View Full Version : New road hazard - fancy road markings at roundabouts
New road hazard - fancy road markings at roundabouts
Saw this for the first time in Chelmsford today. Utterly unsafe for cyclists.
The entry lane divides into two lanes separated by no-go cross hatches. The left lane curves left to
take the outside edge of the roundabout and then the first left exit - all the time being separated
from the rest of the roundabout by the no-go markings. Then _it continues for a while_ so the exit
lane is still split, eventually merging into two lanes with a single dash down the middle.
I have seen lesser versions of this where
(a) speeds are lower due to sharp curvature
(b) there is a left lane and _two_ 'proper' ones.
I have put a diagram on the web at <http://www.eminent.demon.co.uk/killer.htm> (http://www.eminent.demon.co.uk/killer.htm)
APPROACH - FIRSTLY UNSAFE Because the normal position for a cyclist approaching the roundabout is
middle of lane 1 if there are two entrance lanes. (Regardless of going left or on/right.) With this
arrangement the cyclist going on/right has to move fully into the right lane (which might be choked)
way ahead of the roundabout. (DANGER 1) then quite likely has faster traffic passing on the nearside
with quite a speed difference possible (DANGER 2) or the cyclist may elect to cycle in the fast
moving lane 1 and illegally squeeze into slow moving lane 2 causing confusion (DANGER 3) and waiting
in a no-man's land (DANGER 4) . This last manoeuvre will be quite common where there hasn't been an
opportunity to move right safely that is supposing that cyclist has prior knowledge of how the road
junction is supposed to work.
JOIN- SECONDLY UNSAFE Whereas previously a cyclist in lane 1 was protected by traffic also waiting
to join in lane 2, now they have no choice but to tackle joining on their own. (DANGER 5)
EXIT - THIRDLY LETHAL When a cyclist exits the roundabout they find themselves in the outside lane
being overtaken by faster traffic on the inside. (DANGER 6) The longer the separated section the
worse the problem. The absence of a give way takes all protection away from them.
I'll be really hammering this one so anyone who has more information, experience or wants to make
common cause - please feel free to get in touch.
--
PETER FOX Not the same since the statuette business went bust
peterfox@eminent.demon.co.uk.not.this.bit.no.html www.eminent.demon.co.uk/wcc.htm Witham Cycling
Campaign www.eminent.demon.co.uk/rides East Anglian Pub cycle rides
"Peter Fox" <peterfox@eminent.demon.co.uk.not.this.bit.no.html> wrote in
message news:m5pMthAsy$HAFw02@eminent.demon.co.uk...
> Saw this for the first time in Chelmsford today. Utterly unsafe for cyclists.
>
Firstly, there is no such thing as a dangerous road.
Secondly:
>Because the normal position for a cyclist approaching the roundabout is
middle of lane 1 if there are two entrance lanes. (Regardless of going left or on/right.)
Where did you get this from? The highway code says
<<When taking the last exit or going full circle
a.. signal right and approach in the right-hand lane
b.. keep to the right on the roundabout until you need to change lanes to exit the roundabout
c.. signal left after you have passed the exit before the one you want.
>>
See http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/17.shtml#162. Note it's in the "Using the road" section, which can
be accessed from the Cylists section - and thus is applicable to all vehicles.
TBH, I don't even think it's that badly designed. Now of course, other road users behave in an
inappropriate and dangerous manner, but you can't blame the road for that.
However, I do doubt the necessity for such a scheme. What are the traffic flows like?
Peter Fox wrote:
>
> EXIT - THIRDLY LETHAL When a cyclist exits the roundabout they find themselves in the outside lane
> being overtaken by faster traffic on the inside. (DANGER 6) The longer the separated section the
> worse the problem. The absence of a give way takes all protection away from them.
>
>
There is one of these at the Chertsey exit on the M25. Since it is from the slip road where cycling
is obviously not allowed only the third case applies.
I have never ridden it in the case where there was so much traffic comming off the motorway to make
it difficult to get back into the right line (the lefthand one) but I strongly suspect that there
are times when this would be a nightmare. Hence I try and avoid that junction when on my bike.
There is also one near Brooklands which I do use semi regularly. Though my direction means I get the
exit problem again. Generally a motorist sees your predicament and does the right thing, letting you
merge left. Then again it is only a 30mph zone so with some effort I can get fairly close to
matching their speeed, assuming they are not from Sm*th world.
Now I would not want to take my children near a junction like this on anything other than
the triplet.
For cyclists they are IMO horrible for precisely the reason planners will like them, they make
traffic flow more quickly.
>
> I'll be really hammering this one so anyone who has more information, experience or wants to make
> common cause - please feel free to get in touch.
>
>
>
>
--
Chris dot Gerhard at btclick dot com.
"Peter Fox" <peterfox@eminent.demon.co.uk.not.this.bit.no.html> wrote in
message news:m5pMthAsy$HAFw02@eminent.demon.co.uk...
> Saw this for the first time in Chelmsford today. Utterly unsafe for cyclists....
I think some cyclists feel uneasy about traffic "undertaking" them as would be the case in certain
routes in your diagram.
The main solution to this is under no circumstances risk being stuck *between* traffic lanes as you
will end up with traffic then passing on both sides without a lane of your own.
*Always* make sure you take control of your lane (centred in it, or *slightly* left of centre) until
such time as someone slows down to allow you to move to the left hand lane, as I will agree that
being stuck between lanes yet not "owning" a lane is very dangerous.
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Peter Fox
<peterfox@eminent.demon.co.uk.not.this.bit.no.html> wrote:
> I'll be really hammering this one so anyone who has more information, experience or wants to make
> common cause - please feel free to get in touch.
I have something that may help, I've been intending to tidy it up and post it anyway, since it may
be useful when people want to lock horns with highway engineers. It's not short.
Nag me in a day or two if it hasn't appeared here by then.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
"Peter Fox" <peterfox@eminent.demon.co.uk.not.this.bit.no.html> wrote in
message news:m5pMthAsy$HAFw02@eminent.demon.co.uk...
> Saw this for the first time in Chelmsford today. Utterly unsafe for cyclists.
>
I see the diagram, but it's difficult to get an idea of how it would be in use without knowing more
about the widths of the roads and the general speed and density of traffic around it
> APPROACH - FIRSTLY UNSAFE Because the normal position for a cyclist approaching the roundabout is
> middle of lane 1 if there are two entrance lanes. (Regardless of going left or on/right.)
Ok, I can see that
> With this arrangement the cyclist going on/right has to move fully into the right lane (which
> might be choked) way ahead of the roundabout.
If the cyclist is going straight on, why wouldn't s/he stay in lane 1? Surely you only need to move
into lane 2 if you're going right?
(DANGER 1) then quite likely has faster traffic passing
> on the nearside with quite a speed difference possible (DANGER 2)
Yes, for the right-turning cyclist but if they're intending to stay right then the only problem from
traffic on the left is if it suddenly decides it doesn't want to be on the left and cuts across to
the right?
> or the cyclist may elect to cycle in the fast moving lane 1 and illegally squeeze into slow moving
> lane 2 causing confusion (DANGER 3) and waiting in a no-man's land (DANGER 4) . This last
> manoeuvre will be quite common where there hasn't been an opportunity to move right safely that is
> supposing that cyclist has prior knowledge of how the road junction is supposed to work.
Yes, I see that could happen
>
> JOIN- SECONDLY UNSAFE Whereas previously a cyclist in lane 1 was protected by traffic also waiting
> to join in lane 2, now they have no choice but to tackle joining on their own. (DANGER 5)
>
I can see that too but they still have the possibility of being on the inside of traffic in lane 2
> EXIT - THIRDLY LETHAL When a cyclist exits the roundabout they find themselves in the outside lane
> being overtaken by faster traffic on the inside. (DANGER 6)
Surely this is only for cyclists approaching from the other side of the roundabout who are turning
right from the road on the right of your diagram, not for those that have gone straight on in the
two lane system? Cyclists going straight on would just stay in lane 1 wouldn't they?
> The longer the separated section the worse the problem. The absence of a give way takes all
> protection away from them.
>
That's true. If this is on a fast A road I wouldn't like it. But again, it seems to be more of a
problem for the cyclist coming from the right than one that was going straight on.
> I'll be really hammering this one so anyone who has more information, experience or wants to make
> common cause - please feel free to get in touch.
>
Rich
In article <bvov8g$a8i$1@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk>, nathaniel.porter@warwick.ac.uk says...
> > Saw this for the first time in Chelmsford today. Utterly unsafe for cyclists.
> >
>
> Firstly, there is no such thing as a dangerous road.
>
Then you haven't seen enough of them! :-(
"marc" <marccdimspamremovedimspamto reply@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message news:MPG.1a8a407ed6e8b50b989983@news.demon.co.uk...
> In article <bvov8g$a8i$1@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk>, nathaniel.porter@warwick.ac.uk says...
> > > Saw this for the first time in Chelmsford today. Utterly unsafe for cyclists.
> > >
> >
> > Firstly, there is no such thing as a dangerous road.
> >
> Then you haven't seen enough of them! :-(
Well I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. I do know of plenty of roads with hazards which require
extra caution - but these are not dangerous if handled properly, and I'm afraid that anyone who
blames for road for accidents is merely shifting the blame from themselves (or least others).
Peter Fox posted ...
> APPROACH - FIRSTLY UNSAFE Because the normal position for a cyclist approaching the roundabout is
> middle of lane 1 if there are two entrance lanes. (Regardless of going left or on/right.) With
> this arrangement the cyclist going on/right has to move fully into the right lane (which might be
> choked) way ahead of the roundabout.
Surely if anyone is going straight on then the left lane should be OK to stay in. There appears to
be no reason to move over to the right lane.
> (DANGER 1) then quite likely has faster traffic passing on the nearside with quite a speed
> difference possible
So, much like any other roundabout, but with a further traffic separation (the hatched boxes)
between left lane and right lane traffic, therefore safer.
> (DANGER 2) or the cyclist may elect to cycle in the fast moving lane 1 and illegally squeeze into
> slow moving lane 2 causing confusion
Why would anyone do this ?
> (DANGER 3) and waiting in a no-man's land (DANGER
> 4) . This last manoeuvre will be quite common where there hasn't been an opportunity to move right
> safely that is supposing that cyclist has prior knowledge of how the road junction is supposed
> to work.
Oh come on .. I know of few new junctions that aren't signed well in advance nowadays .. If you
can't read road markings and signage, then you shouldn't be on the road, whatever conveyance
you choose.
> JOIN- SECONDLY UNSAFE Whereas previously a cyclist in lane 1 was protected by traffic also waiting
> to join in lane 2, now they have no choice but to tackle joining on their own. (DANGER 5)
I don't understand this point.
> EXIT - THIRDLY LETHAL When a cyclist exits the roundabout they find themselves in the outside lane
> being overtaken by faster traffic on the inside. (DANGER 6) The longer the separated section the
> worse the problem. The absence of a give way takes all protection away from them.
From what you've described that's about the only 'real' danger to cyclists I can see .. but is just
the same at almost any junction of an A-road these days, simply without a Give Way, which many
motorists ignore anyway at this kind of merge/junction. Note I'm not condoning this, just
observing. With due regard to personal safety the junction seems perfectly safe to me, as a cyclist
and as a motorist.
I guess safety depends on amount of traffic, it's general speed and a host of other factors.
Personally I see very little that's wrong with this junction, and in fact see it as a positive
safety move to separate 'straight on' traffic from having to negotiate the roundabout. There's a
very similar roundabout, though it's on a dual carriageway, in Doncaster near The Dome/Asda and
Racecourse and I haven't ever seen an accident there. That's not to say there hasn't been any, I
just don't know of any .. ;) There are many cycle paths nearby, for all directions that the
roundabout serves, though, many of which are quite excellent.
--
Paul
Peter Fox wrote:
> Saw this for the first time in Chelmsford today. Utterly unsafe for cyclists.
>
Just follow Cyclecraft advice on multilane roundabouts. Its easy really. Going left stay in the left
lane in the primary position until you have cleared the roundabout. If turning right stay in the
primary position in the right hand land until you have cleared the left exit. It may be inconvenient
because you may need to wait in the line of traffic in the right lane but hey, you don't have a
right to cycle up the inside to save time and should only do so if it is safe to do so. So be
patient and wait your turn with the rest of the traffic when they will have much less chance not to
have noticed you are there.
Tony
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 08:40:46 -0000, "Tony Raven"
<junk@raven-family.com> wrote:
>Peter Fox wrote:
>> Saw this for the first time in Chelmsford today. Utterly unsafe for cyclists.
>>
>
>Just follow Cyclecraft advice on multilane roundabouts. Its easy really. Going left stay in the
>left lane in the primary position until you have cleared the roundabout. If turning right stay in
>the primary position in the right hand land until you have cleared the left exit. It may be
>inconvenient because you may need to wait in the line of traffic in the right lane but hey, you
>don't have a right to cycle up the inside to save time and should only do so if it is safe to do
>so. So be patient and wait your turn with the rest of the traffic when they will have much less
>chance not to have noticed you are there.
>
>Tony
>
I don't know this roundabout but I know others like it. The 'slip lane' is not a modification for
safety but for straight ahead traffic speed.
The result is that, instead of all traffic slowing down on the approach, the left lane will maintain
speed. Getting into the turn-right lane would take a bit of nerve.
Verdict: dangerous - no. yet another design that makes cycling unpleasant and scary in order to
speed traffic flow - yes.
"[Not Responding]" <not_responding@dev.null.invalid> wrote in message
news:ghc120dj09vl3j3lqifaopk6eb6p1bgrfk@4ax.com...
> The result is that, instead of all traffic slowing down on the approach, the left lane will
> maintain speed......
It seems pretty normal these days for traffic to "charge" onto a roundabout at speed even when they
*don't* have a priority lane!
>If the cyclist is going straight on, why wouldn't s/he stay in lane 1? Surely you only need to move
>into lane 2 if you're going right?
That's correct. _need_ And well in advance too at a point dictated by a line painter.
>(DANGER 1) then quite likely has faster traffic passing
>> on the nearside with quite a speed difference possible (DANGER 2)
>
>Yes, for the right-turning cyclist but if they're intending to stay right then the only problem
>from traffic on the left is if it suddenly decides it doesn't want to be on the left and cuts
>across to the right?
Well that is a danger of course, but if a cyclist is attempting to reach the head of a long queue of
right turning traffic they have to do it only using the very limited road width in the RH lane - So
will be on the very left of the RH lane. There is a warning sign "Narrow lanes".
>
>> or the cyclist may elect to cycle in the fast moving lane 1 and illegally squeeze into slow
>> moving lane 2 causing confusion (DANGER 3) and waiting in a no-man's land (DANGER 4) . This last
>> manoeuvre will be quite common where there hasn't been an opportunity to move right safely that
>> is supposing that cyclist has prior knowledge of how the road junction is supposed to work.
>
>Yes, I see that could happen
>
>>
>> JOIN- SECONDLY UNSAFE Whereas previously a cyclist in lane 1 was protected by traffic also
>> waiting to join in lane 2, now they have no choice but to tackle joining on their own. (DANGER 5)
>>
>
>I can see that too but they still have the possibility of being on the inside of traffic in lane 2
Depends on the shape of the 'funnel mouth' at the entry point.
>
>> EXIT - THIRDLY LETHAL When a cyclist exits the roundabout they find themselves in the outside
>> lane being overtaken by faster traffic on the inside. (DANGER 6)
>
>Surely this is only for cyclists approaching from the other side of the roundabout who are turning
>right from the road on the right of your diagram, not for those that have gone straight on in the
>two lane system? Cyclists going straight on would just stay in lane 1 wouldn't they?
Correct. (You make it sound as if they don't matter.)
Additionally a straight-ahead (bottom to top in the diagram) cyclist will have a tail of impatient
traffic on their heels as they negotiate the single lane by-pass. For confident lane-owning cyclists
this in itself shouldn't be a problem but I suspect many vehicle drivers will attempt to overtake
with minimum spare room. (DANGER 7)
>
>> The longer the separated section the worse the problem. The absence of a give way takes all
>> protection away from them.
>>
>
>That's true. If this is on a fast A road I wouldn't like it. But again, it seems to be more of a
>problem for the cyclist coming from the right than one that was going straight on.
40 mph limit
--
PETER FOX Not the same since the pancake business flopped
peterfox@eminent.demon.co.uk.not.this.bit.no.html
>Peter Fox posted ...
>
>> APPROACH - FIRSTLY UNSAFE Because the normal position for a cyclist approaching the roundabout is
>> middle of lane 1 if there are two entrance lanes. (Regardless of going left or on/right.) With
>> this arrangement the cyclist going on/right has to move fully into the right lane (which might be
>> choked) way ahead of the roundabout.
>
>Surely if anyone is going straight on then the left lane should be OK to stay in. There appears to
>be no reason to move over to the right lane.
But *if* you're going right then you *have to*. (And where the man from the council says not where
is best for you.)
>
>> (DANGER 1) then quite likely has faster traffic passing on the nearside with quite a speed
>> difference possible
>
>So, much like any other roundabout, but with a further traffic separation (the hatched boxes)
>between left lane and right lane traffic, therefore safer.
No. (a) The extra separation is minimal and (b) at a normal roundabout all the lanes tend to move at
the same speed.
>
>> (DANGER 2) or the cyclist may elect to cycle in the fast moving lane 1 and illegally squeeze into
>> slow moving lane 2 causing confusion
>
>Why would anyone do this ?
(a) To pass a long queue of stationary traffic
(b) Because they were unable due to traffic move into the RH lane where the lanes split.
(c) Because they are confronted by a strange layout for the first time and have not worked out the
implications by the time it is too late.
>
>> (DANGER 3) and waiting in a no-man's land (DANGER
>> 4) . This last manoeuvre will be quite common where there hasn't been an opportunity to move
>> right safely that is supposing that cyclist has prior knowledge of how the road junction is
>> supposed to work.
>
>Oh come on .. I know of few new junctions that aren't signed well in advance nowadays .. If you
>can't read road markings and signage, then you shouldn't be on the road, whatever conveyance
>you choose.
Disagree.
>
>> JOIN- SECONDLY UNSAFE Whereas previously a cyclist in lane 1 was protected by traffic also
>> waiting to join in lane 2, now they have no choice but to tackle joining on their own. (DANGER 5)
>
>I don't understand this point.
Read Cyclecraft.
>
>> EXIT - THIRDLY LETHAL When a cyclist exits the roundabout they find themselves in the outside
>> lane being overtaken by faster traffic on the inside. (DANGER 6) The longer the separated section
>> the worse the problem. The absence of a give way takes all protection away from them.
>
>From what you've described that's about the only 'real' danger to cyclists I can see .. but is just
>the same at almost any junction of an A-road these days, simply without a Give Way, which many
>motorists ignore anyway at this kind of merge/junction. Note I'm not condoning this, just
>observing. With due regard to personal safety the junction seems perfectly safe to me, as a cyclist
>and as a motorist.
That's the point _without a give way_. A cyclist has a proper place to stop and wait when there is a
give way - ie At the line. They are entitled to be stationery and it is a regular occurrence that
car drivers are used to seeing.
NB This isn't a 2 lanes merge into 1 like in a slip road, but a 2 (split with no-go hatches) to 2
(split with dashes). Even if it was a 2 into 1 that's far more dangerous than a single lane
roundabout exit.
--
PETER FOX Not the same since the e-commerce business came to a .
peterfox@eminent.demon.co.uk.not.this.bit.no.html
"Nathaniel Porter" <nathaniel.porter@warwick.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<bvpb8c$h25$1@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk>...
> Well I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. I do know of plenty of roads with hazards which require
> extra caution - but these are not dangerous if handled properly, and I'm afraid that anyone who
> blames for road for accidents is merely shifting the blame from themselves (or least others).
The exit on this configuration looks particularly dangerous. Obviously you can apply a strategy to
reduce the risks but to claim it's not intrinsically dangerous is absurd.
--
Dave...
"Trevor Barton" <tmb@Xisotek.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnc21orr.v1r.tmb@sheep.isotek.co.uk...
> Well you're sort of right and sort of wrong. Yes there are hazards that require extra caution, but
> there are also hazards that are due to road conditions that are outside the norm. It is reasonable
> to expect certain things of the road ahead of you - to take it to an extreme, you don't expect it
> to be seeded with landmines at least in the UK, so you can hardly argue that someone that gets
> blown up by a landmine wasn't driving with all care an attention.
OK, we'll make an exception in the case of landmines. Trees, hedges, bends etc. remain part of the
normal design.
> More to the point, there are cartain standards in road design that you expect to find everywhere,
> and making a road design that's outside normal expectation does make the road more dangerous. That
> is, after all, what many warning signs are for, to alert you to road conditions that are outside
> the norm.
If that were true then we'd have to assume that the norm was straight and with no junctions :-/
> You could argue that the roundabout layout was sufficiently outside the normal expectations for a
> roundabout to make it dangerous in it's own right. It's certainly not well thought out for cycle
> traffic.
I think it's a crap design. Calling it dangerous is a good shorthand for a design which actively
encourages behaviour from motorists which is more risky for other road users, at the same time as
requiring those other road users to engage in manoeuvres which carry a higher degree of risk then
were previously required in negotiating that junction.
I blame the parents.
--
Guy
===
WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk (http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/)
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:52:10 -0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> "Trevor Barton" <tmb@Xisotek.co.uk> wrote in message news:slrnc21orr.v1r.tmb@sheep.isotek.co.uk...
>
>> Well you're sort of right and sort of wrong. Yes there are hazards that require extra caution,
>> but there are also hazards that are due to road conditions that are outside the norm. It is
>> reasonable to expect certain things of the road ahead of you - to take it to an extreme, you
>> don't expect it to be seeded with landmines at least in the UK, so you can hardly argue that
>> someone that gets blown up by a landmine wasn't driving with all care an attention.
>
> OK, we'll make an exception in the case of landmines. Trees, hedges, bends etc. remain part of the
> normal design.
>
>> More to the point, there are cartain standards in road design that you expect to find everywhere,
>> and making a road design that's outside normal expectation does make the road more dangerous.
>> That is, after all, what many warning signs are for, to alert you to road conditions that are
>> outside the norm.
>
> If that were true then we'd have to assume that the norm was straight and with no junctions :-/
Mmm, that's why I said "many". You can assume a lot about road layout, quite reasonably. You have to
assume a lot about it in order to drive (or ride) anywhere. You have to assume that the road surface
remains the same or similar in the distance you can see (because you have to be able to stop within
the distance you can see). You have to assume that the pedestrian on the pavement showing no signs
of stepping off it will in fact not do so, otherwise you have to slow down in proportion to the
distance between you as you approach (so that you can always stop, even in the three feet btween you
and him as you pull alongside). You have to assume that the car coming towards you isn't going to
turn across you at the last moment without indicating (because if you did you'd never get anywhere).
>> You could argue that the roundabout layout was sufficiently outside the normal expectations for a
>> roundabout to make it dangerous in it's own right. It's certainly not well thought out for cycle
>> traffic.
>
> I think it's a crap design. Calling it dangerous is a good shorthand for a design which actively
> encourages behaviour from motorists which is more risky for other road users, at the same time as
> requiring those other road users to engage in manoeuvres which carry a higher degree of risk then
> were previously required in negotiating that junction.
I agree, it's dangerous because it's a crap design. The person to whom I was replying seemed to
think that no road layouts could be dangerous per se. I think that's wrong.
> I blame the parents.
Sigh. Everybody blames the parents. I don't understand it, me. How can parents possibly be as
responisible for children's behaviour as fully trained professionals like thachers and the
government?
Before anyone complains:
;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
--
Trevor Barton
Peter Fox wrote:
> Well that is a danger of course, but if a cyclist is attempting to reach the head of a long queue
> of right turning traffic they have to do it only using the very limited road width in the RH lane
> - So will be on the very left of the RH lane. There is a warning sign "Narrow lanes".
>
In which case wait your turn in the queue if there isn't space to pass safely. Simple really.
Tony
"Peter Fox" <peterfox@eminent.demon.co.uk.not.this.bit.no.html> wrote in
message news:xvrMucAyRLIAFwvZ@eminent.demon.co.uk...
> ...
> >Surely if anyone is going straight on then the left lane should be OK to stay in. There appears
> >to be no reason to move over to the right lane.
> But *if* you're going right then you *have to*. (And where the man from the council says not where
> is best for you.)
Surely if you are turning right at a roundabout with only 2 entry lanes it would be madness to be in
any lane apart from the right hand lane!
Even if the right hand entry is marked "right turn only" you can be sure some motorist will be in
that lane and suddenly realise they want to be going straight ahead and carve you up if you are in
the left hand lane.
It might save time to scoot up the inside of traffic then turn right but is your life worth risking
to save a few seconds avoiding waiting with the rest of the traffic?
"Dave Kahn" <dkahn400@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:57db8bde.0402040519.338945c0@posting.google.com...
> "Nathaniel Porter" <nathaniel.porter@warwick.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:<bvpb8c$h25$1@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk>...
>
> > Well I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. I do know of plenty of roads
with
> > hazards which require extra caution - but these are not dangerous if
handled
> > properly, and I'm afraid that anyone who blames for road for accidents
is
> > merely shifting the blame from themselves (or least others).
>
> The exit on this configuration looks particularly dangerous. Obviously you can apply a strategy to
> reduce the risks but to claim it's not intrinsically dangerous is absurd.
>
Well I'm sorry, but I've got to disagree.
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
