Rules of road

sm3ar

Two lanes into a roundabout and going straight through which turns into one lane. Which lane should you be in? So often cars in both lanes go together for straight ahead with one then having to give way. I would have thought the outside lane is for straight ahead and the inside lane for turning right or back the way you came..open to correction on this.

Tickityboo

sm3ar wrote: »

Two lanes into a roundabout and going straight through which turns into one lane. Which lane should you be in? So often cars in both lanes go together for straight ahead with one then having to give way. I would have thought the outside lane is for straight ahead and the inside lane for turning right or back the way you came..open to correction on this.

Left lane for straight ahead.

sm3ar

Tickityboo wrote: »

Left lane for straight ahead.

That’s what I thought. I see it so often the inside lane trying to go straight ahead

Red Fred

Tickityboo wrote: »

Left lane for straight ahead.

Yep, left lane for straight on unless road markings indicate otherwise.

hasdanta

Everything before and including twelve o'clock on a roundabout is in the left hand lane, everything beyond is right hand lane

Doctors room ghost

12 o clock rule.left lane unless it’s past 12 o clock as you look at it on approach.2nd exit is left lane unless past 12 o clock or if the roundabout is in mayo.your fukd then altogether

Cookie_Monster

Exit turns into single lane after exit or actually is single lane at the exit point? Arrow markings on the road?
Normally should be left lane but may not be.

Wishbone Ash

sm3ar wrote: »

.... I would have thought the outside lane is for straight ahead ....

sm3ar wrote: »

That’s what I thought. I see it so often the inside lane trying to go straight ahead

'Inside' and 'outside' are not suitable terms in relation to roundabout lanes as, to many, the inside lane is the left lane and the outside lane is the right lane.

Why not use 'left' and 'right' and 'center' lanes to make the query easier to understand?

cruizer101

I hate that f'in 12 o'clock rule, most ridiculous rule ever.
Why base what lane you should be in on an arbitrary direction, some roundabouts have 3 exits before 12 some might have none. Why did they change to this 12 o'clock bulls**t instead of the previous far more sensible, number of exits approach.
First exit -> left lane
Second exit -> left or right
Subsequent exits -> right lane

pleas advice

Also, if you're coming on to a large roundabout at an oblique angle, how do you decide where '12' is?

Alun

I agree, the old counting method was far easier and covered all the bases, why they changed it, I don't know. Not only that but the physical layout of exits on the ground often doesn't match that shown on the signs, making it even less sensible.

Dravokivich

Tickityboo wrote: »

Left lane for straight ahead.

You can be in both lanes, unless otherwise sign posted or marked on the road.

Wishbone Ash

Dravokivich wrote: »

You can be in both lanes, unless otherwise sign posted or marked on the road.

It's the opposite - you must be in the left lane unless signed otherwise.

Del2005

cruizer101 wrote: »

I hate that f'in 12 o'clock rule, most ridiculous rule ever.
Why base what lane you should be in on an arbitrary direction, some roundabouts have 3 exits before 12 some might have none. Why did they change to this 12 o'clock bulls**t instead of the previous far more sensible, number of exits approach.
First exit -> left lane
Second exit -> left or right
Subsequent exits -> right lane

2nd exit was always left lane.

Yes the clock system is a bit of an ambiguous system. Is the 12 from the entrance road or when you are on the junction, because some roundabouts make 12 the 1st exit if using the junction but it could be the 2nd or higher from the road.

kub

Dravokivich wrote:

You can be in both lanes, unless otherwise sign posted or marked on the road.

Who told you that? Because my own understanding is as posted already being the left lane is first and second exits and the right lane for third and fourth, even if the fourth is the direction you just came from.
All above however is general unless otherwise indicated in the approach lanes to the roundabout.

Can anyone please post up a link to whatever page is relevant in the rules of the road book.

RebelButtMunch

Dravokivich wrote: »

You can be in both lanes, unless otherwise sign posted or marked on the road.

That's not right. On a standard unmarked roundabout, the overtaking lane is for going right or u turn

Dravokivich

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

It's the opposite - you must be in the left lane unless signed otherwise.

We've been down this road many times. It's both. The answer to the theory test is both. The answer in the driving test is both.

Doctors room ghost

Dravokivich wrote: »

You can be in both lanes, unless otherwise sign posted or marked on the road.

That’s the mayo 12 o clock rule and it’s wrong as fcuk

Doctors room ghost

Del2005 wrote: »

2nd exit was always left lane.

Yes the clock system is a bit of an ambiguous system. Is the 12 from the entrance road or when you are on the junction, because some roundabouts make 12 the 1st exit if using the junction but it could be the 2nd or higher from the road.

It’s from where you are sitting on the approach in to the roundabout while looking straight ahead

Del2005

Doctors room ghost wrote: »

It’s from where you are sitting on the approach in to the roundabout while looking straight ahead

That's your and my interpretation, but I've seen others using the right lane when approaching a roundabout and exiting at 12 because there is a slight left when entering, it's not helped by loads of roundabouts being marked as right lane for straight on.

Doctors room ghost

Del2005 wrote: »

That's your and my interpretation, but I've seen others using the right lane when approaching a roundabout and exiting at 12 because there is a slight left when entering, it's not helped by loads of roundabouts being marked as right lane for straight on.

They’re the roundabouts in mayo I was telling you about.left lane is left first exit only and everything else goes in the right lane.its fukn crazy.

GM228

Probably the most important point to make about the "rules" of the road concerning roundabouts is that legally (unless actual road arrows are provided) there are no "rules" for roundabouts. There is a little over 17,000 pieces of legislation in force in this country and out of all of them roundabouts are only mentioned twice, and neither deals with lanes to be used.

The 12 O clock rule etc from the ROTR is a guide based on international best practice, not a legal requirement. When no road markings are provided using either lane for any turn is neither right nor wrong, it's no wonder roundabouts spark such hot debates.

lucernarian

GM228 wrote: »

Probably the most important point to make about the "rules" of the road concerning roundabouts is that legally (unless actual road arrows are provided) there are no "rules" for roundabouts. There is a little over 17,000 pieces of legislation in force in this country and out of all of them roundabouts are only mentioned twice, and neither deals with lanes to be used.

The 12 O clock rule etc from the ROTR is a guide based on international best practice, not a legal requirement. When no road markings are provided using either lane for any turn is neither right nor wrong, it's no wonder roundabouts spark such hot debates.

I wonder if not complying with the ROTR would sway a judge or jury into equating it with some offence like e.g careless driving. Certainly could be an issue for insurance companies if you haven't committed a specific offence but you clearly hadn't followed the rules of the road.

Dravokivich

lucernarian wrote: »

I wonder if not complying with the ROTR would sway a judge or jury into equating it with some offence like e.g careless driving. Certainly could be an issue for insurance companies if you haven't committed a specific offence but you clearly hadn't followed the rules of the road.

The rules of the road are just guidelines and have no legal standing. So I don't expect they'd be a valid reference in court.

GM228

lucernarian wrote: »

I wonder if not complying with the ROTR would sway a judge or jury into equating it with some offence like e.g careless driving. Certainly could be an issue for insurance companies if you haven't committed a specific offence but you clearly hadn't followed the rules of the road.

No, the ROTR is not law and would not be relevant in court or in relation to an offence.

Isambard

in the UK it's either lane for straight on irrespective of how many lanes at the exit. You're expected to be able to drive properly and negotiate the exit in due turn, having both used your own and observed everyone else's indicators. The main problem is lack of proper training in the past in Ireland.

beauf

Isambard wrote: »

...The main problem is lack of proper training in the past in Ireland.

It's not training. It's that people drive aggressively.

12 o clock rule is stupid. Counting exits is the only way that makes sense. Also a lot of roundabouts in Ireland are too small for two lanes. Road design and marking in Ireland is abysmal.

The only rule that matters is don't hit anything.

Lots of roundabouts in Dublin with two lanes but only one lane after exit. Many because of bus lanes

RebelButtMunch

beauf wrote: »

It's not training. It's that people drive aggressively.

This. And in particular to roundabouts they drive into them way too fast. Trying to hit the apex regardless of lane markings.

I make a point of driving around roundabouts reasonably slow to allow users the chance to decide if they can make it on ahead of me or not,and I stay within the lanes. It's amazing the amount of people that cant stay in the lane due to cornering speed.

beauf

I think its more they want to bully/intimate people into giving way, and also the must get in front syndrome.

Capt'n Midnight

Isambard wrote: »

in the UK it's either lane for straight on irrespective of how many lanes at the exit. You're expected to be able to drive properly and negotiate the exit in due turn, having both used your own and observed everyone else's indicators. The main problem is lack of proper training in the past in Ireland.

In the UK you can't stay on the roundabout, you have to leave after going around three times.

filbert the fox

The notion that in a country plagued by worn markings, darkness, dull days wet roads and especially heavy traffic - how can the correct markings be read at all?

The approach should be signed on a pole well in advance with the correct procedure.

Lord Glentoran

filbert the fox wrote: »

The notion that in a country plagued by worn markings, darkness, dull days wet roads and especially heavy traffic - how can the correct markings be read at all?

The approach should be signed on a pole well in advance with the correct procedure.

Agreed - but will the majority of drivers even notice?

Isambard

no they wont, the speed limits in Mallow were revised weeks ago and the lane marking months ago and most people seem to just do what they always did

Corca Baiscinn

Dravokivich wrote: »

The rules of the road are just guidelines and have no legal standing. So I don't expect they'd be a valid reference in court.

But some Rules of the Road about which there is no legislation, eg helmets and high viz for cyclists ARE invoked in court and referenced in relation to culpability and sentencing, so I don't think your point quite stands up

GM228

Corca Baiscinn wrote: »

But some Rules of the Road about which there is no legislation, eg helmets and high viz for cyclists ARE invoked in court and referenced in relation to culpability and sentencing, so I don't think your point quite stands up

No they are not for sentencing, and in relation to culpability some things such things as cycle helmets can have a part to play in relation to damages in civil claims, but that is due to contributory negligence and nothing to do with any "rule" or requirement.

You can't "invoke" non existing requirements. To invoke something it must be provided for by legislation or common law.

Lord Glentoran

Isambard wrote: »

no they wont, the speed limits in Mallow were revised weeks ago and the lane marking months ago and most people seem to just do what they always did

Up here, we have an anamolus 100 km/h speed limit on a Regional road, which was extended a few months ago. Only noticeable difference is that the speed can no longer sits on one of its former usual perches.

dashcamdanny

Corca Baiscinn wrote: »

But some Rules of the Road about which there is no legislation, eg helmets and high viz for cyclists ARE invoked in court and referenced in relation to culpability and sentencing, so I don't think your point quite stands up

Loads of rules of the road in the book seem to have no legislation.

If you go through the book the word "should" and "must" before an instruction seem to define what is law and what is simply good practice.

lucernarian

GM228 wrote: »

No they are not for sentencing, and in relation to culpability some things such things as cycle helmets can have a part to play in relation to damages in civil claims, but that is due to contributory negligence and nothing to do with any "rule" or requirement.

You can't "invoke" non existing requirements. To invoke something it must be provided for by legislation or common law.

The point I made earlier was exactly to do with "cupability" from a civil suit perspective, and insurance claims and so on, as well as the general idea of "driving without reasonable consideration" http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2011/act/28/section/4/enacted/en/html

GM228

lucernarian wrote: »

The point I made earlier was exactly to do with "cupability" from a civil suit perspective, and insurance claims and so on, as well as the general idea of "driving without reasonable consideration" http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2011/act/28/section/4/enacted/en/html

Insurance claims, yes, that's the insurance companies dealing with settlements as they see fit, but civil and criminal cases in a court will not entertain the ROTR itself.

Rather in the case of cycle helmets for example it just comes down to a duty to protect yourself, rather than any recommendation in the ROTR, it depends on the situation.

PlaneSpeeking

Can a cyclist LEGALLY go the wrong way down a one way street simply by mounting the pavement ?

That's just happened 10 minutes ago and that was their logic "I'm not on the road"!!!

Isambard

no, the pavement is part of the highway

PlaneSpeeking

Isambard wrote: »

no, the pavement is part of the highway

Didn't think so!!!

Zubeneschamali

cruizer101 wrote: »

Why did they change to this 12 o'clock bulls**t instead of the previous far more sensible, number of exits approach.

The law never changed.

The law was misinterpreted for a few years (after I learned) to mean the number of exits bullsh!t.

But that was wrong. So they changed the rules to reflect what the law said all along.