Car crash on roundabout - who’s at fault?

[WeGoAgainIVF]

Hi, I’m wondering if anyone would mind letting me know what they think about this situation and who’s at fault.
I had a car accident last week and I’m stressing out waiting for the insurance companies to settle the claim. I know this can go on for weeks so I would be grateful for any input as to how it might go!
To be unbiased I’m not going to say which car I was driving.

Car X enters roundabout in right hand lane to go straight on (on this particular roundabout you are able to go straight on in both lanes).

The traffic in the left hand lane was queuing to get on the roundabout but had left a space for traffic approaching the roundabout from the left to enter.

Car Y entered the roundabout between the cars in the left hand lane, while Car X was already in the right hand lane, speed unknown but at a guess 30mph, maybe a bit more. Car Y collided with Car X.

Car X didn’t know exactly how fast they were going. Car Y said they had been on a long journey, it was dark and Car X was black.

Who is at fault?

Strewth - you'd have thought "I was stationary" would have been enough to sort it once and for all.

It doesn't matter where X was going as car Y drove into the side of them, Y joined the island without being able to see clearly and hit car X that was already on the island.

OP has already said that both lanes could go straight on, so 'normal' rules don't apply.

Speed isn't irrelevant though. For the purposes of defining fault, maybe, but for thinking about how the collision could have been prevented and how to reduce the risk in the future. An easy way to do that is to slow down, so that if someone does do something careless like pull out, a driver has more time to react and avoid the whole issue in the first place.....

This. You're clearly car x OP and although you shouldn't have any issue showing not at fault, it's worth driving more defensively in future as people regularly try and edge out of a lane of traffic in these situations.

Y is at fault. The onus is on the driver joining the roundabout to check it's clear.

BUT if a good driver had been at the wheel of X then she would have anticipated the potential hazard and slowed down in case someone did what Y did.

It's fine and dandy being in the right but X's premiums may still go up. And X is left with a crumpled car and the stress that goes with dealing with insurance.

Better to be happy than right.

Speed will be looked at though as a factor so car x at 30mph will certainly be seen as going too fast

You're clearly car x OP

nah, i think car Y.

Car Y sounds in the wrong. Did car Y go into the side of car X or did car Y pull out causing a collision with car X going into car Y?

Being on a long journey is zero defence, and could possibly provoke a dangerous driving accusation if over-tired..?
30mph on a roundabout is insane, especially a very busy one with backed up traffic.
Sounds like both drivers shouldn't be on the roads!

I had a car accident about a year ago now. This was on a small roundabout. I was taking the second exit and as I was travelling around the roundabout, the other driver entered the roundabout and pulled in front of me causing me to drive into her rear driver side. I was coming from their right side.

If this is you on another post with the same accident then I think from a legal point it’s 50/50. Yes car y caused the accident but you went into the rear or them

That and the fact they initially stopped, then carried on, had a massive scrape down the full length of one side and drove off and I had to chase them down the bypass for 3 miles 🙈🙈🤣

Thank you for everyone taking the time to reply. I am car X.
sorry for no diagram this is only my 2nd post and didn’t realise I needed to do one. Not going to bother now as I already have lots of answers.
re speed - 30 is an estimate. I’m going over this same roundabout when I finish work so I will see what speed I go - obviously being more cautious!
I do think that on paper it is Car Y is at fault, but equally as Car X I should have been more aware that a car could have entered the roundabout without looking. The driver did say she edged out of the traffic slowly but I’m not sure this was the case because she would have seen me (black car or no black car) yes my lights were on. The collision caused me to spin around and end up facing the wrong way. The point of impact was her passenger side front bumper and my back passenger side so I was well and truly on the roundabout when she hit me.
It was a big roundabout and I could clearly see while approaching the roundabout that nothing was coming so I was definitely going faster than on a normal smaller roundabout.
Im worrying that they will get camera footage from the roundabout and say I was going too fast and say it was my fault. Do insurance companies normally get this footage? I’ve never heard of them doing that before.

I’m going to go against the majority and say I think car X is more at fault. It does depend on the size/layout/intended entry/exit etc. but my reading is, Y was able to enter the r/a into the left hand lane (where car Y was not travelling g) and was therefore also established. In order to exit the r/a, X had to cross the left hand lane to exit. You still have to check you can proceed when crossing lanes, even on a r/a. I’d need to see a Google map, both drivers’ statements, where the point of collision was & area of damage to both vehicles before making a final call on fault. But the chances are, a 50/50 split is probably more likely.

I agree that anyone entering the r/a has to give way to traffic from the right, but you can enter a r/a if traffic in the lane your entering into gives way to you i.e. leaves a gap & allows you to enter. Once you’re established on the r/a via that option, you’re as established as whoever is in the outer lane. And then the onus switches to whether you can proceed or if another car is changing lanes. And if the other car is cutting across your lane to exit, the onus switches to them ensuring it’s safe to change lanes.

Thats my take - the total opposite of the majority answers!

Its Car Y their responsibility if entering in a gap left by traffic on the roundabout to ensure there is nothing approaching from the right whatever speed they are doing, lights on is almost irrelevant as most roundabouts are lit to ensure people can see properly. The insurance folks may well 50/50 and if you are lucky car x wont challenge it - either way get the car sorted and let the insurance folk battle it out. If you are Car Y you will be lucky to get away with 50/50 if you are car X you can challenge it and may end up with a day in court especially if Insurance want to 50/50 which they often do just for ease but you are adamant its not (and technically you would likely be right) and yeah big jobber has done loads of this sort of thing on his you tube and they are great to improve your knowledge of how it all works.

A good driver would not slow down.
A roundabout works on traffic flowing at a steady pace so cars can anticipate and join when there is a safe space. A driver slowing down 'just in case' a driver is going to make an error, is likely to cause chaos. Cars behind would have to brake, causing the flow to be disrupted, or cause an accident. Slowing down could lead the driver waiting to join, think there's more room and therfore be more likely to enter and still cause an accident.
Be alert to what's happening but braking whilst travelling round a roundabout is not safe or good driving.

Sorry, i must have been posting as you were OP.

R/a collisions are notoriously tricky to apportion blame, and often it’s easier to just get each party to accept equal blame if there’s no independent witnesses, CCTV or clear indication from area of damage etc.

The point of collision on the r/a would help me decide how far onto the r/a Y was when the collision occurred, especially if you have to cut across the lane Y was in when you were trying to take your exit. If she’d barely got onto the r/a vs she was well established on the r/a would swing it one way or the other.

That would apply if Y wasn’t fully/well established on the r/a. Once Y is established, they’re in their lane & can proceed/have right of way over another car also established on the r/a who has to cross another lane to exit.

They’d only get footage from a dashcam if she had one which won’t show enough detail to get accurate speed. The fact she hit your car on the side towards the back is massively in your favour

Both lanes were straight on but the left hand lane was queueing tells me there was something blocking the exit ahead. Sounds like car y was probably going to go around the roundabout to the right and given there was a queue to exit straight ahead he didnt expect you to be overtaking the queueing traffic at speed in the right hand lane.

I am not sure why if as you say both lanes are marked straight ahead that there was only a queue in one.
Although car y should have given way I think you will find the insurance company may settle 50/50

If the front passenger side of Y hit the rear passenger side of Y, then even if Y was going slowly, it's Y's fault. Y didn't look properly.

The speed will only matter if X was over the speed limit, but even then Y should be looking and paying attention.

a diagram would clear this up but it sounds like Y was moving into X's lane or she would have hit the rear of the car rather than side which would indicate Y moving into X path

Can't be car X's fault if they were already on the roundabout - they would have right of way.

Obviously everyone is entitled to their opinion, but you are wrong about this!

Car Y is at fault - open and shut case, nothing for OP to worry about.

Any CCTV cameras in place won't be set up / calibrated to measure speed so it's highly unlikely this would ever be submissible as evidence, unless it showed very obvious excess speed.

What's the speed limit for the road. You sound worried about there being CCTV evidence which makes it sound like you know you were going too fast.

I had a collision on a roundabout many years ago and it ended up 50/50. It can be really difficult to prove who's at fault in a situation like this.