Shared Middle Lanes

[CrutyRammers]

Well, this thread is quite an eye-opener isn't it. And not in a good way. I'd suggest everyone listens to Von.

[vonhosen]

Monty Python said:

Perhaps if they did this it would make it clearer:

The favoured (& frequently applied) option is to do this
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/A507,+Baldock/...

[danrst171]

If you are going down the hill and begin overtaking because the "middle" lane is clear and somebody coming up the hill wants to pass a vehicle slowing them, what should happen? Half the people on here seem to be suggesting that the car can simply pull out and expect the car coming down the hill to brake and abort their maneuver?

[Monty Python]

vonhosen said:

The favoured (& frequently applied) option is to do this
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/A507,+Baldock/...

That would make much more sense that the way it is now.

[16v stretch]

Surely if it was equally shared between the two different directions of traffic both sides would have a dashed and a solid hazard warning?

| ¦| |¦ |

Highway Code said:

Rule 127
A broken white line. This marks the centre of the road. When this line lengthens and the gaps shorten, it means that there is a hazard ahead. Do not cross it unless you can see the road is clear and wish to overtake or turn off.

My interpretation of this, is that unless the road is clear (as in no oncoming traffic in either lane), then you shouldn't be crossing the broken line to overtake.

You can't control the person in lane 1 of the 2 lane carriageway, there is no signage or road markings to stop them from using lane 2 when required (emergency avoidance, selecting lane for upcoming turn etc) so unless the roadway is clear, don't use it.

Edited by 16v stretch on Thursday 28th April 15:26

[rxe]

danrst171 said:

If you are going down the hill and begin overtaking because the "middle" lane is clear and somebody coming up the hill wants to pass a vehicle slowing them, what should happen? Half the people on here seem to be suggesting that the car can simply pull out and expect the car coming down the hill to brake and abort their maneuver?

i honestly see it as no different to the situation on a single carriageway. The driver moving into the carriageway dedicated to oncoming traffic has to take complete responsibility for what he is doing.

If you are coming down that hill, and are faced with the situation you describe, it wasn't safe to pull out in the first place.

[48k]

p1stonhead said:

No one in their right mind would contemplate this.

I don't disagree with that statement, I was merely answering the question about what the solid white line indicates. The solid white line provides no indication of priorities it merely serves to restrict the traffic going up hill to two of the three lanes. There is no such restriction being imposed on traffic coming down the hill.

[danrst171]

rxe said:

i honestly see it as no different to the situation on a single carriageway. The driver moving into the carriageway dedicated to oncoming traffic has to take complete responsibility for what he is doing.

If you are coming down that hill, and are faced with the situation you describe, it wasn't safe to pull out in the first place.

I don't think you can compare to a single carriageway because there are two lanes. You are moving from one lane to another and surely you have to ensure it is clear before you do so...from in front and behind.

Otherwise, you might as well not bother with the broken line and have it as double solid white lines.

[vonhosen]

rxe said:

danrst171 said:

If you are going down the hill and begin overtaking because the "middle" lane is clear and somebody coming up the hill wants to pass a vehicle slowing them, what should happen? Half the people on here seem to be suggesting that the car can simply pull out and expect the car coming down the hill to brake and abort their maneuver?

i honestly see it as no different to the situation on a single carriageway. The driver moving into the carriageway dedicated to oncoming traffic has to take complete responsibility for what he is doing.

If you are coming down that hill, and are faced with the situation you describe, it wasn't safe to pull out in the first place.

And the same is true for a driver moving from lane 1 to lane 2 in order to overtake going uphill.

Where there is the potential for on coming traffic using the lane you wish to use for overtaking do you

A) Go out where you can't see if there is a vehicle coming towards using the lane?
B) Go out if you can see there is a vehicle using it towards & for you to go out as well would cause conflict with it?

OR do you
A) Wait until you can see there isn't a vehicle coming towards using the lane?
B) Not go out because you can see there is a vehicle towards using it & for you to go out would cause conflict with it?
C) See there is a vehicle using it towards, but it's far enough away that you can use the lane to pass another & regain the nearside before it can get to you?

Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 28th April 15:37

[Chris1255]

My rule of thumb on these three lane sections is pretty much don't overtake anything bar a slow tractor. This discussion makes me quite happy to stick to that and not get killed whatever the rights or wrongs.

[vonhosen]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Right or wrong isn't solely determined by paint, there is the duty of care & attention. Overtaking where you have insufficient vision to determine whether there is something towards using the space you need to use or going in the face of on coming traffic, adversely to it, falls short of that duty of care & attention.

[rxe]

vonhosen said:

And the same is true for a driver moving from lane 1 to lane 2 in order to overtake going uphill.

Where there is the potential for on coming traffic using the lane you wish to use for overtaking do you

A) Go out where you can't see if there is a vehicle coming towards using the lane?
B) Go out if you can see there is a vehicle using it towards & for you to go out as well would cause conflict with it?

Reduce it to a single carriageway.

If I am driving on my side of the road, and someone is coming towards me, overtaking into my path, do I:

- Floor it, thinking that'll teach the f*****
- Stand on the brakes thinking "what in the world of cock has that guy been smoking"
- Go off the road because there is nowhere else to go.

Well, obviously it is 2, followed by 3 if the situation is really bad.

So no, only an idiot would deliberately cause an accident. What you are saying is that crossing a solid line into the opposing traffic is an equivalent manoeuvre to using a lane on your side of the carriageway. It isn't. The blame for a head on in that photo should entirely lie with the single carriageway driver who erred in pulling out into the opposing carriageway when it was not safe to do so. Doesn't matter at that stage, they're both dead, but if the question is "who was in the wrong", that's my answer.

[vonhosen]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The duty of care is an objective standard under Secs 2 & 3 RTA 1988.

[danrst171]

rxe said:

Doesn't matter at that stage, they're both dead, but if the question is "who was in the wrong", that's my answer.

How you can possibly come to that conclusion is beyond me.

[MagicalTrevor]

Timfy said:

There's one fairly local to me.

I've not known of any issues there, but people don't tend to push their luck there.

Edited by Timfy on Thursday 28th April 12:58

Just round the corner from me. Towards the top of the hill the paint becomes a little clearer and towards the bottom the 'throw ins' do suggest that the priority is given to the uphill traffic.

I only overtake downhill if there is clearly not going to be any conflicting traffic!

[vonhosen]

rxe said:

vonhosen said:

And the same is true for a driver moving from lane 1 to lane 2 in order to overtake going uphill.

Where there is the potential for on coming traffic using the lane you wish to use for overtaking do you

A) Go out where you can't see if there is a vehicle coming towards using the lane?
B) Go out if you can see there is a vehicle using it towards & for you to go out as well would cause conflict with it?

Reduce it to a single carriageway.

If I am driving on my side of the road, and someone is coming towards me, overtaking into my path, do I:

- Floor it, thinking that'll teach the f*****
- Stand on the brakes thinking "what in the world of cock has that guy been smoking"
- Go off the road because there is nowhere else to go.

Well, obviously it is 2, followed by 3 if the situation is really bad.

So no, only an idiot would deliberately cause an accident. What you are saying is that crossing a solid line into the opposing traffic is an equivalent manoeuvre to using a lane on your side of the carriageway. It isn't. The blame for a head on in that photo should entirely lie with the single carriageway driver who erred in pulling out into the opposing carriageway when it was not safe to do so. Doesn't matter at that stage, they're both dead, but if the question is "who was in the wrong", that's my answer.

No I'm not, there isn't a solid line against the downhill.
I'm saying in the absence of the solid line it's an overtaking lane available to both directions of travel & each direction of travel has a duty of care before & whilst using it.

[Magic919]

What is a single carriageway? What is a dual carriageway? I think some of the posters are confused.

[vonhosen]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Are you trying to suggest that you believe a court is going to take the view that

A) Overtaking where you have insufficient view of traffic towards ahead
OR
B) Having sufficient view but deciding to overtake into the face of that oncoming traffic to it's danger

satisfies care & attention & is not an offence?

[vonhosen]

CPS charging standards said:

The following examples of circumstances that are likely to be characterised as dangerous driving are derived from decided cases and the SGC Definitive Guideline:

• overtaking which could not have been carried out safely;

note
Safely isn't determined by getting away with it.

[rxe]

vonhosen said:

No I'm not, there isn't a solid line against the downhill.
I'm saying in the absence of the solid line it's an overtaking lane available to both directions of travel & each direction of travel has a duty of care before & whilst using it.

OK - two apparently intelligent people have to agree to differ on their interpretation of a road. In this case, failure to agree leads to people getting killed. See the problem with the design?