How to Use A Roundabout

-Chris-

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The RoTR Draft Revised Version for Public Consultation contained the following text:

• IF LEAVING BY THE FIRST EXIT, approach and enter the roundabout in
the left hand lane, signalling a left turn on your approach, keeping your
indicators going until your chosen exit point is reached, and proceed to leave the roundabout at that exit.
• IF LEAVING BY THE SECOND EXIT, approach and enter the roundabout
in the left hand lane but do not signal until you have passed the exit before the one you intend to take, then signal a left turn and leave at the next exit unless road signs or road markings dictate otherwise.
• IF LEAVING BY ANY EXIT AFTER THE 12 O’CLOCK POSITION,
approach and enter the roundabout in the right hand lane signalling a right turn. Keep in the right hand lane (i.e the lane next to the centre). As you pass the exit before the one you intend to leave by, signal a left turn and, when your way is clear, move to the other lane and leave at the desired exit.

Prior to 2006, point #3 had referred to "any subsequent exit" (as this OLD website demonstrates!!):

I think this description is the fundamental issue in all the confusion.
(a) it should never be quoted without the accompanying diagram (i.e. they're referring to the first and second exit in this particular case/diagram, they're not referring to a first and second exit in absolute terms)
(b) they should stop using a diagram that shows the second exit in the straight ahead position

As long as they continue to have the second exit in the straight ahead position and, in describing the procedure of using the roundabout, refer to numbered exits, no one will ever learn.

How hard would it be to refer to exits A, B & C?????


This diagram and description supports both points of view stated in this thread, and is therefore useless.

The diagram should show 5 or more exits, or should have the second exit off-axis, if it wants to be in any way clear.

zynaps

Iwannahurl wrote: »

However, my correspondent in the RSA also says that the Numbers and Clocks methods do not conflict (see below), and that is where I beg to differ. There are enough 'non-standard' roundabouts in Ireland to give rise to recurring incidents in which Numbers and Clocks conflict with each other.

Indeed, apart from seeing both methods as equally valid, he doesn't seem to really say anything about the exit counting strategy. They don't seem worried that the use of these two slightly conflicting methods will result in fatal accidents daily on every roundabout.

RSA wrote:

We do not see these as old or new methods both are equally valid and we believe they cannot be used independently of each other.

All in all, it seems like they're not at all concerned about this ongoing confusion, and probably would consider this entire discussion to be a storm in a teacup.

Putting aside some of the alarmist, finger-pointing comments that have come up in much of this thread (although, thankfully, not so much in the last few pages), I think most would agree that the lane selection heuristic used is of less importance than other normal road considerations of observation, awareness, and generally being careful

Vertakill

What a comical conclusion to this thread!

Most of us knew inconclusiveness and ambiguity shrouded the ruling over roundabouts (some thought it crystal clear however!!).. but now the RSA themselves have proven it.

It may be childish, but I'd love to see a response from the folks who were raving about the RSA supervisor saying this or that or the ones calling the rest of us potential murderers because of our roundabout practice.


Ultimately, I don't care which method is used provided it's clear, concise and communicated nationally.
The RSA need to come to a decision on which method should be used and redo their roundabout adverts accordingly as to lift the current confusion.

Slick50

Vertakill wrote: »

Ultimately, I don't care which method is used provided it's clear, concise and communicated nationally.
The RSA need to come to a decision on which method should be used and redo their roundabout adverts accordingly as to lift the current confusion.

I don't mean to kick this whole thing off again, but I think the latest wording is pretty definitive. as per http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-driving/junctions-roundabouts/roundabouts.html but without a full public awareness campaign, it will probably take a couple of generations to filter out the old conflicting methods.

-Chris-

Slick50 wrote: »

I don't mean to kick this whole thing off again, but I think the latest wording is pretty definitive. as per http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-driving/junctions-roundabouts/roundabouts.html but without a full public awareness campaign, it will probably take a couple of generations to filter out the old conflicting methods.

Excellent, looks like they've completely removed the reference to numbered exits.

Thread over, could probably be closed at this point.

Hopefully the 153 people who were incorrect according to the poll realise the error of their ways and will begin to use roundabouts correctly from now on.

corktina

three more voted left since you posted that so it doesnt look hopefull

zynaps

-Chris- wrote: »

Excellent, looks like they've completely removed the reference to numbered exits.

They removed that reference in 2006.

The problem with those guidelines is that they show a simple roundabout with only one left turn, then straight ahead, then later exits.
There's no advice for taking a second or third exit on the left side of the roundabout; obviously you don't keep your indicator on as you approach the roundabout, since that would indicate that you're taking the first exit.

Slick50

-Chris- wrote: »

Excellent, looks like they've completely removed the reference to numbered exits.

They have also removed all references to positions on the clock.;)

zynaps wrote:

The problem with those guidelines is that they show a simple roundabout with only one left turn, then straight ahead, then later exits.
There's no advice for taking a second or third exit on the left side of the roundabout; obviously you don't keep your indicator on as you approach the roundabout, since that would indicate that you're taking the first exit.

The wording that accompanies the diagrams covers all possibilities.

Iwannahurl

zynaps wrote: »

Putting aside some of the alarmist, finger-pointing comments that have come up in much of this thread (although, thankfully, not so much in the last few pages), I think most would agree that the lane selection heuristic used is of less importance than other normal road considerations of observation, awareness, and generally being careful

Ah, "heuristic". I haven't seen or used that word for a while. Takes me back...

I'd like Welease and Zubeneschamali to come back and add more of their analysis. Latterly I thought they were doing a Trojan job of arguing the case for the Clock method.

We're not done with this yet.

Welease

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Ah, "heuristic". I haven't seen or used that word for a while. Takes me back...

I'd like Welease and Zubeneschamali to come back and add more of their analysis. Latterly I thought they were doing a Trojan job of arguing the case for the Clock method.

We're not done with this yet.

Sorry been away..

I'm not sure what to add.. There isnt a "clock method" as such... the 12 o' clock refers to the "stright ahead", a universal term used by many including WW2 fighter pilots with cries of "bandits at 2 o clock" etc. The "clock" method doesn't differ from the RoTR because, it doesnt enforce rules.. it just uses a different terminology..

The Sequence method however i would consider a method, because it enforces specific rules which can differ from the ROTR.. as highlighted by the OP's picture..

Those who adhere strictly to the sequence method will be in the correct lane probably 99% of the time, but in the case of the OP's roundabout would be in the wrong lane, and could be causing difficulty for other drivers.

As to who is correct, you seem to have gotten the same answer (which we gave) from the RSA that the right hand lane is the correct lane, and you seem to be content now that those like myself who claimed "right hand" lane were indeed correct. (and thats not a brag or anything juvenile)

The reasons why have been explored, and I think to a large degree understood, and a lot of the blame should be laid at the door of the RSA, but they have made amendments over 5 years ago.. The driving schools however have lagged much further behind, and drivers even further behind.

Of far more concern to me would be the length of time that it has taken and the work involved to make people on this consider they may be mistaken. I have sadly no doubt, that if the same question was asked in a couple of weeks some posters (not you btw ) would continue to vote left and continue to drive in the left lane, because they just can't be told otherwise...

Edit - And as per one of my original posts (iirc), I don't believe the Sequence method actually existed either.. It was misinterpretation by people. It referred specifically to a 4 way (compass point) roundabout used in the books, which people misinterpreted as the manner all roundabouts should be approached.

Iwannahurl

Will get back to you on this.

In the meantime, check out this year-old post/thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59011511&postcount=58

zynaps

Slick50 wrote: »

The wording that accompanies the diagrams covers all possibilities.

Not really. It explicitly refers to either taking a first exit left, or a second exit straight through:

RSA wrote:

Going straight ahead
Stay in the left-hand lane, but do not indicate "left" until you have passed the first exit.

This explanation for going straight ahead might apply for taking a second or third exit going left, but the text doesn't mention it.

Slick50

zynaps wrote: »

Not really. It explicitly refers to either taking a first exit left, or a second exit straight through:

It explicitly does not mention a "second" exit. But I see where you are coming from, I believe the underlined text here covers any intermediate exits between left and straight ahead.
"Going straight ahead:

• Approach in the left-hand lane but do not signal yet.
• Signal left after you have passed the exit before the one you want.
• You may follow the course shown in the illustration by the broken red line in situations where:
  • the left-hand lane is only for turning left or is blocked or closed, or
  • when directed by a Garda"

zynaps wrote: »

This explanation for going straight ahead might apply for taking a second or third exit going left, but the text doesn't mention it.

Agreed, otherwise they would have said to indicate left after you have passed the "left exit".

I personally think the sequential method more practical. With this system, if there are intermediate exits between "left" and "straight on" you are preventing other road users from using them by remaining in the left lane to go straight on. But at least these remove any ambiguity, they'll just have to tell everyone now.

And I know there are plenty of situations where the sequential system may cause conflicts, but that can be said of both. Where this occurs may require signage to clarify which lane to take.

Bigcheeze

Welease wrote: »

I don't believe the Sequence method actually existed either.. It was misinterpretation by people. It referred specifically to a 4 way (compass point) roundabout used in the books, which people misinterpreted as the manner all roundabouts should be approached.

The ROTR when I did my test in the early nineties referred to 1st, 2nd and subsequent exits. The whole idea of straight ahead on a roundabout is relatively new.......as is "turning right" on a roundabout.....funny that signal controlled roundabouts have no-right turn signs on the traffic lights!

The more I read this thread and the replies from the RSA, the less respect I have for them as a safety body. The statement about learners having difficulty with left and right took the biscuit. If people have trouble with understanding left and right they should be on the bus, not in command of a vehicle!

Iwannahurl

Vertakill wrote: »

What a comical conclusion to this thread!

Most of us knew inconclusiveness and ambiguity shrouded the ruling over roundabouts (some thought it crystal clear however!!).. but now the RSA themselves have proven it.

It may be childish, but I'd love to see a response from the folks who were raving about the RSA supervisor saying this or that or the ones calling the rest of us potential murderers because of our roundabout practice.


Ultimately, I don't care which method is used provided it's clear, concise and communicated nationally.
The RSA need to come to a decision on which method should be used and redo their roundabout adverts accordingly as to lift the current confusion.

-Chris- wrote: »

Excellent, looks like they've completely removed the reference to numbered exits.

Thread over, could probably be closed at this point.

Hopefully the 153 people who were incorrect according to the poll realise the error of their ways and will begin to use roundabouts correctly from now on.

It's not over until all the fat ladies sing from the same hymn sheet.

The persistence of conflicting points of view on this topic is evidence that the RoTR roundabout guidelines are not sufficiently clear and comprehensive. It may also be the case that learner drivers (and even full licence holders taking advanced driving courses) are being given incorrect guidelines by instructors.

It is not enough for any of us just to take satisfaction that our method is the correct one, and to give up on those that we consider plain wrong. The conflict per se is what is really important. It is no good being right if we don't all win by achieving safer and less stressful driving conditions.

In my view, this kind of discussion should continue until it is clearer what needs to be done to rectify the situation. For example, I think a Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviour survey or some such would be helpful in identifying those factors that differentiate Numbers from Clocks (to use my earlier labels of convenience).

Tom Slick

A 'roundabout' is a half-assed compromise of a junction.
The kind of people who argue endlessly about the correct way to use it are idiots, it depends (obviously to anyone with a brain) on layout & traffic conditions.

Iwannahurl

Welease wrote: »

Those who adhere strictly to the sequence method will be in the correct lane probably 99% of the time, but in the case of the OP's roundabout would be in the wrong lane, and could be causing difficulty for other drivers.

As to who is correct, you seem to have gotten the same answer from the RSA that the right hand lane is the correct lane, and you seem to be content now that those like myself who claimed "right hand" lane were indeed correct. (and thats not a brag or anything juvenile)

The reasons why have been explored, and I think to a large degree understood, and a lot of the blame should be laid at the door of the RSA, but they have made amendments over 5 years ago.. The driving schools however have lagged much further behind, and drivers even further behind.

Of far more concern to me would be the length of time that it has taken and the work involved to make people on this consider they may be mistaken. I have sadly no doubt, that if the same question was asked in a couple of weeks some posters (not you btw ) would continue to vote left and continue to drive in the left lane, because they just can't be told otherwise...

Edit - And as per one of my original posts (iirc), I don't believe the Sequence method actually existed either.. It was misinterpretation by people. It referred specifically to a 4 way (compass point) roundabout used in the books, which people misinterpreted as the manner all roundabouts should be approached.

1. I don't know what the percentage would be, but I have to accept that the RSA knows the position when they say that 4-arm roundabouts constitute the vast majority of cases. However, I feel I have to draw a distinction between the number of different roundabout types and the number of motorists who may be passing through any given roundabout. Four-arm cruciform roundabouts may be the most common, but it may also be the case that many of them handle low volumes of traffic. Conversely, rarer roundabout types (such as 5/6-arm versions) may actually handle very large volumes of traffic, and therefore the incidence of collisions and near misses may be much higher on these. Every time a motorists who uses the wrong method traverses a roundabout without incident they are subliminally reinforced in their belief that they know how to do it properly. As I said earlier, Numbers and Clocks always go through the ubiquitous 4-arm roundabout in the same manner, even though they are using different rules to do so.

2. "Seem" -- quite so. IMO the RSA have not yet issued a definitive response. They also muddied the waters further by saying that they "do not see these as old or new methods [since] both are equally valid and we believe they cannot be used independently of each other".

3. I think it is incorrect to talk about "lagging behind". This assumes that the RoTR are abundantly clear and unambiguous, and that motorists using the wrong (or 'old') method are simply unable or unwilling to change. There has to be something systemically wrong, or else driving schools in particular would not be implicated. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say earlier that you were already a Clock (btw, if you don't like that shorthand please suggest a better term) before the revised RoTR appeared in 2006? In which case you didn't have to change your ways. However, if there was a large cohort of motorists who were used to another method, and if the new RoTR and associated ad campaigns were a bit ambiguous, then they wouldn't have felt the need to change either. Either the rules were new (to some significant degree) or they were not.

4. "Just can't be told otherwise". That is not helpful, and suggests a culpable ignorance on the part of a large number of people. I don't doubt that there are many bad and inconsiderate drivers out there, but I think it's unlikely that a significant number of people would just stubbornly refuse to use roundabouts properly. Somehow I think it's not comparable to other very common transgressions like speeding and illegal parking. How often do you see people driving the wrong way round a roundabout (ie anti-clockwise) for example?

5. The 'sequential' method did indeed exist (and still does in the minds of many motorists because it has not been properly erased). I think I even remember TV ads demonstrating how it was done -- perhaps someone else can confirm that. And if it didn't exist, where did people like this obtain their material? They certainly didn't make it up.

EDIT: Here are a few more blasts from the past, including one from a long-standing Boards mod:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/road-rules-go-on-film-circuit-303178.html

http://www.p45.net/boards/archive/index.php/t-60718.html

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3319120&postcount=18

http://www.drivingschoolireland.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=243

http://www.drivingschoolireland.com/roundabout_right.html

http://www.octane.ie/forum/showthread.php?t=6803&page=6

(2008 thread on octane.ie)

Welease

Iwannahurl wrote: »

1. I don't know what the percentage would be, but I have to accept that the RSA knows the position when they say that 4-arm roundabouts constitute the vast majority of cases. However, I feel I have to draw a distinction between the number of different roundabout types and the number of motorists who may be passing through any given roundabout. Four-arm cruciform roundabouts may be the most common, but it may also be the case that many of them handle low volumes of traffic. Conversely, rarer roundabout types (such as 5/6-arm versions) may actually handle very large volumes of traffic, and therefore the incidence of collisions and near misses may be much higher on these. Every time a motorists who uses the wrong method traverses a roundabout without incident they are subliminally reinforced in their belief that they know how to do it properly. As I said earlier, Numbers and Clocks always go through the ubiquitous 4-arm roundabout in the same manner, even though they are using different rules to do so.

Agreed

Iwannahurl wrote: »

2. "Seem" -- quite so. IMO the RSA have not yet issued a definitive response. They also muddied the waters further by saying that they "do not see these as old or new methods [since] both are equally valid and we believe they cannot be used independently of each other".

You seem to be merging two different questions..
The only correct lane choice is the right hand lane.. I believe the confirmed this.
Can Sequential or Clock conflict.. They say no.. Some say yes.. Completely different question to which lane is correct.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

3. I think it is incorrect to talk about "lagging behind". This assumes that the RoTR are abundantly clear and unambiguous, and that motorists using the wrong (or 'old') method are simply unable or unwilling to change. There has to be something systemically wrong, or else driving schools in particular would not be implicated. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say earlier that you were already a Clock (btw, if you don't like that shorthand please suggest a better term) before the revised RoTR appeared in 2006? In which case you didn't have to change your ways. However, if there was a large cohort of motorists who were used to another method, and if the new RoTR and associated ad campaigns were a bit ambiguous, then they wouldn't have felt the need to change either. Either the rules were new (to some significant degree) or they were not.

I was "clock" because i never understood the RSA's explanation to mean anything other than right lane in this situation.
There are those who interpreted differently, and the RSA have modified the terminology in an attempt to remove the confusion.. The success will depend on the individual, I cannot comment because I was never confused, it would take somone who was confused to say if the confusion has been clarified for them.
But, as per you post on the older thread.. Where an advanced driving instructor is telling students that they should be in the left lane while taking a right hand turn, then I have no difficulty in point the finger of blame at the instructor.. They should know better, and indeed should be aware of all changes to the RSA documents..

Iwannahurl wrote: »

4. "Just can't be told otherwise". That is not helpful, and suggests a culpable ignorance on the part of a large number of people. I don't doubt that there are many bad and inconsiderate drivers out there, but I think it's unlikely that a significant number of people would just stubbornly refuse to use roundabouts properly. Somehow I think it's not comparable to other very common transgressions like speeding and illegal parking. How often do you see people driving the wrong way round a roundabout (ie anti-clockwise) for example?

So why do people go left lane all the way around 3-4-5 exits? There is no rule that says to do that.. There are a lot of bad drivers out there (look at the middle lane hoggers rampant in Ireland).. People can blame the RSA all they want, but I don't see anywhere that specifies sitting in the middle lane/right lane going 80 for the duration of your journey as the correct driving procedure. Yet a considerable amount of people do it (and worse.. refuse to budge). I don't think there is a simple point of issue here and I'm not trying to state there is.. but I don't think the blame lies solely with the RSA when they made updates over 5 years ago that people (including instructors) are unaware of.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

5. The 'sequential' method did indeed exist (and still does in the minds of many motorists because it has not been properly erased). I think I even remember TV ads demonstrating how it was done -- perhaps someone else can confirm that. And if it didn't exist, where did people like this obtain their material? They certainly didn't make it up.

Let me clarify.. When I say it didnt exist.. I mean in didnt exist in terms of the RSA deciding to have two conflicting rule sets for the same roundabout. People have misinterpreted the initial pre 2006 diagrams as being applicable to all roundabouts.. They are not.


To me, if you want to get to the crux of the issue, you need to question more the people who are using the sequential left lane method.. Why are they using it, why despite a clarification from the RSA that right is indeed the correct lane choice will they (if they will) continue to use left, and why do they feel that despite understanding where the confusion comes from they don't feel the need to modify to a system which removes the conflict..

Those who chose the right lane are (with respect) not the ones causing any potential issues, they are the ones in the correct lane. Continuing to question what they believe and how they decided won't solve anything.

loobylou

Quick question please.
Would those that use the counting exits method include in their count a roadway they cannot use, e.g. a motorway offramp?

Iwannahurl

loobylou wrote: »

Quick question please.
Would those that use the counting exits method include in their count a roadway they cannot use, e.g. a motorway offramp?

Sorry, I'm not sure I fully understand what kinds of scenario you're suggesting there.

An exit would be by definition a roadway that could be used (and must, given that there is no alternative means of getting off a roundabout!).

Now that you mention it though, I think there may well be situations that give rise to doubt as to whether an exit can be used as such all the time. For example, on this roundabout the exit situated at around 5 o'clock (incorrectly labelled Newcastle Road on Google Maps) is actually the back entrance to a hospital, and it is closed at certain times. Strictly speaking, is it an exit when you can't exit? This is an example of where the 12 o'clock/Zero Degrees method is perhaps a more reliable and intuitive method, I would guess.

loobylou

Can't seem to hyperlink to google maps so will try to explain.
Cross motorway flyover enter roundabout. The first roadway on left is for traffic exiting the motorway, ie is oneway only.
Would you count this as an exit even though it is not strictly speaking an exit?

Iwannahurl

Welease wrote: »

You seem to be merging two different questions..
The only correct lane choice is the right hand lane.. I believe the confirmed this.

Can Sequential or Clock conflict.. They say no.. Some say yes.. Completely different question to which lane is correct.

So why do people go left lane all the way around 3-4-5 exits? There is no rule that says to do that.. There are a lot of bad drivers out there (look at the middle lane hoggers rampant in Ireland).. People can blame the RSA all they want ... but I don't think the blame lies solely with the RSA when they made updates over 5 years ago that people (including instructors) are unaware of.

Let me clarify.. When I say it didnt exist.. I mean in didnt exist in terms of the RSA deciding to have two conflicting rule sets for the same roundabout. People have misinterpreted the initial pre 2006 diagrams as being applicable to all roundabouts.. They are not.

To me, if you want to get to the crux of the issue, you need to question more the people who are using the sequential left lane method.. Why are they using it, why despite a clarification from the RSA that right is indeed the correct lane choice will they (if they will) continue to use left, and why do they feel that despite understanding where the confusion comes from they don't feel the need to modify to a system which removes the conflict..

Those who chose the right lane are (with respect) not the ones causing any potential issues, they are the ones in the correct lane. Continuing to question what they believe and how they decided won't solve anything.

There is a lot in what you say there, and I will try to respond now to the quote above (which I have shortened for my own convenience!)

1. I'm not sure why you are suggesting that I am merging two questions. Choice of lane (left-hand versus right-hand) and method of choosing which lane are what is being disputed.

2. There are many bad drivers out there, that is true. But the left-lane-no-matter-what brigade are probably regarded as lethal lunatics by both Numbers and Clocks! I repeat my assertion that the Numbers cohort believe they are adhering to the RoTR in good faith. In fact, I would suspect that motorists who conscientiously follow the number-of-exits method are equally conscientious about other RoTR guidelines (which do not give rise to similar conflicts).

Here's an excerpt from an AA Ireland webpage which reported only a few months ago that 42% of drivers had experienced a "near miss" on Irish roundabouts. In the same report the AA seems to recommend the number-of-exits method!!!

45% of Irish motorists have been involved in a collision or near miss on a roundabout within the last 3 years, a survey by AA motor insurance can reveal. 3% of these were actual collisions whereas 42% admitted to having a close call, the survey of more than 6,800 motorists reveals. This follows the results of an earlier AA motor insurance survey where drivers cited “lack of signaling on roundabouts” as one of the most common driver errors they regularly observe.

Of those who have been involved in an incident on roundabouts, AA motor insurance learned that 8% admitted to being at fault. A further 72% blamed the driver of another car. Following this 7% said a van or truck driver was culpable. And 3% attributed blame to a motorcyclist. Pedestrians or cyclists were very rarely listed as the cause.

“Irish people seem to have a bit of a special relationship with roundabouts,” comments Conor Faughnan, AA Director of Policy. “Drivers are inexplicably lax when it comes to using their indicators which makes negotiating multilane roundabouts like the Walkinstown and Kinsale Road Roundabouts for example, both with 3 lanes particularly daunting. This lack of indication often makes for a ‘will he/won’t he type guessing game for those trying to enter roundabouts.”

The report understandably emphasises proper use of indicators, but in doing so it appears to endorse the number-of-exits rule:

If taking the 1st exit you should indicate left when queuing to enter the roundabout.
If taking the 2nd exit only indicate left once you’ve past the 1st exit.
If taking the third exit, indicate right until you are past the 2nd exit. Then indicate left to signal your intent to exit.

I recommend reading all the comments on the report. See if you can spot any familiar arguments...

What is going on in this country? Road safety authorities in just about every other country that has made extensive use of roundabouts over the last 25 years say that they improve safety (see this Dutch briefing document for example). You get the impression that the opposite is the case in Ireland.

3. If there is misinterpretation of the rules, then that misinterpretation is widespread and entrenched enough to suggest that this is a systems problem rather than individual failure. Roundabout rules in the Netherlands, for example, appear to be quite simple (assuming the linked document is the whole story). Is there something about the Irish rules, or Irish driver training, or Irish roundabout design, or all three, that causes particular problems?

4. To get to the crux of the issue, you need to identify the features of all drivers (Numbers, Clocks and Lunatics) that determine how they navigate roundabouts. In order to determine the differentiating factors it is not sufficient to focus on the group that you identify as doing it wrong. You may well miss valuable information about the ones that are doing it right, and you can't assume you know all that already. The Clocks and the Numbers are not necessarily causing the problem (depending on your perspective!). It is the systematic discrepancy between the two approaches that is the problem. If all motorists chose Right or all chose Left there would be no conflict. But it's not as simple as telling everyone to go Right. If it was, we wouldn't be here on Page 36!

Finally, on a lighter note here are the General Rules for Driving: Irish Style and Indian Style.

Welease

Wouldn't it be quicker just to ask to ask the RSA directly..

a) Is the sequential method incorrect?.. (I believe you have, and they said it doesn't differ from other clock method, which we both disagree with the RSA on that point).

then b) show them the specific reason why the issue is occuring (i.e. the OP's photo) and specifically mention the issue when using different methods..

They can then specifically clarify what they mean by the sequential method. I for one believe they will clarify they they mean it to work on every the 4 point compass roundabouts depicted in the pictures they used.. not for every roundabout and specifically not for the OP's roundabout..

Armed with that information.. then, isn't the which method issue put to rest?.. and all the remain's is to understand why more effort has not been put in clarifying the misconceptions out there (which is what I mean by there being 2 seperate and distinct issues), and you could point them to this thread as a way of demonstrating that people who actually have an interest in motors and driving are essentially split on the correct procedure despite them believing it's clear.

