View Full Version : White lines that are unenforceable.
Following from comments made in Stradders' thread regarding the red mist of following the bike in front, a conversation sprang up about the use of white lines, when (if at all) to cross them etc.
I think some of this information would be useful, hence in this section. However, Stradders' thread really shouldn't of been derailled - to that effect, Stradders' please accept a public apology from me. :)
Mods, I would be most grateful if you could move posts from myself and Stu (at least) from the thread created by Stradders to this one. However, if that can't be done for administrative reasons, a breif summary as follows:
The discussion was opened by someone (I'm not sure who) stating something along the lines of Solid White Lines (SWLs) being placed for the guidance of car drivers primarily.
Whilst this is true, and crossing a solid white line is almost always an illegal act (which will get you into more trouble than speeding will), there are times at which you can legally cross a SWL.
As stated in the other thread, these times include:
- When an agricultural vehicle, horse, or cyclist is travelling below 10mph.
- When the road markings are not legally enforcable. This does happen unfortunately, and this is the interesting part (for me).
The lines can be unenforcable (as stated by Stu in the other thread) when there are no warning arrows prior to the SWL, or when the road isn't wide enough (as mandated under the Traffic Sign Regulations 2002).
However, there is another reason the markings can be unenforcable, and I posed the challenge of "name the other reason, and I'll buy you a pint the next time I see you."
So, does anyone (other than a serving officer of the law), know the other reason? :D
PS. Stradders' - again, apologies for the derail. I do note that you specifically requested your thread stay on track, hence starting this one.
So, does anyone (other than a serving officer of the law), know the other reason? :D
When instructed to do so by an officer of the law...........
Where the solid line separates lanes travelling in the same direction. Sometimes used in tunnels and underpasses to discourage lane changing but not legally enforceable.
Where the solid line separates lanes travelling in the same direction. Sometimes used in tunnels and underpasses to discourage lane changing but not legally enforceable.
Bingo.
Damnit, I owe a pint now. :( :lol:
Although, it should be added that the SWL (or Double White Line - DWL) is not enforcable to vehicles within Lane 2 - but is enforcable to vehicles in Lane 1. This is because the regulations stated that the SWL must be on the right side of the vehicle. :)
Bingo.
Damnit, I owe a pint now. :( :lol:
Although, it should be added that the SWL (or Double White Line - DWL) is not enforcable to vehicles within Lane 2 - but is enforcable to vehicles in Lane 1. This is because the regulations stated that the SWL must be on the right side of the vehicle. :)
you have been"owned"
Although, it should be added that the SWL (or Double White Line - DWL) is not enforcable to vehicles within Lane 2 - but is enforcable to vehicles in Lane 1. This is because the regulations stated that the SWL must be on the right side of the vehicle. :)
Forgot to stipulate that bit.
Bingo.
Damnit, I owe a pint now. :( :lol:
I WILL cash that in one day :D
ArtyLady
25-04-09, 08:29 PM
I thought Ralph's post was interesting, I wonder if this case set a precedent?
...........They cautioned him for crossing white lines, which he accepted. At court they changed their prosecution to dangerous driving (******s). The motorcyclist defended this and the jury found him not guilty - quite logical as nothing he did was dangerous. So the police wasted a huge amount of time and (your) money.
..........
When the road markings are not legally enforcable. This does happen unfortunately, and this is the interesting part (for me).
The lines can be unenforcable (as stated by Stu in the other thread) when there are no warning arrows prior to the SWL, or when the road isn't wide enough (as mandated under the Traffic Sign Regulations 2002).These were guesses! I have no idea if they are true. Surely the road not wide enough doesn't happen very often that they would put a SWL down the middle?
I would love to know if the throw over arrows have any legal effect i.e. if they are required? but have never found any evidence :smt102
However, there is another reason the markings can be unenforceable, and I posed the challenge of "name the other reason, and I'll buy you a pint the next time I see you."
So, does anyone (other than a serving officer of the law),Surely that excludes woz as a driving instructor - driving law being a large par of his job :p know the other reason? :D
PS. Stradders' - again, apologies for the derail. I do note that you specifically requested your thread stay on track, hence starting this one.
Bingo.
Damnit, I owe a pint now. :( :lol:
Although, it should be added that the SWL (or Double White Line - DWL) is not enforcable to vehicles within Lane 2 - but is enforcable to vehicles in Lane 1. This is because the regulations stated that the SWL must be on the right side of the vehicle. :)Awh, that's only half as useable information as alluded to.
I reckon a half pint then :lol:
I thought Ralph's post was interesting, I wonder if this case set a precedent?Case law is always a precedent - I'll certainly file that one away :D
Surely that excludes woz as a driving instructor - driving law being a large par of his job :p
Oi!!! I WILL have my pint! :D
These were guesses! I have no idea if they are true. Surely the road not wide enough doesn't happen very often that they would put a SWL down the middle?
I would love to know if the throw over arrows have any legal effect i.e. if they are required? but have never found any evidence :smt102Surely that excludes woz as a driving instructor - driving law being a large par of his job :p
The Traffic Signs Regulations 2002 does indeed set out a minimum width requirement for SWLs. As it also sets out the fact there must be a minimum of two warning arrows prior to any SWL, and even the distance between them.
But I wouldn't advise challenging an officer at the roadside over this Act. It may not be to your benefit. :)
I thought Ralph's post was interesting, I wonder if this case set a precedent?
Case law is always a precedent - I'll certainly file that one away :D
+1.
As for your half pint Stu, you're having a giraffe right guv'? Maybe Woz's pint should be downgraded to a half pint of shandy owing to his job...
Maybe Woz's pint should be downgraded to a half pint of shandy owing to his job...
I am NOT southern! :smt067
AND... the fact that the information is completely useless :roll: The only advantage of moving from lane 2 to 1 would be to undertake and that's illegal so :roll:
yorkie_chris
25-04-09, 10:39 PM
- When an agricultural vehicle, horse, or cyclist is travelling below 10mph.
- When the road markings are not legally enforcable. This does happen unfortunately, and this is the interesting part (for me).
So if there's a h*rley in the way.
Or if there's no coppers watching :-P
AND... the fact that the information is completely useless :roll: The only advantage of moving from lane 2 to 1 would be to undertake and that's illegal so :roll:
Not if the traffic is queueing and lane 2 is moving slower than lane 1.
yorkie_chris
25-04-09, 10:45 PM
But I wouldn't advise challenging an officer at the roadside over this Act. It may not be to your benefit. :)
So in such a situation would it always result in court appearance? Or FPN? Can you challenge the FPN later when you've checked you didn't just miss the arrows! And when the copper isn't going to give you a VRN for the can and whatever else for the black visor for being cheeky... :-P
Also, in situations where it goes double solid to dashed on one side and back to double solid, would they have to put 2 arrows at the point where it goes back to double solid? Or are the initial arrows still considered to be "in effect" even though your direction of travels restriction has stopped then begun again.
:lol:
But I don't know why Baph went going confusing the issue mentioning H*rleys. It's Road maintenance vehicles that you can overtake :D
So in such a situation would it always result in court appearance? Or FPN? Can you challenge the FPN later when you've checked you didn't just miss the arrows! And when the copper isn't going to give you a VRN for the can and whatever else for the black visor for being cheeky... :-P
Also, in situations where it goes double solid to dashed on one side and back to double solid, would they have to put 2 arrows at the point where it goes back to double solid? Or are the initial arrows still considered to be "in effect" even though your direction of travels restriction has stopped then begun again.
You can always challenge an FPN by taking it to court
So in such a situation would it always result in court appearance? Or FPN? Can you challenge the FPN later when you've checked you didn't just miss the arrows! And when the copper isn't going to give you a VRN for the can and whatever else for the black visor for being cheeky... :-P
I wouldn't advise being pulled for TS20 (failure to comply with SWLs) at the roadside as the officer will invariably scrutinise everything possible. Then hand you the soap.
If you want to challenge it, read the regulations & take your chances in court. Or just don't do it in the first place. :)
Also, in situations where it goes double solid to dashed on one side and back to double solid, would they have to put 2 arrows at the point where it goes back to double solid? Or are the initial arrows still considered to be "in effect" even though your direction of travels restriction has stopped then begun again.
That depends on the distance between SWLs. IIRC, if the space between SWLs is not sufficient to get the minimum warning arrows in, they don't need warning arrows. Otherwise, they do.
The regulations state two warning arrows on approach to SWLs - in case you miss the first one.
yorkie_chris
25-04-09, 11:12 PM
I wouldn't advise being pulled for TS20 (failure to comply with SWLs) at the roadside as the officer will invariably scrutinise everything possible. Then hand you the soap.
If you want to challenge it, read the regulations & take your chances in court. Or just don't do it in the first place. :)
Of course it's not a situation to find yourself in deliberately...
However, in court surely it would be relatively simple to say "the road markings don't comply with regulations so are not relevant" Dunno? Can the judge say "yes but you were taking the pi$$" or do they have to do you for the specifics of it?
However, in court surely it would be relatively simple to say "the road markings don't comply with regulations so are not relevant" Dunno? Can the judge say "yes but you were taking the pi$$" or do they have to do you for the specifics of it?
I suggest you forward that question to your legal representative. I'm not qualified to answer that one. :)
-Ralph-
26-04-09, 06:57 PM
I thought Ralph's post was interesting, I wonder if this case set a precedent?
The website I got that from I wouldn't say it was a reliable source, which is why I said it may be an insult to jounalism to call it an article. That could be true or it could easily be a bit of BS added onto the end.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.