Shared Middle Lanes

[vonhosen]

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?

Then you (& they) have planned it wrong, you don't go on the basis you can be back in front of the RAV 4 in the distance you can see (which is a common mistake with poor planing), you have to be able to do it in under half the distance you can see to be clear to allow for a vehicle travelling the same speed as you towards, even shorter distance where the real potential is for a vehicle traveling faster than you (as it's downhill) towards.

As you come off the bend you are likely to be able to have a better view.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 29th April 21:35

[jaf01uk]

vonhosen said:

Then you (& they) have planned it wrong, you don't go on the basis you can be back in front of the RAV 4 in the distance you can see (which is a common mistake with poor planing), you have to be able to do it in under half the distance you can see to be clear to allow for a vehicle travelling the same speed as you towards, even shorter distance where the real potential is for a vehicle traveling faster than you (as it's downhill) towards.

As you come off the bend you are likely to be able to have a better view.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 29th April 21:35

Still doesn't excuse poor roads markings, there is legislation about sightlines and how that should affect markings, that example is ridiculously marked with a hatched line allowing overtakes on a blind bend coming down into the picture from the top then going to a double solid where the view opens up, it's entirely back to front!!

[vonhosen]

jaf01uk said:

vonhosen said:

Then you (& they) have planned it wrong, you don't go on the basis you can be back in front of the RAV 4 in the distance you can see (which is a common mistake with poor planing), you have to be able to do it in under half the distance you can see to be clear to allow for a vehicle travelling the same speed as you towards, even shorter distance where the real potential is for a vehicle traveling faster than you (as it's downhill) towards.

As you come off the bend you are likely to be able to have a better view.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 29th April 21:35

Still doesn't excuse poor roads markings, there is legislation about sightlines and how that should affect markings, that example is ridiculously marked with a hatched line allowing overtakes on a blind bend coming down into the picture from the top then going to a double solid where the view opens up, it's entirely back to front!!

The lines don't dictate that you can safely overtake there though, vision (what can be seen or can't be seen) does. There are hundreds of thousands of places where markings don't stop you overtaking, but lack of vision makes it unsafe to.

Solids don't forbid overtaking either, they just don't allow you to cross the solid line in order to do so (save the usual exemptions).

[jaf01uk]

vonhosen said:

jaf01uk said:

vonhosen said:

Then you (& they) have planned it wrong, you don't go on the basis you can be back in front of the RAV 4 in the distance you can see (which is a common mistake with poor planing), you have to be able to do it in under half the distance you can see to be clear to allow for a vehicle travelling the same speed as you towards, even shorter distance where the real potential is for a vehicle traveling faster than you (as it's downhill) towards.

As you come off the bend you are likely to be able to have a better view.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 29th April 21:35

Still doesn't excuse poor roads markings, there is legislation about sightlines and how that should affect markings, that example is ridiculously marked with a hatched line allowing overtakes on a blind bend coming down into the picture from the top then going to a double solid where the view opens up, it's entirely back to front!!

The lines don't dictate that you can safely overtake there though, vision (what can be seen or can't be seen) does. There are hundreds of thousands of places where markings don't stop you overtaking, but lack of vision makes it unsafe to.

Solids don't forbid overtaking either, they just don't allow you to cross the solid line in order to do so (save the usual exemptions).

You miss the point I was making though, I know what vision is (what can or can't be seen and in fact what could reasonably be expected to happen) where there is confusion (which there obviously is where 3 lane roads are concerned down there otherwise this discussion wouldn't be taking place) I know that just because they are broken doesn't make it safe but at least up here where these roads are used the authorities have the sense to make them double whites on the single side to remove the confusion (if it's dark and I am on a road I don't know I should be able to rely on road markings to guide me as to where it is safe and in those circumstances it is not) and regards pedantry could you explain how you can overtake where a double white line system is in place without crossing or straddling a solid line? Are you disagreeing that the roads authorities should use the proper markings to do away with the confusion shown here, they have whole departments within councils dedicated to roads and markings, should they not be lobbied to sort it out?

