Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

Roundabout - who's at fault?

24

Comments

  • #32
    Anan1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,815 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    FearDark wrote: »
    Before I even opened this thread my answer to the OP's question was "the woman".
    Banned for a week for sexism


  • #33
    slimjimmc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,786 ✭✭✭slimjimmc


    rubberdiddies wrote: »
    Surely the rules of the road are "rules" and not "advice", as a previous poster said. Can someone clarify this?
    Not all, some of what is in the RoR is derived from law, almost everything else are guidelines,advice and good practice. They even state this in their Introduction on Pg 8 of the print/pdf copy.
    This book uses a ‘how to’ approach and covers many of the manoeuvres
    identified as factors in a road crash. It uses three methods to set down clearly
    and concisely how the law applies to all road users.
    It uses must and must not to draw attention to behaviour the law clearly
    demands or forbids.
    It uses terms such as should and should not to tell you how best to act in
    a situation where no legal rule is in place.
    It illustrates and describes traffic lights, road markings and signs provided
    to regulate traffic.

    rubberdiddies wrote: »
    The incident the OP describes has happened to me on many occasions. I put this down to bad driving and general lack of cop on in Ireland on how to use a roundabout but I would have always assumed the OP was in the right.
    Unless there were markings to the contrary, the other car is entitled to continue orbiting the roundabout in their lane. Many drivers assume they have priority when moving across lanes but the fact of the matter is they don't, even if the other driver shouldn't be there:
    You must give way to traffic already in the lane into which you are moving

    rubberdiddies wrote: »
    I notice a lot of large trucks/lorries automatically take the lefthand lane when going for the 3rd exit, presumably cos they feel the turn is too tight otherwise. This in my opinion is extremely dangerous.
    As others have already said, that's good practice and safe driving. The truck can control his blind-side by doing that.


  • #34
    cyclopath2001
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,359 ✭✭✭cyclopath2001


    CiniO wrote: »
    was just there taking the same exit as me. She went through all roundabout on the outer lane to turn right on it, and at the moment, she must have been in my blind spot.
    The key to this would be the overtaking regulations. Overtaking you on the inside in a situation that would have caused a danger or inconvenience to you is a double no-no.

    Apart from the stated roundabout rules, best practice would not to overtake anyone on a roundabout unless they're nearly stopped.


  • #35
    Voodoomelon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,661 ✭✭✭Voodoomelon


    What I want to know about are roundabouts that have the second exit beyond the 12 o clock mark, see below:


    I follow the rule that if the second exit is beyond the 12 o clock mark of the entrance you take to the roundabout, you take the inner most lane (from centre) to drive round and then indicate left as normal.

    roundabout.jpg

    This is what I do ^^.

    However lots of people say this is the second exit and as per the rules of the road they take the outer most lane (from centre) and drive around that way.

    Whos right?


  • #36
    Slidey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,811 ✭✭✭✭Slidey


    I was told when doing my truck lessons that if the 2nd exit was after 12 you should treat it as you would the 3rd exit


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Rick Deckard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,181 ✭✭✭Rick Deckard


    chatterpillar wrote: »
    But just to clarify, in this case, was the car in the outer lane taking the third exit? (I'm assuming a standard roundabout with four entrances/exits, I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that particular roundabout though!)

    there are 5 entrances/exits
    the car in the inner off side lane had been on the roundabout from the southbound exit of the m1, while the car infront of me in the outer nearside lane had just joined at the donabate entry. so that would be exit 4 for inner and exit 2 for outer.. i know i'm crap at explaining this
    Slidey wrote: »
    I was told when doing my truck lessons that if the 2nd exit was after 12 you should treat it as you would the 3rd exit

    +1, was told the exact same during a driving lesson..


  • #38
    Berty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,174 ✭✭✭✭Berty


    RE: The last 3 posters.

    This is what I do and it is very simple.

    I drive defensively because every road is full of morons who are so fvcking stupid they dont give a flying fvck.

    Excuse my french but thats life. My mother said one day whilst she cut a roundabout with me in the car, after saying "What the fvck?"

    "Im on the roundabout now, they can all go the hell"

    I said to Mrs Berty many times when she was complaining about some fvcker cutting us up on the road to the Supermarket.

    "Look around the supermarket at those people barely able to drag their hairy knuckles around the supermarket(nenagh btw). Those people actually drive, thats why I drive defensively"


  • #39
    Mr. Presentable
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,495 ✭✭✭Mr. Presentable


    With respect of the OP.

    The OP was correctly using the road, the other was not. However, once the situation has developed where both are moving for the same exit, the OP must yield to the vehicle already in the lane. Which the OP did, making him right twice.

    I suppose what it boils down to is that no matter what the legality of how the other vehicle got to it's position on the road, the correct procedure is determined as of the situation in the now.

    I also applaud the use of blind spot checking to the left by the OP. It is something many drivers neglect. So three good marks to the OP!


  • #40
    exaisle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,676 ✭✭✭exaisle


    What do you do when you meet somebody coming around the wrong way on a roundabout?? No legislating for that one!


  • #41
    whyulittle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,878 ✭✭✭whyulittle


    Met an auld lad going the wrong way through a small, but busy roundabout a few weeks ago. Luckily he was going so slow I saw him miles away. Looked totally dazed.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Berty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,174 ✭✭✭✭Berty


    Surely going the wrong way comes under either

    Careless Driving

    or

    Reckless driving - FECKER CHATTERPILLAR :D


  • #43
    The Big Red Button
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,390 ✭✭✭The Big Red Button


    Berty wrote: »
    Surely going the wrong way comes under either

    Careless Driving

    or

    Wreckless driving

    Reckless driving.

    I wouldn't rule out the possibility of it resulting in a wreck, therefore it's not wreckless ;) :P


  • #44
    CiniO
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,069 ✭✭✭✭CiniO


    Thanks for all the replies.
    After reading all these and analysing some facts, here's what I think now.

    If we crashed, my fault would be obvious, as I was changin a lane, and road traffic regulations require anyone chaning lane to give way to traffic already on that lane:

    Quotation from S.I. No. 182/1997, ROAD TRAFFIC (TRAFFIC AND PARKING) REGULATIONS, 1997
    (8) A driver shall not drive from one traffic lane to another without yielding the right of way to traffic in that other lane.

    The woman that drove other car, was supposed to use the right (inner, offside, whatever) lane on the roundabout if she intended to turn right (take 3rd exit), but it's not mentioned in any traffic law AFAIK. It's only shown in rules of the road as guidelines. So in case of accident and court case, it's obvious to me, that something that is a law act, is far more important, that some guidelines for drivers.

    Only one other thing comes to my head. If we started from the approach to the roundabout at the same time, and were moving on the side of each other through the roundabobut, I obviously should see her before. If I didn't it could mean, that she started i bit later, and she was driving faster to catch me on, and to me, that would mean that she started overtaking me on the roundabout on the left side which is abviously forbidden. So that would probably take a case to 50/50 fault.

    Anyway - one more thing to remember - always check in mirrors and blindspot before exiting from roundabout direct from inner lane (offside, right). Even more - what I'll try to do, is to change lane to the outer lane just after passing last exit before the one that i'm taking. That just gives you more space, to change lane and make sure the lane that you are changing to is empty

    Something like this:
    attachment.php?attachmentid=123197&d=1281211806


  • #45
    Merch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,323 ✭✭✭Merch


    Berty, I was not arguing with you, I was replying to the OP
    Berty wrote: »
    Hang on. I used to design and build roundabouts(not by myself :P), directed from the NRA, for a large contractor in this country and they ARE called:

    Inner orbital and Outer orbital lanes.

    It is easiest to call them that because that IS what they are called. If you were bringing a matter like this to court and used whatever description you felt made you happiest it would only serve to confuse people.

    You replied to a post which I was referring to the OP, in that you stated something was fact.

    I didn't challenge you, you responded to a post where I was giving my opinion based on information I have come across on the RSA, NRA and UK roads authority, in essence you challenged me! however I never even noticed you before my posts to the OP

    Berty wrote: »
    This is the best I can get you right now as I dont work in that industry any more so wouldn't know where to start tbh.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundabout

    It refers to inner and outer and the fact you "orbit" the roundabout that is where the reference comes from.

    And then you couldn't even back your own response
    Berty wrote: »
    Im sitting in my sitting room at home and you expect me to somehow find links to NRA / Contractor Reports and/or guidelines by the councils / NDP / ESAI at the drop of a hat simply because YOU request them.

    I don't think so. I cannot access the LIT database from my computer so cannot find tutors descriptions of roundabout/turning circle construction patterns.

    Nor did I bring home a lot of files and paperwork when I left the industry in 2006 just for the hell of it just in case Im challenged on the internet.

    :rolleyes:

    I didnt request them, you stated something was fact and I asked for proof and I believe I said am willing to be proved wrong.
    then you get snarky because you cant back it up, I didn't really think where you might be or suggest you might do anything at the drop of a hat??
    I never heard nearside and offside being described correctly as anything other than nearside or offside and certainly not inner orbital or outer orbital, which to me refers to a road orbiting a town or similar (either inner or outer) as I said willing to be proved wrong, if you have something to back that up fine, but please do not throw a fit at me, saying oh I love the internet for this kind of thing or wether or not you have the documentation to back it up as if to suggest I have asked for something unrealistic.

    its seems to me if you make a statement and cant back it up, then you are wrong, you not having access to information isn't really my problem.

    I'm open to being corrected by someone providing supporting information, but not by someone that cant and then accuses me of challenging them, it makes it seem you are not open to being in the wrong.


  • #46
    Voodoomelon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,661 ✭✭✭Voodoomelon


    Surely there had to be some legal backing towards people who actually use roundabouts correctly? How can there be laws for people pulling out at junctions incorrectly, yet none for idiots not using roundabouts properly? It completely defies logic that someone can pleed ignorance and get away with 50/50 blame on a roundabout, despite causing an accident by sitting in the wrong lane...

    Also, no one has an answer to the 3 exit roundabout above? (legal)


  • #47
    cyclopath2001
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,359 ✭✭✭cyclopath2001


    Voodoomelon wrote: »
    Also, no one has an answer to the 3 exit roundabout above? (legal)
    There is nothing wrong (legally) with the manouvre you illustrated as long as it is performed safely. This means paying attention to the overtaking and lane change regulations. In the case of someone who uses the inside lane for the maouvre you illustrate, the same applies to them.

    The bottom line is that if you overtake or change lane you must do so without causing inconvenience or danger to anyone else.

    From what I see, most safety issues on roundabouts (among those already on them) are caused by excessive speed and innappropriate overtaking.


  • #48
    Reloc8
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,857 ✭✭✭Reloc8


    Just to give a lawyer's perspective on the OP's situation (accepting that most motorists will be - correctly - highly critical of the car in the wrong lane of the roundabout)...

    I have to say the OP would be in serious trouble in court on any liability issue. In my view a judge would certainly have more regard to missing a car (or anything/one) in the blind spot when changing lane than to incorrect roundabout useage. The fact that that specific car should not have been there (bearing in mind its intentions) is more or less irrelevant, legally.

    It's as well to bear in mind that the rules of the road are not considered to have any legal status in a civil claim (althought you can of course be prosecuted for breaches).


  • #49
    Henry Ford III
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,943 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    Reloc8 wrote: »
    Just to give a lawyer's perspective on the OP's situation (accepting that most motorists will be - correctly - highly critical of the car in the wrong lane of the roundabout)...

    I have to say the OP would be in serious trouble in court on any liability issue. In my view a judge would certainly have more regard to missing a car (or anything/one) in the blind spot when changing lane than to incorrect roundabout useage. The fact that that specific car should not have been there (bearing in mind its intentions) is more or less irrelevant, legally.

    It's as well to bear in mind that the rules of the road are not considered to have any legal status in a civil claim (althought you can of course be prosecuted for breaches).

    I wouldn't agree.

    It's quite reasonable if using a roundabout as the op described to indicate to make the exit, and not have to check your nearside blindspot.

    Had the other person used the correct lane there would not have been any accident. So therefore they are totally at fault. I cannot see any contributory negligence.

    To me at least that's clearcut.


  • #50
    Max Power1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,272 ✭✭✭✭Max Power1


    Reloc8 wrote: »
    It's as well to bear in mind that the rules of the road are not considered to have any legal status in a civil claim (althought you can of course be prosecuted for breaches).
    The ROTR have no legal basis full stop, as they are merely an interpretation of the RTA.

    In addition, you cannot be prosecuted for a breach of the ROTR. They have no statutory basis.


  • #51
    Reloc8
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,857 ✭✭✭Reloc8


    Henry Ford III wrote: »
    I wouldn't agree.

    It's quite reasonable if using a roundabout as the op described to indicate to make the exit, and not have to check your nearside blindspot.

    Had the other person used the correct lane there would not have been any accident. So therefore they are totally at fault. I cannot see any contributory negligence.

    To me at least that's clearcut.

    Well...I'm just saying is all lol.

    Take the evidence in court as being 'and because there should never have been a car in my blindspot I didn't bother checking it' and you will be potted from a distance. That's not to say some element of contributory negligence might be assessed as well.

    You say that had the other car not been there there would have been no accident...that is pretty much always the case in a two car collision. Equally, a blindspot check will prevent this accident as well.

    Anyway I understand your point, and I'm not trying to argue the toss with you, nor am I criticising the OP but just trying to answer his question from a legal perspective as to who would carry the can in court.

    I don't however agree its not necessary to check your nearside blindspot in this situation - if you don't you're proceeding on the basis of a presumption.
    Max Power1 wrote: »
    The ROTR have no legal basis full stop, as they are merely an interpretation of the RTA.

    In addition, you cannot be prosecuted for a breach of the ROTR. They have no statutory basis.

    To be more precise, you can of course be prosecuted for behaviour which is a breach of the rules of the road, but not because it is contrary to the rules of the road, rather, because it is also contrary to the Road Traffic Acts.

    A judge dealing with a criminal prosecution for careless driving will frequently have regard to the rules of the road. Cases of dangerous driving are, generally, far more stark and less nuanced.

    Say if the OP was prosecuted for careless driving here, there having been a collision or whatever, on the explanation given there is a reasonable chance some judges would dismiss - the standard of proof in a criminal case being higher.

    In a civil case on an explanation such as that given by Henry Ford ('she shouldn't have been there - there's no need for me to check my blindspot - even though I am changing lane to exit the roundabout')...not going to fly very far I'm afraid.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    slimjimmc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,786 ✭✭✭slimjimmc


    Henry Ford III wrote: »
    I wouldn't agree.

    It's quite reasonable if using a roundabout as the op described to indicate to make the exit, and not have to check your nearside blindspot.

    Had the other person used the correct lane there would not have been any accident. So therefore they are totally at fault. I cannot see any contributory negligence.

    To me at least that's clearcut.

    I find this comment astounding in it's ignorance of both traffic law and good driving practice, as is possibly symtomatic of the state of driving in Ireland.

    Firstly traffic law clearly states that you must not move into another lane if another road user is already there (this has already been pointed out in previous posts). If you don't check you mirrors and blindspot how the heck are you supposed to know the lane is clear? How do you know that another car didn't enter at the 9 o'clock position and came up beside you? Do you apply the same logic when overtaking or moving to right lane?

    Secondly, there was nothing illegal about what the other driver done in staying in the left lane unless road markings dictate otherwise. You could legally drive 10 laps around a roundabout in any lane if no signs designated that lane for a specific exit.


  • #53
    KaiserGunner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,475 ✭✭✭KaiserGunner


    slimjimmc wrote: »
    Secondly, there was nothing illegal about what the other driver done in staying in the left lane unless road markings dictate otherwise. You could legally drive 10 laps around a roundabout in any lane if no signs designated that lane for a specific exit.

    Yeah but its extremely dangerous as its also legal to travel straight through a roundabout to the second exit in the inner orbital lane. So If the woman is in the outer orbital lane but taking the third exit she would collide with drivers going to the second exit in the inner orbital lane.

    I personally when taking the second exit will be in the outer orbital but many drivers are in the inner orbital, so what the woman did was extremely dangerous and thus wouldnt think that it was a legal manoeuvre.


  • #54
    Reloc8
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,857 ✭✭✭Reloc8


    What she did was certainly not correct and I don't mean to be taken as defending her.

    But, that's why even the rules of the road say (regarding roundabouts) :


    "In all cases watch out for and give plenty of room to:

    * pedestrians who may be crossing the approach and exit roads,
    * traffic crossing in front of you on the roundabout, especially vehicles intending to leave by the next exit,
    * traffic that may be straddling lanes or positioned incorrectly,
     * motorcyclists,
    * cyclists and horse riders who may stay in the left-hand lane and signal right if they intend to continue round the roundabout,
    * long vehicles (including those towing trailers), which might have to take a different course approaching or on the roundabout because of their length. Watch out for their signals."

    There's a certain analogy in respect of a vehicle which is illegally over-taking on your left on a dual carriageway/motorway when you are wanting to move (back I hope) into the driving lane - or at least has come too close to you. It is in the wrong, yes, but it also has right of way due to being in the lane into which you wish to move. I suppose it could also happen in respect of vehicles joining the carriageway (yes you should be aware of other vehicle's blind spots and stay out of them, I accept that).

    And you would shoulder-check your blindspot before moving over, correct ? And if you didn't...because the vehicle just shouldn't be there...


  • #55
    slimjimmc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,786 ✭✭✭slimjimmc


    KaiserGunner wrote: »
    Yeah but its extremely dangerous as its also legal to travel straight through a roundabout to the second exit in the inner orbital lane. So If the woman is in the outer orbital lane but taking the third exit she would collide with drivers going to the second exit in the inner orbital lane.

    I personally when taking the second exit will be in the outer orbital but many drivers are in the inner orbital, so what the woman did was extremely dangerous and thus wouldn't think that it was a legal manoeuvre.

    It may be legal to drive straight through on the inner lane but not if it means cutting across into someone else's lane and colliding with them or forcing them to take evasive action. On roundabouts with single lane exits (as per the OP) there is no white line guiding the inner lane to the exit so the situation is clear cut....traffic in the inner lane has to cross into the left lane to exit and in doing so they must yield to anyone else there. If that means doing another full lap so be it. What the woman done was certainly unexpected (for most areas at least) but that doesn't automatically make it dangerous driving or even illegal.

    If it turned out that what she done was illegal (failure to obey lane signage or driving agressively) then naturally she would have to bear some of the responsibility as would the driver who cut into her without looking.


  • #56
    Henry Ford III
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,943 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    slimjimmc wrote: »
    I find this comment astounding in it's ignorance of both traffic law and good driving practice, as is possibly symtomatic of the state of driving in Ireland.

    Firstly traffic law clearly states that you must not move into another lane if another road user is already there (this has already been pointed out in previous posts). If you don't check you mirrors and blindspot how the heck are you supposed to know the lane is clear? How do you know that another car didn't enter at the 9 o'clock position and came up beside you? Do you apply the same logic when overtaking or moving to right lane?

    Secondly, there was nothing illegal about what the other driver done in staying in the left lane unless road markings dictate otherwise. You could legally drive 10 laps around a roundabout in any lane if no signs designated that lane for a specific exit.

    I think you've completely missed my point.


  • #57
    slimjimmc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,786 ✭✭✭slimjimmc


    Henry Ford III wrote: »
    I think you've completely missed my point.
    You thought it reasonable for a driver to switch lanes without looking because he makes an assumption that another car won't come alongside him into his blindspot regardless of whether the other car is in the wrong or not?

    But if your point was that the driver on the inner lane should have been watching his mirrors all the along and should be already aware of the positions of the cars behind and beside him and only moved over when clear to do so, then yes I misunderstood you. But you should still always check your blindspot regardless because you often miss what's there.


  • #58
    djimi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    Henry Ford III wrote: »
    I wouldn't agree.

    It's quite reasonable if using a roundabout as the op described to indicate to make the exit, and not have to check your nearside blindspot.

    Had the other person used the correct lane there would not have been any accident. So therefore they are totally at fault. I cannot see any contributory negligence.

    To me at least that's clearcut.

    You always check your blindspot when changing lanes. Same goes for the undertaking law; just because its illegal for a car to pass another car on the inside lane does not relieve the driver in the outside lane of the responsibility of checking their blindspot when changing lanes. You never assume anything when driving a car, ever.


  • #59
    ferguson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 137 ✭✭ferguson


    Henry Ford III wrote: »
    I wouldn't agree.

    It's quite reasonable if using a roundabout as the op described to indicate to make the exit, and not have to check your nearside blindspot.

    Had the other person used the correct lane there would not have been any accident. So therefore they are totally at fault. I cannot see any contributory negligence.

    To me at least that's clearcut.
    Nonsense. you should never indicate without checking the mirror. And never change lane without checking first then indicating. no wonder the roads are so dangerous withnthis sort of thinking.

    Well done OP for checking and being observant more drivers like you would make the road a safer place. Had a woman do a similar on me today but as I always look before moving i avoided it and she was pretty quick to realise and pull back. I do not mean to criticise her for it was an out of county reg and roundabouts can be dangerous at the best of times. But being observant and looking beofre indicating moving can be so helpful

    i myself drove on some new roundabouts today and was a bit unsure as some exits not very clearly pointed but the same idea of taking your time and mirror checks etc solve that. I also think some people drive too fast on roundabouts anyway


  • #60
    ferguson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 137 ✭✭ferguson


    djimi wrote: »
    You always check your blindspot when changing lanes. Same goes for the undertaking law; just because its illegal for a car to pass another car on the inside lane does not relieve the driver in the outside lane of the responsibility of checking their blindspot when changing lanes. You never assume anything when driving a car, ever.
    absolutesly never, ever


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    CiniO
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,069 ✭✭✭✭CiniO


    djimi wrote: »
    You always check your blindspot when changing lanes. Same goes for the undertaking law; just because its illegal for a car to pass another car on the inside lane does not relieve the driver in the outside lane of the responsibility of checking their blindspot when changing lanes. You never assume anything when driving a car, ever.

    Yeah, everything nice, but what to do, when it's imposible to check your blind spots? F.E you are driving truck or bus. In these vehicles, what you can see in the mirror is everything you can see. Anything else you have to assume.


Advertisement