A361 (was A39) Vergemasters - Update 05-07-07

paully · Post by **paully** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 12:50

If there is a physical barrier between the 2 flows then surely this is technically a dual carriageway with a 70 limit? What was wrong with a 2+1 stretch with a solid line on one side?

Helvellyn · Post by **Helvellyn** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 13:05

As an aside to my earlier posts in this thread, I noticed at the weekend that the section of hatching I had in mind when I wrote them (A66 around Threlkeld) has double white lines on one side and broken in the other, as well as regular traffic islands (one or two are for crossing footpaths, the others can only be there to stop overtaking).

If a road is wide enough for S3 (or was one at some point) is there any sensible reason not to have S2+1? I'm not sure how even the most rabid anti-overtaker can claim that's dangerous, unless they are complaining about accidents caused by morons on the one lane side going where they're not supposed to.

M60-Tony · Post by **M60-Tony** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 13:05

I'd wondered that as well

. However as it is not a continuous physical barrier I feel claiming it is a dual carriageway is likely to be rejected.

M60-Tony · Post by **M60-Tony** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 13:09

Helvellyn wrote:If a road is wide enough for S3 (or was one at some point) is there any sensible reason not to have S2+1? I'm not sure how even the most rabid anti-overtaker can claim that's dangerous, unless they are complaining about accidents caused by morons on the one lane side going where they're not supposed to.

A few years ago while driving eastbound on the A635 Woodhead Pass descent I had the delights of having 3 side by side vehicles coming towards me, 1 lorry and 2 overtaking cars, on the S2+1. Ever since I've awaited the hatching out of the centre lane. It hasn't happened - yet...

Truvelo · Post by **Truvelo** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 16:38

M60-Tony wrote: A few years ago while driving eastbound on the A635 Woodhead Pass descent I had the delights of having 3 side by side vehicles coming towards me, 1 lorry and 2 overtaking cars, on the S2+1. Ever since I've awaited the hatching out of the centre lane. It hasn't happened - yet...

Did you mean the A628, I'm not aware of any crawler lanes on the A635. There's no way they can remove the A628 one. It would cause more dangerous overtaking on the twisty bits resulting in more missing pieces of the wall.

I myself have been 3 abreast once, on the Alcester Bypass. A car was taking an eternity to pass a lorry so I passed both of them at once. I made certain there was nothing coming the other way before attempting it

M60-Tony · Post by **M60-Tony** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 17:37

Truvelo wrote:Did you mean the A628, I'm not aware of any crawler lanes on the A635.

I did mean the A628, a touch of inflation methinks

Ste_Nova · Post by **Ste_Nova** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 18:29

haymansafc wrote: More than likely. Many years ago, the A41 close to my house used to be largely S4. About twelve years ago (probably a little more than that now, thinking about it), it was hatched down to an S2, where both lanes were remarked so they now follow down the middle of what used to be lanes 1 and 2 on both sides of the road. This has allowed space for a cycle lane at the edge of both sides of the roads which sees little use. Then, about four or five years ago, the council decided to place strategically placed islands in the middle of the hatching, which is little more than a square area of raised pavement, a keep left sign and a small light in the middle. This has more or less ended overtaking on this section of road. However, it's not really a road I'd want to overtake on to be honest as there are a couple of semi-blind bends. However typically, when you come to a set of traffic lights, it opens back out very briefly into it's old S4 layout of old and then yards past the junction it narrows back down to the single lane and hatching - you always have idiots in lane two trying to force themselves back in again, almost taking the side of your car off in the process.... This alone has probably made the road more dangerous than it ever was. It would be easier if they hatched around the lights too, making it just one lane.

it's still s4 when your heading into chester... and it flows much easier, i allways have to guess which lane is going to get away first at the lights to make good progress

Glen · Post by **Glen** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 19:30

Helvellyn wrote:If a road is wide enough for S3 (or was one at some point) is there any sensible reason not to have S2+1? I'm not sure how even the most rabid anti-overtaker can claim that's dangerous, unless they are complaining about accidents caused by morons on the one lane side going where they're not supposed to.

Well you would be surprised.. I found a comment in a BBC News "have your say" page on the overtaking lanes on the A9.

Bear in mind the layout of the S2+1 on the A9 is pretty much the safest way you can have a three lane single carriage way.

Someone from Thurso comments "The A9 north of Perth is a disgrace and highly dangerous. Who in their right mind builds three lane roads nowadays after all the deaths on the old A8 many years ago?"
Riiiight.... So a 2+1 with defined priorty for the middle lane is comparable to a "suicide lane" S3?

boing_uk · Post by **boing_uk** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 19:39

Hmm, but given the standards in the Traffic Signs Manual, I think that the picture above would warrant a broken line on the single lane.

I just wish Traffic Engineers would consult guidance more often and stop running off half-cocked with their own "standards".

What is the benefit of having the gap between the two solid lines hatched out and coloured?

NONE!

Its a maintenance pain-in-the-:censored: and looks bloody awful. And as with anything in traffic management, if its overused, the effectiveness is lost.

About time local councils lost all their highway authority powers to a regional agency, away from the political meddling.

Conekicker · Post by **Conekicker** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 22:05

boing_uk wrote:Hmm, but given the standards in the Traffic Signs Manual, I think that the picture above would warrant a broken line on the single lane.

I don't know the route in question but there are a few reasons why overtaking might be forbidden for the single lane, there might only be a short distance between wherever this single lane started and the next junction where an island may be present or it looks like there might be a bit of a crest and a left hand bend of in the distance.

boing_uk wrote:What is the benefit of having the gap between the two solid lines hatched out and coloured?

NONE!

Its a maintenance pain-in-the-:censored: and looks bloody awful. And as with anything in traffic management, if its overused, the effectiveness is lost.

The hatching helps to keep traffic seperated a bit more and in this case gives a little extra width to get past something broken down in the single lane without encroaching too much into the opposing centre lane. Yes, the red stuff would be a pain to maintain and - assuming it's surface applied - might act as a blockage to the free flow of surface water, overall not a good idea.

boing_uk wrote:About time local councils lost all their highway authority powers to a regional agency, away from the political meddling.

Hear, hear! Economy of scale and the few remaining technical staff would be able to be used more effectively. The gathering together would aid an improvement in standards too, it's high time some local practices were knocked very firmly on the head

Glen · Post by **Glen** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 22:35

boing_uk wrote:Hmm, but given the standards in the Traffic Signs Manual, I think that the picture above would warrant a broken line on the single lane.

I just wish Traffic Engineers would consult guidance more often and stop running off half-cocked with their own "standards".

Yeah, but this is Scotland and the Executive only conform to DfT standards when it suits them and make up their own when it doesn't.

I'm sure the rules on broken/solid lines would say there is enough visibilty to allow overtaking in normal circumstances, but I would say local circumstances would make a solid line appropriate.
If you allow both directions to use the middle lane an artic wouldn't be able to overtake another artic as the visibilty wouldn't be far enough.

What is the benefit of having the gap between the two solid lines hatched out and coloured?

NONE!

Its a maintenance pain-in-the-:censored: and looks bloody awful. And as with anything in traffic management, if its overused, the effectiveness is lost.

I agree that there are too many places with pointless hatching - the A9 has loads of bits of broken lined hatched areas on random corners. Like this-

That serves no purpose and doesn't do anything a hazard line doesn't.

At least the hatched bit on the 2+1 is an area you can't cross anyway so it emphasises the no overtaking and gives an extra bit of width between the flows.

About time local councils lost all their highway authority powers to a regional agency, away from the political meddling.

But this is the A9 so it is managed by a national agency.

novaecosse · Post by **novaecosse** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 22:52

boing_uk wrote:Hmm, but given the standards in the Traffic Signs Manual, I think that the picture above would warrant a broken line on the single lane.

I just wish Traffic Engineers would consult guidance more often and stop running off half-cocked with their own "standards".

What is the benefit of having the gap between the two solid lines hatched out and coloured?

NONE!

Its a maintenance pain-in-the-:censored: and looks bloody awful. And as with anything in traffic management, if its overused, the effectiveness is lost.

About time local councils lost all their highway authority powers to a regional agency, away from the political meddling.

The A9 is a Trunk Road, for which Transport Scotland is ultimately responsible.

The whole point of the design was to provide safe-overtaking opportunity for one direction only. If you put dotted lines along the single lane side it kind of defeats the purpose of the exercise, since you potentially create a conflict between northbound and southbound traffic. In some other countries (Sweden? not sure) the separator on 2+1's has a Wire-rope safety fence.

As an interesting aside both these sections have CCTV monitoring. I don't know if this is a true story, anyway.. At a conference somewhere someone was doing a presentation on the 2+1's on the A9, and had one of the CCTV videos streaming in the background, unbeknown to the presenter, the video at one point showed a vehicle overtakening across the double white lines and hatching!!!... doh!

DavidBrown · Post by **DavidBrown** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 23:07

Here's a photo of the start of the closed off lane at Barnstaple:

Note how there's double white lines until the bollards start, where it then turns into a dashed line. The road coming the other way widens to two lanes approaching the roundabout.

You can just see part of a bridge in the background. that bridge is where the other picture was taken from looking in the same direction, to give you some prespective.

boing_uk · Post by **boing_uk** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 23:14

The idea behind S2+1 is that it gives clear "priority" to traffic in one direction.

We cannot cater for every conceivable eventuality on the highway, therefore we should be concentrating on those areas where there is a constant and obvious hazard, such as poor forward visibility.

Preventing overtaking by double white lines simply because there "might" be a hazard at some point in time and space devalues the marking as a valid safety measure.

Less is more.

I already see far too many applications of hazard lines, where a simple lane marking would do.

Personally I think Traffic Engineers ought to have a basic license to practice, given some of the carbunkles out there.

novaecosse · Post by **novaecosse** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 23:24

We live in a nanny state now where we have to lead drivers by the hand!...

novaecosse · Post by **novaecosse** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 23:28

DavidBrown wrote:Here's a photo of the start of the closed off lane at Barnstaple:

Note how there's double white lines until the bollards start, where it then turns into a dashed line. The road coming the other way widens to two lanes approaching the roundabout.

You can just see part of a bridge in the background. that bridge is where the other picture was taken from looking in the same direction, to give you some prespective.

Them hazard markers having the wrong colour of reflectors is starting to scare me...

Glen · Post by **Glen** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 23:38

boing_uk wrote:The idea behind S2+1 is that it gives clear "priority" to traffic in one direction.

But unless you can see from one end to the other you still have to treat each overtaking manoeuvre the same as you would on a normal S2. The whole point in these S2+1 sections is to provided a guaranteed safe overtaking opportunity to allow as much traffic to clear queues as possible.

boing_uk · Post by **boing_uk** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 23:58

No they're not there to guarantee a safe overtaking oportunity - merely provide one.

A driver could quite happily sail up lane 2 in relative safety, as it would be up to the oposing traffic to find an appropriate gap in the lane 2 traffic, just like a normal S2.

But if there is nothing coming in lane 2, why should oposing traffic in the single lane be prevented from overtaking, if visibility and traffic conditions permit?

jcpren · Post by **jcpren** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 00:20

I understand the A9 has a grim safety record, much of it due to drivers making poor judgment calls when overtaking, and causing head-on crashes. Any time you drive the A9, you are almost guaranteed to witness a close call at some point on one of the S2 sections, when someone gets frustrated and tries to overtake when they really shouldn't. I am grateful for the S2+1 sections on the A9 as they are, and knowing the standard of driving on that road, I would definitely not support a change to allow overtaking from the single lane direction. The S2+1's alternate anyway, so it's no great hassle for drivers to wait until they have the benefit of the second lane.

Also, great emphasis has been placed on signs and markings on the A9 to make the current status of the road crystal clear, as it changes so much between S2, D2 and alternating S2+1. The fact that the two carriageways of the dual sections are sometimes so far apart that they aren't visible to each other creates a risk of mistaking single and dual carriageways. Arrows on the road surface and "two way" warning signs go some way to resolving this problem, and I believe the red hatched area might have been designed with this in mind, too.

M19 · Post by **M19** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 21:45

Why don't they just mark them properly!!!!

Putting hazard lining adjacent to a lane shut off with bollards, it makes no sense. Surely a solid white line would have been consistent. Agh well, never mind...we may get some professionals in to do a proper job yet.