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.

now put a broken-down car in the left lane of the exit

But surely if there's an obstruction separate rules apply, like for example I might drive on the other side of the road if a broken down car was blocking my side but wouldn't do it without the obstruction and it would still be my responsibility to make sure there was no oncoming traffic.

In any case if you leave the roundabout from the left hand lane into the right hand lane wouldn't this be equivalent to overtaking (i.e. moving from the LH to RH lane of the dual carriageway) in which case it's your responsibility to make sure you're not ploughing into someone.

Thanks. Dh and I had an argument - he said that he was ok to go and if another car crashed into him it would be totally their fault for changing lanes...

the sooner we get driverless cars the better

www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38312313

Uber has begun testing its self-driving car in San Francisco

(contd)

I am always on the right hand side if turning right and the left hand side when turning left or going straight. Has something changed?

I am always on the right hand side if turning right and the left hand side when turning left or going straight. Has something changed?

No but this is also fine

Go to the insurance ombudsman - you can challenge things. If you are in the RAC/AA you can get advice I believe

akkakk Agree about dashcam warriors - most of the "terrible transgressions" they post other drivers doing are simple fogiveable mistakes - most of the rest are not errors at all or are caused by the dashcam driver.

With that said, I still maintain that going 3/4 (or all) the way around a 2 or more lane roundabout is the act of an inconsiderate bellend (unless permitted by signage and markings and cyclists etc under certain conditions).

Follow the accepted (or marked) rules - if you find yourself in the wrong lane, the safe and courteous thing to do is either take the proper course and sort it out further along - or do plenty of observation, indicate and change lanes if safe or if invited - showing the other driver has seen you.

The other driver in the OPs case was a inconsiderate or oblivious - either way, a bellend.

I haven't read the whole of the thread but surely if he hit you along side your wing mirror, you were ahead of him and couldn't have been aware that he was going to change lanes as you were past him. I'd challenge it if it were me because the precedent looks like it is only applicable if you could have avoided the accident.

I have just shown your post to DH who is a civil barrister he says:-
a) Instruct the insurers that you decline to accept the settlement on a 50/50 basis
b) He says that each case turns on its own facts and that the 'precedent' sounds like rubbish ask to see a copy of it (if it is anything other than a high court/court of appeal/Supreme Court decision it is not binding)
c) You have the right to go to trial and the insurance company should cover all legal expenses

Grace vs Tanner is court of appeal.

Grace vs Tanner is court of appeal.

It's also the opposite of what happened to the OP in terms of who crashed into whom.

What difference does that make when the result was 50/50?

Surely it's only binding on cases where the facts are the same?

OP, this exact same thing happened to me. I was also in the right hand lane at roundabout and a man did the same as you described.
It took over two years, my insurance company suggested I take partial responsibility. My mum handed me an article from a newspaper basically saying it IS both people's faults. But I told the insurance company I wanted the other driver to take full blame and in the end the driver's insurance company accepted liability.
My advice: stick to your guns and try not to worry as it could last a long time. I used to get upset with every letter. I wish I'd just relaxed about it (easier said than done). Best of luck!

Not entirely relevant to the op, but I can think of loads of roundabouts where you can turn right from a left hand lane approach. Many of them close to Ikea's as someone mentioned earlier!

The best thing to be aware of is in the UK there are no hard and fast rules for roundabouts, you need to learn to read the road.

I am always on the right hand side if turning right and the left hand side when turning left or going straight. Has something changed?
It's the only thing which makes sense.

derxa no that's not the only way. If you are driving on a dual carriageway with roundabouts on, you can be in the right lane for going straight on because you're going to end up in the right, overtaking lane on exiting the roundabout.

How do people not know this???

Have only read halfway so apologies if this has already been stated, but often insurance companies have the same parent company and so of course it's in their interest to settle 50/50

2 x excess paid. 2 x increases in premium.

Happened to me a few years ago, I was with direct line, the other driver Tesco, both same parent company. Other driver drove into me, but insurance wanted to settle 50/50. I was lucky that I had an independent witness, but I still had to be assertive with insurers to make sure other driver was found to be at fault.

That said, DH recently did an emergency response driving update (works for fire service) and was surprised that it is Now hdeemed acceptable to go all the way around a roundabout in the outside lane - so long as you take due care etc - I wonder if that is connected to the legislation they are quotyou OP???

Wish I'd known to challenge it when this exact thing happened to me - except it was an articulated LORRY who admitted he'd only seen the sign when he was already halfway across the roundabout, and decided to turn right from the left lane (ripping off my back bumper) rather than go on to the next roundabout.

It wasn't my insurance, mind - company car. But I've always felt wronged that they concluded 50/50; such bullshit.

derxa This is fine -

I wonder if that is connected to the legislation they are quotyou

Being slightly pedantic - it's not legislation, it's caselaw.