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 was in an identical accident 7 years ago. The diagram that she submitted to the insurers proved she was in the wrong lane, she wrote where she started to indicate off the roundabout which was just before the exit she was supposed to take. She carried on round, and crashed into the side of me, I tried to avoid but she carried on straight into me. She was oblivious I was there and didn't mention me in her statement (apart from collision site on her diagram), I apparently came out of nowhere. I wasn't speeding, in fact I was going under the speed limit, and the roundabout was a big one with the sides about 50 meters in length as the A road is underneath and has two lanes in each direction. ()

Simple rule for roundabouts. Anything up to 12oclock on the sign is left hand lane, anything after 12 o clock is right hand lane. It's all to do with the sign though, not the actual location of the exits.

OP was in the correct lane on and off the roundabout .. other driver was in the incorrect lane for his manoeuvre ... simple as.

Nicknameofawesome

i meant the person who cut her off, not OP!

A friend of mine was overtaking some parked cars whilst a woman, on her phone and doing around 40mph, wasn't looking, turned onto the road and crashed into my friend. Because technically my friend was on the wrong side of the road (overtaking parked cars) she had to admit 50% fault which massively impacted her car insurance considering she was only 18

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

Insurance is a (tightly) regulated industry, and insurers have to defend their decisions to the FCA and PRA. If a customer can push the right buttons, they might get some leverage. But it's an awful lot less effort to go after the other driver (and if they aren't insured, pull on the MIB). It all depends on whether you enjoy being "right" or getting the money back. I'm a lazy sod generally, so would take the path of least resistance ....

Because technically my friend was on the wrong side of the road (overtaking parked cars)

Not only technically - physically too . The key word there is "overtaking" - a manoeuvre which requires extra care and attention. Your friends should have been going at a speed where she could stop if someone (a child) ran out from between parked cars.

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!

Then what the point is of the lanes in the first place?

I wouldn't be happy to accept 50:50 in this crash situation. But I'm not sure why your insurance company are asking you to do this, when the other driver hasn't even gone through his insurers yet? Eh? No way!
On another point:
i thought everyone knew that if you missed your turn you just go around again rather than cut someone up? Common sense?
I can see where this poster is coming from. If I'm in the RH lane turning right on a roundabout and there is a car perfectly abreast & parallel in the left hand lane; I won't pull off the roundabout - I'll come all the way around again. But I am a very defensive driver and don't trust anyone after a very bad similar accident.

Lanes is guidance. Not set in stone or a right.

So you were both going straight over, but he was going in the left and you were going in the right?

Technically, while i agree that a dual carriageway roundabout has that facility for two lanes of traffic to cross it, he ha every right to switch to the Right Hand land of the 'straight over' when he pulled off.

There are loads of R'abouts like that here, if you're going to exit in the right hand lane, then you ought to be aware of what the person on the left is doing as its actually their right of way as they also had reasonable belief you were going right, not exiting the same place as them.

I don't think you will be able to contest the 50/50.

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!

Then what the point is of the lanes in the first place?

Exactly, and what if the markings on the road indicate you can get in the right and left hand lanes to exit that junction? Are you supposed to stop or just keep going around the roundabout until you can get off? If you are on a busy roundabout you could be going round and round for a very long time. What if, in my case the other driver is indicating off?

Hang on a minute Cherry, the left lane other driver on this roundabout may have assumed OP was turning right but the other driver should never have attempted to turn right on a roundabout in the left hand laneThat's the only way such a crash could have happened.
If both drivers had pulled off straight on 12 O'Clock, in LH &RH lanes, no collision could have occurred.
So definitely not unreasonable of the OP to question the unfairness of 50:50!

Not only technically - physically too grin. The key word there is "overtaking" - a manoeuvre which requires extra care and attention. Your friends should have been going at a speed where she could stop if someone (a child) ran out from between parked cars.
I'm not sure you read my post in it's entirety, the other driver came onto this road at around 40mph. My friend could have been driving at 5mph, or stationary in fact, and the crash still would have occurred. This was apparent from the fact it was the side of my friend's car that was crashed in to, not a head collision.

All those saying that op was technically in the wrong and the other driver has right of way seriously need to read up on the Highway Code. The op was in the correct lane the other driver was in the wrong lane, the other driver was at fault not op.

