[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

[quiff]

Interesting. It’s hard to

Interesting. It’s hard to envisage many situations where a bike on bike overtake would be dangerous, so I can’t imagine that being enforced, even if it is technically an infraction.

The LTN wars have shown how many motorists don’t understand / obey the no motor vehicles sign, so I wouldn’t hold much hope of them understanding / obeying the no overtaking sign.   

[jh2727]

> It got me thinking, could

> 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?

It could prohibit overtaking, but I doubt it could prevent overtaking – unless it is a really big sign.

[Author]

Replies