A 3-point turn is a U-turn

[DaveNewcastle]

Mr Alexander has lived in Barons Court in Hammersmith and Fulham for many years, and drives his car in and out of his road onto the busy dual carriageway nearby. He was issued with a Fixed Penalty notice after being photographed performing the same manoever he's undertaken for years- a 3-point turn. There are signs prohibiting U-turns.

He appealled, to the Parking & Traffic Appeals Service, and lost. He appealed to the adjudicator, and lost. He applied for permission for a Judicial Review, and was granted the JR. He claimed in the High Court in February that the 3-point turn was not a U-turn, and that the signage was inadequate, that a sign without a corresponding Traffic Management Order causes confusion, and that the declared purpose of the local scheme did not include his circumstances.

The local authority conceeded that the RTRA does not describe how a turn should be performed and argued that there is no sign available to them which specifies a 3-point turn.

There was a thorough analysis in Court of the available regulations and orders, and on the scope of regulation over direction of travel and manoevers, though no source of authoritative guidance could be found.

Judge Kyser QC has now ruled that the 'no U-turn' sign should be interpreted as including a prohibition on 3-point turns. This decision will be binding on any future uncertainty about the sign.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Seems entirely sensible to me. I always interpreted "no U-turns" as "don't turn around here" - I'd've thought that was obvious.

 

[Geezertronic]

And me. It seems as if the man was appealing on a technicality if anything.

 

[table38]

If they specifically banned "3-point turns", I could see potential for a lot of pedants like me executing 5-point turns Can, worms everywhere...

I also seem to remember someone getting "done" at a no right turn sign because they went straight on, did a u-turn and turned left; someone argued successfully that they had effectively turned right!

 

[455driver]

So the road is that busy that he can safely perform a 3 point turn without inconveniencing anyone else but a U turn is illegal!

Sounds like a money making scheme to me.
Why is the U turn illegal?

 

[talltim]

J-turns for me in the future then
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Just been looking at the location on Google streetview https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4...ata=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sVDwOFiLUeuSNp7lRbG0OUA!2e0 (interesting to see it is close to some buildings I recognise (St Pauls Studios)!) and I get a better idea of what he was doing. Coming along the dual carriage way from the west he wants to turn right but there is a no right turn sign. He turns left and does a three point turn, arriving back at the junction and going straight on.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...=kg5PI7KynsXNFOhWzbnYqA&bvm=bv.65397613,d.ZGU
The document says that hundreds of cars do this an hour, surely the authority needs to look at providing a right turn facility at this junction?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I wonder what would happen if he said he was pulling into the flats, found that gate was locked and reversed back onto the road? Every day...

 

[TheKnightWho]

So the road is that busy that he can safely perform a 3 point turn without inconveniencing anyone else but a U turn is illegal!

Sounds like a money making scheme to me.
Why is the U turn illegal?

No, he's trying to argue he can do a 3 point turn. No-one is saying that it's any safer than a U-turn.

It's usually illegal because:

a) On a single carriageway road many cars can't turn on a small enough circle, and so you might block one or both carriageways and you also can't get a very good idea of how clear it is. Best not to risk it.

b) On a dual carriageway or motorway you'd be joining the fast lane of the opposite carriageway, which is often not very safe.

 

[DownSouth]

Thanks for the links. The no U-turn sign has a qualifying sign attached saying it only applies for 230 yards, he could have just driven a little further and done it properly.

It does appear to be an area with heavy traffic from pedestrians and cyclists as well as cars, in those circumstances I think it's fair to ban U-turns until a point further from the intersection for the sake of keeping other road users safe from drivers who might not be fully attentive to all the oncoming traffic (i.e. not actively looking for non-car traffic).

I agree that the text of the order does include n-point turns as well as U-turns, and unfortunately ignorance is no defence. It also fits with my defensive driving instructor's advice - to consider a three point turn fully on the road as simply as failed U-turn.

I also seem to remember someone getting "done" at a no right turn sign because they went straight on, did a u-turn and turned left; someone argued successfully that they had effectively turned right!

If it was done close to the intersection I could see that as being reasonably interpreted as the driver performing a hook turn.

b) On a dual carriageway or motorway you'd be joining the fast lane of the opposite carriageway, which is often not very safe.

+1
Doing a 3-point turn on a divided road of any kind is f***ing insane and should be faced with a criminal charge of dangerous driving, not just a minor penalty.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I wonder what would happen if he said he was pulling into the flats, found that gate was locked and reversed back onto the road? Every day...

Is "don't be a smartarse" a road rule in Britain?

 

[talltim]

One of the points was that although he went onto the pavement at the entrance to the flats, the turn was considered to be wholly on the road as the pavement is considered part of it. However what would happen if he pulled into the entrance of the flats beyond the pavement? There is not room before the gates get the car completely off the pavement, but does the whole car have to leave the pavement/road for the u-turn/any sort of turn to be not to be counted or just part of it?

 

[Clip]

Is "don't be a smartarse" a road rule in Britain?

