Dual carriageway or no dual carriageway?
Discussion
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.
As these ‘single lane duallings’ would appear to be short in length, I doubt a speed camera would be set up there - but....?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 said:
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...
Yes I quite agree with this. As I said early on I'd be unlikely to be doing 70 through the area in the OP, in a car or on my bike. Nevertheless, I'm finding this an interesting discussion.Swervin_Mervin said:
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.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.
If you are saying that it would not be sensible to drive at 70mph due to the hazards, I'd agree with you. Thread is not really about that though-its about the speed limit.
Swervin_Mervin said:
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.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.
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.
There are plenty of traffic situations where you need to make a diversion to the local highways authority headquarters and trawl through paper Traffic Regulation Orders in their basement archives before being sure of being able to proceed legally. That similar should occur with national traffic law is no surprise. How many people stop at South Mimms to peruse the The M25 Motorway (Junctions 23 to 27) (Variable Speed Limits) Regulations 2013Surely 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.
jamei303 said:
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.
There are plenty of traffic situations where you need to make a diversion to the local highways authority headquarters and trawl through paper Traffic Regulation Orders in their basement archives before being sure of being able to proceed legally. That similar should occur with national traffic law is no surprise. How many people stop at South Mimms to peruse the The M25 Motorway (Junctions 23 to 27) (Variable Speed Limits) Regulations 2013Surely 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.
_Hoppers said:
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...
I looked at the OP’s stated location, and yes there is no ‘dual carriageway starts’ nor ‘dual carriageway ends’ at either end, but...what if a motorist joins from a side road? (Ignoring the fact that they would be unlikely to reach 70 by the time it changes to a single carriageway). Would a lack of indication signs that you are joining a dual-carriageway be a clue? When is it necessary to indicate that, from a side road, you are joining a dual carriageway? (It is not indicated from the side road in this location OP has chosen).https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.8708417,-1.04918...
Edited by _Hoppers on Friday 11th January 11:11
To add to the general confusion as you enter the OPs dual carriageway, there is a keep left sign in the middle on the start of the reservation(OK) but a two way sign on the far right verge, which could be taken to mean that the right hand (oncoming) carriageway is itself two way. I know you would have to be an idiot to think that, but they are out there.
Really seems to be a bit of an issue with a lack of appropriate signs to deal with this unusual road design.
edit- confusion not conclusion
Really seems to be a bit of an issue with a lack of appropriate signs to deal with this unusual road design.
edit- confusion not conclusion
jamei303 said:
Signs are immaterial here. When I leave my driveway I don't see a "single carriageway ahead" letting me know I can't drive at 70mph. The limits are based on the nature of the road.
No, the ‘nature’ of the road (whether understood fully or confusedly) is the whole nub of the discussion!!!RogerDodger said:
Swervin_Mervin said:
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.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.
)GC8 said:
Swervin_Mervin said:
It's single lane dualling. It's not d/c. Limit is 60.
I agree on the speed, but not the definition. Dual carriage way means two carriageways and has nothing to do with the number of lanes. Swervin_Mervin said:
GC8 said:
Swervin_Mervin said:
It's single lane dualling. It's not d/c. Limit is 60.
I agree on the speed, but not the definition. Dual carriage way means two carriageways and has nothing to do with the number of lanes. I think people are over analysing it.
Everyone agrees there is a physical barrier so the question is is it a dual carriageway? It is a dual carriageway (as physical barrier) unless it is a traffic island. Look at the junction and you will see the right turn, go further and you see a corresponding right turn for the other direction which is now not in use. The whole strip is a traffic island to provide physical separation for traffic turning right in either direction (but only one now remains valid). Speed limit 60 (for cars etc)
Everyone agrees there is a physical barrier so the question is is it a dual carriageway? It is a dual carriageway (as physical barrier) unless it is a traffic island. Look at the junction and you will see the right turn, go further and you see a corresponding right turn for the other direction which is now not in use. The whole strip is a traffic island to provide physical separation for traffic turning right in either direction (but only one now remains valid). Speed limit 60 (for cars etc)
redjohn said:
I think people are over analysing it.
Everyone agrees there is a physical barrier so the question is is it a dual carriageway? It is a dual carriageway (as physical barrier) unless it is a traffic island. Look at the junction and you will see the right turn, go further and you see a corresponding right turn for the other direction which is now not in use. The whole strip is a traffic island to provide physical separation for traffic turning right in either direction (but only one now remains valid). Speed limit 60 (for cars etc)
Is this a traffic island? https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.0505915,-0.00203...Everyone agrees there is a physical barrier so the question is is it a dual carriageway? It is a dual carriageway (as physical barrier) unless it is a traffic island. Look at the junction and you will see the right turn, go further and you see a corresponding right turn for the other direction which is now not in use. The whole strip is a traffic island to provide physical separation for traffic turning right in either direction (but only one now remains valid). Speed limit 60 (for cars etc)
Edited by jamei303 on Friday 11th January 15:19
jamei303 said:
redjohn said:
I think people are over analysing it.
Everyone agrees there is a physical barrier so the question is is it a dual carriageway? It is a dual carriageway (as physical barrier) unless it is a traffic island. Look at the junction and you will see the right turn, go further and you see a corresponding right turn for the other direction which is now not in use. The whole strip is a traffic island to provide physical separation for traffic turning right in either direction (but only one now remains valid). Speed limit 60 (for cars etc)
Is this a traffic island? https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.049923,0.0025759...Everyone agrees there is a physical barrier so the question is is it a dual carriageway? It is a dual carriageway (as physical barrier) unless it is a traffic island. Look at the junction and you will see the right turn, go further and you see a corresponding right turn for the other direction which is now not in use. The whole strip is a traffic island to provide physical separation for traffic turning right in either direction (but only one now remains valid). Speed limit 60 (for cars etc)
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff