Solid white lines

[Jacal]

I expect the part of the bike was the nearside pannier then.

NOPE

 

[2gses]

?

simple question, why ride the A65, horrible road, lots of alternatives if you can read a map

 

[Glyno]

Solid White Lines... If I think on tomorrow I will try and take a few snapshots of the locals doing their best to write me off

 

[MikeP]

Warning: Long Reply (if you don't want to read it, or cannot stay the course, pass-on by. It is intended for those who may wish to unravel some of the knots in Road Traffic Law).

I wouldn't know where to look. I am just an ordinary bloke on the street, it is not my business to know every nuance of the law. I, like 95% of every other road user, am guided by the Highway Code. Perhaps this is something you coppers occasionally lose sight of?
I have read what Columbus has posted, I assume this is the actual law set down. I would argue that it is still not clear with regard to passing a horse drawn carriage if the horse drawing it is being led (or ridden) at or less than 10mph.

The mistake is to take any section of (traffic) law in isolation. Various Acts and Sections define different classes of vehicle. The error many people make is to assume that "vehicle" means a car, bus or a truck. It doesn't. A trailer is a vehicle, just not a motor-vehicle (and motor-vehicle has several sub-categories*), a pedal-cycle is a "vehicle", as is a pedestrian-controlled vehicle, again not motor-vehicles as defined (even though they may have a motor).

It is bit of a minefield but you have to take all the various pieces of legislation into account (and in some cases cross-reference them) because the legislators do when they frame the law to save them adding all the different definitions for each and every rule or regulation.

In this case, the absence of the word 'vehicle' in relation to the horse means that it rules-out a horse-drawn vehicle (just as in any case where a pedestrian may be cited in the law, if the citation doesn't include a pedestrian-controlled-vehicle, it means one without such a vehicle).

As this regulation does not specify a pedestrian-controlled vehicle among those that may be passed (by crossing the road markings), it follows that you cannot do so. Now these regulations amended the older ones (that just said "no passing" a moving vehicle - end of story). The fact that you don't see pedestrian-controlled vehicles on our roads these days (think of the old Post Office electric carts with a handle sticking out the front and Postie wandering along in front steering and controlling the juice from the batteries) doesn't mean you can gaily swerve around one ambling along holding-up the flow of traffic within a section of road governed by an unbroken white line.

The best way to read traffic law and regulations is often to note what is left-out rather than what is specifically mentioned.

Another example of the sort of cross-referencing required is the sub-section dealing with vehicles being used for highway repairs. That sub-section makes it plain that the vehicle must be travelling at less than 10mph, be engaged in such repairs and displaying one of two types of sign. To know what type of sign you have to look-up the regulations governing such signs (in this case it's either the blue circular field with a white direction arrow, or the same sign mounted on a yellow field with amber flashing lights top and bottom).

From the above replies Im not surprised almost all the cars held back and did not overtake. I have looked up Regulation 26 The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002. Its just as quoted by Jacal, to me it reads like a script from Yes Minister, and Im just as confused at the end as I was at the start.

Take (g)in order to pass a horse that is being ridden or led at a speed not exceeding 10 mph; -
Our small group discussion decided When attached to a caravan it is not being ridden or led but driven from within so you cannot overtake. However if the horse pulling the caravan is being walked with, which is quite common you can overtake.

See above: It doesn't matter whether the person controlling the horse is on it, on the vehicle it's drawing, or leading it because the motive-power is not the deciding factor. The deciding factor is the vehicle that the horse is towing. The vehicle in question does not fit any of the ones permitted to be passed (by crossing or straddling the unbroken white line).

Its not surprising Lawyers make so much money making sense of this lot, consider who would make an issue and include within the law subsections such as "to a pedal bicycle not having a sidecar attached thereto"

That's because the terminology has to rule-out any genuine misunderstandings. For example:

'Solid white line' all white lines are solid be they carriageway markings or hazard markings. 'Unbroken' or 'continuous' leaves fewer opportunities for genuine error.

It also has to deal with physical reality when trying to regulate for safety: It may be safe to pass a bicycle travelling at less than 10mph because it isn't very wide but one that has been fitted with a sidecar may cause a large vehicle to cross further into the opposing lane of traffic. So those who framed the legislation felt they needed to make that plain (they obviously made the mistake of believing that people would recognise the difference between a horse and a vehicle being drawn by a horse ).

They have to be careful not to leave the door open to the inherent stupidity of some road-users, hence the part dealing with crossing a continuous white line where there's a broken white line nearest you (you can cross but opposing traffic cannot), states that crossing it should only be done when prevailing traffic conditions allow you to do so safely. That's to stop the muppet who has a head-on claiming that the law says he could cross it.


*Motor vehicles. I used this term but you will also see one used in various aspects the law - Mechanically Propelled Vehicle (it's usually applied in relation to behaviour type offences).

The categories alter according to the application. For example, when it comes to driving licences there are certain definitions, different from those used for Vehicle Excise duty liability and different again for Construction & Use Regulations. Others, such as VOSA have another set of categories for Type-Approval etc.



Road Traffic laws are complex and arcane. That's why Traffic Coppers used to do specialist courses, I don't think that they do these days (at least not to the extent that was once the case) in-line with the new National Policing Motto: Cheap is Best.

 

[Tonyplod]

Get a life

Rather than spending hours reading or debating this, get out and ride your bikes for christsake, Use your common sense!!.

 

[brassmonkey001]

Warning: Long Reply (if you don't want to read it, or cannot stay the course, pass-on by. It is intended for those who may wish to unravel some of the knots in Road Traffic Law).

The mistake is to take any section of (traffic) law in isolation. Various Acts and Sections define different classes of vehicle. The error many people make is to assume that "vehicle" means a car, bus or a truck. It doesn't. A trailer is a vehicle, just not a motor-vehicle (and motor-vehicle has several sub-categories*), a pedal-cycle is a "vehicle", as is a pedestrian-controlled vehicle, again not motor-vehicles as defined (even though they may have a motor).

It is bit of a minefield but you have to take all the various pieces of legislation into account (and in some cases cross-reference them) because the legislators do when they frame the law to save them adding all the different definitions for each and every rule or regulation.

In this case, the absence of the word 'vehicle' in relation to the horse means that it rules-out a horse-drawn vehicle (just as in any case where a pedestrian may be cited in the law, if the citation doesn't include a pedestrian-controlled-vehicle, it means one without such a vehicle).

As this regulation does not specify a pedestrian-controlled vehicle among those that may be passed (by crossing the road markings), it follows that you cannot do so. Now these regulations amended the older ones (that just said "no passing" a moving vehicle - end of story). The fact that you don't see pedestrian-controlled vehicles on our roads these days (think of the old Post Office electric carts with a handle sticking out the front and Postie wandering along in front steering and controlling the juice from the batteries) doesn't mean you can gaily swerve around one ambling along holding-up the flow of traffic within a section of road governed by an unbroken white line.

The best way to read traffic law and regulations is often to note what is left-out rather than what is specifically mentioned.

Another example of the sort of cross-referencing required is the sub-section dealing with vehicles being used for highway repairs. That sub-section makes it plain that the vehicle must be travelling at less than 10mph, be engaged in such repairs and displaying one of two types of sign. To know what type of sign you have to look-up the regulations governing such signs (in this case it's either the blue circular field with a white direction arrow, or the same sign mounted on a yellow field with amber flashing lights top and bottom).

See above: It doesn't matter whether the person controlling the horse is on it, on the vehicle it's drawing, or leading it because the motive-power is not the deciding factor. The deciding factor is the vehicle that the horse is towing. The vehicle in question does not fit any of the ones permitted to be passed (by crossing or straddling the unbroken white line).

That's because the terminology has to rule-out any genuine misunderstandings. For example:

'Solid white line' all white lines are solid be they carriageway markings or hazard markings. 'Unbroken' or 'continuous' leaves fewer opportunities for genuine error.

It also has to deal with physical reality when trying to regulate for safety: It may be safe to pass a bicycle travelling at less than 10mph because it isn't very wide but one that has been fitted with a sidecar may cause a large vehicle to cross further into the opposing lane of traffic. So those who framed the legislation felt they needed to make that plain (they obviously made the mistake of believing that people would recognise the difference between a horse and a vehicle being drawn by a horse ).

They have to be careful not to leave the door open to the inherent stupidity of some road-users, hence the part dealing with crossing a continuous white line where there's a broken white line nearest you (you can cross but opposing traffic cannot), states that crossing it should only be done when prevailing traffic conditions allow you to do so safely. That's to stop the muppet who has a head-on claiming that the law says he could cross it.


*Motor vehicles. I used this term but you will also see one used in various aspects the law - Mechanically Propelled Vehicle (it's usually applied in relation to behaviour type offences).

The categories alter according to the application. For example, when it comes to driving licences there are certain definitions, different from those used for Vehicle Excise duty liability and different again for Construction & Use Regulations. Others, such as VOSA have another set of categories for Type-Approval etc.



Road Traffic laws are complex and arcane. That's why Traffic Coppers used to do specialist courses, I don't think that they do these days (at least not to the extent that was once the case) in-line with the new National Policing Motto: Cheap is Best.

OK, so what about someone leading a cow?

 

[MikeP]

Rather than spending hours reading or debating this, get out and ride your bikes for christsake, Use your common sense!!.

How original.

"Common sense" might suggest that some people have the time or the inclination to spend their time how they please.

Here's another "original" response:

Why aren't you out riding your bike instead of posting here?

 

[Klanky]

I get asked these questions or versions of them a lot. What people forget is what Mike P alluded to: that Traffic law has to be set at the most basic level of understanding so stupid people cannot be easily confused and start crashing into each other.

To an experienced biker, the presence of white lines might seem overkill on a given section of road. But put Mr 'I Don't Know How To Overtake Safely In My People Carrier' on the same section and it suddenly becomes a recipe for a fatal head-on..... Try the A9 when the woodentops round here go to Inverness for their once-yearly trip off a single track road.....

Horses, single pushbikes and the aforementioned roadwork vehicles are all fair game. Horse drawn vans etc aren't.

Cows? Depends what speed they're doing.......

 

[CuzGS]

Thanks Mike P for a mega detailed reply.

As I put earlier most coppers seeing someone overtake whatever on a continuous White at under 10mph wouldn't have a problem with it if it was done in the correct manner e.g. Good place and courteously, e.g not blasting up behind and swerving out. Would you agree with this ?

All about common sense on part of driver and discretion on part of cop, oh my excuse for posting is that my GS is in the ABW

 

[nick.ct]

Rather than spending hours reading or debating this, get out and ride your bikes for christsake, Use your common sense!!.

The only thing I disagree with is that using your common sense gets a lot of people into expensive trouble with the law.

Common sense may be common to a lot of people but that doesnt mean its always shared by our law enforcers.

 

[Klanky]

The only thing I disagree with is that using your common sense gets a lot of people into expensive trouble with the law.

Common sense may be common to a lot of people but that doesnt mean its always shared by our law enforcers.

And the other side of that coin is that many people on the road show no signs of having any sense at all.....

 

[Steptoe]

, I was particularly enraged by their behaviour.

.

Calm down, and do try and get out more.