log in
register

No Overtaking Sign vs Solid White Line

  • Creator
    Topic
  • August 12, 2021 at 11:40 am #31728
    HoarseMann

    In one of my nerdy diggings through the legislation, I discovered that there is a difference between solid white lines and the no-overtaking sign…

    The no-overtaking sign applies to all vehicles (including bicycles) and does not have the concession that you may overtake a bicycle or vehicle travelling less than 10mph, nor does it restrict parking like a solid white line does.

    It appears I may be regularly breaking the law. There is a road near me that has these signs – I have overtaken cyclists both on my bike and in the car on this road. I am also always passed when cycling on this road.

    There is not much info out there on this, just an old thread on another bicycle forum, where someone suggested that the actual rules that apply to a specific stretch of road, will be stated in a TRO (traffic regulation order) made by the council.

    Interestingly (or maybe not!), there is a caveat on the Menai Bridge that allows bicycles to overtake other bicycles.

    It got me thinking, could the no-overtaking sign be used more to benefit cyclists? Such as on 20mph streets where there is a ‘quiet way’ cycling route, to specifically prevent cars from overtaking?

  • Creator
    Topic
Viewing 15 replies - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)
1 2
  • Author
    Replies
  • August 17, 2021 at 8:53 am #983247
    0
    Allen Key

    Personally I think unbroken
    Personally I think unbroken white lines are much more noticable (and serious-looking) than a small sign that could be missed or possibly obscured by trees. Incidently, there is a road near me that partlally has double-whites, it’s downhill so you can easily reach 25+mph, but vehicles overtake because it’s wide enough to do so without going over the lines (Oh, and because MGIF).

    August 13, 2021 at 2:58 pm #983245
    0
    HoarseMann

    Yes, I think that is a good

    Yes, I think that is a good reason why a no-overtaking sign could be used rather than double white lines – would also mean you couldn’t pass a cyclists on a narrow road. But the particular road near me is a very wide major A-road.

    August 13, 2021 at 1:39 pm #983243
    0
    Bmblbzzz

    I think solid white lines can

    I think solid white lines can only be used on roads of at least a certain minimum width.

    August 13, 2021 at 1:32 pm #983241
    0
    HoarseMann

    If you come at it from the

    If you come at it from the other angle:

    How would the driver know the cyclist was doing less than 10mph?

    The only method possible would be to slow to the same speed of the bicycle, check the speedo, then only pass if it’s less than 10mph.

    If you look at it that way, then any driver who doesn’t slow before passing could be prosecuted for due care. It just seems to be one of those rules that isn’t enforced, because the highway code doesn’t tell you how to determine the bicycle’s speed and as such, maybe a court will be unwilling to find guilty.

    (much like the bicycle lighting regs, that I must admit to rarely conforming to)

    August 13, 2021 at 11:42 am #983239
    0
    Secret_squirrel
    HoarseMann wrote:
    jh2727 wrote:
    It could prohibit overtaking, but I doubt it could prevent overtaking – unless it is a really big sign.

    Now there’s an idea!

    I agree what we need is a massive no overtaking sign on a motorised pivot like a giant flyswatter for overtaking cars.

    August 13, 2021 at 10:08 am #983237
    0
    wycombewheeler
    HoarseMann wrote:
    It would be hard to wriggle out of it, other than claiming ignorance that the sign didn’t apply to bicycles (which to be fair, I’ve only just realised!).

    Ignorance of the law is not an excuse a precedent that has been held in UK courts including famously when laws were passed while a ship was at sea and the captain had no way of knowing what had happened back in England.

    August 13, 2021 at 8:31 am #983235
    0
    OnYerBike
    HoarseMann wrote:
    They don’t take action on solid white lines because of the 10mph concessesion for overtaking bicycles. The law doesn’t say how to determine the speed of the bicycle, so it’s difficult to prove a driver was aware the bicycle was travelling faster. A defence of ‘I thought they were doing 10mph’ is pretty much solid, no matter what.

    My reading of the legislation is that there is no excuse of “reasonable belief” or similar. Therefore, if the prosecution can demonstrate (beyond reasonable doubt) that the cyclist was, as a matter of fact, travelling faster than 10mph, then it is (as far as I can tell) irrelevant what the driver thought. I would have thought that with GPS data and video footage, when a cyclist is travelling substantially faster than 10mph, it should be pretty straightforward to prove this.

    August 13, 2021 at 8:00 am #983233
    0
    HoarseMann

    They don’t take action

    They don’t take action on solid white lines because of the 10mph concessesion for overtaking bicycles. The law doesn’t say how to determine the speed of the bicycle, so it’s difficult to prove a driver was aware the bicycle was travelling faster. A defence of ‘I thought they were doing 10mph’ is pretty much solid, no matter what.

    But the ‘no-overtaking’ sign has no such concession. If this sign were to be placed at either end of the bridge with double white lines that often gives you trouble, then the mere fact they were overtaking would be grounds for prosecution. It would be hard to wriggle out of it, other than claiming ignorance that the sign didn’t apply to bicycles (which to be fair, I’ve only just realised!).

    August 12, 2021 at 3:19 pm #983231
    0
    wtjs

    Could be just a single

    Could be just a single unbroken white line

    https://road.cc/wp-content/uploads/roadcc/GranCoupe_JIII KDW_27Feb20.jpg

    August 12, 2021 at 3:17 pm #983229
    0
    wtjs

    Up my street here in the Wild

    Up my street here in the Wild West, almost nothing done by the drivers of motorised vehicles is deemed illegal. Both Lancashire Constabulary and Royal Mail refused to take any action.

    August 12, 2021 at 3:08 pm #983227
    0
    HoarseMann

    I thought this topic might be

    I thought this topic might be up your street!

    August 12, 2021 at 3:03 pm #983215
    0
    HoarseMann

    The Menai Bridge caveat…

    The Menai Bridge caveat…

    https://road.cc/wp-content/uploads/roadcc/Screenshot 2021-08-12 at 16.02.11.png

    August 12, 2021 at 3:01 pm #983225
    0
    wtjs

    They seem to think as there

    They seem to think as there is not a double white line, that it’s still ok

    I object! They definitely do think that where there is a double white line it’s still OK

    https://cdn.road.cc/wp-content/uploads/roadcc/RoyalMail2_Wyre_1Aug19_1.jpg

    August 12, 2021 at 2:49 pm #983223
    0
    HoarseMann
    jh2727 wrote:
    It could prohibit overtaking, but I doubt it could prevent overtaking – unless it is a really big sign.

    Now there’s an idea!

    August 12, 2021 at 2:45 pm #983221
    0
    HoarseMann

    Well the no-overtaking sign

    Well the no-overtaking sign on the road near me even gets broken by cars overtaking other cars. They seem to think as there is not a double white line, that it’s still ok.

    I must admit, it’s really weird having these signs instead of a double white line. Either the council put these signs in because they don’t want bicycles to be passed, or motorbikes to filter… or it was cheaper than painting lines. I might ask them!

    (weirdly, a couple of years ago they resurfaced the whole road and at the time I thought, well, they’ll put double whites back down – but nope!)

  • Author
    Replies
Viewing 15 replies - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)
1 2
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.