Speed limit on dual carriageway (single lane)

[Puff the magic..]

STW2010 said:

tvrgit said:

By saying "trying to sound as if they do" I thought it was clear that it was the impression I was talking about, not the exact wording. In any case, you can say whatever you like, just like many who spout utter ste as if it was gospel... Just don't get all touchy when somebody who DOES know, says something different.

I haven't got a problem with being proved wrong. In fact, in this case I'm pleasantly suprised that I was wrong and I have now learned something.

But what I don't like is getting a condenscending reply such as 'rubbish! how many times do we have to explain this'. It hasn't been explained to me before- if it had been then such a response would have been deserved.

Edited by STW2010 on Wednesday 10th November 14:24

Is saying someone is writing "rubbish" condescending? I rather think it is the opposite.

Perhaps if he wrote something like "well I appreciate you could be correct but I think your view may be a slightly incorrect there" would be condescending. Writing "it's rubbish" isn't condescending in the least.

So if you do not wish to be patronized, you have exactly the answer you appear to want when he wrote "rubbish"!

So to avoid being condescending and to acquiesce to your wishes (spelt right) "you are writing rubbish mate and your spellinks crap".

Hang on! If I acquiesce I can't use my last phrase.......................hmmmmm

[tony russell]

For the record and i have nothing to back this up, single lane 60, 2 or more lanes 70.
The single lane must be separated from the other side by a reservation

[vonhosen]

Red Devil said:

Something else my instructor drummed into me. Being allowed to drive is a privilege not a right. Judging by what I see on a daily basis, this doesn't seem to be part of the teaching process nowadays. It's yet another symptom of the general dumbing down of standards. I am no paragon but I do understand that the privilege can be removed if I demonstrate that I no longer deserve it.

Actually it's more like a right than a privilege & it can't be removed just because somebody thinks you no longer deserve it (it can through convictions resulting from offending though).

[rs1952]

vonhosen said:

Red Devil said:

Something else my instructor drummed into me. Being allowed to drive is a privilege not a right. Judging by what I see on a daily basis, this doesn't seem to be part of the teaching process nowadays. It's yet another symptom of the general dumbing down of standards. I am no paragon but I do understand that the privilege can be removed if I demonstrate that I no longer deserve it.

Actually it's more like a right than a privilege & it can't be removed just because somebody thinks you no longer deserve it (it can through convictions resulting from offending though).

I'm sure if I trawled through your umpteen thousand posts I'd find one where you previously said driving was a privilege not a right. I'm pretty sure I've seen you post along those lines on more than one occasion

[vonhosen]

rs1952 said:

vonhosen said:

Red Devil said:

Something else my instructor drummed into me. Being allowed to drive is a privilege not a right. Judging by what I see on a daily basis, this doesn't seem to be part of the teaching process nowadays. It's yet another symptom of the general dumbing down of standards. I am no paragon but I do understand that the privilege can be removed if I demonstrate that I no longer deserve it.

Actually it's more like a right than a privilege & it can't be removed just because somebody thinks you no longer deserve it (it can through convictions resulting from offending though).

I'm sure if I trawled through your umpteen thousand posts I'd find one where you previously said driving was a privilege not a right. I'm pretty sure I've seen you post along those lines on more than one occasion

Feel free.

[Red Devil]

tony russell said:

For the record and i have nothing to back this up, single lane 60, 2 or more lanes 70.
The single lane must be separated from the other side by a reservation

I recommend some Red Bull...

Am I allowed to say that or is it considered advertising?

vonhosen said:

Red Devil said:

Something else my instructor drummed into me. Being allowed to drive is a privilege not a right. Judging by what I see on a daily basis, this doesn't seem to be part of the teaching process nowadays. It's yet another symptom of the general dumbing down of standards. I am no paragon but I do understand that the privilege can be removed if I demonstrate that I no longer deserve it.

Actually it's more like a right than a privilege & it can't be removed just because somebody thinks you no longer deserve it (it can through convictions resulting from offending though).

I can see where you're coming from. The licence grants the right to drive certain classes of vehicle. With rights come responsibilities. Something that seems to be forgotten nowadays. How often do we hear the mantra "I know my rights!" trotted out?

I'm not sure I understand your reference to 'somebody thinks'. By demonstrate I meant that my behaviour had been observed by BiB or if not my actions had an outcome from which it could be deduced that a prosecution would be warranted. AIUI the technology now available means that AIB can do some very clever stuff.

[catman]

A dual carriageway can have just 0ne lane on either side, but it's still 70! Assuming a national speed limit sign, of course.

Tim

[Puff the magic..]

A carriageway can have a number of lanes.

A single carriageway can have 2 lanes for instance, each lane carrying vehicles in opposing directions.

A single carriageway can have 3 lanes, 2 in one direction one in the opposing direction. There are some single carriageway roads that have 3 lanes with one for each direction and one in the centre for either direction. They should. in my opinion, be supplied with body-bag depositories at the sides at regular intervals.

A single carriageway can have 4 lanes with 2 lanes on each side carrying traffic in opposing directions.

All single carriageway roads with whatever number of lanes have a maximum possible speed limit at NSL of 60mph for cars and motorcycles.

When a road is split into 2 CARRIAGEWAYS by a central reserve of some sort the carriageways carrying traffic in opposing directions the NSL becomes 70mph for cars and motorcycles. It matters not how many lanes each carriageway has the maximum speed limit at NSL is 70mph not 60mph.

[Puff the magic..]

catman said:

A dual carriageway can have just 0ne lane on either side, but it's still 70! Assuming a national speed limit sign, of course.

Tim

The NSL is only signed at the end of a restriction.

There will be no repeater signs along the length of the road when NSL applies, they are not allowed.

[streaky]

tony russell said:

For the record and i have nothing to back this up, single lane 60, 2 or more lanes 70.
The single lane must be separated from the other side by a reservation

The number of lanes is immaterial, it's the number of carriageways that matters and the absence of a numerically signed limit - Streaky

[Dr Jekyll]

Puff the magic.. said:

All single carriageway roads with whatever number of lanes have a maximum possible speed limit at NSL of 60mph for cars and motorcycles.

Unless it's a motorway, in which case the maximum possible limit is 70 irrespective of the number of carriageways.

[Puff the magic..]

tony russell said:

For the record and i have nothing to back this up, single lane 60, 2 or more lanes 70.
The single lane must be separated from the other side by a reservation

Are you confusing a LANE with a CARRIAGEWAY?

They are not the same.

[Puff the magic..]

Dr Jekyll said:

Puff the magic.. said:

All single carriageway roads with whatever number of lanes have a maximum possible speed limit at NSL of 60mph for cars and motorcycles.

Unless it's a motorway, in which case the maximum possible limit is 70 irrespective of the number of carriageways.

Well that raises an interesting point.

Would a carriageway carrying 2 lanes of traffic in the same direction that is not a motorway or otherwise restricted have an NSL of 70mph?

[saaby93]

Puff the magic.. said:

Are you confusing a LANE with a CARRIAGEWAY?

They are not the same.

or a road
another one for tvrgit's wiki

road is from hedge to hedge including verge and ditches
highway is the higher way inbetween that's usually tarmaced and becomes a carriageway
a carriageway can be divided into lanes
Is that close?

[rs1952]

Puff the magic.. said:

The NSL is only signed at the end of a restriction.

There will be no repeater signs along the length of the road when NSL applies, they are not allowed.

Unless there is a system of street lighting in place, when they are allowed.

I have also seen cases of NSL repeaters coupled with camera warning signs. Whether they are legal or not I have no idea, but they are in use.

[Efbe]

There are alot of theories being touted as fact in this thread, so just trying to get a correct steer here.

Where in either the highway code or Road Traffic Regulation Act does it say a dual carriageway has to be separated by a physical barrier?
Also where does it say a dual carriage way can have one lane on each side?

Not arguing, just want to find out.

[saaby93]

crops up regularly- see half way down for regs
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[Efbe]

saaby93 said:

crops up regularly- see half way down for regs
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

thanks for that. though it doesn't actually definitively answer either question. I now understand why there is so much confusion over what constitutes a central reservation. I for one thought, and still think, solid white lines with hatchings is such a thing, but I can see why this may not hold up in court, so will be more careful in future in these instances.

now then to my other question. 99% of the nation believe that a dual carriageway is a four laned road, two going each way. Now I can't find it in the highway code anywhere that this is the case,but it does kind of imply it by talking about 2 lanes, 3 lanes but not 1 lanes per direction.

so if I am driving along a normal NSL A-road with 2 lanes,1 each way. which then splits up due a tunnel, and each lane goes through the tunnel separately. Does this then become a dual carriageway.
If this is the case, then would not a lot of bridges around the country come under this?

[Hooli]

Efbe said:

saaby93 said:

crops up regularly- see half way down for regs
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

thanks for that. though it doesn't actually definitively answer either question. I now understand why there is so much confusion over what constitutes a central reservation. I for one thought, and still think, solid white lines with hatchings is such a thing, but I can see why this may not hold up in court, so will be more careful in future in these instances.

now then to my other question. 99% of the nation believe that a dual carriageway is a four laned road, two going each way. Now I can't find it in the highway code anywhere that this is the case,but it does kind of imply it by talking about 2 lanes, 3 lanes but not 1 lanes per direction.

so if I am driving along a normal NSL A-road with 2 lanes,1 each way. which then splits up due a tunnel, and each lane goes through the tunnel separately. Does this then become a dual carriageway.
If this is the case, then would not a lot of bridges around the country come under this?

Firstly its in the highway code as shown on the first page the thread. It states something like a dual carriageway has a physical barrier between the traffic going in opposing directions & doesn't mention the number of lanes.

Tunnels normally have speed limit signs do they not? I'm pretty sure they do to my memory at least.

Only if the bridge had a support between the opposing flows of traffic & then it wouldn't be a single carriageway.

[Efbe]

Hooli said:

Efbe said:

saaby93 said:

crops up regularly- see half way down for regs
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

thanks for that. though it doesn't actually definitively answer either question. I now understand why there is so much confusion over what constitutes a central reservation. I for one thought, and still think, solid white lines with hatchings is such a thing, but I can see why this may not hold up in court, so will be more careful in future in these instances.

now then to my other question. 99% of the nation believe that a dual carriageway is a four laned road, two going each way. Now I can't find it in the highway code anywhere that this is the case,but it does kind of imply it by talking about 2 lanes, 3 lanes but not 1 lanes per direction.

so if I am driving along a normal NSL A-road with 2 lanes,1 each way. which then splits up due a tunnel, and each lane goes through the tunnel separately. Does this then become a dual carriageway.
If this is the case, then would not a lot of bridges around the country come under this?

Firstly its in the highway code as shown on the first page the thread. It states something like a dual carriageway has a physical barrier between the traffic going in opposing directions & doesn't mention the number of lanes.

Tunnels normally have speed limit signs do they not? I'm pretty sure they do to my memory at least.

Only if the bridge had a support between the opposing flows of traffic & then it wouldn't be a single carriageway.

Cheers for that.

I could only see in the highway code it mentioning a barrier as a 'central reservation' ...

http://www.direct.gov.uk said:

A dual carriageway is a road which has a central reservation to separate the carriageways.

There is no definition of a central reservation anywhere on that site that I can find. There may be in another act, but I can't find one :/

this is the closest I can find...

The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 said:

“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,
which separates the carriageway or, as the case may be, the part of the carriageway which is to be used by traffic moving in one direction from the carriageway or part of the carriageway which is to be used (whether at all times or at particular times only) by traffic moving in the other direction;

Edited by Efbe on Wednesday 10th November 21:02