car crash update and advice needed please!!

Wig

Barney,
This is why, I recommend you get a statement from the highway planners. Because you don't want a judge who thinks like Quentin.

backfoot

I think the latest photo is helpful.

Someone says the left hand lane is a left turn only lane to Rubery. It can't be. Traffic coming off the M5 South, would then have to filter left off to Rubery. You can see they don't have to. They can carry on around the island from both lanes.

Similarly, just after the Junction you can see another straight ahead arrow.If you are in the perimeter lane 1 before the rubery exit, this is the extention of that lane after the exit and remains as Lane 1. This is what the other side will say.

From the middle lane, you can also see the OP also cuts across a small dashed dividing line between lanes 1 and 2 on the roundabout. From the middle lane, he has to enter into lane 1 for a very short distance in order to exit into the A38N. It's during that short distance I assume the impact occurs.

As I said in my original post,I believe both drivers were in exactly the opposite lanes for the directions they were travelling.Someone exiting the Rubery exit should be in Lane 1 and someone carrying on around the island in Lane 2.

Before the signage changed,the left hand lane was marked as left turn only on the roundabout.The middle lane was then either straight on or A38N. Had the accident happened then,I would be saying 100% that the other driver was at fault. Unfortunately the signage changed which makes it much more complicated.If you look at the old google maps from an aerial view,it shows the old signage which was much better .(Other than the danger of an accidental hook into the M5 feeder lane.)It also shows via tyre patterns on the road, that the middle lane was almost always used for carrying straight on around the island.

Neither has made an illegal manouvre, because there are now no compulsory signs,and both owe a duty of care to each other. Then I believe the case will come down to relative impact positions, who hit who,who could have avoided who,speed and signalling.

bikingbarney

backfoot wrote: »

I think the latest photo is helpful.

Someone says the left hand lane is a left turn only lane to Rubery. It can't be. Traffic coming off the M5 South, would then have to filter left off to Rubery. You can see they don't have to. They can carry on around the island from both lanes.

Similarly, just after the Junction you can see another straight ahead arrow.If you are in the perimeter lane 1 before the rubery exit, this is the extention of that lane after the exit and remains as Lane 1. This is what the other side will say.

From the middle lane, you can also see the OP also cuts across a small dashed dividing line between lanes 1 and 2 on the roundabout. From the middle lane, he has to enter into lane 1 for a very short distance in order to exit into the A38N. It's during that short distance I assume the impact occurs.

As I said in my original post,I believe both drivers were in exactly the opposite lanes for the directions they were travelling.Someone exiting the Rubery exit should be in Lane 1 and someone carrying on around the island in Lane 2.

Neither has made an illegal manouvre, because there are no compulsory signs, but both owe a duty of care to each other. Then I believe the case will come down to relative impact positions,who hit who,who could have avoided who,speed and signalling.

This makes no sense what ever ??

you can actually see his lane marking there in front of you !!

the line you are saying i crossed is actually one of the lane dividers for traffic coming off the motorway at that junction.

those markings dont come into play until my traffic is held at the lights and they come off the motorway under their green light.

flyingscotno1

Quentin wrote: »

This where I disagree.

The left lane prior to the lights isn't a "turn lane only". (If it was it would be clearly marked to ensure drivers knew they must go left).

If both cars remained in their lanes and both drove straight ahead, then they would still be in lanes one and two after going through the lights.

From the photos of the scene, we can see that immediately after crossing through the lights an extra fourth lane is created to the right of lane 3.

The lane directions on the green sign by the lights show that then the existing lanes one and two are for traffic going straight ahead and lane three and new lane four are for turning rught at the next lights.

So the "culprit" approached the first lights intending to go straight ahead, and positioned in lane one (where the arrow points straight ahead), and carried on in his lane to be struck by the OP who crossed his lane to exit!

Its a pity this will probably be settled out of court - there have been nearly 240 posts so far discussing this over the two threads and it would be good to hear the court's decision - when is the hearing set for?

I'm getting annoyed with this as I must be getting dense because cannot see any circumstance where the OP 'crossed lanes' or turned into his lane. I know that when you work in the industry designing these things it is easy to get sucked into the mind set of assuming understanding but hey ho.

If both cars drove straight ahead they would have left the roundabout and gone onto the A38 no issue. It is the fact that the car in lane 1 turned right in the ahead lane that has caused the issue. Quentin in this circumstance straight on refers to the exit. There are no left arrows on the circulatory carriageway anywhere on this roundabout. The reason there is ahead arrows there is it is specifically against guidance given in the DMRB (Design Manual) to put left arrows to indicate exit on that lane so they stick ahead ones as it refers to ahead (can leave roundabout), right continue on around r/b. A left arrow would not past a safety audit on the design if any auditor was worth his salt. Ahead here means go ahead and exit, right means continue on circulatory carriageway.

There is also in the last picture quite clearly a lane line to Diagram 1005 of the TSM that marking that guides traffic from the roundabout straight off the roundabout. Arrows are supplementary guidance to lane markings only not a right either- so the lane lines matter more.

There are situations on the same roundabout where there are 4 lanes at lights but this narrows into 3 lanes further round (the one before the one the OP is concerned about). There are no left arrows but ahead and right ones. Does that mean it is a fight and any 4 lanes can continue round or perhaps the ahead arrow and markings mean they must go ahead and exit or the left lane must exit?

I have to say reading this is a good lesson in making sure when I plan out things to make markings absolutely fool proof! If a court goes against this the person deciding it is a blinding idiot.

backfoot

bikingbarney wrote: »

This makes no sense what ever ??

It does to me.

One of your photos also shows arrows on the middle lane showing straight ahead or right. There is no signage at all for left.

I think the other side will be asking what supports a left turn given that signage?

flyingscotno1

backfoot wrote: »

It does to me.

One of your photos also shows arrows on the middle lane showing straight ahead or right. There is no signage at all for left.

I think the other side will be asking what supports a left turn given that signage?

There is not signage for left at any junction. It is not permitted at this location by regulations and would not pass a safety audit. There is insufficient space between the M5 slip road and A38N to provide any further supplementary signage including a left turn arrow.

For me the driver did not 'turn left' and that is not a term I'd support he took an exit which diagrammatically is straight ahead, whist remaining on the roundabout would require a right turn. This is what the designer has implemented consistently throughout the roundabout.

If I was asked what supports the turn on to lane 2 of the A38N from lane 2 of the circulatory carriageway it is easy answer

There is also the provision of guiding lane markings to Diagram 1005 (I think don't have book so could be a different no.) of the traffic signs manual which are provided in a spiral pattern which is permitted and documented by DMRB TD78/97. From this drivers should adhere to their lane and be guided around the roundabout (N.B there is a direct quote from DMRB I'd take and use properly). By following these lane markings drivers are guided on leading the stop line. The only possible route from lane 1 of the roundabout is lane 1 of the A38N whilst those in lane 2 of the roundabout have both the option of remaining on the roundabout, or a legitimate exit possibility which in this case is lane 2 of the A38 Northbound exit. Had these lane markings been adhered to by the other party no contact would have occurred.

Notwithstanding the other party ignoring the lane dividing markings both lane 1 and lane 2 are provided with ahead arrows. This would indicate that both can go to the same direction, but only lane 2 which the OP was in has a further option provided in a right turn arrow. Any 'left turn arrow' is not supported by current marking regulations in the Design Manual for Roads or Bridges or Traffic Signs manual which state that the installed arrow markings provide the clearest assessment of the junction layout, given that the A38 is in a straight ahead position and remaining on the roundabout would require a more noticeable right turn in that position. This is consistent throughout the M5 junction 4 roundabout and was signed as such at previous parts of the roundabout the other party has traversed successfully.

backfoot

Fyingscot.

I think you would make a very powerful Expert witness for the OP.

Unfortunately, I don't think most drivers, would look at it the way you have.

Rightly or wrongly,the markings on the middle lane would have told me that to take a left exit within just a short distance was not advised.

I also know that some drivers will take the long way round an island and to risk cutting across them to exit may be a negligent action, if the path is not clear.

I am not against the OP at all, and the outcome of the Court will be fascinating. He probably stands to gain something towards his uninsured losses,especially any injury claim by acheiving even a 50/50 award. If it is upward of that,even better for him.

I still think it is 50/50.

bikingbarney

thanks for all the replies.

i think the problem is that the island itself forms part of the a38 dual carriageway .

from the lights i was sat at there is no left turn off the island, it is straight over onto the a38n or right to carry on round the island.

hope this helps

pwllbwdr

backfoot wrote: »

Fyingscot.

I think you would make a very powerful Expert witness for the OP.

Unfortunately, I don't think most drivers, would look at it the way you have.

Rightly or wrongly,the markings on the middle lane would have told me that to take a left exit within just a short distance was not advised.

I also know that some drivers will take the long way round an island and to risk cutting across them to exit may be a negligent action, if the path is not clear.

I am not against the OP at all, and the outcome of the Court will be fascinating. He probably stands to gain something towards his uninsured losses,especially any injury claim by acheiving even a 50/50 award. If it is upward of that,even better for him.

I still think it is 50/50.

On your logic - seeing the "straight arrow" as meaning go around the roundabout, nobody from any of the lanes can turn onto the A38 at all. Ever.

backfoot

Hi BB,

One of the key positions, in this, will be how the road ahead looks from the left hand lane , stationary at the traffic lights. In one of your pictures,there is a guy standing more or less at that position. It may be the other driver. From there, by carrying on around the roundabout, you can see the first left hand lane after the A38N exit.

Admittedly, the road lines have changed a lot since I travelled this way regularly, and I do agree now that the left hand lane does guide you off down the A38N.

What I don't like about your case, is that I don't think the middle lane, is part of the A38N as you describe. In fact, I think it more part of the roundabout route.

If you play around with the google maps and get a street eye view near to the traffic lights,you can get some very useful views.The bad part of it though, is that it contains the old road markings, which gives me,the sort of views I recall,that the Rubery exit was a turn off rather than part of the major route.

What would be useful, would be to get a photo from the point where that guy is standing, showing what the view was for him ahead.I think a lot of his evidence,will be based on that position.I am sure that will give you either comfort or concern about the strength of his case.