Near Miss of the Day 476: Learner driver pulls onto roundabout in front of cyclist

I think stating the car entered first is not a true judgement, however the cyclist going a slower speed, or the car not braking would have meant we wouldn't have seen it. As I have mentioned though, most Police will wash their hands of any accident on one unless there is a real egregious breach of the law. For me it was the driver not stopping after he took me out. If he had stopped and I had taken it to the Police still, I don't think they would have done anything more. (For context of mine, imagine the video above but the car pulling across me at speed at the point the cyclist stops. )

Oh no. Back around to this being a disussion of whether it is a small roundabout or a mini roundabout. (Sign v wrong street marking and island furniture.)

...and if we're going to descend into legal pedantry, the TSRGD 2002 have been revoked and replaced by the TSRGD 2016 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/19/made)

If we are indeed going to descend to that level of pedantry, then I would note that the 2016 regs make the position even clearer:

"no vehicle is to proceed past the [white circle] marking in a manner, or at a time, likely to endanger any person, or to cause the driver of another vehicle to change its speed or course in order to avoid an accident"

However, my point was that any sensible person should be able to tell that this was always the intention of the regs to start with, even when they weren't as clear as the updated ones in fact are.

I think I agree with you (I gave up reading all the other comments on this article so not entirely sure who's said what previously...) - my point was simply that if you (or anyone) is going to use legislation to win an argument, it should be done so correctly!

It's signed as a mini roundabout - and therefore should be approached and entered as such regardless of whether the council have got the street furniture "correct" or not.

Also the point was very much not to be "legally pedantic" - but to apply the clear intention in creating the rules/regulations i.e. proceed with primary regard to safety of others. 

Those who are saying "the driver was right" on the basis of some microscopic inspection of who was at which position at which time are missing the whole point of the Highway Code/Traffic Signs&Regulations - which are to promote safe use of the roads.

The general principle of "don't enter a junction if doing so will cause someone to have to brake to avoid an accident" is universally applicable to all junctions, even if happens to be misapplied/missed out in some particular instance or other.

Which brings round to the question, will all road users drive/cycle to expect the unexpected? Drive with care and attention, stop within the distance of they can see ahead?

In this instance the rider was riding without due car and attention- if he was paying attention he would seen the learner, slowed in the anticipation that they might and did do something unexpected.

Projectcyclingfitness wrote:

There's a possibility of hesitation by learner instructor and learner driver and is one root cause of RTC and incidents such as these.

How many learners are involved in collisions? Or are you making this up?

A road user not anticipating that a learner driver, with big red L-plates etc on the car, might do something 'unexpected'* is surely the height of stupidity.

* a learner stalling at a junction/RAB is not my definition of unexpected.

Once on the roundabout, the priority changes to who is there first. In this instance the rider would have (still) been at fault because he would have collided with the side of the car highlighting the fact the car was there first.

This particular roundabout layout having a greater distance to the island from the cyclist side would always favour the vehicle getting onto the roundabout first.

Common sense, you follow or wait for the vehicle in front to clear your path before proceeding.

There are endless example s where a roundabout favours priority access just by its layout. You cant complain if the other road user gets there first

Thank you for that. It would make a lot of sense. Can you tell me which rule you got that from.

Bungle_52 wrote:

Thank you for that. It would make a lot of sense. Can you tell me which rule you got that from.

The only place I found it was in a government pdf about mini roundabouts, where it said (and referenced to legislation):
"Vehicles entering the junction must give way to vehicles approaching from the right, circulating the central island." (my emphasis).
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

That makes sense on normal roundabout, where anything of interest is already circulating on the roundabout. And the Highway Code says you should treat mini roundabouts exactly the same as normal roundabouts - ignoring the fact that they are obviously not the same.

I think it is something that should be addressed in the HC review, since clearly there is confusion and a difference between custom & practice and the official rules, which is not helpful.

That would be the Pauli Exclusion Principal

So are you saying if I had entered the roundabout from the other direction and was using it to go back on myself, if the learner had pulled the same manouvre as I turned the corner near the cyclists entrance, it is fine as he was at that specific section first? 
 

Once on the roundabout you have priority over all junctions unless the other user can get on in front of you before you get to their junction. That's what roundabouts do allow for quicker access.

BUT common sense prevails and care is always at the forefront of each manoeuvre.

You can't come barreling onto a roundabout and expect a seamless exit all the time.

CXR94Di2 wrote:

BUT common sense prevails and care is always at the forefront of each manoeuvre.

You can't come barreling onto a roundabout and expect a seamless exit all the time.

This has to be the essential consideration, before any thoughts about who has legal right of way etc etc.

The video is very wideangle and distorts perspective, making the island look further away than in reality. Watching it repeatedly, both vehicles reach the give way markings at the same time. If the cyclist had been in a car I bet the learner would have chosen to give way. I'd certainly have done so, as the vehicle is approaching from my right and I have a tight turn to make at low speed (check the street view from their approach). Also, if I was turning right there I'd expect people to 'barrel through' and consider this before I join the roundabout.

As there is no collision and the cyclist apparently fell over because they couldn't unclip I'm not surprised the police weren't interested. It's a non-event and some bruised pride but hopefully a useful lesson for both parties.

Surely any traffic already on the roundabout is by definition coming from your right. Besides you failed to complete the guidance in rule 185 which goes on to say, "watch out for all other road users already on the roundabout; be aware they may not be signalling correctly or at all."

It looks confusing from what i can gather!

From the Traffic Signs Regulations 2002 Schedule 6 the long dash on the approach to the roundabout used to mean that priority should be given to traffic already circulating on the roundabout. However, this marking is not present in the Traffic Signs Regulations 2016 Schedule 9. Only the shorter stubbier markings for mini-roundabouts have priority for those already circulating.

What i can find instead (in the same schedule) is the priority to the right sign (part 2 item 6), which according to part 7 paragraph 5 means what you would expect (no mention of whether traffic approaching from the right is on or off the roundabout).

From Google Streetview, it looks like the driver passed such a sign on the approach to the roundabout.

yourealwaysbe wrote:

However, this marking is not present in the Traffic Signs Regulations 2016 Schedule 9. Only the shorter stubbier markings for mini-roundabouts have priority for those already circulating.

It's still there, but been moved to schedule 11...

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/11/part/4/made

That part 7 paragraph 5 references the markings for a mini-roundabout, which do still refer to traffic circulating. We've ascertained the road layout and signage do not conform to the regs, but whether it's the standard roundabout give way markings or the mini one, they both refer to 'traffic circulating'.

The way to think about this is a roundabout is a separate carriageway, so joining a roundabout is akin to turning into a side road from a main road. If there is traffic already in that side road (peds crossing etc.) then they have priority.

This is all very interesting, but is missing the point that regardless of who has "priority", all entry to the roundabout is subject to the over-riding principle of "no vehicle is to proceed past the [white circle] marking in a manner, or at a time, likely to endanger any person, or to cause the driver of another vehicle to change its speed or course in order to avoid an accident".

The driver clearly did not meet this bar - whether or not the cyclist was "on the roundabout", they should not be proceeding if it's going to cause someone else to have to brake/swerve to avoid an accident.  

It's quite plausible that the cyclist could be said to be not meeting this threshold also - especially as the car is a learner, they should be slowing to take into account that the driver might proceed in error.