Insurance Claim Not at Fault

Mercdriver

I wonder whether boy wonder that cut her up was originally behind her, and chose to overtake on the roundabout.  Lack of observation undermines credibility unfortunately.  Had the OP's daughter been using her mirrors correctly, she would likely have seen the other driver before he entered her blind spot.

DoaM

The blue line is still the one that is changing lanes (in order to take exit 2 in the RH lane) ... it must cross the LH lane of the r'bout so if a vehicle is in the LH lane on the r'bout the one changing lanes is more at fault. As I said before - if someone enters the r'bout at 1 intending to exit 3 then they will be in the LH lane of the r'bout ... which is no difference* to where the OP's daughter was.

* There's a minor difference ... the vehicle in the RH lane will already be on the r'bout so the one entering at 1 should yield before entering. But if the other party was travelling at the speed suggested then it is easily conceivable for someone to enter at 1 at the same time as the other party entered in the RH lane at 6.

This doesn't change the facts though - in the absence of evidence to prove the fault lies exclusively with one party, this will go as shared liability ... most probably 50:50. At best the OP's daughter could change the liability share (e.g. 25 her : 75 other party) but no chance of making it no liability.

glitzy

AdrianC said:

glitzy said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

The sign is a long way back, but it suggests that the third exit is to be treated as being at 1 o'clock from the approach road.  As such the left hand lane should only be used for the first and second exits. 

Do you think so, I feel the South Ham exit is 1o’clock but the little one in before it is straight across. Either way it seems that because it happened on a roundabout it’s 50:50.

Don't get hung up on the precise angles. They're irrelevant. Look at the traffic flows.

1st exit - leisure centre
2nd exit - continuation of the main through route, two-lane exit, towards town centre and ringroad
3rd exit - minor ind est
4th exit - secondary through traffic
5th exit - minor retail access
6th exit - back onto main through route

Compare also the explicit road markings at the single lane exit 6/B3400 W with the lack of lane markings at exit 2/B3400E

Yes that’s the exit you can see in front where my daughter was stationery waiting to pull out.

glitzy

DoaM said:

The blue line is still the one that is changing lanes (in order to take exit 2 in the RH lane) ... it must cross the LH lane of the r'bout so if a vehicle is in the LH lane on the r'bout the one changing lanes is more at fault. As I said before - if someone enters the r'bout at 1 intending to exit 3 then they will be in the LH lane of the r'bout ... which is no difference* to where the OP's daughter was.

* There's a minor difference ... the vehicle in the RH lane will already be on the r'bout so the one entering at 1 should yield before entering. But if the other party was travelling at the speed suggested then it is easily conceivable for someone to enter at 1 at the same time as the other party entered in the RH lane at 6.

This doesn't change the facts though - in the absence of evidence to prove the fault lies exclusively with one party, this will go as shared liability ... most probably 50:50. At best the OP's daughter could change the liability share (e.g. 25 her : 75 other party) but no chance of making it no liability.

Thank you for the 25:75 suggestion, didn’t know you could do that, I will give that a try🤞

Car_54

Thank you for the 25:75 suggestion, didn’t know you could do that, I will give that a try🤞

It will make no difference to her NCD or future premiums. Claims are simply listed as "at fault", whether it's 1% or 99%.

DoaM

Don't bank any hopes on being successful ... even getting that far will take some persuading of the insurers. And all it does is define the amount of her excess that could be recovered from the other party's insurer - it has no impact on future premium changes.

Scrapit

Wrong lane but better observation from all parties would have avoided it. Take the 50:50, its fair.

facade

After 46 replies, do you see why roundabouts usually go 50:50?

Imagine you are an insurer, the new gold plated Maybach depends on not wasting money. would you bother even putting the minimum wage clerk on arguing or just suck up 50% of a few thousand from your own client, and the same from theirs?

Now it might be worth arguing if an entire coachful of nuns on the way to a kitten convention all had whiplash

[Deleted User]

Roundabouts are a terrible idea, other countries do just fine without them.

Mercdriver

[DELETED USER] said:

Roundabouts are a terrible idea, other countries do just fine without them.

They are fantastic if people learn how to use them properly.  The worst of all worlds is a signal controlled roundabout.  The whole point of roundabouts is that they are intended to keep traffic flowing.