Motorway question ?

[Linford]

Course you can.

Oh no you can't........

 

[snailracer]

This will always be a moot point, and will most likely come down to 'who dares wins'. Ultimately it is a case of first past the give way as that would class them as actually occupying that roundabout space (innit)

Not sure I agree with that, the HC says:

"Rule 185
When reaching the roundabout you should
* give priority to traffic approaching from your right
...
Mini-roundabouts. Approach these in the same way as normal roundabouts."

It says "give priority to traffic approaching from your right" - it doesn't say they actually have to be on the roundabout.

 

[Linford]

Speeds irrelevent...

If its in the outside lane its fairly safe to say its going faster than you.
If the middle lane is empty its fairly safe to say its about to consider occupying it.

Anticipation, consideration, defensiveness.... I thought you knew all this stuff?

He was driving a 4x4 - how am I supposed to anticipate what is in his head ?

Anyway, if he was behind and overtaking, he would have had much longer to study and anticipate intention as it is all in front of him. I work on the premise of mirror signal, lifsaver, and then manouver whilst glancing between that lane and what is in front (cos I'm a biker innit)

He was in the blind spot in the outside lane so wasn't visible in the mirror, but was visible in the lifesaver though.

As a comparison, I've done a bit of track riding at fairly high speeds, and the mirrors are removed, with the rider behind you ensuring they keep their distance, and only overtaking when they can see a safe place to do this. I can draw parallels with this and road driving as you should realistically be focussed on what is either directly alongside or in front. It is arule which works well and keeps the riders apart.

 

[Linford]

No thats not a comparison at all.

The presumption is that you the vehicle is approaching at speed and is in a place where mirrors or observations can't be made at a glance.

There is also a sign on a lot of lorries stating 'if you can't see my mirrors, I can't see you' - it all goes along the lines of 'duty of care' to yourself and those around you -as I see it.

 

[Linford]

Which doesnt equate to a 'right to the road' as it might on a track.

Well no, but there needs to be some rules in place to keep the vehicles apart.

I was actually looking at the reasoning behind the laws of the road as they are invariably based on common sense

Road and track seem to to share that much as I explained further up

 

[Linford]

Then youd be wrong...

1. On the track the following vehicle has all (100%) the responsibility.
2. On the road the following faster vehicle has most (say 60%) of the responsibility.

Those are two very fundamental differences in driving attitudes.

It isn't anything to do with driving attitude though, it is rules which are laid down and are adhered to.

This is why the Highway code works - everybody knows what the rules are and is trained to follow them. Even if the rules are 'wrong', they can still be right as long as it keeps the vehicles apart

 

[Archie_tect]

There's only one way to sort this...... Linford you will go in the slow lane on my first whistle. Smeg, you will go in the fast lane on my second whistle.

 

[Linford]

There's only one way to sort this...... Linford you will go in the slow lane on my first whistle. Smeg, you will go in the fast lane on my second whistle.

The only problem with that is that Smeggers would be guaranteed to end up in the wrong

 

[Linford]

I bagsie the White 4.2 tdi Audi Q7 Quattro S Line 4x4

Well in that case, I have to capitulate - we all know that you'd always be in the right driving one of these

 

[Archie_tect]

Why am I not surprised!

 

[Norm]

I bagsie the White 4.2 tdi Audi Q7 Quattro S Line 4x4

With the wheelie-bin accessory pack?

 

[Grizzly]

Indicating does not give you priority, it is only an indication of intention, the courts would be full of people arguing about who indicated first if it gave you any sort of priority. As people have said it is a 50/50 incident, before overtaking you have to ensure you will not come onto conflict with another vehicle and this is the same for the vehicle pulling in to lane 2. Before performing a maneuver you must ensure that you will not cause another vehicle to brake, swerve or change direction to avoid a collision. The Highway Code says "ensure you do not cut in on the vehicle you have overtaken", this is a different issue, this is moving back in once you have passed/overtaken a vehicle.

 

[Linford]

Indicating does not give you priority, it is only an indication of intention, the courts would be full of people arguing about who indicated first if it gave you any sort of priority. As people have said it is a 50/50 incident, before overtaking you have to ensure you will not come onto conflict with another vehicle and this is the same for the vehicle pulling in to lane 2. Before performing a maneuver you must ensure that you will not cause another vehicle to brake, swerve or change direction to avoid a collision. The Highway Code says "ensure you do not cut in on the vehicle you have overtaken", this is a different issue, this is moving back in once you have passed/overtaken a vehicle.

If in the first instance my indicator was on before he started to move into that lane, and he wasn't already in that lane, then surely I have priority to move into it, and in respect to causing another to swerve, if then he forced me to change direction as I was carrying out that maneuver then that constitutes an issue with this as well. In the third instance, there was nothing in his lane, so he had no reason to move over when overtaking vehicles which he would have seen were moving at different speeds in the same lane (if he was aware of his surroundings)

 

[Grizzly]

Firstly, what part of indicating does not give you priority do you not understand? Secondly, yes if he caused you to swerve to avoid a collision then he has made a mistake also, hence why I said it was 50/50 (but if an accident was avoided by your reactions then well done, take pride in your abilities). Thirdly, once you have completed an overtake you are supposed to return to the left, having an empty lane is irrelevant. The first rule of the road is drive on the left, even when you are on a multi-lane road. I'm sorry if my post came across as if I was saying you were at fault or if it sounded inappropriate in any way, you asked a question and I am merely responding. Try and ask one of the Police Officers who use this forum, they may have a different point of view to me, but they may agree.

 

[Archie_tect]

While we're on about driving etiquette...why don't people indicate properly anymore? Especially turning right or left at roundabouts?