A question for you. Two lanes in either direction separated by a central white line converge into single lane's in either direction still separated by the same central white line to pass under a railway bridge. Does the nearside or outside lane have priority? The reason I'm asking is this is a situation close to where I live and many drivers don't seem to know the answer as there's frequent disagreements there.

 

The more I think about this the more questions I come up with:

 

If the only road marking is the central white line then are there two lanes in either directions, or is it just one very wide lane each way that narrows down?

 

If there are two lanes then how do you tell how many lanes a road has? When does a single wide lane become two lanes?

 

If there is just one lane and the traffic is running two abreast then are the inner cars overtaking (in which case it is the responsibility of the drivers in the inner cars to make sure they can rejoin the lane safely before the road narrows) or are the outer cars the ones that haven't joined the lane yet (in which case they should give way to the inner cars and wait for a gap in the lane)?

 

Trouble is, Harry, many cyclists ARE squashed. Stats on whether they adopted primary or secondary positions would be revealing.

 

Such stats as we have on the recent year of 13 cyclists deaths with the majority of them women show that they were not in dominant primary positions. Any cursory observation of women cyclists clearly reveals them to be more cautious for what they probably perceive as safety reasons. The reverse is true for bikes, one should always dominate and control following traffic where you would if you were driving anything slow but larger.

 

A milk float is a perfect example, following drivers don't expect it to vanish, no more should they expect a cyclist to be invisible and they should be just as content to wait for cyclists until it's safe to pass.

.

I've already apologised for my mistake regarding the type of road but that doesn't appear good enough?

I never assumed it was a dual carriageway which obviously wouldn't have parked cars nor cars trying to pass between them due to a central reservation, not that you seem to have noticed that minor flaw in your assumption? So your perception of my comments are equally inaccurate.

With regard to anticipating a hazard ahead, that was not in answer to your original post. It was in reference to a multilane situation.

 

If you didn't want to talk about the original post, why didn't you start your own thread, rather than confusing things by starting another conversation about another topic on this thread?

Yet again you are assuming that we are talking about dual carriageways - so you are still talking at cross purposes. You are also assuming that going past a parked car is over-taking and you can use the highway code in all your answers to prove your point. However it is the vehicles behind the bicycle that are doing the over-taking and they should follow the rules (and in particular rule 163 that you seem to have forgotten).

 

I am just getting the suspicion that this is all a wind up by you - am I right?

 

My comments aren't refering to the original post, and I've never assumed we were talking about dual carriageways which are separated by a central reservation and have no facilities for parking.

I'm talking about two lanes in either direction separated by a central white line. If a parked car is obstructing the nearside lane so that vehicle's travelling along it[not neccessarily cyclists] have to change lane's to avoid the parked car, they do not simply pull out into the outside lane forcing other vehicle's to slow down or brake suddenly. A real life example of this is, a car travelling along Tottenham Court road in the nearside lane, driver apparently looking for an address, came up behind a bus stationary at a bus stop. Without checking it was clear to do so he pulled into the outside lane to pass the bus and was hit in the side by a car travelling along the outside lane. The driver pulling out was at fault.

I took your lead regarding quoting the highway code and section 163 advises you too indicate when safe to do so and then pull out. "When safe to do so" is the key here, you don't blatantly pull out into the path of other vehicle's forcing them to brake, as advised in section 167.

Given the advised clearance a cyclist should give a parked car, its pretty safe to say that would involve him/her moving into the outside lane. The cyclist like any other vehicle should not cause traffic in the outside lane to slow, brake, swerve or change direction. Look in your mirror, take a sideways glance to make sure other vehicle's aren't about to overtake you, when safe to do so indicate and start to move out. Why would you need do all that if you have right of way to simply pull out regardless, as you seem to be suggesting? Also, vehicle's in an overtaking position should be allowed to pass? Rule 168.

Edited October 18, 201015 yr by onmebike

If you didn't want to talk about the original post, why didn't you start your own thread, rather than confusing things by starting another conversation about another topic on this thread?

 

I started off wanting to talk about your thread but just like most others it got lost among the many and varied comments.

I would have started another but yours had already died so I tried to revive it. You should be grateful. Hope your hands feeling better.

One of things i've learned over the years of posting on bulletin boards is that no matter how hard you try, and no matter how patient you are, you just can't educate Pork.

One of things i've learned over the years of posting on bulletin boards is that no matter how hard you try, and no matter how patient you are, you just can't educate Pork.

 

You are not expecting to have the last word are you

The more I think about this the more questions I come up with:

 

If the only road marking is the central white line then are there two lanes in either directions, or is it just one very wide lane each way that narrows down?

 

If there are two lanes then how do you tell how many lanes a road has? When does a single wide lane become two lanes?

 

If there is just one lane and the traffic is running two abreast then are the inner cars overtaking (in which case it is the responsibility of the drivers in the inner cars to make sure they can rejoin the lane safely before the road narrows) or are the outer cars the ones that haven't joined the lane yet (in which case they should give way to the inner cars and wait for a gap in the lane)?

 

I'll try to google you a picture. A short section of what appears to be dual carriageway but isn't ends at a set of traffic lights. Across the lights the two lane's continue with just a central white line separating them from the oncoming traffic for approx 70mtrs before the nearside kerb starts to force the inside lane traffic across into the outside lane. The central white line continue's from the traffic light's up under the bridge and beyond. Traffic in the opposite direction come's under the bridge single lane which then opens out into two lanes up to the traffic lights. The traffic cop that explained it said, the outside lane had priority because they were following the white line which is straight so not filtering traffic towards the inside lane. Can a road actually narrow from the middle?

One of things i've learned over the years of posting on bulletin boards is that no matter how hard you try, and no matter how patient you are, you just can't educate Pork.

 

You were obviously fool enough to try. But how else would you have learn't?

Edited October 14, 201015 yr by onmebike

I'll try to google you a picture. A short section of what appears to be dual carriageway but isn't ends at a set of traffic lights. Across the lights the two lane's continue with just a central white line separating them from the oncoming traffic for approx 70mtrs before the nearside kerb starts to force the inside lane traffic across into the outside lane. The central white line continue's from the traffic light's up under the bridge and beyond. Traffic in the opposite direction come's under the bridge single lane which then opens out into two lanes up to the traffic lights. The traffic cop that explained it said, the outside lane had priority because they were following the white line which is straight so not filtering traffic towards the inside lane. Can a road actually narrow from the middle?

I know what you mean and I think a physical carriageway divider is what makes the difference. If two lanes narrow to one on a single carriageway road then the left hand lane merges with and gives way to the right hand lane (to stop cars being forced into oncoming traffic), on dual carriageways it it usually the other way round and when lanes merge the right hand lane merges with and gives way to the left hand lane.

one should always dominate and control following traffic where you would if you were driving anything slow but larger.

 

.

 

With exceptions. I once joined a queue of traffic (as a car driver). When after ten or fifteen minutes I got to the front of the queue, I found two horse-riders, riding side by side on a busy, winding, B-road; quite legally, and certainly adopting the 'dominate and control' philosophy. They were trotting along at about 5 mph, chatting merrily, and certainly not oblivious to the chaos behind them. They just didn't give a f+ck.

 

I really don't know how you can legislate for good manners and self-preservation! Wish it were easy.

 

 

A

Across the lights the two lane's continue with just a central white line separating them from the oncoming traffic

 

That's where it all starts getting ambiguous, if there are no lane markings between the central white line and curb then you have two streams of traffic but you only have one lane marked on the road (ignoring the oncoming side).

 

So if you've got two streams of traffic in one marked lane how many lanes are there?

 

I would say that there is no clear answer to that question, which is why it is not clear how drivers should react when the marked lane narrows to the point that it can only accomodate one stream of traffic.

That's where it all starts getting ambiguous, if there are no lane markings between the central white line and curb then you have two streams of traffic but you only have one lane marked on the road (ignoring the oncoming side).

 

So if you've got two streams of traffic in one marked lane how many lanes are there?

 

I would say that there is no clear answer to that question, which is why it is not clear how drivers should react when the marked lane narrows to the point that it can only accomodate one stream of traffic.

 

If there is just a central dividing line, then the road is a single carriageway. It doesn't matter how wide each of the single carriageways are, unless there is a line to split them into 2 or 3 lanes, they are single carriageways and the appropriate legislation applies. The fact that you can manage to fit cars two or three abreast without crossing the central dividing line doesn't mean anything in terms of road classification.

Normally there is some sort of indication to which lane is merging into which, either by a road sign or markings on the road, however, local authorities and road planners don't always get it right and they can be missing or just plain misleading.

 

As for priority that seems to have changed a while back when the HWC was revised. The wording is now 'merge in turn' at low speed pushed for by the IAM over many years. It would appear at higher speeds both lanes should be prepared well in advance to merge there being no priority unless stated by road markings.

I know what you mean and I think a physical carriageway divider is what makes the difference. If two lanes narrow to one on a single carriageway road then the left hand lane merges with and gives way to the right hand lane (to stop cars being forced into oncoming traffic), on dual carriageways it it usually the other way round and when lanes merge the right hand lane merges with and gives way to the left hand lane.

 

 

This makes perfect sense for this particular situation.

 

the left hand lane merges with and gives way to the right hand lane (to stop cars being forced into oncoming traffic),

If there is just a central dividing line, then the road is a single carriageway. It doesn't matter how wide each of the single carriageways are, unless there is a line to split them into 2 or 3 lanes, they are single carriageways and the appropriate legislation applies. The fact that you can manage to fit cars two or three abreast without crossing the central dividing line doesn't mean anything in terms of road classification.

 

I think the problem that arises in this situation starts at the traffic lights where two lane's of traffic at the lights have road markings that indicate, left turn or straight ahead in the nearside lane and straight ahead only on the outside lane. Across the lights the only road marking is the central white line so a bit of a free for all often occurs during peak time's.

The traffic lights have the yellow box system so most drivers head for whichever lane gets them across the box.

Its not only the straight ahead traffic either, there is also the traffic from both side's of the light's.

I think the lack of road markings was an intentional attempt at forcing the traffic to alternate. Maybe a better idea would have been to make the nearside lane left turn only at the lights and the road ahead clearly a single lane. Although that may have caused tailbacks back past the lights which often happens anyway.

This makes perfect sense for this particular situation.

 

the left hand lane merges with and gives way to the right hand lane (to stop cars being forced into oncoming traffic),

 

Except there is no left and right hand lane if there is no carriageway divider. If there is no carriageway divider, then it is a single carriageway road. The fact that drivers can fit two cars abreast on one carriageway makes no difference. The car occupying the space on the single carriageway which is closest to the centre on the road, is in an overtaking position and as such must yield to cars to the left if them. Even if the road narrows from the nearside forcing traffic on the left to move towards the centre of the road, traffic to the right must yield. This is because it is a SINGLE CARRIAGEWAY ROAD. The fact that drivers have divided that they can fit cars onto it two abreast is totally and completely irrelevant.

Except there is no left and right hand lane if there is no carriageway divider. If there is no carriageway divider, then it is a single carriageway road. The fact that drivers can fit two cars abreast on one carriageway makes no difference. The car occupying the space on the single carriageway which is closest to the centre on the road, is in an overtaking position and as such must yield to cars to the left if them. Even if the road narrows from the nearside forcing traffic on the left to move towards the centre of the road, traffic to the right must yield. This is because it is a SINGLE CARRIAGEWAY ROAD. The fact that drivers have divided that they can fit cars onto it two abreast is totally and completely irrelevant.

