Fault on Roundabout.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Assuming there were no solid white lines, then I'm afraid it is likely to be 50/50 without witnesses.

As a driver, you do not drive to what people are supposed to do, but what they actually do. In this case, it does sound like the driver was driving without due consideration (using the wrong lane to gain an advantage is an example in sentencing guidelines for the offence) so your response could be that in your opinion the driving of the other party was unlawful and the primary reason for the accident. However, I can't see your insurers being too keen to fight on your behalf.

I think a similar example might be if you pulled up behind a car and they rolled back into you when pulling off. If they argued that you stopped too close behind them - they only rolled back slightly - then that would probably end up being 50/50 even though they made the mistake of rolling back (unless you could convince them you'd left tyre and tarmac and the rollback wasn't slight). So unless you could show that there was something extra, like a late swerve, then you are struggling. One factor that could be better expressed is if you say that there are lanes and he didn't signal to indicate a change of lane - simply going straight on at a roundabout would not normally require a signal, but you should put it into the minds of the insurer that the driver was in error for not signalling an unusual lane change.

almillar

The only thing that counts as a traffic sign on the road in paint are solid lines, everything else is advisory.

So a stop line is a traffic sign, at which you must stop, but a give way line/lines at this roundabout or at a T-junction, is just advisory? You can be in whatever lane you line because the arrows are only advisory?!

unholyangel

almillar wrote: »

So a stop line is a traffic sign, at which you must stop, but a give way line/lines at this roundabout or at a T-junction, is just advisory? You can be in whatever lane you line because the arrows are only advisory?!

He's talking about the difference in the highway code between must and should given how disobeying a must rule results in an offence every single time regardless of circumstances while with a should, it will depend on the circumstances as to whether you have committed an offence.

However its slightly disingenuous to say they're "advisory" given that you can still be found guilty of an offence (dangerous driving or careless & inconsiderate driving) when disobeying should rules.

Also that view only relates to criminal liability. Civil liability is different - a reasonably competent & careful driver drives in accordance with the highway code. Failure to do so may well mean you're apportioned some or all liability.

Marvel1

iammumtoone wrote: »

In reality if everyone sat at a roundabout waiting just in case a driver decided not to do what their lane indicated they should do, then you would not be able move.

The people in this thread must only go out at the weekend and avoid all work traffic and rush hours.

I am not saying this is a defense for who is at blame but a bit of understanding for the OP would not go a miss, this situation could happen to alot of people who have no choice but to travel at peak/busy times when roundabouts have traffic consistently moving and people rarely using indicators.

I agree.

Not roundabout but the other day me end of side street waiting to turn right, car from left wanting to right into side street. They flash me to go, me thinking "no chance, you may change your mind and it will be my fault, I don't care if the turn is tight, you go first". They did eventually turn into side street and i went when clear.