How to Use A Roundabout

Welease

rickyjb wrote: »

Well if you did you would remember the instructor telling you what number to take. This is because left/right/straight may not always make it clear which exit you intend to take, hence 1st 2nd 3rd exit etc. There's no other clear unambiguous way to do it.

What is not clear or ambiguous about the rules of the road?

Why do you need to come up with a conflicting set of rules?

Please explain to people, why you are using a system that has been shown to be incorrect, and is in direct conflict with the laws of the country? (again I cannot honestly fathom why people insist on doing this)

zynaps

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, that's a different issue, and would require the law to be changed.

I think you're confusing the ROTR with the law. The road traffic statutes appear to say almost nothing about what you must (or even should) do on roundabouts.
In fact I can't find anything more substantial than that you must turn left to enter a roundabout, or that you must dismount your vehicle safely :P

PaddyTheNth

Welease wrote: »

But if that were true, then people would not still be claiming that the left lane is correct. There are people still claiming the left land is the correct lane.

They are usign their own taught interpretations to define lane choices, and for whatever reason refuse to modify this view even when presented with the correct interpretation of the rules, email from the RSA confirming the rules, exact copies of the rules and the rational behind why their interpretations are incorrect and how that occured (and what the RSA did to clarify the confusion)..

As has Vertakill says in his post above yours, people are arguing because the way they were taught seems to be inherently safer than the clock method.

Welease wrote: »

Agreed.. but what would be better for people to follow the rotr as defined simply.. rather than have to come up with their own interpretations (or continue to use outdated confusing interpretations)..
The rotr themselves are simple enough without the need for further interpretations.

I agree that everyone on the road should be using the same method for choosing lanes. I disagree with your claim that the sequential method is confusing (or at least the implication that it is more confusing than the clock method).

Side note: I've been driving for over ten years using the sequential method and I've never had an accident....astonishing! It's going to be a struggle to try to change my behaviour now, but I'll try.

Welease wrote:

This has been explained, the RSA have confirmed it. people have taken the time to explain why this is so, and why the numbered method breaks the rules, and even gone so far as to explain why the confusion probably occured and when/how the RSA modified to the explanations used to eradicate this confusion..

Clearly they haven't done anything like enough to eradicate the confusion or this thread would have finished after one page...

Zubeneschamali

zynaps wrote: »

The road traffic statutes appear to say almost nothing about what you must (or even should) do on roundabouts.

Correct. Roundabouts are just junctions in law, and the standard law applies: if turning left or going straight, keep left. If turning right, keep right.

To make the 90s version of the rules legal, you'd have to add an exception to the law to say on roundabouts, keep left for the first two exits, and right for later ones.

Iwannahurl

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No-one has shown any ambiguity or lack of clarity in the current rules as written.

So far we've had:

1) The Rules of the Road used to be different.
2) This driving instructor teaches something different

These are true, but neither of them is a problem with the clarity of the current Rules as written.

The only attempt I've seen to point out a clarity problem is someone pretending not to know what left, right and straight on mean.

You might call it pretending.

I prefer to call it critical thinking.

This thread is moving fast and I have other plates spinning. I will try to catch up with other posts asap.

Zubeneschamali

PaddyTheNth wrote: »

It's going to be a struggle to try to change my behaviour now, but I'll try.

Good man!

On 90% of roundabouts, it makes no difference since there are mad lanes and arrows and signs directing you to do other ridiculous things, but full marks for trying to follow the rules!

Iwannahurl

Welease wrote: »

You are doing it again.. Where in the actual rules of the road does it mention clock faces? You also can't see signage from the photo..

You seem to want to continue to bring in non rules of the road elements to bolster your point..

What I am asking is.. forget all those other rules which dont exist in the RoTR.. look at the picture, and read the actual ROTR.. It seems obvious to me, the looking at the angle that the entry road is at (not the final kink).. look at the proposed exit.. it would obviously appear to be well beyond "straight ahead" therefore left lane is incorrect.. Would you not agree?

If you insist on worrying about the final kink in the road, then the proposed exit lane is even further past "straight ahead"..

Bit of deja vu here. Did you say the bolded bit earlier on in another thread? Or am I out of synch in a fast-moving discussion?

IMO, you are identifying the nexus of the problem here. There are two schools of thought and "straight ahead" is the confounding factor. That's just my opinion, and I am actively trying to explore that on and off Boards.

GTE

Has anyone else gotten on to the RSA to get all the RSA publications revised and rewritten to have the same method?

I don't care what one is accepted as long as it becomes across the board on all RSA outputs but I want the confusion of methods that is evident among people who buy the ROTR when learning, people who are taught by driver educators across the country and testing staff to be eliminated.

I linked to this thread in an email I sent to the RSA saying that there is a substantial body of people being educated the wrong way for reasons that all level minded people would appreciate.

The fact that an email from them said what is the correct way is fine but very very wrong at the same time. It should not be confirmed over email alone.

I don't know what they will think reading all this arguing over something that at the end of the day was taught to us rather then something we choose to learn ourselves. It is not like we educated ourselves how to drive with no outside influence. Its down to the instructors, RSA and testers and they have let us all down by educating us badly and having to put up with driving on our roads where two people could approach a roundabout differently at the same time.

I say educated us badly as they have let two clearly different methods of dealing with roundabouts be taught and tested without one being stamped down on.

They could have a chance to get away with it now and quietly change the things they need to change since we have half the contributors against the other instead of all against the RSA for letting the mess begin in the first place.

Welease

PaddyTheNth wrote: »

As has Vertakill says in his post above yours, people are arguing because the way they were taught seems to be inherently safer than the clock method.


I agree that everyone on the road should be using the same method for choosing lanes. I disagree with your claim that the sequential method is confusing (or at least the implication that it is more confusing than the clock method).

Side note: I've been driving for over ten years using the sequential method and I've never had an accident....astonishing! It's going to be a struggle to try to change my behaviour now, but I'll try.


Clearly they haven't done anything like enough to eradicate the confusion or this thread would have finished after one page...

I think you misunderstand my point.. The sequential method is not confusing.. it in itself is about a simplistic as it can get...

BUT, it does under certain circumstances (as per the OP's question) directly conflict with the actual ROTR.. And if you are going to use the sequential method blindly without understand the ROTR, then you can be in the wrong lane and cause problems for other drivers irrespective of what you believe.

Zubeneschamali

bbk wrote: »

Has anyone else gotten on to the RSA to get all the RSA publications revised and rewritten to have the same method?

Do you have any publications in mind?

The only one I know of is the Rules of the Road, which was fixed in 2006.

Welease

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Bit of deja vu here. Did you say the bolded bit earlier on in another thread? Or am I out of synch in a fast-moving discussion?

IMO, you are identifying the nexus of the problem here. There are two schools of thought and "straight ahead" is the confounding factor. That's just my opinion, and I am actively trying to explore that on and off Boards.

There are 2 schools of thought.. One is familiar with the rules of the road and can understand terms like "straight ahead".. The other school choose to use a method that is not in the rules of the road, and has been demonstrated to conflict with the ROTR under certain conditions.

What exploration is necessary? None of your points relate to the actual ROTR.

zynaps

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Correct. Roundabouts are just junctions in law, and the standard law applies: if turning left or going straight, keep left. If turning right, keep right.

To make the 90s version of the rules legal, you'd have to add an exception to the law to say on roundabouts, keep left for the first two exits, and right for later ones.

Interesting point! When you consider them as weird versions of ordinary junctions, this interpretation is sound, especially since the statutes don't seem to give any other special cases for roundabouts.

Welease

bbk wrote: »

Has anyone else gotten on to the RSA to get all the RSA publications revised and rewritten to have the same method?

I don't care what one is accepted as long as it becomes across the board on all RSA outputs but I want the confusion of methods that is evident among people who buy the ROTR when learning, people who are taught by driver educators across the country and testing staff to be eliminated.

I linked to this thread in an email I sent to the RSA saying that there is a substantial body of people being educated the wrong way for reasons that all level minded people would appreciate.

The fact that an email from them said what is the correct way is fine but very very wrong at the same time. It should not be confirmed over email alone.

I don't know what they will think reading all this arguing over something that at the end of the day was taught to us rather then something we choose to learn ourselves. It is not like we educated ourselves how to drive with no outside influence. Its down to the instructors, RSA and testers and they have let us all down by educating us badly and having to put up with driving on our roads where two people could approach a roundabout differently at the same time.

I say educated us badly as they have let two clearly different methods of dealing with roundabouts be taught and tested without one being stamped down on.

They could have a chance to get away with it now and quietly change the things they need to change since we have half the contributors against the other instead of all against the RSA for letting the mess begin in the first place.

The RSA seem to have cleared up the confusion since 2006.. Posters issues seem to be with what they were being taught by their driving school.. Most seem reluctant to actually ring the schools and clarify their confusion as requested..

I'm guessing at this stage, from some at least, not appearing to be incorrect is more important that actually confirming and abiding by the rules.

Iwannahurl

Welease wrote: »

But how can you continue to believe that being in the wrong lane is safer? That is what you appear to be stating..

The rotr clearly define the lane choice as being the right lane..

This has been explained, the RSA have confirmed it. people have taken the time to explain why this is so, and why the numbered method breaks the rules, and even gone so far as to explain why the confusion probably occured and when/how the RSA modified to the explanations used to eradicate this confusion..

I can understand the confusion from someone who was not given that level of information, but people on this thread have been given it, and to continue to utilise a rule which puts them in the wrong lane is a staggering indictment of their lack of driving ability. (I should add, i dont want that to be seen as a personal attack on you.. i just cannot understand why people cannot and will not modify their incorrect beliefs on driving in this country, even when the case has been proven over an over.. and they cannot refute the actual rules of the road).

1. That's beggaring the question.

2. They haven't.

Vertakill

Welease wrote: »

But how can you continue to believe that being in the wrong lane is safer? That is what you appear to be stating..

The rotr clearly define the lane choice as being the right lane..

Yes I completely believe the sequential method is safer. The right-hand lane is underused if you use the RSA's method and the times that people ARE in the right hand lane, they run the risk of side-swiping people when trying to exit the roundabout.
This would NOT happen in virtually any scenario that I can think of if you were using the sequential method.

Welease wrote: »

This has been explained, the RSA have confirmed it. people have taken the time to explain why this is so, and why the numbered method breaks the rules, and even gone so far as to explain why the confusion probably occured and when/how the RSA modified to the explanations used to eradicate this confusion..

I think the reason this thread has gone on for so long is that, certain people are not understanding everyones point.
I think I'm correct in saying that your point is that, the RSA's method is the correct way, the easiest way, the clearest and also the safest way, everything else is wrong and the driving instructors are wrong if they teach the other method.

Some of the rest of us are saying, we were taught differently (it's really not a huge difference in the grand scheme of things but it is a difference nonetheless) and we think that the RSA's method is not as safe as sequential and also that it's not as clear cut as people lay claim.
And if I hear anymore about this driving test supervisor, I'll go mad.

PaddyTheNth wrote: »

Side note: I've been driving for over ten years using the sequential method and I've never had an accident....astonishing! It's going to be a struggle to try to change my behaviour now, but I'll try.

I'm the same. In fact, bar minor mistakes (my own or other drivers), I can't recall a single incident on a roundabout that I was on.

However, Welease probably thinks we're all liable to kill everyone..

Zubeneschamali

Welease wrote: »

I'm guessing at this stage, from some at least, not appearing to be incorrect is more important that actually confirming and abiding by the rules.

In fairness, it's natural to defend your own beliefs when challenged. I think people on both sides have been arguing in good faith and keeping things more civilized than is usual in online disagreements.

Welease

Iwannahurl wrote: »

1. That's beggaring the question.

Please explain.. The poster is choosing to use a method the break the rules defined in the rotr..

Iwannahurl wrote: »

2. They haven't.

According to another poster who took the time to email them. They have
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055998652

If you refuse to believe anyone, but claim to be interested, then why not take 2 mins and ring either the RSA or a driving school to confirm in the OP's case which is the correct lane?????

I would do it, but I feel you are unlikely to take my word on it either..

Iwannahurl

bbk wrote: »

Has anyone else gotten on to the RSA to get all the RSA publications revised and rewritten to have the same method?

I don't care what one is accepted as long as it becomes across the board on all RSA outputs but I want the confusion of methods that is evident among people who buy the ROTR when learning, people who are taught by driver educators across the country and testing staff to be eliminated.

I linked to this thread in an email I sent to the RSA saying that there is a substantial body of people being educated the wrong way for reasons that all level minded people would appreciate.

The fact that an email from them said what is the correct way is fine but very very wrong at the same time. It should not be confirmed over email alone.

I don't know what they will think reading all this arguing over something that at the end of the day was taught to us rather then something we choose to learn ourselves. It is not like we educated ourselves how to drive with no outside influence. Its down to the instructors, RSA and testers and they have let us all down by educating us badly and having to put up with driving on our roads where two people could approach a roundabout differently at the same time.

I say educated us badly as they have let two clearly different methods of dealing with roundabouts be taught and tested without one being stamped down on.

They could have a chance to get away with it now and quietly change the things they need to change since we have half the contributors against the other instead of all against the RSA for letting the mess begin in the first place.

Well said.

I've been on to the RSA about this. No definitive answers yet.

zynaps

Vertakill wrote: »

I'm the same. In fact, bar mistakes (my own or other drivers), I can't recall a single incident on a roundabout that I was on.

I've had a couple of close-ish calls, but that's probably because myself and the other guy were basically rubbish unobservant drivers, rather than one of us choosing a clock face and the other counting exits

Welease

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In fairness, it's natural to defend your own beliefs when challenged. I think people on both sides have been arguing in good faith and keeping things more civilized than is usual in online disagreements.

Absolutely its fair to defend.. but if people are unwilling to follow the ROTR and claim to be following their driving instructors method (sequential).. we could end this discussion if one of them would ring their instructor to ask about the OP's picture..

At this stage, I am guessing they won't because the know what the instructor will say.. that the sequential rule does indeed conflict with the rotr under certain conditions.

They won't believe the RSA, they won't follow the ROTR, I believe someone 300 pages ago had a GS confirm the right lane was correct.. If the source of the discussion is a driving instructor and they wish to resolve the issue, it would seem logical to ask the instructor for clarification..

I have done tests both here and in the UK and was never under this misconception.. so it has to be down to their particular instructors..

Welease

Vertakill wrote: »

Yes I completely believe the sequential method is safer. The right-hand lane is underused if you use the RSA's method and the times that people ARE in the right hand lane, they run the risk of side-swiping people when trying to exit the roundabout.
This would NOT happen in virtually any scenario that I can think of if you were using the sequential method.



I think the reason this thread has gone on for so long is that, certain people are not understanding everyones point.
I think I'm correct in saying that your point is that, the RSA's method is the correct way, the easiest way, the clearest and also the safest way, everything else is wrong and the driving instructors are wrong if they teach the other method.

Some of the rest of us are saying, we were taught differently (it's really not a huge difference in the grand scheme of things but it is a difference nonetheless) and we think that the RSA's method is not as safe as sequential and also that it's not as clear cut as people lay claim.
And if I hear anymore about this driving test supervisor, I'll go mad.




I'm the same. In fact, bar minor mistakes (my own or other drivers), I can't recall a single incident on a roundabout that I was on.

However, Welease probably thinks we're all liable to kill everyone..

So to sum up, you have a system that you feel is simpler than the rules of the road and even though it contradicts the ROTR you will use it..

So, with that in mind, the simplest system would be for everyone to stay in the left hand lane.. There would be absolutely no possibility of anyone getting cut up.. Correct?

Would you consider it acceptable for me to drive by this rule (as some people do), and take an exit right around the rounadabout (5pm by some methods.. u turn if you will) in the left lane?

It directly contravenes the rotr, but it everyone did it, then it would be safer....

Do you get my point? People cannot and should not come up with their own interpretation of the rules.. A single method does need to exist, and it should exist with the ROTR.. there was confusion previously with was cleared up by the removal of 1/2/3rd exit naming convention.. Those web sites need to be updated to reflect the clarification of the rules, not by people choosing to implement a system with contravenes the rotr..

cpoh1

Cant see any reference in the rules of the road to clocks or anything like that. Its ambiguous enough in my eyes regarding roundabouts especially with the specific comment "Leaving by a later exit" which can either mean the third exit (since the first two have been covered) or a right hand exit (since the straight through has been covered just beforehand). So both sides are right. Either way the ROTR are a guideline and not specifically road traffic act legislation and have no legal bearing so not worth arguing over.

Some people learned by exit number and newer drivers learned by clock, personally my opinion is that the exit number is bullit proof and covers every roundabout scenario, the clock method doesnt (ive seen roundabouts with two lanes entering and the first exit being at 120 degrees).

Until the rules of the road specifically state clocks as a legitamite form of roundabout education (and even better get it in the road traffic acts) then im going to ignore them for the system i have in place that has worked perfectly for the last 14 years.

Welease

cpoh1 wrote: »

Cant see any reference in the rules of the road to clocks or anything like that. Its ambiguous enough in my eyes regarding roundabouts especially with the specific comment "Leaving by a later exit" which can either mean the third exit (since the first two have been covered) or a right hand exit (since the straight through has been covered just beforehand). So both sides are right. Either way the ROTR are a guideline and not specifically road traffic act legislation and have no legal bearing so not worth arguing over.

Some people learned by exit number and newer drivers learned by clock, personally my opinion is that the exit number is bullit proof and covers every roundabout scenario, the clock method doesnt (ive seen roundabouts with two lanes entering and the first exit being at 120 degrees).

Until the rules of the road specifically state clocks as a legitamite form of roundabout education (and even better get it in the road traffic acts) then im going to ignore them for the system i have in place that has worked perfectly for the last 14 years.

I give up... You seem to be confusing all methods..

It's any later exits than "straight ahead".. it has nothing to do with 1/2/3/4/5th exit...

If by "working perfectly" you mean you would be in the wrong lane as per the OP's picture.. then ok..

dark_jedi_ire

Right lane as per rules of the road

Iwannahurl

Welease wrote: »

There are 2 schools of thought.. One is familiar with the rules of the road and can understand terms like "straight ahead".. The other school choose to use a method that is not in the rules of the road, and has been demonstrated to conflict with the ROTR under certain conditions.

What exploration is necessary? None of your points relate to the actual ROTR.

Beggaring the question again.

The conflict arises "straight ahead", IMO.

There is no "imaginary line" mentioned in the RoTR.

The simple cross-shaped example in the RoTR does not illustrate 'non-standard' roundabouts and does not satisfactorily supersede the older number-of-exits method, IMO.

The c. 50/50 divide in the poll reflects that situation, IMO.

Either method would work satisfactorily on its own. Conflict has arisen because there are two incompatible methods still extant, IMO. The RSA, in its instructor training, driver training curriculum, publications and public service announcements has not adequately reconciled these differences, IMO.

Those are my opinions.

I am still trying to get the RSA to issue a definitive answer. When that is forthcoming, and one method is unequivocally promulgated at official level, then that is the method I will use without question.

BTW, I have been driving for about 25 years. I have never had so much as a fender bender on the road and I have never had an insurance claim made against me. I have never incurred a speeding fine. I have no points on my licence. I've got perhaps 3 parking tickets (max) in all that time. And I take great care on roundabouts.

Zubeneschamali

Iwannahurl wrote: »

BTW, I have been driving for about 25 years.

Interesting, as the "1st, 2nd, later exits" stuff was not in the RoR 25 years ago, as that's when I learned, too, from an instructor who used the clock method.

25 years ago, the rule was something like "When there are more lanes, common sense applies".

cpoh1

Welease wrote: »

I give up... You seem to be confusing all methods..

It's any later exits than "straight ahead".. it has nothing to do with 1/2/3/4/5th exit...

Thats YOUR interpretation of it. You can interpret it as any later exit after the first two or straight ahead, depending on how you read it because its downright vague. Neither of which is important as the ROTR are a guide and have no bearing in a court of law or in road traffic legislation. The last sentence is critical because the ROTR despite being based on the road traffic acts does not follow it compleetely. I see the ROTR more as a guidance document (please dont be pedantic and take that up as a "i flaunt the law" comment) without any legal bearing and subsequently not that much weight.

If someone has an accident on the roundabout outlined and it ends up in court clocks and exit numbers wont be the issue. The main question will be "who changed lanes to cause the collision?"

Welease

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Beggaring the question again.

The conflict arises "straight ahead", IMO.

There is no "imaginary line" mentioned in the RoTR.

The simple cross-shaped example in the RoTR does not illustrate 'non-standard' roundabouts and does not satisfactorily supersede the older number-of-exits method, IMO.

The c. 50/50 divide in the poll reflects that situation, IMO.

Either method would work satisfactorily on its own. Conflict has arisen because there are two incompatible methods still extant, IMO. The RSA, in its instructor training, driver training curriculum, publications and public service announcements has not adequately reconciled these differences, IMO.

Those are my opinions.

I am still trying to get the RSA to issue a definitive answer. When that is forthcoming, and one method is unequivocally promulgated at official level, then that is the method I will use without question.

BTW, I have been driving for about 25 years. I have never had so much as a fender bender on the road and I have never had an insurance claim made against me. I have never incurred a speeding fine. I have no points on my licence. I've got perhaps 3 parking tickets (max) in all that time. And I take great care on roundabouts.

fine.. well i will bow out here, this is going around in cirles (as you said )..

If you are interesting in clarifying this, then I would urge you to publish the response from the RSA when it arrives, and lets deal with the information as is..
I would also urge those who are interested to ask their driving instructors to clarify this anomoly also.. A simple phone call is all it takes.

It is interesting in the UK, everyone gets in the right hand lane for the OP (and this can be clearly seen in the photo from the orientation of the cars!). I drove there for 20 years, and rarely came across anyone in the left hand lane in such a scenario.. (clean licence and no crashes also btw )

Zubeneschamali

cpoh1 wrote: »

You can interpret it as any later exit after the first two or straight ahead, depending on how you read it -its downright vague.

Not the current version. It clearly says left, straight, and later, no language or even hints about 1st, 2nd exits.

Welease

cpoh1 wrote: »

Thats YOUR interpretation of it. You can interpret it as any later exit after the first two or straight ahead, depending on how you read it -its downright vague.

BUT, and this is the point being made a thousand times.. the number of the exit is irrelavant, as it's not in the rotr..

The rules clearly state Any exit after straight ahead!!!!! YOU are adding the caveat of it being the first or second exit, where no such caveat exists.

Anyway, iwannahurl has contacted the RSA for another opinion (another poster did previously, and they confirmed the right hand lane was correct).. Lets wait to see what the response is this time..