Yea, the roundabouts win, by a landslide.!!!

This one is no laughing matter. I was riding with a friend today who took the inside lane intending to take the left turn out of the roundabout. As we approached the 3rd exit, a yielding car, assuming we would stay in the left lane, crept across the solid line of the circle.

My friend suddenly sped up and crossed the right/outside lane staying ahead of the oncoming vehicle, in order to get in the resident lane.

Exactly what I described in the OP nearly caused an accident in which I could have been victim of a hit to the passenger side door.

My friend followed federal traffic rules, crossing broken lines. The other driver assumed that he had lawfully yielded, as we were nearly past him when our car swerved into the right lane.

The bottom line: For 3rd exit turns, the location of the Resident Gate in the outside lane invites drivers to change lanes perilously.

And no doubt the other driver probably got ticked because in his/her ignorance, he thought he did nothing wrong.

I've said my piece. Two-lane roundabouts in this area of 110,000 senior residents from all over the country, most of whom did not grow up navigating roundabouts, are a baaaaaaaaaaad idea.

Key words..............explains it all!

So for the sake of discussion, if you are in a position to yield and then move in behind a vehicle that totally stops or suddenly moves in front of you, who is at fault? My opinion, which I hahaha never share, is that yielding traffic is not absolutely accountable, such as when a vehicle makes a sudden stop or changes lanes too rapidly in front of you anywhere on any road.

IMO, a rapid, careless lane changer within the circle would likely be the culprit...you can enter the circle carefully while yielding to a vehicle on the inside lane. But if a quick stop causes a rear end collision, I doubt the quick-stopper would be found at fault.

Any time you run into the car in front of you, you are at fault--even if the car in front of you decides to slam on its breaks, for whatever reason. My friend was rear-ended by a woman who claimed my friend shouldn't have stopped in her lane because an emergency vehicle she stopped for was in another lane.

The cop said, "Lady, even if she stops to pick her nose and you run into her, you are at fault."

"My friend followed federal traffic rules, crossing broken lines."

It also has to be safe to cross the broken line. It this case it was not safe. Even though the other car should have waited longer to enter the roundabout, that does not make it correct to swerve in front of him.

<sarcasm on> I'm confident that within no more than 200 more posts, this problem will be completely solved ... for ever and ever. <sarcasm off>

Keep counting.
The sumter sheriff's office is pulling up data on 12 months of accident reports on BVB and Morse. Analyzing which accidents were at intersections with roundabouts will be the next step.

----------------

Actually that is not true. Exceptions have been found by courts.

Maybe on a freeway, but on a city street? That's a real question, not sarcasm. I wonder what the exceptions have been.

And then what?

No one is listening.

I suppose if you cut somebody off and they rear-ended you, that would be an exception.