Accident at roundabout

ezra_pound

P. Breathnach wrote: »

At the time I learned to drive (decades ago!) I was told that it was not a requirement to indicate when turning left, which is what the driver in this instance was doing.

Was my driving instructor in the wrong, or have I missed some legislation since?

[I do indicate when turning left, because I consider it a proper courtesy to other road users.]

Another thing my driving instructor advised was never to trust another driver's indicators, to wait until his or her intention is clear.

You actually only have to indicate when you're drunk driving or going straight through a junction while breaking red light.

ezra_pound

slimjimmc wrote: »

It's been law since 1964, possibly before.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/si/0294.html#zzsi294y1964a23


(It's ok, I won't ask when you learned :P)

Well the 1964 act introduced the test and before that people didn't get taught.

puss

If the car was in the left lane on the roundabout I would have waited and let him go because there was a good chance he was going left. I would say a high % of drivers in Ireland don't know how to signal on roundabouts. If it's only the €100 you are out of pocket I think it's not worth the cost of a solicitor.

P. Breathnach

slimjimmc wrote: »

It's been law since 1964, possibly before.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/si/0294.html#zzsi294y1964a23


(It's ok, I won't ask when you learned :P)

As I said, decades ago! Scrolling down in your link, I am reminded what a pointsman was.

I wonder if anybody has ever been done simply for failing to indicate when turning left (as distinct from it being thrown in as an extra with other charges).

ezra_pound

P. Breathnach wrote: »

As I said, decades ago! Scrolling down in your link, I am reminded what a pointsman was.

I wonder if anybody has ever been done simply for failing to indicate when turning left (as distinct from it being thrown in as an extra with other charges).

Seeing as it's a fixed penalty offence I'd be very surprised if it wasn't.

ezra_pound

P. Breathnach wrote: »

As I said, decades ago! Scrolling down in your link, I am reminded what a pointsman was.

I wonder if anybody has ever been done simply for failing to indicate when turning left (as distinct from it being thrown in as an extra with other charges).

This is why you should sit the test! Basic competence on our roads please.

P. Breathnach

puss wrote: »

If the car was in the left lane on the roundabout I would have waited and let him go because there was a good chance he was going left. I would say a high % of drivers in Ireland don't know how to signal on roundabouts. If it's only the €100 you are out of pocket I think it's not worth the cost of a solicitor.

It doesn't have to be "a good chance". It's enough that there is a chance.

As a motorist, I am alive to the possibility that a pedestrian might do something unexpected. But let's be real about it. If we drove as if any pedestrian we see might suddenly dart out in front of us, progress would be next to impossible. So we assess pedestrians in complex ways, including being very careful of unsupervised young children while being somewhat more trusting that an apparently-sober adult represents a lower risk. In my book, an adult out for a run should be a very low risk, because I would expect that he or she is used to road conditions more than the average pedestrian.

P. Breathnach

ezra_pound wrote: »

This is why you should sit the test! Basic competence on our roads please.

On what basis do you imply that I am not competent?

ezra_pound

P. Breathnach wrote: »

On what basis do you imply that I am not competent?

If you think that there's no legal requirement to indicate when turning left you shouldn't be behind the wheel.

P. Breathnach

ezra_pound wrote: »

If you think that there's no legal requirement to indicate when turning left you shouldn't be behind the wheel.

Even though, as I already said, I always do indicate? Which is better than knowing there is a requirement and not indicating.

Anyway, thanks to slimjimmc, I do know the law.

ezra_pound

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Even though, as I already said, I always do indicate? Which is better than knowing there is a requirement and not indicating.

Anyway, thanks to slimjimmc, I do know the law.

Sorry. I thought you were trying to defend not indicating earlier on.

Pinch Flat

Edit - misinterpreted op so have amended my post

If a car is in the left lane and not indicating the assumption is he's going straight ahead. My own reading of this is that the car was in the wrong - he turned left without indicating. No warning to the op.

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Leaflets/Leaf_booklets/Roundabouts_DL_2012_v3.pdf

Cars going left at a roundabout must indicate left. I agree with other posters posters though - I never trust a car on a roundabout whether I'm driving or cycling. The majority of the time they're used incorrectly - a mix of incompetence and "sure it'll be grand"

P_Fitz

OP here.

I have to say this has become a fascinating thread. To clarify a few things, I didn't slow down when i approached the roundabout, i just looked right at the car and kept going assuming he wasn't turning left because he wasn't indicating.

I wasn't wearing any high vis clothing (please save the lecture I've being getting enough!). The crossing was lit.

I'm blessed to have walked away alive.

I think both the driver and I were in the wrong, I don't know who was more so.

I'll be paying the €100 myself, will be wearing hi-vis next time and will be stopping at roundabouts! Hopefully the driver has learned a lesson too and will start indicating at junctions.

beauf

Don't trust indicators.

P. Breathnach

From the SI referenced by slimjimmc:

23.—(1) Whenever a driver intends to slow down, stop or alter course, he shall either give a hand signal in accordance with the following Table or give a signal by using a direction indicator or stop lamp :
...
I am going to turn to the left.

In the case of a vehicle other than a cycle or animal-drawn vehicle, extend the right arm and hand to the right, and rotate them in an anticlockwise direction.

1. It reads to me as if the indicators are an acceptable substitute for a proper hand signal.
2. If the driver in the incident under discussion had given such a signal, it would have been screened from OP's view by the body of the car.
3. Very few drivers of today would understand the hand signal for indicating an intention to turn left.

whippet

beauf wrote: »

Don't trust indicators.

the only thing you can determine from an indicator flashing is that the bulb is working.

As for the OPs situation, as far as I am concerned it is fairly cut and dry - the OP ran out infront of a car on a carriageway. Irrespective of the lack of an indicator the car was on the road the pedestrian wasn't and the pedestrian ran out on to the road. All road users have the responsibility to ensure it is safe for them to enter a road .. in this case it wasn't as the car was on the road.

goz83

TheQuietFella wrote: »

The use of an indicator is only a curtsey to other road users & I too get tired of the lack of use of them but to be fair, you ran out into traffic not knowing where the driver had intended going!

A courtesy? Seriously? I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the use of indicators (where provided) were all a big part in THE RULES OF THE ROAD. I believe using them properly is a requirment to getting a drivers license.

TheQuietFella wrote: »

I would strongly disagree with this. I assume that it's the entry on to a roundabout there are pedestrian crossings where vehicles must stop.
You couldn't have vehicles stopping on the ring of the roundabout!
I know some idiots that do though!:mad::mad:

As has already been mentioned; each exit from a roundabout is considered a turn on a new road, just like any left turn. If I were to drive my car and make a left turn and plough into some jogger, wearing a blind fold and carrying an old stereo on his shoulder, blasting out the Highway To Hell tune, completely ignorant and oblivious to all around him......I am quite sure that he has the right of way and the onus is almost exclusively on the motorist. This shifts somewhat if the pedestrian were to saunter out onto the road if the car is already on it. There is an imaginary line in most cases, where one road ends and anouther begins. The circle of the roundabout is a stretch of a road in itself, which connects to other roads at all exits.

AngryHippie

P. Breathnach wrote: »

At the time I learned to drive (decades ago!) I was told that it was not a requirement to indicate when turning left, which is what the driver in this instance was doing.

Jesus H Christ. Sit a theory test. Read the rules of the fcuking road, or stay of them for everyone's sake.

ezra_pound

goz83 wrote: »

A courtesy? Seriously? I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the use of indicators (where provided) were all a big part in THE RULES OF THE ROAD. I believe using them properly is a requirment to getting a drivers license.



As has already been mentioned; each exit from a roundabout is considered a turn on a new road, just like any left turn. If I were to drive my car and make a left turn and plough into some jogger, wearing a blind fold and carrying an old stereo on his shoulder, blasting out the Highway To Hell tune, completely ignorant and oblivious to all around him......I am quite sure that he has the right of way and the onus is almost exclusively on the motorist. This shifts somewhat if the pedestrian were to saunter out onto the road if the car is already on it. There is an imaginary line in most cases, where one road ends and anouther begins. The circle of the roundabout is a stretch of a road in itself, which connects to other roads at all exits.

This is my understanding also.

Peregrinus

goz83 wrote: »

As has already been mentioned; each exit from a roundabout is considered a turn on a new road, just like any left turn.

Although, by contrast, an entrance to a roundabout is not considered a new road. You don't signal left when entering a roundabout; signalling-wise, it's as though you were travelling straight ahead. If you do signal left as you enter, that will be interpreted as a signal of your intention to take the first exit from the roundabout.

goz83

Peregrinus wrote: »

Although, by contrast, an entrance to a roundabout is not considered a new road. You don't signal left when entering a roundabout; signalling-wise, it's as though you were travelling straight ahead. If you do signal left as you enter, that will be interpreted as a signal of your intention to take the first exit from the roundabout.

I would disagree here, but I do see what you are saying. Think about this for a second.

If you are on a straight road and you are coming to a cross junction ahead of you, which is of equal importance. If turning left, you signal left and complete the turn if safe to do so. If going straight, you do not indicate, as to indicate at any time would confuse other road users. If turning right, you signal right and complete the turn if safe to do so, giving right of way to those travelling in the opposite direction. If doing a U-Turn, you generally signal right and complete the manouvre when safe to do so. At all times, you position your vehicle appropriately before each turn (left, right, or centre of directionsl lanes).

Now imagine a standard roundabout with a total of 4 exit points. There are great similarites, as in, you want to take exit 1 (left to the road you're on) you signal left, be left to lane and begin your manouvre when safe. If you want to take exit 3 (right to the road you're on), you signal right and position your vehicle to the right of the lane you're in, beginning the manouvre when safe. If going straight to exit 2, then you only indicate when exiting the roundabout. So, much is the same, but there are some big differences concerning right of way, which technically does make a roundsbout a road in itself, which is why they are named if they are of any real significance.

The only instance where a person does not need to indicate when entering a roundabout, is when they are taking exit 2 when there are 4 exits. To be fair, even the ROR are not exactly crystal clear on roundabouts, but for a "normal" roundabout, we know this much is true. I personally think that a vehicle should always have to indicate when entering a roundabout and only signal left when approaching the appropriate exit. Signalling right would show ones intention to remsin on the roundabout for at least one more exit.

And then we have traffic lights and turns within 5 meters off a roundabout, but don't get me started!!!

P_Fitz

OP here.

I'm after getting two bills from the hospital. The first is for €100 for A&E and the second is for €346 because I was admitted due to a road traffic accident!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was expecting the first one but certainly not the second. Is this correct? I'm gobsmacked.

I'm having second thoughts about talking to a solicitor.

ezra_pound

P_Fitz wrote: »

OP here.

I'm after getting two bills from the hospital. The first is for €100 for A&E and the second is for €346 because I was admitted due to a road traffic accident!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was expecting the first one but certainly not the second. Is this correct? I'm gobsmacked.

I'm having second thoughts about talking to a solicitor.

You could apply to piab without a solicitor.

28064212

The RTA A&E charge is only applicable if the patient is actually making a claim against another party. Did you tell the hospital you were making a claim? Ring them and tell them you're not, and the charge should be removed

P_Fitz

ezra_pound wrote: »

You could apply to piab without a solicitor.

Is that a better way of doing it? I wouldn't have a clue

P_Fitz

28064212 wrote: »

The RTA A&E charge is only applicable if the patient is actually making a claim against another party. Did you tell the hospital you were making a claim? Ring them and tell them you're not, and the charge should be removed

The letter I got asks am i making a claim against a third party, if i am it looks for info on PIAB or solicitor. But it doesn't say anywhere that i don't have to pay the bill if I'm not making a claim.

I never mentioned making a claim or paying fees to the hospital.

28064212

P_Fitz wrote: »

The letter I got asks am i making a claim against a third party, if i am it looks for info on PIAB or solicitor. But it doesn't say anywhere that i don't have to pay the bill if I'm not making a claim.

I never mentioned making a claim or paying fees to the hospital.

Return it and say that you're not making a claim, the RTA charge will be removed

Little CuChulainn

28064212 wrote: »

Return it and say that you're not making a claim, the RTA charge will be removed

You sure about that? I thought all cases where a third party was liable were chargeable, wether you intend to make a claim or not.

28064212

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

You sure about that? I thought all cases where a third party was liable were chargeable, wether you intend to make a claim or not.

Not according to the HSE National Finance Regulations (NFR 25):

ezra_pound

P_Fitz wrote: »

Is that a better way of doing it? I wouldn't have a clue

Well legally you're meant to go the piab route because it's a personal injury.

http://www.injuriesboard.ie is the site and it should be easy to apply.

You can appeal the piab decision in court of course.