White Lane Arrows, Advisory or Compulsory?

[Vanin]

The white painted direction arrows on the approach to certain roundabouts after a dual carriageway. If the right hand lane has an arrow pointing to the right, is it advisory or legally compulsory.
Just thinking of the situation where there are say three HGVs waiting in the left lane and you opt to overtake them all by taking the right hand lane. All come to a standstill but you knowthat you will be on the exit before they have engaged second gear. Nothing unsafe that I can see but is it legal?

[Centurion07]

I was under the impression that unless backed up by a posted sign confirming what the arrows indicate, then no. I stand to be corrected though.

[vikingaero]

Compulsory for everyone who gained their licence before 1990. Everyone else and it's "the world WILL revolve around ME ME ME!"

[SS2.]

These are advisory (with or without the place / road names):



These would be mandatory:



As would these:

[Cliftonite]

Last time this thread came up (last week?!) the consensus was that they are advisory but, if not followed, a nasty policeman could do you for careless driving (for no valid reason that I could see) if he was having a bad day.

/thread

[Moonhawk]

Vanin said:

The white painted direction arrows on the approach to certain roundabouts after a dual carriageway. If the right hand lane has an arrow pointing to the right, is it advisory or legally compulsory.
Just thinking of the situation where there are say three HGVs waiting in the left lane and you opt to overtake them all by taking the right hand lane. All come to a standstill but you knowthat you will be on the exit before they have engaged second gear. Nothing unsafe that I can see but is it legal?

I used to think they were compulsory however a recent thread on here taught me that they are in fact advisory unless they have wording along the lines of those posted above (i.e. ahead only).

http://www.ukmotorists.com/marking_signs.asp

The highway code is very light on detail in this area. The road markings section only states that they are an "indication of traffic lanes" and there doesn't appear to be any "do not" or "must not" rule associated with them as far as I can tell.

[Countdown]

Vanin said:

The white painted direction arrows on the approach to certain roundabouts after a dual carriageway. If the right hand lane has an arrow pointing to the right, is it advisory or legally compulsory.
Just thinking of the situation where there are say three HGVs waiting in the left lane and you opt to overtake them all by taking the right hand lane. All come to a standstill but you knowthat you will be on the exit before they have engaged second gear. Nothing unsafe that I can see but is it legal?

Even if it was unsafe there are a large number of people who do it on a daily basis. It's usually "Continuing straight ahead from a right turn only" lane. It often results in the driver in L2 having to force his way into L1, followed by an exchange of headlight flashing and coffee bean gestures.

[TooMany2cvs]

Cliftonite said:

Last time this thread came up (last week?!) the consensus was that they are advisory but, if not followed, a nasty policeman could do you for careless driving (for no valid reason that I could see) if he was having a bad day.

/thread

Is there really any "consensus" needed? Seems fairly clearly set out in the HC.

134
You should follow the signs and road markings and get into the lane as directed. In congested road conditions do not change lanes unnecessarily.

144
You MUST NOT
...drive without reasonable consideration for other road users.

So there's no "MUST NOT" (ergo no legal restriction) preventing you from ignoring lane signs, but you shouldn't do it if there's "congested" traffic about - which, of course, is the exact scenario it's being suggested in, after all, there's no benefit otherwise. But there IS a "MUST NOT" relating to driving without reasonable consideration - and that'll tie straight to driving licence endorsement CD20.

So you can do it, but shouldn't, and definitely can't if you're delaying anybody else by doing so.

[agtlaw]

The Highway code is not a source of law.

[agtlaw]

TooMany2cvs said:

But there IS a "MUST NOT" relating to driving without reasonable consideration - and that'll tie straight to driving licence endorsement CD20.

So you can do it, but shouldn't, and definitely can't if you're delaying anybody else by doing so.

That offence only applies if another driver is inconvenienced.

Again, not sure why you've mentioned the "must not" in the highway code - the offence is section 3 RTA 1988. See also 3ZA.

[Moonhawk]

agtlaw said:

The Highway code is not a source of law.

Perhaps not - but it does cite specific road traffic laws and the behaviours that may trigger a prosecution under them. Highway code rules that are associated with specific motoring offences are identified using the terms "must" or "must not".

Edited by Moonhawk on Saturday 28th February 12:56

[Moonhawk]

agtlaw said:

Again, not sure why you've mentioned the "must not" in the highway code - the offence is section 3 RTA 1988. See also 3ZA.

"Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’."

https://www.gov.uk/highway-code/introduction

[SS2.]

TooMany2cvs said:

Is there really any "consensus" needed? Seems fairly clearly set out in the HC.

It can be a bit cumbersome navigating back and forth, but Direction 7 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 specifies which road markings indicate a statutory restriction or prohibition.

[agtlaw]

Moonhawk said:

"Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’."

https://www.gov.uk/highway-code/introduction

'Thanks' for the link. The Highway Code is a useful guide for lay people but not a source of law,

[agtlaw]

SS2. said:

It can be a bit cumbersome navigating back and forth, but Direction 7 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 specifies which road markings indicate a statutory restriction or prohibition.

At last, some law!

[TooMany2cvs]

agtlaw said:

At last, some law!

As referenced in the HC rule...

We all remember what the HC is, don't we? That thin booklet that we had to remember when we passed our driving test, and promptly ignored for the last decade or four. I don't remember being tested on knowledge of various acts of parliament in my test, I have to admit.

[SS2.]

TooMany2cvs said:

agtlaw said:

At last, some law!

As referenced in the HC rule...

We all remember what the HC is, don't we? That thin booklet that we had to remember when we passed our driving test, and promptly ignored for the last decade or four. I don't remember being tested on knowledge of various acts of parliament in my test, I have to admit.

On the subject of lane markings, the HC extract posted in the thread is at best overly vague. At worst, it's misleading or, if you rely on the presence of the words 'must not' to indicate a statutory provision, then it's plain wrong.

Edited by SS2. on Saturday 28th February 13:47

[agtlaw]

TooMany2cvs said:

As referenced in the HC rule...

We all remember what the HC is, don't we? That thin booklet that we had to remember when we passed our driving test, and promptly ignored for the last decade or four. I don't remember being tested on knowledge of various acts of parliament in my test, I have to admit.

Q: What's the law regarding X?
A: The Highway Code, Rule Y says ...

will be met with derision from me, but do feel free to carry on.

This is the speed, plod & LAW forum?

[Moonhawk]

SS2. said:

.....if you rely on the presence of the words 'must not' to indicate a statutory provision, then it's plain wrong.

Not sure I understand?

The highway code and the road traffic act, road traffic regulation act etc need to be considered together.

The highway code describes the behaviour you must/must not exhibit - then makes reference to the law under which you may be prosecuted if you exhibit behaviors contrary to that stated in the highway code. For example:

Rule 105:

"You MUST obey signals given by police officers, traffic officers, traffic wardens (see ‘Signals by authorised persons’). and signs used by school crossing patrols."

Fail to do this and you may be subject to prosecution under:

"Laws RTRA sect 28, RTA 1988 sect 35, TMA 2004 sect 6, & FTWO art 3"

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/sectio...
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/sectio...

etc

Edited by Moonhawk on Saturday 28th February 14:00

[SS2.]

The Highway Code is just a guide, it isn't law.