Oddball junction found online Options

[Mr Meldrew]

Southend Lane at its junction with Worsley Bridge Road, Beckenham is the subject and Google Street View shows no significant changes over ten years. The stop line appears to apply to a set of green ahead-only signals with no stop signals applicable to that direction, but equally oddball is that the authority surely expects vehicles to stop for the facing red lights when intending to turn right into Worsley Bridge Road and perhaps grief for any driver that does not, yet there appears to be no prescribed stop line which vehicular traffic must not proceed beyond.

[Advertisement]

[The Rookie]

I don’t see that that traffic light can ever be said to apply to turning right there, no stop line and you can’t even create a virtual stop line with a line across the road level with the light.

[notmeatloaf]

It's a rubbish design but, bearing in mind the purpose is presumably to help traffic turn right and prevent it blocking the junction I guess people may be more forgiving than it deserves.

There is a tight T junction near me, sadly not on GSV yet, where they have put in traffic lights but left the existing independent pedestrian crossing on one arm. So.you can get a green light to turn out, but unless you pay attention to the pedestrian crossing signals at a right angle to you inadvertently drive through a crossing on red.

I pointed out having two separate signals a metre apart was bloody stupid, but then the whole design is bloody stupid, with the pavement repainted as a bike lane (not marked as shared) so presumably pedestrians are expected to fly.

[Mr Meldrew]

The facing full traffic light set look not to be combined with a stop line contrary it appears to the relevant Schedule 14, General Direction (Part 6, 2.). A further example is here and this is another. I’ve never read that the law can be varied ad hoc.

[cp8759]

There might be a dispensation from the Department for Transport for Tower Bridge, as it's a historic site. I believe they have one already for the 20 mph signs.

[Mr Meldrew]

The problem is this, in the Introductory Text to TSRGD 2016 I see described in the various sections of the various Acts “conferred powers” when making regulations under Parts 1 and 2 to authorise, even ad hoc, signs and road markings (including s.36 signs) of another, type, character, size, colour, or illumination, but I see nothing that would empower the SoS to vary the underlying statutory requirement (TSRGD 2016, Schedule 14, Part 6, 2. “may only be placed in conjunction with a stop line”). In this respect, I recall adjudicator Wood’s view in Sam- Yorke v L.B. of Camden, that the SoS was not empowered to extend a yellow box so that it no longer met its statutory requirement (TSRGD 2002, Schedule 19, Part 2. “at a junction between two or more roads”), and I see similarities here. But perhaps I’ve overlooked something. Then again, it’s just a thought that perhaps the omission of the stop line was not “authorised under conferred powers” after all.

[Michael Gibson]

Try this one for size... the vehicle that arrives first has right of way, as confirmed by the highways authority.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.2793385,-0....6384!8i8192

[666]

Try this one for size... the vehicle that arrives first has right of way, as confirmed by the highways authority.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.2793385,-0....6384!8i8192

It may have precedence, but it does not have right of way.

The law regarding give-way lines actually says "no vehicle shall proceed past such one of those lines as is nearer the major road into that road in a manner or at a time likely to endanger the driver of or any passenger in a vehicle on the major road or to cause the driver of such a vehicle to change its speed or course in order to avoid an accident." That is clear enough in the case of a T-junction, but "major road" is meaningless in the case of this crossroads.

I know the junction, and it seems to work, but it's not one of the HA's best ideas.

[cp8759]

The problem is this, in the Introductory Text to TSRGD 2016 I see described in the various sections of the various Acts “conferred powers” when making regulations under Parts 1 and 2 to authorise, even ad hoc, signs and road markings (including s.36 signs) of another, type, character, size, colour, or illumination, but I see nothing that would empower the SoS to vary the underlying statutory requirement (TSRGD 2016, Schedule 14, Part 6, 2. “may only be placed in conjunction with a stop line”).

Sections 64 and 65 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 empower the SoS to authorise signs, the TSRGD 2016 do not (indeed cannot) fetter that power. On the contrary, General Direction 11 says:

Special directions
11. Nothing in these General Directions limits the power of the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers, by special direction under section 65(2) of the 1984 Act(1), to dispense with, add to or modify any of the requirements of these General Directions in their application to any particular case.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/36...ulation/11/made

The yellow box junction case you make reference to is down to a poorly drafted authorisation. If the SoS had made it clear, through the use of explicit words, that his intention in granting the authorisation was that yellow box markings could extend beyond the junction, then the restriction would have been enforceable even when the 2002 regulations were in force. For the TSRGD to limit the SoS's power to authorise signs would be an unlawful fetter of the SoS's discretion.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Sat, 8 Dec 2018 - 16:44

[666]

The problem is this, in the Introductory Text to TSRGD 2016 I see described in the various sections of the various Acts “conferred powers” when making regulations under Parts 1 and 2 to authorise, even ad hoc, signs and road markings (including s.36 signs) of another, type, character, size, colour, or illumination, but I see nothing that would empower the SoS to vary the underlying statutory requirement (TSRGD 2016, Schedule 14, Part 6, 2. “may only be placed in conjunction with a stop line”).

Sections 64 and 65 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 empower the SoS to authorise signs, the TSRGD 2016 do not (indeed cannot) fetter that power. On the contrary, General Direction 11 says:

Special directions
11. Nothing in these General Directions limits the power of the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers, by special direction under section 65(2) of the 1984 Act(1), to dispense with, add to or modify any of the requirements of these General Directions in their application to any particular case.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/36...ulation/11/made

The yellow box junction case you make reference to is down to a poorly drafted authorisation. If the SoS had made it clear, through the use of explicit words, that his intention in granting the authorisation was that yellow box markings could extend beyond the junction, then the restriction would have been enforceable even when the 2002 regulations were in force. For the TSRGD to limit the SoS's power to authorise signs would be an unlawful fetter of the SoS's discretion.

The TSRGDs are made by the Secretary of State, so his discretion (under Regulation 8) has effectively been granted to him by himself. That seems mildly fishy, to say the least.

[cp8759]

The TSRGDs are made by the Secretary of State, so his discretion (under Regulation 8) has effectively been granted to him by himself. That seems mildly fishy, to say the least.

No, the discretion is given by Parliament in the 1984 Act, at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/64 and https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/65

[notmeatloaf]

Try this one for size... the vehicle that arrives first has right of way, as confirmed by the highways authority.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.2793385,-0....6384!8i8192

They use them on a few residential roads that are used as cut throughs near where I work. They seem to work very well in the sense that people can't blast through at 30mph, helping pedestrians to cross, without needing loads of expensive street furniture.

It's the same as if people arrive at a mini roubdabout at the same time, everyone slows/stops then one person goes first. Hardly rocket science.

[Fredd]

I know the junction, and it seems to work, but it's not one of the HA's best ideas.

Similar to the 4-way stops that are common in the US, and they also seem to work remarkably well. I'm not sure what the advantage of a "4-way give way" is in this country though, given that the alternative of a mini-roundabout is far better understood here.

[666]

I know the junction, and it seems to work, but it's not one of the HA's best ideas.

Similar to the 4-way stops that are common in the US, and they also seem to work remarkably well. I'm not sure what the advantage of a "4-way give way" is in this country though, given that the alternative of a mini-roundabout is far better understood here.

Indeed. There was a US TV prog (Myth Busters?) which seemed to prove conclusively that a roundabout was more efficient than a four-way. But they used a ‘proper’ roundabout rather than a mini, which still seems to cause unnecessary bafflement to some drivers in the UK.

[Mr Meldrew]

The problem is this, in the Introductory Text to TSRGD 2016 I see described in the various sections of the various Acts “conferred powers” when making regulations under Parts 1 and 2 to authorise, even ad hoc, signs and road markings (including s.36 signs) of another, type, character, size, colour, or illumination, but I see nothing that would empower the SoS to vary the underlying statutory requirement (TSRGD 2016, Schedule 14, Part 6, 2. “may only be placed in conjunction with a stop line”).

Sections 64 and 65 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 empower the SoS to authorise signs, the TSRGD 2016 do not (indeed cannot) fetter that power. On the contrary, General Direction 11 says:

Special directions
11. Nothing in these General Directions limits the power of the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers, by special direction under section 65(2) of the 1984 Act(1), to dispense with, add to or modify any of the requirements of these General Directions in their application to any particular case.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/36...ulation/11/made

The yellow box junction case you make reference to is down to a poorly drafted authorisation. If the SoS had made it clear, through the use of explicit words, that his intention in granting the authorisation was that yellow box markings could extend beyond the junction, then the restriction would have been enforceable even when the 2002 regulations were in force. For the TSRGD to limit the SoS's power to authorise signs would be an unlawful fetter of the SoS's discretion.

I considered that section 65(2) of the 1984 Act referred to in General Direction 11 empowered the SoS to do precisely as described, and read the TSRGD with that in mind.

[The Rookie]

given that the alternative of a mini-roundabout is far better understood here.

Well apart from the fact you are actually meant to go ROUND it, frequent accidents at one near to my house by people cutting across the wrong side of it.

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 - 08:26

[notmeatloaf]

given that the alternative of a mini-roundabout is far better understood here.

Well apart from the fact you are actually meant to go ROUND it, frequent accidents at one near to my house by people cutting across the wrong side of it.

A lot of the ones here are difficult to go around on a pushbike, forget a car.

I thought the point of them was primarily to indicate priority, not that you had to ensure you fully went round the circle?

In fact I find the ones you can easily pass around more dangerous. I've had a couple of near misses and one SMIDSY collision, plus seen a couple of other collisions on this roundabout on my commute.

https://goo.gl/maps/D8GVfW2mv7n

Cars coming from the left can effectively straight line the roundabout and, combined with poor visibility, often just go full speed across with predictable consequences if someone enters the roundabout from Cowley Road.

[666]

given that the alternative of a mini-roundabout is far better understood here.

Well apart from the fact you are actually meant to go ROUND it, frequent accidents at one near to my house by people cutting across the wrong side of it.

A lot of the ones here are difficult to go around on a pushbike, forget a car.

I thought the point of them was primarily to indicate priority, not that you had to ensure you fully went round the circle?

Rule 188: "Approach these in the same way as normal roundabouts. All vehicles MUST pass round the central markings except large vehicles which are physically incapable of doing so. Remember, there is less space to manoeuvre and less time to signal. Avoid making U-turns at mini-roundabouts. Beware of others doing this."

Note the "MUST".

[notmeatloaf]

And as always the Highway Code both isn't law, and doesn't accurately transcribe it.

TSRGD actually says you need to keep to the left of the circle unless your vehicle is too large OR the layout of the junction prevents it. Layout obviously being more permissive because it suggests that even if your vehicle is physically capable of going round the circle if it would require a rally like turn to do it then you can cross the roundabout.

[Longtime Lurker]

You are here: https://www.google.com/maps/@52.1932722,-2....3312!8i6656

You want to turn right.

If you're lucky, you'll see something like this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.1935422,-2....3312!8i6656

But what exactly would you do if you're unlucky, the lights are red and that HGV was facing the other way and coming right at you?

For bonus points, go back to the lucky scenario. Should you merge in turn in the few feet before the stop line, by going across the diagonal hatching, or steer round the stop line and therefore have priority over traffic tuning left?

This post has been edited by Longtime Lurker: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 - 18:14