|
Was typing!
My 2p worth and I'm not an expert in any way.
I think their point #1 is debatable based on the road markings, but if you're going to claim that the Claimant is in the wrong lane to go straight on you have to concede that the 3rd party is also in the wrong lane to turn left.
3 lanes and 3 exits - either you accept that you can take multiple routes from all 3 or you accept that both parties were in the wrong lanes for their chosen exit.
#2 It seems clear to me from the video that the 3rd party wasn't going for the 2nd exit, they had their left hand indicator on before the 1st exit and cut hard across the other car's path and ended up in the first exit. I can't see how anyone can argue otherwise.
#3 Not from my viewing, quite the reverse with the 3rd party cutting left across in front of the dashcam car. Again can't see how you can interpret that any other way.
However I voted for 50/50 because whatever the circumstances were, the dashcam car hit the passenger door of the Juke. The Juke having gained half a car length at the point of impact. The Juke is clearly failing to check that the exit is clear having incorrectly assumed the dashcam car is going left. But the claimant doesn't appear to be braking at the time of the collision which suggests they weren't looking to the right as I would expect when joining a roundabout. I would have hoped in the same circumstances I would have seen the Juke and hit the brakes before we collided.
I know it's tough to accept fault but I think as @IronGiant suggests the Juke was trying to sneak around and has some significant share of the blame but the dashcam car had enough time to react and prevent the accident too so 50/50 would be a fair outcome.
As I said I'm not an expert it's just my take on what I can see here.
I was under the impression that insurance companies assumed equal blame for most roundabout accidents, may be the advent of dashcams has changed that? |
|