Was this all my fault?

[Adrian]

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

> Complying with the HC (let alone the law) requires the driver or rider
> to give way *before* entering the roundabout - to any vehicle that may
> already be on it. That is why there is a give way line at the
> entrance.
>
> Does it sound to you as though this driver obeyed that rule?

TBH, it seems irrelevant as far as the OP's concerned.

The wagon is outside his sphere of control. He could see it coming, yet
chose to cycle out across it's path, despite no evidence of it slowing.

 

[wafflycat]

"Colin McAdams" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
>

If I'm reading this correctly...

You should have given way to traffic from the right, it's a RAB whether or
not it's got a raised bit in the middle - you misjudged and didn't give way.
If that's the case - then yes, you were in the wrong. *Never* assume at any
sort of junction, be you using it as a pedestrian, cyclist or motorist.
Sounds like you were extremely lucky not to get totalled, and it would not
have been the fault of the driver. Basic cycling skills. Live and learn -
you know better for next time - remember an HGV has a lot of mass and it
cannot stop on a sixpence, no matter how skilled the driver. FWIW, I find
that HGV drivers are usually some of the most courteous road users I come
across particularly when I'm in cyclist mode.

Cheers, helen s

 

[wafflycat]

"Adrian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Conor, dearie... I don't think bicycles usually have indicators.
>

We do - it's called hand signals. I find them useful in letting other road
users know my intentions when I'm cycling.

Cheers, helen s

 

[Dave {Reply Address in.sig}]

In message <[email protected]>, Steven wrote:

>
> 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.
>
When they were originally introduced, painted mini roundabouts were merely
to provide indication of priority; there was no requirement to go around
the centre spot. Those with raised centres were treated more like normal
roundabouts in that one was supposed to go around.

The current HC has changed from that original and states that you're
supposed to go around unless driving a vehicle that can't. I don't remember
it making a distinction between humped or painted.

--
Dave
mail da [email protected] (without the space)
http://www.llondel.org/
So many gadgets, so little time...

 

[Steven]

On 16 Aug 2005 16:22:00 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:

>Colin McAdams ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
>much like they were saying :
>
>> The point a lot of posters seem to be missing though is that it was
>> only because he drove dead straight across that there was any danger
>> of a collision.
>
>No, the point YOU seem to be missing is that if you'd waited just one
>moment to see what he was going to do, he'd have been past you and you'd
>have been able to cycle across the paintabout in perfect safety.

I'm sure OP is *perfectly* well aware of that!

It's not really the point, though, is it?

We come back to this argument again and again: Just *how* much allowance do you
need to make for other driver's idiotic and unlawful behaviour?

I'd say that he probably should have waited, and I expect he will do so at
paintabouts in future, but as he says this is the first 'paintabout' he's
encountered, and as *most* drivers treat them at least a little bit like a
normal, raised, mini, I think he can be forgiven for being a bit surprised by
the twuntish behaviour of the VanMan (new info has just come to light that the
paintabout is very close to a set of traffic lights that VanMan might have been
anxious to catch before they'd been red more that a few seconds).

OP needs to make better allowances for driver twuntishness, but the near
accident was (if I've pictured the scene correctly) the fault of VanMan.

Had an accident occured and a photograph of the van's position been taken, I've
no doubt that the van driver would have been held responsible.

 

[Adrian]

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

>>No, the point YOU seem to be missing is that if you'd waited just one
>>moment to see what he was going to do, he'd have been past you and
>>you'd have been able to cycle across the paintabout in perfect safety.

> I'm sure OP is *perfectly* well aware of that!

<looks up at the subject of this thread>

> It's not really the point, though, is it?

Ummm, yes?

> We come back to this argument again and again: Just *how* much
> allowance do you need to make for other driver's idiotic and unlawful
> behaviour?

As much as you damn well need to...

> Had an accident occured and a photograph of the van's position been
> taken, I've no doubt that the van driver would have been held
> responsible.

I'm not so sure.

Vehicle A coming across roundabout from 12 o'c to 6 o'c.
Vehicle B coming across rounadbout from 3 o'c to 9 o'c.
Vehicle A hits rhs of Vehicle B.

If both were cars, I'd lay odds on whose No Claims was going to take a hit.

 

[Steven]

On 16 Aug 2005 16:22:47 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:

>Steven ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
>they were saying :
>
>> This idiot just couldn't be bothered and, by the sound of it, nearly
>> caused an accident.
>
>Sounds to me more like it was a *pair* of impatient idiots ignoring the HC
>that nearly caused the accident.

Why?

If OP has described the incident accurately, it was caused by the van not
obeying the HC and thus being in an unexpected position much sooner than it had
any right to be and it is the van driver's fault.

If he has not described the incident accurately and the van had good reason to
be in the road position it was (which would imply it did not need to slow down),
or he simply misjudged the time it would take the van to arrive, then it is the
OP's fault.

I dislike this "oh, it's not clear who's to blame, let's blame them both"
attitude.

This incident was almost certainly the fault of one party or the other.

 

[Steven]

On 16 Aug 2005 16:53:48 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:

>Steven ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
>they were saying :
>
>>>No, the point YOU seem to be missing is that if you'd waited just one
>>>moment to see what he was going to do, he'd have been past you and
>>>you'd have been able to cycle across the paintabout in perfect safety.
>
>> I'm sure OP is *perfectly* well aware of that!
>
><looks up at the subject of this thread>

And did that give you a clue?

He's asking if it was all his fault. If you get hit by a freak lightning bolt as
you go out of your front door, you would have avoided the hit if you'd left a
second later, but that doesn't make it all your fault, does it?

>> It's not really the point, though, is it?
>
>Ummm, yes?

As I just explained above, Umm, no!

>> We come back to this argument again and again: Just *how* much
>> allowance do you need to make for other driver's idiotic and unlawful
>> behaviour?
>
>As much as you damn well need to...

So you never move then, because the chances are that eventually, no matter what
allowances you make, someone is going to involve you in an accident that is
caused by their behaving in such an unexpected manner that you cannot anticipate
it and still manage to move on a road (aka, SMIDSY).
>
>> Had an accident occured and a photograph of the van's position been
>> taken, I've no doubt that the van driver would have been held
>> responsible.
>
>I'm not so sure.

Well, it would clearly show that the van was in a position it had no business
being if it had obeyed the HC, and that there wouldn't have been an accident had
it not been there.

It's hard to see how it could possibly be called any other way than van driver
takes the blame.

>Vehicle A coming across roundabout from 12 o'c to 6 o'c.
>Vehicle B coming across rounadbout from 3 o'c to 9 o'c.
>Vehicle A hits rhs of Vehicle B.
>
>If both were cars, I'd lay odds on whose No Claims was going to take a hit.

Yes, but since that's not even the correct layout for this incident as described
in the OP, that might explain your confusion in the matter.

*And*, I would expect that if vehicle B's rear wheels were both on the central
markings, even in the case you mention above, the driver of vehicle B would have
been held responsible.

 

[Steven]

On 16 Aug 2005 16:24:08 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:

>JNugent ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>were saying :
>
>> Complying with the HC (let alone the law) requires the driver or rider
>> to give way *before* entering the roundabout - to any vehicle that may
>> already be on it. That is why there is a give way line at the
>> entrance.
>>
>> Does it sound to you as though this driver obeyed that rule?
>
>TBH, it seems irrelevant as far as the OP's concerned.
>
>The wagon is outside his sphere of control. He could see it coming, yet
>chose to cycle out across it's path, despite no evidence of it slowing.

The point you are missing is that whenever you decide to enter a roundabout and
there is traffic about to enter from your right, you need to make a judgement as
to how long it will take the traffic to reach any piece of roundabout that will
be in contention.

If you simply refused to enter a roundabout if there was *any* traffic
approaching or waiting to enter from the right, then all roundabouts would be
gridlocked. Simple as that.

You *have* to make an assessment as to when the approaching vehicle will reach
the roundabout and in many cases you will "chose to move across its path".
That's the way roundabouts work. It's also the way normal prioritized crossroads
work.

In this case the OP made an assessment based on the van following, to at least
some degree, the correct path around the paintabout. In fact it ignored it
completely, and hence appeared on a piece of road it should not have been
occupying somewhat more quickly than expected.

 

[Adrian]

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

>>> We come back to this argument again and again: Just *how* much
>>> allowance do you need to make for other driver's idiotic and
>>> unlawful behaviour?

>>As much as you damn well need to...

> So you never move then, because the chances are that eventually, no
> matter what allowances you make, someone is going to involve you in an
> accident that is caused by their behaving in such an unexpected manner
> that you cannot anticipate it and still manage to move on a road (aka,
> SMIDSY).

I never pull onto a roundabout when there's a wagon hooning straight at me
with unabated speed, no.

> It's hard to see how it could possibly be called any other way than
> van driver takes the blame.

I beg to differ. I would call it as roughly 50/50.

But then, I'm not looking at it from a "He was on a bike, therefore we'll
give him the benefit of the doubt, because he's 'one of us'" perspective.

I'm looking at it solely as two vehicles that had a near miss on a
roundabout.

>>Vehicle A coming across roundabout from 12 o'c to 6 o'c.
>>Vehicle B coming across rounadbout from 3 o'c to 9 o'c.
>>Vehicle A hits rhs of Vehicle B.
>>
>>If both were cars, I'd lay odds on whose No Claims was going to take a
>>hit.

> Yes, but since that's not even the correct layout for this incident as
> described in the OP, that might explain your confusion in the matter.

<re-reads original>
OK, Vehicle B was going from 3 o'c to 12 o'c, then.

Same difference. It makes no effective difference whatsoever to the section
of the roundabout where the paths cross - which is where the danger is
posed.

Not, of course, that knowing he was in the right would help the OP heal any
quicker if he had have been hit. Surely that's the important thing?

 

[Adrian]

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

>>The wagon is outside his sphere of control. He could see it coming,
>>yet chose to cycle out across it's path, despite no evidence of it
>>slowing.

> The point you are missing is that whenever you decide to enter a
> roundabout and there is traffic about to enter from your right, you
> need to make a judgement as to how long it will take the traffic to
> reach any piece of roundabout that will be in contention.

No, I'm certainly taking that into account.

It's quite evident that the OP could barely (at best) get across in
sufficient time, given the hard evidence he had of the approach of the
wagon.

> In this case the OP made an assessment based on the van following, to
> at least some degree, the correct path around the paintabout. In fact
> it ignored it completely, and hence appeared on a piece of road it
> should not have been occupying somewhat more quickly than expected.

Right. He made an assumption that somebody would do something, and he was
wrong. They didn't. They do that sometimes, y'know. That's why you don't
assume, you wait until there's hard evidence..

 

[Adrian]

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

> Right. He made an assumption that somebody would do something, and he was
> wrong. They didn't. They do that sometimes, y'know. That's why you don't
> assume, you wait until there's hard evidence..

I should add that I learned that one the hard way - the car in front of me
started to pull onto a busy roundabout. I watched the gap, and followed
him, because the gap was big enough.

He'd stopped. I hit him. My fault.

 

[Steven]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 17:36:06 +0100, "wafflycat"
<waffles*A*T*v21net*D*O*T*co*D*O*T*uk> wrote:


>If I'm reading this correctly...

Which is unlikely.
>
>You should have given way to traffic from the right, it's a RAB whether or
>not it's got a raised bit in the middle - you misjudged and didn't give way.

Wrong!

If it had a raised centre, the van would not have been able to do this trick
without risking very dangerous instability.

>If that's the case - then yes, you were in the wrong. *Never* assume at any
>sort of junction, be you using it as a pedestrian, cyclist or motorist.

Oh dear, yet another of the "I don't really understand how traffic works"
brigade. If you don't make *some* assumptions, you'll never move.

>Sounds like you were extremely lucky not to get totalled, and it would not
>have been the fault of the driver.

So you think that if a van hits something whilst driving straight over the
central marking, it isn't the van driver's fault.

Interesting interpretation of the road traffic act, to say the least.

>remember an HGV has a lot of mass and it
>cannot stop on a sixpence, no matter how skilled the driver.

I don't think Iceland vans qualify as HGV's!

 

[SimonJ]

> > 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.
>
Have you read the highway code recently (or ever?)

 

[Steven]

On 16 Aug 2005 17:20:26 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:

>Adrian ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>were saying :
>
>> Right. He made an assumption that somebody would do something, and he was
>> wrong. They didn't. They do that sometimes, y'know. That's why you don't
>> assume, you wait until there's hard evidence..
>
>I should add that I learned that one the hard way - the car in front of me
>started to pull onto a busy roundabout. I watched the gap, and followed
>him, because the gap was big enough.
>
>He'd stopped. I hit him. My fault.

There but for the grace of God!

That very nearly happened to me early in my driving career, and it was just good
luck and peripheral vision that saved me. The lesson has lasted to this day.

 

[Steven]

On 16 Aug 2005 17:15:43 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:

>I never pull onto a roundabout when there's a wagon hooning straight at me
>with unabated speed, no.

So if it's 300 yards away, you wait until it's got close enough - in which cas
it won't need to slow down because it will have right of way.

>> It's hard to see how it could possibly be called any other way than
>> van driver takes the blame.
>
>I beg to differ. I would call it as roughly 50/50.

So, when the case comes to court, and the plod shows the magistrate that the van
was illegally positioned on the road, what will the defence council offer in
mitigation for his client's illegal positioning?

How will his weasel be able to blame the other road user for occupying a piece
of road that his client shouldn't have been occupying?

>But then, I'm not looking at it from a "He was on a bike, therefore we'll
>give him the benefit of the doubt, because he's 'one of us'" perspective.

>I'm looking at it solely as two vehicles that had a near miss on a
>roundabout.

So am I. One was where it was entitled to be. The other was, at least in part,
where it had no business being.

It's hard to see how that would make it 50-50.

>Same difference. It makes no effective difference whatsoever to the section
>of the roundabout where the paths cross - which is where the danger is
>posed.

True, but given the illegal positioning of the van ...

>Not, of course, that knowing he was in the right would help the OP heal any
>quicker if he had have been hit. Surely that's the important thing?

Yes, I'm sure he realises that.

 

[Sam Nelson]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> 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.
>
> I sit corrected. I thought the exemption applied to all vehicles, not just
> the big ones.

Yebbut, you only have to have a local roads outfit that makes the same
incorrect assumption about the law as you have, and builds mini-
roundabouts it's impossible to round safely, and you're still in
trouble. After all, the word `large' in the above is of debatable
quality. What's the smallest vehicle that's large?
--
SAm.

 

[Adrian]

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

>>> Right. He made an assumption that somebody would do something, and
>>> he was wrong. They didn't. They do that sometimes, y'know. That's
>>> why you don't assume, you wait until there's hard evidence..

>>I should add that I learned that one the hard way - the car in front
>>of me started to pull onto a busy roundabout. I watched the gap, and
>>followed him, because the gap was big enough.
>>
>>He'd stopped. I hit him. My fault.

> There but for the grace of God!
>
> That very nearly happened to me early in my driving career, and it was
> just good luck and peripheral vision that saved me. The lesson has
> lasted to this day.

Right. You were luckier than I was. Fortunately, I hit a Volvo estate with
a towbar, and he felt sorry enough for me that he didn't worry about the
scratch on the plastic towball cover. All the rest of the damage was mine.

Hopefully, the OP will learn from his close call, too.

 

[Conor]

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

> >And if its blatantly obvious you can't get round it and driving over it
> >causes no issue then why not rather than try some half attempt which
> >can result in serious instability in a HGV?
>
> Only if the twunt driving the HGV trys to take it too quickly.
>
Oh how wrong you are.

--
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.

 

[Sam Nelson]

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

The local habit is to add paintabouts in one lane of the major road.
This makes the construction easier, because only half-closure is
necessary and the verge on the far side needs no encroachment. This
must make the job much cheaper than it would otherwise be.

Unfortunately, forever after, the paintabout is negotiable in a
straight line without loss of speed in one direction, and only
negotiable with a two-gear-drop (well, for a car, anyway) deflection in
the other. An artic using such a junction, even if the driver manages
to round the paintabout with the tractor, inevitably involves dragging
the trailer in a more-or-less straight line over it.
--
SAm.