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

MrsE_2

andygb wrote: »

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?

There is one a few miles from me, it would be impossible to turn right at, without going over - perhaps possible if you had one of those tiny cars, but I doubt it. I never need to go right there, so I've never tried.
Some mini roundabouts were never "planned", & they feel wrong. Some people forget they are roundabouts & treat them as smaller road off a main road (the two I'm thinking about are like this), because they feel like they are on the main road still they don't always give way to the right, but if (when) people on the mini roundabout exercise their right of way, you have problems.
There are 2 near me (one is the one mentioned above) where they have plonked a mini roundabout at the junction where a road meets a bigger road.

Strider590

To be honest, I can't think of one mini-roundabout that actually serves any valid purpose.

Usually they're put in at junctions so that traffic turning right doesn't have to stop and wait for a gap (thus reducing tailbacks).
But I think many get put in because of complaints from residents and councillors being mindful not to upset the majority voters (the elderly). Where they can't fit speed bumps, they shove in a mini-roundabout instead.

Stings

You may be right in some cases, but certainly near us, they tend to be put in to keep the traffic moving quite successfully. Sadly traffic lights are over used where a mini roundabout would suffice as well.

Richard53

I know I am in the wrong here, but I tend to treat mini-roundabouts as guidance rather than instruction. As long as it's clear who gives way to whom, I don't see the problem with using the most efficient route through.

A huge Tesco store was built here a few years ago, with the single main exit onto a narrow but busy road. There was uproar about it, from a safety viewpoint, and I suspect it only got through planning because of some backroom deal or other. What the road planners did was to install a mini-roundabout, painted only, with speed cushions for 100m in either direction. There are give way markings on all entries, but no hint of who has priority. Traffic lurches out of Tesco, and traffic on the main road hesitates, but everyone is polite and it seems to work. Everyone is too terrified to misbehave.

Here.

egyptiancotton

The AA have received a reply from the DSA:

If you have to over-steer to negotiate a painted or raised roundabout in order to drive straight on, and there is no other traffic around, then it is acceptable to drive straight over the roundabout.

If at this particular roundabout, there is no traffic approaching me from the opposite direction and there is a car waiting to emerge from my left, it is acceptable to drive straight over the roundabout.

I have asked the AA to put the DSA's response in writing. I'll receive a letter in the next few days with the DSA's response.

WTFH

lloydyyy wrote: »

If at this particular roundabout, there is no traffic approaching me from the opposite direction and there is a car waiting to emerge from my left, it is acceptable to drive straight over the roundabout.

Now to me, that's wrong (but I know others will argue it).
In my opinion:
First come first serve at a roundabout. The first car to have arrived should be the first one to move. They should not have to give way to someone else who is some distance from the roundabout - unless signposts state otherwise.
You should always approach a roundabout like a give way, slow down, if nothing is coming, continue on.
But it appears there is an opinion that a mini roundabout does not mean give way if you are on a road that could be classed as the main one at it, then, it appears, you have priority.

188 of the highway code would appear to agree with me.
https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/roundabouts-184-to-190

egyptiancotton

WTFH wrote: »

Now to me, that's wrong (but I know others will argue it).
In my opinion:
First come first serve at a roundabout. The first car to have arrived should be the first one to move. They should not have to give way to someone else who is some distance from the roundabout - unless signposts state otherwise.
You should always approach a roundabout like a give way, slow down, if nothing is coming, continue on.
But it appears there is an opinion that a mini roundabout does not mean give way if you are on a road that could be classed as the main one at it, then, it appears, you have priority.

188 of the highway code would appear to agree with me.
https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/roundabouts-184-to-190

This is what I don't understand. Rule 188 states you MUST pass around the central markings, yet the DSA advise that it's acceptable not to do so in some cases. My question is - if the DSA have said it's acceptable to do so in some cases, why have they not published this advice?

almillar

As others have indicated, stay away from that AA man. If you want to pass the IAM test, train with them. Local groups can vary, but are usually very good (and I doubt any of them will be telling you to driver over ANY mini-roundabout in a car!). They won't put you in for the test until they think you're ready, and they know what they're training you for, unlike this AA man.
The answer to the handbrake query, for the 'L' test is a foolproof 'if you stop at all, put on the handbrake'. For the IAM test, you'll be expected to use the handbrake 'if it's useful'. I've heard guidance like 30 seconds, but the best one that covers most circumstances in my book is 'if you stop, and you don't see an opportunity to go, put it on'.
Some misinformation about the insurance - don't join just for a 'discount'.
Goto the IAM broker at the end of your insurance search - they will beat the price, but you have to jump through a few hoops (proof of your lowest quote to ensure it's the same cover, proof of no claims bonus etc) to get it.

Quentin

almillar wrote: »

......Goto the IAM broker at the end of your insurance search - they will beat the price, but you have to jump through a few hoops (proof of your lowest quote to ensure it's the same cover, proof of no claims bonus etc) to get it.

The IAM broker arrangement is all smoke and mirrors.

eg They offer family members of the IAM member the same deals!

All easily beaten using the mse insurance advice article, whether or not you are a member of iam, and not costing an extra £32 a year membership fee.

WTFH

Quentin wrote: »

The IAM broker arrangement is all smoke and mirrors.

eg They offer family members of the IAM member the same deals!

All easily beaten using the mse insurance advice article, whether or not you are a member of iam, and not costing an extra £32 a year membership fee.

I save a lot more than £32 on insurance a year by having my IAM licence. I don't go through a broker, I follow the MSE advice.
I also save on car hire too. Last year I think I saved a client about £100 in car hire charges (I was the driver, they were paying for it)

So, I know some people think the IAM is the root of all kinds of evil, but over the 25 years that I've been a member, I have benefited from it. In the early days I was able to get insurance for cars that I couldn't otherwise. My premiums were lower than my friends. It has been worthwhile for me and has made me think a bit more about my driving and my responsibility on the road.