Middle Line? What Middle Line?
Discussion
Just a quickie. As we all know, local authorities have taken to removing the middle line from many roads to make it appear narrower (and thus, supposedly, safer).
Something that occurred to me today is this: if the middle line is not there, how can someone be breaking the law by being on the "wrong" side of the road in the face of oncoming traffic? How can they be done for crossing a line that isn't there? What about the road markings actually says "this side one way, that side the other"? Common sense is all very well, but that's not really enough to convict someone.
Also, a related question. Particularly in places like London, they have been merrily taking four-lane single carriageway roads and removing the middle line on each side, thus making them into two-lane roads (in fact, virtually every four-lane road has either had that done, or the outside two lanes made into bus lanes). When this is the case, and a vehicle in front of you is far enough over to the left, is there anything illegal about overtaking them on your side of the road in the face of oncoming traffic? How about if they're over to the right: can you "undertake" them? Aren't you technically encroaching on their lane? If not, how wide does their lane have to be for that not to be the case: exactly two car widths, or a "bit" more than that?
Apologies for the pedantry, but if they didn't ruin perfectly good multi-lane roads in the first place....
Something that occurred to me today is this: if the middle line is not there, how can someone be breaking the law by being on the "wrong" side of the road in the face of oncoming traffic? How can they be done for crossing a line that isn't there? What about the road markings actually says "this side one way, that side the other"? Common sense is all very well, but that's not really enough to convict someone.
Also, a related question. Particularly in places like London, they have been merrily taking four-lane single carriageway roads and removing the middle line on each side, thus making them into two-lane roads (in fact, virtually every four-lane road has either had that done, or the outside two lanes made into bus lanes). When this is the case, and a vehicle in front of you is far enough over to the left, is there anything illegal about overtaking them on your side of the road in the face of oncoming traffic? How about if they're over to the right: can you "undertake" them? Aren't you technically encroaching on their lane? If not, how wide does their lane have to be for that not to be the case: exactly two car widths, or a "bit" more than that?
Apologies for the pedantry, but if they didn't ruin perfectly good multi-lane roads in the first place....
gpshead said:
Just a quickie. As we all know, local authorities have taken to removing the middle line from many roads to make it appear narrower (and thus, supposedly, safer).
Something that occurred to me today is this: if the middle line is not there, how can someone be breaking the law by being on the "wrong" side of the road in the face of oncoming traffic? How can they be done for crossing a line that isn't there? What about the road markings actually says "this side one way, that side the other"? Common sense is all very well, but that's not really enough to convict someone.
Common sense has little to do with the application of the law - or we wouldn't have so many people with 3 or more points on their licences. As to your question ... interesting! - Streaky Something that occurred to me today is this: if the middle line is not there, how can someone be breaking the law by being on the "wrong" side of the road in the face of oncoming traffic? How can they be done for crossing a line that isn't there? What about the road markings actually says "this side one way, that side the other"? Common sense is all very well, but that's not really enough to convict someone.
gpshead said:
Just a quickie. As we all know, local authorities have taken to removing the middle line from many roads to make it appear narrower (and thus, supposedly, safer).
Something that occurred to me today is this: if the middle line is not there, how can someone be breaking the law by being on the "wrong" side of the road in the face of oncoming traffic? How can they be done for crossing a line that isn't there? What about the road markings actually says "this side one way, that side the other"? Common sense is all very well, but that's not really enough to convict someone.
Also, a related question. Particularly in places like London, they have been merrily taking four-lane single carriageway roads and removing the middle line on each side, thus making them into two-lane roads (in fact, virtually every four-lane road has either had that done, or the outside two lanes made into bus lanes). When this is the case, and a vehicle in front of you is far enough over to the left, is there anything illegal about overtaking them on your side of the road in the face of oncoming traffic? How about if they're over to the right: can you "undertake" them? Aren't you technically encroaching on their lane? If not, how wide does their lane have to be for that not to be the case: exactly two car widths, or a "bit" more than that?
