Right of way query

[RobM77]

cmaguire said:

Surely you must have known coming on here they'd be lining up to grace you with their wisdom whilst sticking the boot in?
You're merely a vehicle to allow them to feel better about themselves.

Very true! What surprises me is that people are just making things up to criticise me. You're right though, this is PH, and whilst many comments have been very helpful (thank you to those posters), that's not always the case. I have benefitted from some comments though, so thanks.

[waremark]

The other driver was a dick, but I consider that Rob has to accept partial responsibility, and from there it makes no difference whether he is fully or only partly responsible.

I don't agree with the insurance company employee that the entry to the RAB is relevant. I don't think the dubious choice of the left lane by the other driver is relevant either. It is all about the departure from the RAB. From first principles the other guy had priority, but Rob believed he had yielded priority to Rob. The other guy then forced his priority, coming from slightly behind. Many situations in driving depend on a degree of cooperation and Rob was unfortunate not to get it here. I could easily imagine doing the same as Rob, but I fear that I would expect the clash to be settled on a joint liability basis.

I would not expect a forward facing dash cam view to be very helpful since the critical view was behind Rob's right [sorry, edited, left] shoulder.

Edited by waremark on Thursday 16th November 18:21

[cmaguire]

waremark said:

The other driver was a dick, but I consider that Rob has to accept partial responsibility, and from there it makes no difference whether he is fully or only partly responsible.

I don't agree with the insurance company employee that the entry to the RAB is relevant. I don't think the dubious choice of the left lane by the other driver is relevant either. It is all about the departure from the RAB. From first principles the other guy had priority, but Rob believed he had yielded priority to Rob. The other guy then forced his priority, coming from slightly behind. Many situations in driving depend on a degree of cooperation and Rob was unfortunate not to get it here. I could easily imagine doing the same as Rob, but I fear that I would expect the clash to be settled on a joint liability basis.

I would not expect a forward facing dash cam view to be very helpful since the critical view was behind Rob's right shoulder.

The concept of someone 'forcing their priority' is somewhat ridiculous if you are pretty much stationary at the time.

[akirk]

RobM77 said:

cmaguire said:

Surely you must have known coming on here they'd be lining up to grace you with their wisdom whilst sticking the boot in?
You're merely a vehicle to allow them to feel better about themselves.

Very true! What surprises me is that people are just making things up to criticise me. You're right though, this is PH, and whilst many comments have been very helpful (thank you to those posters), that's not always the case. I have benefitted from some comments though, so thanks.

no, that isn't why people respond, but without video we can't be accurate in our comments... the OP is saying that this all happened after the exit, in which case the roundabout has nothing to do with it, however he also talks about 'forcing a merge' which is hardly a standard piece of driving terminology...

the OP doesn't wan't to put up the video, in case of legal issues, but that is probably irrelevant as the insurance companies are sorting it out so there should be no legal issues, however the OP seems to want justification of his moves based on his interpretation, when he has already said that he has (a) overtaken the other car on the roundabout and then (b) forced a merge - ie he has come on faster and driven agressively and cut up the other driver...

there doesn't appear to be any justification for the OP's driving on the roundabout and it would be foolish to assume that his actions, or the actions of the other driver after the roundabout had nothing to do with how he drove on the roundabout...

the original question was around whether it was legal for the other driver to have continued to the right exit from the left lane - answer yes, so that is no mitigation for the crash - so you have to look instead at the actions at the exit to see what happened and all we know is that the OP was driving confidently / aggressively and cut up the other driver... as far as we can tell, all the other driver did wrong was to leave the scene and it is possible that they felt intimidated by the OP

now it is possible that the video shows us the OP being considerate and thoughtful, and pausing to wait for the other car, and only going once the other car has stopped to allow him to proceed, and then the other car revving up and going for the gap / the OP's car - but no e of that seems to match the OP's own description of forcing a merge...

[jimmy the hat]

This is just mental. If it happened as described and we must believe that it did, in the absence of any other testimony, this is 100% the fault of the person who's squeezed up the inside of a car that was ahead of them and hit it in the process. Regardless of what Rob did before or on the roundabout, if it was possible for the third-party to stop and therefore avoid collision, nothing excuses driving into someone who is essentially in front of you.

Personally, I'd be pushing my insurance company and OB as hard as I could to settle this to my satisfaction and I wouldn't be satisfied with any opinion that it was 100% my fault on the basis the insurance company have described. Sadly, however, without comprehensive footage or incriminating account from the third-party, it'd likely be 50/50 at best.

May I hijack the thread to briefly describe the opposite scenario? Same roundabout (ish), my wife enters in the left-hand lane at the same time as a third-party enters in the right, both take the first exit and third-party drives into the right/hand rear-quarter of my wife's car. I'm expecting 50/50 at worst but I'd like to think we live in a world where on reflection the third-party would accept that they were in the wrong and admit liability.

Cheers, Jim

[akirk]

jimmy the hat said:

This is just mental. If it happened as described and we must believe that it did, in the absence of any other testimony, this is 100% the fault of the person who's squeezed up the inside of a car that was ahead of them and hit it in the process. Regardless of what Rob did before or on the roundabout, if it was possible for the third-party to stop and therefore avoid collision, nothing excuses driving into someone who is essentially in front of you.

Personally, I'd be pushing my insurance company and OB as hard as I could to settle this to my satisfaction and I wouldn't be satisfied with any opinion that it was 100% my fault on the basis the insurance company have described. Sadly, however, without comprehensive footage or incriminating account from the third-party, it'd likely be 50/50 at best.

May I hijack the thread to briefly describe the opposite scenario? Same roundabout (ish), my wife enters in the left-hand lane at the same time as a third-party enters in the right, both take the first exit and third-party drives into the right/hand rear-quarter of my wife's car. I'm expecting 50/50 at worst but I'd like to think we live in a world where on reflection the third-party would accept that they were in the wrong and admit liability.

Cheers, Jim

It is exactly the same scenario - ignore how you got onto the roundabout - in both your wife's scenario and the one described by the OP a car on the right is crossing the path of a car on the left / entering their lane - to take an exit - identical...

so bearing that in mind - (and based on the lane from which you enter the roundabout being absolutely irrelevant which it is as both scenarios are totally legal) why do you feel that in the OP's scenario he is in the right and the inside car at fault, whereas in your wife's scenario the other driver is at fault...?

[Toltec]

akirk said:

It is exactly the same scenario - ignore how you got onto the roundabout - in both your wife's scenario and the one described by the OP a car on the right is crossing the path of a car on the left / entering their lane - to take an exit - identical...

so bearing that in mind - (and based on the lane from which you enter the roundabout being absolutely irrelevant which it is as both scenarios are totally legal) why do you feel that in the OP's scenario he is in the right and the inside car at fault, whereas in your wife's scenario the other driver is at fault...?

Probably because in both situations the leading car was established in the exit lane before the collision occurred.

I had a situation where as I pulled on to a roundabout a car already on it switched from the inside to outside lane, no indicator, to take an exit very close to my entry and my front right clipped their rear left. I took that as mainly my fault because the other car was already established on the roundabout, in the end their car was already so beaten up they could not tell if I'd done any more damage so I just paid to fix mine.

[RobM77]

jimmy the hat said:

This is just mental. If it happened as described and we must believe that it did, in the absence of any other testimony, this is 100% the fault of the person who's squeezed up the inside of a car that was ahead of them and hit it in the process. Regardless of what Rob did before or on the roundabout, if it was possible for the third-party to stop and therefore avoid collision, nothing excuses driving into someone who is essentially in front of you.

Personally, I'd be pushing my insurance company and OB as hard as I could to settle this to my satisfaction and I wouldn't be satisfied with any opinion that it was 100% my fault on the basis the insurance company have described. Sadly, however, without comprehensive footage or incriminating account from the third-party, it'd likely be 50/50 at best.

May I hijack the thread to briefly describe the opposite scenario? Same roundabout (ish), my wife enters in the left-hand lane at the same time as a third-party enters in the right, both take the first exit and third-party drives into the right/hand rear-quarter of my wife's car. I'm expecting 50/50 at worst but I'd like to think we live in a world where on reflection the third-party would accept that they were in the wrong and admit liability.

Cheers, Jim

Thanks for your support. Whilst I'm encouraged by the people here saying it's 100% not my fault, some have said 50/50 and some 100% my fault. For that reason, I don't want to pursue it any further. I've been driving for 23 years (23 years 5 days to be precise!) and have never had a fault claim on my insurance or any points on my licence. I'm proud of that record, especially given that I do 25-35k miles a year and have owned various high performance cars (2-Eleven, 2 Caterhams, Elise as a daily, multiple 6 cyl BMWs etc). For me, the small cost of repair is worth it to keep that clean record with just the doubt surrounding this incident; that for me is better than a chance of getting a definite decision which may mar my record and affect my insurance in future years. The fact that someone could view the footage and think it's my fault has completely removed any faith that I had in the insurance assessment process. I don't trust them at all, so I'm stepping back. I respect this AD community though and have enjoyed reading peoples opinions, as always.

[Pica-Pica]

We have all got into the wrong lane at roundabouts, for various reasons, so IMHO that does not count for much at all. It is all about what happened at the point of exit. In these circumstances, you either let them through or ensure there is no gap to come through. Ultimately these situations come down to who has the most to lose from a 'coming together'.

[RobM77]

Pica-Pica said:

We have all got into the wrong lane at roundabouts, for various reasons, so IMHO that does not count for much at all. It is all about what happened at the point of exit. In these circumstances, you either let them through or ensure there is no gap to come through. Ultimately these situations come down to who has the most to lose from a 'coming together'.

Unfortunately I was in the centre of the exit lane, which had left a gap he could get through with a bit of contact and wing mirror bashing...

[akirk]

Toltec said:

akirk said:

It is exactly the same scenario - ignore how you got onto the roundabout - in both your wife's scenario and the one described by the OP a car on the right is crossing the path of a car on the left / entering their lane - to take an exit - identical...

so bearing that in mind - (and based on the lane from which you enter the roundabout being absolutely irrelevant which it is as both scenarios are totally legal) why do you feel that in the OP's scenario he is in the right and the inside car at fault, whereas in your wife's scenario the other driver is at fault...?

Probably because in both situations the leading car was established in the exit lane before the collision occurred.

I had a situation where as I pulled on to a roundabout a car already on it switched from the inside to outside lane, no indicator, to take an exit very close to my entry and my front right clipped their rear left. I took that as mainly my fault because the other car was already established on the roundabout, in the end their car was already so beaten up they could not tell if I'd done any more damage so I just paid to fix mine.

I think it is more subtle than that - and a lot also depends on what you mean by 'established'

If someone is coming from the right hand lane across the path of a car in the left hand lane - then to do that they must be clear of both lane and other car - if as in the OP's description there was traffic in the exit road, then presumably (we are still not exactly clear how it happened) the collision took place partly across the left hand lane - i.e. the lane the other car was occupying and across which the OP drove... you don't 'establish' yourself just by being ahead, that allows someone to cut up another car - if the OP didn't clear both car and left lane then accident = his fault... if he cleared both and was completely into the exit road and didn't require the other car to do an emergency stop by leaving too little space - then other car's fault, but he won't give complete clarity on that, and based on his using terminology such as forcing a merge suggests that he bullied his way in - not my suggestion, his wording... so although the actual impact may not have been his fault - the description of the driving prior to impact and putting the OP in that location showed a number of mistakes he made...

so from all the description we have - the OP was not established in the left lane before being hit - he cut across another car / forced a merge / bullied his way through - however you like to see it - his description clearly states that he forced space for his car - hardly surprising he was hit... like many on here who come on with beliefs that they were right, sometimes when you explore what they were doing, perhaps there were issues?

and let us come back to several points if we want to try and understand it...
the insurance company who have seen the footage (and presumably have every incentive to find the other car at fault) consider it to be the OP's fault
the OP said:
- the other car's bumper was level with the middle of the OP's car - overlap
- the OP thought he was ahead so started to move over (i.e. aiming at the other car)
- the OP slowed (making it worse)
- the other car dropped back (presumably stamping on his brakes!)
- his dropping back was the OP's signal to complete the exit (no it was a reaction to a car driving at him!)
- the other car then pulled up in a queue - so the OP basically forced his way into another car to join a queue
- "I made my decision on the merge (which I treated as a 'zip merge' on who was in front)" - no, you don't zip merge across someone else's lane to take an exit - it is called cutting them up!
-" I was ahead, I was in the right lane and I was indicating, whereas he was in the wrong lane, not indicating and behind me" - no - the OP was in the wrong lane, the correct lane would have been the left lane, he had to drive across the other car's path - what if the other car was circling the roundabout having missed his turning? The other car was not behind - they overlapped by half a car
- "I forced a merge" - probably the most accurate statement yet - no driving should ever force anything!

it really sounds as though the OP had a fixed idea about who was allowed where / which lanes -> which exits, and therefore was going to drive that path regardless of any other car in the way...

ultimately the OP drove into another car who managed to avoid him all the talk about which lane you should be in / forcing a merge / zip-merges / etc. simply highlights a distinct lack of understanding of the highway code...

so, yes the other car may have deliberately hit the OP - the actual impact may not have been the OP's fault, but he didn't exactly get it right before that, and the insurance company is not going to pursue the other car based on video footage showing the OP bullying his way around a roundabout and through another car...

Edited by akirk on Thursday 16th November 17:44

[RobM77]

Sorry if my explanation lacked clarity. Basically as soon as I saw the guy there I realised that 2 was going to go into 1. At that point I was ahead by half a car length, so to me it seemed logical to continue to exit and see what happened. He dropped back, so I continued to exit. When I'd finished exiting and was crawling up to the queue ahead with the steering wheel straight and clutch down (~1mph), he decided he wasn't happy and barged his way through. The key point there was that at the point it was apparent we were heading for the same place, I was ahead. If I was behind, I'd have yielded. It seemed to me to be a bit bizarre at the point I spotted him to back right off and wait for him to undertake me (I'd worry about slowing so much on a roundabout with other vehicles around), although if it happens again I may just do that so at least I'm in better control of the situation.

Edited by RobM77 on Thursday 16th November 18:32

[akirk]

RobM77 said:

Sorry if my explanation lacked clarity. Basically as soon as I saw the guy there I realised that 2 was going to go into 1. At that point I was ahead by half a car length, so to me it seemed logical to continue to exit and see what happened. He dropped back, so I continued to exit. When I'd finished exiting and was crawling up to the queue ahead with the steering wheel straight and clutch down (~1mph), he decided he wasn't happy and barged his way through. The key point there was that at the point it was apparent we were heading for the same place, I was ahead. If I was behind, even by a gnat's whisker, I'd have yielded. It seemed to me to be a bit bizarre to back right off and wait for him to undertake me, although if it happens again I may just do that so at least I'm in better control of the situation.

I understand where you are coming from - but you need to think of this differently...

Scenario 1
If you had been on a dual carriageway in the right hand lane needing a left exit - and you were overlapping a car in the left lane also taking that exit - would you have assumed that you were clear to go across the other car / across their lane / and take the exit - I doubt it...

Scenario 2
had you been in the right-hand lane of a dual carriageway overlapping a car in the left hand lane and the two lanes were coming down to one / single carriageway - typical zip merge - then you would have been absolutely right in your decisions

but you were in the equivalent of Scenario 1 - but drove it as though you were in scenario 2...
the easy way to decide is - what choices does each car have:

Scenario 1 - both could continue on in their lanes - or turn left and take the exit
Scenario 2 - both must continue straight ahead and have to merge into one lane - no choices - therefore the car ahead goes first, even when not fully ahead

Which scenario does yours match? Scenario 1 - because both cars had choices and could have continued around the roundabout - if the other car had missed their left turning at 9 o-clock and was lapping the roundabout to return to it - they would have been continuing in that lane - you cut across them, maybe you actually forced him off the roundabout - which would explain why he was originally in the left lane / wasn't indicating / was annoyed!

this bit is the error:

RobM77 said:

The key point there was that at the point it was apparent we were heading for the same place, I was ahead. If I was behind, even by a gnat's whisker, I'd have yielded.

You were not ahead - you were in a different lane and he had priority - in such a scenario, you must give way - you can absolutely go across his lane assuming that you can do so without the other car having to change course or alter their progress etc. - but a half car overlap doesn't allow that...

back to my two scenarios on a dual carriageway above - in scenario 1 you would never have just turned left across the path of another car - esp. not with a half car overlap! It is clear that in that scenario they would have priority - you are crossing their lane
- in scenario 2, a zip merge would have been good and your being ahead would have made the difference because both have to join the new single lane - neither in a zip merge has priority, so you take turns determined by who is there first

two totally different scenarios...

[waremark]

akirk said:

You were not ahead - you were in a different lane and he had priority -

But was he though? Or at the time of the accident had Rob already changed lanes successfully, in fact was out of the RAB, when the other driver who had already been overtaken drove into him?

[akirk]

waremark said:

akirk said:

You were not ahead - you were in a different lane and he had priority -

But was he though? Or at the time of the accident had Rob already changed lanes successfully, in fact was out of the RAB, when the other driver who had already been overtaken drove into him?

I think that in reality there were two separate issues here:
- how the OP drove the roundabout, which from his own description was not ideal
- a second and separate incident in which the other car hit him
it is quite probable that the two were connected (presumably the insurance company thought so having seen the footage), but we have no way of knowing, and we don't know without seeing that footage exactly what happened to cause the impact... all we know from the OP's comments is that he made a silly / dangerous move in cutting up another car when leaving the roundabout

[Solocle]

akirk said:

I think that in reality there were two separate issues here:
- how the OP drove the roundabout, which from his own description was not ideal
- a second and separate incident in which the other car hit him
it is quite probable that the two were connected (presumably the insurance company thought so having seen the footage), but we have no way of knowing, and we don't know without seeing that footage exactly what happened to cause the impact... all we know from the OP's comments is that he made a silly / dangerous move in cutting up another car when leaving the roundabout

Indeed. I also would regard the other vehicle as having made a silly / dangerous move going into the wrong lane. After all, we all get in the wrong lane on roundabouts. But when you do, you go with it or give way to all other vehicles.
Perhaps 70/30, but it would definitely help to see the footage.

[waremark]

akirk said:

I think that in reality there were two separate issues here:
- how the OP drove the roundabout, which from his own description was not ideal
- a second and separate incident in which the other car hit him
it is quite probable that the two were connected (presumably the insurance company thought so having seen the footage), but we have no way of knowing, and we don't know without seeing that footage exactly what happened to cause the impact... all we know from the OP's comments is that he made a silly / dangerous move in cutting up another car when leaving the roundabout

I am not convinced that the OP did anything which I would not do in leaving the RAB. Presumably he was showing his left indicator, the other driver slowed and seemed to be yielding priority, so he accepted it rather than both waiting for the other. Wouldn't you have done that? We cannot know precisely how far he had got when the other driver increased relative speed, so indicating that he was not in fact yielding priority. I don't expect we would know any more even if we viewed the camera footage.

I hope that if I had initially decided it was appropriate to leave the RAB ahead of the other car I would have continued to monitor it carefully, and I might have seen that it was not actually yielding in time to stop and let it go. But if the other car did not start to gain on the OP until the OP was stopped by the traffic in front of him then this option would not have been open to him.

AK, I think you show far too much respect for the probably ignorant junior clerk at the insurance company who will have assessed the information. I would attach no weight to his assessment. However, I think that in any case which is not completely clear cut liability is shared, and if any degree of liability at all attaches to you you lose your no claims bonus. Even if no blame whatsoever attaches to you and you make a 100% recovery from the other party, your insurance record is still affect and renewal becomes significantly more expensive. Therefore Rob is certainly right not to pursue this through insurance.

BTW, I know you both to be expert and excellent drivers.

[akirk]

waremark said:

I am not convinced that the OP did anything which I would not do in leaving the RAB.

I think the simple issue here was treating the exit as a dual->single carriageway zip merge - I would be very surprised if I had seen you do that...
the fact that the other car was overlapping by 50% means that the OP must have turned into the other car - despite seeing it there - the correct course of action would have been to continue around the roundabout - or paused and come in behind the other driver...

what happened after that decision - well the OP's comments don't suggest that his actions once in the queue were wrong at all - so the impact is probably not his fault per se - but I can see that the preceding actions will have coloured how the insurance company looked at it...

the other thread running currently about a learner driving cutting them up that thread poster demonstrates with clarity how easy it is for people to put up one perspective (which suits them, justifying what they did), yet the video that person put up clearly shows really poor driving when they floor it onto the roundabout to cut up another car - causing issues for the learner... if drivers are so lacking in self-perception and awareness that they can actually put a video up that shows such bad driving and use it as evidence to blame someone else, then we need to start seeing the new norm for driving as being highly cynical of any claim that someone else was at fault...

I actually think the OP of this thread has been far more honest than most drivers and in some ways it is a shame that he didn't phrase the original differently - because the impact probably wasn't his fault, but he focused so much on the driving as being okay on the roundabout that it casts doubt on the rest...

there are frequent posts on here where drivers blame others because they have an insufficient understanding of the Highway Code - many drivers seem to want it to be far more B&W than it really is - anyway, the original question ref. lanes and exits has been answered - so not much more to discuss...

[RobM77]

Thank you for the discussion - it's all very helpful

[S0updr4g0n]

Interesting discussion. Having been involved in something sort of similar (albeit a junction and a plonker overtaking me as I made the manoeuvre, court pending) it sounds like you've accepted the 'judgement' from the insurers? If so, could you not just post the vid anyway?