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?

PS. Stradders' - again, apologies for the derail. I do note that you specifically requested your thread stay on track, hence starting this one.

Originally Posted by Baph

So, does anyone (other than a serving officer of the law), know the other reason?

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.

Originally Posted by Woz

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Baph

Bingo.

Damnit, I owe a pint now.

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"

Originally Posted by Baph

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.

Originally Posted by Baph

Bingo.

Damnit, I owe a pint now.

I WILL cash that in one day

I thought Ralph's post was interesting, I wonder if this case set a precedent?

Originally Posted by -Ralph-

...........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.
..........

[Stu]

Originally Posted by Baph

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

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

know the other reason?

PS. Stradders' - again, apologies for the derail. I do note that you specifically requested your thread stay on track, hence starting this one.

Originally Posted by Baph

Bingo.

Damnit, I owe a pint now.

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

Originally Posted by ArtyLady

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

Originally Posted by Stu

Surely that excludes woz as a driving instructor - driving law being a large par of his job

Oi!!! I WILL have my pint!

Originally Posted by Stu

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 Surely that excludes woz as a driving instructor - driving law being a large par of his job

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.

Originally Posted by ArtyLady

I thought Ralph's post was interesting, I wonder if this case set a precedent?

Originally Posted by Stu

Case law is always a precedent - I'll certainly file that one away

+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...