Car Insurance Decided 50/50 Split for Crash?

Lturk182 on 28/03/2017 - 17:45
Last edited 31/03/2017 - 17:57

So few months back i was in a car accident. At a roundabout, driving straight through the roundabout using the right hand lane, when i was approaching the exit another car to my left decided to join. I did actually see the car but assumed that car was going to use the same exit as me. Well we crashed and now my insurance company is saying its a 50/50 split where we both pay the excess and each insurance company will pay for their own clients car.

I personally think this is wrong as i believe i had right of way and was about to exit when the crash occurred so i believe it should be 100% fault to the third party.

So just wondering what others think ? and should i lodge a complaint with my insurance company and take things further or just accept the 50/50 split.

  • Have already received my car back from the repairer and so far haven't paid any excess yet as they took awhile to reach a decision *

Car crash

Update: 30/03/17 8:30pm
third party are now claiming i entered the roundabout with them and that i changed lanes and crashed into them!!!!???
link to my comment

Update 31/03/17 5:20pm
Now have all the facts
Worthless insurance company, third party look to be telling truth
Link to my comment with third party photos and statement

Automotive

Comments

  • cypher67 on 28/03/2017 - 18:03
    +31

    If it is as you say it is, you were on the round about first and had right of way. Unless they are claiming you didn't indicate that you were leaving the roundabout, but even still you were entitled to go straight. I would fight it. If you accept it as a 50/50, not only are you paying the excess but your premiums will go up. Sounds like the insurance company trying to pull a swift one.

    • Mrbean007 on 29/03/2017 - 10:00

      Ass usual fight it i say

    • Scrooge McDuck on 30/03/2017 - 10:43
      +3

      Sounds like the insurance company trying to pull a swift one.

      The other party and/or their insurer are/is probably claiming that the other driver was at the roundabout first and so had right of way.

      This highlights a deficiency in the road rules in my opinion.

      The roundabout rule is: Vehicles entering a roundabout must give way to any vehicle already in the roundabout.

      A better alternative: Vehicles entering a roundabout must give way to any vehicle approaching from the right.

      Give way to already in necessitates that drivers give way to any vehicle (including on their left) if they entered the roundabout even a tiny fraction of a second before. This is problematic for multiple reasons:

      1. It's not always possible and practical to see all vehicles on and approaching a roundabout.
      2. Humans aren't great at judging the temporal order of events which occur near simultaneously. Cognitive biases resulting from being involved with one of those events compound the problem.
      3. It is difficult to establish after the fact which vehicle entered the roundabout first. This is a problem when a collision occurs.
      4. The decision making process is more complicated for the driver than with other rules.

      In practise, courteous drivers (from what I've seen in NSW) give way to the right and it would seem to be the de facto road rule. But everyone should also give way to already in as that's the de jure road rule.

      • dbun1 on 30/03/2017 - 11:04

        I agree, the rule should be to give way to vehicles approaching from the right.

        Now they try and estimate who was in the roundabout first based on where the damage is on the respective cars - there is too much ambiguity unless you are lucky enough to have a witness that can say for sure who was doing what.

        I know someone who had an accident because a car tried to fang it through in front of him - he ended up hitting their rear panel around where the rear wheel is - because the damage was in the back half they claimed they were in the roundabout first and it ended up being a 50/50 split like the OP's case. A "give way to the right" rule in this case would have made it clear who was in the wrong.

        Basically if my mate had hit the other car in the front half then it would have shown that the other car had pulled out in front of him, but this logic fails to take into account the speed each car is doing etc. It's a crap rule.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 30/03/2017 - 11:11
          +2

          And that's why everyone should use dashcams.

      • macrocephalic on 31/03/2017 - 16:34
        +1

        I don't see how it's a problem. Of course you have to give way to vehicles on the left if they're already on the round-about - they're already in the intersection before you got there - they have right of way.

        If you tell people to only give way to the right then roundabouts don't flow like they should, busy roads easily overwhelm the cars trying to enter from the quiet roads.