[vonhosen]

jaf01uk said:

vonhosen said:

jaf01uk said:

vonhosen said:

Then you (& they) have planned it wrong, you don't go on the basis you can be back in front of the RAV 4 in the distance you can see (which is a common mistake with poor planing), you have to be able to do it in under half the distance you can see to be clear to allow for a vehicle travelling the same speed as you towards, even shorter distance where the real potential is for a vehicle traveling faster than you (as it's downhill) towards.

As you come off the bend you are likely to be able to have a better view.

Still doesn't excuse poor roads markings, there is legislation about sightlines and how that should affect markings, that example is ridiculously marked with a hatched line allowing overtakes on a blind bend coming down into the picture from the top then going to a double solid where the view opens up, it's entirely back to front!!

The lines don't dictate that you can safely overtake there though, vision (what can be seen or can't be seen) does. There are hundreds of thousands of places where markings don't stop you overtaking, but lack of vision makes it unsafe to.

Solids don't forbid overtaking either, they just don't allow you to cross the solid line in order to do so (save the usual exemptions).

You miss the point I was making though, I know what vision is (what can or can't be seen and in fact what could reasonably be expected to happen) where there is confusion (which there obviously is where 3 lane roads are concerned down there otherwise this discussion wouldn't be taking place) I know that just because they are broken doesn't make it safe but at least up here where these roads are used the authorities have the sense to make them double whites on the single side to remove the confusion (if it's dark and I am on a road I don't know I should be able to rely on road markings to guide me as to where it is safe and in those circumstances it is not) and regards pedantry could you explain how you can overtake where a double white line system is in place without crossing or straddling a solid line? Are you disagreeing that the roads authorities should use the proper markings to do away with the confusion shown here, they have whole departments within councils dedicated to roads and markings, should they not be lobbied to sort it out?

The lines don't tell you or determine if it's safe to overtake in the dark either, your vision still does.
Whether you can safely overtake without crossing the solid line depends on width of the road, type of vehicles, position of vehicles etc.
i.e. on the piece of road approaching the RAV4 (if no other vehicle were there), a motorcycle could legally overtake a moped that's keeping over to the left whilst it's still a solid line & before it gets to being a three lane single carriageway. Point being the solid line doesn't forbid overtaking there.

Those markings don't create an unsafe environment for me to overtake, because my overtaking decision isn't based on the markings.
I have no problem with people petitioning or lobbying for changes because they or others struggle with it.

[Toltec]

rxe said:

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?

Yes, it is a poor design. In the US recently I used a road several times that had three lanes, however they had active overhead signs that marked which direction could use the centre lane at that time.

Your question cannot be answered with a simple either or. To me safe would mean it was possible to return to the left before it was possible for anything else to occupy the lane. In which case no collision can occur so the question has no answer, one hand clapping etc.

Turning that around, if you have a collision then your judgement of it being safe was incorrect. Therefore even if the another party does something rash that you did not expect some of the fault is yours.

You are seeking an absolute where there are only shades of grey.

[ChickenvanGuy]

ATG said:

The main road between Malvern and Worcester used to have a middle lane like that. As you leave Malvern the road sweeps right with a hedge obstructing the view and the road then drops sharply into a blind dip. The sight lines are just at the limit of what seems necessary for a swift overtake. Entirely predictably there were frequent massive head-on crashes. The road was re-marked to reduce it to two wider lanes and the accident rate dropped.

I remember this well. We used to live on Bromwich rd in Worcester in the 70s and the sound of sirens haring past the house to deal with horrible, often fatal, crashes on the 3 lane section was all too common. A daft road design because people are too stupid / reckless to use it safely.

[akirk]

I am a amazed by some of these responses, but glad that Vonhosen is posting sensible replies!
White lines are epreally simple, you can drive anywhere on a road, subject to not crossing solid white lines. If there are two lines together you obey the one on your side, that is all...
On top of that you have a duty of care not to crash
Simple

[jaf01uk]

akirk said:

I am a amazed by some of these responses, but glad that Vonhosen is posting sensible replies!
White lines are epreally simple, you can drive anywhere on a road, subject to not crossing solid white lines. If there are two lines together you obey the one on your side, that is all...
On top of that you have a duty of care not to crash
Simple

But is it that simple, I would suggest by the stunning misunderstanding demonstrated earlier in this very thread that there is a large amount of confusion regarding 3 lane roads, all of which could be dispelled by proper duty of care by roads authorities, I have no dog in the fight as I understand fully lines and lanes etc despite vonbots digs and actually possibly confusing the issue by saying it would be acceptable to use all 3 lanes in one direction! but i'll just park a wee image underneath that gives the obvious solution to the confusion experienced down there resulting in carnage as described earlier, whether the road custodians should be held responsible or not I will leave to the locals...remember Von the caveat you trot out when speeding and limits are discussed, you have to legislate for the lowest common denominator and protect them from themselves, I would argue that this is an example of exactly where that should be happening, difference being perhaps there is no financial benefits? I'm oot!

[akirk]

jaf01uk said:

akirk said:

I am a amazed by some of these responses, but glad that Vonhosen is posting sensible replies!
White lines are epreally simple, you can drive anywhere on a road, subject to not crossing solid white lines. If there are two lines together you obey the one on your side, that is all...
On top of that you have a duty of care not to crash
Simple

But is it that simple, I would suggest by the stunning misunderstanding demonstrated earlier in this very thread that there is a large amount of confusion regarding 3 lane roads, all of which could be dispelled by proper duty of care by roads authorities, I have no dog in the fight as I understand fully lines and lanes etc despite vonbots digs and actually possibly confusing the issue by saying it would be acceptable to use all 3 lanes in one direction! but i'll just park a wee image underneath that gives the obvious solution to the confusion experienced down there resulting in carnage as described earlier, whether the road custodians should be held responsible or not I will leave to the locals...remember Von the caveat you trot out when speeding and limits are discussed, you have to legislate for the lowest common denominator and protect them from themselves, I would argue that this is an example of exactly where that should be happening, difference being perhaps there is no financial benefits? I'm oot!

Yes, it is that simple at a base legal level...
And yes, on that road in the OP it would be legal for those coming towards us to use all three lanes, but those going away, only the left two lanes... However we need to remember that in driving, as in other parts of life in the UK our legal freedoms and our legal obligations or responsibilities don't always sit neatly together, on that road there is legal freedom for three cars to drive towards us abreast, but a legal responsibility to drive with due care and attention might mean that in fact it could never happen if by doing that a dangerous situation was caused... If charged though there could be no offence of crossing a solid white line, but an offence of something like driving dangerously / without due care and attention... It wouldn't be where the car was that would be the issue, but the situation caused by its being there that would be the problem...

Maybe your suggestion is the right one, however the main debate on here was about what the lines meant and what would be legal, that bit is simple and as I posted above... To change that could be sensible, but the issue as is apparent here is not the markings, but the lack of understanding held by drivers. Conceptually what you should do is go back to no markings and anyone allowed anywhere, and then add in markings only where needed, or as a guide to help drivers... The rest of the answer is in driver training or education... Road markings for the lowest common denominator is not ideal, and we should always be looking to raise that level...

[ukaskew]

Yet another death on the stretch of road I mentioned in my original post...



http://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/15537474.A36_...

I drive this stretch at least twice per day now, it’s lethal. For every fatal crash there are probably 100 near misses or at the very least butt clenching moments. As soon as we heard of a fatal crash in our office basically everyone said ‘Black Dog Hill’ without needing to check.

For all the road safety shenanigans with 20mph limits etc they could literally eradicate 99% of incidents on this single stretch by filling in the dotted white line on one side.

Edited by ukaskew on Sunday 24th September 21:28

[bristolracer]

I had a bad smash there

The single downhill lane needs to be made double solid lines.

To alter the road would probably cost less than the cost of one accident.