Accident on roundabout.

LANGO1966

Hi,
yesterday I was on my way home from shopping and I was involved in a accident on a roundabout.
I was travelling about 25 mph on the outer lane and whilst approaching the junction before my turn off a car didnt stop at give way lines.
I tried to swerve to stop impact but unfortunately he still hit my rear passenger door and wheel arch.
I pulled over and we began to swop details and I asked the man if he didnt see me on the roundabout and he shocked me by telling me it was my fault as "I cut in".
I have no witnesses as nobody else stopped but I feel I am totally blame free,your opinions and advice on this please,

:mad:

olly300

In regards to liability the guy is just immature, he should have just said nothing as most insurance companies have it in their policies that you are not allowed to admit liability if you have an accident. And even if the accident is your fault, due to people being in shock anything said on the scene involving admitting liability is not considered in court.

So next time you have an accident just remember to say nothing about liability, and don't antagonise the other driver by blaming them.

Due to the guy being a pillock I hope you took pictures of the roundabout and the damage on your car, plus any damage on his car. (That's what mobile phones with cameras are for.) That way the insurance company can see from the damage who is more likely to be at fault. Also make a diagram now of where you were on the roundabout. Then when you get your claim forms through send a copy of this to your insurance company.

If you have to take the case to court all this evidence will help you as in civil cases, which it will be, as the balance of probabilities will be used to determine fault.

coolagarry

The law on the subject is that a person entering a roundabout must give way to a person in or upon the roundabout so obviously he is at fault as he was entering the roundabout and you were already in the roundabout.
The practicality is that unless there are independent witnesses the insurance companies will probably class it as a knock for knock.
As a motorist I keep sane by applying the principal...'don't drive a car if you can't take a joke'

Quentin

coolagarry wrote: »

The practicality is that unless there are independent witnesses the insurance companies will probably class it as a knock for knock.

Unlikely these days.

Knock for knock is rarely seen being used.

50/50 is the most usual "compromise" these days.

prowla

From the highway code...


and...

161. When reaching the roundabout you should
• give priority to traffic approaching from your right, unless directed otherwise by signs, road markings or traffic lights
• check whether road markings allow you to enter the roundabout without giving way. If so, proceed, but still look to the right before joining
• watch out for vehicles already on the roundabout; be aware they may not be signalling correctly or at all
• look forward before moving off to make sure traffic in front has moved off.

In other words, it doesn't really matter whether you were driving to the precise rules or you were driving like a complete idiot - it is the responsibility of the person joining the roundabout to be sure it is safe for them to do so.

My guess is that you being on the roundabout and being hit on the side is clear evidence that the other driver didn't give way.

Did you take any photos (eg. with your mobile phone?).

ginnersinner

Spot on prowla! I reckon that even without witnesses you should push your insurers not to accept anything less than 100% liability from his - it's not quite the same as both being on the roundabout and one drifting into another which is usually knock for knock these days. He's pulled out over a give way - you wouldn't accept knock for knock if it had been a t junction not a roundabout would you? The fact that it's a roundabout makes no difference. Out of interest, any idea what he meant by 'cutting in'?

LANGO1966

Hi,
I have no idea what he meant by cutting in,unfortunately I did not take any photos due to the heat of the momment.Thanks for all your advice and I will be pushing my insurers to make sure 100% liability is on his side as I dont want to lose my excess plus increased premium next year for something I had no control over,

Horace

Also go back to the scene of the incident and take photos especially if he crossed a give way on the roundabout - there are some odd roundabouts that stop people part way round..go back and take photos.

LANGO1966

LANGO1966 wrote: »

Hi,
yesterday I was on my way home from shopping and I was involved in a accident on a roundabout.
I was travelling about 25 mph on the outer lane and whilst approaching the junction before my turn off a car didnt stop at give way lines.
I tried to swerve to stop impact but unfortunately he still hit my rear passenger door and wheel arch.
I pulled over and we began to swop details and I asked the man if he didnt see me on the roundabout and he shocked me by telling me it was my fault as "I cut in".
I have no witnesses as nobody else stopped but I feel I am totally blame free,your opinions and advice on this please,

:mad:

Just an update to the situation.
My insurance have no been in touch with the other partys insurance and they are not admitting liabilty and saying Im to blame.
This infuriates me as I did my best to avoid this person and he still wont admit liability.Your comments are most welcome.

mvteng

Lango,

I can only pass on the experience of a work colleague who had a practically identical accident to you.

In his case, the lady who hit him in the rear admitted liability at the scene, but later her story changed & my colleague had been going too fast on the roundabout.

The insurance company agreed 50/50 with the other parties insurance. My colleague rejected this & pushed for a no fault accident on his part. This dragged on for over a year until eventually he reluctantly agreed to accept the 50/50.

He is still adamant he was 100% not to blame (especially as the impact was the back of his car) but unfortunately with no witnesses he was never going to win.

Gavin83

Is there any advantage for an insured driver to only be liable for 50% of the claim over the full 100%? Am I right in thinking that in both cases the driver will lose their no claims, with no further disadvantage for the driver admitting 100%, or is there more to it than that?