botched road markings

[Chris5156]

Hindhead tunnel has the authorised hazard marking for use in normal and contraflow layouts.

I wouldn't hold that up as a paragon of good design - it's extremely ambiguous as to whether it's a dashed line or a solid line, since the breaks are tiny and appear to be only for cats eyes. There is no parallel in the Highway Code so I don't know how drivers are meant to be able to interpret them, and there's a running argument in my family about whether or not changing lanes is permitted.

As a consequence you routinely see people getting frustrated with each other: some motorists will cross the line to overtake and others will play policeman, using horns and flashing lights to try to enforce what they think is a solid line. You also see - about 50% of the time you pass through the tunnel during day time - people going slowly in the right hand lane, who won't move left because they think they're not allowed, followed by a convoy of frustrated motorists. Worse, it's reallynot unusual to see people move left, pass on the left, then move right again to get round them. That would be reckless on the open road but it's a serious hazard in a tunnel. I don't excuse the poor driving but I understand why it happens: the markings are ambiguous. It either needs to be clearly a solid line or clearly dashed so that it communicates a single message to everyone.

Say what you like about double white lines in tunnels, they are at least well understood - and isn't that the point?

If the DWL were properly understood then all vehicles would be in the left hand lane. The warning line in Hindhead works as intended in both normal and contraflow conditions. In normal conditions the standard keep left unless overtaking applies. I don't think Hindhead uses cats eyes, I think we did a statutory Type Approval for Philips studs.

OK, I'm sorry if my meaning was unclear.

I will rephrase:
Say what you like about the specific legal meaning of double white lines, the meaning intended by painting them through a tunnel is well understood by road users, and isn't that the point? It's no use saying it's the wrong marking when the "wrong" marking achieves the desired behaviour from road users and the "right" marking doesn't. A good road marking (and for that matter, a good road sign and a good piece of highway design) should allow its meaning to be correctly inferred by someone who hasn't seen it before and hasn't read up on the associated legislation.

Re. your claim that the warning line at Hindhead works as intended - no, it doesn't, and I explained why in my previous post. I use the Hindhead tunnel a lot and I see the frustration and confusion it causes almost every time I'm there. The markings fail to reliably convey the correct meaning. Its meaning is not, to my knowledge, actually defined anywhere an ordinary road user could be expected to have seen it. Can you provide some evidence for your claim that it works as intended? Can you show me that its meaning has been made available to road users in the Highway Code, or anywhere else an ordinary member of the public could be expected to find it?

I will help out, if you like, with a link to the relevant page of the Highway Code, which does not mention it, and Know Your Traffic Signs [pdf], where page 63 covers hazard lines but also does not mention it.

Here's an interesting thing, though. Both those documents do explain how a driver should interpret double white lines, and neither of them say anything about remaining on the left of them at all times. The advice given to drivers for double white lines is actually this.

Double white lines where the line nearer to you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road.

Viewed in the direction of travel, if the line closest to you is continuous, you must not cross or straddle it (except to turn into or out of a side road or property, avoid a stationary vehicle blocking the lane, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road works vehicle moving at not more than 10 mph).

So motorists in tunnels are, I'd say, perfectly well following the advice they are given by the official information aimed at them: namely, if the line nearest you is solid, don't cross it.

Motorists at Hindhead, meanwhile, are understandably confused and behaving in all sorts of ways because there is no explanation of what the marking means or what they're supposed to do.

I'll say it again. Double white lines in tunnels are well understood and observed. The daft line at Hindhead isn't.

[jnty]

I'm not really sure what the lining in Hindhead is meant to add - presumably I'm meant to take extra care when overtaking, but what does that involve? Is the average driver really going to be inclined to take any more care than they would taking into account their current very obvious position within a tunnel and the fact that there's average speed cameras? If there's specific risks that drivers won't be intrinsically aware of, shouldn't they be the subject of specific signage, or justification for a speed restriction?

For contraflow traffic, is it really adding anything other than the lane guidance gantry signs, speed restrictions and the very weird experience of being shunted over to the opposite carriageway or funnelled left by cones? It feels as though having cats eyes that could change colour from white to red or yellow would have a much more obvious instinctive meaning to drivers in these circumstances (despite presumably not being lawful).

[Conekicker]

I'm not really sure what the lining in Hindhead is meant to add - presumably I'm meant to take extra care when overtaking, but what does that involve? Is the average driver really going to be inclined to take any more care than they would taking into account their current very obvious position within a tunnel and the fact that there's average speed cameras? If there's specific risks that drivers won't be intrinsically aware of, shouldn't they be the subject of specific signage, or justification for a speed restriction?

For contraflow traffic, is it really adding anything other than the lane guidance gantry signs, speed restrictions and the very weird experience of being shunted over to the opposite carriageway or funnelled left by cones? It feels as though having cats eyes that could change colour from white to red or yellow would have a much more obvious instinctive meaning to drivers in these circumstances (despite presumably not being lawful).

Anything can be lawful if it's prescribed or authorised.

[jnty]

I'm not really sure what the lining in Hindhead is meant to add - presumably I'm meant to take extra care when overtaking, but what does that involve? Is the average driver really going to be inclined to take any more care than they would taking into account their current very obvious position within a tunnel and the fact that there's average speed cameras? If there's specific risks that drivers won't be intrinsically aware of, shouldn't they be the subject of specific signage, or justification for a speed restriction?

For contraflow traffic, is it really adding anything other than the lane guidance gantry signs, speed restrictions and the very weird experience of being shunted over to the opposite carriageway or funnelled left by cones? It feels as though having cats eyes that could change colour from white to red or yellow would have a much more obvious instinctive meaning to drivers in these circumstances (despite presumably not being lawful).

Anything can be lawful if it's prescribed or authorised.

Well yes, I meant prescribed in TSRGD. I wouldn't have thought it's a dead cert it would get special authorisation either?

[Conekicker]

I'm not really sure what the lining in Hindhead is meant to add - presumably I'm meant to take extra care when overtaking, but what does that involve? Is the average driver really going to be inclined to take any more care than they would taking into account their current very obvious position within a tunnel and the fact that there's average speed cameras? If there's specific risks that drivers won't be intrinsically aware of, shouldn't they be the subject of specific signage, or justification for a speed restriction?

For contraflow traffic, is it really adding anything other than the lane guidance gantry signs, speed restrictions and the very weird experience of being shunted over to the opposite carriageway or funnelled left by cones? It feels as though having cats eyes that could change colour from white to red or yellow would have a much more obvious instinctive meaning to drivers in these circumstances (despite presumably not being lawful).

Anything can be lawful if it's prescribed or authorised.

Well yes, I meant prescribed in TSRGD. I wouldn't have thought it's a dead cert it would get special authorisation either?

You could always ask NH or DfT if it's been authorised.

[jnty]

Anything can be lawful if it's prescribed or authorised.

Well yes, I meant prescribed in TSRGD. I wouldn't have thought it's a dead cert it would get special authorisation either?

You could always ask NH or DfT if it's been authorised.

I don't think it would be a productive use of anyone's time to ask if an idea I just came up with on a forum has received a special authorisation.

[Bryn666]

I wouldn't hold that up as a paragon of good design - it's extremely ambiguous as to whether it's a dashed line or a solid line, since the breaks are tiny and appear to be only for cats eyes. There is no parallel in the Highway Code so I don't know how drivers are meant to be able to interpret them, and there's a running argument in my family about whether or not changing lanes is permitted.

As a consequence you routinely see people getting frustrated with each other: some motorists will cross the line to overtake and others will play policeman, using horns and flashing lights to try to enforce what they think is a solid line. You also see - about 50% of the time you pass through the tunnel during day time - people going slowly in the right hand lane, who won't move left because they think they're not allowed, followed by a convoy of frustrated motorists. Worse, it's reallynot unusual to see people move left, pass on the left, then move right again to get round them. That would be reckless on the open road but it's a serious hazard in a tunnel. I don't excuse the poor driving but I understand why it happens: the markings are ambiguous. It either needs to be clearly a solid line or clearly dashed so that it communicates a single message to everyone.

Say what you like about double white lines in tunnels, they are at least well understood - and isn't that the point?

If the DWL were properly understood then all vehicles would be in the left hand lane. The warning line in Hindhead works as intended in both normal and contraflow conditions. In normal conditions the standard keep left unless overtaking applies. I don't think Hindhead uses cats eyes, I think we did a statutory Type Approval for Philips studs.

OK, I'm sorry if my meaning was unclear.

I will rephrase:
Say what you like about the specific legal meaning of double white lines, the meaning intended by painting them through a tunnel is well understood by road users, and isn't that the point? It's no use saying it's the wrong marking when the "wrong" marking achieves the desired behaviour from road users and the "right" marking doesn't. A good road marking (and for that matter, a good road sign and a good piece of highway design) should allow its meaning to be correctly inferred by someone who hasn't seen it before and hasn't read up on the associated legislation.

Re. your claim that the warning line at Hindhead works as intended - no, it doesn't, and I explained why in my previous post. I use the Hindhead tunnel a lot and I see the frustration and confusion it causes almost every time I'm there. The markings fail to reliably convey the correct meaning. Its meaning is not, to my knowledge, actually defined anywhere an ordinary road user could be expected to have seen it. Can you provide some evidence for your claim that it works as intended? Can you show me that its meaning has been made available to road users in the Highway Code, or anywhere else an ordinary member of the public could be expected to find it?

I will help out, if you like, with a link to the relevant page of the Highway Code, which does not mention it, and Know Your Traffic Signs [pdf], where page 63 covers hazard lines but also does not mention it.

Here's an interesting thing, though. Both those documents do explain how a driver should interpret double white lines, and neither of them say anything about remaining on the left of them at all times. The advice given to drivers for double white lines is actually this.

Double white lines where the line nearer to you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road.

Viewed in the direction of travel, if the line closest to you is continuous, you must not cross or straddle it (except to turn into or out of a side road or property, avoid a stationary vehicle blocking the lane, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road works vehicle moving at not more than 10 mph).

So motorists in tunnels are, I'd say, perfectly well following the advice they are given by the official information aimed at them: namely, if the line nearest you is solid, don't cross it.

Motorists at Hindhead, meanwhile, are understandably confused and behaving in all sorts of ways because there is no explanation of what the marking means or what they're supposed to do.

I'll say it again. Double white lines in tunnels are well understood and observed. The daft line at Hindhead isn't.

Buried well within the 500 pages of the increasingly unpopular TSRGD 2016 (I'm getting more and more people tell me it's awful to work with, which explains a lot), is this gem:

subject to sub-paragraph (5), every vehicle proceeding on any length of road along which the marking has been so placed, as viewed in the direction of travel of the vehicle, a continuous line is on the left of a broken line or of another continuous line, must be so driven as to keep the first-mentioned continuous line on the right hand or off side of the vehicle.

Sub-para (5) then explains the exemptions listed in the HWC and KYTS. It's interesting that the actual legislation that underpins road markings is not quoted anywhere; which raises the question of why is such a requirement not communicated with road users? I mean, it's pretty critical.

Drivers are not expected to read TSRGD. Engineers hiding behind legalese and getting pompous about this just comes across as being a smug know-it-all trying to lord it over the plebs, rather than actually striving to improve the experience for the end road user. The dodgy and nonsensical marking at Hindhead does nothing to improve driver comprehension - other tunnels where overtaking is permitted like the Hatfield Tunnel just uses conventional 1008.1 lane markings.

5(c) says that you can ignore this requirement if the situation is outside of the control of the driver; so being totally pedantic as this is left open-ended I would say a marking being laid at the instruction of, say, the police to a highway authority is a situation outside of the control of the driver.

As for the DWLs in the Mersey Tunnel - the byelaws cover them:

not cause his vehicle to cross the line or marks separating the traffic lanes in the tunnels but shall keep his vehicle in lane until passing out of the tunnels unless otherwise authorised or directed by a Mersey Tunnels police officer or other authorised officer, or by a traffic sign or signal.

Guess which has far better compliance and understanding despite being "wrong", and not in TSRGD. I wonder.

[Chris5156]

Buried well within the 500 pages of the increasingly unpopular TSRGD 2016 (I'm getting more and more people tell me it's awful to work with, which explains a lot), is this gem:

subject to sub-paragraph (5), every vehicle proceeding on any length of road along which the marking has been so placed, as viewed in the direction of travel of the vehicle, a continuous line is on the left of a broken line or of another continuous line, must be so driven as to keep the first-mentioned continuous line on the right hand or off side of the vehicle.

Sub-para (5) then explains the exemptions listed in the HWC and KYTS. It's interesting that the actual legislation that underpins road markings is not quoted anywhere; which raises the question of why is such a requirement not communicated with road users? I mean, it's pretty critical.

Interesting. It's decidedly odd that the legal definition of double white lines is so different to the explanation offered to drivers. How could a motorist be expected to know that DWL means they must keep to the left if no official source of information aimed at them tells them so? It rather feels like it's TSRGD that is lagging behind and needs to catch up with the way these markings are successfully being used and understood in the real world.

[Bryn666]

Buried well within the 500 pages of the increasingly unpopular TSRGD 2016 (I'm getting more and more people tell me it's awful to work with, which explains a lot), is this gem:

subject to sub-paragraph (5), every vehicle proceeding on any length of road along which the marking has been so placed, as viewed in the direction of travel of the vehicle, a continuous line is on the left of a broken line or of another continuous line, must be so driven as to keep the first-mentioned continuous line on the right hand or off side of the vehicle.

Sub-para (5) then explains the exemptions listed in the HWC and KYTS. It's interesting that the actual legislation that underpins road markings is not quoted anywhere; which raises the question of why is such a requirement not communicated with road users? I mean, it's pretty critical.

Interesting. It's decidedly odd that the legal definition of double white lines is so different to the explanation offered to drivers. How could a motorist be expected to know that DWL means they must keep to the left if no official source of information aimed at them tells them so? It rather feels like it's TSRGD that is lagging behind and needs to catch up with the way these markings are successfully being used and understood in the real world.

Given there is also a requirement to discuss DWL installations with the police, since it's an endorseable offence to cross such lines, it seems apparent they have no objection to the use of them in tunnels regardless of the wording buried in TSRGD (and has been since 1964!) and literally nowhere else (why?), otherwise in the last six decades someone would've kicked off and demanded their removal immediately. I can only conclude that National England Agency for Highways felt the need to prove how innovative they are with Hindhead, as they seem to exist purely to come up with half baked ideas rather than actually manage the road network these days.

[MotorwayGuy]

The slip road from the A2 at Gravesend has been altered fairly recently, but the positioning of the give way markings is strange. The whole job looks poorly marked with the geometry being all over the place and I'm not sure why they went to all the trouble of building a slip lane that doesn't merge.

[Bomag]

I wouldn't hold that up as a paragon of good design - it's extremely ambiguous as to whether it's a dashed line or a solid line, since the breaks are tiny and appear to be only for cats eyes. There is no parallel in the Highway Code so I don't know how drivers are meant to be able to interpret them, and there's a running argument in my family about whether or not changing lanes is permitted.

As a consequence you routinely see people getting frustrated with each other: some motorists will cross the line to overtake and others will play policeman, using horns and flashing lights to try to enforce what they think is a solid line. You also see - about 50% of the time you pass through the tunnel during day time - people going slowly in the right hand lane, who won't move left because they think they're not allowed, followed by a convoy of frustrated motorists. Worse, it's reallynot unusual to see people move left, pass on the left, then move right again to get round them. That would be reckless on the open road but it's a serious hazard in a tunnel. I don't excuse the poor driving but I understand why it happens: the markings are ambiguous. It either needs to be clearly a solid line or clearly dashed so that it communicates a single message to everyone.

Say what you like about double white lines in tunnels, they are at least well understood - and isn't that the point?

If the DWL were properly understood then all vehicles would be in the left hand lane. The warning line in Hindhead works as intended in both normal and contraflow conditions. In normal conditions the standard keep left unless overtaking applies. I don't think Hindhead uses cats eyes, I think we did a statutory Type Approval for Philips studs.

OK, I'm sorry if my meaning was unclear.

I will rephrase:
Say what you like about the specific legal meaning of double white lines, the meaning intended by painting them through a tunnel is well understood by road users, and isn't that the point? It's no use saying it's the wrong marking when the "wrong" marking achieves the desired behaviour from road users and the "right" marking doesn't. A good road marking (and for that matter, a good road sign and a good piece of highway design) should allow its meaning to be correctly inferred by someone who hasn't seen it before and hasn't read up on the associated legislation.

Re. your claim that the warning line at Hindhead works as intended - no, it doesn't, and I explained why in my previous post. I use the Hindhead tunnel a lot and I see the frustration and confusion it causes almost every time I'm there. The markings fail to reliably convey the correct meaning. Its meaning is not, to my knowledge, actually defined anywhere an ordinary road user could be expected to have seen it. Can you provide some evidence for your claim that it works as intended? Can you show me that its meaning has been made available to road users in the Highway Code, or anywhere else an ordinary member of the public could be expected to find it?

I will help out, if you like, with a link to the relevant page of the Highway Code, which does not mention it, and Know Your Traffic Signs [pdf], where page 63 covers hazard lines but also does not mention it.

Here's an interesting thing, though. Both those documents do explain how a driver should interpret double white lines, and neither of them say anything about remaining on the left of them at all times. The advice given to drivers for double white lines is actually this.

Double white lines where the line nearer to you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road.

Viewed in the direction of travel, if the line closest to you is continuous, you must not cross or straddle it (except to turn into or out of a side road or property, avoid a stationary vehicle blocking the lane, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road works vehicle moving at not more than 10 mph).

So motorists in tunnels are, I'd say, perfectly well following the advice they are given by the official information aimed at them: namely, if the line nearest you is solid, don't cross it.

Motorists at Hindhead, meanwhile, are understandably confused and behaving in all sorts of ways because there is no explanation of what the marking means or what they're supposed to do.

I'll say it again. Double white lines in tunnels are well understood and observed. The daft line at Hindhead isn't.

This seemed to have got stuck as a draft

As I mentioned while using DWL in this non-lawful way may have some benefit at reducing lane changing it is between 10 and 100 times less effective that a lawful marking/layout. There was a meeting with DfT in 2014 where this was discussed. It was not simply not effective enough to consider thinking about making a formal change; there was no way TSM could be updated to provide design guidance while still meeting the author liability under CDM Regulation 9.

While there is occasionally a benefit to having an active VMS legend for 'stay in lane' to stave off flow breakdown, as a fixed sign element it was so poor that 'get in lane' and 'stay in lane ' were not prescribed in TSRGD 2016 for road works wicket signs. For which many TTM operatives have had a easier time putting up the signs.

In terms of the Highway Code, having drafted a number of sections the wording is a distillation of the requirement to minimise road user misunderstanding. The assumption is that only the lawful application of the TSRGD would be made. If there is a divergence then it is the Highway Code which gets changed, not legislation. The lasted round of HC updates was not helped by those who should no better trying to fix the repercussions of some poor design choices. As an aside why is there a fixation on telling road users to stand behind the barrier? Something not very intelligent as people cannot tell the difference between a 'normal' barrier, one at works and a parapet.

[Chris5156]

As I mentioned while using DWL in this non-lawful way may have some benefit at reducing lane changing it is between 10 and 100 times less effective that a lawful marking/layout.

Interesting - what is a lawful layout for preventing people changing lane in a tunnel? I've never seen it done any other way.

Also, as an aside, I'd be interested to know whether there's an empirical basis to the fact that lane changing is banned in so many tunnels. Is it that dangerous? In some tunnels it is allowed and seems to work just fine.

[wallmeerkat]

The slip road from the A2 at Gravesend has been altered fairly recently, but the positioning of the give way markings is strange. The whole job looks poorly marked with the geometry being all over the place and I'm not sure why they went to all the trouble of building a slip lane that doesn't merge.

Plenty of examples of roundabout slip lanes that don't merge

https://www.google.com/maps/@54.6571482 ... 384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@54.6734188 ... 384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@54.6732233 ... 384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@54.6790857 ... 312!8i6656

[MotorwayGuy]

The slip road from the A2 at Gravesend has been altered fairly recently, but the positioning of the give way markings is strange. The whole job looks poorly marked with the geometry being all over the place and I'm not sure why they went to all the trouble of building a slip lane that doesn't merge.

Plenty of examples of roundabout slip lanes that don't merge

https://www.google.com/maps/@54.6571482 ... 384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@54.6734188 ... 384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@54.6732233 ... 384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@54.6790857 ... 312!8i6656

At least all of those have the give way markings in the place you'd expect them, and were probably built that way from when the roundabout was added. The Gravesend example is a recent modification and I fail to see how it was worth the money spent.

[wallmeerkat]

Who exactly would we (buses only!) give way to here?

https://www.google.com/maps/@54.6939456 ... 384!8i8192

The stopped up road to the right used for accesses also looks like it has had a couple of attempts as a give way line

https://www.google.com/maps/@54.6939042 ... 384!8i8192

[wallmeerkat]

I know this arrow is used when a lane is closing, or to warn overtakers to get back into lane

But what does it mean here when the lane is continuing on?

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4517755 ... 384!8i8192

[the cheesecake man]

I know this arrow is used when a lane is closing, or to warn overtakers to get back into lane

But what does it mean here when the lane is continuing on?

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4517755 ... 384!8i8192

But it's not continuing for long and becomes a right turn lane so I'd guess the arrow means "Are you sure you want to be in this lane?" A normal right turn arrow would convey this message much more clearly.

[wallmeerkat]

I know this arrow is used when a lane is closing, or to warn overtakers to get back into lane

But what does it mean here when the lane is continuing on?

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4517755 ... 384!8i8192

But it's not continuing for long and becomes a right turn lane so I'd guess the arrow means "Are you sure you want to be in this lane?" A normal right turn arrow would convey this message much more clearly.

"Are you absolutely sure you want to spend all your money in the retail park?..."

<-

[Big L]

Single solid white line.

[Bryn666]

Single solid white line.

1957 called, they want their original hazard marking back.