Minor accident - who's at fault
Discussion
100% your fault but 50:50 if you're lucky!vonhosen said:
That's just my advice above, each case will be viewed on it's own facts. The case I gave a link to is not analogous with the OPs case, but is provided to show considerations of the court.
It's not often the insurance companies will opt to take it to court as it will just incur further charges.Retroman said:
vonhosen said:
That's just my advice above, each case will be viewed on it's own facts. The case I gave a link to is not analogous with the OPs case, but is provided to show considerations of the court.
It's not often the insurance companies will opt to take it to court as it will just incur further charges.But in their bargaining with one another they'll cite previous rulings to support their case where they exist & are similar in circumstance. Roundabouts are notorious for split liabilities, but as I say each case must be looked at on it's own merits.
Retroman said:
As mentioned, in terms of insurance determining liability, it is quite likely to go 50/50.
You'll blame the third party and the third party will blame you and without any evidence to verify who was wrong, that's what will likely push the liability split.
I thought there was evidence. OP is admitting he was in the wrong lane, and also admitting tp was in the correct lane.You'll blame the third party and the third party will blame you and without any evidence to verify who was wrong, that's what will likely push the liability split.
Monty Python said:
Do you have witnesses?
Looking at the road layout I'd say the other party was most to blame as they tried to move into an occupied lane (assuming you weren't the one changing lane). Being in the wrong lane isn't an excuse for someone to drive into you.
I would suggest it was the OP who changed lanes, the third party was merely following their lane to their required exit, in effect he tried to move into an occupied lane and was not aware of the car that eventually hit him.Looking at the road layout I'd say the other party was most to blame as they tried to move into an occupied lane (assuming you weren't the one changing lane). Being in the wrong lane isn't an excuse for someone to drive into you.
neelyp said:
I would suggest it was the OP who changed lanes, the third party was merely following their lane to their required exit, in effect he tried to move into an occupied lane and was not aware of the car that eventually hit him.
It's not that clear from the OP, but I took it that the other party tried to take the exit and hit the OP.Monty Python said:
neelyp said:
I would suggest it was the OP who changed lanes, the third party was merely following their lane to their required exit, in effect he tried to move into an occupied lane and was not aware of the car that eventually hit him.
It's not that clear from the OP, but I took it that the other party tried to take the exit and hit the OP.The other driver thought the op would go left because that's where the road markings said he should go. The op should have been aware of the markings, but wasn't. If I were the third party then i would be be arguing (in vain no doubt) that he drove into me since his lane was exclusively to go left, therefore he cut into my lane without indication.
PS, honestly not having a direct pop at you, op... Just relating how I would feel if I were in the third parties situation.
shambolic said:
Same type of motorway off slip. Both lanes can take first exit. Lane 1 can only take first exit.
So if you go round it's your fault and I know people will say about other driver changing lanes but due to road markings you shouldn't be there.
Edit. Arrow under white van is showing same as arrow further back on slip.
I almost always go left from the right lane there - everyone in the left lane treats it like a stop-line even though you can easily see if the roundabout is clear or not!So if you go round it's your fault and I know people will say about other driver changing lanes but due to road markings you shouldn't be there.
Edit. Arrow under white van is showing same as arrow further back on slip.
You might also know this roundabout near EK: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/East+Kilbride,...
3 lanes on the slip road go into 3 lanes on the roundabout... After a short distance lane 3 opens up into two lanes (so there are a total of 4).
Everyone - literally EVERYONE, 100% of traffic - goes from lane 2 on the slip road to lane 2 on the roundabout and then coast straight over to lane 3 when the new lane opens up. They don't indicate, and if someone from lane 3 is in their way they will blare their horn and push their way in
I used to drive it every day and for ages I did it properly - lane 3 into lane 3. I would just accept people blaring their horns at me every day and was very careful not to be in anyone's blind spot. Eventually I gave up and just did it wrong like everyone else
DTB77 said:
I had someone bump in to me on the way home today, and looking for guidance on liability - in the eyes of an insurance company / law rather than people's opinions on a moral perspective please (although I'm sure I'll get both!).
I'm going to keep the details pretty vague as its the principles I'm after rather than technicalities...
So in essence, I was on a off-motorway roundabout, in the left hand land, but turning right. My opponent was in the right hand lane, turning left. I was ahead of them and they clipped the rear-side of my car (on the wheel arch) as they tried to come off and I tried to carry round.
I travel that route regularly and cars always go right from the left hand lane. I've never seen anyone turn left from the right hand lane. However, they claimed that the road markings allowed them to turn left and my lane was only for turning left too. I've subsequently been on google maps and it would appear that, on the basis of the road markings, they are correct, I was in the wrong lane, she was in the right, I accept that.
However, I was ahead of her and perhaps she has a duty to anticipate the traffic and avoid me, coming from behind. Neither of us were indicating.
So the question is (and I'd prefer experienced opinions please - i.e. People that have been in similar situations, lawyers), in the eyes of the law / insurance company and the based upon the deliberately limited details I've provided, where does fault lie - being in the wrong lane, or driving in to someone that was ahead of you? Speeds were slow and there was no sudden movements.
Thanks
Why the fI'm going to keep the details pretty vague as its the principles I'm after rather than technicalities...
So in essence, I was on a off-motorway roundabout, in the left hand land, but turning right. My opponent was in the right hand lane, turning left. I was ahead of them and they clipped the rear-side of my car (on the wheel arch) as they tried to come off and I tried to carry round.
I travel that route regularly and cars always go right from the left hand lane. I've never seen anyone turn left from the right hand lane. However, they claimed that the road markings allowed them to turn left and my lane was only for turning left too. I've subsequently been on google maps and it would appear that, on the basis of the road markings, they are correct, I was in the wrong lane, she was in the right, I accept that.
However, I was ahead of her and perhaps she has a duty to anticipate the traffic and avoid me, coming from behind. Neither of us were indicating.
So the question is (and I'd prefer experienced opinions please - i.e. People that have been in similar situations, lawyers), in the eyes of the law / insurance company and the based upon the deliberately limited details I've provided, where does fault lie - being in the wrong lane, or driving in to someone that was ahead of you? Speeds were slow and there was no sudden movements.
Thanks
king fkity fk would you be in the left lane to turn right? In what kind of parallel universe is that the correct position???Anyone turning right from the left hand lane deserves to be
IMO 
4x4Tyke said:
It sounds like you were in the wrong lane and they were in the correct lane.
It isn't sufficiently clear from the OP's original post which exit on the roundabout the collision occurred at.On the basis of the above illustration I'd say that if the OP was planning on taking the route of the green car, but from the left lane, and the 'opponent' was taking the route of the blue car, but from the right lane, then the OP is at fault. But, if the OP was taking the route of the green car, but from the left lane and the 'opponent' had attempted to take the first exit on the left, but from the right lane, then the 'opponent' is at fault.
WinstonWolf said:
Why the fking fkity fk would you be in the left lane to turn right? In what kind of parallel universe is that the correct position???
Anyone turning right from the left hand lane deserves to be IMO
I can understand fully why he'd do it, but to do when it isn't clear to him that it's er, clear and safe to do so, and to not indicate either... and to then think he isn't 100% at fault?king fkity fk would you be in the left lane to turn right? In what kind of parallel universe is that the correct position???Anyone turning right from the left hand lane deserves to be
IMO Honestly, the belief is totally beggared.
Generally people in the left lane that turn right are either;
Boy racers trying to save 2 mins on their journey by out accelerating the car on their right.
Or
Short women who don't actually know how a roundabout works.
I would guess the op is in the former category - you need a faster car !
Boy racers trying to save 2 mins on their journey by out accelerating the car on their right.
Or
Short women who don't actually know how a roundabout works.
I would guess the op is in the former category - you need a faster car !
MitchT said:
It isn't sufficiently clear from the OP's original post which exit on the roundabout the collision occurred at.
On the basis of the above illustration I'd say that if the OP was planning on taking the route of the green car, but from the left lane, and the 'opponent' was taking the route of the blue car, but from the right lane, then the OP is at fault. But, if the OP was taking the route of the green car, but from the left lane and the 'opponent' had attempted to take the first exit on the left, but from the right lane, then the 'opponent' is at fault.
Not if, as stated, the left lane is left turn only IMO.On the basis of the above illustration I'd say that if the OP was planning on taking the route of the green car, but from the left lane, and the 'opponent' was taking the route of the blue car, but from the right lane, then the OP is at fault. But, if the OP was taking the route of the green car, but from the left lane and the 'opponent' had attempted to take the first exit on the left, but from the right lane, then the 'opponent' is at fault.
The op effectively moved from one lane to the other a few feet in front of a car that was perfectly entitled to go left, and should be able to reasonably expect that the person in the left only lane to their left would be doing the same.
Defensive driving would have prevented a collision but still...100 per cent the OP's fault.
MitchT said:
It isn't sufficiently clear from the OP's original post which exit on the roundabout the collision occurred at.
On the basis of the above illustration I'd say that if the OP was planning on taking the route of the green car, but from the left lane, and the 'opponent' was taking the route of the blue car, but from the right lane, then the OP is at fault. But, if the OP was taking the route of the green car, but from the left lane and the 'opponent' had attempted to take the first exit on the left, but from the right lane, then the 'opponent' is at fault.
Not right as the right hand lane was marked to go left at first exit too and left lane was left exit only which the OP chose not to do. On the basis of the above illustration I'd say that if the OP was planning on taking the route of the green car, but from the left lane, and the 'opponent' was taking the route of the blue car, but from the right lane, then the OP is at fault. But, if the OP was taking the route of the green car, but from the left lane and the 'opponent' had attempted to take the first exit on the left, but from the right lane, then the 'opponent' is at fault.
See my previous post with picture of same slip.
This isn't a roundabout collision in the simplest form.
The OP is at fault, but he'll lie and deny responsibility and many on here will support that. The lane directions on the road actually hold no weight in law, but will contribute to the evidence that he was negligent in his driving. The woman to his right should technically have checked to her left before cutting across, but is unlikely to have more than small amount of contributory negligence given the road markings to support her manoeuvre. The OP's actions are wholly negligent with little to defend himself.
If he gets 80/20 he should count himself lucky, but the impact of 80% liability is the same as 50% or 100%, except for the amount of your excess that you get back.
OP should man up, accept his fault and settle 100/0 against himself.
The OP is at fault, but he'll lie and deny responsibility and many on here will support that. The lane directions on the road actually hold no weight in law, but will contribute to the evidence that he was negligent in his driving. The woman to his right should technically have checked to her left before cutting across, but is unlikely to have more than small amount of contributory negligence given the road markings to support her manoeuvre. The OP's actions are wholly negligent with little to defend himself.
If he gets 80/20 he should count himself lucky, but the impact of 80% liability is the same as 50% or 100%, except for the amount of your excess that you get back.
OP should man up, accept his fault and settle 100/0 against himself.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff