Crossing a double white line to overtake.

Mercdriver

Johno100 wrote: »

Well that is your interpretation and it's hardly surprising that's the way you read it given your other comments as to how you perceive my views about cycling.

The terms 'lycra taliban' tell me all I need to know about your views about cyclists.

Mercdriver

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

I don't think people disbelieve you, it's just that there are an increasing number of threads popping up where people relate their latest experience from the day's journey as if it's some sort of news event. The roads are a difficult place to be, full of careless and dangerous driving, but the latest near-miss or observed driving daftness just ends up being....well, a cool story, bro'

That's not the correct meaning of the phrase. It's the equivalent of *sarcastic mode on* "Yeah right, like that really happened" *sarcastic mode off*

I think it's too often used dismissively in a disrespectful way. If something is yawnworthy, then if no one comments on it, it will disappear off the front page pretty quickly. Otherwise it turns into a b1tchfest.

Aylesbury_Duck

Mercdriver wrote: »

That's not the correct meaning of the phrase. It's the equivalent of *sarcastic mode on* "Yeah right, like that really happened" *sarcastic mode off*

I think it's too often used dismissively in a disrespectful way. If something is yawnworthy, then if no one comments on it, it will disappear off the front page pretty quickly. Otherwise it turns into a b1tchfest.

It is the correct meaning. It's used when a story is going nowhere and is irrelevant and/or uninteresting. Yawnworthy is a good synonym.

Strider590

Nobbie1967 wrote: »

But if the road is clear enough to overtake, why not avoid the cyclist completely and use the other side of the road? It's one of my pet hates when motorist zoom past at 50mph and choose to do so a couple of feet away when the other lane is completely clear.

It's called a "punishment pass", they view cyclists as being naughty children that need to be taught a lesson.

Geoff1963

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

.
So :
It is OK to pass a 9mph tractor, but only if it is trimming the hedge ?
It is OK to pass a broken-down car, but not one being pushed along at 2 mph ?
Is there a definition of "road maintenance vehicle", should it be suitably marked, and must it be actually maintaining the road at the time ?

I passed my test before 1988, and back then I don't think there were specific vehicles or speeds ; it just referred to the obstruction being stationary or slow.

It is much safer to pass at say 20 or 30 mph, than to slow down to match the speed, and then pass. That means the speed of the other vehicle must be estimated rather than known ; and solid white lines are used where the visibility is poor, so that would give only a very short time to judge its speed. Moreover, the speed of the other vehicle cannot be easily determined ; that needs relative speed, and one's own speed, both of which are changing.

It seems to me that this is one of those "back pocket" laws, which are only brought out to prosecute someone who is driving badly. In industry, a "work to rule" is classed as "industrial action".

Crossing the white line is an RTA rule, but driving too close to the cyclist is only a Highway Code rule ; suggesting some people might choose to break only the lesser rule. If the RTA rule wanted to encourage safe driving, it should have prohibited passing fast cyclists and horses, even if that didn't involve crossing the line.

Mercdriver

Geoff1963 wrote: »

.


Crossing the white line is an RTA rule, but driving too close to the cyclist is only a Highway Code rule ; suggesting some people might choose to break only the lesser rule. If the RTA rule wanted to encourage safe driving, it should have prohibited passing fast cyclists and horses, even if that didn't involve crossing the line.

So to hell with with it, just pass the cyclist so close that he falls off and gets injured?

Doesn't quite work like that. That would be at best Driving without Due Care and Attention, because a safe and proficient driver would leave enough gap to ensure the safety of the road user he is overtaking.

Johnmcl7

Geoff1963 wrote: »

.
Crossing the white line is an RTA rule, but driving too close to the cyclist is only a Highway Code rule ; suggesting some people might choose to break only the lesser rule. If the RTA rule wanted to encourage safe driving, it should have prohibited passing fast cyclists and horses, even if that didn't involve crossing the line.

While there may not be a specific offence for passing too closely to cyclists, that doesn't mean drivers can't be prosecuted for it. This year there have been several initiatives by some police forces to monitor distance between cyclists and motor vehicles and people have been successfully prosecuted for passing too closely:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40571699

Richard53

Geoff1963 wrote: »

I passed my test before 1988, and back then I don't think there were specific vehicles or speeds ; it just referred to the obstruction being stationary or slow.

I passed my test in 1971 and I remember the 10 mph rule and a list of vehicles (including tracked and road-rolling vehicles IIRC) being in place then.

Car_54

Geoff1963 wrote: »

.
So :
It is OK to pass a 9mph tractor, but only if it is trimming the hedge ?
It is OK to pass a broken-down car, but not one being pushed along at 2 mph ?
Is there a definition of "road maintenance vehicle", should it be suitably marked, and must it be actually maintaining the road at the time ?

I passed my test before 1988, and back then I don't think there were specific vehicles or speeds ; it just referred to the obstruction being stationary or slow.

According to the regs '“road maintenance vehicle” means a vehicle which—
(a) in England and Wales is specially designed or adapted for use on a road by or on behalf of a highway authority for the purposes of the Highways Act 1980 for the purposes of road maintenance; or
(b)in Scotland is specially designed or adapted for use on a road by or on behalf of a roads authority for the purposes of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 for the purposes of road maintenance; '

Further, to pass it legally it must be "in use", and displaying a prescribed sign (white arrow on blue) directing you to pass on the right.

Retrogamer

Geoff1963 wrote: »

.
Crossing the white line is an RTA rule, but driving too close to the cyclist is only a Highway Code rule ; suggesting some people might choose to break only the lesser rule. If the RTA rule wanted to encourage safe driving, it should have prohibited passing fast cyclists and horses, even if that didn't involve crossing the line.

That's a good reason for cyclists to take primary position in the middle of the lane when there is a solid white line.

It means instead of idiots trying to pass in cars with just a few inch to spare on the same lane as the cyclist, they're then forced to use the other lane by crossing the solid white lines

Sadly when a cyclist done this recently, a van driver reacted by trying to run them off the road and swerving viciously towards them.

When it made news and social media, rather than people berate the van driver for almost injuring someone by dangerous driving all the comments were aimed at the cyclist because he was cycling in the middle of the road, even though the van shouldn't have been overtaking.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bbc-van-cyclist-video-almost-hits-bike-off-road-who-is-to-blame-question-backlash-a7726821.html

Someone once said to me. If you're a straight white guy and have never experienced discrimination before, just become a cyclist.