Was this all my fault?

[Colin McAdams]

There's a new mini roundabout replacing a T junction, on a cycle journey
that I do. One of those where the 'round' is not raised at all.

As I approached it yesterday along the 'side' road, there was nothing coming
on the left, and to the right, not yet reached the roundabout was an Iceman
lorry. Doing the sort of instant, non-conscious calculation that you do, I
figured that I would have plenty of time to get across the roundabout safely
as the lorry would need to slow from (I guess) around 30mph to negotiate the
roundabout.

As it was, I was very nearly hit because

a) the lorry didn't slow down at all and simply drove across the roundabout
as if it wasn't there.
b) since it went dead straight, it actually occupyed a piece of road that I
didn't expect it to occupy, and hence put us in contention.

Should one, when deciding on whether to enter a roundabout with no raised
bump, now assume that drivers may actually drive across it at full speed and
on an unexpected path because there's nothing to force them to actually
treat it as a roundabout?

 

[David Martin]

Colin McAdams wrote:
> There's a new mini roundabout replacing a T junction, on a cycle journey
> that I do. One of those where the 'round' is not raised at all.
>
> As I approached it yesterday along the 'side' road, there was nothing coming
> on the left, and to the right, not yet reached the roundabout was an Iceman
> lorry. Doing the sort of instant, non-conscious calculation that you do, I
> figured that I would have plenty of time to get across the roundabout safely
> as the lorry would need to slow from (I guess) around 30mph to negotiate the
> roundabout.
>
As the prophet says, "assumption is the mother of all screw-ups".

> As it was, I was very nearly hit because
>
> a) the lorry didn't slow down at all and simply drove across the roundabout
> as if it wasn't there.
> b) since it went dead straight, it actually occupyed a piece of road that I
> didn't expect it to occupy, and hence put us in contention.

You live and learn. Now you know for next time.

> Should one, when deciding on whether to enter a roundabout with no raised
> bump, now assume that drivers may actually drive across it at full speed and
> on an unexpected path because there's nothing to force them to actually
> treat it as a roundabout?

Yes. Always be prepared to yield. Always expect drivers to do the
expedient and easy rather than the correct.

...d

 

[Al C-F]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 10:30:01 +0100, "Colin McAdams"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Should one, when deciding on whether to enter a roundabout with no raised
>bump, now assume that drivers may actually drive across it at full speed and
>on an unexpected path because there's nothing to force them to actually
>treat it as a roundabout?

Yes.

 

[Mark Hewitt]

"Colin McAdams" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Should one, when deciding on whether to enter a roundabout with no raised
> bump, now assume that drivers may actually drive across it at full speed
> and on an unexpected path because there's nothing to force them to
> actually treat it as a roundabout?

Yes, you entered the roundabout fully expecting to cause a driver entering
from the right to change speed. If you were a car driver who had caused a
crash doing this you may well have ended up losing your licence.

Don't be so stupid in future.

 

[Nick Kew]

Colin McAdams wrote:
> There's a new mini roundabout replacing a T junction, on a cycle journey

> Should one, when deciding on whether to enter a roundabout with no raised
> bump, now assume that drivers may actually drive across it at full speed and
> on an unexpected path because there's nothing to force them to actually
> treat it as a roundabout?

An old-fashioned roundabout is something you physically travel round
according to well-known rules. A mini-roundabout isn't: it's merely
a device for giving priority to vehicles from the right. Going straight
across the middle is perfectly OK if it doesn't bring you into conflict
with other traffic.

So from your description, yes, it was your fault. The lorry had right
of way and a right to expect you to give way. Of course he also has
a responsibility for driving safely (which implies more than merely
obeying the rules) when in charge of a deadly weapon, but since it
was a near miss rather than a hit, he fulfilled it.

--
Nick Kew

 

[Richard]

Nick Kew wrote:

> An old-fashioned roundabout is something you physically travel round
> according to well-known rules. A mini-roundabout isn't: it's merely
> a device for giving priority to vehicles from the right. Going straight
> across the middle is perfectly OK if it doesn't bring you into conflict
> with other traffic.

....is the wrong answer.

From the highway code:

"164: Mini-roundabouts Approach these in the same way as normal
roundabouts. All vehicles MUST pass round the central markings except
large vehicles which are physically incapable of doing so. Remember,
there is less space to manoeuvre and less time to signal. Beware of
vehicles making U-turns.

Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1), 16(1) "

R.

 

[Richard]

Simon Bennett wrote:

> Indeed. There is no obligation on drivers to go round the painted 'round'
> (especially LGVs) -- just to follow normal roundabout conventions.

....is the wrong answer.

Highway Code:

"164: Mini-roundabouts Approach these in the same way as normal
roundabouts. All vehicles MUST pass round the central markings except
large vehicles which are physically incapable of doing so. Remember,
there is less space to manoeuvre and less time to signal. Beware of
vehicles making U-turns.

Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1), 16(1) "

R.

 

[Pete Biggs]

Colin McAdams wrote:
> Should one, when deciding on whether to enter a roundabout with no
> raised bump, now assume that drivers may actually drive across it at
> full speed and on an unexpected path because there's nothing to force
> them to actually treat it as a roundabout?

Yes and not just at roundabouts. In every situation, you should assume
every vehicle will carry on at the same speed (or even accelerate), at
least until you see that it has /started/ to slow down.

It's no good assuming everyone will be sensible or will obey the rules.

~PB

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>,
Adrian says...

>
> Conor, dearie... I don't think bicycles usually have indicators.
>
Err yes they do - they're called ARMS. You stick out your arm to
indicate.

Once upon a time, cyclists would have been taught that at primary
school.


> Would undiminished speed straight over a mini r'a'b with other traffic
> present be wise in an artic, anyway?
>
Its not uncommon.



--
Conor

If Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened
rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic
music.

 

[Adrian]

Conor ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

>> Conor, dearie... I don't think bicycles usually have indicators.

> Err yes they do - they're called ARMS. You stick out your arm to
> indicate.

Does it change the priority on the roundabout, though?

>> Would undiminished speed straight over a mini r'a'b with other traffic
>> present be wise in an artic, anyway?

> Its not uncommon.

I'm sure it's not.

That's not what I asked. though. I asked if it was *wise*...?

 

[Richard]

Conor wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Adrian says...
>
>
>>Conor, dearie... I don't think bicycles usually have indicators.
>>
>
> Err yes they do - they're called ARMS.

<pedant>
I don't know what bicycles you've ridden, Conor, but my bicycle has no
arms.
</pedant>

<obpun>
Which isn't very handy.
</obpun>

R.

 

[Colin Blackburn]

Nick Kew wrote:

> An old-fashioned roundabout is something you physically travel round
> according to well-known rules. A mini-roundabout isn't: it's merely
> a device for giving priority to vehicles from the right. Going straight
> across the middle is perfectly OK if it doesn't bring you into conflict
> with other traffic.

Mini-roundabouts seem to be misunderstood by many people here. For most
vehicles going across the middle is specifically forbidden. For large
vehicles it may be permissible depending on the relative sizes of the
vehicle and the roundabout. The HC says:

"164: Mini-roundabouts Approach these in the same way as normal
roundabouts. All vehicles MUST pass round the central markings except
large vehicles which are physically incapable of doing so. Remember,
there is less space to manoeuvre and less time to signal. Beware of
vehicles making U-turns.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1), 16(1)"

Colin

 

[dkahn400]

Richard wrote:

> I don't know what bicycles you've ridden, Conor, but my bicycle
> has no arms.
> </pedant>
>
> <obpun>
> Which isn't very handy.
> </obpun>

A bit of armless fun nevertheless.

--
Dave...

 

[Simon Bennett]

Richard wrote:
> Simon Bennett wrote:
>
>> Indeed. There is no obligation on drivers to go round the painted
>> 'round' (especially LGVs) -- just to follow normal roundabout
>> conventions.
>
> ...is the wrong answer.
>
> Highway Code:
>
> "164: Mini-roundabouts Approach these in the same way as normal
> roundabouts. All vehicles MUST pass round the central markings except
> large vehicles which are physically incapable of doing so. Remember,
> there is less space to manoeuvre and less time to signal. Beware of
> vehicles making U-turns.
>
> Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1), 16(1) "

I sit corrected. I thought the exemption applied to all vehicles, not just
the big ones.

 

[chris harrison]

Conor wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Adrian says...
>
>
>>Conor, dearie... I don't think bicycles usually have indicators.
>>
>
> Err yes they do - they're called ARMS. You stick out your arm to
> indicate.
>


The thing is, when you do that and get ignored. Continually. Again and
again. Pretty soon you start to not bother or at best expect people to
ignore you.

Happens all the time.

Same as drivers who seem to think their INDICATORS are actually
INSTRUCTORS.

No. Indicators indicate to others your intentions, they don't instruct
others to give way to you.

> Once upon a time, cyclists would have been taught that at primary
> school.

Once about a time drivers were taught how to drive properly (manners
would be too much). Now you're just taught how to pass your driving test.

 

[PC Paul]

Colin Blackburn wrote:
> Nick Kew wrote:
>
>> An old-fashioned roundabout is something you physically travel round
>> according to well-known rules. A mini-roundabout isn't: it's merely
>> a device for giving priority to vehicles from the right. Going
>> straight across the middle is perfectly OK if it doesn't bring you
>> into conflict with other traffic.
>
> Mini-roundabouts seem to be misunderstood by many people here. For
> most vehicles going across the middle is specifically forbidden. For
> large vehicles it may be permissible depending on the relative sizes
> of the vehicle and the roundabout. The HC says:
>
> "164: Mini-roundabouts Approach these in the same way as normal
> roundabouts. All vehicles MUST pass round the central markings except
> large vehicles which are physically incapable of doing so. Remember,
> there is less space to manoeuvre and less time to signal. Beware of
> vehicles making U-turns.
> Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1), 16(1)"
>

There arwe several paintabouts (like that!) roud here which have *maybe* got
space for one of those 850 microvans to go round them without driving on the
circle, but nothing else.

All comes of bodging a perfectly adequate T junction because people don't
know how to give way sensibly any more and priorities have to be enforced...

 

[chris harrison]

Mark Hewitt wrote:
> "Colin McAdams" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Should one, when deciding on whether to enter a roundabout with no raised
>>bump, now assume that drivers may actually drive across it at full speed
>>and on an unexpected path because there's nothing to force them to
>>actually treat it as a roundabout?
>
>
> Yes, you entered the roundabout fully expecting to cause a driver entering
> from the right to change speed. If you were a car driver who had caused a
> crash doing this you may well have ended up losing your licence.
>
> Don't be so stupid in future.

Yeah right. Because that car who forced me to stop this morning (on my
bike) when in a similar situation (I was coming from his right and was
indicating) will lose his licence? No, because there was no accident,
but it was still the same thought process - might is right.

 

[Adrian]

chris harrison ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

> > Once upon a time, cyclists would have been taught that at primary
> > school.

> Once about a time drivers were taught how to drive properly (manners
> would be too much). Now you're just taught how to pass your driving test.

Still, as long as we all obey the speed limit, we're safe. Right?

 

[Adrian]

chris harrison ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

> Yeah right. Because that car who forced me to stop this morning (on my
> bike) when in a similar situation (I was coming from his right and was
> indicating) will lose his licence? No, because there was no accident,
> but it was still the same thought process - might is right.

Umm, the OP pulled onto a roundabout into the path of another vehicle who
was approaching from HIS right.

IOW, the OP ignored the GW lines.

The relative sizes of the vehicles are unimportant.

 

[Nick Finnigan]

Colin Blackburn wrote:
> Nick Kew wrote:
>
>> An old-fashioned roundabout is something you physically travel round
>> according to well-known rules. A mini-roundabout isn't: it's merely
>> a device for giving priority to vehicles from the right. Going straight
>> across the middle is perfectly OK if it doesn't bring you into conflict
>> with other traffic.
>
> Mini-roundabouts seem to be misunderstood by many people here. For most
> vehicles going across the middle is specifically forbidden.

No it isn't.

> For large
> vehicles it may be permissible depending on the relative sizes of the
> vehicle and the roundabout. The HC says:
>
> "164: Mini-roundabouts Approach these in the same way as normal
> roundabouts. All vehicles MUST pass round the central markings except
> large vehicles which are physically incapable of doing so. Remember,
> there is less space to manoeuvre and less time to signal. Beware of
> vehicles making U-turns.

It's lying.

> Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1), 16(1)"

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#16 5.