Crossing double white lines?
Discussion
Do you ever cross double white lines? In the dim and distant past I would never even think about crossing double lines, these days I still don't; it's ingrained in me not to but more and more I see double white lines where they didn't used to be and wonder why the double whites are there. I think that essentially the reason why I've obeyed the double white line is that in the past you could always respect why they were where they are.
These days I don't think that is always the case. I keep coming across double whites where it is difficult to see why they are needed, or if they are required they seem to extend for further than necessary.
This little video is a case in point. Derestricted road (60 mph limit), following the BMW which is doing less than 40. We round the bend and the BMW maintains its speed. From about the 11 seconds point in the video it is clearly visible that the road ahead is completely clear but the double white line continue for another 8 seconds, (so for about 150 yards).
Would anyone cross the double whites earlier to overtake the slower car? I personally wouldn't but only because I wouldn't risk being seen crossing double whites, in this case it looks to me to be completely safe to do so, but if someone wiser were to explain why it would not be, then please go ahead. So why are these double whites there at all? Surely it should be a dashed white on "our" side of the road?
I'm looking for wisdom
https://youtu.be/lwRb_Yal4MI
These days I don't think that is always the case. I keep coming across double whites where it is difficult to see why they are needed, or if they are required they seem to extend for further than necessary.
This little video is a case in point. Derestricted road (60 mph limit), following the BMW which is doing less than 40. We round the bend and the BMW maintains its speed. From about the 11 seconds point in the video it is clearly visible that the road ahead is completely clear but the double white line continue for another 8 seconds, (so for about 150 yards).
Would anyone cross the double whites earlier to overtake the slower car? I personally wouldn't but only because I wouldn't risk being seen crossing double whites, in this case it looks to me to be completely safe to do so, but if someone wiser were to explain why it would not be, then please go ahead. So why are these double whites there at all? Surely it should be a dashed white on "our" side of the road?
I'm looking for wisdom
https://youtu.be/lwRb_Yal4MI
Edited by Wollemi on Tuesday 12th April 23:18
In the traffic signage manual the opening comment is that double white lines should only be used sparingly and stringent rules are set down as to where, relating to width of carriageway and visibility. Councils are routinely ignoring this, we have a section near us which also has the sign oncoming vehicles in the middle of the road. It does result in many being unenforceable but if you cause a collision expect the wrath of god.
You can cross a solid white line to overtake a pedal cyclist, or a horse, or a road maintenance vehicle, provided they're moving at 10mph or less. And to overtake a parked car (which almost certainly shouldn't be there if there's a double line system), or to turn right. All assuming it's safe to do so, of course. There may be other exceptions that I've forgotten to list.
So I often use the "10mph or less" rule to overtake a cyclist, and cross the line to leave plenty of space. But I wouldn't overtake a car.
Edited to add: I didn't notice the video link. If that's what we're discussing, then it's all a bit irrelevant because the Chimaera driver didn't cross the solid line anyway.
So I often use the "10mph or less" rule to overtake a cyclist, and cross the line to leave plenty of space. But I wouldn't overtake a car.
Edited to add: I didn't notice the video link. If that's what we're discussing, then it's all a bit irrelevant because the Chimaera driver didn't cross the solid line anyway.
Edited by Dr Mike Oxgreen on Thursday 14th April 07:01
Whether they're double or not is irrelevant. It makes no difference to you whether the line for the other lane is solid or broken - that's whether they can overtake or not.
If you know the road and KNOW that you can see the overtake to be clear, nothing hidden, no side entries, no dips, no guessing, no hoping - then goferit. Treat it as an advisory, something that informs your personal decision making - just as you might choose to treat a speed limit.
But don't complain if you get tugged for something you knew to be naughty.
That video's not entirely obvious, because of the position of the camera within the car, and the timing at which it cuts off - is there an entrance for that property on the left? There's still only about a second or two "too much" solid, at most, because there just isn't the visibility any earlier.
<rewatches, full screen>
Yes, there is an entrance unsighted behind the property - you JUST see it as the clip chops off. The whole of the bend is a bit hidden in a dip, and only comes fully visible at about 11sec after the blindish crest and poorly-sighted junction before it. It'd be easier to see if it's a problem or not without the BM in the way. Streetview link?
So full visibility starts from about 11sec, lines stop at 17sec - six seconds at 37/38mph. At absolute most, that white line could stop about 100m earlier. Probably not worth losing sleep over.
If you know the road and KNOW that you can see the overtake to be clear, nothing hidden, no side entries, no dips, no guessing, no hoping - then goferit. Treat it as an advisory, something that informs your personal decision making - just as you might choose to treat a speed limit.
But don't complain if you get tugged for something you knew to be naughty.
That video's not entirely obvious, because of the position of the camera within the car, and the timing at which it cuts off - is there an entrance for that property on the left? There's still only about a second or two "too much" solid, at most, because there just isn't the visibility any earlier.
<rewatches, full screen>
Yes, there is an entrance unsighted behind the property - you JUST see it as the clip chops off. The whole of the bend is a bit hidden in a dip, and only comes fully visible at about 11sec after the blindish crest and poorly-sighted junction before it. It'd be easier to see if it's a problem or not without the BM in the way. Streetview link?
So full visibility starts from about 11sec, lines stop at 17sec - six seconds at 37/38mph. At absolute most, that white line could stop about 100m earlier. Probably not worth losing sleep over.
