Accident claim

[rayaans]

From the story it seems like the van was clearly in the wrong. It sounds like he simply didn't look and kept going.

TBH admitting liability doesn't mean much. You can admit liability and then completely change your mind. Happens a lot in reality.

Insurance company most likely will give a 50/50 payout as its a roundabout incident.

Unless you say "crash for cash" he pulled out in front of me....

[johnatg]

Sounds to me as if the van driver misjudged the speed of the car approaching and decided he had time to enter the roundabout ahead of it's arrival. After all, at roundabouts you should 'prepare to stop - be ready to go'. Roundabouts are not there as some sort of fun chicane to be negotiated as fast as possible - they are there to slow traffic to allow safe merging. Too many people treat them as the former, with the attitude - 'my right of way, |'m coming through'.

The fact that the car was unable to stop when the van pulled out in front, but swerved and collided with the rear of the van rather indicates excessive speed to me. Van driver's mistake, car going too fast. 50/50.

But I wasn't there, so who knows.

[Linas.P]

@johnatg - cannot agree with above. As long as the car was within speed limits, there are no fault on car drivers side. Slowing down on roundabouts and speed bumps is sort of "common", but by no way "sense", definitely not a rule - in fact slowing down and then accelerating increases pollution, wear on the car and fuel consumption. There are nothing wrong with attitude, "the way or right" is based on simple yes/no principles and if other divers follows the highway code there should be no issues. The only time when "way of right" does not (reasonably) apply is when the lights turns green, but pedestrians are still crossing the road, or other cars still finishing maneuver - not a rule again, but it would be stupid to smash into pedestrians just because you "technically have a way of right".

As well you are wrong regarding 50/50 "rule" (more insurers "practice" to avoid paying anything to anyone rather than a rule) on roundabouts. Or I should say it is applicable only "ON" roundabouts e.g. when both cars are on the roundabout, but the car in inside tries to get-off and car on the outside continues to drive around resulting in crash on exit - yes that is "50/50 fault". That is because in this situation, both cars have right of way... yet both are wrong.. kind of ridiculous!? To be fair it should be 100% fault on idiotic roundabout design which is only common in UK, roundabouts in most other countries have clear markings either outside only-out or inside only-around, but never both lanes both ways like in UK, it is almost like traffic lights which shows green to everyone on crossroad - should never exist... but does.

This 50/50 "rule" should not a be applied in this situation when car is on roundabout and van is joining roundabout, in this situation it is 100% van's fault as the car had "way of right" and van has not - quite simple. Even if both cars joined roundabout at same time van is still at fault because - it is not like "the first to enter has a way of right". Van driver can argue whatever he like, but the fact is that car was on roundabout (major road) and he had to give way to it, regardless of car speed or anything else and he first and foremost had to make sure it is safe to pull-out.

[KenMavor]

33 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

@johnatg - cannot agree with above. As long as the car was within speed limits, there are no fault on car drivers side. Slowing down on roundabouts and speed bumps is sort of "common", but by no way "sense", definitely not a rule - in fact slowing down and then accelerating increases pollution, wear on the car and fuel consumption. There are nothing wrong with attitude, "the way or right" is based on simple yes/no principles and if other divers follows the highway code there should be no issues. The only time when "way of right" does not (reasonably) apply is when the lights turns green, but pedestrians are still crossing the road, or other cars still finishing maneuver - not a rule again, but it would be stupid to smash into pedestrians just because you "technically have a way of right".

As well you are wrong regarding 50/50 "rule" (more insurers "practice" to avoid paying anything to anyone rather than a rule) on roundabouts. Or I should say it is applicable only "ON" roundabouts e.g. when both cars are on the roundabout, but the car in inside tries to get-off and car on the outside continues to drive around resulting in crash on exit - yes that is "50/50 fault". That is because in this situation, both cars have right of way... yet both are wrong.. kind of ridiculous!? To be fair it should be 100% fault on idiotic roundabout design which is only common in UK, roundabouts in most other countries have clear markings either outside only-out or inside only-around, but never both lanes both ways like in UK, it is almost like traffic lights which shows green to everyone on crossroad - should never exist... but does.

This 50/50 "rule" should not a be applied in this situation when car is on roundabout and van is joining roundabout, in this situation it is 100% van's fault as the car had "way of right" and van has not - quite simple. Even if both cars joined roundabout at same time van is still at fault because - it is not like "the first to enter has a way of right". Van driver can argue whatever he like, but the fact is that car was on roundabout (major road) and he had to give way to it, regardless of car speed or anything else and he first and foremost had to make sure it is safe to pull-out.

Been following this thread with interest....

I would ask......what vehicle hit which vehicle?  Ie Did the van hit the car side on or did the car hit the van side on etc.

In other words which vehicle was actually hit?  If the car was already negotiating the roundabout and the van hit it then I would suggest van at fault.  If the other way around then car at fault.

 

[johnatg]

Been following this thread with interest....
I would ask......what vehicle hit which vehicle?  Ie Did the van hit the car side on or did the car hit the van side on etc.
In other words which vehicle was actually hit?  If the car was already negotiating the roundabout and the van hit it then I would suggest van at fault.  If the other way around then car at fault.
 

The car hit the van - my point exactly. But I think the van driver wasn't completely free of blame - maybe he misjudged the speed of the car.

Sent from my PSP7551DUO using Tapatalk

[NemesisUK]

Did the car driver cut the roundabout, as in, took a straight path rather than around the paint spot?  

To hit a van side on, the driver must have been, shall we say, distracted? Does one not always anticipate someone pulling out, "cutting one up"?

[Linas.P]

14 hours ago, NemesisUK said:

Does one not always anticipate someone pulling out, "cutting one up"?

Is that irony? No obviously not... one would only reasonably expect others to follow the rules and give them a way when they have way of right.

As for above 2, it makes no difference who hit whom.. are you saying that if somebody will cut in front of me trough the red light when it is green for me it would be my fault, because "I hit the other car and not the other way around". What is the point of way of right then? 

I don't understand why we trying to over-complicate this case.. who has way of right? Car.... that means it was Van driver's fault.

 

[johnatg]

If only life (and driving) was that simple.........

[Linas.P]

The rules are pretty straightforward, it is just people who have no confidence in themselves, usually drives without confidence as well... slowing down and stopping without reasons simply because they don't know those rules. 

The complex part of OP question was that lady already admitted fault (verbally to police if I understood correctly) and what was other steps available. The situation itself was not complex at all. The change of the plea would obviously play against the lady if it would go to the court, but it would not be unusual or wrong step. If she has wrongly admitted fault, she should correct it ASAP. As well regardless what she said to police she should inform insurance of what was the truth - if the truth was that it was van driver's fault, then it is exactly what she should tell to insurance.

[jackcramerr]

I will share details here.

Got a letter from lawyer of van driver blaming the lady for accident.

[jackcramerr]

11 hours ago, jackcramerr said:

I will share details here.

Got a letter from lawyer of van driver blaming the lady for accident.

Lady driver here, thought I would clear some things up as it seems I need more help now 

what happened was : I was heading straight on, roundabout has good visibility so I had checked my right(no cars), front(no cars). To my left, I had seen a white car, about 50m back from the roundabout, approaching, but not at or near the roundabout yet. I went in the roundabout, then the white car came in front of me, from my left, I hit the brakes and swerved right to avoid him, but it didn't work. So I had hit him, with my nearside, on his rear wing ( small hatchback car, jackcramerr confused my witness with my driver, the witness had a van, not the driver ). He did not hit the breaks at all and did not steer at all, no attempts to avoid the 'collision'. 

First mistake I made, I moved my car out of the way, out of the roundabout, without taking pictures first( second mistake was not voice-recording everyone the whole time we were there). Anyway, a witness stopped to help out, he called the emergency services. Next thing, ambulance comes, both me and the driver say we are fine, don't need medical help, they leave. While we wait for the police, I asked this witness : did you see what happened? he goes : "I was behind him, he didn't stop, he went straight through, but you were coming on too fast". Second thing, police comes, 2 PCs ( one PCs recognises the witness), I get spoken to separately, driver and witness get spoken to separately ( the PC that knows the witness talks to the pair of them). PCs compare stories, tell me that the pair of them are saying the driver was already in the roundabout when I came on, I strongly deny, because it's not true, but this gets brushed off. By this point they'd already decided what's what, and to not get involved or do anything, so the second PC, or the witness or driver didn't even hear me denying. In any case, I was completely shaken and I was acting as if it was my fault, because of no experience, and because you are told that the driver that hits is always held at fault. 

I'd add that I had just dropped my xmas cards and presents at the post office down the road, you can actually see the roundabout and junction from the post office, so I could have not picked up any considerable speed in such a short distance having just set off. 

Police record it as an incident, but leave it to the insurance companies. Just before we  all left, I hear the driver say 'I saw her coming, but I though she has enough time to stop'. 

I call the police the next day, and after some insisting he tells me that both the witness and driver said the driver stopped, checked, he didn't see any car, proceeded in the roundabout and I came out of nowhere. ( notice Mr witness changed his statement from what he told us before the police came, I wonder if the other driver asked for his help).

It's now with the insurance, whom are still working on the liability, but I got a letter today from a solicitors ( passed to my insurers now), should I assume that they are claiming for an injury? 

Seems to me that this is now  about who shouts the loudest, so I am looking for advice to try and prove that I was not at fault. Really quite sad over the witness clearly changing his statement ( you cannot say he 'reviewed the circumstances' and later realised that he did in fact stop  ) and the driver lying about already being in the roundabout, he told my insurers that he was already halfway on the roundabout. 

Now the interesting thing is that, when I told  the person in the liability team dealing with my case that I was already in the roundabout when this other car came, he said that in a mini roundabout you cannot 'be established' because as soon as you are in, you are out. So surely then the other driver can't use this as an argument either. Wondering what arguments do they think they have to hold me fully accountable when they failed to give me right of way? 

If you made it this far with the lecture, thanks for any advice that you plan on giving