Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Who was in the wrong driving?near miss

148 replies

Snowplacelikehome26 · 14/12/2023 22:33

Near miss today. There was a car approaching the mini roundabout from the right but he was a while off and wasn’t near the line yet so I entered the roundabout as I had time. However he sped up very very fast to intimidate me. He was so close going to the side of me. I do know it’s give way to the right but I thought as I’d already entered before him and I was already on the roundabout and he was not yet entering then I thought I would have had the right of way?

OP posts:
SerendipityJane · 15/12/2023 10:49

Regardless of rights and wrongs, the only way to drive safely is to assume nobody else is.

Can't say that's changed in 40 years.

SarahShorty · 15/12/2023 10:51

SerendipityJane · 15/12/2023 10:49

Regardless of rights and wrongs, the only way to drive safely is to assume nobody else is.

Can't say that's changed in 40 years.

100% this. Assume everyone around you is a total moron until they prove otherwise.

Peacheroo · 15/12/2023 10:54

@SarahShorty spot on but they usually probe your assumption was correct.

PawBroon86 · 15/12/2023 11:09

I think you were in the wrong, a car was approaching the mini roundabout from the right and you still pulled out.

MereDintofPandiculation · 15/12/2023 11:36

BIossomtoes · 15/12/2023 09:30

Of course she should. The rule is that you give way to traffic on the right on the roundabout, not traffic approaching it.

Show quote history

NO, it's already been demonstrated on this thread by quoting the Highway Code that it's cars approaching from the right.

But you have to use common sense. If everyone is giving way because there's a car on the approach road to the right, the whole thing comes to a stop.

So basically, if you can go without causing the car on your right to brake, you are allowed to go, and you should.

MereDintofPandiculation · 15/12/2023 11:37

PawBroon86 · 15/12/2023 11:09

I think you were in the wrong, a car was approaching the mini roundabout from the right and you still pulled out.

If everybody stops because there's a car approaching the roundabout from the right, the whole thing comes to a stop. As happens on a roundabout near me every day.

Fieldofbrokenpromises · 15/12/2023 11:39

A lot of people seem to be very poor at judging whether their actions will cause another driver to have to brake - and then they claim the other driver sped up which in most cases is highly unlikely.

bloomtoperish · 15/12/2023 11:47

Peacheroo · 15/12/2023 10:45

@BIossomtoes no. Regardless, a legitimate insurance company would have the same guidance. Nice insulting response tho rather than just admitting you said something as fact that you don't know about.

Rule 126 of the highway code:

Stopping distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.
You should

  • leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops. The safe rule is never to get closer than the overall stopping distance (see Typical Stopping Distances diagram)

You need to keep a safe distance to allow for suddenly stopping. There have been cases where it was found in court that the driver in front was at fault, if they stopped suddenly for no good reason. Good luck getting witnesses and evidence to back that up. It certainly isn't the law that if you stop suddenly, it's therefore 50/50. You might be able to negotiate that settlement with some people who don't want the hassle. In most cases the rear driver is at fault because regardless of the reason for stopping, the other person should have been maintaining a safe distance for the possibility of this.

Fieldofbrokenpromises · 15/12/2023 11:54

Isn’t there some case law that is usually applied at roundabouts?

somewhereovertherain · 15/12/2023 11:56

Peacheroo · 15/12/2023 07:34

@somewhereovertherain RTFT. This has already been addressed and you're wrong.

And yet I’m not.

Peacheroo · 15/12/2023 11:59

It's rare it would even get to court. There are cameras everywhere. Witnesses definitely do come forward.

It's not law because that isn't a legal aspect. The Highway Code speaks about the musts and shoulds. The rules and regulations are based on the following or not following of this.

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not. Feels like you're not but you said what I said that it depends on circumstances and typically the driver behind is at fault but not always.

Peacheroo · 15/12/2023 11:59

@somewhereovertherain whatever. You can't argue with ignorance or stupidity.

TinkerTiger · 15/12/2023 12:03

This type of situation happens at a particular roundabout a lot as the design of it places a building at an awkward angle blocking the view to the right until the car is at the roundabout.

More than once I've approached with no car in sight and entered only to have a car speed on from the right (clearly assuming no one was on the left as to them the road appears straight) and blare their horns at me. Nightmare.

(I've included a badly drawn diagram for drama)

Who was in the wrong driving?near miss
pizzaHeart · 15/12/2023 12:03

SarahShorty · 15/12/2023 10:51

100% this. Assume everyone around you is a total moron until they prove otherwise.

Show quote history

And unfortunately in many situations it would right assumption

cardibach · 15/12/2023 12:04

@Peacheroo it's not 50/50 in that situation. You should drive far enough behind that even if the car slams its breaks on you can stop before hitting it.

cardibach · 15/12/2023 12:06

margotrose · 15/12/2023 07:40

This annoys me you only should give way to the right if they are at the roundabout first.

Nope.

Priority goes to anyone approaching from the right.

