)
The problem is that I think it would have been my birthday if they had actually put that down as the offence under undo care and attention or some such. Despite the fact this was what they admitted had caused the pull, the opening comment was that of having to catch me up.
The offence would have been speeding corroborated by two officers opinions in an unmarked car. I would have been toast.
I would only have the car cam to show that I was behind cars travelling at, or very near the legal limit, and that the overtake for the time it took to go past would have been above the limit for less than 5 seconds.
Still toast. In fact to my mind always toast on an overtake which is why I'm normally careful to identify the cars around.
The offence would have been speeding corroborated by two officers opinions in an unmarked car. I would have been toast.
I would only have the car cam to show that I was behind cars travelling at, or very near the legal limit, and that the overtake for the time it took to go past would have been above the limit for less than 5 seconds.
Still toast. In fact to my mind always toast on an overtake which is why I'm normally careful to identify the cars around.
OP - you actually started a similar thread a few months ago.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=7&a...
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=7&a...
agtlaw said:
OP - you actually started a similar thread a few months ago.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=7&a...
Give him a break, it was last year that he got stopped for the exact same "offence" http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=7&a...
agtlaw said:
OP - you actually started a similar thread a few months ago.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=7&a...
Yep its senility setting in. http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=7&a...
MagicalTrevor said:
I'd have absolutely no issues with overtaking there. All except the junction to the RHS which is pretty clearly sighted for traffic that might join. I'd probably elect to go for it after the junction though.
Agreed - absolutely safer to avoid anything coming out of the junction turning left and looking right - as is very often the case.As young Mark states in a commentary drive "More white = more (starts with sh and rhymes with white)...
BOF
julian64 said:
Despite the fact this was what they admitted had caused the pull, the opening comment was that of having to catch me up.
I would only have the car cam to show that I was behind cars travelling at, or very near the legal limit, and that the overtake for the time it took to go past would have been above the limit for less than 5 seconds.
Sorry officer but I had to go faster than the speed limit so I could overtake someone who was holding me up by only going as fast as the speed limit for that road allows.I would only have the car cam to show that I was behind cars travelling at, or very near the legal limit, and that the overtake for the time it took to go past would have been above the limit for less than 5 seconds.
Yeah, sounds like you wouldn't have had a leg to stand on.
I think they wanted to draw attention to your overall action and give you a friendly warning rather than report you for anything.
If the person in front had been doing significantly under the limit and you overtook just over the limit they might have left you alone.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff