Liability in a crash with the 5-0 Options

[Michael Gibson]

Hi All,

I'm the red line, the police are the yellow line. The lines are our intended paths. The green arrow is the crash point.

I entered the roundabout in the right lane of a dual carriageway and intended to continue onto the same dual carriageway and exit into the right hand lane.

https://preview.ibb.co/iEpTtS/crash.jpg

No arrows etc on the approach to the RA.

Any thoughts?

This post has been edited by Michael Gibson: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 - 17:54

[Advertisement]

[Spandex]

But if you don't think moving into the middle to "block" someone who, a few dozen metres behind you had been in a marked lane is worse than being in the wrong lane - bearing in mind as you say it is light traffic there and quite possible to sensibly merge - as has been said, I don't think plod would come down on your side.

And by "poor signage", I mean "the sign is in a tree and it is a non-standard roundabout ahead". And probably their sat nav is telling them to "take the second exit" if they are unfamiliar with the area.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.7368428,-...3312!8i6656

The sign is no longer in a tree. It couldn’t be clearer as it shows a pictogram of the roundabout with the two exits clearly marked. Apart from being peanut shaped (hardly that unusual) it’s a very very standard roundabout.

As I’ve said a few times now, I’m not blocking anyone. I am in no one’s way. No one is going to actually undertake me. I am simply making sure that the car in (imaginary) lane 1 is under no illusions that there are still two lanes (those ended when the roundabout started - there is no ‘merge’) so there is zero chance of them doing anything stupid. They’ve got form, after all.

So, just to be clear, THERE IS ONLY ONE LANE ON THE ROUNDABOUT. Helping people to make two imaginary lanes for the sole purpose of allowing them to be in the wrong one is just about the most mental thing I’ve read on here. Because that’s what you’re suggesting. Creating a new left hand lane for cars going right on a single lane roundabout with a single lane exit. Wtf?

[notmeatloaf]

I'm saying you shouldn't take a road position with the intention of blocking others in otherwise free flowing traffic. It is not your job to enforce the number of lanes on the roundabout. If someone is in the wrong lane just let them merge without creating a song and dance about it.

[Spandex]

I'm saying you shouldn't take a road position with the intention of blocking others in otherwise free flowing traffic. It is not your job to enforce the number of lanes on the roundabout. If someone is in the wrong lane just let them merge without creating a song and dance about it.

They're not in the wrong lane anymore, there is only one lane. The problem is that they don't realise that, so they drive around the roundabout hugging the left side, and there's a risk that they're then hovering in your blind spot while you have foolishly assumed they took the left exit 20m back. Hence the whole point of this - don't ever assume on a roundabout.

You keep saying I should 'merge', but I'm a bit baffled how I can do that without the police arresting me for obstruction. I mean, in order to merge I would have to move from the right hand lane to the middle of the single lane at the point where the road transitions from 2 to 1 lanes, yes? But I said that's exactly what I do, and I'm told that's obstruction. Maybe it's the imagined 'song and dance' specifically you don't like? If I move over and call it "merging" it's ok, but if I move over at exactly the same location, in exactly the same fashion, and call it "positioning myself to ensure people behind me don't think I'm in lane 2 which no longer exists" you get the hump?

Anyone would think you're just disagreeing with me for the sake of it at this point...