[User123]

The roundabout is a two lane roundabout with exits at 12, 3, 6 and 9 o'clock.

I entered the roundabout in the left (outside) lane at 6 o'clock to exit at 12 o'clock. I couldn't exit safely so continued around the roundabout in the left lane with my right hand indicator on.

The other driver entered the roundabout from the 3 o clock entrance into the right (inside lane). As I was passing the 9 o'clock exit in the left lane with my indicator on to show I was continuing around the roundabout, the other car attempted to exit at the 9 o'clock exit.

The other car drove into my lane and the mid to back passengers side of the other car collided with the front drivers side of my car.

The other driver is insisting that I was at fault. However I disagree as the other driver crossed into my lane in an attempt to exit even though I was indicating that I was continuing round the roundabout.

I'm aware of Turner v Grace and would assume our insurance provider (we are with the same provider) would try to go 50:50.

Please could I get some advice on who is at fault and what the insurance is most likely to do? I've never been in an accident before and I'm unsure how this goes.

*Extra info: I submitted photos of the damages and the road and my mechanic said that its very clear from the photos that the collision was caused by the other party but I know insurers just want an easy out. Especially since the other driver is claiming it was my fault. I also reported that we pulled over and I wanted to call the police as I had two small children in the car but the other driver drove off as soon as he got my details. Would this help my case any?

[Beelzebub]

If I've understood correctly, I'd say the other driver was at fault, but it will go 50/50 if there are two conflicting accounts and no independent witnesses or other evidence.

The police would almost certainly not have attended a non-injury RTC, so that doesn't help.

FWIW the fact that you were in the LH lane but signalling right would have confused other drivers, but that's no excuse for what happened.

[TC1474]

Originally Posted by User123

The roundabout is a two lane roundabout with exits at 12, 3, 6 and 9 o'clock.

I entered the roundabout in the left (outside) lane at 6 o'clock to exit at 12 o'clock. I couldn't exit safely so continued around the roundabout in the left lane with my right hand indicator on.

The other driver entered the roundabout from the 3 o clock entrance into the right (inside lane). As I was passing the 9 o'clock exit in the left lane with my indicator on to show I was continuing around the roundabout, the other car attempted to exit at the 9 o'clock exit.

The other car drove into my lane and the mid to back passengers side of the other car collided with the front drivers side of my car.

The other driver is insisting that I was at fault. However I disagree as the other driver crossed into my lane in an attempt to exit even though I was indicating that I was continuing round the roundabout.

I'm aware of Turner v Grace and would assume our insurance provider (we are with the same provider) would try to go 50:50.

Please could I get some advice on who is at fault and what the insurance is most likely to do? I've never been in an accident before and I'm unsure how this goes.

*Extra info: I submitted photos of the damages and the road and my mechanic said that its very clear from the photos that the collision was caused by the other party but I know insurers just want an easy out. Especially since the other driver is claiming it was my fault. I also reported that we pulled over and I wanted to call the police as I had two small children in the car but the other driver drove off as soon as he got my details. Would this help my case any?

If I understand your explanation correctly. You were travelling from 6 - 12 and the 3rd party from 3 - 9? You are obliged to give precedence and give way to traffic entering from your right, but the third party should also have been in the outside lane unless road markings allow otherwise.

Your choice of signal leaves a lot to be desired (I deal with a lot of crashes caused by the wrong signal, given at the wrong time with the wrong meaning of intent and I could write a whole separate thread on that subject), but in this case that should have no bearing on causation as it did not impact the actions of others, (it might have done in another situation but not here)

So the insurers are going to look at why you failed to give way to traffic from your right, and what was the speed of the third party? The wrong position of the third party may be deemed as contributory negligence, but in the cold light of day I can see this going 50/50 because it will probably be deemed that you were both at fault, unless you can show on the balance of probability that the third parties actions was the sole and direct cause of the crash.

Based on what you have said, I don't see that you can do that.

[User123]

@TC1474
Hi there. I was already on the roundabout when the other party entered at significant speed and crossed into my lane to exit. I have an expert report showing that the other party were going significantly fast and that they crossed into my path.

Because I was already on the roundabout I had right of way.

[TC1474]

Originally Posted by User123

@TC1474
Hi there. I was already on the roundabout when the other party entered at significant speed and crossed into my lane to exit. I have an expert report showing that the other party were going significantly fast and that they crossed into my path.

Because I was already on the roundabout I had right of way.

Who provided the expert report stating that the vehicle was travelling at significant speed? What does your expert consider to be significant speed?

I ask, because in many cases an accusation of speed is disregarded as only a small handful of us are considered suitably qualified to give expert opinion on speed, and is therefore often disregarded because one persons suggestion of excess speed is often different to another's, and after a collision has occurred, unless a full damage match, reconstruction and factors such as co-efficient of drag on a particular road surface is carried out, then it is meaningless and will be disregarded as evidence.

The other factor to consider is that the expert would need to provide evidence of what is the legal speed (easily done) what is the safe speed and then what is the critical speed especially in circumstances when a vehicle is travelling through a curved path.

The fact that you were already on the roundabout may or may not work against you as the other side will I am sure allege that you failed to give way, you maybe tried to accelerate quickly and that the fact that a collision occurred with the front drivers side (offside) of your vehicle might support this.

Obviously I am making these observations without the benefit of knowing the scene, location or seeing the vehicles involved, this is based purely on your account of events, but I still think you are looking at best case scenario of split liability (50/50)