Today’s near miss sees a learner driver pull onto a roundabout into a cyclist’s path. The driver failed to stop and so Ben reported it to South Wales Police. He says he was then told by an officer that he was at fault.
The incident occurred at the junction of Bridge Street and Bridge Road in Cardiff. Ben was going straight on when a motorist in a British School of Motoring (BSM) car pulled out in front of him.
Ben said he was told by an officer over the phone that, “the driver entered the roundabout first so there is nothing we can do as you are at fault.”
Ben said: “In my opinion the force failed to acknowledge dangerous driving, failing to give way to the right, failing to stop and failing to report an incident.
“Disappointed is an understatement and I think this response is very telling of the force’s attitude towards cyclists and other vulnerable users of the road.”
> Near Miss of the Day turns 100 – Why do we do the feature and what have we learnt from it?
Over the years road.cc has reported on literally hundreds of close passes and near misses involving badly driven vehicles from every corner of the country – so many, in fact, that we’ve decided to turn the phenomenon into a regular feature on the site. One day hopefully we will run out of close passes and near misses to report on, but until that happy day arrives, Near Miss of the Day will keep rolling on.
If you’ve caught on camera a close encounter of the uncomfortable kind with another road user that you’d like to share with the wider cycling community please send it to us at info@road.cc">info@road.cc or send us a message via the road.cc Facebook page.
If the video is on YouTube, please send us a link, if not we can add any footage you supply to our YouTube channel as an unlisted video (so it won’t show up on searches).
Please also let us know whether you contacted the police and if so what their reaction was, as well as the reaction of the vehicle operator if it was a bus, lorry or van with company markings etc.
> What to do if you capture a near miss or close pass (or worse) on camera while cycling
95 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 476: Learner driver pulls onto roundabout in front of cyclist”
Institutionally anti cyclist.
Institutionally anti cyclist. That is absolutely woeful from the police. Bung in an official complaint and get Cycling UK on the case, if you are a member.
The driver was on the roundabout first – by about half a second or less. But they should CLEARLY have looked to their right, and given way to their right. As per the highway code. Disgraceful
On the driver’s part, either they didn’t bother looking, or they looked and assumed that the bike was a stationary or slow moving object, so there was no need to give way to them.
the little onion wrote:
The HC does say that, but it doesn’t say vehicles entering MUST give way to vehicles approaching but not on the roundabout, so it isn’t law. I’m fairly sure the law says that you must give way to vehicles already on the roundabout, but not approaching, so technically, the police are right.
Almost incredibly, the driver then nearly takes out the second cyclist.
I presume that the
I presume that the videographer hadn’t slowed on their approach because they could see that there was nothing coming from their right?
It’s true that the cyclist wasn’t actually on the roundabout when the motorist pulled out, but I think onion has a point that
…although I’d probably correct that to just
eburtthebike wrote:
Likely shaken and not thinking straight after the first incident. The instructor should never be letting them drive away at that point – never mind the legal issue of not stopping after a collision, they should recognise that there’s a strong possibility that they won’t be in a fit state to drive.
Assuming it was a learner
Assuming it was a learner driving, and not the instructor (hard to tell, but the tentative way they came on to the roundabout would suggest it was) I would guess they misjudged their ability to clear the junction before the bike rider got there, and would be inclined not to judge them too harshly for the mistake.
However, what was the instructor doing here? Why weren’t they anticipating the potential for this and ready to stop the driver? And they certainly should know better than to let them drive away after the incident happened.
What possibilities are there for instructors to be held to account in situations like this, or can enforcement only ever be against the driver?
I’m not sure although it
I’m not sure although it would be good to know. I had a leaner driver just pull out on me on a larger busy roundabout when i was going right. I’m not even sure if the driver even looked before the manouvre but from when I tried to get eye contact as she started the manouvre she was just looking dead straight at where her exit was across the island. Realising she wasn’t looking I slowed right down to almost a dead stop. I’m always assumed the instructor just told her to go as he saw “the space” not judging my correct speed. It is always fun to almost come to a direct stop in the middle of a busy roundabout after being cut up. Get the gears right and then go and hope other cars have then seen you as they come around it.
