Road markings or road signs?

[DJFridge]

Possibly one for the law enforcement specialists. Some of you may know this bit of road already but, for the majority of you who won't, it's the A285 south of Petworth and you're heading southbound toward Duncton.

http://i1156.photobucket.com/albums/p579/DJFridge/A285/Pic1.jpg

As you come round the corner onto the straight, the double white continues passed the point where it is just there because of visibility, because of the junction coming up.

http://i1156.photobucket.com/albums/p579/DJFridge/A285/Pic2.jpg

Once past the junction, you then get to the end of the double white and enter the NSL, and this sign appears "No overtaking for 410 yards"

http://i1156.photobucket.com/albums/p579/DJFridge/A285/Pic3.jpg

You're reminded after about 100 yards

http://i1156.photobucket.com/albums/p579/DJFridge/A285/Pic4.jpg

This entrance and junction is the reason

http://i1156.photobucket.com/albums/p579/DJFridge/A285/Pic5.jpg

Another reminder

http://i1156.photobucket.com/albums/p579/DJFridge/A285/Pic6.jpg

And then you're clear

http://i1156.photobucket.com/albums/p579/DJFridge/A285/Pic7.jpg

My questions are two. Firstly, wouldn't it have been cheaper and less confusing just to extend the double white line past the second junction, rather than putting up signs which can, and at times are, obscured by vegetation? And secondly, when road signs and road markings contradict, which they do in this case, which has precedence?

[timwilky]

solid white does not mean no overtaking. So if they do not want you to overtake they need a sign for that, but they don't mind you crossing the line.

So different rules at different places. Extending the solid white would not achieve what they wanted.

[DJFridge]

solid white does not mean no overtaking. So if they do not want you to overtake they need a sign for that, but they don't mind you crossing the line.

So different rules at different places. Extending the solid white would not achieve what they wanted.

Erm, eh?

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.

That reads "no overtaking" to me

[timwilky]

You ride a bike!

Do you need to cross the line to overtake?

Solid white means do not cross, not do not overtake.

[Runako]

Thats a less than satisfactory explanation IMO Tim. Would you advise a new rider to overtake between the white line and the vehicle in a one lane road? OP is correct. Do not cross the line effectively means do not overtake unless in the circumstances described.

In answer to your question, I believe the sign takes precedence. The broken line applies to both lanes so oncoming drivers may overtake on their side if there are no signs to the contrary. Of course they could have done a solid line on one side and a broken line on the other (I've seen this elsewhere). But I believe in this scenario the sign would apply first.

Edit: Just to add a little to my post, everything I've read so far suggests road markings are guidance about the road conditions (must still be followed) whereas signs are giving an order or instruction.

[fenjer]

perhaps if you travel from the other direction you can see the junction so would be able to overtake when driving from the other direction.

so double whites wouldnt be appropriate?

[Runako]

perhaps if you travel from the other direction you can see the junction so would be able to overtake when driving from the other direction.

so double whites wouldnt be appropriate?

This is what I meant squire.

[Red Herring]

I'm not sure I understand why you say the road markings and sign contradict? The double white line system seems straightforward enough, and when that ends it is replaced by center line hazard markings along a stretch of road where there are signs indicating a prohibition on overtaking. Hazard lines are not a sign saying you can overtake, they simply indicate the centre of the road and warn you of potential hazards.

I do understand your logic in asking why do they need to use both systems. Much as I like the idea they they have used double whites so that motorcyclists can overtake each other along that particular stretch I somehow doubt that was their intention. I suspect it has more to do with some of the other prohibitions that you get with the use of a solid white centre line, for example you must not park or stop unless to pick up or drop off passengers. I don't know the road but if you were to turn round in that first picture would there be a brow of a hill there or some other hazard that might make it dangerous to stop/park?

[DJFridge]

You ride a bike!

Do you need to cross the line to overtake?

Solid white means do not cross, not do not overtake.

I also drive a car (not at the same time, obviously)

I'm not sure I understand why you say the road markings and sign contradict? The double white line system seems straightforward enough, and when that ends it is replaced by center line hazard markings along a stretch of road where there are signs indicating a prohibition on overtaking. Hazard lines are not a sign saying you can overtake, they simply indicate the centre of the road and warn you of potential hazards.

I do understand your logic in asking why do they need to use both systems. Much as I like the idea they they have used double whites so that motorcyclists can overtake each other along that particular stretch I somehow doubt that was their intention. I suspect it has more to do with some of the other prohibitions that you get with the use of a solid white centre line, for example you must not park or stop unless to pick up or drop off passengers. I don't know the road but if you were to turn round in that first picture would there be a brow of a hill there or some other hazard that might make it dangerous to stop/park?

Brow of the hill, on a corner actually RH!

Cheers all for the input. Been thinking about it too and fenjer's comment gave me an idea. You can actually see the junction from both directions but, where heading south extending the double white would be perfectly clear, heading north you would hit double whites on a bit of dead straight road, so maybe the signs are clearer in that direction

[Teejayexc]

I'm not sure I understand why you say the road markings and sign contradict? The double white line system seems straightforward enough, and when that ends it is replaced by center line hazard markings along a stretch of road where there are signs indicating a prohibition on overtaking. Hazard lines are not a sign saying you can overtake, they simply indicate the centre of the road and warn you of potential hazards.

I do understand your logic in asking why do they need to use both systems. Much as I like the idea they they have used double whites so that motorcyclists can overtake each other along that particular stretch I somehow doubt that was their intention. I suspect it has more to do with some of the other prohibitions that you get with the use of a solid white centre line, for example you must not park or stop unless to pick up or drop off passengers. I don't know the road but if you were to turn round in that first picture would there be a brow of a hill there or some other hazard that might make it dangerous to stop/park?


See what you're saying, but.....


Doesn't the solid white line on the side of the road indicate no stopping/parking?

[Kilted Ginger]

Tim and red are spot on, double white lines dont mean dont overtake.

[Dicky Ticker]

the length and spacing of the broken white line before and after the no overtaking gives an indication as to the hazard level.


No overtaking by red cars on the sign-----says nothing about motorbikes:)

[dirtydog]

No overtaking by red cars on the sign-----says nothing about motorbikes:)


Liking the logic there DT! damn why did we buy a red car?

[Red Herring]

No overtaking by red cars on the sign-----says nothing about motorbikes:)

I also like your logic, do let us know once you've tested it in court.....:)

[DJFridge]

Liking the logic there DT! damn why did we buy a red car?

I think you're OK in a red car, as long as you don't overtake a black car (i.e. me in my Fiesta!)