Vertakill

Welease wrote: »

Wouldn't it be quicker just to ask to ask the RSA directly..

a) Is the sequential method incorrect?.. (I believe you have, and they said it doesn't differ from other clock method, which we both disagree with the RSA on that point).

Didn't they reply to someone's email stating that neither method is incorrect and both are acceptable?

While the RSA may deem that a healthy response to an issue... I'm sure the rest of us don't because you can't obviously condone two separate rules for navigating a roundabout.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It's not over until all the fat ladies sing from the same hymn sheet.

I completely agree. That's why I wrote that I don't really mind what method is used (although, personally, I think the sequential/numbers method is safer) as long as this is put to bed by the RSA asap by coming out and conclusively answering this by whatever means necessary.

But as far as the 'debate' about which is right or wrong... I think it's over because the RSA don't seem to know themselves.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

2. There are many bad drivers out there, that is true. But the left-lane-no-matter-what brigade are probably regarded as lethal lunatics by both Numbers and Clocks! I repeat my assertion that the Numbers cohort believe they are adhering to the RoTR in good faith. In fact, I would suspect that motorists who conscientiously follow the number-of-exits method are equally conscientious about other RoTR guidelines (which do not give rise to similar conflicts).

This is the attitude that was bugging me earlier in this thread.
I was told it was because of my 'fck the rest of road users' attitude or my 'misplaced bravado'.

vibe666 wrote: »

seems like a pretty conclusive 'fcuk everyone else' way of doing things to me, despite you repeatedly denying it.

and you don't consider it to be some kind of misplaced bravado or an attitude problem to blindly keep following the instructions of someone who you now know has taught you something incorrectly based on the ROTR and the evidence provided by someone at the RSA who supervises driving testers? :rolleyes:

The reason people are using the numbered method is because they were taught it and it's been working for them for many years without incident.
I follow every rule of the road to the letter. Even if I'm the only person on the road at the dead of night, I'll still indicate, I'll still hold my lane position even on empty roundabouts etc..

There are obviously people who don't follow either method properly and THEY are the ones causing the issue.

Welease wrote: »

People can blame the RSA all they want, but I don't see anywhere that specifies sitting in the middle lane/right lane going 80 for the duration of your journey as the correct driving procedure. Yet a considerable amount of people do it (and worse.. refuse to budge).

On your driving test, it's marked under the 'Progress' category as 'On the straight'.
Afaik, that covers both lane usage amd speed. (ie. In overtaking lane without overtaking).

So people should be aware of it if they are driving and have ever sat a driving tests (which I hope is everyone!).

zynaps

Iwannahurl wrote: »

3. If there is misinterpretation of the rules, then that misinterpretation is widespread and entrenched enough to suggest that this is a systems problem rather than individual failure. Roundabout rules in the Netherlands, for example, appear to be quite simple (assuming the linked document is the whole story). Is there something about the Irish rules, or Irish driver training, or Irish roundabout design, or all three, that causes particular problems?

There are no guidelines at all in that Dutch document, except to say that you can use either lane!

Wasn't a poster earlier asserting that in every other country in the EU, the "clock" method is taught and used consistently?
Yet here, we see practically no particular advice (nevermind rules) on which lane should be selected.

Perhaps the reality is that it's just left up to each driver to decide for themselves, rather than specifying exactly which lane should be used for all situations.
This, and the apparent shoulder-shrug in the RSA's response on the issue, further suggests that this whole thread has indeed been a fuss about nothing. One of those "someone is wrong on the internet" situations

Welease

Vertakill wrote: »

Didn't they reply to someone's email stating that neither method is incorrect and both are acceptable?

While the RSA may deem that a healthy response to an issue... I'm sure the rest of us don't because you can't obviously condone two separate rules for navigating a roundabout.

.

I think you are misunderstanding my point.. Let me reclarify..

If the RSA in response to iwannahurl's question, are stating there is no conflict in using sequence or clock methods then they are not talking about the roundabout posted by the OP, or are not understanding the same method of "sequence" as iwannahurl.. because the conflict is obvious to everyone on this thread irrespective of which method they choose.

Therefore any subsequent q&a is likely irrelevant becuase they are not talking about the same rules or roundabout configurations..

In my opinion, it would be best to explain to the RSA which roundabout configuation is being discussed, where the conflict occurs, and specfically what part of the method cause the conflict.. Once that common ground is understood then the q&a can proceed.. Until then, imo any responses are somewhat pointless.

zynaps

Vertakill wrote: »

On your driving test, it's marked under the 'Progress' category as 'On the straight'.
Afaik, that covers both lane usage amd speed. (ie. In overtaking lane without overtaking).

So people should be aware of it if they are driving and have ever sat a driving tests (which I hope is everyone!).

Maybe if you sit your driving test outside of a major city, but in Dublin, I don't think you'll ever go on a road faster than 60km/h in the driving test. And of course, you're not even allowed on the motorway, so that's not covered in the test either. Mine didn't include any multi-lane roundabouts either

Iwannahurl

Welease wrote: »

Wouldn't it be quicker just to ask to ask the RSA directly..

a) Is the sequential method incorrect?.. (I believe you have, and they said it doesn't differ from other clock method, which we both disagree with the RSA on that point).

then b) show them the specific reason why the issue is occuring (i.e. the OP's photo) and specifically mention the issue when using different methods..

They can then specifically clarify what they mean by the sequential method. I for one believe they will clarify they they mean it to work on every the 4 point compass roundabouts depicted in the pictures they used.. not for every roundabout and specifically not for the OP's roundabout..

Armed with that information.. then, isn't the which method issue put to rest?.. and all the remain's is to understand why more effort has not been put in clarifying the misconceptions out there (which is what I mean by there being 2 seperate and distinct issues), and you could point them to this thread as a way of demonstrating that people who actually have an interest in motors and driving are essentially split on the correct procedure despite them believing it's clear.

I have already decided that I need to present the OP's example to the RSA. Originally I was trying to determine whether there was an overall conceptual/perceptual problem with the general guidelines. I also thought some other poster had asked the RSA about the OP's roundabout, and that the answer given had just divided opinion again. Now I think it might move things along better if I gave my RSA correspondent the specific example and asked them to (a) say how they would do it, and (b) say why they would do it that way, with reference to the RoTR.

I'm not sure what you mean by there being "two separate and distinct issues". Sorry if I am just not hearing you on this point.

Welease, at the risk of being a bore, can I ask you again about your own driving instruction? How did the instructor actually explain roundabouts to you? What specific words and phrases did s/he use?

I suspect there's a lot more to putting this issue to rest than the RSA simply spelling out (to us pedants!) what they mean. It's all very well to end a dispute like this one on Boards. If there's a real perception problem out there though among the general motoring population, then that's a challenge in a different league altogether. Have you noticed that posters who emphatically declared their position early on in this thread, and who dissed everybody in the opposing camp, have not been back since? I know it's just a Boards thread and they all have other things for doing, but I can't help feeling that at least some of them just have their minds made up and because they are 'right' they have no real interest in why there might be another group who think the opposite. This roundabout thread may fizzle out and be forgotten like all the others, but for me the real interest lies in trying to understand why there is such conflict and confusion in the first place and searching for a solution.

I'm beginning to wonder whether this may be a case of Cognitive Bias or some such problem of perception and understanding, which is why I keep asking you about the specifics of your own driver training. I am no expert in Psychology, so Cognitive Bias may not be the relevant phenomenon. What I am trying to get at is that, for whatever reason, different people look at the same thing, in this case the RoTR roundabout navigation guidelines, and see two quite different things, as happens with those clever optical illusions.

Just a thought -- the real explanation may be much more prosaic, and it's probably best to concentrate on finding a simpler explanation. Maybe they just need their eyes examined.

Absurdum

this thread is like driving around a roundabout 5 million times in the fast lane without indicating with front fogs on and no road tax whilst out of my head on crack shouting out "Octavias are ghey" at the top of my voice

Iwannahurl

zynaps wrote: »

There are no guidelines at all in that Dutch document, except to say that you can use either lane!

Wasn't a poster earlier asserting that in every other country in the EU, the "clock" method is taught and used consistently?
Yet here, we see practically no particular advice (nevermind rules) on which lane should be selected.

Perhaps the reality is that it's just left up to each driver to decide for themselves, rather than specifying exactly which lane should be used for all situations.
This, and the apparent shoulder-shrug in the RSA's response on the issue, further suggests that this whole thread has indeed been a fuss about nothing. One of those "someone is wrong on the internet" situations

Here's how they do it in Sweden apparently. Like a lot of Swedish design, very minimalist.

Perhaps we shouldn't minimise the problem in Ireland though. I don't think it's a fuss about nothing. There seems to be a lot of stress, frequent road rage and more than a few collisions associated with Irish roundabouts.

I suspect one feature of 'foreign' roundabouts is that they are better designed, especially newer ones. You can have minimal rules when the design is inherently clearer, cleaner, more rational and more conducive to safe and smooth motoring.