Shared Middle Lanes

[ukaskew]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Surely this is exactly the problem? You can't use those two lanes without consideration when oncoming traffic can legitimately use that very same lane when it's safe to do so. Safe would imply 'empty', which it would be until some muppet on the other side moved into it with consideration.

[vonhosen]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

You don't seem to understand that it's only white paint & doesn't absolve you of your duty of care to make sure it's safe to complete your overtake (from on coming vehicles) before embarking on it. You can't use lane 2 without regard for traffic that may be heading in the opposite direction of travel anymore than you can (use 'your' marked lane) on a narrow single carriageway road with impunity against the possibility of vehicles travelling in the other direction that may be slightly larger than half the width of the road & therefore on 'your' side of the road.

We have a duty of care to look out for each other & even if you didn't realise it before, you should from this thread, that there is a distinct possibility that people travelling downhill may be using that lane towards you.
With that in mind what are you going to do?
1) Go there in the belief that you have a priority & then say when there is a collision 'I'm right you're wrong'.
2) Make sure you have sufficient vision & see that you can safely complete the overtake before embarking & if you can't do that not use the lane?

[vonhosen]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

It's clear as day that two lanes become three. There is an expectation that vehicles towards will be using the middle lane up to the point that the solid lines start for them, hence the two throw back arrows for them.

[p1stonhead]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

100% agree.

But I was just saying, it would be my expectation on the road that someone in the double lane side is using the lane 99% of the time as is probably expected by everyone. Not sure how it would fall legally - perhaps someone can chime in? But on the face of it i would imagine someone in the middle lane from the single side would get the blame for being on the 'other side of the road' as it were.

[xRIEx]

ukaskew said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Surely this is exactly the problem? You can't use those two lanes without consideration when oncoming traffic can legitimately use that very same lane when it's safe to do so. Safe would imply 'empty', which it would be until some muppet on the other side moved into it with consideration.

Partly, but not completely - if you're planning an overtake (downhill) you should look ahead (that bit's obvious!); if you see two cars in the far lane and the gap between them is closing, it is a fair assumption that the following car may wish to overtake and would move out into its right-hand lane. In my interpretation, that car has priority to make its overtake rather than me (or you, to keep the grammatical person consistent).

[speedking31]

For all those arguing "equal rights" over lane 2, why waste paint on the solid line? What does it add if not to emphasise a difference in priorities?

[tuffer]

ukaskew said:

I’m sure this has been discussed before but I’ve no idea what these are actually called so didn't find anything with a search. I’m talking about one of these…

I actually drove this stretch yesterday as it is quite close to me. I overtook coming down the hill whilst in the single lane, my simple rule for this is that any traffic coming up the hill should either be a single vehicle or so far spaced that they are very unlikely to perform an overtake. Any doubt whatsoever and I stay where I am.

[vonhosen]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Each case falls on it's individual facts.
Where each driver can be shown to have fallen short of their own expected duty of care each is liable for their own failure in that.
Therefore in such a collision it's possible that both could be charged, but as I say it depends on the individual facts in each case.
More to the point they could both be dead & charges immaterial.
Plan for it to not be how you'd like it to be with traffic ahead, don't expect or hope for it to be how you'd like it to be with traffic ahead.

[rxe]

OK - the photograph above is a good one:



So, you've been following that Rav 4 for miles, and finally, you have a an extra lane. So you overtake the Rav. Pickup next. On that stretch of road, I would make an assumption that despite the road vanishing to the left, the lane I was in was assigned to my direction, and that I would continue in the outside lane until I had overtaken the pickup and the blue car ahead of that. I would not expect to have to make judgements about someone deciding to pull into my lane from the other direction. Clearly, being moderately alert, I would be aware of the fact that this could happen, as it can in pretty much any circumstance, but I would not be expecting it.

Edit - looking at it again, if you have to assume anything other than the above, the lane is useless with that visibility and you might as well hatch it over.

Edited by rxe on Thursday 28th April 14:33

[vonhosen]

rxe said:

OK - the photograph above is a good one:



So, you've been following that Rav 4 for miles, and finally, you have a an extra lane. So you overtake the Rav. Pickup next. On that stretch of road, I would make an assumption that despite the road vanishing to the left, the lane I was in was assigned to my direction, and that I would continue in the outside lane until I had overtaken the pickup and the blue car ahead of that. I would not expect to have to make judgements about someone deciding to pull into my lane from the other direction. Clearly, being moderately alert, I would be aware of the fact that this could happen, as it can in pretty much any circumstance, but I would not be expecting it.

Edit - looking at it again, if you have to assume anything other than the above, the lane is useless with that visibility and you might as well hatch it over.

Then you unnecessarily place yourself at peril if you can't see sufficiently what may be heading towards (i.e. popping off a last overtake before the solid line).
Irrespective of the markings I'd be waiting for the golden nugget that is sufficient visibility to be satisfied that any vehicle heading towards in lane 2 isn't going to be able to get to me before I'm safely past the vehicle I wish to pass. If i can't see sufficiently to be happy that vehicle towards isn't there then I'll treat it as if it is until I can be satisfied.
Life is more important than getting one car further forward.

[smithyithy]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I'm not saying it's right, just that it seems to be part of modern life.

But in the instances we're discussing here, I don't think it would be over-engineering to change it to a double solid white line - I think removing the ambiguity of the broken line and perceived 'middle lane' and 'priority' could increase safety.

I agree that everyone on the road should know what the road markings mean, but it only takes a single idiot to misread that broken double line and cause a fatal head-on collision. The question would still be asked of would it still have happened if the double line was solid rather than broken.

[vonhosen]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

[48k]

speedking31 said:

For all those arguing "equal rights" over lane 2, why waste paint on the solid line? What does it add if not to emphasise a difference in priorities?

The solid line is nothing to do with priorities, it shows vehicles going up the hill that they may use only two of the three lanes on the carriageway, whereas vehicles coming down the hill may use all three. All said with the caveat of "keep left unless overtaking", "duty of care to other road users", etc.

[rxe]

vonhosen said:

Then you unnecessarily place yourself at peril if you can't see sufficiently what may be heading towards (i.e. popping off a last overtake before the solid line).
Irrespective of the markings I'd be waiting for the golden nugget that is sufficient visibility to be satisfied that any vehicle heading towards in lane 2 isn't going to be able to get to me before I'm safely past the vehicle I wish to pass. If i can't see sufficiently to be happy that vehicle towards isn't there then I'll treat it as if it is until I can be satisfied.
Life is more important than getting one car further forward.

Problem is, that in your interpretation of the world, I simply cannot drive on a single carriageway road. Any car coming the other way may pull out in front of me. "My" side of the road may be perfectly clear, but if I can't believe it is "My" side, and drive accordingly, then I can't drive at all. You have to have a set of rules that say:

1) This area of road "belongs" to traffic flowing in one direction.
2) Traffic going in that direction should not expect to have to take avoiding action caused by traffic in the other direction.
3) The onus is on the traffic in the other direction to ensure that the the maneuver is totally safe.

Anything else leads to chaos.

[Monty Python]

Perhaps if they did this it would make it clearer:

[p1stonhead]

48k said:

speedking31 said:

For all those arguing "equal rights" over lane 2, why waste paint on the solid line? What does it add if not to emphasise a difference in priorities?

The solid line is nothing to do with priorities, it shows vehicles going up the hill that they may use only two of the three lanes on the carriageway, whereas vehicles coming down the hill may use all three. .

Wait, you are saying that those in the 'single' lane can use all three?! As in, cross the lane you are allowed to overtake in and into the next? So this could result in a three wide overtake if two people are going slower than you like?

You are basically suggesting this but with the possiblity of cars coming the other way...



No one in their right mind would contemplate this.

Edited by p1stonhead on Thursday 28th April 15:01

[rxe]

p1stonhead said:

Wait, you are saying that those in the 'single' lane can use all three?! As in, cross the lane you are allowed to overtake in and into the next?

Yes, theoretically. But it would look like something out of the wacky races....

[boyse7en]

rxe said:

OK - the photograph above is a good one:



So, you've been following that Rav 4 for miles, and finally, you have a an extra lane. So you overtake the Rav. Pickup next. On that stretch of road, I would make an assumption that despite the road vanishing to the left, the lane I was in was assigned to my direction, and that I would continue in the outside lane until I had overtaken the pickup and the blue car ahead of that. I would not expect to have to make judgements about someone deciding to pull into my lane from the other direction. Clearly, being moderately alert, I would be aware of the fact that this could happen, as it can in pretty much any circumstance, but I would not be expecting it.

Edit - looking at it again, if you have to assume anything other than the above, the lane is useless with that visibility and you might as well hatch it over.

Edited by rxe on Thursday 28th April 14:33

So what happens to the guy coming down the hill overtaking the Freelander (or the vehicle behind it) when you just pull out into the centre lane? He's got every right to be there, right up until the point where the double white lines start.

[vonhosen]

rxe said:

vonhosen said:

Then you unnecessarily place yourself at peril if you can't see sufficiently what may be heading towards (i.e. popping off a last overtake before the solid line).
Irrespective of the markings I'd be waiting for the golden nugget that is sufficient visibility to be satisfied that any vehicle heading towards in lane 2 isn't going to be able to get to me before I'm safely past the vehicle I wish to pass. If i can't see sufficiently to be happy that vehicle towards isn't there then I'll treat it as if it is until I can be satisfied.
Life is more important than getting one car further forward.

Problem is, that in your interpretation of the world, I simply cannot drive on a single carriageway road. Any car coming the other way may pull out in front of me. "My" side of the road may be perfectly clear, but if I can't believe it is "My" side, and drive accordingly, then I can't drive at all. You have to have a set of rules that say:

1) This area of road "belongs" to traffic flowing in one direction.
2) Traffic going in that direction should not expect to have to take avoiding action caused by traffic in the other direction.
3) The onus is on the traffic in the other direction to ensure that the the maneuver is totally safe.

Anything else leads to chaos.

1) The markings shown do not indicate that the middle lane 'belongs' to traffic flowing in one direction, it's an overtaking lane available to both & as such neither can claim ownership. Solid white lines would indicate it isn't an overtaking lane for use by both.
2) Traffic going uphill is required by the duty of care to expect that traffic downhill may be using the space because of 1).
3) The duty of care on all drivers places an onus on them to make sure any overtake they wish to do is safe before embarking on it.

None of that leads to chaos, it leads to caution, which is precisely what they want from you.

[mfmman]

speedking31 said:

For all those arguing "equal rights" over lane 2, why waste paint on the solid line? What does it add if not to emphasise a difference in priorities?

It adds to the fact that traffic cannot cross it to use a third lane

I'm not sure if the third lane could be used if the white line was not there, the HC says not but then the HC also says that not all of it's rules are legal requirements. I do know someone who did it and got caught and threatened with prosecution but this was before the days of the fixed penalty so perhaps the police couldn't be arsed (it wasn't me so I really don't know)

I have driven on the hill in question hundreds of times, the likelihood of using the middle lane going down the hill is pretty low but I would have right of way if I chose to use it and it was clear and safe to do so. However traffic is quick at this point and I would only overtake a slow moving vehicle (tractor etc) as you arrive all too quickly at the double white line bit at the bottom

It's here BTW https://goo.gl/maps/rmsi8dC2hV12