Highway code for roundabouts

[WhoseGeneration]

Good point, I have learned to be even more cautious of other driver's bad judgement/habits than I was already after this!

That is one of the basic tenets of AD.
You've now had a lesson in that and can appreciate that this driving lark is not simple.
So, get signed up to an AD course.
Basic rule of roundabouts is, never be alongside another vehicle.

[WAshburner]

Good point, I have learned to be even more cautious of other driver's bad judgement/habits than I was already after this!

That is one of the basic tenets of AD.
You've now had a lesson in that and can appreciate that this driving lark is not simple.
So, get signed up to an AD course.
Basic rule of roundabouts is, never be alongside another vehicle.

Funnily enough I was looking at doing an AD course a few weeks before this happened! Which course would people suggest doing?

I've looked at the IAM skills for life and the ROSPA RoADAR; which would you say is better value? Obviously the ROSPA one is more thorough but it's also more expensive...

[WhoseGeneration]

Funnily enough I was looking at doing an AD course a few weeks before this happened! Which course would people suggest doing?

I've looked at the IAM skills for life and the ROSPA RoADAR; which would you say is better value? Obviously the ROSPA one is more thorough but it's also more expensive...

Say where you are and others here might be able to suggest which of the AD organisations would best suit. It's to do with which has the better presence in any area.
As regards which is more thorough, there you will be subject to much debate.
Either will provide a good grounding in AD though, if you're open to the thought behind it.
Cost?, either is less than the cost of an insurance claim, fault or no fault.

[WAshburner]

Say where you are and others here might be able to suggest which of the AD organisations would best suit. It's to do with which has the better presence in any area.
As regards which is more thorough, there you will be subject to much debate.
Either will provide a good grounding in AD though, if you're open to the thought behind it.
Cost?, either is less than the cost of an insurance claim, fault or no fault.

I'm in Hinckley (Leicestershire) but work in Kenilworth (Warwickshire), so anywhere in between is convenient

[Gareth]

ROG is nearby - hopefully he'll advise.

[waremark]

I've looked at the IAM skills for life and the ROSPA RoADAR; which would you say is better value? Obviously the ROSPA one is more thorough but it's also more expensive...

The two are more similar than you realise, with more variation in the way the courses are delivered by the individuals in the group close to you than in the way the courses are set up by the main organisations. Normally, RoADAR is significantly cheaper than IAM - perhaps in your case if IAM looks cheaper that could be due to a subsidy for young drivers?

[WAshburner]

Normally, RoADAR is significantly cheaper than IAM - perhaps in your case if IAM looks cheaper that could be due to a subsidy for young drivers?

Having looked again I see you're right. I'm not entirely sure where I saw it was more expensive... perhaps I was looking at the wrong thing!

£41 plus the £23 membership is very reasonable actually... Is that the main difference between IAM and ROSPA then? IAM charge upfront whereas ROSPA spread out the cost?

[waremark]

Normally, RoADAR is significantly cheaper than IAM - perhaps in your case if IAM looks cheaper that could be due to a subsidy for young drivers?

Having looked again I see you're right. I'm not entirely sure where I saw it was more expensive... perhaps I was looking at the wrong thing!

£41 plus the £23 membership is very reasonable actually... Is that the main difference between IAM and ROSPA then? IAM charge upfront whereas ROSPA spread out the cost?

Try reading this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3310

[ROG]

ROG is nearby - hopefully he'll advise.

Wanna FREE drive out with me riding shotgun?

You would need to come to me near the Walkers crisp factory in LE4 but from Hinckley that's M69 M1 A46 bypass then come off that at the Beaumont leys junction and then down Bennion road

If yes then PM me

[michael769]

I've looked at the IAM skills for life and the ROSPA RoADAR; which would you say is better value? Obviously the ROSPA one is more thorough but it's also more expensive...

Overall they are based on roughly the same standard, there are some minor procedural differences, but not really much between them these days. The main difference is that the RoADAR has a 3 yearly retest while the IAM is for life (though you can rebook a test in the future if you choose).

IAM membership gives access to Surety via their tied insurance broker (Cornmarket) which can give good premiums for some drivers (though this is by no means guaranteed).

The biggest source of differences is down to the practices of individual groups, it is fair to say that some are better organised than others (though the IAM especially is working to improve consistency in this regard) and it may be worth reaching out to both groups, checking out what their waiting times how they organize the training and and if you can meet up with someone from each to see if their "style" suits you more.

If you are willing to share the area you are looking at someone may be able to give you some pointers in this regard (quite a lot of our members are involved in local groups).

[WAshburner]

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.410514,-1.4368713,3a,75y,208.38h,71.4t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sY1kY-NI70Jt3MxXYGATbuQ!2e0

WAshburner. If as you describe then the HGV is definitely at fault - there is no reason why he should expect to be able to make a right turn from that left lane...

Get all the details to your insurers and use marked-up printouts from Google Maps to show/illustrate where you and the HGV were on entering the roundabout and where the collision took place.

Good luck and let us know how you get on.

Hi all,

Just a quick update for those interested, I have finally had a call from my insurer (the day after I chased them up...strange that!); somewhat unsurprisingly they have received a letter from the other party who hold me fully responsible. They claim I cut across their path and caused the collision; what they fail to mention however is the layout of the roundabout or the positioning of our vehicles... so maybe they're just trying their luck or being intentionally awkward.

The claim handler has sent a detailed report back and is fully supportive of the 'they were in the completely wrong lane' theory; mirroring what TR4ffic says above, he sees no reason they should have thought it ok to turn right from that lane. The only problem he sees is the lack of markings on the road which may, in the worst case, result in a 50:50 split based on previous cases as '"there is nothing directly stipulating which lanes should be taken".

It's now a case of wait and let them fight it out I guess!

[akirk]

The only problem he sees is the lack of markings on the road which may, in the worst case, result in a 50:50 split based on previous cases as '"there is nothing directly stipulating which lanes should be taken".

other than the highway code as quoted above if they argue that lack of lanes causes the issues, then they shoot themselves in the foot - as they are accepting the actions they took and blaming something external other than you... you can therefore accept that as confirmation that you were not at fault, and shoot down their lane argument...

other than anything else - three lanes approaching and two going straight / one going right is pretty obvious to anyone what the common-sense approach should be...

the other factor - not mentioned yet is that he clipped the back of your car - that should be a clear indication that you were already predominantly past him and therefore - everything else being irrelevant as to rights or wrongs - he should have seen you but didn't and drove into you. You wouldn't have been in his blind spot - nor did you force him to make any move - he changed direction having given you no prior indication that he would - and in doing so didn't check that his path was clear...

good luck

Alasdair

[WAshburner]

The only problem he sees is the lack of markings on the road which may, in the worst case, result in a 50:50 split based on previous cases as '"there is nothing directly stipulating which lanes should be taken".

other than the highway code as quoted above if they argue that lack of lanes causes the issues, then they shoot themselves in the foot - as they are accepting the actions they took and blaming something external other than you... you can therefore accept that as confirmation that you were not at fault, and shoot down their lane argument...

I was tempted to point that out to my insurer, but I thought I'd try not to be too pushy on my first conservation and save that for if they start flapping around

I hadn't thought of looking at it that way... let's hope my insurer thinks of that!

the other factor - not mentioned yet is that he clipped the back of your car - that should be a clear indication that you were already predominantly past him and therefore - everything else being irrelevant as to rights or wrongs - he should have seen you but didn't and drove into you. You wouldn't have been in his blind spot - nor did you force him to make any move - he changed direction having given you no prior indication that he would - and in doing so didn't check that his path was clear...

good luck

Alasdair

Yeah, those have been my thoughts too.

Either way, I've done a check on how it's going to affect my premiums and even if they do take full liability then I still get a nice £80 hike in my premium!

Any one know the likelihood of success of putting in a claim for uninsured loss and getting reimbursed for the premium rises? I have 6 years to claim for them and it will stay on my record (and likely affect my premium) for 5 years; so I could theoretically provide evidence for the price difference each year in 5 years time and get it all back no?

[akirk]

Either way, I've done a check on how it's going to affect my premiums and even if they do take full liability then I still get a nice £80 hike in my premium!

Any one know the likelihood of success of putting in a claim for uninsured loss and getting reimbursed for the premium rises? I have 6 years to claim for them and it will stay on my record (and likely affect my premium) for 5 years; so I could theoretically provide evidence for the price difference each year in 5 years time and get it all back no?

I would suspect virtually nil chance! Arguably under UK law you are entitled to be put back in the place you were in before an incident - but any good lawyer would argue against you that you have no way of predicting rises in insurance... and that if you have a rise with full liability elsewhere that can only be because your insurer considers statistically you to be more risk and that has nothing to do with them... By the time you win any such battle you will have spent more in legal fees...

one of the logical reasons for AD is to avoid getting into such a situation, and therefore avoid the hassle... you drive partly to defend against others, it is not about 'I am right' therefore I can ignore the others - it is about 'I don't want the hassle that might be caused by others, so will control the scene to avoid it'

As others have said above lorries of any size can be unpredictable on a roundabout so good driving might mean you adjust to allow for that etc...

Alasdair

[fungus]

On the subject of insurance companies hiking up premiums because "you have been involved in an accident, fault or no fault, so therefore you are a bigger risk," I had a cyclist ride out from behind a five/six foot wall into the side of my car, and I have had a loading on my premium because of it.

My daughter also had the same when someone parked their van in the pub car park where her employers have an agreement with the land lord for staff to use the car park, and didn't secure the van which rolled across the car park and into the bonnet of her car. She is apparently a bigger risk.