Advanced Driving Hub

"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". It may be "necessary" if passing a stationary vehicle. But what about if you want to pass a vehicle travelling say 10 mph below the current speed limit? Could/would it be argued that the overtake is not necessary, therefore entering the area is not necessary?

Are you on about the motorcycle overtaking lane?

I do regularly on the bike, sometimes in the car. It all depends on the speed differentials. Also going too deep into them means you are riding/driving on tarmac that is not 'swept' regularly and run the risk of debris causing punctures or throwing up debris at other vehicles.

It's up to you. If you think your overtake is necessary, and you can complete it safely, go ahead. You have to assess a number of things:

- whether the area is likely to be entered by another vehicle for the purpose for which it's intended - e.g. to turn right
- what the road surface is like in the hatched area. They've become better in recent years but it's not uncommon for them to be full of debris
- what reaction your overtake will provoke in other road users, both the target vehicle and any oncoming traffic.

Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:- whether the area is likely to be entered by another vehicle for the purpose for which it's intended - e.g. to turn right

Personally, I wouldn't use these cross hatched areas for an overtake. I thought he was talking more of the large areas put in by councils to discourage overtaking (short of their blanket application of solid white lines) and to remove the old 'suicide lanes' on 3 lane stretches.

Typically, the lane separation ones are too narrow to make any difference to an overtake (except for bikes). You have to offside fully anyway, so they're no different physically from a single centre line. The effect is psychological.

I take the wording not as whether it is necessary to overtake, but if you wish to overtake - Is it necessary to cross the broken lines

IcedKiwi wrote:I take the wording not as whether it is necessary to overtake, but if you wish to overtake - Is it necessary to cross the broken lines

That's how I see it - any other interpretation is pointless.

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?

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"...

No, they can't. Or certainly haven't been able to in the interminable discussions of this exact problem debated numerous times on everything from PH to the now defunct IAM forum.

In all discussions, there has never been a definitive answer, as there is no legal definition for 'necessary' in this instance. I know one argument put forward was that if you were overtaking, the position taken made it 'necessary' to be there. But I fear that was just wishful thinking by someone trying to justify their use of it.

So, if you were to be prosecuted, and taken to Court, only they could decide if it was necessary based on the evidence presented at the time.

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?

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.