Speed limit on dual carriageway (single lane)
Discussion
tvrgit said:
andyroo said:
You said it wasn't a physical restriction - I showed you the design guide that shows it is.
I might add that this is my job
Don't think anybody is arguing with you. Streaky's point as I understand it is that you DON'T need a fence etc as a physical restriction to prevent you driving over it - it's the physical separation (by distance) that matters in defining a dual carriageway.I might add that this is my job
And yes, it's my job too...
F i F said:
tvrgit said:
andyroo said:
You said it wasn't a physical restriction - I showed you the design guide that shows it is.
I might add that this is my job
Don't think anybody is arguing with you. Streaky's point as I understand it is that you DON'T need a fence etc as a physical restriction to prevent you driving over it - it's the physical separation (by distance) that matters in defining a dual carriageway.I might add that this is my job
And yes, it's my job too...
andyroo said:
F i F said:
tvrgit said:
andyroo said:
You said it wasn't a physical restriction - I showed you the design guide that shows it is.
I might add that this is my job
Don't think anybody is arguing with you. Streaky's point as I understand it is that you DON'T need a fence etc as a physical restriction to prevent you driving over it - it's the physical separation (by distance) that matters in defining a dual carriageway.I might add that this is my job
And yes, it's my job too...
Re DMRB, we've had this discussion before, you can quote DMRB till you are blue in the face, it has no legal standing in this particular discussion. Yes if you are doing a new construction or works you have to work to it or apply for a deviation, but many roads have been built to earlier revisions of DMRB and even before it existed.
Quoting detailed civil eng stuff from that document confuses the issue even more especially to people with a low level of understanding.
Edited to add, what do you mean by "You won't find something as easy to drive over as just a level strip of grass" ??
Frankly, that statement is difficult to accept as being written by someone who claims this to be their job.
Edited by F i F on Thursday 11th November 16:33
F i F said:
andyroo said:
F i F said:
tvrgit said:
andyroo said:
You said it wasn't a physical restriction - I showed you the design guide that shows it is.
I might add that this is my job
Don't think anybody is arguing with you. Streaky's point as I understand it is that you DON'T need a fence etc as a physical restriction to prevent you driving over it - it's the physical separation (by distance) that matters in defining a dual carriageway.I might add that this is my job
And yes, it's my job too...
Re DMRB, we've had this discussion before, you can quote DMRB till you are blue in the face, it has no legal standing in this particular discussion. Yes if you are doing a new construction or works you have to work to it or apply for a deviation, but many roads have been built to earlier revisions of DMRB and even before it existed.
Quoting detailed civil eng stuff from that document confuses the issue even more especially to people with a low level of understanding.
Edited to add, what do you mean by "You won't find something as easy to drive over as just a level strip of grass" ??
Frankly, that statement is difficult to accept as being written by someone who claims this to be their job.
Edited by F i F on Thursday 11th November 16:33
You find it difficult to accept that upping the design speed of a road requires deflection from a central reserve to prevent a head on collision at a potential combined speed of 140mph?
If you are question the honesty of my posts, then there's little point me going on really. I'm not sure how you expect a civil engineer to express himself, I don't know why you expect me to conform to your stereotype. Your post also seems quite aggressive for some reason.
andyroo said:
F i F said:
andyroo said:
F i F said:
tvrgit said:
andyroo said:
You said it wasn't a physical restriction - I showed you the design guide that shows it is.
I might add that this is my job
Don't think anybody is arguing with you. Streaky's point as I understand it is that you DON'T need a fence etc as a physical restriction to prevent you driving over it - it's the physical separation (by distance) that matters in defining a dual carriageway.I might add that this is my job
And yes, it's my job too...
Re DMRB, we've had this discussion before, you can quote DMRB till you are blue in the face, it has no legal standing in this particular discussion. Yes if you are doing a new construction or works you have to work to it or apply for a deviation, but many roads have been built to earlier revisions of DMRB and even before it existed.
Quoting detailed civil eng stuff from that document confuses the issue even more especially to people with a low level of understanding.
Edited to add, what do you mean by "You won't find something as easy to drive over as just a level strip of grass" ??
Frankly, that statement is difficult to accept as being written by someone who claims this to be their job.
Edited by F i F on Thursday 11th November 16:33
You find it difficult to accept that upping the design speed of a road requires deflection from a central reserve to prevent a head on collision at a potential combined speed of 140mph?
If you are question the honesty of my posts, then there's little point me going on really. I'm not sure how you expect a civil engineer to express himself, I don't know why you expect me to conform to your stereotype. Your post also seems quite aggressive for some reason.
The whole context of the thread is purely from a legal basis, if you weren't aware of that then you've missed the most basic element of the discussion.
DMRB makes a definition of sorts from a civil end persepective and is the guidelines, but has no standing in the law relating to whether a road is a DC or not. I can't say that any more clearly.
Your second paragraph in your latest answer I have no idea where you get that idea from, I have made no comment about that.
I'm not questioning the honesty of your posts in the slightest. I expressed an opinion that I found it difficult to understand how an engineer who claims this to be his job could make the statement "You won't find something as easy to drive over as just a level strip of grass"
I asked you what you meant by that, but it's not been answered.
As the nesting would be rather long, I'll reply without quoting the above discussion.
As some have pointed out, my issue was with the use of the word 'barrier'. A barrier is something that bars ... in the case of a central reservation, a barrier would serve to avoid or mitigate conflict between opposing vehicles.
A reasonably flat grass central reservation is not a barrier. However, a berm or haha might serve such a function.
By definition, a dual carriageway requires a physical separation between the carriageways, not a physical barrier.
Perhaps there's confusion in some minds regarding the meaning of certain words, or maybe it's just casualness in the use of terminology.
Streaky
As some have pointed out, my issue was with the use of the word 'barrier'. A barrier is something that bars ... in the case of a central reservation, a barrier would serve to avoid or mitigate conflict between opposing vehicles.
A reasonably flat grass central reservation is not a barrier. However, a berm or haha might serve such a function.
By definition, a dual carriageway requires a physical separation between the carriageways, not a physical barrier.
Perhaps there's confusion in some minds regarding the meaning of certain words, or maybe it's just casualness in the use of terminology.
Streaky
streaky said:
As the nesting would be rather long, I'll reply without quoting the above discussion.
As some have pointed out, my issue was with the use of the word 'barrier'. A barrier is something that bars ... in the case of a central reservation, a barrier would serve to avoid or mitigate conflict between opposing vehicles.
A reasonably flat grass central reservation is not a barrier. However, a berm or haha might serve such a function.
By definition, a dual carriageway requires a physical separation between the carriageways, not a physical barrier.
Perhaps there's confusion in some minds regarding the meaning of certain words, or maybe it's just casualness in the use of terminology.
Streaky
The DMRB is useful because it does set out where armco or other safety fencing should be used, as I said earlier. However, I do not think that the DMRB is all that relevant to a discussion of what is legally a dual carriageway and what is not. The legal distinction, relevant to the setting of speed limits, has already been covered several times in this thread.As some have pointed out, my issue was with the use of the word 'barrier'. A barrier is something that bars ... in the case of a central reservation, a barrier would serve to avoid or mitigate conflict between opposing vehicles.
A reasonably flat grass central reservation is not a barrier. However, a berm or haha might serve such a function.
By definition, a dual carriageway requires a physical separation between the carriageways, not a physical barrier.
Perhaps there's confusion in some minds regarding the meaning of certain words, or maybe it's just casualness in the use of terminology.
Streaky
I completely agree with Streaky that the difficulty seems to be peoples interpretation of this "physical separation". Look again at the quote from TSRGD It says "central reservation" means -
(a) any land between the carriageways of a road comprising two carriageways; or
(b) any permanent work (other than a traffic island) in the carriageway of a road,
The only confusion there is "what is a traffic island", and I don't think there is a legal definition. I do know that what was INTENDED was that one of those little double D islands for pedestrians to cross at, on a single carriageway road, didn't make that short length past the island (about 6 metres long or so) a dual carriageway.
There is nothing there, anywhere, that says the central reservation has to be kerbed, or have a fence on it. Under (a) it's just a bit of land between the carriageways. It can be grassed, stone chips, treacle, it fdoesn't matter. Under (b), it COULD BE a barrier (like those concrete deflection barriers shown earlier) but it doesn't HAVE TO be - (a) on its own, as per my photo posted this morning, is still a central reservation, making the road a dual carriageway.
Forget about the need for barriers or anything else to prevent traffic driving over it - while that is sensible, and indeed recommended in design guidance, it is not the legal distinction as to what is or is not a dual carriageway.
It's perfectly simple - all one carriageway with traffic going in both directions (regardless of the road markings separating the traffic)? Single carriageway.
Traffic separated by something that isn't carriageway (either flat land or a barrier)? Dual carriageway.
Edited by tvrgit on Thursday 11th November 18:26
andyroo said:
I don't understand why you don't understand about the purpose of a central reserve.
So forget it.
I understand completely about the [i]purpose[/i[ of a central reserve.So forget it.
What I don't understand is what you meant by, and I quote it and ask you to clarify for the third time, "You won't find something as easy to drive over as just a level strip of grass."
I also don't understand why you will not answer that request for a simple clarification.
I must be unable to understand basic English, unless there is some unstated conditional to that sentence. For example you meant to say "You won't find something as easy to drive over as just a level strip of grass on any road constructed after 19xx." or something in a similar vein.
While we are on the subject of not understanding I also don't understand why you are not able to understand the difference between what the statute law says, and the legal difference of a set of design rules for new constructions.
You clearly know your stuff, so it leads me to conclude I must be misunderstanding something fundamental about what you are saying and why.
The reason people are being grumpy about this is because some of us have had this repetitive and circular discussion several times a month for about 6/7 years now, and it's wearing a bit thin when, as several other posters have mentioned, people come on here and post utter tripe phrased in a very authoritative way.
What you have posted is factually correct and accurate as far as I can see. It is however almost totally irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion on the legal standing.
hth
tvrgit said:
The only confusion there is "what is a traffic island", and I don't think there is a legal definition. I do know that what was INTENDED was that one of those little double D islands for pedestrians to cross at, on a single carriageway road, didn't make that short length past the island (about 6 metres long or so) a dual carriageway.
Agreed, and the corollary of that is where there is a gap in the central reserve, does that then automatically revert to SC status for the few yards of the gap.Back to A449 in Worcestershire, subject of the OP.
Junction A449 gap in central reserve
Plus it can be more than a few yards, further South.
A449 gap in central reserve
Opinions?
F i F said:
streaky said:
"Where am I?" asked the lost balloonist.
"In a balloon." answered the PH contributor.
Streaky
"In a balloon." answered the PH contributor.
Streaky
"In a basket suspended from a balloon. EFA" answered a second PH contributor.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff