Driving over mini roundabout - AA instructor says yes under certain circumstances

arcon5

Quentin wrote: »

Exactly.

Once you have passed the test, (if you want to use advanced motoring techniques), joining the IAM is expensive and has no benefit.

They claim you get cheaper insurance though this via a deal with a broker which can easily be beaten on the open market, and you need to take into account the hefty annual fee (min is £32) when comparing!

You're wrong. Just because it might not save you money on insurance doesn't mean it has no benefit. The benefit is to the individual and most likely their driving confidence.

goonarmy

arcon5 wrote: »

You're wrong. Just because it might not save you money on insurance doesn't mean it has no benefit. The benefit is to the individual and most likely their driving confidence.

They'll still be average.

Strider590

I drive over most of them because my car is just short of 5m long, whatever I do, the rear wheels will cross it anyway AND if it's slipperly or covered in diesel, there's not a lot of space to work with IF the front end understeers.

brat

The law is clear that you shouldn't drive on the white circle if you can avoid it.

As usual, a common sense discretionary view would usually be taken by most police officers witnessing it, they wouldn't be likely to take action unless it had the potential to be dangerous.

Quentin

arcon5 wrote: »

You're wrong. Just because it might not save you money on insurance doesn't mean it has no benefit. The benefit is to the individual and most likely their driving confidence.

How does joining the IAM give you "confidence" when you drive?

Surely all you get for your £32 (or more) every year is the magazine?

anotherbaldrick

Round here they hade a purge some time back and prosecuted a lot of motorists they caught driving over the paint. Seem to have stopped it now.

alleycat`

My wife recently passed her test and was told by her instructor, confirmed by the examiner, that it was acceptable for no more than two wheels to go over a "painted" mini roundabout.

Now whether that is "law" or what is considered to be acceptable i don't know.

I would assume the rule of "don't extract the proverbial" would apply, If you can get around it without causing yourself or others an issue then there is no need to cut them.

Some of the ones around here would be impossible to get around, especially if you are doubling back, without getting at least part of the wheel on them.

Richard53

Quentin wrote: »

Exactly.

Once you have passed the test, (if you want to use advanced motoring techniques), joining the IAM is expensive and has no benefit.

They claim you get cheaper insurance though this via a deal with a broker which can easily be beaten on the open market, and you need to take into account the hefty annual fee (min is £32) when comparing!

If you go through the IAM, you will get a hefty discount, but it's on a policy that is more expensive in the first place, so there's no benefit. However, I always quote IAM membership when I am buying insurance (on the open market), and I've always managed to get a discount when doing so. The discounts are much more generous with motorcycle insurance rather than for the car. Overall, I have found IAM membership a small benefit, bearing in mind the membership fee.

The letters page of the magazine is worth the money alone, just for comedy value. "Today, I was doing a very reasonable 45 mph on an empty motorway, and I was passed by a car doing at least 80 mph. Why can't the government ban these dangerous lunatics?"

I've been a car and bike member for over 20 years now, and every year I think of jacking it in, but then I remember that an organisation that supports higher driving standards, whatever its faults, is worth supporting, and I renew.

Mini-roundabouts? Raised, I drive/ride round. Painted, I drive over if it's safe to do so, and round if it's not.

andygb

facade wrote: »

There is one on my way home from work that is placed so that if you want to turn right, and drive round it rather than over it, traffic assume from your road position you are going straight on (as you have to do a 120 degree swan neck to go right) and pull out, so the legal route involves much covering of the brake, whilst the illegal one is safer.

(I bet the planner got an award for the layout too)

We have a mini roundabout near us, where it is impossible (unless you own a Triumph Herald) to take the third exit unless you go over the middle of the roundabout, because of the geometry of the roundabout.
I suppose that I could always try a handbrake turn in future, but that can only be done at speed, so would probably mean that I ignored giving way to the traffic approaching from my right.
Don't you just love the road planners?

DaveF327

lloydyyy wrote: »

The AA instructor who took me out in the car today, told me it's OK to drive over it if there's no other traffic around.

Now I'm confused. The Highway Code and law says this:

Rule 188:
Mini-roundabouts. Approach these in the same way as normal roundabouts. All vehicles MUST pass round the central markings except large vehicles which are physically incapable of doing so. Remember, there is less space to manoeuvre and less time to signal. Avoid making U-turns at mini-roundabouts. Beware of others doing this.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10(1) & 16(1)

You're absolutely correct. The instructor is indeed giving incorrect advice which is actually counselling and procuring you to break the law. The only justification for driving a wheel over the circle is if it is physically impossible to avoid due to the size or layout of the roundabout or possibly the presence of an obstruction.

I wonder how many of his learner pupils have failed a driving test for taking his advice?

The AA instructor advised me it's not worth applying the handbrake and to use the brake and get the clutch at the biting point ready to join quickly. Even if I'm on a slight gradient, which I questioned, I was advised not to use the handbrake if I'm only there for a few seconds.

The part in bold worries me. Sadly, there are too many instructors out there who teach learners to drive brake/clutch with no accelerator use with the engine and clutch straining and shuddering against the brake pads. This is nonsense, ruins the car and is generally used as a "cop out" by instructors who lack the skill to teach and consolidate the correct 3 way co-ordination of handbrake, accelerator and clutch. A lot of instructors who get away with this always seem to drive diesels, so teach the easiest way to drive their car and scrape through a test at the bare minimum scruffy standard, but leave the poor learner totally unable to cope beyond the test when they come to drive a petrol engine.

It is correct that the handbrake isn't always necessary for very short pauses, providing the road is flat or slightly downhill. On an uphill gradient, there must be perfect control. It is possible to achieve this by an expertly timed switchover from footbrake to gas in the briefest moment before the car loses uphill momentum, so that the car is held in equilibrium on the hill until it is safe to move away. This equilibrium (with feet on gas and clutch, not brake/clutch) should not be held for more than a few seconds, as it wears the clutch and there is always the risk that an accident (foot slipping off clutch or being hit from behind) will propel the car forwards. If you lack the ability to co-ordinate the car in this manner without rolling back or lurching forwards, then the handbrake must be used until you develop this skill.

You should change instructor to one who talks sense and teaches correctly.