Earlier this month, road.cc reader Andrew sent us this two-year-old clip, predicting it may well start quite a debate about positioning. At the time South Wales Police told him they weren’t impressed with his middle of the lane position at the roundabout, and would not be taking action against the driver… and in their latest response to road.cc, the force said the response was “appropriate at that time.”
> Near Miss of the Day 713: Driver asked not to close pass… then does it again
Below is the original response that Andrew got from South Wales Police, telling him they would not be taking action against the driver, and claiming he was at fault:
Thank you for the submission. We have concerns about your positioning whilst negotiating the roundabout.
It is clear that you have entered in a nearside position but then drifted across to the offside when you are manoeuvring around the roundabout resulting in you being drawn closer to the passing vehicle.
If you had taken the same line as the cyclist behind you, who remained in a nearside position, there would have been no issues. No further action being taken.
Andrew told us he was interested to hear others’ thoughts about this, saying “I report many close passes and generally get a good response from operation SNAP in Wales.
“However, my last few have ended in comments criticising the way I ride and end up blaming me. I would be happy to amend my cycling to make it safer for myself but I struggle to see how moving to the ‘nearside’ position would have prevented this close pass or made it safer to negotiate the roundabout.”
As you’ll see below many of you did indeed comment, with a number of you suggesting that the police response was wrong because the driver overtook on a roundabout.
It seems that South Wales Police big to differ, however, as their statement to road.cc confirms they will not be commenting further, and that the response was appropriate based on the rules of the Highway Code at that time.
Here is their response to us in full:
This footage shows a time of May 1st 2020, almost two years ago. The response to the report was appropriate at that time.
The response to the complaint states that he cyclist to the rear clearly remained in a nearside position while the complainant drifted into the offside position while negotiating the roundabout.
The response was given according to the Highway Code as it stood then. It is inappropriate to comment upon an event from two years ago with regard to today’s Highway Code.
> 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 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
157 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 714 (updated): Police stand by comments questioning cyclist’s positioning despite Highway Code changes”
Cyclist position was not good
Cyclist position was not good, there are two lanes entering the roundabout, so they should have been over to the left more going around. However, that is only so that vehicles turning right can do so at the same time as a vehicle going ahead. It’s not to allow a vehicle to overtake across a junction!
Police are right to advise on road position, but wrong to not prosecute for careless/inconsiderate driving. But then, sun was in their eyes, so basically the driver could do what they like going on past experience!
“you have entered in a
“you have entered in a nearside position but then drifted across to the offside … If you had taken the same line as the cyclist behind you, who remained in a nearside position” the driver would have squeezed past you on the roundabout or in the exit.
Enter the roundabout in the offside position and stay there until you’ve exited and it’s safe to pass.
I don’t agree with the driver
I don’t agree with the driver getting away with it as they did plenty wrong. But cyclists road movement also v poor.
2 wrongs both should have received education advice along the lines of what just the cyclist got.
Fail on the coppers – cyclist wrongs do not cancel drivers.
OP also needs to take the advice onboard and not let their outrage at the coppers get in the way of the learning opportunity.
Highway code seems pretty
Highway code seems pretty clear on this:
Rule 186 :
‘You should give priority to cyclists on the roundabout. They will be travelling more slowly than motorised traffic. Give them plenty of room and do not attempt to overtake them within their lane. Allow them to move across your path as they travel around the roundabout.’
Rule 187 then goes on to take account of poor positioning:
‘In all cases watch out for and give plenty of room to traffic which may be straddling lanes or positioned incorrectly’, (Debatable)
I would argue that the cyclist is quite legitimately taking a primary position, possibly so as to prevent an impatient, unsafe overtake.
What kind of muppet overtakes two cyclists at the exit to a roundabout into a single lane?
I haven’t read through the whole HC this morning but pretty sure that nowhere does it say: ‘fuck’em, get past at any price, and feel free to enter the hatched areas if it gets in the way, (gaining seconds on a cyclist counts as a ‘necessary’ incursion into the hatched area.)’
I would agree. I’m not sure
I would agree. I’m not sure that the police understand the new Highway Code. Assuming that this is after the update, I would be interested in having a conversation about how they think how what they are watching fits with the new guidance.
I had one recently, although pre update by a couple of weeks. My wife and I were tailgated by a van on a dead straight completely empty road. When I moved ahead the van clearly punishment passes me. The policeman I spoke to pointed out that whilst he ‘understood the new Highway Code’ that when I pulled ahead I didn’t pull over, clearly suggesting that he thought I was to blame because of my road position. I was honestly a bit shocked. All I could say was that it was an empty straight road and he had whole other lane to drive in.
IanMK wrote:
On this evidence, at least one officer doesn’t understand the old one either. Use of the hatched area, incorrect lane position and close pass.
I think the suggestion that cyclists should use different lane discipline at roundabouts is insane. 99% of drivers who don’t cycle don’t know the driving bits of the HC. 99.99% don’t know the cycling sections, so it will be news to them that someone staying left might not be using the first exit.
My main method at multi lane roundabouts is to put in a huge early signal, hand going in a bloody great arc, and then take the lane I would in a car. If it’s not safe to get in the lane I want, I’ll take the exit for the lane I’m in, and sort out the navigation from there.
Personally I’d ride far more
Personally I’d ride far more to the middle/primary position and in the right lane even before the roundabout.
Roundabouts being exclusively conceived for cars you’ve got to ride like a car through them.
Otherwise the great danger is being overlooked and run over by a driver (many of whom are stressed out by these installations) focused exclusively on cars and his own direction when you cross his intended exit (in this video, if the driver had wanted to exit to the left while the cyclist wants to go straight).
As I see it, the main
As I see it, the main “mistake” was that the cyclist didn’t take primary early enough in the approaching right-hand lane. If he’d done that, then keeping a primary position through the roundabout is more predictable and makes it easier to dissuade an overtake. (The other option would be to keep more left around the outside of the roundabout, but I’m not so much a fan of that).
No matter the opinion on road positioning by the cyclist, that driver overtake was unnecessary, inconsiderate and dangerous as well as going against the HC, so I think the police aren’t doing their job well here.
Car driver straddled both
Car driver straddled both lanes entering the roundabout, and entered the hatched area on exit, in addition to completing the overtake in a stupid place. Cyclist appeared to “straight line” the roundabout – not good whatever vehicle type. To me, it’s a no score draw, careless by both road users. The following cyclist picked his lane and stayed in it, exactly as it should be done. (Follower could equally have taken up a position mid lane, but the point is, pick your position and stay there.)
Even if I agreed with your
Even if I agreed with your assessment, which I don’t because the driver has the greater responsibility under the HC, what the police then do is give the cyclist words of advice whilst refusing to do the same for the driver.
IanMK wrote:
Just because the driver has greater responsibility under the highway code, does not entitle the cyclist to drift across the road mid roundabout, which he did. Its a 2 lane roundabout, albeit without lane markings, which means its wide enough for 2 cars to round safely, but the cyclist has taken both lanes. As for the police giving the cyclist words of advice, the cyclist wrote to them asking for their judgement did he not?
We’ll have to agree to
We’ll have to agree to disagree. Even if both road users make a mistake the hierarchy says the driver has greater responsibility. I don’t see the driver taking responsibility in their actions. The cyclists submits footage and the police response is not balanced. It blames the victim. They don’t explain (or possibly understand) why rules 186 and 187 do not apply in this situation or why the driver is allowed to use their horn aggressively because a vulnerable road user may have made a mistake.
IanMK wrote:
Thing is Ian, we’ve all agreed the driver is a plonker, but that’s not what this is about. The OP seems to be asking for feedback on his own cycling: “I would be happy to amend my cycling to make it safer for myself but I struggle to see how moving to the ‘nearside’ position would have prevented this close pass or made it safer to negotiate the roundabout.
So, thoughts?”
Telling him it’s OK to wander all over the road or quoting the HC doesn’t really help him.
Griff500 wrote:
Griff most people here have agreed that the cyclists riding, specifically the drifting/straight lining of the roundabout was bad and that the cyclist should look at that point of their riding.
However, if they had ridden round the roundabout in primary position in their lane round the roundabout the driver would still have close passed as the rider would have been in broadly the same position as they exited the roundabout. But the biggest difference in the situation would have been that the driver would have been carrying more speed as they would not have had to slow down as they had to in the clip, and that speed may have added to the danger.
There is also a good chance that the driver would not have used the chevrons to pass the cyclist if they had been able to carry more speed due to the fact that they could easily assume that they would have completely cleared the cyclist before the exit, thereby making the close pass worse.
TriTaxMan wrote:
So you are saying that if the cyclist had maintained primary position, taking a longer route through the roundabout, and the driver had not had to slow, then they would have exited the roundabout in the same relative positions? Doesn’t compute! Just look at how much the gap between the two cyclists opens up due to the leading rider shortcutting the roundabout, despite the fact that the second cyclist is moving faster. I would personally have felt safer taking the route the second cyclist took, and being overtaken on the roundabout where the car was 2m to my right, rather than being squeezed on the exit.
Griff500 wrote:
No, I am saying that in all likelihood that car would have most likely been beside the rider, or possibly 3/4 of the way past the cyclist had the cyclist maintained primary position. The second rider in the clip took secondary position (or possibly gutter position), hence the reason they dropped back so much.
The lead riders position was within what would have been their lane for the vast majority of the journey round the roundabout and only veered out of that position at the very middle of the roundabout. Maintaining primary position would have added maybe 2 or 3m more to the distance travelled by the lead cyclist.
I personally would never ride in secondary position on a roundabout because it gives a minority of drivers the excuse they need to try and overtake a cyclist on a roundabout rather than waiting behind for a couple of seconds. At the 6 second mark in the clip there is more than a car’s width between the Skoda and the 2nd cyclist…. some drivers would see that as a place where they could overtake. Riding in primary takes that option away.
I think you’re both saying
I think you’re both saying largely the same thing; driver committed multiple offences, cyclist had less than perfect position in the road.
What the pass may or may not have been based on the cyclists position is not the issue here. The issue is the stance the police have taken. So, advice to the cyclist is improve your road position if you want the police to take action.
He’s had several police submissions knocked back due to errors on his part. Even if they are minor transgressions of the highway code, he needs to work on ensuring the police are given no excuse to pin any blame on him.
HoarseMann wrote:
I agree that if you are getting multiple submissions knocked back then there may be issues regarding the quality of their riding that they need to address. But the biggest issue is definitely however the fact that the police seem willing to dismiss video evidence and criticise the cyclist for anything that they do wrong whilst completely ignoring what the motorist does wrong.
The police could easily have written a warning letter to the driver based on the horn use and chevron crossing. But they chose not to, the reasons for which are yet unknown.
If I was cycnical, and to use a good old fashioned lump of hyperbole…. it would be like a motorist who records dashcam footage of a car running a red light and nearly crashing into a third party, submitting that footage to the police and the police saying “you drove through a green light at 34mph in a 30 zone, so we are not going to take any action against the red light running motorist”
The law (in other regards)
The law (in other regards) does not work the way this police force are suggesting that it does in this case. An offence by one member of the public does not permit other worse offences by another member of the public, who was momentarily inconvenianced, to be ignored. Especially when that second person has a clear duty of care to the first.
In the case I gave below, the police criticised my road positioning. I disagree with their assesment but deep down I know that my refusal to cede my right to stay in primary / strong secondary was at least in part beligerence and I didn’t ague the toss with them. However, they did agree to have a word with the van owner which was the (minimum) result that I wanted.
IanMK wrote:
Absolutely. I would only add that in fact the cyclist has not committed any offence, we can argue the toss over his road position and judgement but there’s no actual offence there, whereas the motorist has made at least four transgressions of traffic law in dangerously close following, attempting to make a pass on a cyclist on a roundabout in their lane, using the horn as an act of aggression and close passing.
Agreed. In that sentence, I
Agreed. In that sentence, I was speaking in generalities and not specifically to this case.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Top trolling there Rendel. Let’s look at these supposed “offences”:
If the cyclist rides sensibly, there would be no problem. I put it to you that either the cyclist deliberately confected this incident for YouTube hits and clickbait, or that the cyclist needs to undertake a proficiency course. Or both.
Unfortunately these Highway code changes are proving to be exactly what both myself and top road safety experts feared: a charter for irresponsible cyclists, a disaster for societal cohesion, and an affront to decent and polite society.
Garage at Large wrote:
Interesting approach there Nige…. but you are failing to grasp that the driver should have done a number of things on approach to the roundabout found in rule 184. Such as “get into the correct lane” and “adjust your speed and position to fit in with traffic conditions” and “be aware of the speed and position of all the road users around you.”
They did none of those and that was before the rider made their mistake. Would you like to provide your expert analysis on those points?
We have frequently had discussions in the past about intent….. how you say it is impossible for a cyclist to prove intent from a close pass or other video submission….. yet here you are saying that the cyclist acted “carelessly and maliciously”. So please provide your evidence of the malicious intent from the cyclist in their manoeuvre.
Unfortunately for you Nigel you don’t pay attention to the details…. this video was was taken in May 2020…. so has absolutely zero to do with the changes in the Highway Code….. but please feel free to argue on that point….. because if it was after the changes that came in on 29th January….. perhaps the police want to have another look for an offence perpetrated by the motorist.
TriTaxMan wrote:
When you have a default troll “cyclist’s fault” response ready to spaff onto any thread, why would you bother with such minor details?
IanMK wrote:
But that is not what the police are saying. There’s not been a clear breach of the law from either the cyclist or driver, just infringements of advisory rules.
To build a case of careless driving, they need to be sure the combination of those infringements, tempered by any mitigations, will convince a magistrate.
They should at least have sent out a warning letter to the driver. That does seem to be a bit anti-cycling, but there’s not a great deal you can do about that as an individual.
If the camera cyclist had
If the camera cyclist had done what the police said, and ridden to the left going round the roundabout – which is a valid line for the cyclist to consider – the driver is likely to have overtaken and may or may not have passed before the pinch point of the exit. Therefore, having anticipated that possibility, the cyclist might rightfully dismiss that option. Or the cyclist might decide to adjust his speed to accommodate the driver’s folly. Taking the outer curve line would inevitably add a natural delay to his own arrival at the onch point, allowing the driver to get past.
The cyclist did take the left lane and then straightened his route through the actual roundabout. Although the roundabout is NOT divided into two lanes, and the car driver should not be overtaking on a roundabout or other junction, it is reasonable to anticipate that the driver would do so anyway. Therefore he did not do as much as a forward-thinking cyclist might to avod the conflict. That does not make it careless, it just doesn’t display good forward planning skills.
On the approach to the roundabout, the cyclist should have taken good rear observation, twisting round to view the traffic to the rear. If he was not satisfied that it would be safe to be passed by a car in the roundabout, he could than adopt a primary position in the outer lane, giving a clear signal left as he passes the “9 o’clock” first exit. The risk with that, especially if he had been alone, is that the car might have passed him on the left, assuming him to be turning right at the “3 o’clock” (or not GAS either way).
On balance, I would probably have kept to the left, taking primary in the imaginary left lane, but asserting primary in the pinch point by continuing my obvious observations and trailing my arm in a gesture that I am intending to use the space to my right through the exit. that way, if the driver pushes through anyway, I still have space to my left to bail into.
Did the police respond well? No. They wrote to the complainant; why couldn’t they also send words of advice to the driver (it’s not the crime of the century, but it is below par and inconsiderate, exacerbated by the use of the horn). They could also have been more understanding of the cyclist’s position and given a bit more constructive advice on his options here.
Roundabouts like this are a
Roundabouts like this are a bit of a dilemma. The right hand approach lane should be exclusively for turning right but the roundabout itself is not laned.
As a cyclist, if you approach in the left lane to go straight on and “keep left”, you risk motorists squeezing past you as they enter illegally and then left hook you on the straight ahead exit. On a non-laned roundabout, they shouldn’t even be squeeezing past you to turn right.
But, if you approach too far to the right, you risk getting cars squeezing past on your left (there is a roundabout at the top of my road where this is a continual issue – the approach is not “laned” but it’s 5m wide with a straight ahead or a right turn and you’re damned if you do or damned if you don’t whatever position you take into the roundabout as a cyclist to turn right)
The positioning of the cyclist in this instance is understandable – trying to prevent a close pass on the roundabout and on the exit of the roundabout.
A good driver wouldn’t need to have the cyclist make that decision for them. In this instance they should have dropped behind both cyclists until they had crossed the roundabout – that it where I would have been if I was driving.
Clearly, the driver is then annoyed at being held up for 2 seconds and shows their anger with an unneccessary use of the horn.
Given I know from experience that the local police don’t act on things much, much worse than this – I probably wouldn’t even have reported them. I would add the reg to my database of crappy drivers and archived the video for future reference if I came aacross the driver doing something more reportable in the future.
Had the sound off so didn’t
Had the sound off so didn’t realise the horn was used. Even more need for the police to have a word…though they’ll probably interpret it as a gentle warning…as in ‘ I’m so far up your arse, and about to overtake you in a really stupid place where there’s no room, so “poop poop” just to let you know.’
As always the Simpsons
As always the Simpsons predicted it 🙂
yeah Id have to say I wouldnt
yeah Id have to say I wouldnt have submitted that one, having gained some experience of what the police tend to act on and what they dont, that at best would have been simply advice offered to the driver.
thats why I say its one of those situations where you just ride it for the least amount of aggro & stress to yourself. if its the worst you get on a ride, its probably been a good day.
HC 186:
HC 186:
You should give priority to cyclists on the roundabout. They will be travelling more slowly than motorised traffic. Give them plenty of room and do not attempt to overtake them within their lane. Allow them to move across your path as they travel around the roundabout.
Why aren’t the police as a minimum talking to the driver about their roadcraft, they’ve selected the wrong lane to enter the roundabout – when going straight across they should be in the left-hand lane – and as a result attempt to cut across the cyclist. If they had driven correctly there would have been no conflict. They then compound the error by needlessly hooting and squeezing past the cyclist on the hatchings when, in accordance with the Highway Code, they should have stayed behind and waited until they had cleared the roundabout before considering an overtake. We all know most motorists never look at the HC after they’ve passed their test; neither, it seems, do most police assessors.
P.S. Just a suggestion and the cyclist may have done this anyway, but I find it helpful in my video submissions to detail exactly which parts of the Highway Code and/or traffic law has been contravened and why, I get the impression that many assessors judge by “feel” – doesn’t look too bad to me, NFA – and are more likely to take a submission seriously if one gives them chapter and verse.
the problem there I think is
the problem there I think is whatever you do as a cyclist theres room for a driver to push for an overtake and squeeze you on the exit, both of which even the old highway code said you shouldnt do, but chance would be a fine thing if we could rely on that not happening, so we have to ride expecting some version of a pass to happen.
and theres no position you can take which stops a driver overtaking you there, you follow the 2nd cyclist line, its going to be slippy and debris strewn as no cars go out there and naturally sweep a line clear, plus you guaranteeably set yourself up to get squeezed as the driver takes the corner apex on the exit. take the 2nd lane route as the driver did, chances are theyd just swing around you on your leftside instead and maroon you on the exit as you want to cut back across the exit line to a natural road position.
all you can do I think is take a line that gives you the least aggro depending on the traffic situation at that point, and just kind of well be prepared for what happens. I dont think the police are right to criticise the positioning the cyclist took there at all, but clearly in a minority on that one.
Awavey wrote:
Nope – I agree with you. I watched the video several times before seeing what the police were on about.
my guess is the police were
my guess is the police were saying in their mind the cyclist “created” the close pass because it looks abit like they steer too much to their right to block the car, which results in the hoot.
but I think thats just a drawback of having rear angle only footage, because you dont see the line the cyclist was taking, only in effect roughly where theyve been, and the cyclist isnt looking backwards at the moment, they are focusing on their exit line.
and no-ones mentioned yet the two filled in potholes/rough road surface on the exit, though hard on the quality of the footage to see how bad they are, they arent something youd choose to ride over and it clearly disrupts both cyclists ideal line/lane position, cam cyclist is forced further right to the gap in between them,and following cyclist goes further left into a kerb position even if you took the outside lane line you wouldnt want to end up there.
Awavey wrote:
Well, the police should appreciate that close-passing isn’t an appropriate response on the road (possibly in supermarkets if there’s a gaggle of chatting people – I like to passively-aggressively squeeze through the middle of them).
After seeing a couple of
After seeing a couple of comments about which lane should be used approaching roundabouts for going straight-ahead, I’ve been reminded about some terrible road design here in Bristol.
Map Link
I often ride over this roundabout (I live in St George) and there’s two lanes on the approach, so I tend to go for the right-hand lane, but keep very close to the dividing line (i.e. not primary) for taking the second exit. Now, the problem is that the roundabout is marked with dotted lines for both lanes to be used for taking the first exit and the second straight-ahead exit (and 3rd). This means that I can expect vehicles in the left-most lane to be cutting across both lanes to go for the second exit, so I try to ensure that I start moving early and make my intention obvious to them. The other alternative would be to stay left and then aim to cut across two lanes of traffic.
I’ve had a few discussions with drivers about this.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I don’t think you’re right about that. The signage is lane 1 left and ahead, lane 2 ahead and right.
If I was going ahead onto the A420 there, I would be in primary in lane 1, but wary of drivers in lane 2 getting it wrong and wanting to turn left across me.
Road markings need repainting though!
Okay, the signage agrees with
Okay, the signage agrees with my interpretation that vehicles in the left lane approaching should only be taking the first exit, but it’s the way the lanes are laid out on the road that give drivers the wrong impression.
The problem is that the centre of the two approaching lanes is continued with the dashed line then going to the centre of the two lanes heading for A420/A4.
hawkinspeter wrote:
It doesn’t, it says the left lane can go for the 1st (A4320/M32) or the 2nd (A420) exit. The white dotted lines are in the right place, but the Audi in the second photo is in the wrong place!
All these direction signs are advisory only and on multi-lane roundabouts you’ve just got to expect anything, so it’s all a bit arbitary anyway.
HoarseMann wrote:
Okay, I must admit to rarely looking at the signs (usually checking behind me at that point) and I was misreading A420 as A4320. It appears that I’m guilty of doing a bit of lane drift (like the Audi) when I go through there. Maybe I should take primary position on the left approach lane instead, but as you say, that would leave me open to a fast overtake/hook from a vehicle in the right-hand approach lane heading towards the 1st exit.
To make matters even more confusing, I’ve had cars using the left approach lane and then end up heading for the 3rd exit.
With a very large gyratory
With a very large gyratory like that, there’s not really anything you can do to stop every misdemeanour.
If you find that cars taking the 1st exit from lane 2 is a regular problem, then I would say go ahead in lane 2, but stay in lane 2 all the way over and in primary in the lane. Motorists will not expect you to drift like the Audi, it is the wrong line to take and you will no doubt get aggro for doing so.
What’s the underpass like? If it’s not full of broken glass and undesirables then it might not take too much longer as you won’t need to wait for the traffic lights.
HoarseMann wrote:
The underpass isn’t too bad (not actually filled with broken glass), though there are occasional tent dwellers living there though at least they must be vaccinated judging by the number of needles left lying around. My main issue with using the underpass is that there’s a couple of 180° turns required, so it’s quicker and more direct to use the big roundabout instead.
Despite my complaining about it, I’ve not had any major issues using the road and have not felt the need to submit any cam footage, so I think I’ll continue using it, though I might try out some slightly different tactics on it.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Definiately need tubeless for that! Sounds like the road is the best option, often the way in Milton Keynes too.
HoarseMann wrote:
Mrs Hawkinspeter and I often walk through there when we go into town, so it’s not as dodgy as some underpasses (the St Pauls under/overpass is the worst as there’s blind corners everywhere – a muggers’ delight).
Would the driver do that to a
Would the driver do that to a car? If the answer is no, then they shouldn’t do it to a cyclist, simple as that really.
They might try. I have a
They might try. I have a sixth sense for people trying to do this, and they ARE usually in an Audi or BMW. It’s a really dangerous manouvre.
I’m not sure taking a line like this cyclist did (btw… I mean in a car) to block the stupidity is less dangerous, but I do sometimes make that decision.
Bad positioning on the
Bad positioning on the cyclists part drifting part way through. Initially the driver anticipated this and held back. Questionable on the drivers part overtaking so soon into the exit, probably thought it was safe to do so due to the hatched markings giving extra room. Would get a better feel seeing video for a bit longer and video from the front also.
I don’t think it was a drift,
I don’t think it was a drift, I think it was deliberate positioning.
If it was intentional there
If it was intentional there was a lack of situational awareness, changing lane part way through a roundabout is never a good idea, whatever vehicle you are using.
Adam Sutton wrote:
But you have to unless wandering around the outside when turning right. Including mirror – signal – manoeuvre, according to my driving instructor way back when.
Two lanes coming into the
Two lanes coming into the roundabout so you should be in the correct lane when entering not changing midway. In the left lane going straight on, should be expecting traffic on your right turning right and not move into their path. Also expecting impatient drivers to potentially do what this one did and be in the right hand lane going straight on to attempt a pass (wrongly, before I get jumped on) since there’s not two lanes on the exit. So sure, move over, but on exiting the roundabout to take the lane. Not when on the roundabout.
Adam Sutton wrote:
Finally we are getting somewhere, in you accepting that the motorist did something wrong.
Perhaps you will answer the question as to why it is acceptable for the motorist to commit multiple indiscretions of using the wrong lane on entry to the roundabout with a view to overtaking cyclists on a roundabout, aggressively using their horn to intimidate the cyclist and to enter the hatched lines when it is not necessary and for the police to do nothing about that?
I mean you were all for the police stopping red light jumping cyclists because the law is black and white…. yet the law is also black and white in relation to the indiscretions that the motorist carried out …… but you don’t carry the same righteous indignation about the motorist getting away with breaking the rules.
EDIT
You seem to have a habit of trying to shift all of the blame to the cyclist…. I mean your first comment on this particular thread included “Initially the driver anticipated this and held back.” which is almost diametrically opposed to your more recent comment accepting that the driver was in the wrong on their entry to the roundabout. Almost like you want to get a reaction from people on a cycling site
Once again we are entering
Once again we are entering the realm of straw man arguements. TBH it seems as much that members here want a reaction, hence resorting to straw men. No where have I shifted all blame to cyclists. The majority here are in agreement the cyclist position was poor, yet somehow here I am with a barrage of abuse from what seems the usual suspects. I never said the driver was in the right, and only put forward possible reasoning for their behaviour.
The drivers improper use of the roundabout is a moot point in how they reacted. Had it been a driver turning right it would have been the same situation, with the cyclist drifting into the wrong lane and the path of another vehicle. Someone actually did a pretty good overlay on roundabout negotiation and the cyclists mistake.
Adam Sutton wrote:
Again avoiding the question……
Why is it ok for the police to absolve the driver of all of their misdeeds because of one misdeed by the cyclist?
TriTaxMan wrote:
Again avoiding the question……
Why is it ok for the police to absolve the driver of all of their misdeeds because of one misdeed by the cyclist?— Adam Sutton
Tell me where I said it was OK for the police to absolve the driver?
I never said it was, and it isn’t. Stating as such is just yet another straw man.
Edit. I should add it also seems like the cyclist is being absolved of wrongdoing and responsibility in an effort to add credibility to these straw man arguements.
Adam Sutton wrote:
I’m guessing you struggle with comprehension of the English Language.
The last time I checked…. twice I asked a question as to why is it acceptable for the police to absolve the motorist of their misdeeds because of one the cyclist commited. Nowhere did I say, infer or othwerise proffer any opinion about your stance on the matter.
What was that you were saying about straw men?
Popped up, put out a point,
Popped up, put out a point, discussed it with a few people, then took some criticism and went into “I’ll take you all, hive mind! Let’s be having you!” mode.
We’ve probably all been there. “Is this your first heckle, sir?”
Adam Sutton wrote:
I have read pretty much every comment on here since your edit… Virtually every single commentator has said both motorist and cyclist are at fault, myself included.
I’ve not seen anyone try to absolve the cyclist of blame, merely question the approach taken by the police in outright rejecting the bad driving as a result of the cyclists poor road positioning.
Adam Sutton wrote:
I’m guessing we were watching a different video. Because the driver and the cyclist both have blame, and IMHO the driver more so.
Yes the cyclist drifted, but the driver did not hold back, they were planning on straight lining the roundabout at speed to overtake the cyclists while they were still on the roundabot. Only the cyclist drifting caused the driver to brake and react.
If the driver had been anticipating it, and understood what their responsibility was in the HC then they would have slowed down and waited behind both cyclists until they had cleared the roundabout.
It is quite clear “You should give priority to cyclists on the roundabout. They will be travelling more slowly than motorised traffic. Give them plenty of room and do not attempt to overtake them within their lane. Allow them to move across your path as they travel around the roundabout.”
As for the overtake on the exit…. no way that gave the cyclist the 1.5m of space they should have done. And the hatched area is a misnomer….. the rules on that are also clear….. “Areas of white diagonal stripes or chevrons painted on the road. These are to separate traffic lanes or to protect traffic turning right. If the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so.” I’d like to see your justification for it being necessary for the driver to enter the hatched area.
TriTaxMan wrote:
I haven’t tried to justify anything, just put forward an opinion on how the police reached the conlusion they did, hence stating the driver “probably thought”. Far from justifying the drivers behaviour.
Adam Sutton wrote:
And therein lies the issue. Yet another example of the police not applying the rules to a motorist despite clear video evidence of wrongdoing….. as a bare minimum the driver and cyclist should have both received advice rather than the driver’s rule breaking being admonished because a cyclist did something the police disagree with
That’s a great HC quote re
That’s a great HC quote re the advice for motorists encountering cyclists. Also, spot on re hatch markings.
Adam Sutton wrote:
Wow, you really are a good new signing for team anti-cyclist troll here, aren’t you? The driver held back? Overtaking “soon into the exit”? S/he’s pressurising the cyclist before they even enter the roundabout, tailgates them all the way round, hooting at them for legally progressing round the roundabout and even when using the hatchings passes illegally close. There’s nothing “questionable” about it, it’s breaking at least three Highway Code rules (not staying behind cyclists on a roundabout, inappropriate use of horn, close passing cyclist).
.
.
‘Hoot’.
.
Is that the same as where a driver politley warns a cylcist of their presence?
.
Flintshire Boy wrote:
A triple jab on the horn when you’re driving a metre off someone’s arse and trying to pressure them (illegally as you should not be overtaking them on a roundabout) into yielding their legal right of way in order to make a pass that you could make safely and legally literally three seconds later is not the same as that, no.
Top marks for spelling there, are you pissed?
That’s right. There’s no
That’s right. There’s no little “clique” here. Just a predictable bunch of a*holes resorting to calling someone a troll. Try harder.
Adam Sutton wrote:
You really are most amusing, you’ve been on this site what, two days, you’ve posted 33 times, and every single post has been either to denigrate cyclists in general, support anti-cycling measures, or insult specific site members, and yet you claim you’re not trolling. Try harder? You’re not worth the effort sweetie.
Rendel Harris wrote:
And in two days I am honestly past caring what you and your ilk on here think. It’s beyond pathetic. I get it if you’re not adhering solidly to the “group think” you can’t possibly be a cyclist blah blah blah. Troll troll troll.
Adam Sutton wrote:
So why are you here? There are myriad sites that suit your viewpoint rather better (may I suggest the Daily Mail, Petrolheads.com etc), why are you bothering coming on here to spaff your silly opinions about and be rude to people if you don’t care? Textbook trolling.
Rendel Harris wrote:
So why are you here? There are myriad sites that suit your viewpoint rather better (may I suggest the Daily Mail, Petrolheads.com etc), why are you bothering coming on here to spaff your silly opinions about and be rude to people if you don’t care? Textbook trolling.— Adam Sutton
I wouldn’t wipe my arse on the daily mail, but thanks for the ad hom, makes a change from straw men.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Well that’s not fair. Mostly it’s been indiscriminately insulting the site membership in general.
mdavidford wrote:
Only true if the site is made up of just the half a dozen odd sanctimonious members that resort to straw men and troll accusations.
Adam Sutton wrote:
Hmmmm
Yeah – definitely no sweeping indiscriminate dismissals of the road.cc membership there. All clearly directed against specific people…
Hmm yeah, the reference to
Hmm yeah, the reference to the clique as in the half dozen or so fans of straw men. I’m starting to see there are, as expected a good number of decent folk here though.
Adam Sutton wrote:
Don’t be fooled.
Adam Sutton wrote:
I do find it interesting that anyone who disagrees with what you say is always a straw man. I thought forums were there for debate?
Your first point on this thread came at the point when the majority of comments were agreeing that the cyclists positioning was not great but the driver also had responsibility…. and you attempted to say that the driver read the situation “Initially the driver anticipated this and held back.” when they clearly did not, they were themselves trying to straight line the roundabout.
Then you went on to offer a reason why the driver did what they did. “Questionable on the drivers part overtaking so soon into the exit, probably thought it was safe to do so due to the hatched markings giving extra room”
Your next comment was to criticise the cyclist for their lack of situational awareness….. without any hint of irony from the fact that your previous comment was pretty much giving reasons/excuses for the drivers lack of situational awareness.
Then “Also expecting impatient drivers to potentially do what this one did and be in the right hand lane going straight on to attempt a pass (wrongly, before I get jumped on)” …. reading your comments together its almost like you feel that cyclists should expect drivers to do things they are not supposed to do and just take it in their stride…… but drivers should not expect the same of cyclists.
No doubt you will say I have completely taken your comments out of context, or you never meant what you posted or that I am putting straw man arguments to you.
The cyclist did have no
The cyclist didn’t have any situational awareness. With two lanes there was a car in the right hand lane and they moved into their path, the fact the car straigtlined the roundabout is moot. If you are in the right hand lane going right, even if you are another cyclists you are not expecting someone in the left hand lane to drift into your path.
I really don’t know how to respond to the below it is so exasperatingly stupid. This ultimately doesn’t even come down to the vehicle if we are honest, I use a camera on my bike and have a dashcam in my car for the same reason. Other road users will do stupid things, what vehicle they happen to be in is incidental. What are you trying to do here, excuse the cyclists poor standards in this clip?
Adam Sutton wrote:
Where have I ever said the cyclist in the clip wasn’t partly to blame for the incident? I accepted the fact that the cyclist had limited situational awareness… but you seem to lack the will to admit the driver showed an equal lack of situational awareness.
My objection is people who are intensely critical of the cyclists actions but do not apply the same criticism to the motorists actions, but insted offer excuses/reasons/platitudes as to why the motorist did what they did. You and Garage at large are the two most notable examples.
The two (edit for clarity – the motorist and cyclist being wrong) are not mutually exclusive. I have repeatedly said that BOTH motorist and cyclist should have been spoken to by the police about the manner of their road use.
You stated;
You stated;
“…its almost like you feel that cyclists should expect drivers to do things they are not supposed to do and just take it in their stride…… but drivers should not expect the same of cyclists.”
So now you are saying motorists SHOULD expect cyclists to do stupid things?
Going past that mess, the reality as I stated is the vehicle is moot, peole will do stupid things in whatever vehcile they happen to be in. I have had an insurance claim from someone driving into the side of my car when they didn’t pay attention on a roundabout and on the flip side a few weeks back when out on my bike, was stopped grabbing food and heard a car horn and screech of tyres. A cyclist had barreled down a hill too fast, gone out of control, crossed a busy main road and crashed into the pavement opposite.
I have never said the motorist wasn’t in the wrong. All I did was try and understand why they did what they did, and somehow that created a sh*t show of accustations that I must be a troll and now lumping me in with some fella called garage at large. That isn’t being “intensely critical” of cyclists, however much you may want to spin it that way. You don’t solve an issue without trying to understand what the problem is and why people (mototists in this case) beahave a certain way in a given situation.
Adam Sutton wrote:
I am trying to fathom why you want to “try and understand why they (the motorist) did what they did” but you don’t want to extend the same courtesy to the cyclist.
And if you want to understand why they did what they did…. lets break it down how I saw the video play out
The cyclist made a singular mistake (or a bad choice) by drifting as they were going round the roundabout….. the motorist made a series of decisions and took a series of actions to get in front of the cyclist at the earliest opportunity. Here are the decisions the driver took
Perhaps you have noticed how the first series decisions made by the driver were not influenced at all by the cyclists mistake/choice. Perhaps those decisions might help you to understand why the driver did what they did, but perhaps you need it spelled out for you…
Must
Get
In
Front
As a driver on the approach to a roundabout I am always assessing what other road users will do, and on roundabouts like the one in the video if I am in the right lane turning right and there is a vehicle in the left lane….. I am expecting them to straight line it, position myself accordingly (in general let them pull away slightly ahead of me) and about 80% of the time the vehicle in the left lane will straight line it to some greater or lesser extent.
As a driver and a rider I, like most others will make an occasional mistake, but I also drive and ride on the assumption that someone else will make a mistake at some point and drive/ride accordingly which has seen me in good stead.
My main point can be summed up as the rider made a single mistake/decision…. the driver made multiple choices which limits the chances of it being an isolated mistake.
Nailed it.
Nailed it.
Adam Sutton wrote:
Driver sees “bad positioning” (aka takes primary through out the junction), and so decides to overtake on said junction, and transgress the chevrons.
You blame cyclist for driver’s error.
You are Garage,Boo, Socrappi (whatevs) and I claim my £5.
.
.
And I am Flintshire Boy, and I claim my £10 prize.
.
Captain Badger wrote:
Do you think the earth is flat and believe in chemtrails? Jesus man, you’re on here as a f***ing badger!
Given the hatched area on
Given the hatched area on exit, we can expect a motorist to think about making use of it – and personally, I do not want impatient motorists behind, so I get the feeling that the cyclist made an unwise choice to take primary when primary did not control the road. So although I don’t think the motorist was the best, I think that it was only a close pass due to the cyclist trying to take a lane that couldn’t be taken without being deliberately obstructive (as opposed to defensively obstructive in primary) – a secondary position would have worked fine, and the motorist was at least trying to stay clear – see the very wide entrance to the roundabout – which in turn encouraged the pass, because it creates 2 lanes. I wonder if the cyclist had taken the wide line whether the car would have been gone by the exit? I can think of a couple of roundabouts where they are sort of two laney (possibly thinking of HGVs?) and if you enter with another car, it is just easier and safer to keep out of the way rather than trying to own the road, but it does depend on car and bike desire lines.
So, not the best driving, but not aggressive enough to warrant sending to the police, and not the best riding because it appeared to be aggressive rather than defensive.
I agree partially with you
I agree partially with you here. Whilst there are no marked lanes, there is a path you are expected to take around the roundabout (that is not straightlining it). So I would be in primary, but in the left most ‘lane’ and be aware for bad drivers trying to pass.
There’s a limit to how wide you can make yourself on a bike and, as you say, this is an occasion where you can’t use road positioning to dissuade an overtake.
If you look at the highway code, you won’t see the red path taken by the cyclist. Unfortunately, the police seem to be far more forgiving of driver behaviour than that of cyclists. It’s a built-in bias in some forces.
I had a similar one last year
I had a similar one last year, the closest I have ever come to being hit without being knocked off. It was so bad I actually considered quitting riding on the road. I submitted the footage to Lancashire Police, showing the BMW X5 undertaking me on a roundabout when I was indicating to leave the roundabout, and turning in front of me to go around the roundabout missing my front wheel by a couple of centimetres, I was told that if I pursued this, the officer would prosecute me for dangerous cycling.
I can only conclude that the X5 driver was either a serving officer, or a relative of an officer.
This was the last straw for me with Lancs plod, absolute bunch of lazy incompetant fuckwits. But call someone gay on Twitter, and they are all over it.
.
.
Nope. Can’t see the issue.
.
Didn’t help that there are
Didn’t help that there are two lanes approaching the roundabout and only 1 lane on the roundabout itself.
Looks to be only one lane
There is a very short line that appears to be a lane marking approaching the roundabout; ridiculous, as there’s no room for two vehicles side by side through the roundabout.
Why is the clip so short ?
Why is the clip so short ? Hard to tell what happened.
the cyclist is in the correct
the cyclist is in the correct position and what’s more he has priority because he is in front at the junction. It is as simple as that. Hooting is antisocial and wrong in this instance – you can’t hoot another road user out of the way when they have priority. The driver can overtake when the road is clear and there is space to do so.
My initial thought was the
My initial thought was the riders position made this into something that was really nothing.
However then I thought it over some more and concluded;
– there was actually nothing wrong with the cyclists position, unless you were a car trying to overtake a cyclist through the roundabout that is.
– the roundabout did not present a reasonable opportunity for an overtake. Even if the cyclist had hugged the left curb, the overtake was only possible by the car cutting the roundabout (which the police have already stipulated they weren’t impressed by), and realistically, the cyclist braking before exiting the roundabout to allow the car to come back onto the correct lane – to avoid the car illegally travel across the hazards. In summary… the overtake was never on.
– the cyclist did what they have been instructed to; take primary to dissuade a potentially dangerous overtake. The fact the overtake was dissuaded shows that taking primary worked
As an aside, I am sure I was never taught to overtake through a single lane roundabout.
I was a little annoyed at the
I was a little annoyed at the response from South Wales Police to my last submission to OpSnap (also involving a roundabout), but after some healthy debate on here over the video that I submitted, I learnt a valuable lesson from my fellow riders. Now watching this I am annoyed again! The language of this response was very similar to mine, and very dismissive of the cyclist whilst suggesting the driver did nothing wrong and had this situation forced upon them by the cyclist. I would put money on that whoever reviewed this for SWP has never cycled on the road.
These roundabouts with poorly defined lanes are always very difficult for the cyclist to judge the safest approach. The road markings imply two lanes on entry, and then vanish on the roundabout leaving it wide open to abuse/confusion. You could certainly argue that the cyclist ‘changed lanes’ on the roundabout, but then so did the driver! They were in the right hand lane on entry, then moved left, beeped and close passed on the exit. Which road user is the more dangerous one? The driver was behind the cyclist prior to the roundabout and their correct choice should’ve been to hang back and wait until after the roundabout to overtake safely, that is their responsibility as the road user with the greater potential to do harm. Poor behaviour from the driver, and a very poor response from SWP.
It’s worth noting that the
It’s worth noting that the footage is from last year, but is a good example of one of the situations that has been clarified in the Highway Code changes that took effect a couple of weeks ago.
Here’s what the Highway Code now says about using roundabouts:
Add that to the hierarchy of road users and, under the new rules, it’s clear that it is the motorist who didn’t follow the rules here.
I wonder if the design of a
I wonder if the design of a typical British roundabout doesn’t help. I was recently in France and the roundabouts there had what seems to be a safer design:
The French roundabouts don’t widen significantly at the entrance the way that a British one does, there’s no question of getting 2 cars side by side. Similarly the exits aren’t two lanes that immediately narrow to one which is typical of a British roundabout. The roundabout itself is only slightly narrower than a British roundabout, but everyone treats it as a single lane rather than the “sort of not quite two lanes” you get on a British roundabout. There’s no dilema about positioning on the approach or as you go round the roundabout, there’s one lane and you drive in the middle of it.
I think the French design has less capacity. The 2 lanes at the entrance on a British roundabout allows more vehicles to join when there is a break in the traffic.
Even better is the turbo
Even better is the turbo roundabout. There’s one in Bedford. You wouldn’t be able to pull that manoeuvre there, unless you wanted to collect some bollards…
https://goo.gl/maps/VfAL7qY84kEyzkVe6
Turbo roundabouts are – of
Turbo roundabouts are – of course – properly not the domain of bicycles [1] [2] (they blagged cycling money for the Bedford one though accounts of how this happened are contested). Turbo roundabouts are to maximise the flow of cars but more safely than a normal roundabout. They’re apparently not good for motorbikes either.
Unless that is you’re a keen UK designer that is. It’s just so hard to think beyond the car and probably you’d be sacked if you started from any other point.
Other than that you want one of these in urban areas and possibly one of these outside them (disputed here and the view for here), and if there are too many cars you don’t want bikes or pedestrians on the roundabout at all – they should have their own bypass!
Absolutely, Fendon Rd. is
Absolutely, Fendon Rd. is what you really want in an urban environment, but you also need the segregated cycle paths to link up to it.
I don’t find the Bedford turbo bad on a bike at all, unless using the cycle path! I mean, who could have designed this sign and thought it was a good job done?…
That’s definitely in the
That’s definitely in the category of “if you have to issue a leaflet on how to use the crossing, you’ve designed a shit crossing”.
who could have designed this
who could have designed this sign and thought it was a good job done?..
Oddly, I would have been quite happy with that sign!
wtjs wrote:
Why would that be? (Looks a nicely made sign to be fair)
If I saw that kind of sign, I’d be looking to join the road and skip the twiddly bits entirely – might as well have priority over the side road. Also, it dumps you back on the road.
hawkinspeter wrote:
No such luck of having a cycle lane to leave, you just stay on the road that you’re already on…
Wouldn’t you be worrying that
Wouldn’t you be worrying that, unless that’s a one way side entry, the junction markings are wrong?
No, the sign does not purport
No, the sign does not purport to be an aerial photo of the junction which you study at length. You flash past and only have a couple of seconds- if I was on the cycle path, I would quickly work out that I had to cross the side road then re-join the main road; if I was on the main road I would quickly see it didn’t apply to me. Complaint rejected.
That didn’t purport to be a
That didn’t purport to be a serious complaint…
185
185
When reaching the roundabout you should
watch out for all other road users already on the roundabout; be aware they may not be signalling correctly or at all
186
You should give priority to cyclists on the roundabout. They will be travelling more slowly than motorised traffic. Give them plenty of room and do not attempt to overtake them within their lane. Allow them to move across your path as they travel around the roundabout.
187
In all cases watch out for and give plenty of room to
traffic crossing in front of you on the roundabout, especially vehicles intending to leave by the next exit
traffic which may be straddling lanes or positioned incorrectly
For what it’s worth plod is
For what it’s worth plod is wrong. You don’t overtake on roundabouts. Not to mention the rule changes.
However, and this may be the wide angle lens, it doesn’t look like a near miss. The beep is unnecessary, but none of it looked dangerous.
For what it’s worth plod is
For what it’s worth plod is wrong
They’re wrong about lots of things, but I am accumulating evidence of the offences Lancashire Constabulary officers are determined to ignore. So far it’s number plate illegalities, no VED when proven to be on the public road and no MOT when proven to be on a public road. It’s eventually going to come back to haunt them, just like failures came back to afflict the Met
Colin Peyresourde wrote:
This is key. I’m not sure about the South Wales police, but Thames Valley will not investigate any driving infringement unless it is dangerous or they’re a frequent offender.
It’s been posted before, but this is the criteria TVP use when triaging allegations. It’s well worth a read. I would think carefully before submitting anything that would fail this test.
I include in my submission form the exact wording from the list of examples on page 2 that I think would apply. I also explain my positioning in the road, especially if in primary, to try and pre-empt any misconceptions about that.
this is the criteria TVP use
this is the criteria TVP use when triaging allegations. It’s well worth a read. I would think carefully before submitting anything that would fail this test
Well, I wouldn’t think anything at all about the TVP criteria because they’re a load of tripe, and not worth any time at all. Follow their ideas, and you’ll be dead before they’ll consider any incident or issue the standard ‘our thoughts are with the family of the deceased’ insincere-o-gram. They’re from the Stone Age (2017), don’t include the words ‘cycle’, ‘cyclist’, ‘bike’, ‘vulnerable’ etc. and the intent runs counter to the much touted ‘new HC rules’. Only consider these rules if you are determined to be a dead or seriously injured Uncle Tom type of cyclist
It looked closer than 1.5m.
It looked closer than 1.5m.
Definitely a close pass, with
Definitely a close pass, with the horn toot telling the cyclist to move over, I’m coming past; the cyclist held position, possibly poor road condition but the driver appeared to have expected the front cyclist to hug the left like the other cyclist.
Thanks road.cc for obtaining
Thanks road.cc for obtaining a comment from the police.
I’m not surprised at their response. It would have been nice if they could have just added a reminder that motorists should not attempt to overtake across a junction. That guidance has not changed in the updated highway code.
I think they were wrong to state the driver’s manoeuvre would have created ‘no issues’ if the cyclist had been further to the left.
You must have a paint
You must have a paint shortage in the UK, we’d never do a roundabout without proper markings. The way that one is, with two lanes on entry and a single lane on exit 2 going by the markings, tells me the right lane must turn right while the left lane can turn left or go straight ahead. We would paint direction arrows on the approach to show this, and lane markings on the roundabout to reinforce the message.
so by my reckoning the driver was in the wrong lane to go straight ahead, and should have waited behind both cyclists until past the roundabout.
