Just witnessed an accident - a question on right-of-way...

[405dogvan]

Followed a car onto a roundabout tonight - car ahead pulls out and I'm about to when a car comes from the right and clips the car ahead's back bumper.

Both drivers stop but I'm late to drop-off someone for work, so I chose to weave around them and do that - given that I have to pass them on the way back anyway...

I return 3-4 mins later to see a near punch-up so I stop and step-in.

Their argument was pretty fierce but it went like this. (A is the guy ahead of me, B is the one who came from the right).

B says A should have given-way to him as he was coming from his right (no argument there).

A says he didn't see B (I didn't see B until I was almost on the roundabout myself but that's different I guess)

B he's he didn't LOOK (I can only re-emphasise that B's arrival was a surprise to me)

A says B was speeding (I'd agree - he certainly didn't slow down for the roundabout and I'd say he was breaking the 30 limit - a lot of people do on that road)

B says he can't prove that and it doesn't matter anyway as he was supposed to give way.

A points to his car being almost over the roundabout and that B should have seen him and slowed - his ENTIRE CAR having passed before him.

A then goes on and this is the bit I'm curious about. He says that the Highway Code states that the 'give way to the right' rule applies to vehicles arriving at the roundabout at the same time. Thing is, A was halfway across the roundabout when B hit him - B was travelling pretty quickly (over the 30 limit IMO) and thus he arrived at the roundabout quite some time after A and had not slowed at-all which was reckless (his words - not mine).

It's clear at this point I can't help - when I mention that I saw the accident, they both call me a liar and so I'm happy to leave. As I do that, I see a Police Car so I'm quite glad I made that choice at that point.

Anyway - my question to you, PH, is - did A have a point about the timing of events? I can't say that B was 'invisible' to A but B was travelling at a fair speed, he could and should have seen A and I'm actually pretty sure that he didn't slow or change direction at all which suggests he wasn't really paying much attention.

I realise A is probably the guilty party but it's one of those situations where someone approaching a roundabout has clear visibility to their right (roads in this case which are seldom used) and so doesn't slow down at all, forgetting that other drivers may not be expecting someone arriving at the roundabout at speed.

and should they have taken my details or are they better off without me! WWPHD?

[The Vambo]

Sounds like the common misinterpretation that vehicles on the left must get out of the way of vehicles approaching from the right matter how fast they are traveling.

[405dogvan]

The Vambo said:

Sounds like the common misinterpretation that vehicles on the left must get out of the way of vehicles approaching from the right matter how fast they are traveling.

That's a very fair description of the scene tbh

[V8RX7]

Last time this type of thing was mentioned a cop said that in general terms if the car entering the island is hit ahead of the doors it's probably his fault.

If he is hit behind the doors it's probably the other guys fault.

I don't think anyone will give a definitive answer and without witnesses I suggest it will be 50:50

[7mike]

Dear insurance company; today I drove into the back of another vehicle on a roundabout because it was my right of way.

[Wish]

In this case speed can't be proved.
The car you were behind was already established on the roundabout, B has collided with what sounds like the rear of the other vehicle.

I would suggest you state the fact to the insurers of both parties and say you too didn't see the car coming from the righ. I think the person on you will be cleared.
Without your input I think it would go 50/50

[LC2]

V8RX7 said:

Last time this type of thing was mentioned a cop said that in general terms if the car entering the island is hit ahead of the doors it's probably his fault.

If he is hit behind the doors it's probably the other guys fault.

I don't think anyone will give a definitive answer and without witnesses I suggest it will be 50:50

Interesting... Must now remember that if faced with a bellend pulling onto a roundabout when I'm already on it, swerve to the right and hit their car ahead of the doors, instead of attempting to get around behind them.
Because, if I don't manage to miss them, it will be my fault, even though they pulled out on me.

[Magic919]

I find mini roundabouts are particularly bad for this. Near where I work I often have to brake to avoid hitting cars failing to yield when I'm already on the roundabout and turning across their path. I just have to assume they won't stop. Just as bad when I try to emerge on the way out.

[Magic919]

It gets called priority, rather than right of way.

[300bhp/ton]

405dogvan said:

Followed a car onto a roundabout tonight - car ahead pulls out and I'm about to when a car comes from the right and clips the car ahead's back bumper.

Both drivers stop but I'm late to drop-off someone for work, so I chose to weave around them and do that - given that I have to pass them on the way back anyway...

I return 3-4 mins later to see a near punch-up so I stop and step-in.

Their argument was pretty fierce but it went like this. (A is the guy ahead of me, B is the one who came from the right).

B says A should have given-way to him as he was coming from his right (no argument there).

A says he didn't see B (I didn't see B until I was almost on the roundabout myself but that's different I guess)

B he's he didn't LOOK (I can only re-emphasise that B's arrival was a surprise to me)

A says B was speeding (I'd agree - he certainly didn't slow down for the roundabout and I'd say he was breaking the 30 limit - a lot of people do on that road)

B says he can't prove that and it doesn't matter anyway as he was supposed to give way.

A points to his car being almost over the roundabout and that B should have seen him and slowed - his ENTIRE CAR having passed before him.

A then goes on and this is the bit I'm curious about. He says that the Highway Code states that the 'give way to the right' rule applies to vehicles arriving at the roundabout at the same time. Thing is, A was halfway across the roundabout when B hit him - B was travelling pretty quickly (over the 30 limit IMO) and thus he arrived at the roundabout quite some time after A and had not slowed at-all which was reckless (his words - not mine).

It's clear at this point I can't help - when I mention that I saw the accident, they both call me a liar and so I'm happy to leave. As I do that, I see a Police Car so I'm quite glad I made that choice at that point.

Anyway - my question to you, PH, is - did A have a point about the timing of events? I can't say that B was 'invisible' to A but B was travelling at a fair speed, he could and should have seen A and I'm actually pretty sure that he didn't slow or change direction at all which suggests he wasn't really paying much attention.

I realise A is probably the guilty party but it's one of those situations where someone approaching a roundabout has clear visibility to their right (roads in this case which are seldom used) and so doesn't slow down at all, forgetting that other drivers may not be expecting someone arriving at the roundabout at speed.

and should they have taken my details or are they better off without me! WWPHD?

All traffic on the round about has priority over traffic wanting to enter it, regardless if they are on your right or not. If B was speeding, then it's obvious they were not on the round about and should have yielded to the car already on the round about.

Sadly I have some first hand experience in this, as when I was 18 I had a nutter on push bike do just this sort of thing and put them selves in hospital as well as ruin the bumper on my new car that I'd only picked up 4 or 5 hours earlier. Luckily a witness stayed and confirmed my claims and the Police sided with me.

[issey23]

The same thing happened to me years ago, while on my way to work (running bit late) the mondeo infront of me was on the mini roundabout turning right, when a car came from the right hit the back of the mondeo and ripped its bumper clean off, I remember this as the bumper rebounded of my golf!

Now the guy from the right (non mondeo driver) said it was the other guys fault as he "was too slow to exit the roundabout and it was his right of way"

The mondeo driver said the other guy "should have slowed down as the roundabout wasn't clear for him to proceed and just because he had right of way don't mean he can just ram into people"

[Pkh72]

7mike said:

Dear insurance company; today I drove into the back of another vehicle on a roundabout because it was my right of way.

The thing is though there are plenty of people quite prepared to do just that.

[405dogvan]

Pkh72 said:

The thing is though there are plenty of people quite prepared to do just that.

It's effectively what happened - a car coming out of a carpark had enough time to get across what is a fairly big roundabout (not a mini but one of those which has a small, properly kerbed island and then a paved bit and then the road) - the collision was "bumper corners" only, lights etc. were all intact so my guess is that "B" just took the fastest line and didn't slow-down at all - the bang was certainly loud enough!

Where they hit, B was mostly on the paved bit - A was not - I'm not sure you've even supposed to use that bit, I thought it was for lorries etc. and you were supposed to stay outside the white line around those??

[V8RX7]

The problem B has is that his driving clearly fell below what a prudent, careful driver would do.

IE to hit a car at / near the back indicates that you should have been able to stop (in most cases)

Rather than "It's my right of way and I'm coming through"

[Atrevetetete]

It's A's fault entirely.

But B is still a bellpiece with no awareness.

[carinaman]

As you saw the accident did B make any attempt to slow down or avoid hitting A?

This reminds me of the foodie dashcam video a bit. It sounds as though it may have been avoidable.

Edited by carinaman on Friday 6th September 04:35

[*Al*]

Who won the punch up? I guess 50/50 insurance.

[Cyrus1971]

I am pretty sure this will go down as knock for knock. Which is insurance cop out for non resolvable of course. Personally I would say 75% Mr B's fault due to speed and rear ending Mr A. If you drive above the speed limit you have to be super aware of others who are in the mindset of dawdling and they will be in the right and can claim to have not seen you and not be in the wrong for that.

[Dr Doofenshmirtz]

The guy coming from the right obviously went close to the chap entering to scare him...and misjudged how close he could get. This is quite common with nobbish drivers.
The bloke coming from the right was 100% wrong.

[kor0]

Dr Doofenshmirtz said:

The guy coming from the right obviously went close to the chap entering to scare him...and misjudged how close he could get. This is quite common with nobbish drivers.
The bloke coming from the right was 100% wrong.

^ this