Unusual crossroads layout - Rainham, London

[Telstarbox]

In Rainham, London there is a signal crossroads between the A1306 and Upminster Road here: https://www.google.com/maps/place/51%C2 ... d0.2058593

As is often the case, the 'minor' arm right turns give way, but these are marked in an unusual way on the carriageway with a give-way triangle and double dashed right lines - as normally seen at a priority T-junction. (Google Maps doesn't show this so it may be fairly recent.)

I haven't seen this arrangement before - is it 'correct'?

[Bryn666]

Shouldn't be give way lines inside the junction unless it is a turn lane not under full signal control.

Sounds like a dubious safety scheme.

[A42_Sparks]

Is that junction a SPUI? It's marked out very similarly to the one in Belfast.

[Bryn666]

Is that junction a SPUI? It's marked out very similarly to the one in Belfast.

No as a SPUI has to be grade separated. It is, however, non-hook right turns marked out on the road which are a component of SPUIs.

[Peter Freeman]

No as a SPUI has to be grade separated. It is, however, non-hook right turns marked out on the road which are a component of SPUIs.

Is it still the general advice in the UK that opposing right-turning vehicles at an at-grade perpendicular crossroads should, unless otherwise marked, 'hook-turn' around each other? While understanding the sight-line (and therefore safety) reason for the practise, in Australia that wouldn't be done. Our practice is to pass to the right of each other, passenger-side to passenger-side. It increases capacity, but would it be considered (or has it been measured) to cause more accidents?

[Bryn666]

The HC shows that you can do both.

Hooked turns are both difficult in a tight location and already junction capacity though, so in practice nearly everyone goes passenger side to passenger side at a normal crossroads and indeed if back to back filter arrows exist as they do on many junctions then it's the only way to clear it.

[Telstarbox]

It's more like this (sketched in Paint!)

I know that at this sort of junction, it's not always obvious whether right turners go offside/offside or nearside/nearside, so maybe the markings are to confirm that it's a nearside one?

[Bryn666]

Completely wrong then.

[Peter Freeman]

... so in practice nearly everyone goes passenger side to passenger side at a normal crossroads ...

Thanks for the clarification Bryn.

BTW, I meant to say passenger side in my post, not offside (corrected).

[WHBM]

Driver side/driver side passing around one another works with perfect "Highway Code drawings", that is wide roads, straightforward cross roads, only two cars on the road, etc.

Things can be different. In practice, this junction (which I used regularly before the new A13 was built) has a very obtuse angle. Upminster Road, the "minor" (but busy) road, has a lot of right-turn component from both directions. The A1306 it is crossing at this shallow angle, the old A13 Rainham bypass from the 1930s, is wide, and there is a lack of intuitiveness about where exactly right-turners should wait for oncomings. There was a history of collisions of various types in the junction, and requiring by markings vehicles to pass nearside/nearside, especially HGVs, does improve sighting of oncoming vehicles.

The modern approach would be to three-stage the signals, sapping capacity and causing tailbacks on all four approaches, and giving unreliable journey times, which indeed is now done by some authorities.

[Bryn666]

Guidance markings are fine, give way triangles are not, because you are inferring priorities that cannot legally exist within the confines of a signal junction.

There's a liability on the part of the highway authority now for an unlawful design.

If the right turns are as heavy as you state then logic would dictate providing them with a protected stage. Gap acceptance is usually worse for capacity AND safety because everyone is usually left clearing through the intergreen period meaning conflicts with other phases including pedestrians increase dramatically.

[Peter Freeman]

Right-turn guidance lines in Vic-AU are done like this for crossroads with >1 dedicated turn lanes -

For smaller footprints, with only one dedicated right-turn lane, like this -

For minor signalized intersections allowing right turns but with no dedicated lanes, guide lines are omitted, like this -

Absence of guide lines is also common where the footprint is small and the roads relatively narrow, even if right lanes are dedicated to turns.

In any case, the curved lines are for steering help, not as an enforcement of the type of turn, since we don't do hook right turns at all (except of course for our notorious ones on tram lines).

[Bryn666]

We could learn a lot from Australian road markings. Our system is now a complete mess and with no quality control most roads look like a 6 year old has designed them.

[WHBM]

Notable that in the chance default Google Streetview of the junction from Upminster Road, there are four right turners, two facing two, but only one straight across https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5204764 ... 384!8i8192
I really can't get, however, how that centre paint island and arrows outside it actually are the optimum path.

[traffic-light-man]

This springs to mind immediately, for having give way lines and triangles within the junction. The markings are now redundant because each approach has its own stage, which I think is possibly why the related signs were removed.

This one always struck me as being strange, for the fact it has opposing two-lane right turns that have to give way to opposing traffic (also adorned with white-on-red signs), though it doesn't use give way markings.

We could learn a lot from Australian road markings. Our system is now a complete mess and with no quality control most roads look like a 6 year old has designed them.

I particularly like the Australian use of guidance lines, like Peter has mentioned. A major bugbear of mine is where a multi-lane turn terminates on a carriageway with more lanes than those that in the turning movement, with no guidance at all. These are a recent installation addressing a similar issue.

[Peter Freeman]

... A major bugbear of mine is where a multi-lane turn terminates on a carriageway with more lanes than those that in the turning movement, with no guidance at all. These are a recent installation addressing a similar issue.

The lines in your final google maps example are good: fairly similar to our AU ones, though they're dashed not continuous. They do nicely guide the two turning lanes into two target lanes.

We don't include the left-most of those guide lines (see my first picture, where there are more target lanes than turning lanes, as in your example). This allows the left lane of right-turners to aim for either of the remaining lanes of the target road. This, in turn, allows side-by-side turning vehicles to gradually move apart, if they wish.

[traffic-light-man]

We don't include the left-most of those guide lines (see my first picture, where there are more target lanes than turning lanes, as in your example). This allows the left lane of right-turners to aim for either of the remaining lanes of the target road. This, in turn, allows side-by-side turning vehicles to gradually move apart, if they wish.

I had noticed the lack of left-most lines, which does make sense. If they're placed between an ahead lane and a right turn lane, I could see them giving the erroneous impression of a route out of the ahead lane around to the right.

These ones have the left line in just that scenario, but omit the right-most line, and are now re-enforced using the LED light-up road studs when the signals are green.

Realistically, I suppose what I'd like to see most is the actual lane dividing line, the left and right most lines are somewhat superfluous in a lot of the UK situations.

[Peter Freeman]

We don't include the left-most of those guide lines (see my first picture, where there are more target lanes than turning lanes, as in your example). This allows the left lane of right-turners to aim for either of the remaining lanes of the target road. This, in turn, allows side-by-side turning vehicles to gradually move apart, if they wish.

I had noticed the lack of left-most lines, which does make sense. If they're placed between an ahead lane and a right turn lane, I could see them giving the erroneous impression of a route out of the ahead lane around to the right.

These ones have the left line in just that scenario, but omit the right-most line, and are now re-enforced using the LED light-up road studs when the signals are green.

Oh, Switch Island - what an abomination that is! However, the lines that you refer to actually look good. They sort traffic between destinations very effectively too.

Realistically, I suppose what I'd like to see most is the actual lane dividing line, the left and right most lines are somewhat superfluous in a lot of the UK situations.

I quite agree: the line between the two turning lanes is the important one. Or, in that case at Switch Island with three right-turn lanes, the middle two lines.

I suppose the main function of the rightmost line is to discourage numpties from turning too tightly, entering the wrong carriageway if there's no-one waiting there, and ending up against the traffic flow. This is possible at an intersection with a large central area.

[traffic-light-man]

As part of the creation of a cycle route in the Toxteth area of Liverpool, two junctions have been constructed that are fully signalised, but include this strange set of give-way lines. I assume it's due to the fact the reservation is quite wide, and reinforces that turning traffic must give-way to oncoming vehicles.

I'm not 100% convinced that these gaps couldn't have been closed (of course I don't have all the facts to back that up) given the U-tuning opportunities at either end of the avenue, but I'm not sure why there isn't a ban on U-turns heading northbound and dedicated right turns for southbound traffic, which would have a) negated the need for the give ways and b) allowed the central cycleway to run in parallel with the 'main road', but I digress.