Shared Middle Lanes

[john2443]

donkmeister said:

The A507 from Baldock out to Clophill used to have a suicide lane (the op's pic is not a suicide lane) - they've turned it into two very wide lanes

There used to be many more 3 lane roads and only broken lines between all 3 lanes but due to head ons many have either been made 2 wide lanes or had double white put on the downhill side, alternating as the hill changes.

I think they started changing them in the 70s.

[LukeDM]

Theophany said:

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.

Beat me too it, I use this road fairly often to escape from the dark age. boyse7en you need to look at the picture again, all the the overtaking sections on the A361 have double white lines for the non overtaking lane. There is a section like the picture near minehead and another further down the A39 near Camelford on a rather steep hill.

Edited to add; I didn't see your reply on the next page, as you were

Edited by LukeDM on Thursday 28th April 12:19

[xRIEx]

boyse7en said:

Sorry xRIEx, I'm losing track of your position...

xRIEx said:

BugLebowski said:

This thread is the perfect example of why these have to be treated with caution if you're overtaking from the single lane side.

Single carriageway

135
Where a single carriageway has three lanes and the road markings or signs do not give priority to traffic in either direction
use the middle lane only for overtaking or turning right. Remember, you have no more right to use the middle lane than a driver coming from the opposite direction
do not use the right-hand lane.

http://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/general-rules-techn...

Exactly.

That implies that you agree that traffic heading up or down the hill has equal right to use the centre lane.
But earlier you said

xRIEx said:

As above, "complete confidence" is a dangerous notion - you still have to take note of what's going on.



E.g.
Scenario 1
Driver going uphill wants to overtake car in front; driver going downhill wants to overtake car in front.
- Both drivers need to assess the situation and see that another driver is likely to want to move into the lane
- priority for uphill traffic means the downhill overtaker should not make any move across the 'centre' line

Which implies that you think uphill traffic has priority.

No, I stand by what I said; did you read the bold-highlighted bit when I quoted BugLebowski?

Edited by xRIEx on Thursday 28th April 12:22

[Theophany]

boyse7en said:

That is true now. They changed it to double whites a few years ago because of the number of drivers who had no idea of what road makings mean.

Ah, I didn't realise it used to be the other way. The ones that really wind me up on that road are the berks who go take the entire length of an overtaking stretch to get past a lorry, oblivious that they're holding up a queue of traffic itching to get on with it. Invariably tends to be a gutless Vauxhall Zafira diesel stbox loaded to bursting point with the kids and their holiday crap.

[ukaskew]

rxe said:

I should be able to overtake in Lane 2 without any fear of a head on. The drivers in the downhill lane are able to overtake if the lane is clear.

Can you not see the problem with this statement? If the middle lane is empty the downhill vehicle can indeed safely and legitimately overtake using the middle lane. The problem comes, as you've clearly stated, when the uphill driver in 'lane 1' overtakes without any fear of a head on.

How can the two lane traffic use the middle lane with no fear of a head-on, when the road markings quite clearly allow oncoming traffic to also use that lane?

[Bluedot]

I know this stretch of the A36 and only tend to use the middle lane (if I'm coming downhill) if there is little or no traffic coming up the hill, I don't trust other road users enough to check before pulling out.
Even if i'm going uphill and have the 'legitimate' right of way then I'll only use it if I feel comfortable doing so.

[Bennet]

p1stonhead said:

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.

danrst171 said:

The two lanes have equal right to use the middle lane...whoever is using it first has priority.

I'm amazed that people think this and I'm very glad I've read this thread so I can watch out for such people the next time I come across a road laid out in this manner.

Whilst the rules of the road obviously do allow for you to make use of the opposite side of the road for the purposes of overtaking, that doesn't give you a 50/50 priority to both sides of the road. Do you think it's a game of "who will swerve first" if two cars meet one another head on in the middle lane? Obviously, the driver going up hill is the one who gets to stay put. The driver going downhill was performing an overtake and needs to get back to his own side of the road.

You'd be a bit nuts to try to use the middle lane going downhill for an overtake unless the traffic was very light anyway. Use the middle lane if you will, but it's an overtake. It's not a 50/50 lane.

Edited by Bennet on Thursday 28th April 12:53

[ukaskew]

So, returning to my original post...

"My assumption has been that nobody has priority over the central lane aside from whoever was there first, although I think most people treat it as though the direction of travel with two lanes split by broken lines has priority."

Reading 60+ replies from apparently knowledgeable driving folk, it's pretty clear why this is an accident hotspot and it would appear my assumptions are correct (particularly the second point).

I'm willing to bet many of the accidents occur because people on the two lane side assume they have 'priority', and blindly move into the middle lane into oncoming vehicles.

[skahigh]

ukaskew said:

it would appear my assumptions are correct

Not sure how you got to that.

There's clearly a great deal of disagreement about the issue of priority.

[vonhosen]

Bennet said:

p1stonhead said:

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.

danrst171 said:

The two lanes have equal right to use the middle lane...whoever is using it first has priority.

I'm amazed that people think this and I'm very glad I've read this thread so I can watch out for such people the next time I come across a road laid out in this manner.