 

Its not quite that simple. The traffic lights have two clearly marked lane's indicating that both lane's can move straight ahead. Traffic crossing the lights cannot merge on the junction so they must cross the junction before any attempt to merge takes place. The outside lane has the white line marking their guide//boundary from oncoming traffic, the nearside lane is faced with what I can only describe as a bottle neck kerb shape forcing them across to the outside lane. Sheer volume of traffic mean's both lanes are used and the short distance between traffic lights and bridge[70mtrs] give's little space for traffic to merge.

I understand what your saying about the outer lane being for overtaking but thats not the case at the traffic lights where the outside lane is for straight ahead traffic. The short distance beyond the light's is barely enough for the two lane to merge into one beyond which you would be correct.

Edited October 15, 201015 yr by onmebike

Its not quite that simple. The traffic lights have two clearly marked lane's indicating that both lane's can move straight ahead. Traffic crossing the lights cannot merge on the junction so they must cross the junction before any attempt to merge takes place. The outside lane has the white line marking their guide//boundary from oncoming traffic, the nearside lane is faced with what I can only describe as a bottle neck kerb shape forcing them across to the outside lane. Sheer volume of traffic mean's both lanes are used and the short distance between traffic lights and bridge[70mtrs] give's little space for traffic to merge.

I understand what your saying about the outer lane being for overtaking but thats not the case at the traffic lights where the outside lane is for straight ahead traffic. The short distance beyond the light's is barely enough for the two lane to merge into one beyond which you would be correct.

 

There is such a junction close to where I live. It's called Balloon Woods and some may know it. When travelling from Nottingham towards Ilkeston, the road actually divides into three lanes at the traffic lights. Those going straight on at the lights start off in clearly defined lanes, once across the lights you quickly find yourself on a short stretch of wide single carriageway road which quickly narrows from the left. What should happen is that those to the right should yield and filter into gaps behind vehicles to the left.

 

In reality, there tends to be a drag race across the lights followed by a dual of brinkmanship as the road narrows. The most aggressive Audi driving salesman emerging victorious.

What should happen is you should 'merge in turn'

There is such a junction close to where I live. It's called Balloon Woods and some may know it. When travelling from Nottingham towards Ilkeston, the road actually divides into three lanes at the traffic lights. Those going straight on at the lights start off in clearly defined lanes, once across the lights you quickly find yourself on a short stretch of wide single carriageway road which quickly narrows from the left. What should happen is that those to the right should yield and filter into gaps behind vehicles to the left.

 

In reality, there tends to be a drag race across the lights followed by a dual of brinkmanship as the road narrows. The most aggressive Audi driving salesman emerging victorious.

 

In practice the majority of drivers are pretty sensible, the one's slightly ahead are given way too so the traffic alternates. Occassionally there are bust ups as to who has priority. I still have my suspicions around the traffic cops explanation.

One problem is the roads in this area were originally designed for horse and carts, the odd car and farm machinery. Since the area has expanded and been built up the roads are falling to pieces. My house moves if anything bigger than a transit goes past. I'll have to sell it as a mobile home it move's so much.

What should happen is you should 'merge in turn'

 

Ho ho.

 

Most of that sort of advice applies in reality to drivers of cars etc. On a bike, I must say I tend to give way, regardless of whose right of way it is, survival being the better part of valour.

 

 

A

Funny or not that is what is advised in the HWC, also in 'Driving' the DSA publication it states under defensive driving that you should never assume you have priority and also you should be prepared to give way. These finer points and advise that we 'learn' to pass our driving test soon get forgotten though! The DSA book is a good refresher for those in doubt about how to drive LOL! Perhaps is should be a default option with all Audi drivers... (no offence intended )

What should happen is you should 'merge in turn'

 

Is that what the Highway Code says NRG? I've not got access to a copy to look it up at the moment.

 

It sounds like a gentlemanly solution, but a complete nightmare to establish who was in the wrong if there is a coming together.

HWC is online, no need to buy one....

 

Full contents : Directgov - Travel and transport