[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?

Topic

[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).

[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.

[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.

[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)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!).

[wtjs]

Could be just a single

Could be just a single unbroken white line

[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.

[HoarseMann]

I thought this topic might be

I thought this topic might be up your street!

[HoarseMann]

The Menai Bridge caveat…

The Menai Bridge caveat…

[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

[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!

[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