Was this all my fault?



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

Indeed, not arguing that.

But *if* the lorry driver had crossed the line to get onto the paintabout,
before the cycle on his left, then he would have had priority - not "right
of way" - over the cyclist (not literally "over" IYSWIM!!!!) -but a sensible
lorrydriver would have had regard for a twunt of a cyclist NOT ceding that
priority.

Bottom line is: priority depends on timing of each party getting onto on
paintabout (crossing GW lines)

No party should be driving at such a speed that he/she cannot cater for
someone else cocking up.

---
IanH
 
ian henden ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

> but a sensible lorrydriver


Ha! Anyway, since the original post, we've uncovered the subtle detail that
it's not "a sensible lorry driver" but White Van Man...

And you KNOW that "sensible WVM" is an oxymoron.
 
"Steven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
>

Then your anticipation is broke.

When driving - and cycling - assume everyone else is a complete idiot, until
proved otherwise, and will do something "unpredictable" at no notice.

I know it's perfection, and not normally totally attained, but an awareness
of what stupid things others might do can certainly help "accident"
avoidance.
 
"Steven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
>


What it is *supposed* to do, is to at least slow down and make *some*
attempt to negotiate the paintabout correctly. The back would cut across -
the front need not. Depends on steering lock.

>>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?
>
 
"Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.


Agreed: but if the vehicle you are driving (bike, car, bus, lorry) IS
capable of negotiating correctly, then it must do so. Mere "inconvenience"
is insufficient reason to ignore the road markings.
 
"Chris Slade" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tony Raven wrote:
>
>> Ian wrote:
>>>
>>> The OP seems to have been cycling straight on. There is no way of
>>> indicating that in a car or on a bicycle.
>>>

>>
>> The hand signal for going straight on is the hand held vertical with the
>> palm forward. Of course its unlikely that most people would know or
>> recognise what it means these days and they would probably misinterpret
>> it as an instruction to stop. At one time though it was quite commonly
>> used to signal an intention to go straight ahead.
>>

> I remember seeing that in the highway code when I took my national cycling
> proficiency course. I don't think I've ever seen it used in anger since
> then, and I took the test in 1977.


The only time I use it is to indicate to a policeman on point duty. Last
time was outside the New Forest Show the other day.
---
IanH
 
"Steven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:44:42 +0100, Chris Slade <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Tony Raven wrote:
>>
>>> Ian wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The OP seems to have been cycling straight on. There is no way of
>>>> indicating that in a car or on a bicycle.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The hand signal for going straight on is the hand held vertical with the
>>> palm forward. Of course its unlikely that most people would know or
>>> recognise what it means these days and they would probably misinterpret
>>> it as an instruction to stop. At one time though it was quite commonly
>>> used to signal an intention to go straight ahead.
>>>

>>I remember seeing that in the highway code when I took my national cycling
>>proficiency course. I don't think I've ever seen it used in anger since
>>then, and I took the test in 1977.

>
> I must confess I'd forgotten all about it until Tony mentioned it, and
> even then
> it took me a while to remember it.
>
> Surely though, this signal is for use in informing a *policeman directing
> traffic* of your intentions, not other road users? One of a series of
> special
> signals for that purpose.
>
> Or is my memory playing tricks on me?


More likely (as I feel) - only a policeman on point duty would be able to
interpret it correctly.

---
IanH>
 
ian henden wrote:
> "Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> Agreed: but if the vehicle you are driving (bike, car, bus, lorry) IS
> capable of negotiating correctly, then it must do so.


No it doesn't.

Mere "inconvenience"
> is insufficient reason to ignore the road markings.


Possibly not, but impracticability is the reason to take the direct
route. Certainly the bus drivers around Manchester do, and it saves a
huge amount of inconvenience for them, their passengers and everyone
else who would have to wait longer for them to swerve a little bit.
I can't see any benefit from in making 'some effort'.
 
> Ha! Anyway, since the original post, we've uncovered the subtle detail
that
> it's not "a sensible lorry driver" but White Van Man...
>
> And you KNOW that "sensible WVM" is an oxymoron.
>

<cyclist mode>

But you cant tar everyone with the same brush, just because one white van
man drives badly doesn't mean that they all do.
There are loads of sensible, law abiding white van men out there, who always
have lights on at night and don't go through red lights.

</cyclist mode>
 
SimonJ ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :

>> Ha! Anyway, since the original post, we've uncovered the subtle
>> detail that it's not "a sensible lorry driver" but White Van Man...
>>
>> And you KNOW that "sensible WVM" is an oxymoron.


> <cyclist mode>
>
> But you cant tar everyone with the same brush, just because one white
> van man drives badly doesn't mean that they all do.
> There are loads of sensible, law abiding white van men out there, who
> always have lights on at night and don't go through red lights.
>
> </cyclist mode>


<grin>

Name one.
 
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:42:00 GMT, "ian henden" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>> 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.
>>

>Then your anticipation is broke.


Not really.

When you approach a roundabout and see someone else approaching to your right,
you need to make an assessment as to whether or not you can enter the roundabout
and use it in such a way as not to cause the other approaching vehicle to slow
down or alter course.

Are you to assume, in each instance, that the approaching driver is heading for
the roundabout at 10 (20 - 30) mph above the posted speed limit, and that he's
going to subject his vehicle to the maxium cornering force that it's capable of
sustaining and not slow down?

Obviously not.

For roundabouts to work as well as they do people neet to anticipate, but that
anticipation is based on reasonable assumption. But because you don't know
exactly how maniacly the "other guy" is going to behave, you can't guarantee to
anticipate correctly in ever circumstance.

In 30 years of driving I've yet to see a collision accident on a roundabout
(unlike certain junctions where I've seen several), so they actually do work
very well.

>When driving - and cycling - assume everyone else is a complete idiot, until
>proved otherwise, and will do something "unpredictable" at no notice.


Even so, there will always be superhuman degrees of idiocy that you just can't
account for (and still be on the roads {or near them}).

>I know it's perfection, and not normally totally attained, but an awareness
>of what stupid things others might do can certainly help "accident"
>avoidance.


I think that's a reasonable summary.
 
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:43:51 +0100, Colin McAdams wrote
(in message <[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..


I read the original post exactly as Dave did. You were technically right, but
as you correctly figured, your error in judgement was in expecting another
road user to act correctly - especially since by the law of "might is right"
he had to be right !

I've had numerous occasions when I've (correctly) excercised my right of way
at a local 'paintabout' (hey, I like that name !) and other road users have
incorrectly believed that I've been in the wrong and made appropriate hand
signals ! I've also lost count of the number of poeple who make absolutely no
(as in zero, not even 1%) attempt to follow the correct line around it -
fortunately I've not seen any occasion when they'd been doing it when some
other thick t**t is coming the other way against a no entry sign which would
result in them meeting head on round a blind corner (with both of them doing
30 I expect). That would be interesting to see - car on wrong side of
roundabout meets another car going against a no entry sign.


Your situation brings to mind the old ditty :

"Here lies the body of Michael O'Day,
Who died maintaining the right-of-way;
He was right - dead right - as he sailed along
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong."


Your example is just another of a long list of what can best be categorised
as "bad driving" that would be far more usefully tackled than simply screwing
drivers for technical offences that don't create danger - but at the moment
there's f**k all chance of things changing when it's so easy to just apply
the automated cash extraction cameras and ignore the real causes of
accidents.
 
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:55:04 +0100, Sam Nelson wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

>>> "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?


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. or put
another way, was it reasonably practical to have taken the correct line ?

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 - so for example an artic should be capable of taking the tractor
unit around roughly the correct line*, even if the trailer is going to go
straight over the middle. There is no excuse for simply steaming over in a
straight line without even slowing just because it's a large vehicle.

* Yes I know, roundabouts are all different - but I'd expact a reasonable
attempt subject to the constraints.
 
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:03:42 +0100, Dave Larrington wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

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


He, he. Saw a good one the other day going into town. There was a refuse
vehicle ahead and it indicated left for some time, before turning right into
the collection facility ! As it turned, I'm fairly sure I caught sight of
it's RIGHT turn light on the front wing flashing (it's hard to be certain
since I was concentrating more on the traffic on my bit of the road than on
him) - in other words, he was indicating right but some clueless f**kwit had
wired the rear lights wrong !
 
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:23:03 +0100, Colin McAdams wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

> Had there been an accident, it would have been very clear from the
> lorry's position that it had driven over the chevrons and was headed for the
> other set of chevrons on the exit.


If only it were that simple !

He would probably have carried on past the roundabout and then stopped -
giving no evidence of where he was actually position on the roundabout.
Unless bits of you or your bike had been squashed into the road by his tyres,
there'd be no reliable evidence and it would be his word against yours - so
bugger all chance of a prosecution !
 
Simon Hobson ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

> So to summarise your position, the cyclist was in the wrong on the
> simple basis that he would have come off worst in a collision - and
> therefore it is entirely the cylists responsiblity to avoid all
> collisions irrespective of how worng the other parties are ?


Not quite.

It's *entirely* your responsibility to avoid all collisions, irrespective
of what you're driving/riding.

Simple as that.

> In other words, if you drive a big vehicle it's OK to ignore all the
> rules of the road because it's the cyclists responsibility to not put
> themselves under your wheels rather than being your responsibility to
> drive within the law and with due consideration for other road users ?


No. In other words, whatever you're driving or riding, you can do sweet FA
to influence somebody else's driving or riding - so treat them as a total
loon who's out to kill you personally.

What's the worst that'll happen? You'll be proved right.

If everybody followed that, there would be no collisions.
Wouldn't that be nice?
 
Simon Hobson ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

> Your example is just another of a long list of what can best be
> categorised as "bad driving" that would be far more usefully tackled
> than simply screwing drivers for technical offences that don't create
> danger - but at the moment there's f**k all chance of things changing
> when it's so easy to just apply the automated cash extraction cameras
> and ignore the real causes of accidents.


<applause>
 
Also sprach JimP <[email protected]>:
> David Martin wrote:
>> (given that any cyclist can jump a red light but
>> only the first car in a queue can).

>
> Not true in this neck of the woods.


Nor this one. Take, for example, the Citroen van, who carefully put his
offside wheels onto a traffic island in Shoreditch Hight Street, that he
might overtake the vehicle in front and pass through the red light
controlling a pedestrian crossing. The van, natch, was white, but had
probably been stolen by a cyclist since, as we all know, /real/ drivers
never ever do anything like this.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
It is not possible to call a complex number from a phone box.
 
Also sprach Simon Hobson <[email protected]>:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:03:42 +0100, Dave Larrington wrote
> (in message <[email protected]>):
>
>> And also that indicators are Not to be Trusted...

>
> He, he. Saw a good one the other day going into town. There was a
> refuse vehicle ahead and it indicated left for some time, before
> turning right into the collection facility ! As it turned, I'm fairly
> sure I caught sight of it's RIGHT turn light on the front wing
> flashing (it's hard to be certain since I was concentrating more on
> the traffic on my bit of the road than on him) - in other words, he
> was indicating right but some clueless f**kwit had wired the rear
> lights wrong !


Or else it had its hazard lights on and a blown bulb...

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
It would appear apparent, to me at least, that dinosaurs were largely
burrowing creatures.