[coffeebean]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

I suppose the vehicle in the inner lane could be going VERY fast, or the car entering and going to 3 o'clock was going VERY slow.

That about sums it up, I guess. I don't travel very slowly in the RABs, but I don't go fast either. I don't ever enter a RAB when there are cars in the RAB, in either lane, that I can see.

[coffeebean]

Originally Posted by Marathon Man

But it sounds like it was actually there. Sometimes a quick glance is not enough.

No, the car was not in the RAB when I entered at 6. He must have entered at 9 after I entered at 6 but sped up to catch me. He came out of nowhere and that is what I distinctly recall. He scared the &*%$ out of me.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by coffeebean

No, the car was not in the RAB when I entered at 6. He must have entered at 9 after I entered at 6 but sped up to catch me. He came out of nowhere and that is what I distinctly recall. He scared the &*%$ out of me.

So in the time it took you to travel 70ft from the Morse South entrance of the RAB to the Stillwater West exit, about 3 seconds, the other car overtook you.

Since you didn't see the other car it either needed to be a little ways down Stillwater to the east or coming around the circle. In either case, that would be about 300 feet from the Stillwater West exit.

For the other car to travel 300 feet (otherwise you would have seen it) in the same 3 seconds it took you to get to the exit (otherwise it would have been behind you) the math says the car would need to be traveling between 50mph and 75mph through the RAB (and possibly from a standing start at the Stillwater gate).

[coffeebean]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

So in the time it took you to travel 70ft from the Morse South entrance of the RAB to the Stillwater West exit, about 3 seconds, the other car overtook you.

Since you didn't see the other car it either needed to be a little ways down Stillwater to the east or coming around the circle. In either case, that would be about 300 feet from the Stillwater West exit.

For the other car to travel 300 feet (otherwise you would have seen it) in the same 3 seconds it took you to get to the exit (otherwise it would have been behind you) the math says the car would need to be traveling between 50mph and 75mph through the RAB (and possibly from a standing start at the Stillwater gate).

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.

[margaretmattson]

Originally Posted by coffeebean

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.

I still find that hard to believe. I do not know the lengths of the vehicles but it would have to be a crazy maneuver to pass, swerve from the left, and exit right, if you entered first. Travelling from 6 o'clock to 3 is a short distance. I think one poster stated it takes 3 seconds to travel that distance. But, maybe you are a very slow driver.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by coffeebean

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.

That seems more likely and yes, he was wrong.

[coffeebean]

Originally Posted by margaretmattson

I still find that hard to believe. I do not know the lengths of the vehicles but it would have to be a crazy maneuver to pass you and swerve left to exit, if you entered first. Travelling from 6 o'clock to 3 is a short distance. I think one poster stated it takes 3 seconds to travel that distance. But, maybe you are a very slow driver.

The guy didn't swerve left, he changed lanes from the inside lane to the outside lane. That maneuver is to "swerve" right. I hope I explained myself correctly.

[coffeebean]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

That seems more likely and yes, he was wrong.

I must say that 99.5% of the times I have traversed RABs, I have had no problems at all. It is usually uneventful and I feel very safe in the RABs.

[margaretmattson]

Originally Posted by coffeebean

The guy didn't swerve left, he changed lanes from the inside lane to the outside lane. That maneuver is to "swerve" right. I hope I explained myself correctly.

I meant he had to swerve from the left lane to pass you and then exit. But, if you want to use the wording he swerved right, it is still the same timing.

Your car enters the RAB. You previviously said the 2nd car came out of nowhere which means it was some distance behind you. The second vehicle had to speed up significantly to pass you from the left lane. Then maneuver the length of his vehicle to cross your path and exit right without striking you. He had to do this within 3 seconds if you were travelling normal speed. Instead, you had to be driving very slowly for this to happen.

If this is the case, the driver in the 2nd vehicle was a lunatic. There is no need to speed up and pass a vehicle from the left lane to exit right. When in the left lane, slow down, drive around the inner circle, then exit safely. Hence the name, roundabout.

[coffeebean]

Originally Posted by margaretmattson

I meant he had to swerve from the left lane to pass you and then exit. But, if you want to use the wording he swerved right, it is still the same timing.

Your car enters the RAB. You previviously said the 2nd car came out of nowhere which means it was some distance behind you. The second vehicle had to speed up significantly to pass you from the left lane. Then maneuver the length of his vehicle to exit right without striking you. He had to do this within 3 seconds if you were travelling normal speed. Instead, you had to be driving very slowly for this to happen.

If this is the case, the driver in the 2nd vehicle was a lunatic. Most would drive the inner circle at a safe speed, then exit. There is no need to pass another vehicle from the left lane to exit right.

The guy may have wanted to be in the right lane to make the right turn into the Winn Dixie parking lot. That is my best guess. He must have entered the RAB right behind me. If I didn't look in my rear view mirror at that moment, then I didn't see him until he nearly collided with me.

[mntlblok]

Originally Posted by Laker14

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]

Originally Posted by mntlblok

...

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]

Originally Posted by coffeebean

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]

Originally Posted by mntlblok

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]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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.