The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.
There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).
Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.
wallmeerkat wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 16:00
I have this example locally which has both a break in the double white line to allow traffic in the right turn lane to enter (and exit) the school, but also continuous double white line for oncoming traffic's right turn lane turning to access the field to our left - https://www.google.com/maps/@54.4947681 ... ?entry=ttu , but it seems both are valid (at least if NI adheres to the same TSRGD)
I suppose there could be some particular guidance (or perception) that the line should be broken for reasonably well-used side roads but not for private accesses? This would be fair in isolation - it would be pretty silly to break for every driveway here for example - but if you're putting in a right-turn lane for it you may as well mark it consistently.
I wonder if the provision of a break affects the necessity and therefore possibly the legality of crossing the double line before it? If the double line is continuous, it's up to you exactly where you cross and you might choose to do so early, presumably at greater risk. Whereas if there's a break, it's no longer necessary to cross the double line to turn, and depending on the legal wording it may therefore become illegal to do so? I suppose crossing the footway would be similar - it is generally illegal to drive on the footway, but there exists an exception for eg. accessing driveways. However, if you are accessing a driveway for which there is a break in the footway, it's no longer necessary to mount the footway at all, and therefore you presumably can't rely on that exception to mount the pavement early and 'cut the corner'.
wallmeerkat wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 16:00
I have this example locally which has both a break in the double white line to allow traffic in the right turn lane to enter (and exit) the school, but also continuous double white line for oncoming traffic's right turn lane turning to access the field to our left - https://www.google.com/maps/@54.4947681 ... ?entry=ttu , but it seems both are valid (at least if NI adheres to the same TSRGD)
I suppose there could be some particular guidance (or perception) that the line should be broken for reasonably well-used side roads but not for private accesses? This would be fair in isolation - it would be pretty silly to break for every driveway here for example - but if you're putting in a right-turn lane for it you may as well mark it consistently.
I wonder if the provision of a break affects the necessity and therefore possibly the legality of crossing the double line before it? If the double line is continuous, it's up to you exactly where you cross and you might choose to do so early, presumably at greater risk. Whereas if there's a break, it's no longer necessary to cross the double line to turn, and depending on the legal wording it may therefore become illegal to do so? I suppose crossing the footway would be similar - it is generally illegal to drive on the footway, but there exists an exception for eg. accessing driveways. However, if you are accessing a driveway for which there is a break in the footway, it's no longer necessary to mount the footway at all, and therefore you presumably can't rely on that exception to mount the pavement early and 'cut the corner'.
Presumably the difference has arisen accidently i.e. the right turn lane for the school was always there and so was marked with a gap in the double white line but the right turn lane for the field/building site/whatever it is was added later and the double white line which was originally marked was never amended.
Chris5156 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 22:52
Yikes. They should also apologise for the unlawful 40 sign on the right.
And the completely needless red junk obscuring the Dia. 1004 beyond the gateway feature. They really have no idea how to deal with legacy single carriageways that aren't in DMRB.
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
Does this mean that if the go straight ahead arrow light is red, then you need to stop if you're turning left? There are no pedestrian crossings and there is a give way marking.
Does this mean that if the go straight ahead arrow light is red, then you need to stop if you're turning left? There are no pedestrian crossings and there is a give way marking.
I'd be raising that with the highway authority.
It's a misleading and dangerous design - left turn slips like this invite high speed rear-shunt collisions and are a nightmare for pedestrians because of the confusion the primary signal can cause. Now, if we actually allowed red and amber arrows as standard options like the rest of the world...
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
