[Closed] bothering to indicate...

Out of interest, would you people still choose to ignore that "ahead only" arrow

I think the difference of opinion here is whether it actually does mean Ahead [b]Only[/b]....

You're clear that it does, but I'm not so sure.

[i]Cougar - Moderator
The fact is, the road markings are misleading; you've got two successive arrows in the same lane telling you two different things. [b]Both of those lanes can clearly turn left into the two-lane dual carriageway[/b] despite what the earlier arrow says[/i]

Agree!

I say we sort this democratically.

Hold an STW referendum, whether to leave to the left or remain going straight ahead!

the middle lane arrow should clearly be ignored, as the picture shows, straight on just isn't an option.

[img] [/img]

My own feeling is that the option to turn left from this lane is intended for people who entered the roundabout at an entrance other than the one immediately preceding this picture.

So many of you are making this far more complicated than it is.

At the point when you decide which lane to use, the only instruction you have for turning left is to use the left lane.

Making decisions on what you think might be around the corner is very silly.

I can use googlemaps to look at my old car parked on my old drive, where in reality it isn't there anymore.

The road marking are ambiguous at best and plain wrong, in reality.

I think some know this... Must be a slow day, in certain parts of the world 😉

Just to add to my previous post:

If that dashed lane between the first two lanes bent round to the right instead of the left, joining up to the apex of the hashed area, I'd totally agree with Graham. But it doesn't.

In other words, with reference to my Google example earlier you're then being presented with new information in terms of the lane markings which supersedes the previous information. If that wasn't the case then if you ever found yourself in the third lane you'd still be going round it now.

The problem really is, it's just a terribly marked roundabout from a previous era of road design, modern ones have helical lanes that carry you round to the correct exit without having to concern yourself with lane changes. That vague Arrow of Contentiousness is the least of its problems, it's dreadful.

I think the difference of opinion here is whether it actually does mean Ahead Only....

It's "Appropriate Traffic Lanes for Different Destinations" according to TSRGD:
[img] [/img]

And is the same as "Ahead Only" but without the text:

[img] [/img]

Both of those lanes can clearly turn left into the two-lane dual carriageway despite what the earlier arrow says

The latter arrow is a new order that supersedes the previous one - lane 1 & 2 can turn left at the lights as you say.

Your issue there is that the earlier arrow in lane 2 says [i]"Ahead and right turn"[/i] when really lane 2 splits later on and is fine for [i]"Left turn, ahead, or right turn"[/i].

TSRGD doesn't seem to allow more than two arrow heads per arrow though (e.g. see [url= http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/schedule/6/made ]Item 4 on diagram 1038[/url]), presumably because it would confuse people, so instead they handle it by getting you into the right lanes in two stages.

modern ones have helical lanes that carry you round to the correct exit

I love these, and still find them quite exciting!

😳

Solo - Member

The road marking are ambiguous at best and plain wrong, in reality.

I think some know this... Must be a slow day, in certain parts of the world

It's always slow in my world, I never speed. 🙂
Besides, with a large capacity V8 you can peel out elevens without ever breaking 30mph. 8)

so instead they handle it by getting you into the right lanes in two stages.

Could be readily fixed with a road sign.

So at what point is it ok to be in the second lane to turn left in contravention of the previous two "appropriate lane" arrows?

The thing that gets me with motorway slip roads is those who are coming up the slip road, I'm in lane 1, behind me is completely clear (lane 2 is busy otherwise I'd move over) but they still accelerate passed me on the slip road and insert themselves into the safe braking distance infront of me. It's happened a few times too. Grrr.

If that wasn't the case then if you ever found yourself in the third lane you'd still be going round it now.

If you are in that third lane with the "Right Only" marking then yes you [i]should[/i] keep going round and round.

On non-helical roundabout you need to [i]change lanes[/i] when you want to leave the roundabout. Like our friend the green car:

[img] [/img]

Can't we just accept that the arrows on the roundabout are badly thought out? Put it this way. Is there any valid reason why they should want to stop you from turning off the roundabout in the middle lane. I notice that the continuation of the road seems to show the left hand lane being left turn only with the RH lane showing straight ahead and right. Even more reason to exit the roundabout in the outside lane.

