Quarterbridge Roundabout - So Who's In The Wrong?

[manxy]

Straight forward answers preferred please as this is an ongoing 6 month insurance claim by a relation (not me)

 

Direction of vehicles travel;

Car A - travelling from McDonalds to quarterbridge roundabout and is heading back to McDonalds way again (U -turn using roundabout)

Car B - travelling from Bray Hill to quarterbridge roundabout and is turning right towards Peel

Car A is virtually round the roundabout when Car B hits Car A.

Who is to blame?

 

One insurance company states that it is 50/50 and both are to blame, therefore the premiums will go up

 

If you were Car A and this happened to you, what lawful thing would you suggest?

[Burt]

Where did car B hit car A? ie- on the door the wing etc

[Silentbob]

Either way car B is to blame, I do a U-turn there as well as it is illegal to turn right out of McDonalds (even though the 'no right turn' signs are on private property, and therefore not strictly legal imho.

 

When I do this however, I always do it slowly, make eye contact with the car coming from Bray hill, and give them a sign that I am going right round, never had an issue.

 

If Car B was travelling so fast that he could not react to you turning back on yourself and drove into you, then he/she is definately to blame, if you swung round and drove into him/her as they were expecting you to be just turning right, then you were going a bit hard, but legally still in the right.

[integer]

Where did car B hit car A? ie- on the door the wing etc

 

That's irrelevant, if car A was on the roundabout (and had correctly indicated) when it was hit by car B, then car B is at fault.

[sarahc]

Insurance companies love to go for 50/50, means they don't have to do any work.

[RC-Drift.com]

Driver of car B is obviously a moron in a hurry and shouldn't enter the roundabout until there was nowt coming from his right (which there obviously was)

[WTF]

Driver of car B is obviously a moron in a hurry and shouldn't enter the roundabout until there was nowt coming from his right (which there obviously was)

 

i agree it was car B's fault as whatever is already on the roundabout has right of way. but, i can also see how car B assumed that car A was going to be going up QB road and don't blame them for assuming ( incorrectly ) that that was the case. not that it makes any difference, but i'd be interested to know whether car B was on the approach to QB roundabout and kept going thinking car A was going up QB road, or whether car B set off from stopped at the roundabouts?

[manshimajin]

I agree with comments above. Would add - if Car A had right turn indicators on as it was going round the roundabout it would be signalling that it was continuing on round. If Car A had been going up Bray Hill it would (if signalling correctly) have switched to indicating left. It is not safe to pull out into a roundabout if the car already on the roundabout is either signalling with its right indicator or is not signalling at all. Even if the left indicatos were on a prudent driver would wait to see which way Car A was going.

 

Can your relative write to his/her insurer and say that they do not agree that it is 50/50 for x y z reasons and is there a process for appealing the conclusion that as been reached?

[Tempus Fugit]

the insurance co obviously don't know how stupid a roundabout paint dot it is, too small for anything to do a circle around from the right hand lane unless you have a vehicle with a 3ft turning circle

[Gladys]

Too many mini-roundabouts here, even QB. People do right hand turns without following round which negates the idea of a roundabout. I have seen loads of near misses like this solely because people do not understand the concept of a roundabout. Not least that it is a good idea to slow down when approaching a roundabout and to view the roundabout as a feeder to where you want to go rather than as a clearway to your intended exit.

[Mr. Sausages]

I don't care whose fault it was. I just hope nobody got hurt. Send Mr. Sausages's love to the accident victims. Mr. Sausages wishes them a speedy recovery. Unless it was you. Mr. Sausages hates you.

[Stavros]

Car A is virtually round the roundabout when Car B hits Car A.

Taking into account the fact that Car B should be giving way to trafic entering the roundabout from the right hand side (Peel towards Douglas) and Car A entered from the left (Douglas towards Peel) it would be easy to see how the insurer might have misinterpreted the claim and what actually happened.

 

Your relative should force the point and make it absolutely clear where and how the accident happened. Using the principle that they were 'already established' on the roundabout means that they can rely on the fact that they had right of way. Using photographs of damage to either vehicle at the time of the accident or now if the vehicles haven't been repaired and if no pictures were taken at the time will show who hit who. i.e. front end damage to the other person's vehicle and side impact damage to your relative's vehicle would clearly show that the other person hit your relative.

 

Diagrams clearly showing the seconds before the accident might assist. Try to demonstrate the position of the vehicles before entering the roundabout, as they approach, enter and colide. Providing your relative makes it abundantly clear how they were maneuvering, they should be able to establish the other person to be at fault.

 

I will guess that there were no witnesses to the accident as you've not mentioned it. Although, if there were and they are independant i.e. not passengers in either vehicle then they could also help estabish fault.

 

If they're still not satisfied with the way the claim is being handled, get them to contact the managing director and if that doesn't help, go to the Financial Ombudsman, just remember to let them all know that your relative is taking their complaint to a higher level.

[Albert Tatlock]

Just to complicate things...the highway code says you should 'avoid making U-turns at mini-roundabouts. Beware of others doing this.'

 

That might suggest why there is a dispute - implying both vehicles involved in the collision are at 'blame'.

 

I'm surprised the same hasn't happened many times at the mini roundabout near Tesco/Bus Station.

 

And just because someone comes out of McDonalds, or wants to do a U turn at the Tesco/Bus Station roundabout...where they have been or where they are going has no bearing on the traffic system they are driving in. That's a major problem over here IMO, far too many people concerned with where they are going, and not concerned with where they are, who is around them, and the rules of the road.

[Stavros]

Just to complicate things...the highway code says you should 'avoid making U-turns at mini-roundabouts. Beware of others doing this.'

 

That might suggest why there is a dispute - implying both vehicles involved in the collision are at 'blame'.

That makes no sense. You can't be at 'blame' for doing something which is perfectly legal even though the highway code suggests that you should avoid making U-Turns at mini-roundabouts. In the same sentence, it says 'Beware of others doing this' which indicates that it's not actually illegal but is something which should be avoided if possible. (The Highway Code is a Code and the Road Traffic Act is an Act. Some rules in the Highway Code represent various road traffic laws and must be obeyed. Others are not compulsory, but advisable.)

 

The point here is quite simple, from the situation as described, the U-Turn was a perfectly legal maneuver. They were already established on the roundabout when the third party entered the roundabout before they had completed their maneuver and hit their vehicle. Fault established. Forget perceptions and possible reasons for blame, stick to the facts and only the facts in order to prove the case.

[Albert Tatlock]

Just to complicate things...the highway code says you should 'avoid making U-turns at mini-roundabouts. Beware of others doing this.'

 

That might suggest why there is a dispute - implying both vehicles involved in the collision are at 'blame'.

That makes no sense. You can't be at 'blame' for doing something which is perfectly legal even though the highway code suggests that you should avoid making U-Turns at mini-roundabouts. In the same sentence, it says 'Beware of others doing this' which indicates that it's not actually illegal but is something which should be avoided if possible. (The Highway Code is a code and the Road Traffic Act is an Act. Some rules in the Highway Code represent various road traffic laws and must be obeyed. Others are not compulsory, but advisable.)

 

The point here is quite simple, from the situation as described, the U-Turn was a perfectly legal maneuver. They were already established on the roundabout when the third party entered the roundabout before they had completed their maneuver and hit their vehicle. Fault established. Forget perceptions and possible reasons for blame, stick to the facts and only the facts in order to prove the case.

Hey...don't shoot the messenger. It's obviously more complicated than that, because there IS a dispute.