Overtaking on central painted chevrons

[Stevesh]

The highway code states this :-

130
Areas of white diagonal stripes or chevrons painted on the road. These are to separate traffic lanes or to protect traffic turning right.

if the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so
if the area is marked with chevrons and bordered by solid white lines you MUST NOT enter it except in an emergency

So it is quite explicit that where there is a solid line, that must not be crossed.

However, the advise about what to do with a broken line is a bit fuzzy. So, as these types of center makers are becoming more prevalent on long stretches of road, can you enter them to overtake a slower car?

Steve

[dibbers006]

I would use it but expect abuse from the numpties and if you kick up crap then the Police would probably not be happy.

As all driving, the perception of consideration and care often outways the reality <sigh>

[flemke]

One thing to keep in mind is that these areas tend to collect more debris, as there is less traffic across them to kick it out of the way. As a result, they sometimes have less grip, and you're more likely to pick up a puncture.

[Stevesh]

I'm thinking of the ones that are 1-2 feet wide and used to space out the two lanes of opposing traffic rather than the full lanes that are often between right turn lanes. I would guess these larger areas would accumulate more debris but it is a good point to take into account.

Steve

[BertBert]

dibbers006 said:

and if you kick up crap then the Police would probably not be happy.

I don't understand what you mean.
Bert

[blank]

They're NOT chevrons!!!!

Solid lines and chevrons (like this ^) are found at motorway junctions - it's a MUST NOT, so 3 points if you cross into them.

Cross hatchings - the diagonal lines you see in the middle of roads or for areas for turning right (like this /) - if they're bordered by broken white lines then it's fine, although be aware of the debris as others have said. If they're bordered by solid white lines it's an interesting one, it used to be in the highway code as a do not (rather than an illegal MUST NOT), but now they're not mentioned. I'm not sure on the penalties as I don't think they conform to solid white line regs?

[Stevesh]

Sorry, cross hatching not chevrons.

The extract in my first post is lifted straight from the on line highway code so the MUST NOT is pretty explicit and current.

Steve

[blank]

Stevesh said:

Sorry, cross hatching not chevrons.

The extract in my first post is lifted straight from the on line highway code so the MUST NOT is pretty explicit and current.

Steve

Yes, for chevron areas. But it doesn't cover areas of diagonal white lines bordered with a solid line (which it used to).

[flemke]

blank said:

Stevesh said:

Sorry, cross hatching not chevrons.

The extract in my first post is lifted straight from the on line highway code so the MUST NOT is pretty explicit and current.

Steve

Yes, for chevron areas. But it doesn't cover areas of diagonal white lines bordered with a solid line (which it used to).

You're saying that they once bordered diagonals with broken lines, but one was not allowed to cross the broken lines?
What was the purpose of going to the trouble of making the lines broken?

[dibbers006]

BertBert said:

dibbers006 said:

and if you kick up crap then the Police would probably not be happy.

I don't understand what you mean.
Bert

As in... if you drive down a 'safe' 'secure' 'legal' route... the Police would still be pissed off (if watching) if you throw up all the unused bit of roads needles, stones, dust and rubbish into the air and other motorists.

There is more to driving than just legality.

[blank]

flemke said:

blank said:

Stevesh said:

Sorry, cross hatching not chevrons.

The extract in my first post is lifted straight from the on line highway code so the MUST NOT is pretty explicit and current.

Steve

Yes, for chevron areas. But it doesn't cover areas of diagonal white lines bordered with a solid line (which it used to).

You're saying that they once bordered diagonals with broken lines, but one was not allowed to cross the broken lines?
What was the purpose of going to the trouble of making the lines broken?

I don't understand.

I'm saying:

Diagonal lines with broken border - fine to cross, always has been (with the slightly ambiguous "necessary" bit)

Diagonal lines with solid border - no longer mentioned, used to be a do not rather than a MUST NOT, so not explicitly illegal as far as I know. Don't think they conform to normal solid line rules.

Chevrons with solid border - 3 points, always has been.

[Stevesh]

blank said:

flemke said:

blank said:

Stevesh said:

Sorry, cross hatching not chevrons.

The extract in my first post is lifted straight from the on line highway code so the MUST NOT is pretty explicit and current.

Steve

Yes, for chevron areas. But it doesn't cover areas of diagonal white lines bordered with a solid line (which it used to).

You're saying that they once bordered diagonals with broken lines, but one was not allowed to cross the broken lines?
What was the purpose of going to the trouble of making the lines broken?

I don't understand.

I'm saying:

Diagonal lines with broken border - fine to cross, always has been (with the slightly ambiguous "necessary" bit)

Diagonal lines with solid border - no longer mentioned, used to be a do not rather than a MUST NOT, so not explicitly illegal as far as I know. Don't think they conform to normal solid line rules.

Chevrons with solid border - 3 points, always has been.

I think what is confusing me is the necessary bit - the rest, as you've summed up superbly, I think I knew (even though I don't know a chevron from a cross hatch )!

My 'necessary' may be to pass the 50mph car on a straight bit of road in a NSL whereas the intended interpreation of 'necessary' from the bloke who wrote the code is passing an agricultural vehicle doing 15mph on the same road.

Steve

[blank]

I don't think you'll get a definition of necessary unfortunately. After all, it's probably not even necessary to be driving! Safer just to stay in bed!

For what it's worth, I overtake on hatchings bordered by broken lines, and there is a video of a police driver's overtaking demonstration doing the same.

[flemke]

I suppose one could argue that "necessary" was meant for situations such as the overtaking of a cyclist or a tractor travelling at 11+ mph (which one is not allowed to cross any solid line to overtake).
It's always seemed to me that, within the speed limit and in the absence of any hazards, if I wished to overtake any vehicle, but doing that would require crossing the broken line/diagonals, then because it would be necessary to cross it in order to perform that legal overtaking manouevre, crossing them would be within the law.
I would hope that most TrafPol observing that scene would be influenced by the quality of the overtake itself before deciding whether to have a word with the overtaker.

[p1esk]

flemke said:

I suppose one could argue that "necessary" was meant for situations such as the overtaking of a cyclist or a tractor travelling at 11+ mph (which one is not allowed to cross any solid line to overtake).
It's always seemed to me that, within the speed limit and in the absence of any hazards, if I wished to overtake any vehicle, but doing that would require crossing the broken line/diagonals, then because it would be necessary to cross it in order to perform that legal overtaking manouevre, crossing them would be within the law.
I would hope that most TrafPol observing that scene would be influenced by the quality of the overtake itself before deciding whether to have a word with the overtaker.

Well in a situation like this I don't know what the hell "necessary" means, so I use my own judgement. We'd be far better off if these people who can not devise sensible rules just p155ed off and let us get on with it. Things would then soon settle down and provide a decent result IMHO.

It's like when there is a failure of a traffic lights system. People sort things out amongst themselves and we get on much better. Most of the time these 'clever' officials that devise this crap are completely redundant.

Best wishes all,
Dave - still working on the diplomacy course.

[WhoseGeneration]

[quote=p1esk}Most of the time these 'clever' officials that devise this crap are completely redundant.

[/quote]

Heretic, they are highly qualified functionaries of our benevolent State.
Who know best, always.

[heebeegeetee]

nick106 said:

If the line is broken, as always, it is advised not to overtake unless necessary.

Who by?

[HRG.]

nick106 said:

'necessary' will be something you would need to argue with the officer if they have a different interpretation of the event (if they decide to pull you over)

I myself have been overtaken in such instance by a police officer, I was doing around 28mph in a 30. We have fancy anti skid tarmac too which makes it appear even more of a 'nono'

Exhibit A)

Edited by nick106 on Wednesday 12th August 14:28

As long as it's safe there's nothing in law to stop you overtaking across those, I do it daily.

[Vaux]

nick106 said:

We have fancy anti skid tarmac too which makes it appear even more of a 'nono'

The red paint? Means nothing. Or is it "Shell Grip" stuff? But why would they put that in an area no one is supposed to drive?

[Vaux]

blank said:

But it doesn't cover areas of diagonal white lines bordered with a solid line (which it used to).

Rule 165?