S
Steven
Guest
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 19:58:09 +0100, "nightjar" <nightjar@<insert my surname
here>.uk.com> wrote:
>
>"Steven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>...
>> The problem here appears to be not that the van twunt didn't pass entirely
>> to
>> the left, but that he simply ignored all the road markings and drove
>> straight
>> over the central marking.
>
>Which, given the right combination of circumstances, is perfectly correct
>behaviour at a mini roundabout.
It was a food van, not an artic.
So these were not the correct circumstances.
The vand was driven illegally.
> If there were room for all vehicles to
>negotiate the junction without crossing the central marking, there would be
>a conventional roundabout instead.
Nope. Paintabouts are much cheaper.
>> OP has stated that he saw large vehicles negotiating the roundabout in a
>> much
>> more satisfactory manner
>
>That is a subjective judgement by the OP.
No, it's an objective judgement. The law says that you must not drive over the
central marking except in special circumstances. OP saw all vehicles passing
further to the left than straight over the roundabout.
That's not subjective. The vehicles he saw were making a better job of comlying
with the law than the van which was driven illegally.
>> and that he's been told by police that if they saw a
>> vehicle behaving in the way described they would prosecute.
>
>It is a long time since the Police decided who would be prosecuted.
>Prosecutions are brought by the Crown Proescution Service, on the basis of
>information provide by the Police. There is a large gap between what the
>Police will report for prosecution and what is actually likely to end up in
>Court.
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.
It's fairly clear that the twunt in the van was driving in a careless and
illegal manner.
>...
>> No, he had no right of way. You cannot have right of way to be on a
>> section of
>> road that you are not supposed to be driving on.
>
>At a mini roundabout, the rule is that you must give way to a vehicle
>*approaching* from the right. There is no modification to that rule that
>says, but you don't have to give way if the vehicle is not going to follow
>the usual route when it actually arrives at the roundabout, nor even that
>you don't have to give way if the vehicle is going to do something illegal
>when it gets there.
Of course not. There are very rarely codacils that tell you you must or must not
do something when someone behaves illegally.
It is, however, quite obvious that roundabouts work because people give way on
the basis that other users will use the roundabout legally.
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.
here>.uk.com> wrote:
>
>"Steven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>...
>> The problem here appears to be not that the van twunt didn't pass entirely
>> to
>> the left, but that he simply ignored all the road markings and drove
>> straight
>> over the central marking.
>
>Which, given the right combination of circumstances, is perfectly correct
>behaviour at a mini roundabout.
It was a food van, not an artic.
So these were not the correct circumstances.
The vand was driven illegally.
> If there were room for all vehicles to
>negotiate the junction without crossing the central marking, there would be
>a conventional roundabout instead.
Nope. Paintabouts are much cheaper.
>> OP has stated that he saw large vehicles negotiating the roundabout in a
>> much
>> more satisfactory manner
>
>That is a subjective judgement by the OP.
No, it's an objective judgement. The law says that you must not drive over the
central marking except in special circumstances. OP saw all vehicles passing
further to the left than straight over the roundabout.
That's not subjective. The vehicles he saw were making a better job of comlying
with the law than the van which was driven illegally.
>> and that he's been told by police that if they saw a
>> vehicle behaving in the way described they would prosecute.
>
>It is a long time since the Police decided who would be prosecuted.
>Prosecutions are brought by the Crown Proescution Service, on the basis of
>information provide by the Police. There is a large gap between what the
>Police will report for prosecution and what is actually likely to end up in
>Court.
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.
It's fairly clear that the twunt in the van was driving in a careless and
illegal manner.
>...
>> No, he had no right of way. You cannot have right of way to be on a
>> section of
>> road that you are not supposed to be driving on.
>
>At a mini roundabout, the rule is that you must give way to a vehicle
>*approaching* from the right. There is no modification to that rule that
>says, but you don't have to give way if the vehicle is not going to follow
>the usual route when it actually arrives at the roundabout, nor even that
>you don't have to give way if the vehicle is going to do something illegal
>when it gets there.
Of course not. There are very rarely codacils that tell you you must or must not
do something when someone behaves illegally.
It is, however, quite obvious that roundabouts work because people give way on
the basis that other users will use the roundabout legally.
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.