I hit a car again...

[Sh4rkyBloke]

Still unclear...

If the car goes onto the RAB ahead of you, are we talking that it was in front of you and you both entered from the same road (i.e. you followed it onto the RAB) or you were ON the RAB and he then cut in front of you from a different road.

Can't work it out as you then say he braked as a van was approaching him fast... but I can't visualise how this is possible unless the van is entering from another road and meaning to cut in front of the car...

I'm imagining that you and the car are onto the RAB together, car brakes to avoid van entering RAB, you hit him. In this case it's your fault for not leaving enough room.

But, no-one hurt. No damage. No problem.

 

[Maz]

This RAB.
I was going West-East. Car was going North-South. I was roughly where that silver car with the black roof is, when the car started to enter the RAB. The van was in the lane closest to the island. Collision occurred maybe 1 car's length behind where that black car is.

 

[Sh4rkyBloke]

In that case it's his fault for not allowing for your speed before entering the RAB (and almost colliding with another vehicle due to his bad entry).

Hold your head up high, man. B)

 

[magnatom]

The jury wishes to change its verdict m'lord. We, the jury feel that Maz of cyclechat was in fact not guilty.

Gasps from the public area! B)

 

[mr_cellophane]

In that case it's his fault for not allowing for your speed before entering the RAB (and almost colliding with another vehicle due to his bad entry).

Hold your head up high, man. B)

In this case I would agree with that, but after someone hit me from behind (Car on car) I took legal advice and was told that in 99% of cases the person at the rear is at fault for being too close. That even applied to someone rolling back on to you on a hill.

 

[HLaB]

In this case I would agree with that, but after someone hit me from behind (Car on car) I took legal advice and was told that in 99% of cases the person at the rear is at fault for being too close. That even applied to someone rolling back on to you on a hill.

That was my understanding too but I suppose this might be the 1% of cases where the person at the rear isn't entirely at fault.

 

[redjedi]

In which case they were more at fault.

Glad your alright

 

[Odyssey]

In this case I would agree with that, but after someone hit me from behind (Car on car) I took legal advice and was told that in 99% of cases the person at the rear is at fault for being too close.

That's generally true. But not on a roundabout. If you go into the back of someone on a roundabout, 99% of the time it's because some gimp pulled out in front of you. And since that gimp is meant to give way to their right (i.e. you), and quite clearly failed to do so, 99% of the time they're legally at fault.

Unless the circumstances are vastly different from what I'm aware (for example the car was already on the roundabout before entering it), I don't see any doubt in whose fault it was.

This instance seems quite unfortunate that the car in front had to hit their brakes, but in reality it's down to them not leaving enough room for that kind of margin of error, which happens on the roads all the time.