Definition of overtaking

[Dr Jekyll]

Suppose I moved out to overtake a vehicle on the approach to a 'no overtaking sign', got past before the sign, but returned to the left hand side of the road after passing the sign. Leaving aside the question of whether there would be sufficient visibility for this, would it be legal? I reckon so, but certain others reckon the overtake wouldn't be complete until I'd returned to the left.

[Stay in Bed Instead]

Any solid lines in the middle of the road?

[Dr Jekyll]

No.

[zzrman]

Dr Jekyll said:

Suppose I moved out to overtake a vehicle on the approach to a 'no overtaking sign', got past before the sign, but returned to the left hand side of the road after passing the sign. Leaving aside the question of whether there would be sufficient visibility for this, would it be legal? I reckon so, but certain others reckon the overtake wouldn't be complete until I'd returned to the left.

FWIW I reckon the "certain others" are right.

[Solocle]

I believe that overtaking in such zones is similarly defined to zebra crossings:

ZPPCRGD said:

Whilst any motor vehicle (in this regulation called “the approaching vehicle”) or any part of it is within the limits of a controlled area and is proceeding towards the crossing, the driver of the vehicle shall not cause it or any part of it—

(a)to pass ahead of the foremost part of any other motor vehicle proceeding in the same direction; or

So if you've already overtaken, without solid white lines, it's probably fine.

[Dr Jekyll]

Solocle said:

I believe that overtaking in such zones is similarly defined to zebra crossings:

ZPPCRGD said:

Whilst any motor vehicle (in this regulation called “the approaching vehicle”) or any part of it is within the limits of a controlled area and is proceeding towards the crossing, the driver of the vehicle shall not cause it or any part of it—

(a)to pass ahead of the foremost part of any other motor vehicle proceeding in the same direction; or

So if you've already overtaken, without solid white lines, it's probably fine.

That's what I thought. nothing specifically illegal about being over the centre line in a 'No Overtaking' restriction.

[Stay in Bed Instead]

Dr Jekyll said:

That's what I thought. nothing specifically illegal about being over the centre line in a 'No Overtaking' restriction.

But presumably it's there for a reason, so even being over the white line could be considered driving without due care and attention. Probably depends on the context of any incident.

[The Mad Monk]

Dr Jekyll said:

Suppose I moved out to overtake a vehicle on the approach to a 'no overtaking sign', got past before the sign, but returned to the left hand side of the road after passing the sign. Leaving aside the question of whether there would be sufficient visibility for this, would it be legal? I reckon so, but certain others reckon the overtake wouldn't be complete until I'd returned to the left.

Why do you ask?

[Dynion Araf Uchaf]

Of course if would be wrong.

If you approach a 40mph zone whilst in a 50, you have to slow down to 40 befor you get to the sign. Otherwise you are speeding. Equally in your scenario if you have not completed the manoeuvre before the sign then you have broken the traffic law. Look at it this way,how successful do you think you’ll be in defending yourself in an accident in your hypotheses. Crashing into a car before you had completed the manoeuvre? You are supposed to minimise the risk when you are driving!

[Dr Jekyll]

The Mad Monk said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Suppose I moved out to overtake a vehicle on the approach to a 'no overtaking sign', got past before the sign, but returned to the left hand side of the road after passing the sign. Leaving aside the question of whether there would be sufficient visibility for this, would it be legal? I reckon so, but certain others reckon the overtake wouldn't be complete until I'd returned to the left.

Why do you ask?

It seemed an interesting discussion.

[Dr Jekyll]

Dynion Araf Uchaf said:

Of course if would be wrong.

If you approach a 40mph zone whilst in a 50, you have to slow down to 40 befor you get to the sign. Otherwise you are speeding. Equally in your scenario if you have not completed the manoeuvre before the sign then you have broken the traffic law. Look at it this way,how successful do you think you’ll be in defending yourself in an accident in your hypotheses. Crashing into a car before you had completed the manoeuvre? You are supposed to minimise the risk when you are driving!

But this is the point. Have I completed the manoeuvre once I've passed the other vehicle, or only when I've returned to my own side of the road. After all, if I overtook after the sign it would be no defence for me to say I hadn't crossed the centre line (EG a wide road and I'm on the bike) because 'overtaking' refers to passing the other vehicle not crossing the centre.

[Tommo87]

When you have returned to your own lane, as you still in the act of overtaking if you are still over the line when you pass the sign.



All the no-overtaking signs I have ever seen, have had a solid line starting in the road directly adjacent to the sign placement..

[Dr Jekyll]

Tommo87 said:

When you have returned to your own lane, as you still in the act of overtaking if you are still over the line when you pass the sign.



All the no-overtaking signs I have ever seen, have had a solid line starting in the road directly adjacent to the sign placement..

Which kind of implies that the no-overtaking sign doesn't prohibit crossing the centre line, or there would be no need for the solid line.

[Fastdruid]

Dr Jekyll said:

Tommo87 said:

When you have returned to your own lane, as you still in the act of overtaking if you are still over the line when you pass the sign.



All the no-overtaking signs I have ever seen, have had a solid line starting in the road directly adjacent to the sign placement..

Which kind of implies that the no-overtaking sign doesn't prohibit crossing the centre line, or there would be no need for the solid line.

It's entirely possible to overtake _without_ crossing the centre line. For example on a bike you can overtake a car within the same lane.

A "no overtaking" however would mean just that, even if you don't cross the centre line you can't do it.

[Solocle]

[Dr Jekyll]

Fastdruid said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Tommo87 said:

When you have returned to your own lane, as you still in the act of overtaking if you are still over the line when you pass the sign.



All the no-overtaking signs I have ever seen, have had a solid line starting in the road directly adjacent to the sign placement..

Which kind of implies that the no-overtaking sign doesn't prohibit crossing the centre line, or there would be no need for the solid line.

It's entirely possible to overtake _without_ crossing the centre line. For example on a bike you can overtake a car within the same lane.

A "no overtaking" however would mean just that, even if you don't cross the centre line you can't do it.

But does it mean you can't cross the centre line at all? I don't think so. So the question is, at what point has the overtake finished?

[vonhosen]

Dr Jekyll said:

Fastdruid said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Tommo87 said:

When you have returned to your own lane, as you still in the act of overtaking if you are still over the line when you pass the sign.



All the no-overtaking signs I have ever seen, have had a solid line starting in the road directly adjacent to the sign placement..

Which kind of implies that the no-overtaking sign doesn't prohibit crossing the centre line, or there would be no need for the solid line.

It's entirely possible to overtake _without_ crossing the centre line. For example on a bike you can overtake a car within the same lane.

A "no overtaking" however would mean just that, even if you don't cross the centre line you can't do it.

But does it mean you can't cross the centre line at all? I don't think so. So the question is, at what point has the overtake finished?

If a (what would be called here) lane hog, moves from L1 to L2 to pass a lorry, but then remains in L2 with nothing else ahead despite having cleared the lorry by a huge margin is he still legitimately overtaking & therefore not a lane hog as he is an overtaker using an overtaking lane?

[Dr Jekyll]

vonhosen said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Fastdruid said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Tommo87 said:

When you have returned to your own lane, as you still in the act of overtaking if you are still over the line when you pass the sign.



All the no-overtaking signs I have ever seen, have had a solid line starting in the road directly adjacent to the sign placement..

Which kind of implies that the no-overtaking sign doesn't prohibit crossing the centre line, or there would be no need for the solid line.

It's entirely possible to overtake _without_ crossing the centre line. For example on a bike you can overtake a car within the same lane.

A "no overtaking" however would mean just that, even if you don't cross the centre line you can't do it.

But does it mean you can't cross the centre line at all? I don't think so. So the question is, at what point has the overtake finished?

If a (what would be called here) lane hog, moves from L1 to L2 to pass a lorry, but then remains in L2 with nothing else ahead despite having cleared the lorry by a huge margin is he still legitimately overtaking & therefore not a lane hog as he is an overtaker using an overtaking lane?

Well I would say he's completed the overtake and is now lane hogging. But by that logic someone who has cleared the lorry on the approach to the no-overtaking sign has also completed the overtake so is not contravening the no-overtaking sign. I'm not saying it's sensible to continue on the right hand side of the road as you pass the sign, just that it isn't forbidden by the sign.

[vonhosen]

Dr Jekyll said:

vonhosen said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Fastdruid said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Tommo87 said:

When you have returned to your own lane, as you still in the act of overtaking if you are still over the line when you pass the sign.



All the no-overtaking signs I have ever seen, have had a solid line starting in the road directly adjacent to the sign placement..

Which kind of implies that the no-overtaking sign doesn't prohibit crossing the centre line, or there would be no need for the solid line.

It's entirely possible to overtake _without_ crossing the centre line. For example on a bike you can overtake a car within the same lane.

A "no overtaking" however would mean just that, even if you don't cross the centre line you can't do it.

But does it mean you can't cross the centre line at all? I don't think so. So the question is, at what point has the overtake finished?

If a (what would be called here) lane hog, moves from L1 to L2 to pass a lorry, but then remains in L2 with nothing else ahead despite having cleared the lorry by a huge margin is he still legitimately overtaking & therefore not a lane hog as he is an overtaker using an overtaking lane?

Well I would say he's completed the overtake and is now lane hogging. But by that logic someone who has cleared the lorry on the approach to the no-overtaking sign has also completed the overtake so is not contravening the no-overtaking sign. I'm not saying it's sensible to continue on the right hand side of the road as you pass the sign, just that it isn't forbidden by the sign.

I wasn't being critical of your position.
I was highlighting a point that may encourage some to think at what point an overtake is completed & how that fits with their view in other circumstances of overtaking.
ie Do you have to return to the nearside for an overtake to be complete?

[sospan]

The limits of where zone starts and ends are defined by the signs with possibly extras such as white lines to suit.
Unless on a dual carriageway/Mway any manoeuvre must be completed before entering the zone. Speed must be correct, overtake completed by moving back into lane.
Technically you breach the rule by not complying and are open to being pulled/ spoken to/ fined/ finger wagging/ ignored depending on circumstances or mood of observing police.
As for no overtaking signs, it means simply that. I can see scenarios where passing a cyclist, horse rider, other slow vehicle might be judged as borderline or ok.
There is a road near me where there is a no overtaking sign in a 50 speed limit area. Put in after a double fatality due to concealed side roads hidden by dips in the road, caused by an overtaking van at speed. There are also other hidden dips in the road and many near misses due to these by those ignoring the rule.