When is a roundabouit not a roundabout?

[ellal]

Having just witnessed a prang on a newly resurfaced (but not repainted) bit of road, I wondered what the actual legalities of the following are:

It was on a four way junction which normally has a painted mini roundabout and give way markings on the road. There were no road markings at the time, but the blue roundabout signs were still there.

So do the road markings have to be there to designate a roundabout, or are the signs sufficient?

 

[kbdiy]

I would say that the signs are sufficient. The drivers should have been aware and take any necessary precautions when entering the junction, road markings or not. Anyone with an ounce of common sense wouldn't go charging across an unmarked junction so this is no different and the 'give way to the right' rule would normally apply.

Just be thankful you only witnessed it and weren't involved!

 

[ellal]

Agreed that common sense should prevail.

I was just wondering about the actual legal situation.

 

[EddieM]

I like the confused look on everyones face, mine included, when everyone arrives at a roundabout at the same time with everyone wishing to turn right.

 

[kbdiy]

I don't really think there is any legality to debate. I imagine the law would question whether anyone would go blindly on when it was obvious through observation that there were other road users (vehicles or pedestrians) in the vicinity with the likely intent of using the same area of road.

Courtesy and common sense should prevail, even in law.

 

[RogueHanger]

I would also think it would depend on the type of accident, amongst other influences and attributes.
For instance, if it was a lane-wandering issue and there were no lane markings, it would be difficult to argue, say by a local familiar with the roundabout, that there are/were several lanes.

Whereas, if the accident was clearly caused by someone not giving way when they should have, it's hard to contest who's at fault.

On the other hand, if someone is, say accused of driving carelessly, but they argue that the lack of lane/road makings gave cause for confusion, I would have thought they might have a case. For instance, if there were no giveway marks and one driver inadvertently strayed over the normal giveway point there may be a case for arguing the point.

On the other hand, if one of the drivers was causing confusion by a rather confused driving style and there were witnesses, I would have thought that it might turn out as 50/50 or something like that.

So, the type of accident, the precise position, the behaviour of the drivers immediately prior to the accident, may all have an influence on apportioning blame.

 

[doitall]

Probably a big sign up saying no road markings, unless the pikees have nicked it.

 

[RogueHanger]

Probably a big sign up saying no road markings, unless the pikees have nicked it.

I see you're going to great lengths to avoid the automatic censor and make racially abusive comments.

You have nothing positive to offer, so you behave abusively.

 

[kbdiy]

Probably a big sign up saying no road markings, unless the pikees have nicked it.

I see you're going to great lengths to avoid the automatic censor and make racially abusive comments.

You have nothing positive to offer, so you behave abusively.

He does have a point though

 

[RogueHanger]

Probably a big sign up saying no road markings, unless the pikees have nicked it.

I see you're going to great lengths to avoid the automatic censor and make racially abusive comments.

You have nothing positive to offer, so you behave abusively.

He does have a point though

Yes, he's made his point, which is that he is obviously an abusive type of person who goes to great lengths to avoid the auto-censor in order to be abusive.

Whatever tuns him on.

 

[doitall]

Probably a big sign up saying no road markings, unless the pikees have nicked it.

I see you're going to great lengths to avoid the automatic censor and make racially abusive comments.

You have nothing positive to offer, so you behave abusively.

What are you on, I want some.

I fail to see your reasoning unless your not of sound mind.

 

[JBR]

I would say that the signs are sufficient. The drivers should have been aware and take any necessary precautions when entering the junction, road markings or not. Anyone with an ounce of common sense wouldn't go charging across an unmarked junction so this is no different and the 'give way to the right' rule would normally apply.

Ah, but you're crediting the average British motorist with an ounce of common sense. Many don't even have a milligram!

 

[RogueHanger]

Probably a big sign up saying no road markings, unless the pikees have nicked it.

I see you're going to great lengths to avoid the automatic censor and make racially abusive comments.

You have nothing positive to offer, so you behave abusively.

What are you on, I want some.

I fail to see your reasoning unless your not of sound mind.

You hnestly don't see how you were being racially abusive?
Yet you went to some length to aviod the auto-censor.

Whatever it is that you're on, I'll give it a wide berth.

 

[doitall]

Probably a big sign up saying no road markings, unless the pikees have nicked it.

I see you're going to great lengths to avoid the automatic censor and make racially abusive comments.

You have nothing positive to offer, so you behave abusively.

What are you on, I want some.

I fail to see your reasoning unless your not of sound mind.

You hnestly don't see how you were being racially abusive?
Yet you went to some length to aviod the auto-censor.
Whatever it is that you're on, I'll give it a wide berth.

What auto-sensor, nothing in my post is rascist or requires a word censor. Some figgin people, not wonder the countries in a ****ing mess.

roll-eyes

 

[EddieM]

In the words of dragons den "I'm out!" Since when did GD become such a one dimensional bore!!