Round About Question- Yikes!!!

[mntlblok]

One important benefit of these repeating roundabout threads is learning that so many people out there don't know the rules, that it reminds us all to be very defensive.

My thoughts, as well. Have also been doing a fair bit of pondering about what "might" be a significant issue that I don't think I've seen specifically addressed.

Seems to me that it might not be enough to merely say "yield to any vehicle already in the RA", nor even to go by the rule of thumb to "never be 'beside' a vehicle that is in the "inside" lane. I keep coming back to two concepts that I always struggle with - and wish that I didn't. Brings back memories of slogging through calculus courses, too.

Anyway, have often heard that it ain't "speed" that kills, it's the *differential* in rates of speed. Add to that the concepts of acceleration and deceleration, and my poor head really starts spinning - changes in *rates* of speed. That latter is where I'm picturing an issue that I suspect might deserve more discussion concerning these cool and potentially efficient traffic control devices.

Picture this scenario. An "inside" lane vehicle is approaching as you are dutifully slowing as you approach the RA. You time your "deceleration" such that you enter a car length or two *behind* this "right of way holding", inside vehicle. As you now accelerate back up to the 20mph rate allowed for this intersection, the inside vehicle, whom you know to have the right - and possible inclination - to freely exit at the very nearby next exit, and needing to cross your "now -accelerating" path, *decelerates* - *especially* with respect to "forward progress", as he has essentially slowed to *0* mph relative to *that* direction - which coincides with the direction in which you are currently *accelerating*. It's as if someone had passed you, changed lanes, and immediately "brake-checked" you for the period of time that it takes for him to completely cross your "outside" lane.

I ain't good enough at math to figger out what a good rule of thumb would be for how far (car lengths?) you should allow that inside vehicle to be ahead of you before you start entering (which would differ significantly depending on whether you had stopped or were merely slowing) nor how many seconds (Mississippis?) one should wait following the passage of said insider so as to ensure space for his potential, immediate exit to occur, stress free. Bet there's tons of retired engineers here in The Villages who could whip something up right quick for me. They could even leave out all the stuff on jerk, jounce, flounce, and pounce. :-)

My own, current rule of thumb for dealing with this scenario is to minimize my acceleration until it is totally clear to me whether this "insider" is or is not going to take that first exit option. I strongly suspect that this thumb rule is similar to that of most everybody *else's*, but would think that maybe finding a means of *emphasizing* it for the newbie - as well as for the "non-believers" :-) who cannot fathom a scenario which allows for another vehicle to turn across their path.

I'm working on controlling my inclination towards road rage when the guy behind me blows his horn or aggressively tailgates when I don't enter the RA at a rate that suits him. :-)

[Bill14564]

...

Picture this scenario. An "inside" lane vehicle is approaching as you are dutifully slowing as you approach the RA. You time your "deceleration" such that you enter a car length or two *behind* this "right of way holding", inside vehicle. As you now accelerate back up to the 20mph rate allowed for this intersection, the inside vehicle, whom you know to have the right - and possible inclination - to freely exit at the very nearby next exit, and needing to cross your "now -accelerating" path, *decelerates* - *especially* with respect to "forward progress", as he has essentially slowed to *0* mph relative to *that* direction - which coincides with the direction in which you are currently *accelerating*. It's as if someone had passed you, changed lanes, and immediately "brake-checked" you for the period of time that it takes for him to completely cross your "outside" lane.

...

I experienced this just the other day. I was traveling north on Morse approaching the Osceola Hills circle. There was a vehicle in the inside lane of the circle. I slowed until that vehicle had passed my position but I did not need to stop. As I proceeded to enter the outside lane of the RAB, the vehicle which had passed was already exiting onto Deskin Ln. The amount of time it took me to turn my wheel to the right and begin accelerating into the RAB was all the time needed for the vehicle already in the RAB to begin his exit. By the time I reached any potential impact point, the vehicle was clear of my path.

I'll keep looking for examples but from this one instance it appears that if a vehicle entering the RAB properly yields to vehicles in the RAB then the spacing will be such that a collision will not occur.

[Marathon Man]

I just traveled that same route on Morse heading south about 15 minutes ago. I think I recall better now what happened. The guy who cut me off was probably traveling south on Morse behind me in the left lane as I traveled south in the right lane. As I entered the RAB at 6 in the outside lane, he entered the RAB at 6 in the inside lane right behind me. I entered the RAB before him. He sped up to exit at 3 in front of me and rather than staying in his lane, he cut me off to get in front of me in my lane. It really doesn't matter if he switched lanes or not, he still would have cut me off as he sped up to exit in front of me at 3. I was heading to 12 to go straight. That is when I jammed on my brakes to avoid the collision. I think that explains it as best I can.

He was wrong.

OK. So, after being told that you should have seen him, you now say that he "was probably traveling south on Morse behind me".

[Laker14]

My thoughts, as well. Have also been doing a fair bit of pondering about what "might" be a significant issue that I don't think I've seen specifically addressed.

Seems to me that it might not be enough to merely say "yield to any vehicle already in the RA", nor even to go by the rule of thumb to "never be 'beside' a vehicle that is in the "inside" lane. I keep coming back to two concepts that I always struggle with - and wish that I didn't. Brings back memories of slogging through calculus courses, too.

Anyway, have often heard that it ain't "speed" that kills, it's the *differential* in rates of speed. Add to that the concepts of acceleration and deceleration, and my poor head really starts spinning - changes in *rates* of speed. That latter is where I'm picturing an issue that I suspect might deserve more discussion concerning these cool and potentially efficient traffic control devices.

Picture this scenario. An "inside" lane vehicle is approaching as you are dutifully slowing as you approach the RA. You time your "deceleration" such that you enter a car length or two *behind* this "right of way holding", inside vehicle. As you now accelerate back up to the 20mph rate allowed for this intersection, the inside vehicle, whom you know to have the right - and possible inclination - to freely exit at the very nearby next exit, and needing to cross your "now -accelerating" path, *decelerates* - *especially* with respect to "forward progress", as he has essentially slowed to *0* mph relative to *that* direction - which coincides with the direction in which you are currently *accelerating*. It's as if someone had passed you, changed lanes, and immediately "brake-checked" you for the period of time that it takes for him to completely cross your "outside" lane.

I ain't good enough at math to figger out what a good rule of thumb would be for how far (car lengths?) you should allow that inside vehicle to be ahead of you before you start entering (which would differ significantly depending on whether you had stopped or were merely slowing) nor how many seconds (Mississippis?) one should wait following the passage of said insider so as to ensure space for his potential, immediate exit to occur, stress free. Bet there's tons of retired engineers here in The Villages who could whip something up right quick for me. They could even leave out all the stuff on jerk, jounce, flounce, and pounce. :-)

My own, current rule of thumb for dealing with this scenario is to minimize my acceleration until it is totally clear to me whether this "insider" is or is not going to take that first exit option. I strongly suspect that this thumb rule is similar to that of most everybody *else's*, but would think that maybe finding a means of *emphasizing* it for the newbie - as well as for the "non-believers" :-) who cannot fathom a scenario which allows for another vehicle to turn across their path.

I'm working on controlling my inclination towards road rage when the guy behind me blows his horn or aggressively tailgates when I don't enter the RA at a rate that suits him. :-)

It's a good thing you are in his way. Otherwise, he may be a hazard to others.

[mntlblok]

I'll keep looking for examples but from this one instance it appears that if a vehicle entering the RAB properly yields to vehicles in the RAB then the spacing will be such that a collision will not occur.

Agreed. My point is that it might be wise to *emphasize*, when teaching/learning the rules related to "two lane" RA's, just what "proper" yieldage includes. Seems likely to me that this detail might be commonly overlooked.

[Bogie Shooter]

My thoughts, as well. Have also been doing a fair bit of pondering about what "might" be a significant issue that I don't think I've seen specifically addressed.

Seems to me that it might not be enough to merely say "yield to any vehicle already in the RA", nor even to go by the rule of thumb to "never be 'beside' a vehicle that is in the "inside" lane. I keep coming back to two concepts that I always struggle with - and wish that I didn't. Brings back memories of slogging through calculus courses, too.

Anyway, have often heard that it ain't "speed" that kills, it's the *differential* in rates of speed. Add to that the concepts of acceleration and deceleration, and my poor head really starts spinning - changes in *rates* of speed. That latter is where I'm picturing an issue that I suspect might deserve more discussion concerning these cool and potentially efficient traffic control devices.

Picture this scenario. An "inside" lane vehicle is approaching as you are dutifully slowing as you approach the RA. You time your "deceleration" such that you enter a car length or two *behind* this "right of way holding", inside vehicle. As you now accelerate back up to the 20mph rate allowed for this intersection, the inside vehicle, whom you know to have the right - and possible inclination - to freely exit at the very nearby next exit, and needing to cross your "now -accelerating" path, *decelerates* - *especially* with respect to "forward progress", as he has essentially slowed to *0* mph relative to *that* direction - which coincides with the direction in which you are currently *accelerating*. It's as if someone had passed you, changed lanes, and immediately "brake-checked" you for the period of time that it takes for him to completely cross your "outside" lane.

I ain't good enough at math to figger out what a good rule of thumb would be for how far (car lengths?) you should allow that inside vehicle to be ahead of you before you start entering (which would differ significantly depending on whether you had stopped or were merely slowing) nor how many seconds (Mississippis?) one should wait following the passage of said insider so as to ensure space for his potential, immediate exit to occur, stress free. Bet there's tons of retired engineers here in The Villages who could whip something up right quick for me. They could even leave out all the stuff on jerk, jounce, flounce, and pounce. :-)

My own, current rule of thumb for dealing with this scenario is to minimize my acceleration until it is totally clear to me whether this "insider" is or is not going to take that first exit option. I strongly suspect that this thumb rule is similar to that of most everybody *else's*, but would think that maybe finding a means of *emphasizing* it for the newbie - as well as for the "non-believers" :-) who cannot fathom a scenario which allows for another vehicle to turn across their path.

I'm working on controlling my inclination towards road rage when the guy behind me blows his horn or aggressively tailgates when I don't enter the RA at a rate that suits him. :-)

This should be good for another 200 responses.:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

[coffeebean]

OK. So, after being told that you should have seen him, you now say that he "was probably traveling south on Morse behind me".

Yes, that is exactly correct. He was too close to me to be able to speed up and cut me off. He entered the RAB right behind me in the inside lane right after I had entered the RAB in the outside lane. It is very clear in my mind now after I traveled that same route yesterday. He was wrong.

[coffeebean]

This should be good for another 200 responses.:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

I think that poster is over thinking it.

[VApeople]

I was in the right lane of Morse road waiting to enter the Moyer-Pinellas roundabout. There was a car left of me also waiting to enter the roundabout.

When the traffic cleared out, we both started going, but I let the person on my left get in front of me.

To my surprise, he cut me off and turned right. I was shocked, so I slowed down and let him make his right turn. No harm done.

[Bogie Shooter]

I was in the right lane of Morse road waiting to enter the Moyer-Pinellas roundabout. There was a car left of me also waiting to enter the roundabout.

When the traffic cleared out, we both started going, but I let the person on my left get in front of me.

To my surprise, he cut me off and turned right. I was shocked, so I slowed down and let him make his right turn. No harm done.
This time…….

[mntlblok]

I think that poster is over thinking it.

I get that a lot. :-)

[VApeople]

This time…….

Surprisingly, it happened two more times in the next few weeks. That was about three years ago and it has not happened since.

I guess we slow drivers have more time to react.

[Davonu]

I was in the right lane of Morse road waiting to enter the Moyer-Pinellas roundabout. There was a car left of me also waiting to enter the roundabout.

When the traffic cleared out, we both started going, but I let the person on my left get in front of me.

To my surprise, he cut me off and turned right. I was shocked, so I slowed down and let him make his right turn. No harm done.
Gotta admit, I'm not sure why you were shocked. You intentionally let him get in front of you, then he turned right which is a perfectly legal move. For you to complete your "I let the person on my left get in front of me" gesture, you should have given him enough space to safely do exactly what he did with nobody being shocked. He did nothing wrong.

[Bill14564]

Gotta admit, I'm not sure why you were shocked. You intentionally let him get in front of you, then he turned right which is a perfectly legal move. For you to complete your "I let the person on my left get in front of me" gesture, you should have given him enough space to safely do exactly what he did with nobody being shocked. He did nothing wrong.

He did something quite wrong. If I understand the situation correctly, the vehicle entering the RAB in the inside lane exited at the first exit. This is completely wrong. Credit goes to the driver in the outside lane for avoiding the collision.

[golfing eagles]

Gotta admit, I'm not sure why you were shocked. You intentionally let him get in front of you, then he turned right which is a perfectly legal move. For you to complete your "I let the person on my left get in front of me" gesture, you should have given him enough space to safely do exactly what he did with nobody being shocked. He did nothing wrong.

OMG!!!! This is EXACTLY why there are problems in a RB. People who have NO CLUE what they are doing. You think it is perfectly legal to take the first exit from the inner lane? Even after about 50 posts on this thread have educated you to the opposite? Even after they post big direction signs at the entrance to the RB? Even after they hand you the Sumter County instruction booklet for navigating RBs??? 250+ posts and people STILL DON'T GET IT. Please stay far, far away from me in a RB. Pretty please with sugar on top.

[Davonu]

OMG!!!! This is EXACTLY why there are problems in a RB. People who have NO CLUE what they are doing. You think it is perfectly legal to take the first exit from the inner lane? Even after about 50 posts on this thread have educated you to the opposite? Even after they post big direction signs at the entrance to the RB? Even after they hand you the Sumter County instruction booklet for navigating RBs??? 250+ posts and people STILL DON'T GET IT. Please stay far, far away from me in a RB. Pretty please with sugar on top.
OMG!! I misread the post I quoted! golfing eagles is 100% correct!! Consider my apology sent...and I hope you like the copious amounts of sugar on its surface!! :bowdown: Please put me back on your "I would drive a roundabout with this guy" list!! :) You too, Bill14564. You got me too! :)

And my apologies to you too, VAPeople. The driver in the inside lane was totally wrong. You were the accident-preventer. :)

Okay, I'm done. I hope you will all take me off your 'idiot' list...please!! :)

[golfing eagles]

OMG!! I misread the post I quoted! golfing eagles is 100% correct!! Consider my apology sent...and I hope you like the copious amounts of sugar on its surface!! :bowdown: Please put me back on your "I would drive a roundabout with this guy" list!! :) You too, Bill14564. You got me too! :)

And my apologies to you too, VAPeople. The driver in the inside lane was totally wrong. You were the accident-preventer. :)

Okay, I'm done. I hope you will all take me off your 'idiot' list...please!! :)

Consider it done. I thought you probably didn't really know what the poster was stating happened, so I went for the shock value. But while you're OK, how many of the ridiculous posters on this thread are still a danger to us all?

[Bogie Shooter]

Now if the other 150+ wrong posters would fess up.:grumpy::(:police:

[coffeebean]

Gotta admit, I'm not sure why you were shocked. You intentionally let him get in front of you, then he turned right which is a perfectly legal move. For you to complete your "I let the person on my left get in front of me" gesture, you should have given him enough space to safely do exactly what he did with nobody being shocked. He did nothing wrong.
If the guy who entered the inside lane exited at his first exit, he would be wrong. Entering the inside lane, the driver must exit at his second, third or forth exit.

[margaretmattson]

If the guy who entered the inside lane exited at his first exit, he would be wrong. Entering the inside lane, the driver must exit at his second, third or forth exit.A driver in the inner lane can also drive the inner circle and then take the right exit he/she missed when entering the RAB. The first exit is not forbidden by the driver in the left lane. He/she has to do it correctly.

[Bill14564]

A driver in the inner lane can also drive the inner circle and then take the right exit he/she missed when entering the RAB. The first exit is not forbidden by the driver in the left lane. He/she has to do it correctly.

INCREDIBLE! When there are four exits, the first exit IS forbidden for the driver in the inner lane! If you are aware of a two-lane RAB in Florida where that is not the case, please post the location.

The FIFTH exit is not forbidden. The driver who mistakenly entered on the inside lane can go completely around the circle to exit correctly. By the time he does, he will have passed four exits making the exit he is taking the fifth, not the first. (and no, that is not just semantics)

[margaretmattson]

INCREDIBLE! When there are four exits, the first exit IS forbidden for the driver in the inner lane! If you are aware of a two-lane RAB in Florida where that is not the case, please post the location.

The FIFTH exit is not forbidden. The driver who mistakenly entered on the inside lane can go completely around the circle to exit correctly. By the time he does, he will have passed four exits making the exit he is taking the fifth, not the first. (and no, that is not just semantics)Not semantics. You are merely rewording what I said to your liking. I said, the driver in the left lane must go around the inner circle then take the first exit he or she MISSED. Where did I say a driver could take the first exit immediately upon entering the RAB? Funny! You in an earlier post did not mention the driver could take your "so called fifth exit." Did I correct your wording to suit my needs?

[Bill14564]

Not semantics. You are merely rewording what I said to your liking. I said, the driver in the left lane must go around the inner circle then take the first exit he or she MISSED. Where did I say a driver could take the first exit immediately upon entering the RAB? Funny! You in an earlier post did not mention the driver could take your "so called fifth exit." Did I correct your wording to suit my needs?

Somewhere very close to here:

A driver in the inner lane can also drive the inner circle and then take the right exit he/she missed when entering the RAB. The first exit is not forbidden by the driver in the left lane. He/she has to do it correctly.

There is no correct way for the driver on the inside lane to take the first exit he comes to in a four-exit RAB. He can drive around the circle then take the road he missed due to entering in the wrong lane (as you wrote) but he cannot take the first exit. To insist otherwise is to perpetuate the misunderstandings and bad practices that could result in someone being hurt.

[margaretmattson]

Somewhere very close to here:



There is no correct way for the driver on the inside lane to take the first exit he comes to in a four-exit RAB. He can drive around the circle then take the road he missed due to entering in the wrong lane (as you wrote) but he cannot take the first exit. To insist otherwise is to perpetuate the misunderstandings and bad practices that could result in someone being hurt.Again, you are just rewording what I said. I would not have had to make that post if you remembered to include the "fifth" exit as an option while correcting someone earlier. No one is perfect. Get over your slight and move on.

I will continue to believe there is nothing wrong with saying:take the circle to return to the first exit. It is not a NEW exit. It is an exit the driver missed.

Can you explain what o'clock is exit 5? In new exit terms like your proclaimed fifth exit. I can explain mine: If you miss the 3 o'clock exit while in the left lane, take the circle to return, then exit at 3 o'clock. If you do not have another name for the 3 o'clock exit, your logic is probably wrong.

[coffeebean]

This thread has been a joy ride. LOL.

[Two Bills]

This thread has been a joy ride. LOL.

"Never, in the field of human driving, has such a simple procedure, been made so very complicated!"

100914

[Bogie Shooter]

"Never, in the field of human driving, has such a simple procedure, been made so very complicated!"

100914

Over 200 times………

[golfing eagles]

Over 200 times………

Add this (#278) to all the other RB threads over the years and I'll bet there are over 5,000 posts on the subject, 75% of which are wrong.

[Randall55]

Add this (#278) to all the other RB threads over the years and I'll bet there are over 5,000 posts on the subject, 75% of which are wrong.
I guess this thread has finally come to an end. Anyone want to talk about dog poop?

[Laker14]

Considering the number of posts expressing erroneous information, it's actually surprising there aren't more accidents than there are.
We must have a pretty high number of defensive drivers here in TV.

[Randall55]

Considering the number of posts expressing erroneous information, it's actually surprising there aren't more accidents than there are.
We must have a pretty high number of defensive drivers here in TV.I think when driving, people know and understand the rules. I have not had any near collisions. It is trying to write the rules in a post that becomes confusing.

[mntlblok]

Considering the number of posts expressing erroneous information, it's actually surprising there aren't more accidents than there are.
We must have a pretty high number of defensive drivers here in TV.

Survivorship bias? :-)

[Laker14]

Considering the number of posts expressing erroneous information, it's actually surprising there aren't more accidents than there are.
We must have a pretty high number of defensive drivers here in TV.

I think when driving, people know and understand the rules. I have not had any near collisions. It is trying to write the rules in a post that becomes confusing.

I always thought the that the rule of thumb is that when you're approaching a roundabout and you plan to exit from the 1st or 3rd (right or left exits) of the roundabout, you should always be in the outside lane well before entering the roundabout.

I rest my case.

[Bogie Shooter]

I rest my case.

May mrchip72 rest in peace.:sigh: