Non motorway traffic forced onto motorway….

[NICK 647063]

Good afternoon all, just wondering what the legal situation is and what you can actually do if you are forced onto a motorway?

To explain since 3pm today the A64 westbound is closed at the Bramham Roundabout, this basically means all traffic heading westbound from York is forced onto the A1(M) free flow slips that bypass the roundabout straight onto the A1(M) southbound…….

It’s a pretty serious accident directly on the roundabout meaning you cannot access Leeds, A1(M) North and the LAR from York, so basically tonight I was sent onto the A1(M) along with tractors, learner drivers and mopeds, now I understand this is an emergency but the same thing happened a couple of years ago for weeks when the roundabout was resurfaced during the night, basically if heading westbound from York the last exit is A162 Tadcaster anything that goes beyond has to go onto the motorway, I spoke with Highways England and after a week signs were added on the approach to the A162 exit, surely signs should be permanently installed ready to flip when needed in this situation, like I say I understand today’s accident is an emergency but surely an emergency plan should be in place rather than forcing non motorway traffic onto a motorway…. Legally where do people stand if this happens through no fault of their own?

[Patrick Harper]

As long as normally prohibited traffic made sure to exit the motorway at the next exits, either J42 on the A1(M) or J47 on the M1, prosecution would be highly unlikely as the diversion would be a perfectly reasonable excuse.

[ikcdab]

So do the full set of regulations apply to a "bracketed" motorway such as A1(M)? Or is it still an A road but with motorway characteristics?
What is there propose of this style of road numbering?

[trickstat]

So do the full set of regulations apply to a "bracketed" motorway such as A1(M)?

Yes.

[jervi]

If you were directed onto a motorway by a traffic officer or police constable, then I don't see the issue. However you would likely have to leave at the next possible point.
However if on a bicycle or on foot, they are likely to let you continue along the closed road. One of the great things about being on two wheels is that road construction crews or police don't really care if you go down a closed road.

So do the full set of regulations apply to a "bracketed" motorway such as A1(M)? Or is it still an A road but with motorway characteristics?
What is there propose of this style of road numbering?

Roads that have the (M) are still under motorway regulations like M roads
"Motorways" are a legal definition rather than a design standard (although they do have their own design standards too, but a "motorway" can (and has) been built as single carriageways before.

There is a whole load on information on the wiki explaining numbering system and the use of Ax(M)
https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/ind ... principles

In short, roads with a M prefix are largely completely off-line new routes on their construction. They are very important roads and there was no way of giving them A road numbers, so to keep it simple the new prefix of "M" was used for these roads. Although during construction most of these "M" roads took on a temporary number like the A20(M) or A23(M) instead of M20 & M23, but on their opening they would get their M prefix.

A roads that had parts of them upgraded to motorway standard (and subsequently got designated as a legal motorway) got the (M) in their suffix. These were usually short bypasses or upgrades rather than a large amount of the route. So for the route (including both non-motorway and motorway parts) to have the same number, the motorway bit would retain the Ax number and just have the (M) put at the end. Ideally once an entire route becomes a motorway, the whole route could be renumbered to a Mx number. But this doesn't always happen.
There are some anomalies too such as the A74(M) kept its temporary construction number, instead of becoming the M74 (or the whole corridor becoming the M6). Where the A3 becomes the A3(M) the A3 (non-motorway) continues as well.

[Chris Bertram]

So do the full set of regulations apply to a "bracketed" motorway such as A1(M)? Or is it still an A road but with motorway characteristics?
What is there propose of this style of road numbering?

Well, yes, and yes. It is subject to motorway regulations, and at the same time is part of the route of an A road. An alternative route, possibly the former route of the A road but now with a different number, will normally be available for traffic banned from the motorway. These numbers were originally given mostly to by-passes to encourage long-distance traffic to use them in preference to the old town centre routes. Nowadays upgraded sections of longer routes like A1(M) carry numbers like this, and some older sections have been absorbed into longer motorways, such as the A20(M) Maidstone by-pass becoming part of M20. Normally the A road bypassed in such a way is renumbered, but occasionally is left as-is, A3 in Waterlooville being an example. A few Ax(M) roads are motorway spurs leading to the A road concerned. And some, A601(M) for example, are just misnumbered.

Hope this helps.

[someone]

Good afternoon all, just wondering what the legal situation is and what you can actually do if you are forced onto a motorway?

Where an emergency makes an all-purpose road unusable, a senior police officer (I think from the rank of superintendent) can allow other classes of traffic to use a motorway within their force's area and can relax any motorway restriction, such as the prohibition of learner drivers.

So in the situation you describe the law explicitly allows the police to direct all traffic onto a motorway, and it would do so legally rather than just by the courts exercising common sense. I would assume getting that authorization to allow the use of a motorway would be a standard part of the process when responding to an R.T.A. at motorway junctions and there is no suitable alternative route for traffic.

Common sense would say that non-motorway traffic should leave at the new junction, though there is nothing explicit in law to say that an authorization only covers to the next available exit. So in the absence of a specific direction to leave at the following junction it is technically a grey area.

I do not know if there are any precedents, but continuing on the motorway would be breaking the sprit of the law, as at that point there will be suitable alternatives. It would also fail the standard "what would be expected of a careful and competent driver" test that forms a lot of driving law. So I would not risk testing it as I cannot see any chance of winning that argument in a court.

[jgharston]

I also came that way this evening and had a brief "argh!" moment as all the mainline traffic joined me on the slip for the motorway, and as I saw the police car blocking the mainline remember thinking that I hadn't seen any "restricted traffic leave here" signs. The only signage was "A64 closed at A1(M)" which to me told me that I wouldn't be able to exit the roundabout to get to Leeds, not that I wouldn't be able to enter the roundabout. I sometimes skip the A1(M) and take the turning off the roundabout to use the old A1 through Aberford.

I did see some slow-moving hay-bale-thing a few cars ahead of me quickly slow down and turn off for Hazelwood Castle, in retrospect it could have spotted the closure and was escaping.

[Mark Hewitt]

If you were directed onto a motorway by a traffic officer or police constable, then I don't see the issue. However you would likely have to leave at the next possible point.
However if on a bicycle or on foot, they are likely to let you continue along the closed road. One of the great things about being on two wheels is that road construction crews or police don't really care if you go down a closed road.
l.

As I understand it ROAD CLOSED signs do not apply to non-motorised vehicles or pedestrians unless there is supplementary signage.

[KeithW]

The only possible escape before the A1(M) is the Hazlewood Castle turn off and the road from there is quite unsuitable for a diversion, its essentially a single track country lane.

[darkcape]

However if on a bicycle or on foot, they are likely to let you continue along the closed road. One of the great things about being on two wheels is that road construction crews or police don't really care if you go down a closed road.

This is incorrect & irresponsible to say. If a carriageway is closed but the footways remain open, then pedestrians & dismounted cyclists are welcome to use the footways.

But if there's construction going on & there's no alternative footway then construction crews will very much care if you try & cycle through as you're putting yourself and them at risk of harm. You would need to ask permission at the closure point & be marshalled through. They are under no obligation to let you through. If its a police closure, there may be crucial forensic evidence they're trying to preserve at the scene, or an accident victim being treated, and again there's no obligation to let you through.

[jervi]

However if on a bicycle or on foot, they are likely to let you continue along the closed road. One of the great things about being on two wheels is that road construction crews or police don't really care if you go down a closed road.

This is incorrect & irresponsible to say. If a carriageway is closed but the footways remain open, then pedestrians & dismounted cyclists are welcome to use the footways.

But if there's construction going on & there's no alternative footway then construction crews will very much care if you try & cycle through as you're putting yourself and them at risk of harm. You would need to ask permission at the closure point & be marshalled through. They are under no obligation to let you through. If its a police closure, there may be crucial forensic evidence they're trying to preserve at the scene, or an accident victim being treated, and again there's no obligation to let you through.

If it is planned construction works then usually foot access is not effected, by extent this includes bicycles, however there may need to be the need to dismount for part or all of the closure.
I've imagine if a road closure effected pedestrians (and thereby cycles) then additional signage or notices would be required.
If there is no footway then use the verge where the carriageway is having works done on it.
Both of these cases is very common for me, because if I know a road will have less traffic (due to part of it being closed), I'd favour that route over an alternative (because that would have diverted traffic on it as well).
I've never been escorted through though, even when there is no footway or segregated path.

Police closures are slightly different. I'd imagine they would need a very strong case (such as a fatality) to prohibit a NMU from using a road, especially if there are no suitable alternatives. Again, I've gone through police closures with no issues (after asking of course).

[someone]

However if on a bicycle or on foot, they are likely to let you continue along the closed road. One of the great things about being on two wheels is that road construction crews or police don't really care if you go down a closed road.

Sometimes even on a motorcycle.

I was once on the B2131 in Haselmere and the police were directing traffic away just before the station as there had been an accident ahead. But the officer said I should be able to get through as I was on a motorcycle, so I followed that instruction but rode carefully to avoid debris on the road for both their and my sake.

It is also legal to push a motorcycle along a pavement — though it must be pushing as precedent has set that straddling or waddling with the engine off counts as driving — so that option is also available for passing closures and obstructions. Not something I would ever want to do, it was my least favourite part of the driving test. I lack either the strength or balance to do it with any confidence.

[KeithW]

If it is planned construction works then usually foot access is not effected, by extent this includes bicycles, however there may need to be the need to dismount for part or all of the closure.
I've imagine if a road closure effected pedestrians (and thereby cycles) then additional signage or notices would be required.
If there is no footway then use the verge where the carriageway is having works done on it.
Both of these cases is very common for me, because if I know a road will have less traffic (due to part of it being closed), I'd favour that route over an alternative (because that would have diverted traffic on it as well).
I've never been escorted through though, even when there is no footway or segregated path.

Police closures are slightly different. I'd imagine they would need a very strong case (such as a fatality) to prohibit a NMU from using a road, especially if there are no suitable alternatives. Again, I've gone through police closures with no issues (after asking of course).

A TTRO (Temporary Traffic Regulation Order) may be used to close a road to all traffic if deemed necessary, a leaking gas or water main is one example where this may happen another can be a damaged building deemed to be in danger of collapse.

In the case of the A64 closure given that the accident occurred on the roundabout with recovery and emergency vehicles in attendance I rather doubt that pedestrians or cyclists would be let past, if nothing else for safety reasons. The local paper stated that multiple vehicles were involved with some occupants having to be cut from their cars. In such a situation the last thing that is needed is pedestrians and cyclists getting in the way.
https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/194167 ... rossroads/

[Bryn666]

In a nutshell most traffic laws can be temporarily ignored if you are specifically directed by a uniformed constable to do so.

This is why CID officers don't direct traffic, ever, and a designated uniformed incident officer will control the traffic response for a.major incident.

[exiled]

In a nutshell most traffic laws can be temporarily ignored if you are specifically directed by a uniformed constable to do so.

This is why CID officers don't direct traffic, ever, and a designated uniformed incident officer will control the traffic response for a.major incident.

Hence for a lot of events where traffic control is required there will be a call in of the special constables.

[darkcape]

If it is planned construction works then usually foot access is not effected, by extent this includes bicycles, however there may need to be the need to dismount for part or all of the closure.
I've imagine if a road closure effected pedestrians (and thereby cycles) then additional signage or notices would be required.
If there is no footway then use the verge where the carriageway is having works done on it.
Both of these cases is very common for me, because if I know a road will have less traffic (due to part of it being closed), I'd favour that route over an alternative (because that would have diverted traffic on it as well).
I've never been escorted through though, even when there is no footway or segregated path.

Police closures are slightly different. I'd imagine they would need a very strong case (such as a fatality) to prohibit a NMU from using a road, especially if there are no suitable alternatives. Again, I've gone through police closures with no issues (after asking of course).

Again you are making incorrect assumptions. Footways & verges get dug up all the time for utilities & drainage works. The "Road Closed" sign to dia 7010.1 means closed to everyone, if there's an exemption to pedestrians & cyclists this should be signed "access for pedestrians only" etc. Any site supervisor who's passed his ticket should know to secure their site properly to avoid lawsuits from cyclists ignoring signs and riding into potholes etc, & pedestrians & cyclists shouldn't assume they have access or try and weave through cones to get through.

Of course , in most cases the effort should be made to keep NMU access available. Users should check their route before setting off and not assume sites will let them through.

[solocle]

If it is planned construction works then usually foot access is not effected, by extent this includes bicycles, however there may need to be the need to dismount for part or all of the closure.
I've imagine if a road closure effected pedestrians (and thereby cycles) then additional signage or notices would be required.
If there is no footway then use the verge where the carriageway is having works done on it.
Both of these cases is very common for me, because if I know a road will have less traffic (due to part of it being closed), I'd favour that route over an alternative (because that would have diverted traffic on it as well).
I've never been escorted through though, even when there is no footway or segregated path.

Police closures are slightly different. I'd imagine they would need a very strong case (such as a fatality) to prohibit a NMU from using a road, especially if there are no suitable alternatives. Again, I've gone through police closures with no issues (after asking of course).

Again you are making incorrect assumptions. Footways & verges get dug up all the time for utilities & drainage works. The "Road Closed" sign to dia 7010.1 means closed to everyone, if there's an exemption to pedestrians & cyclists this should be signed "access for pedestrians only" etc. Any site supervisor who's passed his ticket should know to secure their site properly to avoid lawsuits from cyclists ignoring signs and riding into potholes etc, & pedestrians & cyclists shouldn't assume they have access or try and weave through cones to get through.

Of course , in most cases the effort should be made to keep NMU access available. Users should check their route before setting off and not assume sites will let them through.

Travel Dorset got noughty on Twitter about cyclists ignoring a road closure on the A353 one time.

Of course, last time I followed a road closure in the area (A349 gravel hill), I was immediately diverted onto the A31 Trunk Road.

There was also the case of the group I was leading along the A1307 Cambridge-St Ives, which turned out to be incomplete. We'd cycled from Bristol. The legal route was to use the new A14. You know, the smart motorway one...

I chose to ignore the road closure. Nearly ran into a gigantic pile of gravel in the dark, but was able to avoid it. Had I been alone, I'd probably have ridden down the A14, but I'm not risking other peoples' lives in such a manner.

I'd happily ride up the hard shoulder of a motorway if I was so directed. If it was a smart motorway, I'd expect a 30 mph speed limit or lower to be in force for the stretch in question, due to the presence of NMUs.

[Bomag]

If it is planned construction works then usually foot access is not effected, by extent this includes bicycles, however there may need to be the need to dismount for part or all of the closure.
I've imagine if a road closure effected pedestrians (and thereby cycles) then additional signage or notices would be required.
If there is no footway then use the verge where the carriageway is having works done on it.
Both of these cases is very common for me, because if I know a road will have less traffic (due to part of it being closed), I'd favour that route over an alternative (because that would have diverted traffic on it as well).
I've never been escorted through though, even when there is no footway or segregated path.

Police closures are slightly different. I'd imagine they would need a very strong case (such as a fatality) to prohibit a NMU from using a road, especially if there are no suitable alternatives. Again, I've gone through police closures with no issues (after asking of course).

Again you are making incorrect assumptions. Footways & verges get dug up all the time for utilities & drainage works. The "Road Closed" sign to dia 7010.1 means closed to everyone, if there's an exemption to pedestrians & cyclists this should be signed "access for pedestrians only" etc. Any site supervisor who's passed his ticket should know to secure their site properly to avoid lawsuits from cyclists ignoring signs and riding into potholes etc, & pedestrians & cyclists shouldn't assume they have access or try and weave through cones to get through.

Of course , in most cases the effort should be made to keep NMU access available. Users should check their route before setting off and not assume sites will let them through.

NP7010 has since 2016 been an information sign. The prohibition depends on what barriers (Dia 7105) and cones are used.

[jervi]

Maybe we ought to sign road works similarly to some European Countries.

A No vehicle sign with a black on yellow supplement plate of "Road Works" or "Police Incident".
If the road is closed ahead and cannot be used as a through route (i.e only can be used for frontages or cul-de-sacs), then a "except for access" supplement plate is used.
If the road is closed ahead, but can still be used as a through route (via side roads), then a "in x miles/yards" supplement plate can be used. This could be varied to be written as something like "A17 closed at Holdingham Roundabout" if using a junction name and/or road number would make more sense (length of works & traffic volumes).
Ideally if a weight/height/width restriction applies, this would be signed at the last junction before those restrictions apply on the next side roads.

The No vehicle sign could be varied to different variations to suit the situation, such as:
1 - No Vehicle Sign (617) & No Pedestrian Sign (625.1) - Road closed to everyone
2 - No Vehicle Sign (617) - Road remains open pedestrians and dismounted bicycles & motorcycles
3 - No Motor Vehicle Sign (619) - Road remains open to all pedestrians & bicycles. motorcycles can dismount
4 - No Motor Vehicle Sign except s/motorcycle (619.1) - Road remains open to all pedestrians, bicycles & solo motorcycles

These would convey much more information with clarity over the current "road closed" signs. Also they remove any language barrier and bring them more in-line with signage practices in our neighbouring countries.