Roundabout collision - who is at fault? With diagram

Just read your updates. Hope that you and the baby are OK.
Sadly, no matter what, even if you're completely innocent, you end up out of pocket. (I was rear-ended by a van, whilst I was stationary at traffic lights... still ended up a couple of hundred out of pocket, when you took time off work, and a physio assessment....)
Take care. Lots of utterly incompetent drivers on the road these days.

Know that roundabout very well and often do as you did, stay in the right lane to continue on straight further on. Blue car at fault here as you were already on the roundabout, the position of the exit from the park means you must have been right in front of them as they pulled out.

Blue. Didn't give way to the right, and ensure that their route was clear.

You have to give way to your right. The blue car is at fault

Red car already on roundabout. Blue car at fault.

Then I doubt they’d care, no cost to them.

You’re right, but in truth insurers want the most cost effective result.

50/50 can be financially more viable than arguing the toss particularly when the insurance covers hire cars and repairs.

If the ducks are in a row though Damage in the right place/witness they will argue for a win.

The other driver’s indicator is a red herring. You both needed to allow each other space and stopping distance, regardless of who was indicating to go where.

Does that now help prove that the blue car did pull out in front then?

My point is that presenting your evidence in a clear and concise way can make a big difference, even when there are no witnesses.

It’s (possibly) also going to send renewal into sky high amounts if you’re going against the advice your own company give.

If .either party accepts fault then no brainer. If no one
does likely 50/50 (without witness). The damage indicates red moved into blue and blues
insurers could argue that. Likely though they’ll weigh up the cost of repair and the cost of arguing it and say 50/50.

@Doris86 Well done for fighting and winning.
But in this case the damage proves that red drove into blue (and the OP has admitted that).

It will only go 50/50 if the OP agrees to that happening. Otherwise she is at liberty to take this to court and argue her case, particularly if she has legal cover as part of her insurance.

I once had someone drift out of their lane and into mine on a roundabout, and collided with me. 100% his fault, but he swore blind it was my fault. There were no witnesses. His insurance company wanted to settle it 50/50. I said no way, let’s take this to court.

I had prepared my case. Took photos of the scene, drew detailed diagrams, taken photos of the damage to the side of my, and also the damage free front of my car (to disprove his version of events that I drove into him). I also explained that I was on my usual route home from work, and there was no reason I would be joining the roundabout from the direction he claimed I was. I also quoted a few things the driver had said to me that implied having accidents was a bit of a habit for him (‘My insurance company told me to call the police next time’)

As soon as a court day was set, the other insurance company suddenly agreed to pay 100% of my claim.

After that I bought a dash cam.

I would say blue car is at fault for entering roundabout knowing it was wanting to go right when it wasn't clear. Even if the red car had observed the blue car i really don't see what the red car could have done to avoid the collision

It’s going to be 50/50 unless there are witnesses.

The damage though indicates red changed lanes without checking as the point of impact at the top corner is going into blues drivers door.

Definitely the blue car.

Make sure you give your insurance company all the details. Draw detailed diagrams, go and take photos of the roundabout to send them etc. Leave them in no doubt that the other driver was at fault.

It's not that shocking. Watch the video a few posts up. If an actual driving instructor and the bloke on the video find it confusing then it's obviously not as straightforward as you like to make out

@sarahd29 Blue damage on driver's door, red damage on n/s front corner (this was in one of the OP's posts).

Based on this picture blue is at fault. Your initial picture made me think of a roundabouts like Hyde park corner. Massive. But this is tiny. The blue should not have entered as there are no lanes in the actual roundabout.

Insurers are weird though. My mum was told she was at fault when she pulled out at a roundabout and someone went into the side of her. I would agree that she would be at fault normally for this type of accident as it would be assumed she pulled out on someone, but in this case the driver wasn't visible on her right when she pulled out because he was drunk and speeding. So she looked to the right. Nothing there so she pulled out. He shot out of nowhere speeding and crashed into her. Driver was prosecuted for being drunk and speeding. But apparently accident was still her fault. Crazy! 🤷‍♀️

I think we need to see actual road markings.

People saying blue because red was on the roundabout are not correct. At the point of blue entering the left hand lane was clear. Both were then on the roundabout in separate lanes.

It comes down to the road markings. Whether the red car crossed in front of the blue or if the blue should know this due to road markings.

If your insurance company wants to do 50/50 they can only do so if you agree. You do not have to agree. My DS didn't, went to court and he won. Other driver was claiming Compensation for injuries which she never got. Good luck. Blue car at fault.

Just seen the pic and hoping to change my mind. Was imaging a much bigger roundabout. On a roundabout of that size, the blue car shouldn't have pulled out and should have waited for you to exit. Think that's fairly clear cut.

Blue car is at fault unless there's a dual lane roundabout with dual lane forward exit and the red cars moved from right to left....but that seems unlikely.