Dash cam accident fault

[tali1]

Just wanted to know how conclusive is it that the Citroen is at fault?
http://sendvid.com/ueyphe0h

[Heartworm]

Jeez thats terrible driving, I'd have thought 100% Citroen.

[Bill]

If say that's conclusive.

[Lindun]

50/50 Grace vs Tanner. Case law precedent set in stone. All lower courts MUST follow this precedent set in the court of Appeal. Your camera will not override this, all it will do is absolutely confirm that this case law applies.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/354.h...

Edited by Lindun on Friday 6th September 19:54

[Alucidnation]

Another reason to never stay in the outside land at roundabouts it junctions where two lanes go through.

Did the other driver stop?

[Bill]

Lindun said:

50/50 Grace vs Tanner. Case law precedent set in stone. All lower courts MUST follow this precedent set in the court of Appeal. Your camera will not override this.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/354.h...

Apart from the arrows marking the direction and the bit where the Citroen suddenly turned right out of their lane.

[Lindun]

Bill said:

Apart from the arrows marking the direction and the bit where the Citroen suddenly turned right out of their lane.

Which makes no difference at all.

[meatballs]

Lindun said:

50/50 Grace vs Tanner. Case law precedent set in stone. All lower courts MUST follow this precedent set in the court of Appeal. Your camera will not override this.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/354.h...

You are assuming that it's going to court and not being settled by insurance parties.

Also were there signed lane markings in that case? (Don't know if it makes a difference to the courts)

[Lindun]

meatballs said:

Lindun said:

50/50 Grace vs Tanner. Case law precedent set in stone. All lower courts MUST follow this precedent set in the court of Appeal. Your camera will not override this.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/354.h...

You are assuming that it's going to court and not being settled by insurance parties.

Also were there signed lane markings in that case? (Don't know if it makes a difference to the courts)

Insurance companies will only settle claims in line with case law. There’s no reason for them to pay out on claims that they know a court won’t force them to. If the other insurer says 50/50, then what? The only route for the OP’s insurer is court and they already know how that court must find, as its bound by the findings of a higher court. Do you think they’ll spend a fortune trying to challenge this case law all the way to the House of Lords over what is a few thousand pound claim at most?

For the benefit of those quoting the road markings, bottom one, clearly states indicative, not compulsory.

https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/road-markings.html

I know it’s not what people want to hear, but these are the facts. What might happen is an inexperienced claims handler might settle fully in the OP’s favour, but he’s relying on inexperience to get that.

[tali1]

on google images , best view i could get.it seems the exit is narrow and then widens -making the Citroen pull out ?Also, what appear to be previous road markings (that should have been clearly removed ?) following a a different contour , that don't help

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.7161056,-2.6601175...

[PorkInsider]

If what Lindun is saying is what's going to pan out, I'd try reporting to the police, OP.

It might not change the insurance outcome but it might get the utter fkwit in the Citroen put straight.

[Bill]

Lindun said:

Which makes no difference at all.

Did you read the link you posted? The judgement clearly talks about following the outside lane and not making any sudden turns. In the video it's clear from the lane markings the Citroen doesn't follow the outside and changes lane suddenly.

[Lindun]

Bill said:

Lindun said:

Which makes no difference at all.

Did you read the link you posted? The judgement clearly talks about following the outside lane and not making any sudden turns. In the video it's clear from the lane markings the Citroen doesn't follow the outside and changes lane suddenly.

I think you need to review your understanding of which lane is considered to be the outside lane on a roundabout.

The Citroen is in the inside lane, the OP in the outside lane. The Citroen doesn’t change lanes, it carries on round the roundabout. The OP arguably changes lanes, but definitely cuts across the inside lane. The `court of `appeal have ruled that both drivers are deemed equally at fault, as neither considered other road users when making their manoeuvre.

That’s it really. It doesn’t matter what you or I think, it’s what the court has ruled. That ruling ties all lower courts to find in that direction. No option, no discussion, no nothing.

FWIW I agree that the Citroen driver is an arse and should be penalised, but that’s not what was asked and it serves no purpose to give the OP false hope.

[meatballs]

Lindun said:

Insurance companies will only settle claims in line with case law. There’s no reason for them to pay out on claims that they know a court won’t force them to. If the other insurer says 50/50, then what?

I think you give insurance companies far too much credit.

[Lindun]

meatballs said:

The case seems to consider two lanes that go all the way around the roundabout. It looks to me like it becomes one lane further on so the person on the left would be making the lane change to stay on the roundabout.

It doesn’t. It’s two lane again all the way round, but for some reason the markings aren’t there at exits. Coincidentally I live about 5 miles south of that roundabout, so know it well. It’s the M6 / M65 interchange. Very clear on google maps.

Blue arrow points to where the accident happened

Edited by Lindun on Friday 6th September 20:37

[Bill]

Lindun said:

I think you need to review your understanding of which lane is considered to be the outside lane on a roundabout.

The Citroen is in the inside lane, the OP in the outside lane. The Citroen doesn’t change lanes, it carries on round the roundabout. The OP arguably changes lanes, but definitely cuts across the inside lane. The `court of `appeal have ruled that both drivers are deemed equally at fault, as neither considered other road users when making their manoeuvre.

That’s it really. It doesn’t matter what you or I think, it’s what the court has ruled. That ruling ties all lower courts to find in that direction. No option, no discussion, no nothing.

FWIW I agree that the Citroen driver is an arse and should be penalised, but that’s not what was asked and it serves no purpose to give the OP false hope.

Sorry, I misquoted the judgement. They same "same lane". If say the Citroen changes lane going from one with straight on markings to make a turn right. They also do it suddenly (imo) running contrary to the judgement's reasoning. "She made no sudden movements. It would be nonsense, in my judgment, to say that everyone who misses their turn off a roundabout is negligent. It does not make any sense. It would have been negligent to have moved and swerved violently into the right-hand lane, but that did not happen. Mrs Tanner kept her course."

I'd say the Citroen did move and swerve violently into the right hand lane.

Where's AGTlaw when you need him??

[Lindun]

Bill said:

Sorry, I misquoted the judgement. They same "same lane". If say the Citroen changes lane going from one with straight on markings to make a turn right. They also do it suddenly (imo) running contrary to the judgement's reasoning. "She made no sudden movements. It would be nonsense, in my judgment, to say that everyone who misses their turn off a roundabout is negligent. It does not make any sense. It would have been negligent to have moved and swerved violently into the right-hand lane, but that did not happen. Mrs Tanner kept her course."

I'd say the Citroen did move and swerve violently into the right hand lane.

Where's AGTlaw when you need him??

Agtlaw deals with “criminal” traffic offences, not civil matters regarding insurance and liability.

Your opinion is the same as my personal opinion, but it doesn’t override the facts and legal precedent. Look at the photo I’ve posted and the google maps so you can play around. The lane dividers stop at each exit of the roundabout. There is no swerving, there is no lane changing on the inside lane. We can disagree all night, but it won’t alter what will happen. It would be nice to know from the OPwnat his insurance companies aynhave said, as the incident seems to be fairly old.

[Bill]

Well that's just silly.

[meatballs]

Lindun said:

It doesn’t. It’s two lane again all the way round, but for some reason the markings aren’t there at exits. Coincidentally I live about 5 miles south of that roundabout, so know it well. It’s the M6 / M65 interchange. Very clear on google maps.

Blue arrow points to where the accident happened

Edited by Lindun on Friday 6th September 20:37

Yeah I deleted that message as when I watched it back I noticed it was two lanes but the fisheye makes it seem like one unless you look carefully!

[anonymous-user]

It's interesting with what Lindun has said. So if the TP did that on his driving test, he could have still passed?