Shared Middle Lanes
Discussion
BugLebowski said:
what hope does the general public have?
None, apparently (same stretch of road pictured): http://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/2134415.a36_c...Burn
Anyway back on topic - It seems that in the UK we're obsessed with instructions. What happened to common sense? For example I am always staggered when I return home after driving elsewhere like Europe at just how much clutter we have. They call it street furniture and it is a blight. We are in such a nanny knows best controlling country. In most other countries cameras are the exception rather than the rule and white lines are often "missing". Even barriors down proper mountains aren't up to the "standard" we have for some hills.
It really is pathetic.
I campaigned for naked streets on an estate and they compromised in the end - it is now half naked.
Down with this sort of thing !!!!!!
Anyway back on topic - It seems that in the UK we're obsessed with instructions. What happened to common sense? For example I am always staggered when I return home after driving elsewhere like Europe at just how much clutter we have. They call it street furniture and it is a blight. We are in such a nanny knows best controlling country. In most other countries cameras are the exception rather than the rule and white lines are often "missing". Even barriors down proper mountains aren't up to the "standard" we have for some hills.
It really is pathetic.
I campaigned for naked streets on an estate and they compromised in the end - it is now half naked.
Down with this sort of thing !!!!!!
ukaskew said:
p1stonhead said:
The person who crossed the line from the single lane would be at fault. They shouldn't have crossed the line without making sure they are not going to hit anything.
Arguably it was 'safe' to pull out at the time they decided to do so, they were not going to hit anything until a car on the other side decided to pull out to also overtake. Rightly or wrongly people here overtake on the single lane side all the time (even when there is traffic on the other side). The concept is inherently flawed unless it's somehow enforced that it can only be used when the road is completely deserted.
Surely a driver on the two lane side also has a duty to check that their overtake is safe? As far as I can tell there are no special rules relating to crawler lanes, you should still only be crossing the broken white lane if it's safe to do so (much like turning left out of a junction, you should always look left as well as right as there could be traffic on the wrong side of the road, i.e. passing a parked car)
I've had experience with these in Devon/Cornwall, always thought they were a bit risky unless there is no traffic coming the other way.
If I see that 2 cars are travelling fairly close to each other in lane 1, I would not risk the overtake as you can't be sure that the 2nd car will not suddenly pull into lane 2. If the timing is wrong and you have a head on, then surely the car going across the dashed solid line is at fault?
If I see that 2 cars are travelling fairly close to each other in lane 1, I would not risk the overtake as you can't be sure that the 2nd car will not suddenly pull into lane 2. If the timing is wrong and you have a head on, then surely the car going across the dashed solid line is at fault?
boyse7en said:
It really is scary how many of you lot have no idea how to drive on one of these 'three lane' pieces of road - and this forum is supposedly populated by drivers who are interested in the process of driving!
The main A361 from Tiverton to Barnstaple near where i live has several sections to allow for overtaking, and every year a bunch of people who don't know the highway code assume that they have priority and just pull out without looking.
I drive that road a lot. That road is different as the overtaking sections have double solid whites for downhill traffic, i.e. they must not overtake. The road OP mentions had broken double white lines, i.e. they can overtake if it is safe to do so.The main A361 from Tiverton to Barnstaple near where i live has several sections to allow for overtaking, and every year a bunch of people who don't know the highway code assume that they have priority and just pull out without looking.
ukaskew said:
The concept is inherently flawed unless it's somehow enforced that it can only be used when the road is completely deserted.
I don't think it's flawed, it's no different to the concept of overtaking on any other road which allows it: don't overtake if there is a vehicle in the lane you want to move in to - it's common sense, surely?The lanes going up hill (usually where these layouts exist) are part of the same 'side' of the road (the 'sides' being separated by the solid and broken white lines; the up hill lanes are marked by lane lines) so there is obvious priority. The purpose of these roads is for faster traffic to overtake slower moving vehicles up hill (some even have a signposted "crawler lane").
BugLebowski said:
As mentioned before, neither side has priority over the middle lane. It's quite startling to see that even in the first few replies on a motoring website people have got the wrong idea so what hope does the general public have?
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.
Hence the danger: ignorance of what basic road markings mean.ukaskew said:
bristolracer said:
I nearly got killed on one outside Warminster in Wiltshire
This is the exact one in question (and pictured). Many fatalities there over the past few years, sadly.Edit: Heading down the hill (single lane) there are further safer overtaking opportunities coming up soon anyway.
Edited by ewenm on Thursday 28th April 11:29
xRIEx said:
I don't think it's flawed, it's no different to the concept of overtaking on any other road which allows it: don't overtake if there is a vehicle in the lane you want to move in to - it's common sense, surely?
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.
This is exactly the point I'm trying to get at. If the middle lane is empty at the time the car on the one lane side pulls out, surely the onus is then on the vehicles on the two lane side not to move into the middle lane? They don't have blind authority to do as they wish with 'their' middle lane, and surely would be at fault if they did so into an oncoming vehicle.
Edited by ukaskew on Thursday 28th April 11:31
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.
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.
Where does it say this, in HC or on the road? As I see it, it is a shared 50-50 lane unless otherwise marked. If you want to stop cars in lane C using the middle then you put in double whites. If not, shared.p1stonhead said:
BugLebowski said:
As mentioned before, neither side has priority over the middle lane. It's quite startling to see that even in the first few replies on a motoring website people have got the wrong idea so what hope does the general public have?
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.It's not a "middle lane", it's the right lane of the uphill-direction side of the road.
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.
Treat it like a dual carriageway where there might be an oncoming vehicle in the outside lane? Both sides have to check the middle lane is clear before pulling out. ukaskew said:
xRIEx said:
I don't think it's flawed, it's no different to the concept of overtaking on any other road which allows it: don't overtake if there is a vehicle in the lane you want to move in to - it's common sense, surely?
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.
This is exactly the point I'm trying to get at. If the middle lane is empty at the time the car on the one lane side pulls out, surely the onus is then on the vehicles on the two lane side not to move into the middle lane? They don't have blind authority to do as they wish with 'their' middle lane, and surely would be at fault if they did so into an oncoming vehicle.
Edited by ukaskew on Thursday 28th April 11:31
ETA: for example, the wording on traffic lights is something like, "proceed through a green light if it is safe to do so."
"If it is safe to do so" applies to every aspect of driving, whether explicitly stated or not.
Edited by xRIEx on Thursday 28th April 11:37
battered said:
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.
Where does it say this, in HC or on the road? As I see it, it is a shared 50-50 lane unless otherwise marked. If you want to stop cars in lane C using the middle then you put in double whites. If not, shared.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff