Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules
How to Use A Roundabout
Options
Comments
-
-
Iwannahurl wrote: »I asked first!
What do you think it means? Seriously!
I don't think it's a strange question at all. If you go back over previous posts in this thread and others (feeling masochistic?) IMO you will see that "straight ahead" comes up again and again as the central aspect of roundabout navigation that people refer to.
I believe that there may be a problem with this. In the RoTR the RSA uses "straight ahead" to describe taking a particular exit off the 'standard' roundabout that they illustrate.
But in real life there are other roundabout configurations.
So, based purely on RoTR terminology, what is "straight ahead" when there is no exit that matches that description?
This is not nit-picking. I genuinely believe there is a problem of definition and interpretation, and the fact that some driving schools are using the number-of-exits method supports this assertion, IMO.
Where in the ROTR does it state that an exit has to be available "straight ahead"?
There is not requirement for an exit to be there.. if the exit is before (left lane), straight ahead (left lane).. if no exit at straight ahead (then obviously you cant exit there, so you dont choose a lane based on that), after straight ahead (right lane)..
In the OP's post, there is no straight ahead.. so left lane doesnt apply there.. there is a left turn (left lane) and after straight ahead (right lane)...0 -
So you have read the rules of the road?
If so, do what is being shown on those sites conform to what the rules say, especially when you consider the OP's picture?..
I'm guessing you know the answer is that.. they are indeed not 100% correct..
So.. you have seen that they are indeed incorrect.. I have to ask the question, whats "hard to believe"?
You don't have to believe anything thats written by other posters here, you have a grasp of logic, you can work out yourself that they don't explain the rules of the road correctly for all scenarios (and zynaps has posted several times why this is likely to have occurred).
There are 0 arguements from those who have actually read the rules of the road.. those who have read interpretations may differ in opinion.
As I have asked before (and you didnt answer).. given the rules of the road which I have linked and posted serveral times, would you enter via the left or right hand lane????
Never seen anyone but yourself have an issue with understanding what the term straight ahead means...
Firstly, I am NOT trolling, as you suggested in a thread that is unfortunately going in parallel with this.
As I said already, I am trying to deconstruct people's assumptions in order to see whether there might be a fundamental problem of definition and interpretation.
I repeat: what does "straight ahead" mean in all contexts? And why does it matter?In the OP's post, there is no straight ahead.. so left lane doesnt apply there.. there is a left turn (left lane) and after straight ahead (right lane)...
There isn't a "straight ahead" in the OP's example, but its hypothetical existence is invoked by some posters all the same, as you do above.
Why?
Why is "straight ahead" -- that exact term -- used as a reference point, even when there is no such exit on a given roundabout?
This is what I am trying to explore. I'm not arguing -- I'm trying to elucidate.0 -
Iwannahurl wrote: »Firstly, I am NOT trolling, as you suggested in a thread that is unfortunately going in parallel with this.
As I said already, I am trying to deconstruct people's assumptions in order to see whether there might be a fundamental problem of definition and interpretation.
I repeat: what does "straight ahead" mean in all contexts? And why does it matter?
Straight ahead.. is essentially an imaginary line from your current position out directly in front of you.. No exit needs to exist there in "reality"..
You base your lane choice on the position of your desired exit in relation that that imaginary line/point directly in front of you as you approach the roundabout..
It matter's because as other have stated numerous times.. the correct selection of entrance lane is based on the position of your desired exit relative to that point directly in front of you..
Are you really seriously asking this question?....0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Straight ahead.. is essentially an imaginary line from your current position out directly in front of you.. No exit needs to exist there in "reality"..
You base your lane choice on the position of your desired exit in relation that that imaginary line/point directly in front of you as you approach the roundabout..
It matter's because as other have stated numerous times.. the correct selection of entrance lane is based on the position of your desired exit relative to that point directly in front of you..
Are you really seriously asking this question?....
Yes, I am seriously asking this question!
And genuinely, thank you for your patience. You are being a big help.
Now, where does that concept of the imaginary line come from?0 -
dougie-lampkin wrote: »The definition is pretty clear, when it's y'know, straight in front of you relative to where you entered :P
It matters because it's one of the areas that the RotR does cover, and is common on quite a few of our roundabouts, that "straight ahead" is an exit, usually but not always the second exit. This is one of the few cases that the law is unambiguous, yet people still get it wrong. I.e., when you hit one of these, there's no excuses for getting it wrong.
But what about if you run into this bad boy? We'll assume there's no road markings (which there aren't, I know this roundabout well, it's the Coonagh roundabout coming from the Condell Rd. Both lanes have a straight arrow, as in follow RotR), or you're in traffic and can't see them. If you want to take the 3rd exit into the Tesco (marked "shopping centre"), which only has one exit lane, which lane do you pick?
Every motorist has a different opinion on these roundabouts, and these are the types I'd like the RSA to clarify to the public. I know they're all different, and they can't cover each roundabout in the country, but better signage and a more up-to-date system such as the clock method would drastically improve the standards of our roundabouts. It's all well and good if I email them and get an answer, but that won't stop the conflicting views of every other motorist. My grandmother who has never sat a test in her life, is capable of navigating the standard 4-way roundabout, so why are they telling us what we already know?
And FTR, I'd take the left lane and signal left after passing the N18, at the risk of Mr. Merc trying to undertake me in the right lane :pac:
Thanks.
I'm not sure the universal meaning of "straight ahead" (in the context of roundabout navigation) is clear.
You're saying "straight ahead" is an exit.
On another roundabout thread (unfortunately going in parallel with this one) another poster has said that "straight ahead" is an imaginary line.
I may not be able to keep track of two threads. Feel free to join us there!
Otherwise I'll get back to you when an opportunity arises.0 -
Iwannahurl wrote: »Yes, I am seriously asking this question!
And genuinely, thank you for your patience. You are being a big help.
Now, where does that concept of the imaginary line come from?
Sorry, respectfully this is getting rediculous, if you have a point why not just make it?
I have no idea where the concept comes from, but it is a concept that is universally understood.. This disagreements on this thread have not come from a misinterpretation of the concept of "straight ahead" they have come from misinterpretations of concepts such as "second exit" which is not actually stated in the current RoTR.
I don't know where the concept of hate comes from.. but most people accept and understand the concept without needing to know it's origins.
If you can find a single person who doesn't understand the concept of "straight ahead" (who has a driving license) then bring them along to here and we can clarify that misconception.. you seem to be looking for flaws that don't actually exist in the area you seek... Sorry.
If I said to you.. point to an item "straight ahead".. would you be confused?0 -
-
Iwannahurl wrote: »Thanks.
I'm not sure the universal meaning of "straight ahead" is clear.
You're saying "straight ahead" is an exit.
On another roundabout thread (unfortunately going in parallel with this one) another poster has said that "straight ahead" is an imaginary line.
I may not be able to keep track of two threads. Feel free to join us there!
Otherwise I'll get back to you when an opportunity arises.
Hadn't spotted that thread, it's interesting reading, thanks
Of course straight ahead is an exit, you wouldn't want to be exiting into the ditch like :pac: If you're using it as an imaginary reference point, I'd be inclined to call it 180°, not straight ahead.
We can thrash this out for the next however many years and get absolutely nowhere, until the law is updated to account for the fact that Irish roads aren't layed out like a grid. At the moment it's a legal deathtrap, what if you have an accident on a non-standard roundabout? Since the law doesn't specifically mention any hard and fast rule to taking roundabouts, nobody is right and nobody is wrong? Not very fair on either party if both are following the rules they learned to drive on.
And I absolutely refuse to acknowledge the exit-numbering system for as long as they insist that every roundabout is a perfect crossroads. I wouldn't mind using the system at all (even if it is ridiculously old-fashioned) if they also told us it applies to roundabouts with more than 4 entry/exit points :rolleyes: At the moment it seems to be sheer guesswork unless you happen across an "RSA" roundabout :pac:0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
Clock face and number of exits dont exist in the rules of the road... the number of exits has been demonstrated to you as flawed numerous times, so why keep bringing it up as fundamental to the law?.. Its not in the law, its not mentioned in the rules of the road, so therefore cannot be argued to be fundamental to any law.. Your logic is flawed..
What do you think "straight ahead" means?
The only assumptions that exist in the rules of the road, are that one understands english and directions (in relation to this topic).. There is an assumption that people understand the terms left, right and straight ahead.. In 40 years I have not come across anyone with a driving licence who didn't.. Maybe your experience has been different?
If so, the point that you are not making (yet) applies probably only to that person.
If you look at other threads on roundabouts you will see that "straight ahead" is used repeatedly as a reference point.
I still don't know why, and you still haven't offered a satisfactory explanation beyond that it's an "imaginary line" (which is not in the RoTR).
I'm not trying to nitpick or argue for its own sake, but I do think this illustrates why arguments occur. You seem to think that "straight ahead" and "imaginary line" are self-explanatory.
I suspect otherwise, but I can't get to the bottom of it because nobody is answering the question! 0 -
Iwannahurl wrote: »I agree with much of what you say there.
Gotta sign off now, but I will say this. The number-of-exits method is not negated by 'non-standard' roundabouts, IMO.
Then you have just ignored all of the informaiton posted in the thread you linked to, and ignored the rules of the road which have been pointed out to you numerous times..
Your number of exits method, says for the second exit.. enter in the left hand lane..
http://www.rotr.ie/rules-for-driving/junctions-roundabouts/roundabouts.html
However, the actual rules of the road clearly state there are 3 options..
1) Turning left.. Enter in left lane
2) Going Straight ahead.. Enter in left lane..
3) Taking ANY later exits.. Enter in right lane..
So there you have it.. for about the 10th time.. in 2 threads.. your number of exits method which is not mentioned in the rules of the road is actually flawed. If you enter in the left hand lane, you are in the wrong lane..0 -
Iwannahurl wrote: »If you look at other threads on roundabouts you will see that "straight ahead" is used repeatedly as a reference point.
I still don't know why, and you still haven't offered a satisfactory explanation beyond that it's an "imaginary line" (which is not in the RoTR).
I'm not trying to nitpick or argue for its own sake, but I do think this illustrates why arguments occur. You seem to think that "straight ahead" and "imaginary line" are self-explanatory.
I suspect otherwise, but I can't get to the bottom of it because nobody is answering the question!
Stop avoiding the quesiton with your rediculous posts..
What do you understand the term "straight ahead" to mean?,,,,,,,0 -
-
-
The number of exits method is obsolete with non-standard roundabouts. Here's two examples why (excuse my quick MS paint skills :pac:). Assume that you are entering from the black line at the bottom, there are two lanes in and one lane out on each exit, and you want to take the red exit.
Take Example A. According to you, you'd enter in the right hand lane, signalling right, and then move to the left and signal left after passing the second exit. That's hardly intuitive, and very confusing for any other cars trying to enter the roundabout. Whereas with the clock method, you're in the left lane, and indicate left at the second exit in this instance. Far more intuitive, and other motorists can see your intentions far easier.
Example B (OK, I forgot to rename it B in paint, but it's the bottom one :P). According to you, you'd enter in the left lane, and signal left after passing the first exit. So they would have you drive almost a full circle in the left lane, indicating left? That's also very unintuitive, why bother having a right lane at all? Plus to any motorist attempting to join the roundabout from the "first exit" (if that makes sense :pac:) could assume you're taking the first exit, and not indicating, leading to confusion. With the clock method, you signal right and enter in the right lane, and then signal left before taking the exit. That other motorise can now clearly see you're going past him, he must wait for you to pass.
Just two examples off the top of my head why the count-the-exits game is obsolete and downright dangerous. The rules Welease has posted above me are pretty much the clock method anyway, without mentioning the clock itself (which makes far more sense when you see a roundabout sign and can instantly decide which side of midday your exit is). I hadn't actually noticed the RSA stopped propagating the count-the-exits approach, since they're still using the same graphics. Still, it's a startIwannahurl wrote: »"Later exits".
Later than what?
Later than straight ahead/180°/12 o' clock, whatever you want to call it? Does it really matter what it's referred to as, all of those terms point to the spot on the road directly opposite where you entered the roundabout.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
dougie-lampkin wrote: »Later than straight ahead/180°/12 o' clock, whatever you want to call it? Does it really matter what it's referred to as, all of those terms point to the spot on the road directly opposite where you entered the roundabout.
As I said elsewhere, roundabout threads >>> roundabout arguments!
Why refer to "straight ahead" again?
Why does the term arise?
What does it actually mean in the context of the totality of roundabouts?
Why does it matter?
Please remember: I am not trying to argue "right" and "wrong" at this point. I am trying to elucidate underlying assumptions.0 -
-
-
-
Iwannahurl wrote: »As I said elsewhere, roundabout threads >>> roundabout arguments!
Of course, that's where ambiguity lands you. Seemingly quite literally every second person has the wrong idea, as seen in the other roundabout thread's poll.Iwannahurl wrote: »Why refer to "straight ahead" again?
Because it's a standard reference point that's a constant regardless of the roundabout or number of exits. And it divides a circle evenly. When all our roundabouts have 6 lanes in the future then maybe we'll need to consider quartering the roundabout rather than halving it. But by then we'll have hovercars and can avoid roundabouts altogether :pac:Iwannahurl wrote: »Why does the term arise?
Because roundabouts are circular. Therefore the "half-way" point if you will is straight ahead. I don't like that term anyway, 180° is far less ambiguous. We're viewing a circle here (usually), it only makes sense to use degrees.Iwannahurl wrote: »What does it actually mean in the context of the totality of roundabouts?
Iwannahurl wrote: »Why does it matter?
Because I for one (and I assume other posters are too) am interested as to the right way to tackle a roundabout, and why other people are wrong.Iwannahurl wrote: »Please remember: I am not trying to argue "right" and "wrong" at this point. I am trying to elucidate underlying assumptions.
I can't help but get the feeling you're just trolling at this stage. Straight ahead is across from where you entered the roundabout. There's no philosophical reason for it, it's just plain old geometry. I'm sorry but I genuinely do not see the barrier to understanding what half a circle is?I'd argue that the rules of the road are flawed. The exit number system works perfectly well and safely with that type of non-standard roundabout. The ROTR are an interpreation of the law remember. The Exit number system is clear and unambiguous. Talking about straight ahead and "later exits" than straight ahead is open to interprepetation and IMO was probably thought by the RSA as some sort of attempt to dumb down the roundabout rules for people who probably shouldn't be driving anyway.
What's less ambiguous than saying if you have to travel more than half way around the roundabout, take the right lane. Otherwise, take the left lane. The exit number system is unambiguous in definition but in practice just doesn't work. Hence why the RSA has abandoned it.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement