botched road markings

[wallmeerkat]

This on the B1438 - https://www.google.com/maps/@52.1224237 ... ?entry=ttu

It looks like something from a computer game where the developer never visited the UK and is relying on a handful of pictures.

If the only way you can go is left, why do you need to cross the dashed lines?

Why not bring the Give way markings out slightly?

How would you turn right into that side road? Presumably a bit of a U turn to meet the give way markings? Why not continue the two way road up to the side road, where the hatchings and No Entry signs are for the one way slip? https://www.google.com/maps/@52.1228895 ... ?entry=ttu

[Chris5156]

Yikes, that’s horrible. I agree the dashed marking across the side road on the left is completely unnecessary - it’s either the main route through the junction or it’s not and you can’t mark it as both.

To turn right, you’d just turn right, giving way to anything coming towards you, including from the left. There’s only broken lines to cross and the “no entry” is beyond the junction so there’s nothing stopping you.

[Bryn666]

That's abysmal - if visibility is such a concern then it should've been turned into a compact roundabout or something much better than an ambiguous and dangerous layout.

[jnty]

The main road is 30mph at that point - just close the slip road.

[LiamPR1]

In Preston city centre:

[swissferry]

Wide gap between double white lines and the explanation.

[wallmeerkat]

Give way and Give way, similar to an American all-way stop junction.

https://www.google.com/maps/@54.2578687 ... ?entry=ttu

Though appreciate that it's an army base so "private" land doing their own thing in terms of road markings (especially the solid lined hatching). Historic GSV from 2008 has better quality road markings on the base junction.

[the cheesecake man]

[wallmeerkat]

IMG_20240407_163309.jpg

"So double yellow line this road"
"How far to?"
"Just to the speedbump"
"Righto!"

Is that also a junction the yellow lines are going across, to the bottom right?

[astondb9]

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.8222316 ... ?entry=ttu

The right turn this was pointing to was removed in 2008.

[the cheesecake man]

IMG_20240407_163309.jpg

"So double yellow line this road"
"How far to?"
"Just to the speedbump"
"Righto!"

Is that also a junction the yellow lines are going across, to the bottom right?

Good point, it's a drive to a scout hut. Location is Archer Lane, Sheffield.

[wallmeerkat]

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.8222316 ... ?entry=ttu

The right turn this was pointing to was removed in 2008.

They did a half decent job of seemlessly blending in the wall of where the turning circle used to be. I imagine this sort of old paint artifact would confuse a "self driving" car, especially as it's probably better quality than a lot of current road layout paintwork!

[wallmeerkat]

Should this central hatching solid line not be broken to point out that traffic is allowed to turn right?

https://www.google.com/maps/@55.6546293 ... ?entry=ttu

[MotorwayGuy]

Should this central hatching solid line not be broken to point out that traffic is allowed to turn right?

https://www.google.com/maps/@55.6546293 ... ?entry=ttu

It appears as though they used to be dashed markings but were (perhaps incorrectly) repainted as solid when the road was resurfaced. These ugly sort of markings are becoming more common, I guess they think idiots are less likely to overtake over these instead of solid white lines.

[jnty]

Should this central hatching solid line not be broken to point out that traffic is allowed to turn right?

https://www.google.com/maps/@55.6546293 ... ?entry=ttu

Yes - my understanding from the Highway Code is that the hatching is more restrictive than double white lines, which would permit right turns and overtaking very slow/stationary vehicles. Although the Highway Code only has chevron-filled solid lines, whereas KYTS implies that hatch-filled white lines should be treated the same as double lines. (Which I suspect is what everyone does anyway!)

[Debaser]

Should this central hatching solid line not be broken to point out that traffic is allowed to turn right?

https://www.google.com/maps/@55.6546293 ... ?entry=ttu

Yes - my understanding from the Highway Code is that the hatching is more restrictive than double white lines, which would permit right turns and overtaking very slow/stationary vehicles. Although the Highway Code only has chevron-filled solid lines, whereas KYTS implies that hatch-filled white lines should be treated the same as double lines. (Which I suspect is what everyone does anyway!)

It's one of 4 (four) versions of a double white line system diagram 1013.1 of the TSRGD (type B on page number 158).

No stopping or crossing white line marking
(1) The requirements conveyed to vehicular traffic on roads by a road marking provided for at items 23 and 24 of the sign table in Part 6 of this Schedule are that—
(a) subject to sub-paragraphs (2) to (4), no vehicle is to stop on any length of road along which the marking has been placed at any point between the ends of the marking; and
(b) 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.

(2) Nothing in sub-paragraph (1)(a) applies so as to prevent a vehicle stopping on any length of road so long as may be necessary for any of the purposes specified in sub-paragraph (3) if the vehicle cannot be used for such a purpose without stopping on the length of road.

(3) The purposes are—
(a) to enable a person to board or alight from the vehicle,
(b) to enable goods to be loaded on to or to be unloaded from the vehicle,
(c) to enable the vehicle to be used in connection with—
(i) any operation involving building, demolition or excavation;
(ii) the removal of any obstruction to traffic;
(iii) the maintenance, improvement or reconstruction of the length of road; or
(iv) the laying, erection, alteration, repair or cleaning in or near the length of road of any sewer or of any main, pipe or apparatus for the supply of gas, water or electricity, or of any electronic communications apparatus kept installed for the purposes of an electronic communications code system or of any other electronic communications apparatus lawfully kept installed in any position.

(4) Nothing in sub-paragraph (1)(a) applies—
(a) so as to prevent a vehicle stopping in a lay-by;
(b) to a vehicle being used for at least one of the following purposes—
(i) fire and rescue authority;
(ii) Scottish Fire and Rescue Service;
(iii) traffic officer;
(iv) ambulance;
(v) providing a response to an emergency at the request of an NHS ambulance service;
(vi) bomb or explosive disposal;
(vii) special forces;
(viii) police; and
(ix) National Crime Agency.
(c) to a pedal cycle;
(d) to a vehicle stopping in any case where the person in control of the vehicle is required by law to stop, or is obliged to do so in order to avoid an accident, or is prevented from proceeding by circumstances outside the person’s control;
(e) to anything done with the permission or at the direction of a constable in uniform, traffic officer in uniform or in accordance with the direction of a traffic warden; or
(f) to a vehicle on a road with more than one traffic lane in each direction.

(5) Nothing in sub-paragraph (1)(b) is to be taken to prohibit a vehicle from being driven across, or so as to straddle, the continuous line referred to in that paragraph, if it is safe to do so and if necessary to do so—
(a) to enable the vehicle to enter, from the side of the road on which it is proceeding, land or premises adjacent to the length of road on which the line is placed, or another road joining that road;
(b) in order to pass a stationary vehicle;
(c) owing to circumstances outside the control of the driver;
(d) in order to avoid an accident;
(e) in order to pass a road maintenance vehicle which is in use, is moving at a speed not exceeding 10 mph, and is displaying to the rear a sign provided for at item 9 or 10 of the sign table in Part 6 of Schedule 13;
(f) in order to pass a pedal cycle moving at a speed not exceeding 10 mph;
(g) in order to pass a horse that is being ridden or led at a speed not exceeding 10 mph; or
(h) for the purposes of complying with any direction of a constable in uniform, a traffic officer in uniform or a traffic warden

[jnty]

Should this central hatching solid line not be broken to point out that traffic is allowed to turn right?

https://www.google.com/maps/@55.6546293 ... ?entry=ttu

Yes - my understanding from the Highway Code is that the hatching is more restrictive than double white lines, which would permit right turns and overtaking very slow/stationary vehicles. Although the Highway Code only has chevron-filled solid lines, whereas KYTS implies that hatch-filled white lines should be treated the same as double lines. (Which I suspect is what everyone does anyway!)

It's one of 4 (four) versions of a double white line system diagram 1013.1 of the TSRGD (type B on page number 158).

No stopping or crossing white line marking
(1) The requirements conveyed to vehicular traffic on roads by a road marking provided for at items 23 and 24 of the sign table in Part 6 of this Schedule are that—
(a) subject to sub-paragraphs (2) to (4), no vehicle is to stop on any length of road along which the marking has been placed at any point between the ends of the marking; and
(b) 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.

(2) Nothing in sub-paragraph (1)(a) applies so as to prevent a vehicle stopping on any length of road so long as may be necessary for any of the purposes specified in sub-paragraph (3) if the vehicle cannot be used for such a purpose without stopping on the length of road.

(3) The purposes are—
(a) to enable a person to board or alight from the vehicle,
(b) to enable goods to be loaded on to or to be unloaded from the vehicle,
(c) to enable the vehicle to be used in connection with—
(i) any operation involving building, demolition or excavation;
(ii) the removal of any obstruction to traffic;
(iii) the maintenance, improvement or reconstruction of the length of road; or
(iv) the laying, erection, alteration, repair or cleaning in or near the length of road of any sewer or of any main, pipe or apparatus for the supply of gas, water or electricity, or of any electronic communications apparatus kept installed for the purposes of an electronic communications code system or of any other electronic communications apparatus lawfully kept installed in any position.

(4) Nothing in sub-paragraph (1)(a) applies—
(a) so as to prevent a vehicle stopping in a lay-by;
(b) to a vehicle being used for at least one of the following purposes—
(i) fire and rescue authority;
(ii) Scottish Fire and Rescue Service;
(iii) traffic officer;
(iv) ambulance;
(v) providing a response to an emergency at the request of an NHS ambulance service;
(vi) bomb or explosive disposal;
(vii) special forces;
(viii) police; and
(ix) National Crime Agency.
(c) to a pedal cycle;
(d) to a vehicle stopping in any case where the person in control of the vehicle is required by law to stop, or is obliged to do so in order to avoid an accident, or is prevented from proceeding by circumstances outside the person’s control;
(e) to anything done with the permission or at the direction of a constable in uniform, traffic officer in uniform or in accordance with the direction of a traffic warden; or
(f) to a vehicle on a road with more than one traffic lane in each direction.

(5) Nothing in sub-paragraph (1)(b) is to be taken to prohibit a vehicle from being driven across, or so as to straddle, the continuous line referred to in that paragraph, if it is safe to do so and if necessary to do so—
(a) to enable the vehicle to enter, from the side of the road on which it is proceeding, land or premises adjacent to the length of road on which the line is placed, or another road joining that road;
(b) in order to pass a stationary vehicle;
(c) owing to circumstances outside the control of the driver;
(d) in order to avoid an accident;
(e) in order to pass a road maintenance vehicle which is in use, is moving at a speed not exceeding 10 mph, and is displaying to the rear a sign provided for at item 9 or 10 of the sign table in Part 6 of Schedule 13;
(f) in order to pass a pedal cycle moving at a speed not exceeding 10 mph;
(g) in order to pass a horse that is being ridden or led at a speed not exceeding 10 mph; or
(h) for the purposes of complying with any direction of a constable in uniform, a traffic officer in uniform or a traffic warden

Ah ha - so the road markings aren't botched, because it's legal to turn right over double white lines. One might argue that the law which requires the motorist to analyse the precise shape of the contents of areas delineated by solid lines in order to determine the regulations that apply is a little bit botched, however!

[Debaser]

Ah ha - so the road markings aren't botched, because it's legal to turn right over double white lines. One might argue that the law which requires the motorist to analyse the precise shape of the contents of areas delineated by solid lines in order to determine the regulations that apply is a little bit botched, however!

This is a bit of weird case where if the hatched lines hit the parallel solid longitudinal lines it's a 1013.1 and you are allowed to cross them (in the named circumstances), but a very similar diagram 1013.5 (where the hatched lines stop short of the parallel double white lines) is used very specifically where a WS2+1 lane layout is in force, and which would seem to be a more hazardous design requiring stricter markings.

It's easy to see how the lesser used markings in particular can be 'botched', TSRGD was never an easy read, complicated somewhat by its re-format in the 2016 version.

[jnty]

Ah ha - so the road markings aren't botched, because it's legal to turn right over double white lines. One might argue that the law which requires the motorist to analyse the precise shape of the contents of areas delineated by solid lines in order to determine the regulations that apply is a little bit botched, however!

This is a bit of weird case where if the hatched lines hit the parallel solid longitudinal lines it's a 1013.1 and you are allowed to cross them (in the named circumstances), but a very similar diagram 1013.5 (where the hatched lines stop short of the parallel double white lines) is used very specifically where a WS2+1 lane layout is in force, and which would seem to be a more hazardous design requiring stricter markings.

It's easy to see how the lesser used markings in particular can be 'botched', TSRGD was never an easy read, complicated somewhat by its re-format in the 2016 version.

I was referring to chevrons versus. diagonal hatching here - the idea that motorists should be expected to discern any meaning from whether the hatching makes contact with the bounding solid lines or not seems even more fanciful than expecting them to distinguish between chevrons and hatching. Fortunately the wording makes it sound like there might be no legal difference between the two different hatching variants from the motorists' perspective and that the only thing that actually varies is the context in which it's used?

[wallmeerkat]

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)