[NIP Wizard] Heavily Worn 'Solid' White Line Road Markings Options

[TeslaTesta]

NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - June 2022
Date of the NIP: - 5 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 6 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - A153, (near to Wilsford Level Crossing), (prior to the turning for Thorpe Drive), GREYLEES
Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - Not known
If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? -
How many current points do you have? - 0
Provide a description of events (if you know what happened) telling us as much about the incident as possible - some things that may seem trivial to you may be important, so don't leave anything out. Please do not post personal details for obvious reasons - I recieved a NIP from Lincolnshire Police following a report from a member of the public supported by dashcam footage submitted to the police as part of "Operation Snap". Apparently Op Snap allows members of the public to report driving offences in the Lincolnshire Police area by filling out a form and uploading video evidence they have captured.

The alleged offence was failure to comply with solid white line markings contrary to section 36(1) of the road traffic act 1988, the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions Act 2016 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. The photographic evidence supplied with the NIP shows that the footage was taken on a rearwards facing Nextbase dashcam fitted to a vehicle travelling between 28 and 36 mph. The road at that point is subject to a national speed limit ((60mph).

After crossing the level crossing behind the dashcam vehicle, I noticed that the double solid white lines down the centre of the single track road had become broken on my side of the road and, as the road was clear ahead I moved out to overtake the relatively slow moving vehicle as allowed under Highway Code Rule 128.

Photographs supplied with the NIP clearly show that the road markings were originally double solid white lines, but that the markings are very heavily worn such that the line on my side of the road could in no way be described as solid. Indeed, the line has been completely erased in large sections and would better be described as 'broken'.

My feeling is that the worn road markings are a safety hazard to motorists in that their broken nature indicates to drivers the exact opposite of their original intention, Furthermore I am not convinced that an offence of failing to comply with solid white lines can be legally enforced given that the lines are no longer solid.





NIP Wizard Responses
These were the responses used by the Wizard to arrive at its recommendation:
Have you received a NIP? - Yes
Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - Yes
Did the first NIP arrive within 14 days? - Yes
Although you are the Registered Keeper, were you also the keeper of the vehicle concerned (the person normally responsible for it) at the time of the alleged offence? - Yes
Were you driving? - Yes
Which country did the alleged offence take place in? - England

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:

• The law requires you to provide the information requested in the Section 172 notice within the 28 day period, naming yourself as the driver. If you are considering obtaining formal legal advice, do so before returning the notice.
  
  You should note that there is nothing to be gained by responding any earlier than you have to at any stage of the process. You are likely to receive a Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty (COFP) and further reminder(s). If you want to continue the fight, you should ignore all correspondence from the police until you receive a summons. You need to understand from the outset that while you will receive much help and support from members on the forums, you will need to put time and effort into fighting your case and ultimately be prepared to stand up in court to defend yourself.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Thu, 07 Jul 2022 08:54:58 +0000

[Advertisement]

[Jlc]

At the moment I presume you are simply being asked to identify the driver?

Upon doing so they will usually offer a course or fixed penalty to avoid a prosecution. They can go straight to prosecution but would be unusual. Of course, the offers can be 'rejected' and the matter taken to court.

The lines (from GSV 7/2021) do look a little worn - here. Do you have an more up to date photos? Particularly the throw back arrow. As it stands I think you'd struggle.

[The Rookie]

Operation snap is countrywide and about 4 years old AIR.

How about some photos to allow us to make an assessment? That is how the magistrates would look at it?

Here? https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.9751777,-...6384!8i8192

I think you'll struggle with that unless they degraded significantly in the last 11 months.

[Jlc]

I noticed that the double solid white lines down the centre of the single track road had become broken on my side of the road and, as the road was clear ahead I moved out to overtake the relatively slow moving vehicle as allowed under Highway Code Rule 128.

Actually, I'm confused - did you overtake on the long dash section (potentially allowed) or on the solid 'degraded' section?

Also, bear in mind that the dashcam footage could be played to the court.

This post has been edited by Jlc: Thu, 7 Jul 2022 - 09:06

[TeslaTesta]

At the moment I presume you are simply being asked to identify the driver?

Upon doing so they will usually offer a course or fixed penalty to avoid a prosecution. They can go straight to prosecution but would be unusual. Of course, the offers can be 'rejected' and the matter taken to court.

The lines (from GSV 7/2021) do look a little worn - here. Do you have an more up to date photos? Particularly the throw back arrow. As it stands I think you'd struggle.

The lines ar significantly more worn now.

[666]

OP, was the line really completely worn away in distinct sections of equal length?

[AntonyMMM]

Reply to the s172 notice, naming yourself as the driver. I think it is worth including a note pointing out the state of the road markings and that you may have "believed" it was a broken line allowing the overtake, and they may review the footage again.

However unless they then decide not proceed, you will have to take this to court to argue your case, and that means any offer of a driving course, or fixed penalty, will be gone, and if you lose there will be significant costs to pay ( £600 +).

( does that still show you just as you pulled out - I hope the video won't show you coming past the vehicle behind as well ?)

[southpaw82]

Reply to the s172 notice, naming yourself as the driver. I think it is worth including a note pointing out the state of the road markings and that you may have "believed" it was a broken line allowing the overtake, and they may review the footage again.

If true, of course. The OP also wants to think carefully about committing a position to writing - he’s stuck with it once he does and it may harm his credibility later on, particularly if what he writes is incredible.

( does that still show you just as you pulled out - I hope the video won't show you coming past the vehicle behind as well ?)

It seems to show that the overtake commenced where there were unbroken lines, regardless of their state after that point. The video will no doubt resolve that point.

[TeslaTesta]

Reply to the s172 notice, naming yourself as the driver. I think it is worth including a note pointing out the state of the road markings and that you may have "believed" it was a broken line allowing the overtake, and they may review the footage again.

However unless they then decide not proceed, you will have to take this to court to argue your case, and that means any offer of a driving course, or fixed penalty, will be gone, and if you lose there will be significant costs to pay ( £600 +).

( does that still show you just as you pulled out - I hope the video won't show you coming past the vehicle behind as well ?)

The overtake was on the single vehicle and a previous still shows that the overtake commenced where the lines were broken/worn away.

[The Rookie]

Agreed, given the position of the OPs car in that grab, unless it was a really violent land change, it commenced while the lines were undisputedly solid.

[andy_foster]

An offence of failing to comply with a direction given by a prescribed sign requires a prescribed sign. It does not require mens rea. Whether the accused might have believed that it was intended to be a particular prescribed sign is neither here nor there.

My initial thought when seeing the photo in post #5 was that the solid white line was slightly worn, but that that would be classed as de minimis and wondered why the OP had posted a photo of a section showing a broken white line on their side, not a solid white line. Upon a more than cursory glance, I realised that he had.

AIUI the TSRGD 2016 is far more liberal with the requirements than the previous versions, but in my book, what the OP posted is not a picture of a solid double white line.

As has been pointed out by our learned moderator, part of the sign (the solid double white lines) being non-compliant might not be deemed to invalidate the entire (length of the) sign, although IIRC a lack of required throwback arrows has seemingly done so in the past.

[The Rookie]

OP's 'throwback arrows' are present and correct

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.9743924,-...6384!8i8192

The line is solid from there to crossing so IMO they are good.

[andy_foster]

Heading east from Jlc GSV link in post #2, our side of "solid" line appears to be substantially defective all the way until the first set of clearly intentional our side broken white lines. That said, we can't be sure how much more worn they have become in the last 12 months.

As regards the "moral" (for want of a better word) argument, that regardless of any technical defence the accused ought to have known that he should not have overtaken there because there were intended to be solid double white lines for safety reasons - this is at the start of a long straight heading away from the crossing that has broken white lines to allow overtaking further down that straight.

[The Rookie]

Heading east from Jlc GSV link in post #2, our side of "solid" line appears to be substantially defective all the way until the first set of clearly intentional our side broken white lines. That said, we can't be sure how much more worn they have become in the last 12 months.

Agreed, had the pass been later there may have been a chance I think, were it started IMO no. Using the normal basis of 'would I, looking at that, think I could pass here' I would have to answer no.

[andy_foster]

I find your use of the word "agreed" when attempting to use my arguments to contradict my arguments somewhat unconventional.

Conventionally, there are basically 2 elements to the question "could I pass here" - "could I pass safely" and "could I pass legally" (signs and speed limits). The first would depend on both the road layout and current traffic, so cannot be what you meant as we cannot see what oncoming traffic would or would not have been there (other than a deduction from the OP's overtake that it was safe to do so). As regards legality, you appear to have replaced that test with one of your own invention and sought to give credence to it by calling it the "normal basis".

The legal basis is whether or not you can perform the overtake without any part of your vehicle being to the right of any part of a prescribed double white line that is solid on your side (subject to exceptions for passing stationary vehicles, certain classes of slow traffic, and turning right - which would seem not to apply).

Contrary to a playground game that you might have misunderstood when you were younger, the applicable rules are the law of the land, not what Simon says (or thinks).

If you think that the OP would necessarily have crossed the seemingly compliant section of solid double white line to be in that position and therefore (subject to any legal point regarding a partially defective set of lines being defective for their entirety), then a safe and legal overtake would not be on at that point (in your opinion).
If you think that the distressed lines are still good enough to be compliant (and I would strongly disagree), then a safe and legal overtake would not be on at that point (in your opinion).
However, if you think that the lines are merely enough to show that they were at some point intended to be a compliant set of solid double white lines, and that has any relevance to the question of whether it is a safe and legal overtake, you have a very flawed understanding of the law.

[Suziboy]

From the OP's pic I would say the road markings on his side of the road are so broken that it's very difficult to assess what they represent: they could just as easily be construed as dashed lines.

However, if after naming myself as the driver I was offered the 'what's driving us' course, I'd take that rather than risk trying to fight it in court.

[The Rookie]

I said agreed because I thought (and still think) I was agreeing with you. I’m not sure which bit gave you the idea I was disagreeing.

And I said ‘would’ not could for a reason. Could I, yes, should I, probably not, would I, no.

[southpaw82]

Skeen v Smith (1979 SLT 295) may be relevant. A “stop” sign was in order but the words “stop” painted on the road were only partially visible. Magistrates acquitted. On appeal, a direction to convict was given, on the basis that this was not a case of an initial and continuing failure to comply with the regulations: the markings had been in order at one time and were still partially visible.

That said, I think it could be distinguished on several grounds (“sign” vs “marking”, mandatory pairing of signs with road markings).

[andy_foster]

I'll see your Skeen v Smith and raise you a Davies v Heatley[1971] R.T.R 145

edit: Link is to post in members' forum - which means about 6 of us can see it...

4 FEBRUARY 1971 QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

DAVIES v HEATLEY


LORD PARKER CJ, MELFORD STEVENSON and COOKE JJ

Traffic sign—Road marking—Sign not complying with regulations—Intermittent white
line between two continuous while lines not prescribed distance apart—Whether
'prescribed' sign—Failure to comply with indication—Whether offence—Road Traffic
Act 1960s 14(1)—Road Traffic Regulation Act J967 s 54(2)—-Traffic Signs Regulations
and General Directions 1964 reg 23(1)(2)(B), diagram 1013 (as amended by Traffic
Signs (Amendment) Regulations 1966).

Section 14(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1960 provides:

'Where . . . a traffic sign, being a sign of the prescribed size, colour and type . . , has
been lawfully placed on or near a road. a person driving ... a vehicle who ... (B) fails to
compty with the indication given by the sign, shall be liable' [to penalty],

Section 54(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 provides:

'Traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulations . . .'

Regulation 23 of theTrafiic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1964 (as amended)
provides:

'(1) A road marking for conveying the requirements specified in the next succeeding
paragraph ... shall be of the size and type shown in diagram 1013. (2) The requirements
conveyed ... shall be . . . (B) ... every vehicle . . . shall be so driven as to keep the ...
'line on the right hand . . . side of the vehicle.'
Diagram 1013 provides:

'...Longitudinal lines to indicate ... the requirements... prescribed by regulation 23(2)
...(See Direction 5A)'.

A bend in a road bore a traffic marking consisting of continuous double white lines and
between them the remains of an intermittent white line with which the road had previously
been marked; the distance between the continuous double white lines differed from the
distance prescribed by diagram 1013 and regulation 23(1) of the Traffic Signs Regulations
and General Directions 1964, as amended by the Traffic Signs (Amendment) Regulations
1966 and section 54(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967. The defendant, who
drove a motor vehicle at the bend, did not keep to the left of the marking, and he was
charged with contravening section 14(1) (A) of the Road Traffic Act 1960 by failing to
comply with the indication given by a traffic sign. The justices were of opinion that the
defendant was left in no doubt as to the nature of the sign and that, although it did not
strictly comply with the regulations, it was clearly visible and recognisable and, therefore,
binding on him, and they convicted him.
On appeal against conviction :

Held, allowing the appeal, that the scheme of the legislation confined the offence to
failure to comply with the prescribed sign (p 148E); and that, since the traffic marking
did not conform strictly to the sign as prescribed by the regulation, no offence had been
committed, and the conviction would be quashed.



Cases referred to in the judgment:

James v Cavey [1967] 2 QB 676: [1967] 2 WLR 1239; [1967] 1 All EH 1048.DC
Power v Davidson (1964) 62 LGR 320. DC
Reg. v Priest [1961] OWN 166

Additional case cited in argument: '
MacLeod v Hamilton. 1965 SLT 305

Case stated by Glamorgan Justices sitting at Pontardawe

On 30 April 1970 an information was preferred by the prosecutor, Ivor Heatley, against the
defendant, Charles Russel Davies, that he, on 9 March 1970 at Lianguicke in Glamorgan
being the person driving a vehicle, namely Morris motor lorry, registration number
190 DWN on a road, at Gelligron Hill. Pontardawe. did fail to comply with the indication
given by a traffic sign, namely, did fail to keep to the left of a continuous while line placed
on the left of a continuous while line, contrary to section 14 of the Road Traffic Act 1960.
The defendant pleaded not guilty.

The justices heard the information on 29 May 1970 and found the following facts.
At 3.40 pm on Monday 9 March 1970 Brian Williams, a police constable of the South
Wales constabulary was on Panda patrol duty in Gelligron Road, Pontardawe, and
travelling down a hill in the direction of traffic lights. Proceeding in front of the constable
were two heavily laden motor lorries travelling at a very slow speed. As a right-hand
bend was being negotiated the constable saw the vehicle directly in front of him,
Morris motor lorry registration number 190 DWN, pull out to its offside of the road, and
in doing so cross continuous double white lines placed in the centre of the road. The
vehicle then accelerated past the front lorry. Motor lorry registration number 190 DWN
was stopped, and the constable spoke to ihe driver, the defendant, and told him that it
was an offence to cross double continuous white lines placed on a road.Whan asked for
an explanation the defendant made no reply. When told that he would be reported by
the constable for the consideration of the question of proceedings being taken against
the defendant for failing to conform to a traffic sign he, after caution, made no reply.
The traffic sign in question was as shown in a photograph produced to the court and
exhibited to the case and consisted of two continuous white lines with an intermittent
white line in the centre. The sign was placed on the road at sometime in 1970, and the
constable confirmed In evidence that the photograph showed the sign as it existed on the
date of the alleged offence.
It was contended by the defendant that there was no case for him to answer in so far
as no offence in law had been committed as the traffic sign in question was not a lawful
sign within the meaning of section 54 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967, and as
prescribed by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1964.
The Justices were referred to the following cases:
MacLeod v Hamilton. 1965 SLT 305
Miners v Gillard [1950] WN 347.DC
Reg v Priest [1961] OWN 166

On a case to answer being found the defendant elected to give evidence and stated that,
as he was proceeding down the hill, around bends, he saw certain road markings on the
road, namely, continuous while lines with an intermittent
white line in the centre of same.
He stated that he may have crossed the lines but thought he had not,
The justices were of opinion that the defendant was left in no doubt as to the nature of
the sign in question; and that though the sign did not strictly comply with the Regulations
in so far as there was an intermittent white line placed between two continuous white
lines, the sign, which was situated on an 'S' bend, was clearly visible and recognisable
and therefore, binding on the defendant. They accordingly, convicted the defendant
and he was was fined £10, his licence was endorsed, and he was ordered to pay 10s costs.
The defendantdant appealed.

The question for the opinion of the court was whether, in view of the justices' finding
that the defendant fully appreciated the nature of the sign in question, they were correct
in law to decide that the intermittent white line between the continuous white lines
did not affect the validity of the sign.

Anthony Kenny for the defendant
B R Oliver the prosecutor

Lord Parker CJ This is an appeal by way of case stated from a decision
of Glamorgan Justices sitting at Pontardawe, whereby they convicted the
defendant of an offence contrary to section 14 of the Road Traffic Act 1960,
in that he did fail to comply with the indication given by a traffic sign,
namely, that he failed to keep to the left of a continuous white line placed
on the left of a continuous white line. There was evidence from tha police
that, on a bend in the road where there were two white lines, the defendant
driving a heavily laden motor lorry went over the double white line in order
to pass a slower moving lorry in front of him. Although, after the rejection
of a submission of no case, the defendant did not admit that he had crossed
the double white line, it is quite clear that, if nothing more was said, this is
a plain case for a conviction.
However, the matter does not end there, because the point taken before the
justices and before this court is that the double white line in this case did
not conform to the type of white line laid down by the legislation. A photo-
graph is attached to the case which shows quite clearly that between the
double white fines there is an old intermittent line, in other words it seems
pretty certain that at one time on this bend there was the ordinary intermittent
white line, but a time came when, as it were. superimposed on that
and on either side of it were put these double white lines. The justices
expressed their view, a view with which I have every sympathy, and one
which could be said to be a common sense view, as follows:
'We were of opinion that the defendant was left in no doubt as to the nature of the sign
in question; and that though the sign did not strictly comply with the Regulations in
so far as there was an intermittent white line placed between two continuous white
line, the sign, which was situated on an "S" bend, was clearly visible and recognisable
and, therefore, binding on the defendant'.
I have come to the conclusion, though with some reluctance, that the
jUstices were wrong. The legislation in question makes it abundantly clear
that there must be strict conformity with the traffic signs which are pre-
cribed. One begins with section 14(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1960, which
provides, so far as it is material:
Where...a traffic sign, being a sign of the prescribed size, colour and type . . has been
lawfully placed on or near a road. a person driving or propelling a vehicle who—(a) neglects
or refuses to stop the vehicle or to make it proceed in, or keep to, a parlicular line
of traffic when directed so to do by the police constable in the execution of his duty, or
(B) fails to comply with the indication given by the sign, shall be liable on summary
conviction . ..'
to a penalty.
The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 further provides by section 54(2):
'Traffic signs shall be of the size. colour and type prescribed by regulations made as
aforesaid".
The regulations in question here are the Traffic Signs Regulations and
General Directions 1964. Regulation 23(1) of those regulations provides:
'A road marking for conveying the requirements specified in the next succeeding
paragraph...shall be of the size and type shown in diagram 1013',
and though it is unnecessary to read it, regulation 23(2)(6) deals, among
other matters, with signs of the type in question here, namely, the double
white line. When one turns to diagram 1013, one finds laid down the
markings, with which we are all familiar, of the double white line, and it
provides what the width of each double white line should be and the
distance between them. It is only necessary to add that the distance
between them was in fact varied by the Traffic Signs (Amendment)
Regulations 1966. Accordingly, as it seems to me, the scheme of the
legislation here is to confine the offence to a case where there has been
failure to comply with the prescribed sign.
One asks, therefore, here whether this was the prescribed sign. I thouaht
at one point that it might be said that the old intermittent line, on a sensible
approach, forms no part of the double white line sign, that it is old and it is
just not completely rubbed out, but, as was pointed out, even if one
assumed that it was subtracted and formed no part of the line itself, the
distance between the two continuous white lines is a long way different
from that prescribed by the regulations. Accordingly, as it seems to me,
and apart from authority, much as one sympathises with the approach of
the justices, it is impossible to say that an offence was committed.

The court has been referred to a number of authorities, incuding — and I
find it unnecessary to refer to them — James v Cavey [1967] 2 QB 676 and
Power v Davidson (1964) 62 LGR 320, cases which were analogous in this
sense, that it was held in each case that there was no offence of the type
there alleged unless there had been complete compliance with the
regulations.
Indeed, the only case to which the court has been referred, and speaking
for myself I am grateful for Mr Kenny's researches, which goes the other
way is Reg. v Priest in Ontario, Canada [1961] OWN 166. It was a case
in the Court of Appeal, and Roach J in giving the judgment of the court
said, at p 168:
'On the other hand. a top sign that complies, though not strictly but so substantially
with the regulations as reasonably to indicate that it is authoritative and erected by the
competent authority in intended compliance with its power under the Act, in my opinion
is equally binding on the driver, provided that he could have seen it if he was keeping
a proper look out".
It is, however, to be observed there that the scheme of the legislation was
substantially different. The Act in that case, the Highway Traffic Act R.S.O,
1960, c. 172, provided that a driver on approaching a stop sign at an
intersection, 'shall bring the car or vehicle to a full stop...', and then the
Act went on to provide that the lieutenant governor in council may make
regulations providing for the erection of signs on any highways and
prescribing the type of signs to be erected and the location of each type
of sign. One sees at ones that the Act did not make it an offence to fail to
comply with a 'prescribed stop sign', but only with a stop sign. It seems to
me that under that scheme of legislation it was permissible to take the
view that the Court of Appeal took there and the justices took in the present
case.
Under the scheme of legislation, however, with which we are concerned,
I see no escape from saying that here no offence was committed, and
accordingly I would allow the appeal and quash the conviction.

Melford Stevenson J I agree.

Cooke J I also agree.

Appeal allowed with coats

Conviction quashed

Solicitors for the defendants: Tuck & Mann & Geffen S T D Jones S Co for
Price Williams & Partners. Llandeilo
Solicitors for the prosecutor: Sharpe, Pritchard & Co for R H C Rowlands. Glamorgan
Reported by Mrs Celia Fox Barrister-at-Law

This post has been edited by andy_foster: Thu, 7 Jul 2022 - 21:54

[mickR]

Agreed, given the position of the OPs car in that grab, unless it was a really violent land change, it commenced while the lines were undisputedly solid.

you know as well as me what exceptional acceleration the Tesla has snd without knowing the speed of the camera car its pretty impossible to say where Tesla started its overtake.