Traffic Motoring Law

#1
We all know what solid white lines, either double or signle means - no overtaking.

My question is - if you are driving behind a cyclist, and there are double solid white lines runing along the centre of the road, can you legally overtake, and 'step out' over those white lines to pass the lone cyclist, if the road ahead if clear for hundreds of yards. Or, do you have to chug along behind the cyclist at 10 mph with a huge line of vehicle behind you, as the cyclist trundles along at whatever speed they are travelling?

Anypne have any ideas on this, and would you overtake with the possibility of your vehicles wheels going over the double white lines if there was a marked police vehicle in the traffic queue behind you?
 
#2
If it was safe to, then yes. Solid lines are usually there for a reason like corners, blind summits, approaching junctions, etc. and I wouldn't overtake one of the bastards when coming to any of these regardless of whatever lines were on the road.

If the line(s) were solid on a straight section of clear road then I would overtake even if plod was behind. And tell the pedaling prick to piss off as I went past.
 
#5
Can you turn right across double solid whites ?
Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid.

This means you MUST NOT cross or stradle unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or 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 the they are travelling at 10mph (16kph) or less.

Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26.

Sorted.
 
#6
We all know what solid white lines, either double or signle means - no overtaking.

My question is - if you are driving behind a cyclist, and there are double solid white lines runing along the centre of the road, can you legally overtake, and 'step out' over those white lines to pass the lone cyclist, if the road ahead if clear for hundreds of yards. Or, do you have to chug along behind the cyclist at 10 mph with a huge line of vehicle behind you, as the cyclist trundles along at whatever speed they are travelling?

Anypne have any ideas on this, and would you overtake with the possibility of your vehicles wheels going over the double white lines if there was a marked police vehicle in the traffic queue behind you?
Actually Double white lines don't mean that. It could be that there are two lanes before the double white lines and you could over take using those lanes without encrouching on the double white lines. Double white lines are an indication to not cross them.

However, as has been pointed out, passing cyclists and horses travelling at less than 10mph is the exception.
 
#7
Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid.

This means you MUST NOT cross or stradle unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or 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 the they are travelling at 10mph (16kph) or less.

Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26.

Sorted.
I asked as a tractor turning right across double solids nearly caused a pile up on my work , I thought it was a stupid move on his part as a truck nearly arrse ended him , so I guess it would still be the truck drivers fault.
 
#8
When I did the police driving course the Sgt instructor used to bang on about giving cyclists at least 6 foot of wobble room. His reason, and he was a font of traffic law knowledge, was that if you knocked a cyclist off a judge would expect you to have reasonably moved over at least 6 feet away from the cyclist for it not to have been your fault.

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 travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26


From:

https://www.gov.uk/general-rules-al...ines-and-lane-markings-on-the-road-127-to-132


QUOTE=CptDanjou;4964670]I asked a tractor turning right across double solids nearly caused a pile up on my work , I thought it was a stupid move on his part as a truck nearly arrse ended him , so I guess it would still be the truck drivers fault.[/QUOTE]

Yes. But I bet the pikey farmer was running on red diesel and was not showing a reg no, "agricultural use officer".
 
#9
thanks for that..... so I won't be a twat and chug along at 5 kph until the old bugger on his cycle has cleared off.......
 
D

Davetheclown

Guest
#10
When I did the police driving course the Sgt instructor used to bang on about giving cyclists at least 6 foot of wobble room. His reason, and he was a font of traffic law knowledge, was that if you knocked a cyclist off a judge would expect you to have reasonably moved over at least 6 feet away from the cyclist for it not to have been your fault.

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 travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26


From:

https://www.gov.uk/general-rules-al...ines-and-lane-markings-on-the-road-127-to-132


QUOTE=CptDanjou;4964670]I asked a tractor turning right across double solids nearly caused a pile up on my work , I thought it was a stupid move on his part as a truck nearly arrse ended him , so I guess it would still be the truck drivers fault.
Yes. But I bet the pikey farmer was running on red diesel and was not showing a reg no, "agricultural use officer".[/QUOTE]

there is a precedent in law that states cyclists are expected to wobble so that extra room must be given, it was one of the first rules brought into place under the road traffic act when it came into being.
 
#11
Yes. But I bet the pikey farmer was running on red diesel and was not showing a reg no, "agricultural use officer".
there is a precedent in law that states cyclists are expected to wobble so that extra room must be given, it was one of the first rules brought into place under the road traffic act when it came into being.[/QUOTE]

think the rule is something like "give a cyclist/horse rider/invalid carriage as much room as you would give a car (when overtaking)"
 
#14
there is a precedent in law that states cyclists are expected to wobble so that extra room must be given, it was one of the first rules brought into place under the road traffic act when it came into being.
think the rule is something like "give a cyclist/horse rider/invalid carriage as much room as you would give a car (when overtaking)"
That is what the rule says, but when you are on a driving course where your expected aim is to pass the course and the Sgt instructor says "give 'em six feet lad" you don't argue. What the rule says is one thing, if a Judge in his wisdom has stated during hearing a case that 6 feet is the room that should have been given then that falls into case law and will be quoted ad infinitum in all similar cases.
 
#15
That is what the rule says, but when you are on a driving course where your expected aim is to pass the course and the Sgt instructor says "give 'em six feet lad" you don't argue. What the rule says is one thing, if a Judge in his wisdom has stated during hearing a case that 6 feet is the room that should have been given then that falls into case law and will be quoted ad infinitum in all similar cases.
Unless it was said in a Crown Court. Crown Courts are too lowly in the scheme of things that they cannot set a precedent.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top