had a crash today :(

ukjoel

This is the reason they have remarked so many roundabout.

People have no lane awareness and my guess is the old boy fits into this category.

OP is in the right he was in the correct lane and the crash was caused by the other driver crossing a lane and hitting him. As both cars were level at roundabout the suburu driver could either have waited and indicated or gone left and then turned round on himself.

Agree with satnav causing issues in this situation as it will often say straight ahead 2nd exit and many presume left lane is safe to be in.

Biggest mistake was not calling police.
A police report would clarify all you have said to insurance companies.
Now your word against his and he will either say you cut him up and he was in front of you clearly indicating etc etc or that you were both a lane to the right of where you were.

In cases like this it needs to be police on scene, family checked out, and then you carry on your way.

Insurance companies cant be bothered to figure out who is right or wrong most the time - its working out the cheapest way of closing the case.

snapping_crocodile

How would checking his blind spot have stopped him from being hit when the guy in the subaru drove into the side of the OP? :rolleyes:

...and if you read back the OP did phone the police, but the did not attend the scene

peterbaker

bb, years ago I banana'd a couple who took the long way round when I was exiting to the outside lane of a dual carriageway. I am embarassed to say that I got away with it including recovering the excess based on the simple arguments you have put. But clearly I should not have done on the Grace v. Turner principle.

You surely know that complex roundabout designs are imperfect things like drivers.

I am a little unsure how the old boy drove into you if your plan was not to get stuck behind him and if you were both stationary at the lights just prior - sounds like you were awfully close alongside at some point. Apart from the old boy, was your exit completely clear? Did he accelerate into you? Seems unlikely if you had already assessed he was too slow for your liking. Or was your moving trajectory away from the lights initially from a point slightly behind him and then accelerating across his bows?

The lane he was in was not marked "A38 B'Ham Only" was it? Those arrow markings are often THE most imperfect aspect of junction design. I can see where you are coming from, and your surmise is backed up by the continuation of the hatch markings, but they ARE hatched, not solid. In fact they can't be solid because traffic entering from your left have to cross that line in turn with the lights. Seems like a half-baked junction design got the better of you both.

Choosing the outside lane to exit is always a little 'edgy'. The overtaker always bears additional responsibility to remain clear of the other guy's path. You assumed you knew it, and took your own path based on the assumption.

I feel for you, but the old guy also feels hard done by and unless you know he was driving carelessly, you can't blame him just for being imperfect in an imperfect lane on an imperfect junction.

50/50 wouldn't seem too outlandish to me.

hothothot_3

peterbaker wrote: »

The lane he was in was not marked "A38 B'Ham Only" was it? Those arrow markings are often THE most imperfect aspect of junction design. I can see where you are coming from, and your surmise is backed up by the continuation of the hatch markings, but they ARE hatched, not solid.

Which, AFAIK, means that you are not allowed to cross them unless clear to do so.

The only thing that crossed my mind was that OP should have remained in the same lane, behind the guy. as the secondary lane is really just when the first lane is full.

DaveMacD

hothothot wrote: »

The fact is, it was the other vehicle which encroached into his lane striking the OPs car. Blind spot is just to be used for overtaking, which is not the manouver the OP was making. I certainly dont check my blind spot just to have a 100% view, only when I wish to overtake or I know a motorcyclist is cruising around the car and want to keep an eye on them.

Worrying. Blind spots should be checked regularly, regardless of what you are doing. If you don't check it, then you can't know what is happening around your vehicle, and that makes you vulnerable.

DaveMacD

peterbaker wrote: »

I can see where you are coming from, and your surmise is backed up by the continuation of the hatch markings, but they ARE hatched, not solid.

They ARE broken lines.... unfortunately, that makes them lane divider lines, and HC rule 131 clearly states"You should keep between them", which the person who hit the OP appears not to have done, hitting the OP in the process.

iamana1ias

snapping_crocodile wrote: »

How would checking his blind spot have stopped him from being hit when the guy in the subaru drove into the side of the OP? :rolleyes:

Because being aware of a car alongside him, and the confusion at that roundabout (the OP must have used it numerous times before and I doubt it's the first time he's seen someone get it wrong) he'd have been aware of what that driver was doing and could potentially have sped away (avoiding being hit), slowed down (avoided being hit) or even just hit the horn to draw attention to himself (possibly avoiding being hit).

OP, was your repeater light working on the nearside of your car? How come the car alongside you couldn't tell you were going to take the left turn?

mollycat

iamana1ias wrote: »

Because being aware of a car alongside him, and the confusion at that roundabout (the OP must have used it numerous times before and I doubt it's the first time he's seen someone get it wrong) he'd have been aware of what that driver was doing and could potentially have sped away (avoiding being hit), slowed down (avoided being hit) or even just hit the horn to draw attention to himself (possibly avoiding being hit).

OP, was your repeater light working on the nearside of your car? How come the car alongside you couldn't tell you were going to take the left turn?

OP, ignore this post. Iamanal1as is a wind up merchant.

iamana1ias

mollycat wrote: »

OP, ignore this post. Iamanal1as is a wind up merchant.

!!!!!!?

zappahey

gsmmad wrote: »

I do not agree with the drink in him bit, because if the driver is driving under the influence this would have voided his insurance,

Utter nonsense.