Crossing a public road between two parts of a site

A few metres is still the highway

There is no small amount of public road. The rules that govern vehicles on the highway are engaged by use on it, and use includes crossing it, so a buggy that spends a moment on the carriageway between two gates has been used on a road exactly as much as one driven along it. The licence, insurance and vehicle standard questions all arrive together, and a standard buggy answers none of them.

The definition is wider than the carriageway too. Footways, verges and central islands form part of the highway, which disposes of the common workaround of running along the pavement or cutting across a grass strip. So does an unadopted road that the public can reach. If the surface is one the public can lawfully be on, treat the vehicle as being on a road and work from there.

Why sites get caught out

Almost nobody arrives at this deliberately. The usual history is that the site was one piece, then a road was built or land was bought on the far side, and the crossing began as an occasional convenience. Nothing goes wrong for a long time. The traffic is light, the sightlines are decent, local drivers know what to expect, and the practice hardens into something that feels sanctioned because nobody has ever objected to it.

The trouble is that the risk does not accumulate evenly. It sits at nothing until an incident, at which point three things happen at once: the insurer looks at whether the vehicle should have been there, the injured party's solicitor looks at who authorised it, and the organisation discovers that years of quiet crossings are evidence of a known practice rather than a defence for it.

That is why this is worth settling while things are calm. A site that changes its arrangements after a near miss is doing exactly the same work under much worse conditions, usually with somebody's insurer reading over its shoulder.

The arrangements that actually work

A handful of arrangements solve a split site, and which one suits depends on the geography, the budget and what the highway authority will agree to. All of them share the same feature: the standard buggy never touches the public road.

The first is badly underrated. Sites reach for engineering when the answer is often logistical. Keep machines both sides, charge them both sides, and accept that people walk the crossing. It costs the inconvenience of a short walk and removes an entire category of exposure, which is a trade most sites take once it is put to them plainly.

The last is the permanent answer where the geography and the money allow, and it is worth asking about early rather than dismissing on cost. Where a bridge or an underpass already exists somewhere nearby, the work of routing to reach it is usually a fraction of building a new one.

• Two groups of machines, one each side, with people crossing on foot.
• A route that avoids the road entirely, using an existing underpass, bridge or a permissive route over neighbouring land.
• A trailered or towed transfer for the crossing leg, behind a road-legal towing vehicle.
• A road-legal vehicle used for that leg only, registered, insured and driven by a licensed driver.
• A crossing built for the purpose, which means a structure and a conversation with the highway authority.

What a marshal can and cannot do

A marshal in a high-visibility jacket is doing something useful and something impossible at the same time. What they can genuinely do is control your own people: hold the vehicle until they say go, stop guests wandering into the road, keep a queue orderly, and call the crossing off entirely when the conditions are wrong. That is real safety work and it is worth having.

What they cannot do is give the vehicle a right to be on the road, or stop the traffic. Directing traffic on a public highway is a matter for the police and for the highway authority under arrangements they control. A member of staff waving at oncoming cars has no authority behind the gesture, and if a driver does not stop, everything about the situation is worse for having invited the buggy out into the road.

The same applies to equipment. Cones, signs and barriers on the highway need the authority's consent, and putting them out without it creates a fresh problem while doing nothing whatever about the original one.

Talking to the highway authority

The people who can change the answer are the local highway authority, which for most roads is the county or unitary council, with a separate national body responsible for trunk routes. They hold what can be done with the road itself: crossings, signing, speed measures, and in rare cases stopping a route up altogether.

Approach them with the problem rather than with a solution. Say how many crossings a day, at what times, by whom and in what vehicles, and ask what arrangements they would consider. They deal with the same question from farms, quarries, schools and clubs, and they will usually say quickly whether a formal crossing is realistic on that particular road. Their answer is the one that governs, and a written record of it is worth having whichever way it falls.

Be prepared for the answer to be no. A busy road with poor sightlines is not going to get a crossing because a site would find one convenient, and hearing that clearly is a great deal more useful than a year spent hoping.

