HC Rule 130

Topics relating to Advanced Driving in cars
User avatar
akirk
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 6:58 pm
Location: Cotswolds

Re: HC Rule 130

Postby akirk » Mon Aug 14, 2017 2:11 pm

hir wrote:
Taffy wrote:"Areas of white diagonal stripes or chevrons painted on the road. These are to separate traffic lanes or to protect traffic turning right.

If the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so."

Can somebody please explain the use of the word "necessary"...


From a legal standpoint, which is probably all that matters in regard to the OP's question, the answer is that only a court would be able, definitively, to answer this question. And, the answer would depend upon the circumstances of the case put before it.

I suspect the wording of the legislation is deliberately vague. Vague enough so that minor, inconsequential, encroachment that causes nobody any harm or inconvenience will not be sufficient to warrant prosecution, whereas the more aggressive or egregious encroachment into the hatched area that causes concern to other road users and has the potential to be a danger to other road users may be prosecuted under the law. It presumably would be used in supporting a prosecution for driving without due care and attention etc; not as an infraction in its own right.

My guess is that the "necessary" requirement would only come into play if one was attempting to justify, or defend, another more serious accusation. Does anyone have knowledge of a prosecution where the police have claimed that it simply wasn't necessary to enter the hatched area and on that basis alone decided to prosecute?


In which case surely it is not the entering of the dashed white lines area that is the issue - but the bad driving?
so they would basically need to make a case for prosecution based on the driving, not the infringement of the white lines - which is not an infringement...

which basically concludes - no issues, you can enter them whenever you wish - there is no law against crossing a dashed white line - plenty of laws against not being an idiot while driving :D

Alasdair

titian
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 9:26 am

Re: HC Rule 130

Postby titian » Mon Aug 14, 2017 2:24 pm

On a fast moving roads, where typically a NSL is maintained - or exceeded- a right turn with a painted box on the road extened by a generous length of hatchings allows traffic space to move onto the hatched area early when planning to take the right turn, which in turn allows following traffic to flow past freely without being impeeded by the slowing right turner. If only more drivers would adopt that manoeuvre.

hir
Posts: 333
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: HC Rule 130

Postby hir » Mon Aug 14, 2017 2:37 pm

crr003 wrote:Right on.
TRSGD says:
"Diagram 1040
Part of the carriageway which vehicular traffic should not enter unless it is seen by the driver to be safe to do so"

No mention of necessary. I would imagine if the Police were to get involved it would be because of something a little more demanding than crossing a broken white line.


That's interesting.

The insertion of the words "unless it is necessary" by the authors of the Highway Code may be nothing more than an example of their attempt to impose their own judicious interpretation of the law. Unfortunately, this just muddies the water because as any fule kno, the Highway code says... "failure to comply with the other rules of The Highway Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’."

But, who knows, maybe the authors have succeeded in their aim of causing general confusion over the hatched area rule and thereby persuaded the majority of road users not to enter hatched areas because of the uncertainty brought about by their additional wording. Hold on. That can't be true. Nobody reads the Highway Code; except members on this forum. By my reckoning that makes just 12 people who know about this rule. :lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
akirk
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 6:58 pm
Location: Cotswolds

Re: HC Rule 130

Postby akirk » Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:04 pm

oy - we have 237 members I will have you know! :D

Alasdair

crr003
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:32 pm

Re: HC Rule 130

Postby crr003 » Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:13 pm

hir wrote:
crr003 wrote:Right on.
TRSGD says:
"Diagram 1040
Part of the carriageway which vehicular traffic should not enter unless it is seen by the driver to be safe to do so"

No mention of necessary. I would imagine if the Police were to get involved it would be because of something a little more demanding than crossing a broken white line.


That's interesting.

The insertion of the words "unless it is necessary" by the authors of the Highway Code may be nothing more than an example of their attempt to impose their own judicious interpretation of the law. Unfortunately, this just muddies the water because as any fule kno, the Highway code says... "failure to comply with the other rules of The Highway Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’."

But, who knows, maybe the authors have succeeded in their aim of causing general confusion over the hatched area rule and thereby persuaded the majority of road users not to enter hatched areas because of the uncertainty brought about by their additional wording. Hold on. That can't be true. Nobody reads the Highway Code; except members on this forum. By my reckoning that makes just 12 people who know about this rule. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Yep. It's government mind control. Or maybe that paragraph just needed padding out a bit to make the page look right. HC is [hyperbole]riddled with inaccuracies[/hyperbole]. Yellow Box Junctions, overtaking towards ped crossings, precedence at ped crossings, even the stopping distance at 40mph. But to be fair to them, they've got to pick the important bits out of a lot of legal stuff.

fungus
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 5:26 pm
Location: Dorset

Re: HC Rule 130

Postby fungus » Mon Aug 14, 2017 8:16 pm

Dorset police motorcylits regularly filter between opposing trafic on the A31.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.78733 ... a=!3m1!1e3

I overtake where there are cross hatched centre markings bordered by broken lines provided it is safe, and there is not a juntion nearby. A lot of drivers don't like it though as, like bus lanes, they haven't a clue about the law regarding them.

A few years ago one of my pupils on test was advised by the examiner in the de-brief, to not be too worried if she had to enter the hatched area (ghost islands) in order to get the car possitioned correctly in the right turn box so as not to impede following drivers provided that they were bordered by broken lines, not solid.

Nigel.

Gareth
Posts: 464
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 2:44 pm
Location: Berkshire
Contact:

Re: HC Rule 130

Postby Gareth » Mon Aug 14, 2017 8:20 pm

Previous discussions in the archive might be illuminating (or not)
I'm using the Firefox browser Redirector add-on to convert archive internal links still pointing to the old forum into links pointing to the archive. With Pale Moon.
there is only the road, nothing but the road ...

mainbeam
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:32 am

Re: HC Rule 130

Postby mainbeam » Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:47 pm

It is the HC that gets quoted in court, not the legislation, unless contravention of the rule is an offence in itself.

User avatar
akirk
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 6:58 pm
Location: Cotswolds

Re: HC Rule 130

Postby akirk » Tue Aug 15, 2017 8:51 am

Gareth wrote:I'm using the Firefox browser Redirector add-on to convert archive internal links still pointing to the old forum into links pointing to the archive. With Pale Moon.


Apologies - it is on my list, but I have been away - realistically will be a couple of weeks before I have time to sort this out :D

Alasdair

hir
Posts: 333
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: HC Rule 130

Postby hir » Tue Aug 15, 2017 9:03 am

mainbeam wrote:It is the HC that gets quoted in court, not the legislation, unless contravention of the rule is an offence in itself.


Presumably it's the legislation that is quoted on the charge sheet, and the HC that is then quoted in court in support of the prosecution case. For example: "the accused is charged with driving without due care and attention [the offence] in that he entered a hatched area [contrary to advice in the HC] to overtake a vehicle which was indicating to turn right and which then had to swerve to avoid a collision."

The reality is that it was the overtake of a vehicle which was indicating to turn right on the approach to a right-hand junction that was the actual offence, not the entering of the hatched area.

However, this then results in a judgement from his Honour, thus: "You have been found guilty of the offence for which you have been charged. You have wilfully committed a most heinous crime. You entered a hatched area contrary to advice clearly given in the Highway Code. As a result of this wilful and unnecessary action you caused another driver to swerve out of your way; you are hereby convicted of driving without due care and attention."

Which then gets reported by the Mail Online as: "MOTORIST CONVICTED OF DRIVING OVER BROKEN WHITE LINES, HOUSE PRICES PLUMMET. The sooner we leave the EU and shake off the schackles of the European Court of Justice the sooner we can return once again to having proper British justice in proper British courts!"


Return to “Advanced Driving - Cars”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest