IAM

[TripleS]

Excellent; three cheers for Neil Greig. Possibly the most sensible comments ever to come out of Chiswick!

As for ROSPA, words fail me. But, Kathleen Braidwood, road safety officer for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents Scotland, is probably giving ROSPA's view on the matter not RoADAR's. However, I'm not aware that RoADAR has got a view about anything.

In the past I have been very critical of some of Neil Greig's comments, so it's only fair to say I think he's basically right this time. I don't like the idea of deploying speed cameras of any type, whatever their cost may be, but dualling the road would surely be far more expensive, and I'd suggest that should only be done if traffic volumes justify it. I certainly don't think it should be done merely because people can't overtake safely. They should learn, or not do it.

I'm not always opposed to engineering solutions, but they can be very costly, and better driver performance would be a much more efficient answer. Education at modest cost should come before high cost engineering.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[waremark]

Excellent; three cheers for Neil Greig. Possibly the most sensible comments ever to come out of Chiswick!

Here here.

I quite liked a system of three lane roads which I have seen in Sweden. There is an overtaking lane which is designated for one direction only, with a barrier seperating the overtaking lane from the opposite direction lane. The overtaking lane is available to traffic in one direction for a mile or so, and then it ends, and there is an overtaking lane for traffic in the other direction for the next mile or so.

This system seems to enable safe overtaking at far less cost than a dual carriageway. Being used extensively in Sweden, I feel sure it has been established that it is safe. Obviously, whether it is a suitable alternative to a dual carrriageway depends on the volume of traffic.

[michael769]

I quite liked a system of three lane roads which I have seen in Sweden. There is an overtaking lane which is designated for one direction only, with a barrier seperating the overtaking lane from the opposite direction lane. The overtaking lane is available to traffic in one direction for a mile or so, and then it ends, and there is an overtaking lane for traffic in the other direction for the next mile or so.

This system seems to enable safe overtaking at far less cost than a dual carriageway. Being used extensively in Sweden, I feel sure it has been established that it is safe. Obviously, whether it is a suitable alternative to a dual carrriageway depends on the volume of traffic.

Those barriers in Sweden are are not established to be safe and are held by many safety campaigners to be a significant danger to motorcyclists (they are known as "Human Cheese Wire"). There is a campaign to get them torn out!

Scotland is increasingly using alternating overtaking lanes but with traffic separated by double white lines. This approach works well and does reduce casualties - obviously it does not remove the risk of an out of control vehicle crossing into the path of oncoming traffic, but the prevailing view among British engineers is that the danger to motorcyclists far outweighs that risk and that central barriers can only be safely used with the additional separation and protection that is provided by a full central reservation.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

The A9 is a bit like Scotland's M1, Dave. It's the main road North on the East side. Traffic flows pretty smoothly normally, but it only takes one person doing 40 mph in some sections for the whole road to tail back for miles. Overtaking opportunities are good in some parts, negligible in others. It's gradually being dualled, but it's taking decades...

[GJD]

Scotland is increasingly using alternating overtaking lanes but with traffic separated by double white lines.

Fabulous. Repeated stretches of perfectly safe overtaking opportunity denied by a bit of paint. I can't think of a better way to destroy the credibility of solid white lines.

[jont]

Scotland is increasingly using alternating overtaking lanes but with traffic separated by double white lines.

Fabulous. Repeated stretches of perfectly safe overtaking opportunity denied by a bit of paint. I can't think of a better way to destroy the credibility of solid white lines.

Given the "intelligence" of most drivers, I'd rather see this than suicide lanes, or the whole central block reduced to chevrons.

[GJD]

Scotland is increasingly using alternating overtaking lanes but with traffic separated by double white lines.

Fabulous. Repeated stretches of perfectly safe overtaking opportunity denied by a bit of paint. I can't think of a better way to destroy the credibility of solid white lines.

Given the "intelligence" of most drivers, I'd rather see this than suicide lanes, or the whole central block reduced to chevrons.

I wouldn't. Does my head in. Demands a Herculean effort of restraint.

[Big Err]

Fabulous. Repeated stretches of perfectly safe overtaking opportunity denied by a bit of paint. I can't think of a better way to destroy the credibility of solid white lines.

And this has led to high levels of non compliance, although not necessarily dangerous non compliance.

[nigelc]

Scotland is increasingly using alternating overtaking lanes but with traffic separated by double white lines.

Fabulous. Repeated stretches of perfectly safe overtaking opportunity denied by a bit of paint. I can't think of a better way to destroy the credibility of solid white lines.

Given the "intelligence" of most drivers, I'd rather see this than suicide lanes, or the whole central block reduced to chevrons.

You could have the hatched area just wide enough for a motor bike and only available travelling one direction as here

[GJD]

You could have the hatched area just wide enough for a motor bike and only available travelling one direction as here

Good one . They have provided a break in the solid white line though, so the full width of the road is available to you at least for a short distance. Not the most tempting of overtaking spots though! Nor from the other direction...

[nigelc]

Yes it's a strange road for markings with bizarre passing places as here

But we're straying OT, sorry.

[TripleS]

Yes it's a strange road for markings with bizarre passing places as here

But we're straying OT, sorry.

That looks like what I've seen on the A61 between Ripon and Harrogate, and I thought the idea was to create places where agricultural vehicles were being encouraged to pull in to let other traffic overtake.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[nigelc]

Yes it's a strange road for markings with bizarre passing places as here

But we're straying OT, sorry.

That looks like what I've seen on the A61 between Ripon and Harrogate, and I thought the idea was to create places where agricultural vehicles were being encouraged to pull in to let other traffic overtake.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

That was the only thought I had. Do agricultural vehicles have dispensation to cross the solid line into the hatched are either side of the passing place? I suspect it's just a bit of dodgy paintwork.

[hir]

Do agricultural vehicles have dispensation to cross the solid line into the hatched either side of the passing place?

It is not an offence to enter a hatched area [ie. diagonal lines] surrounded by a solid white line. An offence is only committed if the solid white line encloses an area containing chevrons, and chevrons are only used on motorways.

The 1998 Highway Code at rule 109, in regard to Areas of White Diagonal Stripes, stated... "If the area is bordered by a solid white line, you should not enter it except in an emergency." and goes on to say... "If the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so." There is no statement of the MUST NOT, which signifies a legal requirement. There is, therefore, a very subtle distinction between the two types of white lines. However, the distinction between what is permitted with regard to a broken white line and a solid white has formed in the public perception as... broken white line = permitted; solid white line = forbidden.

This public perception and confusion over the meaning of a single solid white line has been deliberately reinforced in the latest, 2007, edition of the Highway Code. The reference to Areas of White Diagonal Stripes, see Rule 130, has been amended and is deliberately obscure with regard to crossing solid white lines that enclose diagonal stripes [not chevrons]. Rule 130 reads... first bullet point - "If the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so". So, no change there then. But, the second bullet point says - "If the area is marked with chevrons and bordered by solid white lines you MUST NOT enter it except in an emergency." So, no mention of areas of white diagonal stripes bordered by a single solid white line.

The only exception to any of the aforementioned is that if the white diagonal stripes, bordered by single solid white lines that are no more than 1.2 metres apart [is that about 4 feet?], are in the centre of the carriageway, or thereabouts, then they form part of a double white line system and can only be legally crossed under the stated exemptions contained in Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 3113 The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002.

[nigelc]

Thanks for the explanation. I too had read it as solid white line surrounding diagonals was a no-no. They're not so common, certainly where I seem to drive, other than as an extended double white line in the centre of the carriageway but it's nice to know when the odd one creeps up on you.