How would you handle this road?

Discussion on Advanced and Defensive Driving.

Postby 7db » Sat Aug 17, 2013 1:44 pm


Cars come in integers. Anything less that 2 cars is single track.
7db
 
Posts: 2724
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 12:19 pm
Location: London

Postby jameslb101 » Sat Aug 17, 2013 2:34 pm


7db wrote:Cars come in integers. Anything less that 2 cars is single track.

Cars do but road users don't. The biggest things you might realistically meet coming the other way at speed are trucks and buses, so if you're in a car surely it's that anything less than 2.5 cars wide is single track?
User avatar
jameslb101
 
Posts: 639
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:02 pm

Postby Astraist » Sat Aug 17, 2013 4:00 pm


Gareth wrote:If cars are approximately 2m wide, and a single carriageway is, in general, at least 5.5m wide, there is only room for one car in each direction plus a margin for safe passage.


A family car is normally less wide than two meters, and stands at an average of 1.7 meters. As for, "at least 5.5m wide" - at least is the operative word. The average single carriageway (with a center line) should be about six meters wide, sometimes even seven meters.

That does not even include the hard shoulder (if there is any, which there usually is) and the "soft" shoulder (verge, gravel etc) past it which often allow extra room to manuever.
User avatar
Astraist
 
Posts: 811
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:39 pm




Postby michael769 » Sat Aug 17, 2013 6:34 pm


Astraist wrote:
Gareth wrote:

A family car is normally less wide than two meters, and stands at an average of 1.7 meters. As for, "at least 5.5m wide" - at least is the operative word. The average single carriageway (with a center line) should be about six meters wide, sometimes even seven meters.


Not in the UK it isn't. In general only our trunk roads (and some ex trunk roads) are so wide. The majority of our rural 2 lane minor roads are not far from 5.5m, and it is commonplace to see trucks having to mount the verges when they meet. It is certainly not the norm to have enough space to physically fit 3 cars abreast.

I can think of several local 2 lane roads where overtaking is hazardous simply due to lack of width
Minds are like parachutes - they only function when open
Thomas Robert Dewar(1864-1930)
michael769
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:11 am
Location: Livingston

Postby true blue » Sun Aug 18, 2013 12:31 am


I understood single track roads to be those where specfic passing places are necessary, whereas single lane roads allow two cars to pass without leaving the carriageway, though at low speeds as there's little spare room.

As for the road in question, I'd guess it to be 8-9m wide. Plenty of room for three-abreast (as in its former state, with a central suicide lane), but the problem is trusting other drivers to realise this and position accordingly.

I wonder whether the whole thing would be a lot safer if it were to revert to three lanes, but with the central lane alternating to be available to only one side at a time. It would stop people thoughtlessly sailing up the middle from both sides, and with sensible layout would have very little negative effect on traffic flow.
true blue
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 11:51 am
Location: Cambridge

Postby TripleS » Sun Aug 18, 2013 7:50 am


We have to judge these situations as they arise, but on that sort of road I'd be looking for safe opportunities to go through the middle.
TripleS
 
Posts: 6025
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 9:47 pm
Location: Briggswath, Whitby

Postby GJD » Mon Aug 19, 2013 1:40 pm


true blue wrote:I wonder whether the whole thing would be a lot safer if it were to revert to three lanes, but with the central lane alternating to be available to only one side at a time.


Stop it. Those things are the devil's work.
GJD
 
Posts: 1316
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:26 pm
Location: Cambridge

Postby jont » Mon Aug 19, 2013 1:46 pm


true blue wrote:I wonder whether the whole thing would be a lot safer if it were to revert to three lanes, but with the central lane alternating to be available to only one side at a time. It would stop people thoughtlessly sailing up the middle from both sides, and with sensible layout would have very little negative effect on traffic flow.

Why not remove the paint altogether? Alternating priorities might actually make things worse if people start assuming that a double white line to oncoming traffic guarantees no-one will cross it. Ignoring lunatics, there are several legal exemptions for doing so. At least with 3 lanes and dashed lines theres a reminder it's quite likely you might meet an oncoming overtaker.
User avatar
jont
 
Posts: 2990
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Cambridgeshire

Postby Big Err » Mon Aug 19, 2013 1:56 pm


michael769 wrote:
Gareth wrote:In the UK the regulations (pdf) say that single carriageways less than 5.5m wide should not have a centre line (paragraph 4.6).


TSM is guidance not law. No such regulation exists.


Hi Gareth, if you're having trouble sleeping, take a look at TD27/05 of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. It provides the standard cross-sections for new roads - Trunk and Motorways. I think you'll find them to be a tad wider than the roads you prefer to drive on ;)
Opinions expressed are mine and not necessarily those of my employers or clients.
User avatar
Big Err
 
Posts: 1044
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 2:30 pm
Location: Kinross, Scotland

Postby Big Err » Mon Aug 19, 2013 1:59 pm


GJD wrote:
true blue wrote:I wonder whether the whole thing would be a lot safer if it were to revert to three lanes, but with the central lane alternating to be available to only one side at a time.


Stop it. Those things are the devil's work.


2+1s as they are known within the Roads community. Being used as a low cost alternative to full dualling and full of lots of little anomalies made to make life interesting.......
Opinions expressed are mine and not necessarily those of my employers or clients.
User avatar
Big Err
 
Posts: 1044
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 2:30 pm
Location: Kinross, Scotland

Postby GJD » Mon Aug 19, 2013 2:28 pm


Big Err wrote:2+1s as they are known within the Roads community. Being used as a low cost alternative to full dualling and full of lots of little anomalies made to make life interesting.......


My favourite bit is when your two lanes are about to drop to 1. You and the drivers around you get to race up to the pinch point all trying to be first into the single lane. The same as any end of dual carriageway bun fight really, except if you didn't win it's only two miles before you get to have another go :) .
GJD
 
Posts: 1316
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:26 pm
Location: Cambridge

Postby Terry Williams » Mon Aug 19, 2013 7:15 pm


The A507 was built as a two lane road. It has never had 3 lanes or an alternating 2/3 system. Overtaking through the middle is endemic.
TJW
Terry Williams
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:43 pm
Location: Bedfordshire

Postby true blue » Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:05 pm


Terry Williams wrote:The A507 was built as a two lane road. It has never had 3 lanes or an alternating 2/3 system. Overtaking through the middle is endemic.


Really? In that case, someone from the Highways Agency or the Department for Transport needs to be shot, for intentionally creating such a half-cocked road! I'd be interested to know at what period in history such roads were considered either to be common or sensible...
true blue
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 11:51 am
Location: Cambridge

Postby PeterE » Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:08 pm


true blue wrote:
Terry Williams wrote:The A507 was built as a two lane road. It has never had 3 lanes or an alternating 2/3 system. Overtaking through the middle is endemic.

Really? In that case, someone from the Highways Agency or the Department for Transport needs to be shot, for intentionally creating such a half-cocked road! I'd be interested to know at what period in history such roads were considered either to be common or sensible...

There are quite a lot of them around, though - as well as the A5, parts of the A49 Shrewsbury Bypass and A46 Evesham Bypass are the same. As was the A303 Ilminster Bypass, although that was later converted to an alternating 2+1 lanes layout. I think at one time it was a recommended design standard.
"No matter how elaborate the rules might be, there is not a glimmer of hope that they can cover the infinite variation in real driving situations." (Stephen Haley, from "Mind Driving")
User avatar
PeterE
 
Posts: 358
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 9:29 pm
Location: Stockport, Cheshire




Postby GJD » Tue Aug 20, 2013 12:19 am


PeterE wrote:There are quite a lot of them around


When you say "them", you mean roads marked out as two lanes that would be easily wide enough for three or more? I didn't think that was a particularly abnormal phenomenon either.

Can't see what the problem is. It's a road. Drive along it. Don't crash into anything :) . I've no particular difficulty with the idea of three abreast. Four can be managed sometimes. I love a road where you can get on with things.
GJD
 
Posts: 1316
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:26 pm
Location: Cambridge

PreviousNext

Return to Advanced Driving Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests