Three lane roads ....

I guess you are deliberately excluding hills? I can think of several locally that were once two lane, then widened to three but set out as two up, one down. I can think of a few relatively short sections not on significant hills that have two lanes one way, one the other. But I agree, by far the main trend with old three-laners is conversion to two, apart from the ones that were widened and given a central reservation and converted to four.

No fear! Those things were lethal!

why?...we still have a version of them .....

We have quite a lot of roads, some pretty recently built, with that approach. A third lane on many of the hills. The markings are very clear and I see virtually no-one disobeying.

Along quite a few, there is also what is almost a bicycle lane so much of the time no need to even think about crossing lines to overtake.

went down this one today....nice scenery though ....

https://www.google.com/maps/@55.1485966,-4.978789,3a,75y,43.31h,92.97t,359.33r/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPO47jaQZaaCnUzOjp2Q_Zg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I must be missing something - I don't see any reference to the number of lanes in those sections of the highway code.

Take a look from the other direction further up?

Would you overtake there when a car can come the other way at 60MPH?

dennis@home formulated the question :

We will just have to agree to differ then, because I know I am correct.

I do understand and you are completely misunderstanding.

It has even been independently explained to you below how it works.

dennis@home explained :

Test examiner would confirm what I have tried several times to explain to you.

Mike Clarke presented the following explanation :

That is correct. It is one of those cases where you have to apply some common sense.

Just to repeat, for the benefit of Dennis...

Three lanes, your lane is separated from the centre lane by a dotted line. Traffic coming the other way has a dotted line nearest to them, then a solid white line adjacent to it - think double white line, but the nearer one dotted.

You have priority use of that centre lane, because you just have the single dotted line. Vehicles coming towards can still make use of the centre lane, providing no one on your side of the road is using it or likely to pull out into it.

When the solid + dotted line becomes a double solid line, then you are not permitted to cross the lines, except in the circumstances already given of very slow vehicles.

But all you've tried to convey is how you *think* it should work, please quote the part of the law (or even the HC) that makes it so

That's what you would like to think ... and you've convinced yourself it's true, but no-one else.

no it isn't..

its much easier to drive on a motorway. the traffic is all going the same way so no closing speeds of 120mph+ like on three lane roads. plenty of warning signs.

You would think it easy to find something somewhere that backs up your assertion , but I can?t find an example despite treating such roads as you do , common sense would suggest that it is the correct way to treat such roads and most people seem to do so but common sense isn?t traffic law. A lot of these roads are on a gradient and the two lane section is for traffic going up, it used to be common sense that uphill traffic should be given priority,it may even have been suggested in old editions of the Highway Code but as a should rather than must. That seems to have died out since vehicles hill climbing abilities and transmissions have improved and replaced by the modern attitude of ? I got to this bit first? so it probably isn?t wise to assume someone coming down won?t enter the middle lane first and grab it . Fortunately most people do treat them like you do but it looks like there is nothing written down to say that they must.

GH

He can't and won't admit he is wrong.

You still haven't produced a thing that agrees with you. The highway code and the law do not give either of you priority.

Specific very slow vehicles not even including tractors.

Andy Burns wrote on 29/06/2019 :

It doesn't need to be defined in law because it already is defined by the section where there are just two lanes combined with a dotted and solid white line. If the dotted line is on your side of the solid line, then providing there are no oncoming vehicle preventing it, you can cross the line to carry out an overtake. The oncoming vehicles have priority of their side of the road.

Likewise, if there are no oncoming vehicles in that centre lane, with a dotted line nearest you and the solid white line next to it, you can use that centre lane with care, watching for oncoming vehicles which might wish to use that centre lane. Basic common sense really, it doesn't need to be expressed in law.

If you and Dennis both think it works otherwise, why not try crossing that dotted + solid white line in the face of oncoming vehicles in that middle lane - if you survive the experience, please describe it.

dennis@home has brought this to us :

I will not admit I am wrong, simply because I am 100% right. Do you, or at least some you need everything to be covered by a specific law.

Will just one of you attempt to explain why certain roads have three lanes, where one lane is separated for the centre by just a dotted line and the other side is separated by a solid and a dotted line? Yet others have just a dotted line for one side and two solid white lines.

Why not just dotted lines separating both directional sections of carriage-way from the centre lane?