Was this all my fault?

[Adrian]

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

> The OP seems to have been cycling straight on.

Having rechecked the original post when I suggested this yesterday, it
would seem not.

The van came from his right, and was going in a straight line.

The junction was a paintabout that had formerly been a T.

Therefore, it would seem that the OP came up the leg of the T, and was
turning right.

I'm not quite sure what benefit an arm signal would give in that situation,
though.

 

[Ian]

"JNugent" wrote in message
> "Conor" wrote in message
>
>> In article JNugent says...
>
>>> It also does not absolve the approaching lorry driver from the normal
>>> rules
>>> at roundabouts, which is that one must give way to a vehicle - even a
>>> bike -
>>> already on it.
>
>> Is that the rule where you must give way to people on your left barging
>> out in front of you?
>
>>> The posters who have asserted that it was the lorry-driver's right of
>>> way
>>> are wrong.
>
>> Why? Give way to the right has been the case with roundabouts in the UK
>> since their inception.
>
> *on* the roundabout.
>
> There is no RoW for vehicles merely approaching the roundabout from
> (someone else's) right.
>

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 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.

Ian

 

[Mark Hewitt]

"ian henden" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Lorry driver (any vehicle in fact) coming from right takes priority only
> when it is given to him. If vehicle (even a pushbike) on his left, which
> *ought* to have given him priority, fails to do so, then driver on right
> ought to have been prepared for that, and to have stopped - no-one gets
> hurt.

As I understand it you must give way to vehicles already on the roundabout.
Therefore if the lorry had not crossed the stop line and the OP was on the
roundabout, he had priority as he was already on the roundabout.

 

[Steven]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 21:33:00 GMT, "ian henden" <[email protected]> wrote:


>OP needs to brush up a bit on HC,

Why, according to what he's posted, the van didn't need to slow down and missed
him by 10'.

Looking at his latest post it seems that he was really just surprised that the
van was as far to its right as it was.

> and development of sense of
>self-preservation.
>Lorry driver needs to brush up a bit on anticipation and consideration for
>others.

Lorry driver needs to learn the HC as it relates to path round a mini
roundabout!

 

[dkahn400]

Ian wrote:
> "Conor" wrote in message

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

>
> The OP seems to have been cycling straight on. There is no way of
> indicating that in a car or on a bicycle.

As I read it the OP was taking the second exit, effectively turning
right at what would previously have been a T junction for him.

I also infer from his post that he (the OP) entered the roundabout when
the lorry was still some distance from it. He had no intention of
causing the lorry to slow down as he judged (incorrectly) that the
lorry would need to do so anyway to negotiate the roundabout, leaving
him (the OP) plenty of time to ride safely through. He's admitting that
he made an error of judgement, and he's seeking clarification and
advice on this.

Maybe Colin could confirm whether or not I'm reading him correctly. If
I have understood him correctly then ISTM he was technically in the
right as he was well established on the roundabout before the lorry
drove straight over it. However, it was still poor judgement as he
placed himself in a position where he was nearly mown down. Anyone who
has never made an error of judgement should now feel free to carry on
vilifying him for posting an honest and useful question.

--
Dave...

 

[Steven]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 22:25:57 GMT, "ian henden" <[email protected]> wrote:


>Ummm .. you ought not to have done that. What you are saying is, that you
>tried to *force* him to change speed and/or direction, because *in your
>opinion* - which may or may not have been correct - he didn't do waht you
>thought he ought to have done. You are not a policeman - so it's not up to
>you.
>

The main complaint ISTM is not that the van didn't slow, it was that the van
completely ignored the road markings and was occupying a piece of road it had no
right to occupy (i.e. the (its) extreme right of the central marking).

Since OP claims the van didn't slow, and still missed him by 10 feet, it seems
there was nothing really wrong with his decision to proceed, he was merely
alarmed by the position of the van as he completed his manouver.

>Just suppose the lorry's brakes HAD failed - where would asserting your
>"right" to cycle in front of it have got you?

Apparantly, exactly where he is now!

 

[Ian]

"Adrian" wrote in message
> Steven 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.

If the OP is anything like most cyclists then he is so used to ignoring red
traffic lights that he thinks the rules about giving way on roundabouts
don't apply too.

Ian

 

[Ian]

"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Conor" <[email protected]> wrote...
>
>> Steven says...
>>> Conor <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >In article <[email protected]>, Colin McAdams says...
>
>>> >> 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.
>
>>> >And? He was in the right. HE was following the Highway Code.
>
>>> I think it's been established[1] that he *wasn't* following the Highway
>>> Code.
>>> [1]
>>> "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.
>
>> So the lorry WAS following the HC. Next.
>
> 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?
>
>

Yes. HC161.1 refers as I mentioned in detail elsewhere in this thread.

Ian

 

[Steven]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 22:35:45 GMT, "ian henden" <[email protected]> wrote:


>Very many (but not all) "incidents/accidents" are the result of more than
>one party.

Agreed.

> This one included.

Not really.

>You can be 100% "in the right" according to the law and HC - but, if you
>*could* have avoided the incident/accident, and failed to do so, then some
>blame must fall on you.

The OP, apparantly, made an assesment that enabled him to complete the manouvre
without (apparantly) the van needing to slow down, and completed the manouvre
sucessfully, but with a slightly lower safety margin than he expected.

The fact that the safety margin was smaller than expected was (according to the
report) soley due to the van driver illegally ignoring road markings.

It's hard to see where the OP went wrong.

If the OP had been in a car, and there had been a collision, the scene would
have shown that the van had been driving straight across the central marking
when it hit the rear of the car, and it's hard to see how a court would be able
to apportion any blame to the car driver since the accident would have been
soley caused by the van *being in the wrong place*.

 

[Steven]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 22:15:18 GMT, "ian henden" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Steven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> 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?
>
>That one's easy.
>
>"Enough allowance to ensure at least your own, and possibly everyone elses,
>continued existence on the planet".
>Will that do?

No, because you cannot know the actual value of that allowance until after the
event.

 

[Steven]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 22:12:50 GMT, "ian henden" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Colin McAdams" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "Steven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> Yes, it is a very flat paint only roundabout. It's also in a 20mph zone,
>> but the lorry must have been doing 30 to get there so quickly. Now that I
>> think about it, it /is/ the first one around here. If he'd tried the same
>> trick on one of the normal ones, he'd have had a /very/ bumpy ride!
>
>TBH., when I cross a bumpy type driving a bus, I do so (a) carefully and (b)
>strictly speaking, incorrectly.
>You are supposed to make some *attempt* to circumnavigate the thing - if
>even with just the front wheels.
>Doing so often means one back wheel crosses the summit of the bump, whereas
>going straight across (with the bump within the space between the two back
>wheels) means the bus gets no jolt at all, and the little old ladies on the
>bus don't get an unnecessary jolt.

I think that's perfectly fair behaviour.

>> I think he might have been trying to make sure that he got to the traffic
>> lights about 70 feet away before they turned red. Something to bear in
>> mind at this roundabout in future.
>
>As I indicated elsewhere, the lorry driver did have priority, but was still
>wrong - as you were, more seriously.

Why was he wrong?

The van driver did not (apparantly) slow down.

The van driver did not alter course to avoid the OP.

There was no accident.

OP was surprised at the van's position.

Can't see what the OP did wrong.

 

[Steven]

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 00:02:50 +0100, "nightjar" <nightjar@<insert my surname
here>.uk.com> wrote:


>Unless there is a double white line down one side, chevrons only indicate a
>part of the road that a vehicle should not enter unless the driver can see
>that it is clear to do so.

Is this correct?

They would seem rather pointless in a lot of places where they occur.

Or are you thinking of the hatching on a box junction?

>As he appears to have had right of way over you,
>your presence in the side road would not count as a reason to say that it
>was not clear to enter that part of the road.

From my reading of the report, when the van got to the chevrons, the OP was
already on the roundabout passing on the other side of the central marking.

> While there is a requirement
>to pass the white circle to the left, it is permissible to drive over it
>where the size of vehicle and / or road layout makes that impractical.

And there is no way a food van can't negotiate a mini roundabout of the type
described.

>IMO, you appear to have misjudged the situation and failed to give way to a
>vehicle approaching from the right.

The vehicle did not (according to the report) have to slow down or alter course,
so in what way did the OP fail to give way?

 

[Steven]

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 09:06:49 GMT, "Ian" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Adrian" wrote in message
>> Steven 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.
>
>If the OP is anything like most cyclists then he is so used to ignoring red
>traffic lights that he thinks the rules about giving way on roundabouts
>don't apply too.

I doubt it. They may get away with it at pelicans and junctions during the null
phase, but if they try it on roundabouts they'll end up as road kill in double
quick time.

 

[Derek ^]

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 08:51:28 GMT, "Ian" <[email protected]>
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.

>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.

DG

 

[The Random Dispenser Of Pedantries]

Ian <[email protected]>:
> "Adrian" wrote in message
>> Steven 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.
>
> If the OP is anything like most cyclists then he is so used to
> ignoring red traffic lights that he thinks the rules about giving way
> on roundabouts don't apply too.
>
> Ian

That's rich, coming from someone who habitually drives past primary schools
at sixty miles per hour while "high on a cocktail of drink and drugs", in an
unlicenced and uninsured vehicle with bald tyres and dodgy brakes.

--
The Random Dispenser Of Pedantries
England

 

[Nick Finnigan]

Mark Hewitt wrote:
> "ian henden" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Lorry driver (any vehicle in fact) coming from right takes priority only
>>when it is given to him. If vehicle (even a pushbike) on his left, which
>>*ought* to have given him priority, fails to do so, then driver on right
>>ought to have been prepared for that, and to have stopped - no-one gets
>>hurt.
>
>
> As I understand it you must give way to vehicles already on the roundabout.

At a proper roundabout yes, but at a mini-roundabout it is all
vehicles coming from the right.

 

[Nick Finnigan]

ian henden wrote:
> "Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> Your comprehension is broke.
> The link says (cutnpasted)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> (a) A vehicle entering the junction must give priority to vehicles coming
> from the right at the transverse road marking shown in diagram 1003.3
> associated with the sign or, if the marking is not for the time being
> visible, at the junction; and
>
> (b) 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; and
>
> (c) no vehicle shall proceed past the marking shown in diagram 1003.4 in a
> manner or at a time likely -
>
>
> (i) to endanger any person, or
>
> (ii) to cause the driver of another vehicle to change its speed or course
> in order to avoid an accident.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------
> All three sections apply to ALL drivers (and cyclists) using a paintabout.
> Section (b) does give dispensation to drivers of large vehicles to drive
> over the paintblob under certain circumstances.

The /or/ means you don't have to be driving a large vehicle.

 

[Nick Finnigan]

Colin McAdams wrote:
>
> The roundabout sits in the straight 'main' road and looking from the
> perspective of someone entering from the side road, the left to right
> straight across route does not involve any deviation from the straight. Only
> an fairly wide vehicle would need to impinge on the central marking, and
> then there would be no option.

> it. As it was, without any evidence of his braking, he missed my rear wheel
> by about ten foot.

"ten foot" suggests to me that you had completed turning and were now
riding parallel to the kerb of the main road. In which case there is no
problem, except your own surprise.

 

[Ian]

"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.

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

Ian

 

[Colin McAdams]

"dkahn400" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I also infer from his post that he (the OP) entered the roundabout when
> the lorry was still some distance from it. He had no intention of
> causing the lorry to slow down as he judged (incorrectly) that the
> lorry would need to do so anyway to negotiate the roundabout, leaving
> him (the OP) plenty of time to ride safely through. He's admitting that
> he made an error of judgement, and he's seeking clarification and
> advice on this.
>
> Maybe Colin could confirm whether or not I'm reading him correctly. If
> I have understood him correctly then ISTM he was technically in the
> right as he was well established on the roundabout before the lorry
> drove straight over it. However, it was still poor judgement as he
> placed himself in a position where he was nearly mown down. Anyone who
> has never made an error of judgement should now feel free to carry on
> vilifying him for posting an honest and useful question.

You have read the situation correctly. When the incident happened I was
puzzled. I knew I had got a surprise, but the lorry didn't actually get
/that/ close to hitting me.

After I checked the layout of this new roundabout, I realised that the
surprise I got was not, I think, that I was in any actual danger. There was
sufficient safety margin incorperated in the original decision.

What I think alarmed me was simply that the lorry was where it was. In the
same way that if an oncoming vehicle suddenly crossed a central white line
for no reason, you would be a bit alarmed even if there was no actual danger
of collision.

So I don't think I actually made an error of judgement in /this/ case,
although if this incident hadn't happened I can't say that I wouldn't have
made one in the future.

I do think that the standard of driving exhibited by the lorry driver was
lamentable (and not because he surprised me, but because he was behaving in
a manner contrary to that which other road users would expect).

Since the opinions in this group were so varied, I checked with the local
police, and although he would not comment on this specific incident, the
officer said that if he had seen an incident where a vehicle had ignored the
road markings and driven over that roundabout in the manner described he
would have charged the driver with careless driving..