How to Use A Roundabout

Iwannahurl

J_R wrote: »

Who, Where does it say the RoTR is the definitive guide to the rules and that it clearly explains all circumstances. It is not a bible and we are not religious fanatics that must follow it word for word.

Using the clock face is only an AID to assist a person to visualize the exit positions. Some instructors also use magnetic boards with little magnetic cars, others use drawings. I used a magnetic board but now only use drawings because the board only had a four exit roundabout. I draw roundabouts with five six eleven twenty exit sketches anything, everything to get the message clearly across.

The poll outcome is evidence enough (for the purposes of this thread) that there is a clear gap in understanding with regard to the use of roundabouts.

You're speaking about your work as an ADI, where you deliver a complete package combining the RoTR and additional explanatory material.

Would you agree that there needs to be a coherent and comprehensive set of roundabout guidelines that all motorists can refer to? Otherwise what is to stop people making up their own rules?

Does such a unified set of guidelines exist? If not, where can the many qualified drivers who have not received instruction in the 'new' method access those guidelines?

Zubeneschamali

Iwannahurl wrote: »

If not, where can the many qualified drivers who have not received instruction in the 'new' method access those guidelines?

Just to note once again: the 'new' method is also the 'old' method, as taught in the eighties. It was the 'middle' version of the RoR, from some time in the nineties to 2006, which was the source of the exit counting nonsense.

Iwannahurl

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Just to note once again: the 'new' method is also the 'old' method, as taught in the eighties. It was the 'middle' version of the RoR, from some time in the nineties to 2006, which was the source of the exit counting nonsense.

Thanks. I may have missed that key point in this thread. Are you basing that on recall, or can you document it? If we are trying to persuade the RSA to update the roundabout guidelines and the RoTR generally (and I assure you that is what I am doing) then it helps to be able to unequivocally demonstrate that there is a problem and to identify the source of it.

For the record, I have no memory of what I was told regarding roundabouts when I was a learner driver! Too long ago in the last millennium, and back then there were far fewer roundabouts anyway. Since then the anti-cyclist anti-pedestrian Irish roundabouts have proliferated, and the rules have not kept pace.

BTW, I should also say at this point that my correspondent in the RSA tells me there is a leaflet on roundabouts being prepared and that they will take into consideration representations made to them regarding possible issues with understanding of the rules. My guess: 12 o'clock could well make a public appearance for the ?first time.





.

Average-Ro

I think it's fairly straight forward, and I'll try to explain as simply a possible (not meant to sound patronising BTW:))


The RotR book attempted to explain how to navigate a roundabout. I believe what they wanted to expain was:

- If the exit you want to take is anywhere on the left hand side of the roundabout up to the point of straight ahead, take the left lane.
- If the exit is after the point of straight ahead, use the right hand lane.

This was accompanied by a picture of the most ideal roundabout (the + shaped one) The text explaing this might have been a bit awkward to understand, so instructors came up with a teaching method to explain it simply to their students.

- Some said use the left lane for the first two exits, and the right lane for any exit after that.
- Others said use the left lane for any exit before 12 o'clock, and the right hand lane for any exit after 12 o'clock.


(As a tangent: This is why it's difficult to find clear references to "which rule is correct? The exit number rule, or the clock rule" Neither are RULES, they are TEACHING METHODS used to explain roundabout navigation to people learning how to drive)

Both methods were correct as they adhered to the RotR. Two teaching methods were used but the end result was the same, people would used the same lanes and exits regardless of which method was used. Everyone was happy!

---

Then the differently shaped roundabouts appeared (like the Y shaped roundabout). This is where trouble started. This is where the two teaching methods started conflicting.

- People who were taught the exit number method would use the left hand lane to take the 2nd exit.
- People who were taught the clock method would use the right hand lane to take the 2nd exit.

The methods were conflicting, but both parties were adament that they were correct, and in a way, they WERE both correct.

Both parties were taught a valid method that worked on the RotR roundabout (that is, the + shaped roundabout) They were taught this by instructors who created the method from the rules stated in the RotR book. Both methods work absolutely fine, but ONLY on the + shaped roundabout that the RotR used as an example.

From this, you can see that it's not the driver's fault, and it's not the instructors fault. The blame should lay on the shoulders of the RotR for not explaining the rules clearly enough and not using other, less traditional, roundabouts as secondary examples.

To clear up this mess, the RotR should use a clearer text explanation as to how to navigate a roundabout, and use extra sample diagrams alongside the + shaped roundabout (useing a Y shaped roundabout alongside it would be a start). Possibly even employing the Clock Method as a TEACHING METHOD in the book might help clarify things; I don't know, it's not my job to come up with that.

Zubeneschamali

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Are you basing that on recall, or can you document it?

Recall only. I seem to remember that the roundabout picture in the RoR wasn't even a multi-lane one, and the instructions were mostly about signalling, not lane choice. There was just a reference to using the appropriate lane if there were more than one, I think.

Bigcheeze

zynaps wrote: »

Not necessarily though. When going straight through a simplistic cardinal-direction roundabout, you could expect 30% of cars going left, 30% straight, 30% right and a few confused people going all the way around.

If you take the right-hand lane, apart from the chance that you'll be cut off by someone in the left lane heading straight there's could be a contention issue if you exit into a single lane

I won't be cut off because I'll be merging in to left lane on exit. It's like any lane changing move or merging on to a motorway. I'm not doing this blindly or assuming I have automatic right of way.

zynaps wrote: »

bus lane, like on the Malahide Road/Artane roundabout in Dublin - almost everyone takes the right-hand lane going straight there, not sure if the markings dictate it). These situations are always a bit of a bottleneck - you can't increase throughput if the exits are slowing drivers down. The aforementioned roundabout is a horrific example of this with a ridiculous insta-change pedestrian crossing right at the mouths of at least two exits.

That's a bottleneck because there's a pedestrian crossing at the exit of the roundabout. It would still be a bottle neck if everyone was in the left lane. Most people take the right lane because the left lane is a bus lane.

You will increase throughput. Most people using the left lane will lead to longer queue times for everyone in the left lane. Splitting the traffic evenly between left and right lanes will move traffic through the roundabout more quickly unless there is a complete standstill of traffic which is very much the exception. This is pretty basic queuing theory.

zynaps wrote: »

If everybody going straight took the left lane, then there would be no contention issue, and as someone else stated, you can't be cut off by someone taking a later exit.

There will be not contention issue but less traffic will flow through that roundabout and there will be more queues. Once again this is pretty basic queuing theory.

Iwannahurl

Average-Ro wrote: »

I think it's fairly straight forward, and I'll try to explain as simply a possible (not meant to sound patronising BTW:))

Both methods were correct as they adhered to the RotR. Two teaching methods were used but the end result was the same, people would used the same lanes and exits regardless of which method was used. Everyone was happy!

Then the differently shaped roundabouts appeared (like the Y shaped roundabout). This is where trouble started. This is where the two teaching methods started conflicting.

The methods were conflicting, but both parties were adament that they were correct, and in a way, they WERE both correct.

Both parties were taught a valid method that worked on the RotR roundabout (that is, the + shaped roundabout) They were taught this by instructors who created the method from the rules stated in the RotR book. Both methods work absolutely fine, but ONLY on the + shaped roundabout that the RotR used as an example.

From this, you can see that it's not the driver's fault, and it's not the instructors fault. The blame should lay on the shoulders of the RotR for not explaining the rules clearly enough and not using other, less traditional, roundabouts as secondary examples.

To clear up this mess, the RotR should use a clearer text explanation as to how to navigate a roundabout, and use extra sample diagrams alongside the + shaped roundabout (useing a Y shaped roundabout alongside it would be a start). Possibly even employing the Clock Method as a TEACHING METHOD in the book might help clarify things; I don't know, it's not my job to come up with that.

I think there is growing consensus among posters in this thread that the above is indeed the case. See several previous posts where similar conclusions have already been drawn.

vibe666

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I think there is growing consensus among posters in this thread that the above is indeed the case. See several previous posts where similar conclusions have already been drawn.

ditto.

i blame the goverment!! :pac:

actually, all joking aside yes i probably do.

dr.fuzzenstein

vibe666 wrote: »

ditto.

i blame the goverment!! :pac:

actually, all joking aside yes i probably do.

Well, it's just an indication of the attitude of the RSA.
All accidents are cause by boyracers. Just bang on about them and all other causes of accidents can be safely ignored because they don't exist.
Their ideal driver is female, 83 years old, drives a Mcira at 35 km/h (i.e. not fast enough to ever have an accident) and has their side mirrors folded in to ignore the queue of cars following her and has no concepts of lanes, motorways, roadmarkings of any kind and when comes upon a tractor will follow it all the way.

Iwannahurl

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, it's just an indication of the attitude of the RSA.
All accidents are cause by boyracers. Just bang on about them and all other causes of accidents can be safely ignored because they don't exist.
Their ideal driver is female, 83 years old, drives a Mcira at 35 km/h (i.e. not fast enough to ever have an accident) and has their side mirrors folded in to ignore the queue of cars following her and has no concepts of lanes, motorways, roadmarkings of any kind and when comes upon a tractor will follow it all the way.

Cynicism and fanciful rhetoric aside, what proportion of collisions leading to death and/or serious injury (a) occur on roundabouts and (b) involve drivers over 65?

EDIT: Or over 50?

Stats please, not speculation.



.

dr.fuzzenstein

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Cynicism and fanciful rhetoric aside, what proportion of collisions leading to death and/or serious injury (a) occur on roundabouts and (b) involve drivers over 65?

EDIT: Or over 50?

Stats please, not speculation.



.

Just underlines my point.
RSA thinks "since this problem isn't speed related it obviously is made up, doesn't exit or matter".
Speed is bad, m'kay and everyone knows that if you travel over 100 km/h you will automatically combust into a huge ball of flame and die, but why the lazy attitude towards other factors?
Shouldn't we try to make driving safer on all fronts?
If speed is the sole cause of accidents on the roads, why don't we just limit every single vehicle in the country or entering the country to 30 km/h?
Problem solved, disband the RSA, send Gaybo off to his well earned retirement and never worry about road safety again.

Iwannahurl

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Just underlines my point.
RSA thinks "since this problem isn't speed related it obviously is made up, doesn't exit or matter".
Speed is bad, m'kay and everyone knows that if you travel over 100 km/h you will automatically combust into a huge ball of flame and die, but why the lazy attitude towards other factors?
Shouldn't we try to make driving safer on all fronts?
If speed is the sole cause of accidents on the roads, why don't we just limit every single vehicle in the country or entering the country to 30 km/h?
Problem solved, disband the RSA, send Gaybo off to his well earned retirement and never worry about road safety again.

Whut?

I'm just asking you to back this up with more than a mini-rant:

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, it's just an indication of the attitude of the RSA.
All accidents are cause by boyracers. Just bang on about them and all other causes of accidents can be safely ignored because they don't exist.
Their ideal driver is female, 83 years old, drives a Mcira at 35 km/h (i.e. not fast enough to ever have an accident) and has their side mirrors folded in to ignore the queue of cars following her and has no concepts of lanes, motorways, roadmarkings of any kind and when comes upon a tractor will follow it all the way.

dr.fuzzenstein

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Whut?

I'm just asking you to back this up with more than a mini-rant:

Sorry, rant is all I got today, basically what I'm saying is "wouldn't it be nice if there was some clarification from the RSA?".
This thread isn't about speeding (your favourite subject, I know), so I'm not going to post page after page of accident stats regarding roundabouts.:p

Iwannahurl

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Sorry, rant is all I got today, basically what I'm saying is "wouldn't it be nice if there was some clarification from the RSA?".
This thread isn't about speeding (your favourite subject, I know), so I'm not going to post page after page of accident stats regarding roundabouts.:p

It is you who say it!

J_R

Hi,

In the past few days five (5) more people have voted to keep left.:eek::eek::eek:

So, would any of the 189 please post a link to the PRESENT Rules of the Road where it says you should stay left when taking the 2nd exit.

There is an OUT-DATED RoTR which explained how to negotiate a standard 4 exit roundabout where the exits were at 90, 180 degrees to each other, this accompanied with a simple diagram of this roundabout. (Perhaps that was the only type roundabout in Ireland at the time).

Now, if a person was to superimpose that diagram on a diagram of a roundabout with exits at different angles and/or different number of exits, it just will not fit. Some exits may be covered, other exits will be sticking out all over the place.

So, if the diagram will not fit, how can a person expect the wording to make sense.

Would be like using a map of Cork to drive through Dublin

Iwannahurl

J_R wrote: »

Hi,

In the past few days five (5) more people have voted to keep left.:eek::eek::eek:

So, would any of the 189 please post a link to the PRESENT Rules of the Road where it says you should stay left when taking the 2nd exit.

There is an OUT-DATED RoTR which explained how to negotiate a standard 4 exit roundabout where the exits were at 90, 180 degrees to each other, this accompanied with a simple diagram of this roundabout. (Perhaps that was the only type roundabout in Ireland at the time).

Now, if a person was to superimpose that diagram on a diagram of a roundabout with exits at different angles and/or different number of exits, it just will not fit. Some exits may be covered, other exits will be sticking out all over the place.

So, if the diagram will not fit, how can a person expect the wording to make sense.

Would be like using a map of Cork to drive through Dublin

Sorry, I don't fully understand all of what you're saying above.

However, as a few of us have tried to point out in this thread, there are no instructions in the current RoTR stating unequivocally that the old rule has been rescinded. In the absence of such clear guidelines users of the old rule continue to believe that they are correct.

This apparent ambiguity has been partially and indirectly confirmed by the RSA, in that they invoked the 12 o'clock rule for negotiating the OP's roundabout rather than the RoTR per se.



.

J_R

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Sorry, I don't fully understand all of what you're saying above.

However, as a few of us have tried to point out in this thread, there are no instructions in the current RoTR stating unequivocally that the old rule has been rescinded. In the absence of such clear guidelines users of the old rule continue to believe that they are correct.

This apparent ambiguity has been partially and indirectly confirmed by the RSA, in that they invoked the 12 o'clock rule for negotiating the OP's roundabout rather than the RoTR per se.
.

Hi,

stating unequivocally that the old rule has been rescinded.

That is not a rule in the old book. It is merely an explanation of how to negotiate a 4 exit roundabout with exits at 90 degrees.

Why should they rescind an explanation which quite clearly explains how to negotiate a 4 exit roundabout with exits etc etc.

Iwannahurl

J_R wrote: »

That is not a rule in the old book. It is merely an explanation of how to negotiate a 4 exit roundabout with exits at 90 degrees.

Why should they rescind an explanation which quite clearly explains how to negotiate a 4 exit roundabout with exits etc etc.

Let's not get bogged down in semantics. Roundabouts are obviously bad enough in themselves!

OK, not rules, guidelines. Not rescind, expand and clarify.

The RoTR guidelines are not sufficiently clear and comprehensive (as demonstrated by the RSA's own response).

And hence this thread, 44 pages and 650 posts so far. Simply repeating otherwise just adds to the length of the thread while changing nothing IRL.

vibe666

i got very worked up about this myself and ended up saying something i regret, since i gave myself a chance to cool off and look at it from all angles.

reading the current RoTR, I see an explanation that to me fits with how i was taught to drive (clocks method, unless road markings or garda etc. say otherwise) in the UK and that's all fine and dandy, but looking at the poll results up to now, there is obviously something very wrong with the methods that have been taught to almost half the drivers in the country and the RSA (so far) hasn't done nearly enough to address it and something needs to be done to fix that and even getting the 190 people in this thread who voted incorrectly (and seem to still be doing so) to change their ways isn't going to go nearly far enough to fix the problem.

J_R

vibe666 wrote: »

i got very worked up about this myself and ended up saying something i regret, since i gave myself a chance to cool off and look at it from all angles.

reading the current RoTR, I see an explanation that to me fits with how i was taught to drive (clocks method, unless road markings or garda etc. say otherwise) in the UK and that's all fine and dandy, but looking at the poll results up to now, there is obviously something very wrong with the methods that have been taught to almost half the drivers in the country and the RSA (so far) hasn't done nearly enough to address it and something needs to be done to fix that and even getting the 190 people in this thread who voted incorrectly (and seem to still be doing so) to change their ways isn't going to go nearly far enough to fix the problem.

Hi,

But they have made a start. They have published a NEW RoTR to replace the old thirty or forty year old book.

Unfortunately the 190 people on here appear not to have read it, instead they are using the old book which only explained how to negotiate a 4 exit 90 etc etc.

If they were to read the new explanation with an open mind there would be a lot less confusion. And for them to forget the numbering system which ONLY works on a 4 exit 90 etc etc etc etc.

That forty year old explanation does NOT explain how to:-
negotiate a 3 exit,
a 4 exit where exits are not at 6, 9, 12 and 3
a 5 exit
a 6 exit or any other number

AND also does not cover any roundabout where lanes merge and diverge and where there are dedicated lanes for specific destinations. It is impossible to give ANY overall rule for these roundabouts as they are far to many variations. Instead you follow the signage and lane markings

-Chris-

J_R wrote: »

Hi,

In the past few days five (5) more people have voted to keep left.:eek::eek::eek:

So, would any of the 189 please post a link to the PRESENT Rules of the Road where it says you should stay left when taking the 2nd exit.

There is an OUT-DATED RoTR which explained how to negotiate a standard 4 exit roundabout where the exits were at 90, 180 degrees to each other, this accompanied with a simple diagram of this roundabout. (Perhaps that was the only type roundabout in Ireland at the time).

Now, if a person was to superimpose that diagram on a diagram of a roundabout with exits at different angles and/or different number of exits, it just will not fit. Some exits may be covered, other exits will be sticking out all over the place.

So, if the diagram will not fit, how can a person expect the wording to make sense.

Would be like using a map of Cork to drive through Dublin

I actually think it'd be a worthwhile exercise to delete all the votes so far and ask everyone to vote again. I'd be interesting to see how the voting goes now that all this discussion has taken place.

Have any minds actually been changed??

vibe666

J_R wrote: »

Hi,

But they have made a start. They have published a NEW RoTR to replace the old thirty or forty year old book.

Unfortunately the 190 people on here appear not to have read it, instead they are using the old book which only explained how to negotiate a 4 exit 90 etc etc.

i think the big problem is that when someone who was taught the sequential method reads the current RoTR they still see something that they can easily misinterpret the same way by glancing over a few small details which are re-enforced to a certain extent by the new RSA advert that also just show the standard 4 exit 'cardinal' roundabout as an example.

every single day that i drive on Irish roads i see several incidences of driving behaviour that would get people pulled over and ticketed in the UK, but seem to be standard practice here, either through lack of driver education or plain old ignorance, but with ireland's history of past driving test standards (driving licence giveaways and years of solo learners) its hardly surprising.

roundabout etiqutte is only a small part of a much bigger problem and not nearly enough is being done to fix things and its costing lives.

Bigcheeze

J_R wrote: »

Hi,

But they have made a start. They have published a NEW RoTR to replace the old thirty or forty year old book.