Apologies for the pedantry, but if they didn't ruin perfectly good multi-lane roads in the first place....
Something that occurred to me today is this: if the middle line is not there, how can someone be breaking the law by being on the "wrong" side of the road in the face of oncoming traffic? How can they be done for crossing a line that isn't there? What about the road markings actually says "this side one way, that side the other"? Common sense is all very well, but that's not really enough to convict someone.
Also, a related question. Particularly in places like London, they have been merrily taking four-lane single carriageway roads and removing the middle line on each side, thus making them into two-lane roads (in fact, virtually every four-lane road has either had that done, or the outside two lanes made into bus lanes). When this is the case, and a vehicle in front of you is far enough over to the left, is there anything illegal about overtaking them on your side of the road in the face of oncoming traffic? How about if they're over to the right: can you "undertake" them? Aren't you technically encroaching on their lane? If not, how wide does their lane have to be for that not to be the case: exactly two car widths, or a "bit" more than that?
Apologies for the pedantry, but if they didn't ruin perfectly good multi-lane roads in the first place....
Since when has it been illegal to be "on the wrong side of the road" where there are centre line markings ?
The offence you'd be prosecuted for would probably be careless driving & that would be because it was inappropriate for you to be there 'at that time'.
Of all the things you have said the thing that is likely to cause you the biggest problem (in circumstances other than where they are turning right) is the undertake.
gpshead said:
Just a quickie. As we all know, local authorities have taken to removing the middle line from many roads to make it appear narrower (and thus, supposedly, safer).
Something that occurred to me today is this: if the middle line is not there, how can someone be breaking the law by being on the "wrong" side of the road in the face of oncoming traffic? How can they be done for crossing a line that isn't there? What about the road markings actually says "this side one way, that side the other"? Common sense is all very well, but that's not really enough to convict someone.
Also, a related question. Particularly in places like London, they have been merrily taking four-lane single carriageway roads and removing the middle line on each side, thus making them into two-lane roads (in fact, virtually every four-lane road has either had that done, or the outside two lanes made into bus lanes). When this is the case, and a vehicle in front of you is far enough over to the left, is there anything illegal about overtaking them on your side of the road in the face of oncoming traffic? How about if they're over to the right: can you "undertake" them? Aren't you technically encroaching on their lane? If not, how wide does their lane have to be for that not to be the case: exactly two car widths, or a "bit" more than that?
Apologies for the pedantry, but if they didn't ruin perfectly good multi-lane roads in the first place....
Something that occurred to me today is this: if the middle line is not there, how can someone be breaking the law by being on the "wrong" side of the road in the face of oncoming traffic? How can they be done for crossing a line that isn't there? What about the road markings actually says "this side one way, that side the other"? Common sense is all very well, but that's not really enough to convict someone.
Also, a related question. Particularly in places like London, they have been merrily taking four-lane single carriageway roads and removing the middle line on each side, thus making them into two-lane roads (in fact, virtually every four-lane road has either had that done, or the outside two lanes made into bus lanes). When this is the case, and a vehicle in front of you is far enough over to the left, is there anything illegal about overtaking them on your side of the road in the face of oncoming traffic? How about if they're over to the right: can you "undertake" them? Aren't you technically encroaching on their lane? If not, how wide does their lane have to be for that not to be the case: exactly two car widths, or a "bit" more than that?
Apologies for the pedantry, but if they didn't ruin perfectly good multi-lane roads in the first place....
I’m not aware that LAs are removing road centre lines. Mostly I see road paint increasing not decreasing.
As far as I know there is no law against being on the wrong side of the road whether or not there is a centre line. However in addition to the double white line laws where applicable, there are laws such as careless driving, driving without due care, even dangerous driving.
I don’t understand your related question since you’re talking about overtaking someone on your own side of the road but facing oncoming traffic. How could that be? The illegality of undertaking isn’t affected by lanes as far as I know.
herewego said:
I’m not aware that LAs are removing road centre lines. Mostly I see road paint increasing not decreasing.
I could give you several examples from LAs whose areas I regularly drive in, but it probably varies depending on where you are.
herewego said:
I don’t understand your related question since you’re talking about overtaking someone on your own side of the road but facing oncoming traffic. How could that be?
I just meant that if there was no oncoming traffic, there'd obviously be no issue with passing someone as long as you gave them enough room, whatever the lane markings. Basically I was asking if it was all right to have more than one car per lane overall, widthwise, at any one time (if there was no oncoming traffic, there would still only be two cars in two lanes).
Perhaps a diagram would help, if I could be bothered.
gpshead said:
Basically I was asking if it was all right to have more than one car per lane overall, widthwise, at any one time (if there was no oncoming traffic, there would still only be two cars in two lanes).
I know quite a few single carriegeways where this is actually common practice, e.g. A15,A689,A77.
gpshead said:
herewego said:
I’m not aware that LAs are removing road centre lines. Mostly I see road paint increasing not decreasing.
I could give you several examples from LAs whose areas I regularly drive in, but it probably varies depending on where you are.
My local department are unfortunately stuck in the past and like to drop Speed Tables (or perhaps "Speed Mountains" is more appropriate) on every spare metre of road. They do, however, appear to be pioneering an interesting new concept that I've termed "Stealth Cushions". On a handful of roads along which they've placed Speed Cushions to slow traffic a number of the cushions aren't cushions at all, but rather just the white lining that you'd find on a cusion but marked on the road pavement. As a result they appear to be a cushion for slowing-down purposes, but don't knacker your tracking. Good idea.
No sign of less paint in Yorkshire. Here we have outbreaks of red tarmac and cross hatching on all the three lane uphill bits that used to let you past a slow moving lorry, etc.
And don't get me started on Barnsley red paving across the road that makes it look like a safe place to cross but isn't
As with a lot of things now - just leave it alone for a while!
And don't get me started on Barnsley red paving across the road that makes it look like a safe place to cross but isn't
As with a lot of things now - just leave it alone for a while!
ashes said:
No sign of less paint in Yorkshire. Here we have outbreaks of red tarmac and cross hatching on all the three lane uphill bits that used to let you past a slow moving lorry, etc.
Cumbria control themselves pretty well with the white paint (in the rural areas at least). They have a number of over-wide climbing sections suitable for three-lane, "lane of death" layouts, but instead mark them rather sensibly. They mark the centreline 3.65m from the downhill nearside verge, creating a single downhill lane, and leaving the uphill lane as a single lane but two-to-three lane widths across. This allows you to pass slow uphill traffic without creating the uncertainty involved with a lane-of-death layout.Two comments:
1 - Removing the centre white line. This is plainly bonkers. The way I heard it justifed is as follows: No center line adds to a feeling of "uncertainty" and "jeapardy" on behalf of the road users. The idea being that the drivers feel more in danger and will therefore slow down. However, this approach is really missing the big picture. There is too much emphasis on making vehicles travel slower, when the real issue is making roads safer. As far as I can see removing the line to make the road dangerous and therefore decrease speeds is really cutting off ones nose to spite the face. I can't comprehend how removing the centre line can make the road safer. They did this to a road near my home in Bath and I was livid.
2 - "Double width" single carriageways. I don't like these either. There is one in particular which goes towards Southampton town centre which has this configuration for several miles. In some places the road is wide enough to accomodate 4 cars (2 each direction) as long as all parties are cooprative. But as the road is marked as one lane each way there is reduced discipline amongst drivers, who therefore may move toward the centre of their lane without warning. The fluctuating width of said carriageway adds further to the danger that two cars will "run out of elbow room" while driving 2 abrest in the same direction, leading to a potential rub of bumpers, or worse a collision with an oncoming car. This, combine with the fact that some traffic lights are painted with two lanes in each direction causes significat confusion, especially amogst those drivers not familiar with the road. Bad idea imo and I'm interested to find out other peoples opinions, as well as the law regarding driving 4 abrest (2 each direction) on a road painted with only a single carriageway in each direction.
1 - Removing the centre white line. This is plainly bonkers. The way I heard it justifed is as follows: No center line adds to a feeling of "uncertainty" and "jeapardy" on behalf of the road users. The idea being that the drivers feel more in danger and will therefore slow down. However, this approach is really missing the big picture. There is too much emphasis on making vehicles travel slower, when the real issue is making roads safer. As far as I can see removing the line to make the road dangerous and therefore decrease speeds is really cutting off ones nose to spite the face. I can't comprehend how removing the centre line can make the road safer. They did this to a road near my home in Bath and I was livid.
2 - "Double width" single carriageways. I don't like these either. There is one in particular which goes towards Southampton town centre which has this configuration for several miles. In some places the road is wide enough to accomodate 4 cars (2 each direction) as long as all parties are cooprative. But as the road is marked as one lane each way there is reduced discipline amongst drivers, who therefore may move toward the centre of their lane without warning. The fluctuating width of said carriageway adds further to the danger that two cars will "run out of elbow room" while driving 2 abrest in the same direction, leading to a potential rub of bumpers, or worse a collision with an oncoming car. This, combine with the fact that some traffic lights are painted with two lanes in each direction causes significat confusion, especially amogst those drivers not familiar with the road. Bad idea imo and I'm interested to find out other peoples opinions, as well as the law regarding driving 4 abrest (2 each direction) on a road painted with only a single carriageway in each direction.
The problem with double width lanes is the idiots who insist on driving right down the middle, not letting anyone past.
I remember a truck deliberately pulling out and forcing me into the oncoming lane on the old A120 near Stansted because I had the audacity to overtake him, he was watching me in his mirror all the time.
Overtaking people in this country seems to be akin to sticking your knob in their ear and they react similarly.
I remember a truck deliberately pulling out and forcing me into the oncoming lane on the old A120 near Stansted because I had the audacity to overtake him, he was watching me in his mirror all the time.
Overtaking people in this country seems to be akin to sticking your knob in their ear and they react similarly.
DJFish said:
The problem with double width lanes is the idiots who insist on driving right down the middle, not letting anyone past.
I was going to put something like that, and it irritates me as well. But then I thought, aren't you supposed to drive in the centre of your lane, to give yourself the option of going either way in case of a "sudden" obstacle in front?
If that's the case, it's another reason why the double width lanes is a bad idea: it gives legitimacy to sad little "you're-not-getting-past-me" see-you-next-Tuesdays who would otherwise be liable to prosecution for straddling lanes.
Personally I drive on the left anyway, if there's any danger whatsoever of someone overtaking me.
DJFish said:
I remember a truck deliberately pulling out and forcing me into the oncoming lane on the old A120 near Stansted because I had the audacity to overtake him, he was watching me in his mirror all the time.
Surprising...trucks in my experience are usually OK. After all, they're professionals, and most of them would want the same treatment when driving their cars.
DJFish said:
Overtaking people in this country seems to be akin to sticking your knob in their ear and they react similarly.
Wonderfully phrased...I'll remember that one.
I simply can't understand it. If someone wants to get past me, the very last thing I want is to keep them behind me so that they get frustrated. It doesn't affect me if they get past, but it could if they don't. Anyone driving remotely defensively would surely be of the same volition. These people must be incredibly belligerent and juvenile, probably in all aspects of their lives. Why be so rude towards someone that you don't even know? Often their very first priority seems to be impeding people. Depressing.
I don't consider my driving to be any better than average, but if everyone drove like me in that regard, the experience would be many times more pleasant for everyone.
mrmr96 said:
I'm interested to find out other peoples opinions
Agree with everything you said.
gpshead said:
Surprising...trucks in my experience are usually OK. After all, they're professionals, and most of them would want the same treatment when driving their cars.
As a rule I find truck (and to a degree bus) drivers competant and courteous, but occasionally I encounter one who's on a Duel/Falling Down style rampage against the everyday world. I imagine that there's only so much getting shafted by car drivers that they can take before snapping. Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff