Offsiding and straightlining - cut from 'Tailgating' thread

[GJD]

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.

On what basis do you think that belief is reasonable?

[MGF]

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...

In that case you doubt the TSM is followed at all. Do you have examples of this? (Other than road resurfacing).

Surely you accept that the centre of the road is where traffic is most likely to conflict?

For narrower roads centre lines are not used and we should expect oncoming traffic to be over the centre of the road.

[MGF]

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.

On what basis do you think that belief is reasonable?

I have two brain cells to rub together. You and Grahar on the other hand appear to be struggling to meet that criterion between you.

Perhaps you also could give examples of where road markings do not reflect increased risk. You could start with centre line markings on roads wide enough for them according to TSM.

[GJD]

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.

On what basis do you think that belief is reasonable?

I have two brain cells to rub together.

I've long had the impression that you enjoy some quite feverish rubbing while you type your posts here, but I've never thought it involved your brain cells.

Perhaps you also could give examples of where road markings do not reflect increased risk. You could start with centre line markings on roads wide enough for them according to TSM.

Road markings never reflect increased risk. As has been pointed out ad nauseam, removing the paint doesn't reduce the risk at that point on the road. You just said yourself that risk obviously exists independently of road markings so I rather thought we all agreed on that point.

It probably would have helped if you'd read more of my earlier post. I'll repeat a bit of it for you:

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.

You suggest that the decision whether or not to paint a centre marking is systematic, not random. Even if you are right, your point is not made unless the characteristic on which the decision not to paint a centre marking is based, is one which implies that the road is inherently safer for offsiding. The only characteristic I can think of that would imply that is good vision at all points along the road of potential oncoming traffic. The characteristic that TSM refers to is nothing like that - it's just the width.

TSM makes a valid point that "Drivers might also expect a road marked with a centre line to be wide enough for opposing lanes of traffic to pass." That's a good reason not to paint a centre line when there isn't room for two vehicles to pass, but that's not the situation we're talking about.

On roads that are wide enough for opposing lanes of traffic to pass and that do not have painted centre lines, RoSPA believe it is appropriate for me to make my own decisions about crossing the centre of the road. If they take that view because they think the risk is less on such roads than it is on roads with centre lines, that must mean they think one or more of:

a) I am less likely to make an error of judgement
b) An error of judgement is less likely to bring me into conflict with oncoming traffic
c) Getting myself into conflict with oncoming traffic is less of a problem

I don't think a or c are reasonable at all. I can sort of see a reason for thinking b, in that such roads tend (in my experience at least) to be rural back roads with less traffic so if I do put myself on a piece of road that an as yet unseen oncoming driver would need, there's a good chance there will turn out not to be an oncoming driver at the critical moment and I will get away with it. But I don't for a moment believe RoSPA would advocate rolling dice like that.

[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.

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?

You can't make rules to govern every situation and much will depend on the attitude and competence of the person learning.
Those learning should do whatever it takes to gain the qualification; some parts of which may be different to everyday practice once the qualification is gained.

[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?

You can't make rules to govern every situation and much will depend on the attitude and competence of the person learning.
Those learning should do whatever it takes to gain the qualification; some parts of which may be different to everyday practice once the qualification is gained.

I didn't ask for rules. I asked about a structure for learning.

[sussex2]

'I didn't ask for rules. I asked about a structure for learning'

Driving is such a variable thing that any kind of structure can only be built once a candidates ability has been assessed.
I can't give you a catch all solution.

[Horse]

'I didn't ask for rules. I asked about a structure for learning'

Driving is such a variable thing that any kind of structure can only be built once a candidates ability has been assessed.
I can't give you a catch all solution.

Sorry, same again: if you were an instructor who was training someone, would you cover this at all? If so, how? If not, how would you expect your trainee to subsequently learn to do it correctly if not with your guidance and advice?

And if the latter, what other aspects of 'advanced' driving need to be learnt by similar methods? [Hopefully, trial and no error]

[sussex2]

'I didn't ask for rules. I asked about a structure for learning'

Driving is such a variable thing that any kind of structure can only be built once a candidates ability has been assessed.
I can't give you a catch all solution.

Sorry, same again: if you were an instructor who was training someone, would you cover this at all? If so, how? If not, how would you expect your trainee to subsequently learn to do it correctly if not with your guidance and advice?

And if the latter, what other aspects of 'advanced' driving need to be learnt by similar methods? [Hopefully, trial and no error]

I was told when being taught that it was acceptable depending on the circumstances to use 2/3rds of the road surface. That was an offer made to me and I have no idea how general it was so is another matter.

Yes I would cover it because one of the motto I have stuck in my addled brain is 'Wider field of vision - clearer field of fire' and that to me is important; you do not hide your car rather present it so it can be seen. The few extra yards vision gained may avoid a nasty scare.
In the old version of Roadcraft there was an excellent diagram showing positioning for left and right bends and how to obtain better visibility when looking for an overtake after the bend; that is a useful tool and then by showing the pupil by example and their own practice the benefits of it.
Always with the caveat that no other road user should be inconvenienced or alarmed. With another that you never expect another road user to appreciate what you are doing. Also perhaps that there is a tendency to increase speed with this manoeuvre which has to be watched.

[waremark]

In the old version of Roadcraft there was an excellent diagram showing positioning for left and right bends and how to obtain better visibility when looking for an overtake after the bend; that is a useful tool and then by showing the pupil by example and their own practice the benefits of it.
Always with the caveat that no other road user should be inconvenienced or alarmed. With another that you never expect another road user to appreciate what you are doing. Also perhaps that there is a tendency to increase speed with this manoeuvre which has to be watched.

The newer Roadcraft does similarly but without illustrating a position over the centre line.

Your 'two-thirds' seem like an arbitrary rule. Personally, I think an understanding of the issues is more important than any rule - starting with your caveats.

[Horse]

I was told when being taught that it was acceptable depending on the circumstances to use 2/3rds of the road surface. That was an offer made to me and I have no idea how general it was so is another matter.

Your 'two-thirds' seem like an arbitrary rule. Personally, I think an understanding of the issues is more important than any rule - starting with your caveats.

You can't make rules to govern every situation

[hir]

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.

RoSPA's pronouncement on this subject is so patently silly it's just not worth arguing about. I tell my associates to ignore it and use their common sense.

[zadocbrown]

"MGF"

Perhaps you also could give examples of where road markings do not reflect increased risk. You could start with centre line markings on roads wide enough for them according to TSM.

I would suggest a centre line does not indicate increased risk (that's what hazard and solid lines are for). Actually I think the absence of a centre marking probably correlates more strongly with increased risk.

In any case Rospas position probably has nothing to do with this particular debate - it is just gluteus maximus covering with pragmatism.

Some people need to chill out and see the big picture....

[MGF]

...I've long had the impression that you enjoy some quite feverish rubbing while you type your posts here, but I've never thought it involved your brain cells.

Notwithstanding this you choose to engage with me during said rubbing. That is strange behaviour.

Perhaps you also could give examples of where road markings do not reflect increased risk. You could start with centre line markings on roads wide enough for them according to TSM.

Road markings never reflect increased risk. As has been pointed out ad nauseam, removing the paint doesn't reduce the risk at that point on the road. You just said yourself that risk obviously exists independently of road markings so I rather thought we all agreed on that point.

You continue with this misconception.

Road markings are applied where increased risk is identified. That is a general rule.

A good example is a road with no road markings joining a junction. At the junction you will see road markings to reflect the increased risk of conflict by joining traffic coming into conflict with emerging traffic.

They are not applied at every risk and are often applied for reasons not related to risk but it is reasonable to infer that centre markings are applied to reflect the increased risk of conflict in the centre of the road.

This is not the same as claiming that the only way of identifying risk is through road markings. Neither is it inconsistent to use road markings as well as other sources to identify risk whilst driving. You may disagree with this but that doesn't make it inconsistent.

...The dispute is over the suggestion that the absence of centre markings indicates that conflict is less likely or easier to avoid.

I haven't claimed that this is the case. Nor has RoSPA from what I have read. This is a requirement you have made up to satisfy your own brand of consistency.

On the specific point of centre markings these are applied to reflect the increased risk of conflict where there is sufficient room to use them. The purpose of the road markings is to segregate traffic.

Where there is insufficient room, defined in the regs./guidnace, centre markings are not used. The centre of the road is a shared space. Traffic is not segregated. Drivers know that traffic is not segregated and can expect to find oncoming traffic in the shared space.

You appear to recognise this.

TSM makes a valid point that "Drivers might also expect a road marked with a centre line to be wide enough for opposing lanes of traffic to pass." That's a good reason not to paint a centre line when there isn't room for two vehicles to pass, but that's not the situation we're talking about.

Whether or not you believe that there is a good reason or not to use centre lines on roads less than 5.5 metres (the TSM threshold) does not alter the fact that the authorities use this criterion.

In doing so two situations are created. Either segregated traffic by way of centre lines or shared road space when markings are absent.

RoSPA allow offsiding using shared road space (no markings) but not where traffic is segregated (centre markings) and there is an expectation that traffic will remain nearside of the line.

You omit this possibility from your exhaustive list.

...that must mean they think one or more of:

a) I am less likely to make an error of judgement
b) An error of judgement is less likely to bring me into conflict with oncoming traffic
c) Getting myself into conflict with oncoming traffic is less of a problem

I believe if you, waremark and others understand the 5.5 metre minimum width rule where there are no kerbs you will realise that there is method in the application of centre line markings.

It isn't clear why people feel the need to pursue an argument of inconsistency or flawed logic rather than simply disagreeing with the rule as unnecessary for advanced drivers.

What might be helpful at this juncture is suggestions of specific criteria that people look to satisfy when off-siding rather than the bland and unhelpful "if it's safe"

[GJD]

On the specific point of centre markings these are applied to reflect the increased risk of conflict where there is sufficient room to use them. The purpose of the road markings is to segregate traffic.

When a road is wide enough for opposing flows of traffic to pass, what factors relating to risk of conflict do you think are taken into account in assessing whether to omit a centre line?

The only factor mentioned in TSM paragraph 4.6 is the width of the road. How do you think "this road is less than 5.5m wide" supports a conclusion of "the risk of conflict on this road is sufficiently low that a centre line is not needed"?

Traffic is not segregated. Drivers know that traffic is not segregated and can expect to find oncoming traffic in the shared space.

I don't know about you, but when there is room for me and the oncoming traffic to pass, when we meet each other I expect to find the oncoming traffic on its side of the road not mine, so that we can pass rather than collide. I do not change that expectation when the centre line is omitted. Do you think I should?

I think it is reasonable for the oncoming driver to expect the same of me. If I fail to live up to that expectation I consider that a serious error. I don't consider it any less of an error when the centre line is omitted. Do you think I should? I'd be surprised is RoSPA did.

What might be helpful at this juncture is suggestions of specific criteria that people look to satisfy when off-siding rather than the bland and unhelpful "if it's safe"

Well one thing that isn't on the list for assessing "is is safe?" is, "how wide is this road?" - the only criteria TSM mentions on the subject of omitting centre lines.