Right of way query
Discussion
RobM77 said:
I notified the police and gave them the details. I'd hope they'd be interested in someone playing bumper cars too. I've saved ten minutes of footage before and five minutes after the incident to prove there was no communication or road rage between us.
Did you call the police at the time and report the incident? The other driver could have been under the influence of drink or drugs, and there was more than a suspicion that this may have been the case by him driving off and failing to stop following an accident...akirk said:
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...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
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...?
In Rob's case, we either believe that he'd left the roundabout and was virtually stationary and then the TP forced himself through a gap that wasn't even there, - as described, or we make up our own sequence of events.
My wife's case is one where some div has tried to drive through somebody to exit a roundabout. Apparently, we don't live in the world I'd like. I have a pretty good idea of what was going on inside his car but, unfortunately, unless I have access to footage from a camera in there it's a little difficult to prove just how cluelessly negligent he's been.
Cheers, Jim
FlyingFin said:
RobM77 said:
I notified the police and gave them the details. I'd hope they'd be interested in someone playing bumper cars too. I've saved ten minutes of footage before and five minutes after the incident to prove there was no communication or road rage between us.
Did you call the police at the time and report the incident? The other driver could have been under the influence of drink or drugs, and there was more than a suspicion that this may have been the case by him driving off and failing to stop following an accident...jimmy the hat said:
akirk said:
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...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
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...?
In Rob's case, we either believe that he'd left the roundabout and was virtually stationary and then the TP forced himself through a gap that wasn't even there, - as described, or we make up our own sequence of events.
My wife's case is one where some div has tried to drive through somebody to exit a roundabout. Apparently, we don't live in the world I'd like. I have a pretty good idea of what was going on inside his car but, unfortunately, unless I have access to footage from a camera in there it's a little difficult to prove just how cluelessly negligent he's been.
Cheers, Jim
There would be no point in me lying of course - I wanted to describe the events as accurately as possible so that I would know what people thought. If people want to make stuff up that's fair enough, but obviously if they're not commenting on my incident then I will ignore what they say! I agree with the above - it wasn't my fault at all. However, given the low cost of repair and my completely clean driving record, I don't want to take any chances with the insurance company and after their decision I won't be pursuing it further. Needless to say, the guy who hit me never reported it, presumably because he understood that he was obviously at fault (which is also presumably why he sped off). Needless to say, I'll be changing my insurance company when it comes time to renew.TooMany2cvs said:
Even if it said you can't - which it doesn't - then that still doesn't mean you can change lane into their path... Rules 187 and 147 (points ii and iii), remember...? 187 explicitly says watch out for people doing what this guy did, and give them room.
BTW, official Highway Code is at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code
BTW, official Highway Code is at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code
HighwayCode186 said:
When taking an exit to the right or going full circle, unless signs or markings indicate otherwise
signal right and approach in the right-hand lane
keep to the right on the roundabout until you need to change lanes to exit the roundabout
signal left after you have passed the exit before the one you want.
Seems pretty clear that the other driver was acting contrary to the HC in his manoeuvre.signal right and approach in the right-hand lane
keep to the right on the roundabout until you need to change lanes to exit the roundabout
signal left after you have passed the exit before the one you want.
HightwayCode187 said:
In all cases watch out for and give plenty of room to:
- traffic which may be straddling lanes or positioned incorrectly
This giving room to traffic positioned incorrectly would back up the OP's insurance company but it equally applies to the other driver who, being behind from the OP's account, should have let the OP merge in rather than shooting for a non-existent gap and clipping the OP's car.- traffic which may be straddling lanes or positioned incorrectly
To me this is the insurance company deciding that its easier to make the OP take the hit on their insurance than spend time, effort, and money, contesting it with the other driver's insurance company.
Bit late to this party, but what is happening is the insurance company have played for a 50/50 settlement right from the off. By telling you it's your fault 100%, your more likely to accept 50/50.
The reason they want to go 50/50? Because they get to take some NCB away AND your premiums go up purely for having an accident as well, 50/50 is the most profitable for them in the long term. Usually they like to drag things out until past your renewal date too, so that they can suspend all your NCB and charge the earth for your next renewal.
https://www.facebook.com/Idiotukdriversmedia/video...
Different scenario I know but the car (MiTo) in the left hand lane was deemed at fault for this collision even though he was continuing on the roundabout and the vehicle with the cam was exiting left from the rh lane.
Must be something to do with the arrows...and also two lanes on the roundabout.
So, not always clear cut fault if somebody exits from a rh lane and collides with a car continuing round the rab in the lh lane....??
courty said:
https://www.facebook.com/Idiotukdriversmedia/video...
Different scenario I know but the car (MiTo) in the left hand lane was deemed at fault for this collision even though he was continuing on the roundabout and the vehicle with the cam was exiting left from the rh lane.
Must be something to do with the arrows...and also two lanes on the roundabout.
So, not always clear cut fault if somebody exits from a rh lane and collides with a car continuing round the rab in the lh lane....??
Thanks. What I find interesting about that is that according to the comments it took months to prove it wasn't the camera car's fault.Different scenario I know but the car (MiTo) in the left hand lane was deemed at fault for this collision even though he was continuing on the roundabout and the vehicle with the cam was exiting left from the rh lane.
Must be something to do with the arrows...and also two lanes on the roundabout.
So, not always clear cut fault if somebody exits from a rh lane and collides with a car continuing round the rab in the lh lane....??
The difference with my incident is that we'd already left the roundabout and I was ahead, with him coming past me at that point. That should mean it wasn't my fault if the above incident wasn't the camera car's fault. To be honest, I've pretty much decided now that it wasn't my fault and the insurance company were in the wrong. I daren't pursue it any further though for the aforementioned reasons. I'll keep my no claims bonus and repair it myself (the damage is still on my car as the accident repair place near work keep 'forgetting' to send me the quote - I don't think they want such a trivial case to be honest, although I wish they would be a bit more sincere!).
M666 EVO said:
Did you get the other guys plate at least?
Maybe the insurance company put you at fault so they don't have to bother with chasing the other guy for pay out.
Yes, I got the whole thing on dashcam - as described earlier. The insurance company did initially say that it's almost impossible to chase the guy because it was a pool car and they've dealt with the company before. Perhaps that was their reason for saying it was my fault? Whatever their reasons, I won't be insuring with them again.Maybe the insurance company put you at fault so they don't have to bother with chasing the other guy for pay out.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff