Driver denying liability accident on roundabout

Tigsteroonie

OP, is your insurer saying that it's 50:50 because you should changed lane (across the left lane) to go straight on (12 o'c exit), effectively cutting in front of the driver to your left who was in the wrong lane but hoping to go all the way round to the 3o'c exit?

(I think I've just read this on MumsNet AIBU)

misterbarlow

I had similar this time last year..
Guy hit my back wheel arch/bumper exiting the roundabout, he cut into my lane going to fast, he claimed I drifted into his lane.. no chance!

It banged back and fore between insurance companies for 9 months, and they finally said as there were no witness, no dashcam, no cctv, etc, and we both denied liability that it was deemed 50/50, and we had to pay our £200 excess to repair the car as damage was quoted at £450...

Really annoying that you pay insurance, someone hits you, and you end up out of pocket..

Quentin

misterbarlow wrote: »

........ we both denied liability that it was deemed 50/50, and we had to pay our £200 excess to repair the car .

You did get £100 of your excess back (as well as half of all your other uninsured losses)??

glentoran99

Tigsteroonie wrote: »

OP, is your insurer saying that it's 50:50 because you should changed lane (across the left lane) to go straight on (12 o'c exit), effectively cutting in front of the driver to your left who was in the wrong lane but hoping to go all the way round to the 3o'c exit?

(I think I've just read this on MumsNet AIBU)

If the OP hit the side of the other car then he couldn't have cut in front of him

unforeseen

Even worse then. The other vehicle was clearly in his view when he drove into it. Can't even claim he didn't see him.

dannyrst

Teapot55 wrote: »

. . . unless the markings on the approach road and within the roundabout indicated that you could use both lanes for turning right . . . in which case it would be marked that for straight on you had to use the lh lane only.

But the OP has said the left lane is for straight only, so why make irrelevant points?

peachyprice

dannyrst wrote: »

But the OP has said the left lane is for straight only, so why make irrelevant points?

So why wasn't OP in that lane? And did he indicate for the straight ahead exit?

Nasqueron

OP hasn't posted a link to the location but based on the description, there are 2 lanes, left hand lane is for straight on (6 o'clock to 12 o'clock) and right is for straight on and right (6 o'clock to 3 o'clock). The car in the left hand lane has tried to cut around in front of the OP and caused the accident as the OP has gone into them.

UNLESS there are clear markings saying the left hand lane can be used to go right AND / OR the right hand lane is ONLY for going right and not straight on then the OP is not at fault in any way, shape or form.

The highway code rule 186 makes it clear if you are going right you need to be in the right hand lane unless there are markings otherwise - the only realistic scenario where the OP could be at fault is if the left lane is for straight ahead AND right and the right lane is ONLY for right as it would suicidal for the road to allow the right lane to go ahead and the left lane allows right turns

Nasqueron

peachyprice wrote: »

So why wasn't OP in that lane? And did he indicate for the straight ahead exit?

Because OP has stated that both lanes are for straight ahead.

NBLondon

unforeseen wrote: »

So if I read this right, the op changed lanes when it was not safe to do so

Let's see the road markings... If it's a dual carriageway, with lanes 1 and 2 going through the roundabout, it may well be marked to suggest that lane 2 exits to lane 2 of exit 2 and thus the OP did not change lanes; the third party did.