Cross continuous white line to overtake cyclist

fletch

Is it okay to cross a continuous white line to overtake a cyclist? Can somebody point me to the relevant legislation in relation to this (in the Road Traffic Act)

Thanks

User1998

I think so, my driving instructor told me you can cross it when it’s practical. For example, if there is a car broken up ahead or pulled over, you can’t wait behind them forever, you have to cross the line to overtake them. I’d imagine the same applies to cyclists, you can’t stay behind them forever. I have no evidence to back this up tho.

Smee_Again

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121586795#Comment_121586795

In the driving test you won't be marked down for safely overtaking a cyclist on a continuous white line but neither will you be marked down for not overtaking a cyclist on a continuous white lone. The same goes for a bin lorry, tractor or other slow moving vehicle.

ohnonotgmail

This is the relevant legislation (It is possible this section has been amended since but I can't find it).

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1964/si/294/made/en/print#article9

9. An authorised continuous white line along the centre of a roadway shall indicate that traffic must drive to the left of the line, and when on a stretch of roadway on which such a line has been provided a driver shall, save for the purpose of entering or leaving land or premises adjoining the right hand side of that roadway, drive to the left of the line.

fletch

My understanding was that you could cross it to avoid an obstruction but would a cyclist not be classed as another road user as opposed to an obstruction?

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121586888#Comment_121586888

That is probably everybody's understanding but you asked for the legislation.

Uncle Pierre

By the letter of the law, it's not allowed.

In reality though, don't think anyone would make an issue of it, so long as it was safe to do so (obviously!).

For example, here's a long stretch of continuous white line, on a straight stretch of road not far from me on the outskirts of Wexford town. If there were no oncoming vehicles/cyclists/pedestrians, I don't think anyone other than the most hardened of "all cars and motorists bad" zealots would have an issue with a driver crossing the line to go past a cyclist or anything else that's moving at only 20 or 25 km/h -

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.3190635,-6.516312,3a,75y,234.04h,74.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPQHW-6ClYXTjaNW94jeJQA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Calahonda52

The safe to do so test is key here: a bad cop can decide it was not safe if he/she sees the move

loyatemu

the UK RotR are more explicit about this

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.

common sense would dictate that you have to be able to cross the line to overtake stationary or slow moving objects. Also the lines are painted with regard to the sightlines for overtaking a car at a certain speed. Overtaking a bike or a pedestrian takes a lot less distance.

I don't think anyone other than the most hardened of "all cars and motorists bad" zealots would have an issue with a driver crossing the line to go past a cyclist or anything else that's moving at only 20 or 25 km/h

most cyclists don't want lines of cars stuck behind them despite what the "bloody cyclists" zealots would claim. No-one wants to be close-passed on a bend, but having cars sitting on your back wheel when it's perfectly safe to pass is almost as annoying.

Buffman

Ye, it's another case of an old law (1964) that's not really fit for purpose with modern motoring. Try driving a large bus or HGV on roads like that, never mind overtaking anything but just normal driving, if they couldn't cross white lines they'd either be in the ditch or limited to only N and M or wide R roads.

Donald Trump

Is it legal for me to break what would otherwise be the rules of the road because I'm in a hurry?

Because I'm special like

28064212

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121587486#Comment_121587486

The entirety of the 1964 regulations (and all its amendments) were revoked by S.I. No. 182/1997 - Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997: https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1964/si/294/made/en/print

Although it didn't make any meaningful change to the scenario posed by the OP

Buffman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121587518#Comment_121587518

Yes, thanks for pointing that out, but as you say, looks like they pretty much just rewrote the 1964 law so still outdated IMO in that it doesn't cover real life scenarios.

1964:

9. An authorised continuous white line along the centre of a roadway shall indicate that traffic must drive to the left of the line, and when on a stretch of roadway on which such a line has been provided a driver shall, save for the purpose of entering or leaving land or premises adjoining the right hand side of that roadway, drive to the left of the line.

1997:

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.

................

(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.

creedp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121586888#Comment_121586888

What about a pedestrian moving towards you? Would you have to stop and let pedestrian pass inside you?

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058330265/cross-continuous-white-line-to-overtake-cyclist

You've two questions there.

Yes is the answer to the first, once it's safe to do so.

The second - I couldn't be arsed to find out.

GTTDI GOD

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121586825#Comment_121586825

That is the relevant legislation for a continuous white line, however, if you look at the earlier section you will find:

5.—(1) These bye-laws shall apply save where compliance therewith is not possible by reason solely of road-works, building operations or an obstruction to traffic, or because of an emergency suddenly confronting a driver, pedal-cyclist or pedestrian which he could not reasonably have been expected to anticipate.

which means that if you are behind a pedal cyclist, you may cross the continuous white line.

q2ice

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121590129#Comment_121590129

That does not mean you can cross a white line if you are behind a pedal-cyclist. It means that if there is an unforseen emergency, then you can cross the white line to avoid a collision.

You are expected to anticipate cyclists on the road as they are also road users.

Kaisr Sose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121587390#Comment_121587390

This 100%.

A

I pray a vehicle.will overtakw me safely when they can, as the alternative can be loads of close and dangerous passes by frustrated motorist behind the one that won't over take on a continuous white line or even broken line

There were two posts here from Mods advocating that it was not permitted to over take on continuous line. These have now been deleted which is strange.

The posts were incorrect. The law allows the safe over take of a cyclist and crossing a white line is required to do so in some cases. Emphasis on safe, not skimming past them. The alternative is lots and lots of vehicles stuck behind a cyclist

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121590129#Comment_121590129

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121590188#Comment_121590188

It means you can cross the white line to overtake a pedal cyclist that is an obstruction to traffic.

Uncle Pierre

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121590231#Comment_121590231

I see how that can be inferred from this line in the legislation: "These bye-laws shall apply save where compliance therewith is not possible by reason solely of road-works, building operations or an obstruction to traffic"

But I can't help wondering what exactly constitutes "an obstruction to traffic", insofar as the law is concerned?

Take the example of the road near Wexford that I posted above - a continuous white line on a long straight stretch of road where an 80km/h limit applies.

Say you're driving along at 80, and there's a cyclist in front who's moving at 20km/h - is that cyclist actually "an obstruction", meaning you're legally allowed to cross the white line in order to pass?

If so, what else might be an obstruction? e.g. you're driving at 80 and there's a tractor in front, moving at 40km/h - is the tractor "an obstruction" that you can legally cross the white line to pass? Surely this would be getting into dodgy territory, despite applying exactly the same principle?

Or even more so...you're driving along at 80, and have to slow down behind a car that's moving only at 70. Four more cars join the queue behind you. Is the 70km/h car now "an obstruction", because it's obstructing the other drivers from travelling at the legally-permitted 80km/h that they want to do?

Surely not. You'd be hard pressed to convince anyone you were legally entitled to cross the white line to overtake in that case, on the grounds that you were just avoiding an obstruction.

I'd take "an obstruction" to just mean an immovable object on the road, rather than something that's just moving more slowly than other traffic.

Am asking all this from a strict letter of the law point of view, rather than what common sense and reality might allow.

Peregrinus

It's a good question, and I think not one that has a one-sentence answer.

"Obstruct" and "obstruction" aren't defined in the legislation. It's clear, however, that traffic can be obstructed even if it's not brought to a complete halt; in reg. 47 3 or more cyclists cycling abreast can "obstruct" traffic even though, obviously, they slow it down rather than stopping it. Similarly in reg. 49 an animal being driven along a road can obstruct traffic. So I can obstruct a road, or a traffic lane, without completely blocking it.

On the other hand, I don't think you can argue that if I am constrained to drive at 79 kmh where the speed limit is 80 kmh I am "obstructed".

Where a word used in legislation isn't given a special definition it has its ordinary meaning. A quick peek at a dictionary suggest that "obstructing" an opening, thoroughfare, waterway, etc includes both a blockage that completely stops passage and an impediment that makes passage difficult or troublesome. I don't think we can draw a clear line and say that, in all cases on this side of the line, passage is so difficult or troublesome that the road is "obstructed", but in all cases on that side, it isn't. Everything is going to depend on what's a reasonable use of the road in the context.

But, in the present context, we need to look carefully at the wording of reg. 5. Under that reg., compliance with the rule "thou shalt not cross an unbroken white line" is not required

. . . where compliance is not possible as a result of an obstruction to traffic . . .

Suppose the presence of the cyclist forces me to slow down to 15 kmh. Let's assume that, on that road in those circumstances, being limited to 15 kmh counts as being obstructed. But there's no life-threatening emergency which would require me to drive any faster than that. It's obviously possible for me to stay behind the cyclist until a legitimate passing opportunity arises, or either he or I turn off the road; it may be inconvenient, but there's nothing impossible about it. So on a strict reading I don't think the reg. 5 exemption would apply in a circumstance like that.

BrianD3

This is typical Irish ambiguous legislation that everyone, including the Gardai, ignores. IMO a cyclist is not an obstruction to traffic. A cyclist IS traffic and has done nothing illegal by cycling along a road. The same is true of slow moving tractors. In that case, a driver should not cross a continuous white line to overtake them. But that's just my view, who knows what a judge would say. It could "depend on who you get" and what "mood" he was in on a particular day.

This nonsense is compounded by Irish local authorities putting continuous white lines everywhere, probably as some sort of ass covering exercise . In Northern Ireland, as well as having a much less ambiguous Highway Code, continuous white lines are used much more sparingly.

Uncle Pierre

Thanks to @Peregrinus for the detailed reply above.

In reply to @BrianD3 - I happen to agree that cyclists are part of the traffic, rather than just being an obstruction to traffic. But I think a common sense approach (as shown by just about all here) would mean that a blanket "a driver should not cross a continuous white line to overtake them" is unreasonable.

In the example I'm using of the road near Wexford - the pic I show above is part of a stretch where there's more than 1km of continuous white line, despite the sightlines being perfectly safe to overtake a cyclist or anything else moving at typical cyclist speeds. Further along (heading away from the town), there's another similar stretch with more than 2km of continuous white line.

Am presuming they're there as it's a relatively narrow "main" road to try overtake a wider vehicle moving at 70 or 75km/h. But again, sightlines mean it would be safe to cross the line to overtake a cyclist (obviously significantly narrower on the road than e.g. a lorry, and moving significantly slower), so long as there was nothing oncoming.

A blanket "should not cross a continuous white line to overtake them" would mean either vehicles squeezing by them at far less than a 1.5 metre safe passing distance, or else a build-up of a backlog of vehicles on what can be a relatively busy road, and then all those vehicles overtaking the cyclist in quick succession when they come to broken white lines again.

I'm the sort who'd be scoffed at by a certain type of cyclist if I claimed "I'm a cyclist myself", because I'm only on the bike occasionally. But I do cycle on that road the odd time, and I know that I for one would rather have a car give me ample room when overtaking me on a straight stretch (even if there was a continuous white line), rather than squeezing past to stay on the "correct" side of the line, or else having to tuck in behind me and slow to my 15 or 20km/h for anything up to five minutes or more.

creedp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121596506#Comment_121596506

Id be seriously hoping that no reasonable person would disagree with this post

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121596519#Comment_121596519

You’d be surprised 😀

BrianD3

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121596506#Comment_121596506

I don't disagree with any of that - but we're talking about the law here and the law is often flawed, ambiguous or nonsensical. This is the same country where HGVs and vehicles towing trailers are not allowed to enter the overtaking lane on a 2 lane motorway unless a lane is closed or there is an obstruction - and obstruction is not defined there either.

Most Gardaí will not be interested in prosecuting someone for crossing a continuous white line to overtake a cyclist but there's always a chance that you'll get some hotshot who will . Once it goes to court and there is a judge with a long list of road traffic cases to go through that day, all bets are off. The outcome could depend on the mood of the judge or what he encountered on his journey to court - did he drive to court and get stuck behind a tractor. Or did he cycle (unlikely) and did a driver blow him out of it or overtake him dangerously.

Ash.J.Williams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058330265/cross-continuous-white-line-to-overtake-cyclist

No

Ash.J.Williams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121597104#Comment_121597104

If a garda is behind you and you cross the line he will pull you over and give you points for being a brazen law breaker

creedp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121597186#Comment_121597186

Any record of such a case going to court I wonder

Tenzor07

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121597186#Comment_121597186

I've seen car drivers stay behind a bicyclist travelling about 15kph on a south Dublin mountain road with a solid white line next to them all the way up the hill as there was a Garda car a few cars back, so the fear is definitely there..

Uncle Pierre

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121597104#Comment_121597104

I agree with you here too.

There's the letter of the law, which means it's not permitted to cross a continuous line to overtake, even in the circumstances outlined.

Then there's the common sense approach, which means it would be okay to cross the line in such circumstances.