I got shunted from behind at a roundabout (guy behind me obviously looking right and anticipating me setting off rather than watching me). It is with the insurance companies and what I thought would be a cut and dry case looks like becoming a dispute. Third party is now stating that I pulled out from the left and collided in to him. There are no witnesses.
The damage is to my drivers side rear corner and his passenger side front corner.
Before submitting my response I thought I would canvas opinion here.
Cheers
I thought it was generally considered that a rear end shunt was their fault but any damage to the side of your car was considered your fault. I expect to be corrected on this one though.
I would have thought that no matter what you did (short of reversing into him) it was his fault for hitting you and not leaving enough space etc.
I got shunted from behind at a roundabout
...
The damage is to my drivers side rear corner and his passenger side front corner.
These could appear to be at odds. Was the impact on the corner from behind or from the side?
I assume he is suggesting that I pulled out and cut across him somehow.
Frustrated!
If he hit you on the side, then you must have pulled across his path, depending on where the imapct was. If he hit you square on the rear, I'd say it was his fault for not stopping safely.
Useless trying to comment without photos though.
good luck.
The road was single lane but the roundabout is a large double lane roundabout (in Thornbury, Bradford). He was obviously aiming for the inside lane of the roundabout therefore hitting my drivers side with his passenger side. It was from behind but not a 'straight on' collision.
If that makes sense.
To be honest,always get the police involved it makes it more cut and dried..sounds like he has shunted you into a barrier to cause the front end damage?
What Don Simon said.
I'm in the process of dealing with a similar impact at the moment. Mine was a rear-end shunt that connected corner-to-corner, but it was in traffic and wasn't square in the back because he'd tried to swerve round me.
On a roundabout, it's possible that he's right and you're wrong; not saying that's the case necessarily, but that'll be why it's not obvious. That's why I was asking the direction of the impact.
If there is damage on the side of either car then he's using this as a point of dispute. In which case chances are the insurers will probably find you both at fault to varying degrees.
I found out the other day that even if the fault is blamed 10% you and 90% the third party, you still have to declare it as an "at fault" accident 🙁
Hope this works out for you.
The road was single lane but the roundabout is a large double lane roundabout (in Thornbury, Bradford). He was obviously aiming for the inside lane of the roundabout therefore hitting my drivers side with his passenger side. It was from behind but not a 'straight on' collision.If that makes sense.
Yep.
He's tried to overtake you on the roundabout, you didn't see him and straight-lined it, and run him off the road.
therefore hitting my drivers side with his passenger side. It was from behind but not a 'straight on' collision.
My money is on a split blame I'm afraid. Just the way these things tend to work out.
Cougar your incident sounds similar but I was stationary and he was trying to swerve round me to get to inside lane of roundabout.
Photos of damage...
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[i]these could appear to be at odds. Was the impact on the corner from behind or from the side?[/i]
Not really, as it would depend on each cars positioning on the approach road, if the car in front was close to the kerb and turning left/going straight on and the car behind sitting near the centre line and going right then I can see why this would happen.
It's the postioning of the vehicles at time of impact and spread of debris that's important, not necessarily the damage alone.
The position of the silver car, straddling the white line, would suggest that they have done something wrong. the position of the horribly red coloured car would suggest that they are in a correct position.
To balance out, I have almost exactly the same damage as the silver car on mine. Some twunt reversed into mine while it was parked!! There has to be more than the damage alone to understand what happened.
Sounds like the kind of impact you'd get when one person was straightlining a two lane roundabout to be honest.
Don Simon - The photos were not taken at the site of the incident but further down the road.
And I would call it 'burnt orange'
Hmmmm. Not looking too good based on those photos.
And I would call it 'burnt orange'
😆
Seriously, on those photos I couldn't make any comments except one car has hit another.
There are no witnesses.
Is presumably what he's counting on. What he's not accounting for is that the ins cos will look at the damage and see whether it ties in with the stories being told. It will be a pain whilst they sort this, but if he ran into the back of you then it's assumed his liability unless he's got a really good case, which it doesn't sound like he does.
It is conceivable that the third party can argue he was driving around the roundabout, you pulled out prematurely and he swerved slightly to avoid.
With no witnesses at best you are looking at 50:50. I was rear ended on a roundabout- it was a classic front to rear-kiss. Yours isn't sadly.
I was stationary and he was trying to swerve round me to get to inside lane of roundabout.
It's not a "rear end shunt" then, is it. Taking your statements at face value, you were stationary (why?) and he's clipped you trying to pass. I'd stick to that if I were you, "I can't be at fault, I was stationary."
Your first post claims that he ran into the back of you because he wasn't paying attention, now you're saying he was trying to overtake you. If you can't get your story straight and consistent, you'll get DBFed by the insurance lawyers.
Are you sure there are no witnesses? Perhaps if you had out leaflets at the junction then someone might come forward? I had a man approach me in a car park 6 days after I got reversed into in the same car park saying he saw the whole thing! Mucho handy as the other guy changed his story half way through.
I thought it was generally considered that a rear end shunt was their fault but any damage to the side of your car was considered your fault. I expect to be corrected on this one though.
Afraid not.
For instance you're doing 70mph on a single lane duel carriageway.
Car pulls out from a sideroad doing 10mph and just turns enough for you to hit the rear of their car.
Definitely their fault, though they got hit from behind.
For the OP - always take pictures at the scene if you can, ideally before cars have moved.
An image from google maps for the road lay out might help, but the damage described does sound to me like a two-lane roundabout issue.
[b]I thought[/b] it was [b]generally[/b] considered that a rear end shunt was their fault but any damage to the side of your car was considered your fault. [u]I expect to be corrected on this one though.[/u]
Thanks for your input anyway geebus. 🙄
Car pulls out from a sideroad doing 10mph and just turns enough for you to hit the rear of their car.
Definitely their fault, though they got hit from behind.
Even here I'd want too know why you're not reading the road and also why you are speeding?
It's not a "rear end shunt" then, is it. Taking your statements at face value, you were stationary (why?) and he's clipped you trying to pass. I'd stick to that if I were you, "I can't be at fault, I was stationary."Your first post claims that he ran into the back of you because he wasn't paying attention, now you're saying he was trying to overtake you. If you can't get your story straight and consistent, you'll get DBFed by the insurance lawyers.
I was stationary while waiting to 'enter' the roundabout, looking right and waiting for a gap in traffic. I believe this is the correct way to use a roundabout.
He was behind me and set off before I did! As I mentioned the entry road is single lane and the roundabout double lane. He was obviously aiming for the inside lane of the roundabout to hit me like he did.
If
I was stationary
then why
The photos were not taken at the site of the incident but further down the road
??
Presuming you were stopped at the roundabout when the collision took place, why would you then drive off?
Edit: having looked at the pics again I can see how he may have got bored waiting for you and swerved around you. But as you were on a single lane road he must have pulled out into the face of oncoming traffic, no?
Anyhoo, I can see how this might have happened and may not be your fault, but I think the outcome will be same.
I got sideswiped going around a roundabout (the driver coming onto the roundabout decided to boot it and try and slide in front of me) however he hit me and then tried to drive off.
Luckily I had a witness or else it would have been 50/50 apparently as the insurance companies rarely fight disputes ........
The lesson I learnt was if someone hits you and tries to drive off get there reg and report it, don't chase them down as if you catch them and then they dispute the accident you are ****ed.
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
??
Presuming you were stopped at the roundabout when the collision took place, why would you then drive off?
Because car was drivable and I was obstructing traffic
That's a better image. I'd more inclined to say it was the silver car's fault and not the rusty coloured one. 😉
^^ Ok, so not a single lane road then. I'm swinging back in your favour, but you should not have moved your car one inch - this may be the deciding factor.
Because car was drivable and I was obstructing traffic
What about the other lane for cars to pass you?
So he's saying I pulled out of the parked cars on left and hit him...
^^ Ok, so not a single lane road then. I'm swinging back in your favour, but you should not have moved your car one inch - this may be the deciding factor.
I disagree, the car behind should leave enough space not to hit me if I did move an inch.
It's time for Horatio! 😛
[img] 
[/img]
what does the /\/\/\/\ white line mean?
Approach road is single lane that we were obstructing plus I was 'shaken up' and not thinking straight
I disagree, the car behind should leave enough space not to hit me if I did move an inch.
No what I meant was that you should have left the car at the place of the collision - nothing to do with starting to move and then stopping. He could argue that the collision took place further on the roundabout.
Was the roundabout clear? Why did he think he could enter the roundabout when you didn't? Was he just pulling alongside and misjudged?
why you are speeding?
Speed limit on a dual carriageway is 70.
what does the /\/\/\/\ white line mean?
"Zig-zag lines are painted on the street either side of a pedestrian crossing. Motorists should not overtake, wait, or park in the vicinity"
Oh yeah, sorry I thought they carried further on along the road and wasn't taking the ZC into account 😳
Isn't this /\/\/\/\ a refence to reserved parking for Chelsea tractors or something similar?
Or perhaps that there's a zebra crossing, not literally a zebra crossing the road, but you know what I mean...
So he's saying I pulled out of the parked cars on left and hit him...
Did you?
Motorists [b]should not overtake[/b], wait, or park in the vicinity"
... which, presumably, is what he did. That's more ammo for you.
Having seen the picture it now seems fairly obvious what has happened - you may have started to move and he's gone for the right hand lane, but you then stopped (no law against that) and he hit you.
On this assumption I would say you're innocent and i'd like to think he'll get all the blame.
Did you?
No
So do we think it possible that the damage could have been caused from me 'alledgedly' pulling out from those parked cars? I think the damage would be worse and I may have spun...
