white lines help please

harveybobbles

Something like this?

Heliflyguy

Sounds very much like here on Google maps

51.349311,-0.498655

But cant be sure if thats what the OP is talking about.

muckybutt

http://goo.gl/maps/2xvxy this is the reference to the op's dilemma !

It appears the Give Way markings have been moved forward from the position on GSV - presumably as I said earlier in the thread to allow vehicles emerging from the junction to be able to see past the parked line of cars on the left.

As to what he was going to try and achieve I havent a clue, certainly nothing illegal as the op had been trying to make out and having read the other link he gave the entrapment thing looks completely barmy to me.

Sgt_Pepper_2

muckybutt wrote: »

http://goo.gl/maps/2xvxy this is the reference to the op's dilemma !

It appears the Give Way markings have been moved forward from the position on GSV - presumably as I said earlier in the thread to allow vehicles emerging from the junction to be able to see past the parked line of cars on the left.

As to what he was going to try and achieve I havent a clue, certainly nothing illegal as the op had been trying to make out and having read the other link he gave the entrapment thing looks completely barmy to me.

Hardly dangerous.

NBLondon

muckybutt wrote: »

http://goo.gl/maps/2xvxy this is the reference to the op's dilemma !

It appears the Give Way markings have been moved forward from the position on GSV - presumably as I said earlier in the thread to allow vehicles emerging from the junction to be able to see past the parked line of cars on the left.

Sounds feasible - if there have been a lot of complaints or near-misses from cars coming out. But it doesn't look that bad a junction to me - if you move the viewpoint down Waste Lane a bit and turn round, the curve is quite sweeping and there's space to edge over the line until you can see round the white hatchback. If there was a large van there, it might be more awkward but as you said earlier, the responsibility is on the car emerging.

So what are you on about, OP?

NBLondon

Heliflyguy wrote: »

Sounds very much like here on Google maps

51.349311,-0.498655

But cant be sure if thats what the OP is talking about.

Link - now that's a lot clearer example - thanks! I'd say this is a less extreme junction than muckybutt just showed us. Still can't work out what the OP is complaining about; if the lines had been moved back to reduce the sightlines, I'd see the point.

But what does

now the lines instead of tying into the kerb are directing traffic using the main road straight into the middle rear end of cars parked in parking bays

mean? Do the cars on the main road drive by the left hand edge instead of looking forward? Then they are going to hit any parked vehicle surely???

scaredofdebt

Other than the parking bays being within 10 metres of the junction, can't see any problem.

Neil49

I suggest you contact the council and explain your concerns or get your local MP involved on safety grounds. They will do anything to get their name in the local paper showing what a good job they are doing.

bert_gert

many thanks so far to you all, the entrapment link was to see if anyone knew of this or what it meant, the lines were painted in error(admitted) but once the highways guy heard it might damage the new surface to reinstate the originals the attitude changed and got on about how he could be sued if the original lines were put back due to someone hitting the kerb were it tied in.
I cant get a pic of new layout as there a other peoples cars parked there but throbbe's diagram just about nails it.
I think I'll just see what happens as the road has only re-opened yesterday. Oh they even painted 20-25 ft of yellows in bays lol
many thanks guys, first time and loving the site evry helpful

ady_j

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

No you didn't.

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

Are you trolling or is English a second language?

muckybutt wrote: »

Nothing to do with entrapment at all goodness knows where you have read that, the nearest offence that could be comitted could be Driving Without Due Care - under the Road Traffic Act s170

As I said earlier it is the drivers responsibility to look at and drive in accordance with the markings on the road.

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

Not on a UK .gov site.

muckybutt wrote: »

Thys not wrong there....entrapment ! a US site would spring to mind

2.5.7 Design
Defect in design –
road user entrapped
into danger
Miscellaneous • Road users bear
responsibility for their own
safety. Courts will apportion
responsibility. Claimant will
have to establish that they
were entrapped into danger.
It is only in exceptional
circumstances that individuals
may be able to establish a
breach of duty of care. See
Gorringe v Calderdale

Hi Bert,

Seems like some people couldn't see the:

next to your post.

Don't know about you, but I'm still waiting to hear an apology coming your way;)