Shared Middle Lanes

[Bluedot]

I have always assumed that if you're going uphill then the markings give you a certain priority to use the middle lane (if clear at the moment of overtaking).
The unbroken white line is a bit of a red herring isn't it ? There seems to be an opinion that it means drivers going uphill can 'only' use the two left hand lanes, are we seriously suggesting that that means anyone coming down can use all three lanes ?

[vonhosen]

Bennet said:

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?

My statement applies equally to both directions of travel.
Neither in using that lane can absolve themselves of the responsibility to make sure it's safe to complete the overtake before they embark on it.
Drivers of vehicles in either direction that fail to do so would be considered a contributor in any subsequent collision etc.

[smithyithy]

Bennet said:

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.

IMO this is accurate.

While both directions of travel can legally use the 'middle' lane as an 'overtaking lane', the middle lane here does actually belong to the uphill direction of travel.

Judging by the image it was added to allow uphill overtakes of HGVs and other slower moving vehicles (crawlers).

Of course onus is on both directions of travel to only overtake when safe and move back left as soon as possible.

But there is a difference between using lane 2 of your direction to overtake, and using the opposite direction of travel's lane to overtake.

We have a few of these road layouts on our network and as some are on twisty hills, we use a double solid white line for what would be the downhill direction here, as most of the time it simply isn't safe for them to be allowed to overtake there. Below is an example of the A49 just north of Hereford:

[Bennet]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

They are going to use this one, (perhaps ill explained), clause to rubbish the rest of your post now.

[rxe]

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

Scenario 2
Driver going uphill wants to overtake car in front; driver going downhill already overtaking car in front.
- driver going uphill shouldn't be a fking idiot and so doesn't try to kill both of them by moving into the occupied lane

Avoiding the semantics of "dual carriageway vs multiple lanes in one direction" ....

I would expect a driver to be able to use both lanes when they are assigned to that driver. If you're driving on an ordinary single carriageway, do you drive every bend as if someone will be coming round the other way in your path - no you don't because if you did, you'd never drive round the bend at all. If I am pulling out on the motorway, do I expect to have to worry about a head on from someone driving the other way? Generally no - it does happen, but it is very rare.

Which is the whole point. This is bad design. The design is not 100% clear to the average person, and the average person makes mistakes. Good design seeks to prevent people getting into the situation where they have to use too much judgement and have to mentally measure lines.

Essentially this design puts a driver simply using both lanes assigned to that direction under the same mental pressure as an individual performing an overtaking manoeveure which would place them into oncoming traffic. The stock answer will of course be that all drivers should be highly attentive at all time, but back in the real world, we are not perfect.

Its a bit like looking at a door that only opens one way. If you are highly observant, you can probably discern which way it opens by looking at the frame, the dirt on the floor, and if you are a frequent user, you know which way it opens anyway. Bad design puts a handle on both sides. Good design puts a push plate on one side and a handle on the other.

[Bluedot]

smithyithy said:

IMO this is accurate.

While both directions of travel can legally use the 'middle' lane as an 'overtaking lane', the middle lane here does actually belong to the uphill direction of travel.

Judging by the image it was added to allow uphill overtakes of HGVs and other slower moving vehicles (crawlers).

Of course onus is on both directions of travel to only overtake when safe and move back left as soon as possible.

But there is a difference between using lane 2 of your direction to overtake, and using the opposite direction of travel's lane to overtake.

We have a few of these road layouts on our network and as some are on twisty hills, we use a double solid white line for what would be the downhill direction here, as most of the time it simply isn't safe for them to be allowed to overtake there. Below is an example of the A49 just north of Hereford:

These are certainly easier to understand, there is no ambiguity.
All I can think of is the markings displayed by the OP on the A36 are made that way because there is a long line of sight and you can clearly see if there is traffic coming up the hill.

[vonhosen]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

You can never overtake on a single carriageway without consideration for other traffic.
The rationale is no different to overtaking on the approach to a junction where there is a vehicle waiting to emerge. Yes the vehicle waiting to emerge is at give way lines so shouldn't enter, but that doesn't give you authority to throw caution to the wind & rely on it. If you overtook there and were involved in a collision you would have a liability.
Equally if you used the middle lane uphill to overtake irrespective of vision & other road users around, you'd be no less liable. You still have a duty of care before committing to using the lane to overtake.

[matchmaker]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Regrettably some posters seem to fall into the category of Muppets!

[smithyithy]

Bluedot said:

These are certainly easier to understand, there is no ambiguity.
All I can think of is the markings displayed by the OP on the A36 are made that way because there is a long line of sight and you can clearly see if there is traffic coming up the hill.

Probably, although I don't know the road or area personally.

If it is such an accident blackspot, then a double solid white lining scheme would be beneficial.

Inconvenience the progress of the downhill traffic slightly if it means preventing head-on collisions. If it's a steep hill, then the uphill direction needs that extra lane to pass crawlers. The downhill lane (arguably) doesn't need to pass there as crawlers won't be slowing down so much, and more than likely to overtake downhill would require breaking the speed limit.

I'm only speculating, but generally it's only the uphill direction that really 'need' an overtaking lane.

[smithyithy]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The same people should know not to text and drive, not tailgate, not hog middle lanes.. etc...

Unfortunately things have to be designed to be 'idiot proof' too often these days..

[Bluedot]

smithyithy said:

Probably, although I don't know the road or area personally.

If it is such an accident blackspot, then a double solid white lining scheme would be beneficial.

Inconvenience the progress of the downhill traffic slightly if it means preventing head-on collisions. If it's a steep hill, then the uphill direction needs that extra lane to pass crawlers. The downhill lane (arguably) doesn't need to pass there as crawlers won't be slowing down so much, and more than likely to overtake downhill would require breaking the speed limit.

I'm only speculating, but generally it's only the uphill direction that really 'need' an overtaking lane.

What is daft is that about half a mile further downhill there is a long stretch of dual carriageway.

[rxe]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The photo about 5 posts up is really, instantaneously clear. The OPs photo is obviously not, as 5 pages of discussion have shown.

Yes, everyone should be perfect and be able to see the right answer. This discussion shows we are not, and the accident statistics suggest that this confusion is pervasive.

Telling someone that the oncoming driver should have read the highway code when they are smeared all over the road seems a little ... late.

[vonhosen]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

You still have a duty to consider traffic coming the other way prior to your overtake because they can quite legally be using the space you intend to use.
The markings on the road do not absolve you of that responsibility.

[Bennet]

vonhosen said:

You still have a duty to consider traffic coming the other way prior to your overtake because they can quite legally be using the space you intend to use.
The markings on the road do not absolve you of that responsibility.

You've said this over and over and over again, but no one is arguing against it. You appear to be just using it to stonewall rather than agree that there are two lanes in one direction and a single lane in the other, and yet, you can still overtake in either direction under the right circumstances (which again, no one has argued against.)

[speedking31]

This used to be an overtaking opportunity in the downhill direction. It's not a steep hill. Sorry to see it go.

[vonhosen]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

There isn't a right of way, you don't have a right to overtake on a single carriageway without the duty of care.
Those travelling uphill have a duty to make sure it's safe to overtake before doing so, those travelling downhill have the same duty of care.
We are supposed to be looking out for each other & provided at least one of the parties is doing what they should be doing no collision will occur.
When a person who doesn't make sure it's safe to complete the overtake before overtaking, meets himself coming the other way, that's when the collision happens

[p1stonhead]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

[Bennet]

I'm done. See you around, gents.

[vonhosen]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Overtaking on dual carriageways & single carriageways is not the same (I take you've now established the correct difference between the two as you seem to be struggling with that too earlier) as there isn't space that the opposing directions of travel have legal access to, there is a physical barrier between the directions of travel.

[p1stonhead]

anonymous said:

[redacted]