You could submitt the footage
You could submitt the footage to BSM with a complaint, also to the driving instructors professional body. DIA and MSA are the two main ones, they probably belong to one of them. As well as the driving instructros licencing authority, DVLA I believe.
It’s the ADI registrar that
It’s the ADI registrar that one should complain to. The MSA and DIA are representative bodies. The DVSA run driving tests.
I doubt that the registrar would take action as the High Court have stated that learner drivers are responsible for their own actions, not their instructors. Instructors give advice and assistance and try to provide a safe route to practise on. They can’t see everything and have to rely, to some extent and decreasingly so as lessons progress, on the driver.
But supervisors can also gets
But supervisors can also gets points for the learner’s errors.
The website link you provide
The website link you provide deals with Lovelace v Fossum, which appears to have been in Canada in 1971 and Rubie v Falconer which appears to have been in Australia in 1940. I would suggest that their relevance to UK road traffic law is highly teneous and appear to be useful mainly for the guidance of foreign insurance company staff. Indeed the narrative for another case in Australia that referred to Rubie v Falconer contrasted that some states made supervision a vicarious liability whilst other states specifically did not.
It is currently possible in the UK to aid and abet a learner driver but that would be by means of a fairly substantial overt act. For example: Dad lets son drive dad’s car knowing that there is no insurance. The offence code for dad would have a numerical code to show that he was ‘supervising’ when the offence(s) were committed.
As an aside; ask yourself what your liability is, as a full licence holder, if you were in a car and you didn’t know that the driver hadn’t passed their test. Perhaps a taxi driver or a friend. Would you expect punishment. Just a thought, but it’s not as simple as we may think.
And lastly, were you aware that learners do not always need to have supervisors as examiners are exempted by statutory instrument.
The other sites I found all
The other sites I found all say that ‘you are deemed to be in control of the car when you are supervising a learner driver’
https://www.4youngdrivers.co.uk/information/rules-for-supervising-learner-drivers.htm
https://www.adrianflux.co.uk/learner-drivers/guides/supervising-learner-driver/
Why else there be a requirement that
Anyone you practise your driving with (without paying them) must:
be over 21
be qualified to drive the type of vehicle you want to learn in, for example they must have a manual car licence if they’re supervising you in a manual car
have had their full driving licence for 3 years
There are legal
There are legal responsibilities when supervising learners but they do not extend beyond the rules which apply to aiding, abetting, counselling, and procuring a crime or offence. What this means in the context of driver supervision is that for the supervisor to be prosecuted they have to do something or omit something on a fairly large scale. In criminal cases (theft, robbery etc) rather than statutory ones (traffic offences etc) consideration is given to the notion of ‘guilty intention’ under the Latin expression ‘mens rea’. So if the person didn’t mean to commit the crime they are unlikely to be convicted.
For the purposes of driving supervision if a learner was approaching a traffic light and the supervisor was recorded on a dash cam telling the driver to slow down on approach but the learner chose not to do so and went through as the light changed to red (assuming no dual controls) then it would be hard to prove the supervisor hadn’t fulfilled their obligations to supervise the learner and they would not be charged.
Consider the fact that it was made illegal in the 1960’s for training cars to have an accelerator and only a secondary brake and a clutch can be fitted.
In response to your query; I have no idea why various websites make the comments they do. There are 46,000 driving instructors in the UK and a large majority have websites to attract customers. Some feel it useful to copy comments they see elsewhere, perhaps to look more professional. However the most unambiguous way to quote legislation in the UK is to quote the outcome of statutes as they are written or the decisions made not by the lower courts but by the courts of appeal in England and Scotland. Hope this is of interest to you.
Thanks, so a bit more nuanced
Thanks, so a bit more nuanced than I was lead to believe.
Why should the driver make
Why should the driver make allowances for the cyclist? As an incoming piece of traffic, the cyclist must act accordingly.
What does that even mean?
What does that even mean? Both parties were ‘incoming traffic’ – that’s kind of in the nature of a junction.
The legislation and Highway Code advice may be ambiguous and confusing, but the convention (which is the only way that roundabouts of this size really work) it’s that you give way to any traffic approaching from the right, regardless of whether they have entered the roundabout. That’s why you occasionally get the ‘deadlock’ situation where you’ll get people at each of the entrances, all giving way to the one to the right, and no-one moving. That results in occasional awkwardness, but it’s clearly better than them all pushing straight in at the same time because ‘they haven’t entered the roundabout yet’.
It would have been considerate of the bike rider to moderate their speed as they approached, even if they believed that they could see that the way was clear for them, thereby allowing both parties to maintain their progress without problems. Given that they didn’t, though, the driver should have seen them coming and given way.
As I said though, I wouldn’t particularly blame what appeared to be a very tentative learner driver, who probably wasn’t yet able to judge their ability to complete their entry and begin circulating at a normal speed before the bike rider got there. However, the instructor should have been more aware that this was likely to happen and stopped them. And they certainly should have stopped them from driving on after the incident, when they were likely to still be panicked and not in full control (As seems to be evidenced by the fact that they had another near collision as they drove away).
For once, I don’t think this
For once, I don’t think this is anti cycling but just the vaguesness of who has right of way on roundabouts. if there is no giveway markings and all those single dashed lines do is demark where the road is. Look in the HC, it is all should not must for priorities and giving ways. he only times it is different is if there is a giveway or they are signal controlled. It is why most Insurances do knock for knock unless there is evidence of really dangerous things going on.
I’ll admit that until I read
I’ll admit that until I read the comments, I didn’t know that priority on a roundabout is based on presence within the rings. I was under the impression that you should not enter a roundabout if that action would cause traffic to your right to change speed or direction.
The ambiguity is the main
The ambiguity is the main problem with them and why Police will barely lift an eyebrow if you mention the accident happened on an island whatever vehicle you are driving. When i was knocked down on one, every time I started to recount of the incident to an officer, it was only when I got to the point that the driver drove off without stopping when they suddenly went “ohhhh” and then got interested. Now I was well established on the island but as it is a Should and not a Must for some totally unfathomable reason…. There is only one MUST on the whole page and that is you MUST go around and not over the painted circle on a mini roundabout unless your vehicle is too long/large to do so.
There is a ‘MUST’ in the regs
There is a ‘MUST’ in the regs, but it’s buried deep:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/16/made
I know, but that is in
I know, but that is in conjuntion with the short “chubby” dashed line. The road markings are normal roundabout long, thin dashed ones in this case. The sign alone is not enough. There is a bit about visibility but that is more on mud, rain or other vehicles currently covering it.
TBH, the HWC and the regs vaguenesses can be cleared up massively by painting proper Give Way markings on all roundabout junctions.
The MUST / SHOULD distinction
The MUST / SHOULD distinction isn’t relevant when it comes to the legislation anyway – only in the HIghway Code, where MUST indicates that it’s embedded in underlying legislation. In the legislation, the clause that “no vehicle shall proceed past the marking… at a time likely- to cause the driver of another vehicle to change its speed or course in order to avoid an accident” has just as much weight as the one that they “…must give priority…”.
mdavidford wrote:
That makes sense. So in the regs, where it says ‘should give way’, it’s the same as a ‘must’ in the HWC.
I guess the difficulty with a roundabout, is each lane onto it has a give way. So, the ‘no vehicle shall proceed past the marking’ applies as much to the vehicle approaching from the right as it does the vehicle that pulls out on the left. Much harder to prove fault than with a T-junction.
This is a non-starter! Not
This is a non-starter! Not good for the NMotD brand.
Since when did ‘give way’
Since when did ‘give way’ become a race to get your wheels over the line before the other vehicle arrives? If that were the case, every incident in which an on-coming car struck the side of a vehicle that had crossed a give-way line would be the fault of the vehicle that could not stop, not the one that pulled out.
‘Give way’ means that you should allow an approaching vehicle to pass first, not ‘get your wheels over the line before they arrive’.
Unsuprisingly, the principle of this simple rule has completely escaped the two barnacles on our hull, Dumb and even Dumber, below. Rather more suprisingly it has also escaped S Wales police, although I’d bet that if a police motorcyclist had been involved there might have been a different interpretation.
The fact that the learner stopped rather suggests that the noble instructor was perhaps less than happy with the executiion of the manoeuvre (this is called the benefit of the doubt). To clarify for Dumb and even Dumber, the doubt is about the competence of the instructor, not the driver.
Clearly there is a difference
Clearly there is a difference of opinion here, yet I fail to see how throwing insults around makes your point any the stronger.
Sriracha wrote:
Oh, that’s easy. They seem not to like it when it’s pointed it to them that if their brains were dynamite they couldn’t even blow their noses, but they are happy to type-cast all cyclists as reckless and a hazard to both themselves and others.
Mini roundabouts, and
Mini roundabouts, and flashing of headlamps, two things where what the HWC says and what actually goes on are two different things.
In my experience most motorists approaching a mini roundabout do give way to traffic approaching from the right. This extends to vehicles approaching but not yet on the mini roundabout. But there is ambiguity over exactly how far from the roundabout this courtesy extends. Certainly if a car approaching from the right is merely a second or so from entering the roundabout, it tends to be given priority, and the car to the left of it waits.
Of course the car on the right is not yet on the roundabout, so roundabout rules do not yet apply, so the car on the left is free to broach the roundabout, yet most don’t because the result is costly.
The trouble with mini roundabouts is that the priorities change abruptly depending on who crossed the line first, and only metres apart from one another.
So the only way they can work is if all parties are cautious and cooperative. Barrelling down on a car you can already see will be in your path is antagonistic, especially when it is a learner who needs to be cut some slack, and even more especially when, as the police correctly discerned, you are in the wrong.
From what we see in the video
From what we see in the video, this looks like the mini roundabout is there to allow vehicles to get out of that junction by taking the priority away from the direction that the cyclist was travelling. We have one near me that is similar and you still get drivers barely slowing down for it from one direction. The problem is that it’s difficult to see them coming until you are actually on the roundabout so they feel that you’ve pulled out on them and then the abuse starts……
The HC is absolutely clear,
The HC is absolutely clear, “Give priority to traffic approaching from your right, unless directed otherwise by signs, road markings or traffic lights”. That’s it. There is no statement that the traffic has to be on the roundabout. It warns to be mindful of traffic that is already on the roundabout that may not signal intentions correctly.
It’s really not difficult, but Dumb and even Dumber still don’t understand ‘right of way’. Mind you one of those barnacles was struggling to understand what a right was the other day, so no suprrise there.
Well, according to the
Well, according to the government publication on mini roundabouts, section 2.1, which specifically references the relevant legislation:
“Vehicles entering the junction must give way to vehicles approaching from the right, [b]circulating the central island.[/b]”
[I]https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/561491/mini-roundabouts-report.pdf[/i]
Sriracha wrote:
according to that section, this isn’t a mini roundabout, because it’s got street furniture on a kerbed island. But there’s a blue mini roundabout sign on the approach to it – which is in conflict with the regulations – so it’s all the councils fault!
edit: after reading (and re-reading) the regs, you are correct about the cyclist being at fault as they crossed the give way after the learner driver. It’s another area where the highway code is a bit vague and could do with some clearer wording:
https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/your-story/many-people-get-confused-about-the-traffic-priorities-at-mini-roundabouts
Actually if those regs are
Actually if those regs are correct it is a “Small Roundabout” and not a Mini one so it now falls under “should give way to traffic on the right unless told otherwise” and back to nniff. However as it is a should, It is not enforced by road laws so back to being a knock for knock and not a specific fault of either.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
This is where the HWC is vague. The difference between a mini and a small roundabout is the blue circulating arrow sign changes the give way line from a ‘should’ to a ‘must’.
However, in the regs, both a mini and a small roundabout talk about giving way to traffic circulating on the roundabout carriageway. So, it’s not just a case of giving way to the right:
However going back to THAT
However going back to THAT particular roundabout, it is such a legal nightmare as even the road markings you show above is the wrong type to be associated with the indicated Road Sign. It is not one or the other, it is both the sign AND the road markings.
