letters
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
We welcome letters for publication on transport topics. Address them to Commercial Motor, Dorset House, Stamford Street, London SE1.
Three-lane motorway. .
or two?
I recently had my attention drawn to page 139 of the September 25 1970 issue of Commercial Motor and the question posed by one of your readers about the circumstances in which the third lane of a motorway might not in fact be a third lane, and your reply to that question. You may recall that your reader had written to the effect that he frequently came down M6 to join M5 and had been faced with the situation of the signs on the overhead gantries indicating that the first or nearside lane was to be occupied if it was intended to leave the motorway at the next junction, leaving the centre and third lanes for traffic intending to proceed farther south and ultimately to join M5.
The obvious point of the question was whether the effect of the gantry signs was to make that section of motorway a two-lane motorway so that vehicles exceeding 3 tons unladen weight could use the outer of the two lanes without infringing the appropriate Regulation. Your answer to the question (admirably prefaced with the cautionary "it seems fairly clear") was that the effect of the overhead signs was that that section was only a two-lane motorway and that vehicles of the sort in question could use the outer or third lane. Having very recently to advise and represent in the Oldbury magistrates' court the driver of articulated lorry who had been served with a summons alleging an offence arising out of the sort of situation your reader described. I feel I must disagree with the view you express.
The circumstances which my client encountered, stated as briefly as possible, are that he was travelling south on the South Quinton—Great Barr Motorway (M5), driving an articulated lorry. He was occupying the centre lane. Ahead of him, in the nearside lane, was a small van travelling slower than my client who was naturally gradually overhauling it. As the van went under one of the gantry signs (I believe first of several) indicating the nearside lane for A4123 and the two outer lanes for M5 South, it moved into the centre lane. Although it was not a question of emergency evasive action, my client was left with no alternative but to brake and remain behind the van or continue his overtaking manoeuvre by entering the outer lane. He did the latter and was in the process of doing so when both vehicles, unfortunately, went past a police traffic patrol.
My client was subsequently served with a summons alleging an offence contrary to No.II(a) of the Motorways Regulations 1959 and Section 13 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967. During the course of the ensuing proceedings, the police constable who saw and reported the matter freely admitted upon oath that at the time that particular stretch of motorway, to the extent of his visibility, was virtually empty apart from the van and the articulated lorry driven by my client. He agreed that the nearside lane which the van had vacated was empty and there being no other vehicle or obstruction for the van to overtake, its changing course into the middle lane would appear to have been prompted by the gantry signs. He further agreed that he had observed similar manoeuvres on many occasions.
My client indicated an intention to contest the charge, arguing that the effect of the signs was to create a two-lane motorway situation, and he produced the page of your issue to which I have referred to support his argument, which accounts for my coming into possession of it (although your publication is taken regularly in this office). After due consideration, and while having every possible sympathy for my client. I felt bound to advise him that if the court acted properly it was unlikely that a plea of "not guilty" would be successful.
I approached the question from two points of view, first of all the nature and effect of the overhead signs, and secondly the physical characteristics of the road itself, As to the former. I do not think the directions given by the signs can be interpreted as mandatory in the sense that failure to confofm would amount to that specific offence, although, of course, a driver hogging the centre or outer lane who nevertheless wanted A4123 and who changed lanes to gain the appropriate slip road with complete disregard for other traffic could well be guilty of careless or inconsiderate driving under Section 3 of the 1960 Act or, worse. I do not think the signs amount to more than a recommendation that a driver who wishes to leave the motorway and join A4123 is advised to keep to the nearside lane, while traffic wishing to' go beyond that intersection should occupy the second and third lanes. I doubt very much whether the significance of the signs can be elevated to have the effect of converting the road at that point to a twolane motorway (the centre and outer lanes) plus a road of some other type (the nearside lane) so as to negate the operation of Regulation II(a) (2).
As to the physical nature of the road itself, there are two obvious and indisputable facts. First, the highway in question is a brand new road, of very recent construction, and is also a "special road" within the meaning of the legislation. Secondly, and equally as obvious, A4123 is also a road in its own right, of very much less recent origin although it is known locally as the "Birmingham–Wolverhampton new road". At or near the point concerned in the proceedings against my client. M5 is carried over A4123 and is virtually at right angles to it. Where M5 passes under the gantry signs, there is no actual or physical change in the appearance of the carriageway, in other words it looks exactly like any other three-lane motorway, and, further, when the intersection itself is reached, the lane over which the "A4123" signs are positioned, carries on as before, with the other two lanes and the slip road giving access to A4123 is, in effect, tacked on.
I appreciate that all this may seem, to say the least, very elementary, but the view I hold, and which I conveyed to my client, is that to raise even a reasonable doubt in the mind of the justices as to whether the road at that point had two or three lanes, it would be necessary to try to argue convincingly that that portion of the road over which the "A4123" signs on the gantries were situate was not in fact part of M5 but was actually A4123 itself, Clearly, physically and geographically, that could not possibly be the case, and I doubt whether any argument along those lines would have carried much weight.
A further, though perhaps minor point, is that between Birmingham and Wolverhampton A4123 is subject to a general 40 mph limit, and there is absolutely nothing on the gantry signs to indicate the existence of any limit upon the road beneath them although, of course, the blanket 70 mph limit would apply. Were the road under the "A4123" signs not part of the motorway, goods vehicles of the type with which we are concerned would automatically be restricted to 40 mph and the inconceivable and ludicrous situation would arise of such a vehicle being subject to one speed limit in one lane and a different one in another.
That the signs are misleading, pr perhaps to express it a little better, subject to misinterpretation. I think would be readily acknowledged by police of all ranks through whose "patch" this particular stretch of special road runs and it is difficult to conceive of an alternative form of sign which would convey the correct message without either using so many words that adequate assimilation, let along interpretation, would be difficult, if not impossible at motorway speeds without the risk of potentially dangerous distraction, or using so few words that ambiguity would remain and the object of the exercise defeated. However experienced a driver, commercial or private, there must always be a first time that he drives along a new stretch of motorway and until he has gained sufficient knowledge and experience of it he can rely only upon direction signs.
In conclusion, may I emphasize that what I have expressed above are my own personal views upon this matter with particular reference to the circumstances of the client I represented and I lay no claim to these views being authoritative. Even if there is any room for doubt, if the above through the medium of your publication serves to deter the driver of a vehicle to which the Regulation in question applies from venturing into the third lane, bearing in mind that conviction will result in compulsory endorsement unless there are "special reasons", my purpose will have been achieved.
GEOFFREY W. J. DAVIES, Norman Carless and Co, A mblecote, Stourbridge, Worcs.
PS: Incidentally, in the event my client instructed me to attend court to tender a plea of "guilty" (although to what extent this was because of my advice or an unexpected emergency which I understand occurred in his business I shall never know) and he was fined £2 with licence endorsement although the Justices refused an application by the prosecuting solicitor for an advocate's fee.