        I always tell people that there's a really easy way to understand round-abouts: They're not one intersection, they're a one way circular road. Every entrance is a T intersection. You give way to the vehicles on your right (the ones already on the round-about). You indicate left when you take one of the exits.

    • bozbargain on 30/03/2017 - 15:39

      If you accept it as a 50/50, not only are you paying the excess but your premiums will go up.

      Your premium will go up regardless. When you renew your comprehensive insurance (with another insurer), they will ask you about your involvement in any accidents, including not-at-fault ones (at least that's the case in NSW). Can be the difference between $700/year vs $900/year (despite keeping your NCB). This does my head in since the only accidents we ever get involved in are not-at-fault ones, but apparently that still means you're a higher risk customer to them.

    • King Tightarse on 31/03/2017 - 11:52
      -1

      other party failed the most basic default driving rule "always give way to the right"
      Would fight it 100%. They did not give way to the right. They have little defence.

      • tomsco on 31/03/2017 - 14:49
        +1

        That's not the law.

        • McFly on 31/03/2017 - 14:53

          True, but in this case it would have avoided an accident if followed.

        • King Tightarse on 31/03/2017 - 15:23

          I think it was one of the first basic driving rules my instructor taught me way back when I got my licence but anyway the actual Vic Road rules website regarding roundabouts states:

          "Before entering a roundabout, you must give way to any:
          vehicle already in the roundabout
          tram entering or approaching the roundabout.
          Vehicles do not need to give way to pedestrians at roundabouts unless there is a pedestrian crossing there."

          We drive on the left, so that basic rule holds. Hmm I suppose it could also include a vehicle travelling the wrong way.

  • bobbified on 28/03/2017 - 18:05

    It's known as an EBO - "Each bears own" costs.

    Usually it's used if they can't apportion blame to one driver so each insurance company will bear the cost of their own insured.

    I can't tell by your picture, but if you had hit the other car on their side (that is, the front of your car connected with the side of their car), then that explains the decision.

    The reason is, you must give way to someone already in the roundabout so if you hit the other driver on the side, that means that they were in that position first.

    If the other driver hit you on your side, then I would argue the decision - that would mean they didn't give way to you.

    • turk182 on 28/03/2017 - 18:35
      +2

      yeh the Front left of my car hit the back right of the third party, i did attempt to steer away at the last seconds before impact.
      but if i had to give way that would mean i would have to stop in the middle of the roundabout and wait for them..?

        • rushil01 on 30/03/2017 - 10:07
          +16

          That's nonsense. He clearly has right of way and the other party is at fault.

        • tomsco on 30/03/2017 - 10:37
          +3

          @Hellfire:

          The other party was required to give way but so was the OP (you are required to give way to avoid an accident). Since they both failed then 50/50 is an expected outcome.

          See you keep coming back to this same point. By your logic, every car crash (I don't want to say accident, because accident suggests it couldn't be avoided, in this case if the other drive wasn't on the road, it would have been) would be 50/50 as the victim didn't do enough to avoid the accident.

          The other driver did not give way when he legally had to. There's no reason to assume the OP didn't break as hard as possible, but because the other driver is a dangerous driver, it was already too late to start braking. This is not even taking consideration other traffic on the road that would have limited the OP's options.

          Unless the other driver can prove malice in that the OP deliberately hit them when it could have been avoided, the OP should not be at fault. Your logic is flawed.

        • Hellfire on 30/03/2017 - 10:58
          -8

          @tomsco:

          Where you can avoid a car crash then you are legally obliged to do so. The OP has already admitted they saw the other car and assumed that was turning. The OP can't assume and must give way to the other car (even if they are doing the wrong thing).

          In many cases you can't avoid a crash so you'd have no fault there. In this case it was due to the OP making a mistake. If the OP had slowed down or continued around the roundabout because it was not clear to exit then there would have been no accident (or crash if you prefer).