I still back my original assessment. Rare occaison when only honour codes* were broken and nothing illegal from both parties.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Yep, road markings are all wrong, so legal loophole lawyer would have a field day. Point is, whether the roundabout is mini or normal, determining priority is not just give way to the right.
I agree with you that there’s nothing from either party that the police would be interested in.
This example has further reinforced my utter hatred of mini/small roundabouts and made me think I need to be even more careful around them.
Clearly the driver should
Clearly the driver should have given way to the cyclist on their right, but it’s such a common mistake that I usually look out for it. Also, a learner driver can often be a hazard so it’s well worth slowing down if you see them.
I don’t really get why the police don’t follow up a failure to stop, though. Isn’t it irrelevant about whose fault it is?
Does failing that unclip
Does failing that unclip constitute an accident though ?
Although I suppose that would be retrospective knowledge.
While the learner, and their
While the learner, and their instructor, maybe should have spotted the incoming cyclist at speed and maybe waited, the speed at which the cyclist crossed the give way lines into the roundabout was anything other than as indicated in the HC.
As you enter the roundabout, you cross a give way line, where you should approach at a speed that will allow you to stop if required. Specifically the HC states that on approach to a roundabout you should
adjust your speed and position to fit in with traffic conditions
be aware of the speed and position of all the road users around you
This does not say “fly through at full speed”
In this case he could see the waiting car in time to slow to allow for them pulling out legally, as they did.
The cyclist did stop and
The cyclist did stop and avoided the car (but not the road).
hirsute wrote:
Lol I thought that was funny too.
A bit of pedantry but they
A bit of pedantry but they are not give way lines when single dashed but just to mark where the road ends/ starts. On Singled dashed you are advised to give priority but you can do what you want unless it is stupidly dangerous. Double dashed is the Giveway and would have been the drivers responsibility to give way to the cyclist if they were there in the above video.
If I arrive at the roundabout
If I arrive at the roundabout a gnat’s crotchet faster than the person to my right then that’s ok.
I should advise all learners not to attempt the maneouver in the video when undertaking their test as it will lead to disappointment.
There’s a reason that learner
There’s a reason that learner driver cars carry ‘L’ plates and newly qualified drivers the voluntary ‘P’ plates. It means you give them latitude, extra space, exercise patience and expect them to make errors or be hesitant.
Pretty much the same additional consideration we would hope to see from drivers around any vulnerable road user.
I agree, in spite of what the
I agree, in spite of what the hell was the instructor allowing the learner to proceed. However in this case I agree with the cops.
My old instructor, who was an ex-copper and a regular caution, always said of r/abouts “Give way to your right, don’t trust the 8uggers on your left”. It’s one of those bits of advice that’s always stuck with me, no less when I am on 2 wheels.
See I don’t agree with the
See I don’t agree with the Police that it was the cyclist at fault. As they had both entered the island at pretty much the same time it was no ones fault. And as there was no collision, the car did not have to stay or report anything. If that had been two cars and they had collided, the insurances would have done knock for knock. (I have NCP on my insurance mainly for Roundabouts)
If the cyclist was established on there ahead of time it might have been a different story, both in health outcome and Police result.
The road traffic act requires
The road traffic act requires people to stop if an accident occurs. Section 170. It doesn’t matter if they don’t collide. Imagine you swerve to avoid danger to your life and write off your vehicle because of someone else driving dangerously, do you honestly think that it’s ok, in law, for the dangerous driver to just leave the scene.
The learner committed an offence of failing to stop and of failing to report (assuming they didn’t report to the police soon after this incident).
1988 RTA $170 requires
1988 RTA $170 requires drivers of mechanically propelled vehicles to stop if there is injury to another road user, or damage to another vehicle(of any kind, or damage to other property or animals. There is surely no evidence here that this was the case?…
Except L drivers in livery
Except L drivers in livery marked cars are accompanied by instructors. What the hell was the instructor doing?
A couple of months ago, I was on the main road and passed a learner and instructor at a side road. Since they were indicating right, I thought “this is going to be interesting”.
About 30 seconds later, the learner did a close pass on a narrow road uphill with oncoming traffic.
Result ‘course or 3 points’.
I have no idea what the hell the instructor was thinking in the previous 30 seconds he/she had to plan what to do.
hirsute wrote:
The instructor might have been scratching his man sack. He might have just been spooked by something he saw, or thought he saw. He might be distracted by something such as an attractive woman or a nearby Ferarri etc. Perhaps he was arguing. Maybe he had something in his eye or he may have been having a stroke. It’s not possible to know for sure but coz you asked, I decided to throw in these possibilities for your perusal. I believe the most likely one is he was scratching, adjusting or playing with his nads.
Cyclist was just as clueless.
Cyclist was just as clueless. If that was onboard footage from a motorbike nobody would side with him.
Expect the unexpected, don’t charge into it.
Expect the unexpected is
Expect the unexpected is utterly meaningless and usually uttered by those with little understanding of roadcraft.
“Snake on a rollerskate” was
“Snake on a rollerskate” was my instructor’s catchphrase. Meaning expect anything.
The times I have found myself in trouble are when I forgot that advice.
If you expect anything, the
If you expect anything, the only conclusion is not to use the roads. There was a video here a few months ago where a BMX rider came out/over a hedge at a roundabout. Presumably those who advocate this line of thinking would, as the driver on the roundabout, anticipated this and adjusted their speed as required.
To expect a driver to brake check you on a roundabout is not something I would consider reasonable.
I guess there is a line
I guess there is a line between anticipating what could go wrong and total paranoia that would leave you afraid to come out from under the duvet for anything other than fear of sufocation.
But an active imagination:
– What if a cat runs out from under those parked cars?
– What if that big dog on the lead held by the small child sees a squirrel?
– What if that driver who hasn’t appeared to look in my direction actually pulls out of the side road?
– What if that car in front is slowing down because the driver is planning on making an illegal left turn across the cycle lane?
– What if that bastard who just clipped my handlebars and that I’m now chasing after decides to brake check me?
Could help with switching to plan B when the unexpected is not quite so unexpected.
I agree with all those
I agree with all those examples. Dogs are always a hazard, especially with those stupid extenable leads.
I think as you gain experience you know when you are approaching a hazard (and you might not even be able to articulate why you know it is*). Scanning middle and far ahead is vital as well as some discipline – making yourself slow down a bit for that blind bend making the assumption someone is just around it.
Correct positioning within a lane, particularly on roundabouts, gives you a much better escape route for drivers who can’t be arsed to look properly.
What I can’t see you can do much about is someone deciding to hit you or behave recklessly. I can’t see how you defend against someone hellbent on a left hook (although I think Richard’s bicycle book talks of a haul turn, although it looked far too hard to pull off safely to me).
* at the lights today in a car, lane 1 left and ahead, lane 2 right. As we all pull away in L1, audi comes up fast in l2 – surely he is not going to try and squeeze in front of those going ahead in l1. Don’t think I need to give the answer.
I expect the unexpected at
I expect the unexpected at any junction, especially on my motorbike. Number of times I’ve had to jam all on is next to nothing because I expect drivers to do stupid shit. My roadcraft is fine thanks. Only ever had accidents from pushing on too fast in race mode , normal driving, never. Tbh I’m not sure how people manage to crash when not speeding.
Just because you cycling and going slower don’t think people won’t do stupid shit. Not sure what’s so wrong about that.
This is an awkward little
This is an awkward little roundabout. The cyclist and driver are both approaching it uphill. When approaching from the driver’s direction, visibility to the right is poor until you are almost on the roundabout, and there is a tendency to want to keep momentum up the hill. From the cyclist’s approach direction, again you want to keep momentum uphill, but you have good visibility to the right on the approach, so there is a tendency to carry momentum into the roundabout, perhaps forgetting that cars approaching from the left may have difficulty seeing you. I would expect the driving instructor to have advised more caution here, but I also assume it was them who ultimately saw the hazard and stopped the car with the dual controls, as the driver seemed oblivious.
Based on this screen shot I
Based on this screen shot I think that it looks as if the car crosses into the roundabout just before the bike, although the bike has a faster approach speed and is clear to the right. I think that they may have both crossed onto the roundabout at the same time. Or so close to the same time you would struggle with definitively saying one way or the other.
I would say that they were both to blame, but more on the driving instructor.
Having said that;
I think that the police made the wrong call, and word of advice should have at least been given to the instructor. If I was the rider I’d put my hands up to making a minor contribution to this, but would be making a complaint to BSM about the instructors failure, and not stopping at the scene.
Very good summary.
Very good summary.
Not a bad summary. But there
Not a bad summary. But there is no getting away from the fact the cyclist approached WAY too fast here. There are many, many incidents of poor driver judgement by drivers on roundabouts and similar junctions which are SO much worse than this.
It might have been a minor error on the driver’s (and especially instructor’s) part, but to class this as dangerous driving as the cyclist has done is pretty laughable. The instructor has more liability here than the learner driver, but even so, in my view, it hardly merits a complaint to BSM?
I suspect if the Instuctor
I suspect if the Instuctor and Learner had pulled up and had a chat with the cyclist as he thought would happen (you can can just about hear him stating lets clear the junction) then I wonder if we would even have been aware it happened.
However he wrongly thought he had the right as traffic should come from the right and wrongly thought they had left the scene of an accident without reporting it. So the next step is contacting the police to report it himself. I don’t blame the cyclist fully on those assumptions as we are currently about 120 comments in and having to go into the regs rather then the Highway Code to get full answers on it and it is still disputable.
I agree he came on slightly too fast but we also state alot on here that too fast is not being able to stop in the conditions without a collision and he managed to do that. The unclipping bit was the only thing he failed to do.
Who “entered the roundabout
Who “entered the roundabout first” is irrelevant when vehicles are arriving at it at effectively the same time. If you can’t enter the roundabout without causing traffic coming from the right to stand on their brakes – whatever kind of vehicle they are – then you have no business entering the roundabout.
Yes this situation was avoidable for the cyclist – personally I will pretty much assume that any car at entry to a roundabout is as likely as not to try to beat me onto it, and that a learner is highly likely to misjudge a cyclist’s approach speed.
But it was most certainly a driver error.
I know this roundabout well,
I know this roundabout well, you hold a lot of speed coming into it from that direction, usually about 40-45 kph if the road is clear.
The learner enters the roundabout legally and had plenty of time to safely complete their manoeuvre but for unknown reasons stopped unexpectedly.
Which, ironically, is exactly the sort of thing you’d expect a learner driver to do.
I don’t think the clipped in fall constitutes an accident personally.
The cyclist carried too much speed in to the roundabout, if the car had been driven competently it wouldn’t have been an issue but there were some fairly obvious clues that the driver wasn’t likely to be fully competent.
When approaching junctions
When approaching junctions you slow down to anticipate other vehicles to assess whether its safe to move off or continue. The cyclist didnt scrub off much or any speed. The bike and car enter the mini roundabout almost togther. The learner driver did absolutely the correct thing and stop.
In this instance the rider was in the wrong by throwing caution to the wind approaching the junction
This is part of rule 185
This is part of rule 185
“185
When reaching the roundabout you should
give priority to traffic approaching from your right, unless directed otherwise by signs, road markings or traffic lights”
I can’t find anywhere that it says give way to traffic already on the roundabout but I seem to remember this was once the case.
Having said that it’s a learner driver.
Once on the roundabout, the
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
Thank you for that. It would make a lot of sense. Can you tell me which rule you got that from.
That would be the Pauli
That would be the Pauli Exclusion Principal
Bungle_52 wrote:
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, [b]circulating the central island.”[/b] (my emphasis).
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/561491/mini-roundabouts-report.pdf
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.
So are you saying if I had
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
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:
You can’t come barreling onto a roundabout and expect a seamless exit all the time.— CXR94Di2This 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 is already
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
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:
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,
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.
Velo-drone wrote:
I’m not trying to defend the driver – it was a bad move. But as you say, the cyclist was not blameless in the eyes of the law either.
I’m a bit of a details nerd and the whole ‘can-o-worms’ around roundabout regulations is the take-away from this NMotD for me.
As we are talking about
As we are talking about Roundabouts, I just spotted this about the new Cambridge one in the ICYMI section of the Beeb.
TBH, the driver they interviewed sounds like he shouldn’t be on the roads if he gets dizzy looking left and right. And he hasn’t stated what is daughter stopped using it for. Walking, cycling, maybe driving?
This incident is clearly as a
This incident is clearly as a result of learner instructor and learner driver incompetence and negligence, carrying out a potentially risky manoeuvre that is harmful to all vulnerable 2wheeled road users.
Both having failed to give way, as required to traffic on their right before entering the roundabout.
And, not only that, having commited to enter the roundabout and, instead of continuing their manoeuvre through the roundabout, they also STALLED dead and presented themselfs a hazardous obstruction into the path of a vulnerable road user – competent motorists would avoid this.
There’s a possibility of hesitation by learner instructor and learner driver and is one root cause of RTC and incidents such as these.
Which brings round to the
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:
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.
Stopped and then laid the
Stopped and then laid the bike down. What was that, a dive? Maybe you’re not as good a rider as you think you are and should drop the clipless pedals.
Learner was on the roundabout before you. Slow down as you approach roundabouts, you clearly didn’t. be considerate to others, especially learners. Not all new drivers are perfect.
Poor cycling, blames others for his own failings.
Absolute nonsense from the
Absolute nonsense from the cyclist. It’s a give way not a stop. If you think of it as a gate, the cyclist wasn’t near the gate so the driver could proceed, the cyclist should have altered his behaviour due to traffic in the roundabout.
I’d also like to add that
I’d also like to add that like any road user, the cyclist should have altered their behaviour as it was a driver under instruction.
This is not a mini-roundabout
This is not a mini-roundabout. The signing and setup does not appear to meet the required standards for a roundabout either.
Would suggest that the Council need to ensure that the road layout is appropriate and meets the required standards. In this example though the bicycle rider should probably have slowed.
This is not a mini-roundabout
This is not a mini-roundabout. The signing and setup does not appear to meet the required standards for a roundabout either.
Would suggest that the Council need to ensure that the road layout is appropriate and meets the required standards. In this example though the bicycle rider should probably have slowed.
There’s a tiresome amount of
There’s a tiresome amount of trolling and/or unfortunately ignorant ranting going on here. Mini-roundabout rules (No.5 in the following link, referring to diagram 611.1 – the mini-roundabout sign https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/16/made):
“A vehicle entering the junction must 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”
No mention of whether they are “on the roundabout” or not “on the roundabout” – if anything is coming from the right, you must give it priority.
It’s notable that every other section of the regulations regarding junctions adds “no vehicle shall cross the transverse line … so as to be likely to endanger the driver of or any passenger in any other vehicle or to cause that driver to change the speed or course of his vehicle in order to avoid an accident.”
This is a general principle applied to all junctions. In the case of the mini-roundabout there appears to be a drafting error in which this rule is applied mistakenly to the island/arrow road markings rather than to the traverse line. (“No vehicle shall proceed past the marking shown in diagram 1003.4”). But you only need to look at all the other sections – and/or have an ounce of common sense – to realise that the clear intent is that this rule should apply at mini-roundabouts as well as at any other junction.
Oh no. Back around to this
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
…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
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
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
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.
One of the great safety
One of the great safety advances of recent years, and for me the great safety advance in urban riding, is the combination of disc brakes and hands-almost-always-on-the-lever brakes. In my case its the Sora 9 speed levers and TRP cable discs. You see the vehicle ahead a long way away, and you have ample time to not run onto it. The point about NMotD is to display the untoward effects of drivers not caring how close they come to the cyclist.
From the article : “Ben said
From the article : “Ben said he was told by an officer over the phone that, “the driver entered the roundabout first so there is nothing we can do as you are at fault.””
So, if this is what he said, is the officer wrong? Should he have said “You were approaching the roundabout too fast so you are at fault”.
I think stating the car
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. )