Roundabout - who's at fault?

CiniO

I had a situation on roundabout today. Nothing happen, but could have finished with a little crash.
I was approaching the roundabout on double carriageway. As I wanted to turn right on roundabout, I took right lane. Lady who was behind me for a while approached roundabout on left lane (so I thought she was going straight or left).
Anyway I went through roundabout, and after I passed last exit before the one I wanted to leave roundabout, I signalled left, and started turning left (I was still in the inner lane, so I had to cross through outer lane). This exit from roundobout is to a small street, so there's only one lane. Before doing so I checked in my mirror, but didn't see anyone. When started turning left, I realised, that the lady (earlier mentioned) was just there taking the same exit as me. She went through all roundabout on the outer lane to turn right on it, and at the moment, she must have been in my blind spot.
Luckily I realised she was there, so I could avoid the crash.

Anyway - If the crash would happen - who's fault would it be?
Her - because she shouldn't drive on the outer lane of roundabout while turning right on it?
Or my - because I stared changing lane on the roundabout, and someone (she) was on this lane already?

What do yous guys think?

justshane

If you started in the right lane to take the last exit on the roundabout you where in the right, no hassle.

Absurdum

she was at fault

patrickc

totally the lady

Barr

Absurdum wrote: »

she was at fault

Have to disagree with this; the greater onus of care is always on the person changing lanes.

I reckon the Insurance would have settled 50/50 as there would be fault on both sides

ShiresV2

CiniO wrote: »

I had a situation on roundabout today. Nothing happen, but could have finished with a little crash.
I was approaching the roundabout on double carriageway. As I wanted to turn right on roundabout, I took right lane. Lady who was behind me for a while approached roundabout on left lane (so I thought she was going straight or left).
Anyway I went through roundabout, and after I passed last exit before the one I wanted to leave roundabout, I signalled left, and started turning left (I was still in the inner lane, so I had to cross through outer lane). This exit from roundobout is to a small street, so there's only one lane. Before doing so I checked in my mirror, but didn't see anyone. When started turning left, I realised, that the lady (earlier mentioned) was just there taking the same exit as me. She went through all roundabout on the outer lane to turn right on it, and at the moment, she must have been in my blind spot.
Luckily I realised she was there, so I could avoid the crash.

Anyway - If the crash would happen - who's fault would it be?
Her - because she shouldn't drive on the outer lane of roundabout while turning right on it?
Or my - because I stared changing lane on the roundabout, and someone (she) was on this lane already?

What do yous guys think?

I don't know what the courts and insurance companies would say.

But, I believe that there is almost always a level of shared responsibility to crashes. Crashes are the confluence of a big set of unfavorable factors, they don't occur just because one person alone makes a bad decision.

Incidentally I had one somebody cut me up at a roundabout this afternoon, similar circumstances as you describe, checked blind spot and someone was about to barge though.

seensensee

The thing is that one really cannot start edging onto the left hand lane on the roundabout while another car is occupying the road space that you are trying shift onto, if you collide with another car because you chose to shift lanes... think about it ?
Meanwhile although blocked from making the turn you are free to continue circling the roundabout and having a second attempt at it but careful... next time there could be a learner on a moped who obstructs your exit, what are you going to do? surely not to shift lanes and cause a crash? because if you do then you are most certainly in the wrong :eek:.

filthymcnasty

below is from rules of the road website. you were right as you followed ROTR but rules of the road are not clear at describing rules on the roundabout especially if the roundabout is two lanes (and most are). Woman driver was in the wrong approach lane but how would this be proved if there was a crash?







Taking any later exits

Signal right and approach in the right-hand lane.
Keep to the right on the roundabout until you need to change lanes to exit the roundabout.
Check your mirrors, signal left and proceed to your exit when it is safe to do so.
Signal left after you have passed the exit before the one you want to take.

Vertakill

Barr wrote: »

Have to disagree with this; the greater onus of care is always on the person changing lanes.

I reckon the Insurance would have settled 50/50 as there would be fault on both sides

I find that VERY hard to believe.

The woman misused the roundabout. The root of the problem lies with her.
If she entered the roundabout in the left lane to take the 3rd exit, she's at fault - there's no debating it. The only debate would be whether the OP could prove she entered in the left lane and if he had any witnesses.

What you're saying is basically, you can do whatever you want (speed, drift, reverse, you name it) around the roundabout and then when some poor shmuck goes to exit whilst switching lanes and hits you... he's at fault - despite the fact that you were doing all sorts of illegal sh1t up to that point.

I'm sorry but that's complete crap.

The OP's insurance company would fight tooth and nail for a 100% liability on the other cars part if they heard this story.

Barr

Vertakill wrote: »

I find that VERY hard to believe.

The woman misused the roundabout. The root of the problem lies with her.
If she entered the roundabout in the left lane to take the 3rd exit, she's at fault - there's no debating it. The only debate would be whether the OP could prove she entered in the left lane and if he had any witnesses.

What you're saying is basically, you can do whatever you want (speed, drift, reverse, you name it) around the roundabout and then when some poor shmuck goes to exit whilst switching lanes and hits you... he's at fault - despite the fact that you were doing all sorts of illegal sh1t up to that point.

I'm sorry but that's complete crap.

The OP's insurance company would fight tooth and nail for a 100% liability on the other cars part if they heard this story.

Afraid its the reality of the courts system, the o/p would have the weaker case if it went in front of a judge.

Vertakill

Barr wrote: »

Afraid its the reality of the courts system, the o/p would have the weaker case if it went in front of a judge.

Again, I find that incredibly hard to believe.
But I'm completely open to you explaining how a judge would see this in the woman's favour, however.


The way I see it, the woman would first have to explain how she entered and exited the roundabout and the judge would know straight away that she made a mistake.

In most situations, the OP would struggle to see the woman's car if she was 1 car length behind due to your blind spot.
With the angle you're turning and the fact she's a little bit behind you, she's going to be traveling permanently in your blind spot.

Again, I'm open for correction but I can't see how this would go against the OP.

FearDark

Before I even opened this thread my answer to the OP's question was "the woman".

slimjimmc

Vertakill wrote: »

I find that VERY hard to believe.

The woman misused the roundabout. The root of the problem lies with her.
If she entered the roundabout in the left lane to take the 3rd exit, she's at fault - there's no debating it. The only debate would be whether the OP could prove she entered in the left lane and if he had any witnesses.

The RoR advice on roundabouts is just that: advice on good driving practice. AFAIK there is no law that says a driver must not go around the roundabout in the left lane (unless signage/markings say otherwise) but there is traffic law that says you must not change lanes without ensuring it is clear to do so. That would put the OP at fault if a collision had been caused.

Vertakill wrote: »

What you're saying is basically, you can do whatever you want (speed, drift, reverse, you name it) around the roundabout and then when some poor shmuck goes to exit whilst switching lanes and hits you... he's at fault - despite the fact that you were doing all sorts of illegal sh1t up to that point.

I'm sorry but that's complete crap.

No one is saying that. If you're driving like in your examples then you would most likely be at fault for careless/dangerous driving or not being in control, not the guy who crossed lanes. However even in that case if the poor shmuck also committed an offence by crossing lanes without ensuring it was clear then he has to share some of the blame.

Vertakill wrote: »

The OP's insurance company would fight tooth and nail for a 100% liability on the other cars part if they heard this story.

See above.

corktina

there is no doubt here, the OP was entirely correct.

maggot12345

she was in the wrong as she was in the wrong lane--lots of people on roundabouts do this as they are not able to drive on a roundabout. Not to mention the fact that they don't indicate either. Isn't there another rule also that says always give way to traffic on yout right?? She should have let the car indicating off the roundabout off.

slimjimmc

maggot12345 wrote: »

she was in the wrong as she was in the wrong lane--lots of people on roundabouts do this as they are not able to drive on a roundabout. Not to mention the fact that they don't indicate either.

We don't know she was in the wrong lane, we have no knowledge of the signage/road markings. If the markings showed left lane as left-turn or straight ahead only then yes she would be in the wrong lane. However, despite that the onus remains 100% on the driver changing lanes to make sure the way is clear for him to do so. Thankfully the OP was attentive enough to check properly and avoid a collision.

maggot12345 wrote: »

Isn't there another rule also that says always give way to traffic on yout right?? She should have let the car indicating off the roundabout off.

Yield to traffic approaching you from your right? Yes, that would apply if one of the drivers was entering the roundabout and the other driver was already on it. It does not mean a driver is entitled to change lanes regardless of anyone to his left and it certainly doesn't mean the other car is obligated to yield to him. Also, indicators are only to indicate your intention to change direction they don't give you any rights, unfortunately many drivers seem to think otherwise.

Berty

On the basis on the information provided by the OP then the OP was in the right and the woman misused the roundabout by using the outer orbital lane to dangerously manouveur to the exit she wanted.

Merch

I wouldn't call it inner and outer, it confuses things.
Its offside and nearside, calling it inner or outer might confuse which lane you were in.
Someone might think by inner you meant the nearside (lefthand of two lanes), where I assume you meant the offside (overtaking).

If you were in the offside lane then you were in the right, I'm not sure how a court would look at it, but doing that (if that's what she did is wrong) I can't see how a court would look for 50/50 if say you did all you could do to avoid being hit without endangering other road users, but i'd rather not find out.

Berty

Merch wrote: »

I wouldn't call it inner and outer, it confuses things.
Its offside and nearside, calling it inner or outer might confuse which lane you were in.
Someone might think by inner you meant the nearside (lefthand of two lanes), where I assume you meant the offside (overtaking).

If you were in the offside lane then you were in the right, I'm not sure how a court would look at it, but doing that (if that's what she did is wrong) I can't see how a court would look for 50/50 if say you did all you could do to avoid being hit without endangering other road users, but i'd rather not find out.

Hang on. I used to design and build roundabouts(not by myself :P), directed from the NRA, for a large contractor in this country and they ARE called:

Inner orbital and Outer orbital lanes.

It is easiest to call them that because that IS what they are called. If you were bringing a matter like this to court and used whatever description you felt made you happiest it would only serve to confuse people.

rubberdiddies

Surely the rules of the road are "rules" and not "advice", as a previous poster said. Can someone clarify this?

The incident the OP describes has happened to me on many occasions. I put this down to bad driving and general lack of cop on in Ireland on how to use a roundabout but I would have always assumed the OP was in the right.

I notice a lot of large trucks/lorries automatically take the lefthand lane when going for the 3rd exit, presumably cos they feel the turn is too tight otherwise. This in my opinion is extremely dangerous.

Merch

Berty wrote: »

Hang on. I used to design and build roundabouts(not by myself :P), directed from the NRA, for a large contractor in this country and they ARE called:

Inner orbital and Outer orbital lanes.

It is easiest to call them that because that IS what they are called. If you were bringing a matter like this to court and used whatever description you felt made you happiest it would only serve to confuse people.

Inner and outer orbital lanes

I think thats too much, the left lane is the nearside lane and the overtaking lane is the offside lane simple.
I have to say I never, ever heard anyone calling them that or seen it written down anywhere, can you provide some additional information?

Berty

Merch wrote: »

I have to say I never, ever heard anyone calling them that or seen it written down anywhere, can you provide some additional information?

This is the best I can get you right now as I dont work in that industry any more so wouldn't know where to start tbh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundabout

It refers to inner and outer and the fact you "orbit" the roundabout that is where the reference comes from.

Merch

Berty wrote: »

Hang on. I used to design and build roundabouts(not by myself :P), directed from the NRA, for a large contractor in this country and they ARE called:

Inner orbital and Outer orbital lanes.

It is easiest to call them that because that IS what they are called. If you were bringing a matter like this to court and used whatever description you felt made you happiest it would only serve to confuse people.

A quick google might at least provide some indication, there are definitions for nearside and offside but none for what you describe, just because a major contractor calls them anything mean much to me, nor does that you feel you have to qualifiy what you are saying by saying you design roads.
Both the RSA the NRA and the UK highway agency refers to nearside and offside but not to orbital lanes, orbital lanes and you may have been confused normally refers to roads that circle (to some extent) somewhere.
I'm open to being proved wrong, so if you can provide a link to this directive please do so.

guil

rubberdiddies wrote: »

Surely the rules of the road are "rules" and not "advice", as a previous poster said. Can someone clarify this?

The incident the OP describes has happened to me on many occasions. I put this down to bad driving and general lack of cop on in Ireland on how to use a roundabout but I would have always assumed the OP was in the right.

