How do you work that out ?
School boy error, naturally!
|
|
|
Car 2 should have turned left because he is in that allocated lane and not have gone straight on.
|
Yes, thats where I looked.
|
O.K I admit, I did not look closely enough. But next time you dont have to ram it down my throat.
|
But next time you dont have to ram it down my throat.
schoolboy, no one is ramming anything down your throat.
However, perhaps if some of your postings didn't come across as having a "whatever I say is correct" feel about them, then perhaps other people wouldn't need to argue with you and prove otherwise.
DD.
|
I didnt realsie i sounded that way and can only apoligise.
|
|
|
|
|
And the problem with that is ? The blue car is in the left lane going straight ahead. Only indication required is a nearside "breakaway". Red Car is truning right from the right hand lane, indicate is offside until passed junction 2 then nearside breakaway.
|
Yes you are right.
|
|
Sorry SB I work in an adversarial profession.
|
Thats ok, just a friendly argument which will probably re occour on another subject. Its good to hear a comletly different perspective.
|
|
|
|
When taking any intermediate exit
select the appropriate lane on approach to and on the roundabout, signalling as necessary
The HC is sufficiently flexible on this.
Not necessarily as shown in the example picture... the red car could occupy the same lane and exit at 12 o'clock (second exit).
Have checked and virified numerous times with current class one and RoADA examiners.
|
|
A health check of course are eccentric road markings. There is a busy rural roundabout up the road with incorrect (according to the HC) markings that have been there for the last 25 years for me to know. (That is the left hand lane is marked to turn left only and the right hand lane is straight ahead and right). Local Police Driving schools use this on Class 1 driver, unless the driver is wide a wake it can lose 1/2 a mark for going into the "wrong" one.
|
As a matter of fact no one has mentioned the relative importance of the road exits concerned. If the exit chosen by car one was a continuation of the main road both cars had entered the roundabout from, and had not signalled right, then car 2 might have been considered at fault.
On logical driving grounds I mean. Never mind some ghastly fuddled bureaucratic text, lawyer fodder.
|
|
Both of the exits are of equal importance, and only have one lane each.
|
It would seem to be car1 at fault, and I assume that car2 was in car1's blindspot, but presumably no mirror or shoulder check to clear the blind spot by car1 before moving left? Had car1 known car2 was there, one would assume he would have gone around again and exited when clear.
|
NO one is at fault.
Or should I say, no one will be able to tag fault and subsequently blame on the other party.
When push comes to shove, there is no evidence or a witness. One drivers word against another. If I were driving car 1 there is no way you would get money out of me. My story would be completely different and there is not a damn thing you can do about it.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
"My story would be completely different and there is not a damn thing you can do about it."
A rather frank admission.
I trust your friend Algy won't take that approach.
|
As it happens Algy is actually one of the guys who is as good as it gets - As you may read when his story is told in full.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
Frank and damning, TVM.
Who is Algy?
|
It was an explanatory comment and an example of how things could (probably would) turn out.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
What sort of story would you be able to make up that any insurance company would not be able to disprove?
|
What RF said.
No witnesses and one driver's word against the other. Unless the other car driver was a High Court Judge/Brain surgeon/Cop, who would they believe?
You could say pretty much anything you liked then they wouldn't be able to disprove it.
|
Assuming that damage is on my left and your right..
I was on the roundabout and you entered the roundabout and hit me.
Its your word against mine, so your insurance company wont even bother to give the papers a cursary look let alone try and disprove anything.
If the other party denies it, it will end up as knock for knock and your NCB is down the pan.
you need a witness.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
I think you may have misread; Both cars are already on the rounabout, and the car on the right tries to leave, forcing the car in the left lane off the road.
|
so you say
I was on the roundabout and you entered it and hit me.
prove it didnt happen that way
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
What TVM is getting at is this - car 1 might be 100% to blame, but in practice and with no witnesses, unless somebody admits liability it's 50:50.
|
|
There was no entering the roundabout at all involved in this accident, but thanks for your contribution
|
but you cant prove it didnt happen that way
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
but you cant prove it didnt happen that way ------------------------------ TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
Yup. How many people have rear-ended someone, without being to blame? I have at least twice. How many people have been rear-ended through no fault of their own, and lost expensively? I have, once. One would think the car that ran into the other car was to blame, and courts tend to think so. It usually is, but not always.
See what you mean TVM. Sorry.
|
car 1 is at fault
regardless of who was right or wrong, (s)he had the opportunity to avoid a crash (perhaps going around again), but failed to do so.
car 2 had nowhere to go.
they should both have been aware of each other.
Insuance would probaly be 50:50 tho'
|
We have a 4 lane roundabout with 6 feeder roads, all at least 2/3 lanes on my commute to work.
All car 2 did wrong was not think eighteen steps ahead !
I see this sort of thing all the time with the aforementioned roundabout - great when you know it's spiral layout - i.e. each lane spirals out ??!!!??, but a complete hazard for anyone new !
|
I was always taught if you are unsure which exit you require stay in the left hand lane which has a few benifits no cutting up other drivers and you get a better look at the road signs.
I would say though if you indicate your intention to leave at the next exit. in doing so mirror checks would reveal to the driver a car very close.
It really depends if the 1st car was trying to straight line the roundabout.
What happens nearer to me is where a dual carridgeway going uphill ends in a roundabout where the right lane is strictly for turning right (except BMW's) that try to beat the traffic and push in to the que causing many a near miss.
|
|
Fine in theory, reality is slightly different, especially when cars (and especially motor bikes) disappear into the inherent blind spots in nearside mirrors. Queue jumping is not an exclusively BMW thing. Some rational observation would prove that everything from a chavved up hatch to white (and not so white) vans are just as guilty.
|
" There was no entering the roundabout at all involved in this accident, but thanks for your contribution"
I think that what TVM is saying here is that there may well not have been any entering the roundabout involved. However, if the driver of Car1 says there was, then without witnesses, how would the driver of car 2 prove it.
Equally, though, most people are honest enough not to change totally the reality (probably out of fear of a witness turning up), so the driver of Car 2 may never have this problem.
I think the signalling right bit is the root cause of the blame being laid on Car 2. Depends if he admits it. Unfortunately, a surprising number of drivers seem to think that indicating right when going straight on at a roundabout is the correct thing to do, so hopefully, he will mention it.
V
|
Some time back, I posted a query similar to the original post here, based on a former colleague's misfortune - dual carriageway, two-lane roundabout, both cars taking the straight ahead which was also dual carriageway, standard layout. About a hundred yards after the roundabout there is a right turn, meaning that usual practice for those leaving the roundabout and taking this turn is to go straight to lane 2 of the dual carriageway. Car 2 approached and entered the roundabout *behind* my colleague in Car 1, but accelerated into lane 2 of the roundabout (indicating right) and partially overtook before trying to pull into lane 2 of the dual carriageway and colliding with the front corner of car 1, which was also going into the same lane. Police said they couldn't assign sole blame to either driver.
The sting in the tail for my colleague was that her insurance refused to pay out. She had originally paid her whole premium up front, then later told the company she needed to upgrade the policy to include business use. So far, so straightforward. However, just after telling them this she moved out of her house for what turned out to be more than just a trial separation. At the time, the unpleasant ex didn't pass on the written correspondence from the insurer (in spite of it coming in an envelope printed with the insurer's logo), who getting no answer from her within four weeks about paying an additional premium, cancelled the policy. The ex handed over this correspondence about four months after the fact, so at least she avoided prosecution.
--
andymc
Vroom, vroom - mmm, doughnuts ...
|
The new Highway Code Consultation Document gives specific instructions which go part of the way to answering this:- www.dsa.gov.uk/content.asp?id=13014 >> HJ
??? eh ?
hj - how is this any different to current highway code ?
www.highwaycode.gov.uk/17.htm
|
I have a similar thing happen to me and I was sure i was right to be annoyed but not so sure now.
This is the situation:-
I am entering a roundabout on a duel carrigeway and planning on going straight on (onto the same dual carriageway). The other 2 exits are single carriageway. I was under the impression therefore that the left hand lane is for left or straight and right for straight or right. This is with people not cutting the roundabout by entering in right hand lane but leaving and entering the left (this is dangerous and vvvvvvvv annoying) I took the RH lane and was planning on going straight on into the RH lane on the other side. A white van that as far as I could see was no signalling as it was half a length ahead entered in the LH lane and decided to go all the way round the outside. I managed to slam on and missed it by 1 inch (cant believe I stopped but may reactions obviously work).
I could not believe it and sorry to say that the attitude of "say what I can to get out of the situation" really annoys me.
From the amount of commuter driving I do I seem now to have a sixth sense for the STUPID and TUNNEL VISIONED drivers who seem to think they only have to look the 90 degree section of space infront of them.
Why should I get shafted for the one fool who I havent managed to spot.
I think there should be a driving simulation as part of the test where you need to drive in a multiple lane situation as this would help these peoplle who dont seem to get that they are not the only person on the road.
END OF RANT
|
|
Although not all round abouts are maked with lines they are demmed to be present and a car in the right lane has to cross the line to make an exit thus it is his reponsibilty to indicate and ensure his path is clear for his intended manouvrer. The guy on the insdie lane is not changing direction into the path of another vehicle. Regards Peter
|
|
so it is ok to go into the outside lane of the roundabout and go all the way round?
|
the unpleasant exdidn't pass on the written correspondence from the insurer (in spite of it coming in an envelope printed with the insurer's logo), who getting no answer from her within four weeks about paying an additional premium, cancelled the policy. The ex handed
I think we need the unpleasant ex's version of events.
We may all find him? absolutely charming and honest to the n'th degree.
|
Well, I don't know much about him, apart from the fact that he knew this accident had happened, but didn't produce the documents until months had passed. This in spite of the girl asking him had anything come from the insurer, are you sure you don't remember anything coming from the insurer, they say they've written to me, have you checked for any post at all that would have come for me, I'm getting really worried here, etc. I was there when she made one of those calls and heard her side of the conversation. Seems to me that he deliberately chose instead to let her face the possibility of prosecution for driving without insurance. Considering that she had originally moved out due to his behaviour (selling what he wasn't ingesting, if you see what I mean), I think it's reasonable to use the word "unpleasant". Anyway, back to the topic ...
--
andymc
Vroom, vroom - mmm, doughnuts ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
