Roundabouts Part 1 - Using the Roadcraft System

Roundabouts Part 1 - Using the Roadcraft System

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

Mr Grayson

159 posts

174 months

Friday 30th May 2014
quotequote all
Mini roundabouts lend themselves to games of "chicken", where the protagonists approach the roundabout faster and faster in order to deter others from entering it. There's one at the top of my road, with 3 exits roughly equally spaced. In one direction, you approach up a hill, with good visibility ahead (left) but poor visibility to the right. Notwithstanding this, very few people approaching from that direction plan to stop at the give way line unless forced to. Traffic from the right, taking advantage of the poor visibility, drive at the roundabout as if it were a target, leading to some squeaky bottom moments for the people approaching up the hill, who hadn't planned to give way, but find themselves having to in the face of someone travelling across them at 20 mph plus, who was invisible only a couple of seconds before. Traffic coming from the third direction has it easy. Everyone can see them, and they can see everyone else. Much more normal coming from that direction!

7db

6,058 posts

229 months

Friday 30th May 2014
quotequote all
R_U_LOCAL said:
ETA - full judgement here if you're struggling to sleep...

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/782.h...

Edited by R_U_LOCAL on Thursday 29th May 23:38
Actually fascinating in that it almost entirely relies on the Highway Code rather than TSRGD And the meaning of the lines. The point of formal priority is raised by the respondent's lawyer, not the appellant (who appears to have formal priority by being first on the roundabout).

vonhosen

40,198 posts

216 months

Friday 30th May 2014
quotequote all
7db said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
ETA - full judgement here if you're struggling to sleep...

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/782.h...

Edited by R_U_LOCAL on Thursday 29th May 23:38
Actually fascinating in that it almost entirely relies on the Highway Code rather than TSRGD And the meaning of the lines. The point of formal priority is raised by the respondent's lawyer, not the appellant (who appears to have formal priority by being first on the roundabout).
One wonders whether they actually looked at the legislation!

R_U_LOCAL

Original Poster:

2,676 posts

207 months

Friday 30th May 2014
quotequote all
It's a civil judgement in order to decide percentages of culpability on the part of each driver, rather than a criminal case.

To prove an offence in the criminal courts, the prosecution would have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that one of the drivers' standard of driving had fallen below that required by law (that of the imaginary "careful and competent" driver).

"Beyond all reasonable doubt" is a difficult concept to quantify, but an experienced barrister recently described it to me as "over 90% certainty", as opposed to the civil level of proof - the balance of probabilities - which is over 50% certainty.

I think I would expect questions about the legal meanings of signage to be asked in a criminal case, where a defendant could introduce an element of reasonable doubt by referring to the previously quoted elements of the TSRGD. It would easily introduce more than the required 10% of doubt to secure an acquittal.

In a civil case like this, however, judges tend to take a more pragmatic view, looking at the overall responsibility of all participants and their collective responsibility to avoid accidents. Or their responsibility to, as VH puts it, "look out for each other". Although it's true that you won't necessarily be prosecuted for breaching the Highway Code, this case demonstrates how the civil courts can still rely very heavily on the HC when apportioning percentages of blame. In this case, no-one came out of the case covered in glory, but the emerging vehicle was found to be less responsible than the proceeding vehicle.


7db

6,058 posts

229 months

Friday 30th May 2014
quotequote all
Indeed it's a civil trial and I'm surprised there's not a criminal one first that they can refer back to -- it being much easier to prove liability if someone is already proven guilty of the offence. Perhaps they both copped a charge.

I'm with von on this one. I suspect the appellant's lawyer didn't go on the lines rules as he's an insurance expert, not a road traffic expert.

Reg - "emergent" vs "proceeding" is a little naughty given the giveway lines on both roads, but I know what you meant...

Zeeky

2,779 posts

211 months

Friday 30th May 2014
quotequote all
Apart from specific offences created by them, the Regulations are not definitive of legal duties when using the roads. The duty of care in the law of negligence is no less law than the TSGDR 2002 or Section 3 of the RTA 1988. As the Court stated in the cited case, formal priority, whatever that may be - and it refers to both possibilities - is of little use when identifying legal duties in civil law and I suspect careless driving is no different.

Edited by Zeeky on Friday 30th May 23:27

7db

6,058 posts

229 months

Saturday 31st May 2014
quotequote all
There's a line. There is a rule that says don't cross it.

You cross the line and something bad happens to someone else who relied on your not crossing the line.

I'd have said that the rule that said "don't cross the line" was relevant.

Zeeky

2,779 posts

211 months

Saturday 31st May 2014
quotequote all
It may be relevant but it isn't decisive. The reasoning in the judgement appears to try to avoid the situation that Mr Grayson describes above. It isn't helpful to encourage drivers to race each other onto the roundabout to gain priority over the other.
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED