Crossing solid white line?

Chris67

Another question. I was leaving the car park and turn right, crossing the white line. I assume this is correct following the logic that crossing the white line for access (e.g. car park) is fine so it must be also OK to cross it again when turning right, to get out of the car park. Any comments?

dmc17

Chris67 wrote: »

Another question. I was leaving the car park and turn right, crossing the white line. I assume this is correct following the logic that crossing the white line for access (e.g. car park) is fine so it must be also OK to cross it again when turning right, to get out of the car park. Any comments?

Yes, I'd imagine you're accessing the road from the car park

djimi

Chris67 wrote: »

Another question. I was leaving the car park and turn right, crossing the white line. I assume this is correct following the logic that crossing the white line for access (e.g. car park) is fine so it must be also OK to cross it again when turning right, to get out of the car park. Any comments?

Im not sure that crossing the white line in either situation is okay, is it?

whomitconcerns

AFAIK its not ok to cross, you have to stay on your side of the road until the line ceases to be solid. ie yes you would have to go the opposite direction that you want to go. Also there must be anothe rway to enter the carpark.

coylemj

Chris67 wrote: »

Another question. ......

How can your first ever post be 'another question'?

Rules of the Road section on 'Road Markings' ..........

Single or double continuous white lines along the centre of the road

All traffic must keep to the left of the line (except in an emergency or for access).

djimi

coylemj wrote: »

How can your first ever post be 'another question'?

Its chopped from a zombie thread.

H3llR4iser

Theoretically the continuous line should not be crossed in any situation - even for "access", or turning right.

The fact is this: the continuous white line SHOULD, and again I stress SHOULD, be there for a specific reason such as no visibility in one direction, road conformation and so on.
In proximity of an access road the the line should be broken allowing turning to and out of it; If the situation is such that it requires a continuous line at that point, then the access road should simply have not been put there as it's clearly dangerous (e.g. middle of a corner or below a crest with little or no visibility of incoming traffic on the main road).

Reality: continuous lines put here and there often with no reason whatsoever just because "let's cover our asses", and access roads that sprout more or less everywhere with no regards for visibility...and funnily enough, Irish rules of the road seem to be specifically tailored for this...

keithclancy

Use common sense, if its safe then do it

Mycroft H

I'm sure there are plenty of us here who've crossed a solid to overtake a pedestrians/horse/cyclist where safe. Use your head.

ciotog

Mycroft H wrote: »

I'm sure there are plenty of us here who've crossed a solid to overtake a pedestrians/horse/cyclist where safe. Use your head.

I think the issue here is whether or not someone can then be penalised for crossing the solid line - the thread this was snipped from had someone being penalised when overtaking a slower moving vehicle. As a cyclist I do appreciate drivers who take your approach but don't like that they may be at risk of prosecution for doing so.

whomitconcerns

well to put it simply. In your example, Yes, you can be penalised. In teh OPs example (as corrected by the below post from ironclaw) no you cant be.

ironclaw

Centre of Roadway Lines
25. (1) Where traffic sign number RRM 001 [continuous white line] has been provided on a roadway or where two such traffic signs are provided in parallel, a driver shall not cross that sign or signs.

(2) Where traffic sign number RRM 002 [broken white line] has been provided on a roadway, a driver shall not cross that line, save where it can be crossed without danger to other traffic or pedestrians.

(3) Where traffic sign number RRM 001 and traffic sign number RRM 002 have been provided in parallel and traffic sign RRM 001 is nearer, a driver shall not cross such line, and where traffic sign number RRM 002 is nearer, a driver shall not cross the line save where it can be crossed without danger to other traffic or pedestrians.

(4) Nothing in this article shall so operate as to prevent a driver from driving across a roadway, along the centre of which the traffic signs referred to have been provided, for the purpose of entering or leaving land or premises adjoining the right hand side of that roadway.

Its in a number of Statues on the Rules of the Road, and further pointed out by coylemj in the 5th post. Why do we always just continue to debate and inject hearsay?

dr.fuzzenstein

Mycroft H wrote: »

I'm sure there are plenty of us here who've crossed a solid to overtake a pedestrians/horse/cyclist where safe. Use your head.

The problem is incomplete legislation. If there is a solid white line for 10 miles and you are stuck behind a tractor with the Gards behind you, strictly speaking you have to crawl behind that tractor for 10 miles and if as much as your mirror sticks out over the line, you get nabbed.
In Germany there are supplementary signs with a tractor symbol and "may be overtaken", something that sadly was never taken into account here, presumably because lunch came up and the meeting just ended there and then.

whomitconcerns

Well i never saw that piece of legislation before..But it does beggar the question, why, when there is a legitmate "crossing point" they put a broken white line, if you can always cross a solid white line to gain access?

Practically, it makes sense, otherwise the detours you would need to drive into someones house on the road would be crappy, or we would have broken lines everywhere...

Then there is double white lines, I am searching for the law on them, as in teh instances I can think of ie divider less dual carrigeway on the Swords road, it would be VERY dangerous to allow traffic drive across. Indeed there are signs in that example prohibiting it.

Chimaera

The rules on access only apply to premises or land i.e. they don't apply to side roads. That said I don't see the issue with putting them in for those situations anyway.

IMO a huge part of the reason these sort of threads keep coming up and keep going around in circles is that too many people in this country interpret the rules rigidly by the letter of the law, ignorant of the intent that might lay behind them. People are taught to learn everything by rote in school and regurgitate/apply it rigidly with no room for intelligent interpretation. When they get into cars and start driving they bring that mindset with them.

dr.fuzzenstein

Chimaera wrote: »

The rules on access only apply to premises or land i.e. they don't apply to side roads. That said I don't see the issue with putting them in for those situations anyway.

IMO a huge part of the reason these sort of threads keep coming up and keep going around in circles is that too many people in this country interpret the rules rigidly by the letter of the law, ignorant of the intent that might lay behind them. People are taught to learn everything by rote in school and regurgitate/apply it rigidly with no room for intelligent interpretation. When they get into cars and start driving they bring that mindset with them.

It's not us that has that mindset, but the worry that the Gard that sees you night have that mindset and can and will do you for it. Hence the tractor example.

BrianD3

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

The problem is incomplete legislation. If there is a solid white line for 10 miles and you are stuck behind a tractor with the Gards behind you, strictly speaking you have to crawl behind that tractor for 10 miles and if as much as your mirror sticks out over the line, you get nabbed.
then.

I started a thread on this several years ago. When it comes to continuous white lines, the UK Highway Code is much better than Irish legislation/ROTR
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=53697912

coylemj

whomitconcerns wrote: »

Well i never saw that piece of legislation before..But it does beggar the question, why, when there is a legitmate "crossing point" they put a broken white line, if you can always cross a solid white line to gain access?

Because there are motorists out there who are terrified of breaking the rules even where it makes eminent sense to do so. An example in Dublin is the case when there is a car turning right on a road where there is a bus lane and one lane for regular traffic and the car turning right is waiting for a break in the oncoming traffic. The problem in a lot of instances is that the next car will often sit there waiting for the first car to turn right and expect everyone behind her (it's usually a woman) to wait as well whereas the sensible (I'm not claiming it's legal) thing to do is to pass the car on the inside via the bus lane if there is no bus coming.

Chris67

dmc17 wrote: »

Yes, I'd imagine you're accessing the road from the car park

Yes. I am accessing the road from the car park and am turning right. The rules of the road clearly state that crossing the white line for access is allowed.
So if it is ok to access the car park by crossing the white line then it must be ok to do the opposite, particularly that there is a yellow box at the entrance to the car park. There would be no point of having the yellow box there if it wasn't for the right turn. Don't you think?

Chris67

coylemj wrote: »

How can your first ever post be 'another question'?

Rules of the Road section on 'Road Markings' ..........

Single or double continuous white lines along the centre of the road

All traffic must keep to the left of the line (except in an emergency or for access).

Please ignore "another question". I was referring to some threads on similar subject.

djimi

Chris67 wrote: »

Yes. I am accessing the road from the car park and am turning right. The rules of the road clearly state that crossing the white line for access is allowed.
So if it is ok to access the car park by crossing the white line then it must be ok to do the opposite, particularly that there is a yellow box at the entrance to the car park. There would be no point of having the yellow box there if it wasn't for the right turn. Don't you think?

A yellow box adjacent to a solid white line makes no sense whatsoever...

dr.fuzzenstein

djimi wrote: »

A yellow box adjacent to a solid white line makes no sense whatsoever...

That's never stopped the authorities before

whomitconcerns

Chris67 wrote: »

Yes. I am accessing the road from the car park and am turning right. The rules of the road clearly state that crossing the white line for access is allowed.
So if it is ok to access the car park by crossing the white line then it must be ok to do the opposite, particularly that there is a yellow box at the entrance to the car park. There would be no point of having the yellow box there if it wasn't for the right turn. Don't you think?