Edited by TooMany2cvs on Wednesday 13th April 08:20
As the poster above said, 100m isn't enough to get excited about. 330 feet (give or take) is about 5.5 seconds at 40mph.
There's not enough view from the video to see, but was the buildings complex on the left visible enough to be seen to be clear of hazards which might have affected the BMW's position ? In the absence of a better view I'd have been tempted to wait until the BMW blocked the entrance for the overtake, although I might have moved offside in preparation and for view.
There's not enough view from the video to see, but was the buildings complex on the left visible enough to be seen to be clear of hazards which might have affected the BMW's position ? In the absence of a better view I'd have been tempted to wait until the BMW blocked the entrance for the overtake, although I might have moved offside in preparation and for view.
They may appear to go too far in the vid but I'm going to hazard a guess in the video they stop at the corner when visability of the bend in the road improves.
Perhaps previously or in the summer the grass grows higher or plants/trees/shrubs on the right hand side of the road affect visability until the solid line stops.
Dont recognise the road so just a stab in the dark.
Perhaps previously or in the summer the grass grows higher or plants/trees/shrubs on the right hand side of the road affect visability until the solid line stops.
Dont recognise the road so just a stab in the dark.
TooMany2cvs said:
Whether they're double or not is irrelevant. It makes no difference to you whether the line for the other lane is solid or broken - that's whether they can overtake or not.
Quite. I surprised / terrified someone once when I pulled out to overtake going down this roadhttps://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.5263626,-0.33780...
They couldn't get their heads around the fact that I'd gone into the double lane (which had a solid line to the right of it) to complete the overtake.
Hackney said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Whether they're double or not is irrelevant. It makes no difference to you whether the line for the other lane is solid or broken - that's whether they can overtake or not.
Quite. I surprised / terrified someone once when I pulled out to overtake going down this roadhttps://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.5263626,-0.33780...
They couldn't get their heads around the fact that I'd gone into the double lane (which had a solid line to the right of it) to complete the overtake.
king clue about driving" shock. Hold the front page...foxsasha said:
Is that just past The Sun Inn? That's my default quick blast route 
I'm pretty sure it is that road, going up over Norwood then down towards Otley.Incidentally I was once driving this road in the other direction, and on the corner just after the Sun Inn is where a motorcyclist came off and slid across the road in front of my car. Must have missed him by inches.
The problem with these extended white lines comes when there's a queue of vehicles behind you waiting for you to overtake the slower vehicle. Chances are they won't give the white lines a second thought, so before you've started your overtake you're being overtaken. Sitting there with your right hand indicator on and not overtaking could cause confusion.
Here's a similar one. A507 Baldock to Buntingford, just west of Cottered.
I first came across this apparently unnecessary solid white line one autumn but it wasn't until eight months had passed before I realised why the lines had been extended so far east travelling towards Cottered. The reason being that for four months of the year a significant part of the view is completely obscured by growing crops, until one reaches the end of the solid white line.
So, for eight months of the year it's perfectly safe, but illegal, to overtake on the solid white line, whereas for four months of the year it's both dangerous and illegal. So, it appears the law can be an ass for part of the year but not all the time.
Maybe the case cited by the OP is similar to the A507 example.
I first came across this apparently unnecessary solid white line one autumn but it wasn't until eight months had passed before I realised why the lines had been extended so far east travelling towards Cottered. The reason being that for four months of the year a significant part of the view is completely obscured by growing crops, until one reaches the end of the solid white line.
So, for eight months of the year it's perfectly safe, but illegal, to overtake on the solid white line, whereas for four months of the year it's both dangerous and illegal. So, it appears the law can be an ass for part of the year but not all the time.
Maybe the case cited by the OP is similar to the A507 example.
Edited by johnao on Saturday 16th April 09:30
White line or not I'd have had a couple of wheels over for most of that section looking for the view / opportunity. Provided you don't commit you can always return to left.
No less illegal but if it it gave me the info I needed before 17 secs and was confident I was unobserved, I'd be gone.
As it is in the vid a couple of seconds makes no difference.
No less illegal but if it it gave me the info I needed before 17 secs and was confident I was unobserved, I'd be gone.
As it is in the vid a couple of seconds makes no difference.
..... agree excessive double whites these days. Am circumspect about crossing to pass - mainly cos of the new staziesque dash-cammers that are now stalking the highways 
Think they struggle to get plod's interest in their petty vindictiveness re: speeding / overtakes - but the double-white thing is too easy to 'prove' using these small-minded gits' tech.
Think they struggle to get plod's interest in their petty vindictiveness re: speeding / overtakes - but the double-white thing is too easy to 'prove' using these small-minded gits' tech.
Is it anything to do with that farm house on the left in the video? It could be that if they are turning right you might not be visible due to the angle and the dip in the road if you overtook earlier than those lines permit.
I've noticed more double-whites appearing in places where I used to overtake years ago. My guess is that there have been a number of accidents there and the lines are introduced as a safety measure.
I wouldn't cross one personally as the only reason they are in place is for safety, both for you/us as the driver and other people around that area.
I've noticed more double-whites appearing in places where I used to overtake years ago. My guess is that there have been a number of accidents there and the lines are introduced as a safety measure.
I wouldn't cross one personally as the only reason they are in place is for safety, both for you/us as the driver and other people around that area.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff