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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

How to Use A Roundabout

1…911131415

Comments

  • #502
    GTE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭GTE


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Do you have any publications in mind?

    The only one I know of is the Rules of the Road, which was fixed in 2006.

    The current rules of the road on the website makes no mention of the clock system for one and secondly it can be easily read as the exit # rule when that education was given on a one to one level by the instructor. At a push it can be read both ways depending what was taught to you by instructors.

    The RSA roundabout adverts also make no mention of the clock method and it can also be easily understood to be the exit # rule as above.

    From this thread there is a driver testing document which seems to say the clock system is what is tested. That is not a document that is circulated to all driving students, at least before Jan 2010. This document was seen to dispel the confusion of this matter by some posters but for me it only serves to make it worse as the ROTR is not as clear cut as it should be.

    On a final note there are other third party organisations with some rules and how to's on them (www.driving.ie?) but I treat those like Wikipedia. Probably right but not a 100% trustworthy source. The RSA site should be, but like with a few things RSA, its executed badly.

    Welease mentioned something about members calling up driving teaching centres to get an answer but that still is not the right way to go about it as at the end of the day the educators follow the testers and the testers follow the RSA and the students follow the educators and the RSA. Since the RSA has proven to be incompetent in this matter the definitions of the rules for roundabouts are open to be misinterpreted by anyone in that chain.


  • #503
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    It seems people have been asking the same kind of questions, and prompting the same arguments, for years on Boards. Remarkable.

    Here's an illustration from a 2005 thread (which I can't find now). It's a drawing of a real roundabout I believe, but I'm not sure of its location.

    Thoughts, in relation to OP and subsequent debate?


    33383.JPG


  • #504
    -Chris-
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,035 ✭✭✭✭-Chris-


    Left lane for exits 1, 2 & 3 (straight ahead). Right lane for exit 4.


  • #505
    Senna
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,800 ✭✭✭Senna


    Iwannahurl wrote: »

    33383.JPG

    Exact same as railway roundabout in Letterkenny. At that roundabout its Left lane for exits 1&2, Right lane exit 3&4, with markings on lanes to direct traffic.


  • #506
    Vertakill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,262 ✭✭✭Vertakill


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    It seems people have been asking the same kind of questions, and prompting the same arguments, for years on Boards. Remarkable.

    Here's an illustration from a 2005 thread (which I can't find now). It's a drawing of a real roundabout I believe, but I'm not sure of its location.

    Thoughts, in relation to OP and subsequent debate?

    Word of the day... 'Ambiguity'.

    Todays word of the day is brought to you by the Road Safety Authority!


  • #507
    Welease
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    -Chris- wrote: »
    Left lane for exits 1, 2 & 3 (straight ahead). Right lane for exit 4.

    Correct, as per the rules of the road (unless directed otherwise by GS or signs)


  • #508
    Welease
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    bbk wrote: »

    Welease mentioned something about members calling up driving teaching centres to get an answer but that still is not the right way to go about it as at the end of the day the educators follow the testers and the testers follow the RSA and the students follow the educators and the RSA. Since the RSA has proven to be incompetent in this matter the definitions of the rules for roundabouts are open to be misinterpreted by anyone in that chain.

    Just for clarity.. What i meant was.. those who are willing to believe that the Sequential method is what their teacher meant without any variance, could (if they were really interested) ask their teacher about the Enfield roundabout I posted.. I am 100% sure, the teacher would say "right hand" lane, which therefore proves that the Sequential method is not a rule for all roundabouts, but merely guidance on most roundabouts.. It should not be strictly adhered to where it conflicts with the actual rules of the road.

    :)


  • #509
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    -Chris- wrote: »
    Left lane for exits 1, 2 & 3 (straight ahead). Right lane for exit 4.

    Incorrecto-mondo Sir :rolleyes:


  • #510
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    The RoTR Draft Revised Version for Public Consultation contained the following text:
    • IF LEAVING BY THE FIRST EXIT, approach and enter the roundabout in
    the left hand lane, signalling a left turn on your approach, keeping your
    indicators going until your chosen exit point is reached, and proceed to leave the roundabout at that exit.
    • IF LEAVING BY THE SECOND EXIT, approach and enter the roundabout
    in the left hand lane but do not signal until you have passed the exit before the one you intend to take, then signal a left turn and leave at the next exit unless road signs or road markings dictate otherwise.
    • IF LEAVING BY ANY EXIT AFTER THE 12 O’CLOCK POSITION,
    approach and enter the roundabout in the right hand lane signalling a right turn. Keep in the right hand lane (i.e the lane next to the centre). As you pass the exit before the one you intend to leave by, signal a left turn and, when your way is clear, move to the other lane and leave at the desired exit.
    Prior to 2006, point #3 had referred to "any subsequent exit" (as this OLD website demonstrates!!):
    • IF LEAVING BY ANY SUBSEQUENT EXIT approach and enter the roundabout in the right hand lane signalling a right turn. Keep in the right hand lane (i.e. the lane next to the centre). As you pass the exit before the one you intend to leave by, signal a left turn and, when your way is clear, move to the other lane and leave at the desired exit.

    The new RoTR dropped the reference to "the 12 o'clock position", instead using terms such as "straight ahead" and "later exits".

    So far, so good. The guidelines changed and all those in this thread who gave Right as the answer to the OP are correct.

    However, the Number-of-Exits method is still out there in one form or another, for one reason or another. IMO the problem of conflicting interpretations and recurring Boards arguments (and hence consternation and possible collision on certain real-world roundabouts) has arisen because the newly worded and illustrated example in the RoTR is not sufficiently distinct, clear and comprehensive enough to abolish the older method once and for all. Perhaps there ought not to have been any 'overlap' between the two rules.

    Let's call the two 'camps' Numbers and Clocks for convenience. If you look carefully at the illustrated example in the current RoTR, which does not mention 12 o'clock at all, you can see that both Numbers and Clocks can interpret the example given in a way that confirms their own understanding. Why? Because "Left Turn", "Straight Ahead" and "Later Exits" happen to correspond with "First Exit", "Second Exit" and "Any Subsequent Exit".

    I am in ongoing correspondence with the RSA on this matter, and I have yet to come to any firm conclusions as to why there is disagreement and confusion, as evidenced by recurring Boards threads and incidents on roundabouts. I repeat my assertion that some motorists (perhaps as many as 50% if this thread is anything to go by!) are still going by the old method in good faith, not out of sheer stupidity and/or culpable ignorance, but because they believe their method of navigating roundabouts complies with the RoTR. The Numbers are validated in their belief by the fact that many if not most roundabouts are of the 'standard' 4-arm design illustrated in the RoTR. On such roundabouts Numbers and Clocks are not in conflict because they are navigating in an identical fashion even though their 'rule' is different.

    The RSA themselves say that the 'standard' 4-arm roundabout constitutes "the vast number of cases":

    It is important to the Authority that road users are well informed and follow the rules and advice given. We believe that the general rule as outlined on pages 107 – 111 of the Rules of the Road, together with our roundabout campaigns, are accurate, and reflect the reality for Irish road users in the vast number of cases (standard 4 road roundabout).

    However, my correspondent in the RSA also says that the Numbers and Clocks methods do not conflict (see below), and that is where I beg to differ. There are enough 'non-standard' roundabouts in Ireland to give rise to recurring incidents in which Numbers and Clocks conflict with each other.

    Constructive comments welcome regarding the RSA's response below. I will follow the continued discussion with interest. :)

    My questions to the RSA are in bold:

    1. When did driving instructors start to teach the Clock Method?
    The ‘Clock’ method (as you refer to it) is a used as a method of communicating with learners as to how to assess and deal with roundabouts. I have checked with our ADI Chief Examiner and as far as he is aware, it dates back to the time when roundabouts were first introduced.

    2. Why is the Clock Method not mentioned in the Rules of the Road or in RSA ads?
    The ‘Clock’ method is not a ‘rule of the road’ rather it is a teaching tool, used to convey a message to learners. It should be noted that not all learners would respond well to that technique and good instructors vary their methods in response to a learners own individual learning style. An example will be that a number of learners have difficulty with the directions Right & Left and therefore a good instructor will seek to overcome that challenge by using an alternative method of communication. The rules as set out in the Rules of the Road are the correct rules, and should generally be followed by everyone.

    3. Are the two methods ('new' Clock method versus old Number-of-Exits method) compatible?
    We do not see these as old or new methods both are equally valid and we believe they cannot be used independently of each other. The ‘clock method’ is simply a way of assisting a learner to determine an appropriate course of action as they approach – it will not work for everyone. There can of course be many more exits than 4. Some roundabouts have only 2 exits whilst others can have 5 or 6, by using the rule as set out in the rules of the road and a method of determining which lane to approach in (in this case we are using what you term the ‘clock method’) learners should be able to plan their negotiation of the roundabout by use of the information & direction signs on the approach.

    4. What proportion of drivers on Irish roads are using the Clock Method and what proportion are using the older number-of-exits method?
    It is impossible to say what proportion of drivers on Irish roads use any particular method in helping them develop their driving plans. We have plenty of evidence of driving instructors using the Rules of the Road and the ‘clock face’ as a way of reinforcing the safe negotiation of roundabouts.


  • Advertisement
  • #511
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    LordSutch wrote: »
    Incorrecto-mondo Sir :rolleyes:



    Or not.










    Oh no........


  • #512
    -Chris-
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,035 ✭✭✭✭-Chris-


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    The RoTR Draft Revised Version for Public Consultation contained the following text:
    • IF LEAVING BY THE FIRST EXIT, approach and enter the roundabout in
    the left hand lane, signalling a left turn on your approach, keeping your
    indicators going until your chosen exit point is reached, and proceed to leave the roundabout at that exit.
    • IF LEAVING BY THE SECOND EXIT, approach and enter the roundabout
    in the left hand lane but do not signal until you have passed the exit before the one you intend to take, then signal a left turn and leave at the next exit unless road signs or road markings dictate otherwise.
    • IF LEAVING BY ANY EXIT AFTER THE 12 O’CLOCK POSITION,
    approach and enter the roundabout in the right hand lane signalling a right turn. Keep in the right hand lane (i.e the lane next to the centre). As you pass the exit before the one you intend to leave by, signal a left turn and, when your way is clear, move to the other lane and leave at the desired exit.
    Prior to 2006, point #3 had referred to "any subsequent exit" (as this OLD website demonstrates!!):

    I think this description is the fundamental issue in all the confusion.
    (a) it should never be quoted without the accompanying diagram (i.e. they're referring to the first and second exit in this particular case/diagram, they're not referring to a first and second exit in absolute terms)
    (b) they should stop using a diagram that shows the second exit in the straight ahead position

    As long as they continue to have the second exit in the straight ahead position and, in describing the procedure of using the roundabout, refer to numbered exits, no one will ever learn.

    How hard would it be to refer to exits A, B & C?????


    This diagram and description supports both points of view stated in this thread, and is therefore useless.

    The diagram should show 5 or more exits, or should have the second exit off-axis, if it wants to be in any way clear.


  • #513
    zynaps
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭zynaps


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    However, my correspondent in the RSA also says that the Numbers and Clocks methods do not conflict (see below), and that is where I beg to differ. There are enough 'non-standard' roundabouts in Ireland to give rise to recurring incidents in which Numbers and Clocks conflict with each other.
    Indeed, apart from seeing both methods as equally valid, he doesn't seem to really say anything about the exit counting strategy. They don't seem worried that the use of these two slightly conflicting methods will result in fatal accidents daily on every roundabout.
    RSA wrote:
    We do not see these as old or new methods both are equally valid and we believe they cannot be used independently of each other.
    All in all, it seems like they're not at all concerned about this ongoing confusion, and probably would consider this entire discussion to be a storm in a teacup.

    Putting aside some of the alarmist, finger-pointing comments that have come up in much of this thread (although, thankfully, not so much in the last few pages), I think most would agree that the lane selection heuristic used is of less importance than other normal road considerations of observation, awareness, and generally being careful :)


  • #514
    Vertakill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,262 ✭✭✭Vertakill


    What a comical conclusion to this thread!

    Most of us knew inconclusiveness and ambiguity shrouded the ruling over roundabouts (some thought it crystal clear however!!).. but now the RSA themselves have proven it.

    It may be childish, but I'd love to see a response from the folks who were raving about the RSA supervisor saying this or that or the ones calling the rest of us potential murderers because of our roundabout practice.


    Ultimately, I don't care which method is used provided it's clear, concise and communicated nationally.
    The RSA need to come to a decision on which method should be used and redo their roundabout adverts accordingly as to lift the current confusion.


  • #515
    Slick50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Slick50


    Vertakill wrote: »
    Ultimately, I don't care which method is used provided it's clear, concise and communicated nationally.
    The RSA need to come to a decision on which method should be used and redo their roundabout adverts accordingly as to lift the current confusion.

    I don't mean to kick this whole thing off again, but I think the latest wording is pretty definitive. as per http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-driving/junctions-roundabouts/roundabouts.html but without a full public awareness campaign, it will probably take a couple of generations to filter out the old conflicting methods.


  • #516
    -Chris-
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,035 ✭✭✭✭-Chris-


    Slick50 wrote: »
    I don't mean to kick this whole thing off again, but I think the latest wording is pretty definitive. as per http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-driving/junctions-roundabouts/roundabouts.html but without a full public awareness campaign, it will probably take a couple of generations to filter out the old conflicting methods.

    Excellent, looks like they've completely removed the reference to numbered exits.

    Thread over, could probably be closed at this point.

    Hopefully the 153 people who were incorrect according to the poll realise the error of their ways and will begin to use roundabouts correctly from now on.


  • Advertisement
  • #517
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    three more voted left since you posted that so it doesnt look hopefull :D


  • #518
    zynaps
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭zynaps


    -Chris- wrote: »
    Excellent, looks like they've completely removed the reference to numbered exits.
    They removed that reference in 2006.

    The problem with those guidelines is that they show a simple roundabout with only one left turn, then straight ahead, then later exits.
    There's no advice for taking a second or third exit on the left side of the roundabout; obviously you don't keep your indicator on as you approach the roundabout, since that would indicate that you're taking the first exit.


  • #519
    Slick50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Slick50


    -Chris- wrote: »
    Excellent, looks like they've completely removed the reference to numbered exits.

    They have also removed all references to positions on the clock.;)
    zynaps wrote:
    The problem with those guidelines is that they show a simple roundabout with only one left turn, then straight ahead, then later exits.
    There's no advice for taking a second or third exit on the left side of the roundabout; obviously you don't keep your indicator on as you approach the roundabout, since that would indicate that you're taking the first exit.

    The wording that accompanies the diagrams covers all possibilities.


  • #520
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    zynaps wrote: »
    Putting aside some of the alarmist, finger-pointing comments that have come up in much of this thread (although, thankfully, not so much in the last few pages), I think most would agree that the lane selection heuristic used is of less importance than other normal road considerations of observation, awareness, and generally being careful :)


    Ah, "heuristic". I haven't seen or used that word for a while. Takes me back...

    I'd like Welease and Zubeneschamali to come back and add more of their analysis. Latterly I thought they were doing a Trojan job of arguing the case for the Clock method.

    We're not done with this yet.


  • #521
    Welease
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Ah, "heuristic". I haven't seen or used that word for a while. Takes me back...

    I'd like Welease and Zubeneschamali to come back and add more of their analysis. Latterly I thought they were doing a Trojan job of arguing the case for the Clock method.

    We're not done with this yet.

    Sorry been away..

    I'm not sure what to add.. There isnt a "clock method" as such... the 12 o' clock refers to the "stright ahead", a universal term used by many including WW2 fighter pilots with cries of "bandits at 2 o clock" etc. :) The "clock" method doesn't differ from the RoTR because, it doesnt enforce rules.. it just uses a different terminology.. :)

    The Sequence method however i would consider a method, because it enforces specific rules which can differ from the ROTR.. as highlighted by the OP's picture..

    Those who adhere strictly to the sequence method will be in the correct lane probably 99% of the time, but in the case of the OP's roundabout would be in the wrong lane, and could be causing difficulty for other drivers.

    As to who is correct, you seem to have gotten the same answer (which we gave) from the RSA that the right hand lane is the correct lane, and you seem to be content now that those like myself who claimed "right hand" lane were indeed correct. (and thats not a brag or anything juvenile)

    The reasons why have been explored, and I think to a large degree understood, and a lot of the blame should be laid at the door of the RSA, but they have made amendments over 5 years ago.. The driving schools however have lagged much further behind, and drivers even further behind.

    Of far more concern to me would be the length of time that it has taken and the work involved to make people on this consider they may be mistaken. I have sadly no doubt, that if the same question was asked in a couple of weeks some posters (not you btw :)) would continue to vote left and continue to drive in the left lane, because they just can't be told otherwise...

    Edit - And as per one of my original posts (iirc), I don't believe the Sequence method actually existed either.. It was misinterpretation by people. It referred specifically to a 4 way (compass point) roundabout used in the books, which people misinterpreted as the manner all roundabouts should be approached.


  • Advertisement
  • #522
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Will get back to you on this.

    In the meantime, check out this year-old post/thread.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59011511&postcount=58


  • #523
    zynaps
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭zynaps


    Slick50 wrote: »
    The wording that accompanies the diagrams covers all possibilities.
    Not really. It explicitly refers to either taking a first exit left, or a second exit straight through:
    RSA wrote:
    Going straight ahead
    Stay in the left-hand lane, but do not indicate "left" until you have passed the first exit.
    This explanation for going straight ahead might apply for taking a second or third exit going left, but the text doesn't mention it.


  • #524
    Slick50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Slick50


    zynaps wrote: »
    Not really. It explicitly refers to either taking a first exit left, or a second exit straight through:

    It explicitly does not mention a "second" exit. But I see where you are coming from, I believe the underlined text here covers any intermediate exits between left and straight ahead.
    "Going straight ahead:

    • Approach in the left-hand lane but do not signal yet.
    • Signal left after you have passed the exit before the one you want.
    • You may follow the course shown in the illustration by the broken red line in situations where:
      • the left-hand lane is only for turning left or is blocked or closed, or
      • when directed by a Garda"
    zynaps wrote: »
    This explanation for going straight ahead might apply for taking a second or third exit going left, but the text doesn't mention it.

    Agreed, otherwise they would have said to indicate left after you have passed the "left exit".

    I personally think the sequential method more practical. With this system, if there are intermediate exits between "left" and "straight on" you are preventing other road users from using them by remaining in the left lane to go straight on. But at least these remove any ambiguity, they'll just have to tell everyone now.

    And I know there are plenty of situations where the sequential system may cause conflicts, but that can be said of both. Where this occurs may require signage to clarify which lane to take.


  • #525
    Bigcheeze
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,858 ✭✭✭Bigcheeze


    Welease wrote: »
    I don't believe the Sequence method actually existed either.. It was misinterpretation by people. It referred specifically to a 4 way (compass point) roundabout used in the books, which people misinterpreted as the manner all roundabouts should be approached.

    The ROTR when I did my test in the early nineties referred to 1st, 2nd and subsequent exits. The whole idea of straight ahead on a roundabout is relatively new.......as is "turning right" on a roundabout.....funny that signal controlled roundabouts have no-right turn signs on the traffic lights!

    The more I read this thread and the replies from the RSA, the less respect I have for them as a safety body. The statement about learners having difficulty with left and right took the biscuit. If people have trouble with understanding left and right they should be on the bus, not in command of a vehicle!


  • #526
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Vertakill wrote: »
    What a comical conclusion to this thread!

    Most of us knew inconclusiveness and ambiguity shrouded the ruling over roundabouts (some thought it crystal clear however!!).. but now the RSA themselves have proven it.

    It may be childish, but I'd love to see a response from the folks who were raving about the RSA supervisor saying this or that or the ones calling the rest of us potential murderers because of our roundabout practice.


    Ultimately, I don't care which method is used provided it's clear, concise and communicated nationally.
    The RSA need to come to a decision on which method should be used and redo their roundabout adverts accordingly as to lift the current confusion.


    -Chris- wrote: »
    Excellent, looks like they've completely removed the reference to numbered exits.

    Thread over, could probably be closed at this point.

    Hopefully the 153 people who were incorrect according to the poll realise the error of their ways and will begin to use roundabouts correctly from now on.



    It's not over until all the fat ladies sing from the same hymn sheet.

    The persistence of conflicting points of view on this topic is evidence that the RoTR roundabout guidelines are not sufficiently clear and comprehensive. It may also be the case that learner drivers (and even full licence holders taking advanced driving courses) are being given incorrect guidelines by instructors.

    It is not enough for any of us just to take satisfaction that our method is the correct one, and to give up on those that we consider plain wrong. The conflict per se is what is really important. It is no good being right if we don't all win by achieving safer and less stressful driving conditions.

    In my view, this kind of discussion should continue until it is clearer what needs to be done to rectify the situation. For example, I think a Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviour survey or some such would be helpful in identifying those factors that differentiate Numbers from Clocks (to use my earlier labels of convenience).


  • #527
    Tom Slick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 393 ✭✭Tom Slick


    A 'roundabout' is a half-assed compromise of a junction.
    The kind of people who argue endlessly about the correct way to use it are idiots, it depends (obviously to anyone with a brain) on layout & traffic conditions.


  • #528
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Welease wrote: »
    Those who adhere strictly to the sequence method will be in the correct lane probably 99% of the time, but in the case of the OP's roundabout would be in the wrong lane, and could be causing difficulty for other drivers.

    As to who is correct, you seem to have gotten the same answer from the RSA that the right hand lane is the correct lane, and you seem to be content now that those like myself who claimed "right hand" lane were indeed correct. (and thats not a brag or anything juvenile)

    The reasons why have been explored, and I think to a large degree understood, and a lot of the blame should be laid at the door of the RSA, but they have made amendments over 5 years ago.. The driving schools however have lagged much further behind, and drivers even further behind.

    Of far more concern to me would be the length of time that it has taken and the work involved to make people on this consider they may be mistaken. I have sadly no doubt, that if the same question was asked in a couple of weeks some posters (not you btw :)) would continue to vote left and continue to drive in the left lane, because they just can't be told otherwise...

    Edit - And as per one of my original posts (iirc), I don't believe the Sequence method actually existed either.. It was misinterpretation by people. It referred specifically to a 4 way (compass point) roundabout used in the books, which people misinterpreted as the manner all roundabouts should be approached.

    1. I don't know what the percentage would be, but I have to accept that the RSA knows the position when they say that 4-arm roundabouts constitute the vast majority of cases. However, I feel I have to draw a distinction between the number of different roundabout types and the number of motorists who may be passing through any given roundabout. Four-arm cruciform roundabouts may be the most common, but it may also be the case that many of them handle low volumes of traffic. Conversely, rarer roundabout types (such as 5/6-arm versions) may actually handle very large volumes of traffic, and therefore the incidence of collisions and near misses may be much higher on these. Every time a motorists who uses the wrong method traverses a roundabout without incident they are subliminally reinforced in their belief that they know how to do it properly. As I said earlier, Numbers and Clocks always go through the ubiquitous 4-arm roundabout in the same manner, even though they are using different rules to do so.

    2. "Seem" -- quite so. IMO the RSA have not yet issued a definitive response. They also muddied the waters further by saying that they "do not see these as old or new methods [since] both are equally valid and we believe they cannot be used independently of each other".

    3. I think it is incorrect to talk about "lagging behind". This assumes that the RoTR are abundantly clear and unambiguous, and that motorists using the wrong (or 'old') method are simply unable or unwilling to change. There has to be something systemically wrong, or else driving schools in particular would not be implicated. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say earlier that you were already a Clock (btw, if you don't like that shorthand please suggest a better term) before the revised RoTR appeared in 2006? In which case you didn't have to change your ways. However, if there was a large cohort of motorists who were used to another method, and if the new RoTR and associated ad campaigns were a bit ambiguous, then they wouldn't have felt the need to change either. Either the rules were new (to some significant degree) or they were not.

    4. "Just can't be told otherwise". That is not helpful, and suggests a culpable ignorance on the part of a large number of people. I don't doubt that there are many bad and inconsiderate drivers out there, but I think it's unlikely that a significant number of people would just stubbornly refuse to use roundabouts properly. Somehow I think it's not comparable to other very common transgressions like speeding and illegal parking. How often do you see people driving the wrong way round a roundabout (ie anti-clockwise) for example?

    5. The 'sequential' method did indeed exist (and still does in the minds of many motorists because it has not been properly erased). I think I even remember TV ads demonstrating how it was done -- perhaps someone else can confirm that. And if it didn't exist, where did people like this obtain their material? They certainly didn't make it up.

    EDIT: Here are a few more blasts from the past, including one from a long-standing Boards mod:

    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/road-rules-go-on-film-circuit-303178.html

    http://www.p45.net/boards/archive/index.php/t-60718.html

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3319120&postcount=18

    http://www.drivingschoolireland.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=243

    http://www.drivingschoolireland.com/roundabout_right.html

    http://www.octane.ie/forum/showthread.php?t=6803&page=6

    (2008 thread on octane.ie)


  • #529
    Welease
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    1. I don't know what the percentage would be, but I have to accept that the RSA knows the position when they say that 4-arm roundabouts constitute the vast majority of cases. However, I feel I have to draw a distinction between the number of different roundabout types and the number of motorists who may be passing through any given roundabout. Four-arm cruciform roundabouts may be the most common, but it may also be the case that many of them handle low volumes of traffic. Conversely, rarer roundabout types (such as 5/6-arm versions) may actually handle very large volumes of traffic, and therefore the incidence of collisions and near misses may be much higher on these. Every time a motorists who uses the wrong method traverses a roundabout without incident they are subliminally reinforced in their belief that they know how to do it properly. As I said earlier, Numbers and Clocks always go through the ubiquitous 4-arm roundabout in the same manner, even though they are using different rules to do so.

    Agreed
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    2. "Seem" -- quite so. IMO the RSA have not yet issued a definitive response. They also muddied the waters further by saying that they "do not see these as old or new methods [since] both are equally valid and we believe they cannot be used independently of each other".

    You seem to be merging two different questions..
    The only correct lane choice is the right hand lane.. I believe the confirmed this.
    Can Sequential or Clock conflict.. They say no.. Some say yes.. Completely different question to which lane is correct.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    3. I think it is incorrect to talk about "lagging behind". This assumes that the RoTR are abundantly clear and unambiguous, and that motorists using the wrong (or 'old') method are simply unable or unwilling to change. There has to be something systemically wrong, or else driving schools in particular would not be implicated. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say earlier that you were already a Clock (btw, if you don't like that shorthand please suggest a better term) before the revised RoTR appeared in 2006? In which case you didn't have to change your ways. However, if there was a large cohort of motorists who were used to another method, and if the new RoTR and associated ad campaigns were a bit ambiguous, then they wouldn't have felt the need to change either. Either the rules were new (to some significant degree) or they were not.

    I was "clock" because i never understood the RSA's explanation to mean anything other than right lane in this situation.
    There are those who interpreted differently, and the RSA have modified the terminology in an attempt to remove the confusion.. The success will depend on the individual, I cannot comment because I was never confused, it would take somone who was confused to say if the confusion has been clarified for them.
    But, as per you post on the older thread.. Where an advanced driving instructor is telling students that they should be in the left lane while taking a right hand turn, then I have no difficulty in point the finger of blame at the instructor.. They should know better, and indeed should be aware of all changes to the RSA documents..
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    4. "Just can't be told otherwise". That is not helpful, and suggests a culpable ignorance on the part of a large number of people. I don't doubt that there are many bad and inconsiderate drivers out there, but I think it's unlikely that a significant number of people would just stubbornly refuse to use roundabouts properly. Somehow I think it's not comparable to other very common transgressions like speeding and illegal parking. How often do you see people driving the wrong way round a roundabout (ie anti-clockwise) for example?

    So why do people go left lane all the way around 3-4-5 exits? There is no rule that says to do that.. There are a lot of bad drivers out there (look at the middle lane hoggers rampant in Ireland).. People can blame the RSA all they want, but I don't see anywhere that specifies sitting in the middle lane/right lane going 80 for the duration of your journey as the correct driving procedure. Yet a considerable amount of people do it (and worse.. refuse to budge). I don't think there is a simple point of issue here and I'm not trying to state there is.. but I don't think the blame lies solely with the RSA when they made updates over 5 years ago that people (including instructors) are unaware of.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    5. The 'sequential' method did indeed exist (and still does in the minds of many motorists because it has not been properly erased). I think I even remember TV ads demonstrating how it was done -- perhaps someone else can confirm that. And if it didn't exist, where did people like this obtain their material? They certainly didn't make it up.

    Let me clarify.. When I say it didnt exist.. I mean in didnt exist in terms of the RSA deciding to have two conflicting rule sets for the same roundabout. People have misinterpreted the initial pre 2006 diagrams as being applicable to all roundabouts.. They are not.


    To me, if you want to get to the crux of the issue, you need to question more the people who are using the sequential left lane method.. Why are they using it, why despite a clarification from the RSA that right is indeed the correct lane choice will they (if they will) continue to use left, and why do they feel that despite understanding where the confusion comes from they don't feel the need to modify to a system which removes the conflict..

    Those who chose the right lane are (with respect) not the ones causing any potential issues, they are the ones in the correct lane. Continuing to question what they believe and how they decided won't solve anything.


  • #530
    loobylou
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,418 ✭✭✭loobylou


    Quick question please.
    Would those that use the counting exits method include in their count a roadway they cannot use, e.g. a motorway offramp?


  • #531
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    loobylou wrote: »
    Quick question please.
    Would those that use the counting exits method include in their count a roadway they cannot use, e.g. a motorway offramp?



    Sorry, I'm not sure I fully understand what kinds of scenario you're suggesting there.

    An exit would be by definition a roadway that could be used (and must, given that there is no alternative means of getting off a roundabout!).

    Now that you mention it though, I think there may well be situations that give rise to doubt as to whether an exit can be used as such all the time. For example, on this roundabout the exit situated at around 5 o'clock (incorrectly labelled Newcastle Road on Google Maps) is actually the back entrance to a hospital, and it is closed at certain times. Strictly speaking, is it an exit when you can't exit? This is an example of where the 12 o'clock/Zero Degrees method is perhaps a more reliable and intuitive method, I would guess.


  • Advertisement
  • #532
    loobylou
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,418 ✭✭✭loobylou


    Can't seem to hyperlink to google maps so will try to explain.
    Cross motorway flyover enter roundabout. The first roadway on left is for traffic exiting the motorway, ie is oneway only.
    Would you count this as an exit even though it is not strictly speaking an exit?


  • #533
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Welease wrote: »
    You seem to be merging two different questions..
    The only correct lane choice is the right hand lane.. I believe the confirmed this.

    Can Sequential or Clock conflict.. They say no.. Some say yes.. Completely different question to which lane is correct.

    So why do people go left lane all the way around 3-4-5 exits? There is no rule that says to do that.. There are a lot of bad drivers out there (look at the middle lane hoggers rampant in Ireland).. People can blame the RSA all they want ... but I don't think the blame lies solely with the RSA when they made updates over 5 years ago that people (including instructors) are unaware of.

    Let me clarify.. When I say it didnt exist.. I mean in didnt exist in terms of the RSA deciding to have two conflicting rule sets for the same roundabout. People have misinterpreted the initial pre 2006 diagrams as being applicable to all roundabouts.. They are not.

    To me, if you want to get to the crux of the issue, you need to question more the people who are using the sequential left lane method.. Why are they using it, why despite a clarification from the RSA that right is indeed the correct lane choice will they (if they will) continue to use left, and why do they feel that despite understanding where the confusion comes from they don't feel the need to modify to a system which removes the conflict..

    Those who chose the right lane are (with respect) not the ones causing any potential issues, they are the ones in the correct lane. Continuing to question what they believe and how they decided won't solve anything.


    There is a lot in what you say there, and I will try to respond now to the quote above (which I have shortened for my own convenience!)

    1. I'm not sure why you are suggesting that I am merging two questions. Choice of lane (left-hand versus right-hand) and method of choosing which lane are what is being disputed.

    2. There are many bad drivers out there, that is true. But the left-lane-no-matter-what brigade are probably regarded as lethal lunatics by both Numbers and Clocks! I repeat my assertion that the Numbers cohort believe they are adhering to the RoTR in good faith. In fact, I would suspect that motorists who conscientiously follow the number-of-exits method are equally conscientious about other RoTR guidelines (which do not give rise to similar conflicts).

    Here's an excerpt from an AA Ireland webpage which reported only a few months ago that 42% of drivers had experienced a "near miss" on Irish roundabouts. In the same report the AA seems to recommend the number-of-exits method!!!

    45% of Irish motorists have been involved in a collision or near miss on a roundabout within the last 3 years, a survey by AA motor insurance can reveal. 3% of these were actual collisions whereas 42% admitted to having a close call, the survey of more than 6,800 motorists reveals. This follows the results of an earlier AA motor insurance survey where drivers cited “lack of signaling on roundabouts” as one of the most common driver errors they regularly observe.

    Of those who have been involved in an incident on roundabouts, AA motor insurance learned that 8% admitted to being at fault. A further 72% blamed the driver of another car. Following this 7% said a van or truck driver was culpable. And 3% attributed blame to a motorcyclist. Pedestrians or cyclists were very rarely listed as the cause.

    “Irish people seem to have a bit of a special relationship with roundabouts,” comments Conor Faughnan, AA Director of Policy. “Drivers are inexplicably lax when it comes to using their indicators which makes negotiating multilane roundabouts like the Walkinstown and Kinsale Road Roundabouts for example, both with 3 lanes particularly daunting. This lack of indication often makes for a ‘will he/won’t he type guessing game for those trying to enter roundabouts.”

    The report understandably emphasises proper use of indicators, but in doing so it appears to endorse the number-of-exits rule:
    If taking the 1st exit you should indicate left when queuing to enter the roundabout.
    If taking the 2nd exit only indicate left once you’ve past the 1st exit.
    If taking the third exit, indicate right until you are past the 2nd exit. Then indicate left to signal your intent to exit.

    I recommend reading all the comments on the report. See if you can spot any familiar arguments...

    What is going on in this country? Road safety authorities in just about every other country that has made extensive use of roundabouts over the last 25 years say that they improve safety (see this Dutch briefing document for example). You get the impression that the opposite is the case in Ireland.

    3. If there is misinterpretation of the rules, then that misinterpretation is widespread and entrenched enough to suggest that this is a systems problem rather than individual failure. Roundabout rules in the Netherlands, for example, appear to be quite simple (assuming the linked document is the whole story). Is there something about the Irish rules, or Irish driver training, or Irish roundabout design, or all three, that causes particular problems?

    4. To get to the crux of the issue, you need to identify the features of all drivers (Numbers, Clocks and Lunatics) that determine how they navigate roundabouts. In order to determine the differentiating factors it is not sufficient to focus on the group that you identify as doing it wrong. You may well miss valuable information about the ones that are doing it right, and you can't assume you know all that already. The Clocks and the Numbers are not necessarily causing the problem (depending on your perspective!). It is the systematic discrepancy between the two approaches that is the problem. If all motorists chose Right or all chose Left there would be no conflict. But it's not as simple as telling everyone to go Right. If it was, we wouldn't be here on Page 36!

    Finally, on a lighter note here are the General Rules for Driving: Irish Style and Indian Style.


  • #534
    Welease
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    Wouldn't it be quicker just to ask to ask the RSA directly..

    a) Is the sequential method incorrect?.. (I believe you have, and they said it doesn't differ from other clock method, which we both disagree with the RSA on that point).

    then b) show them the specific reason why the issue is occuring (i.e. the OP's photo) and specifically mention the issue when using different methods..

    They can then specifically clarify what they mean by the sequential method. I for one believe they will clarify they they mean it to work on every the 4 point compass roundabouts depicted in the pictures they used.. not for every roundabout and specifically not for the OP's roundabout..

    Armed with that information.. then, isn't the which method issue put to rest?.. and all the remain's is to understand why more effort has not been put in clarifying the misconceptions out there (which is what I mean by there being 2 seperate and distinct issues), and you could point them to this thread as a way of demonstrating that people who actually have an interest in motors and driving are essentially split on the correct procedure despite them believing it's clear.


  • #535
    Vertakill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,262 ✭✭✭Vertakill


    Welease wrote: »
    Wouldn't it be quicker just to ask to ask the RSA directly..

    a) Is the sequential method incorrect?.. (I believe you have, and they said it doesn't differ from other clock method, which we both disagree with the RSA on that point).

    Didn't they reply to someone's email stating that neither method is incorrect and both are acceptable?

    While the RSA may deem that a healthy response to an issue... I'm sure the rest of us don't because you can't obviously condone two separate rules for navigating a roundabout.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    It's not over until all the fat ladies sing from the same hymn sheet.

    I completely agree. That's why I wrote that I don't really mind what method is used (although, personally, I think the sequential/numbers method is safer) as long as this is put to bed by the RSA asap by coming out and conclusively answering this by whatever means necessary.

    But as far as the 'debate' about which is right or wrong... I think it's over because the RSA don't seem to know themselves.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    2. There are many bad drivers out there, that is true. But the left-lane-no-matter-what brigade are probably regarded as lethal lunatics by both Numbers and Clocks! I repeat my assertion that the Numbers cohort believe they are adhering to the RoTR in good faith. In fact, I would suspect that motorists who conscientiously follow the number-of-exits method are equally conscientious about other RoTR guidelines (which do not give rise to similar conflicts).

    This is the attitude that was bugging me earlier in this thread.
    I was told it was because of my 'fck the rest of road users' attitude or my 'misplaced bravado'.
    vibe666 wrote: »
    seems like a pretty conclusive 'fcuk everyone else' way of doing things to me, despite you repeatedly denying it.

    and you don't consider it to be some kind of misplaced bravado or an attitude problem to blindly keep following the instructions of someone who you now know has taught you something incorrectly based on the ROTR and the evidence provided by someone at the RSA who supervises driving testers? :rolleyes:

    The reason people are using the numbered method is because they were taught it and it's been working for them for many years without incident.
    I follow every rule of the road to the letter. Even if I'm the only person on the road at the dead of night, I'll still indicate, I'll still hold my lane position even on empty roundabouts etc..

    There are obviously people who don't follow either method properly and THEY are the ones causing the issue.
    Welease wrote: »
    People can blame the RSA all they want, but I don't see anywhere that specifies sitting in the middle lane/right lane going 80 for the duration of your journey as the correct driving procedure. Yet a considerable amount of people do it (and worse.. refuse to budge).

    On your driving test, it's marked under the 'Progress' category as 'On the straight'.
    Afaik, that covers both lane usage amd speed. (ie. In overtaking lane without overtaking).

    So people should be aware of it if they are driving and have ever sat a driving tests (which I hope is everyone!).


  • #536
    zynaps
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭zynaps


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    3. If there is misinterpretation of the rules, then that misinterpretation is widespread and entrenched enough to suggest that this is a systems problem rather than individual failure. Roundabout rules in the Netherlands, for example, appear to be quite simple (assuming the linked document is the whole story). Is there something about the Irish rules, or Irish driver training, or Irish roundabout design, or all three, that causes particular problems?
    There are no guidelines at all in that Dutch document, except to say that you can use either lane!

    Wasn't a poster earlier asserting that in every other country in the EU, the "clock" method is taught and used consistently?
    Yet here, we see practically no particular advice (nevermind rules) on which lane should be selected.

    Perhaps the reality is that it's just left up to each driver to decide for themselves, rather than specifying exactly which lane should be used for all situations.
    This, and the apparent shoulder-shrug in the RSA's response on the issue, further suggests that this whole thread has indeed been a fuss about nothing. One of those "someone is wrong on the internet" situations :p


  • #537
    Welease
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    Vertakill wrote: »
    Didn't they reply to someone's email stating that neither method is incorrect and both are acceptable?

    While the RSA may deem that a healthy response to an issue... I'm sure the rest of us don't because you can't obviously condone two separate rules for navigating a roundabout.

    .

    I think you are misunderstanding my point.. Let me reclarify..

    If the RSA in response to iwannahurl's question, are stating there is no conflict in using sequence or clock methods then they are not talking about the roundabout posted by the OP, or are not understanding the same method of "sequence" as iwannahurl.. because the conflict is obvious to everyone on this thread irrespective of which method they choose.

    Therefore any subsequent q&a is likely irrelevant becuase they are not talking about the same rules or roundabout configurations..

    In my opinion, it would be best to explain to the RSA which roundabout configuation is being discussed, where the conflict occurs, and specfically what part of the method cause the conflict.. Once that common ground is understood then the q&a can proceed.. Until then, imo any responses are somewhat pointless.


  • #538
    zynaps
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭zynaps


    Vertakill wrote: »
    On your driving test, it's marked under the 'Progress' category as 'On the straight'.
    Afaik, that covers both lane usage amd speed. (ie. In overtaking lane without overtaking).

    So people should be aware of it if they are driving and have ever sat a driving tests (which I hope is everyone!).
    Maybe if you sit your driving test outside of a major city, but in Dublin, I don't think you'll ever go on a road faster than 60km/h in the driving test. And of course, you're not even allowed on the motorway, so that's not covered in the test either. Mine didn't include any multi-lane roundabouts either :D


  • #539
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Welease wrote: »
    Wouldn't it be quicker just to ask to ask the RSA directly..

    a) Is the sequential method incorrect?.. (I believe you have, and they said it doesn't differ from other clock method, which we both disagree with the RSA on that point).

    then b) show them the specific reason why the issue is occuring (i.e. the OP's photo) and specifically mention the issue when using different methods..

    They can then specifically clarify what they mean by the sequential method. I for one believe they will clarify they they mean it to work on every the 4 point compass roundabouts depicted in the pictures they used.. not for every roundabout and specifically not for the OP's roundabout..

    Armed with that information.. then, isn't the which method issue put to rest?.. and all the remain's is to understand why more effort has not been put in clarifying the misconceptions out there (which is what I mean by there being 2 seperate and distinct issues), and you could point them to this thread as a way of demonstrating that people who actually have an interest in motors and driving are essentially split on the correct procedure despite them believing it's clear.


    I have already decided that I need to present the OP's example to the RSA. Originally I was trying to determine whether there was an overall conceptual/perceptual problem with the general guidelines. I also thought some other poster had asked the RSA about the OP's roundabout, and that the answer given had just divided opinion again. Now I think it might move things along better if I gave my RSA correspondent the specific example and asked them to (a) say how they would do it, and (b) say why they would do it that way, with reference to the RoTR.

    I'm not sure what you mean by there being "two separate and distinct issues". Sorry if I am just not hearing you on this point.

    Welease, at the risk of being a bore, can I ask you again about your own driving instruction? How did the instructor actually explain roundabouts to you? What specific words and phrases did s/he use?

    I suspect there's a lot more to putting this issue to rest than the RSA simply spelling out (to us pedants!) what they mean. It's all very well to end a dispute like this one on Boards. If there's a real perception problem out there though among the general motoring population, then that's a challenge in a different league altogether. Have you noticed that posters who emphatically declared their position early on in this thread, and who dissed everybody in the opposing camp, have not been back since? I know it's just a Boards thread and they all have other things for doing, but I can't help feeling that at least some of them just have their minds made up and because they are 'right' they have no real interest in why there might be another group who think the opposite. This roundabout thread may fizzle out and be forgotten like all the others, but for me the real interest lies in trying to understand why there is such conflict and confusion in the first place and searching for a solution.

    I'm beginning to wonder whether this may be a case of Cognitive Bias or some such problem of perception and understanding, which is why I keep asking you about the specifics of your own driver training. I am no expert in Psychology, so Cognitive Bias may not be the relevant phenomenon. What I am trying to get at is that, for whatever reason, different people look at the same thing, in this case the RoTR roundabout navigation guidelines, and see two quite different things, as happens with those clever optical illusions.

    Just a thought -- the real explanation may be much more prosaic, and it's probably best to concentrate on finding a simpler explanation. Maybe they just need their eyes examined.


  • #540
    Absurdum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,445 ✭✭✭Absurdum


    this thread is like driving around a roundabout 5 million times in the fast lane without indicating with front fogs on and no road tax whilst out of my head on crack shouting out "Octavias are ghey" at the top of my voice


  • Advertisement
  • #541
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    zynaps wrote: »
    There are no guidelines at all in that Dutch document, except to say that you can use either lane!

    Wasn't a poster earlier asserting that in every other country in the EU, the "clock" method is taught and used consistently?
    Yet here, we see practically no particular advice (nevermind rules) on which lane should be selected.

    Perhaps the reality is that it's just left up to each driver to decide for themselves, rather than specifying exactly which lane should be used for all situations.
    This, and the apparent shoulder-shrug in the RSA's response on the issue, further suggests that this whole thread has indeed been a fuss about nothing. One of those "someone is wrong on the internet" situations :p



    Here's how they do it in Sweden apparently. Like a lot of Swedish design, very minimalist. :)

    Perhaps we shouldn't minimise the problem in Ireland though. I don't think it's a fuss about nothing. There seems to be a lot of stress, frequent road rage and more than a few collisions associated with Irish roundabouts.

    I suspect one feature of 'foreign' roundabouts is that they are better designed, especially newer ones. You can have minimal rules when the design is inherently clearer, cleaner, more rational and more conducive to safe and smooth motoring.


  • #542
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Absurdum wrote: »
    this thread is like driving around a roundabout 5 million times in the fast lane without indicating with front fogs on and no road tax whilst out of my head on crack shouting out "Octavias are ghey" at the top of my voice




    No change there then! ;)


  • #543
    Welease
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I have already decided that I need to present the OP's example to the RSA. Originally I was trying to determine whether there was an overall conceptual/perceptual problem with the general guidelines. I also thought some other poster had asked the RSA about the OP's roundabout, and that the answer given had just divided opinion again. Now I think it might move things along better if I gave my RSA correspondent the specific example and asked them to (a) say how they would do it, and (b) say why they would do it that way, with reference to the RoTR..

    Yeah thats all I was getting at.. In order to get a specific answer you will need to ask them the specific question.. I cannot fathom how they say there is no conflict, unless you are not talking about the same "sequential" method on specific roundabouts.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I'm not sure what you mean by there being "two separate and distinct issues". Sorry if I am just not hearing you on this point. .

    What I mean is.. I don't believe the "sequential" method means the same to the RSA as it does to you for example. I assume they were however aware of some confusion, which is why it was removed from their material. That would be the first issue.. and one they have tried to remedy (albeit not as thoroughly as one would hope).
    The second issue would be why Driving Instructors (and Driving Schools) continue to use outdated method which the RSA had stopped using since 2006. If the RSA decided a change was needed (and we dont know specifically why).. why didnt the Professionals follow suit?
    I believe they are seperate issues, because the RSA now makes no mention of any sequential method, so why is it being taught? On this part the Driving Schools surely must hold their hands up.. the RSA cannot be held 100% liable for this.

    Put simply ... 1st issue is the origin of the misconception.. 2nd issue is the continue proliferation of the misconception after references to the misconception were deleted in 2006.

    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Welease, at the risk of being a bore, can I ask you again about your own driving instruction? How did the instructor actually explain roundabouts to you? What specific words and phrases did s/he use?.

    To be honest it was so long ago (all subsequent licences were mere formalities because I knew how to drive... any lessons didn't include roadcraft) I don't remember the exact words.. but i was always essentially taught.. left and up to (and including) straight ahead is left lane, past that (or right) is right lane onless otherwise indicated.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I suspect there's a lot more to putting this issue to rest than the RSA simply spelling out (to us pedants!) what they mean. It's all very well to end a dispute like this one on Boards. If there's a real perception problem out there though among the general motoring population, then that's a challenge in a different league altogether. Have you noticed that posters who emphatically declared their position early on in this thread, and who dissed everybody in the opposing camp, have not been back since? I know it's just a Boards thread and they all have other things for doing, but I can't help feeling that at least some of them just have their minds made up and because they are 'right' they have no real interest in why there might be another group who think the opposite. This roundabout thread may fizzle out and be forgotten like all the others, but for me the real interest lies in trying to understand why there is such conflict and confusion in the first place and searching for a solution.

    Well I did comment on that earlier.. Some will never be told otherwise, and some obviously have been told by respectible agencies like driving schools who they should be expected to believe.. Thats why I don't think it's fair for people to point fingers solely at the RSA and blame them (which seems common practice around here sometimes).


  • #544
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Welease wrote: »
    Yeah thats all I was getting at.. In order to get a specific answer you will need to ask them the specific question.. I cannot fathom how they say there is no conflict, unless you are not talking about the same "sequential" method on specific roundabouts.

    What I mean is.. I don't believe the "sequential" method means the same to the RSA as it does to you for example. I assume they were however aware of some confusion, which is why it was removed from their material. That would be the first issue.. and one they have tried to remedy (albeit not as thoroughly as one would hope).

    The second issue would be why Driving Instructors (and Driving Schools) continue to use outdated method which the RSA had stopped using since 2006. If the RSA decided a change was needed (and we dont know specifically why).. why didnt the Professionals follow suit?

    I believe they are seperate issues, because the RSA now makes no mention of any sequential method, so why is it being taught? On this part the Driving Schools surely must hold their hands up.. the RSA cannot be held 100% liable for this.

    Put simply ... 1st issue is the origin of the misconception.. 2nd issue is the continue proliferation of the misconception after references to the misconception were deleted in 2006.

    To be honest it was so long ago (all subsequent licences were mere formalities because I knew how to drive... any lessons didn't include roadcraft) I don't remember the exact words.. but i was always essentially taught.. left and up to (and including) straight ahead is left lane, past that (or right) is right lane onless otherwise indicated.

    Well I did comment on that earlier.. Some will never be told otherwise, and some obviously have been told by respectible agencies like driving schools who they should be expected to believe.. Thats why I don't think it's fair for people to point fingers solely at the RSA and blame them (which seems common practice around here sometimes).


    Starting with your last point first, I agree that placing all the onus on the RSA does not take into account other contributing factors. However, the ultimate source of the guidelines for roundabouts is the RoTR, and if these were detailed, prescriptive and comprehensive enough there would be nothing to dispute. It is odd, though, that the wordy Irish rules lead to confusion and conflict whereas it seems to be the case that minimalist Dutch and Swedish rules make their roundabouts vastly safer than their ordinary junctions. This is where I think there is a systems problem in Ireland whereby multiple factors combine to generate an outcome different from that expected. Roundabouts should be safer and easier, but large numbers of Irish motorists, cyclists and pedestrians will tell you why they experience the very opposite.

    I submitted some further questions to my RSA contact last night, with specific reference to the OP's roundabout. I anticipate that any response will take a couple of days. In the meantime I am contacting another expert or two for their opinions.

    I appreciate your point regarding the two issues you identify: the apparent simultaneous existence of two incompatible methods for navigating roundabouts, and the apparent continued promotion by driving instructors of an outdated method. It remains to be seen what is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth with regard to both of those issues. However, in my view they are two sides of the same coin.

    An aside: out of curiosity if nothing else, I am pursuing the possibility that these opposing roundabout 'paradigms' (if they really exist!) are due to some sort of perception bias. That may sound like a crackpot theory, but it may well be within the bounds of possibility that there are two sizeable groups of motorists who look at the same guidelines in the RoTR and see quite different things. If you are so inclined, have a look at this webpage and imagine how it might apply to Number-of-Exits adherents reading the RoTR.


  • #545
    zynaps
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭zynaps


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    An aside: out of curiosity if nothing else, I am pursuing the possibility that these opposing roundabout 'paradigms' (if they really exist!) are due to some sort of perception bias. That may sound like a crackpot theory, but it may well be within the bounds of possibility that there are two sizeable groups of motorists who look at the same guidelines in the RoTR and see quite different things. If you are so inclined, have a look at this webpage and imagine how it might apply to Number-of-Exits adherents reading the RoTR.
    The documentation in the ROTR is still just ambiguous enough to leave some room for interpretation either way. If they gave an example more involved than the canonical four-exit compass roundabout, it might remove the problem, but as it stands one can defend their conflicting viewpoint (see antiprocess) by reasoning that the simplistic example in the ROTR does not match the large real-world 5 or 6 exit roundabout they're faced with.

    Also, if the photo earlier in the thread is representative of all Dutch roundabouts, then the well-marked lanes and clear signage should help keep things under control. On many multi-lane roundabouts here, there don't seem to be even lane markings on the roundabout, so simply staying in the correct lane becomes another unneeded judgement call.


  • #546
    BigEejit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,739 ✭✭✭BigEejit


    Indeed, the county councils should always make sure that roundabouts are signposted and roadmarked to remove the confusion that some drivers have. As zynaps says, these are unneeded judgement calls.

    If roundabouts were marked as well as the Dutch one pictured earlier in the thread it would make life much easier for everyone. It may even stop the ignorant bastages who go all the way around roundabouts in the left lane.


  • Advertisement
  • #547
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    An aside: out of curiosity if nothing else, I am pursuing the possibility that these opposing roundabout 'paradigms' (if they really exist!) are due to some sort of perception bias.

    I think it's much simpler than that. The RotR used to say "first, second, later exits", and many people learned when those were the official rules. Add to that instructors who learned when those rules were official who continue to teach that way, and that's all there is to it.

    The problem is just driver education: like "fast" lanes, foglights, tailgating and so on. Many of the people guilty of these everyday driving sins really don't know any better.


  • #548
    vibe666
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭vibe666


    okay, its time for me to start as i mean to go on.

    i stepped away from the debate for a few days because i was getting too worked up over this whole thing and started taking personal shots at people because they disagreed with me and that was very wrong on my part.

    so, to Vertakill and bbk and anyone else I might have taken an unnecessary dig at, i offer my sincere apologies. it was wrong of me and if i lose the plot and do it again, I heartily encourage anyone to quote this message and ask the mods to get the banhammer out.

    i have already said that when i'm wrong i'm happy to admit my mistakes and its only right that i stand by that assertion so i hope that this is enough to clear the air. :)

    the thing is, now that i've actually caught up with the thread again, i'm all fuuuuuuuuuu and i haven't even posted anything new yet! :D

    i'll try and restrain myself as best i can in any case, for the sake of my own non-banning if nothing else. ;)

    so, what we have now (imho) is further muddied waters BY the RSA making things worse by saying this:
    3. Are the two methods ('new' Clock method versus old Number-of-Exits method) compatible?
    We do not see these as old or new methods both are equally valid and we believe they cannot be used independently of each other.
    seriously, WTF is that supposed to even mean? (and i'm reflecting on what the RSA mean in their reply to Iwannahurl, not him/her for posting it in the thread).

    how can both be equally valid if they CAN'T both be used independently? :confused:

    I've emailed the RSA to ask them to clear things up and for them to create a boards.ie account and ask for the mods promote them so they have an official RSA: bob (or whatever) account so they can answer things in an official capacity.

    i know i'm changing my tone completely here, but how can anyone be expected to know which method to use in ireland when the RSA can't even give a conclusive answer to a simple question without confusing things further?

    BTW, someone asked about the rest of Europe all using the 'clock' method a few pages ago, but i believe someone also used Spain as an example of an EU country that doesn't, which is "technically" correct, but functionally speaking it's like using Joseph Fritzl as a valid alternative method of running a B&B. :D

    I actually drove in Spain for the best part of 4 years and the Spanish system is that you use the outside (relative to the centre) lane of any roundabout to go anywhere except coming 360 degrees right round it to go back the way you came, which is for the inside most lane (back to front, driving on the left anticlockwise layout) so you take the right hand lane if you are going right, straight OR left off the roundabout, but at the same time, if there are two or more lanes entering a roundabout the lanes are also treated by the majority of drivers as the same as if the roundabout wasn't there, so they are just an extension of the motorway lanes making any inside lanes ALSO overtaking lanes :eek: even though you have people on the outside lanes crossing right in front of them to go left. :(

    as far as I am aware, the Spanish 'Kamikaze' system isn't actually in the highway code, but it IS actually taught by driving instructors because everyone (everyone Spanish) does it and if you try and use the regular EU 'clocks' system you'll get t-boned by a Spaniard very quickly, which is a very severe learning experience for other europeans visiting spain who are usually the ones it happens to (a lot).

    there have been several campaigns (admittedly, mostly by the non-spanish contingent) to bring them in line with the rest of europe, but so far it seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

    anyway, the short version is that Spain is the exception, or at least very much in the minority and should not be used as a good example for others to follow unless you really want to know what your motor would like like with a Seat Ibiza sticking out of the side of it!

    Also, i think Iwannahurl had asked about the definition of what exactly constituted "straight on", so I did a little (crap, MS Paint) illustration, based on the OP's original picture that shows it as it was taught to me by my driving instructor in the UK when I was 17 (I'm 34 now).

    roundabout-1.jpg

    as far as I am aware, this is the system that has always been in place in the UK for as long back as anyone can remember and although officially speaking the clock method is not mentioned, it is taught as an easy way for anyone to visualise the roundabout based on their relative position and either by looking at the roundabout as they approach, or the signs leading up to it for bigger roundabouts, pick the most appropriate exit from there.

    the important thing for everyone to remember about the clocks method is that it not only makes it easy for you to know which lane to take (if there are no markings to dictate otherwise) it also makes it easy for everyone else (either already on, or preparing to enter/leave) around you to quickly work out based on your relative position and signalling, where you are likely to be going.

    the other important thing to remember is that as it's used (almost) everywhere else you're likely to be driving, you aren't going to have any problems using roundabouts abroad AND people coming here and getting hire cars aren't as likely to drive into you on a roundabout because they think you're going somewhere else. :)

    the other thing is, if the clocks & numbers methods are almost the same, 99% of the time (as has been previously mentioned, why not change your habits to the same as everyone else for that 1% of the time? once the RSA have conclusively cleared up all these muddy waters anyway. ;)


  • #549
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    BigEejit wrote: »
    Indeed, the county councils should always make sure that roundabouts are signposted and roadmarked to remove the confusion that some drivers have. As zynaps says, these are unneeded judgement calls.
    If roundabouts were marked as well as the Dutch one pictured earlier in the thread it would make life much easier for everyone. It may even stop the ignorant bastages who go all the way around roundabouts in the left lane.


    There seems to be some sort of antipathy towards proper signage and road markings among our various authorities with responsibility for roads. I suspect it has to do with funds. Signs cost money, and as for road markings, sure if you lay those down aren't you only setting yourself up for having to renew them in a few years?

    The NRA has a central role in the design of roundabouts. Refer to their Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. Perhaps that's also part of this systemic problem: a plethora of 'competent authorities', little or no coordination, and no accountability as usual.

    It was the NRA that originally gave us chicken-wire crash barriers on the M1, it was the NRA that gave us motorways without service stops (to keep the gombeens happy), and it was the NRA that gifted the people of Dunshaughlin, Co. Meath, with this beauty a while back, when they interfered with basic pedestrian and cycle routes around the village.


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    I think it's much simpler than that. The RotR used to say "first, second, later exits", and many people learned when those were the official rules. Add to that instructors who learned when those rules were official who continue to teach that way, and that's all there is to it.

    The problem is just driver education: like "fast" lanes, foglights, tailgating and so on. Many of the people guilty of these everyday driving sins really don't know any better.


    I've already acknowledged that it's probably best to concentrate on finding the simplest possible explanation and hence the simplest solution.

    However, on this particular issue IMO it is overly simple to suggest that it's just a matter of education. If the Rules of the Road manual is not central, why does such a document exist? No, the RoTR is the bible, and the bible must be true or our faith in the system is for nothing.

    I don't want to go all highfalutin about phenomena like Cognitive Dissonance, but in a way it's quite basic and IMO very relevant to the problem at hand.

    If there are large numbers of motorists out there who use an outmoded method of navigating roundabouts, they are not going to change their ways until presented with a clear and unambiguous instruction to do otherwise. Where is that instruction to come from? IMO there seems to be agreement in certain quarters that both the RoTR and the RSA's TV ad are wrong. Numbers/Sequentialists looking at the RoTR and the ad do not see anything that contradicts their current knowledge and beliefs (I should know!). In other words, they experience no 'cognitive dissonance'.

    So what could possibly prompt them to change? There is no mechanism for making all of them (us) go back and take more driving lessons, and in any case it is also not certain that every driving instructor in the country is teaching roundabout navigation properly.

    Enforcement is also crucial, but of what exactly? As usual AGS are practically invisible or at least they are not being proactive in dealing with this recurring problem. There is at least one anecdotal report in this thread about a motorist allegedly being pulled by a Garda for allegedly using the right-hand lane on a roundabout like the OP's.

    BTW, I also emailed two senior Garda officers (one regional, the other national) on Feb 3 to ask for their input. To date I have received neither acknowledgment nor response.


  • #550
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    vibe666 wrote: »
    the other thing is, if the clocks & numbers methods are almost the same, 99% of the time (as has been previously mentioned, why not change your habits to the same as everyone else for that 1% of the time? once the RSA have conclusively cleared up all these muddy waters anyway. ;)



    Fair point, except that the proportions using the different rules may be as much as 50/50 and there is no official guidance insisting that all motorists use the preferred method.

    Now that I have heard about it for the first time, I agree that the Clock method makes intuitive sense.

    For example, I happily used it here for the first time just the other day. I was travelling from top right (of map/photo) to bottom left. Past 12 o'clock, so right lane.

    Dare I ask what others would have done? :cool::):D:p:pac:;):rolleyes::eek::(:mad:

    The trouble is, I'm still watching out for 'the other guy' who is in the left lane, and if any aggro occurs he'll just throw the RoTR at me.

    By the way, just found this Indo article by pure fluke. Wish I'd seen it in 2004, or even just last week for that matter. Here's the text in full:


    Better driving: Negotiating roundabouts by numbers

    Irish Independent, Friday September 03 2004

    WHEN dealing with roundabouts, it is always important to position where road markings indicate. Use the 'clock method' to determine your signal. This is based on the principle that you are always approaching from the 6 o'clock position, which means the exit to your left is 9 o'clock, the road directly in front is 12 o'clock, and the road to the right is 3 o'clock.

    If leaving by the 9 o'clock exit, apply your left indicator and, if road markings allow, approach in the left lane. Maintain your left signal throughout and only cancel it when you exit.

    The normal procedure for taking the 12 o'clock exit is to have no signal as you approach the roundabout in the left hand lane (if road markings allow) and keep in this lane as you negotiate the roundabout. When you are level with the centre point of the 9 o'clock exit, indicate left to exit at 12 o'clock. The other option is to approach in the right-hand lane. Your signals would be the same, but you would maintain the right-hand lane throughout.

    Where a roundabout goes from two lanes on approach to one lane on exit, consider which side of the road narrows. If the road narrows on the left-hand side, for example by the kerb cutting in, then it may be better to select the right-hand lane, as this will allow a smoother line without having to change lanes, and vice versa.

    If leaving by the 3 o'clock exit, you would normally approach in the right-hand lane unless road markings indicate otherwise. Indicate right on approach and maintain this signal until you get level with the centre of the second exit. Then change to a left signal. Where it is safe to do so, leave the roundabout by the left-hand lane. It is very important, however, to stress that you should give way to traffic already in the left-hand lane and if it is not safe to change lanes, remain in the right-hand lane as you exit.

    Going all the way around the roundabout is an extension of taking the 3 o'clock exit but maintain your signal and road position until you get level with the centre point of the 3 o'clock exit, then change your signal to the left and leave by the left-hand lane if it is safe.

    On multi-exit roundabouts, the clock method gives you a flexible guide. If the exit you are taking is to the left, signal left on approach and maintain this signal. If the exit is before 12 o'clock, there is no signal on approach and a left signal when you are exiting. If your exit is past 12 o'clock, signal right on approach and change to a left indicator when you go to leave the roundabout.

    In general, you can usually position in the left hand lane on approach to a roundabout if the exit you are taking is before the 12 o'clock position. You would select the right hand lane on approach if your exit was past the 12 o'clock position. Only where conditions allow, should you leave by the left hand lane.

    Weekly safety advice courtesy Mike Kavanagh, Irish Advanced Motorists


  • #551
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    I haven't changed my driving based on this thread, but it has lowered my blood pressure a bit.

    Each day, I drive through this roundabout in Galway, coming from the West and turning right on the N6. This signage clearly shows that the N6 is to the right. The road markings clearly show that N6 traffic should be in the right hand lane.

    Yet every day, it's like feckin bumper cars with drivers turning right to the N6 in the left hand lane. I always thought this was just queue-jumping rule-breaking douchebaggery, but now I realize that many people were taught that this is the normal lane to use for a second exit. The lane markings aren't very visible in traffic, and these people may actually think they are driving sensibly.

    Probably not, but it lowers my blood pressure to give them the benefit of the doubt.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement