Vehicle Collisions - Potential Changes To How “At Fault” Is Determined?

Strahany on 30/01/2019 - 16:39
Last edited 30/01/2019 - 16:39

Every OzBargainer loves a good forum post detailing some form of mishap on the roads. Sadly, there are no MS Paint drawings here (sorry to disappoint).

As it stands, when one vehicle collides into the rear of another, the driver of the rear car is deemed to be at fault. I’m unaware of whether there are any exceptions to the case, such as in the event the driver in front cut the rear driver off and/or is “brake-checking”, or perhaps the front driver is performing an illegal manoeuvre etc

From what I can gather, the reason the rear driver is (almost?) always seemed at fault is just for simplicity and helps insurance cases reach a decision. However, with the rise of technology such as Dash Cams, there is less reliance on a “he said/she said” situation, due to (somewhat) concrete evidence being made available.

I suppose the point of this thread is to ask what (if any) exceptions already exist to the “rear driver at fault” standard ruling, and if anyone has been involved in a situation where the rear driver wasn’t at fault. In addition, to query whether people would support some alterations to how these cases are ruled now that proper evidence is a factor.

Keen to hear stories and thoughts.
(Please excuse autocorrect errors as I’ve typed this on a phone).

Automotive

Comments

  • bobbified on 30/01/2019 - 16:42
    +13

    The rear driver is usually only considered to be at fault in the absence of any other evidence such as independent witnesses, video evidence or any other evidence that will reasonably satisfy the party that determines liability.

    This has always been the case.

    • Strahany on 30/01/2019 - 17:02

      Is there anywhere that stipulates some form of criteria where a collision changes from being a case of the rear driver “should’ve just left more room” to being the fault of the driver in front?

      Taking the example of a driver performing an illegal turn, I would hope that video evidence would put them at fault rather than blaming the rear driver for not leaving enough space.

      I suppose the question I’m looking for is “what constitutes ‘normal driving conditions’ such that the rear driver should reasonably expect to need to brake in XYZ circumstances and therefore the collision is their fault?”

      • bobbified on 30/01/2019 - 20:17
        +13

        There's no real hard and fast rules to who's at fault where a front to rear collision has occurred. I used to work as a claims assessor and found that in a large number of incidents, the party at fault will acknowledge fault at the scene when details are exchanged, but the story often changes once they go home and realise how much they're up for or family and friends would talk the at-fault driver into another story that says the other driver is at fault. It was a very common problem we had.

        In a typical front to rear collision where one car is following another in the same lane, the driver at the back is considered to be at fault. This is because the driver of the rear vehicle is considered to have the most control of the size of the gap in between the cars.

        In other front to rear collisions, such as changing lanes, etc there's no set rules when it comes to assessment. Things like lane markings and everything else comes into play. Not necessarily the default rule of rear driver being at fault.

        In your example of a car doing a U-turn in front of another car, it could be one person's word against another, so it will depend on the story that's given on both sides. Where the driver doing the U-turn admits fault, then obviously it'll be an easy assessment. Having said that, drivers also have an obligation to take action to avoid a collision, where possible - regardless of whether the other driver is performing an illegal maneuver or not. That is, if you can see the other driver performing a U-turn and you continue at speed or even speed up and slam into them, then you're more likely to be considered at fault. Each incident will be slightly different and it'll be up to whoever's decision it is to make a judgment call.

        • stumo on 01/02/2019 - 08:38
          +2

          We had an accident where the other driver lied to her insurer and said we were doing a U-turn. We didnt tell her we had a dashcam. She took it all the way to the insurance onbudsman. Thanks to the dashcam footage her case was thrown out.

          The only real issue we had was getting our insurance company to actually watch the footage. We were deemed not at fault, but it took 2 different people at different times at the insurer to actually watch the video. Then a 3rd time 8 minths later when the onbudsman was investigating them. Every time after watching they were like "tell her shes dreaming". And this was RACV supposedly not some fly by night insurer. But now i wonder.

          • Blitzfx on 01/02/2019 - 17:28
            +1

            @stumo: I hope she went to jail for fraud.

      • ankor on 01/02/2019 - 07:41
        +1

        The whole issue of a car doing an illegal u-turn is that the u-turning car would have had to slow down to a pace to execute such a turn in the first place. So if you're behind that car, keeping a proper lookout, keeping a safe braking distance, then you'd see the car going from 60kph to 50 to 40 etc.

        If you haven't left enough room to anticipate a vehicle in front of you from slowing down, then you'll most likely be considered to be at fault. Or primarily liable.

        Insurance companies will ask you to pay an excess if they cannot recover in full from another party It's not about shades of liability and whether you are 90% liable, 70% liable, 50% liable.

        • bobbified on 01/02/2019 - 09:18
          +1

          The whole issue of a car doing an illegal u-turn is that the u-turning car would have had to slow down to a pace to execute such a turn in the first place. So if you're behind that car, keeping a proper lookout…

          I've taken OP's U-turn example as someone travelling in the opposite direction doing a U-turn (not the person travelling in front) and then running into the back of them.

    • Xiaomi on 31/01/2019 - 22:34
      +1

      Was at a set of lights and the Ute infront of me rolled backwards with his towball hitting my front end with the liability being with the Ute. He lived a street away, so drove home into the driveway before exchanging details.

      He was given a court attendance notice for the driving offense, leaving the scene of a crime and drink drinking (he thought by driving home he couldn't be tested). Lost his license for about 18 months

      • bobbified on 01/02/2019 - 09:20

        How did the cops get involved in such a minor collision? Did you call the cops because the ute driver didn't stop? Surprised the driver hadn't sobered up by the time they rocked up.

        • Gareth on 01/02/2019 - 14:39
          +2

          He should have gone home to have a drink!

          If he'd presented to Mr Plod with a whiskey in hand….

        • Xiaomi on 01/02/2019 - 19:23
          +1

          This was before the laws were introduced when you had to call the police for any collision. They were quick.

  • boomramada on 30/01/2019 - 16:51
    +9

    I only click this for MS Paint drawings :(

  • [Deactivated] on 30/01/2019 - 16:51
    -2

    A friend copped fault for slaming the brakes to avoid killing a kangaroo/wallabee.

    No dashcam but was honest about the situation although he believed he would have been cleared of fault because he thought the driver behind was too close because he was hit. As soon as he said he braked to save the animal, he conceeded fault.

    He braked hard. I could tell from the tires.

    • AdosHouse on 30/01/2019 - 17:25
      +11

      I don't understand how your friend was at fault? If I see an animal like a kangaroo or wallaby on the road, I'm hitting the anchors too. If the car behind me did not leave a safe gap, how is that my fault? A roo into the front of the car can do serious damage.

      • [Deactivated] on 30/01/2019 - 17:38

        There was no front on damage, the animal wasn't hit. There is no proof there was an animal but there is proof the driver hit the brakes hard and the statement given confirmed the hard braking. The animal on the road is anyone's guess.

        The driver behind didn't see the animal as is usually the case.

        • AdosHouse on 30/01/2019 - 17:52
          +3

          Yeah I understand why there would be a bit of doubt, but even so, if I see an animal on the road like a roo, I'm still braking.

          Why do you have to prove there was an animal on the road to hit the brakes? Doesn't make sense.

          • [Deactivated] on 30/01/2019 - 17:56
            -4

            @AdosHouse: Hit the brakes hard.

            My car brakes hard (brake system that cost more than new cars), and that car was of the same calibre. There is no way the average car will brake at even half the rate.

            I knew how hard he braked because I drove the car to the have a mechanical inspection and panel inspection and it was a bumpy ride from the tire's flat spots. Like don't use the cup holder bumpy.

            • AdosHouse on 30/01/2019 - 18:02
              +1

              @[Deactivated]: Normally the tyres are the limiting factor in hard braking. Like my old VY Commodore (normal not brembo brakes), the discs are still more than capable of braking harder than the tyres can provide grip, aka, the tyres lockup and ABS kicks in.

              Some cars like AMGs and super car, have massive tyres and big discs and can brake HARD, but they aren't the norm.

              But genuinely interested, what brake setup do you have, I like seeing some of the really high end setups, they look absolutely mint.

              • [Deactivated] on 30/01/2019 - 18:15

                @AdosHouse: It was a LP-560. This happened in 2012 from memory. The tires copped a massive flat spot and was also considered damage from the incident so it was actually covered.

                Yes it has ABS and that was my first big question but never followed as my mate didn't seem to mind.

                I am running a 380 6 pot Brembo. When I said more than new cars, I mean micras >< but still…

                And my car doesn't look mint. It looks like it just finished Dakar.

                • AdosHouse on 30/01/2019 - 18:32
                  +1

                  @[Deactivated]: He was driving a Gallardo? No wonder he could out-brake the car behind him. Hell it would likely out-brake 99% of cars on the road.

                  And I definately wouldn't hit a roo with a Lambo, that animal would go straight up the bonnet.

                  Your Brembo setup looks sweet. Brake fade won't be an issue there.

                  And LOL at dirty car, just means it gets used right. It's about what makes a car, and not how clean it is.

                  • [Deactivated] on 30/01/2019 - 18:39

                    @AdosHouse:

                    And LOL at dirty car, just means it gets used right. It's about what makes a car, and not how clean it is.

                    That's what I tell everyone but they just tell me it is shameful. I just like conserving water. :)

                    Your Brembo setup looks sweet. Brake fade won't be an issue there.

                    Still is but I can't justify going to carbon ceramics. About 6-8 hot laps around Phillip Island is all it takes. Perhaps even 4 on a bad day (driver and weather).

                    …out-brake 99% of cars on the road.

                    My set up brakes faster (when my pads are heated up). Much faster.

                    The LP560 can take the corner quicker so I guess it evens out I guess.

                    • AdosHouse on 30/01/2019 - 18:49

                      @[Deactivated]: Too many people take aesthetics over practicality.

                      You know you want to get the carbon ceramics mate, :p

                      • [Deactivated] on 30/01/2019 - 18:53
                        +1

                        @AdosHouse:

                        You know you want to get the carbon ceramics mate, :p

                        Mate, I know I want them, my wife knows I want them. My search history knows I want them.

                        My postie knows I want them.

                        My bank account knows I can keep wanting to want them 😂.

                        • Kangal on 30/01/2019 - 20:29

                          @[Deactivated]: I still don't see how the Lambo "conceded fault".

                          If there was an obstacle, and the driver reacted, that's great.
                          The car behind legally needs to leave a safe space in order to stop.
                          Since the car in the rear didn't leave a safe space AND/OR wasn't paying attention to the road, it caused the collision.

                          The only time I would say the driver in front is "at fault" is when they're deliberately hostile by (also showing finger, throwing obscenities, shouting, etc etc) driving in and out of several lanes, and overtaking from the left, not signalling, not allowing someone to merge or enter a lane etc etc that "(profanity)" type behaviour. And then he drives in front without leaving a gap and brakes hard to CAUSE the collision. Basically its "brake checking" to a higher degree. I have witnessed this several times, fortunately, I have dodged/evaded collision so far. YouTube is littered with such videos from Australia, Russia, and US.

                          PS: If I saw an expensive car/Lambo in front of me… I would keep an even longer distance. However, in terms of an accident you would think the Lambo Driver could afford the repairs for both vehicles. Well, unless he's just renting it for an RnB video :D

                • ranap on 31/01/2019 - 19:39

                  @[Deactivated]: what was the car which rear ended your friend?
                  Was your friend an easier target just for riding the Lambo? Tall poppy.
                  Easier to blame the person in the flashier car.

                  • [Deactivated] on 31/01/2019 - 19:41
                    +1

                    @ranap: Cannot remember. Nothing memorable so definitely not a performance vehicle.

                    I can see why either side thinks they're not at fault. If you've seen a performance car hard braking…. It is a scary thing.

              • smpantsonfire on 31/01/2019 - 19:46

                @AdosHouse: Yeah came here to say this. All brakes on modern cars will pull up a car all the same. 6 pot brembos or not. Tyres are going to decide whether what car pulls up first.

                Now often than not people get these big brake kits and pair them with ceramic pads and plates. Which on the street in normal driving, are actually worse than standard brakes.

                • [Deactivated] on 01/02/2019 - 17:40

                  @smpantsonfire:

                  All brakes on modern cars will pull up a car all the same.

                  Tires being equivalent, going 110kmph, there is a huge difference

                  Then there's tires too. 345 wide semi slicks are going to stop quick.

                  • smpantsonfire on 01/02/2019 - 19:14

                    @[Deactivated]: Honestly at 110, they really wouldn't be much better. Maybe by a metre. It's been proven.

                    But like we both agree, tyres are the most important factor in stopping quickly. However widee tyres does not always equal more grip.

            • macrocephalic on 01/02/2019 - 17:27
              +1

              @[Deactivated]: If the tyres were flat spotted then he didn't break quickly. The whole point (well, most) of ABS is because static friction is greater than dynamic friction; once something starts sliding then it's friction is reduced. If you lock the tyres then you're not decelerating as quickly as you otherwise could.

              • [Deactivated] on 01/02/2019 - 17:38

                @macrocephalic: Would handbrake bypass abs?

                • smpantsonfire on 01/02/2019 - 19:05

                  @[Deactivated]: Yes, however hand braking is the least quickest way to stop.

                  • [Deactivated] on 01/02/2019 - 20:05

                    @smpantsonfire: Cool. I learnt something new today. The ABS override, the function of ABS I get. Saved my delicates on a bike… soiled but saved.

                    • smpantsonfire on 01/02/2019 - 20:13

                      @[Deactivated]: It does depend on the car. I can't just rip my handbrake in my car it warns me and shows me down like a regular brake unless I really really pull it.

                      • [Deactivated] on 01/02/2019 - 20:31

                        @smpantsonfire: Mine doesn't, it just brakes hard but I never engaged it long enough to notice the details of what happens. I just test it once per new car.

                        Need to make sure brakes work. :)

    • djkelly69 on 30/01/2019 - 17:27
      +3

      I find this one really hard to accept. Is that the whole story?

      The whole point of the car behind having to leave a safe travelling distance is to give them time to brake safely in the event that the car in front slams on their brakes. This is exactly what happened here (as far as I can tell), so driver behind should be at fault.

      The logical rule or guideline to me is if the thing I am trying to avoid can/would reasonably cause serious damage to my car or person, then I am entitled to take evasive action to avoid it. A kangaroo is definitely in this category, a wallaby probably as well, a rabbit or something perhaps not. However, I think an argument can be made to say it is ok to take evasive action to avoid almost any living thing.

      If it is not ok to brake for a kangaroo, where do we draw the line? Humans only? What about an elephant or giraffe?

      • [Deactivated] on 30/01/2019 - 17:47
        +1

        However, I think an argument can be made to say it is ok to take evasive action to avoid almost any living thing.

        My friend's statement and the facts only corroborate that he braked hard. No animal was found, no front damage to the car in front.

        What is the difference between hitting someone who is brake checking and someone who claims to have braked for an animal? It's only a claim when there is no proof.

        Ps. I believe if he didn't say anything, the driver in the rear would have probably been at fault.

        • djkelly69 on 30/01/2019 - 18:01
          +1

          It's only a claim when there is no proof.

          Yes, and onus of proof is on the person behind to prove the brake-checking or whatever their reason for claiming they are not at fault is.

          Still don't understand how your friend admitting he was braking to avoid an animal makes him liable - he is perfectly entitled to brake hard for any number of reasons, a lot of which will not be 'provable' by him.

          • [Deactivated] on 30/01/2019 - 18:06

            @djkelly69: No idea. I didn't make the ruling. I wasn't even there.

            I just know his car had a rear bumper damage almost in the middle, his statement to the police, the short version of his civil conversation with the other driver and him being informed he will be liable for the excess by his insurer.

            I may not know the whole story but it sounds legit. Only reason to doubt it if he was parked in the middle of the freeway.

            • bobbified on 30/01/2019 - 20:28

              @[Deactivated]: The only time I've seen this is when the police have charged the driver of the vehicle in front with dangerous driving (for suddenly stopping for no reason - aka brake checking).

              The insurer often follows the police report if fault is attributed to a party in that report. They will then rely on that report if the decision gets challenged in court.

              I think your friend could've challenged the charge in court and won. Especially if he can show that there are kangaroos in that area.

              • [Deactivated] on 30/01/2019 - 21:05

                @bobbified: It was a road between Adelaide and Melbourne, and more so, it is Australia. Kangaroos everywhere.

                I guess it was him claiming there's a reason but there doesn't seem to be one. No third party witness, no dashcam just a long tire track and a someone else's nose up their butt.

                This didn't go to court.

                • bobbified on 30/01/2019 - 21:44
                  +1

                  @[Deactivated]: In my experience, cops are often quite lazy when it comes to routine traffic incidents.

                  Even if have it's a minor incident. If they come out, they'll often say that they have to write a ticket to someone. That ticket is usually for neg driving. If the insurance excess or damage out of your pocket isn't enough, there's also the ticket to deal with.

                  So in my opinion, if there's an accident that doesn't require police attendance (esp if you're at fault) it's better to just deal with it in a civil manner.

                  • [Deactivated] on 30/01/2019 - 21:47
                    +1

                    @bobbified:

                    …if there's an accident anything that doesn't require police attendance… Better to just deal with it…

                    Amen, brother.

      • AdosHouse on 30/01/2019 - 18:46
        +2

        LOL at giraffe. No braking, just knee cap that SOB. If you hit it fast enough in the legs, it's only the car behind you problem.

        • [Deactivated] on 30/01/2019 - 21:05

          Sounds like something out of GTA.

    • HighAndDry on 30/01/2019 - 17:59

      Yeah - agree with the others that your friend may well not have been found at fault if he fought it, but at the same time very hard to escape liability completely (if push came to shove) unless he could (somehow) show that him braking that hard was reasonable given the circumstances.

      • [Deactivated] on 30/01/2019 - 18:22
        +1

        Perhaps but he seemed happy so why dredge up dirt from the day before. :) This is one person where cost and value hardly overlapped.

  • ThithLord on 30/01/2019 - 17:01

    Is it possible if the driver at fault will negate onus if the other driver has any drugs detected in their system? I've heard that before.

    • Strahany on 30/01/2019 - 17:04

      I’ve heard this might be the case but don’t know for certain. Someone else could fill in.

      I would hope that evidence, such as dash cam footage, would supercede any implications of the rear driver being at fault due to having illicit substances in their system. Especially when the law, itself, doesn’t actually state the driver is driving impaired; only with it in their system.

    • HighAndDry on 30/01/2019 - 17:08
      +2

      Not really - someone else breaking the law doesn't change liability unless it led to them doing something which makes them liable in some way. Say someone is high as a kite at an intersection, but they're just stopped at the traffic lights (which might be green even) and you run into the back of them (for this example, assume straight road, miles of visibility, sunny day, etc). You'd have a hard time arguing they were any bit at fault.

    • [Deactivated] on 31/01/2019 - 02:30

      No they could be a convicted murderer who just broke out of jail got drugged up and ran over three people, if you hit them you'd still be at fault and paying for the damage to whoever owned the car they stole.

      Now, if it's a matter of just one person's version of events vs another, and it's a head on, the police will probably investigate to see if there is other evidence, but courts might determine that the sober person is a more reliable witness if it's a he said / she said thing.

  • Ocker on 30/01/2019 - 17:04

    Is it not a case of the final decision is covered by the rule that you must follow at a safe distance that will enable you to stop to avoid a collision if necessary to do so?

  • TheMindsetTraveller on 30/01/2019 - 17:04
    +1

    This may not be a true story**

    A car is parked at a shopping centre, engine off, been parked for many hours. Another car trying to park, reverses into the car. The front bumper of the parked car is hit by the rear of the moving car. Now, the car at the back is not at fault ;) ;) ;)

  • HighAndDry on 30/01/2019 - 17:05
    +3

    The standard assumption that the driver behind is at-fault is because you are supposed to leave a safe distance in the circumstances, which basically means enough room so that you can come to a stop without hitting the car in front even if they basically stopped on a dime.

    But it's always been a fully rebuttable presumption, just that doing so requires evidence which is usually hard to come by without dash cams. But if you had witnesses, etc, to show that the driver in the car in front did anything or was negligent, they can certainly be at fault. Off the top of my head and in no particular order, situations where the driver behind may not be at fault:

    1. They cut in front without giving enough indication/space, and then slammed on the brakes - in this situation the car behind has no opportunity to "follow at a safe distance" because the car in front was not in their lane to begin with;

    2. Another car in front swerved out of the way of an obstacle or car that was stationary on the road in a way that didn't allow the car behind to react/brake in time; or

    3. The driver of the car behind had a medical incident that wasn't foreseeable.

    Not exhaustive, and still all situational.

    • Strahany on 30/01/2019 - 17:22
      -1

      Point 2 is an interesting one. Suppose that it occurs as you’ve described it.

      I doubt anyone would argue that it’s unfair to blame the car that hit the stationary one, as it had no way of knowing what was in front of them. You would also say the same for the stationary car (unless it stopped for non-legitimate reasons, but let’s assume they’re broken down).

      Of the three, the car that swerved at the last second is the biggest contributor to the collision (as far as controllable variables go) and so one could attempt argue that they’re the “at fault party”. However, even if you could track down that driver which is likely long gone, I doubt you could get anything ruled against them since, as far as I know, they have no obligation to worry about the reactions of a car behind them.

      I’m assuming that the car which hit the stationary one would ultimately be left at fault, despite it being out of their control, provided said stationary vehicle was stopped for legitimate reasons.

      Not the fairest result, but seemingly how it’d be ruled?

      • HighAndDry on 30/01/2019 - 17:33
        +1

        There does not necessarily need to be a party at fault in all cases.

        I’m assuming that the car which hit the stationary one would ultimately be left at fault, despite it being out of their control, provided said stationary vehicle was stopped for legitimate reasons.

        This would be incredibly fact dependent. There may be an element of liability (contributory negligence) on part of the stationary vehicle who's hit, depending on how "legitimately" they were stopped. But yes, most of the time it would still be the fault of the car behind, if for no reason than that they would've still had the gap between themselves and the car-in-front-who-swerved to react and brake and stop.

    • [Deactivated] on 31/01/2019 - 02:27
      +1

      The car at front is only possibly at fault in 1 (and only if you actually hit them, they have no fault if someone behind hits YOU!). There's a lesson in that, if someone does this to you, don't swerve into someone else, as you'll end up being liable. Hit the damn idiot who cut you off. If someone behind hits you, and all you did was brake, it's their fault no matter how fast you have to emergency brake. And yeah, this sort of thing has happened and yeah it's a sad story that the idiot driving like a maniac isn't the one at fault, but it's unfortunately the courts have decided if they don't hit you you're SOL.

      1. You will be at fault in the car behind every time. I would have likely hit at least one car If I wasn't looking through / around the car in front for obstacles, you can't expect to be 2 seconds behind a car and ignore everything in front of it and not be at fault if it gets out of the way quickly and you don't / can't follow. If you can't see that far ahead, you need to leave more space. If the person blocking the road is doing it intentionally etc, there are other laws that they may have broken, but it still doesn't make them responsible for anyone hitting them.

      2. Still 'at-fault'. You're probably not going to jail if you hit someone because you had an unexpected heart attack, but from a liability point of view it's your insurance that will be paying for the damage. Just because you're not negligent doesn't mean you're not liable.

    • bobbified on 01/02/2019 - 09:36

      . 2. Another car in front swerved out of the way of an obstacle or car that was stationary on the road in a way that didn't allow the car behind to react/brake in time;

      Generally, if you hit a stationary object, you're at-fault. The logic behind it is, if you have limited visibility ahead, then you must slow down. Not much different to when there's heavy rain.

      • HighAndDry on 01/02/2019 - 09:53

        While this is strictly true, because hitting a stationary object that the car in front of you swerved out of the way of means you would've hit that car itself if it came to a sudden stop, realistically situations where this would happen would be so uncommon the car behind wouldn't be entirely at fault in a lot of cases, if they had been leaving a 3-second gap or so. (But yes, absolutely situational).

        • bobbified on 01/02/2019 - 10:31

          the car behind wouldn't be entirely at fault in a lot of cases, if they had been leaving a 3-second gap or so.

          If the car behind was leaving a large enough gap to the car in front to be able to stop safely, then they would likely be able to stop before hitting a stationary car.

          As a motorcycle rider, I'm always conscious of the road ahead to make sure I get myself in this situation. Even as a driver, I try to look past the car in front of me - the only time it's difficult is if it's a large truck of some sort - then I leave a bigger gap or go slow if there's a traffic buildup.

          • HighAndDry on 01/02/2019 - 10:32

            @bobbified: Oh yeah same. Defensive driving 101. But it's not really included in any mandatory driving course, and so isn't a reasonable requirement of all drivers. (I honestly think a defensive driving class should be mandatory, but until it is, it's not a factor in apportioning legal liability).

            • bobbified on 01/02/2019 - 10:37
              +1

              @HighAndDry:

              But it's not really included in any mandatory driving course, and so isn't a reasonable requirement of all drivers

              Running into anything for a rider is likely to result in scattered body parts, so I just do what I need to do to stay safe.

              I honestly think a defensive driving class should be mandatory

              AAMI had a pretty decent course for young drivers before. They ask you to BYO car and it gave students a good balance between theory and practice in their own car. It gave me a good idea of how my car handled in different situations.

              • HighAndDry on 01/02/2019 - 17:58

                @bobbified: Just read above where you mentioned you were a claims assessor. Surprised you ride a bike still after all the horror stories you must've come across. I've a friend who works insurance side on motor vehicle personal injury claims - he was getting his bike licence but stopped right quick.

                • bobbified on 01/02/2019 - 18:14

                  @HighAndDry: It was a very interesting job haha.

                  There's only one accident that sticks out in my mind though. It was a guy that was parked facing the opposite direction on a two way country road. He was using the passenger door as a cover while he stood there and took a piss. Not sure why he didn't stand on the driver's side away from traffic. A car came along and swiped his door and he was cut in half. His top half was found over 100 metres away from his car. The other car must've been covered in blood, but they kept going and didn't stop. There were over 100 pictures in the file of every bit of the poor guy.

                  I like think that I can trust my own judgement and take calculated risks, and really, I can't be scared of everything otherwise I'd be living quite a boring life. I guess knowing that I can easily die from things keeps things real in my head as opposed to me thinking that "it won't happen to me".

                  • HighAndDry on 01/02/2019 - 18:25
                    +1

                    @bobbified: FK!

                    I'm not sure what else to say honestly…

                    I can't be scared of everything otherwise I'd be living quite a boring life.

                    Yeah that's definitely true. There are probably a million things that could happen that are completely out of your control anyway.

                    I think my friend mentioned the one case that was the final straw - apparently some guy just slid out on a bike, but because of (some reason I can't remember), had his arm basically de-gloved. (Just to anyone else: Do NOT google that word.)

                    • bobbified on 01/02/2019 - 18:40
                      +1

                      @HighAndDry:

                      had his arm basically de-gloved.

                      Oh.. yes.. that! There were a few of those too! lol!

                      My job was to assess liability and then how much to payout. I spoke to some of these victims (back then, the person claiming wasn't the person at-fault). I couldn't help but feel sorry for a lot of them who sustained life-changing injuries, so I would always make sure they would be paid out the absolute maximum to try help them get back on their feet. I'm glad my boss was a compassionate person too so he always signed off on the case I put together for the amount.

                      On the opposite end, there were the obvious scammers (but not enough solid medical evidence to deny their claim) trying to get as much money as possible. I made sure they got paid as little as possible.

                      It was a very interesting job, but I changed industries due to the lack of career options later on.

                      • HighAndDry on 01/02/2019 - 18:54
                        +1

                        @bobbified:

                        lol!

                        …. I guess the job desensitises you haha, because that was not our reaction on hearing the story. This was over dinner too. But good for you - my friend does the same I think. The image of insurance companies screwing over people is overblown; I'm sure it happens from time to time, but by and large insurance companies actuary tables account for large claims. They don't need to screw over people to make money.

                        • bobbified on 01/02/2019 - 20:11

                          @HighAndDry:

                          I guess the job desensitises you haha
                          haha it does in a way, but I prefer to think of it as the realities of life.

                          btw, your mate who works in the industry… is it an asian guy who's name starts with a P? It's a small world so I wouldn't be surprised if it's who I think it is! hahaha

                          • HighAndDry on 01/02/2019 - 20:25

                            @bobbified: Asian, but nope, name doesn't start with a P. He's also in Sydney, not Melb, unless you moved down recently?

  • chumlee on 30/01/2019 - 17:05
    +1

    Probably in a multiple car pile up where normally the person who caused all the cars to rear end another is responsible for all the damage?

    • [Deactivated] on 31/01/2019 - 02:14
      +2

      Nope. If there's a pileup and you hit anything in front of you, you were following too close. The only person not at fault is the one at the very front.

      • orangetrain on 31/01/2019 - 08:47
        +1

        The cars in middle can say they're not at fault because the car behind them hit them enough to make them hit car in front.

        • [Deactivated] on 31/01/2019 - 13:12

          Yeah, that's possible, assuming the car behind hit before the car in front did.

  • geek001 on 30/01/2019 - 17:11
    +2

    True story. My wife was stopped at an intersection behind a car. Both cars are stationary. The car in front suddenly decided to reverse for some reason and crashed into our car. Luckily the car in front admitted fault, otherwise it would be very hard to prove otherwise.

    • [Deactivated] on 31/01/2019 - 02:12
      +1

      Had exactly the same thing happen, in my case the driver was deaf or they might have heard the horn as they very slowly reversed into my stationary car..

  • Baysew on 30/01/2019 - 17:12

    In addition, to query whether people would support some alterations to how these cases are ruled now

    Just in OzBargain or in real life?

    • Strahany on 30/01/2019 - 17:24
      +1

      Mainly in the only field that matters; the OzBargain Supreme Court.

      I jest; I’d like to see changes put into writing if they’re significant enough.

      • [Deactivated] on 30/01/2019 - 18:26
        +2

        I think the current system works. The law cannot cover everything scenario equally but it can be applied equally to a very high standard of satisfaction.

      • Jeremyc on 01/02/2019 - 17:52

        Hopefully it's hypothetical but I see you just bought a new car! Out of curiousity are you a P plater?

  • Vancomycin 1000mg on 30/01/2019 - 17:43
    +2

    A couple of weeks ago, I was driving on the freeway and about to exit and there was another car who missed the exit and therefore attempted to merge in our lane using the shoulder lane. The two cars in front braked and let the driver in but in this case I nearly got rear ended because the driver behind me probably did not see this (profanity) of a driver and I had to steer my car to the right and into the shoulder lane to avoid the collision. It is this type of assholes who drive like that causes collisions and in this case unfortunately the car behind me would be at fault.

    Keen to know what you guys think about situation like this.

    Video

    • HighAndDry on 30/01/2019 - 18:00
      +2

      Christ what an (profanity).

      But yeah, car behind you, if they hit you, would've been at fault, and the jackass of a driver who merged across 3+ lanes would've driven off scott free.

      • [Deactivated] on 31/01/2019 - 02:38
        +1

        Yeah there have been newspaper reports on this, sob story of person who hit car that braked hard / swerved to avoid someone who nearly hit them, and depending on the swerve/braking it ends up being them or the other driver that's at fault and NOT the one who escapes without a scratch but did the stupid thing. Basically, only avoid hitting someone doing something stupid if you definitely won't hit someone else instead, because you'll be at fault no matter why you did it and the person who did the silly thing can't be at fault if they didn't hit you.

    • [Deactivated] on 30/01/2019 - 18:28

      I used to have this issue several times a month because two exits look identical.

      It has even happened to me when I am on mental auto pilot. I didn't swerve out though (not to claim I am a saint. I didn't even realize I was off route for the longest time).

  • grog on 30/01/2019 - 18:42
    -1

    What state are you talking about?

    laws can be different in nannup or rubyvale or ivy tanks…

    • pegaxs on 31/01/2019 - 09:15

      Hardly. There may be some slight additional laws per state (ie: hook turns in Vic. but not in Qld.) but all states have a base set of rules that are uniform across Australia.

      Some light reading for you or to keep a copy in your glovebox… Australian Road Rules

      • bobbified on 01/02/2019 - 12:19

        There may be some slight additional laws per state

        The U-turn one has got me twice over the years. It's legal in Melbourne (unless signposted) and illegal in Sydney (unless signposted)! lol

        • pegaxs on 01/02/2019 - 14:51

          Yep, great example.

          There is one in Qld about passing unruly horses on the free-way that only seems to exist in their legislation.
          Lane splitting on a motorcycle is another. It's legal in most states now, but each have their own take on it.

          But that being said, most other rules are common and based on the Australian Road Rules.

  • [Deactivated] on 31/01/2019 - 02:11

    Someone reversed into me at traffic lights - they didn't see me as they were half out of the lane (they were confused about where to go) and they kept reversing when I beeped the horn because they were deaf…. Fortunately they admitted liability (or I guess they did because I'd given their details to my insurance 5 minutes later).

    In absence of them admitting fault or any witnesses it would have been interesting. But I mean, I was literally stationary when they hit me, so if they didn't admit fault I'd have been going all the way through the legal process and they'd be done for perjury if any evidence / witnesses did show up.

  • Euphemistic on 31/01/2019 - 07:11

    I think the urgent system works. It is presumed liability, meaning that in the abscence of other evidence the car behind is at fault. Simple really. Sure, sometimes there isn’t enough ‘evidence’ to prove the driver in front was wanting a new rear bumper but that’s where you need to consider your own dash cam.

  • backpaqer on 31/01/2019 - 09:29

    I had a mate who used to drive around in a sh*tty, beat up falcon xb with racing compound tyres on. He could stop incredibly hard and seemed to have people running into his backside at least weekly! Tyres only lasted around 10,000km but all the prangs seemed to be a good earner for him.

    • bobbified on 01/02/2019 - 12:14

      He could stop incredibly hard and seemed to have people running into his backside at least weekly!

      Yes, the incidents are not technically his fault. But your mate must drive like an absolute dick by slamming his brakes on all the time if people are constantly running into the back of his car.

      but all the prangs seemed to be a good earner for him.

      …fingers crossed that the next vehicle he does this to is a fn big truck!

      • trapper on 01/02/2019 - 14:47

        If he was doing this intentionally then it is not an accident, so would be 100% his fault and a criminal offence too

    • abb on 01/02/2019 - 12:44

      I gotta admit, I've been tempted to buy a solid tank of a car and go around having many crashes that are other people's fault. "Oh that guy's merging into my lane - good thing I've got a solid bullbar!" The bad drivers get away with doing a lot of dodgy shit because other drivers usually have enough self-preservation and situational awareness to dodge them.

      (But I just bought a dash cam instead)

      • trapper on 01/02/2019 - 14:48

        Again if you have any kind of intent like this then it is not an accident. You are committing a crime.

        • abb on 01/02/2019 - 16:23

          Understood, but hard to prove. Maybe one day I just don't react fast enough when someone swerves into my lane without warning, you know?

          I'm not talking about slamming the brakes for tailgaters, but rather not dodging when they're gonna hit me. I understand this is illegal as you have to take reasonable measures to avoid a crash, but it's a nice fantasy that one day these jerks will get their comeuppance!

  • Ugly on 31/01/2019 - 10:01

    One I heard of was a collision at night, where the brake lights on the front car were not working. (Luckily the driver in the rear car had others in the car who could give evidence that there were no brake lights)

    The view was that the collision was due to the front car being un-roadworthy. Without brake lights, the 2nd driver was unable to see that the car in front was braking, so was unable to react in time.

  • DazMon on 31/01/2019 - 10:37

    I'd like to know about this too because I almost rear-ended a car which had no brake lights.
    I've had a dashcam for a month now and am loving it, although I'm sure it could get used against me if needed.
    So it works both ways, and if I spend a bit more it could act as security for my whole driveway at night.

    • [Deactivated] on 31/01/2019 - 13:01
      +1

      Maybe the brake lights stopped working after you hit them :P

      Edit - I missed the word almost.

  • Entropy Sky on 31/01/2019 - 20:01

    Had one happened to my wife:
    She was driving straight, the other guy speed reversed out of his driveway without checking, rear ended.

    Dash cam helped.

  • Fornax on 31/01/2019 - 20:14

    I hit someone in the rear end about 12 years ago and was found to not be at fault. The other driver pulled out from a shopping center across three lanes on the highway and I couldnt stop in time. I took pictures of the glass on the road where it lined up with trees and used aerials from Google maps to prove the point of impact showing I had no chance to stop. Fortunately my car was dirty enough that when the cars impacted it left a imprint of their number plate. The imprint showed the car hadn't fully entered my lane. The other driver had no insurance and admitted fault at the time of the accident but said it was my fault when my insurance company called. My insurance company found in my favor and I got calls from debt collectors for 8 years after trying to get more information about the driver who caused the accident. My car was a write off and they were new Zealanders I've always assumed they went back.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join