You’re not wrong. Roundabout
You’re not wrong. Roundabout markings are a bit randomly applied in the UK. Here’s a couple of examples from the unofficial home of the roundabout, Milton Keynes…
its quite a common way UK
its quite a common way UK road planners use to increase queuing capacity of roundabouts,without redesigning the whole thing, also at traffic light junctions too, the idea being 2 lanes “double” the input and “shorten” the queues and everyone merges in turn on the exit nicely.
now theres some merit in the idea as Brits will often join a queue single file and leave a perfectly usable lane completely empty, which just increases tailbacks, but the merge part is always where it goes a bit wrong because Brits also passionately dislike queue jumpers and wont let people merge in turn because MGIF.
in fact Im sure theres a whole genre of videos on youtube devoted to dash cam mergings of lanes and when it goes wrong.
so the car is probably perfectly ok to use the right lane there, but we come back to the point the police seem unable to acknowledge, you dont overtake on the roundabout and you merge in turn on the exit.
a decent driver wouldnt have caused that issue to develop regardless of the cyclists position.
The response was given
The response was given according to the Highway Code as it stood then. It is inappropriate to comment upon an event from two years ago with regard to today’s Highway Code
So The Filth say. However, a glance at No. 718 shows that don’t really accept that a cyclist already on a roundabout has any priority over someone entering the roundabout, and that priority is not exactly a revolutionary new rule. Lancashire Constabulary has made it clear they’re not interested in any new-fangled rules, which is no surprise as they’re not interested in most of the old rules and traffic laws either.
The Uncle Toms on here may say ‘but the police in 718 sent a warning letter’. Warning letters are worthless- to a BMW driver that just means ‘Carry On! Do what you like to the Rats of the Road- we don’t care!’ If a driver commits the same offence again, the police are just going to make sure they accidentally don’t notice the previous warning letter.
The HC at the time of the
The HC at the time of the incident promotes Primary Position. I refer to Annex 1 that recommends cyclsts undertake training, Bikeabilty. Primary Position is part of that training. Ergo the police are wrong and have not fully read or understand the HC.
cbrndc wrote:
Say it ain’t so….
Is this police force having a
Is this police force having a frickin’ laugh?!
The driver straddles both lanes (one of which a cyclist was in, parallel) going into the roundabout, overtakes one cyclist on the roundabout, tailgates the other cyclist and then beeps their horn at them and overtakes before the traffic island is even finished… and they have the audacity to criticise the cyclist’s positioning when it’s only the cyclist’s positioning that has dissuaded the driver from ramming through into the exit where the cyclist would be had they taken the more circular route?!
OK I have read the 122
OK I have read the 122 comments and it seems pretty divided along the usual lines. That is pushy motorist banging his horn or idiot cyclist asserting his right and blocking the road.
I think that this video has some great learning points that we could be missing.
We only have 12 seconds of video. So the police would have had 10 minutes, five minutes before and after. That might have also affected their decision, but that is only guessing so lets look at the 12 seconds.
First lets consider the road layout. It has two lanes on the entry to the RAB with no lane markings. there is an exit before the one taken we don’t know if there is another exit on the right. There is a single lane on the exit.
So what was the traffic planner thinking? That the left entry lane was for turning left and the second lane for straight on and right?
The problem is that cyclists don’t fit into RAB design, they are meant to reduce impact speeds of cars and are very unfriendly to all other traffic. That is cyclists, pedestrians horses etc.
That is why the Highway Code for many years suggested that you cycle around the edge (if you really must cycle) or get off and walk around.
Lets consider the motorist.
Before the clip starts the motorist had 3 hazards ahead. 2 cyclists and a roundabout. One cyclist had over taken the other approaching the RAB and had pulled in to the left. If you were driving that car what would be your plan at that point? Any normal person would think that with the two cyclists over to the left that you could get through the RAB passing them both so as to make progress. This is what the motorist does and clearly shows his planned intention by going to the right hand lane approaching the RAB. Except that the leading cyclist changes his line halfway through the hazard. The driver checks his speed, expresses his frustration with a wave of the hand, then continues his overtake and, in accordance with the HC rule 112, uses his horn to alert the cyclist to his presence. He saves the situation by using the hatched area which you could argue that the cyclist forced him into.
Note that there is no offence there because there is a broken white line.
Lets look at the other cyclist.
The video shows him paying attention to the camera bike and staying in the left lane and following the wider line of the RAB. Did he do this because he was aware of the car coming up behind or was it the action of the camera bike cutting in front of him? Either way he followed the lane and had no issue.
Then we come to the camera bike.
We start the clip with him having just over taken the slower rider. Did he give adequate clearence? We expect motorists to give us at least 1.5meters when passing in case we have to avoid a hazard that the following and faster vehicle cannot see. Should we be doing the same when overtaking on a cycle especially if doing so at speed?
Next the camera bike pulls over in front of the other cyclist. If a car did this to you, would you be concerned?
Was the camera bike aware of the following vehicle? Before the overtake? before entering the RAB, as he exited the RAB?
Then there is road posiitioning. We start with the overtake and the rider is in primary, then goes to secondary position, then changes his mind to go back to primary before going even further to the right.
What is this telling the other road users about your intention?
It seems to me that the camera bike had not planned ahead. Our camera rider had plenty of time to plan his move. He had a slower rider ahead and a car behind. He had three options as far as I can see.
1. adjust the speed down to let the car pass and then follow it through the roundabout and passing the slower rider. (you can use the slipstream)
2. overtake the slower rider and remain in the righthand lane thus maintaining primary position and indicating clearly to the following driver that he is going straight ahead.
3. Slow down, follow the rider in front taking the same wide line and keeping to the lane (I know that there is no white paint, but it is implied) and then after the hazard and when it is safe overtake.
Some people have commented that the driver would not overtake like that if the camera bike was a car. I’ll turn that question around, what if the camera bike was a car would that driving be acceptable?
Andy – ready to be shot down.
If you were driving that car
Slow down and wait behind until the roundabout had been negotiated.
As an aside – not sure where you got that the police would have had five minutes of footage either side of the incident – there doesn’t appear to be anything in the article to suggest that was the case.
When I have submitted video
When I have submitted video to the dear old boys in blue they have required that amount of time before and after the reported incident.
I also said that we only have the 12 seconds. I would like to see what happened before he overtook the other cyclist and what happened after the car had passed. Why was the camera bike going wide? Was he avoiding a hazard in the road?
Hmmm. You and I may have held back because of our experience as cyclists and especially if the cyclist is not holding a steady line.
But as the driver entered the roundabout he had the two cyclists in the left hand lane, a clear lane ahead and a good 1.5meters clearance and time (just) and speed to pass. That is until the camera bike closes the gap.
Or have I read that wrong?
Brightspark wrote:
That’s not a universal rule – either your local force has particularly excessive requirements, or whoever was dealing with your submission was just trying to make it more trouble than it was worth (cue wjts).
No – I would have done that because I was taught not to attempt an overtake while negotiating a junction, and it just seems like basic common sense to me.
Except there was only one lane on the roundabout, where the overtake was actually going to happen.
Spectacular number of things
Spectacular number of things wrong here, way too many to address at this time in the morning with work looming. I’ll just pick my favourite:
The driver is breaking HC 186 by attempting to overtake the cyclist on a roundabout.
HC 112 says the horn may only be used to alert other road users to your presence. The timing of the horn use and its nature clearly indicates that the driver is using it to express his annoyance and frustration (as you note he is making gestures indicating that he is not driving in a calm and rational manner) and to tell the cyclist to get out of his way, not to “alert the cyclist to his presence.”
The driver is not “forced” into any situation by the cyclist. He creates the situation himself. Throughout the interaction he could have stayed behind the cyclist as HC 186 mandates, it would have cost him three seconds and there would have been no conflict at all. Even as he reaches the hatched area he could have hung back by half a second and avoided making an illegally close pass. He does not “save the situation”, he makes the situation he created worse and more dangerous through his impatience.
A couple of good points there
A couple of good points there.
But rule 186 doesn’t say you can’t over take a cyclist on a roundabout.
It does say “Give them plenty of room and do not overtake them within their lane.” So a DO NOT there.
But when the driver committed to the overtake the rider was not in the same lane.
It does say “You should give priority to cyclists on the roundabout.”
This is a SHOULD so not mandatory.
It also says “allow them to move across your path as they travel around the roundabout”. But I am not sure that the intention of that statement fits what we see here as he is not going around the roundabout. ie not turning right.
Rule 112. The horn was three short beeps, not the long angry beep. So I disagree with you there, if you don’t mind. The handflick is sense of frustration. I had this today, a large lorry approached me very rapidly from behind flashing his lights and continued to flash his lights while 2′ from the rear of my car. He then waved his hand in the same gesture before flashing his lights and giving a long angry blast on his horn. All because I wouldn’t go faster that the 40mph speed limit. But still that wave of the hand and long blast of the horn.
I also said that you could argue that… I didn’t say that he was forced.
Have you considered that the motorist was following the cyclist at the begining of the clip where he had overtaken the slower rider, I think that the driver had waited and had planned his overtake. But then he had to take avoiding action when the cyclist pulled across.
So, I will give you frustrated because he had been held up again.
I will revise that part my comment then. The driver was now fixated solely on passing the cyclist and instead of holding back again continued to commit to the overtake using the hatched area.
Good call.
Brightspark wrote:
Yes they were, when the driver went for the pass they were both heading into the exit with the driver almost directly behind the cyclist.
So it’s OK to ignore the Highway Code except for the mandatory sections?
It doesn’t say “as they travel round X% of the roundabout,” the cyclist begins travelling round the roundabout when they enter it.
If all the driver wanted to do was alert the cyclist to their presence (something that would not be in the least necessary anyway if the driver had courteously hung back) a single short beep would have been sufficient. A triple jab on the horn like that is quite clearly aggressive and intended to tell the cyclist to move aside.
By saying “you could argue that” you clearly feel it is a tenable argument that the driver was forced onto the hatchings. He wasn’t, he put himself in that position when he could have hung back for two seconds before overtaking safely and legally. There’s nothing equivocal or arguable about that; even if you want to argue that the cyclist was totally in the wrong, the motorist had multiple opportunities not to engage at all at no cost to themselves but chose to act aggressively instead.
Brightspark wrote:
You’re only going to get shot down if you talk 5hite
The driver was not “forced” to over take at that point – just see HWC rules 162-169 to find good examples of reasons why not.
Also in addition to Rendell’s points:
Rule 147
Be considerate. Be careful of and considerate towards all types of road users, especially those requiring extra care (see Rule 204).
I shall take your opening
I shall take your opening statement in jest.
I think that we have an oppourtunity for some learning points here. This is a near miss and we can use this to see what went wrong and try to avoid making the same mistakes either as a cyclist or motorist.
I made the above comments for the purpose of that and to create a sensible debate not as taking sides or to encourage name calling.
I think that I have answered and corrected the overtake rules in the above post.
Rule 147, agree totally taking your highlighted points in turn. Yes he was agitated. Do you think that he was that wound up that he had to stop? I don’t think that he was driving that close. He pulled back at the apex of the roundabout and went for a second overtake on the exit when the rider moved across again.
As I said above you or I would hold back, but I would hold back until I work out when the looney on the bike is going to ride a straight line.
Going back to the overtaking rules 162 t0 169. Do these appply to the cyclist?
I do not believe that the rider was aware of the car until the horn was sounded. Which was right next to him so no wonder he had a fright.
Debate away.
Brightspark wrote:
Also Brightspark:
Way to avoid the old name calling there and to show your lack of bias.
If this was the case (for which you have no evidence except what you want to believe in order to excuse the car driver) there was no need to make the cyclist aware of his presence, the proper thing to do would be to hang back until clear of the roundabout and make the pass on the road ahead. Getting a metre off the backside of a vulnerable road user then sounding your horn three times is not good practice and is reflective of an aggressive driver who ought to think about the fact that he can’t wait two seconds to make a pass but has to harrass and bully other road users instead, break several traffic regulations, and put people in danger for an “advantage” that he could make up in literally a second once off the roundabout.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Well said.
You don’t have to alert people of your presence if you aren’t in a position to endanger them.
Brightspark wrote:
Please do.
Although, have you heard the saying “many a true word…”, …well, y’know.
Learning points for the rider would be of the form “how to avoid someone else intimidating you, or risking your life, through their aggressive, incompetent driving”. It’s so open-ended as to be meaningless, and taken to its logical conclusion ends in “don’t ride a bike”
Learning points for the driver (who surprise surprise isn’t here to “learn”) would be to refer to the highway code when considering making a manoeuvre. Of course, this is not desirable when actually behind the wheel, so requires a good grasp before getting in thecar, but it can be summed up as;
“Don’t bully, harras, intimidate scare injure or kill other people. This can easily be achieved by not driving like a preck”
I’m sorry, but on the evidence of the video your comments were not sensible, and merely seemed to be an attempt to absolve the driver of their responsibilities, whilst mining and speculating for infractions of the rider to justify his appalling driving. Driving of this kind can never be justified.
Yes – his agitation caused him to risk another person’s life, whilst deliberately harassing and intimidating them.
Do you think he was in a fit state to drive?
I refer you not only to HWC 163, but in addition to 213 and 214.
Loony on a bike? You’ve let your bias slip. The guy was riding in an utterly predictable manner – as you have stated any sensible driver would have waited until it was clear so they could obey rules 162-169
In this context no – the rider wasn’t overtaking, and was compliant with 168
Which is why you should comply with HWC112, to state the fecking obvious. The only possible reason for the driver to “make the rider aware of his presence” was cos he deliberately put himself in such a fecking stupid position that he was risking someone else’s life.
Except “warning of presence” wasn’t it, was it? as we have already mentioned the driver was agitated and incapable of making rational decisions on matters of other’s safety – the horn use was aggressive and intended to scare and intimidate.
There’s no debate – the rider was moving across a junction, and causing no risk to anyone – least of all the driver.
The driver was agitated, out of control, and aggressive – as evinced by the shocking list of transgrssions and bullying behaviour – a point that you have already stated you agree with.
Speculating about what happened before, appealing to authority, or slurring the victim, makes absolutely no difference to the fact that the driver was a tool, and no competent driver would have behaved this way.
Brightspark wrote:
When you go through frame by frame, the last two frames indicate some kerbing and infrastructure that suggest a 3 o’clock exit.
You might well ask! A two-lane approach and no apparent guidance on which lanes to use. The norm is that the left lane is for left, the right for right, and either for straight on. The car driver should have been prepared for this. The lack of formal lanes on the roundabout should give cause for a road user to anticipate movement of road users in front within the [whole] lane – which is one very good reason why overtaking on a roundabout is contraindicated in the Highway Code.
But it doesn’t now (nor pre-Feb). It offered those as possible approaches, and advised you about some of the risks.
Now, this isn’t your fault: the process of teaching risk awareness to drivers is faulty in many ways, including: it conflates risks and hazards; and it associates other road users as “hazards”. Cyclists are not hazards, they are other road users. Now, clinically, you could understand why a cyclist presents a risk or becomes a hazard. But drivers do not assess the road ahead clinically. And labelling something as a “hazard” equates them as a hindrance and inconvenience to be got past. It negates their legitimacy. And that is where this driver goes wrong.
Well, you’re answering your own question posed to others. But my plan would be to assess the safe route through and ask myself at all points, “is it safe to proceed?”.
I don’t know about a “normal” person; but a careful and safe driver would anticipate the possibility of a cyclist changing his position on the roundabout, because that is what all road users do, and it’s what the Highway Code advises you to consider. Along with not overtaking cyclists on a roundabout.
Right, lots to unpack there.
The lack of a line is not evidence of a lack of an offence
You can do, but he is riding a separate vehicle, and the encounter with the car driver is at a different stage of the roundabout at a different speed. The fact that the driver does not endanger one cyclist does not indicate that he did not cause the conflict with the camera cyclist. So we do not bneed to consider him further. He chose one route through the roundabout; the camera cyclist chose another and stayed within his lane throughout, with a reasonable expectation of care from other road users.
We start the clip with the camera cyclist in front. That is all we can say, so the subsequent speculation need trouble us no more.
I’ll refer to comments I made previously. I’m not impressed with the cyclist’s position: he could have done better to protect himself. But that is a matter of deterring bad drivers. It’s not that he committed specific errors.
“We start with the overtake”, well, no you started with the overtake; but we’ve established that that thought is a frolic of your own. You break down his line through the roundabout as “changing his mind”; we could equally suggest that he simply took a relatively straight line through the roundabout. It’s not ideal. But since the driver had no reasonable expectation of overtaking (since the Highway Code tells him not to), he should not have been in a position where that was a problem.
If you choose to line up the options that a road user had, then start with the one who had the greater duty of care.
The driver had plenty of time to plan his move. Without even having to look behind, he could clearly see he had two slower moving vehicles ahead and nothing immediately behind that posed a danger if he slowed down. He had one careful option:
This involves the driver accepting that this would have delayed him less than 12 seconds on his journey – the length of the clip (less than that, because they were all still moving, so it is not ‘down’ time, just time at which they’re moving more slowly)
No! Either there is paint or there isn’t. If there isn’t, there is no separate lane. You might infer one, but is not implied. There is informal dualling where traffic forms two lines, but it does not confer any entitlement to pass. The cyclists, therefore, did as you suggest and kept to his lane.
Yes. If it is necessary to use the lane you are in, then do so.
I really hate this use of “committed”. It suggests that the driver has some sort of entitlement by being in a state beyond his ability to fix. It seems to come from stages of flight, like “V1” at take-off, where an aircraft is at a speed where an aborted take-off is not viable. If a pilot finds himself in that position and continuing with take-off is also non-viable, something has already gone wrong. The pilot has checklists and “sterile cockpit” to ensure that he is in control of that situation in most circumstances (and maintenance is subject to several checks and measures, always monitored and improving) to prevent circumstances arising beyond the pilot’s control. When it does go wrong, it is usually because somebody has not acted early enough on information available to them.
Being “committed” to a bad act should never happen, and when it does, it is almost always – as in this case – because the driver failed to anticipate the risk early enough. And it was the driver’s duty in this case, because he was overtaking other road users.
Or have I read that wrong?— Brightspark
Yes, you have. As the driver entered the roundabout, he was straddling both approach lanes, alongside the rear cyclist in the left lane – those two enter the roundabout just about simultaneously, and the passing distance appears to be OK. That cyclist was in the left lane, and the pass is not an issue, since it is effected before the cyclist was established on the roundabout. The camera cyclist was ahead of the car and on the roundabout before the driver had any chance of passing. As the driver proceeds into the roundabout, he closes his distance on the front cyclist and clearly presumes to pass him.
Having ‘speed to pass’ him… what even is that?! That’s not a good quality. If you have the speed but not the space, nor the foresight to anticipate the cyclist moving within the lane of the roundabout, what you have there is driving too fast for the circumstances and failure to anticipate.
This is a SHOULD so not mandatory.
It also says “allow them to move across your path as they travel around the roundabout”. But I am not sure that the intention of that statement fits what we see here as he is not going around the roundabout. ie not turning right.— Brightspark
“should” does not mean it isn’t mandatory. It means it is not a specific offence. Driving carefully IS mandatory, so if an action is less than required by the duty of care, it is indirectly mandated against. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that advice will not count against you.
Yes. The driver was in breach of his duty of care.
The cyclist might have done more to deter bad driving: taken a more dominant position early on, but that deals with people who do not take a careful approach. His line through the roundabout is slightly late in positioning against a close pass (which the driver forces through anyway). But these are things he could have done to fix other people’s mess. The onus is on the driver.
Yes. He was very close – if the cyclist had slid on an oil patch, for example, could he have avoided him? The fact that he went for an overtake for a second time when it was not safe says all we need to know about the self-control this driver has.
I will revise that part my comment then. The driver was now fixated solely on passing the cyclist and instead of holding back again continued to commit to the overtake using the hatched area.
Good call.— Brightspark
No, he was frustrated because he lacked control of his emotions.
Being ‘held up’ is a routine consequence of using the roads that other people use, and we should not allow ourselves to get worked up. It’s also a passive statement that makes it appear that a delay is the other person’s fault. The driver needs to get over himself and allow other people the time they need to negotiate roads safely.
He was fixated. Not sure if you’re saying the “good call” was Rendel’s or the driver’s. It wasn’t the driver’s.
Yes they do; but that is not relevant here, since there is no evidence of any cyclist overtaking anybody else.
That is a matter of belief, not fact. To be honest, I might know a car is in close proximity but be confident in my ability to hold my line. But if the driver then honks, it tells me their attitude is not focussed on my safety, so I might be alarmed by it.
If the driver felt he needed to make the cyclist aware of his presence (and he didn’t, since any resulting conflict was purely of the driver’s making), he should have done it from a safe distance, not chewing the cyclist’s rear mudguard, or passing carelessly in the process.
As others have said, nobody is debating you; they’re pointing out errors.
GMBasix wrote:
…..
Nice
Nice
Siunning level of expertise
Stunning level of expertise here (not from those defending the driver, obvs).
GMBasix wrote:
Some signage is visible there also I believe; in any case, common sense would tell one that full-sized roundabouts are not, as a rule, placed on T-junctions, the only reason for implying there might not be four exits would be if one were desperately trying to defend a driver for selecting the wrong lane on entry and then overaggressively switching back across other road users to reach their desired exit…hang on…
Extra like for unusually
Extra like for unusually thoughtful discussion!
How did you get extra likes
How did you get extra likes to give out – is that some kind of subscriber perk?
mdavidford wrote:
I lent him some of mine…
Captain Badger wrote:
This is true. Captain Badger is also too modest to mention that he got his by intoning “Great minds think – a like!” several times.
Just pondering this. If a
Just pondering this. If a road is wide enough for two cars to be alongside without hindrance, then what are the rules.
This roundabout is not untypical – no lanes but the designers, with their entering road markings clearly are encouraging two abreast traffic. Here is an example on an entry into an estate on a main 40mph commuter route. Indeed – the other view suggests with merge markings they want 2 abreast straight on.
A4177
https://maps.app.goo.gl/F687oS73VGP6QyTk7
Now, there is also a trend in urban road marking for removing lines – Solihull have been shaving off road markings, though whether it works is moot as you clearly can see the scars remaining.
So if you have a situation with implicit lanes what are the rules?
The other issue here is the lack of guidance, where there are two entrance lanes but no guidance as to the thinking of which lane is for which direction. It is only when you see the hatching you can tell they now want only left lane to go forward because they’ve hatched in what I guess was an old merge lane.
The answer may vary.
The answer may vary. Designers may be encouraging drivers/riders to take up clear road positions as they negotiate the roundabout. On a 3-road junction, left or right is much more indicative of exit intention (notwithstanding the possibility of a complete circuit).
It is probable that the layout has considered the flow of traffic towards Warwick, and out of the housing estate, as causing queuing at the roundabout at peak times, so there is a question of junction fluidity, eased by streaming traffic into lanes onto the roundabout. It’s less a question of overtaking as separate streams of traffic, especially if traffic is then subsequently congested in one direction or the other. The times of day don’t appear to be peak traffic times.
In any case, for a roundabout of that girth, overtaking is mostly ill-advised. I dare say that a motorist might safely be able to pass a cyclist whose body language clearly indicated they were keeping left. But given the Highway Code advises against it, the onus should be on the motorist to demonstrate that they had taken all factors into account. and if they had, there would probably be no reason to challenge them, because no incident would have occurred to require the question. (and THAT is why it is “should” not “must”).
Yes, that one is definitely
Yes, that one is definitely one where there is a dual queue in rush hour (it is an access to Warwick, Warwick Parkway station to London, and the A46 which links to the M42, Leamington – Tachbrook Park and the National Grid place nearby, the M6 and Coventry). During flowing times most people expect to go through in single file except for white van man.
I’ve just worked out why that
I’ve just worked out why that example you give has a ‘merge’ arrow in one direction but not the other… It’s not a merge arrow!
Confusingly, this arrow has a number of meanings. One is that lanes are reducing (which is commonly called merging, but there is no merge-in-turn law in the uk). Another is to show which side of an obstruction to pass. In this case, it’s indicating that you should keep left of the double white lines.
So there’s no arrow on the other side, because there are no double white lines. But notice there is one inline with the dashed line warning of the traffic island obstruction.
Ah, good point, but you can
Ah, good point, but you can see that the layout looks then remarkably like one where two cars are encouraged to go side by side straight on and then merge.
The general point is that you can’t tell what to do if you are unfamiliar with the roundabout, (so err on the side of traditional routes!) but also where people do use them frequently, they may understand different things from their understanding of the markings.
IanMSpencer wrote:
The arrow that HoarseMann helpfully points to is diagram 1014, which you can read more about in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions, schedule 11 part 4 (Advisory Road Markings), item 14 [here]. You can find out more about how and where it should be used in the Traffic Signs Manual, Ch5 [here]. It is known as a deflection arrow, and that is its meaning. It’s not that the meaning is varied (and therefore confusing), but its application is varied. Essentially, it means, “don’t still be out here in a few metres or it’ll hurt/cost you”.
In the roundabout you linked to, in the NW direction, it is appears presumed that traffic will have settled itself out into single file by the time it needs to exit towards Hatton, such that the island on the exit will not be an issue. While the carriageway is not divided by a continuous line, dualling is not a credible option. In the opposite direction, on-roundabout traffic and traffic joining from Charingworth Dr will find themselves merging in practice, with potential informal dualling to forced single file and a continuous centre line. There is also a deflection arrow on the SE approach to the roundabout. As far as the roundabout is concerned, then, it is the pressure of tweo streams of traffic joining and having to merge almost immediately that invited the deflection arrow.
IanMSpencer wrote:
If there are no lane markings, you go right back to the general principle of keeping to the leftmost side of the carriageway…
HoarseMann wrote:
If there are no lane markings, you go right back to the general principle of keeping to the leftmost side of the carriageway…— IanMSpencer
pretty sure this means drive on the left side of the road (or go clockwise round roundabouts)
Not – hug the gutter while moving
wycombewheeler wrote:
No need to hug the gutter if the carriageway is wide enough to accomodate two vehicles. There are people who wrongly drive in the middle of the lane, no matter it’s width though. This is a road where that can happen, the correct road position is towards the left of the carriageway, as these vehicles demonstrate…
That is not invariably the
That is not invariably the correct position. If the road bends, then it is better to move to the outside of the bend to extend visibility. Motorcycles are encouraged to do this more dramatically but advanced driving promotes this. Indeed, I have a police trainer video where he advocates staying right on a dual carriageway with a bend to see better, where no following traffic is hindered.
As a cyclist on a country lane I would also recommend taking an outside line to see and be seen, keeping left on a hedged bend can hide you from oncoming traffic.
IanMSpencer wrote:
That is an advanced driving technique, which I use having done the IAM training and test. But it’s not the default position and not what you would use if there was close following or overtaking traffic (or on a roundabout). You would choose to reduce speed instead.
HoarseMann wrote:
If there are no lane markings, you go right back to the general principle of keeping to the leftmost side of the carriageway…— IanMSpencer
the full text is as follows
Rule 160
Once moving you should
So we can see keep to the left, does not mean keeping as far left as possible, it means don’t drive on the right, we can tell thi because the following clause specifies “far to the left” in certain situations
did you also mis the instructions to a) give cycles and motorcycles plenty of room and b) do not cut across them ?
Poor effort 2/10
Not taking sides, just
Not taking sides, just observing that road designers may play a part in encouraging drivers to interact in different ways. A lot of us learn how junctions work.
As another example of this, purely car based, Solihull bypass has this traffic light layout and lane markings: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.4168445,-1.7617472,3a,75y,332.04h,69.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjiY7kpS3vm4B58GUuFk_QA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Both lanes are signed as straight on, but after the junction there are three lanes, each a single direction only, so there is immediately only a single straight on lane – or alteratively, the right lane could have been marked with a double right turn arrow to indicate that it was for people turning first and second right, not for people turning first right, second right and straight on (second right is towards JLR and very heavily used). People locally will use the left lane only for straight on, and then some people will also use the left lane to turn right at the second junction because of the regular problem of getting trapped behind a car turning right at the first. However, a stranger has no indication that going straight on in the right lane is going to end in a conflict with the cars in the left lane, especially as the lane alignment does not line up to make it clear that the left lane goes into the centre lane.
So my underlying point is that you have road markings that give conflicting advice to motorists in different contexts, and it is not surprising that motorists then make poor choices… but of course, many are deliberately impatient.
I’m not sure that the problem
I’m not sure that the problem you describe is a function of the road markings. It sounds like it’s more a function of people intentionally choosing an inappropriate lane for where they want to go because they’re too impatient to wait until right-turning traffic at the first junction clears.
May be.
May be.
It is a junction that operates under stress throughout the day, and it is interesting to see how traffic flow evolves to adapt to different challenges – given that drivers aren’t in communication, it is interesting how behaviour on roads evolves.
wycombewheeler wrote:
And also, don’t hog the middle lane on the motorway, etc.