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.

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.

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Lanes are there to guide you, otherwise what's the point of them? Everyone knows that the left hand lane turns left or goes straight on in LH lane straight ahead. Equally right hand lane turns right or goes straight on into RH lane straight ahead.

It's not a free-for-all to randomly decide what exit you want once you're on the roundabout. What if I was in the right hand lane and decided to go out on the first left and then crashed into the side of someone who was correctly intending to go straight over? Would anyone be saying I had the right to do that and the other person was 50% responsible?

Lanes are there for guidance, not proscriptive
Any driver is allowed to change their mind
Any driver, whatever the logic behind their decision should not hit someone else

so as per your example, if you were in the right lane , turned left and crashed, the other driver would need to be able to demonstrate that there was no indication that you were going to change lane, and they had no chance to avoid you... Their cause would be mitigated by the fact that they had remained in their lane, while in turning from right lane to left you had exited your lane and entered theirs.

The two are not comparable

• in your OP you changed lanes to exit, the other driver remained in his lane to hit you...
• in this later imaginary example the other driver would have remained in their lane, and had no opportunity to do anything while you would have initiated the accident and been the one to change lanes, so a good change you would have been 100% liable...

not the same at all...

I am not being awkward - just trying to explain a) the Highway Code and b) why the insurance company(s) may well see split liability - based on many years in the advanced driving community and having years of working for an insurance company!

Totally see why it is frustrating and why the OP feels she did nothing wrong - she didn't do anything wrong, other than by omission - and that was to omit to take account of the actions of the other road users - HC rule quoted above. Frustrating - but that is how the law stands, and omission is as relevant to liability as actively doing something wrong... personally I would note it down to learning - and let the insurance company deal with it, that is why they are there...

Based on your damage, it shows that he was slightly behind you (as yours starts at your wing mirror). This essentially means that he saw you pulling off but continued around anyway.
Lanes are a guidance generally, but insurance liability is based on what is a reasonable course of action. For example, if he had been ahead of you and you had clearly seen him going on around the roundabout, whether it was right or not, a reasonable action for you would have been to go around the roundabout again in order to avoid the accident. In this case, it is reasonable that he foresaw the accident happening, and could have taken the action to take your exit then turn around further down the road.

Also, I would like to point out its not cheaper for your insurance not to fight this! If they don't fight, they have to pay for all of your damage. If they fight, they will likely end up with some if not all of their money back.
It is only expensive if the case gets as far as court, which I highly doubt based on how unhelpful the other driver is being. Insurance companies only risk court if they either have little to lose (a non expensive claim), and expensive claim where any percentage of liability lost saves a lot of money or really believe they can win.
Generally the fight will just involve 2 liability handlers (one for each company) arguing it out for a while before it gets to the point of court being mentioned.

akkakk were there no lanes on the roundabout I would agree with you, however the OP has stated there were lanes, so she is not in the wrong, and the other driver is the one who should have been indicating to change lanes into hers.

For example, I've just found this pic of a round about, and cannot see how what you are saying fits with the diagram at all?

Not everyone in the outside lane is going to turn off at the next exit though?
If you are on the roundabout going straight across and someone gets on at the first exit into the outside lane intending to go straight across, they will still cross in front of you in the outside lane.

I imagine that some people may be in the outside lane and then suddenly realise they actually need the third exit not the second, having them move to the inside to immediately move back to the outside doesnt make sense.

So even though you should be ok, mistakes happen.

The not indicating thing really annoys me though, its just laziness.

Akkakk where does it state in the Highway Code that you can be in the left hand lane and continue round unless you are a cyclist, horse rider (or vulnerable motorist)
All I can see is to get in the correct lane, and when turning right or going full circle keep to the right on the roundabout until you need to change lanes to exit the roundabout.
Just because it doesn't say it doesn't mean you have the right to do it.

Even the diagram from the Highway Code doesn't say that you can be in the left hand lane and go full circle or turn right

That's totally true pancakes.
It would be other driver who should have indicated his intent to cross lanes into her lane.

stormtreader wouldn't that mean though that the person sitting at the roundabout junction should not go if there is someone in outside lane going round to take next left exit? If you went and cut them up, it's your fault for not waiting.

There's a roundabout near me where there will be an almighty crash one day
Every day I have to drive across it and I get called all the names under the sun by people who think I'm cutting them up
Left lane has a left hand arrow (no straight on one)
Right lane has a straight on and right arrow
So for the second exit (about 11 on a clock) you use the right hand one. Except nobody does and every time I come off at that exit there is someone on the left of me

I had a similar accident, me in the right hand lane turning right, her in the middle lane intending to turn right, she realised she was in the wrong lane and went into me.

Anyway, what they've said about 50/50 is bollocks if you can prove you were in the right, the reason they do that is because toundabout accidents are hard to prove and it's easier for both insurers to cut their losses.

Mine tried to make me go 50/50, I refused and pushed for court. The insurers legal team who were supposed to be representing me said they were accepting 50/50 in my behalf and there was nothing I could do. I went back to the insurers fuming and they put the solicitors straight and agreed with me to push for a win.

The third party's insurer got in touch shortly after and completely pulled out of the case which meant I won.

Keep pushing. Don't let them force you.

I don't have legal cover on my insurance anymore after that experience, I'd rather represent myself.

I've not read every reply so sorry if I've gone over already discussed stuff, I just wanted to let you know my story and how it turned out with me pushing it.

Because it is your responsibility to check the exit is clear to leave the roundabout. You are crossing another lane to do so.

It's a stupid rule when they are clearly in the wrong lane but the onus is still with the driver 'crossing the lane'

stormtreader I think you have 'inside' and 'outside' lanes the wrong way round: The inside is nearest the pavement, not the middle of the road. Getting them wrong would add extra confusion to a discussion such as this.

No absolutely NU, people that are unaware or give not a shit about the correct use of roundabouts give me the rage.
I too would refuse 50/50.

The Highway Code is, generally speaking, guidelines not law.

So if I have this correct...

You were in the rh lane, other driver in lh, when you got on the roundabout. You were signalling to go right. The other driver wasn't signalling and so because they were in lh lane you thought they'd be going left or straight on.

You both circled the roundabout. When you exited you stayed in rh lane and exited onto a dual carriageway onto the rh lane.

The other car then swerved into your rh from their lh lane as you entered the dual carriageway. In this case, it was their fault as they moved into the side of your car whilst you were in your lane. Not 50/50. You were both on the dual carriageway after exiting the roundabout. The other car should have stayed in their lh lane until it was safe to indicate and manourver into your lane. They may well not have indicated to go right so soon after cming off a roundabout either to change lanes. So the fault 100% lies with them I would argue.

If you were coming off the roundabout but they were continuing round the roundabout to the next exit, despite being in the lh lane, then you would be in the wrong as you crossed their path. However, you did not cross their path - they swerved into your lane. This is the basis of your argument for not taking 50/50 blame: you did not enter their lane or go infornt of them They entered your lane and hit you.

You need to make a very detailed diagram of what happened. Go back to the roundabout and photograph the lanes to back up your diagram as it is not 100% clear from your description what happened....the diagram may be needed for the insurers to understand the facts and apportion blame.

BluePancakes That is not the typical UK roundabout... and markings can vary enormously from spiral based lanes to concentric circles to alsorts of weird flows including lanes going straight through the middle of a roundabout

Technically there is no inside or outside lane, they are lanes 1 / 2 / etc. - however convention for a roundabout would be inside by the centre of the roundabout and outside for the outer lanes - when describing the whole roundabout, but you would describe a road user in lane 1 as on the inside of a road user in lane 2 if looking at the detail - very confusing

as Stormtreader mentions and I gave an example above - there may be a number of reasons for someone to be in the outside lane to your left, e.g. someone coming onto the roundabout from 9 o-clock and exiting at 3 o-clock, you can not assume where someone is going...

Jaynesworld
you can do anything you like in a motor vehicle unless there is a law to say you can't so actually Just because it doesn't say it doesn't mean you have the right to do it. is wrong - in fact because it doesn't prohibit it, in law it is allowed. The diagram is an example - as explained above, you have to read the Highway Code as guidance and it very clearly lays out when it will use wording which means something is mandatory not guidance (not in this case) and when wording is advisory (my description) and will carry weight should you do differently... this rule in the HC carries none of that wording so is the lightest form of guidance the Highway Code offers - it is an expected norm, but it is not illegal or wrong to do differently - when doing differently other aspects of the HC come into play - such as the two bits I quoted above in a subsequent rule which state that in all cases you should watch out - both drivers failed to comply with that guidance.

Verbena37 I suspect that the roundabout the OP was on will have had different lane markings - those are not normal - in which case the OP would have entered the other driver's lane... ref. someone going from 9 o-clock to 3 o-clock, depends on size of roundabout and relative speeds of their driving and OP's driving, on larger roundabouts it is very normal for the flow to mean that as you approach your exit someone is crossing, and when they entered you were nowhere to be seen...

TheWickerWoman that is great news - and definitely worth that kind of pushing on an insurance company - however I suspect they pulled out because it was more cost-effective than a share of an increasing legal bill rather than as a recognition of right or wrong. Insurance doesn't often worry about the niceties of legalistics unless it goes to court - if there is an argument that could apply on both sides, then insurance companies will often go 50:50 on the basis that it washes out across many claims - often the costs of pursuing / going to court far outweigh the costs of accepting some of the repair bill... ultimately the insurance company will look out for their costs before looking out for the OP.

umizoomi No wrong lane on a roundabout - unexpected / unusual / not normal - yes - but not wrong or illegal...
All white lines on a roundabout can legally be crossed - it is not like a solid white line dividing a road / different carriageways on a dual carriageway or motorway, you can legally drive on any part of a roundabout as long as you go clockwise - so actually lane position is not the first or main issue here - observation / indication / avoidance of collision / etc. will all be more important issues... You can legally enter in the right lane and exit first left, or enter in the left lane and exit far right, or anything in-between - it is though your obligation as a driver not to cause issues while doing that

toptoe not sure the other driver swerved - the other driver just continued unexpectedly further around the roundabout - still in their lane - OP drove across their lane to exit, expecting the other driver to exit as well, so sadly the OP can not claim to have not entered their lane...

Yes as I said, as you are crossing a lane you have to check the path is clear.

sorry umizoomi meant to agree with you - other than the wording of saying it is a wrong lane - but agreed, should check first

This is an interesting thread. These big roundabouts are tricky - people don't tend to indicate and even if they do it's no always clear whether they are changing lanes and/or exiting. To be honest you can't keep driving round forever whenever you aren't sure what someone is doing so these accidents will keep happening. I suppose that's why insurance co's go 50:50.

The best long term solution would probably be for roundabouts to be laid out to reduce the speed of traffic (more congestion though).

My pet hate is people who indicate right when they enter the roundabout but actually are going straight on.

OP were you indicating left when you were hit? (I never know whether to because the person in the left lane may think I intend to enter their lane rather than stay in my own but pull off the roundabout).

Indicating right when going straight on is actually correct though - it's the indication to use for anything other than the first exit/the exit you are about to take

And yes you should always indicate to leave the roundabout

Absolutely infuriating for you, OP. In my area, lanes are clearly marked all around the round about and guide you into position so you exit without ever changing lane. You can even be taken right around the roundabout to 3 oclock in the left hand lane, if that is how the road designer thinks the traffic will flow best. They weren't like that in the area I was taught to drive, so I had to learn to use them. My family find it difficult when they visit.

He undoubtedly used the roundabout incorrectly. That said, you are still obliged to avoid a collision, and to look for other idiot drivers. If he failed to leave when he should have, effectively you didn't look over your left shoulder to make sure your path was clear before moving. If you had you would have seen he was still there.

What bothers me is that while I am checking my blind spots right and left, who is looking in front of me?! I had a near miss on the motorway when I was checking to my right to pull out and overtake and the car to my left pulled out across my nose. I think they assumed I would give way but I didn't know they were there because I was looking in front and to my right prior to pulling out.

but no

This is why I can't wait for self driving cars!