How would you handle this road?

[PeterE]

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.

Yes.

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.

I don't see it as a problem for me personally, and indeed on occasions I have circumspectly overtaken "down the middle" on such roads. But road designers shouldn't really be creating ambiguity in markings in this way. If this kind of overtaking is not intended, then they shouldn't be so wide; if it is, then there should be some kind of three-lane layout, ideally this one.

[GJD]

But road designers shouldn't really be creating ambiguity in markings in this way. If this kind of overtaking is not intended, then they shouldn't be so wide; if it is, then there should be some kind of three-lane layout

Is there ambiguity? If the road is wide enough for overtaking down the middle then, absent any signs or markings to prohibit it, overtaking down the middle is an option.

The road designer clearly did not intend to prohibit this kind of overtaking on the OP's road. Beyond that, I don't think the road designer is of any relevance to the driver.

[true blue]

The trouble is that there's nothing to stop an eastbound driver thinking 'this is a wide road, 3-abreast is fine, sod visibility, observation or anything like that I'll just blast past this lorry at 75 up the middle of the road, there's loads of room". Which is fine, until a westbound driver has the same idea, and suddenly there isn't enough room! The road layout is such that it stops people from thinking clearly and carefully about overtaking, leading to high accident rates. Believe it or not, the layout is unclear in its intent - otherwise I wouldn't have started this thread!

Personally I'm reasonably happy to take a middle line, IF, and only if, I have long enough vision and a reasonable certainly that somebody coming the other way won't try the same trick.

I've no wish to delve into the DMRB to see what current guidance is on lane widths, though I believe that 3m is taken to be the default width.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

Ummm - it'd be a strange driver indeed who didn't think a bit about overtaking down the middle when there's the potential for conflict with someone else doing the same thing in the opposite direction, however dim a view you may have of your fellow drivers. Possibly this design actually encourages more thought - since everybody knows they're taking a risk, and has to assess the danger before committing.

Just an alternative view...

[GJD]

The road layout is such that it stops people from thinking clearly and carefully about overtaking

I don't imagine a driver who generally thinks clearly and carefully about overtaking would suddenly stop doing so when encountering a new road layout and/or traffic pattern. That's not what you did for example. You thought about it more. So much more that you decided to discuss it here.

It seems odd to me to talk of road layout as having the power to stop a driver thinking...

Believe it or not, the layout is unclear in its intent - otherwise I wouldn't have started this thread!

...or of road layout having intent.

[PeterE]

But road designers shouldn't really be creating ambiguity in markings in this way. If this kind of overtaking is not intended, then they shouldn't be so wide; if it is, then there should be some kind of three-lane layout

Is there ambiguity? If the road is wide enough for overtaking down the middle then, absent any signs or markings to prohibit it, overtaking down the middle is an option.

The road designer clearly did not intend to prohibit this kind of overtaking on the OP's road. Beyond that, I don't think the road designer is of any relevance to the driver.

But as advanced drivers we are expected to adhere to both legal requirements and the "spirit" of the markings. For example, it would be poor practice to continue down a lane marked for right-turning and then force our way in at the end to go straight on, even if not specifically illegal.

This layout creates an obvious ambiguity - can you overtake down the middle, or not?

It would be interesting to hear others' views as to whether they would "go for it" - as I have said, I have done in the past. Obviously very carefully

[GJD]

But as advanced drivers we are expected to adhere to both legal requirements and the "spirit" of the markings. For example, it would be poor practice to continue down a lane marked for right-turning and then force our way in at the end to go straight on, even if not specifically illegal.

But in that example there is a marking with a spirit that can be contravened. That's not the case on the OP's road.

This layout creates an obvious ambiguity - can you overtake down the middle, or not?

I'm still not seeing the ambiguity. With no marking to prohibit overtaking, there is no spirit (or legality) of a marking to contravene. In which case, on what basis could the answer be "no, you can not overtake down the middle"?

As with every action you take when driving, it is of course your responsibility to decide whether it's safe, but unquestionably, overtaking down the middle is an option open for you to consider.

I think this has moved away from the question in the original post, which seemed to me to be about safety and etiquette, not about whether you need to ask the white paint for permission. I can imagine someone concluding that "no, I would not overtake down the middle because I don't think it would be safe". I can imagine someone concluding that "no, I would not overtake down the middle because I'm not comfortable with how I might be perceived by those around me". It would make no sense at all to me for someone to conclude that "no, I would not overtake down the middle because I don't think I'm supposed to".

[true blue]

To turn the question around - if having very wide lanes isn't a problem, why does the A507 have a high accident rate? (I've no statistics, just anecdotal evidence from colleagues who have been using the road daily for a year or more).

I think that the possibility of driving three-abreast lulls drivers into a false sense of safety, whereas on a conventional single carriageway overtakes must necessarily be more carefully planned. I've also seen people overtaking with tiny differential speeds - say 60mph over 56mph, which shows how overtakes are perceived as 'easy' by many drivers on such roads.

To make it clear, I've no problem with drivers who wish to use the middle of the road, but personally I'm either more cautious or more sensible about it, depending on your viewpoint.

[MGF]

Overtaking into oncoming traffic whilst hoping the oncoming traffic will remain or move sufficiently nearside for a safe overtake requires co-operation from other drivers. Safety is in the hands of oncoming drivers which is not the usual AD approach to overtaking.

[GJD]

I think that the possibility of driving three-abreast lulls drivers into a false sense of safety

I've no idea how it relates to accident statistics but when I've driven on roads like this it's the four abreast stuff that I find more likely to alarm.

[fungus]

We have a few of these three lane roads down here in Dorset. The A37 northern extension of the Dorchester bypass was built in the 1980s, a time when they were generally being phased out. Earlier examples are west of Dorchester on the A35 just east of Bridport, and west of Chideock on Chideock Hill.

https://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=50.721561 ... 4,30.482,0

https://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=50.734365 ... 2&t=h&z=19

Judging by the lane markings it would be possible for three vehicles to be three abreast travelling on one stretch of the A37. The A35 at Chideock is no overtaking eastbound, as Chideock Hill is steep with escape lanes. This wasn't always the case, and there were a few nasty collisions involving oncoming vehicles in the middle lane back in the 60s and 70s.
The A6 over Shap Fell was a notorious accident black spot pre M6. It's not the road, but the driver that's the problem.

[PeterE]

I asked the question on SABRE and the view of those with some professional involvement in highway design was that WS2s, while they do facilitate overtaking compared with standard-width S2 roads, were not deliberately designed in the expectation of "down-the-middle" overtaking.

[ROG]

When I was driving LGVs I used that road very often and as I did 40 max the cars overtook on a regular basis with oncoming traffic - there was never any incidents close or otherwise

[TripleS]

If this kind of overtaking is not intended, then they shouldn't be so wide; if it is, then there should be some kind of three-lane layout, ideally this one.

Yes, that one is OK; but look at the A66 westbound, in Cumbria, the section immediately to the west of the turning to Mungrisedale and Caldbeck, which goes off the A66 to the north.

There we have a downhill section of three lane single carriageway, with a double solid white line separating the westbound lane from the other two lanes. That means that legally we can not overtake down there, even if there is no oncoming traffic whatsoever. That, to my mind, is a ridiculous and quite unnecessary restriction that deserves to be ignored.

Sorry, but I've forgotten how to put up the picture for you.

[Gareth]

I've forgotten how to put up the picture

A66 westbound, in Cumbria, the section immediately to the west of the turning to Mungrisdale and Caldbeck