Insurance Claim Not at Fault

Car_54

The debate about lanes is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what lane the OP's daughter was in, if the TP entered that lane and hit her he is 100% at fault.

AdrianC

Car_54 said:

The debate about lanes is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what lane the OP's daughter was in, if the TP entered that lane and hit her he is 100% at fault. 

But if the OP's daughter entered the lane the other car was in and hit him...?

Ditzy_Mitzy

The circumstances seem almost identical to the case of Grace v Tanner cited earlier.  Although nobody was injured here, thankfully.   The relevant statement made by Lord Justice Judge ( ) was: 
If only one of them had been mistaken there probably would not have been an accident at all.
Your daughter should, really, have been in the right hand lane.  It's arguable that, as the exit she was taking lies at approximately 12 o'clock, she could use the left hand lane but the real-world setup of the roundabout would seem to preclude that.  The first and second exits are dual carriageways and there are dual feeder lanes on to the roundabout at each, meaning that a car in the left hand lane going for the third exit must cross the mouths of eight separate lanes.  Ergo, the defensive thing to do is use the right hand lane and change lanes at the mid-point of the second exit.  If she had done this, the boy would have been blocked from attempting to overtake on the roundabout, would have continued on his way after taking the second exit and the accident would not have occurred. 
However: a careful and competent driver knows that roundabouts, especially multi-lane, multi-exit roundabouts such as this one, are dangerous places and that reasonable precautions are required.  He should know that the possibility exists for another car to be in the wrong lane, therefore should not base his actions upon the assumption that other cars are going to be in the correct lanes at all times and follow courses based on being in the correct lanes.  Here, he should have been aware that the possibility existed for your daughter to be in the wrong lane and not take the first exit or the left hand lane of the second exit.  He should not, therefore, have attempted to overtake at the point he did.  Instead, he should have slowed down to allow your daughter the time to make her intentions clear and been prepared to stop, should she continue past the exit he wanted and cross the front of his car.  
Either of them could have prevented the accident, thus the logical conclusion is that both are at fault. 

glitzy

There is only one dual carriageway & that is at exit 2, all the other entrances/exits are one lane but at the roundabout there are 2 lanes for if you are going LH to junctions 1-3 & Rh lane if your going Junctions 4-6. I think it’s all so confusing because his insurers are saying that the Highway Code is only advisory & that was how she was taught on her lessons.

glitzy

AdrianC said:

Car_54 said:

The debate about lanes is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what lane the OP's daughter was in, if the TP entered that lane and hit her he is 100% at fault. 

But if the OP's daughter entered the lane the other car was in and hit him...?

My daughter didn’t enter his lane she stayed in her lane she was travelling & she was on the roundabout When he drove into her & spun her 180 degrees. I will attach a google earth i
link if I can.

AdrianC

glitzy said:

AdrianC said:

Car_54 said:

The debate about lanes is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what lane the OP's daughter was in, if the TP entered that lane and hit her he is 100% at fault. 

But if the OP's daughter entered the lane the other car was in and hit him...?

My daughter didn’t enter his lane she stayed in her lane

Didn't she?

He was established in L2 of the roundabout heading into L2 of the dual carriageway exit. A perfectly legitimate manoeuvre (else why would it be a two-lane exit?), and one that was only to be expected given another car had done precisely the same seconds earlier, in her full view.
She was partially behind him (as the impact positioning shows), and she tried to cross his path to head for the next exit, but he was still in it.

TBH, "My instructor said..." is usually half-remembered justification of "But I must be right". Even if it is what they said, instructors have frequently been known to be wrong.

Either way, she does not have RIGHT OF WAY. She may have priority, but she should be prepared to cede that priority if not doing so will cause a collision. See Ditzy's quote above from a member of the juduciary? Not just any member, but a former Lord Chief Justice.

It's going to be interesting to see the signage from where they all entered, so if you can't figure out how to link, just tell us the location, and we can do the rest.

MinuteNoodles

glitzy said:

Hi I forgot to type my daughter is in red & was in the LH Lane. I think the lad should of been in the left hand lane too, as he was taking the 2nd exit. The Dashcam would have to be showing the back of her car, as both cars came out of nowhere, obviously racing each other. We do know the lad is a reckless driver from a friend who went in the car once & said never again.

Dual lane exit, perfectly reasonable to be in either lane if going straight on. She should have been in the right hand lane indicating right and then after passing the exit they got off indicate left and move over to the left lane to exit where she was intending.

MinuteNoodles

glitzy said:

Yes she did enter his lane. She crossed into his lane, lane 2 of exit 2, to continue round the roundabout to exit three. Had she been in the right hand lane as she should have been then there'd have been no accident..

But as AdrianC posted, even if she did have right of way or priority or whatever you want to call it, you don't just continue on if it's going to cause an accident. I drive lorries and if I had a pound for every time I had right of way/priority and had a car impede that in their "must get in front of the lorry at all costs" manouvres I'd be a millionaire. I've never hit another vehicle in my lorry in the 25 years and over 2 million miles I've done because I see what's about to occur because I use observation, including my mirrors, slow down or stop and let them get on with it and then get on with the rest of my day hassle free.

glitzy

https://earth.app.goo.gl/wDMaoL

glitzy

AdrianC said:

glitzy said:
The Dashcam would have to be showing the back of her car

Umm, she was in the green Mini, right...?

Look at where the damage is on each car.

as both cars came out of nowhere

She didn't see them, because her observation was lacking.

...obviously racing each other.

How on earth can she know that, given that she didn't even see him until her front corner punted his rear door...?

We will be out of pocket & have a lessor car

Out of pocket, yes, by her excess and higher premiums.
But why "a lesser car"? That's certainly not a write-off. It's just a minor trim bingle, from the look of those pics.

Yes she was in the green car, she didn’t see them as she was ahead but the grey cut her up & the lad that hit her was behind his boss, as we know the lad drives fast anyway, plus he’s not letting us see his Dashcam, we are deducing he has something to hide. The guy who put the car on the loader said there’s something seriously wrong with the steering. Mini parts are expensive to buy without labour. The ideal outcome would be to get it repaired, the write off value is probably £3,000. So hoping that the insurers don’t write the car off when they examine it.