Crash on roundabout

Daz2009

Having seen the streetview,if the van was coming out of the junction where the tree is and if the van was driving at excessive speed then maybe there are mitigating circumstances.
Given the short distance involved the OP could have looked and the van wasn't in sight so decided to pull out but at the speed the van was going by the time he actually did pull out and was now looking to the front he wouldn't have seen the van.Just a thought

alastairq

5 MPH is damn slow,

I'd suggest this speed is in fact an 'estimate' on the OP's part....it is but walking pace, after all?

Perhaps the OP was in fact simply 'easing out' at the time...not really committed to entering as such?

Either way, I agree the OP will find they are [more?] liable than the van driver.....however, witness evidence might be useful..[but only in apportioning degrees of 'blame'?}

TeamLowe

I can't work out how the van was too far onto the roundabout/driving too fast when the OP set off that the crash couldn't have been avoided but at the same time wasn't on the round about/or close to for the OP to give way to.

I doubt very much that if white van man had time to slam on and avoid the crash he wouldn't have and if white van man had seen the OP, had time to stop but ploughed into him anyway then he would be fully liable as whether you have right of way or not insurance companies expect you to do all you can to avoid a crash.

billydwarf

I did see the van dam

jase1

Whereabouts was your car hit?

The distance we're talking about here, vs the distance between the start of the roundabout and 'safety' (maybe 7 or 8 metres or so) doesn't ring true somehow.

That van will have had to have been travelling in excess of 60mph for that to be possible.

And if that's the case, the guy is looking at a hefty punishment for such atrocious driving.

arcon5

Say the van was 25 yards away from the junction and another 25 yards away from your entrance, at 50mph it would take him 3-4 seconds to reach you.

If you're going 5mph in this same time you will travel 5 yards - which from my estimates based on the Google Earth photo should clear you off the entrance of the roundabout.

And that's based on yards between you and him rather than his entrance and him (adding maybe 7 ish yards between him joining the roundabout and reaching you.
That's also based on you going 5mph which you now say 5-10mph.

This whole story just doesn't add up!!

Crazy_Jamie

arcon5 wrote: »

This whole story just doesn't add up!!

You often find that this is the case when witnesses are breaking down an incident that lasted a matter of seconds, and estimating speeds and distances as they do so.

This sounds very much like a case that would either be settled with an apportionment of liability, or one that would go to trial. Notwithstanding that the same insurance company represents both parties, it seems to me like a case that should perhaps go to trial so that the evidence can be tested, though it does depend what these other witnesses are saying as to the third party's driving before he entered the roundabout. Either way it is extremely difficult to members of an internet forum to judge this case as the OP is asking everyone to do. Whichever way you spin it the case certainly isn't straightforward, which is perhaps the best that the OP will be able to gleam from this thread.

Ratboy

It's like children in a playground mee-mawing. You did this no I didn't you did that. Yada Yada!

If the OP 'feels' the need to post about an accident he had worried who is to blame, and asking for opinion, then clearly guilty.

If I had an accident, and I felt the need to post it, I'd say 'Had this issue, swapped details,', get on with life, and maybe tell my mates on Facebook; NOT MONEYSAVING. What do you hope to acheive about people arguing over your ineffectual information?

And now you posted that; the Insurance companies watch these forums, so your claim will be invalid, due to your wild claims.

Pc_Crash

DUTR wrote: »

The Insurance companies follow a simple set of rules as the costs can exceed the claim, eg vehicle A collides with the rear of vehicle B , A= liable. Vehicle A crosses a solid white dividing line and collides with B, A=fault, pedestrian runs into the path of an oncoming vehicle, pedestrian =fault, pedestrian runs into the path of an oncoming vehicle, driver is breathalysed and over the limit, driver's fault, there are lots of scenarios and then to save time and resource split liability can come into effect. Circumstantial evidence may come into effect and they opt for split liability.

There may be some truth to that but many insurers now pay to have the incident investigated. The type of investigation is obviously proportionate to their exposure to costs (thus sometimes severity, but that isn't always the case).

Pc_Crash

No doubts a 50/50 will be the end result. Half for the vans alleged speed if witnesses produce and half for the OP failing to give way to his right.