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.

But how can they prove the OP didn't avoid the crash?
Who would just let someone hit them? If she had enough time, I'm sure she would have stopped.

Indicating right when going straight on is actually correct though

No it isn't

Did the OP indicate right then.....from the original roundabout entry lane?
If yes, I didn't realise that. And she would have been wrong surely, if she had then exited left ....even if into the right lane.

But how can they prove the OP didn't avoid the crash?
because the cars hit

I know it feels terribly unfair, but in driving the legal expectations are actually a degree higher in standard than happens in reality - while generally we get away with it, in a situation like this the expectation of quality from both drivers is higher than most would expect which is why so often drivers are allocated some of the blame even though they drive quite normally and just like most other drivers...

pklme mentions a near incident on a motorway - that is an interesting example of this discord between perception on how we drive and expectation in law:

• from the description pklme is better than most drivers in actually checking before pulling out
• I suspect that pklme feels they did what was right, and the other driver was entirely in the wrong - but is that how it actually is?

In reality in checking right, and nearly not spotting an incident to the left there was technically a lack of perception in pklme's driving. on the motorway you should be doing several things:

• keeping an eye either side (advanced drivers are often trained to drive with a bubble of safety around them giving them options and space to move left or right, obviously if traffic allows!)
• building up a picture of what is behind (so a check before moving out is an extra safety caution and not actually needed)
• building up a picture of what is ahead - and much further than most motorists do - as an example you should be looking at the section of road you see through the top section of your windscreen (just under your sun visor) to build up that distant picture, most motorists look through the lower half of their windscreen and typically only see the near to middle distance - which doesn't give you time to calculate what to do...

The bottom section of your windscreen gives you the near distance (in chess, next move)
The middle section of your windscreen gives you the middle distance (in chess, move 2)
The upper section of your windscreen gives you the far distance (in chess moves 3+)

Ideally you are continually scanning between all three (and mirrors) to build up a complex picture of traffic and to understand, just like chess your next few moves...

• is there space for me to move out
• will my driving affect someone else
• is that car in lane 1 catching up with the lorry - will they want to move out (perhaps I should move from lane 2 to lane 3 to give space)
• will that move affect anyone else / when should I do it
• if I can't move out, could I alter my speed to drop back and give space - or even to accelerate and visually block the space so that the other car doesn't move out

So in pklme's example - there is an expectation that as a driver that calculation would already have occurred and allowance made for the car on the left potentially needing to move (bear in mind that many people move out just before hitting a lorry / coach without looking) so you, coming up behind, need to make allowances for them...

of course, it is reasonable to not expect others to drive into you, but the above is a brief overview of the much higher level of thinking that all drivers are meant to be doing, and hopefully a brief explanation as to why a driver may be allocated some % of fault even if they felt no blame / were just driving as everyone else does...

and back to the OP, the same exists there - as a driver her responsibility is to build up that picture and understand a) what all other cars are doing and b) what they could do even if unexpected. Every driver has a job to do which includes driving in such a way as to manage other drivers and to mitigate for their mistakes - it is not acceptable in law to drive ignoring other drivers and then just say that they got it wrong - in not allowing for their idiosyncrasies and weird behaviours you share some of the blame - bizarre, emotionally feels wrong, but correct in law and if you think about it logically it makes sense - no driver can drive as though there was no one else on the road, there are many acceptable reasons why someone else could make an unexpected decision you have to allow for it...

in reality most drivers are very tunnel vision / drive with a fixed glare into the middle distance ignoring the nearby / distant hazards and have a set understanding of where they are going and totally ignore what else is going on around them - that is why accidents happen - if we could change that, we would see the most significant drop in accidents ever - but sadly I suspect it is human nature - it is a very ego-centric perspective and then others are blamed... (NB not accusing the OP of this as she clearly was driving as to how she expected, and was driving well to that perception and was caught out because the perception was wrong, not because she was unaware of others... - whereas the other driver was possibly totally unaware of anyone else, however that is still not quite enough...)

I went past the first turning (9 o'clock) then indicated as I was leaving into the righ thand lane of the 2nd turning (the 12 o'clock one). The car to my left was planning on leaving at 3 o'clock and so crashed into the side of me.

The damage from his van and my car show that I did swerve to avoid him when I realised he was coming at me.

Right, so if other driver was planning to leave at 3o clock, wth was he doing in the left lane? Because he was turning right!
I am so fuming on your behalf OP!

Akakk I know the cars crashed.....what I meant was if the judge said about the 50:50 thing, and said OP should have avoided the crash, what I meant was, how could anybody say 100% that the OP didn't try to avoid the crash? In fact, as she says, the marks prove she did swerve.

Verbena37 Sorry - couldn't resist that
But actually there is a serious matter here - there would have to be a very different scenario for there to be a crash and for OP not to be allocated some % of the blame in not avoiding it. The OP mentions that she swerved and therefore did attempt to avoid the crash, however...

• while we are empathetic as other drivers and understand - the law is dispassionate
• the law will argue that the OP was reactive not predictive in her movements - very important part of the argument...
• that the OP should have anticipated the other driver going on round as one possible outcome (however unexpected and unlikely, or even in 'bod in the street' parlance - terribly unfair)
• would argue that the OP did nothing to mitigate or allow for the possibility that the other driver might continue, after all the other driver had two choices - turn left or continue, while one might be the norm - either is legal and possible - the OP only allowed for one...
• that the OP initiated the issue by driving into the other driver's lane (whether or not the OP expected him to turn left or not is irrelevant), he was in lane 1 and the OP crossed lane 1 to get to the exit... and she did so knowing that there was another car already in that lane...

If I were the other driver (and I can assure you I am not ) I would be arguing that this was entirely the OP's fault - there I am driving along in lane 1 quite nicely and the OP cuts across in front of me and I had no chance to stop - the OP swerved when she realised that she had made a mistake but it was not enough to avoid collision... Yes I had come on at 6 and thought that I needed to leave at the junction at 12 o-clock so was in lane 1, but realised that actually I needed the junction at 3 o-clock, I acknowledge that it would have been helpful to have been in lane 2 initially, but I was unsure as to my exit - once I realised that I needed to leave at 3 o-clock I realised that I was in the correct lane from where I was at that time, so continued - I had no idea that the OP would drive across me to exit - yes she signalled, but surely she noticed that I was there in lane 1 - you can't just cut me up! She should have paused to let me past, or if not able to do that she should have gone on around the roundabout and tried exiting again with no cars there! Surely she sknows that you are meant to move to lane 1 before exiting - why on earth was she exiting from lane 2 - I assumed that she must be turning right and had got her indicators wrong... totally her responsibility...

So there is a clear case for arguing either way and the OP's duty to avoid the other car started before joining the roundabout in how she planned to use the roundabout - it does not start from the point at which she realises there is going to be a crash... - hence shared responsibility...

As I said originally it's completely crap as the other driver was driving poorly. However, when leaving at 12 o'clock from the inside lane of the roundabout, the OP has responsibility as she was crossing over the left hand/outside lane of the roundabout and you have to check the exit is clear - you don't have automatic right of way regardless of what the other driver did. If the way isn't clear (which it wasn't) the driver on the lane nearest the roundabout is expected to go round again.

That's bonkers!
How can you say about being reactive rather than predictive if you're say driving along a normal road for example and someone suddenly pulls out coming towards you and overtakes into your lane??

No matter predictive you are......keeping your wits about you, checking mirrors, always concentrating on what's coming towards you, you simply cannot predict someone pulling out last split second in an illegal move that could be classed as dangerous driving.

Whilst you should always be cautious and try to be predictive when possible in every single scenario.

Not RTFT but totally with you OP. People have no lane discipline at roundabouts. They don't know how to indicate properly either.

Surely she sknows that you are meant to move to lane 1 before exiting - why on earth was she exiting from lane 2 - I assumed that she must be turning right and had got her indicators wrong

Err no. If you are on a two lane dual carriageway as the OP was, on entering and leaving the roundabout, you don't signal and go into the left lane (lane 1) on exiting.

You stay in your right hand lane, not signalling until you need to move into that said lane. You approach in the right lane, keep in that lane as you proceed towards 12 o clock then signal left into the right hand lane of the two.

Ok so surely this is what the OP described should have happened or what she thought would happen?
OP is the white rectangle and the other driver is the black rectangle.
As the picture shows, the OP wasn't signalling right but would have signalled left as she approached the right lane of the two lanes at the exit of roundabout.

From the other driver, she thought he was turning left into the left lane of the dual lanes...and she into the right lane of the two.
Suddenly, the other bloke decided not to go into that exit and carry on going right. As she was already turning though, he hit into her. If he did it at the very last second, there could be no way for her to stop and let him through.

This thread is terrifying.

As I started reading, I wondered if perhaps roundabouts in the UK are intrinsically different from those in Australia, because of statements like Not everyone in the outside lane is going to turn off at the next exit though? (In Oz they are because that's where their lane takes them!)

But no, based on the diagrams people have posted, the roundabouts are exactly the same. Do you not have white lines over there or something? I genuinely don't understand how people can think that in a two lane roundabout, the left lane is for anything but exiting at the first exit.

I would be careful about disputing the 50/50 claim OP. In my mum's case the other driver (I.e in your position) disputed the 50/50 claim and they then changed it to the full claim being his liability.

You seem convinced you are in the right, bit I'm afraid you're not.

Verbena37

Roundabouts in the UK vary so much that we can not predict the markings on the OP's roundabout... however generally speaking they are designed to share priority around the roundabout and across all junctions - so it would be rare to have a situation where dual lanes coming in at 6 o-clock continue and exit at 12 o-clock - lanes will normally go in a radial fashion around the roundabout - meaning that lane 1 (the outside lane) will continue around to 3 o-clock, then on to 6 -> 9 -> 12 -> 3 -> etc. That means that to get from lane 2 (OP's lane) to the exit involves crossing lane 1.

There are exceptions where there is a significant difference between 6 & 12 being major roads, and 3 & 9 being minor roads, but we have no idea whether that applies here... also spiral roundabouts / magic roundabouts and a million other options

Have a look e.g. at the M4 roundabout junction 15 - randomly picked :) at the point of each exit there are no lane markings - the lane markings are only used where there are traffic lights - so who has priority when one person wishes to transition from the A346 to the A419 (6 - 12) and another comes off the motorway and realises they are a junction early so goes back (3-9)? neither has priority - equally the white markings coming off the M4 west bound show the left two lanes as left and straight on - the right lane as turn right - yet with almost no exception that middle lane will be the left of the two lanes of traffic turning right, so someone in the right lane expecting to end up in the left of the two exit lanes on the A419 will have a shock and probably be run over by a bus or lorry!

www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5763668,-1.7325608,216m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

travel on down the A419 and take the second roundabout (A420 junction), as you go under the A419 to turn right up the A420, both lanes could exit - two lanes and two lanes on exit, so comparable to the OP's situation - yet:

• both lanes also go right, left lane as well
• there are no road arrow markings
• the right hand lane (lane 2) has to cross a dotted line to exit, lane 1 does not have to cross any dotted lines to exit up the A420, OR to continue around in the way described by the OP. If the OP's roundabout is like this then she is actually in the wrong and the claim could go 100% against her!

So the roundabout situation may well not be as you show on your diagram - it is quite normal for both lanes to simply be concentric circles meaning that the OP would be the one crossing the lane line, not the other driver (perhaps the OP could link to Google Maps to show the roundabout).

Your comment though is telling: "Suddenly, the other bloke decided not to go into that exit and carry on going right. As she was already turning though, he hit into her." so which one changed direction?

ref. reactive / predictive - sorry, while I agree that you can not predict someone pulling out at the last moment unexpectedly, you can allow for the fact that they might and have an option available - i.e. go slower / give more space - that is how you are in fact meant to drive.

If someone suddenly pulls out and overtakes into your lane - might you have spotted ahead of time that they were close up behind the car in front of them / could you see them tailgating / had they approached that car fast / do you see the start of their move / are they sitting centrally in the road / what car do they drive - lots of clues, and yes you should as a driver be analysing exactly those things - the fact that you don't will in your scenario be a contribution to the accident - you could slow down and leave more space / you could speed up and make sure you are visible so they don't overtake / you could sound your horn to make them aware that you are there - several options...

And yes you can predict it - we all know that it happens at times - every car coming towards you could have a tyre blowout / the driver could have a stroke / they could skid on diesel / lots of innocuous things could happen to cause them to hit you - of course, none of us are perfect, but we are meant to be considering these things - the reality is that modern drivers are in a little safe cosseted cocoon, in their own world with the heating on / music playing / chatting to their passengers and in reality totally unaware of whatever else is going on around them - relying on luck and some misbegotten sense of 'right' being on their side to survive - sorry, but we are driving vehicles of over a tonne of metal at a fast speed, we have a responsibility to be awake to any possibility and to actively choose how we drive...

Akkakk*
A lot of what you have explained from the legal perspective makes sense to me.....but why is this a 50:50 split?
Leaving aside the issue of OP (possibly) failing to predict the other driver's crap decision to continue onwards in Lane 1; why is the fault split not more like 75%:25%?
That would seem to be a more accurate reflection IMO.

I don't understand how the op was crossing lanes. If there are two lanes approaching the roundabout to go straight on, two lanes on the roundabout and two lanes for that exit she wouldn't be changing lanes.
If it was left hand lane to turn left or the first exit and straight over (which are one lanes) then yes she would be crossing lanes.
I'm thinking the Highway Code needs a rewrite to make things a lot more clearer.

And surely the other driver would have more responsibility for causing an accident due to poor planning (he could have turned onto left lane at 12 o clock, on the left of the OP, who was turning safely into right hand lane, and then turned around down that road and gone back to the roundabout, therefore avoiding causing an accident). He was way more responsible than the OP.

Jaynesworld, you're right. See my diagram above. The way the OP describes it, seemed to be like I have drawn. If so, she couldn't possibly to swapping lanes. Even if he was about to take a wrong left turn, it should be he who holds back and makes sure he isn't going to cut someone up by continuing in the left lane.....then carry on to the 3 O clock exit when it's safe to do so

you could slow down and leave more space / you could speed up and make sure you are visible so they don't overtake / you could sound your horn to make them aware that you are there - several options...

So what you're saying is you've should never, ever drive next to another vehicle

If you have legal cover, your insurance company are working for you.....you tell them what you want them to do.

I never understand why people go in the right hand lane when they are going straight on.

My driving instructor always taught me left-hand lane for going left or straight on, right hand lane for turning right. If turning right, you then move into the left hand lane of the roundabout once you're past the second (straight on) exit.

Going straight on in the right hand lane just causes confusion, like here. Which is why I can see why they'd say 50/50.

No you don't tell your insurer what to do. Your contract of insurance will say they have the right to settle how ever they see fit. Theres so much misplaced indignation on this thread. It's 50/50, next time don't exit the roundabout when theres a car in the lane next to you.

AyeAmarok
There is absolutely nothing wrong with using the right hand lane (if there are two lanes on the entrance and exit). In heavy traffic it's actually helping everyone.

The OPs problem was caused by a bellend turning right from the left lane - which is always the act of a bellend.