I posted the incident so I could learn from it - which I have thanks to all that contributed! I will be taking the advise that many of you suggested and will be looking to straddle both lanes in future, where it’s not possible to do so making sure to take extra care regarding other vehicles and my road/lane positioning/discipline.
Cheers 
MickyB666:
Rjan:
I’m afraid my impression from looking at those photos and his account is that it was the OP’s fault.Thanks for your comments, I appreciate you sharing your point of view (really), just want to come back on a couple of the points you make…
It’s ok, I don’t bite, much. 
Rjan:
If you look at the ‘seam’ of the tarmac, he’s clearly infringed the inside lane of the roundabout, and if you’re going to do that, then you either give way to traffic on your inside, or you plan ahead and take both lanes on the approach.There was no lane markings on the roundabout so to me no ‘inside lane’ existed, I don’t know how accurately the ‘seam’ in the tarmac follows the contour of the roundabout, it’s just a different section of tarmac - not a lane marking. No traffic was on the OS of me when approaching or entering the roundabout - the first time I saw anything on the OS it was stuck in my trailer.
Obviously you were of the view that there were two lanes, since you acknowledge the existence of the two entry lanes (which could only possibly make sense if traffic is expected to enter and proceed around the roundabout two astride - unless you went straight on from a specially-widened left-turn lane!), and you say you tracked the outer kerb as wide as you could (if there were only one lane, you’d have taken the straightest line).
You were also clearly of the view that there was a risk of finding cars on your offside, hence your checks.
The tarmac seams in my experience are quite reliable, but it is also obvious from other things in the photo that you are not positioned in the outer lane of the roundabout - perhaps because you didn’t go wide enough, or perhaps because your size meant you couldn’t go any wider.
What I’d suggest is that on approaching and entering the roundabout you were of the view that it was two lanes wide (which it is for cars), and half way through you realised it was too small for a HGV to avoid cutting in. That is a common enough situation, I wouldn’t call it an error in itself.
But at the point of cutting in, you should be watching your offside mirror and getting ready to stop and give way to traffic on your inside, in order to recover from the unsuitable approach.
Alternatively, you thought you tracked the outer edge of the roundabout (and it is in fact big enough for a HGV), but you didn’t do so fully and precisely enough, with the same effect that you had to recover and cut in.
Rjan:
I don’t accept the OP couldn’t have been more vigilantThis I strongly disagree with - I checked both mirrors as much as possible - obviously I also need to look in the direction of travel as well, all was clear until the last mirror check - If anything I think if I had not been as vigilant then the damage to the car would of been much worse.
Unless he was going like a bat out of hell (or were distracted by some other development), I don’t see how you could have missed him during a cutting-in manoeuvre in which the majority of your time will (or should) be spent watching your trailer tyres (not your forward movement)!
Alternatively, the only other explanation is that you had finished cutting in and the inside lane was starting to widen again (and therefore you had finished in your mirror), and at that very moment he did in fact approach like a bat out of hell and then forced himself into an already inadequate gap, colliding with you. But given the photo (and the fact you’d both move forward slightly from the point of impact, unless you both stopped on a sixpence), I’d say he approached and collided while you were still cutting in and you should have seen him coming at some point.
Rjan:
The Range Rover behind gives an idea of where the outer edge of the OP’s lane is.The Range Rover is off the roundabout and taking the first turn off in the photo!
Indeed, but I’d say the back of your trailer was miles from the outer kerb, and that your tractor had not followed the outer kerb very closely. It is ambiguous I admit, but not in a way that is favourable to you. The proper line for you to have taken on a narrow laned roundabout would have been almost as if you were turning left like the Range Rover, and then at the last possible moment, steer sharply right so that you continue around the roundabout instead of crossing the give way line.
MickyB666:
Rjan:
The tarmac seam shows just how far the trailer has cut into the car driver.To the best of my knowledge tarmac seams are not put there to accurately mark out lanes.
There’s a surprisingly close correlation, because when a tarmac machine lays a roundabout, it tends to do it in two concentric rings which track the inner and outer edges, not by taking a straight line through the roundabout and then manually infilling the difference between a rectangular slab of tarmac and the circular shape of the carriageway. The seams are also a weak point of high wear, so they tend to lay them in such a way that they effectively replicate the road markings (albeit on smaller roundabouts there may be no actual markings).
Rjan:
… the OP’s own front wheels are about a similar distance away from the outer kerb, as the car’s are from the inner.What photo’s are you looking at? You are just having a giggle now, right?
I was taking you serious until now!
The one with the red car in the background. It looks like your tractor (because of its position relative to the kerb, with its front n/s wheel a grid’s width away) has not used the full outer range of the carriageway (although it’s possible you had reasons, it’s not clear from the photos). I know that red car may have arrived after the collision, but his bumper I’d have been only inches away from if I’d been negotiating that roundabout based on an approach in the left of two lanes. It’s only by going so wide with the tractor, that you’d hope keep your trailer wheels in your lane (if it were possible). At a glance (although I’m certainly not sure), I’d say your tractor went nowhere near as wide as the red car.
Richard R:
No joking implied I just can’t figure out why a car that had room to manoeuvre away from the trailer safely so they both can pass wouldn’t, I will stick with my gut feeling and I bet there’s a claim in post for whiplash.
They’ve both moved slightly beyond the pinch point (and of course contact has occurred, with the car’s wing mirror has been lost and the bodywork stoved in on that side), so I think at the narrowest point it would have been narrower than the photo suggests.
With inch perfect judgment it may have been negotiable, but with the tightly curved carriageway of a roundabout, it’s not reasonable to think that the car driver could necessarily have avoided hitting one or the other of the trailer or the kerb.
And because trailers cut across in ways most car drivers don’t expect, once the car driver had planned to proceed, he may have been paralysed by a developing hazard he wasn’t primed for even if in principle he had time or room to react.
Rjan:
And because trailers cut across in ways most car drivers don’t expect
In which case how are they supposed to comply with rule 187 of the highway code if they aren’t taught to expect exactly that at the driver instruction stage.
MickyB666:
wished I had got a witness statement - if only to clear up what had actually happened.
That could be arranged [emoji6] £££ ?
martinviking:
MickyB666:
wished I had got a witness statement - if only to clear up what had actually happened.That could be arranged [emoji6] £££ ?
Rjan:
The one with the red car in the background. It looks like your tractor (because of its position relative to the kerb, with its front n/s wheel a grid’s width away) has not used the full outer range of the carriageway (although it’s possible you had reasons, it’s not clear from the photos). I know that red car may have arrived after the collision, but his bumper I’d have been only inches away from if I’d been negotiating that roundabout based on an approach in the left of two lanes. It’s only by going so wide with the tractor, that you’d hope keep your trailer wheels in your lane (if it were possible). At a glance (although I’m certainly not sure), I’d say your tractor went nowhere near as wide as the red car.
I think it is a case of what you can’t see, the red car is sat back from the junction and you are correct I went nowhere near as wide as that car, that is because you are again correct, I had reasons, that being it would of required mounting the curb and running over the central reservation which projects forwards of that car out of camera shot.
robroy:
What a pity he didn’t have a drone following him eh, it could have been avoidedSorry mate
, think I’ve got it all out of my system now…boots filled…promise never to mention it again.
Well I’ll try anyway.
I deserve some abuse for that…
But don’t drone on about it too much 
Carryfast:
Rjan:
And because trailers cut across in ways most car drivers don’t expect
In which case how are they supposed to comply with rule 187 of the highway code if they aren’t taught to expect exactly that at the driver instruction stage.
Many if not most car drivers have a poor mental model of how a HGV will manoeuvre, which is what makes some so wary even in harmless situations. Almost nobody who is not a lorry driver, could compensate for bad planning or mistaken approaches (i.e. a failure of the lorry driver to signal the beginning of a manoeuvre). That is, even if they know roughly how a lorry will move if they apply their minds, they won’t know when unless it is signalled beforehand by indicators or odd positioning - and HGV drivers must be prepared to deal with those who don’t react even to signals.
There is also a difference between cars harrying a large vehicle while it is trying to manoeuvre in a perfectly proper way, and the large vehicle simply veering all over the road.
For example, if the OP had taken both lanes, but a car travelling at high speed decided to squeeze alongside in the remaining half-lane and then got squeezed, then the car driver cannot say so easily that he just didn’t expect it. The partial occupation of the lane was the lorry driver’s signal to keep out - the car driver didn’t need to predict the exact course of the lorry, just stay out of the lane and give plenty of room.
That is different from traffic proceeding as two lanes, and a lorry driver then unexpectedly swinging across into traffic alongside.
Rjan:
Carryfast:
In which case how are they supposed to comply with rule 187 of the highway code if they aren’t taught to expect exactly that at the driver instruction stage.Many if not most car drivers have a poor mental model of how a HGV will manoeuvre, which is what makes some so wary even in harmless situations. Almost nobody who is not a lorry driver, could compensate for bad planning or mistaken approaches (i.e. a failure of the lorry driver to signal the beginning of a manoeuvre). That is, even if they know roughly how a lorry will move if they apply their minds, they won’t know when unless it is signalled beforehand by indicators or odd positioning - and HGV drivers must be prepared to deal with those who don’t react even to signals.
The fact that a truck will cut in on both the approach to and through roundabouts is/should be foreseeable to a competent driver and fits the description contained in rule 187.While there’s no way that it’s possible to indicate cut in to following traffic with the indications required at roundabouts or junctions being no different for a truck than a car.
MickyB666:
Rjan:
The one with the red car in the background. It looks like your tractor (because of its position relative to the kerb, with its front n/s wheel a grid’s width away) has not used the full outer range of the carriageway (although it’s possible you had reasons, it’s not clear from the photos). I know that red car may have arrived after the collision, but his bumper I’d have been only inches away from if I’d been negotiating that roundabout based on an approach in the left of two lanes. It’s only by going so wide with the tractor, that you’d hope keep your trailer wheels in your lane (if it were possible). At a glance (although I’m certainly not sure), I’d say your tractor went nowhere near as wide as the red car.I think it is a case of what you can’t see, the red car is sat back from the junction and you are correct I went nowhere near as wide as that car, that is because you are again correct, I had reasons, that being it would of required mounting the curb and running over the central reservation which projects forwards of that car out of camera shot.
Point taken.
You’ll have a better all-round feel for what happened here, bearing in mind the points everyone has made. Undoubtedly I think you’d accept your positioning on approach and entry would have enticed a driver to use the inside lane (you must accept there was one in principle), to then have you cut in on them which you weren’t prepared to watch for and avoid. That’s the learning point.
As to fault, the fact you didn’t see him approach but can infer he approached from behind, means you can’t rule out something reckless on his part (like going too fast then steering into you), but you can’t rule it in either.
Most likely, I think he approached you from behind at a modestly higher speed then braked for the roundabout, started to come alongside as you swung left (so you would be neither looking in your offside mirror, nor have full sight along the offside of your trailer, and he’d have seen a full lane’s width to proceed), and then as you’ve started to steer right to follow the outer kerb you’ve been paying too much attention to proceeding forward or maintaining your nearside positioning, and haven’t been watching yourself cut in (and have collided at that point).
If it’s any consolation, I often find that the workload is excessive in such roundabout situations, and I watch my offside whilst taking what feels more like a best guess on my nearside positioning.
My prediction, based on your photos and your account alone, is that you will be held 100% liable, although insurers also like to settle roundabout collisions 50:50.
Unless he admits something incriminating which we haven’t considered, I don’t see how the other driver could be held 100% at fault and you blameless, simply because the worst he seems to have done has been in the wrong place at the wrong time, and failed to anticipate or react to your movements - he’s otherwise correctly positioned for proceeding around the roundabout in the right-hand lane.
Carryfast:
The fact that a truck will cut in on both the approach to
He didn’t “cut in” on the approach. He proceeded entirely within the left-hand lane on approach. The first time he didn’t keep to his lane was the same time as he collided, and apparently wasn’t watching the mirror at that point.
and through roundabouts is/should be foreseeable to a competent driver and fits the description contained in rule 187.While there’s no way that it’s possible to indicate cut in to following traffic with the indications required at roundabouts or junctions being no different for a truck than a car.
I don’t agree. It is foreseeable that drivers will sometimes cut across at roundabouts, but that cannot be a reason to put 100% blame on those who are proceeding quite correctly in their own lanes on the roundabout (whether those lanes be marked or not).
In fact it is not, without more, a reason to put any blame on the driver who is cut into - otherwise it puts the cart before the horse and makes drivers who follow their lanes more liable than those who don’t!
Nor are car drivers required to drive trucks on behalf of their actual drivers, or perform the sorts of judgments and anticipations about the truck’s movements that the truck’s driver is required to perform for himself.
The main problem trucks have with cars, is that the cars don’t properly follow their own (sometimes unmarked) lanes through turns, and try to cut across on trucks who are in their own lane but on the white line! That is a more sensible application of the HC advice to give trucks a wide berth.
In short, a car doesn’t as a rule have to leave a full lane’s width either side of a truck (or any vehicle), on the off chance the driver cuts massively across. Traffic would almost never move past slow trucks if that were the case.
mrginge:
You got to make it clear to idiots there is no room and just block them. You get a beep off them sometimes but those people can go [zb] themselves as far as I’m concerned.
They’re too retarded to realise we’re doing them a favour by preventing their stupidity from advancing into a collision. Just ignore and move on to the next idiot.
+1 for shutting the back door.
Rjan:
Carryfast:
and through roundabouts is/should be foreseeable to a competent driver and fits the description contained in rule 187.While there’s no way that it’s possible to indicate cut in to following traffic with the indications required at roundabouts or junctions being no different for a truck than a car.
I don’t agree. It is foreseeable that drivers will sometimes cut across at roundabouts, but that cannot be a reason to put 100% blame on those who are proceeding quite correctly in their own lanes on the roundabout (whether those lanes be marked or not).
In fact it is not, without more, a reason to put any blame on the driver who is cut into - otherwise it puts the cart before the horse and makes drivers who follow their lanes more liable than those who don’t!
Nor are car drivers required to drive trucks on behalf of their actual drivers, or perform the sorts of judgments and anticipations about the truck’s movements that the truck’s driver is required to perform for himself.
The main problem trucks have with cars, is that the cars don’t properly follow their own (sometimes unmarked) lanes through turns, and try to cut across on trucks who are in their own lane but on the white line! That is a more sensible application of the HC advice to give trucks a wide berth.
In short, a car doesn’t as a rule have to leave a full lane’s width either side of a truck (or any vehicle), on the off chance the driver cuts massively across. Traffic would almost never move past slow trucks if that were the case.
It’s not the ‘driver’ who cut in it’s the vehicle by it’s design.It’s obvious in this case that the car entered the roundabout and/or the space occupied by the trailer ‘after’ the truck had entered the roundabout and collided with the trailer as it cut across the roundabout,by going for a gap alongside the trailer which was always going to close.IE rule 187 applies.
Rjan:
You’ll have a better all-round feel for what happened here, bearing in mind the points everyone has made. Undoubtedly I think you’d accept your positioning on approach and entry would have enticed a driver to use the inside lane (you must accept there was one in principle).
Yes retrospectively I do accept this point.
Rjan:
…to then have you cut in on them which you weren’t prepared to watch for and avoid. That’s the learning point.
I was watching and preparing for such an occurrence, although I ultimately failed to avoid a collision it doesn’t mean I wasn’t, I checked the OS mirror on approach, before entering the roundabout and just after the first exit, I was also watching the NS mirror to check traffic on the exit/entrance to the first turn off, as well as looking in the direction of travel, the car appear in the few seconds between the last two mirror checks.
Rjan:
As to fault, the fact you didn’t see him approach but can infer he approached from behind, means you can’t rule out something reckless on his part (like going too fast then steering into you), but you can’t rule it in either.
I didn’t see his actions so I can only speculate, what I do know is that I checked the mirrors and the RH side was clear a few seconds later I checked the mirrors again and he was into the side of the trailer, so he must have being going at a rapid rate to achieve this.
Rjan:
Most likely, I think he approached you from behind at a modestly higher speed then braked for the roundabout, started to come alongside as you swung left (so you would be neither looking in your offside mirror, nor have full sight along the offside of your trailer, and he’d have seen a full lane’s width to proceed), and then as you’ve started to steer right to follow the outer kerb you’ve been paying too much attention to proceeding forward or maintaining your nearside positioning, and haven’t been watching yourself cut in (and have collided at that point).
I am very sceptical that he could of approached at a ‘modestly higher speed’ the time scale just does not fit, again it was only a small roundabout and I know how quick I was with the mirror checks.
Carryfast:
It’s not the ‘driver’ who cut in it’s the vehicle by it’s design.It’s obvious in this case that the car entered the roundabout and/or the space occupied by the trailer ‘after’ the truck had entered the roundabout and collided with the trailer as it cut across the roundabout,by going for a gap alongside the trailer which was always going to close.IE rule 187 applies.
When I drove onto the roundabout I was the first and only vehicle on the roundabout, any other vehicle entered from behind me.
I agree with you, I think they were driving too fast trying to rush to be somewhere, came from behind me straight into the space my trailer was already moving into, otherwise I would of seen them.
Carryfast:
It’s not the ‘driver’ who cut in it’s the vehicle by it’s design.
Haha! By its design, that bird is not going to fly in court!
It’s obvious in this case that the car entered the roundabout and/or the space occupied by the trailer ‘after’ the truck had entered the roundabout and collided with the trailer as it cut across the roundabout,by going for a gap alongside the trailer which was always going to close.IE rule 187 applies.
In your analysis the car driver must be held to have known the gap would close, and I don’t think that is sensible here.
Even the OP judged the approach incorrectly and did not expect the gap to close, because if he had he’d have taken both lanes and wouldn’t have worried about even trying to go so wide (and going wider than necessary when the OP intends to treat both lanes as one for his purposes, is itself an enticement to proceed on the inside for car drivers who have conceived it as having two lanes and have received no signal of the OP’s intentions).
You can’t hold the car driver to a higher standard than the OP, or even the same standard.
Rjan:
is itself an enticement to proceed on the inside for car drivers who have conceived it as having two lanes and have received no signal of the OP’s intentions).
It’s a simple rule you just don’t drive a car into an inevitably closing gap on the offside of an artic through a roundabout regardless of whether the driver has tried to block the move or not.Also bearing in mind at that point the truck will probably ( correctly ) be signalling left to exit the roundabout as the trailer cuts across the roundabout to the right.
MickyB666:
Rjan:
…to then have you cut in on them which you weren’t prepared to watch for and avoid. That’s the learning point.I was watching and preparing for such an occurrence, although I ultimately failed to avoid a collision it doesn’t mean I wasn’t, I checked the OS mirror on approach, before entering the roundabout and just after the first exit, I was also watching the NS mirror to check traffic on the exit/entrance to the first turn off, as well as looking in the direction of travel, the car appear in the few seconds between the last two mirror checks.
I’m not saying you didn’t look at all, only that you’ve allocated your attention in the wrong proportions. My intuition is that I wouldn’t have checked my n/s at all until I was coming out of the cut on the o/s - and you’ve barely started that in the photos.
My monitoring of the n/s would be done at the same time as it was cutting into the n/s when first entering the roundabout, then coming out of that I’d set up a line for the tractor to track the outside of the carriageway (or the lane) looking out the front window toward the n/s to plan that, then my eyes would come over to the o/s mirror for the cut-in on that side. I don’t sense there’d be anything interesting in the n/s mirror until you’re coming out of the o/s cut.
Rjan:
As to fault, the fact you didn’t see him approach but can infer he approached from behind, means you can’t rule out something reckless on his part (like going too fast then steering into you), but you can’t rule it in either.I didn’t see his actions so I can only speculate, what I do know is that I checked the mirrors and the RH side was clear a few seconds later I checked the mirrors again and he was into the side of the trailer, so he must have being going at a rapid rate to achieve this.
There shouldn’t be as much as a few seconds gap. If you have to look away from the o/s while you’re cutting in, you should be going slowly, and it should be a gap of milliseconds, just enough to turn your head and ■■■■■■ a glance elsewhere.
If you’re doing an appropriate speed yourself, then it shouldn’t be physically possible for a car to get alongside you on your o/s while you’re cutting in without you seeing some part of their approach (even if you then miss the impact due to distraction), unless they’re going so fast that realistically they’d have caused serious damage or pinballed past you after the collision. I’m talking about speeds that are more than just brisk or hurried in the everyday range, but the sort of uncontrollable and fateful speeds that arise from doing like 90mph on the approach then failing to brake for the roundabout.
Rjan:
Most likely, I think he approached you from behind at a modestly higher speed then braked for the roundabout, started to come alongside as you swung left (so you would be neither looking in your offside mirror, nor have full sight along the offside of your trailer, and he’d have seen a full lane’s width to proceed), and then as you’ve started to steer right to follow the outer kerb you’ve been paying too much attention to proceeding forward or maintaining your nearside positioning, and haven’t been watching yourself cut in (and have collided at that point).I am very sceptical that he could of approached at a ‘modestly higher speed’ the time scale just does not fit, again it was only a small roundabout and I know how quick I was with the mirror checks.
But by the same logic, would a reasonable driver approach a small roundabout at more than a modestly higher speed than you? And could he have stopped where he did alongside you if he was going so much faster to begin with? It can’t always be physically ruled out, but grossly excessive speeds (which by definition are not single or momentary misjudgements) are a less frequent category of folly than simple distraction. In rejecting that you made even a modest mistake of observation, the implication has to be that the other driver intended to engage in criminally outrageous driving. It happens, but not as frequently as mistakes of observation, and it’s very rare that there won’t be a witness who, even if they didn’t see the collision, won’t come along a minute later and point out to you that the guy tear-arsed past them moments earlier.