          The other car doesn't need to prove malice, only the the OP had opportunity to avoid the accident but didn't. The OP has already provided enough evidence that they made the mistake in assuming the actions of the other car.

        • ykwon10 on 30/03/2017 - 11:06
          +2

          @Hellfire: What kind of flawed logic is this? This applies to the other car as well then. If he follows the law and give way to another car in the roundabout, the crash would have been avoided. This is the 1st and foremost "opportunity to avoid accident"!

        • Scrooge McDuck on 30/03/2017 - 11:10
          +5

          @Hellfire:

          There is no such thing as right of way in Australia law.

          Failure to give way, as in this case, makes a party liable for a collision.

          The other party was required to give way but so was the OP (you are required to give way to avoid an accident).

          Not true. You must take reasonable actions to avoid a collision. But that's not the same as giving way.

          If what you wrote was the law: Lawful drivers would have to give way to all other vehicles in proximity and this would result in a logjam!

        • Scrooge McDuck on 30/03/2017 - 11:19
          +4

          @Hellfire:

          The OP has already admitted they saw the other car and assumed that was turning. The OP can't assume and must give way to the other car (even if they are doing the wrong thing).

          It's perfectly reasonable to assume that other vehicles will obey the road rules. In actuality, the flow of traffic at all hinges on this.

          When you're travelling at the speed limit on a 100 km/h highway, do you slow right down to give way to stopped vehicles waiting to turn onto the highway from a side street in case they might disobey the road rules by failing to give way and turning onto the highway without a safe gap?

          Your argument would produce an absurd result. 🙄

        • Hellfire on 30/03/2017 - 11:21
          -4

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          Did the OP take reasonable actions to avoid the collision?

          What is the share of liability here?

        • Scrooge McDuck on 30/03/2017 - 11:24
          +5

          @Hellfire:

          Did the OP take reasonable actions to avoid the collision?

          Yes! See: "i did attempt to steer away at the last seconds before impact."

          What is the share of liability here?

          The OP: 0 %

          Other driver: 100 %

        • Hellfire on 30/03/2017 - 11:31
          -1

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          You can assume other drivers will obey the rules but must act to avoid a collision if they don't.

          Are they in your way? No.

          If they pull out in front of you then you need to slow down to avoid the collision. If they pull out and you have time but don't then you are at least partially at fault.

        • Hellfire on 30/03/2017 - 11:34
          -2

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          Only because they didn't act correctly to avoid the collision earlier!

          Let's see what happens with the insurer complaint.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 30/03/2017 - 11:36
          +1

          @Hellfire:

          You can assume other drivers will obey the rules but must act to avoid a collision if they don't.

          This is precisely what the OP did. Unfortunately there wasn't enough time before the other driver cut in front and so the collision was unavoidable.

          If they pull out in front of you then you need to slow down to avoid the collision. If they pull out and you have time but don't then you are at least partially at fault.

          Right! But you've been arguing that drivers should give way, to other drivers who themselves are required to give way, to avoid a collision. That isn't reasonable; it's absurd!

        • tomsco on 30/03/2017 - 11:37
          +3

          @Hellfire:

          The OP has already admitted they saw the other car and assumed that was turning. The OP can't assume and must give way to the other car (even if they are doing the wrong thing).

          As Mr McDuck already pointed out, assuming another car is going to follow road laws is not the same as being negligent. The OP did not make a mistake. The only person to make a mistake was the other driver.

          The other car doesn't need to prove malice, only the the OP had opportunity to avoid the accident but didn't.

          I almost think you're trolling with this comment.

        • Hellfire on 30/03/2017 - 11:40
          -5

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          This is precisely what the OP did. Unfortunately there wasn't enough time before the other driver cut in front and so the collision was unavoidable.

          I guess this is where we disagree. The OP could have avoided the collision by not assuming that the other car was going to turn. It was avoidable.

          Right! But you've been arguing that drivers should give way, to other drivers who themselves are required to give way, to avoid a collision. That isn't reasonable; it's absurd!

          No, I've been arguing that you need to give way to cars that you are going to collide with!

        • Scrooge McDuck on 30/03/2017 - 11:42
          +3

          @Hellfire:

          Only because they didn't act correctly to avoid the collision earlier!

          It was perfectly reasonable for the OP to assume that the other driver was turning left, since if they intended to go straight they must give way. The OP could only become aware that the other driver intended to go straight when they cut the OP off. At that point there wouldn't have been time or space for the OP to avoid the collision.

          Let's see what happens with the insurer complaint.

          Because your argument is untenable?

        • Hellfire on 30/03/2017 - 11:42

          @tomsco:

          I almost think you're trolling with this comment.

          Malice doesn't enter into it (unless you are talking criminal charges).

        • Hellfire on 30/03/2017 - 11:46
          -2

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          It was perfectly reasonable for the OP to assume that the other driver was turning left, since if they intended to go straight they must give way. The OP could only become aware that the other driver intended to go straight when they cut the OP off. At that point there wouldn't have been time or space for the OP to avoid the collision.

          It wasn't a reasonable assumption. A reasonable assumption might be to expect the other car to give way but since that didn't happen the OP shouldn't have continued to exit the roundabout.

          Because your argument is untenable?

          No. We are just people on the internet. What happens with the insurer (and FOS/Court if it goes that far) is really all that matters.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 30/03/2017 - 11:50
          +2

          @Hellfire:

          The OP could have avoided the collision by not assuming that the other car was going to turn.

          Of course, but that assumption was perfectly reasonable. I'll state it again:

          It's perfectly reasonable to assume that other vehicles will obey the road rules. In actuality, the flow of traffic at all hinges on this.

          It was avoidable.

          Only if the OP could predict that the other driver would disobey the road rules, which is obviously not the case for any driver. 🙄

          No, I've been arguing that you need to give way to cars that you are going to collide with!

          Which would require the ability to predict the future. 🙄

        • wozz on 30/03/2017 - 11:55
          +3

          @Hellfire:

          Dont need to disagree, just admit you're clearly wrong

        • Hellfire on 30/03/2017 - 11:58

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          What about a timeline?

          1. OP enters the roundabout on the inside lane
          2. The other car enters the roundabout in the outside lane after the OP but in front the OP
          3. The OP passes the other car's entry point and begins to indicate
          4. Other Car is in front of the OP and probably doesn't see the indicator
          5. OP begins to exit the roundabout
          6. Other car continues on the roundabout, in front of the OP
          7. OP notices that the other car has continued and tries to avoid the collision
          8. OP hits the rear of the other car.

          At 5. the OP should not have exited. It's a poor choice to turn into another car and assume they will also turn.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 30/03/2017 - 12:03
          +2

          @Hellfire:

          It wasn't a reasonable assumption. A reasonable assumption might be to expect the other car to give way

          That is precisely the assumption the OP made — you just contradicted yourself!

          A reasonable assumption might be to expect the other car to give way but since that didn't happen the OP shouldn't have continued to exit the roundabout.

          The OP exited the roundabout based on their reasonable assumption that the other driver was turning left. When it became apparent that the other driver was unlawfully proceeding straight ahead, the OP tried to avoid the collision but couldn't.

          We are just people on the internet. What happens with the insurer (and FOS/Court if it goes that far) is really all that matters.

          The point of this thread is to discuss the incident to prepare the OP and inform everyone else.

          You're clearly trying to back out of your argument. Do you have trouble admitting that you're wrong?

        • Hellfire on 30/03/2017 - 12:04

          @wozz:

          I'll admit that I don't agree with a few of you here :)

          My point is that the OP could have avoided the accident but didn't due to some poor choices. The other car did the wrong thing but that doesn't mean that the OP can hit it without consequence.

          I've wasted enough time here anyway. As I said it doesn't matter what happens on this forum, it's what happens to the OP's case with the insurer that matters.

        • Hellfire on 30/03/2017 - 12:09

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          You just contradicted yourself!

          No I didn't. Giving way does not necessarily mean turning left.

          You're clearly trying to back out of your argument. Do you have trouble admitting that you're wrong?

          I don't believe that I wrong on these points:

          • The OP could have avoided the accident
          • The OP holds partial liability for not avoiding the collision. The other car also holds partial liability for not following the road rules.
        • tomsco on 30/03/2017 - 12:13

          @Hellfire:

          Not the malice comment, the suggestion that only the OP had an opportunity to avoid the crash. This is so fundamentally wrong. The only way to have avoided the crash was if the other car did not illegally enter the round about when they had to give way.

          @Hellfire:

          What about a timeline?

          Do you think this happened in slow motion. Clearly the OP did not have an opportunity to avoid the crash, trying to timeline it does not implicate the OP. The fact is that it would have all happened so suddenly, the other car is probably lucky the OP did not completely t-bone him.

          At the end of the day, all the OP has to say is the other car did not give way when they were already in the round about, and although the OP attempted to avoid a collision, by the time he identified what was happening, it was too late. Yes, at the end of the day the OP will have to push the insurance to support this, but there's no other way to twist this, unless someone can prove the OP intentionally crashed into the other car when it could have been avoided.

          @Hellfire:

          I've wasted enough time here anyway. As I said it doesn't matter what happens on this forum, it's what happens to the OP's case with the insurer that matters

          ie. This is your way of bowing out without admitting you are incorrect.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 30/03/2017 - 12:15
          +3

          @Hellfire:

          What about a timeline?

          1. OP enters the roundabout on the inside lane
          2. The other car enters the roundabout in the outside lane after the OP but in front the OP
          3. The OP passes the other car's entry point and begins to indicate
          4. Other Car is in front of the OP and probably doesn't see the indicator
          5. OP begins to exit the roundabout
          6. Other car continues on the roundabout, in front of the OP
          7. OP notices that the other car has continued and tries to avoid the collision
          8. OP hits the rear of the other car.

          At 5. the OP should not have exited.

          No, the fault occurs at point 2 when the other driver, intending to proceed straight ahead, entered the roundabout after the OP.

          Your timeline lacks a point 2.5: The OP reasonably assumes that the other driver intends to turn left.

          It's a poor choice to turn into another car and assume they will also turn.

          The assumption occurred before the collision.

          It's perfectly reasonable to assume that other vehicles will obey the road rules. In actuality, the flow of traffic at all hinges on this.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 30/03/2017 - 12:23

          @Hellfire:

          Giving way does not necessarily mean turning left.

          It does in this case.

        • Piranha2004 on 30/03/2017 - 13:02
          +2

          @Hellfire: Please hand in your license….

        • Hellfire on 30/03/2017 - 13:33
          -5

          @Piranha2004:

          Ahh, now here come the trolls.

        • garetz on 30/03/2017 - 16:27

          @Hellfire: If they are both required to give way to each other, then they would both stop and nothing would happen.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 30/03/2017 - 21:14
          +1

          @Hellfire:

          Ahh, now here come the trolls.

          Friends of yours?

        • jlogic on 30/03/2017 - 23:54

          There is so many face palms going on right now…

      • Ughhh on 28/03/2017 - 19:16
        +3

        Front left of my car hit the back right of the third party

        Thats probably your biggest problem and the other party's reason for not 100% at fault.

      • tomsco on 28/03/2017 - 19:36
        +7

        ignore the other people. Looking at the size of the round about, even if you struck him where you did, it's clear that you would have been i the round about well before the other driver.

        I would definitely dispute the finding.

        • Hellfire on 28/03/2017 - 19:53
          -7

          You can't just run into another car even if they should give way to you. The OP should not have exited the roundabout because it was not safe to do.

          He ran into the other car, not the other way around.

        • tomsco on 28/03/2017 - 20:23
          +1

          @Hellfire: Are you assuming the OP did it on purpose? He ran into the other car because the other car entered the intersection in a dangerous manner.

          As OP said, he initially thought he was aiming for the same exit, all of a sudden the idiot cuts in front of the OP and chances are no amount of braking by the OP could have avoided it.

        • Hellfire on 28/03/2017 - 20:37
          -3

          @tomsco:

          That's not quite what the OP said. Nothing about entering the roundabout in a dangerous manner.

          The OP assumed the other car was turning and crashed into it. The other car didn't cut in front of the OP, it continued around the roundabout.

        • tomsco on 28/03/2017 - 21:27

          @Hellfire:

          I never said the OP said it, it's inferred from the fact the other car enterd the round about without enough time to clear traffic already in the round about.

          The other car did cut in front. The OP would have already been in the intersection, other car has to give way. They didn't give way, they cut in front.

        • Hellfire on 28/03/2017 - 21:35
          -3

          @tomsco:

          If the other car was already in front does it still count as cutting in front? How do you know to give way if you are parallel to another car and can't see their indicators?

          We don't exactly know the timing of the other car entering the roundabout but if it was roughly equal to the OP then they wouldn't have known that the OP intended to exit because OP wouldn't have indicated yet.

        • tomsco on 28/03/2017 - 21:45
          +4

          @Hellfire:

          We don't exactly know the timing of the other car entering the roundabout but if it was roughly equal to the OP then they wouldn't have known that the OP intended to exit because OP wouldn't have indicated yet.

          Look at the OPs picture. It does matter if the other car couldn't see the indicators. The OP was in the roundabout first. The other car must give way to the OP. This is the law and has been quoted below.

          If the other car wasn't sure, they should have stayed put.

        • tomsco on 28/03/2017 - 22:35
          +2

          @Hellfire:

          If an accident can be avoided, than by all means, do so. If it can be proven that th OP acted maliciously, than fair enough.

          But saying everyone has a requirement to give way to avoid an accident, hence the 50/50 split is wrong. Look at the picture. The other car had to give way to the OP. That is the law.

          Based on the diagram, there is no reason the OP shouldn't have assumed the other car was simply turning left, and by the time the other car cut in front, it was to late to avoid the accident. And because the OP was I the round about first, and the other car did not give way, the other car would be at fault.

          Being a dual lane roundabout has nothing to do with it.

        • lolz112 on 29/03/2017 - 00:01
          +6

          @tomsco:

          Hellfire, from the round about and the roads it looks like this happened in Canberra. Our dual lane roundabouts usually mean that you can go straight in both lanes. From the image that OP has provided it looks like the car he hit did not enter the roundabout safely. He did not give way to a car that was already in the round about or did not have enough clearance from OP's car, and entered it dangerously with the intention of going straight.

          If I were OP I would fight it. It does not matter what part of the car hit but from the picture it clearly looks like he was in the roundabout first and therefore had right of way.

        • Your Friend on 30/03/2017 - 21:42
          -1

          @Hellfire: "everyone has a requirement to give way" you do realise this is the most retarded statement ever and you keep repeating it

        • bobbified on 31/03/2017 - 17:04
          +1

          @Your Friend:

          I think Hellfire does not mean "Give Way" in the traditional sense like a giving way at a Give Way sign. It is the requirement to take action to avoid an accident where possible (and safe to do so).

          This is a rule that was applied when I was a MV claims assessor with a large insurance company.
          But it's not easy to be able to say that a driver could have taken any action to avoid an accident.
          Often it's in the driver's stat dec that contains their version of events.

          I did actually see the car but assumed that car was going to use the same exit as me.

          Based on my claims assessment experience, if this line from the original post is in his actual statement, it says to me that he did have time to slow down or stop to avoid an accident but he made an incorrect assumption that the car was taking the exit. It then doesn't help that he's run into the side of the other vehicle.

          If his statement had: I was crossing the roundabout when the car to the left suddenly pulled out in front of me and I didn't have time to stop, then that would help make the insurer's decision much easier.

          Roundabouts have always been a contentious issue when comes to claims. The rules surrounding them have never been sufficient enough to cover the differing scenarios.

        • smartazz104 on 01/04/2017 - 20:19
          -1

          @Hellfire: Yes the other car had no idea what OP was going to do; any person with common sense would have waited in that situation. Apparently you on the other hand would continue into the roundabout and blame OP for causing them to hit you.

    • SilentBob on 31/03/2017 - 10:08
      -1

      You don't know shit do you.

  • geek001 on 28/03/2017 - 18:18
    +1

    Did you use your indicator at any point in the roundabout?

      • geek001 on 28/03/2017 - 18:33
        +25

        I don't know about other places, but in QLD when leaving the roundabout, you are supposed to use the left turn indicator to indicate that you are leaving the roundabout. That's the fuk why. :)

        • geek001 on 28/03/2017 - 18:35
          +5

          According to ACT road rules, this seems to be the case too.

        • airzone on 28/03/2017 - 20:52
          +3

          In NSW too.

        • [Deactivated] on 30/03/2017 - 09:45

          Not sure if law but strongly recommended in VIC but not common

        • buckster on 30/03/2017 - 17:45

          @The Land of Smeg: basically the law everywhere, just not enforced

        • smartazz104 on 01/04/2017 - 20:20

          People are assuming the other driver saw that OP wasn't indicating left and so assumed he would turn right; I doubt the other driver had that kind of foresight or knowledge of road laws.

        • whooah1979 on 01/04/2017 - 21:39

          @airzone:

          In NSW too.

          http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/safety-rules/road-rules/roun…

          You must indicate a left turn just before you exit unless it is not practical to do so.

      • airzone on 28/03/2017 - 20:52
        +1

        Depending on the state he's in, it's the law to do so.

      • [Deactivated] on 28/03/2017 - 21:12
        +3

        This is exactly why I say Victorians can't drive. Having moved from Sydney to Victory the one thing I miss the most is driving and people not hogging the right lane.
        Educate yourself: https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/road-r…

      • picklewizard on 30/03/2017 - 11:41
        -1

        I have no understanding as to why this is so heavily negged; I have never seen anyone indicate left when travelling straight through a roundabout.

        If you weren't intending on travelling straight, you'd be indicating left or right.

        • natman on 30/03/2017 - 13:37
          +5

          It is so other cars intending to enter the roundabout, know that you are exiting, and therefore know that it is safe for them to enter. It is not practicable on small roundabouts. It is practicable on large roundabouts, especially multi-lane.

        • Daabido on 30/03/2017 - 16:12
          +2

          Open your eyes or take off your blinkers. Everyone should, where practicable, indicate left when they leave a roundabout.

          Not everyone does, because most drivers just throw their hands up in the air when they get to a roundabout and hope for the best. "This lane? That lane? Whichever lane I want and bugger indicating!"

          Source: I'm a driving instructor of 7 years.

        • surethang on 31/03/2017 - 02:10

          Depends on where you live. For example, Noosa and its surrounding suburbs have hundreds of roundabouts and almost no traffic lights. Most local drivers will indicate when exiting if travelling straight because they know the road rule.

    • turk182 on 28/03/2017 - 18:43
      +1

      yes definitely had my indicator on after i passed the first exit

      • smartazz104 on 01/04/2017 - 20:21
        -1

        You were going straight, you only almost passed one exit.

  • airal3rt on 28/03/2017 - 18:29
    +2

    You were driving in a legal fashion, some dumbass didn't give way. No way should you be paying for his error. 50/50 split is bizarre because someone has to be at fault to cause a car crash, and in this case it was clearly the other party.

  • oscargamer on 28/03/2017 - 19:06
    +32

    if you were in the roundabout before the car that you collided with, then they are required to give way to you

    100% of the time

    regardless of anything

    your insurer is going the cop-out option, you should absolutely categorically disagree with their decision - unless you want to pay your excess

    have you read the road rule that applies to roundabouts?

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2014104/…

    (1) A driver entering a roundabout must give way to:
    (a) any vehicle in the roundabout,

    there is very little in life that is black and white

    THIS is absolutely black and white

    • [Deactivated] on 28/03/2017 - 19:31

      Don't know why you got negged, but have my + vote to get you back to evens.
      You are 100% correct. Just because some asshat pulls out in front of you doesn't mean you have time to process and stop in time.

    • bluesix on 29/03/2017 - 09:41

      THIS!

      Given the location of the accident, OP had to be on the roundabout first - other guy didn't give way to his right as required by the law. Case closed.

      • tomsco on 29/03/2017 - 09:51
        +4

        Sorry, just to correct… You're right that the other car had to give way, but it's to all cars already in the round about.

        Giving way to the right is more something that has been passed down, but is not the law. More common sense as in most occurrences, the car to the right was in the round about first.

        • bluesix on 31/03/2017 - 09:15

          Ah - I thought it was the law to give way to the right… you're right though. I suppose it's only logical that if you're giving way to cars already on the roundabout, the ones from the right are who you're looking out for.

        • tomsco on 31/03/2017 - 09:28

          @gone anon:

          Haha, all good - it's a common misconception.

          But yes, as you say, in nearly all cases car to the right will be the one that entered first.

    • abb on 30/03/2017 - 14:07
      +1

      You're right, but how do you prove it?

      Unless you have a forensic data logger in each car, video of some kind, or neutral witnesses, it's just one driver's word against the other.

      The other driver is probably making this post on some other forum right now: "I was driving through this roundabout, some hoon comes flying around after I've entered, he hits my back corner, why do I have to pay 50%!?"

      • geoffellis on 30/03/2017 - 17:19
        +2

        Unless you have a forensic data logger in each car, video of some kind, or neutral witnesses, it's just one driver's word against the other.

        Not really. In this case the position of the cars says everything. The first car couldn't have travelled 4-5x the distance as the 2nd car in the time it took the 2nd car to pull in front, unless the first car was going significantly faster. and either the skid marks or the damage to the cars would give a pretty good indication if the 1st car/op was speeding

  • garffi on 28/03/2017 - 20:47
    +4

    Don't cars need to give way to any vehicles already in the roundabout?
    The guy either thought you were turning or tried to beat you. This shouldn't be 50/50 but 100% their fault because they failed to give way.
    Definitely lodge a complaint. Explain the reasons logically and any literate person should understand that this isn't a 50/50 case.

  • airzone on 28/03/2017 - 20:53
    +23

    The cynic in me feels like you are both insured through the same company, and this way they can claim back as much excess as possible, and sting both drivers for increased premiums in the next year.

    • affable on 29/03/2017 - 09:48
      +2

      Exactly my thoughts too.

    • Scrooge McDuck on 30/03/2017 - 12:33

      Insurance companies are scum!

      There should be regulations against this practice!

      OP, see if you can ascertain who the other driver's insurer is. If it's the same as yours, report them to ASIC.

  • Mrbean007 on 29/03/2017 - 10:05
    +1

    Bye looking at the picture your clearly in the right car should have gave way just like any round about dual or single

  • Seraphin7 on 29/03/2017 - 10:58
    +7

    Roundabouts. A panel beater's best friend.

  • [Deactivated] on 29/03/2017 - 11:01
    +1

    You went straight over the roundabout in the right-hand lane?
    I never do that, for the same reasons you have painfully discovered.

    • tomsco on 29/03/2017 - 12:18
      +4

      Which is all fair, there is nothing wrong with mitigating risk knowing that so many drivers on the roads are selfish pricks, but it doesn't detract from the fact the other car is in the wrong.

      Maybe OP will take you advice on board for future, though.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join