JustATrick

If only it worked in such a way that I got an explanation like that It's basically just the result of a negotiation. The only way I can imagine we'd get proper "objective" attribution of blame to actions would be to fight all the way to civil court - and in my opinion I wouldn't have done any better than 70:30, so took that. And I didn't want it to keep dragging on... and I didn't want to keep putting more money in lawyers' pockets... and I already felt like an ambulance chaser by not accepting it was all my fault.

My take on it is that we were both controlling a vehicle contrary to the highway code: he failed to make appropriate observations when changing direction; I joined the roundabout from the wrong lane for my chosen exit. If either of us had done the proper thing then we wouldn't have collided - even if the other continued to do the wrong thing: if I'd joined in the right lane, I'd have been behind him; if he'd looked and signaled he wouldn't have clipped me. For that reason I couldn't argue for 100% his fault with clear conscience, so was resigned to accepting some liability.

That said, 50:50 didn't feel right: I reckon that you're more likely to get away with what I did that what he did, so I tried offering 70:30. I was surprised his insurer accepted. Given how unhelpful the insurers and lawyers were (Stu's right, they really couldn't care about the percentage if it's not 100%) I'd have been delighted with a 51:49 moral "victory".