I notice a lot of large trucks/lorries automatically take the lefthand lane when going for the 3rd exit, presumably cos they feel the turn is too tight otherwise. This in my opinion is extremely dangerous.

in an artic there would be a massive blind spot on the passenger side goin round a roundabout, imagine the carnage if the op was in an artic and someone drove up the left

Merch

Berty wrote: »

This is the best I can get you right now as I dont work in that industry any more so wouldn't know where to start tbh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundabout

It refers to inner and outer and the fact you "orbit" the roundabout that is where the reference comes from.

I dont like to shoot you down but it appears as if there is no reference to orbiting in even that wiki link, I think you're mistaken and that the idea that they are called orbit lanes is based on thin evidence, I will stick to the better known nearside and offside lanes.
After you said you worked in the industry I thought you were going to provide some absolute proof

Waterford26

irish new drivers(and 90% with full licence too ) definetely needs more lessons on road..than situations like this won't hapend. Another 10% have to use horns

Optimalprimerib

this drives me beyond crazy, you try to do the right thing by being in the right lane and some idiot blocks you by dinkying about all the way around in the wrong lane.

If there was an accident i think you would be more at fault as you didnt take the appropriate precautions crossing the lanes but tbh it is like running into the back of someone, you pay for what could also be the other parties error

Berty

Merch wrote: »

After you said you worked in the industry I thought you were going to provide some absolute proof

Im sitting in my sitting room at home and you expect me to somehow find links to NRA / Contractor Reports and/or guidelines by the councils / NDP / ESAI at the drop of a hat simply because YOU request them.

I don't think so. I cannot access the LIT database from my computer so cannot find tutors descriptions of roundabout/turning circle construction patterns.

Nor did I bring home a lot of files and paperwork when I left the industry in 2006 just for the hell of it just in case Im challenged on the internet.

"Thin Evidence" indeed.

More like a difference of opinion. You can call it Nearside and offside all you like. Im simply suggesting that in the greater scheme of things they are technically called Inner and Outer Orbital lanes. I may even go so far as calling a pile of stones aggregate and you may challenge me and say they are simply stones.

I love the Internet! :rolleyes:

Rick Deckard

back on topic, a couple of years ago, i was on the pinnock hill roundabout in the nearside outer orbit lane, when a very similar situation happened, only in my case the two cars collided.. i helped as best i could, and they both wanted me to go witness as they both thought they were in the right..

in court i described what i'd seen, and the two drivers agreed with my account.

The judges decision was 50/50. The driver in my lane didn't see the driver in the offside inner orbits indication to change lanes, and the driver in the making the lane change didn't see the car he was about to drive into, due to not checking his blind spot.

The Big Red Button

peatcass wrote: »

back on topic, a couple of years ago, i was on the pinnock hill roundabout in the nearside outer orbit lane, when a very similar situation happened, only in my case the two cars collided.. i helped as best i could, and they both wanted me to go witness as they both thought they were in the right..

in court i described what i'd seen, and the two drivers agreed with my account.

The judges decision was 50/50. The driver in my lane didn't see the driver in the offside inner orbits indication to change lanes, and the driver in the making the lane change didn't see the car he was about to drive into, due to not checking his blind spot.

But just to clarify, in this case, was the car in the outer lane taking the third exit? (I'm assuming a standard roundabout with four entrances/exits, I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that particular roundabout though!)

Slidey

Everyday, without fail, several morons aproach the N4/N17 roundabout in Sligo from the N17 side with the intention of turning left.

However unlike normal people they approach in the right hand land coming to the roundabout and take the first exit.

I am patient, I can wait, but some day I am going to see one of them get plastered by someone who uses the left lane approaching the rounadabout and goes into the roundabout with the intention using the second exit

Anan1

FearDark wrote: »

Before I even opened this thread my answer to the OP's question was "the woman".

Banned for a week for sexism

slimjimmc

rubberdiddies wrote: »

Surely the rules of the road are "rules" and not "advice", as a previous poster said. Can someone clarify this?

Not all, some of what is in the RoR is derived from law, almost everything else are guidelines,advice and good practice. They even state this in their Introduction on Pg 8 of the print/pdf copy.

This book uses a ‘how to’ approach and covers many of the manoeuvres
identified as factors in a road crash. It uses three methods to set down clearly
and concisely how the law applies to all road users.
It uses must and must not to draw attention to behaviour the law clearly
demands or forbids.
It uses terms such as should and should not to tell you how best to act in
a situation where no legal rule is in place.
It illustrates and describes traffic lights, road markings and signs provided
to regulate traffic.

rubberdiddies wrote: »

The incident the OP describes has happened to me on many occasions. I put this down to bad driving and general lack of cop on in Ireland on how to use a roundabout but I would have always assumed the OP was in the right.

Unless there were markings to the contrary, the other car is entitled to continue orbiting the roundabout in their lane. Many drivers assume they have priority when moving across lanes but the fact of the matter is they don't, even if the other driver shouldn't be there:

You must give way to traffic already in the lane into which you are moving

rubberdiddies wrote: »

I notice a lot of large trucks/lorries automatically take the lefthand lane when going for the 3rd exit, presumably cos they feel the turn is too tight otherwise. This in my opinion is extremely dangerous.

As others have already said, that's good practice and safe driving. The truck can control his blind-side by doing that.

cyclopath2001

CiniO wrote: »

was just there taking the same exit as me. She went through all roundabout on the outer lane to turn right on it, and at the moment, she must have been in my blind spot.

The key to this would be the overtaking regulations. Overtaking you on the inside in a situation that would have caused a danger or inconvenience to you is a double no-no.

Apart from the stated roundabout rules, best practice would not to overtake anyone on a roundabout unless they're nearly stopped.

Voodoomelon

What I want to know about are roundabouts that have the second exit beyond the 12 o clock mark, see below:


I follow the rule that if the second exit is beyond the 12 o clock mark of the entrance you take to the roundabout, you take the inner most lane (from centre) to drive round and then indicate left as normal.



This is what I do ^^.

However lots of people say this is the second exit and as per the rules of the road they take the outer most lane (from centre) and drive around that way.

Whos right?

Slidey

I was told when doing my truck lessons that if the 2nd exit was after 12 you should treat it as you would the 3rd exit

Rick Deckard

chatterpillar wrote: »

But just to clarify, in this case, was the car in the outer lane taking the third exit? (I'm assuming a standard roundabout with four entrances/exits, I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that particular roundabout though!)

there are 5 entrances/exits
the car in the inner off side lane had been on the roundabout from the southbound exit of the m1, while the car infront of me in the outer nearside lane had just joined at the donabate entry. so that would be exit 4 for inner and exit 2 for outer.. i know i'm crap at explaining this

Slidey wrote: »

I was told when doing my truck lessons that if the 2nd exit was after 12 you should treat it as you would the 3rd exit

+1, was told the exact same during a driving lesson..

Berty

RE: The last 3 posters.

This is what I do and it is very simple.

I drive defensively because every road is full of morons who are so fvcking stupid they dont give a flying fvck.

Excuse my french but thats life. My mother said one day whilst she cut a roundabout with me in the car, after saying "What the fvck?"

"Im on the roundabout now, they can all go the hell"

I said to Mrs Berty many times when she was complaining about some fvcker cutting us up on the road to the Supermarket.

"Look around the supermarket at those people barely able to drag their hairy knuckles around the supermarket(nenagh btw). Those people actually drive, thats why I drive defensively"

Mr. Presentable

With respect of the OP.

The OP was correctly using the road, the other was not. However, once the situation has developed where both are moving for the same exit, the OP must yield to the vehicle already in the lane. Which the OP did, making him right twice.

I suppose what it boils down to is that no matter what the legality of how the other vehicle got to it's position on the road, the correct procedure is determined as of the situation in the now.

I also applaud the use of blind spot checking to the left by the OP. It is something many drivers neglect. So three good marks to the OP!

exaisle

What do you do when you meet somebody coming around the wrong way on a roundabout?? No legislating for that one!

whyulittle

Met an auld lad going the wrong way through a small, but busy roundabout a few weeks ago. Luckily he was going so slow I saw him miles away. Looked totally dazed.

Berty

Surely going the wrong way comes under either

Careless Driving

or

Reckless driving - FECKER CHATTERPILLAR

The Big Red Button

Berty wrote: »

Surely going the wrong way comes under either

Careless Driving

or

Wreckless driving

Reckless driving.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of it resulting in a wreck, therefore it's not wreckless :P

CiniO

Thanks for all the replies.
After reading all these and analysing some facts, here's what I think now.

If we crashed, my fault would be obvious, as I was changin a lane, and road traffic regulations require anyone chaning lane to give way to traffic already on that lane:

Quotation from S.I. No. 182/1997, ROAD TRAFFIC (TRAFFIC AND PARKING) REGULATIONS, 1997

(8) A driver shall not drive from one traffic lane to another without yielding the right of way to traffic in that other lane.

The woman that drove other car, was supposed to use the right (inner, offside, whatever) lane on the roundabout if she intended to turn right (take 3rd exit), but it's not mentioned in any traffic law AFAIK. It's only shown in rules of the road as guidelines. So in case of accident and court case, it's obvious to me, that something that is a law act, is far more important, that some guidelines for drivers.

Only one other thing comes to my head. If we started from the approach to the roundabout at the same time, and were moving on the side of each other through the roundabobut, I obviously should see her before. If I didn't it could mean, that she started i bit later, and she was driving faster to catch me on, and to me, that would mean that she started overtaking me on the roundabout on the left side which is abviously forbidden. So that would probably take a case to 50/50 fault.

Anyway - one more thing to remember - always check in mirrors and blindspot before exiting from roundabout direct from inner lane (offside, right). Even more - what I'll try to do, is to change lane to the outer lane just after passing last exit before the one that i'm taking. That just gives you more space, to change lane and make sure the lane that you are changing to is empty

Something like this:

Merch

Berty, I was not arguing with you, I was replying to the OP

Berty wrote: »

Hang on. I used to design and build roundabouts(not by myself :P), directed from the NRA, for a large contractor in this country and they ARE called:

Inner orbital and Outer orbital lanes.

It is easiest to call them that because that IS what they are called. If you were bringing a matter like this to court and used whatever description you felt made you happiest it would only serve to confuse people.

You replied to a post which I was referring to the OP, in that you stated something was fact.

I didn't challenge you, you responded to a post where I was giving my opinion based on information I have come across on the RSA, NRA and UK roads authority, in essence you challenged me! however I never even noticed you before my posts to the OP

Berty wrote: »

This is the best I can get you right now as I dont work in that industry any more so wouldn't know where to start tbh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundabout

It refers to inner and outer and the fact you "orbit" the roundabout that is where the reference comes from.

And then you couldn't even back your own response

Berty wrote: »

Im sitting in my sitting room at home and you expect me to somehow find links to NRA / Contractor Reports and/or guidelines by the councils / NDP / ESAI at the drop of a hat simply because YOU request them.

I don't think so. I cannot access the LIT database from my computer so cannot find tutors descriptions of roundabout/turning circle construction patterns.

Nor did I bring home a lot of files and paperwork when I left the industry in 2006 just for the hell of it just in case Im challenged on the internet.

:rolleyes:

I didnt request them, you stated something was fact and I asked for proof and I believe I said am willing to be proved wrong.
then you get snarky because you cant back it up, I didn't really think where you might be or suggest you might do anything at the drop of a hat??
I never heard nearside and offside being described correctly as anything other than nearside or offside and certainly not inner orbital or outer orbital, which to me refers to a road orbiting a town or similar (either inner or outer) as I said willing to be proved wrong, if you have something to back that up fine, but please do not throw a fit at me, saying oh I love the internet for this kind of thing or wether or not you have the documentation to back it up as if to suggest I have asked for something unrealistic.

its seems to me if you make a statement and cant back it up, then you are wrong, you not having access to information isn't really my problem.

I'm open to being corrected by someone providing supporting information, but not by someone that cant and then accuses me of challenging them, it makes it seem you are not open to being in the wrong.

Voodoomelon

Surely there had to be some legal backing towards people who actually use roundabouts correctly? How can there be laws for people pulling out at junctions incorrectly, yet none for idiots not using roundabouts properly? It completely defies logic that someone can pleed ignorance and get away with 50/50 blame on a roundabout, despite causing an accident by sitting in the wrong lane...

Also, no one has an answer to the 3 exit roundabout above? (legal)

cyclopath2001

Voodoomelon wrote: »

Also, no one has an answer to the 3 exit roundabout above? (legal)

There is nothing wrong (legally) with the manouvre you illustrated as long as it is performed safely. This means paying attention to the overtaking and lane change regulations. In the case of someone who uses the inside lane for the maouvre you illustrate, the same applies to them.

The bottom line is that if you overtake or change lane you must do so without causing inconvenience or danger to anyone else.

From what I see, most safety issues on roundabouts (among those already on them) are caused by excessive speed and innappropriate overtaking.

Reloc8

Just to give a lawyer's perspective on the OP's situation (accepting that most motorists will be - correctly - highly critical of the car in the wrong lane of the roundabout)...

I have to say the OP would be in serious trouble in court on any liability issue. In my view a judge would certainly have more regard to missing a car (or anything/one) in the blind spot when changing lane than to incorrect roundabout useage. The fact that that specific car should not have been there (bearing in mind its intentions) is more or less irrelevant, legally.

It's as well to bear in mind that the rules of the road are not considered to have any legal status in a civil claim (althought you can of course be prosecuted for breaches).

Henry Ford III

Reloc8 wrote: »

Just to give a lawyer's perspective on the OP's situation (accepting that most motorists will be - correctly - highly critical of the car in the wrong lane of the roundabout)...

I have to say the OP would be in serious trouble in court on any liability issue. In my view a judge would certainly have more regard to missing a car (or anything/one) in the blind spot when changing lane than to incorrect roundabout useage. The fact that that specific car should not have been there (bearing in mind its intentions) is more or less irrelevant, legally.

It's as well to bear in mind that the rules of the road are not considered to have any legal status in a civil claim (althought you can of course be prosecuted for breaches).

I wouldn't agree.

It's quite reasonable if using a roundabout as the op described to indicate to make the exit, and not have to check your nearside blindspot.

Had the other person used the correct lane there would not have been any accident. So therefore they are totally at fault. I cannot see any contributory negligence.

To me at least that's clearcut.

Max Power1

Reloc8 wrote: »

It's as well to bear in mind that the rules of the road are not considered to have any legal status in a civil claim (althought you can of course be prosecuted for breaches).

The ROTR have no legal basis full stop, as they are merely an interpretation of the RTA.

In addition, you cannot be prosecuted for a breach of the ROTR. They have no statutory basis.

Reloc8

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I wouldn't agree.

It's quite reasonable if using a roundabout as the op described to indicate to make the exit, and not have to check your nearside blindspot.

Had the other person used the correct lane there would not have been any accident. So therefore they are totally at fault. I cannot see any contributory negligence.

To me at least that's clearcut.

Well...I'm just saying is all lol.

Take the evidence in court as being 'and because there should never have been a car in my blindspot I didn't bother checking it' and you will be potted from a distance. That's not to say some element of contributory negligence might be assessed as well.

You say that had the other car not been there there would have been no accident...that is pretty much always the case in a two car collision. Equally, a blindspot check will prevent this accident as well.

Anyway I understand your point, and I'm not trying to argue the toss with you, nor am I criticising the OP but just trying to answer his question from a legal perspective as to who would carry the can in court.

I don't however agree its not necessary to check your nearside blindspot in this situation - if you don't you're proceeding on the basis of a presumption.

Max Power1 wrote: »

The ROTR have no legal basis full stop, as they are merely an interpretation of the RTA.

In addition, you cannot be prosecuted for a breach of the ROTR. They have no statutory basis.

To be more precise, you can of course be prosecuted for behaviour which is a breach of the rules of the road, but not because it is contrary to the rules of the road, rather, because it is also contrary to the Road Traffic Acts.

A judge dealing with a criminal prosecution for careless driving will frequently have regard to the rules of the road. Cases of dangerous driving are, generally, far more stark and less nuanced.

Say if the OP was prosecuted for careless driving here, there having been a collision or whatever, on the explanation given there is a reasonable chance some judges would dismiss - the standard of proof in a criminal case being higher.

In a civil case on an explanation such as that given by Henry Ford ('she shouldn't have been there - there's no need for me to check my blindspot - even though I am changing lane to exit the roundabout')...not going to fly very far I'm afraid.