Its a rule that covers everything over here. Just a shame its ignored by a vast majority.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . interesting to see it is close to some buildings I recognise . . .

I confess to having close personal connections to this junction, too.

No, he's trying to argue he can do a 3 point turn. No-one is saying that it's any safer than a U-turn.

Not quite; Mr Alexander stated in summiing up at the end of the JR that it would be "absurd to suggest that a U-turn is inherently unsafe while a 3-point turn is less so. But the Council suggests that a 3 or even 5-point turn is safer than a U-turn".

H&F Council's position was that the 'No U-turn' sign was the correct sign for the prohibition of a 3-point turn, even if it took place in 2 stages, over 2 days, because 'there is not a more appropriate sign available' to them.

It does appear to be an area with heavy traffic from pedestrians and cyclists as well as cars, in those circumstances I think it's fair to ban U-turns until a point further from the intersection for the sake of keeping other road users safe from drivers who might not be fully attentive to all the oncoming traffic (i.e. not actively looking for non-car traffic).

That general objective was agreed by all parties - as a general objective.

. . . . and unfortunately ignorance is no defence.

Mr Alexander displayed no igorance during his JR. Indeed, he sought to demonstrate the extent of the confusion, lack of clarity and non-compliance within the Council's traffic management team, something which with their furtive conferring and quizzing during the proceedings, suggested to me that any 'ignorance' might be among the Borough's own team.

But it wasn't a trial of the Borough's competence, but a review of the proceedings in front of the lower adjudicator, and the finding by Andrew Keyser QC was that the adjudicator had been right to apply the interpretation of the 'No U-turn' sign to Mr Alexander's daily manoeuver. He did go on to express a hope that H&F Borough Council would now consider improving the signage.

 

[Smudger105e]

Even when I took my driving test in 1979 they had started calling a 3 point turn 'turning in the road using forward and reverse gears'. This is because some people were doing U turns on their test on wide roads, and some people had to do a 5 point turn if the road was narrow. As long as you didn't hit the kerb, the number of 'points' was not important.

 

[PaxVobiscum]

I seem to remember "cause the vehicle to face in the opposite direction by means of the forward and reverse gears" from a decade or so earlier, but my memory is far from photographic.

 

[deltic1989]

Even when I took my driving test in 1979 they had started calling a 3 point turn 'turning in the road using forward and reverse gears'. This is because some people were doing U turns on their test on wide roads, and some people had to do a 5 point turn if the road was narrow. As long as you didn't hit the kerb, the number of 'points' was not important.

This is what I remember from my driving test.
I remember that the road in which i was instructed to turn round was so narrow that I lost count of the amount of points were involved. BUT I managed to turn the vehicle around in the road using forward and reverse gears, so I passed.
AFAIK the term "Three-Point-Turn" is not in use anymore.
Also HIUI, turning in the road using forward and reverse gears, and a U-Turn are totally different animals. The latter is completed with only the use of a forward gear, where as the former is self-explanatory.

 

[Smudger105e]

The Highway Code says the following...

200

Choose an appropriate place to manoeuvre. If you need to turn your vehicle around, wait until you find a safe place. Try not to reverse or turn round in a busy road; find a quiet side road or drive round a block of side streets.

and it refers to a document called 'Know Your Traffic Signs', ( http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consu...n/@motor/documents/digitalasset/dg_191955.pdf ) which states that '
Where changes of direction are prohibited, a red bar across the
sign is used in addition to the red circle'.

 

[Shimbleshanks]

<oing a 3-point turn on a divided road of any kind is f***ing insane and should be faced with a criminal charge of dangerous driving, not just a minor penalty.>>

About 20-odd years ago a few miles up that road sometime tried to do a U-turn and smashed into the National Express coach to South Wales, killing several people. Motorists never seem to learn...

 

[90019]

AFAIK the term "Three-Point-Turn" is not in use anymore.

It is just referred to as a 'turn in the road'.

 

[maniacmartin]

I also learnt it as a three-point turn.
My driving instructor taught me to go slowly until you feel the bump of the curb, then change direction, except on a driving test

 

[90019]

My driving instructor taught me to go slowly until you feel the bump of the curb, then change direction, except on a driving test

You had a crap instructor.

 

[DownSouth]

You had a crap instructor.

Or a clever one taking kickbacks from the local panelbeaters

 

[IanD]

Or a clever one taking kickbacks from the local panelbeaters

How high are the kerbs in your neck of the woods?

 

[maniacmartin]

How high are the kerbs in your neck of the woods?

Quite low. Obviously I wouldn't do this if there was a risk of scratching the paintwork

 

[Roverman]

Even when I took my driving test in 1979 they had started calling a 3 point turn 'turning in the road using forward and reverse gears'. This is because some people were doing U turns on their test on wide roads, and some people had to do a 5 point turn if the road was narrow. As long as you didn't hit the kerb, the number of 'points' was not important.

My mother took her test in 1977 and she tells me she failed because she did the turn in 5 rather than 3. The examiner made some comment about 'A man could do it in 3'. She passed 2nd time with a different examiner who didn't even ask her to perform one!