Was this all my fault?

[Richard]

Nick Finnigan wrote:

>> 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.

....which says,

"a vehicle proceeding through the junction must keep to the left of the
white circle at the centre of the marking shown in diagram 1003.4,
unless the size of the vehicle or the layout of the junction makes it
impracticable to do so"

Which part of this is incompatible with what was summarised in the HC?

R.

 

[Adrian]

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

> Thirdly, yes, I did do something that may have caused him to need to
> slow down, but only because he did not follow, or even slightly
> follow, the correct path around the roundabout.

Lemme get this straight.

He was approaching the r'a'b from 12 o'clock, and heading to 6 o'clock.
You were joining at 3 o'clock, and heading to 9 o'clock.

You barely had adequate time to get safely across his path before he
reached you, meaning that you nearly got flattened?

Sorry, Colin, but whatever the wrongs and rights of his passage, YOU cocked
up. You were the one who pulled out into the path of another vehicle in
breach of the Give Way line and the priority conferred by that.

 

[Nick Finnigan]

Richard wrote:
> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
>
> ....which says,
>
> "a vehicle proceeding through the junction must keep to the left of the
> white circle at the centre of the marking shown in diagram 1003.4,
> unless the size of the vehicle or the layout of the junction makes it
> impracticable to do so"
>
> Which part of this is incompatible with what was summarised in the HC?

"or the layout of the junction makes it impracticable to do so":
whatever the vehicle size, even if it is physically possible.

Even if you are cycling, you may go straight across.

 

[Nick Finnigan]

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?

One should always assume that drivers and riders will continue at full
speed with minimal deviation, whatever the road layout suggests.

 

[Mark Hewitt]

"Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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?
>
> One should always assume that drivers and riders will continue at full
> speed with minimal deviation, whatever the road layout suggests.

It's what you learn when you are just a toddler using pedestrian crossings!
*Never* assume a vehicle is going to stop or slow down until you can see it
happening with your own eyes.

 

[Dave Larrington]

Mark Hewitt wrote:
> "Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> 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?
>>
>> One should always assume that drivers and riders will continue at
>> full speed with minimal deviation, whatever the road layout suggests.
>
> It's what you learn when you are just a toddler using pedestrian
> crossings! *Never* assume a vehicle is going to stop or slow down
> until you can see it happening with your own eyes.

And also that indicators are Not to be Trusted...

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
I thought I saw his name on a jar of marmalade the other day, but when
I looked more closely, I saw it read 'thick cut'.

 

[chris harrison]

Adrian wrote:
> 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?

Strange idea you have there.

Speed limits and safe speeds are independent variables - but, put very
simply and in contrast to the behaviour of the vast majority of road
users, you have to obey whichever is lower at the time.

 

[Mark Hewitt]

"chris harrison" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Strange idea you have there.
>
> Speed limits and safe speeds are independent variables - but, put very
> simply and in contrast to the behaviour of the vast majority of road
> users, you have to obey whichever is lower at the time.

WOOSH

 

[David Martin]

Nick Finnigan wrote:
> Taking the last exit at an offset (to the left and forwards)
> mini-rounabout with an adverse camber and loose gravel, when it is wet.

You forgot the diesel spill and broken glass..

...d

 

[Richard]

Nick Finnigan wrote:

>> Anyway, I can't offhand think of any scenario where it would be
>> impracticable to go round whilst on a conventional bike (I'm sure some
>> wag will say 'what if you're going too fast?')
>
>
> Taking the last exit at an offset (to the left and forwards)
> mini-rounabout with an adverse camber and loose gravel, when it is wet.

I think that I'll just disagree that this qualifies as impracticable in
the legal sense, since this argument gives carte blanche to any other
road users to cut the corner simply because they don't want to slow
down. Admittedly, cyclists suffer most (at least directly; leaving
pollution, etc, arguments aside for now) from being slowed, but I don't
think that's sufficient to render the conventional route
"impracticable". Inconvenient, yes. Potentially unsafe, perhaps.

R.

 

[chris harrison]

Adrian wrote:
> 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.

Precisely - with the lorry adopting a me-first, might is right attitude.
If I (on my bike) has attempted to do what the OP's paramour had done,
I'd have been squashed under a car who was adopting a similar me-first,
might is right attitude.

The OP pulled into the path of someone who he might have reasonably
expected to have slowed approaching a hazard - and who might have slowed
when seeing someone else approaching that same hazard and could have
been assumed to get there first.

> IOW, the OP ignored the GW lines.
>
> The relative sizes of the vehicles are unimportant.


Rarely.

 

[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.

> Precisely

Yes.

It was the other way round to the OP case.

The wagon had priority. He was approaching from the right on a roundabout,
therefore it was his priority.

> with the lorry adopting a me-first, might is right attitude.

Not quite - with the wagon following the rules of the road, unlike the OP.

The truck driver may have been unwisely adopting the attitude that he
didn't expect a pillock on a bicycle to wobble off over the give way line
right in front of him.

> If I (on my bike) has attempted to do what the OP's paramour
> had done, I'd have been squashed under a car who was adopting a
> similar me-first, might is right attitude.

Sorry, I thought you said that the car was approaching from your LEFT - in
other words, you were on his RIGHT, so you had the priority. Your car
driver was as in the wrong as the cycling OP was, and you had priority,
just as the wagon in the OP had.

> The OP pulled into the path of someone who he might have reasonably
> expected to have slowed approaching a hazard - and who might have
> slowed when seeing someone else approaching that same hazard and could
> have been assumed to get there first.

Tough. The OP pulled into the path of another vehicle that had priority.

>> IOW, the OP ignored the GW lines.

Which you don't argue, Chris?

>> The relative sizes of the vehicles are unimportant.

> Rarely.

In the outcome of a cockup, perhaps.
In determining who cocked up, it's *always* unimportant.

 

[Al C-F]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 14:06:58 +0100, "Colin McAdams"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>
>Firstly, I did indicate, but I've no idea if the Iceman driver noticed. It's
>irrelevant anyway, since this isn't about what he thought I was going to do,
>rather about his path over the roundabout.

Actually, it's about recognising his right of way over the junction.
>
>Secondly, in response to:

Irrelevant.
>
>Thirdly, yes, I did do something that may have caused him to need to slow
>down, but only because he did not follow, or even slightly follow, the
>correct path around the roundabout.

It was probably, in his estimation, impracticable to deviate from his
course to cross the junction. Similarly, it was probably
impracticable to change his speed.

Both of these statements are consistent with there being no traffic
near the roundabout to which he was likely to have to give way.

Since you were to his left, he was unlikely to have to give way to
you, unless with super-human speed you managed to enter the roundabout
and execute a U-turn before he reached it, thereby putting yourself on
his right. From your post, it seems unlikely that you did this.
>
>There are many occasions when we are likely, inadvertantly, to slow someone
>down if they are going to disobey traffic instructions.

If, through your own failure to obey traffic instructions, you force
someone else to slow down, YOU ARE IN THE WRONG.

Now, you have had a close call. I suggest that you learn from it
rather than *****ing about it. Be more careful next time, otherwise
the experience will be just as understandable, but more painful.

 

[chris harrison]

Adrian wrote:
> chris harrison ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying :
>>with the lorry adopting a me-first, might is right attitude.
>
>
> Not quite - with the wagon following the rules of the road, unlike the OP.
>
> The truck driver may have been unwisely adopting the attitude that he
> didn't expect a pillock on a bicycle to wobble off over the give way line
> right in front of him.

Not entirely - the OP was making the (flawed) assumption that the lorry,
on approaching the hazard, would lose some speed. This assumption, had
it been correct, would have have left them with enough space.

>>If I (on my bike) has attempted to do what the OP's paramour
>>had done, I'd have been squashed under a car who was adopting a
>>similar me-first, might is right attitude.
>
>
> Sorry, I thought you said that the car was approaching from your LEFT - in
> other words, you were on his RIGHT, so you had the priority. Your car
> driver was as in the wrong as the cycling OP was, and you had priority,
> just as the wagon in the OP had.

Correct.

>>The OP pulled into the path of someone who he might have reasonably
>>expected to have slowed approaching a hazard - and who might have
>>slowed when seeing someone else approaching that same hazard and could
>>have been assumed to get there first.
>
>
> Tough. The OP pulled into the path of another vehicle that had priority.

True - and I don't think the OP necessarily disagreed with the
prioritisation, just with the lorry's negotiation of the hazard.

>>>IOW, the OP ignored the GW lines.
>
>
> Which you don't argue, Chris?

If I knew what you meant by 'GW lines' I'd happily venture an opinion.

 

[Al C-F]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:50:24 +0100, chris harrison
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>IOW, the OP ignored the GW lines.
>>
>>
>> Which you don't argue, Chris?
>
>If I knew what you meant by 'GW lines' I'd happily venture an opinion.

The well known Great Western lines - a set of ley lines that link
junctions where there is an abundance of poor driving and cycling.

 

[Adrian]

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

>>>>IOW, the OP ignored the GW lines.

>> Which you don't argue, Chris?

> If I knew what you meant by 'GW lines' I'd happily venture an opinion.

That Critical Mass video is a fine example of how cyclists really don't
understand "Give Way" lines...

 

[Adrian]

Al C-F ([email protected]) gurgled
happily, sounding much like they were saying :

>>If I knew what you meant by 'GW lines' I'd happily venture an opinion.

> The well known Great Western lines - a set of ley lines that link
> junctions where there is an abundance of poor driving and cycling.

I was thinking more of "Give Way" lines - as illustrated in the Highway
Code, and as found painted on the approach to every roundabout and
paintabout in the country.

 

[chris harrison]

Adrian wrote:
> Al C-F ([email protected]) gurgled
> happily, sounding much like they were saying :
>
>
>>>If I knew what you meant by 'GW lines' I'd happily venture an opinion.
>
>
>>The well known Great Western lines - a set of ley lines that link
>>junctions where there is an abundance of poor driving and cycling.
>
>
> I was thinking more of "Give Way" lines - as illustrated in the Highway
> Code, and as found painted on the approach to every roundabout and
> paintabout in the country.

Ahhhh. And using that well known abbreviation for them

 

[Adrian]

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

>>>>If I knew what you meant by 'GW lines' I'd happily venture an opinion.

>>>The well known Great Western lines - a set of ley lines that link
>>>junctions where there is an abundance of poor driving and cycling.

>> I was thinking more of "Give Way" lines - as illustrated in the Highway
>> Code, and as found painted on the approach to every roundabout and
>> paintabout in the country.

> Ahhhh. And using that well known abbreviation for them

In the context, it's hardly a *HYOOOOOOOGE* stretch of the imagination...

 

[Steven]

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

Can I just ask - was this one of those minis that are simply painted onto the
road?

I just wonder because they seem to be popping up in areas where, until now, all
the minis were of the raised type.

With the latter, people may well take a (wildly) incorrect route over them, but
not at 30mph. Certainly not vans full of food! When the first dead flat jobbie
appears things can get interesting as the less responsible road users realise
that they can simply ignore the road markings.

Thus all your years of experience of (and the sub conscious responses engendered
to) roundabouts suddenly become invalid at these (effectively) wholly advisory
roundabouts.

*If* this was a paint on jobbie, and *if* you diverted to follow the correct
path (thus slowing your progress across the junction) whilst the oaf in the van
ignored the rules of the road and ploughed on regardless, then I would say that
the van driver was significantly to blame.

Not much comfort to your widow if things had been worse, though.