The workarounds to avoid

Some of the arrangements sites drift into are worse than the original problem, because they add risk while leaving the exposure exactly where it was. They are worth naming, because each of them sounds reasonable in the room where it is suggested.

The pattern in all of them is the same. Each makes the crossing feel more official without changing what the law requires, and the feeling is the dangerous part, because it persuades a site to do more crossings rather than fewer.

• Running along the footway or the verge to avoid the carriageway, since both are the highway.
• Fitting lights and a mirror to a standard buggy and treating it as road legal, since approval covers the whole vehicle rather than the parts added to it.
• Letting guests, members or contractors make the crossing on their own judgement.
• Crossing after dark, in fog or in heavy rain because the schedule demands it.
• Putting out cones or a temporary sign on the road without the authority's consent.
• Relying on a sign reading private crossing to create a right that does not exist.

Running a split site well

Once the crossing is off the table, the operational work is straightforward. Decide what has to live on each side: machines, chargers, keys, and whatever the machines carry. Most sites find the split is uneven, because one side does more work than the other, and sizing the two groups to the real pattern of use is a better use of a morning than another argument about the road.

Then take the crossing out of people's hands. If the fleet cannot cross, say that in the driver briefing, put it on the vehicle rules by the key cabinet, and tell the staff who will be asked to make an exception on a wet afternoon that the answer is no. Rules with an obvious exception built into them are the ones that get used.

Where a machine genuinely does need to move between sides from time to time, plan it as a trailered movement with a named person responsible for it, rather than as an informal drive that somebody decides to make because the trailer is in use.

Writing it down and telling the insurer

Put the decision in the risk assessment, with the reason attached. A risk assessment that records the crossing as a known hazard, states the control adopted and names who reviews it is doing the job it exists to do. It is also the document that answers the question of who decided, which is the question that gets asked first afterwards.

Tell the insurer as well. If a site has been crossing a road and stops, that is a reduction in risk worth mentioning at renewal. If a site intends to carry on, the insurer is entitled to know, and the answer they give will usually settle the internal argument faster than any guide can.

Common questions

Can a golf buggy cross a public road?

Not a standard one. Crossing is use on a road, so licence, insurance and vehicle standard requirements all apply for the length of the crossing, and a golf buggy satisfies none of them. Sites solve it with a route that avoids the highway, machines kept on both sides, a trailered transfer, or an arrangement agreed with the local highway authority.

Is it legal if the buggy only crosses and never drives along the road?

No. The rules attach to use on the road, and a crossing is use. Distance makes no difference to the requirement. The footway, the verge and any central island form part of the highway too, so stepping onto them changes nothing. Treat any surface the public can lawfully be on as a road, and plan the site around that.

Our club has crossed the same road for years, does that make it allowed?

It does not. Nobody objecting is not the same thing as permission, and a long history works against a site rather than for it after an incident, because it shows the practice was known about and continued anyway. Fix it while things are calm rather than after a near miss, when the same work has to be done under pressure.

Can we put out signs to warn drivers at our crossing point?

Not without the highway authority's consent. Signs, cones and barriers on a public road are theirs to authorise, and putting them out independently creates a new problem while leaving the original one untouched. Ask the authority what they would permit, describe the crossing honestly, and keep their written answer whichever way it goes.

What is the simplest way to solve a split site?

Usually keeping machines on both sides and having people walk the crossing. It needs no construction and no permission, and it removes the exposure completely rather than managing it. The work is logistical: decide what each side needs, put charging on both sides, and size the two groups to the real pattern of use across a week.

Can a road-legal vehicle do the crossing instead?

Yes, if it is genuinely road legal: registered, insured, and driven by somebody licensed for it. That is a different vehicle from a standard buggy with lights added, because approval covers the whole vehicle rather than the parts bolted onto it. Whether a specific machine qualifies is a question for DVLA and for whoever built or converted it.