Unfortunately the 190 people on here appear not to have read it, instead they are using the old book which only explained how to negotiate a 4 exit 90 etc etc.

If they were to read the new explanation with an open mind there would be a lot less confusion. And for them to forget the numbering system which ONLY works on a 4 exit 90 etc etc etc etc.

That forty year old explanation does NOT explain how to:-
negotiate a 3 exit,
a 4 exit where exits are not at 6, 9, 12 and 3
a 5 exit
a 6 exit or any other number

AND also does not cover any roundabout where lanes merge and diverge and where there are dedicated lanes for specific destinations. It is impossible to give ANY overall rule for these roundabouts as they are far to many variations. Instead you follow the signage and lane markings

The sequential method does work to navigate just about any roundabout format. In fact many of us believe that it's less ambiguous and less open to interpretation than an imaginary clock.

Pubishing a new version of the rotr is a totally inadequate response to new rules or "interpretations" if you insist. Remember the publicity around speed changeover to kmh.

Slick50

-Chris- wrote: »

I actually think it'd be a worthwhile exercise to delete all the votes so far and ask everyone to vote again. I'd be interesting to see how the voting goes now that all this discussion has taken place.

Have any minds actually been changed??

I think you know the answer to that Chris. It would be interesting to see alright. Would it be possible to contact everyone that has voted and invite them to re-vote in a parallel thread.

J_R

Bigcheeze wrote: »

The sequential method does work to navigate just about any roundabout format. In fact many of us believe that it's less ambiguous and less open to interpretation than an imaginary clock.

Pubishing a new version of the rotr is a totally inadequate response to new rules or "interpretations" if you insist. Remember the publicity around speed changeover to kmh.

Hi,
So that I may understand please explain The sequential method which works on all roundabouts

Just give two examples.

Example 1.

Roundabout with 3 exits

1st exit at 12, 2nd at 3 (and 3rd of course at 6)

If you can not understand the clock method then assume standard 4 exit with the 1st exit blanked off)

Example 2.

Roundabout with 6 exits, all exits equally spaced.

Thank You

Q. How would youi take the 2nd exit on each roundabout

Slick50

J_R wrote: »

Hi,
So that I may understand please explain The sequential method which works on all roundabouts

I thought the one thing that had been agreed on this thread is that there are going to be exceptions in each method.

J_R

Slick50 wrote: »

I thought the one thing that had been agreed on this thread is that there are going to be exceptions in each method.

I understood that there are two types of roundabouts.

1. Where you can use a standard explanation, for example, keep left for all exits before or at 12 O'Clock (or straighr ahead if you do not like 12 O'Clock), and go right for all exits after 12

or


2. Where lanes merge and diverge and where there are dedicated lanes. For these roundabouts there can be no "One size fits all" explanation. For these roundabouts the signage and lane markings rule. These markings signs override the basic rule.


I understood that this thread was about the standard roundabout as no simple rule/explanation can cover the 2nd type

Slick50

J_R wrote: »

I understood that there are two types of roundabouts.

1. Where you can use a standard explanation, that is keep left for all exits before or at 12 O'Clock (or straighr ahead if you do not like 12 O'Clock), and go right for all exits after 12

or


2. Where lanes merge and diverge and where there are dedicated lanes. For these roundabouts there can be no "One size fits all" explanation. For these roundabouts the signage and lane markings rule. These markings signs override the basic rule.


I understood that this thread was about the standard roundabout as no simple rule/explanation can cover the 2nd type

So why did you ask..

J_R wrote:

So that I may understand please explain The sequential method which works on all roundabouts

J_R

Slick50 wrote: »

So why did you ask..

Read Bigcheeze post

Slick50

J_R wrote: »

Read Bigcheeze post

This one?...

Bigcheeze wrote:

The sequential method does work to navigate just about any roundabout format. In fact many of us believe that it's less ambiguous and less open to interpretation than an imaginary clock.