Was this all my fault?

[Adrian]

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

>>I'm very surprised that it's the first time anybody can have come
>>across one - they've been in use for *years* - I recall them when I
>>was learning to drive in the late 80s.

> It may depend on the part of the country you are from. I can't
> remember seeing any in the bits of London I travel in (but there are
> lumpabouts, of course).

Learnt to drive in Derbyshire, now live just off M25. Encountered
paintabouts all over the country.

> Also, you may not have noticed (because it was only actually mention
> en passant in a couple of posts) that we are talking about a
> roundabout that is *only* paint.

Yep.

> Not one of those that is a painted, raised, mound (lumpabout?).

<grin>
Yep, I like "lumpabout".

> I've certainly seen people take wildly incorrect paths over
> lumpabouts, but not at 30 mph.

Nothing much surprises me.

 

[Martin Bulmer]

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?

1. Yes
2. Don't argue with lorries. You will lose.
3. Rinse well, possibly by holding them down the loo and flushing a few
times, soak them in bleach, rinse again, then wash normally.
Oh, you didn't ask that.
--


Martin Bulmer

 

[Martin Bulmer]

I have found a dimly remembered relevant quote at
http://thegeek.home.mindspring.com/qa.html

" Here lies the body of Jonathan Jay
Who died defending his right of way
He was right, dead right as he sped along
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong."

(Unknown)



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 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?

--


Martin Bulmer

 

[Mark Hewitt]

"Simon Hobson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I doubt if there are any paintabouts that cannot be correctly negotiated
> in a
> car.

There are hundreds, if not thousands of them.
Countless ones around here which I could go around in a bicycle, but in a
car I have a choice of touching my wheels onto the white spot or mounting
the pavement.

 

[chris harrison]

Adrian wrote:
> I've never seen anybody driving on the pavement. Ever. Seriously. I've
> never ever seen it. Not once.

I had to walk passed a vehicle this morning who was taking up 90% of the
pavement (the other 10% was a bramble bush).

I'd be interested in finding out how he got there if not by driving.

 

[Richard]

chris harrison wrote:
> Adrian wrote:
>
>> I've never seen anybody driving on the pavement. Ever. Seriously. I've
>> never ever seen it. Not once.
>
>
> I had to walk passed a vehicle this morning who was taking up 90% of the
> pavement (the other 10% was a bramble bush).
>
> I'd be interested in finding out how he got there if not by driving.

Foolish boy. A bunch of "law-abiding" cyclists came by in the middle
of the night and lifted it off the road where they wanted to cycle, so
they could get a decent run to get their speed up before hopping onto
the pavement to terrorise old ladies, eat babies, and support Saddam
Hussein.

R.

 

[chris harrison]

Richard wrote:
> chris harrison wrote:
>
>> Adrian wrote:
>>
>>> I've never seen anybody driving on the pavement. Ever. Seriously.
>>> I've never ever seen it. Not once.
>>
>>
>>
>> I had to walk passed a vehicle this morning who was taking up 90% of
>> the pavement (the other 10% was a bramble bush).
>>
>> I'd be interested in finding out how he got there if not by driving.
>
>
> Foolish boy. A bunch of "law-abiding" cyclists came by in the middle
> of the night and lifted it off the road

Which is about as likely as the pixies doing it if the uk.t lot are to
be believed

 

[Richard]

chris harrison wrote:

>>> I had to walk passed a vehicle this morning who was taking up 90% of
>>> the pavement (the other 10% was a bramble bush).
>>>
>>> I'd be interested in finding out how he got there if not by driving.
>>
>>
>>
>> Foolish boy. A bunch of "law-abiding" cyclists came by in the
>> middle of the night and lifted it off the road
>
>
> Which is about as likely as the pixies doing it if the uk.t lot are to
> be believed

I thought most of the posters to uk.t /are/ pixies.

R.

 

[chris harrison]

Richard wrote:
> chris harrison wrote:
>
>>>> I had to walk passed a vehicle this morning who was taking up 90% of
>>>> the pavement (the other 10% was a bramble bush).
>>>>
>>>> I'd be interested in finding out how he got there if not by driving.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Foolish boy. A bunch of "law-abiding" cyclists came by in the
>>> middle of the night and lifted it off the road
>>
>>
>>
>> Which is about as likely as the pixies doing it if the uk.t lot are to
>> be believed
>
>
> I thought most of the posters to uk.t /are/ pixies.

Nope, just figments of several warped imaginations to keep your
banging-head-against-wall skills honed.

 

[Black Francis]

chris harrison [email protected] wrote:
> Richard wrote:
>> chris harrison wrote:
>>
>>> Adrian wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've never seen anybody driving on the pavement. Ever. Seriously.
>>>> I've never ever seen it. Not once.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I had to walk passed a vehicle this morning who was taking up 90% of
>>> the pavement (the other 10% was a bramble bush).
>>>
>>> I'd be interested in finding out how he got there if not by driving.
>>
>>
>> Foolish boy. A bunch of "law-abiding" cyclists came by in the
>> middle of the night and lifted it off the road
>
> Which is about as likely as the pixies doing it if the uk.t lot are to
> be believed

Any of you lot seen my car?

--
Charles Michael Kittridge Thompson IV

 

[Nick Finnigan]

Simon Hobson wrote:
>
> I think the answer to that is to picture wourself in front of the Magistrate
> .... and to think if you could justify your course as the best approximation
> of the correct line taking into account the size of your vehicle.

Why should she care? There is no requirement to take the best
approximation if you can't go around 'correctly'.

> I doubt if there are any paintabouts that cannot be correctly negotiated in a
> car. Most probably cannot be 'correctly' negotiated by the biggest LGVs.
> However, even if the vehicle as a whole cannot follow the correct line, I
> would still expect the driver to make the best approximation reasonably
> possible

Why? What does it achieve apart from using more space, taking longer
to clear the junction, delaying everyone, and causing more road damage?

(The A6144 at Partington has two blobs which large vehicles strightline:
<http://www.multimap.com/map/photo.cgi?client=public&X=371750&Y=391500&scale=5000&width=500&height=300&gride=&gridn=&lang=&db=freegaz&coordsys=gb>

 

[John Wright]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 13:38:03 +0100, Richard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>chris harrison wrote:
>
>>>> I had to walk passed a vehicle this morning who was taking up 90% of
>>>> the pavement (the other 10% was a bramble bush).
>>>>
>>>> I'd be interested in finding out how he got there if not by driving.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Foolish boy. A bunch of "law-abiding" cyclists came by in the
>>> middle of the night and lifted it off the road
>>
>>
>> Which is about as likely as the pixies doing it if the uk.t lot are to
>> be believed
>
>I thought most of the posters to uk.t /are/ pixies.

Nah, they don't sing anything like the Pixies.
--
John Wright

Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

 

[Conor]

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

> How do *you* indicate that you are going straight ahead as you are approaching a
> roundabout or crossroads?
>
Crossroads - no requirement.

Roundabout, it's in the Highway Code if you want a picture. Basically,
don't indicate as you approach but indicate left as you pass the exit
prior to the one you are leaving at, i.e approaching from 6 o'clock,
indicate as you pass the 9 o'clock position before exiting at 12
o'clock.

> Enquiring minds need to know.
>
THey should already know if they passed their driving test.


--
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.

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>, Mark Hewitt says...

> There are hundreds, if not thousands of them.
> Countless ones around here which I could go around in a bicycle, but in a
> car I have a choice of touching my wheels onto the white spot or mounting
> the pavement.
>
I can photograph two just a mile away from my house.


--
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.

 

[nightjar]

"Steven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
....
> Not in these sorts of circumstances. The standard police excuse for doing
> nothing is that "the CPS wouldn't proceed". I've no doubt the officer knew
> exactly what the CPS attitude would be.

You have more confidence in the ability of the Police to make that decision
than a junior member (i..e. the one who usually ends up on call as duty
solictor at night) of a legal firm whom I know.

....
> It is, however, quite obvious that roundabouts work because people give
> way on
> the basis that other users will use the roundabout legally.

Anyone who uses the roads on the assumption that all other road users will
be driving legally, or even safely, is going to come a cropper at some
point. The only safe assumption is that the other person is going to do
something stupid / illegal / dangerous, then to modify that decision when
you can see that they are not going to.

> In this case the OP did not infringe the legal right of way of the
> illegaly
> driven vehicle. In fact, from the sound of it he didn't infringe the right
> of
> way of the *illegally* driven vehicle.
>
> What happened was that he was surprised when the vehicle was driven
> illegally
> and hence came closer to him, than he expected.
>
> OP did not impede vehicle. Twunt driving vehicle drove illegally. End of
> story.

So, in summary:

My view is that the OP misjudged the situation and, as a result, crossed
close enough in front of an oncoming vehicle to give himself a fright, when
the safe option would have been to give way to traffic approaching from the
right that, from the events that followed, could not have been showing any
signs of slowing down for the mini roundabout.

Your view is that, the van driver was driving illegally, therefore the OP
did nothing wrong and had no responsibility to ensure his own safety.

I doubt we are going to reach a meeting of minds from such divergent
viewpoints.

Colin Bignell

 

[Derek ^]

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 12:38:15 GMT, "Ian" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Derek ^" wrote in message
>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 08:51:28 GMT, "Ian"
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>HC161.1 'When reaching the roundabout you should give priority to traffic
>>>approaching your right.' It doesn't limit this to traffic actually already
>>>on the roundabout
>>
>> Traffic approaching the roundabout should heed the "Give Way" signs
>> and lines. If they don't and go banging into somebody in front of them
>> on the roundabout , they are culpable.
>
>The 'Give Way' on a roundabout is to traffic coming from the right. The OP
>was on the left of the lorry. If you hit anyone you may be culpable however
>badly they drove/rode before the accident. HC125.4.
>

http://www.salford.gov.uk/living/streets/roadsafety/speedhumps

"Mini roundabouts

These features require all approaching vehicles to give way to other
vehicles already on the roundabout."

Extract ends. How about that then Eh?

Strictly speaking of course, it's a misnomer to talk of "giving way"
to someone who's already taken prior place on the roundabout in front
of you but just happens to be going slower than you..

>>
>>>as otherwise HC161.3 would not say, 'watch out for
>>>vehicles already on the roundabout.' Generally, if your manoeuvre would
>>>cause someone else to slow down or swerve you shouldn't do it.
>>>
>>
>> Near here, at the "Makro" entrance on the Leeds Ring Road, the
>> traffic approaching the roundabout on the Ring Road generally makes no
>> attempt to slow down and goes barrelling over the "Give Way" line at
>> about 30 -40 mph, making it practically impossible for traffic from
>> the "Makro" direction to get onto the roundabout because they are
>> trying to emerge from a standing start and fast traffic from 70 yards
>> away approaching roundabout would be upon them in 3-4 seconds.
>>
>> You appear to be condoning this behaviour.
>>
>
>Are you suggesting the traffic approaching the roundabout should slow down
>to allow traffic on their left to get on to the roundabout?

How far back down the fast approach road does this hegemony extend? I
take the view that only for the last one or two car lengths are they
"approaching the roundabout", as referred to in the H.C.

I would suggest that they be encouraged to slow down "For the
roundabout" (see below) so that they are in a position to "Give way to
vehicles already on the roundabout" as per that reference above,
noting that "Traffic on *their* right" might well suddenly appear.
Traffic on the minor road would then be better able to merge in. That
way the roundabout can function as intended so that all users get
equal priority. If the cars on the high speed road just come pissing
through like lemmings on steroids the roundabout may as well not be
there as far as the traffic on the minor road is concerned.

See also:
<http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/news/archive/2003/feb_03/standrews_rbout.php>

"Kerb lines on the roundabout approaches are being adjusted slightly
to reduce the speed of vehicles as they enter the junction and to
encourage motorists to give way to vehicles already on the roundabout.
In addition, the give way lines will be brought forward to help
motorists judge the speed and distance of other traffic.

>Shall we just make the rules up as we go along?

The rules are not that bad, there is a bit of imprecise language that
could be improved.

DG

 

[Steve Walker]

In message <[email protected]>, Derek ^
<[email protected]> writes
>On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 12:38:15 GMT, "Ian" <[email protected]>
>wrote:

>>The 'Give Way' on a roundabout is to traffic coming from the right. The OP
>>was on the left of the lorry. If you hit anyone you may be culpable however
>>badly they drove/rode before the accident. HC125.4.

>http://www.salford.gov.uk/living/streets/roadsafety/speedhumps

>"Mini roundabouts

>These features require all approaching vehicles to give way to other
>vehicles already on the roundabout."

>Extract ends. How about that then Eh?

Sadly of absolutely no practical use, because relying on it being obeyed
will get you t-boned within minutes. I've had someone beep at me on a
roundabout because I had the temerity to enter it when I couldn't
actually see far enough up the approach road to know he was coming.

--
Steve Walker

 

[Clive]

In message <[email protected]>,
Adrian <[email protected]> writes
>> What worries me is that as more and more of these paintabouts are
>> introduced, there will be more and more people using them for the
>> first time, and at some stage someone's bad driving will cause a
>> fatality.
>
>I'm very surprised that it's the first time anybody can have come
>across one - they've been in use for *years* - I recall them when I was
>learning to drive in the late 80s.
I've been driving anything you mention apart from tracks. I still hold
that pedestrians should be on pavements, cyclists should be on cycle
tracks and only those that have passed a test on a m/bike or a car be
allowed onto a road. Until then loud mouthed cyclists are going to
protest ( in their ignorance) that the queen's highway is for them,
though how they say they've paid for it is not sure, like why would
cyclist's want a three lane highway from the motorised only M4 into
central London?
--
Clive

 

[Clive]

In message <[email protected]>, Steven
<[email protected]> writes
>I've certainly seen people take wildly incorrect paths over lumpabouts,
>but not at 30 mph.
Although you most probably don't agree, paintabouts or raised surface
mini-roundabouts have no regulation that you go around them as you must
a roundabout. That's why the surface is as it is and isn't
insurmountable. Note I didn't say the rules are different from ordinary
roundabouts.
--
Clive

 

[David Martin]

Clive wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>,
> Adrian <[email protected]> writes
> >> What worries me is that as more and more of these paintabouts are
> >> introduced, there will be more and more people using them for the
> >> first time, and at some stage someone's bad driving will cause a
> >> fatality.
> >
> >I'm very surprised that it's the first time anybody can have come
> >across one - they've been in use for *years* - I recall them when I was
> >learning to drive in the late 80s.
> I've been driving anything you mention apart from tracks. I still hold
> that pedestrians should be on pavements, cyclists should be on cycle
> tracks

There are loads of these that form a continuous network. On most of
them you can take motorised vehicles as well.

> and only those that have passed a test on a m/bike or a car be
> allowed onto a road.

Great idea, it'll kill the school run stone dead as none of the little
tarquins being ferried in the cars will have passed a test. Oh, not
that kind of road user.

> Until then loud mouthed cyclists are going to
> protest ( in their ignorance) that the queen's highway is for them,

Ignorance? Who are roads for? Anyone who wants to use them and is
prepared to abide by the rules set down by society for their use.

> though how they say they've paid for it is not sure,

How would you like them to pay for it? How much do you think you pay
for and by what means?
And have the passengers in your vehicle contributed anything to them?

I would suggest that you look up the various definitions of highway
wher you will realise that motor vehicles are only allowed to access a
small subset of highways.

> like why would
> cyclist's want a three lane highway from the motorised only M4 into
> central London?

Technically I don't think the M4 is a highway as there are minimum
vehicle restrictions on it.

Still trying to work oout why a cyclist (singular as per the question)
would want an over engineered link from somewhere they cannot go to
somewhere else?

...d


> --
> Clive