to wonder what the point of lanes is if someone can crash into you anyway

[RebeccaWithTheGoodHair]

Back in the spring I was in a car accident. It was at a roundabout on an A road dual carriageway.

I was in the right hand lane going over the roundabout to exit in the right hand lane straight ahead. A car was beside me in the left hand lane and should have been going either left or straight ahead into the left hand lane of the dual carriageway. They didn't. They turned right and crashed into the side of me.

My insurers agree that I was correct in a) my driving and b) that is was his fault. But apparently there is a legal precedent where a judge decided that the person in the same situation as me should have been aware of the other car and thus was equally to blame for the accident, this means my insurer will only go for 50/50 in my case.

This has really pissed me off as wtf is the actual point of lanes if a driver can just make a decision to turn right at any point. And I was aware of the fucker, just under the impression he would stick to the rules of the road and not crash into the side of me. Shouldn't he have been aware of me??!!

And to add insult to injury this happened back in May and the other driver still hasn't given his insurers any details of what happened so it hasn't been resolved either way. My insurers seem powerless to hurry it along and won't even tell me how long it could go on for.

AIBU to think it was entirely his fault AND that there must be some time limit on how long he has to make any statement to his own insurers so it can be finally resolved.

I am trying to figure out the logic of the legal precedent

There is a general (nothing to do with motoring specifically) obligation on people to prevent accidents where they can - even if they are 100% in the right. The example I gave upthread was that irrespective of having right of way on a road, if someone pulls out from a side road and you could avoid a collision by performing an emergency stop but don't, and instead barrel into the car "because I had right of way", a court will give you short shrift and suggest the damage is 50/50.

There are several examples I have seen of dashcam footage where people have acted exactly as I have described, (and then get surprised when their insurer refuses to act). It's also worth noting (as some owers don't realise) that most dashcams capture sound as well. So presenting your insurer with footage of you saying "this'll teach them a lesson" just before you hit a car turning out is not a good idea.

Can an insurance company force someone to accept 50/50?Or do they try it just because it is easier to resolve? I know my friends insurance tried but she just kept saying no and throwing it back to them.

Oh OP that is so bloody infuriating.

I agree you should challenge your insuranace company. I think half the time they literally cannot be bothered because it costs them more money to fight it.

I challenged my insurance company a few years back and got it changed to 100% the other arsehole's driver's fault

Isn't the point though that you were supposed to be aware that their are idiots out there who don't know how a roundabout works? That that guy might not have been turning left, even though he's supposed to and avoid crashing into him. It doesn't make a mockery of the lane system, but you cant assume drivers are going to obey it.
This is why I really hate roundabouts because no one ever follows the system.

I will take it further with them though, I didn't know you were allowed to argue with your own insurance company - v law abiding citizen me!

The problem is, it's difficult to force your insurer to do anything - certainly take (expensive) legal action just because you say so. They have obviously made a judgement call that this is the cheapest course of action.

Personally, I would start proceedings against the other driver, and either force them to involve their insurer ( (a) if they have one, and (b) if they have reported this to them), or alternatively defend the action in court. However, be aware that if the magistrates come to the same determination (that you could have prevented the accident and didn't) you will be back to square one.

Obviously if you do win the action, it becomes a stick to then soundly beat your own insurer over the head with.

charlie In my friends situation (which is almost identical to OPs apart form there were 3 lanes) that would have meant driving into the car on her right.

This exact scenario is why I hate roundabouts - everything is a fuzzy judgement call based on what you "think" the other person is going to do. I dont understand why people often say that getting onto the roundabout is the stressful bit when to me its clearly this nasty wooly leaving the roundabout part thats dangerous.

I agree you should challenge your insuranace company. I think half the time they literally cannot be bothered because it costs them more money to fight it.

Not half the time. All the time ...

Lurking Why do you have to startt proceedings against the other driver though? Why can't the OP just keep saying No to her insurance company?

Your insurers can't force you to accept 50/50 now, but if they investigate and can't prove you're 100% non fault, they have the right to deal with the claim as they see fit, which means they will accept 50/50 on your behalf. It's in the terms of your insurance.

At this stage though, they ahouldnt even put 50/50 to the third party insurer, they should be waiting to here how he reports the accident. If he never reports it, his insurance are not able to defend the claim so they'll need to pay out.
They will then have their own procedures to deal with their driver (failing to report a claim is usually grounds to void their insurance). But that's for them to sort out. They should deal with your claim regardless then look to get costs back from their driver.

The precedent was a precious claim where the person in the right hand lane was aware of the driver on the left who was slightly ahead, saw that there was going to be an accident but decided to take their exit anyway, as opposed to continuing around the roundabout.
Where is the damage on both cars? If it shows you were ahead and you can get google maps images of the signs on the approach to the roundabout as well as the layout, you have a good chance of proving you were not at fault.

Just be aware that if you do decide to take it further then the decision is at the whim of the judge who may, or may not agree with you /voe

Sorry about the typos and the here instead of hear!

Interesting points.

OK, so the damage on his (which was a van) was on the right hand by the front headlights. The damage on mine was all down the side, starting from my wing mirror through to the petrol cap. This was because I did try to swerve when I realised he was coming at me.

Isn't the point though that you were supposed to be aware that their are idiots out there who don't know how a roundabout works? That that guy might not have been turning left, even though he's supposed to and avoid crashing into him. It doesn't make a mockery of the lane system, but you cant assume drivers are going to obey it.

Eh?

YADNBU My mum aways told me to assume all other drivers are idiots and it does work. However when you have two lanes going into a two lane highway and the twat on your left decides he wants your lane I really can't see that there is anything at all you can Doreen if you do predict it. You literally have nowhere to go.

Also If We all had the ability to psychically and correctly detect when someone's about to make a total dick move I'm sure we would all be using it...

This type of accident can be avoided. I've avoided it several times by keeping an eye out for cars in the left lane and reacting appropriately when they do, it was something I learned was vital in my driving lessons before I passed this year as both examiner and driving instructor said it was the cause of most accidents on roundabounts & it was down to you as a driver to prevent. Tbh I think you might need a refresher driving lesson or two.

As you were leaving the roundabout, you would have essentially been the one changing lanes, whereas he was continuing round the roundabout in his lane.

I agree with this.

lurking husband I understand what you're saying and there are times when that is definitely the case....for example, giving way to the right at a roundabout.

However, the OP was in the correct lane for going right and other person looked to her to be going the correct way. However, as the other person changed lanes at the last minute, there was no preventable way the OP could have known what the other person was going to do.

Yes, you shouldn't just carry on if you can see they are going to make an illegal move, but the OP didn't know that until she had been hit.

OP, I think you should disputed it as well.

i thought everyone knew that if you missed your turn you just go around again rather than cut someone up? Common sense?

I also had a similar roundabout accident OP.
Mine was sort of reverse though - I was in the left hand lane, intending to go straight ahead (2nd exit). I wasn't indicating.
Car came up alongside me (so arrived at junction after me) so I assumed would probably be going right (3rd exit).
We both set off at the same time. I was aware of him as I knew it wasn't impossible he also intended to go straight on (only one exit lane).
But nope. He took first exit. Or rather tried to. Only I was in the way. He therefore tried to cut across the front of my car and succeeded in damaging it plus the side of his.
I was not impressed. I'm usually very mild mannered and avoid confrontation, but not on this occasion.
What on earth was going through his mind? Did he think he could pull so far ahead of me in just the very short distance to the first exit? He was probably just NOT thinking until he realised it was too late.

To make matters worse, I was only out of hospital a couple of days before after a nasty miscarriage and DH had also had his car damaged by some drunk idiots a few days previously. Not a good week.

Lurking Why do you have to start proceedings against the other driver though? Why can't the OP just keep saying No to her insurance company?

Because you signed a contract with your insurer which gives them the right to act on your behalf - even if you don't agree with it.

You have no such agreement with the other driver (who, let's remember, the OP is blaming 100% for the accident).

I will guarantee one of the reasons the OPs insurance company is acting as they are is - as many people have pointed out - it's cheaper not to involve the other drivers insurance. The downside is the OP will lose their NCB, but who (at the insurance company) cares about that.

I totally get the OPs ire with their insurer. But part of getting what you want is to know where to dig. However you spin this, the OPs insurer was not driving the car which hit them and caused the damage.

i thought everyone knew that if you missed your turn you just go around again rather than cut someone up? Common sense?

She didn't miss her turn. She was in the correct lane and as she exited the roundabout an utter idiot decided he was also going to exit at the same time into her lane. Where the hell do you expect her to go?

Agree with you OP.

Re insurance companies, little story here of how utterly stupid they can be -
Family member was involved in an 'accident' .. lady claimed family member had hit her whilst car was crawling out of a back lane. She sustained a leg injury. Lady claimed she jumped in front of the windscreen and shouted STOP. Family member denies this vehemently, no contact was made with the woman, she was at the side of the car. Case went to court, family member was looking at charge of dangerous driving/without due care and attention etc. CCTV evidence caught the whole incident - completely backed up drivers version, at no point was contact made, lady was never in front of the car. When judge asked lady to explain her version given that CCTV shows she is clearly lying, no contact made, she doesn't go in front of car and shout stop ... she didn't say a word. Medical information from her GP states her 'leg injury' was actually from surgery from a pre existing condition! Judge threw the case out of court. BUT, insurers, even after getting the court letter explaining everything, paid her £17,000 in compensation!!!! Family member argued with insurance company A LOT but they wouldn't back down and paid her the money saying it was cheaper for them to pay her this than go to court to contest it!!

You can't force your insurers to do anything. They can settle any claim as they wish. You have a duty not to try and exit the roundabout until you have ascertained there is no other vehicle in the lane to your left as you need to cross that lane, and cross the path of any traffic in that lane, in order to exit the roundabout Hence the 50/50. Neither of you were sufficiently observant. You assumed he would exit the roundabout. Next time don't make assumptions!

Ah ok Lurking. My friend just kept throwing it back to her insurers and said no. Maybe she was lucky?