From: mileburner on

<boltar2003(a)boltar.world> wrote in message
news:i2jp3k$idu$1(a)speranza.aioe.org...
> On 26 Jul 2010 10:33:11 GMT
> Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>boltar2003(a)boltar.world gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>>saying:
>>
>>>>> If theres no central reservation yes. Feel free to argue the point.
>>
>>>>You either don't know what a dual carriageway is or are just plain
>>>>wrong. No "argue the point" needed.
>>
>>> Don't even start with some BS about a 4 lane road being a single
>>> carraigeway simply because its a continuous strip of tarmac.
>>
>>Count the carriageways. There's a clue in the name. It's not particularly
>>subtle.
>
> You're right, its not. Theres one for one direction and one for the other.
> Whether theres a bit of grass or 2 white lines down the middle makes not
> a jot of difference.

This might help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_carriageway

And this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_carriageway

:-)


From: Adrian on
boltar2003(a)boltar.world gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>>>>> If theres no central reservation yes. Feel free to argue the point.

>>>>You either don't know what a dual carriageway is or are just plain
>>>>wrong. No "argue the point" needed.

>>> Don't even start with some BS about a 4 lane road being a single
>>> carraigeway simply because its a continuous strip of tarmac.

>>Count the carriageways. There's a clue in the name. It's not
>>particularly subtle.

> You're right, its not. Theres one for one direction and one for the
> other. Whether theres a bit of grass or 2 white lines down the middle
> makes not a jot of difference.

Ah. You should have said that you didn't know what a "carriageway" was.
From: boltar2003 on
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:42:04 +0100
"mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>> You're right, its not. Theres one for one direction and one for the other.
>> Whether theres a bit of grass or 2 white lines down the middle makes not
>> a jot of difference.
>
>This might help:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_carriageway
>
>And this:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_carriageway

Well its wrong. No surprise given its wikipedia. A carraigeway is the part of
the road in which all the vehicles are going in the same direction. It is not
a particular piece of tarmac.

B2003

From: Adrian on
boltar2003(a)boltar.world gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>>> You're right, its not. Theres one for one direction and one for the
>>> other. Whether theres a bit of grass or 2 white lines down the middle
>>> makes not a jot of difference.

>>This might help:
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_carriageway
>>
>>And this:
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_carriageway

> Well its wrong. No surprise given its wikipedia. A carraigeway is the
> part of the road in which all the vehicles are going in the same
> direction. It is not a particular piece of tarmac.

Bloater's definition
vs
That used by the rest of the world.

Again.

Quelle surprise.
From: JNugent on
boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote:

> Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>>> If theres no central reservation yes. Feel free to argue the point.

>> You either don't know what a dual carriageway is or are just plain wrong.
>> No "argue the point" needed.

> Don't even start with some BS about a 4 lane road being a single carraigeway
> simply because its a continuous strip of tarmac. If you think its all the
> same carraigeway then next time you're on one drive on the right and see
> what happens.

A four lane road on a single carriageway is... er.... a single-carriageway.

A dual carriageway, in order to be a dual-carriageway, has to have dual
carriageways. A single carriageway is not two carriageways.

PS: Are the terms "single-" and "dual-carriagreway" the last remaining common
- if apparently not commonly-understood - uses of the werd "carriageway"?