Left turn lane accident - who exactly is to blame?
Discussion
mickmcpaddy said:
I f
king hate tts like this, they know full well they are in the wrong but are so arrogant they also know 99% of people will just let them in because they are either too timid or dont want the hassle. You can only hope that occasionally they come across someone who gets out and gives them a good pummelling.
I was on the M60 the other day at Simister island going to Leeds, the two lane slip road that goes off to the roundabout was jammed solid, it took about 20 minutes to clear it, the 2 lane motorway going straight on to Bury was clear as a bell, yet I must have counted 50 cars in that 20 minutes that drove right to the front of the queue where the solid chevrons start and just sat stationary in lane 1 going to bury with their left indicator on. The pieces of st didn't give a fk that it was causing hold ups for people going to Bury or that they might get a 40 tonne truck up their arse.
The galling thing was everyone of them was let in within a few seconds because obviously the people letting them in were concerned a big crash was about to happen. There should be a camera on that junction and every one that pulled that manoeuvre should get a 5 year ban.
I know what you mean. I use that road everyday and the twunts who sit in L1 Bury whilst indicating to join the off-slip to join the M62 are going to cause multiple fatalities one day. king hate tts like this, they know full well they are in the wrong but are so arrogant they also know 99% of people will just let them in because they are either too timid or dont want the hassle. You can only hope that occasionally they come across someone who gets out and gives them a good pummelling.I was on the M60 the other day at Simister island going to Leeds, the two lane slip road that goes off to the roundabout was jammed solid, it took about 20 minutes to clear it, the 2 lane motorway going straight on to Bury was clear as a bell, yet I must have counted 50 cars in that 20 minutes that drove right to the front of the queue where the solid chevrons start and just sat stationary in lane 1 going to bury with their left indicator on. The pieces of s
t didn't give a fk that it was causing hold ups for people going to Bury or that they might get a 40 tonne truck up their arse. The galling thing was everyone of them was let in within a few seconds because obviously the people letting them in were concerned a big crash was about to happen. There should be a camera on that junction and every one that pulled that manoeuvre should get a 5 year ban.
The problem is that the sliproad from M60 up to the roundabout has 4 lanes - L1 and L2 joining the M60 Westbound and L3/L4 joining the M62 heading east. L3/L4 are normally empty or there’s enough space for the “Merge in Turn Merchants” to force their way in. It’s rare that they have to block the Northbound L1 to Bury. Still need castrating though....
brrapp said:
My understanding is that markings only on the road , with no additional signage, are advisory only, because in heavy, slow moving traffic they are not visible.
Fine if you are local or this is your regular commute, but if this is a one off journey, you have no way of knowing which lane you should be in.
It sounds to me that the 'pusher in' could quite easily have been a non-local, caught out in heavy traffic, and trying to get back into the right lane. The fact that he was going slower than the cars in the right lane and had already been passed by a couple of other cars seems to agree with this.
The OP was behind him and tried to block a legitimate merge. If this resulted in a collision, I've no doubt the OP would be held liable.
I wasn't there so can't say that this is definitely the case but that's what sounds more likely to me than someone aggressively lane hopping to gain a few spaces.
Driven over three arrows & 'TURN LEFT' writing without realising he is in a lane marked for turning left (even whilst following the vehicle in front of him at an appropriate following distance)?Fine if you are local or this is your regular commute, but if this is a one off journey, you have no way of knowing which lane you should be in.
It sounds to me that the 'pusher in' could quite easily have been a non-local, caught out in heavy traffic, and trying to get back into the right lane. The fact that he was going slower than the cars in the right lane and had already been passed by a couple of other cars seems to agree with this.
The OP was behind him and tried to block a legitimate merge. If this resulted in a collision, I've no doubt the OP would be held liable.
I wasn't there so can't say that this is definitely the case but that's what sounds more likely to me than someone aggressively lane hopping to gain a few spaces.
vonhosen said:
Driven over three arrows & 'TURN LEFT' writing without realising he is in a lane marked for turning left (even whilst following the vehicle in front of him at an appropriate following distance)?
Nose to tail crawling traffic in the approach to a set of traffic lights? Quite easy not to see road markings, especially if you're not familiar with the road layout and you're trying to look ahead to what's coming next. That's why they're only advisory if no additional signage.vonhosen said:
mcg_ said:
That looks like a pretty badly designed junction.
Nothing physical to prevent left turners from going straight ahead by the looks of it? Some road marking would help as a minimum.
Those who can do, those who can’t, County Council.
The OP said there are 3 separate left turn arrows, accompanied by 'TURN LEFT', in the nearside lane on the approach to the junction.Nothing physical to prevent left turners from going straight ahead by the looks of it? Some road marking would help as a minimum.
Those who can do, those who can’t, County Council.
May help some people. Not all, but it would help.
brrapp said:
vonhosen said:
Driven over three arrows & 'TURN LEFT' writing without realising he is in a lane marked for turning left (even whilst following the vehicle in front of him at an appropriate following distance)?
Nose to tail crawling traffic in the approach to a set of traffic lights? Quite easy not to see road markings, especially if you're not familiar with the road layout and you're trying to look ahead to what's coming next. That's why they're only advisory if no additional signage.Gavia said:
Red Devil said:
In this case, the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 5 page 82 disagrees with you.
A diagram 1038 marking is advisory but the addition of TURN LEFT converts it to a diagram 1036.1 marking: the latter is regulatory.
MANDATORY TURNS
13.6 Lane arrows supplemented with the legend TURN LEFT (see figure 13-3), TURN RIGHT and AHEAD ONLY are prescribed as diagrams 1036.1, 1036.2 and 1037.1 respectively.
These versions may be used only where they indicate the effect of a statutory prohibition (direction 7).
Confirmed by TSRGD 2016 Schedule 9 Part 6 item 19 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedu...
As has already been posted, this only applies where the only available option is to turn left. For example where the only other road is a No Entry, so all traffic must turn left to avoid it. A diagram 1038 marking is advisory but the addition of TURN LEFT converts it to a diagram 1036.1 marking: the latter is regulatory.
MANDATORY TURNS
13.6 Lane arrows supplemented with the legend TURN LEFT (see figure 13-3), TURN RIGHT and AHEAD ONLY are prescribed as diagrams 1036.1, 1036.2 and 1037.1 respectively.
These versions may be used only where they indicate the effect of a statutory prohibition (direction 7).
Confirmed by TSRGD 2016 Schedule 9 Part 6 item 19 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedu...
A very common situation for using 1036.1 is when there are traffic lights with a green (filter) arrow.
* Therefore it follows that it should not be used in optional situations (as in this case: see below).
I have found the junction in question on Streetview - https://goo.gl/maps/bhnjDc45wqG2
As I suspected it is indeed traffic light controlled, but interestingly there is no green arrow just an ordinary plain light.
Accordingly I suggest that the use of a diagram 1036.1 marking is incorrect (ref the bold bit above). It should be an advisory diagram 1038.
I agree with VH though, if the manoeuvre in question were seen by a police officer a roadside conversation is very possible.
Having been a passenger with Mrs RD when she got in the wrong lane by mistake in an unfamiliar area, I know that can happen.
Just her bad luck that there was an unmarked car in the adjacent straight ahead lane and her transgression was observed.
She got tugged, received some stern words of advice, and NFA.
vonhosen said:
It isn't, I never said it was.
We weren't discussing that, merely that it can & does happen, not how often it does.
The percentages are in favour of you getting away with it, just like they are in your favour with speeding or running a red traffic light.
You're left where we virtually started this conversation, with you 'hoping' it doesn't result in a prosecution, because there is no certainty that it won't. That's because it can where the officer viewing it decides it's worth a little bit of writing from them when they see you do it.
The conversation started with me saying that I hope I never make a simple mistake, not that I hope it doesn’t result in a prosecution. We weren't discussing that, merely that it can & does happen, not how often it does.
The percentages are in favour of you getting away with it, just like they are in your favour with speeding or running a red traffic light.
You're left where we virtually started this conversation, with you 'hoping' it doesn't result in a prosecution, because there is no certainty that it won't. That's because it can where the officer viewing it decides it's worth a little bit of writing from them when they see you do it.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 20th January 19:16
Gavia said:
Blimey, I hope I never ever make a simple mistake that causes a couple of seconds inconvenience if that’s the outcome.
You were the one who suggested traffic “offences” like this were bread & butter, albeit back in the day. I merely posited that resourcing and priorities maybe somewhat different nowadays. Gavia said:
vonhosen said:
It isn't, I never said it was.
We weren't discussing that, merely that it can & does happen, not how often it does.
The percentages are in favour of you getting away with it, just like they are in your favour with speeding or running a red traffic light.
You're left where we virtually started this conversation, with you 'hoping' it doesn't result in a prosecution, because there is no certainty that it won't. That's because it can where the officer viewing it decides it's worth a little bit of writing from them when they see you do it.
The conversation started with me saying that I hope I never make a simple mistake, not that I hope it doesn’t result in a prosecution. We weren't discussing that, merely that it can & does happen, not how often it does.
The percentages are in favour of you getting away with it, just like they are in your favour with speeding or running a red traffic light.
You're left where we virtually started this conversation, with you 'hoping' it doesn't result in a prosecution, because there is no certainty that it won't. That's because it can where the officer viewing it decides it's worth a little bit of writing from them when they see you do it.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 20th January 19:16
Gavia said:
Blimey, I hope I never ever make a simple mistake that causes a couple of seconds inconvenience if that’s the outcome.
You were the one who suggested traffic “offences” like this were bread & butter, albeit back in the day. I merely posited that resourcing and priorities maybe somewhat different nowadays. You were hoping you don't make a mistake precisely because of the potential outcome (prosecuted for an offence) that was being pointed out to you.
When you said
Gavia said:
Whatmcpuld he have been prosecuted for? Not following advice only signs?
I told you what people have been prosecuted & convicted for in such circumstances.Let’s leave it shall we? Neither of us will change our opinions.
I use a marked right turn lane to go straight on on my local bypass every time I get there and there’s more than 3 cars in the queue. I’ll carry on doing that. I’ll report back if I ever get prosecuted and buy a big humble pie that you can watch me eating.
I use a marked right turn lane to go straight on on my local bypass every time I get there and there’s more than 3 cars in the queue. I’ll carry on doing that. I’ll report back if I ever get prosecuted and buy a big humble pie that you can watch me eating.
DJames93 said:
So my question is, lets say they were trying to force their way out and forewards, and I hit their o/s doors or front, despite being able to do an emergency stop and prevent it all, who would be to blame? 50/50 as I could have prevented it by taking further action? The other driver as they were in the wrong lane and not giving way? Me entirely?
Regardless of the actions of the other driver - if you could give way and didn't (i.e. saw what was happening and simply failed to brake out of spite/anger whatever) and that resulted in an accident - i'd say the blame lies with you.Highway code says: "Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident."
vonhosen said:
brrapp said:
vonhosen said:
Driven over three arrows & 'TURN LEFT' writing without realising he is in a lane marked for turning left (even whilst following the vehicle in front of him at an appropriate following distance)?
Nose to tail crawling traffic in the approach to a set of traffic lights? Quite easy not to see road markings, especially if you're not familiar with the road layout and you're trying to look ahead to what's coming next. That's why they're only advisory if no additional signage.Jag_luvver said:
vonhosen said:
brrapp said:
vonhosen said:
Driven over three arrows & 'TURN LEFT' writing without realising he is in a lane marked for turning left (even whilst following the vehicle in front of him at an appropriate following distance)?
Nose to tail crawling traffic in the approach to a set of traffic lights? Quite easy not to see road markings, especially if you're not familiar with the road layout and you're trying to look ahead to what's coming next. That's why they're only advisory if no additional signage.Much like if you get on the off slip of a motorway, realise it's not the exit you want, you shouldn't then try to get back on the main carriageway. You go off & then get back on later safely.
You shouldn't compound an error by making an even bigger potentially illegal one.
Countdown said:
mickmcpaddy said:
I fking hate tts like this, they know full well they are in the wrong but are so arrogant they also know 99% of people will just let them in because they are either too timid or dont want the hassle. You can only hope that occasionally they come across someone who gets out and gives them a good pummelling.
I was on the M60 the other day at Simister island going to Leeds, the two lane slip road that goes off to the roundabout was jammed solid, it took about 20 minutes to clear it, the 2 lane motorway going straight on to Bury was clear as a bell, yet I must have counted 50 cars in that 20 minutes that drove right to the front of the queue where the solid chevrons start and just sat stationary in lane 1 going to bury with their left indicator on. The pieces of st didn't give a fk that it was causing hold ups for people going to Bury or that they might get a 40 tonne truck up their arse.
The galling thing was everyone of them was let in within a few seconds because obviously the people letting them in were concerned a big crash was about to happen. There should be a camera on that junction and every one that pulled that manoeuvre should get a 5 year ban.
I know what you mean. I use that road everyday and the twunts who sit in L1 Bury whilst indicating to join the off-slip to join the M62 are going to cause multiple fatalities one day. king hate tts like this, they know full well they are in the wrong but are so arrogant they also know 99% of people will just let them in because they are either too timid or dont want the hassle. You can only hope that occasionally they come across someone who gets out and gives them a good pummelling.I was on the M60 the other day at Simister island going to Leeds, the two lane slip road that goes off to the roundabout was jammed solid, it took about 20 minutes to clear it, the 2 lane motorway going straight on to Bury was clear as a bell, yet I must have counted 50 cars in that 20 minutes that drove right to the front of the queue where the solid chevrons start and just sat stationary in lane 1 going to bury with their left indicator on. The pieces of s
t didn't give a fk that it was causing hold ups for people going to Bury or that they might get a 40 tonne truck up their arse. The galling thing was everyone of them was let in within a few seconds because obviously the people letting them in were concerned a big crash was about to happen. There should be a camera on that junction and every one that pulled that manoeuvre should get a 5 year ban.
The problem is that the sliproad from M60 up to the roundabout has 4 lanes - L1 and L2 joining the M60 Westbound and L3/L4 joining the M62 heading east. L3/L4 are normally empty or there’s enough space for the “Merge in Turn Merchants” to force their way in. It’s rare that they have to block the Northbound L1 to Bury. Still need castrating though....
TooMany2cvs said:
Red Devil said:
These versions may be used only where they indicate the effect of a statutory prohibition (direction 7).
Which isn't the case here, since there are at least two legitimate options at the junction.twister said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Red Devil said:
These versions may be used only where they indicate the effect of a statutory prohibition (direction 7).
Which isn't the case here, since there are at least two legitimate options at the junction.mcg_ said:
twister said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Red Devil said:
These versions may be used only where they indicate the effect of a statutory prohibition (direction 7).
Which isn't the case here, since there are at least two legitimate options at the junction.Not that I'm suggesting every junction such as the OP has highlighted will have an accompanying TRO, but some such junctions - where multiple routes exist out of the junctions but where certain routes are not permitted for vehicles in certain lanes - certainly do have TROs defining exactly these restrictions.
twister said:
No, you'd only need a TRO if you wanted to mandate that traffic in a given lane must only proceed in a given direction, if the nature of the junction might otherwise permit them to proceed in a different direction (as in the OPs example). Most junctions in general therefore wouldn't need anything, and probably most junctions where the painted arrow is accompanied by a "turn left" etc direction would also not need one due to the existence of some other reason why you couldn't go straight/turn right etc.
Not that I'm suggesting every junction such as the OP has highlighted will have an accompanying TRO, but some such junctions - where multiple routes exist out of the junctions but where certain routes are not permitted for vehicles in certain lanes - certainly do have TROs defining exactly these restrictions.
Ultimately though it wouldn't make any difference to how people are currently using the junctionNot that I'm suggesting every junction such as the OP has highlighted will have an accompanying TRO, but some such junctions - where multiple routes exist out of the junctions but where certain routes are not permitted for vehicles in certain lanes - certainly do have TROs defining exactly these restrictions.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff