Right of way on mini roundabout

[Debaser]

Spotted this short video posted by Jeremy Vine who seems to think the driver of the grey car (Mercedes?) is in the wrong, and most of the replies agree.

https://vine.co/v/bPmWF7vBbAW

[inabox]

And you disagree?

[cornet]

I'd say the car had right of way as they arrived at the roundabout first.

Apologies, having read the reply by upsidedownmark and thought about it again then the cyclist did indeed have right of way

Edited by cornet on Tuesday 23 April 00:14

[Debaser]

inabox said:

And you disagree?

Yes

[AndrewEH1]

Car arrived at the roundabout first

Edited by AndrewEH1 on Tuesday 23 April 00:19

[upsidedownmark]

Roundabouts are very simple, no matter what size, you give way to your right, AND to traffic already on the roundabout. Order of arrival is irrelevant, as is the vehicle type.

For reference
https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/round...

Some folk appear to think that means cruising onto the roundabout at unabated speed in order to be 'on' the roundabout before the person approaching from the right. Basically they're idiots, and best given a wide berth..

4-way stops (americanism as far as I can tell) are the only one I'm aware of where the order you arrive is relevant.

Edited by upsidedownmark on Tuesday 23 April 00:12

[AndrewEH1]

upsidedownmark said:

Some folk appear to think that means cruising onto the roundabout at unabated speed in order to be 'on' the roundabout before the person approaching from the right. Basically they're idiots, and best given a wide berth..

Mr Vine didn't even slow down when approaching the roundabout.


...although I bet the driver never even saw him.

[S. Gonzales Esq.]

Those road markings at the roundabout entry mean 'Give way to traffic from the right', which the grey car did not do.

There's also the matter of this:

Highway Code said:

188

Mini-roundabouts. Approach these in the same way as normal roundabouts. All vehicles MUST pass round the central markings except large vehicles which are physically incapable of doing so. Remember, there is less space to manoeuvre and less time to signal. Avoid making U-turns at mini-roundabouts. Beware of others doing this.

Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10(1) & 16(1)

[simoid]

Debaser said:

inabox said:

And you disagree?

Yes

Do you have a driving licence?

[Plastic chicken]

Car driver was 100% in the wrong. From the video it's difficult to see which way his/her head is facing, but:
If facing straight on: didn't bother looking for traffic approaching roundabout.
Head turned right: noticed cyclist but decided to carry on regardless...after all, what damage can a bike do? Wonder if they would have given way if the approaching vehicle had been an artic?

[Debaser]

simoid said:

Do you have a driving licence?

I was always taught that traffic approaching a roundabout gives way to traffic already on the roundabout.

Though in that situation I wouldn't have pulled put if someone was approaching quickly (even if I think I have right of way).

Willing to learn if I'm wrong.

[SK425]

What we're talking about here is called priority, not right of way.

Debaser said:

I was always taught that traffic approaching a roundabout gives way to traffic already on the roundabout.

You're correct for normal roundabouts - see the description of diagram 1003.1. The regulations seem slightly misleading for mini roundabouts though. If you just looked at the description of diagram 1003.3 you'd think the same rule applied. But mini roundabouts also have the circular blue sign, which conveys the additional meaning here for diagram 611.1. That says that the car driver had to give priority to vehicles "coming from the right", not just vehicles already on the mini roundabout.

That's the letter of the law dealt with. In practical terms, I didn't see much to commend about the driver's performance in that video. I think if I'd been the cyclist I might have applied a bit more caution on approach.

Debaser said:

Though in that situation I wouldn't have pulled put if someone was approaching quickly

Neither would I.

[simoid]

Debaser said:

simoid said:

Do you have a driving licence?

I was always taught that traffic approaching a roundabout gives way to traffic already on the roundabout.

Though in that situation I wouldn't have pulled put if someone was approaching quickly (even if I think I have right of way).

Willing to learn if I'm wrong.

Sorry for the shortness last night!

I think you may have misunderstood/misremembered what you were taught.

Consider the Merc's point of view: he approaches the roundabout and sees a cyclist approaching from the right. He must give way to them, but he doesn't. Therefore he's in the wrong.

You might say "ah but the cyclist should've given way to the Merc as the Merc was on the roundabout" but the cyclist didn't cause anyone to change speed, so he's not done anything wrong.

[yellowjack]

Nothing surprising about the video for me, except maybe that it's not a BMW that is driven dangerously this time.

This kind of fkwittery goes on all the time, is not confined to big cities, and happens as often when you are driving as when you are cycling.

I see it most frequently where the car that fails to abide by the rules is on the 'principal' route, where before the mini roundabout they would enjoy priority over joining traffic. What makes the case on the Vine video worse is that I would suggest that in the absence of the mini roundabout, the road layout suggests it's likely that the Mercedes would have had a give way line against them anyway.

These mini roundabouts are too many, and often inappropriate for a given situation, especially where they alter the natural priorities on a road.

My take on the situation in the video: Benz driver either hasn't seen the cyclist (whose poor positioning, too close to the kerb doesn't help) or has disregarded the presence of the cyclist, instead prioritising getting ahead of the oncoming grocery van, in a "there's no way I'm getting stuck behind THAT" fashion.

Selfish, stupid, ignorant, arrogant, or dangerous? Or a combination of all these things? You be the judge. All I can say is, I'm always calculating whether I may have to concede my 'priority' to another driver at roundabouts, because so few folk these days behave properly at them.

Sad. But unfortunately true.

[R0G]

Simple rule for free flowing roundabouts of any sort - give way to those on the right - which means that if you enter it and cause another to change speed or direction then you have done it wrong unless that other was not in view when you pulled out

[simoid]

Yep, I always try to be aware of what the other cars' front wheels and drivers' faces are up to when approaching RABs, just in case they do something unexpected.

[SK425]

upsidedownmark said:

For reference
https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/round...

I think the way rule 185 is worded is a little unhelpful: "give priority to traffic approaching from your right, unless directed otherwise by signs, road markings or traffic lights".

The broken line you have to cross to enter a roundabout only gives priority to vehicles already on the roundabout and I don't know why the Highway Code chooses to obscure that fact. It is, of course, extremely wise to give way to someone approaching from the right whether they're on the roundabout or not, if the alternative is to risk a collision. But I think the mistaken belief (which rule 185 doesn't exactly help with) that their priority exists before they are on the roundabout causes people to sometimes charge rather too aggressively towards roundabouts when approaching from someone else's right.

[simoid]

SK425 said:

I think the way rule 185 is worded is a little unhelpful: "give priority to traffic approaching from your right, unless directed otherwise by signs, road markings or traffic lights".

The broken line you have to cross to enter a roundabout only gives priority to vehicles already on the roundabout and I don't know why the Highway Code chooses to obscure that fact. It is, of course, extremely wise to give way to someone approaching from the right whether they're on the roundabout or not, if the alternative is to risk a collision. But I think the mistaken belief (which rule 185 doesn't exactly help with) that their priority exists before they are on the roundabout causes people to sometimes charge rather too aggressively towards roundabouts when approaching from someone else's right.

I think it may refer to specific lanes on RABs where you don't need to give way, i.e. there's a hatched area for direct access to the 1st exit.

[Snowboy]

upsidedownmark said:

4-way stops (americanism as far as I can tell) are the only one I'm aware of where the order you arrive is relevant.

4 way, 3 way and 2 way stops.
You get them in the US and Canada and they are excellent for small to medium sized junctions with intermittent traffic.

Priority goes to the first car at the stop line, with busy traffic defaulting to a clockwise order.
If the car whos turn it is turns in such a way that it's safe for another car to jump their turn it's fine.
Eg. Car turning left means the opposite car can also turn left. (well, right on US roads iyswim).

I'd much rather have them than mini roundabouts or traffic lights.

[SK425]

simoid said:

I think it may refer to specific lanes on RABs where you don't need to give way, i.e. there's a hatched area for direct access to the 1st exit.

That's a good example of "unless directed otherwise by signs, road markings or traffic lights". I think that bit of the rule is fine - not controversial at all . It's the first bit of the rule that I think promotes misunderstanding: "give priority to traffic approaching from your right". I think it would be better if that was reworded to: "give priority to traffic already on the roundabout" since that's what the rule actually is.

As I say, of course it's a good idea not to drive out in front someone approaching from the right but not yet on the roundabout if they're coming fast enough that to pull out would be dangerous. But the reason it's a good idea is not that they have priority.