The middle lane is defined by two sets of dashed white line.

That lane then splits before exit one, into two lanes.
The option to choose which direction you follow, is implied by lack of more prescriptive road markings, road signs.
Time to decide/make a choice.

However.... Would one need to indicate left, were they to take exit one.... Aargh!

So at what point is it ok to be in the second lane to turn left in contravention of the previous two "appropriate lane" arrows?

I think if you turn left at any point before you get to the final arrow before those lights then you've definitely done something wrong!

On non-helical roundabout you need to change lanes when you want to leave the roundabout. Like our friend the green car:

I thought it would be fairly obvious that I was kidding here!

I think if you turn left at any point before you get to the final arrow before those lights then you've definitely done something wrong!

(-: That's not what I asked though. Or, well, not what I meant. For clarity, at what point is it ok to be in the second lane in order to subsequently turn left?

Is there any valid reason why they should want to stop you from turning off the roundabout in the middle lane. I notice that the continuation of the road seems to show the left hand lane being left turn only with the RH lane showing straight ahead and right. Even more reason to exit the roundabout in the outside lane.

You've answered your own question.

Folk (like me) who are taking that road as their first exit need to be able to exit onto the LH or RH lane for the reasons you describe.

But if they allowed people to also exit onto the RH lane from the middle lane of the RB then that would put them on a collision course. Hence why that middle lane is ahead only.

People coming from earlier entrances are [i]supposed[/i] to get into lane 1 at the point near 12 0'clock where the roundabout goes from 2 lanes to 3.

[i]If[/i] that happened then we'd all exit the same way, into whichever lane we want, without any conflict.

Solo - Member

The middle lane

What relevance is the middle lane?
You wouldn't be in the middle lane to turn left because on approach to the r'about the only instruction is to use the left lane to turn left.

To suggest anything else is to advocate driving by clairvoyancy.

Why is this so difficult to grasp for you lot?

I completely agree re non-indicating. It requires as much thought and effort as breathing, yet still seems beyond the ****less masses.

I'll just leave this here...

For clarity, at what point is it ok to be in the second lane in order to subsequently turn left?

They don't prosecute thought crimes (yet).

In your junction it's always okay to be in that lane with the [i]intention[/i] of turning left in the future.

You wouldn't be doing anything wrong until you [i]actually[/i] turned left and by that time you have been given permission to do so.

For clarity, at what point is it ok to be in the second lane in order to subsequently turn left?

When entering the r'about as first described?

There is *no point.

* 😉

In your junction it's always okay to be in that lane with the intention of turning left in the future.

I agree. So how would you know?

When entering the r'about as first described?
There is *no point.

Cougar's talking about the junction in his example now, which personally I don't see any problem with.

I agree. So how would you know?

If you were new to your stretch of road then you wouldn't know and if you were someone like me who obeys road markings then you'd dutifully stay in the left hand lane to turn left only to later discover that you could also have been in the middle lane.

No big deal.

When I see lunatic roundabout behaviour on the way home tonight I'm probably going to assume its a fellow STWer who's read all this thread in one go, and now doubts everything.

I did wonder if this would stand up in court.

"Right sonny, did you not see all those arrows telling you that this lane is ahead only. You can't turn left there!"

"I think you'll find I can officer. I'm from STW-land so I'm allowed to completely ignore road markings that I don't agree with. Also, ahead actually means left."

"Oh fair enough. On your way, but try not to kill any more grannies."

😉

[i] GrahamS - Member
I did wonder if this would stand up in court."Right sonny, did you not see all those arrows telling you that this lane is ahead only. You can't turn left there!"[/i]

That arrow is saying stay in a lane, which very soon splits into two lanes.
😉

As for approaching the roundabout in the middle lane?

Simple, left lane is clagged with folk who've never used that roundabout before. So you take the middle lane to turn left, with the intention of cutting in, with the application of the relevant indicator.

But hey! You soon discover you can hang a left anyhow.
Sorted!!

That arrow is saying stay in a lane, which very soon splits into two lanes.

No it isn't. As per the TSRGD the arrows indicate "Appropriate Traffic Lanes for Different Destinations"

So it is saying "this lane for straight ahead" and the one next to it is saying "this lane for left turn".

As sbob says, when you approach the roundabout there is a big sign telling you that the three exits are left, straight on or right and there are three lanes clearly marked left, straight on and right.

I'm struggling to understand why anyone thinks they would pass their driving test if they took the straight on lane to go left. But this is STW. 😀

[i] GrahamS - Member
No it isn't. As per the TSRGD the arrows indicate "Appropriate Traffic Lanes for Different Destinations[/i]

But the lane later splits in two, so taking exit one or exit two is fine.
😆

The lane doesn't split in two. It just passes a turn to the left.

If it did split then it would have a double headed arrow indicating the two options, like all the other arrows on the roundabout where there are two options.

The fundamental question here seems to be: are the arrow markings on the roundabout a load of bollocks? Since we can't decide about the top right bit of the roundabout, I present the bottom right arrows as evidence for the prosecution. Specifically the straight ahead arrows in both lane 1 and lane 2, despite the relevant exit only having one lane.

If it "passed a turn to the left" there would be broken dotted lines across the mouth of the turn. There isn't. It's not. That lane splits in two. It's additional, new information contrary to the previous signage, and I think perhaps this is the critical bit you're missing. And it happens all over the place, because the standard and quality of such things isn't as consistently high as it could be.

It is, at best, ambiguous as there are contradictory lane markings. Why does the lane markings just before the junction in my example supersede previous contrary lane markings, yet the ones in yours do not?

Why are you so convinced that you're right and everyone else is wrong when you said yourself in your initial post that "I confess I never quite got the hang of [it]"?

The other fundamental, if you removed the arrows, what is the best way for it to work? If you removed all road markings on the roundabout, what is the best way for it to work?

I present the bottom right arrows as evidence for the prosecution.

Yeah that's fair actually.

I'm not entirely sure why the lane 1 arrow there isn't a left arrow. 😕

I guess the exit is sort of "ahead" in that lane and it's pretty obvious you can't be any more left than you already are. But that's a different "ahead" to the "ahead and right" arrow in lane 2 which is a bit confusing.

It is worth saying again that those arrows are for information: They are not mandatory, so ignoring them isn't illegal. If they wanted to make sure that you did not progress left from the mddle lane at that point they should've put a solid line hatching to prevent an exit there, and the two lanes after the exit should have markings showing you to move out to the outside lane if you don't want to go left. It is just crap road marking. There is no 'right' in this instance because the markings allow for an ambiguity.

But that's a different "ahead" to the "ahead and right" arrow in lane 2 which is a bit confusing.

Aha, so which exit is the ahead from lane 2, and therefore which exit is the right?

If it "passed a turn to the left" there would be broken dotted lines across the mouth of the turn.

I think the ideal approach for that exit (if you follow my line of thinking on it) would be something like:

[img] [/img]

Which would be similar to the exit on the bottom left.

Why are you so convinced that you're right and everyone else is wrong when you said yourself in your initial post that "I confess I never quite got the hang of [it]"?

Because the reason it caused me bother was people making up their own rules instead of following the road markings and the Highway Code. 😀

Why are you so convinced that it is the road markings are wrong rather than your understanding?

What makes more sense: that multiple road engineers designed, inspected and signed off on a design that contradicts itself and introduces inevitable collisions (directly outside the council offices) - or that they signed off on a design that [i]would[/i] work if people just did what it tells them to do? 🙂

If you removed all road markings on the roundabout, what is the best way for it to work?

If you removed all the markings (and abolished the bit in the Highway Code about staying left to go left "unless signs or markings indicate otherwise") then it'd be even more chaos than it is - but yes [i]then[/i] I would probably come on at the top left straddling lane 1 and 2 to control the space and then move more definitely into lane 2 once I had made the exit. 😀

Aha, so which exit is the ahead from lane 2, and therefore which exit is the right?

I think (and I agree [i]those[/i] arrows are confusing) that the ahead from lane 2 there is exit after the left and that right would be for the next (or any) after that.

I'm not entirely sure why the lane 1 arrow there isn't a left arrow.

Because, as I suggested earlier, the whole roundabout markup is a clusterfrank of a design. That's the real problem here.

It does have nice trees though.

I think the ideal approach for that exit (if you follow my line of thinking on it) would be something like:

The debate seems to have morphed into you trying to prove that the way you interpret it is somehow "better," which is a bit random. Whether that would be better or worse is a matter of debate, I'm not a road designer and presumably you'd need some sort of traffic flow analysis in that area.

What I do know though is that if the road was marked like that, I'd 100% agree with you. But it isn't, so I'm not sure what point you're making; you could just as easily Photoshop some fictional white arrows on it.

What makes more sense: that multiple road engineers designed, inspected and signed off on a design that contradicts itself

Yet, that's clearly what happened. Are you asserting that there's no such thing as a shit road design?

I think (and I agree those arrows are confusing) that the ahead from lane 2 there is exit after the left and that right would be for the next (or any) after that.

QED. Where are your multiple design gurus now?

What makes more sense: that multiple road engineers designed, inspected and signed off on a design that contradicts itself and introduces inevitable collisions (directly outside the council offices) - or that they signed off on a design that would work if people just did what it tells them to do?

Well the road markings are contradictory, so the only possibility is the former. Sorry!

I think (and I agree those arrows are confusing) that the ahead from lane 2 there is exit after the left and that right would be for the next (or any) after that.

Which left? Could you specify exactly which exits the straight on and right arrows in lane 2 are directing you to? I know it's tricky because the arrows are a load of bollocks, but I'm interested in your take on it.

What I do know though is that if the road was marked like that, I'd 100% agree with you. But it isn't, so I'm not sure what point you're making

You suggesting there would be some dashed lines across the exit - I was just illustrating how I think it could be made clearer.

QED. Where are your multiple design gurus now?

It's not perfect - but it doesn't cause obvious conflict and collisions in the way the top exit would.

Well the road markings are contradictory

See I just don't agree with you or Cougar on that point. I think the lane layout is definitely not as clear as it could be, and would be ambiguous were it not for those arrows explaining it. (And the Highway Code of course!)

You and Cougar seem to agree that the lane layout is ambiguous - but instead of using the arrows to clarify that ambiguity you have instead just picked an interpretation that leads to poor traffic flow and user conflict and then decided that multiple arrow markings must be wrong because they don't support it.

Could you specify exactly which exits the straight on and right arrows in lane 2 are directing you to? I know it's tricky because the arrows are a load of bollocks, but I'm interested in your take on it.

Welp I [b]reckon[/b] the Lane 1 arrow means "this lane for straight on to that exit". Lane 2 means "this lane for straight on to the second exit or right to the rest". And lane 3 "this lane for right to the rest"

Something like this:

[img] [/img]

I'm not sure why lane 1 isn't a left arrow. Maybe to avoid confusion with the entrance next to it? I dunno.

It's not 100% clear but it's not particularly unsafe either.

(And although it is just a "reckon" I don't have any other evidence that directly contradicts it. If I did I'd reconsider my interpretation.) 😀

My apologies - I thought you might pick up that it was a trick question. If the right arrow means what you're suggesting, then it is directing traffic to go back down the road it has just come from.

Given the actual exits available, the only possible exit for the right arrow is actually the road to the right of your picture above (unless you think your team of experts are directing 2 lanes of traffic to do a u turn). Therefore the straight ahead arrows are directing 2 lanes of traffic into the single lane exit at the top of your picture. Not particularly unsafe?

Why are you allowing traffic going right round at that right exit (the middle three of your yellow arrows over there) when the earlier white road arrow said it was straight on only? That shouldn't be allowed if the road arrows are immutable.