View Full Version : Overtaking Double White Lines in Standstill Traffic?
Right well I'm a little confused.
This morning on my way to work in the car (due to bike still off the road) I saw 3 motorbikes overtaking standstill traffic on the double white lines. I always thought this was a BIG NO NO!
Am I wrong?
I understand motorbikes like to progress their journey. Admitedly one rider hovered on the white lines but the other two just whizzed down on other side of road slower than speed limit being careful but I was unsure by the whole thing.
Thoughts?
Sorry for some reason this has double posted. Whoops! Can we delete this one....
metalangel
03-03-11, 10:05 AM
It's illegal innit? There's a bus stop on a single carriageway in Cardiff with double whites, if the bus stops I just sit behind it and wait but I get people angrily honking or tear-arsing around me, over the double white lines, to get around the bus.
Owenski
03-03-11, 10:07 AM
Not illegal provided the traffic is stationary and your doing a reasonable speed (I was told no faster than 10mph). Im sure its Section 7 of something or other which allows the exception, I'll try dig it out.
This is all 2nd'd information mind you, it was what my instructor told me in relation to filtering/making progress.
dizzyblonde
03-03-11, 10:09 AM
We were over in Hudds yesterday, and saw someone trying to cross over them and the other busy carriageway to get to a car dealership. Now I can understand people slyly overtaking, but to stop traffic on both sides of the road and do something completely illegal is beyond me!
Crossing them isn't illegal as such. I don't consider passing stationary traffic overtaking anyway. If a tractor had broken down on a section of double white lines, would cars not be allowed to pass it (safely)?
Owenski
03-03-11, 10:12 AM
Taken from direct.gov
129 - Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to 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.
[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26]
Clearly I got a bit muddled with my facts surrounding the 10mph bit but - treat every veichle in the cue as an individual obsticle and you're fine passing the whole que.
Seggons
03-03-11, 10:14 AM
According to the highway code it's perfectly legal to cross double white's providing traffic is moving at less then 10mph.
129
Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to 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.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070306
Luckypants
03-03-11, 10:15 AM
All the above scenarios are quite legal...
129
Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to 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.
yorkie_chris
03-03-11, 10:19 AM
We were over in Hudds yesterday, and saw someone trying to cross over them and the other busy carriageway to get to a car dealership. Now I can understand people slyly overtaking, but to stop traffic on both sides of the road and do something completely illegal is beyond me!
That's perfectly legal, and what's more they just need to get somewhere. Not like they're doing it out of impatience is it.
According to the highway code it's perfectly legal to cross double white's providing traffic is moving at less then 10mph.
129
Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to 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.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070306
Well that doesn't specifically mention ANY vehicle moving at <10mph but if stationary, be right.
You can over take on a solid white lined stretch of road as long as you don't actually cross the white line.
Most people I speak to seem to think that it means no overtaking full stop. In a car obviously it is impossible but some stretches of solid white lined roads are easily wide enough for a bike to pass without crossing the actual line.
BoltonSte
03-03-11, 10:34 AM
I was told by traffic (and there'll no doubt be one of the plumbers on here who can confirm) that you cannot cross the solid whites to filter, as the vehicles are not counted as stationary, but you can filter if you stay on your side of the white line.
Apparently they do a lot of bikes to one of the tracks where there is a big stretch of solids where all the cars queue to get there. I suspect this falls under the 'if safe to do so' bit. If there's traffic coming towards you, it's not safe. If lane towards you has no hazards then it is.
Ste
yorkie_chris
03-03-11, 10:38 AM
The other point I consider is if there's lots of oncoming it will be deemed risky to give chase for the chance that they've caught you barely clipping a DWL on video.
benji106
03-03-11, 10:40 AM
I was told by traffic (and there'll no doubt be one of the plumbers on here who can confirm) that you cannot cross the solid whites to filter, as the vehicles are not counted as stationary, but you can filter if you stay on your side of the white line.
surely if a vehicle is not moving it is stationary? its not exactly an ambiguous term is it?
-Ralph-
03-03-11, 10:59 AM
I was told by traffic (and there'll no doubt be one of the plumbers on here who can confirm) that you cannot cross the solid whites to filter, as the vehicles are not counted as stationary, but you can filter if you stay on your side of the white line.
Not legal IMO.
I think svste is absolutely correct, though I don't think it's about whether the vehicles are deemed stationary or not. I'd be happy to be proved wrong as it means I could then do it myself :mrgreen:
This is what the prosecution would throw at you in court
You may cross the line if necessary
filtering is not necessary.
The exception is designed to allow you to pass slow moving (<10mph) or stationary vehicles such as tractors cutting hedges, road sweepers, broken down vehicles, parked vehicles, horse drawn carriages, etc. It only becomes necessary if your journey will come to a halt for a significant amount of time by not passing. This doesn't include waiting 30 seconds for a queue of traffic to move.
If you have a situation where you think you can convince a magistrate that it was necessary, and you couldn't have reasonably undertaken the rest of your journey without doing it, then go for it.
benji106
03-03-11, 11:09 AM
filtering is not necessary.
The exception is designed to allow you to pass slow moving (<10mph) or stationary vehicles such as tractors cutting hedges, road sweepers, broken down vehicles, parked vehicles, horse drawn carriages, etc.
I understand what you are saying, but it IS neccasary to cross the solid white line in order to pass a stationary vehicle. you could just as well say its not neccasary to overtake a cyclist, you could sit behing them at 17 mph or whatever. So as I see it, it does hinge on whether you consider the queueing traffic to be stationary, and if it is not moving I dont see how you cant.
vardypeeps
03-03-11, 12:20 PM
When filtering I will sit in traffic and wait till I can pass without crossing the white line = within the law :-)
-Ralph-
03-03-11, 12:37 PM
I understand what you are saying, but it IS neccasary to cross the solid white line in order to pass a stationary vehicle. you could just as well say its not neccasary to overtake a cyclist, you could sit behing them at 17 mph or whatever. So as I see it, it does hinge on whether you consider the queueing traffic to be stationary, and if it is not moving I dont see how you cant.
Yes, necessary to cross if you want to pass, but is it necessary to pass that stationary vehicle in the first place? Or can you just wait for the lights to change, whilst sitting in the queue with all the cars?
The law hinges around what is deemed "reasonable". A cyclist is a bad analogy, as you could get past them without crossing DWL in most cases, lets use a tractor instead. It's not reasonable to be expected to sit behind a tractor at 10mph* for mile upon mile. It is also not unreasonable to be expected to sit in a queue of traffic, for the amount of time it takes for a set of traffic lights to change, just as you would have to in a car. If traffic wasn't moving at all, and was gridlocked and not going to move for the foreseeable future, then you'd have to decide if you could convince the authorities that it was necessary and reasonable to cross the DWL.
*(At 17mph in the eyes of the law, you have to sit behind them if you can't get past without crossing the DWL, but I doubt any copper would book you for that.)
Filtering is deemed as overtaking in the eyes of the law. I don't think you are treated any differently to a car, just because you are on a smaller vehicle. A car driver crossing a DWL to queue jump a queue of stationary traffic before squeezing back in at the front of a set of traffic lights, would certainly be in trouble. What makes the rider of a bike any different?
What we really need is one of the org coppers to clarify. At the moment we are non-professionals having an academic argument over what it says in the highway code.
Specialone
03-03-11, 08:05 PM
If the queue of traffic coming up to lights or something is stationary I cannot see if you filtered past them on or slightly over solid lines how that could be illegal or dangerous.
I never overtake on DWL unless someone is going rediculously slow.
-Ralph-
03-03-11, 08:39 PM
I crossed solid whites to overtake a long queue waiting for temporary lights with bluepete behind me. I asked him afterwards about the legality and he told me it was illegal. Although by sight of the temporary light I had plenty of notice of the possibility of oncoming traffic traffic etc. There was no chance that I was ever in danger.
However, should a copper be having a bad day, it is an offence, and you will get a ticket.
Tim's already mentioned my view.
I don't do it, If I was at work and saw a biker overtaking over solid whites to get to the front of the queue in the circumstances of this thread, I would stop 'em. Not saying they would get a ticket, eduaction doesn't always cost £60.
Problem is, as has been pointed out, the letter of the law is open to interpretation in some areas, to literally the lettering of each word. I guarantee that there are many Traffic Cops who will dose you for it, but, we are all humans (apparently) and each have our own agendas and pet hates. We aren't machines potting every offence we see, there isn't the time or need.
Actually the "if necessary" bit was mentioned earlier, bottom of page two.
It is not an offence to pass a stationery vehicle within the confines of a solid white line system, either by staying inside it, or crossing over it, provided you do so with due care and attention and safely. The law is quite specific about the stationery bit, and as has been pointed out a court will simply look the word up in a dictorary. There is some folklore amongst Traffic cops that stationery does not include "vehicles temporarily held up". This has no basis in law but it does explain why a large number of them think it is illegal and will even stop and stick people on for it. Fortunately it is only their time they are wasting, the process doesn't make it past CPS providing......
The overtake is only not illegal under the Road Traffic Regulations Act (the white line offence). Consider why the white line is there in the first place. Going over a brow at 60mph on the wrong side of a white line system is likely attract a dangerous riding charge, forcing oncoming traffic to swerve as you come round a blind bend one of without due care, riding down the middle of a line twanging wing mirrors one of inconsiderate riding. If on the other hand it is on the approach to a level crossing, the barriers are down, and the 9:31 from Paddington is going past at 70mph it is unlikely there will be any oncoming traffic, so providing you can make it to a safe location (don't cross the stop line at the front) you shouldn't have to much to fear, ditto filtering past a line of traffic with a clear view of the road ahead. (Ps: watch out for irate drivers opening their doors to see what the hold up is!)
Bluepete says no don't do it, Red Herring says yes it's OK, unless you have oncoming traffic (I think). A crossing halting traffic in both directions is about the only situation I can think of where there is no possibility of oncoming traffic.
-Ralph-
03-03-11, 08:58 PM
I never overtake on DWL unless someone is going rediculously slow.
We've had that whole debate in threads before too. I will if I think I'm not going to get caught, I can clearly see far enough to do my overtake with a powerful motorbike safely, and I think the line is there for no other reason than the council wasting paint.
I'll filter across DWL at traffic queues as well, again if I think I'm not going to get caught. I'm very wary at motorway junctions and in town centres because of CCTV, I wouldn't do it there. I've also heard of bikers getting done for it by the North Wales helicopter, but that may be urban myth.
Whether we would do it and whether it's legal are two different arguments.
**** knows, don't really care unless I have the police following behind me. If I see it as safe and there is no risk to me or others I will overtake.
yorkie_chris
03-03-11, 09:26 PM
Not legal IMO.
I think svste is absolutely correct, though I don't think it's about whether the vehicles are deemed stationary or not. I'd be happy to be proved wrong as it means I could then do it myself :mrgreen:
This is what the prosecution would throw at you in court
filtering is not necessary.
The exception is designed to allow you to pass slow moving (<10mph) or stationary vehicles such as tractors cutting hedges, road sweepers, broken down vehicles, parked vehicles, horse drawn carriages, etc. It only becomes necessary if your journey will come to a halt for a significant amount of time by not passing. This doesn't include waiting 30 seconds for a queue of traffic to move.
If you have a situation where you think you can convince a magistrate that it was necessary, and you couldn't have reasonably undertaken the rest of your journey without doing it, then go for it.
In a situation where I'm highly unlikely to get caught, like with heavy oncoming traffic and no coppers obviously there I do it.
If there's obviously a copper there I'll be a bit less bold.
yorkie_chris
03-03-11, 09:29 PM
Bluepete says no don't do it, Red Herring says yes it's OK, unless you have oncoming traffic (I think). A crossing halting traffic in both directions is about the only situation I can think of where there is no possibility of oncoming traffic.
in the circumstances of this thread,
What were the circumstances?
Specialone
03-03-11, 09:29 PM
Raving Davis got done last year for pulling back from an overtake only about a metre after they had started, I've done that loads of times.
-Ralph-
03-03-11, 09:32 PM
What were the circumstances?
Click the little arrow on the quotes and you'll see the whole thread. It was crossing DWL to filter cars queueing for traffic lights.
yorkie_chris
03-03-11, 09:35 PM
Well, I'd be happy to stand up in court presenting the road traffic act and the Oxford English dictionary as evidence.
If you can actually see the lights, then it's especially fine, as you are perfectly satisfied there is no oncoming.
Harry_Mc
03-03-11, 09:37 PM
Way I see it is 'that's a car queue' I have filtered over solids past police and had no issues... You just have to use good judgement and common sense... It is frustrating for cars tho having bike zip by when they will be stuck for the best part of an hour... But if they don't like it... get a bike. Thats what I did :)
Traded tin can security for freedom
I reckon it's down to rider to make a judgement, bearing in mind a case could probably always be made for it being illegal. I've done both - ridden past the queue and waited - as a result of different traffic conditions.
If you are going to go for it, I'd recommend slow cautious progress. In the event of a tug I can't see high speed, hooligan overtakes ever being regarded as "necessary".
*(At 17mph in the eyes of the law, you have to sit behind them if you can't get past without crossing the DWL, but I doubt any copper would book you for that.)
I wish the feds were around to stop cars once in a while, though. I've lost count of the number of near misses I've witnessed, or times I've been squeezed, when pedalling along (at 15-20mph) because some cager is desperate to get past despite the oncoming traffic that he/she didn't anticipate on a narrow and bendy road - makes you wonder what they thought the double whites were there for!
metalangel
04-03-11, 06:26 AM
Well, I'm wrong and stupid, will STHU now. :(
Bluepete
04-03-11, 06:49 PM
I checked with two traffic Sgts today and both agree that filtering past a queue and breaching a SLW is an offence.
The point is, the law doesn't differentiate between a motorcycle and any other vehicle. A queue of car waiting for any reason isn't stationary, I'm told they are just waiting to move off.
So, different views from different ends of the country.
You takes your chances.
Pete ;)
I checked with two traffic Sgts today and both agree that filtering past a queue and breaching a SLW is an offence.
I'm pretty sure that will be the majority view from the plod, and is exactly as I understood it. Be nice to know if this has ever been taken to court though.
-Ralph-
04-03-11, 06:56 PM
I checked with two traffic Sgts today and both agree that filtering past a queue and breaching a SLW is an offence.
The point is, the law doesn't differentiate between a motorcycle and any other vehicle. A queue of car waiting for any reason isn't stationary, I'm told they are just waiting to move off.
So, different views from different ends of the country.
You takes your chances.
Pete ;)
Thanks for taking the time to ask Pete. For clarity, SLW = Solid White Line??
yorkie_chris
04-03-11, 06:59 PM
A queue of car waiting for any reason isn't stationary, I'm told they are just waiting to move off.
You takes your chances.
They're not stationary, they're just not moving! :smt040
I checked with two traffic Sgts today and both agree that filtering past a queue and breaching a SLW is an offence.
The point is, the law doesn't differentiate between a motorcycle and any other vehicle. A queue of car waiting for any reason isn't stationary, I'm told they are just waiting to move off.
So, different views from different ends of the country.
You takes your chances.
Pete ;)
That seems to be the wisdom I was given - if it isn't parked, a pushbike, or a road maintenance vehicle doing less than 10mph, you're not allowed to cross the solid line to pass it (with any part of the vehicle).
-Ralph-
04-03-11, 07:03 PM
Be nice to know if this has ever been taken to court though.
And if so, was it the moving status of the vehicle "stationary" or not, that was in question in that court room, or was it whether the overtake was "necessary".
Bluepete
04-03-11, 07:28 PM
Be nice to know if this has ever been taken to court though.
I would love to know now. I don't know how to check though, maybe a legal type?
ED!
Job for ya!
Pete ;)
dizzyblonde
04-03-11, 07:35 PM
We were over in Hudds yesterday, and saw someone trying to cross over them and the other busy carriageway to get to a car dealership. Now I can understand people slyly overtaking, but to stop traffic on both sides of the road and do something completely illegal is beyond me!
SO, was I right in thinking this is illegal or not then, with both carriageways on the move? If its illegal to overtake DWL, is it illegal to try crossing over to the other side of the road? I don't want an armchair opinion, I want a BP opinion
Bluepete
04-03-11, 08:04 PM
You can cross the DWL's to turn into a road or premises on the other side of the road.
Pete ;)
What if you can pass the car without going across the SWL? If its a wider road for example and they are queuing at roadwork traffic lights (The ones that always seem to take longer....)
Bluepete
04-03-11, 08:16 PM
What if you can pass the car without going across the SWL? If its a wider road for example and they are queuing at roadwork traffic lights (The ones that always seem to take longer....)
It's crossing the SWL, not overtaking within a solid white line system. If thjere's space, go for it carefully.
Pete ;)
They're not stationary, they're just not moving! :smt040
Lol my thoughts exactly. How stupidly worded.
Stationary doesn't mean stationary?
keith_d
04-03-11, 11:40 PM
Strangely enough this was discussed when I did Bikesafe last year, and the traffic officers there were pretty clear. You can only cross a solid white line when:
* Turning right into a road or access to a property
(does not include parking on the other side of the road)
* Passing very slow moving vehicles including road maintenance etc.
* Passing a parked or broken down vehicle
* Passing an obstruction such as roadworks, fallen trees etc.
* Instructed to do so by a police officer
While many motorists regard them as 'no overtaking' lines they actually mean do not cross (that includes riding along them!! :smt083 ). So if the motorists are kind enough to leave room for a bike on your side of the lines, get filtering.
I quite simply regard DWLs as being compulsory for cars and discretionary for bikes. They're only put in place to tell f**kwit car drivers that it's not a good idea to try and get their slow and wide POS past a truck on that stretch of road, but everyone knows the average motorcyclist is far more aware of their surroundings and will use maximum safe acceleration to pass the antiquated, cancer-inducing smoke billowing truck full of disposable nappies that's slowing everyone down to 40 bloody mph in a NSL. In town I do the same and filter the 'wrong' side of them all the time. I haven't died yet so it must be safe, and never been nicked for it either. Maybe we just have more enlightened (read this as 'lazy') coppers around our way.
Speed limits are also discretionary (read as 'there are no speed limits') once outside 30s and 40s.
yorkie_chris
05-03-11, 12:20 AM
I'm curious to know, if they said you were taking liberties with the SWLs, and you said "nah those vehicles were clearly stationary" as you would, would the CPS even be *rsed to take it to court?
the traffic officers there were pretty clear. You can
Which it is worth quantifying is only their opinion in an official setting and in reality they may or may not pull you and/or report you for going against any of that.
Just use a bit of discretion and try not to be spotted doing it seems to be the best bet :)
I'm curious to know, if they said you were taking liberties with the SWLs, and you said "nah those vehicles were clearly stationary" as you would, would the CPS even be *rsed to take it to court?
Just depends on your definition of stationary. Whilst literally it means 'not moving' I infer from the Highway Code that it means stopped in a 'parked' or 'broken down' sense, rather than unable to proceed due to the road being full of other cars. I suspect the beak may take a dim view if he thinks the highway code is implying the first definition, but who knows?
beabert
05-03-11, 03:03 AM
Only way to make a more informed judgment is a court test case. Next person who gets caught, take it to court please :smt040
If there is not a substitute definition of the word stationary in the highway code book, i can only go by the official oxford English dictionary definition. 'not moving or not intended to be moved'
-Ralph-
05-03-11, 09:30 AM
i can only go by the official oxford English dictionary definition. 'not moving or not intended to be moved'
Well there is your answer then everybody, the court would use the dictionary definition as is nigh on impossible to dispute that.
yorkie_chris
05-03-11, 09:35 AM
Well, it is, since there are two options there.
I'd defend myself using the "not moving" definition presented there.
The other one, not intended to be moved, is where you're talking about steam engines designed to run equipment rather than vehicles.
-Ralph-
05-03-11, 09:36 AM
Well, it is, since there are two options there.
I'd defend myself using the "not moving" definition presented there.
The other one, not intended to be moved, is where you're talking about steam engines designed to run equipment rather than vehicles.
Good luck with that one :lol:
yorkie_chris
05-03-11, 09:39 AM
Well the primary defence is obviously not getting caught. Second is to be nice to the copper and hope he lets you off with a b*llocking, third is to hope CPS think it's too much of a PITA... last of all is to try and explain the English language to a beak lol.
I would hope that any court would be reasonable enough to see stationary (standing still...) plus safe conditions equals no case to answer.
-Ralph-
05-03-11, 09:46 AM
I would hope that any court would be reasonable enough to see stationary (standing still...) plus safe conditions equals no case to answer.
Remember I spent a full day in court for being very observant, having quick reactions, and saving the lives of a bunch of kids and an OAP crossing patrol!
What if prosecutor came at you with the "if necessary" argument? How would you explain that filtering to the front of the queue was absolutely necessary?
-Ralph-
05-03-11, 09:49 AM
necessary
adjective
1 needed to be done , achieved, or present; essential:
2 determined, existing, or happening by natural laws or predestination; inevitable:
noun
the basic requirements of life , such as food and warmth.
Bluepete
05-03-11, 05:33 PM
I know Red Herring in the last thread this was discussed said that the Criminal Protection Service wouldn't run a trial for a SWL offence.
However, they run trials for not wearing a seatbelt around here, mobile phone trials are common, so I can't see why they would decide not to run another endorsable trail.
The decider on whether you get a ticket or not is the Cop who stops you. If you get a ticket, you can still elect a trial (accepting a fixed penalty at the roadside doesn't mean you have accepted the points) and explain dictionary definitions to the beak, but if you were filtering, I doubt you'd win.
I'll have a look into some case law next week if there is any and get back to you all.
Pete ;)
yorkie_chris
05-03-11, 09:33 PM
I think the criminal protection service would be right to protect criminals like me for filtering on SWLs. ;)
Not my fault that some silly c**t painted a load of road for no apparent reason! especially in places easily wide enough to take 2 lanes of traffic plus 2 or 3 bikes!
An unjust law is no law at all, if you do it safely, and not wheelying over a blind crest, then morally the law can mind it's own business. It's the same as any other filtering, you're just going about your business not bothering anyone. The SWLs should act as a strong advisory to slow it right down and take care, but I'd say they have no business telling you what risks to take.
2 determined, existing, or happening by natural laws or predestination; inevitable:
Perfectly natural for a motorbike to filter. ;)
I'd say that as passing stationary traffic is pretty much the complete journey when riding a motorcycle that the necessity of passing traffic is the same as the necessity of the whole journey.
-Ralph-
05-03-11, 11:14 PM
Perfectly natural for a motorbike to filter. ;)
I'd say that as passing stationary traffic is pretty much the complete journey when riding a motorcycle that the necessity of passing traffic is the same as the necessity of the whole journey.
Was waiting to see what the answer would b :lol:, good luck with that one in front of a beak too ;-)
Whats the point of having a bike if when yo ucome across this sort of situation , you sit with the rest of the traffic?? pointless.
I don't much enjoy being sat at the back of a row of cars in a NSL on a stretch of road that might have SWLs.
punyXpress
06-03-11, 05:01 PM
Gents - technology is on our side!
Since more & more cages are designed to cut the engine when stopped, those vehicles are comprehensively stationary.
Also, when it's pi$$ing down with rain & the cagers are grinning like idiots at our misfortune, do we sit there & get wet or do we ' make progress ' & wipe those silly grins off their faces?
They dont like it up 'em or us past them.
necessary
adjective
1 needed to be done , achieved, or present; essential:
Given that the typical point of using a motor vehicle and the road network is to make progress towards a destination, I'd say there was an argument that using such an opportunity to maintain that progress was, indeed, very necessary.
In fact, didn't the Traffic Management Act create all those pseudo-cops for exactly that purpose: to keep traffic flowing?
Following on, a motorbike should be regarded as a safer vehicle for such a manoeuvre due to its narrow width giving it the best ability to avoid any other hazard that may appear (i.e. car/truck coming the other way).
Do I sound like I could convince in court?
yorkie_chris
06-03-11, 07:14 PM
I don't much enjoy being sat at the back of a row of cars in a NSL on a stretch of road that might have SWLs.
It's bloody dangerous leaving yourself in a position when one of those dozing mongs might drive into the back of you and squish you.
Whats the point of having a bike if when yo ucome across this sort of situation , you sit with the rest of the traffic?? pointless.
Are you suggesting the only point of a bike is to cross double white lines? :confused:
Are you suggesting the only point of a bike is to cross double white lines? :confused:
In a way yes. If your stupid enough to stay behind a stationary que of traffic just because its not the done thing and the other carridgeway is clear. Then IMO yo may as well give you licence back.
Whats the point of having a bike to ride it like a car??
-Ralph-
06-03-11, 08:14 PM
Do I sound like I could convince in court?
No.
In a way yes. If your stupid enough to stay behind a stationary que of traffic just because its not the done thing and the other carridgeway is clear. Then IMO yo may as well give you licence back.
Whats the point of having a bike to ride it like a car??
Chances are high that you can get past them legally soon enough anyway, it doesn't make a lot of difference. You can still make way better progress on a bike than in a car without having to cross double white lines.
yorkie_chris
06-03-11, 11:21 PM
One road I have in mind you'll be there for half an hour, there is helpfully a cycle lane up the inside, but that's more risky.
Personally I go up the outside remaining within the lines where possible, passing the parked cars when there is sufficient gap in the oncoming traffic that it's safe to.
If there are coppers there then I'll stay within the lines and flash cars to get them to shift out of the way so I can pass without crossing the lines to avoid any discussion about what stationary and necessary means ;)
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.