Overtaking cyclists on continuous white line

Lockstep

What's the story with overtaking slow cyclists on roads with a continuous white line? I know you're only meant to cross them when there's an emergency or for access but does a slow-moving cyclist count as a hazard?
Was driving yesterday and came across a cyclist in front of me who was fierce slow but the only way to get past him was to cross a continuous white line, otherwise I'd be holding up traffic.

Call me Al

It's been a long time since I did my test, so feel free to ignore me if you like, but the way I proceed is that if I am driving through a section of twisty roads I don't overtake unless I can see a long enough stretch of road in front of me that I know will give me time to accelerate and overtake without putting myself and others in danger. If I am in any way unsure (which no doubt I often was when I was learning) then I just don't take the chance until I am sure.

Sometimes roads have continuous white lines on approaches to town and villages where there are straight visible roads ahead. Here I overtake bikes, just like any other slow moving vehicles, and proceed with caution while watching my speed.

Craftylee

You should only see a continuous white line when the area is considered not safe to overtake anyways - aka theirs a bend ahead or a junction etc.

But I guess if you deem it safe you can go for it, but in terms of the law etc I don't believe you're supposed to cross it in those circumstances.

tomhenryford

I don't think this situation is going to arise too often. I passed my test 18 months ago and I've driven a lot since and I can say that I have never been behind a cyclist that hasn't moved into the hard shoulder to let me pass. Cyclists usually wouldn't feel comfortable taking the position of a 'car' and holding up traffic if they didn't need to. Was there nowhere for him/her to move to so that you could pass without crossing the white line? As generally as answer your question, crossing the white line would be considered a no in this case - imo.

MascotDec85

The answer is yes, when it's safe to do so.
Not on the approach to a bend or brow or other similar hazard but when you can see the road ahead to be clear. It takes a second or 2 to pass a cyclist.

When driving you have to be safe and practical

Oink

MascotDec85 wrote: »

The answer is yes, when it's safe to do so.
Not on the approach to a bend or brow or other similar hazard but when you can see the road ahead to be clear. It takes a second or 2 to pass a cyclist.

When driving you have to be safe and practical

I agree with you in that this is exactly what I do, but on paper is that really allowed? My understanding is that theoretically it is never allowed? It seems to me that what you described is how to overtake when there is no continuous line. Just wondering since as far as I know I am breaking the law myself in order to be safe and practical.

MascotDec85

Oink wrote: »

I agree with you in that this is exactly what I do, but on paper is that really allowed? My understanding is that theoretically it is never allowed? It seems to me that what you described is how to overtake when there is no continuous line. Just wondering since as far as I know I am breaking the law myself in order to be safe and practical.

There are stretches of straight road, or sufficient distance between bends where there are continuous white lines AND it would be safe to overtake in lots of places.

Call me Al

Oink wrote: »

I agree with you in that this is exactly what I do, but on paper is that really allowed? My understanding is that theoretically it is never allowed? It seems to me that what you described is how to overtake when there is no continuous line. Just wondering since as far as I know I am breaking the law myself in order to be safe and practical.

One of the things a tester marks a driver on is their progression.
I'd imagine that sitting behind a cyclist pedalling at 10kph, despite a clear road ahead with ample opportunity to overtake solely because you have a continuous white line, would be considered failure to progress.
People fail their tests because of this.

Oink

Call me Al wrote: »

One of the things a tester marks a driver on is their progression.
I'd imagine that sitting behind a cyclist pedalling at 10kph, despite a clear road ahead with ample opportunity to overtake solely because you have a continuous white line, would be considered failure to progress.
People fail their tests because of this.

That answers my question, thanks. I thought that there was no legal way to cross the white line ever, and that it was merely tolerated whenever it would be stupid not to overtake.

nirvana78

I was in this situation last Sunday morning, approaching Miltownpass coming from Rochfortbridge, a straight ahead of me, continuous white line and cyclist. I did question to myself, what happens here? It was clear ahead so I decided to overtake, but I was thinking about my action for a few minutes later. I thought if the cyclist had a helmet cam, would I see myself on some tv show about bad drivers and cyclists? I did wonder was I within the law?

Alanstrainor

Just a thought that I'd be interested to hear peoples views on.

Lets set the scene. Straight road, solid white line and a cyclist. In order to pass you must cross the solid white line, and given that you should give cyclists a lot of clearance (1.5M) you will be passing just as you would a car. Surely staying behind the cyclist (who is another road user), and waiting for the solid line to change to allow for overtaking could only be considered correct in the eyes of an examiner?

In my eye, this is not a failure to progress, as you have encountered slower moving traffic, and due to the road layout (solid line), you cannot pass as per the Rotr.

Now all that being said, I would think that passing when it is safe to do so and on a straight clear road would be deemed acceptable by an examiner, but I was curious about the flip side.

Call me Al

Are you creating an unnecessary hazard by not progressing? I think you are.

A cyclist is a road user, but their speed and size are mainly what differentiates them from a car. Likewise a slow moving tractor.

And I do think, in light of the speed they would travel at, you would be penalised for failure to progress under those circumstances.

Danjamin1

Sorry to disagree but you would be wrong to cross the continuous white line in this case. I'm no driving instructor so can't comment from that perspective but I am a cyclist and this is something that comes up reasonably often on the cycling forum. The general advice is to treat the cyclist as you would a slow moving tractor or car, i.e. wait for a broken white line and pass when safe to do so. As I understand from the RoTR you should never cross a continuous white line. This also counts for unbroken white lines on cycle lanes, you should not pass in to these. It's reassuring from a cyclists perspective you're aware of the 1.5m safe distance guidance for passing a cyclist, however you must still obey the RoTR with regard to the continuous white line.

Crasp

One cannot legally cross a continuous white line to overtake a moving cyclist. no exceptions.

with regards to your driving test (not necessarily and indication of real world driving) you should specifically ask your driving instructor this question.

Call me Al

Crasp wrote: »

One cannot legally cross a continuous white line to overtake a moving cyclist. no exceptions.

with regards to your driving test (not necessarily and indication of real world driving) you should specifically ask your driving instructor this question.

And if you get a straight answer let us all know definitively!

Alanstrainor

Danjamin1 wrote: »

Sorry to disagree but you would be wrong to cross the continuous white line in this case. I'm no driving instructor so can't comment from that perspective but I am a cyclist and this is something that comes up reasonably often on the cycling forum. The general advice is to treat the cyclist as you would a slow moving tractor or car, i.e. wait for a broken white line and pass when safe to do so. As I understand from the RoTR you should never cross a continuous white line. This also counts for unbroken white lines on cycle lanes, you should not pass in to these. It's reassuring from a cyclists perspective you're aware of the 1.5m safe distance guidance for passing a cyclist, however you must still obey the RoTR with regard to the continuous white line.

I am also a cyclist (almost 5000km cover in the last 10 months), hence my take on things. However, these type of issues are rarely black and white, one sometimes has to take a logical and safe approach.

Call me Al wrote: »

Are you creating an unnecessary hazard by not progressing? I think you are.

A cyclist is a road user, but their speed and size are mainly what differentiates them from a car. Likewise a slow moving tractor.

And I do think, in light of the speed they would travel at, you would be penalised for failure to progress under those circumstances.

No, I would have to disagree with the point in bold. However if the situation I outlined occurred, I would think an examiner would instruct you to overtake to prevent other road users from making dangerous decisions based on the situation.

Failure to progress is used to penalise other faults, however being stuck behind traffic is not a fault, and is not a failure to progress. Failure to progress is usually given to people who are slow to move off at junctions, who fail to keep up with traffic etc. But this scenario is different.

Call me Al

http://www.drivingschoolireland.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1734

So I did a bit of googling and have found that it is a grey area for driving instructors, but that this advice is to overtake with caution and attention. The bike can be viewed as an obstruction.
Anyway OP, ask your instructor and see what they say... Would love to know what their advice is!

Call me Al

Alanstrainor wrote: »

I am also a cyclist (almost 5000km cover in the last 10 months), hence my take on things. However, these type of issues are rarely black and white, one sometimes has to take a logical and safe approach.



No, I would have to disagree with the point in bold. However if the situation I outlined occurred, I would think an examiner would instruct you to overtake to prevent other road users from making dangerous decisions based on the situation.

Failure to progress is used to penalise other faults, however being stuck behind traffic is not a fault, and is not a failure to progress. Failure to progress is usually given to people who are slow to move off at junctions, who fail to keep up with traffic etc. But this scenario is different.

I don't necessarily agree with your opinion re failure to progress.

This link specifies failure to include progress on the straight and overtaking:
http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Learner-Drivers/The-Driving-Test/Repeating-your-test/

Danjamin1

Call me Al wrote: »

The bike can be viewed as an obstruction.

Whether it's in the guidance or not I'd view this as a terrible piece of advice which could foster dangerous behaviour, a bike is not an obstruction, it's part of the traffic! I hope this isn't what people are being taught when learning to drive!

OP I'd be very interested to see what your instructor says on the issue as an instruction to cross the White line and overtake is in direct contravention of the RoTR

ArtOfEscape

There's a spot in my area where this comes up fairly often. I asked my instructor this a few weeks ago and was told to overtake if you have a clear view of the road ahead and it's safe to do so, as you need to keep the traffic flowing.

sydthebeat

As a rural driver I've always treated cyclists as a slow moving hazard , like a tractor etc.
If treated like a hazard, you can overtake and cross the white line when it is safe to do so.

If you think about it, what happens if you can upon a car with its hazard lights on in a continuous line zone. you don't just sit there and wait.... you mirror, signal, mirror and maneuver.

It is most certainly NOT an offense to pass a slow moving vehicle in a continuous line. Anyone who has driven county roads at harvest time well tell you.

Danjamin1

sydthebeat wrote: »

It is most certainly NOT an offense to pass a slow moving vehicle in a continuous line. Anyone who has driven county roads at harvest time well tell you.

Well as its something you can get penalty points for I would argue it is an offence to pass a slow moving vehicle by crossing a continuous white line where no hazard is present. It's different circumstances for an actual hazard which a cyclist does not qualify as.

However, it's a loosely enforced law as far as I'm aware and from the advice here it appears to be something that driving instructors are willing to overlook in a test scenario.

loyatemu

solid white lines mark where it's unsafe to overtake, however that assumes a car overtaking another car @ 50km/h or whatever. It takes a lot less time to overtake a cyclist, so it may still be safe to do so.

A stationary vehicle is presumably considered a hazard that you can cross the line to overtake, but what about a vehicle moving at 10km/h - how much discretion do you have legally?

MascotDec85

Alanstrainor wrote: »

Just a thought that I'd be interested to hear peoples views on.

Lets set the scene. Straight road, solid white line and a cyclist. In order to pass you must cross the solid white line, and given that you should give cyclists a lot of clearance (1.5M) you will be passing just as you would a car. Surely staying behind the cyclist (who is another road user), and waiting for the solid line to change to allow for overtaking could only be considered correct in the eyes of an examiner?

In my eye, this is not a failure to progress, as you have encountered slower moving traffic, and due to the road layout (solid line), you cannot pass as per the Rotr.

Now all that being said, I would think that passing when it is safe to do so and on a straight clear road would be deemed acceptable by an examiner, but I was curious about the flip side.

You pass when it's safe to do so. Full stop

challengemaster

MascotDec85 wrote: »

You pass when it's safe to do so. Full stop

And legal - So not on a continuous white line.

MascotDec85

Crasp wrote: »

One cannot legally cross a continuous white line to overtake a moving cyclist. no exceptions.

with regards to your driving test (not necessarily and indication of real world driving) you should specifically ask your driving instructor this question.

You're first paragraph is wrong. Every rule has a practical exception.

You should drive in your test the way you usually do.

MascotDec85

challengemaster wrote: »

And legal - So not on a continuous white line.

You can take every rule to an absolute extreme?
Are you trained to advise?

MascotDec85

There are exceptions to EVERY rule. Testers DO NOT want to see you drive like robots.

Honestly. If you aren't qualified to give advice, say "I'm not and ADI but"....

challengemaster

MascotDec85 wrote: »

You can take every rule to an absolute extreme?
Are you trained to advise?

Best course of action is probably to clarify with the RSA and AGS. I'd seriously be questioning any instructors training if they're advising students to perform illegal manoeuvres that could amass them penalty points.

MascotDec85

challengemaster wrote: »

Best course of action is probably to clarify with the RSA and AGS. I'd seriously be questioning any instructors training if they're advising students to perform illegal manoeuvres that could amass them penalty points.

If you followed the advice I've given on this thread you won't get penalty points.
I don't need to clarify anything with the RSA as I'm qualified to advise on the subject and I'm unsure who AGS are.
There are lots of roads in the area I instruct where there are straight roads AND continuous white lines. If you were to sit behind a cyclist, on a road which you can clearly see to be clear you WILL be marked for progress, either on the straight or for overtaking.
These are the types of situations I'm talking about, absolutely not when it's dangerous or you can't see far enough ahead like on approach to a bend or brow etc.
You'll find continuous white lines in a lot of built up areas. They're there to obviously discourage overtaking as a matter of course.

Danjamin1

MascotDec85 wrote: »

If you followed the advice I've given on this thread you won't get penalty points.
I don't need to clarify anything with the RSA as I'm qualified to advise on the subject and I'm unsure who AGS are.
There are lots of roads in the area I instruct where there are straight roads AND continuous white lines. If you were to sit behind a cyclist, on a road which you can clearly see to be clear you WILL be marked for progress, either on the straight or for overtaking.
These are the types of situations I'm talking about, absolutely not when it's dangerous or you can't see far enough ahead like on approach to a bend or brow etc.
You'll find continuous white lines in a lot of built up areas. They're there to obviously discourage overtaking as a matter of course.

I can see your point, and being honest I've done it myself when driving, I get that it's a practicality issue rather than following the letter of the law but I think it's important to point out it can be a penalty point offence.

Crasp

MascotDec85 wrote: »

You're first paragraph is wrong. Every rule has a practical exception.

You should drive in your test the way you usually do.

would you mind awfully posting the relevant legislation which permits crossing a white line to overtake?

challengemaster

MascotDec85 wrote: »

If you followed the advice I've given on this thread you won't get penalty points.

I think you'll find you will.

S.I. No. 294/1964: ROAD TRAFFIC GENERAL BYE-LAWS, 1964. wrote:

Continuous white lines
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.

Crossing a continuous white line is a penalty point offence. 2 points and an €80 fixed penalty notice.
http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Licensed%20Drivers/Penalty%20Points%20Chart1.pdf

I don't need to clarify anything with the RSA as I'm qualified to advise on the subject and I'm unsure who AGS are.

So if I were to email the RSA and say that a qualified ADI is advising students to cross a solid white line while overtaking cyclists (committing a traffic offence), they'd have no issue with it? I think they'd revoke your license to teach.

AGS is An Garda Síochána. Since it's quite clearly laid out in the road traffic act that it's a driving offence, I think they'd have a problem with it too. Here's evidence from boards.ie that it's not O.K.

These are the types of situations I'm talking about, absolutely not when it's dangerous or you can't see far enough ahead like on approach to a bend or brow etc.

Just because it's not dangerous - does not mean it's legal.

greyc

From the Marking Guidelines issued by the RSA:

(ii) where an applicant is following behind a slow moving vehicle e.g. a tractor, a cyclist, or a refuse collection truck, and overtakes on a continuous white line a fault should not be recorded.


One of the questions usually asked by testers before the test is: When can you cross a continuous white line? and the accepted answers are:
1. To gain access.
2. in an emergency or to get by an obstruction.
3. Where there are two lines in the centre of the road, and the one closest to you is a broken line, you may cross the continuous one if safe to do so.

MascotDec85

Phew! Here was me worried about losing my badge

challengemaster

greyc wrote: »

From the Marking Guidelines issued by the RSA:

(ii) where an applicant is following behind a slow moving vehicle e.g. a tractor, a cyclist, or a refuse collection truck, and overtakes on a continuous white line a fault should not be recorded.

If you're going to quote guidelines, quote them correctly.

Examples of ‘Road Marking’ faults include:
(ii) Disregard for a continuous white line, but where an applicant is following behind a slow moving
vehicle e.g. a tractor, a cyclist, or a refuse collection truck, and overtakes on a continuous white
line a fault should not be recorded for ‘Traffic Control’. Where the applicant does stay behind the
slow vehicle because of the continuous white line, a fault should not be recorded for ‘Progress’.

It's a surprising position by the RSA considering it is a penalty points offence... Mascot, I'll accept a draw on this one :pac:

Seriously though - If you're not getting a fault for progress, the legal thing to do is stay behind until a broken line.

Cienciano

challengemaster wrote: »

If you're going to quote guidelines, quote them correctly.



It's a surprising position by the RSA considering it is a penalty points offence... Mascot, I'll accept a draw on this one :pac:

Seriously though - If you're not getting a fault for progress, the legal thing to do is stay behind until a broken line.

The legal thing is bollocks. It says you cant cross one, except for access. When I did my test a truck was parked near the testing centre, along a stretch with a continuous white line. Going by the letter of the law on continuous white lines I couldn't go past!