Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

Car Incident. Need advice

Options
1…5681011

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    frozenfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,882 ✭✭✭frozenfrozen


    it's hard to see why he even made a thread about it when you look at google maps.. it just looks like he crossed into her path

    380359.jpg


  • Options
    #213
    godtabh
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 23,205 Mod ✭✭✭✭godtabh


    I had something similar happen to me on a roundabout. In left lane of two going straight ahead. Car turned from right lane into my lane trying to take an exit.

    It took 8 weeks but I got it sorted. It came down to the fact that I was in the correct lane and occupying that lane and the other driver changes lane without looking.

    For 8 weeks both insurance companies were saying it was 50/50 but I have access to software that allows you to track vehicles in real time and was able to show that damage was consistent to both drivers stories.

    Its likely that the insurances will say its 50/50 and let you to sort out your own damage.

    Allow the insurance companies to sort it out. Its their job but dont be surprised if it comes down against you


  • Options
    #214
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,433 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    frozenfrozen wrote: »
    it's hard to see why he even made a thread about it when you look at google maps.. it just looks like he crossed into her path

    380359.jpg
    It looks pretty symmetrical to me. Both had to cross a lane. By the sounds of it the blue car was overtaking as the OP saw them behind them.


  • Options
    #215
    frozenfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,882 ✭✭✭frozenfrozen


    TheChizler wrote: »
    It looks pretty symmetrical to me.

    in what way? he crosses the dotted white lines and goes through her path

    I posted before you ninja edited


  • Options
    #216
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,433 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    frozenfrozen wrote: »
    in what way? he crosses the dotted white lines and goes through her path

    I posted before you ninja edited

    I added the second line to a post that was the last in the thread, you could hardly call that a ninja edit.

    Clearly they both crossed dotted white lines, it just comes down to who took the lane first. If it happened at the same time they're equally to blame.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    matt-dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭matt-dublin


    OP, unfortunately you were in the wrong lane. In order for you to get around to the 270 degree exit you hat to cut across an exiting lane.

    You should have been in the right hand lane and manoeuvred into the left after the 180 degree exit.

    Also to note, by asking the other party was she ok and you were sorry you have instantly admitted liability of which your insurance company might not cover.


  • Options
    #218
    FortySeven
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,296 ✭✭✭FortySeven


    TheChizler wrote: »
    I added the second line to a post that was the last in the thread, you could hardly call that a ninja edit.

    Clearly they both crossed dotted white lines, it just comes down to who took the lane first. If it happened at the same time they're equally to blame.

    The difference being that the person in the left hand lane had no business crossing the dotted line, the person in the right hand lane is supposed to.


  • Options
    #219
    frozenfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,882 ✭✭✭frozenfrozen


    TheChizler wrote: »
    I added the second line to a post that was the last in the thread, you could hardly call that a ninja edit.

    Clearly they both crossed dotted white lines, it just comes down to who took the lane first. If it happened at the same time they're equally to blame.

    Ninja edit = editing fast enough that the 'edited by x at Y time' doesn't show up. That's what it means.

    She didn't cross a lane, she continued on in her lane. The markings which she was on the course to pass over are a new lane which is formed for the next exit, which is where she would move over to before exiting at the next exit of the roundabout.


  • Options
    #220
    matt-dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭matt-dublin


    frozenfrozen wrote: »
    Ninja edit = editing fast enough that the 'edited by x at Y time' doesn't show up. That's what it means.

    She didn't cross a lane, she continued on in her lane. The markings which she was on the course to pass over are a new lane which is formed for the next exit, which is where she would move over to before exiting at the next exit of the roundabout.

    Basic rules of a roundabout, yield to the right.

    This means the person in the left lane had no right to cut across the exit.

    The person in the right lane has every right to exit directly from the fright lane when the exit has two lanes.


  • Options
    #221
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,433 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    frozenfrozen wrote: »
    Ninja edit = editing fast enough that the 'edited by x at Y time' doesn't show up. That's what it means.

    She didn't cross a lane, she continued on in her lane. The markings which she was on the course to pass over are a new lane which is formed for the next exit, which is where she would move over to before exiting at the next exit of the roundabout.
    Why the need to point it out? Sounds like it's being implied that I'm not posting honestly. Anyway.

    She crossed dotted white lines that had split into a Y, with each fork indistinguishable from the other. Sometimes roundabouts have markings with different lengths to distinguish lanes, not the case here. I don't know how it can be objectively said that the lane goes one way about not the other. It's entirely subjective to say you're crossing lanes going one direction and not the other.

    Overall it's a very poorly marked roundabout, but the OP didn't act illegally, they went against a local convention.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 28,334 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    frozenfrozen wrote: »
    She didn't cross a lane, she continued on in her lane. The markings which she was on the course to pass over are a new lane which is formed for the next exit, which is where she would move over to before exiting at the next exit of the roundabout.

    That would be my reading of it also... the inside lane splits in two after the exit.
    Although whoever laid it out should have put a solid line on the outside lane at the exit with the junction - to make it clear that if you are in the outside lane at that point you must exit.

    The outside lane has one choice at the junction, the inside lane has two.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Options
    #223
    frozenfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,882 ✭✭✭frozenfrozen


    matt-dublin wrote: »
    Basic rules of a roundabout, yield to the right.

    This means the person in the left lane had no right to cut across the exit.

    The person in the right lane has every right to exit directly from the fright lane when the exit has two lanes.

    I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not but that's what my post was saying. OP was crossing a lane whereas the girl in the right lane was taking her exit and staying in lane 2 the whole time.


  • Options
    #224
    frozenfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,882 ✭✭✭frozenfrozen


    TheChizler wrote: »
    She crossed dotted white lines that had split into a Y, with each fork indistinguishable from the other. Sometimes roundabouts have markings with different lengths to distinguish lanes, not the case here. I don't know how it can be objectively said that the lane goes one way about not the other. It's entirely subjective to say you're crossing lanes going one direction and not the other.

    Overall it's a very poorly marked roundabout, but the OP didn't act illegally, they went against a local convention.

    I'm not a local and I can 100% imagine what the 'local convention is' because it's blatantly obvious. It's a bit worrying that you think that each fork is indistinguishable. This is how roundabouts work.
    odyssey06 wrote: »
    That would be my reading of it also... the inside lane splits in two after the exit.
    Although whoever laid it out should have put a solid line on the outside lane at the exit with the junction - to make it clear that if you are in the outside lane at that point you must exit.

    The outside lane has one choice at the junction, the inside lane has two.
    A solid line would make it clearer. But yes the inside lane/lane 2 gains an exit lane and lane 2 then becomes the lane you stay in if you want to carry on around


  • Options
    #225
    matt-dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭matt-dublin


    frozenfrozen wrote: »
    I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not but that's what my post was saying. OP was crossing a lane whereas the girl in the right lane was taking her exit and staying in lane 2 the whole time.

    Yeah pretty much

    I always use a basic rule for two lane roundabouts.

    Left lane can exit up to 180 degrees / 12 o clock or on the first half of the roundabout.

    Right lane can exit straight ahead if there's two lanes and everything after the 180 degree /12 o clock marker


  • Options
    #226
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,433 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    They're identical lines, with no accompanying markings, how more indistinguishable can you get? And no need to be worried, if I was there I would probably have realized how ambiguous it was and taken the left lane to exit and right lane to continue around.


  • Options
    #227
    matt-dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭matt-dublin


    TheChizler wrote: »
    They're identical lines, with no accompanying markings, how more indistinguishable can you get? And no need to be worried, if I was there I would probably have realized how ambiguous it was and taken the left lane to exit and right lane to continue around.

    I think that the bigger issue is that some drivers think that it's perfectly acceptable to use the left lane to go past the 12 o clock. If that was the case you would be allowed to use the left lane just to continuously drive around the roundabout infinitely!


  • Options
    #228
    bucketybuck
    Registered Users Posts: 18,209 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    TheChizler wrote: »
    but the OP didn't act illegally, they went against a local convention.

    Local convention my hole! Driving properly has nothing to do with local convention.

    You can debate all day about how culpable the "blue car" was but when it comes to the OP there is no debate, he was in the wrong lane. Saying otherwise is just being stupid.


  • Options
    #229
    frozenfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,882 ✭✭✭frozenfrozen


    TheChizler wrote: »
    They're identical lines, with no accompanying markings, how more indistinguishable can you get? And no need to be worried, if I was there I would probably have realized how ambiguous it was and taken the left lane to exit and right lane to continue around.

    Identical lines? Are you joking? Every single dashed line in the country is identical if you want to be that obtuse about the situation. No accompanying markings.. so how about following the ROTR? You know, the ones where you take the left lane for 6 o clock to 12 o clock?

    the exit lane 2 is lane 2 from the roundabout. After that exit a new lane opens up for people to move into from lane 2, to take the next exit off the roundabout. The right lane is then used for continuing around.

    Roundabouts exist to keep the flow of traffic, forcing people to cross paths does not help the flow of traffic, which is exactly what would happen if the left lane was to be used past 12 o clock. QED, as has been said a million times on this thread, OP was in the wrong lane, and the woman was in the correct lane.


  • Options
    #230
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,433 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    bucketybuck wrote: »
    Local convention my hole! Driving properly has nothing to do with local convention.

    You can debate all day about how culpable the "blue car" was but when it comes to the OP there is no debate, he was in the wrong lane. Saying otherwise is just being stupid.
    That's hardly an admirable way to debate; "if you disagree you're being stupid". I'm going to bow out unless there's a new development as we're just going round in circles. Ha.


