AIBU to think I have no liability here? (diagram attached)

[WiggyClawsThe2nd]

I think I'm fairly sure on this but can't stop panicking so I thought I'd ask on here.
Friday night I had a car accident. It was a real shock and it's only now that I've stopped to think about it that I'm feeling really really cross.
In the diagram I'm the blue line, the other driver is the green line. The thick lines show where we went, the thin lines indicate where you would have expected us to be going. Given that the lady tried to tell me she'd been going straight on when obviously she didn't makes me wonder if she had a mad moment!
Anyway, this particular roundabout leads onto a bridge over a dual carriageway. On the other side of this bridge you can go left onto a local road, or right to join the dual carriageway.
When we joined the roundabout, the other car was to my left. Neither of us indicated before joining the roundabout, however I did indicate left after I passed the 1st left exit as I was planning to go over the bridge and turn right to join the duel carriageway. As I was about to leave the roundabout the lady turned in front of me to head back round the roundabout and I hit her in the side of the car. Slow speed, maybe 15 mph.
It turns out that we have the same insurance company just to complicate matters.
I'm pretty sure that she is liable for this accident, what do you all think?

YABU: you are liable
YANBU: you are not liable

The picture shows you what to do legally. That only changes if road markings or signs change it.

The highway code does not tell you you can't fly a handguilder along the road, doesnt mean this is ok to do if you thought it was appropriate. The highway code tells you what you should do. Sometimes it tells you what you shouldn't do.

Either way the highway code has a picture of how you should behave on a roundabout. That's how you should do it

I consider myself told. I will never use the right hand lane again when going straight over. You are right, I am wrong, your "handguilder" analogy has really helped me to see the light on this one.

The op believed that was what she was going to do.

But she acknowledged the other party told her otherwise.

You've therefore got to evidence that belief. It might be the other persons statement actually does that. Otherwise it's difficult and possible irrelevant if they were there to be seen anyway

I mean green car not orange

In the highway code, the blue car arrows don't show a split on exit because it is ONLY allowed to go straight ahead in the LEFT lane (which allows for cars on the right hand side of it to also go straight ahead into the RIGHT hand lane).

The green car turning right can use either lane to exit when turning right with the correct mirror signal manouvre.

When going straight on you shouldn't be in the left lane of an island to exit into a right hand lane, and vice versa.

Left lane for left lane, right lane for right lane, both lanes go straight ahead.

So you've never gone right lane on approach to right lane on exit going straight over on a dual carriageway island?

It's a genuine question.

So why doesn't the picture reflect that by showing the green car can go straight over in the right lane as well as turning right?

I only go in the right hand lane for straight over if the road markings say I can.

No of course not!! I've never sped neither your Honor 🤪🤪🤪

But that's the beauty of insurance.

Humans do the wrong thing because accident, they decide they know better and 101 other reasons.... because humans are humans basically.

And in goodness know how many cases, either through luck or judgment of both it will be fine.

Bit Insurance is there to pick up the prices when it isn't. And that is a wonderful wonderful thing

I don't have the answer to that, but in a general sense the pictures in the highway code are significantly fewer than the numbers of points the highway code makes in writing. For example, in that picture it also doesn't show the green car being able to go all around the roundabout and leave it at the junction it arrived at, and that it would need to use the right hand lane to do so, but could also leave in any lane on the exit where two lanes on the exit exist.

That is covered in the text.
"When taking an exit to the right or going full circle,"

because it is illustrating the specific rules of indicating (which it clearly shows), for the left hand lane and the specific rules of indicating for the right hand lane, which are listed below it.

The 'intermediate lane' which is any between right and left (and would cover large multi exit islands, so difficult to show in one picture), the guidance is different, if you read it it is none specific and says users should not indicate on entry, but should follow the road markings OR choose the appropriate lane on entry to match the appropriate lane on exit and stay in your lane until you need to alter course.. you can't really show that on a diagram.

If going straight on at a dual carriageway island, right hand lanes enter using the right hand entrance lane, use the right hand lane ON the island, then exit using the right hand lane. Same for left lane users, it's left on approach, left lane on island and left lane on exit.

Yes, and as you can see the same as I can, the question being asked was why is it not in the picture.

It is also covered in the text that when going straight over you use the appropriate lane unless signs and arrows dictate otherwise. It does not specify which lane, but whenever I refer to the text you want to refer me to a picture instead.

Actually you should only do that if the road markings allow it. Appropriate means the lane indicated by road markings and signs

Because you take the thing as a whole not piecemeal.

Ah right, ok.

The diagram is very similar to what happened to my son recently, only he was the green line, and the blue line went into the side of him

When he contacted his insurance company, the first thing they did was go onto Google maps to check the layout and the lane markings, which clearly showed that lane 1 was for left turn or straight ahead, and lane 2 was for straight ahead only. It also helped that he had dashcam footage that he could send to them to corroborate.

His whole claim was paid - courtesy car, new child car seat - and he didn't have to pay any of his excess. Presumably as it was so clear cut, the other driver's insurance didn't quibble.

OP was definitely not responsible for the accident in the diagram provided. IMO.

Yep, that's not what it says at all.

Actually it says the opposite of that in the highway code, it uses the word appropriate unless signs or road markings state otherwise, so in the absence of those signs you should take the appropriate lane on entry and exit.

Which for info, if you are entering in two lanes, there's two lanes on the island and the exit has two lanes, it is entirely appropriate to use either the right or the left as long as you stay in that lane throughout.

But obviously you're correct, without obvious signs on the road, everyone on a dual carriageway should move one by one into the left hand lane on approach (disregard the right one completely, you're not allowed to use that one!) queue patiently around the island only using the left hand lane, follow it round and then only exit on the left lane of the dual carriageway exit.

You're obviously one of the many, many people I see driving who have no common sense whatsoever, but that's okay, stick to the left lane and you can't go too far wrong, just don't turn right in front of cars legally following the rules of the road.

But again this boils down to what 'appropriate' means. Clearly people here have different opinions on what is or is not an appropriate lane.

No one has said she is responsible. The debate is whether the insurance company will say it's 50/50. It's clearly not the same as your son's case which had clear road markings.

Yes, and the highway code doesn't help by not stipulating what it's interpretation is. I stand by what I have said already - I was absolutely taught to use both lanes where no markings exist. This was in 2004.

Agreed, it should be clearer!

I've found the below advice too (hopefully doesn't take long to show) which indicates you can do this if it's dual carriageway to dual carriageway. But I don't think op was on a dual carriageway so I don't think it applies to her situation.

So you think:

Right hand entrance lane, to right hand lane on island, to right lane on straight ahead dual carriageway.. isn't appropriate?

Just because there is a lack of signs, doesn't mean logic goes out of the window, it is exactly as any other dual carriageway island functions.

Left hand lane approach, to left hand lane on island, to suddenly trying to turn right in front of traffic to your right hand is absolutely not appropriate, not to mention completely at odds with the highway code, and OP would be robbed if they go 50/50.

Insurance companies are notoriously shit though.

Op wasn't on a dual carriageway and it's her situation I've been commenting on.

I've also said about 20 bajillion times the other driver was clearly in the wrong for their part.

This is exactly it.. the lack of dual carriageway before doesn't actually matter as there was two separate lanes entering the island, two lanes on the island and two lanes exiting the island so this diagram illustrates it exactly as it should be, left lane for straight on into left lane ahead, right lane for straight on into right lane ahead.

In the absence of signs saying otherwise this is exactly how a dual carriageway island should be traversed.