The RSA official reply on roundabout use

Bigcheeze

"If turning left(that is any point from 0 and less than 180 degrees or from 6 o’clock to before 12 o’clock on the clock face regardless of the number of exits), the driver should signal left, and stay in the left hand lane when on the approach, when on the roundabout, and when leaving the roundabout."


How does that work ? So you indicate left and pass say 2 exits all the time indicating left ? That'll lead to some accidents.

Also, the straight through rule is bizarre for dual carriageways and no one currently pays any attention to it as it makes more sense to use both lanes going straight through on dual carriageways. I'll certainly be ignoring that one.

J_R

Bigcheeze wrote: »

"If turning left(that is any point from 0 and less than 180 degrees or from 6 o’clock to before 12 o’clock on the clock face regardless of the number of exits), the driver should signal left, and stay in the left hand lane when on the approach, when on the roundabout, and when leaving the roundabout."


How does that work ? So you indicate left and pass say 2 exits all the time indicating left ? That'll lead to some accidents.

Also, the straight through rule is bizarre for dual carriageways and no one currently pays any attention to it as it makes more sense to use both lanes going straight through on dual carriageways. I'll certainly be ignoring that one.

Hi,

Agree, (on 1st but not 2nd) think he missed out a few explanatory paragraphs.

For example the quote above would cover the first exit only, except it is immaterial of its position on the roundabout, even if after 180 or 12 O'clock, you would still stay left.

He missed out intermediate exits between the first exit and straight ahead.

stevenmu

I think the answer from the RSA is as clear as could possibly be, no missing paragraphs or explanations needed.

Also, it would not cause crashes. You must yield to any traffic on a roundabout, it doesn't matter if they are indicating or not.



And finally: NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

Bigcheeze

J_R wrote: »

Hi,

Agree, (on 1st but not 2nd) /QUOTE]

So do you think it's logical that the thru traffic on a dual carriageway all merges into the left lane to negotiate the roundabout, thereby creating a bottleneck?

It seems illogical as it's a waste of road space and increases risks of minor collisions because it requires a lot of traffic to merge just before a roundabout...before presumably fanning out again after.

Bigcheeze

stevenmu wrote: »

You must yield to any traffic on a roundabout, it doesn't matter if they are indicating or not.

That's true but it turns indicators into car decorations.

corktina

noooo..p[lease no, i thought this had been locked...dont start AGAIN!

bazzachazza

It's not rocket science folk's http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-driving/junctions-roundabouts/roundabouts.html it really isn't.

Bigcheeze

corktina wrote: »

noooo..please no, i thought this had been locked...dont start AGAIN!

This is about the RSA's reply - not which lane is correct.

Caliden

here we go again....

vibe666

i think everyone is missing the real point, and that's that i won at the internets. :pac:

in before the lock (again)

vibe666

on a related note, i got this back from them after i asked if they wanted to join boards.ie and comment directly and also regarding the whole "the RoTR isn't the law so they don't count in court and are meaningless" (me paraphrasing) argument that was mentioned earlier in the thread.

---

Forwarded message

---

From: Brian
Date: 22 February 2011 13:41
Subject: RE: FW: Overdue : Public Information Request
To: vibe666

Hi, glad it clears up the issue. I’d be quite happy if you wanted to post the response on our behalf.

Re the Rules of the Road - The ROTR reflect the Road Traffic Law as at 31 December 2009. it is the legislation behind the ROTR that’s important. You are prosecuted not for breaking the RoTR but for breaking Road Traffic Acts. Basically the RoTR distils all this legislation into a user friendly format. It is also required as essential reading to pass a driving test.

Regards

Brian

as for big cheese's comment, i think it's taken as a given that the left indicator is for the first exit as we already know that you don't indicate left on a roundabout until you have passed any prior exits to the one you are taking.

Bigcheeze

vibe666 wrote: »

as for big cheese's comment, i think it's taken as a given that the left indicator is for the first exit as we already know that you don't indicate left on a roundabout until you have passed any prior exits to the one you are taking.

Yeah fair enough, it's probably an oversight in the RSA response. I actually think the email response is better crafted than the actual ROTR - don't agree with the dual carriageway methodology but I'll comply with the rest of it

Opinicus

Bigcheeze wrote: »

"If turning left(that is any point from 0 and less than 180 degrees

now essential glovebox equipment:

loobylou

Opinicus wrote: »

now essential glovebox equipment:

Ehhm, I think that pic is upside down.;)

Iwannahurl

Opinicus wrote: »

now essential glovebox equipment:

http://www.popular.com.sg/images/product/stationery/17776.jpg

This too, for glovebox AND Boards...





And maybe we need an updated Irish version of this:








.

-Chris-

For info of everyone - this is the full text of the RSA email:

---

Forwarded message

---

From: Brian
Date: 22 February 2011 08:45
Subject: FW: Overdue : Public Information Request
To: vibe666

Dear Mr. vibe666,

Please see the note below re navigating a roundabout in response to your email of the 7th February. I hope this clears up the situation in relation to driving on a roundabout.

1. Well in advance of, and on the approach to a roundabout, a driver should look for directional arrows, road markings, and signs which tell the driver which lane to use for their intended direction.

2. The driver should move into the correct lane in good time.

3. At the roundabout, the driver should yield to traffic coming from the right, but should keep moving if the way is clear.

4. If turning left (that is any point from 0 and less than 180 degrees or from 6 o’clock to before 12 o’clock on the clock face regardless of the number of exits), the driver should signal left, and stay in the left hand lane when on the approach, when on the roundabout, and when leaving the roundabout.

5. If going straight ahead (that is a point at 180 degrees or 12 o’clock on the clock face regardless of the number of exits), the driver should check on the approach for directional arrows, road markings, or signs which may tell the driver which lane to use for their intended direction.
(a) The driver should stay in the left hand lane when on the approach, when on the roundabout, and when leaving the roundabout, however
(b) The driver may use the right hand lane on the approach...
(i) if the left hand lane is for left turn only,
(ii) is blocked,
(iii) where road markings or signs allow it, or
(iv) where a Garda directs it.
The driver should be aware that this involves 2 lane changes on the roundabout.
The driver should not signal left until having passed the exit before the one it is intended to take.
The driver should normally exit into the left hand lane if it is clear, but may exit into the right hand lane if one is provided and the left hand lane is not available.
Note;- `blocked` in (ii) above does not refer to normal traffic volume and movement.

6. If turning right (that is any point after 180 degrees or after 12 o’clock on the clock face regardless of the number of exits), the driver should signal right and stay in the right hand lane on the approach.
The driver should keep to the right on the roundabout.
The driver should signal left after having passed the exit before the one it is intended to take.
The driver should normally exit into the left hand lane if it is clear, but may exit into the right hand lane if one is provided and the left hand lane is not available.

7. Where a roundabout is controlled by traffic lights, they must be obeyed.

8. Where there are more than 2 lanes on the approach, or where other layouts are in place, a driver should look for and comply with directional arrows, road markings and signs which indicate the correct approach lane for the intended direction.

Enquiries relating to particular roundabouts may be directed to the Gardaí or to the local authorities.

The number of exits on the roundabout do not change or impact on the procedure laid out above.

Kind regards

Brian
RSA Communications Manager

Can I please ask that any discussion of the operation of a roundabout refer only to the content of this email?
If there is something to be clarified, let's work it out so we (by we I mean Vibe666 ) can get back to Brian about it.
If there's something you don't understand, feel free to ask and others will do their best to help you.


THIS IS NOT A THREAD TO REHASH THE ISSUES OF THE PREVIOUS ROUNDABOUT THREAD.

vibe666

-Chris- wrote: »

Can I please ask that any discussion of the operation of a roundabout refer only to the content of this email?
If there is something to be clarified, let's work it out so we (by we I mean Vibe666 ) can get back to Brian about it.

looks like i've got myself a job so!

if someone asks a question and i don't respond within 24 hours or so, please feel free to send me a PM as i may be off banging my head against a brick wall and might not have noticed the new posts through the blood and tears streaming down my face! :pac:

Tea drinker

Bigcheeze wrote: »

That's true but it turns indicators into car decorations.

Indicators are only an indication, they offer no garuntee's!

Iwannahurl

-Chris- wrote: »

THIS IS NOT A THREAD TO REHASH THE ISSUES OF THE PREVIOUS ROUNDABOUT THREAD.

I am now clear regarding the rules for roundabouts.

Not so certain now about the rules for roundabout threads...

bladespin

Might be just me but I can't for the life of me see where the difficulty is in all this, if you can operate a mechanical device as complicated as a car surely you can negotiate a roundabout correctly

Iwannahurl

bladespin wrote: »

Might be just me but I can't for the life of me see where the difficulty is in all this, if you can operate a mechanical device as complicated as a car surely you can negotiate a roundabout correctly

See here first and then here.

Bigcheeze

In a scenario where two cars are approaching a standard, evenly spaced, 4-exit roundabout, one in the left lane and one in the right lane.

The car in the left lane is taking the 3rd exit, the car in the right lane is taking the 2nd exit. i.e. both cars are not acting in accordance with ROTR.

If they collide, at the 2nd exit, is the car in the right lane liable as he is crossing a lane ? On the other hand, there are scenarios where drivers are allowed take the 2nd exit from the right lane but there are no scenarios where you can take the 3rd exit from the left lane.

Padraig Mor

The answer to all this is quite simple - 'officially' there is no such thing as a roundabout, i.e. there are no specific laws which state how a roundabout must be negotiated (signage aside, the only statutory guideline on roundabout usage is "when entering a roundabout, a driver shall turn to the left." - technically, a left indicator should always be used entering a r'bout, but that's an argument for a different day). As such, it comes down to common sense. Personally I use whichever approach (clockface or no. of exits) seems to make most sense on that particular r'bout - i.e. the system which is most likely to communicate my intentions to other drivers. The RSA reponse above is, frankly, deeply flawed and has no legal footing whatsoever.

vibe666

Padraig Mor wrote: »

The answer to all this is quite simple - 'officially' there is no such thing as a roundabout, i.e. there are no specific laws which state how a roundabout must be negotiated (signage aside, the only statutory guideline on roundabout usage is "when entering a roundabout, a driver shall turn to the left." - technically, a left indicator should always be used entering a r'bout, but that's an argument for a different day). As such, it comes down to common sense. Personally I use whichever approach (clockface or no. of exits) seems to make most sense on that particular r'bout - i.e. the system which is most likely to communicate my intentions to other drivers. The RSA reponse above is, frankly, deeply flawed and has no legal footing whatsoever.

i think you might have missed the previous thread(s).

and yes the RoTR does have plenty of legal footing as has already been mentioned before, despite what a some people seem to think. if you don't agree then i'd suggest taking it up with the communications manager at the RSA who said the following on the matter:

Re the Rules of the Road - The ROTR reflect the Road Traffic Law as at 31 December 2009. it is the legislation behind the ROTR that’s important. You are prosecuted not for breaking the RoTR but for breaking Road Traffic Acts. Basically the RoTR distils all this legislation into a user friendly format. It is also required as essential reading to pass a driving test.

by following the RoTR you are effectively also following the road traffic acts, simple as that.

maybe you'd care to elaborate on why you think the response from the RSA is "deeply flawed"?

caseyann

ooops i signal right when going around the round about going straight, then change to left single to indicate not going right around to traffic coming off the round about to go straight on opposite side.

HAHA i am right sorry OP and some posters made me confused there lol

Padraig Mor

vibe666 wrote: »

i think you might have missed the previous thread(s).

Missed it? No. Skipped it? Yes.

and yes the RoTR does have plenty of legal footing as has already been mentioned before, despite what a some people seem to think. if you don't agree then i'd suggest taking it up with the communications manager at the RSA who said the following on the matter:

If the RotR has a legal footing then why does the booklet specifically state that it "is not an interpretation of the law"?

by following the RoTR you are effectively also following the road traffic acts, simple as that.

As I pointed out above, the only reference in the Road Traffic Acts to r'bouts is that one must turn left on entering. Signage aside, there is no other guidance on the use of r'bouts. Specifically, there is absolutely no guidance on use of left/right indicators or lane usage (for instance, there is no prohibition on using the right lane to 'go straight' despite what the RSA say, and this was included as 'OK' in the previous edition of the RotR). Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong (hint: I'm not). As such, the descriptions given in the RotR have no legal standing. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that people should ignore the RotR - 90% of the time, its guidance re r'bouts is perfectly sensible. However, to blindly follow its recommendations to the letter on 'unusual' r'bouts makes less sense than simply using one's own common sense.

maybe you'd care to elaborate on why you think the response from the RSA is "deeply flawed"?

The RSA live in a fantasy world where all r'bouts have four exits, one at each of the 90 degree points of the clock. As above, a certain application of common sense is needed when negotiating a non-standard r'bout. My point earlier was to use a "system which is most likely to communicate my intentions to other drivers." Think about it, what is the whole point of indicating but to communicate to other users your intentions? As such, one must indicate in such a fashion as to most likely make it clear to other drivers what you intend to do. For instance, if I approach the Kinsale Rd R'bout in Cork from the West, there are two exits before the 'straight on' exit going East. If I were taking the second of these exits I would not indicate on approach, instead indicating left when past the first exit. To indicate left on approach may make other drivers think I was taking the first exit;indicating as described gives the best chance of communicating my intentions to other drivers.

Zubeneschamali

Padraig Mor wrote: »

As I pointed out above, the only reference in the Road Traffic Acts to r'bouts is that one must turn left on entering

Covered in previous thread: since there is no other reference in law, roundabouts are treated (in law) like any other junction. The RotR describe what that means, so if you're breaking the RotR, you're not following the law.

vibe666

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong (hint: I'm not). As such, the descriptions given in the RotR have no legal standing. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that people should ignore the RotR - 90% of the time, its guidance re r'bouts is perfectly sensible. However, to blindly follow its recommendations to the letter on 'unusual' r'bouts makes less sense than simply using one's own common sense.

it seems pretty obvious that what the RSA are trying to do is get everyone in ireland to use the standard UK/European roundabout system that is in use everywhere else, they're just struggling slightly to get the point across without leaving any room for misinterpretation by people on forums with plenty of free time who like picking things to pieces.

Padraig Mor wrote: »

The RSA live in a fantasy world where all r'bouts have four exits, one at each of the 90 degree points of the clock. As above, a certain application of common sense is needed when negotiating a non-standard r'bout. My point earlier was to use a "system which is most likely to communicate my intentions to other drivers." Think about it, what is the whole point of indicating but to communicate to other users your intentions? As such, one must indicate in such a fashion as to most likely make it clear to other drivers what you intend to do. For instance, if I approach the Kinsale Rd R'bout in Cork from the West, there are two exits before the 'straight on' exit going East. If I were taking the second of these exits I would not indicate on approach, instead indicating left when past the first exit. To indicate left on approach may make other drivers think I was taking the first exit;indicating as described gives the best chance of communicating my intentions to other drivers.

we already covered the (likely) oversight regarding the 'indicating left' explanation, but i guess you skipped over that too.

i'm all for communicating your intentions at roundabouts, but it needs to be in a standard format that everyone understands, so everyone needs to be using the same method to avoid issues. what makes sense to you, might not necessarily make sense to someone else who is following the RoTR if they conflict with what you're doing.

also as has already been said, you are not expected to know every law and driving statute off by heart, but you ARE expected to know the RoTR and it is required reading to pass your driving test so i doubt very much if you would have any problems in court if you were in some kind of situation where you followed the RoTR and had a crash or something like that.

Padraig Mor

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Covered in previous thread: since there is no other reference in law, roundabouts are treated (in law) like any other junction. The RotR describe what that means, so if you're breaking the RotR, you're not following the law.

Is that actually correct (not being smart, just wondering if this is actually written down somewhere or whether it's actually someone's opinion). My opinion (without going off researching) is that a roundabout is technically a set of consecutive T junctions, not a single junction.

vibe666 wrote: »

it seems pretty obvious that what the RSA are trying to do is get everyone in ireland to use the standard UK/European roundabout system that is in use everywhere else, they're just struggling slightly to get the point across without leaving any room for misinterpretation by people on forums with plenty of free time who like picking things to pieces.

This isn't helped by different issues of the RotR having different guidance - the earlier edition used the junction numbering technique, the current uses the clockface technique. AFAIK there has been no change in relevant legislation - both methods are (slightly different) interpretations of the same law. Both methods are correct - my point is that where a conflict seems to exist between the methods (generally on non-standard r'bouts), the one which is most obvious to other drivers should be used. The interpretation of this is naturally going to be somewhat subjective. As mentioned above, where the second exit is before 180 degrees, I would only indicate left having passed the first exit (junction numbering technique). Where the first exit is 'straight on' at 180 degrees, I would indicate left after having joined the roundabout, not on the approach (i.e. the 'straight on' guidance according to the clockface technique).

we already covered the (likely) oversight regarding the 'indicating left' explanation, but i guess you skipped over that too.

