Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: white lane arrows
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
chopper jockey
Hello everyone, newbe here. I have a little problem with the plod, What do the white lane marking arrows approaching a traffic light controlled T junction on a dual carriagway signify?
In particular, are they advisory or are they a "must comply" sign?. What happened was I used the empty left lane when I should have been in the right lane to go right. I could not get in the right lane because it was full of traffic. The copper pulled me over for disregarding a go left arrow on the road. I don't think I did anything wrong.
I'm having limited sucess with this topic on another forum...
http://forum.rac.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2103

Here's the scenario...
Two lanes approaching a dual carriageway traffic light junction. The right lane is full of stationary, rush hour traffic, waiting for the right turn light ahead to turn green. The left lane is completely empty, with a green light illuminated to the left. The junction is completely static, no moving traffic anywhere. I need to join this queue from a "T" junction on the left, about half way down the queue. After waiting for some time I decided I was getting nowhere by waiting so I decided to pull out of the "T" and drive slowly down the empty left lane (with the "go left" white arrow painted on the surface) and time my approach to the "T" junction ahead to coincide with the green light to go right. Even though I was signaling right, no one let me in the queue ( fair enough), so I rolled onto the junction, still in the left lane, (which was empty up to and out the other side) and waited to be let in. I was eventually let in, even though I took the left exit lane on the other side (the queue was all taking the right exit lane on the other side,dual carriagway) and I kept out of everyone's way.
I did not cut anyone up, there was no danger of an accident, ( very slow moving traffic) and I managed to reduce the length of the queue by not being in it.
All this was observed by two traffic police at the front of one of the waiting queues and they pulled me over for turning right out of a "go left only lane".
I reminded the copper that the junction was controlled by traffic lights and I went to the right when the go right green light was illuminated. I told the officer I thought the white arrows are only lane indicators, for example, on the other side of the junction is an arrow painted on the lane, with "CITY" infront of it, I presume if you are in that lane it does not mean you HAVE to go to the city, what if you only want to go to the post office? and surely if you find yourself in the wrong lane, you are entitled to signal out of it?

Since then, I've been trying to find the definitive definition of these white, lane arrows. So are they compulsory or advisory? I think compulsory signs are white arrows on blue background.
I think these white lane arrows are to INDICATE the best lane to use for the direction I wish to go (unless of course the "best" lane is full of traffic).
BaggieBoy
More info needed. Did the right lane also allow traffic to go straight on? Is the road to the right a single carrigeway? If yes to either of these questions then doing a right turn from the left lane is foolhardy at best.
chopper jockey
I just up dated my first post with more info, sorry I did not read yours till now... It's a dual carriageway "T" junction, no straight on.

And I have been charged with "driving without consideration to other road users".
Gumby
I understand what you mean - I think you mean these arrow markings which are governed under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002:



You have been charged with Careless driving which states:

"If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence", contrary to Section 3 RTA.

Contravening traffic regulations can be very relevent but is not always conclusive, It really depends and can be open to opinion. i.e. breaching traffic regulations does not always amount to sufficient evidence in itself of careless driving.

Also, In order to prove that a driver drove inconsiderstely it must be shown that some other person using the road was actually inconvenienced (Dilks v Bowman-Shaw 1981)
chopper jockey
Those are exactly the arrows I am talking about. The copper lectured me for turning right out of a left lane., told me I drove dangerously on to the junction and he would be reporting me for a moving traffic offence. I explained the arrows are not mandatory and I drove carefully and considerately, by waiting my turn on the junction. Court again next week for a pre trial hearing...
Gumby
The arrows are mandatory, as you must turn in the direction of the arrow. To not do this is breaching the road traffic regulation, which may directly influence the courts decision on whether or not your drove carelessly. However it is up to the prosecution to prove that you drove carelessly and without "reasonable" consideration for other road users. Despite turning right when you should not have done, the fact that you slowed down to let traffic out from the queue will help your defence. Also they need to show that someone was actually inconvenienced. Good luck.
JDC
Surely the OP was inconvenienced by not being let into the queue? tongue.gif
chopper jockey
QUOTE (Gumby @ Thu, 25 Oct 2007 - 15:42) *
The arrows are mandatory, as you must turn in the direction of the arrow. Good luck.


I agree the arrows would be mandatory if the lane was bordered by a continous white line, however the lanes on this junction are bordered by broken white lines, which I presume means I can change lanes. And if I can change lanes, then I don't HAVE to go left. Another thing comes to mind, if the left arrows are mandatory, then that would conflict with lights ahead when they are at red.
Gumby
QUOTE (chopper jockey @ Thu, 25 Oct 2007 - 17:00) *
QUOTE (Gumby @ Thu, 25 Oct 2007 - 15:42) *
The arrows are mandatory, as you must turn in the direction of the arrow. Good luck.


