Dual carriageway or no dual carriageway?

[jchesh]

Cat said:

jchesh said:

'...in which central reservation islands are shaped and located...'

I see nothing in any of this legislation that excludes these types of areas from the definition of 'carriageways separated by a central reservation'. Can someone point towards a piece of legislation or definition which explicitly excludes, in terms of speed limits, areas of single-lane dualling from being classified as dual-carriageway, or which specifies certain sign combinations as defining pieces of road as dual-carriageway and others as not? I would have thought there's a clue in the word 'dualling' as to whether these areas are areas of dual-carriageway.

TSRGD 2016 said:

any permanent work (other than a traffic island) in the carriageway of a road

The legislation is quite clear, islands don't constitute central reservations.

Cat

Cat said:

No, the road in the OP has traffic islands, not a central reservation, so is a 60mph limit.

Cat

But the first quote (which is discussing areas of 'single-lane dualling', which we seem to have defined this stretch as) actually uses the phrase 'central reservation', as you can see! Is there perhaps a distinction between a 'central reservation island' and a 'traffic island'? Where might these terms be defined?

Also, the suggestion that the type of road and therefore the speed limit might be defined by the signage found at the end of the stretch of road in question seems unlikely. With that section of the A5 I cited, if you follow from the roundabout SE of the dual-carriageway section, there is no sign of any kind advising of the change from single to dual carriageway, yet most would agree that the speed limit along this section is 70 mph. There is indeed an 'end of dual-carriageway' warning sign towards the NW end of the stretch but again this hardly is what defines this section as dual-carriageway and therefore as having a 70 mph speed limit. Yes, this section has a longer central reservation than the section of A30 above, and a crash barrier, but I've yet to see clear evidence that the area separating the carriageways in the OP's bit of the A30 is decidedly not a 'central reservation'.

Edited by jchesh on Friday 11th January 09:26

[akirk]

I would be happy to argue that the road linked to by the OP is dual carriageway - long stretches of intersection including grass don't really fall into any known category of traffic island... I suspect you would only get a definitive answer by testing it in court...

however, I think it unlikely that 70 down there would be hugely sensible anyway...
unless completely empty in which case...

[_Hoppers]

Intrigued by this thread.! There's a section of road near York which appears similar in principle to the one in the OP has queried. Leading to the a19 there's a 'Dual Carriageway' sign, I've often wondered if it therefore has a 70mph limit?

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.8708417,-1.04918...

Edited by _Hoppers on Friday 11th January 11:11

[Cat]

jchesh said:

But the first quote (which is discussing areas of 'single-lane dualling', which we seem to have defined this stretch as) actually uses the phrase 'central reservation', as you can see! Is there perhaps a distinction between a 'central reservation island' and a 'traffic island'? Where might these terms be defined?

Also, the suggestion that the type of road and therefore the speed limit might be defined by the signage found at the end of the stretch of road in question seems unlikely. With that section of the A5 I cited, if you follow from the roundabout SE of the dual-carriageway section, there is no sign of any kind advising of the change from single to dual carriageway, yet most would agree that the speed limit along this section is 70 mph. There is indeed an 'end of dual-carriageway' warning sign towards the NW end of the stretch but again this hardly is what defines this section as dual-carriageway and therefore as having a 70 mph speed limit. Yes, this section has a longer central reservation and a crash barrier, but I've yet to see clear evidence that the area separating the carriageways in the OP's bit of the A30 is decidedly not a 'central reservation'.

The terms "single lane dualling" and "central reservation island" are not referred to in the legislation so relying on them to support your position is pointless.

As stated previously the legislation does not define a traffic island. However the fact that it does specifically exclude them being a central reservation clearly indicates that not all areas seperating lanes are a central reservation.

I've not suggested that signs at the end of a stretch of road define it, that is a strawman you've come up with. What I suggested was stretches of road which are dual carriageway should, according to chapter 4 of the Traffic Signs Manual, have warning signs at the end of them, stretches that aren't shouldn't. The presence or absence of such signs is a good indicator as to whether not a particular stretch of road is dual or single carriageway.

Cat

[jchesh]

Cat said:

The terms "single lane dualling" and "central reservation island" are not referred to in the legislation so relying on them to support your position is pointless.

They are both mentioned in this http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards... cited earlier by Riley Blue, as follows: '1.16 Single Lane Dualling. An at-grade junction, usually a T- or staggered junction, within which central reservation islands are shaped and located so as to direct traffic movement (Fig 1/3).' [my highlighting]

Cat said:

As stated previously the legislation does not define a traffic island. However the fact that it does specifically exclude them being a central reservation clearly indicates that not all areas seperating lanes are a central reservation.

I've not suggested that signs at the end of a stretch of road define it, that is a strawman you've come up with. What I suggested was stretches of road which are dual carriageway should, according to chapter 4 of the Traffic Signs Manual, have warning signs at the end of them, stretches that aren't shouldn't. The presence or absence of such signs is a good indicator as to whether not a particular stretch of road is dual or single carriageway.

Cat

Have I misunderstood you here then:

Cat said:

If it was a dual carriageway the warning signs would be for end of dual carriageway not as they are for 2 way traffic.

Edited by jchesh on Friday 11th January 10:13

[Graveworm]

It it's unclear after all this, would it ever be fair for a court or the CPS to prosecute under 70. I would treat it as a dual carriageway. I imagine the clever software in my car would as well if I ever drove down there.

[jamei303]

Cat said:

The terms "single lane dualling" and "central reservation island" are not referred to in the legislation so relying on them to support your position is pointless.

As stated previously the legislation does not define a traffic island. However the fact that it does specifically exclude them being a central reservation clearly indicates that not all areas seperating lanes are a central reservation.

I've not suggested that signs at the end of a stretch of road define it, that is a strawman you've come up with. What I suggested was stretches of road which are dual carriageway should, according to chapter 4 of the Traffic Signs Manual, have warning signs at the end of them, stretches that aren't shouldn't. The presence or absence of such signs is a good indicator as to whether not a particular stretch of road is dual or single carriageway.

Cat

"island" is however defined for other purposes, in the The Highways (Traffic Calming) Regulations 1993 it means "a work without facilities for pedestrians constructed in a carriageway to reduce carriageway width or to deflect the flow of vehicular traffic".

Given that earlier definition of island, if you were to ask whether parliament intended that the central area in the OP be regarded as "land" or a "traffic island" for the purposes of TSRGD 2016 I would have to conclude that it was a traffic island.

[jchesh]

jamei303 said:

Given that earlier definition of island, if you were to ask whether parliament intended that the central area in the OP be regarded as "land" or a "traffic island" for the purposes of TSRGD 2016 I would have to conclude that it was a traffic island.

...or a 'central reservation island'?

[syl]

Cat said:

What I suggested was stretches of road which are dual carriageway should, according to chapter 4 of the Traffic Signs Manual, have warning signs at the end of them, stretches that aren't shouldn't. The presence or absence of such signs is a good indicator as to whether not a particular stretch of road is dual or single carriageway.

Cat

That may be useful if we could all see into the future and know what was at the other end of the road before we travelled down it.

[anonymous-user]

Sounds like a lot of hair splitting.

I did a SAC a few years ago and the "host" spelt out a dual carriageway is anwhere where oppsing lanes are seperated by "something" - grass, hedge, kerbs, etc. He did this as lots of people assume that single lane DCs are not DCs as people (and I used to) assume the "dual" bit refers to two lanes in each direction.

Going by what he told me, the pic in the OP is of a DC - dual carriagways.

I also "assumed" that the signs saying "Dual Carriageway in 1 mile" were not there to spell out they type of road ahead, but to let drivers know there would be overtaking opportunities ahead (i.e. no need to overtake until you get there)

[littlebasher]

On the A17 towards Kings Lynn, they get round this by posting a 60 limit where the road gains a central reservation. It then goes back to the national speed limit where it goes back to single carriageway.

[jchesh]

A little bit of searching reveals a number of similar threads on here about more or less the same question, i.e. 'when does a traffic island become a central reservation'? E.g. https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&... . It appears that while 'central reservation' is legally defined, 'traffic island' is not and so there is a grey area. It also appears to have been established that 'Dual carriageway ahead' signs and the end-of-dual-carriageway symbols are advisory and not mandatory for a section of road to be classed as a dual carriageway.

I maintain that it is worth considering the wording in the Standards for Highways PDF mentioned above, which uses the phrase 'central reservation islands' when talking about Single Lane Dualling. The word 'dualling' is also pertinent. What is being 'dualled'? The carriageway. What does that make it? A dual carriageway. What is it 'dualled' by? 'Central reservation islands'.

Edited by jchesh on Friday 11th January 12:24

[Derek Smith]

One should be careful of trying to interpret legislation by definitions of words.

All one can say is that if there's no case law to define it, it's open to interpretation.

[jamei303]

The question is whether the speed limit should be 60 or 70.

This is specified in the "The 70 miles per hour, 60 miles per hour and 50 miles per hour (Temporary Speed Limit) Order 1977" but I can't find a copy of it.

According to the "The 70 miles per hour, 60 miles per hour and 50 miles per hour (Temporary Speed Limit) (Continuation) Order 1978" which made the above order permanent, the 1977 order specified "a general speed limit of 70 mph on dual carriageway roads (not being motorways), a general speed limit of 60 mph on single carriageway roads (not being motorways) and speed limits of 60 mph on certain specified dual carriageway roads and of 50 mph on certain specified single carriageway roads"

Perhaps the 1977 order might make things clearer. For example is there a difference between a road which is a dual carriageway road, and a road which is a single carriageway road containing a short segment in which the carriageway is divided?

Also what are the "certain specified dual carriageway roads" with a speed limit of 60mph?

[Centurion07]

jchesh said:

A little bit of searching reveals a number of similar threads on here about more or less the same question, i.e. 'when does a traffic island become a central reservation'? E.g. https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&... . It appears that while 'central reservation' is legally defined, 'traffic island' is not and so there is a grey area. It also appears to have been established that 'Dual carriageway ahead' signs and the end-of-dual-carriageway symbols are advisory and not mandatory for a section of road to be classed as a dual carriageway.

I maintain that it is worth considering the wording in the Standards for Highways PDF mentioned above, which uses the phrase 'central reservation islands' when talking about Single Lane Dualling. The word 'dualling' is also pertinent. What is being 'dualled'? The carriageway. What does that make it? A dual carriageway. What is it 'dualled' by? 'Central reservation islands'.

Edited by jchesh on Friday 11th January 12:24

I'm with this^ guy.

[Swervin_Mervin]

jchesh said:

Cat said:

The terms "single lane dualling" and "central reservation island" are not referred to in the legislation so relying on them to support your position is pointless.

They are both mentioned in this http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards... cited earlier by Riley Blue, as follows: '1.16 Single Lane Dualling. An at-grade junction, usually a T- or staggered junction, within which central reservation islands are shaped and located so as to direct traffic movement (Fig 1/3).' [my highlighting]

Cat said:

As stated previously the legislation does not define a traffic island. However the fact that it does specifically exclude them being a central reservation clearly indicates that not all areas seperating lanes are a central reservation.

I've not suggested that signs at the end of a stretch of road define it, that is a strawman you've come up with. What I suggested was stretches of road which are dual carriageway should, according to chapter 4 of the Traffic Signs Manual, have warning signs at the end of them, stretches that aren't shouldn't. The presence or absence of such signs is a good indicator as to whether not a particular stretch of road is dual or single carriageway.

Cat

Have I misunderstood you here then:

Cat said:

If it was a dual carriageway the warning signs would be for end of dual carriageway not as they are for 2 way traffic.

Edited by jchesh on Friday 11th January 10:13

They key terminology there would be central reservation island. They are islands to direct and protect turning traffic, they're just a bit bigger than at most junctions.

Setting all of the questions aside of whether this is a grey area, ask yourself this; applying some common sense, why would national design standards and the legal framework promote junction arrangements which would actually lead to a speed limit increase through a junction, when those measures are designed to enhance protection for drivers using the junction. It would make no sense - yes do 60 on this bit, but you can go up to 70 through this junction...

[Swervin_Mervin]

jchesh said:

A little bit of searching reveals a number of similar threads on here about more or less the same question, i.e. 'when does a traffic island become a central reservation'? E.g. https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&... . It appears that while 'central reservation' is legally defined, 'traffic island' is not and so there is a grey area. It also appears to have been established that 'Dual carriageway ahead' signs and the end-of-dual-carriageway symbols are advisory and not mandatory for a section of road to be classed as a dual carriageway.

I maintain that it is worth considering the wording in the Standards for Highways PDF mentioned above, which uses the phrase 'central reservation islands' when talking about Single Lane Dualling. The word 'dualling' is also pertinent. What is being 'dualled'? The carriageway. What does that make it? A dual carriageway. What is it 'dualled' by? 'Central reservation islands'.

Edited by jchesh on Friday 11th January 12:24

To add, the standards also make it fairly clear that single lane dualling is not full D2AP dual carriageway dualling.

[the tribester]

RogerDodger said:

Sounds like a lot of hair splitting.

I did a SAC a few years ago and the "host" spelt out a dual carriageway is anwhere where oppsing lanes are seperated by "something" - grass, hedge, kerbs, etc. He did this as lots of people assume that single lane DCs are not DCs as people (and I used to) assume the "dual" bit refers to two lanes in each direction.

Going by what he told me, the pic in the OP is of a DC - dual carriagways.

I also "assumed" that the signs saying "Dual Carriageway in 1 mile" were not there to spell out they type of road ahead, but to let drivers know there would be overtaking opportunities ahead (i.e. no need to overtake until you get there)

That's completely the boat I was in, I always went by the 'dual carraigeway is at least two lanes in each direction seperated by a central res' and therefore for the OPs original picture posting I would have said the speed limit for a car to be 60.

Now I've seen the actual definition does not include the 'two lanes in each direction', I'll have to speed up a bit!

[mac96]

Given that this thread has been debated since last night (by people with an interest in the subject) without reaching agreement, it would seem grossly unfair to a random driver to penalise them for exceeding the speed limit, assuming their speed was under 70mph.
Surely should have 60mph signs if that is the intention. I am not saying 'according to regulation X, there should be a sign'- I am saying you can't expect anyone to know what the limit is otherwise.

[Swervin_Mervin]

mac96 said:

Given that this thread has been debated since last night (by people with an interest in the subject) without reaching agreement, it would seem grossly unfair to a random driver to penalise them for exceeding the speed limit, assuming their speed was under 70mph.
Surely should have 60mph signs if that is the intention. I am not saying 'according to regulation X, there should be a sign'- I am saying you can't expect anyone to know what the limit is otherwise.

Doesn't seem unfair to me to penalise people for a lack of basic common sense.