At 40 odd pages, damn right.

i'm all for communicating your intentions at roundabouts, but it needs to be in a standard format that everyone understands, so everyone needs to be using the same method to avoid issues. what makes sense to you, might not necessarily make sense to someone else who is following the RoTR if they conflict with what you're doing.

Which is why you need to be aware and keep your eyes open when driving. In any situation on the road, someone may "conflict with what you're doing", no matter if you're right or wrong.

also as has already been said, you are not expected to know every law and driving statute off by heart, but you ARE expected to know the RoTR and it is required reading to pass your driving test so i doubt very much if you would have any problems in court if you were in some kind of situation where you followed the RoTR and had a crash or something like that.

Agreed - providing that the crash was not caused by a driver following the RotR to the exclusion of all other aspects of safety.


TBH this argument is a bit irrelevant really - the real problem on r'bouts is people not indicating at all.

vibe666

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Is that actually correct (not being smart, just wondering if this is actually written down somewhere or whether it's actually someone's opinion). My opinion (without going off researching) is that a roundabout is technically a set of consecutive T junctions, not a single junction.

Padraig Mor wrote: »

This isn't helped by different issues of the RotR having different guidance - the earlier edition used the junction numbering technique, the current uses the clockface technique.

'earlier' editions of the RoTR are irrelevant, references to numbered exits was removed from the RoTR in 2006. it's the resposibility of all drivers to ensure they are aware of the current RoTR. i'm sure if you go back far enough into previous editions of the RoTR, you could get away with just about anything.

Padraig Mor wrote: »

At 40 odd pages, damn right.

no, in this thread, on the previous page.

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Which is why you need to be aware and keep your eyes open when driving. In any situation on the road, someone may "conflict with what you're doing", no matter if you're right or wrong.

totally agree. the only safe way to proceed is to assume everyone around you is an idiot and liable to do anything. give them the room to do it and give yourself enough room to avoid it and you'll be fine 99% of the time.

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Agreed - providing that the crash was not caused by a driver following the RotR to the exclusion of all other aspects of safety.

TBH this argument is a bit irrelevant really - the real problem on r'bouts is people not indicating at all.

there are soooo many problems on the roads here that its very hard to pick out one single issue as being the biggest problem, unless you count general ignorance of other road users, which is the root cause of a lot of the other issues imho.

Iwannahurl

If there is no legislation on roundabouts other than "enter by turning left", and we have nothing else to go on other than the RoTR and other RSA guidelines, then, for example, what are AGS enforcing below and how was a conviction obtained?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=57783416

http://www.galwayindependent.com/local-news/local-news/roundabout-queue%11jumper-pays-the-price/





.

Padraig Mor

Iwannahurl wrote: »

If there is no legislation on roundabouts other than "enter by turning left", and we have nothing else to go on other than the RoTR and other RSA guidelines, then, for example, what are AGS enforcing below and how was a conviction obtained?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=57783416

http://www.galwayindependent.com/local-news/local-news/roundabout-queue%11jumper-pays-the-price/





.

I'd hazard a guess that the people involved ignored directional arrows, signs etc. Note though that yer man was charged with inconsiderate driving, not 'being in the wrong lane' or similar. If there were no signs, I think he should have got a decent solicitor!

vibe666

i'm not sure where that is, has anyone got a google maps link so we can have a look at the roundabout and the road markings?

Jimmy Bottlehead

It is ****ing ridiculous that after all this time, there is still confusion about roundabouts. Absolutely insane.

vibe666

Iwannahurl wrote: »

If there is no legislation on roundabouts other than "enter by turning left", and we have nothing else to go on other than the RoTR and other RSA guidelines, then, for example, what are AGS enforcing below and how was a conviction obtained?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=57783416

http://www.galwayindependent.com/local-news/local-news/roundabout-queue%11jumper-pays-the-price/

assuming it's this one: http://goo.gl/5TaMb

i see oranbeg on one side & oranmore on the other with 'dublin road' labelled either side, so it could be the one.

looking at it, i don't see that he could have been in the right taking the 3rd exit (from his persepctive) no matter which direction he came from, so it looks like they were right to prosecute, unless of course i've got the wrong roundabout?

bazzachazza

Question for the RSA vibe666, Where in legislation do they get their bases/interpretation in the RoTR for roundabout usage ? Also can you ask him to pass it on up the chain that there're are a huge number of drivers out there who haven't a clue how to use a roundabout's and three lane road's and that serious consideration should be used to re doing the RoTR/RTA to make it very clear how to use them and the bases in law.

Still amazes me after all this time that people/poster's think that the RoTR have no standing what so ever. No wonder the roads of this country are proliferated with idiots.

vibe666

bazzachazza wrote: »

Question for the RSA vibe666, Where in legislation do they get their bases/interpretation in the RoTR for roundabout usage ? Also can you ask him to pass it on up the chain that there're are a huge number of drivers out there who haven't a clue how to use a roundabout's and three lane road's and that serious consideration should be used to re doing the RoTR/RTA to make it very clear how to use them and the bases in law.

Still amazes me after all this time that people/poster's think that the RoTR have no standing what so ever. No wonder the roads of this country are proliferated with idiots.

i was actually wondering about the legislation myself as i've looked through quite a bit of it and couldn't find very much at all to go on. i'll ask anyway and see what he says. i was planning on collecting a few questions together to send at once, rather than keep sending out lots of emails to him one at a time, so it might be a little while before we get a reply as it usually takes a couple of days to hear back anyway.

i've already pointed out to him how divided road users are (with reference to the previous thread amongst other things) on what the correct procedure is and asked if it would be possible to have expanded explanations and non-standard examples to make things clearer and he said that it was already something they have planned to include in future editions of the RoTR.

-Chris-

I don't know why people don't just agree to follow the ROTR explanation (including the above clarification).

If we all use the roads with the same set of rules, there's far less likelihood of an accident and virtually zero likelihood of a misunderstanding.

The ROTR have never been more than an interpretation, with no legal standing, but if we just pay heed to them we'll be significantly better off.

Jesus, why does this have to be so difficult????

Padraig Mor

bazzachazza wrote: »

Still amazes me after all this time that people/poster's think that the RoTR have no standing what so ever. No wonder the roads of this country are proliferated with idiots.

-Chris- wrote: »

The ROTR have never been more than an interpretation, with no legal standing, but if we just pay heed to them we'll be significantly better off.

Jesus, why does this have to be so difficult????

TBH I think those that are interested enough in this subject to think that the RotR have no legal basis / are technically wrong / only apply in certain circumstances / whatever are likely people who prioritise road safety on a daily basis. The MANY "idiots" who proliferate our roads are those who completely ignore the RotR once they get their licence or never heard of them in the first place.......

vibe666

-Chris- wrote: »

Jesus, why does this have to be so difficult????

because if it was easy, we wouldn't need mods to keep us in line and you'd be out of a job. :pac:

Iwannahurl

-Chris- wrote: »

I don't know why people don't just agree to follow the ROTR explanation (including the above clarification).

If we all use the roads with the same set of rules, there's far less likelihood of an accident and virtually zero likelihood of a misunderstanding.

The ROTR have never been more than an interpretation, with no legal standing, but if we just pay heed to them we'll be significantly better off.

Jesus, why does this have to be so difficult????

1. I'm happy to agree with the RSA's adjudication, in this thread and IRL.

2. I think you have already agreed that the RoTR are somewhat lacking in clarity and that until this situation is improved no one will ever learn. If you're looking at this purely in the context of Boards, IMO the reason for the lack of acceptance of the RSA's position is probably just that most responders to the original poll and posters in the thread have not been back since. Also real life beliefs and habits trump even the most convincing arguments on Boards. If there really is a problem of ambiguity and confusion out there, it will take a major campaign by the RSA and AGS to change the behaviour of motorists in general.

3. It is clear that AGS have already enforced the rules on roundabouts and have even prosecuted motorists for infringements. Therefore the system seems to be that the RoTR are the accepted standard and that deviation from that standard can be prosecuted under the more general heading of "driving without reasonable consideration". Three weeks after emailing AGS about this matter, I am still waiting for a response from them. If they are prosecuting people then they must have a definite idea of what constitutes appropriate use of a roundabout.




.

dr.fuzzenstein

I don't know why people still argue.
If you have enough brain power to look straight ahead, you can negotiate a roundabout.
So, look straight at the roundabout.
If you are taking an exit before the straight ahead position, left lane.
If you are taking an exit after the straight ahead position, right lane.
Unless you are a halibut I cannot se how you can't understand that.
Unless you of course understand very well, but decided to post to the contrary for no good reason.
And I don't know any other word for that than trolling.