I agree the arrows would be mandatory if the lane was bordered by a continous white line, however the lanes on this junction are bordered by broken white lines, which I presume means I can change lanes. And if I can change lanes, then I don't HAVE to go left. Another thing comes to mind, if the left arrows are mandatory, then that would conflict with lights ahead when they are at red.


My thinking is - Yes you can change lanes before you reach the stop line, however as soon as you cross the solid stop line you must turn in the direction of the arrow that was shown in the lane that you have just exited.

It would be interesting to see a photograph of the junctions at dusk to get a good idea of the traffic flow and how the road is marked out.
Wolvo1
Hmmm I wonder - I've seen exactly this on the North Circular coming up to the Finchley Road - there are two lanes right and middle which turn right onto Finchley road and are always packed and a bit of a wait, and a left lane with no-one in it strictly for (and marked) for people wanting to go left.
You always get the smart arses that think waiting isn't something they should have to do (usually Clio large exhaust drivers) so they zoom up the left turning lane and right at the top indicate where the turns actually happen, to get into the right lanes at the front holding everyone up and in front of all the motorists who have patiently waited.
Anyone who gets caught doing this there deserves a massive fine and loss of license purely for being an inconsiderate prat !!

OP - How come when you saw the stationery traffic in the right lane and knowing you wanted to go right did you not just join the queue ?
chopper jockey
On my first post, I wrote this...

Here's the scenario...
Two lanes approaching a dual carriageway traffic light junction. The right lane is full of stationary, rush hour traffic, waiting for the right turn light ahead to turn green. The left lane is completely empty, with a green light illuminated to the left. The junction is completely static, no moving traffic anywhere. I need to join this queue from a "T" junction on the left, about half way down the queue. After waiting for some time I decided I was getting nowhere by waiting so I decided to pull out of the "T" and drive slowly down the empty left lane (with the "go left" white arrow painted on the surface) and time my approach to the "T" junction ahead to coincide with the green light to go right. Even though I was signaling right, no one let me in the queue ( fair enough), so I rolled onto the junction, still in the left lane, (which was empty up to and out the other side) and waited to be let in. I was eventually let in, even though I took the left exit lane on the other side (the queue was all taking the right exit lane on the other side,dual carriagway) and I kept out of everyone's way.
I did not cut anyone up, there was no danger of an accident, ( very slow moving traffic) and I managed to reduce the length of the queue by not being in it.
All this was observed by two traffic police at the front of one of the waiting queues and they pulled me over for turning right out of a "go left only lane".
I reminded the copper that the junction was controlled by traffic lights and I went to the right when the go right green light was illuminated. I told the officer I thought the white arrows are only lane indicators, for example, on the other side of the junction is an arrow painted on the lane, with "CITY" infront of it, I presume if you are in that lane it does not mean you HAVE to go to the city, what if you only want to go to the post office? and surely if you find yourself in the wrong lane, you are entitled to signal out of it?


I was unable to join the queue, because it backed up past the single lane junction I was joining from. It kept growing and no one would let me in. Plus I had other traffic behind me that may have wanted the left lane ahead and I was blocking their progress.
mudmover
QUOTE (chopper jockey)
Those are exactly the arrows I am talking about.


If it is indeed that type of arrow rather than this type then I think your position is strengthened.

Where it says for example 'city' this indicates the appropriate lane.

Where it says 'turn left' this indicates you must turn left.

mm
chopper jockey
QUOTE (mudmover @ Thu, 25 Oct 2007 - 17:54) *
QUOTE (chopper jockey)
Those are exactly the arrows I am talking about.


If it is indeed that type of arrow rather than this type then I think your position is strengthened.

Where it says for example 'city' this indicates the appropriate lane.

Where it says 'turn left' this indicates you must turn left.

mm


Quite right, but remember you will never see a "turn left" sign on a lane approaching a traffic light controlled junction. rolleyes.gif

I have an aerial photo of the junction, saved on my desktop as a jpeg. I don't know how to get it on here though. unsure.gif
Cupid_Stunt63
The lane arrows at junctions are MANDITORY. one wonders how some people pass their driving test.
and i would have been the car keeping pace along side you, to make sure you didnt get in. especially as you where in the queue to start off
jaykay
That's the whole point, the OP wasn't in the queue, couldn't get into, and had already been waiting some time. You're fortunate there is no spelling test for a driving licence.
mudmover
QUOTE
The lane arrows at junctions are MANDITORY. one wonders how some people pass their driving test


I disagree, from my reading of the TSGRD they are only mandatory if accompanied by writing on the tarmac next to the arrow saying 'turn left' or 'straight ahead' or 'turn right'. Otherwise they merely indicate the appropriate lane.
The Rookie
With Mudmover, without the words they are guidance, with the wording they are mandatory....

Simon
jaykay
Why not actually read and understand the OP. How could he ever get into the lane as he was attempting to get in from a side road. Depending on circumstances he may have been best to turn left, then do a U turn and go straight on - without knowing the road layout it's difficult to say.
fatboytim
If you read note 4 in the box under the diagram it says,
"Arrows may be omitted"
How can they be a mandatory instruction, when they are optional?

I guess, (but don't know for sure) a Traffic Regulation Order would be required, to make it an offence in t's self.

Did you pass the police car as you indicated while moving in the left lane?.


fatboytim
chopper jockey
As I entered the junction to wait my turn, (still in the left lane) the police car was at the front of the nearside queue on the other side of the junction and followed in line behind me when their lights went to green. I saw the filth there waiting, but continued with my manouvre because I didn't think I was doing wrong. rolleyes.gif
Tamara-D
You are all forgetting one important factor.

You can drive at 27mph in a 40mph zone, but if a policeman thinks it's an inappropriate speed for the conditions then you can be charged with an offence.

The issue around the arrows being mandatory is irrelevant. If your actions were either dangerous or careless then you will be liable for the offence.

This reminds me of two types of irritating people, one who drive straight on at roundabouts when they approach in a designated left turn lane - they never look on the tarmac to notice the arrows and should never have been given a licence in the first place - very dangerous and the cause of many accidents, and two, people who enter a roundabout when their exit is blocked, thus blocking traffic to their left from entering the roundabout. I am sure the highway code states that if your exit is blocked then don't enter the junction/roundabout, which effectively means you give way to people on the left.

It is not an excuse that you 'could not join the back of the queue.' You should proceed to the next available safe place to change direction.
Bluedart
QUOTE (Tamara-D @ Sun, 28 Oct 2007 - 01:33)
You are all forgetting one important factor.

QUOTE
You can drive at 27mph in a 40mph zone, but if a policeman thinks it's an inappropriate speed for the conditions then you can be charged with an offence.

The issue around the arrows being mandatory is irrelevant. If your actions were either dangerous or careless then you will be liable for the offence.


Unless you can prove otherwise?
QUOTE
This reminds me of two types of irritating people, one who drive straight on at roundabouts when they approach in a designated left turn lane - they never look on the tarmac to notice the arrows and should never have been given a licence in the first place
Totally agree with that!
QUOTE
people who enter a roundabout when their exit is blocked, thus blocking traffic to their left from entering the roundabout.
That's called, "self inflicted congestion."

Another one that pisses me off is, two lanes streaming off a round-a-bout, only to be confronted with one lane 100yds later. That creates a sort of road rage with the filtering in hassel. The highway code say's, "give way to traffic on your right," but do they?

And you can look ahead and see traffic bumper to bumper not going anywhere, you hang back to allow traffic to enter or leave side roads, and some nurd is resting on their horn behind, because they are trying to do the impossible, and that is - move the traffic in front of you that is stationary.
chopper jockey
Hey guys, A letter from the CPS arrived this morning. ( I went to court and pleaded not guilty, TWICE) They are dropping the charges as it is not in the public interest.

I called their bluff and I won rolleyes.gif

I shall now be requesting costs and I intend to make a formal complaint against the filth.

I suffered an aggressive roadside lecture from the MOD police and all the time I maintained the white arrows are advisory. They were happy for me to go to court and plead guilty and take the fine and points, but now for some reason it's against the public interest. YES
Bluedart
QUOTE (chopper jockey @ Sat, 10 Nov 2007 - 10:43)
Hey guys, A letter from the CPS arrived this morning. ( I went to court and pleaded not guilty, TWICE) They are dropping the charges as it is not in the public interest.

I called their bluff and I won rolleyes.gif

I shall now be requesting costs and I intend to make a formal complaint against the filth.

I suffered an aggressive roadside lecture from the MOD police and all the time I maintained the white arrows are advisory. They were happy for me to go to court and plead guilty and take the fine and points, but now for some reason it's against the public interest. YES


Magic CJ, they don't like it up'em.
chopper jockey
What, only one reply? come on chaps, I fought back at the system and won, how about a pat on my back or something?
Unless you all think that queue jumping ( without in convienencing other road users) is illegal that is...

I thought this was a "FIGHT BACK" forum. rolleyes.gif


greasemonkey
Hi i would suggest not making a complaint and if you want expenses make sure its a polite letter to the clerk of the court even though they have dropped the case is it really worth shaking the basket of rattle snakes or just easier to avoid them and have a easy life i had a similar case and won i was advised to not rock the boat and to let the system handle it both the plod involved in my case were fined 7 days pay but it was said if i had complained they would have only got a slapped wrist
regards
Steve
The Rookie
Just seen your succes, well done, 'not in the public interest' or in English (U.K.) the plod loused up, should never have got this far, the defendant know's the law and we have no hope of a conviction so its time to fold'....as Mr Jones said, they don't like it up 'em!

QUOTE (Tamara-D @ Sun, 28 Oct 2007 - 00:33) *
You can drive at 27mph in a 40mph zone, but if a policeman thinks it's an inappropriate speed for the conditions then you can be charged with an offence.


RANT MODE ON

What is a 40mph ZONE, only heard of 40mph limits and 20mph zones....

RANT MODE OFF


Simon
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.