OP, my ex boyfriend was killed on his motorbike by somebody doing exactly to him what that idiot driver did to you. Other driver in the left hand lane but drove straight past all the lefthand exits to continue right, ploughed straight into my ex who was exiting the roundabout into the righthand lane and resulted in a tragedy.

I can't believe the injustice involved with your insurance, you were in no way at fault. How utterly shit. I am outraged for you.

Lanes is guidance. Not set in stone or a right.

Seriously?

Lanes are there to guide you to the right exit.

Magic so sorry for you, puts an insurance quibble into perspective.

It's a win win for your insurer isn't it? No expensive pursuit of the at fault driver and your premiums go up if you accept the 50/50 blame.
There seems to be a worrying number of drivers who have no idea of the rules of the road, particularly so when it comes to roundabouts, and you can tell by the way they're driving/reacting that it's not merely due to arrogance, they genuinely have no idea they're in the wrong. I have to drive DCs to local station for the school bus every morning/evening and in and out of a major city every day. It's not an exaggeration to say I have to take what amounts to evasive action at least once every day.

There is no such thing as right of way in British motoring law - it is priority, that is a significant difference in the event of an accident.

White lines are generally guidance to assist, but not always mandatory

A person in the left lane of a roundabout is allowed to keep circulating the roundabout in that lane for as long as they wish - nothing illegal in doing that

The driver within the inside lane is crossing another lane to exit e.g. with a 4 junction roundabout at 12 / 3 / 6/ 9 if you are going from 6 to 12 as described someone could also be driving from 9 to 3 in the inside lane why would you feel that you have priority over them?

2 lane exits from a roundabout are so that when two cars exit simultaneously it can take the traffic load. In the UK a right hand lane is only for overtaking, unless marked separately (e.g. as left / right / straight on only). Therefore in entering in the right lane, travelling through the roundabout in the right lane and exiting in the right lane, the OP should only be doing that if using that lane to overtake cars doing the same in the left lane - otherwise, if there is no need to overtake the OP should move back into the left lane prior to exiting the roundabout.

When overtaking the person doing the overtaking should give way to the person being overtaken unless there is a change of lanes, in which case the person changing lane gives way to the person remaining in their lane. At all other times the person changing lane gives way to the person already established in that lane. The OP was crossing lanes and didn't give way to the person already in that lane.

The other driver may have made a valid assumption that in choosing to enter via the right hand lane the OP would be turning right - why was the OP in that lane...? You can use any lane, but if you choose one where it might confuse someone else there is even more obligation to ensure that you prevent confusion / avoid accidents...

There is an expectation that all road users should do all they can to avoid an accident

So, sorry to hear about the accident but while a common misunderstanding, actually the OP's use of the roundabout has some misconceptions. Yes, she wasn't necessarily to expect the other vehicle to continue, but she did make the assumption that it was going straight on - so a scenario where the other driver's action was unexpected and the OP didn't allow for the unexpected / didn't observe the niceties of changing lanes / crossing their lane / made an assumption etc. - 50:50 sounds quite likely.

Ultimately many people use roundabouts very badly, there is also an inaccurate assumption in the UK about rights in motoring which perhaps leads to further assumptions about how others will behave - instead, a part of driving should be to not make assumptions and to allow for other drivers to possibly make all sorts of moves!

I'm sure that if the OP had known the other driver was going to try and exit in her RH lane, instead of the LH lane he should have exited in, she would have braked an prevented the crash.

Him suddenly deciding to wang it over to the wrong lane, isn't 50% her fault.
She should dispute it and get her insurance company involved and take the other driver to court if need be.

Plus, akakk, as long as the OP indicated left just before her exit into the RH lane, she was clearly telling other users of her intention, not to turn right, but to turn into the RH lane, as directed by the setting of the two lane exit off the roundabout.

akkakk
A person in the left hand lane can only circle if they are a cyclist or a horse rider. Any other vehicle is in the wrong. It may not be illegal, but if they get into an accident then they are at fault.

If the road markings on a roundabout say you can be in either the right hand lane or left hand lane to go straight ahead on a roundabout then she can. You do not overtake on a roundabout. or use any lane to overtake.

If the lanes are clearly marked there should be no confusion as to which lane to be in. It is not the ops fault the other driver was in the wrong lane and or got confused. He was in the wrong lane and at fault. Yes he may have assumed the op was turning right as she was in the right hand lane and could either go straight on or turn right. He was still in the wrong lane.
And lastly you cannot use any lane on a roundabout unless there is only one lane

Verbena37

• It is up to the OP to watch what the other person is doing - there would have been early indications that he was not turning off left...

• There is no 'should have exited in' for the other driver - it would be totally legally (if perhaps a little batty) to drive around a roundabout in the same lane for the next 3 weeks

• the other driver didn't suddenly decide to 'wang it over to the wrong lane' the other driver was in a lane and continued in it - no wrong lane in that decision.

• the OP indicating left is not an instruction, it is an 'indication' i.e. showing intention, it neither implies nor gives any form of right of way.

• as explained above - 2 lane exits do allow the OP to take the route she did, but a second lane is (unless marked otherwise) always technically an overtaking lane, and in overtaking the OP has the onus of responsibility more on her shoulders than the car being overtaken

There are some real misconceptions on this thread, based on I suspect common ways in which people drive and assuming therefore that the law supports them - the law allows for people to drive in that way, but at its heart the law doesn't give drivers lots of legal 'I am right' moments - instead at its heart the motorist should remember that their obligation is to exist alongside other road users and not make contact with them that does sometimes mean having to give way to other road users whose choice might not be the norm / or what you expect - but that lack of expectation does not justify a collision which both parties could have played a role in avoiding.

There is also an expectation that as a driver you are aware of and anticipating movements of other road users, and allowing for them - in this instance the OP should be constantly thinking of the driver next to her - he could go left here, hasn't... could go straight on, but might go right... always looking for indications and adjusting driving accordingly - if not confidant to do that while alongside, then the OP should have held back and staggered their position to give that time - accelerating past once both were off in the two lanes straight ahead - or allowing the other driver to pass turning right...

Of course, the other driver also has responsibilities, in seeing the OP he should have been going through the same thoughts - not likely to turn off left (at 3 on the clock), could be going straight ahead, or could be turning right - I am going right, so will just check and pause if necessary

So both should have been making more decisions / watching more carefully - hence 50:50

I do understand the frustration because the OP will have been doing something she has done many times before - but having got away with not being hit previously doesn't automatically mean being in the right here... and ultimately the law is dispassionate and clear - and a big part of it is a) a responsibility to not hit others and b) the ability for people to change their mind / take different routes from the norm - so there is a legal reason why the OP can be seen to share responsibility even though it feels unfair - hence 50:50

jaynesworld
Sorry that is incorrect:
(www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203)

rule 185 on reaching a roundabout: "watch out for all other road users already on the roundabout; be aware they may not be signalling correctly or at all" - while written for when you approach a court would undoubtedly not expect you to stop watching as you join the roundabout!

rule 186 - use of the roundabout

• not that this does not use the word 'MUST' or 'MUST NOT' i.e. it is advisory not compulsory under law.
• nor does it use the softer words of 'SHOULD' / 'SHOULD NOT' or 'DO' / 'DO NOT'
• the highway code has three levels of indication the two above and then the softest guidance which is a structure for normal use - where none of those words are used - this rule falls into that softer structure - it is the expected norm, but there isn't a legal breach if not observed (www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction)

rule 187 In all cases watch out for and give plenty of room to...

• traffic crossing in front of you on the roundabout, especially vehicles intending to leave by the next exit
• traffic which may be straddling lanes or positioned incorrectly

The OP failed on both those, the other driver failed on the first...

The horse and cyclist comment is a misconception, the wording in rule 187 is clear:

• cyclists and horse riders who may stay in the left-hand lane and signal right if they intend to continue round the roundabout. Allow them to do so

This is clarification that their positioning and signalling may differ (i.e. they are vulnerable road users who shouldn't need to move into the inside lanes of the roundabout) - it has nothing to do with their being the only class of road user allowed to sit in the outside lane and circulate!

The clear issue here is the section from rule 187 around watching out for other traffic - both parties failed to do that hence 50:50