Whilst the rules of the road obviously do allow for you to make use of the opposite side of the road for the purposes of overtaking, that doesn't give you a 50/50 priority to both sides of the road. Do you think it's a game of "who will swerve first" if two cars meet one another head on in the middle lane? Obviously, the driver going up hill is the one who gets to stay put. The driver going downhill was performing an overtake and needs to get back to his own side of the road.

You'd be a bit nuts to try to use the middle lane going downhill for an overtake unless the traffic was very light anyway. Use the middle lane if you will, but it's an overtake. It's not a 50/50 lane.

Somebody in the middle lane going uphill and passing traffic on t's nearside is no less overtaking than somebody going downhill using the middle lane to pass another vehicle on it's nearside.

[skahigh]

Here's a question for saying there is no priority...

On a normal two lane single carriageway road with a normal centre line broken white line, who has priority in each lane?

[MKnight702]

BugLebowski 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.

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.

This is all very well until you get a muppet with no idea coming the other way. You are in the single lane with a slow lorry in front of you, nobody in the middle lane so you pull out. Halfway through the overtake a car coming the other way decides that he will pull out without indicating or even looking (as usual).

The three lane approach is a nice idea in principle, but a nightmare in practice.

[vonhosen]

skahigh said:

Here's a question for saying there is no priority...

On a normal two lane single carriageway road with a normal centre line broken white line, who has priority in each lane?

Priority over who?

[skahigh]

vonhosen said:

skahigh said:

Here's a question for saying there is no priority...

On a normal two lane single carriageway road with a normal centre line broken white line, who has priority in each lane?

Priority over who?

One car in each lane travelling in opposite directions, no other traffic, pedestrians, etc. in sight.

[Bennet]

vonhosen said:

Somebody in the middle lane going uphill and passing traffic on t's nearside is no less overtaking than somebody going downhill using the middle lane to pass another vehicle on it's nearside.

Really sorry, but that's just semantics. Yes, I agree, it's still "an overtake", but using an overtaking lane on your own side of the road is a different proposition to using the other side of the road and the fact that they both class as overtaking does not make them equal in this circumstance.

A car wanting to overtake downhill on that road would still need to cede priority to a middle lane moron coming up the hill, overtaking absolutely nothing at all.

In my opinion, for the purposes of overtaking, "lanes" on the other side of the road do not exist. You're simply on the other side of the road. Briefly. And you get back as soon as you can.

[vonhosen]

skahigh said:

vonhosen said:

skahigh said:

Here's a question for saying there is no priority...

On a normal two lane single carriageway road with a normal centre line broken white line, who has priority in each lane?

Priority over who?

One car in each lane travelling in opposite directions, no other traffic, pedestrians, etc. in sight.

Nobody has priority, you have two cars sharing the road travelling in opposite directions with the same responsibilities.

[ukaskew]

skahigh said:

Not sure how you got to that.

There's clearly a great deal of disagreement about the issue of priority.

Nothing official linked to has implied priority for either 'side', secondly the general consensus here confirms my second point regarding who believes they have priority.

[p1stonhead]

vonhosen said:

Bennet said:

p1stonhead said:

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.

danrst171 said:

The two lanes have equal right to use the middle lane...whoever is using it first has priority.

I'm amazed that people think this and I'm very glad I've read this thread so I can watch out for such people the next time I come across a road laid out in this manner.

Whilst the rules of the road obviously do allow for you to make use of the opposite side of the road for the purposes of overtaking, that doesn't give you a 50/50 priority to both sides of the road. Do you think it's a game of "who will swerve first" if two cars meet one another head on in the middle lane? Obviously, the driver going up hill is the one who gets to stay put. The driver going downhill was performing an overtake and needs to get back to his own side of the road.

You'd be a bit nuts to try to use the middle lane going downhill for an overtake unless the traffic was very light anyway. Use the middle lane if you will, but it's an overtake. It's not a 50/50 lane.

Somebody in the middle lane going uphill and passing traffic on t's nearside is no less overtaking than somebody going downhill using the middle lane to pass another vehicle on it's nearside.

Whoa FYI I didnt say that someone has mis-quoted me!

I said the complete opposite!

[vonhosen]

Bennet said:

vonhosen said:

Somebody in the middle lane going uphill and passing traffic on t's nearside is no less overtaking than somebody going downhill using the middle lane to pass another vehicle on it's nearside.

Really sorry, but that's just semantics. Yes, I agree, it's still "an overtake", but using an overtaking lane on your own side of the road is a different proposition to using the other side of the road and the fact that they both class as overtaking does not make them equal in this circumstance.

A car wanting to overtake downhill on that road would still need to cede priority to a middle lane moron coming up the hill, overtaking absolutely nothing at all.

In my opinion, for the purposes of overtaking, "lanes" on the other side of the road do not exist. You're simply on the other side of the road. Briefly. And you get back as soon as you can.

The middle lane is an overtaking lane for both directions of travel, that's what it's there for to overtake (usual rules of keep left unless overtaking).
Vehicles travelling in either direction have a duty of care to make sure it is safe to, that is that they can safely complete their overtake before embarking on it.
No markings on that road absolve drivers in either direction of that duty of care.

[Bennet]

vonhosen said:

No markings on that road absolve drivers in either direction of that duty of care.

I completely agree with that. You don't just move out in to it without looking. But do you honestly believe that the middle lane is in limbo, and completely 50/50, not part of the uphill side of the road?