Double-white line

[DavidT]

Highway code 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.

Strangely enough, yesterday whilst driving I overtook a "road maintenance vehicle" that was travelling at less than 10mph by crossing double white lines (It was safe I should add). Remarkable, because this is the first time I've had occassion to do it with respect to that type of vehicle since the law changed some years ago.

I remember being told on my original advanced driver training that solid white lines must be treated like a brick wall - period. Notwithstanding of course the few exemptions noted in the HC. In the days before the law changed (and to this day if the circumstances are not right or safe), if that meant waiting behind a cyclist going up a hill, so be it...no problem. Unfortunately few motorists probably have that discretion or discipline.

[Pete Owens]

Highway code 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.

If only more drivers were aware of this exemption - they would always assume we were doing less than 10mph anyway.
Unfortunately they do respect the white lines so try to squeeze past rather than overtake properly.

In practice, when safe, motor vehicles will pass a cyclist regardless of speed.

In practice drivers will overtake regardless of safety so long as the space between you and the white line is marginally wider than their vehicle.
There are plenty of places with white lines where it would be safe to overtake - IF the drivers were prepared to cross the white line.

I don't have a problem with this providing it is done safely. Large vehicles have further rules allowing the solid white line to be crossed when safe.

The question seems to be based on a feeling of discomfort, rather than actual incidents. Personally, I would take a normal position about a metre from the NS and let vehicles behind make their own decisions.

I would only do that if the lane was wide enough for them to overtake safely without crossing the white line; usually it isn't. If there are double white lines I will often adopt primary position when I would otherwise ride to the left. I don't have any objection to them overtaking so long as they know that they have to cross the white line, thus judge whether there is a gap in oncoming traffic. OK some will still misjudge it but at least it forces them to make a deliberate decision to overtake.

[[XAP]Bob]

That's key - force drivers to make a decision to overtake, breaking the white line, and they'll break it properly.

[FatBat]

Thanks to everyone for the advice and support. I will continue to ride in the primary position on this particular road. In the past couple of weeks, precisely zero motorists have waited behind me through the double-white line section, and all have overtaken by crossing the double-white lines, regardless of my speed. But, most have done it by giving me adequate clearance - except for the odd few who decide to overtake whilst someone is coming the other way. Never mind. Only one person has seen fit to hoot their horn at me - which I don't mind, if they hoot, it means they've seen me!

I've no intention of becoming the next Daniel Cadden, but I believe that riding primary is the only safe way to ride this road.

[FatBat]

It is hard to tell without the exact dimensions - but superficially it sounds as if the council has almost got it right.
Near where I live there is a stretch of A road on a hill with double white lines. The lanes are just wide enough that drivers will attempt to squeeze past but not sufficient for them to do so safely. I would like the council here to try a similar approach (but without the cycle lane ... or the double white lines ... or the excessive speed limit).

First off, 1.5m is not wide for a cycle lane. Cyclists need at least 2m of road space - and more on steep hills.
But, allocating more width on the uphill section to facilitate safe overtaking of slow cyclists while preventing overtaking downhill is the right approach.

2.5m would be extremely narrow for a general traffic lane - (it would be fully occupied from kerb to white line by a bus or HGV) so I would guess it is wider than that. It does need to be less than 3m though. That is about the threshold that drivers start to attempt to squeeze past. Ideally you want 2.8m, but the highwaymen would be reluctant to reduce the lane width that far on a 40mph road. If you are riding downhill in a narrow lane like that then you definately need to take the lane - but if it really is that narrow it is very hard not to.

On the uphill stretch, a shared lane width of 4.5m should be sufficient to allow comfortable overtaking by a bus - but if they have subdivided that into a 1.5m cycle lane + a 3m general lane you wont get as much space as drivers will keep to the centre of their lane rather than moving to the right to overtake.

A quick update - with measurements from the council. They state that the cycle lane is 1.2m wide (i.e. 60% of the recommended width). The uphill general traffic lane is 3.2m and the downhill general traffic lane is also 3.2m. It is almost as if they have designed it to cause maximum discomfort.

[[XAP]Bob]

So they've got *every* dimension in the "danger zone"

[Pete Owens]

So they've got *every* dimension in the "danger zone"

Worse than that - if you asked me to to provide lane widths to make that arrangement of lanes as nasty as possible for cyclists then those are the dimensions I'd choose.

[[XAP]Bob]

So they've got *every* dimension in the "danger zone"

Worse than that - if you asked me to to provide lane widths to make that arrangement of lanes as nasty as possible for cyclists then those are the dimensions I'd choose.

That's kind of what I meant...

[FatBat]

I've just re-read the response that I received from the council, and I can't quite believe what I have read;

The lane dimensions have been measured and verified on site. ... 3.2m wide traffic lanes are sufficient for the majority of drivers and their vehicles to pass cyclists. This is influenced of course by driver/rider behaviour and the positioning of both cycles and vehicles in the lanes provided. Irrespective, drivers may choose to cross the solid white lines to pass cyclists if in accordance with Rule 129 of the Highway Code.

[Bicycler]

I've just re-read the response that I received from the council, and I can't quite believe what I have read;

The lane dimensions have been measured and verified on site. ... 3.2m wide traffic lanes are sufficient for the majority of drivers and their vehicles to pass cyclists. This is influenced of course by driver/rider behaviour and the positioning of both cycles and vehicles in the lanes provided. Irrespective, drivers may choose to cross the solid white lines to pass cyclists if in accordance with Rule 129 of the Highway Code.

If they mean that the 1.2m cycle lane + 3.2m general traffic lane provide enough space for a car driver to pass a cyclist obediently riding in the gutter then they are probably right. If they are suggesting that a cyclist can be overtaken safely entirely within a 3.2m lane then that is worrying.

[MikeF]

I've just re-read the response that I received from the council, and I can't quite believe what I have read;

The lane dimensions have been measured and verified on site. ... 3.2m wide traffic lanes are sufficient for the majority of drivers and their vehicles to pass cyclists.

But how much room do they think would be necessary to overtake cyclists? Have they not seen the advert (about giving cyclists enough room) that created furore with a few drivers? 3.2-1.5m(for the cyclist)= 1.7m for the car. Allowing a half car's width for clearance that means the car has to be narrower than 0.85m

This is influenced of course by driver/rider behaviour and the positioning of both cycles and vehicles in the lanes provided.

Er? What?

[FatBat]

I've just re-read the response that I received from the council, and I can't quite believe what I have read;

The lane dimensions have been measured and verified on site. ... 3.2m wide traffic lanes are sufficient for the majority of drivers and their vehicles to pass cyclists. This is influenced of course by driver/rider behaviour and the positioning of both cycles and vehicles in the lanes provided. Irrespective, drivers may choose to cross the solid white lines to pass cyclists if in accordance with Rule 129 of the Highway Code.

If they mean that the 1.2m cycle lane + 3.2m general traffic lane provide enough space for a car driver to pass a cyclist obediently riding in the gutter then they are probably right. If they are suggesting that a cyclist can be overtaken safely entirely within a 3.2m lane then that is worrying.

Yep, that is what they are suggesting.

Cycle Infrastructure Design (which they claim to have followed) says that overtaking vehicles should be able to leave 1.5m clearance when overtaking a cyclist on a 30mph road. (This is a 40mph road, so one would expect the recommended clearance to be more than that.) A typical car is about 2m wide (a Fiesta is 1.958m wide, according to What Car). So, it is impossible for a Fiesta to safely pass a cyclist within a 3.2m wide lane. QED.

[[XAP]Bob]

If they mean that the 1.2m cycle lane + 3.2m general traffic lane provide enough space for a car driver to pass a cyclist obediently riding in the gutter then they are probably right. If they are suggesting that a cyclist can be overtaken safely entirely within a 3.2m lane then that is worrying.

Yep, that is what they are suggesting.

Cycle Infrastructure Design (which they claim to have followed) says that overtaking vehicles should be able to leave 1.5m clearance when overtaking a cyclist on a 30mph road. (This is a 40mph road, so one would expect the recommended clearance to be more than that.) A typical car is about 2m wide (a Fiesta is 1.958m wide, according to What Car). So, it is impossible for a Fiesta to safely pass a cyclist within a 3.2m wide lane. QED.

No - a bicycle has negative width, everyone knows that...

[Revolution]

I regularly have motorists passing me far to close on the sections of my commute that are double white lines. I think the muppets that do this can remember something from their driving test about not crossing a double white line but they have no concept of the distance they should give when passing a cyclist. I've just come back from holiday in France where I was impressed to see these

French Road Sign.jpg (95.97 KiB) Viewed 601 times

Tempted to take an angle grinder next time and bring a few back in my hand luggage