In message , at
23:45:56 on Thu, 3 Nov 2011, Nick Finnigan remarked:
You could argue that you're not forced to use the lanes for any given
direction. So long as a leftwards arrow is lit and you drive with
appropriate care, you can turn left from any lane.

Even if that means passing a red light (because the middle lane in
question
isn't yet showing a "straight ahead" green arrow)?

Yes, provided the lanes are just white lines, not kerbs.

The one I'm thinking of has a small traffic island, but you could turn left
past it; in other words you are saying the silver hatchback here could
immediately turn left (despite being in the wrong lane and facing a red
light): http://tinyurl.com/6kkff8b

No, because there are separate stop lines for the two sets of lights.

Does it require a physical barrier like the traffic island to create
*separate* stop lines - or could paint achieve it as well?

Dunno, I'd need to see an example.

I'm thinking of junctions like Cross Street (A56) and Dane Road in Sale.
4 1/2 lanes, markings for left, ahead, ahead, right but only one stop
line (+two 'advance' stop lines), no kerbs / separate slip roads.
However, two complete sets of lights to allow turning on a filter, from
any lane.

OK, so in that case you are saying it's legal to (say) turn left from
the "straight ahead" lanes, because the lane markings are perhaps only
advisory and you are crossing the same "Stop" line whichever lane you
are in. With a filter-left you have to cross the Stop line, and that it
doesn't matter which part of the stop line.

I suppose my question is this: although there's just one Stop line,
there are arguably four separate advanced stop lines. If not four,
definitely two. Combined with the lane markings, do those constitute
"separate" Stop lines (either in the case where the is an advanced box,
or in the more general case in the absence of such a box).

Or is the "One stop line" defined by the position on the traffic lights,
such that anywhere between two lights showing red is one single stop
line irrespective of paint.
--
Roland Perry

On 04/11/2011 08:11, Roland Perry wrote:

I suppose my question is this: although there's just one Stop line, there
are arguably four separate advanced stop lines. If not four, definitely
two. Combined with the lane markings, do those constitute "separate" Stop
lines (either in the case where the is an advanced box, or in the more
general case in the absence of such a box).

Advance stop lines don't matter when there is a green light.

Or is the "One stop line" defined by the position on the traffic lights,
such that anywhere between two lights showing red is one single stop line
irrespective of paint.

Probably, but there will be some wacky layouts around.

In message , Roland Perry
wrote:
The one I'm thinking of has a small traffic island, but you could turn
left past it; in other words you are saying the silver hatchback here
could immediately turn left (despite being in the wrong lane and facing
a red light): http://tinyurl.com/6kkff8b

It's facing a red light with a green arrow (well, if it wasn't forward
of the line it would be). So I think it's legal.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

On 05/11/2011 15:12, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
In message , Roland Perry
wrote:
The one I'm thinking of has a small traffic island, but you could turn
left past it; in other words you are saying the silver hatchback here
could immediately turn left (despite being in the wrong lane and facing a
red light): http://tinyurl.com/6kkff8b

It's facing a red light with a green arrow (well, if it wasn't forward of
the line it would be). So I think it's legal.

Taking a step forwards, we can deduce that the light to the right has a
green arrow for turning right - and so the silver hatchback could certainly
have forked right when that was showing.

In message , at
22:08:34 on Sun, 6 Nov 2011, Nick Finnigan remarked:
The one I'm thinking of has a small traffic island, but you could turn
left past it; in other words you are saying the silver hatchback here
could immediately turn left (despite being in the wrong lane and facing a
red light): http://tinyurl.com/6kkff8b

It's facing a red light with a green arrow (well, if it wasn't forward of
the line it would be). So I think it's legal.

Taking a step forwards, we can deduce that the light to the right has a
green arrow for turning right - and so the silver hatchback could
certainly have forked right when that was showing.

Not until it shows, of course. The right-turning light (which is
actually a solid green rather than an arrow) is the last of the three
lanes to get the go-ahead, some time after the middle lane gets a green
light.

To complicate matters, the light for the middle lane has a green
forwards arrow, so maybe that's another reason why you couldn't filter
left; but to pick up a point from much earlier in the thread, you won't
know that [it's a forward-only light] if all you can see is a *red*
light (that you believe you can pass in order to filter left).

--
Roland Perry

"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message
...
In message , Roland Perry
wrote:
The one I'm thinking of has a small traffic island, but you could turn
left past it; in other words you are saying the silver hatchback here
could immediately turn left (despite being in the wrong lane and facing a
red light): http://tinyurl.com/6kkff8b

It's facing a red light with a green arrow (well, if it wasn't forward of
the line it would be). So I think it's legal.

If you back up on the street view it's clear that the intention is to have
one lane each for left turn, straight on and right turn.

On the continent they do things better because the red (and possibly amber)
lights are arrows as well, so it's very clear which light is controlling
each traffic flow.

My favourite example of this stupidity is this junction:

http://g.co/maps/ecedu

There is a large sign saying RIGHT TURNS GO FIRST, but you still see people
in lanes 1 and 2 taking off when the light for lane 3 changes.

--
DAS

In message , at 23:30:56 on Sun, 6 Nov
2011, D A Stocks remarked:

The one I'm thinking of has a small traffic island, but you could
turn left past it; in other words you are saying the silver hatchback
here could immediately turn left (despite being in the wrong lane and
facing a red light): http://tinyurl.com/6kkff8b

It's facing a red light with a green arrow (well, if it wasn't
forward of the line it would be). So I think it's legal.

If you back up on the street view it's clear that the intention is to
have one lane each for left turn, straight on and right turn.

I'm aware of that (it's a junction I use at least once a week).

However, we got here by considering the legality of turning from
different lanes, and in particular whether the traffic lights are in any
sense linked to the lanes, or whether they just say which way you can
turn at that instant, from any of the lanes.

On the continent they do things better because the red (and possibly
amber) lights are arrows as well, so it's very clear which light is
controlling each traffic flow.

At the junction above it's clear which light is intended to control each
lane, but the question is whether that's merely advisory (as long as the
direction you want to go has a green). Similarly, the white arrows may
be only advisory.

My favourite example of this stupidity is this junction:

http://g.co/maps/ecedu

There is a large sign saying RIGHT TURNS GO FIRST, but you still see
people in lanes 1 and 2 taking off when the light for lane 3 changes.

And unlike the junction discussed above, the lanes there have "Ahead
Only" and "Turn Right" painted on the road, not just an arrow.
--
Roland Perry

On 06/11/2011 22:29, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 22:08:34
on Sun, 6 Nov 2011, Nick Finnigan remarked:
The one I'm thinking of has a small traffic island, but you could turn
left past it; in other words you are saying the silver hatchback here
could immediately turn left (despite being in the wrong lane and facing a
red light): http://tinyurl.com/6kkff8b

It's facing a red light with a green arrow (well, if it wasn't forward of
the line it would be). So I think it's legal.

Taking a step forwards, we can deduce that the light to the right has a
green arrow for turning right - and so the silver hatchback could
certainly have forked right when that was showing.

Not until it shows, of course. The right-turning light (which is actually a
solid green rather than an arrow) is the last of the three lanes to get the
go-ahead, some time after the middle lane gets a green light.

In that case you can turn left or right or go ahead from the centre or
right lane whilst the right most-light is showing green

To complicate matters, the light for the middle lane has a green forwards
arrow, so maybe that's another reason why you couldn't filter left; but to
pick up a point from much earlier in the thread, you won't know that [it's
a forward-only light] if all you can see is a *red* light (that you believe
you can pass in order to filter left).

At some points you will see a solid green and a red which may be dead.