-
Ummm, but the markings (single, white, dashed line) that the driver crossed to enter the roundabout are still classified as give way markings and indicate that they should give way to traffic already circulating the roundabout (which can be to their left). I don't think that there is any substantial regulatory difference between the two forms. The double give way line is often used to provide visual reinforcement where the need to cede priority may be confused by sightlines, layout, historic use etc.
benborp-
Ummm, but the markings (single, white, dashed line) that the driver crossed to enter the roundabout are still classified as give way markings and indicate that they should give way to traffic already circulating the roundabout (which can be to their left). I don't think that there is any substantial regulatory difference between the two forms. The double give way line is often used to provide visual reinforcement where the need to cede priority may be confused by sightlines, layout, historic use etc.
Well, there is a little bit of a difference, although I don't know if it's relevant in this case (IANAL). The TSRGD state the following about double-line give way markings:
Give way marking – diagram 1003A
- The requirements conveyed to vehicular traffic on roads by the road marking at item 3 of the table in Part 6 of this Schedule are—48820/08/2015
(a) except as provided in paragraphs (b) to (d), that no vehicle may proceed past the transverse line which is the nearer to the major road into that road in a
manner or at a time likely to endanger the driver of, or any passenger in, a vehicle on the major road or to cause the driver of such a vehicle to change its
speed or course in order to avoid an accident;
This is considerably stricter and better-defined than the provision for roundabout entry markings, which merely read:
Diagram 1003.3
Vehicular traffic approaching a roundabout with a small central island or approaching a junction indicated by the marking shown in item 5 of this table [for a mini-roundabout, my addition] should give way at, or immediately beyond, the line to traffic circulating on the carriageway of the roundaboutObviously, the following is all arguable, and would probably be argued about at great length in court if it was not a trivial case like the present one (although I don't want to say that the upset caused to the driver is trivial, I just mean the fact that it was a minor incident without physical personal injury or damage). One difference is that the double-line give-way markings demarcate a major from a minor road at that point, i.e. Victoria Road-Balcombe Road south effectively becomes a major road and Balcombe Road north a minor road.
Someone coming from the north therefore has to observe 'that no vehicle may proceed past the transverse line which is the nearer to the major road into that road in a manner or at a time likely to endanger the driver of, or any passenger in, a vehicle on the major road or to cause the driver of such a vehicle to change its speed or course in order to avoid an accident'. By contrast, a driver approaching diagram 1003.3 where marked is actually at liberty to overshoot the markings in giving way. There's no indication that the same standard as for 1003A applies there.
This means (I think, but lawyers should please correct me) that Sharkstar should not have proceeded past diagram 1003A in the manner that he did, as it seems to me both Victoria Road, where the driver was coming from, and the circulatory carriageway in the roundabout effectively count as two parts of the same major road, and Sharkstar's riding does seem to have affected the driver's ability to proceed in something like the manner specified to be avoided in the TSRGD. By contrast, the driver was OK to proceed past diagram 1003.3 in this case, although he should then have given way to Sharkstar, who, irrespective of perhaps having ridden through diagram 1003A too fast at that point, was already in the circulatory carriageway.
I know that it's absurd to say that on the one hand Sharkstar shouldn't have impeded the driver's driving here and on the other hand the driver should then have given way to him. Perhaps it's nonsense, but it's the only way I can make some sense of the mixing here of two quite different approaches to highway design, with one design feature, the roundabout, incompatible (in my opinion) with the major/minor road design of a priority junction.
I've seen plenty of cases where engineers were looking to fix something in a traffic scheme that didn't work and then came up with 'solutions' like that. Many places have layers and layers of emendations in the schemes there. Generally, it's better to start again from scratch in such cases.
Apologies for all the length of these posts about a trivial thing, but it's the principles that interest me a lot here.
- The requirements conveyed to vehicular traffic on roads by the road marking at item 3 of the table in Part 6 of this Schedule are—48820/08/2015
Oliver Schick
Ah, I've only just spotted an unusual complication here, which is that on the approach that Nigel used there are give-way markings, whereas the other two entries to the roundabout don't have give-way markings. Apologies, I didn't notice that earlier. I expect that it is because this kind of conflict has been experienced there before and engineers decided to add the give-way markings.
So, Nigel should have give way to the driver there, and he was at fault, but not because he has to give way to vehicles approaching from the right at a roundabout, but because of the give-way markings (which basically represent a failure of the roundabout design here). You are not obliged to give way to a vehicle coming from the right at a roundabout, but to a vehicle already in the circulatory carriageway, which obviously will be approaching from your right. This is one of the most frequently misunderstood things about roundabouts (the Highway Code's advice is simplified and doesn't explain this properly).
http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/vol6/section2/td1607.pdf