Can you show us a Google maps link to this junction. The yellow box does seem strange there?

Chris67

it is not adjacent to the white line. It is adjacent to the edge of the main road, where there is an entrance to the premises. the car park is located behind the premises (there are a couple of businesses there). I hope that is clear.

When I tried to post the URL/Google maps link I got a message that I couldn't post links because I was a new user.

ironclaw

Chris67 wrote: »

it is not adjacent to the white line. It is adjacent to the edge of the main road, where there is an entrance to the premises. the car park is located behind the premises (there are a couple of businesses there). I hope that is clear.

When I tried to post the URL/Google maps link I got a message that I couldn't post links because I was a new user.

You mean the white line isn't in the center of the road, but rather where the edge of the car park and edge of the main road meet? That's a stop line then

Chris67

ironclaw wrote: »

You mean the white line isn't in the center of the road, but rather where the edge of the car park and edge of the main road meet? That's a stop line then

The white line is in the centre on the road. The yellow box is adjacent to the edge of the main road, where the entrance to the premises/car park is.

H3llR4iser

Chimaera wrote: »

The rules on access only apply to premises or land i.e. they don't apply to side roads. That said I don't see the issue with putting them in for those situations anyway.

The issue I see is that saying the line can be crossed for access is essentially negating the reason for the continuous line to be there.

Bear with me here: a continuous line should be put in place where it can't be safe to temporarily cross over to the incoming traffic lane; The most likely reason is that a driver can't have sufficient visibility of incoming traffic to properly prepare and execute the maneuver - e.g. just before a corner, at the bottom of a crest and so on.

Now in such condition, making a right turn is just as dangerous as an overtake maneuver: driver stops to enter a right access road just before a blind corner; No incoming traffic in the 20-30 meters of road he/she can see, starts turning, car comes out of the corner and wipes the turning driver out.

This also creates a further conundrum: if would be equally unsafe to come out of a side road and turn left, if the reasons for the continuous line being there are valid (vehicle enters the road at a slower pace than passing traffic, other vehicle comes out of the blind corner and crashes into the accelerating one). So, strictly, the reality is that there should simply be no side roads where a continuous line is necessary.

Technically speaking, the ROR allowing turning right with a continuous like are really saying "yeah cross it all right, chances are that line shouldn't even be there anyway". It makes no logical sense, but it seems specifically tailored not to inconvenience drivers too much on country roads etc., with all the house/land/various access roads kind of tossed there with little or no consideration of traffic.

Chimaera wrote: »

IMO a huge part of the reason these sort of threads keep coming up and keep going around in circles is that too many people in this country interpret the rules rigidly by the letter of the law, ignorant of the intent that might lay behind them. People are taught to learn everything by rote in school and regurgitate/apply it rigidly with no room for intelligent interpretation. When they get into cars and start driving they bring that mindset with them.

Absolutely right...I've been saying this for years, it's one of the first things I noticed about Irish drivers: they mostly follow the rules to the letter, sometimes literally driving themselves into sticky situations as a result of it.

Victor

For clarity, you can cross the centre line at 'A', but not at 'B'.

H3llR4iser wrote: »

The issue I see is that saying the line can be crossed for access is essentially negating the reason for the continuous line to be there.

Bear with me here: a continuous line should be put in place where it can't be safe to temporarily cross over to the incoming traffic lane; The most likely reason is that a driver can't have sufficient visibility of incoming traffic to properly prepare and execute the maneuver - e.g. just before a corner, at the bottom of a crest and so on.

Sometimes solid white lines are there for traffic management, e.g. a 4-lane road, not because of poor line of sight. Note that a vehicle turning will only be in the 'wrong' side of the road for the space of the junction, an over-taking vehicle might be on the wrong side for hundreds of metres. An aside, but it is also dangerous to overtake at junctions.

Chris67

I am sorry Victor, I can't reply with the image in my reply, so I can't quote you.

How about the following:

There is a yellow box where you currently have "B" (at the whole width of the entrance/exit to the car park). This are the only markings on the road: white line on the main road and the yellow box on the entrance/exit to the car park. What is the purpose of having this yellow box there? It must be for the cars which are turning right, when they come out of the car park. This is the middle of small town, the car park is behind the premises (some businesses etc.). In my opinion the right turn is allowed because as you say rightly the car that is turning right is going to be there only for very short space.

Chris67

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

It's not us that has that mindset, but the worry that the Gard that sees you night have that mindset and can and will do you for it. Hence the tractor example.

In this case this is an access to the premises not the side road. There is a car park behind some shops/businesses