Roundabouts - definitive answer

[GreigM]

I'm looking for a definitive answer to a question about where to position your car on roundabouts....if there is anyone out there in "authority" to give a definitive answer it would be appreciated....

Situation..you are on a dual-lane road approaching a dual-lane roundabout, the roundabout has 3 exits, all single lane (you can't continue on a 2 lane road). Exits are evenly spaced/sized at left, straight-on and right.

You want to go straight on -do you
1) Take the left hand lane
2) Take the right hand lane
3) Take either - there's no absolute correct

The highway code doesn't deal with this situation explicity (dual to single lane conversion)..

opinions please....

[Davel]

Go straight across it!

[tonyrec]

GreigM said:

I'm looking for a definitive answer to a question about where to position your car on roundabouts....if there is anyone out there in "authority" to give a definitive answer it would be appreciated.... Situation..you are on a dual-lane road approaching a dual-lane roundabout, the roundabout has 3 exits, all single lane (you can't continue on a 2 lane road). Exits are evenly spaced/sized at left, straight-on and right. You want to go straight on -do you 1) Take the left hand lane 2) Take the right hand lane 3) Take either - there's no absolute correct The highway code doesn't deal with this situation explicity (dual to single lane conversion).. opinions please....

The only option that would render you totaly unblameworthy would be to take the Nearside lane on the approach if you intend to go straight on.

[Size Nine Elm]

GreigM said:

You want to go straight on -do you 1) Take the left hand lane 2) Take the right hand lane 3) Take either - there's no absolute correct

The Highway Code section on roundabouts only refers to 'the appropriate lane', apart from left lane/first exit and right lane/last exit or full circle.
I would take either lane, and also be bloody careful on exit in case its a 'two into one doesn't go' situation.

[GreigM]

Size Nine Elm said:

The Highway Code section on roundabouts only refers to 'the appropriate lane', apart from left lane/first exit and right lane/last exit or full circle. I would take either lane, and also be bloody careful on exit in case its a 'two into one doesn't go' situation.

Yup, that's my problem, there doesn't seem to be a right or wrong in this situation

[tuffer]

One near me has two lanes on the "straight ahead" exit. People queue up in the right hand lane to go straight on then switch to the left hand lane half way around (usualy to find I am already their having nipped up on the left lane). I am in the right and one day I am going to let the old codger crash into me and let him try and argue the toss.

[tonyrec]

GreigM said:

Size Nine Elm said: The Highway Code section on roundabouts only refers to 'the appropriate lane', apart from left lane/first exit and right lane/last exit or full circle. I would take either lane, and also be bloody careful on exit in case its a 'two into one doesn't go' situation. Yup, that's my problem, there doesn't seem to be a right or wrong in this situation

I have to disagree with your comment here.
Firstly the Highway Code is not law, only advisory.

The original question wanted a definative answer and ive given one that is 100% correct.

If you have an accident whilst going straight on at a roundabout after approaching from Lane 2.....you will have a big problem, firstly with the BiB if theres serious injuries and secondly with an Insurance company who will hold you blameworthy.

It makes things a lot easier if you position yourself properly.

This all said......if theres nothing around then the racing line will do.

[loudpedal]

take the direction that gets you there fastest, i.e: do a swift 'numpty-assesment' and choose the lane with fewest indecisive mumbly tw@ts.

[typevii]

Even if you are 'in the right' then if the other party can find a 'witness' you will probably lose. I did when rear ended by a car cutting lanes on a roundabout similar to the one described. Car cut across lane into rear of mine as I had not moved as he expected. He then produces a 'witness'. In court both give conflicting and ridiculous stories, but as i do not have a witness it's my fault. (BTW no witness stopped at the scene, his appeared later for the insurance claims).

Now I will always have a 'witness' in any incident, regardless of whether they were there or not.

[GreigM]

tonyrec said:

If you have an accident whilst going straight on at a roundabout after approaching from Lane 2.....you will have a big problem, firstly with the BiB if theres serious injuries and secondly with an Insurance company who will hold you blameworthy.

But surely if that is the reasoning then the inside lane of the roundabout should never be used as the person in the outside lane is always correct, regardless if they are passing 7 previous exits to get back to their own?

[Size Nine Elm]

tonyrec said:

If you have an accident whilst going straight on at a roundabout after approaching from Lane 2.....you will have a big problem, firstly with the BiB if theres serious injuries and secondly with an Insurance company who will hold you blameworthy.

Tonyrec,

What's the legal position here? I would have thought the following:
- If there are lane markings in the lanes approaching the roundabout, you're OK if your choice of exit matches the lane markings
- If there are no lane markings, then an exit less than 180 degrees should use the left lane, and an exit more than 180 degrees should use the right lane.
- straight ahead - point at issue - what is the legislation that says you should be in the left lane? Most of the compulsory aspects of the HC online refer to specific legislation, but there are no compulsory references on lane selection here.

Just interested as to why choosing the nearside lane makes you 100% absolved...

[tonyrec]

Size Nine Elm said:

tonyrec said: If you have an accident whilst going straight on at a roundabout after approaching from Lane 2.....you will have a big problem, firstly with the BiB if theres serious injuries and secondly with an Insurance company who will hold you blameworthy. Tonyrec, What's the legal position here? I would have thought the following: - If there are lane markings in the lanes approaching the roundabout, you're OK if your choice of exit matches the lane markings - If there are no lane markings, then an exit less than 180 degrees should use the left lane, and an exit more than 180 degrees should use the right lane. - straight ahead - point at issue - what is the legislation that says you should be in the left lane? Most of the compulsory aspects of the HC online refer to specific legislation, but there are no compulsory references on lane selection here. Just interested as to why choosing the nearside lane makes you 100% absolved...

Its all to do with being 'Blameworthy'.

If your in lane 1 at the approach then realistically speaking you cannot cause anyone to deviate, brake etc and therefore no offences of Driving without due care and Without reasonable consideration etc.

If you approach in lane 2 then this can easily happen.

Ive seen this time and time again whereby someone is approaching in lane 2 intending to go straight ahead and you get the numpty in lane 1 approach who in fact turns right. When they collided, sadly...the Insurance companies call in "Knock for Knock" as both parties are technically blameworthy.

If however there are lane markings directing you around the roundabout and you dont deviate then theres not a problem.

Im only talking about the 98% of Roundabouts with what i would class as normal (Give way etc).

[GreigM]

Size Nine Elm said:

Tonyrec, What's the legal position here? I would have thought the following: - If there are lane markings in the lanes approaching the roundabout, you're OK if your choice of exit matches the lane markings - If there are no lane markings, then an exit less than 180 degrees should use the left lane, and an exit more than 180 degrees should use the right lane. - straight ahead - point at issue - what is the legislation that says you should be in the left lane? Most of the compulsory aspects of the HC online refer to specific legislation, but there are no compulsory references on lane selection here. Just interested as to why choosing the nearside lane makes you 100% absolved...

SizeNine, thanks for puting my point more eloquently..this is exactly the question I meant to ask.

[hertsbiker]

Interesting, I tend to put the lane with least cars in it - hence most of the time, the RHL. When I am "ahead" of the car in the LHL, I indicate left, and exit. When I am behind it, I indicate left and fall in behind it.

The problem occurs when there are tail gating left lane numpties, and they don't want to tlet you in.

Is this not against the law? I thought you gave way to the right, therefore they MUST let you in???

Personally I hate it when I want to go left, and there are loads of people queued up to go straight over & no one using the RHL.

[bikerkeith]

IAM advice is that, if there are no lane markings, you may use either lane in the example quoted above. If 2 lanes of traffic are using the roundabout, and especially if you are on a bike, try not to travel around the roundabout parallel to another vehicle in case the driver deviates into you.
The other advice, confirmed by examiners, is that when there is no other traffic about you can straight line it.

[lancelot]

hertsbiker said:

Personally I hate it when I want to go left, and there are loads of people queued up to go straight over & no one using the RHL.

You don't use the RHL and go all the way round then?

[pdV6]

tonyrec said:

Ive seen this time and time again whereby someone is approaching in lane 2 intending to go straight ahead and you get the numpty in lane 1 approach who in fact turns right. When they collided, sadly...the Insurance companies call in "Knock for Knock" as both parties are technically blameworthy.

Not doubting your experience at all, but this seems grossly unfair. The highway code indicates that in this situation, Mr Numpty should have been in the RH lane indicating right from the start. As its perfectly acceptable for you to be in the RH lane and go straight, why should you be equally to blame?

[tonyrec]

pdV6 said:

tonyrec said: Ive seen this time and time again whereby someone is approaching in lane 2 intending to go straight ahead and you get the numpty in lane 1 approach who in fact turns right. When they collided, sadly...the Insurance companies call in "Knock for Knock" as both parties are technically blameworthy. Not doubting your experience at all, but this seems grossly unfair. The highway code indicates that in this situation, Mr Numpty should have been in the RH lane indicating right from the start. As its perfectly acceptable for you to be in the RH lane and go straight, why should you be equally to blame?

All im doing in my answer is trying to explain what does happen in the 'real world', not what the Highway code explains.

My definative answer to the original question puts you 100% in the clear, if you take the nearside lane on the approach then whatever happens you cannot be held responsible in any way shape or form.
Im not saying that i never approach in lane 2 because that would be incorrect. If im ahead of any vehicle , going faster etc etc then i would approach in this way.


If i can give you an example...im travelling at warp factor 3 on an Emercall approaching the said roundabout in lane 2 because i naturally want to make max progress. A numpty is approaching in lane 1. As we are both in the roundabout and im about to carry straight on, he wants to turn Right all along and in doing this he strikes the rear nearside of my vehicle.......hmmmm, it all gets a bit weary doesnt it.

I know for a fact that the Police would pay out for some if not all the damages to both cars.

In essence, i would be critisised for 'technically being in the wrong lane', even though it was correct for the circumstances and the numpty would be critisised too.The likes of Ins Co's use every angle to assess a claim and if youre not totally blameless then the old percentage scheme will come in to place.

This is fact!

However, in my original answer, the RTA probably wouldnt have happened and even if it had then im totally blameless.

So when reading this answer, please note that it is answering the question only.
Hopefully this is explained a little better this time.

[hertsbiker]

much appreciated that you answered in such detail Tony, just not appreciated the content if you see what I mean!

So you have to ask why aren't roundabout clearly marked, or infact with as many lanes in as there are exits, so you have a DEFINATIVE lane to take, no argument.

Looks like we will have endless queues of people in the left lane for fear of being "at fault".

And yes, I have occasionally done an "orbit" to go left. Few yards futher, but gets you 10 cars in front!

[pdV6]

Thanks Tony,

I wasn't implying any flaw in your logic, just that the outcome via the insurance company seems more than a little unfair (i.e. driver A does the opposite of the HC advice and driver B follows HC advice to the letter, but they're both held equally responsible)... but then, when have insurance companies ever acted fairly or logically?