WHY...
- Thread starter [TW]Fox
- Start date
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
"If the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so."
That sounds to me more of a "if you run out of options you may enter the area" scenario rather than "hatch lane be lane to overtake all of you Hyundais, for ain't nobody gonna slow my fast'n furious a", no?
That sounds to me more of a "if you run out of options you may enter the area" scenario rather than "hatch lane be lane to overtake all of you Hyundais, for ain't nobody gonna slow my fast'n furious a", no?
In that picture posted, I can understand it, considering that prior to the hatchings is a turning right, and immediately after the hatchings is, a turning right.
If a car is sat there waiting to turn right and you come barreling up the hatchings past an array of slow cars and lorries, what are you going to do when you suddenly come across the car waiting to turn right?
If a car is sat there waiting to turn right and you come barreling up the hatchings past an array of slow cars and lorries, what are you going to do when you suddenly come across the car waiting to turn right?
The same thing that happens if you are driving on a single carriageway section of road at the speed limit and you come across somebody turning right presumably? It's a particularly low traffic junction anyway.
There are many thousands of other crawler lanes all over the country with junctions etc off them. Just as there are even more single carriageway lanes with the same speed limit with junctions off them?
Couldn't have put it better myself! However, you now owe my one coffee-spoilt keyboard...
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,563
- Location
- Warwickshire
[TW]Fox;15788176 said:
Do they have turnings right before and after the "fast" lane too? If so, then it doesn't really make sense at all and it wouldn't stop me doing it. Indeed, from here to Bath, I am repeatedly doing just this.
[TW]Fox;15788176 said:
Looking at the photo it appears theres a number of property's on the right so I'd guess that recently there has either been an accident and / or near miss involving somebody turning right which has prompted the move.
I live on a similar sort of hill,with a bend on it. If I'm travelling up, to turn into my house I have to stop in the right hand lane and wait for a gap. Despite the 30MPH limit, more than once I have nearly been punted up the rear by somebody hoofing up behind me and then having to do a panic stop as he has nowhere to go.
Only a matter of time before they do the same to my road I'd guess. (Its an A road too)
So what? I know that might sound heartless but come on. There are many, many other roads in the UK just like this where they've not done the same thing. If it isn't being done on EVERY single road with the same properties in the UK then why not?
And what are they going to do the next time somebody has an accident turning right on a SINGLE carriageway A road? Close the road for ever? Put hatchmarkings on the entire road?
[TW]Fox;15793856 said:
I think you are being heartless on your assumption that they should do nothing if a road has a proven accident record. (It sounds like that's what you are saying).
I'm sure if (and it's my only rational I can think of that validates this type of thing) on any road where accidents are occuring on a fatal level, they would investigate and suggest possible improvements, then apply any easy/common sense suggestions, oddly common sense dictates you wouldn't close a single carraigeway, but you may chamge the road layout to accomodate the junction better.
The thing is, you feel that there is no way you would have an accident on that road and are completely 'safe', or why else would you find the situation so profoundly confusing?, I'm sure that the people who had the accidents probably thought the same thing too..
Last edited:
The question is at what point do you make the change? Far too many decisions of this nature are made on emotion or based on tragic but very rare situations, often not relating directly to the road layout, rather than a confirmed and generally dangerous problem of road design that requires changing. Many speed limit changes or speed camera locations are chosen by the same way.
Is wanting a little rationality and effectiveness in road safety spending a bad thing?
Even if accidents had happened, whats to say it wasn't just bad driving that caused them?
For example, accident near bridge with speed limit 40mph. Driver is smoking, texting and steering with elbows, rear ends a mini kills everyone.
You think because inept people are causing accidents the road should be changed or a lower speed limit introduced?
This is exactly what the police have said about the new 20mph speed limits, they won't work as most of the time it is a driver related issue.
Sorry to bring speed into it, it is just easier to make examples, I am not arguing about speed limits, just the principle that a lot of accidents are due to bad driving and not rules/regulations of the road.
I have no idea if common sense comes in to it at all..
I've seen documentaries that showed common sense being applied to these things, and in those cases the sites where identified through statistics (i.e. it being class a bit of a hotspot for accidents (fatal or not)), they then looked at the road layout and lots of other factors before deciding what to do..
The fact is, if you remove the overtaking oppertunity from the OP's situation, it probably eradicates all causes of the relevant 'failure mode', whether it be poor driving or just bad layout..
Of course, it may just be fad of the year, removing all overtaking sections on-masse in a blanket sweep..
Unless we know more, it's hard to chastise too much..
I dont have data for those.
Thing is if we knee jerked every single time there was a crash we would have men with red flags. There probably is a reason but I bet its an over reaction - like the reduction of the sppeed limit on a Plymouthh dual carraigeway after a guy died when he crashed at over 80 in a 50. Yea cos the replacement 40 limit would really have made the difference.
Every time we take steps to remove driving decision making from the driver people get dimmer. It wont be long before people assume no hatch markings in a crawler must mean there are no junctions so go flying up the outside without giving consideration to people who may be turning right.
Like the prats who think any place is safe to overtake because if it was not safe the council would have painted a solid white line
Thing is if we knee jerked every single time there was a crash we would have men with red flags. There probably is a reason but I bet its an over reaction - like the reduction of the sppeed limit on a Plymouthh dual carraigeway after a guy died when he crashed at over 80 in a 50. Yea cos the replacement 40 limit would really have made the difference.
Every time we take steps to remove driving decision making from the driver people get dimmer. It wont be long before people assume no hatch markings in a crawler must mean there are no junctions so go flying up the outside without giving consideration to people who may be turning right.
Like the prats who think any place is safe to overtake because if it was not safe the council would have painted a solid white line