Centre hatching

[The Mechanic]

Another interesting example here where the hatching protects the central reservation .

I presume this is meant to be funny. If you look backwards on street view, you will see that this hatching is designed to filter traffic from a dual carriageway to a single. Seems like a good plan to me.

[AlaninWales]

Another interesting example here where the hatching protects the central reservation .

I presume this is meant to be funny. If you look backwards on street view, you will see that this hatching is designed to filter traffic from a dual carriageway to a single. Seems like a good plan to me.

I think gaz's point is: At the same time as the hatching starts, an on-road (advisory) cycle lane commences which is part of the narrowing of lanes towards the single carriageway. Cyclists are moved off the (poor quality) shared path (aka 'pavement or footway with cycling permitted') onto the road where their potential presence is used to slow traffic; all very standard. However the new on-road cycle path is barely more than twice the width of the double yellow lines - clearly inadequate indeed dangerously narrow, whilst the hatching on the other side is considerably wider. The apparent priority is to 'protect' the central reservation whilst using the presence of the unprotected cycle path on the nearside to restrict lane width.

A better solution would surely be to narrow the lanes earlier from the nearside, using hatching to protect the appearance of a wider on-road cycle path (plent of room there if there were no hatchings on the off-side); indeed this could be done all the way back to the previous junction, so that the 'pavement or footway with cycling permitted' is not required at all!

[MikeF]

I don't like it as it narrows the road in effect. There is some near me on a hill with a left hand bend going up resulting in vehicles hugging the kerb; there's a white line near the kerb but effectively refuge less. It is also possible for vehicles' wing mirrors to clip pedestrians on the pavement here. It's supposed to be a 30mph limit http://goo.gl/maps/GCjT1
Edit

[gaz]

I think gaz's point is: ...

Pretty much, except that there is no on pavement facility on the approach, cycles are already in the carriageway.

[AlaninWales]

I think gaz's point is: ...

Pretty much, except that there is no on pavement facility on the approach, cycles are already in the carriageway.

Ahhh, I thought I spotted a dropped kerb at the start of the cycle lane, near the 'cycle rouyte' rectangle; must admit I didn't go looking for the blue rondels, apologies.
So it goes from bei ng a vehicle on the road to having a sub 1 metre lane of our own, with the traffic being deliberately squeezed nearer than necessary: Great stuff!

MickF, I think the idea is that a narrower-looking lane is meant to be psychologically difficult to drive fast in. The problem with this approach is that it was once measured as existing via pilot schemes, then widely implemented - and familiarity breeds contempt etc...

[Mark1978]

I don't like it as it narrows the road in effect. There is some near me on a hill with a left hand bend going up resulting in vehicles hugging the kerb; there's a white line near the kerb but effectively refuge less. It is also possible for vehicles' wing mirrors to clip pedestrians on the pavement here. It's supposed to be a 30mph limit http://goo.gl/maps/GCjT1
Edit

A particularly terrible example. You can see what they are trying to do, prevent cars which are going to fast and slide wide from hitting oncoming traffic. However again this is another one where only the needs of motor vehicles have been considered, making the situation much worse for cycling.

[Pete Owens]

It doesn't look bad to me.
The lanes would still be too narrow to overtake without the hatching - but just wide enough that some motorists might try to squeeze past.
With the hatching it is obvious to even the dumbest driver that there simply isn't enough space.