See, I read that as 'give way to people approaching you from the right' ie already in the roundabout not 'give way to people approaching the roundabout from the right'. The second makes no sense. Approaching from how far away? Where's the cut off? If it meant that the HC would give advice on that.

Fieldofbrokenpromises · 15/12/2023 12:06

There’s one near us with a similar issue - 95% of traffic approaching from the right (but hidden by the building) is turning left, but only about 50% bother to indicate and in any case it’s hard to see them until you are right at the roundabout. So you sit there waiting as a long stream of cars turns left without indicating and you could have gone.

bloomtoperish · 15/12/2023 12:09

@Peacheroo I'm not agreeing with you, you made a statement that it was 50/50 if the car in front braked suddenly. If it's proved that you braked for no good reason, you could possibly be held 100% liable. That's not the same as it being 50/50 if the car in front brakes suddenly, not at all.

If you don't maintain a safe distance, you don't know whether the person in front is braking suddenly because a child ran into the road, or to avoid a bird.

Fieldofbrokenpromises · 15/12/2023 12:10

cardibach · 15/12/2023 12:04

@Peacheroo it's not 50/50 in that situation. You should drive far enough behind that even if the car slams its breaks on you can stop before hitting it.

As @Peacheroo correctly states this is often but not always true.
If (for example) you slam on your brakes to cause the tailgater behind to crash into you (sometimes called brake testing them) you may be judged at fault and people have been.

Peacheroo · 15/12/2023 12:10

cardibach · 15/12/2023 12:04

@Peacheroo it's not 50/50 in that situation. You should drive far enough behind that even if the car slams its breaks on you can stop before hitting it.

Sorry? What situation is it not 50/50? Yes you should 100% drive far away enough that you wouldn't be affected by slamming of brakes.

Assuming you mean if someone slams brakes on. As above, I have settled claims on this basis as have colleagues. They have done this because the follow guidance as such. I have shared an example of this guidance but please feel free to share guidance or evidence that goes against what I have said.

Peacheroo · 15/12/2023 12:13

bloomtoperish · 15/12/2023 12:09

@Peacheroo I'm not agreeing with you, you made a statement that it was 50/50 if the car in front braked suddenly. If it's proved that you braked for no good reason, you could possibly be held 100% liable. That's not the same as it being 50/50 if the car in front brakes suddenly, not at all.

If you don't maintain a safe distance, you don't know whether the person in front is braking suddenly because a child ran into the road, or to avoid a bird.

Could possibly, yes. But if someone does slam their brakes on for no good reason you are also at fault because you didn't leave enough space hence the 50/50. Royal you. Not you, I'm sure you're sensible.

cardibach · 15/12/2023 12:14

cardibach · 15/12/2023 12:04

@Peacheroo it's not 50/50 in that situation. You should drive far enough behind that even if the car slams its breaks on you can stop before hitting it.

Sorry. Brakes. I swear I typed that. My phone is illiterate.

bloomtoperish · 15/12/2023 12:20

I would say that you are always 100% in the wrong if you hit someone in the rear, regardless of why they stopped and how quickly. Because you aren't following the highway code. I never settled any of these claims as 50/50, but this was a while ago now. The no win no fee companies back then wouldn't usually take these cases on as they would very likely lose. Maybe that's changed.

Peacheroo · 15/12/2023 12:32

bloomtoperish · 15/12/2023 12:20

I would say that you are always 100% in the wrong if you hit someone in the rear, regardless of why they stopped and how quickly. Because you aren't following the highway code. I never settled any of these claims as 50/50, but this was a while ago now. The no win no fee companies back then wouldn't usually take these cases on as they would very likely lose. Maybe that's changed.

Could well be that it has changed depending on how long ago you worked in claims. It definitely used to be 100% the driver at the back but they realised they were losing a lot of money because people slammed their brakes on.

I personally had a crash where someone sped up into the back of me (road rage as he pulled out on me from a junction, I beeped to say I'm here and carried on to be in front of him as he yelled at me then drove in the back of me - I did yell back) he got out screaming it was my fault. I said it was his as he went in the back of me. Insurance said they were going to be 50/50 as he had said I slammed my brakes on. I said it's on camera - I knew this as he'd called the police and they asked me to move the car as obstructing traffic. I said you could be anyone and I'm not moving til you get here but I was wrong and they could see the whole thing which was lucky. They got the footage and he was at fault because I didn't slam my brakes on. That was 2010 maybe. I worked in claims 2020 - 2022. Hope that makes sense.

user1492757084 · 15/12/2023 12:39

You had entered the roundabout before him so you had right of way and you also would assume that they (like everyone) slows down to approach a roundabout.

It is not give way to the right at a roundabout. If you have already entered the roundabout (passed the signs and line) others have to give way. I gIve way to those arriving/entering at exactly the same time as me from the right and all others on the rouondabout.
When entering a roundabout one gives way to all who have entered the roundabout.

The exception is if you notice a very poor driver who has not entered but who is dangerously speeding recklessly (usually on your right). Unfortunately the driver to your right sped up all of an sudden, They were very poor drivers; glad you are safe.

Swipe left for the next trending thread