Who's at fault? Traffic collision - with video
Discussion
Zeeky said:
So two sets of rules apply. Those using exits 1 and 3 follow the road markings. Those using exit 2 follow the highway code guidance.
They have deliberately put traffic in conflict with each other and not just effectively put traffic in conflict with each other as first thought.
It is they who should be liable for doing neither one thing or the other.
It's quite a special clustefThey have deliberately put traffic in conflict with each other and not just effectively put traffic in conflict with each other as first thought.
It is they who should be liable for doing neither one thing or the other.
k.Brilliant the way that the two opposing views have been argued vehemently in this thread and yet I don't think anyone managed to conclude that they'd done something so utterly stupid as apply both of them.
If they meant it to be a free for all, they'd have been better of not bothering with any signs or markings at all instead of relying on conflicting options!
Variomatic said:
Ok, got an answer from Hampshire Highways which seems to make sense.
The approach arrows are only referring to the major route, the A323, so the "straight" arrows on approach DO permit you to use either lane for the first dual carriageway exit and the right turn arrow in the right hand lane means (no surprise) that you shouldn't use the left approach to take the A323 in the other direction.
Wingate Street (opposite) is a dead-end and, as such, is not signed by road markings on the approach. Drivers are expected to use either lane, as per the Highway Code, depending on conditions at the time.
Drivers are expected to take due care (ie: apply common sense) to avoid conflict between the first and second exits.
So, in this case, both drivers were acting appropriately according to the markings and fault would rest on exactly how each approached and negotiated the hazard. I suspect that, without the video, on that basis the OP might well have got away with a 50/50 but the video evidence of an aggressive overtake on the approach to, and on, a roundabout would be enough to swing it against him.
Thank God for that. I've been sitting at this roundabout for the last 2 months unable to proceed as I don't know which lane to be in.The approach arrows are only referring to the major route, the A323, so the "straight" arrows on approach DO permit you to use either lane for the first dual carriageway exit and the right turn arrow in the right hand lane means (no surprise) that you shouldn't use the left approach to take the A323 in the other direction.
Wingate Street (opposite) is a dead-end and, as such, is not signed by road markings on the approach. Drivers are expected to use either lane, as per the Highway Code, depending on conditions at the time.
Drivers are expected to take due care (ie: apply common sense) to avoid conflict between the first and second exits.
So, in this case, both drivers were acting appropriately according to the markings and fault would rest on exactly how each approached and negotiated the hazard. I suspect that, without the video, on that basis the OP might well have got away with a 50/50 but the video evidence of an aggressive overtake on the approach to, and on, a roundabout would be enough to swing it against him.
Variomatic said:
But they also confirmed that the second exit was intended to be possible from either lane. I agree that's a potential conflict but it's not one that should cause a problem if drivers maintain a reasonable standard of awareness and caution.
This presupposes that drivers believe there is ambiguity in the signage. It is clear from the posts on here that for most people there isn't. Most people posting believe either that they should follow the arrows or that they should follow the HC guidance. That's why there is conflict. In cases where people know that priority is unclear, drivers usually use appropriate awareness and caution.Variomatic said:
You can't possibly legislate / sign for every eventuality and allowing either of those routes makes perfect sense from a traffic management point of view without creating a substantial risk for drivers approaching or tackling the (obvious) hazard of a roundabout reasonably.
It isn't necessary to sign the RAB for every eventuality to avoid accidents caused by misleading signage. All that is required is to avoid deliberately creating two conflicting procedures for negotiating the RAB. They have, in effect, set a trap for drivers. The Courts have made it clear that this is likely to be negligent.Zeeky said:
It isn't necessary to sign the RAB for every eventuality to avoid accidents caused by misleading signage. All that is required is to avoid deliberately creating two conflicting procedures for negotiating the RAB. They have, in effect, set a trap for drivers. The Courts have made it clear that this is likely to be negligent.
I wish the OP well with his city date to recover his excess then as there isn't an insurer in the land likely to run this to court. It'd be a waste of money and just involve more cost ultimately with little chance of winning. 0000 said:
It's quite a special clustefk.
Brilliant the way that the two opposing views have been argued vehemently in this thread and yet I don't think anyone managed to conclude that they'd done something so utterly stupid as apply both of them.
If they meant it to be a free for all, they'd have been better of not bothering with any signs or markings at all instead of relying on conflicting options!
Indeed, if there were no markings, most people would fall back on the highway code and it would be easy to apportion blame.k.Brilliant the way that the two opposing views have been argued vehemently in this thread and yet I don't think anyone managed to conclude that they'd done something so utterly stupid as apply both of them.
If they meant it to be a free for all, they'd have been better of not bothering with any signs or markings at all instead of relying on conflicting options!
What a cock up.
Variomatic said:
But they also confirmed that the second exit was intended to be possible from either lane. I agree that's a potential conflict but it's not one that should cause a problem if drivers maintain a reasonable standard of awareness and caution.
You can't possibly legislate / sign for every eventuality and allowing either of those routes makes perfect sense from a traffic management point of view without creating a substantial risk for drivers approaching or tackling the (obvious) hazard of a roundabout reasonably.
My suspicions confirmed then regarding the meaning of the arrows. But if they intend both lanes to be able to use the 2nd exit then I'm afraid I think that's very poor. You can't possibly legislate / sign for every eventuality and allowing either of those routes makes perfect sense from a traffic management point of view without creating a substantial risk for drivers approaching or tackling the (obvious) hazard of a roundabout reasonably.
What worries me is that I've seen an increasing number of white-lining schemes implemented by LHA's that just don't seem to make any sense - whether that be offering little to no improvement over what was there before, or whether it causes confusion/limits capacity.
Agreed it leads to a possible conflict, but it seems that they still live in a world where drivers think about what what's going on round them rather than blindly following the dots. I still contend there's absolutely no problem with allowing cars to take first or second exits from either entry IF the drivers are exercising due care.
Ultimately, regardless of any road markings, you're responsible for not hitting another vehicle. If you saw someone coming towards you on the wrong side of double whites, with plenty of time to avoid them, would you avoid them or continue into the collision cos the markings said they shouldn't be there?
Ultimately, regardless of any road markings, you're responsible for not hitting another vehicle. If you saw someone coming towards you on the wrong side of double whites, with plenty of time to avoid them, would you avoid them or continue into the collision cos the markings said they shouldn't be there?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff