For once I agree with Strider500...

Strider590

Lum wrote: »

Nope, in that pic posted it's fine to go straight on from L2, providing you also exit in L2.

Simplified for the masses

Lum

More controversial, Strider, is your take on indicators.

I do agree that a left signal could panic someone into thinking you plan to exit into L1, therefore I would suggest that you only signal left if there is someone waiting to join from the same road you are about to exit onto. This provides a benefit to that person but a potential inconvenience/scare to the person in L1. If there is nobody waiting to join then a left signal provides a benefit to nobody, but still has that potential to scare the person in L1, so best not to signal.

This approach does, however, require people to actually think about the other road users around them before signalling, as taught by the likes of the IAM; as opposed to just blindly following the formula of "I have passed the exit immediately before the one I want, therefore I must signal left even if there are no other humans within a 3 mile radius" as taught by driving instructors because it makes it easier to pass the basic driving test.

Bongles

Lum wrote: »

This approach does, however, require people to actually think about the other road users around them before signalling

Indeed.

I think there are two basic things you can get wrong with signalling: you can give a signal that's open to misinterpretation, and you can fail to give a signal when giving one would have been of benefit. In either case, the consequences might range from negligible to severe. This situation is quite a good example of where both apply (a signal could benefit one person and alarm another) and the only answer is to consider each situation on its merits in deciding whether to signal, and if so, when.

In one situation, you might decide that the benefit of signalling outweighs the consequence of any misinterpretation and so you signal. Next time, some factor might be different, leading you to decide that the opposite is true and so not signal. Sometimes, the risks of misinterpretation can be managed by careful timing of when you apply and cancel the signal.

Watching the video, I don't think there's anyone immediately approaching the roundabout from the direction Strider is exiting. We can't see what's going on in the traffic on the roundabout behind and alongside, so we don't have all the information, but I can well imagine that I wouldn't have signalled on that occasion.

Wig

Strider590 wrote: »

He was positioned wrongly to go straight over!

Why? There is only one lane on entry, and on the other side there is only one exit lane and that is on the right hand side of the exit road.

It stands to reason that if he positions himself without indicating, in the middle of the road on entry, he is saying "I am going straight across or I am going right but I am failing to indicate right" and he is positioned correctly.

It is therefore logical for anyone behind him to assume he is currently indicating correctly and is going straight across.

So why would you get so close to his left rear and not sit back to see if he does do -as he has indicated by not indicating- what you think he is going to do?

If he does go straight across you have lost nothing as he was infront of you anyway and he has a right to use the road as much as you do.

If he goes right you have lost nothing and gained an empty road infront of you.

You seemed to be more annoyed that he "cut you up" than you are that he went into the feeder lane. You have no right at all to be annoyed he cut you up, because you had no right being so close to him to have been affected by his going straight over. We don't know why he went into the feeder lane but that has nothing to do with his position or his indicating on the RBT. As I said earlier he might have done it because he was watching you too much.

mikey72

Wig wrote: »

Why? There is only one lane on entry, and on the other side there is only one exit lane and that is on the right hand side of the exit road.

It stands to reason that if he positions himself without indicating, in the middle of the road on entry, he is saying "I am going straight across or I am going right but I am failing to indicate right" and he is positioned correctly.

It is therefore logical for anyone behind him to assume he is currently indicating correctly and is going straight across.

So why would you get so close to his left rear and not sit back to see if he does do -as he has indicated by not indicating- what you think he is going to do?

If he does go straight across you have lost nothing as he was infront of you anyway and he has a right to use the road as much as you do.

If he goes right you have lost nothing and gained an empty road infront of you.

You seemed to be more annoyed that he "cut you up" than you are that he went into the feeder lane. You have no right at all to be annoyed he cut you up, because you had no right being so close to him to have been affected by his going straight over. We don't know why he went into the feeder lane but that has nothing to do with his position or his indicating on the RBT. As I said earlier he might have done it because he was watching you too much.

Or because some idiot in the wrong lane, swerving inches away from him decided to sound his horn aggressively just as he turns.
.

Kilty_2

I said it in the last thread and I'll say it again - the last thing I'd do when I see someone who is more than likely in a rented car (who else bought 11 plate MK2 Focii?) and could therefore not only be completely unfamiliar with the area but with the country would be to get that close to them.