HaveNoSocks
is it ever acceptable to leave a roundabout in the left hand lane to go into the right hand lane of a dual carriageway?
yup 
- maybe not wise / sensible / clever / the best choice - but it is acceptable in the sense of the move being legal in itself... if you want to come onto a roundabout in the right of three lanes and exit first left that is legal unless otherwise restricted might not be clever though :) If you crash your way through 6 cars doing it - the lane usage won't be the driver for the prosecution - it might be evidence towards driving dangerously, but not necessarily directly wrong in itself...
think about your question - now put a broken-down car in the left lane of the exit - it is obvious that you might exit the roundabout from the left lane into the right lane of the exit, otherwise you will simply drive up the backside of the broken down car - so if you can find a scenario where it is legal and logical then it is probably always legal, but not necessarily always logical!
In other scenarios e.g. motorway accident and tailbacks - reversing up the hardshoulder / slipway still remains illegal so there is no legal scenario...
--
Garion
no driver owns a lane / no driver has absolute rights over a lane / all drivers should watch out for others...
If there was a policeman there I suspect they would have asked them to clear the roundabout / swept up the mess / told them to contact the insurance companies - they would have no interest beyond that - this wasn't dangerous driving, it was two drivers making a set of clashing assumptions - the police record fact, they don't prosecute or sort out insurance claims (CPS / insurance companies do that). As for Pepipoo, there are some interesting people on there and an awful lot of hot air - all I have done here is keep drawing the conversation back to fact and the law / HC - if you think that the law says something different then you need to say so... as mentioned beneath your post there is case law to demonstrate responsibility for both... and the HC and law and everything else backs it up... Pepipoo members talk as much tosh as they do helpful stuff...
--
the sooner we get driverless cars the better... can't wait - they will be programmed to default to safety, so if there is a queue ahead, just aim at them, they will all move out of the way to avoid the accident should be lots of fun, like real-life dodgems!
--
Jaynesworld
Correct, 187 is as relaxed as 186 - hence my point, if 186 had used those stronger words it would have supported the OP - as neither does, both apply equally... therefore the OP should have given weight equally to:
- lane usage
- watching out for idiots (paraphrase of 187)
sadly the OP only did one, not both hence the accident is not 100% OP, but a shared responsibility.
--
FlowLikeAHarpoon
I partially answer your question above - on a small roundabout a blue car coming in at 9 should wait for the red car to be clear of the roundabout, or judge speed so that by the time the blue car gets to the conflict zone the red car is gone... However on a bigger roundabout it is not unknown for someone to join at 9 with the road clear, but move slowly and a faster car to come on at 6 or even 3 and want to exit at 12 and have that conflict - in that scenario, the faster (red) car should give way - this is a very good illustration of why there isn't the black and white situation so many people think there is - the simple answer is it depends... the simple solution is be cautious and if necessary give way...
--
Oysterbabe
I had forgotten that case - if you read it - pretty much as above - two vehicles both making assumptions = 50:50
--
IveAlreadyPaid
Go, with an assumption, but cautious and prepared to pause if your assumption is wrong. There is nothing wrong with assumptions - we have to make them all the time as drivers and generally they will be right 90% of the time, the good driver though has a back up plan!
--
It's bizarre I could go out now, drive like an absolute twat on every roundabout safe in the knowledge there's a binding precedent meaning, at worst, I'm only 50% liable for any accidents that result from my twattishness!
not totally but yes partially you can - we have a law which allows people to be human and not perfect, and personally I would prefer that over a strident law which itself makes assumptions and restricts what you can do... The same law that means that the OP should have been more cautious / not made assumptions is the same law that allows her the flexibility to use the lanes on the roundabout to maximise her speed of journey, that allows each of us to make mistakes and not have our licences removed etc. It is possible that you are a perfect driver, I don't know but I have decades of experience of the advanced driving world, numerous qualifications and licences and tests passed - and the more I do, the more it teaches me caution and an understanding of how little I know - the irony is that the people who are the most cocky and certain on the road tend to be the least self-aware / capable, yet confident to the last in proclaiming their 'truth' on forums, ignore the negative aspects of their own driving... just go onto youtube and look at all the road warriors who put up dashcam footage of 'other idiots' only to be hoisted on their own petard as they demonstrate their own bad driving - it is hilarious
--
anyhow, enough on this thread - the OP was undoubtedly driving well, sadly made a wrong assumption and there was an accident - the insurance could go any which way, who knows, but there would be validity in it being 50:50 and thanks to OysterBabe for reminding of case law on this. Hopefully if nothing else it opens eyes to the fact that we have to be careful as drivers to not make assumptions - and lastly alwasy assume that every other driver is an idiot - most of the time that is an accurate assumption