Areas of white diagonal stripes: HC r.130

alinwales

From the highway code:

Areas of white diagonal stripes or chevrons painted on the road. These are to separate traffic lanes or to protect traffic turning right.

• if the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so
• if the area is marked with chevrons and bordered by solid white lines you MUST NOT enter it except in an emergency

So near me there was a stretch of 3 lane carriageway. Heading south was a single lane, with double solid lines demarking the two northbound lanes. Council put diagonal lines in the centre lane, but left everything else the same.

Now, I do still use the middle lane occasionally for overtaking (there's a steep hill - single carriageway - further on and I don't want to be stuck behind the lorry doing 15mph). I don't think this constitutes the 'necessary' part of the rule, but as I see it, the cars in the other direction aren't allowed to use the lane so it is almost always safe for me to do so (cyclists aside).

Would you push the 'necessary' rule or remain behind the tractor or lorry?

Strider590

Broken white lines = Go

But bare in mind a lot of people don't know the HWC and do get quite upset when you do this.

Some flash their lights, some honk the horn, some give obscene gestures and the worst.... They swerve across the road to block you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cuecU3Mqno

Lum

The highway code is not a book of law, only advice. Where the terms "MUST" and "MUST NOT" appear then they are telling you about a law. Otherwise the only consequence of not following that rule is that in the event of an accident liability is more likely to lie with you in any civil claim.

"Necessary" is what's sometimes called a "weasel word". It is open to so many interpretations. Is it necessary to be in work on time? Is it necessary to remain at your current speed of 50mph because it's more fuel efficient than 15mph, saving money and reducing CO2 emissions. Everyone has a different idea of what is necessary, so the word is rendered meaningless.

So yes, I'd overtake the tractor if it was safe to do so.


As far as I'm concerned, diagonal stripes + broken border = this area of road reserved for people who have both read, and actually understood, the Highway Code.

alastairq

it is the driver who deems whether an action is 'necessary' or not.

Since we are compelled by Law, to not allow our driving to 'fall below the standard expected of a competent, careful driver'....ie the benchmark a Magistrates' Court would measure the evidence by....then if the individual is satisfied that what they do meets that standard, all is well.

If in doubt, don't do it.


The proviso within the HC is...'if it is clear and safe to do so'....

The problems may arise if, one driver considers doing something, because, in their eyes it is 'clear and safe to do so'.....but in practice, they have actually raised the levels of risk beyond what is acceptable.

Drivers often imagine that,since they can cope with the increased risk comfortably, everybody else should be able to as well.

this is often not the case at all.


In the example of the OP, in my view, whilst it is fine to utilise the hatched area of road, it must be remembered that, even though oncoming traffic may have their position constrained by a road marking....there are no guarantees that traffic will comply with that road marking.

Remember, the solid continuous white line in this instance means 'do not cross......except blah blah blah!'

So there is no compulsion for the oncoming traffic to comply if they face a situation where they can cross the line.


In my view, it is best to only utilise the hatched area..if..there is no oncoming traffic at the time of the usage....that could in any way be affected by one's actions.

Strider590

I see "necessary" as necessary in order to overtake safely.......

alastairq wrote: »

In my view, it is best to only utilise the hatched area..if..there is no oncoming traffic at the time of the usage....that could in any way be affected by one's actions.

Or if the road is sufficiently wide... Surely?

There's one local to me, a 2 lane road wide and downhill with excellent visibility, it's actually 1m wider than the southbound carriageway of the M5 motorway.
It's an NSL and I regularly overtake 30-40mph drivers on this section (much to their disapproval), sometimes people driving the opposite way might flash or honk at me, even though I haven't actually entered the oncoming carriageway!! There is NO law that states you cannot overtake with oncoming traffic (the law could never exist), so if the road is easily wide enough, why not?

Drive by the book, but do so with care..... AND watch out for pillocks who wish to enforce their own version of the HWC upon you.

alinwales

You can't guarantee anything of any other driver, but if we were that paranoid then we would never use the middle lane in thses circumstances even if it wasn't hatched.

Why do we have broken lines and hatched area? if we really shouldn't be using it then make the demarkation line solid. We can still go around horses/bikes (as long as they aren't going over 10mph!).

I'm happy to overtake anything going too slowly, though it's frustrating being at the back of a long queue behind a street sweeper or milk float and no one else is passing it (even though I know I won't be able to myself)!

As far as I'm concerned, diagonal stripes + broken border = this area of road reserved for people who have both read, and actually understood, the Highway Code.

This.

Lum

I can think of a few reasons why the council might make this change.

Picture a road that repeatedly changes from uphill to downhill, 3 lanes wide and the middle lane is always made available for uphill overtaking. Seems sensible right.

But there is a problem, the middle lane will change direction at the top of the hill, which is often a blind crest, so if you get two muppets using that lane, not paying attention, you can end up with a 60mph head on collision at the top of the hill as both fail to acurately judge how long it will take to overtake that lorry.

When you hatch it off those muppets will likely stay in lane 1 and not attempt an overtake. The people who actually understand that they can still use it tend to also be the sort of people who can more accurately judge how long their overtake will take and be done before they reach the top of the hill. Result = fewer accidents.

OP: Which road is this. Is it the heads of the valleys by any chance?

Notmyrealname

alinwales wrote: »

From the highway code:



So near me there was a stretch of 3 lane carriageway. Heading south was a single lane, with double solid lines demarking the two northbound lanes. Council put diagonal lines in the centre lane, but left everything else the same.

Now, I do still use the middle lane occasionally for overtaking (there's a steep hill - single carriageway - further on and I don't want to be stuck behind the lorry doing 15mph). I don't think this constitutes the 'necessary' part of the rule, but as I see it, the cars in the other direction aren't allowed to use the lane so it is almost always safe for me to do so (cyclists aside).

Would you push the 'necessary' rule or remain behind the tractor or lorry?

If the lines are solid, you cannot overtake a lorry. You can't overtake a "fastrak" tractor - one of those that does 40MPH.

alinwales

no Lum, Not the HoV (which I nearly had a run in with 2 lorries when the middle lane disappeared and my bit of space became a bit too tight for my liking with 2 larger objects on either side of me).

It's A48 near chepstow.
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?num=20&hl=en&rlz=1I7GGLL_en-GBGB405&biw=1219&bih=760&q=pwllmeyric&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x4871953649fbdff5:0x454d7545e5b41fdd,Pwllmeyric,+Monmouthshire&gl=uk&ei=J319T62wHciw0QWK4vDMBA&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ8gEwAA
(from before they painted the middle lane)
(map not of exact right place, look a bit north of the crossing over the M48, by Chepstow garden centre)

A few potential hazards around the area, which make me understand why they wouldn't like it being used: right turn lanes to various things, a reduction to 40 at the end of the dualled bit (which admittedly is hard to achieve if you are overtaking). Further south there are other bits where the middle section varies between hatched and right turn filter lanes too.

NMRN: I'm not disputing the rules around solid lines, the rules around those are very clear. This is not the case in this situation.

Lum

Aha, right turn lanes would explain it. If it's a hatched area that then turns into a right turn lane. Imagine you are overtaking someone, and as you enter the right turn lane, they also pull into the right turn lane and hit you... it's your fault as you "should not" be using the hatched area.

Without the hatched area, the person you are overtaking would have had to wait until you were past and either miss their turn, or drive even slower, or just sit in the right hand line 2 miles before the turning to ensure they can actually get into the damn lane, thus preventing anyone from overtaking.

It means you have to think very carefully before overtaking near a turning, and stops outside lane hogging.

Strider590

I've just found out that in certain area's the Police are misusing section 59 of the road traffic act, with relation to causing an annoyance to others. So in those area's (Wales is one of them) even if you follow the letter of the law, you can still be prosecuted for upsetting someone who doesn't know the highway code.

That would include using both lanes when there's a queue forming in lane 1 of a dualcarriageway OR taking a cheeky shortcut OR filtering as a biker/cyclist OR overtaking a slow driver OR just about any of the perfectly legal things we do in our cars which mildly upsets idiots.

Section 59 was essentially designed to stop kids riding around on dirt bikes and quadbikes, causing a nuisance in your local neighbourhood. Breaching it can result in the vehicle being crushed.

Sounds a lot like the anti-terror laws being used against innocent photographers.