Who's at fault here in this car crash

Hmmm, having gone looking for information to prove Berberis wrong I now see his point.

This is not a roundabout junction, if it were and a lane existed going straight on then the white car would be fine. As it is the white car is in what is, in effect, a filter lane.

The white car comes out of that lane, without indicating, and collides with the black car that is, in effect "following the lane ahead". The black car does not cross out of a lane, as Berberis says. My last vote was 60%Black car 40% white car but now I think its 50/50 as the black car should have been in the left lane to turn left.

If the black car should have been in the left lane to turn left then they should have cleared their approach before turning left, don't you think? Therefore they are 100% at fault for not doing so.

Im sorry can you elaborate, I'm unsure what you mean.

I look at the road signs, I look at the road markings prior to the roundabout - everything says I stay in lane one if I want to go straight on. I go straight on and find the road markings suggest I cannot in fact go straight on.

So where do I go?

I look at the road signs, I look at the road markings prior to the roundabout - everything says I stay in lane one if I want to go straight on. I go straight on and find the road markings suggest I cannot in fact go straight on.

 

So where do I go?

I suppose you slow down to a halt if necessary and don't proceed until you're satisfied that it's safe to do so.

The road signs/markings are terrible.

Im sorry can you elaborate, I'm unsure what you mean.

The inside lane is marked as straight on towards Rotherham.

The middle lane is definitely NOT marked as M1N.

The black car did something it shouldn't do, the white car didn't.

The inside lane is marked as straight on towards Rotherham.

The middle lane is definitely NOT marked as M1N.

The black car did something it shouldn't do, the white car didn't.

Why are you so sensitive about this?

Are you sure you know what sensitive means?

Are you sure you know what sensitive means?

your post's on this and others, lead me to assume you need a doctor:D

A number of people, myself included, have blamed the road markings. By 'road markings' I mean lane markings and graphics combined. I draw the distinction because I think the designer of the lane markings was not the designer of the graphics. For the purposes of this argument I think we can discount the signage as it is not at variance with the graphics on the road.

If I was the designer of the lane markings and called to task my defence would be:

"The rules of the road at traffic islands state that you give way to your right. In effect the white car does not enter the island until it crosses the lane in which the black car is travelling. The white car did not give way and therefore broke the rules of the road."

The designer of the graphics should look for another job. It's obvious that the left lane ought to be for left lane of the viaduct only and the middle lane for right lane of the viaduct or straight on.

Accepting things are the way that they are and the insurance companies are hardly going to go after the highways department then who will they hold responsible, white car or black car? The answer lies in whichever is deemed to take precedence between lane markings and graphics. I don't know the answer to that and suspect they will settle 'knock for knock'.

If the black car should have been in the left lane to turn left then they should have cleared their approach before turning left, don't you think? Therefore they are 100% at fault for not doing so.

It can not be right that the white car manoeuvred how it did and when it did, into the black car and for this to be the black cars fault. That is clearly terrible road design if it is.

It can not be right that the white car manoeuvred how it did and when it did, into the black car and for this to be the black cars fault. That is clearly terrible road design if it is.

I see your point but also disagree with it. The white car simply follows the road ahead for his designated exit.

I also agree that the road markings are poor to say the least.

your post's on this and others, lead me to assume you need a doctor:D

Well, we all know that you're uniquely qualified to judge the medical state of a person simply by glancing at them.

---------- Post added 31-05-2017 at 16:35 ----------

It can not be right that the white car manoeuvred how it did and when it did, into the black car and for this to be the black cars fault. That is clearly terrible road design if it is.

The black car tried to make a left turn where it shouldn't. The white car tried to go straight ahead where it should. How can it be the white cars fault?

Accepting things are the way that they are and the insurance companies are hardly going to go after the highways department then who will they hold responsible, white car or black car? The answer lies in whichever is deemed to take precedence between lane markings and graphics. I don't know the answer to that and suspect they will settle 'knock for knock'.

It just needs what other large 'roundabouts' have. Those X cross marked things.

I know a lot quote the highway code and roundabouts, but things like Park Square, I don't consider to be roundabouts, they are just large junction that happen to be 'roundish'

I'd do a little graphic to show it. But I can't remember my account details on photobucket. (edit in fact I can't even get into it to try, I think it might not exist anymore)