roundabouts

[The Natural Philosopher]

Well why would you signal; to ENTER a roundabout? Since you can only go one way?

[Robin]

On 13/01/2020 22:01, Steve Walker wrote:

That sent me looking for judgments, and in the only published case I found the Court of Appeal agreed with you, but left the door open for argument in exceptional cases:

"In the paradigm case of a typical "full" roundabout ? which is the apparent subject of para. 185 of the Code (which indeed contains an illustration of such a roundabout) ? the distances involved, and the speeds of approach dictated by the configuration of the roundabout, are such that drivers approaching it will not normally be "inconvenienced" by another driver entering ahead of them from the next road on the left; and "priority" will thus only be a realistic issue as regards vehicles already on the roundabout. I accept that there may be cases ? most obviously on a mini-roundabout, where the distances are much shorter ? where a driver who has not yet reached the roundabout may be inconvenienced by a vehicle entering the roundabout before him from the next entrance to the left, but that is only likely to be the case if he is approaching at an inappropriate speed: any driver approaching a roundabout should be doing so at a moderate speed which enables him ? as the experts agreed in their joint statement (see para. 27) ? to stop if necessary. The truth is that in a case where two drivers are approaching a mini-roundabout, one being closer but the other travelling faster, the rules about priority may not give a black-and-white answer: which ought to accommodate the other will, as was apparently accepted at trial, involve an exercise of judgement on the part of each drivers, with each being prepared to stop at the give way line if there is room for doubt about the other's intentions."

[harry]

Velocity has speed AND direction.

[NY]

You are telling other traffic which way (left, straight ahead or right) you intend to go once you have entered the roundabout.

This is particularly important with roundabouts that have a clear line of sight (ie no raised central mound) where traffic approaching from other directions can see you are you approach. Consider two cars approaching a roundabout from opposite directions. If Driver A is indicating left (or is not indicating), Driver B knows that he can join the roundabout because A will not be turning right across his path once he is on the roundabout; if A is indicating right, B knows that he will have to wait. OK, so if A isn't indicating it may still mean that he is turning right but has forgotten to indicate; in that situation I (as driver B) tend to be more cautious that if A has explicitly indicated left.

[The Natural Philosopher]

why would they care?

Bollocks

[NY]

So you are saying that oncoming traffic *doesn't* need to know which way a car is going to go before it enters a roundabout, and *doesn't* make go/no-go decisions based on the signal that the oncoming car gives? *That's* what sounds like bollocks to me.

[Scott]

Was there any history of accidents that would cause the roads authority to introduce measures to reduce traffic speeds? I have seen this done at some roundabouts; I assume because of accident record.

[Scott]

I thought in the absence of any road traffic rule, the nautical rule of giving way to the vessel on the starboard side applied.

[Scott]

I would say not, on the basis that 'straight on' is the most logical depiction of your intentions. However, the lane markings may become relevant if 1 o'clock happened to be a a very minor exit.

[NY]

No it isn't. If it's turning left or going straight ahead and you are diammetrically opposite, turning to your left, then your paths do not cross so you know that it is safe to enter the roundabout even though the other car may be closer to his give-way line than you are to yours. On the other hand, if he is indicating right then you know that he will cross your path and that you must slow down more so you can give way to him.

Imagine you are the car approaching from the top, with the red trace, and the car whose signal you are looking out for is approaching from the bottom, with the brown trace. Both are indicating as shown by the star on one side or other of the car.

Case 1

- paths do not cross so you can proceed onto and off the roundabout as if he did not exist.

Case 2

- paths cross so if he is closer to the roundabout than you, he will be turning across your path as you are about to enter, so you must wait for him.

All this assumes that you trust his signal or lack of signal!

Of course, even if he is indicating right, he may be further from the roundabout than you so you judge that you can safely turn left before he reaches you.

[AnthonyL]

This ^^^^^

Give Way doesn't mean Stop. It doesn't matter if it's a roundabout or a clear stretch of road. If you can go without impeding the other vehicle then you do so. Overhesitation is (used to be) a negative on the driving test.

If it is a two lane roundabout and the other car is on the inside lane then it can still be clear to go.

If two cars approach a roundabout on adjacent entry points at the same time and approximately the same speed then both can safely enter the roundabout at the same time. That's the beauty of roundabouts. Unfortunately some roundabouts are "uneven" so if the traffic from right is approaching at National Speed limit and you're on a 30mph you are unlikely to be able to proceed without impeding the other car.

[Bob Eager]

That's my feeling. The 9 o'clock and 3 o'clock exits are an A road (no dual carriageway, 2 lanes on approach) but the rest are single lane approach. All quite busy roads, no lane markings on the roundabout. Looking at it now, it looks more straight ahead than I thought!

Just for interest, here it is. Approach is from the botton, exit the third one. A bloke said that of course you indicate for that one, got abusive when I disagreed, and said he knew best because he was a driving instructor.

[Scott]

I'm not sure I agree with that. If the other vehicle changes lane (to exit) and you collide with it, I think you would have a difficult task persuading anyone the accident was other than the result of fault or negligence on your part. I would certainly argue if I were on the roundabout and another vehicle entered the roundabout and collided with me, that liability was prima facie with the other vehicle. A decent dashcam I think would assist such argument.

[Scott]

On 14 Jan 2020 10:53:20 GMT, Bob Eager [e-mail] wrote: [snip]

If the approach is Greenhill Road and the exit Greenhill Bridge Road, I would agree with you.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Exactly so. You canmot trust signals or lacktrhereeofm and exzpoecially whne te higfhway code does not specify any sigma; on a roundabout until you are past the last exit befire the one you intrendto trakem I wopukld assume it WAS a mistake if someone indicated anything other than right before joining it

[NY]

You seem to have some finger trouble or corruption of data ;-) Typing on a mobile phone while in a vehicle?

Now I understand what you were saying: in theory it makes a difference (as I have described) but if you are being ultra-cautious it doesn't because you shouldn't trust the signals - on a roundabout or anywhere else.

What is the legal situation if there is evidence (eg a dashcam) that someone indicated and another driver acted on that information but there was a collision? Is it totally the fault of the person who pulled out because they assumed that the signal was correct, or does the person who gave a wrong signal share any of the blame and/or insurance cost? I'd like to see indicators made legally binding, so that a wrong signal that leads to an accident is the fault of the person who mis-signalled - otherwise what's the point of having indicators if you cannot rely on them?

It's a situation I'm aware of, if I'm intending to turn off just beyond a junction. Do I indicate in plenty of time and make it look as if I'm turning at the road rather than just beyond, or do I not indicate (and rely on my brake lights) until I'm beyond the junction and then given a belated signal? I tend to do the latter, to avoid confusion.

As regards a roundabout, the worst case is when the driver gives no signal on the approach, because then you can't be sure whether he's going straight ahead and therefore must not signal, because either signal would be wrong, or whether he's forgotten to indicate left or right. If I see a car *start* to signal, I tend to assume that he's going that way and has made a conscious decision to indicate, but if he's indicating for a long time before (ie ever since he comes into view) I wonder whether he's forgotten to cancel.

As always, it's a fine line between expedience (pulling out if it's safe, to avoid delaying myself and other people) and driving defensively.

[AnthonyL]

iirc the first roundabout to be introduced in Perth, and that roundabout was specifically mentioned in their Highway Code, was at a time when there was a general rule of Give Way to the right which for a while was a right mess as someone would come out of a side street expect the major road to come to a standstill.

Priority roads were then introduced. I think the roundabout was abandoned and the road re-arranged (this is c1975).

[nightjar]

The DfT guidelines are that a roundabout should normally carry the lowest speed limit of any of the roads meeting at it.

[Another Dave]

Because Rule 186 of the Highway Code says you must?

Another Dave

[FMurtz]

The actual wording is probably , give way to vehicles in the roundabout (if I get time I might look up the act or regulation whatever)