Offsiding and straightlining - cut from 'Tailgating' thread

[sussex2]

If you can see the road is clear and no confusion or disturbance will be given to other road users (for the sake of argument you have the place to yourself) then cut or straight line away.
Should you not be capable of making that decision you should jack in any advanced qualifications you have.

[MGF]

GJD

Your misunderstanding is founded on an erroneous assumption that the risk of conflict where there are no road markings is equal to the risk where there are road markings.

It is demonstrably the case that this premise is flawed. Road markings are put in places where traffic is more likely to come into conflict and can avoid doing so by keeping nearside of them. They do not cover every possibility of conflict but they do cover most of them.

Road markings are not simply the product of paint spilled randomly on the road surface as you suggest. They have meaning.

The Rule creates an assumption of risk where there are road markings and a presumption where there are none. It doesn't claim to identify the risks in each situation and offer you a safe option. You still have to figure that out for yourself but are precluded from doing so where there are road markings.

If it was the case, as you assert, that generally there is no relationship between road markings and risk your argument would have some force.

Some advanced drivers apply a rule to their own driving that the only road signs and markings that should be followed are those that constitute an offence if not followed. The RoSPA offsiding rule is inconsistent with that rule but that rule is not a RoSPA rule.

That inconsistency might cause offence devotees of the 'is it an offence?' rule but that doesn't make the RoSPA rule inconsistent in itself or flawed in its reasoning.


As Michael pointed out, you are simply disagreeing with the rule because it doesn't accord with what you believe is 'advanced' (I might add with good cause) but it is absurd to attack the logic and consistency of the rule itself.

[Horse]

If you can see the road is clear and no confusion or disturbance will be given to other road users (for the sake of argument you have the place to yourself) then cut or straight line away.
Should you not be capable of making that decision you should jack in any advanced qualifications you have.

And what about those working to gain the qualifications? Presumably you don't think they'll learn by osmosis?

In which case, how should their training be structured, what caveats and conditions put in place. etc.? You mention 'decisions', what are they really, and what considerations need to be made?

[waremark]

Road markings are not simply the product of paint spilled randomly on the road surface as you suggest. They have meaning.

Does the presence or absence of centre line markings on a rural road really have meaning? More than whether there was enough paint left in the local authority paint store? Is there an expert on road markings around who can answer authoritatively?

[waremark]

I don't think Roadcraft makes any reference to crossing the centre line other than for turning or overtaking. Is it general practise in police driving schools to encourage crossing the line where helpful for all of safety, vision and stability, as I feel pretty confident that it used to be?

[MGF]

Does the presence or absence of centre line markings on a rural road really have meaning? More than whether there was enough paint left in the local authority paint store? Is there an expert on road markings around who can answer authoritatively?

Do you need an 'expert' to tell you that? The alternative is that the paint is chucked around on a whim without any thought to utility.

[sussex2]

In Spain they put centre line markings on roads where it is plainly obvious that two vehicles cannot pass each other. A better example of being at the right speed in the right place and in the correct gear I can't imagine.

[MGF]

The UK addresses this point here.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... ter-05.pdf


P14
4.6 On rural roads below 5.5 m in width, over-
running of the carriageway edge can occur if centre
line markings are provided, causing maintenance
problems. Drivers might also expect a road marked

[waremark]

Does the presence or absence of centre line markings on a rural road really have meaning? More than whether there was enough paint left in the local authority paint store? Is there an expert on road markings around who can answer authoritatively?

Do you need an 'expert' to tell you that? The alternative is that the paint is chucked around on a whim without any thought to utility.

Well, yes. As with the setting of speed limits on local roads, I thought local authorities had broad discretion. Can you confirm that this is not so?

[MGF]

Why do I need to? Are you suggesting that if a HA isn't fully compliant with the TSM then the RoSPA rule on offsiding is inconsistent?

[TripleS]

Does the presence or absence of centre line markings on a rural road really have meaning? More than whether there was enough paint left in the local authority paint store? Is there an expert on road markings around who can answer authoritatively?

....paint is chucked around on a whim without any thought to utility.

Well I have to admit that's been my feeling for a while.

Sorry, David ; there's a bit of selective quoting there, but I couldn't resist taking advantage of that bit: and in truth I do think it explains some of it.

[GJD]

Your misunderstanding is founded on an erroneous assumption that the risk of conflict where there are no road markings is equal to the risk where there are road markings.

My assumption is that the risk of conflict is independent of the presence of road markings. I do not believe the addition of road markings increases the risk of collision and I do not believe the removal of them reduces the risk.

You may state that my assumption is erroneous until you are blue in the face, but unless you can explain how the risk of collision on a particular stretch of road would be altered by the addition of paint where there is none or the removal of paint where it is present then a blue face and no credibility is all you will get.

It is demonstrably the case that this premise is flawed. Road markings are put in places where traffic is more likely to come into conflict and can avoid doing so by keeping nearside of them. They do not cover every possibility of conflict but they do cover most of them.

You're thinking about it the wrong way round. I don't think anyone disputes that it is possible to bring yourself into conflict with oncoming traffic on roads that have a centre marking. The dispute is over the suggestion that the absence of centre markings indicates that conflict is less likely or easier to avoid.

If it was the case, as you assert, that generally there is no relationship between road markings and risk your argument would have some force.

And I will continue to be satisfied of the force of my argument only for as long as nobody is able to explain what relationship there is.

As Michael pointed out, you are simply disagreeing with the rule because it doesn't accord with what you believe is 'advanced' (I might add with good cause) but it is absurd to attack the logic and consistency of the rule itself.

That is not the basis of my attack. RoSPA's rule has two elements:

"When you drive round bends and corners you should not cross marked centre lines."

and

"If there are no centre markings then some movement over the centre of the road may be acceptable."

Delete that last part (and amend the first part to say "...not cross the centre of the road") and the inconsistency vanishes. I would still, personally, disagree with that version of the rule for not according with what I believe is 'advanced', but I would have no grounds to attack the consistency.

A RoSPA associate who read the rule would perfectly justified in immediately asking what the hell difference the presence of absence of paint is supposed to make to their ability to get it wrong. That is the obvious and reasonable question. RoSPA's attempt to justify the rule is pathetic:

"RoADAR believes that these actions are potentially dangerous because they may be the result of entering the hazard too fast and may confuse both oncoming and following drivers"

Not only does that fail to even attempt to address the question - it raises further questions, no less obvious and no less reasonable. What if it isn't the result of entering the hazard too fast? What if there are no oncoming and following drivers? Are they suggesting that entering the hazard too fast or confusing other drivers are more acceptable when there is no centre line?

[waremark]

Now now, Mr D, you are ignoring MGF's assertion that centre line markings are painted on roads where it is judged there is a higher risk of conflict. Personally, I doubt that is so, but if it were to be so then he is justified in arguing that Rospa's position is not - or is less - inconsistent. Even if not very advanced.

[MGF]

Your misunderstanding is founded on an erroneous assumption that the risk of conflict where there are no road markings is equal to the risk where there are road markings.

My assumption is that the risk of conflict is independent of the presence of road markings. I do not believe the addition of road markings increases the risk of collision and I do not believe the removal of them reduces the risk.

That is irrelevant to the point and only serves to demonstrate your confusion.

Risk obviously exists independently of road markings however road markings are applied, broadly speaking, where increased risk is identified. That is clear from the TSM and indeed, common sense.

You might be right to suggest that the level of increased risk that results in a particular road marking has reduced over time. You might also be right to assert that the authorities have become too risk averse with, for example, DWLs.

This doesn't affect the fact, or indeed the reasonable belief, that road markings, generally - not exclusively - reflect increased risks of traffic coming together where this can be avoided by keeping nearside of the road marking.

If you believe this is not the case then there is little more to be said. It is still absurd to suggest that the RoSPA rule is inconsistent because RoSPA may also believe that this is the case.

Not much point in reading the rest of your post.

[GJD]

Now now, Mr D, you are ignoring MGF's assertion that centre line markings are painted on roads where it is judged there is a higher risk of conflict. Personally, I doubt that is so, but if it were to be so then he is justified in arguing that Rospa's position is not - or is less - inconsistent. Even if not very advanced.

Is that the argument? I note that RoSPA doesn't refer to that aspect in its own attempt to justify its position.

If that is what MGF is asserting then I don't think it lends much consistency to RoSPA's position [*]. Since the risk of conflict varies from bend to bend, not from road to road, it wouldn't make much sense to refer to a road marking that's present/absent along the entire length of the road to indicate the risk for a particular bend. Indeed MGF himself posted a link that implies that what the presence of centre markings correlates with is simply the width of the road.

[*] Albeit it might render less relevant the thought experiment of adding paint where there is none (or removing paint where there is) and realising that the risk is unaltered by that.