[Reddo1888]

I was at a roundabout waiting (6) to go left on the round about second exit (12). I looked at my to right for the clear gap and when I found a suitable one I pulled away. Suddenly a car in the right lane (inner lane of the round about) tried to take the first exit (9) cut in front of me hitting my front. I was in the left lane. My driver side headlights are broken and front bumper of my car is damaged with sharp edges. The third party I believe was speeding which would be the reason for not noticing my car. When he cut in front of me his car got a dent on the passenger side and some scratches, I was travelling in 1st gear at the time do believe I was only doing aroubd 10mph
I Pulled in to a safe area and got out to chek damage and see if other driver was also ok, which didn't seem to to his priority. He had little co trol over his car as he skidded. When he stationed himself he was in the right hand lane which further proves he was travelling in the wron lane to begin with. I asked the driver for his details but he would not comply, he didn't speak, I repeatedly asked to swap details and all he gave me was a first name - which according to his insurance policy isn't the name identified with his insurance policy but actually his Middle name, I find this strange as he shod have given me
A name that was on his insurance. Luckily the police were driving by and stopped to check insurance details I asked the police for the mans details as he was reluctant to pass them on- the police gave me the details and said that they would pass mine onto the man and told me I could carry on my journey. It wasn't until I had left that I thougbt why hadn't the police breathilised either of us and why did they not check photo ID? I find his strange? I hadn't been drinking, but the man at the incident seemed very dismayed. Before I was leaving the man came over to see if me and my passenger were ok and said I know it's xmas time and we all have places we need to be and were in a rush- this statement suggests to me that he was speeding. I didn't get the names of the police officers which I am so mad about. I contacted my insurance company 3 days later as I was working 3 13hf shifts and had no time and they said tthat there were no claims put in against me at this point, this also suggest to me a little bit strange as surely as a driver if you feel like you were not at fault you would have claimed. But I am also aware that the man had very little damage to his car and it is my car the came off the worst.
my insurance company have said that they will have to put it through as a fault claim? I've never heard of this as this is my first ever road traffic accident and I have a clean licences of 4 years.they said that the man will likely say that he had right of way but like I stresssd to the company when I looked for a suit me safe gap and took off the man was not established in my view nor was he in the correct lane and was speeding which caused the collision in the first place. They said it would be his right of wah which I know would be the rule of he was established on the round a bout in clear view and in the correct lane for the exit he was taking but this was not the cSe. They said they can't prove he was speeding. I find this very frustrating. I also said it is the rule of the road and responsibility of the driver to be award of being in correct position to exit the roundabout and once they had committed to that lane if they had doubt they should continue until they could get to a safe place to change the course of their route they shouldn't just take it upon themselves to shoot out in front of someone and hope they make the exit without getting court.

Me and my passenger both suffering from whiolash Injurys.

I currently don't know what to do about my car?

A friend who works in framework and repair have said it would cost more than the are worth to repair but I need the car for work and general daily tasks.

I would really appreciate any help, advice on this or anyone who has suffered similar and can help me?

Thanks a lot for taking time to read!

[smudger]

Welcome to the site Reddo, if you have a read through these forums you will find many similar posts to yours, where the results of such accidents on roundabouts, tend to go 50/50 with the insurance companies, good luck.

[Snowball]

I think, Reddo, that the insurers are almost certain to go for 50/50. From your own explanation in your OP, if this is what you have given to your insurers then I cannot see how they could decipher this into any specific degree of blame on either party. At the time of an RTC, most people involved are subject to varying levels of shock, which can result in everyone leaving the scene without having full and accurate details to pass on to their insurers. Your own version of what happened does suggest that the police at the scene were a bit less thorough than they might have been, although I don't think that any difference in their dealing with the situation would change the probable 50/50 that the insurers will apply.

[claimconsultant]

Hi Reddo

I'm a technical manager for a major UK Insurer with 14+ years of claims experience, along with being a member of the Chartered Insurance Institute, so hopefully I can help a little here.

The first question to ask is where the Third Party (the other car) entered the roundabout from. If you entered from 6, intending to leave at 12, did the Third Party also enter at 6 or did they enter the roundabout from an earlier junction, ie 3? If they entered from the same junction as you, there is reason to dispute liability as you would have been in a suitable lane for your intended exit. If the Third Party entered from the right hand lane at junction 6 with the intention of leaving at 9, they would not have been in the correct lane.
However, and this is the key point, if they entered from a junction prior to 6 (where you entered), ie a junction to your right, your Insurer are correct in the the Third Party would have had right of way and that you are therefore at fault.
As your Insurer appears to have already reached this conclusion, I can only assume that the latter is correct and that the Third Party did not enter the roundabout from the same junction as you. Unfortunately, in circumstances such as this, regardless of the size of the roundabout, how big or small it is or how many junctions it has, the onus is always upon you to give way to your right and to vehicles either entering the roundabout or approaching a junction to your right.

As above, it all rests upon where he came from. But, by the sounds of it, you're not really going to be in a good position to dispute liability and your Insurer has made the correct decision.

[Reddo1888]

Rta

Originally Posted by claimconsultant

Hi Reddo

I'm a technical manager for a major UK Insurer with 14+ years of claims experience, along with being a member of the Chartered Insurance Institute, so hopefully I can help a little here.

The first question to ask is where the Third Party (the other car) entered the roundabout from. If you entered from 6, intending to leave at 12, did the Third Party also enter at 6 or did they enter the roundabout from an earlier junction, ie 3? If they entered from the same junction as you, there is reason to dispute liability as you would have been in a suitable lane for your intended exit. If the Third Party entered from the right hand lane at junction 6 with the intention of leaving at 9, they would not have been in the correct lane.
However, and this is the key point, if they entered from a junction prior to 6 (where you entered), ie a junction to your right, your Insurer are correct in the the Third Party would have had right of way and that you are therefore at fault.
As your Insurer appears to have already reached this conclusion, I can only assume that the latter is correct and that the Third Party did not enter the roundabout from the same junction as you. Unfortunately, in circumstances such as this, regardless of the size of the roundabout, how big or small it is or how many junctions it has, the onus is always upon you to give way to your right and to vehicles either entering the roundabout or approaching a junction to your right.

As above, it all rests upon where he came from. But, by the sounds of it, you're not really going to be in a good position to dispute liability and your Insurer has made the correct decision.

My insurance company have been really slack in handling this case. Every single time I have rang up I have had to go through my accident story over and over again. The answer to your question is that the man was entered from the 3rd exit in the wrong lane for the exit he wanted to take. My insurers have said that it is hard to place liability when it comes to round about cases. As i have already told them that the man was speeding and shot it front they say they cannot use this as a means of argument nor can they use the fact that he was in the wrong lane for the exit he wanted to take even though ive pointed out this is a breach of the Highway Code act. It is very frustrating on my part.

[Reddo1888]

I should also point out as said before he was not on the round about as I have begun to take off which can only describe the speed he was going at. Home could not control his car when the Collision happened and finally came to a haiku around 200 metres from were the collisin happened

[claimconsultant]

Hi Reddo

I understand that it can be incredibly frustrating, especially when your Insurer appears to be 'dragging their feet', whilst also making you repeat yourself time and time again. It's the nature of the business though, I'm afraid, as with high claims volumes and 'bottom line reductions', it means that everyone's staffing levels are stretched. This results in the turn around time on claims handling invariably being longer than any Customer would expect, but also for claims handlers to ask you to repeat your allegations, etc, as opposed to them keeping you on hold whilst they review your file.

With regards to the circumstances of the collision, I'm afraid that there is very little chance of you coming away without being held entirely responsible. The Highway Code states that, when entering a roundabout, you must give way to vehicles approaching from your right. Unfortunately, this stands for both vehicles who are already established on the roundabout, as well as vehicles who are themselves approaching and/or entering the roundabout. If there's a chance of coming into conflict with another vehicle, whether you feel that they are exceeding the speed limit or simply travelling more quickly than you, should you pull out then you are taking a risk and creating a hazard. Should a collision then occur, you will be held fully responsible.

Speed can be quite a contentious point, though. Whilst we may see a vehicle travelling along a road, around a roundabout, etc and feel that they are speeding, it is not possible for us to be able to state this as fact. Whilst you would have undoubtedly pulled out at a low speed and the Third Party was evidently travelling faster than you, it is not possible to state with any certainty that they were travelling at any particular speed. Two further points are that 1, unless they were actually caught speeding (by the Police, for example), you would have no proof to support your allegation and 2, most importantly, speed in itself is not recognised as an act of negligence when dealing with a Civil matter such as a Road Traffic Accident.

I note that you state that the Third Party came to a halt around 200 metres from the point of impact, this also would not add much weight to any argument regarding speed. A stopping distance relates to the distance your vehicle continues to travel once you break and do not cease braking until your vehicle comes to a complete stand still. The Third Party may have braked, tried to swerve, tried to accelerate around you, and then continued to slow down gradually over the coming 200 metres. As such, even if he was travelling at a mere 10mph, he could have continued on safely for 200 metres and stopped at a safe point.

The remaining factor relates to the Third Party entering the roundabout in the incorrect lane for their intended exit. Unfortunately, again, this would not go much way to supporting an allegation that they are completely, or partially, responsible. Going back to my initial response, had you both entered from the same junction, this would have been relevant. However, as the Third Party approached from a junction to your right, the onus would have remained solely upon you to ensure that a collision did not occur and the responsibility would have been yours to not enter the roundabout until you were sure that it was safe to do so. Again, unfortunately, as a collision has occurred, it was evidently unsafe for you to enter the roundabout at that time.

I would definitely raise issue with your Insurer with regards to any delays that they have caused/are causing, but as far as liability is concerned, I am afraid that the most likely outcome is that you will be held 100% responsible.

Regards

[Reddo1888]

Reply

Hey again,

I was first told by my insurer that it would be looking like a 50-50 split. I'm not happy to take full liability as the car was travelling at speed and the driver was so rude and uncooperative at the accident. He was not estaished on the roundabout in my view when I was entering the roundabout and there was sufficient space to take off , my argument was that his speed and choice of exit caused the collision, had he travelled round the roundabout in the lane he was using and not cut in front to take the exit there wouldn't have been a collisin, why should his irrational behaviour be my fault, it carelessness and he was unaware that I was there, he also never put a claim in to his insurer whih proves to me that he is for some reason avoiding insurance claim? I find that strange. Anyway would the damage done to my vehicle not be sufficient enough to prove the rate of his speed seen as he got away with a scratch but the whole front side of my car is smashed and irrepairable?



Really appreciate your insight into this Thankyou.

[claimconsultant]

Hi Reddo

50/50 is a pretty 'stock' answer for Insurance companies when it comes to collisions on a roundabout and I would be very surprised if the Third Party's Insurer were willing to consider it. However, until it's all resolved, there's still hope.

Regarding the damage to your vehicle, even if it could be used to prove the exact speed of their vehicle, it wouldn't add any weight unfortunately. As before, speed isn't regarded as an act of negligence when considering the proximate cause of a collision.

I most definitely wish you luck and would say that if the Third Party's insurance company is willing to settle on a 50/50 basis, you should accept this with no hesitation.

Regards

[Reddo1888]

So have you got any tips to help my case?

Thank you

[claimconsultant]

To be totally honest, and apologies if this comes across as a little 'frank', but there's not much that you can do, other than pushing for the 50/50.
However, should this matter proceed to a Civil hearing (if legal proceedings were issued), the likely outcome would be that the Judge would award the case in favour of the Third Party.
If you strip this down to the very basic facts, the points that can be proven and supported, you entered the roundabout into the path of a vehicle approaching from your right.
We cannot prove his speed, the lane he was established in, his intended route or even his attitude after the collision occurred. The only points that can be proven are where he entered and where you entered. Based upon this alone, as harsh and as annoying as it may seem, at all rests in his favour.

Believe me, I know how infuriating it can be when you know that there are contributing factors such as someone driving recklessly, etc, but it all comes down to what you can prove and who owes the greater duty of care.

If, and it's a very strong "if", 50/50 is accepted by the Third Party, I honestly think you will have been very lucky, and this comes solely from an impartial standing point, with many many years of negotiating settlement on cases such as this (along with writing training material for claims departments relating to this, and other, type of scenario).