Was this all my fault?

Colin McAdams said:

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.

As the prophet says, "assumption is the mother of all screw-ups".

Quoted message said:

As it was, I was very nearly hit because

a) the lorry didn't slow down at all and simply drove across the roundabout
as if it wasn't there.
b) since it went dead straight, it actually occupyed a piece of road that I
didn't expect it to occupy, and hence put us in contention.

You live and learn. Now you know for next time.

Quoted message said:

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?

Yes. Always be prepared to yield. Always expect drivers to do the
expedient and easy rather than the correct.

...d

Colin McAdams said:

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?

Yes.

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

Quoted message said:

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?

Yes, you entered the roundabout fully expecting to cause a driver entering
from the right to change speed. If you were a car driver who had caused a
crash doing this you may well have ended up losing your licence.

Don't be so stupid in future.

Colin McAdams said:

There's a new mini roundabout replacing a T junction, on a cycle journey

Quoted message said:

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.

So from your description, yes, it was your fault. The lorry had right
of way and a right to expect you to give way. Of course he also has
a responsibility for driving safely (which implies more than merely
obeying the rules) when in charge of a deadly weapon, but since it
was a near miss rather than a hit, he fulfilled it.

--
Nick Kew

Nick Kew said:

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.

....is the wrong answer.

From the 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. Remember,
there is less space to manoeuvre and less time to signal. Beware of
vehicles making U-turns.

Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1), 16(1) "

R.

Simon Bennett said:

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. Remember,
there is less space to manoeuvre and less time to signal. Beware of
vehicles making U-turns.

Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1), 16(1) "

R.

Colin McAdams said:

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?

Yes and not just at roundabouts. In every situation, you should assume
every vehicle will carry on at the same speed (or even accelerate), at
least until you see that it has /started/ to slow down.

It's no good assuming everyone will be sensible or will obey the rules.

~PB

In article <[email hidden]>,
Adrian says...

Quoted message said:

Conor, dearie... I don't think bicycles usually have indicators.

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

Once upon a time, cyclists would have been taught that at primary
school.

Quoted message said:

Would undiminished speed straight over a mini r'a'b with other traffic
present be wise in an artic, anyway?

Its not uncommon.

--
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.

Conor ([email hidden]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Conor, dearie... I don't think bicycles usually have indicators.

Quoted message said:

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

Does it change the priority on the roundabout, though?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Would undiminished speed straight over a mini r'a'b with other traffic
present be wise in an artic, anyway?

Quoted message said:

Its not uncommon.

I'm sure it's not.

That's not what I asked. though. I asked if it was *wise*...?

Conor said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Adrian says...

Quoted message said:

Conor, dearie... I don't think bicycles usually have indicators.

Err yes they do - they're called ARMS.

<pedant>
I don't know what bicycles you've ridden, Conor, but my bicycle has no
arms.
</pedant>

<obpun>
Which isn't very handy.
</obpun>

R.

Nick Kew said:

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.

Mini-roundabouts seem to be misunderstood by many people here. For most
vehicles going across the middle is specifically forbidden. For large
vehicles it may be permissible depending on the relative sizes of the
vehicle and the roundabout. The HC says:

"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. Remember,
there is less space to manoeuvre and less time to signal. Beware of
vehicles making U-turns.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1), 16(1)"

Colin

Richard said:

I don't know what bicycles you've ridden, Conor, but my bicycle
has no arms.
</pedant>

<obpun>
Which isn't very handy.
</obpun>

A bit of armless fun nevertheless.

--
Dave...

Richard said:

Simon Bennett said:

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. Remember,
there is less space to manoeuvre and less time to signal. Beware of
vehicles making U-turns.

Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1), 16(1) "

I sit corrected. I thought the exemption applied to all vehicles, not just
the big ones.

Conor said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Adrian says...

Quoted message said:

Conor, dearie... I don't think bicycles usually have indicators.

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

The thing is, when you do that and get ignored. Continually. Again and
again. Pretty soon you start to not bother or at best expect people to
ignore you.

Happens all the time.

Same as drivers who seem to think their INDICATORS are actually
INSTRUCTORS.

No. Indicators indicate to others your intentions, they don't instruct
others to give way to you.

Quoted message said:

Once upon a time, cyclists would have been taught that at primary
school.

Once about a time drivers were taught how to drive properly (manners
would be too much). Now you're just taught how to pass your driving test.

Colin Blackburn said:

Nick Kew said:

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.

Mini-roundabouts seem to be misunderstood by many people here. For
most vehicles going across the middle is specifically forbidden. For
large vehicles it may be permissible depending on the relative sizes
of the vehicle and the roundabout. The HC says:

"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. Remember,
there is less space to manoeuvre and less time to signal. Beware of
vehicles making U-turns.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1), 16(1)"

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.

All comes of bodging a perfectly adequate T junction because people don't
know how to give way sensibly any more and priorities have to be enforced...

Mark Hewitt said:

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

Quoted message said:

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?

Yes, you entered the roundabout fully expecting to cause a driver entering
from the right to change speed. If you were a car driver who had caused a
crash doing this you may well have ended up losing your licence.

Don't be so stupid in future.

Yeah right. Because that car who forced me to stop this morning (on my
bike) when in a similar situation (I was coming from his right and was
indicating) will lose his licence? No, because there was no accident,
but it was still the same thought process - might is right.

chris harrison ([email hidden]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Once upon a time, cyclists would have been taught that at primary
school.

Quoted message said:

Once about a time drivers were taught how to drive properly (manners
would be too much). Now you're just taught how to pass your driving test.

Still, as long as we all obey the speed limit, we're safe. Right?

chris harrison ([email hidden]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Quoted message said:

Yeah right. Because that car who forced me to stop this morning (on my
bike) when in a similar situation (I was coming from his right and was
indicating) will lose his licence? No, because there was no accident,
but it was still the same thought process - might is right.

Umm, the OP pulled onto a roundabout into the path of another vehicle who
was approaching from HIS right.

IOW, the OP ignored the GW lines.

The relative sizes of the vehicles are unimportant.

Colin Blackburn said:

Nick Kew said:

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.

Mini-roundabouts seem to be misunderstood by many people here. For most
vehicles going across the middle is specifically forbidden.

No it isn't.

Quoted message said:

For large
vehicles it may be permissible depending on the relative sizes of the
vehicle and the roundabout. The HC says:

"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. Remember,
there is less space to manoeuvre and less time to signal. Beware of
vehicles making U-turns.

It's lying.

Quoted message said:

Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1), 16(1)"

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#16 5.