Shared Middle Lanes
Discussion
p1stonhead said:
Yes they do! The side with two lanes can treat it like a dual carriageway. The side with a single lane have to 'overtake' into the middle lane only when safe to do so.
How can they treat it as a dual carriageway, where is the physical separation? This is a single carriageway with a 60 limit if NSL applies.
Also, if someone is already in this lane coming towards you overtaking a lorry do you think they will magically disappear if you decide to pull out without looking?
rxe said:
Of course not.
I do drive through corners with an assumption that I am not going to meet someone doing 60 coming the other way who has crossed over the broken + solid line onto my side of the road. Just as I drive on any road with oncoming traffic - I assume that people will see a broken and solid line and realise that when they cross it, they are going into oncoming traffic. I am not saying that paint is some force field protecting me, we all know it isn't.
So why take the risk when you know how many people will potentially see the overtaking opportunity & take it?I do drive through corners with an assumption that I am not going to meet someone doing 60 coming the other way who has crossed over the broken + solid line onto my side of the road. Just as I drive on any road with oncoming traffic - I assume that people will see a broken and solid line and realise that when they cross it, they are going into oncoming traffic. I am not saying that paint is some force field protecting me, we all know it isn't.
rxe said:
Note that I am arguing the definition of fault here, I entirely agree that being in the right, yet dead, is a nugatory position to take. If I chose to overtake the RAV in that picture, and then someone came hooning round the blue car down hill, my view is that the down hill driver would be 100% at fault.
No doubt fault lays with them, but if it's reasonably foreseeable (which it is) & you go ahead despite that, then you aren't without a degree of fault too.rxe said:
They chose to cross into the opposing carriageway (as they are entitled to do, over a broken + solid line) without being clear that the road was clear.
Which is fault on their part.rxe said:
I would have simply crossed a lane divider to use an additional carriage way in my direction.
Additional carriageway?It's one carriageway with three lanes, which is why the risk exists.
And a duty of care exists on you to make sure it's safe to change lanes & overtake before you do. if you can't see it's safe, or can see it isn't safe but do it anyway then fault lays with you too.
Fault isn't an either or in collisions between two vehicles, very often there is split liability & potential offences by both drivers.
vonhosen said:
So why take the risk when you know how many people will potentially see the overtaking opportunity & take it?.
You mean why do I drive based on assumption that someone isn't going to pull across a broken + solid line into my path? Because to drive with any other assumption means it is impossible for me to proceed on a single lane road. At any instant, the driver coming the other way could choose to drive into my path and you're saying it would partially be my fault. Simple thought experiment. Take the photo, and cover the left hand lane in grass. I'd do it for you, but my photoshop skills are negligible. I'm in the same position, only this time I'm not overtaking a Rav 4 because that lane doesn't exist. Bloke hooning down the hill crosses over the solid + dashed and smacks into me. Whose fault is that? If different to the multilane example, why?
I was thinking this was the one at Pepperbox Hill the other side of Salisbury. That one has always baffled me as the beginning of it at the southern end seems to be back to front:
The consequence of this is very few people seem to use the overtaking lane as they don't seem to understand that it's "theirs".
The consequence of this is very few people seem to use the overtaking lane as they don't seem to understand that it's "theirs".
Johnnytheboy said:
The consequence of this is very few people seem to use the overtaking lane as they don't seem to understand that it's "theirs".
It's also just a nasty bit of road though isn't it, drivers coming down the other side are generally hacking it down there and the option to dip into the middle lane isn't for very long. I think most people just don't think it's worth the risk unless it's to get passed some really slow elephant or similar.
rxe said:
vonhosen said:
So why take the risk when you know how many people will potentially see the overtaking opportunity & take it?.
You mean why do I drive based on assumption that someone isn't going to pull across a broken + solid line into my path? Because to drive with any other assumption means it is impossible for me to proceed on a single lane road. At any instant, the driver coming the other way could choose to drive into my path and you're saying it would partially be my fault. On top of that you have a duty of care to make sure, before you change lanes or overtake, that it is safe to do so.
Other people's actions do not absolve you of that duty of care.
It's not the same for a single lane (in each direction) road, because there isn't a an overtaking lane between you & them for you or them to move into. As an aside a single lane (in each direction) road can also lead to you having to tailor your driving with the belief that you could find vehicles effectively on your side of the road, because it's again reasonable to expect vehicles with the road layout to be there coming towards you, where the road is such & narrow, because you now have to be able to stop in half the distance you can can see to be clear (as opposed to within the distance you can see to be clear on your side of the road - on wider roads), as do those towards you, or you could be failing to display due care & attention.
rxe said:
Simple thought experiment. Take the photo, and cover the left hand lane in grass. I'd do it for you, but my photoshop skills are negligible. I'm in the same position, only this time I'm not overtaking a Rav 4 because that lane doesn't exist. Bloke hooning down the hill crosses over the solid + dashed and smacks into me. Whose fault is that? If different to the multilane example, why?
Because apples aren't pears, you are changing lanes & overtaking going past the RAV4.See above for the difference, your duty of care before changing lanes &/or overtaking is the difference, that part of the duty of care obviously doesn't exist where you aren't changing lanes or overtaking but it does where you are. (There are of course other parts of the duty of care beyond changing lanes or overtaking).
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 29th April 14:17
I'm not changing lanes. I'm in a lane heading in my direction, until the solid double whites run out. Then according to you, there is no difference between a "lane line" and a "double white, solid + dashed". If all the markings were single dashed lines, I would agree with you.
Now with hindsight, a regular driver that road would know it was damn dangerous, and probably avoid the centre lane entirely. But we can't assume that. We have to assume a driver who has not seen this before.
Edit - the single road example is very relevant. We are talking about what crossing a double white (crossed + broken). On a straight road, imagine that a driver decided to overtake into my path. Surely his fault 100%. Same as if he came round a blind (but wide enough) bend. Again, he's on the wrong side of the solid, in the opposing traffic with poor judgement. I still don't see why this case is any different at all.
Now with hindsight, a regular driver that road would know it was damn dangerous, and probably avoid the centre lane entirely. But we can't assume that. We have to assume a driver who has not seen this before.
Edit - the single road example is very relevant. We are talking about what crossing a double white (crossed + broken). On a straight road, imagine that a driver decided to overtake into my path. Surely his fault 100%. Same as if he came round a blind (but wide enough) bend. Again, he's on the wrong side of the solid, in the opposing traffic with poor judgement. I still don't see why this case is any different at all.
Edited by rxe on Friday 29th April 14:25
rxe said:
I'm not changing lanes. I'm in a lane heading in my direction, until the solid double whites run out. Then according to you, there is no difference between a "lane line" and a "double white, solid + dashed". If all the markings were single dashed lines, I would agree with you.
Now with hindsight, a regular driver that road would know it was damn dangerous, and probably avoid the centre lane entirely. But we can't assume that. We have to assume a driver who has not seen this before.
Now with hindsight, a regular driver that road would know it was damn dangerous, and probably avoid the centre lane entirely. But we can't assume that. We have to assume a driver who has not seen this before.
As you are approaching the RAV4 it's a single lane in each direction with solids between the opposing lines of traffic. You are approaching what now becomes a single carriageway three lane road with the only solid line stopping you from legally entering the lane to your far right (no solid line for traffic towards you).
Before you move out to overtake the RAV4 there is a duty of care on you to make sure it is safe to do so & for you to complete your overtake.
If you do that you have complied with the duty of care, no harm no foul, where you don't make those safeguards you're falling short of it.
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 29th April 14:24
rxe said:
You mean why do I drive based on assumption that someone isn't going to pull across a broken + solid line into my path? Because to drive with any other assumption means it is impossible for me to proceed on a single lane road. At any instant, the driver coming the other way could choose to drive into my path and you're saying it would partially be my fault.
I'd replace assumption with expectation in that there are circumstances where the probability of someone doing that increases noticeably. For example on a long straight that is mainly clear in your direction, but has oncoming vehicles including clearly slower ones such as trucks I would factor in the likelyhood of someone trying to overtake towards me. Even if the oncoming vehicle noticed you before beginning an overtake they may assume you will be travelling at a 50 - 60mph bimble like everyone else so if you are closer to 70mph and they are in a vehicle with no power reserve to allow for the reduced closing time there could be a problem.Long winded way to say, yes, there are situations where you could be partially at fault. Particularly if you are in the habit of making assumptions about what other road users will do.
Toltec said:
I'd replace assumption with expectation in that there are circumstances where the probability of someone doing that increases noticeably. For example on a long straight that is mainly clear in your direction, but has oncoming vehicles including clearly slower ones such as trucks I would factor in the likelyhood of someone trying to overtake towards me. Even if the oncoming vehicle noticed you before beginning an overtake they may assume you will be travelling at a 50 - 60mph bimble like everyone else so if you are closer to 70mph and they are in a vehicle with no power reserve to allow for the reduced closing time there could be a problem.
Long winded way to say, yes, there are situations where you could be partially at fault. Particularly if you are in the habit of making assumptions about what other road users will do.
Is that fault as "could have avoided it" or legal fault? Yes, an observant driver would consider the situation you describe and be prepared for the worst case scenario. But if the worst did happen, and someone pulls out into your path, the surely legally, the fault lies 100% with them? Any time that a driver pulls onto the opposing side of the road, they are taking full responsibility for their actions. Anything else leads to a situation where an overtaking driver could defend themselves with "you should have seen that lorry was going slowly, and I had a fast car, of course I was going to overtake, you should have avoided me" - which would be barmy. Long winded way to say, yes, there are situations where you could be partially at fault. Particularly if you are in the habit of making assumptions about what other road users will do.
vonhosen said:
rxe said:
I'm not changing lanes. I'm in a lane heading in my direction, until the solid double whites run out. Then according to you, there is no difference between a "lane line" and a "double white, solid + dashed". If all the markings were single dashed lines, I would agree with you.
Now with hindsight, a regular driver that road would know it was damn dangerous, and probably avoid the centre lane entirely. But we can't assume that. We have to assume a driver who has not seen this before.
Now with hindsight, a regular driver that road would know it was damn dangerous, and probably avoid the centre lane entirely. But we can't assume that. We have to assume a driver who has not seen this before.
As you are approaching the RAV4 it's a single lane in each direction with solids between the opposing lines of traffic. You are approaching what now becomes a single carriageway three lane road with the only solid line stopping you from legally entering the lane to your far right (no solid line for traffic towards you).
Before you move out to overtake the RAV4 there is a duty of care on you to make sure it is safe to do so & for you to complete your overtake.
If you do that you have complied with the duty of care, no harm no foul, where you don't make those safeguards you're falling short of it.
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 29th April 14:24
rxe said:
Is that fault as "could have avoided it" or legal fault? Yes, an observant driver would consider the situation you describe and be prepared for the worst case scenario. But if the worst did happen, and someone pulls out into your path, the surely legally, the fault lies 100% with them? Any time that a driver pulls onto the opposing side of the road, they are taking full responsibility for their actions. Anything else leads to a situation where an overtaking driver could defend themselves with "you should have seen that lorry was going slowly, and I had a fast car, of course I was going to overtake, you should have avoided me" - which would be barmy.
Legally it would probably depends on if you were drunk, speeding or unlicensed etc.As an ex-biker I tend to think more in terms of if you could have avoided it. Being dead and right is little comfort.
Birdster said:
There is a road like this in South Wales, near the Brecon Beacons, has average speed cameras on it IIRC. I moved back over when approaching the bend, just in case someone was coming the other way and risked an overtake.
Most of the A465 from Merthyr heading west towards Glynneath is like this and its horrible to drive as a result with people throwing themselves out of "Slip roads" expecting you to magically have somewhere to go and maniacal overtaking... https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.7533917,-3.44977...
I like the average speed cameras because hopefully they catch the morons who think it's a dual carriageway because it has two lanes who fly along at 70-80 thinking they wont be caught.
Edited by JasperT on Friday 29th April 16:13
JasperT said:
Birdster said:
There is a road like this in South Wales, near the Brecon Beacons, has average speed cameras on it IIRC. I moved back over when approaching the bend, just in case someone was coming the other way and risked an overtake.
Most of the A465 from Merthyr heading west towards Glynneath is like this and its horrible to drive as a result with people throwing themselves out of "Slip roads" expecting you to magically have somewhere to go and maniacal overtaking... https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.7533917,-3.44977...
I like the average speed cameras because hopefully they catch the morons who think it's a dual carriageway because it has two lanes who fly along at 70-80 thinking they wont be caught.
Edited by JasperT on Friday 29th April 16:13
Toltec said:
Legally it would probably depends on if you were drunk, speeding or unlicensed etc.
As an ex-biker I tend to think more in terms of if you could have avoided it. Being dead and right is little comfort.
Right, so on the basis that you're a licensed and otherwise legal driver, we've established that someone pulling into your side of the road is 100% legally at fault. I agree entirely that "right and dead" is not a great place to be. So if crossing a double white (solid + dashed) puts you 100% in the wrong on a single carriageway road, how does the existence of a lane to your left change the meaning of the line? As an ex-biker I tend to think more in terms of if you could have avoided it. Being dead and right is little comfort.
rxe said:
Toltec said:
Legally it would probably depends on if you were drunk, speeding or unlicensed etc.
As an ex-biker I tend to think more in terms of if you could have avoided it. Being dead and right is little comfort.
Right, so on the basis that you're a licensed and otherwise legal driver, we've established that someone pulling into your side of the road is 100% legally at fault. I agree entirely that "right and dead" is not a great place to be. So if crossing a double white (solid + dashed) puts you 100% in the wrong on a single carriageway road, how does the existence of a lane to your left change the meaning of the line? As an ex-biker I tend to think more in terms of if you could have avoided it. Being dead and right is little comfort.
Each case rests on it's own facts.
If somebody is on what you see as your side of the road, but it was possible for you to avoid a collision the expectation/duty of care is for you to avoid such a collision.
Therefore if somebody could be on what you see as your side of the road (middle of three lanes in the picture) there is a duty of care on you to make sure that it's safe for you to enter that middle lane before you do &/or if you can see they are already in that middle lane don't go there because it's avoidable.
Your duty of care extends to moving into the lane & for safe overtaking.
There is a duty of care on you for any changes to your course, as there is for everybody else.
Road markings don't change that.
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 29th April 16:50
It seems pretty obvious that you'd have to be mad to pull out into what is guaranteed to be a collision. However, in the situation in the photo say I observe that the road ahead is clear, and overtake the Rav 4. I'm driving a pretty crap car, and my calculation that I can get back into the left hand lane in the distance I can see. Let's assume the pickup (it may be an estate) is not there. So, at the point of making the move, every thing is good. I gradually draw ahead of the Rav, and at that instant there is a car on my side of the road, coming towards me at 60. Closing speed 120 combined, boom. Both drivers dead, whose fault?
rxe said:
It seems pretty obvious that you'd have to be mad to pull out into what is guaranteed to be a collision. However, in the situation in the photo say I observe that the road ahead is clear, and overtake the Rav 4. I'm driving a pretty crap car, and my calculation that I can get back into the left hand lane in the distance I can see. Let's assume the pickup (it may be an estate) is not there. So, at the point of making the move, every thing is good. I gradually draw ahead of the Rav, and at that instant there is a car on my side of the road, coming towards me at 60. Closing speed 120 combined, boom. Both drivers dead, whose fault?
If the RAV4 was only doing 40mph and I was on a bike or in a quick car (think Caterham R400) I might try that pass, otherwise I wouldn't risk that. Without a solid line blocking the opposite lane you just don't have the sightline to make sure the lane will remain clear.If I was familiar with the road and new it was straightening out and could see a car in front passing another car it might be on. The premise being the leading car is claiming the lane past the point at which you can see, a little like using the dipped headlights of the cars in front on a motorway to maintain a speed above that your own dipped beam can illuminate.
So what you're really saying is that the lane unusable to 99.9% of drivers and should be hatched out? Or it should be double whites all the way (doesn't actually matter which side)? Which is sort of what I said 7 pages ago about bad design.
Question remains: if you were in a car that could get back in within the visible distance (so at the moment you made the evaluation everything was safe), whose fault would the collision be?
Question remains: if you were in a car that could get back in within the visible distance (so at the moment you made the evaluation everything was safe), whose fault would the collision be?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff