We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Driver denying liability accident on roundabout
Options
Comments
-
however, insurance companies generally go 50:50 on accidents at roundabouts, unless there is irrefutable multi-angle camera evidence, and full vehicle telemetry.
They save millions in admin fees and time, as accidents on roundabouts are very common, because many people have no idea which lane to be in, and even if they do they don't expect other people to get it wrong and are surprised when paths cross.I want to go back to The Olden Days, when every single thing that I can think of was better.....
(except air quality and Medical Science
)0 -
Again, he was in lane 2 on the roundabout.
How did he leave the roundabout without crossing lane 1? Levitation? A tunnel?
Lane 1 continued like a straight line from 6 o'clock to 12 o'clock, OP is in lane 2, stays in lane 2 and exits in lane 2. Where there is no provision for lane 1 to go around, it doesn't continue around so OP does not cross lane 1, he crosses a bit of tarmac that is there because it's cheaper to build 2 lanes all the way around and putting a barrier there would be daft.
You are being unnecessarily argumentative, the second driver swerved in front of the OP causing a collision by attempting to go right from the left hand lane of a roundabout, a lane which the OP has advised is straight on only. He caused the accident by performing an unexpected and careless move.
It's like the below except OP is the yellow car going straight ahead and the second car is the black one cutting in front
http://www.learners-guide.co.uk/images/lessons/lesson10/roundabout4.gifSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
And you know there was.no provision for lane 1 carrying on around the roundabout how?Lane 1 continued like a straight line from 6 o'clock to 12 o'clock, OP is in lane 2, stays in lane 2 and exits in lane 2. Where there is no provision for lane 1 to go around, it doesn't continue around so OP does not cross lane 1, he crosses a bit of tarmac that is there because it's cheaper to build 2 lanes all the way around and putting a barrier there would be daft.
You are being unnecessarily argumentative, the second driver swerved in front of the OP causing a collision by attempting to go right from the left hand lane of a roundabout, a lane which the OP has advised is straight on only. He caused the accident by performing an unexpected and careless move.
It's like the below except OP is the yellow car going straight ahead and the second car is the black one cutting in front
http://www.learners-guide.co.uk/images/lessons/lesson10/roundabout4.gif
Or just guessing a situation to justify your claim?0 -
unforeseen wrote: »And you know there was.no provision for lane 1 carrying on around the roundabout how?
Or just guessing a situation to justify your claim?
As I stated clearly in the posta lane which the OP has advised is straight on only
Unless we have a link to the scene showing something different we can only judge based on what the OP has said.
Unless the right hand lane was right turn only and OP has ignore that and gone straight on then I think it's a fairly good guess that the left lane is straight only. Can you imagine the chaos where lane 1 could be straight on AND right and the right hand lane was straight on as well - there would be accidents daily.Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
How many times, the OP was going straight on, he didn't change lanes nor did he need to signal!
Of course he needed to indicate as he approached the exit, how else was anyone else on the roundabout to know whether he was going straight on or taking the 3 o'clock exit?Accept your past without regret, handle your present with confidence and face your future without fear0 -
Highway code is clear, you should signal after you have passed the exit before the one you want.
It also says you should watch out for all other road users already on the roundabout; be aware they may not be signalling correctly or at all.
So if you don't stay aware of them then you are going to be partially liable at least.
It may be worth mentioning at this point, though not relevant to the OP's case where it was a driver, the rule on roundabouts relating to cyclists and horse rider - cyclists and horse riders who may stay in the left-hand lane and signal right* if they intend to continue round the roundabout. Allow them to do so.
*note that in both cases, due to the nature of the conveyance, it may not be possible for the rider to do so continuously (in the case of cycling, get on a bike and try braking whilst signalling - unless you are very rigid in the saddle the weight transference will mean the hand on the handlebars will steer the bike in the opposite direction - quite abruptly)0 -
Whether OP was indicating or not is neither here nor there, and those who suggest that OP should have realised the other driver was incorrectly turning right and avoided the accident are relying heavily on the wonderful benefit of hindsight. The collision, as described, likely happened far too fast for the OP to react to a car unexpectedly continuing around the roundabout.
As for the nonsense about OP "changing lanes", the OP's driving would normally be described as a "correctly proceeding vehicle" as in Grace vs Tanner, assuming that the lanes are marked as described. Whether you consider this a lane change or not is wholly irrelevant. (FWIW, in G vs T, the defendant ought to have realised that using the LH lane to go to the third exit was risky even though the road markings indicated it was legitimate)
Assuming the OP's collision occurred as described with no markings permitting a right turn for the third party, then the third party should be found 100% liable. However, with no witnesses, it may not go that way in reality. This incident makes a good case for getting a dashcam.
Of course, what doesn't help all of this is the number of people on the road who now indicate right when they're intending to take the 12 o'clock exit, which just adds to confusion for those who understand the correct use of indicators...0 -
Whether OP was indicating or not is neither here nor there, and those who suggest that OP should have realised the other driver was incorrectly turning right and avoided the accident are relying heavily on the wonderful benefit of hindsight. The collision, as described, likely happened far too fast for the OP to react to a car unexpectedly continuing around the roundabout.
Yep, as is often the case, we've been given some information, and people have made assumptions and argued over them - they don't matter if they're wrong. I've asked OP some questions and maybe he'll answer them.
He DID have to indicate to leave the roundabout. You can't get off a roundabout without indicating, no matter where you came from.
People trying to blame the OP 'he should have looked/known' must only exit roundabouts when they wholly trust the driver to their left. I don't know how they can give out that level of trust!
I would certainly look in OP's situation, but I can see a situation where if the dullard to the left really wants to, will hit you. Especially if they're not indicating right, for example.0 -
He DID have to indicate to leave the roundabout. You can't get off a roundabout without indicating, no matter where you came from.
He should have indicated, but I suspect most people wouldn't on a roundabout where the first exit is at 12 o'clock since it's customary to begin indicating left when you pass the previous exit. What I meant was that his failure to indicate did not make him liable for the actions of someone who appears to have tried to turn right from a position where that wasn't permitted and was potentially going to cause a collision.
From the description, the other driver didn't realise there was a car in the OP's position so probably hadn't checked their mirror before deciding to continue on the roundabout rather than giving way or taking the exit - in which case it would've made no difference whether he was indicating.0 -
Contrariwise,
[STRIKE]other driver[/STRIKE] OPFrom the description, the
[STRIKE]OP's[/STRIKE] other driver'sdidn't realise there was a car in the
[STRIKE]continue[/STRIKE] change / cross lanesposition so probably hadn't checked their mirror before deciding to
Actually, re-reading the OPs original post again, the other car was just in front, so didn't even need to look in mirrors ...on the roundaboutcame straight across our front0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards