Can you describe what you mean by "pretty much irrespective of speed"?

Depending on your answer to that question, you MIGHT be suggesting that if the OP's wife was driving with all due care and attention, did all the checks, concluding that it was safe to continue, then got tw@tted by an @rse who literally appeared from nowhere, that it would be her fault

I think not

When I say 'pretty much irrespective of speed' I mean the following:

The other car had right of way and the OPs wife has Entered a roundabout, causing a collision. The speed limit appears to be 30mph.

If the other car is doing 30, it's wife's fault. 35? Wifes fault. 40? Wife's fault. As the speed rises, there is a percentage of blame apportioned to the other driver but primary blame remains with wife who did not give way when she should have.

We can get to 50/50 and if the speed is high enough (and more to the point can be proven) then we might even get to the point where it is more the other parties fault than wife's BUT even at 25/75 it would be wife's fault with 75% of the blame apportioned to the other party. Wife will always bear primary blame as her car shouldn't have been there.

With complete detail on the road layout, vehicle positions, width of the road, etc it might be possible to argue that the other car could, if not for excessive speed, have swerved round her but pricing it would be extremely difficult.

Hopefully that lets people understand better - I suppose an easier example would be if you were on a dual carriage way doing 70 and you pulled out to overtake but got smashed from behind, the other car must have been speeding but the accident is still your fault.

I'd also add that when I say that the accident is wife's fault, I mean the contact between the two cars. I'm not saying that she was to blame for subsequently putting the other vehicle the wrong way up, although I'm sure te other side would look to make a token representation on that.

Sorry, but after that opening point I cannot take your views seriously. It is like saying, that if you turn right out of a side turning (with a blind bend around 50 metres away), and you are hit by another car travelling at twice the speed limit say 60MPH in a 30MPH limit, then the speeding driver is not too blame!

Can you not see, that a car which was not previously in view, but is speeding, then alters the whole perspective?

I think you're confusing fault with blame. If you disagree then fine, although I really don't see how an inaccurate rebuttal of one minor point somehow leaves you unable to take the other (more difficult) questions seriously.

As mentioned in my earlier post I have plenty of sympathy for your wife who probably deserves little of the blame for this. I also know how irrational behaviour cn be after an accident, but as posted earlier it is easier to look at this objectively when you are not directly involved and on that basis I think primary fault will be found to lie with the vehicle that entered a roundabout into the path of another vehicle and your wife should not have left the scene until the emergency services (and specifically police) arrived.

As for whether you wife could/should have seen te other cart might help if you were to post up a google maps link or something. I was at fault once for turning right across two three lanes of traffic of which the first two were stationery and the driver in the middle lane was waving me out. A car came down the third lane at high speed (I'd estimate 40-50) and although I was edging out slowly the front of my vehicle made contact with the side of his - little damage to his car and new bumper, bonnet, radiator, wing, etc for me. I was doing all I could to get out slowly and safely on a green light and he was speeding alongside stationery traffic. He was to blame on a % basis but 'fault' was mine.......

Can you describe what you mean by "pretty much irrespective of speed"?

Depending on your answer to that question, you MIGHT be suggesting that if the OP's wife was driving with all due care and attention, did all the checks, concluding that it was safe to continue, then got tw@tted by an @rse who literally appeared from nowhere, that it would be her fault

I think not

EXACTLY! There is a group of drivers that think they can approach a roundabout at any speed they like and must still have right of way. When the "give way to the right on a roundabout" rule came out it was accepted that you give way to any vehicle to the right on the roundabout now that group thinks you must give way to them when they are 100 yards up the road from the roundabout!

Sorry but anybody rear ending me would be flat on their back end of

And where exactly would that get you if it ended in court? which it would if you took the law into your own hands

And where exactly would that get you if it ended in court? which it would if you took the law into your own hands

And clearly a woman beater too :think:

We can get to 50/50 and if the speed is high enough (and more to the point can be proven) then we might even get to the point where it is more the other parties fault than wife's BUT even at 25/75 it would be wife's fault with 75% of the blame apportioned to the other party. Wife will always bear primary blame as her car shouldn't have been there.

If she has done all the checks, moves forward, and someone enters the roundabout at high speed 40MPH to 50MPH (in a 30MPH limit), and then there is a collision, then the other driver is clearly to blame, because he has broken the law, and his excessive speed does not give anyone else time to react.

That is why we have speed limits which vary according to the environment.

You could of course try to apply your logic to an RTA where a driver hits and kills a pedestrian crossing the road, whilst doing 40MPH to 50MPH in a 30MPH zone. I would hate to try your method of 50/50 blame, arguing that the person should not have crossed the road until it was completely clear.

Lets have a bet? £20 to club funding? i bet the insurance will put the blame on the woman or at best 50/50

Andyoctavia glad your wife is ok. Thanks for putting your incident on the site. I do wonder sometimes if some of the respondents just like a good holier than thou argument. You have been really patient. Ignore them.

If she has done all the checks, moves forward, and someone enters the roundabout at high speed 40MPH to 50MPH (in a 30MPH limit), and then there is a collision, then the other driver is clearly to blame, because he has broken the law, and his excessive speed does not give anyone else time to react.

That is why we have speed limits which vary according to the environment.

You could of course try to apply your logic to an RTA where a driver hits and kills a pedestrian crossing the road, whilst doing 40MPH to 50MPH in a 30MPH zone. I would hate to try your method of 50/50 blame, arguing that the person should not have crossed the road until it was completely clear.

I understand your point of view and agree to some extent but I doubt your insurer will press for a no fault on your behalf UNLESS the police prosecute the other party for dangerous/careless driving.

This is based on personal experience. Whilst you can claim the moral high ground and argue your wife wasn't to blame (and most of us will agree) your insurer will only press for 100% of costs from the other party's insurer if there is irrefutable proof that it was their fault and unfortuneatly unless they are proven to have been driving carelessly or dangerously the insurers will take the view that your wife is wholly or partially at fault as she was the one pulling out.

You have my sympathy as I found myself in a similar position a couple of years ago.

Andyoctavia glad your wife is ok. Thanks for putting your incident on the site. I do wonder sometimes if some of the respondents just like a good holier than thou argument. You have been really patient. Ignore them.

I actually think the responses have been fair and balanced to be honest.

It'll be 50/50. Safe bet,

If she has done all the checks, moves forward, and someone enters the roundabout at high speed 40MPH to 50MPH (in a 30MPH limit), and then there is a collision, then the other driver is clearly to blame, because he has broken the law, and his excessive speed does not give anyone else time to react.

That is why we have speed limits which vary according to the environment.

You could of course try to apply your logic to an RTA where a driver hits and kills a pedestrian crossing the road, whilst doing 40MPH to 50MPH in a 30MPH zone. I would hate to try your method of 50/50 blame, arguing that the person should not have crossed the road until it was completely clear.

Andy your problem is that you are trying to apply (with respect) a layman's logic whereas I am explaining the way the law does and will work.

I appreciate that your wife was shaken and I am not for a second claiming that my missus or even me myself would have had a different outcome BUT.....

1) your wife should have stayed at the scene. No ifs, not buts, given the apparent severity of the incident she should have been there when the police arrived. I appreciate te effects of shock (I was passenger in an RTA where I was in so much pain from my elbow that I was going round in circles trying to 'walk off' the pain totally unaware that I had a severe gash to my leg with tendon and bone poking out) but I think we all know that her actions following the incident were incorrect.

2) like it or not, unless there are circumstances you haven't told us she WILL be held at primary fault here. Ignoring my own comments look at metblackrat - he has stated (in the pressed plate thread IIRC) that he is a traffic officer. He has stated in this very thread that he has spent ten years involved in te investigation of RTAs and his first comment was that (based on the information you hae provided) your wife caused the collision.

I doubt that the police will seek to charge your wife here and I doubt that you or her will be involved in any insurance negotiations over fault but if you are/were then te questions would be a lot less sympathetic than the comments in this thread and 'but but but the other car was going too fast' would not be an acceptable response.

I only hop on the forums here and there on my phone but if I remember (and in truth if you state or show some indication that you might be willing to at least try to look at this objectively) then I'll go into more detail.........

Andyoctavia glad your wife is ok. Thanks for putting your incident on the site. I do wonder sometimes if some of the respondents just like a good holier than thou argument. You have been really patient. Ignore them.

Or maybe we are

Just trying to afford him the benefit of our knowledge and experience

I'll agree that he's welcome to iignore us though.........

Okay just to clarify guys, there's no such thing as RTA anymore, they're all referred to as RTC nowadays. It's because Road Traffic Accident implies someone is at fault, whereas Collision just states an impact has happened.

Collision/impact still implies someone at fault IMO

Okay just to clarify guys, there's no such thing as RTA anymore, they're all referred to as RTC nowadays. It's because Road Traffic Accident implies someone is at fault, whereas Collision just states an impact has happened.

It's the other way round.

1. From the information given by the OP, no-one was seriously injured. Thumbs up!

2. Regardless of or own personal opinions of who is to blame, the final decision rests with the police/CPS who will decide if there is a case to answer. End off.

Let's not get into a slanging match amongst ourselves over something which we have no direct involvement with. (Apart from the OP, obviously!)

Fin

Its hardly a slanging match.

People adding their thoughts and comments are what keeps a thread alive.

As long as peoples posts abide by the forum rules then where is the issue?

This place is quiet enough as it is.

I see no slanging match - do you think that it is wrong to attempt to point out to someone that their belief is incorrect? If they still won't accept it is it wrong to tell them why and (politely) state that whilst you are happy to assist further you're not going to do so unless they:

1) want you to

2) are prepared to read the comments?

apart from that others may learn from this. A lot of people reading this thread may have thought that there was no way the OPs wife would be held at fault here and some might have assumed that her leaving the scene was acceptable.

Anyway, as the OP hasnt been back regarding the above points ive not bothered to research any links to the relevant traffic law (although in any case I think blackrat has covered leaving the scene). However, I used to frequent a forum which sought to help advise people in this type of situation and a tirty second search has found a thread involving a poster who had someone pull out in front of them and are worried about accusations of speeding. The first comments by 'swyddog ambilwans' who is a member of the ambulance service and former police officer and 'FNG' who was the forum's tame insurance expert/insider are particularly helpful. In particular FNG discusses the standard insurance company approach and states:

"any car that emerges into traffic and hits an established vehicle is going down to a greater or lesser extent.  Whilst the speed, conduct and observation of the established matters the greater emphasis is nearly always placed on the established vehicle to not inconvenience the establshed vehicle."

Link: http://www.traffic-answers.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=9191.0

If the OP wants further advice by experts if suggest he heads over to the TA website.

It's the other way round.

erm, no it's not. Road Traffic Accident means blame can be attached as someone has done something, albeit accidentally. I have to use the correct terminology in my job otherwise I get a strip torn off me. Been like that for several years now.

Just watch any of those emergency programmes on daytime tv and you'll hear them only saying RTC.

Collision/impact still implies someone at fault IMO

I can understand why, but there is a difference, hence the terminology change within UK emergency services. Collision is just the coming together of two objects. The definition of an accident is something happening unintentionally, ergo done without intent, therefore with intent being something blame can be attached to if discovered otherwise, a person can be held accountable. I dunno who changed it, but I believe it was a politcal correctness thing to avoid undue stress to any poor unfortunate who didn't mean to kill someone accidentally, that sort of thing.

erm, no it's not. Road Traffic Accident means blame can be attached as someone has done something, albeit accidentally. I have to use the correct terminology in my job otherwise I get a strip torn off me. Been like that for several years now.

Just watch any of those emergency programmes on daytime tv and you'll hear them only saying RTC.

I used to be an Accident Investigator. I was then changed to being a Collision Investigator. BRAKE (the road safety charity) petitioned hard to have it changed as 'accident' implies there is no negligence in a crash. Collision is a meeting of two bodies either advertantly or inadvertantly.The OP is correct.

I see no slanging match - do you think that it is wrong to attempt to point out to someone that their belief is incorrect? If they still won't accept it is it wrong to tell them why and (politely) state that whilst you are happy to assist further you're not going to do so unless they:

1) want you to

2) are prepared to read the comments?

I think you meant to say "if they still won't accept why I think it is wrong"

Otherwise you are taking on the mantle of categorically stating that you are right, which you may not be

I used to be an Accident Investigator. I was then changed to being a Collision Investigator. BRAKE (the road safety charity) petitioned hard to have it changed as 'accident' implies there is no negligence in a crash. Collision is a meeting of two bodies either advertantly or inadvertantly.The OP is correct.

Well. That's totally different to what the police and my bosses told me. lol

I'm fairly sure that if speed is involved blame will pretty much be on the person speeding.

A friend of mine experienced the same type of accident - he pulled out in front of a speeding car on a mini roundabout, with good sight lines, but lots of parked cars. It was in town so the limit was 30 MPH. He was prosecuted for driving without due care and the person who hit him was done for speeding.

That was 20 years ago, so things may be different now...

Lets face it, regardless of the speed of the other driver, you'll be very hard pressed if you're trying to make a point that it's not your fault.

At the end of the day, it's going to be all your fault, or split (based on a judges opinion) of how much the speed contributed to the accident/increased the damage.

The only way you'd get around that is to get the other side to admit it was their fault (not happening) or to get an expert (such as a police collision expert) to say that there was no way anybody could have anything to avoid the person going at whatever speed they were. To do that you've got to prove they were speeding somehow too.

This isn't taking sides, just pointing out that you're unlikely to find an easy way of getting your point over.