ADUK Archive

martine wrote:

WhoseGeneration wrote:Looks like, from that solid line, that the oppposing lanes have priority,

Why? The solid line applies to the oncoming traffic only, to stop them crossing into the extreme left lane - it says nothing about who has priority for the middle lane. My understanding is no one does.

There are plenty of stretches of road where three lane markings have been removed and replaced by a single centre line. I'm thinking parts of the A46 through the Vale of Evesham. It's much better, IMO.

Where we need three lane roads, for example when providing a crawler lane, I believe it's preferable to have the two lane section and the single lane section separated by double white lines. I'm thinking stretches of the A361 between M5 and Barnstaple.

It is stating the obvious but it obviously needs stating anyway. The broken and solid lines divide opposing traffic. From the OP point of view you are crossing the centre line to overtake whereas the oncoming traffic is not and (legally) cannot. From that point of view the oncoming traffic clearly has priority.

Does it have 'priority' if it moves into that position only after you have established yours?

Is there parallel with, say, pulling out of a side road whilst someone is overtaking?

MGF wrote:It is stating the obvious but it obviously needs stating anyway. The broken and solid lines divide opposing traffic. From the OP point of view you are crossing the centre line to overtake whereas the oncoming traffic is not and (legally) cannot. From that point of view the oncoming traffic clearly has priority.

I think it also depends on how other road users interpret it, and I believe most people would reach the same conclusion as you have, regardless of legalities. Let's be honest, most drivers don't read the Highway Code unless they really have to, so it's probably best to plan for the worst case, which is that some drivers simply won't expect anyone to cross the double white line system at all.

trashbat wrote:Does it have 'priority' if it moves into that position only after you have established yours?

Is there parallel with, say, pulling out of a side road whilst someone is overtaking?

Yes, try not to hit anything.

If I had already identified my bail-out opportunities and there was plenty of room, and well sighted, and there's no one in the centre lane, then I would take the opportunity to perform the overtake, but I would pay particular attention to traffic travelling in the opposite direction and make sure that none of them were indicating.

If someone appears in the centre lane as I'm overtaking, then I would just make use of my bail-out gaps if they are still available.

I would prefer to treat the road as if the traffic coming in the opposite direction had priority, as the average driver would probably view it like that anyway.

I think perhaps the lane priorities would be easier to understand if both lanes on the edge had the double line system, so they both have dotted lines on the side of traffic, and white lines on the other side to prevent people from moving into the furthest opposite lane.

(That description probably doesn't make sense, but I'll try explaining it better if anyone doesn't understand what I mean)

MGF wrote:It is stating the obvious but it obviously needs stating anyway. The broken and solid lines divide opposing traffic. From the OP point of view you are crossing the centre line to overtake whereas the oncoming traffic is not and (legally) cannot. From that point of view the oncoming traffic clearly has priority.

Which I think can be paraphrased to:
Only drivers in one direction would be moving to the wrong side of the road.

(Edit to add, still doesn't infer priority or safety)

Carbon Based wrote:

MGF wrote:It is stating the obvious but it obviously needs stating anyway. The broken and solid lines divide opposing traffic. From the OP point of view you are crossing the centre line to overtake whereas the oncoming traffic is not and (legally) cannot. From that point of view the oncoming traffic clearly has priority.

Which I think can be paraphrased to:
Only drivers in one direction would be moving to the wrong side of the road.

(Edit to add, still doesn't infer priority or safety)

I understand this as MGF does. Opposing traffic has priority. Middle lane 'belongs' to opposing traffic, can be borrowed by traffic from our direction when vacant and safe. This is quite academic - from either direction use the middle lane only if vacant and safe!

Well I must admit that I will readily go through the middle on a wide single carriageway road, whether it is marked with two lanes or three; but it does depend on the circumstances being favourable.

What I do not like (or absolutely detest) are situations like on the A66 east of Keswick, and the recently up-graded A75 near Newton Stewart, where solid white lines prevent any overtaking, even when there is no opposing traffic. I met that situation in April this year, following a tractor on the A75, and simply had to follow it for ages: and we were the only two vehicles on that section of road. It is quite barmy.

TripleS wrote:What I do not like (or absolutely detest) are situations like on the A66 east of Keswick, and the recently up-graded A75 near Newton Stewart, where solid white lines prevent any overtaking, even when there is no opposing traffic. I met that situation in April this year, following a tractor on the A75, and simply had to follow it for ages: and we were the only two vehicles on that section of road. It is quite barmy.

It's probably been designed by a BRAKE supporter...they are against overtaking on rural roads and want legislation for "...a ban on overtaking free-moving traffic, except on multi-lane roads."

Brake's 'Target Zero' mission statement - http://www.brake.org.uk/component/content/article/10-whats-happening/take-action/252-zero

martine wrote:Brake's 'Target Zero' mission statement - http://www.brake.org.uk/component/content/article/10-whats-happening/take-action/252-zero

That's er, quite extreme, isn't it?

Young Driver Safety/Graduated Driver Licensing - discussion split from this thread and continues here

martine wrote:

TripleS wrote:What I do not like (or absolutely detest) are situations like on the A66 east of Keswick, and the recently up-graded A75 near Newton Stewart, where solid white lines prevent any overtaking, even when there is no opposing traffic. I met that situation in April this year, following a tractor on the A75, and simply had to follow it for ages: and we were the only two vehicles on that section of road. It is quite barmy.

It's probably been designed by a BRAKE supporter...they are against overtaking on rural roads and want legislation for "...a ban on overtaking free-moving traffic, except on multi-lane roads."

Brake's 'Target Zero' mission statement - http://www.brake.org.uk/component/content/article/10-whats-happening/take-action/252-zero

Good intentions with regards to minimising road deaths and serious injuries, but not a clue how to achieve the unachievalble.

Streets where children can roam! That'll be a disaster when they come to drive. Enough teenagers don't look with the roads as they are at present. If B*****s ideas are implimented, ADIs will have hell of a job getting them to look as they'll not have had any exposure to danger.

fungus wrote:Streets where children can roam! That'll be a disaster when they come to drive. Enough teenagers don't look with the roads as they are at present. If B*****s ideas are implimented, ADIs will have hell of a job getting them to look as they'll not have had any exposure to danger.

Is that how it would work? Isn't there a theory that one of the reason's drivers object so much to other road users in 'their' space and don't take sufficient care around more vulnerable road users is that they spent their whole childhood having it hammered into them that they should keep out of the road because the road is for cars and cars are dangerous - so when they grow up to become drivers they naturally behave as if the road is for cars and managing the danger presented by cars is not the driver's responsibility.

I'd have thought that if children grew up roaming the streets, when they became drivers they would view children roaming the streets as a normal and expected event. I'd have also thought that a lot of children would be hurt or worse in the process of changing the driving population's mindset in that way, so I suppose the conclusion is... That's a stupid idea BRAKE - won't you just think of the children!!

fungus wrote: Enough teenagers don't look with the roads as they are at present.

Whether or not they look is one thing. But if anyone relies on a child looking and then making the correct decision then that might be a flawed mistake.

Wann, J.P., Poulter, D.R., & Purcell, C. (2011). Reduced sensitivity to visual looming inflates the risk posed by speeding vehicles when children try to cross the road. Psychological Science. First published on March 9, 2011 doi:10.1177/0956797611400917

Almost all locomotor animals respond to visual looming or to discrete changes in optical size. The need to detect and process looming remains critically important for humans in everyday life. Road traffic statistics confirm that children up to 15 years old are overrepresented in pedestrian casualties. We demonstrate that, for a given pedestrian crossing time, vehicles traveling faster loom less than slower vehicles, which creates a dangerous illusion in which faster vehicles may be perceived as not approaching. Our results from perceptual tests of looming thresholds show strong developmental trends in sensitivity, such that children may not be able to detect vehicles approaching at speeds in excess of 20 mph. This creates a risk of injudicious road crossing in urban settings when traffic speeds are higher than 20 mph. The risk is exacerbated because vehicles moving faster than this speed are more likely to result in pedestrian fatalities.

So now you know that children may no be able to correctly determine the speed of approaching vehicles, it shouldn't be a surprise if they look but still walk in front.

Add to that . . .
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ivers.html

Youngsters are more dangerous on the roads because their brains are not sufficiently developed, according to researchers.

They said the frontal lobe of the brain - which controls emotion, risk-taking and decision-making - does not fully mature until the age of 25.

As a result, teenagers are more impulsive, excitable and prone to taking risks and causing accidents