Surprised to be undertaken

[vonhosen]

I think that many highways authorities use hatch markings with broken lines to discourage overtaking where the road layout would not be elligable for solid lines, in the knowledge that most drivers would assume that this is what they mean.

They don't mean that, they highlight extra caution/care, not saying you shouldn't.

[GJD]

Yet the designers/engineers have seen fit to do so for reasons that may not be immediately apparent to you.
Whilst others have respected that, you have not.

I don't follow that at all. All this careful consideration of whether to go against the road marking, careful assessment of the individual circumstances, careful execution of the manoeuvre and so on - all the stuff that I'm saying is important if the manoeuvre is to be acceptable and you're saying can not be enough to make the manoeuvre acceptable - doing all that stuff is the very definition of respecting the road marking. Of course the driver must remain cognisant of the fact that they are going against convention. Failing to do that would be disrespecting the road marking. But carrying out this manoeuvre with care and consideration, with that necessary cognisance, would only amount to disrespecting the road marking if the road marking was a mandatory signal.

[vonhosen]

Yet the designers/engineers have seen fit to do so for reasons that may not be immediately apparent to you.
Whilst others have respected that, you have not.

I don't follow that at all. All this careful consideration of whether to go against the road marking, careful assessment of the individual circumstances, careful execution of the manoeuvre and so on - all the stuff that I'm saying is important if the manoeuvre is to be acceptable and you're saying can not be enough to make the manoeuvre acceptable - doing all that stuff is the very definition of respecting the road marking. Of course the driver must remain cognisant of the fact that they are going against convention. Failing to do that would be disrespecting the road marking. But carrying out this manoeuvre with care and consideration, with that necessary cognisance, would only amount to disrespecting the road marking if the road marking was a mandatory signal.

The point being it's gone against convention being observed by the others, the highway code being observed by the others & falls short of the national standards of safe & responsible driving in that in any DVSA driving test (not just the basic learner test but any vocational,ADI, examiner etc test) it would result in an immediate fail in the circumstances. The fact it is considered & wilful doesn't alter that. As such I believe it would not be considered the actions of a competent (it immediately failed any test of competence set by the national body responsible for driving standards) & careful driver, it breaching your duty of care & attention in relation to all of the aforementioned.

[GJD]

The point being it's gone against convention being observed by the others, the highway code being observed by the others & falls short of the national standards of safe & responsible driving in that in any DVSA driving test (not just the basic learner test but any vocational,ADI, examiner etc test) it would result in an immediate fail in the circumstances. The fact it is considered & wilful doesn't alter that. As such I believe it would not be considered the actions of a competent (it immediately failed any test of competence set by the national body responsible for driving standards) & careful driver, it breaching your duty of care & attention in relation to all of the aforementioned.

Why are you attempting to ascribe to this road marking a level of mandatory-ness that simply does not exist? If the law meant the road marking to be mandatory, the law would say the road marking is mandatory. The fact that it doesn't leaves only one possible conclusion: it must be the case that going against this road marking is not necessarily illegal. The alternative conclusion is irrational.

[5star]

In other words, if the Highway Code says you shouldn't, you really shouldn't.

I haven't read the HC for a long time... but if it uses the terms Must (mandatory) and Should (generally required), then surely Shouldn't = sometimes OK, whereas Mustn't = never OK?

[akirk]

I think that the HC approach is an example of good British law... setting out criteria and grading them / giving you the option to choose how you observe some yet at the same time making it clear that the choice carries with it responsibility both in how you observe it and in how any consequences are dealt with...

i.e. law that allows intelligent discernment - but with any freedom to choose comes reponsibility for your choice.

I think that it is right that in a test you would be expected to observe the HC even in situations where in law you could choose an alternative for a couple of reasons:
- a test has to be able to be assessed - so you need parameters against which one can be tested
- where there is an option (SHOULD) in the HC it is never compulsory to take the alternative, so such driving is not required in the test and it is not the time and place to show that you can use the full boundaries of the law

However, as others have said that should not mean that in a police / court situation you should automatically be penalised - however it is fair to expect that if you choose the option, you can justify the choice.

In a court situation - a good lawyer would easily manage to remove the concept of automatically penalising a driver for such a move (hatched lines / choice of how road markings are observed / etc.) - however a good prosecutor / officer / magistrate would focus on consequences / outcome, not the choice alone.

Alasdair

[TripleS]

You would fail your driving test in the circumstances I'm outlining as it would result in a serious fault.

I would kind of expect that, a test has to be based on testable parameters - this scenario however is one I would be very happy to consider appropriate... I think there is a lot of logic in diluting situations - and taking one driver out of a queue and onwards reduces the queue and makes it more manageable for others - also would help me - wins all around...

however - any other cars in that right lane and even if in theory we might both get past, I wouldn't risk it as the other car could easily be turning right without signalling...

Alasdair

....or he might produce only sufficient acceleration to get himself ahead of the HGV, but leave you stranded.

[Matt62]

Yet the designers/engineers have seen fit to do so for reasons that may not be immediately apparent to you.
Whilst others have respected that, you have not.

I don't follow that at all. All this careful consideration of whether to go against the road marking, careful assessment of the individual circumstances, careful execution of the manoeuvre and so on - all the stuff that I'm saying is important if the manoeuvre is to be acceptable and you're saying can not be enough to make the manoeuvre acceptable - doing all that stuff is the very definition of respecting the road marking. Of course the driver must remain cognisant of the fact that they are going against convention. Failing to do that would be disrespecting the road marking. But carrying out this manoeuvre with care and consideration, with that necessary cognisance, would only amount to disrespecting the road marking if the road marking was a mandatory signal.

The point being it's gone against convention being observed by the others, the highway code being observed by the others & falls short of the national standards of safe & responsible driving in that in any DVSA driving test (not just the basic learner test but any vocational,ADI, examiner etc test) it would result in an immediate fail in the circumstances. The fact it is considered & wilful doesn't alter that. As such I believe it would not be considered the actions of a competent (it immediately failed any test of competence set by the national body responsible for driving standards) & careful driver, it breaching your duty of care & attention in relation to all of the aforementioned.

Interesting response, but what if the 'convention' contradicts the highway code? An example would be the hard shoulder queuing mentioned in an earlier thread.

[vonhosen]

The point being it's gone against convention being observed by the others, the highway code being observed by the others & falls short of the national standards of safe & responsible driving in that in any DVSA driving test (not just the basic learner test but any vocational,ADI, examiner etc test) it would result in an immediate fail in the circumstances. The fact it is considered & wilful doesn't alter that. As such I believe it would not be considered the actions of a competent (it immediately failed any test of competence set by the national body responsible for driving standards) & careful driver, it breaching your duty of care & attention in relation to all of the aforementioned.

Why are you attempting to ascribe to this road marking a level of mandatory-ness that simply does not exist? If the law meant the road marking to be mandatory, the law would say the road marking is mandatory. The fact that it doesn't leaves only one possible conclusion: it must be the case that going against this road marking is not necessarily illegal. The alternative conclusion is irrational.

I'm not simply saying going against the HC = automatic Sec 3.

After all Section 38 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides that failure to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not render a person directly liable to criminal proceedings.

but

any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negate any liability which is in question in those proceedings.

Going against the HC is one part of the case, but we aren't relying on that alone. It also breaches convention & would result in an immediate fail in any test of competence by the body set up to establish & monitor driving standards in this country because it goes against their national standards of safe & responsible driving.

[vonhosen]

The point being it's gone against convention being observed by the others, the highway code being observed by the others & falls short of the national standards of safe & responsible driving in that in any DVSA driving test (not just the basic learner test but any vocational,ADI, examiner etc test) it would result in an immediate fail in the circumstances. The fact it is considered & wilful doesn't alter that. As such I believe it would not be considered the actions of a competent (it immediately failed any test of competence set by the national body responsible for driving standards) & careful driver, it breaching your duty of care & attention in relation to all of the aforementioned.

Interesting response, but what if the 'convention' contradicts the highway code? An example would be the hard shoulder queuing mentioned in an earlier thread.

I didn't see that discussion but you look at what the various factors say about the issue & make a decision having weighed up all the considerations. In the case I've given though convention, highway code & the national standards test are all in agreement about what you should be doing.

[5star]

Interesting response, but what if the 'convention' contradicts the highway code? An example would be the hard shoulder queuing mentioned in an earlier thread.

Safety should always come before law. If, due to forced circumstance, breaking the law is required for safety reasons, then I think the law has a way to deal with this (?) So if cars are already queuing on the hard shoulder and this means I'm at significant risk by not doing the same, I would argue that by not doing so I'd be putting myself and others in danger.

Where convention overtakes law, and the law is deemed unreasonable or unenforceable, then the law is changed.

Where convention has happened but should be quashed, then a combination of advertising and heavy penalties are employed. If monitors were fitted that generated automatic fixed penalty tickets for hard shoulder queuing, and advertised this widely (e.g. on the news), I'm sure the practise would soon stop.

In the case of hard shoulder queuing, this has started to happen because motorways are carrying too much traffic for the junction design. So I don't think it is the law or the driver's actions that need to be addressed, but rather the junction design that needs to change to allow drivers to stick to the law.

[Stephen]

The majority of people on here seem to be trying to justify why they can /should enter the hatched area with only a small number saying the opposite.

Situations concerning hatched areas are breeched on a daily basis without any consequence, but the whole point of these areas are safety and protection to the ones that need to use it ie the right turners into and from the junction. Its this type of behaviour on our roads that lead's to the poor attitude that we have in relation to other parts of the law / HC parking / overtaking in the zig zagged area or on the approach to crossings,lines of traffic in one lane of slow moving traffic drivers making a third line and driving for unacceptable lengths to carry out a right turn etc, expecting others to make allowances for their poor inconsiderate behaviour the list is endless.

Good drivers are patient one's even though they know that they could get away with nipping into the bus lane for the last couple of hundred yards but sit and wait.

The same way as you could leave the overtake until after the hatched area,no, you choose to enter the hatched area to complete it, even though it is against the HC rule 130 of being necessary, why not wait until passed the danger zone and carry it out then which to others might make you look a more competant driver by completing an overtake without breaching any rules or law.

As others have said before it may not be law however should it go wrong and you find yourself having to justify your decision on why you carried out a certain manoeuvre within an area protected for a reason then you just cant simply say well it's not illegal to do A or B .

We need to start to get back to doing the right thing as it is only right that people who take risks at certain locations when driving deserve to fail a test of competancy and need to be more responsible especially the one's who when out observing for the big two road safety organisations allowing incidents of driving behaviour to take place as if it is acceptable which then becomes the norm and their is no redress on the actions of the ones allowing this to happen.
Stephen

[akirk]

I don't think that is the reason why pople are justifying it...

I think it is simply that we live now in a society of creeping change - some people disaprove of something, therefore it is wrong to do it - gradually we get to the position of it is illegal to do it...

the simple response is that if something is legal, then there will be times when it is appropriate and there is nothing to be ashamed of in being legal and safe...

just because someone reserves the right to include their own judgement in making the decision, does not intrinsically make them wrong / risky - it simply means that they are making intelligent adult decisions within the law...

yes there are those who make those same decisions at the wrong time and it is a bad decision - but that doesn't remove the ability for others to make it at the right time...

if (for example) there is no time or place when entering a hatched area can not be done legally and safely - then the law should be changed - the fact that the lines are dashed implies that safe occasions to use that area do occur...

for example we have a long straight near us - recently with a development of a few expensive holiday homes on one side they put in such a road marking - in the last 4 years of driving that road 5-10 times a week I have seen one car use that space to turn across... I also know a lot of local traffic, I can also make my judgement as to where a car is on the road such that even if it were to use that space I will be past long before it is used... it is a very open road with no other complications, I also have fallback options - why would I not use that space for overtaking?

and refering to further back above - just because something might fail a test does not make it illegal outside the test. the driving test is not a 100% match of day to day driving - it is a constructed test, designed to find ways of artifically measuring something which is not always black and white - it is reasonable therefore to see it as testing to a certain level of decision making - which does not exclude a finer level of decision making being used outside the test - in fact we would hope in AD terms that drivers would do exactly that...

Alasdair

[vonhosen]

and refering to further back above - just because something might fail a test does not make it illegal outside the test. the driving test is not a 100% match of day to day driving - it is a constructed test, designed to find ways of artifically measuring something which is not always black and white - it is reasonable therefore to see it as testing to a certain level of decision making - which does not exclude a finer level of decision making being used outside the test - in fact we would hope in AD terms that drivers would do exactly that...

Alasdair

As I said, not just the HC, not just the driving test, not any single source. It's looking at a number of sources together on what is expected on our roads from a competent '&' careful driver. Of course the final arbiter is a court who will look at each case on it's merits when applying the competent & careful test.

For the reasons I've outlined I'd avoid doing it rather than chance a court appearance for myself & at the same time I have no problem with people being reported for a Sec 3 on the basis of the circumstances given either.

The national standards mentioned don't just form the basis of the driving test.
According to the DVSA it will be used by
 trainers
 individuals
 employers
 Sector Skills Councils
 standards setting bodies
 regulatory authorities
 awarding bodies
 education and training providers
 producers of learning materials

[martine]

The majority of people on here seem to be trying to justify why they can /should enter the hatched area with only a small number saying the opposite.

Situations concerning hatched areas are breeched on a daily basis without any consequence, but the whole point of these areas are safety and protection to the ones that need to use it ie the right turners into and from the junction.

I'm interested in your thinking about this stretch of road South of Bristol...and it's use if you came up behind a slow vehicle...
http://goo.gl/maps/EjfZ7