  • Options
    #231
    frozenfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,882 ✭✭✭frozenfrozen


    TheChizler wrote: »
    That's hardly an admirable way to debate; "if you disagree you're being stupid". I'm going to bow out unless there's a new development as we're just going round in circles. Ha.

    Are you exiting the debate via the left or right lane? :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    matt-dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭matt-dublin


    TheChizler wrote: »
    That's hardly an admirable way to debate; "if you disagree you're being stupid". I'm going to bow out unless there's a new development as we're just going round in circles. Ha.

    There's no debate, don't use the left lane beyond 12 o clock.

    /Finish Thread


  • Options
    #233
    Turtle_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 640 ✭✭✭Turtle_


    frozenfrozen wrote: »
    Are you exiting the debate via the left or right lane? :pac:

    This thread is a complete car crash!


  • Options
    #234
    FortySeven
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,296 ✭✭✭FortySeven


    TheChizler wrote: »
    That's hardly an admirable way to debate; "if you disagree you're being stupid". I'm going to bow out unless there's a new development as we're just going round in circles. Ha.

    I'm afraid this was never a debate. Just a bunch of knowledgeable people trying to educate a bunch of less knowledgeable people about a very simple concept.
    I believe the term stupid has been deployed in it's correct context now that we have reached 17 pages. I will be deploying the imbecilic moniker when we reach 20.


  • Options
    #235
    punisher5112
    Registered Users Posts: 24,647 ✭✭✭✭punisher5112


    Anyone mention the op was actually wrong and also in the wrong lane.

    Op you should consider if you have the funds to pay for damage to other car as insurance will be impossible to get after a claim.


  • Options
    #236
    2012paddy2012
    Registered Users Posts: 2,880 ✭✭✭2012paddy2012


    If you didn't have full licence driver and were supposed to your insurance company can walk away in the event of a claim. She is obliged to give you " appropriate information " to include her insurance name and address etc ..if not she has committed a criminal offence. As regards who is right and wrong ..if claim goes to insurance they will do what they want anyway ..you will just have to make a written report. If your sure your right go back and see if there are CCTV around ..even traffic cameras from council ..to monitor traffic ..and seek same.


  • Options
    #237
    FortySeven
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,296 ✭✭✭FortySeven


    2012paddy2012 wrote: »
    If you didn't have full licence driver and were supposed to your insurance company can walk away in the event of a claim. She is obliged to give you " appropriate information " to include her insurance name and address etc ..if not she has committed a criminal offence. As regards who is right and wrong ..if claim goes to insurance they will do what they want anyway ..you will just have to make a written report. If your sure your right go back and see if there are CCTV around ..even traffic cameras from council ..to monitor traffic ..and seek same.

    I don't think they can walk away from a third party claim?


  • Options
    #238
    Ineedaname
    Closed Accounts Posts: 369 ✭✭Ineedaname


    matt-dublin wrote: »
    Also to note, by asking the other party was she ok and you were sorry you have instantly admitted liability of which your insurance company might not cover.

    This is not true.


  • Options
    #239
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    matt-dublin wrote: »
    Also to note, by asking the other party was she ok and you were sorry you have instantly admitted liability of which your insurance company might not cover.

    That's not true, you have to admit liability in an official capacity (to a Guard/Insurance Rep.) for it to be valid .......... otherwise both drivers could claim that the other driver admitted liability at the scene, ie. one's word against another's.
    People often say "I was in shock at the time, I don't remember what I said ......."

    On another note, the other driver in this case actually committed an Offence by not giving the Op her address and Insurance details.


  • Options
    #240
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,344 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I'm obviously a bit late to this party...

    So this has probably been covered (I haven't read the whole thread yet.. getting there slowly but surely). The OP is definitely in the wrong lane if the diagram is correct.. but, the OP seems to be ahead of the other car, from reading the description.. wouldn't the other car be at fault for changing lanes and driving into another vehicle?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    2012paddy2012 wrote: »
    If you didn't have full licence driver and were supposed to your insurance company can walk away in the event of a claim. She is obliged to give you " appropriate information " to include her insurance name and address etc ..if not she has committed a criminal offence. As regards who is right and wrong ..if claim goes to insurance they will do what they want anyway ..you will just have to make a written report. If your sure your right go back and see if there are CCTV around ..even traffic cameras from council ..to monitor traffic ..and seek same.

    That's not true, the Op is still Insured regardless ..........

    Irish Insurance Federation (IIF)
    "If driving unaccompanied, the driver is guilty of a criminal offence, but they are still insured.
    If you don't obey the rules of the road and drink and drive or break a red light, you're guilty of an offence but are still covered. It's the same case with driving unaccompanied. That has nothing really to do with insurance.
    In short, if a provisional licence-holder is at fault in a crash while driving unaccompanied, claims will continue to be handled by his insurer as normal."


Advertisement