Rta With Virgin Media Van At Mini Roundabout

[The Game]

Hi all

Today i was going to work in my Yaris approaching a mini roundabout at around 20mph. Road is clear on my right, opposite a car is approaching roundabout but not close plus not indicating. On the left hand side Virgin Media Ford Transit comes out when im about a car length from entering the roundabout and cuts over the central white area of roundabout turning right in to the road i was coming in from.

My right hand front wing has hit the van approximatley at the arch of his rear tyre. No damage to van at all, not even a scratch.

Virgin van guy's came out and the driver goes ballistic at me effing this and effing that and then thrusting his chest in my face to provoke me. Accuses me of speeding and then goes mental when i tell him its his fault as he came out in front of me and then even stopped on top of the white circle which forced me to hit him as i had no room to my left to avoid him.

I called the police because of his aggression but they said they cant do anything as no one was hurt.

At one stage he didn't want to give me his name but he was reminded by his fellow virgin guy that he had to as it was the law.

Driver who was approaching mini roundabaout from opposite side to me, stopped to see if he could assist and told me i had done nothing wrong and then he was verbally abused by Virgin hot head for colluding with me as if he was my mate or something.

Is it my fault? My car is damaged (see pic) but not even a scratch on his?

Insurance company says its a tough one because as they told me "we hate mini roundabout claims". Ive contacted Virgin to complain about behaviour of the chap and am awaiting a call back from them as they look into the matter.

[Red Yaris 54]

Cannot see any picture..........Maybe you should be with Virgin Broadband..........They are twice as fast as they used to be! ;)

[MikeSh]

The highway code has become rather vague of late but the rule used to be that traffic already on a roundabout has right of way. The van had crossed over his give-way line (and was therefore on the roundabout) while you were still some way from your give-way line, so I personally would say he had right of way.

Seeing other vehicles at or near a mini-roundabout you are approaching should be a huge alarm bell for you to slow down and be ready to stop. It appears you were expecting to be able to just drive across without slowing much, but that is not a valid assumption given the amount of white paint on the road at such places. If you'd hit his front wing you might have had a better chance of assigning liability, but hitting near the back does rather imply your speed was incautious at least.

Some years ago I was advised that mini-roundabouts are good for safety because no-one is quite sure of the rules and therefore tends to be cautious around them. The lack of clear rules is obviously part of the reason for the insurance company's comment.

I think it'll end up as a knock-for-knock and your insurance will just fix your car and you will take a hit on excess and no claims.

[Heidfirst]

I may be wrong but iirc it's an offence for him to drive over the white circle of a mini roundabout ...

Can't see pic either so does it show him well over the circle?.

I also think that the insurance companies will probably settle knock for knock.

[Parts-King]

It will end up knock for knock, sometimes no matter how right you think you are, your insurance company will not want the hassle of going through a lengthy claim process, especially as there was no damage to the van. Just get it repaired and move on, it's not worth getting worked up over, sorry

Kingo

[Madasafish]

Your front wing hits rear of his van,

Viewed in the cold light of far away, an insurance assessor would blame you.

[The Game]

I did attach a pic of the car when i posted. Have no idea where its gone.

In terms of being on the roundabout my car was only 2 meters from leaving the roundabout to where i wanted to go. The van was on the white circle in the centre of the roundabout and he put his full breaks on to leave me no room to pass behind him even. It seemed liked he manipulated the situation to rush on to the roundabout, onto the circle rather than going around it and then breaking without even trying to get to the road he wanted to go to.

I had a witness who agreed that it was the van's fault, he saw everything as he was the driver on the opposite side to me who watched the van come from his right and into the rouundabout.

Those vans are solidly built and my little yaris is still drivable but dented in 3 or 4 places

[adamc260]

Mini roundabouts are a pain, whilst drivers need to give way to the right it's often a 'split second' decision due to the size of them. Speed counts for nothing in claims without proof (which neither part have). Your best bet would be hoping the other person who saw it acts as a witness in your favour that he just pulled out but because you hit him on the rear wheel arch it suggests he was already established on the roundabout so i'd assume best terms are 50/50.

[MikeSh]

They say possession is 9/10ths of the law.

I think that's probably a good way to treat mini-roundabouts. :)

[The Game]

Eyewitness is 100% agreeing with me that the van came out into the roundabout rather quickly and cut straight onto the edge of centre circle more in my lane than his own side. Surely that is a blatant and broken the law? That is the only reason why i hit the near the real wheel arch.

Oh well lets see what happens.

[MikeSh]

If your eyewitness is average his knowledge of "the law" is going to be pretty ropey. And irrelevant. What he describes as a witness is what will be noted, not his interpretation.

The van being on the central circle is contrary to the highway code, but is totally irrelevant to your case. Regardless of how quickly he pulled out, "legally" there was a give way line on the road between you and him at that time. You didn't give way. If Virgin find some hidden damage on their van later on they might just come back at you for it ... and possibly win.

[Dee Jay]

If your eyewitness is average his knowledge of "the law" is going to be pretty ropey. And irrelevant. What he describes as a witness is what will be noted, not his interpretation.

The van being on the central circle is contrary to the highway code, but is totally irrelevant to your case. Regardless of how quickly he pulled out, "legally" there was a give way line on the road between you and him at that time. You didn't give way. If Virgin find some hidden damage on their van later on they might just come back at you for it ... and possibly win.

At mini roundabouts the rule is that the marking across each entry requires that you give way to the right, in law the OP doesn't have to give way except to vehicles from the right.

In the circumstances described it was the van that failed to give way.

[adamc260]

If your eyewitness is average his knowledge of "the law" is going to be pretty ropey. And irrelevant. What he describes as a witness is what will be noted, not his interpretation.

The van being on the central circle is contrary to the highway code, but is totally irrelevant to your case. Regardless of how quickly he pulled out, "legally" there was a give way line on the road between you and him at that time. You didn't give way. If Virgin find some hidden damage on their van later on they might just come back at you for it ... and possibly win.

At mini roundabouts the rule is that the marking across each entry requires that you give way to the right, in law the OP doesn't have to give way except to vehicles from the right.

In the circumstances described it was the van that failed to give way.

The OP needs to give way to vehicles on the right and vehicles already established on the roundabout. The OP collided with the rear corner of the TP vehicle, had it been the front there would be a better arguement that they had JUST pulled out and failed to give way. As said, 50/50 is going to be your best bet.

[Richard Overfield]

I can picture the circumstances. You pulled slowly onto the roundabout and the van, although on your left, came onto the roundabout fast, causing you to hit the rear rather than the front. The driver of the van has probably been warned that if he has too many accidents he may lose his job.

If you feel that you are in the right then stick to your guns and see it through to the end. You have nothing to lose. In the worst case it will be treated as a knock for knock. Good luck. Let us know how you get on!

[Dee Jay]

[

The OP needs to give way to vehicles on the right and vehicles already established on the roundabout. The OP collided with the rear corner of the TP vehicle, had it been the front there would be a better arguement that they had JUST pulled out and failed to give way. As said, 50/50 is going to be your best bet.

The terminology used in the legal description is not "established on the roundabout" but to traffic "circulating on the roundabout", so if the OP had collided with a vehicle entering the roundabout from 12 o'clock say I would agree with you, but in this case the van driver entered the roundabout while a vehicle was approaching from the right, his only defence would be if the OP was approaching the mini roundabout at excessive speed.

The only independent witness to the incident supports the OP's version of events, the lack of damage to the van indicates a low speed impact. I would in the circumstances be in no way certain of what the insurance companies decision would be.

I very much agree with what Richard Overfield has said.

[adamc260]

[

The OP needs to give way to vehicles on the right and vehicles already established on the roundabout. The OP collided with the rear corner of the TP vehicle, had it been the front there would be a better arguement that they had JUST pulled out and failed to give way. As said, 50/50 is going to be your best bet.

The terminology used in the legal description is not "established on the roundabout" but to traffic "circulating on the roundabout", so if the OP had collided with a vehicle entering the roundabout from 12 o'clock say I would agree with you, but in this case the van driver entered the roundabout while a vehicle was approaching from the right, his only defence would be if the OP was approaching the mini roundabout at excessive speed.

The only independent witness to the incident supports the OP's version of events, the lack of damage to the van indicates a low speed impact. I would in the circumstances be in no way certain of what the insurance companies decision would be.

I very much agree with what Richard Overfield has said.

Given that I was an arb and pre lit handler for 3 years between insurers/solicitors and worked in insurance fraud for a year and a half... i've come across a fair few roundabout claims. 'Excessive' speed cannot be even considered without proof which far exceeds a witness stating 'they were going fast' as everyone has a different interpritation of what is considered 'fast'. I've never heard anyone describe it as 'circulating on the roundabout' but each to their own. Whilst the TP may of pulled out, the fact that the damage is so far at the rear of the vehicle it is reasonable to consider that they were not merely 'just out of the exit'. You usually have about a car length before you reach the roundabout and it would be approx another car length when the impact occured. I sympathise with the OP ofc I do and whilst this is unfortunate for liability it will not be 100% non fault (unless the TP makes an admission of course).

[Dee Jay]

[

The OP needs to give way to vehicles on the right and vehicles already established on the roundabout. The OP collided with the rear corner of the TP vehicle, had it been the front there would be a better arguement that they had JUST pulled out and failed to give way. As said, 50/50 is going to be your best bet.

The terminology used in the legal description is not "established on the roundabout" but to traffic "circulating on the roundabout", so if the OP had collided with a vehicle entering the roundabout from 12 o'clock say I would agree with you, but in this case the van driver entered the roundabout while a vehicle was approaching from the right, his only defence would be if the OP was approaching the mini roundabout at excessive speed.

The only independent witness to the incident supports the OP's version of events, the lack of damage to the van indicates a low speed impact. I would in the circumstances be in no way certain of what the insurance companies decision would be.

I very much agree with what Richard Overfield has said.

Given that I was an arb and pre lit handler for 3 years between insurers/solicitors and worked in insurance fraud for a year and a half... i've come across a fair few roundabout claims. 'Excessive' speed cannot be even considered without proof which far exceeds a witness stating 'they were going fast' as everyone has a different interpritation of what is considered 'fast'. I've never heard anyone describe it as 'circulating on the roundabout' but each to their own. Whilst the TP may of pulled out, the fact that the damage is so far at the rear of the vehicle it is reasonable to consider that they were not merely 'just out of the exit'. You usually have about a car length before you reach the roundabout and it would be approx another car length when the impact occured. I sympathise with the OP ofc I do and whilst this is unfortunate for liability it will not be 100% non fault (unless the TP makes an admission of course).

It's probably a hangover from my being a highway design engineer for 31 years (including being a Road Safety Auditor).

[adamc260]

[

The OP needs to give way to vehicles on the right and vehicles already established on the roundabout. The OP collided with the rear corner of the TP vehicle, had it been the front there would be a better arguement that they had JUST pulled out and failed to give way. As said, 50/50 is going to be your best bet.

The terminology used in the legal description is not "established on the roundabout" but to traffic "circulating on the roundabout", so if the OP had collided with a vehicle entering the roundabout from 12 o'clock say I would agree with you, but in this case the van driver entered the roundabout while a vehicle was approaching from the right, his only defence would be if the OP was approaching the mini roundabout at excessive speed.

The only independent witness to the incident supports the OP's version of events, the lack of damage to the van indicates a low speed impact. I would in the circumstances be in no way certain of what the insurance companies decision would be.

I very much agree with what Richard Overfield has said.

Given that I was an arb and pre lit handler for 3 years between insurers/solicitors and worked in insurance fraud for a year and a half... i've come across a fair few roundabout claims. 'Excessive' speed cannot be even considered without proof which far exceeds a witness stating 'they were going fast' as everyone has a different interpritation of what is considered 'fast'. I've never heard anyone describe it as 'circulating on the roundabout' but each to their own. Whilst the TP may of pulled out, the fact that the damage is so far at the rear of the vehicle it is reasonable to consider that they were not merely 'just out of the exit'. You usually have about a car length before you reach the roundabout and it would be approx another car length when the impact occured. I sympathise with the OP ofc I do and whilst this is unfortunate for liability it will not be 100% non fault (unless the TP makes an admission of course).

It's probably a hangover from my being a highway design engineer for 31 years (including being a Road Safety Auditor).

Each to their own but the purpose of it being noted as 'established' is because that helps to ... funnily enough help 'establish' liability.

Anyway, thread hijack over. Let us know how you get on OP.

[The Game]

I can picture the circumstances. You pulled slowly onto the roundabout and the van, although on your left, came onto the roundabout fast, causing you to hit the rear rather than the front. The driver of the van has probably been warned that if he has too many accidents he may lose his job.

If you feel that you are in the right then stick to your guns and see it through to the end. You have nothing to lose. In the worst case it will be treated as a knock for knock. Good luck. Let us know how you get on!

Im getting the feeling that some people are thinking ive come onto the roundabout without looking to the right?

Richard Overfield has got it spot on. I came onto the roundabout and van came out from my LEFT. There was no NO vehicle on my right. Only other vehicle was on the opposite side to me who entered the roundabout a second or two after contact, he was the eye witness.

I will keep you updated. Have sent pictures from the scene to insurance company today.

[The Game]

[

The OP needs to give way to vehicles on the right and vehicles already established on the roundabout. The OP collided with the rear corner of the TP vehicle, had it been the front there would be a better arguement that they had JUST pulled out and failed to give way. As said, 50/50 is going to be your best bet.

The terminology used in the legal description is not "established on the roundabout" but to traffic "circulating on the roundabout", so if the OP had collided with a vehicle entering the roundabout from 12 o'clock say I would agree with you, but in this case the van driver entered the roundabout while a vehicle was approaching from the right, his only defence would be if the OP was approaching the mini roundabout at excessive speed.

The only independent witness to the incident supports the OP's version of events, the lack of damage to the van indicates a low speed impact. I would in the circumstances be in no way certain of what the insurance companies decision would be.

I very much agree with what Richard Overfield has said.

Your correct that exactly what happend. My car had minor dents with the cover of the indicator lights smashed and drivers door not opening properly from the dents to the wing. This shows that i was not speeding, airbag was not activated, no skid, no injury and not even a scratch on the van. If i knew how to post pics i would post them. All of this as a result of van entering the roundabout without giving way and then also going straight on the centre circle which meant my right wing went directly into side of van.

Van driver only said one thing while he was ranting and raving "you were %@#~ing sppeeding!!!". Big stocky fella so i kept my cool :-) and stepped away each time he came in my face.

[MikeSh]

You need to hit something a heck of a lot harder that that to trigger an airbag. But I'm puzzled that you've done enough damage to affect your door without marking the van - that doesn't sound right.

I wouldn't say you were speeding, but your speed was clearly incautious in the circumstances. There are lots of people get to the pearly gates and tell St Peter "It was my right of way!"

But good luck with the claim anyway.

[The Game]

You need to hit something a heck of a lot harder that that to trigger an airbag. But I'm puzzled that you've done enough damage to affect your door without marking the van - that doesn't sound right.

I was surprised also that there was not even a scratch on the van. Only explanation i have is that the van broke hard, for reasons only know to him as there was nothing in his way. Maybe because i hit it as it was stationary caused this to happen, like hitting a wall. ( maybe im talking rubbish, i have no other explanation)

[Madasafish]

Hitting a stationary van on a roundabout is not something you want to mention: it says only one thing: your fault.

[The Game]

UPDATE

Called the insurance company today as i had not heard anything for a while since i sent them a sketch of the accident.

Was shocked to hear that my claim was now being dealt with by the injury claim team as 3rd party has claimed injury. UNBELIEVABLE!!

My little yaris scraped side of thier van because they were on the inside of the white circle (in my lane). They had no injury at the time on the contarary the driver tried start a fight with me. The van didn't even have a scratch let a lone a dent.

How can this be?

Is he trying to claim injury because he knows he was in the wrong and is trying to deflect blame?

I wasn't injured even though i put brakes on.

[Parts-King]

Dead easy answer to this!

"Had an accident? Not your fault?"

You have seen the posters and read the script. I could have napped this would happen, I see it every single day. You were told it was likely to go this way from very early on in the thread. Sorry and all that but you hit the back of his van He is trying his luck with a "no win no fee" company most likely, and he see's ££££'s in his eyes!!

Kingo