Speed limit on dual carriageway (single lane)

[Efbe]

tvrgit said:

Efbe said:

edit: unfortunately land does not mean this, it could mean anything. all it definitely means is a space

Yes exactly - a space that's not part of a carriageway. A carriageway is the surfaced bit. The space between two carriageways, by definition, isn't surfaced, so can't be a bit that's surfaced and painted.

Efbe said:

its ok though, I have looked through several other law forums for the answer, and basically there is none. it would appear that there is no definitive answer.

Yes there is, and you quoted it!

but a solid white line constitutes the edge of a carriageway, therefore the area between the two solid white lines is not carriageway, but land in between the two carriageways. ergo dual-carriageway.

The surfaced bit is meaningless. it is not in the acts.

I'm not just trying to be argumentative here, honest! Plenty of other legal people on the net have come to the same conclusion as me from the highway code and related acts as me. There appears not to be a definitive answer, unless there is some other text I have not seen.

[cazzer]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

No it fking doesn't. Jesus H Christ.
Click of some of the fking links before you add another bks opinion.

Dual Carriageways no matter how many lanes are 70 mph.

[tvrgit]

Efbe said:

but a solid white line constitutes the edge of a carriageway

No it doesn't, it only constitutes the edge of the running traffic lane. The carriageway goes to the kerb or verge.

Efbe said:

therefore the area between the two solid white lines is not carriageway, but land in between the two carriageways. ergo dual-carriageway.

So this bit is doesn't follow logically, if the edge of the carriageway is the kerb or verge.

Efbe said:

The surfaced bit is meaningless. it is not in the acts.

The surfaced bit IS the carriageway. The lines are not relevant in delineating a carriageway.

As someone said earlier, people need to appreciate the difference between a carriageway, a lane and a road.

Efbe said:

I'm not just trying to be argumentative here, honest! Plenty of other legal people on the net have come to the same conclusion as me from the highway code and related acts as me.

With respect, I have absolutely no interest in what "legal experts on the net" have to say. I have made a fair bit of money over my career putting "experts" right in various public inquiries etc. That's in real life, not "with some bloke on the net".

However my own background is of no relevance here, in fact that's only the second time in 90 months that I've specifically mentioned it. As far as you are concerned, I am just another bloke on the net, so you'll have to believe who you like.

I am not trying to be argumentative either, because it's no skin off my nose, but I'm not going to sit here arguing for free when I have to get to bed so that I can go to work and get paid for arguing this kind of stuff for real tomorrow. (cue Monty Python theme and "No I'm not I'm arguing in my spare time")

Edited by tvrgit on Wednesday 10th November 23:55

[RV8]

There are plenty of sections of the A449 which go down to single lane and are marked 50mph with cameras.

[HereBeMonsters]

I thought when I saw idiots plodding along at 60 on dual carriageways that they were just ignorant "ordinary" motorists.

Now I learn that a lot of so-called "enthusiasts" are under the same delusion. I literally cannot believe how stupid some people are being.

[Dr Jekyll]

AL...Ease said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Puff the magic.. said:

All single carriageway roads with whatever number of lanes have a maximum possible speed limit at NSL of 60mph for cars and motorcycles.

Unless it's a motorway, in which case the maximum possible limit is 70 irrespective of the number of carriageways.

You can't have a single-carriageway motorway.

Why not? There certainly used to be a few.

[andyroo]

I can confirm that a dual carriageway is not constituted by the number of lanes but by the presence of a physical barrier (be it kerbing, armco etc) and is 70mph when delineated as NSL. The absence of head on collisions and their combined impact speed allows for the greater limit.

[streaky]

I'll probably be accused of being 'condescending', but there are a few right burks posting on this thread.

Two additional points:

1) Touched upon by one poster, the 'central' reservation does not need to be centralised between the opposing carriageways - there exist dual carriageways with different numbers of lanes in each carriageway 1/2, 2/3, etc., thus offsetting the reservation from the 'centre'.

2) The opposing carriageways can have differing speed limits.

Streaky

[streaky]

andyroo said:

I can confirm that a dual carriageway is not constituted by the number of lanes but by the presence of a physical barrier (be it kerbing, armco etc) and is 70mph when delineated as NSL. The absence of head on collisions and their combined impact speed allows for the greater limit.

The 'physical barrier' can be a strip of grass. Such does not prevent head-on collisions.

Can those who are talking about a physical 'barrier' please stop? It's confusing those who don't know, or understand, the definition.

A "central reservation" is not defined in terms of Armco, hedging, earth mounds, WRSB, or anything else designed or naturally helping to prevent the unintended transgression of a vehicle from one carriageway to the opposing carriageway.

Streaky

[F i F]

@ various posters.




Gives up.

@saaby93 thanks for saving me the trouble of posting the definitive answer which points to the legislation yet again.
@many others, you know who you are, thanks for continuing the good fight vs the ignoramuses, I have been reliably informed that the plural is not ignorami.

HTH

[dmjw01]

Has anyone posted a link to the Wikipedia page on dual carriageways?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_carriageway

Anyone who is still confused about what a dual carriageway is should read this page. I acknowledge that Wikipedia is not an authoritative source, but everything on this page appears to be correct and clearly written.

A few key points from this page:

Wikipedia said:

A dual carriageway (divided highway) is a highway in which the two directions of traffic are separated by a central barrier or strip of land, known as a central reservation.

Wikipedia said:

A dual carriageway may described as dual single lane, dual 2-lane or dual 3-lane.

Wikipedia said:

For a road to be classed as a dual carriageway, the two directions of traffic flow must be physically separated by a central reservation. A road where the two directions of flow are separated only by lines painted on the road surface is a single carriageway, regardless of the number of traffic lanes that may be available to the traffic in each direction.

The following diagram on the Wikipedia page also makes it very clear:




So, anyone who still thinks that a road with painted bits down the middle to divide the two opposing traffic flows is anything other than a single carriageway: Read the page!!

Anyone who thinks that a road can't be a dual carriageway if it only has one lane in each direction: Read the page!!

Anyone who doubts that the NSL speed limit for a car on a single-lane dual carriageway is 70 mph: Read the page!!

[streaky]

F i F said:

@ various posters.




Gives up.

@saaby93 thanks for saving me the trouble of posting the definitive answer which points to the legislation yet again.
@many others, you know who you are, thanks for continuing the good fight vs the ignoramuses, I have been reliably informed that the plural is not ignorami.

HTH

That's because "ignoramus" was a Latin verb - meaning "we do not know" - not a noun. The plural is formed, therefore, in the English manner, by adding 'es'.

Streaky

Edited by streaky on Thursday 11th November 09:13

[tvrgit]

streaky said:

That's because "ignoramus" was a Latin verb - meaning “we do not know” - not a noun.ThYhe plural is formed, therefore, in the English manner, by adding 'es'.

Streaky

You learn something new every day. I read on a very authoritative expert website once that the plural of "ignoramus" was "internet", but I had my doubts, because even German doesn't have verbs as irregular as that.

[F i F]

tvrgit said:

streaky said:

That's because "ignoramus" was a Latin verb - meaning “we do not know” - not a noun.ThYhe plural is formed, therefore, in the English manner, by adding 'es'.

Streaky

You learn something new every day. I read on a very authoritative expert website once that the plural of "ignoramus" was "internet", but I had my doubts, because even German doesn't have verbs as irregular as that.

Ah well, Latin that explains it. My Latin skills were and still are notorious in their paucity and almost total absence. Grade 9 GCE on one exam, made to take it again and again until I scraped a pass.
Miserable times with a drunken grumpy bully of a Latin master who taught mostly by fear.

[Efbe]

dmjw01 said:

wiki stuff

this is all very nice, but wiki means nothing tbh.

the discussion is over what constitutes a central reservation. as quoted previously by the gvmt a dual carriageway must be split by a central reservation. unfortunately it doesn't define anywhere exactly what one is. We know it isn't a lane divider or one or two lines, and we know that it is a physical barrier such as trees, armco.
There was discussion over whether a small grassy area is covered as you are able to drive over it, however hooli posted evidence that this is a centreal reservation.

The problem comes if you think a central reservation includes two white lines with hatchings in the middle or not.
this isn't a great example but, in the below picture, does the dual carriageway start after the red line, or before?



if anyone knows of any roads of a decent length split by solid white lines with hatchings in the middle, we may be able to look on the local gvmt website to see what they classify it as.

[streaky]

Efbe said:

dmjw01 said:

wiki stuff

this is all very nice, but wiki means nothing tbh.

the discussion is over what constitutes a central reservation. as quoted previously by the gvmt a dual carriageway must be split by a central reservation. unfortunately it doesn't define anywhere exactly what one is. We know it isn't a lane divider or one or two lines, and we know that it is a physical barrier such as trees, armco.
There was discussion over whether a small grassy area is covered as you are able to drive over it, however hooli posted evidence that this is a centreal reservation.

The problem comes if you think a central reservation includes two white lines with hatchings in the middle or not.
this isn't a great example but, in the below picture, does the dual carriageway start after the red line, or before?

As my old Granny used to say, "You know what 'thought' did!". The DC starts after the red line - Streaky

[SS2.]

Efbe said:

The problem comes if you think a central reservation includes two white lines with hatchings in the middle or not.

A CR doesn't comprise hatchings on their own, because hatched areas are not completely reserved and may be crossed under certain circumstances.

As such, hatched areas do not 'separate the carriageways', as is required for a carriageway to be 'dual' (definition provided by RTRA 1984, Schd 6, Part 4).

Efbe said:

this isn't a great example but, in the below picture, does the dual carriageway start after the red line, or before?

At / just after the red line.

Edited by SS2. on Thursday 11th November 09:44

[tvrgit]

streaky said:

Efbe said:

dmjw01 said:

wiki stuff

this is all very nice, but wiki means nothing tbh.

the discussion is over what constitutes a central reservation. as quoted previously by the gvmt a dual carriageway must be split by a central reservation. unfortunately it doesn't define anywhere exactly what one is. We know it isn't a lane divider or one or two lines, and we know that it is a physical barrier such as trees, armco.
There was discussion over whether a small grassy area is covered as you are able to drive over it, however hooli posted evidence that this is a centreal reservation.

The problem comes if you think a central reservation includes two white lines with hatchings in the middle or not.
this isn't a great example but, in the below picture, does the dual carriageway start after the red line, or before?

As my old Granny used to say, "You know what 'thought' did!". The DC starts after the red line - Streaky

Agreed. Single carriageway up to red line, dual after.

earlier on this thread tvrgit said:

White lines are irrelevant in this context

Then after a whole load of irrelevant stuff about barriers, fences, trees etc,

later on this thread tvrgit again said:

White lines are irrelevant in this context

So let's try again.

White lines are irrelevant in this context. Solid or dashed, with hatching between them or not, they do NOT delineate a dual carriageway.

The "physical" barrier can be just a grass strip. It doesn't need a fence, armco, trees, bushes, dovecots, wigwams (reservation, see?), street furniture, or anything else sticking up out of the grass, ok?

One width of road construction = single carriageway. Two widths of road construction separated by something that isn't road (grass, pebbles, sand, crushed molluscs, etc) = dual carriageway.

So as Streaky (and various others) have tried to tell you, the dual carriageway startes AFTER the red line.

[streaky]

F i F said:

tvrgit said:

streaky said:

That's because "ignoramus" was a Latin verb - meaning "we do not know" - not a noun. The plural is formed, therefore, in the English manner, by adding 'es'.

Streaky

You learn something new every day. I read on a very authoritative expert website once that the plural of "ignoramus" was "internet", but I had my doubts, because even German doesn't have verbs as irregular as that.

Ah well, Latin that explains it. My Latin skills were and still are notorious in their paucity and almost total absence. Grade 9 GCE on one exam, made to take it again and again until I scraped a pass.
Miserable times with a drunken grumpy bully of a Latin master who taught mostly by fear.

All that study was not wasted. Your Latin (derived) usage is admirable:

'Notorious' - from Medieval Latin notorius : well-known.

'Paucity' - from Latin paucitas : few.

'Absence' - from Latin absentia : a being away.

'Miserable' - from Latin miserbilis : pitiable.

'Master' - from Latin magister.



Streaky

[F i F]

Efbe said:

if anyone knows of any roads of a decent length split by solid white lines with hatchings in the middle, we may be able to look on the local gvmt website to see what they classify it as.

Now you are just being argumentative.

In the past we, including myself, have spoken directly with Dept for Transport and the Roads Policy Unit about this regarding the various interpretations. These are the people who will advise the courts if required on interpretation by supply of expert witness.

They have confirmed that when you have a road where the traffic proceeding in one direction is separated from opposing traffic only by painted lines, and painted hatchings, possibly also with different coloured paint area markings, then such a road is to be considered a single carriageway road.

Full stop, rule off.

You have also been pointed out on this thread and in various links at the legislation such as it is, and also in those links where the legislation is less than clear. For example there is no legal distinction between a traffic island and a central reservation. You have also been pointed to various clear and accurate interpretations of the situation, including some of mine.

Yes there are clear design rules for new roads and new constructions but these are guidelines and not legal requirements as many roads were built to earlier revisions of DMRB and even before that document existed.

People on this thread have been very patient with you, but you seem intent on an argument because there is nothing spelled out in law, with drawings, pictures, dimensions, t's crossed and i's dotted. Well that is how the law is. Deal with it.

I don't know what you are getting off on by persisting in this line, but frankly you are just making yourself look silly.