Accident - Who Is at Fault?

dragonfly090 on 10/05/2018 - 10:12
Last edited 10/05/2018 - 10:21 by 1 other user

Hello OzB,

Need your thoughts on this.

Lane 1 - Goes straight
Lane 2 - Goes straight or can turn left
Lane 3 - Left Only

Between Lane 1 and 2 there is a dotted line
Between Lane 2 and 3 there is a solid line

Car A is moving from Lane 1 to Lane 2 and Car C is moving from Lane 3 to Lane 2. Both collide.

Since both cars on middle lane and Car A ahead of Car C decides to take the exit and stop. Car C takes off straight and no contacts exchanged. Car A has the rego number of Car C.

Who do you guys think is at fault?

Refer a rough drawing in https://imgur.com/a/K3N7fcJ

Automotive

Comments

  • whooah1979 on 10/05/2018 - 10:14

    Please provide a screenshot of the intersection.

  • Hybroid on 10/05/2018 - 10:17
    +35

    Easy, solid line means no changing lanes. The hard part is proving it without photographic evidence.

    • waterbottled on 10/05/2018 - 10:18

      Unless Car A has Car C's rego because they have a dashcam. Hopefully cam would have recorded sommetthinngg.

      • dragonfly090 on 10/05/2018 - 10:21
        +1

        Car A has the Rego number of Car C

    • dragonfly090 on 10/05/2018 - 10:18
      +1

      Have a dash cam footage that the car C was changing lanes on solid line. Cops say since the Car C had blinkers on, Car A is at fault.

      • Hybroid on 10/05/2018 - 10:31
        +2

        Good thing you have dash cam footage. Now find the below statement in your state's driving rules and use that.

        You may not overtake, change lanes or U-turn over a single continuous centre line or over a single continuous line to the left of a broken line. You may drive over a single continuous line if you are entering or leaving the road.

        • pegaxs on 10/05/2018 - 11:09
          +8

          OP is in Victoria, so the Road Rules for this is found under the Vic. Road Safety Road Rules 2017, Part 4, Reg.: 147.

          A driver on a multi-lane road must not move from one marked lane to another marked lane by crossing a continuous line separating the lanes unless:
          (The "unless" exemptions are not applicable here.)

      • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2018 - 11:08
        +14

        Cops say since the Car C had blinkers on, Car A is at fault.

        This is wrong advice. You should have obtained that idiot's name/position for your records.

      • berry580 on 10/05/2018 - 17:20
        +4

        LOL.

        Ozbargain cop?

        First I’ve ever heard putting the blinkers on would give u any priority.

        • furys12 on 11/05/2018 - 10:54
          +3

          I've seen plenty of people who think that's how blinkers work

        • [Deactivated] on 11/05/2018 - 22:19

          @furys12: well see that's a red herring, no one in Vic uses their indicators

          You'd think the cops down here would go go….hang on, its not Christmas, what sort of idiot pits in his flashers unless they're from NSW? They're definitely in the wrong.

          Op: Cops are snowed under with paperwork so they've done the classic "it's your fault, do you really want to lodge a complaint?". Ask if you cam gey a second opinion from their supervisor. But make sure you are humble & ditch any attitude as they can make your life hard.

          If you've got footage of them crossing a solid line & rego, then hand it into your insurance company, that's what you pay them for.

      • zzzsianzzz on 12/05/2018 - 02:52

        sounds like you did not even put blinkers on to warn drivers you are doing a lane change in front of car B? if car B driver did not see you and hits you, you are guilty and at fault too. you might assume car b might be turning left but is heading straight.

        I have been around car B position, seen both cars coming together at the same time into the middle, both exceeding speed limit, all going straight, with blinkers into centre for both, but one car evaded the another. its also technically a blind spot, if car b is in the middle and if its a big vehicle, like a truck.

        crazy drivers exists, there is no logic why people are crazy drivers like mario karts game. some are unfamiliar with the roads in NSW.

        I have also seen car A dashing across 3 lanes on a 4 lane highway to exit left. seen cars deliberately slowed down because of their actions.

        • sagitox on 12/05/2018 - 03:22

          Who is this Car B and when did they come into the story? OP posted about Car A and Car C.

          Anyway Car C, who changed lanes over a solid line is at fault. No matter if he they had blinkers on. When you approaching traffic lights and there is a solid line between you and the next lane it is ILLEGAL to change lanes!

          From VicRoads:

          Lane dividing lines

          When driving you must keep your vehicle within a lane.
          Continuous lane lines

          If you are in a lane with a continuous line between your lane and the next lane, you are not allowed to change lanes or cross over that line unless:

          -you are avoiding an obstruction
          -there is a sign saying you can
          -you are driving a special vehicle that is allowed in that lane (e.g. a bus).

        • DonWilson on 12/05/2018 - 11:14

          @sagitox: Car B came into it when OP posted this image: https://imgur.com/a/K3N7fcJ

      • sagitox on 12/05/2018 - 03:33

        Throw them a copy of the VicRoads rules. That is unacceptable. Even if they had their blinker on, they are performing an illegal lane change.

        From VicRoads website:

        Lane dividing lines

        When driving you must keep your vehicle within a lane.

        Continuous lane lines

        If you are in a lane with a continuous line between your lane and the next lane, you are not allowed to change lanes or cross over that line unless:

        -you are avoiding an obstruction
        -there is a sign saying you can
        -you are driving a special vehicle that is allowed in that lane (e.g. a bus).

        https://www.caradvice.com.au/47347/victoria-to-adopt-new-roa…

        Painted lines

        -You may not overtake, change lanes or U-turn over a single continuous centre line or over a single continuous line to the left of a broken line.
        -You may drive over a single continuous line if you are entering or leaving the road.
        -You may only drive over a painted island surrounded by a single continuous line if you are entering or leaving the road, or entering a turning lane immediately after the island ($234 fine + demerit points).

  • Baysew on 10/05/2018 - 10:18
    +29

    Accident - Who is at fault?

    The person who didn't buy insurance.

    • dragonfly090 on 10/05/2018 - 10:19
      +1

      he he

    • cameldownunder on 10/05/2018 - 16:48

      I'll find the driver of car C, for a reward, of course !

  • PissLUR on 10/05/2018 - 10:19

    A and C are both at fault for causing the accident.

      • pegaxs on 10/05/2018 - 11:29
        +17

        It's not about "not supposed to" it's the fact that Car C is not "allowed" too. Regardless, Car C cannot change lanes once they have entered the turning section.

        Two road rules are at play here. Firstly is the "don’t change lanes over continuous marked lines" and secondly about following the arrow markings on the road.

        Unless Car C had a "straight/left turn" road marking, only then could Car C go straight. In OP's drawing, it shows that there is a "left turn only" road marking, so Car C has no option but to turn left.

        Car A is well within their legal rights to merge into Lane 2 if they indicated to do so, as there are broken lines AND there are no road signs prohibiting Car A from moving into Lane 2. So, no, it's not "50/50"…

        Now… If Car A was trying to use the exit ramp from Lane 1, we have a whole new ball game…

        • itsTricky83 on 12/05/2018 - 01:10

          This sums it up quite clearly.
          Also, the police are often wrong, as we all know. I've had to summon police to court to prove them wrong on two seperate occasions, and those were the days before dashcams.
          So don't be persuaded simply by the police telling you that you are wrong.
          In this day and age, I think clear dashcam footage is the only way to prove yourself 100% in the right.

      • smartazz104 on 11/05/2018 - 17:26

        How the hell is anyone else supposed to know that the idiot in Car C actually wanted to go straight when he was in the lane that only allows left turns?

    • Ryanek on 10/05/2018 - 13:17
      +5

      No, car C changed lanes over an unbroken line. This is illegal.

        • Ryanek on 10/05/2018 - 14:16
          +31

          The accident could also have been avoided if driver of Car A took a bus. So what's your point?

        • Ryanek on 10/05/2018 - 14:17
          +3

          @PissLUR: You're just trolling now. I'm out.

        • Yummy on 10/05/2018 - 15:36
          +7

          Head check only works in petrol station.

        • pegaxs on 10/05/2018 - 15:52
          +6

          @PissLUR:

          The accident could have been avoided if Car C adhered to the law and didn’t leave their lane. Car A did nothing wrong, head check or not. You were not there, so you have no proof that Car A failed to do a head check.

          Car C has broken 4 road rules. Changing lanes over solid marked line. Disobey road marking in turning lane. Not yielding to car merging in front/right. Leaving the scene of an accident without exchanging details. Car A, provided they used their indicator, has done nothing wrong. So….

          Troll on, Wayne! Troll on, Garth!

        • OzzyOzbourne on 11/05/2018 - 14:51
          +3

          A head check 2 lanes across for someone illegaly crossing a solid white line!
          Should we check the skies constantly in case a plane's going to illegally land on the freeway?

        • smartazz104 on 11/05/2018 - 17:27
          +1

          The accident could have been avoided if Car C wasn't a moron.

  • pantsparty on 10/05/2018 - 10:23
    +4

    The person who illegally changed lanes is in the wrong. Which one were you?

    • dragonfly090 on 10/05/2018 - 10:39

      Car A

      • pegaxs on 10/05/2018 - 11:14

        Were you changing lanes or planning on using the exit from Lane 1?

    • ozzpete on 10/05/2018 - 17:53
      +2

      Which one were you?

      He was riding the bus

      • OzzyOzbourne on 11/05/2018 - 14:52
        +1

        The one trying to jump the queue by using the left turn lane, then pushing in over a solid white line. See it every day.

        • downbythecreek on 12/05/2018 - 06:51

          I love leaving 1 star reviews on a business whenever I see a company car doing this. I always leave the rego and the time so they know it is their vehicle.

          It's petty, I know, but then again so is using a turning lane to undertake peak hour traffic only to jam both lanes up while you wait to force yourself into the other lane before the turn.

  • SPCTRE on 10/05/2018 - 10:27
    +1

    Without footage or witnesses there nothing either party can do unless one admits fault.
    Not hard for Car C to say this was before the solid lines and Car A decide to changes lanes without indicating etc.
    Either party can make up a version to suit them.
    Good luck in the witch hunt

    • dragonfly090 on 10/05/2018 - 10:40

      Have the footage

      • pformag on 10/05/2018 - 13:31
        +20

        upload to Dash Cams Australia and send link so we can all look :)

      • SPCTRE on 10/05/2018 - 20:56

        That’s changes things. Then cop was being an ass and cbf doing work by giving you the other party details for insurance purpose.
        Cops will tell you it’s an insurance issue and won’t be helpful.
        Do you have insurance OP?

  • GG57 on 10/05/2018 - 10:28
    +2

    If the damage to your car is substantial, just go direct to insurance claim.

  • Cheeper on 10/05/2018 - 10:30
    -3

    Too many variables…
    From the sketch car C would be at fault for crossing an unbroken line.. but also, did car A indicate their intention to change lanes? or not indicate their intention, or not indicate at all?
    Did one or both cars do a "rapid" lane change? Always a stupid move on a public road.
    Did one or both drivers check to see if the lane was clear before merging?
    Cop is right.. car C had indicated their intention, even though it was an illegal one, so car A should have attempted to avoid impact and didn't.

    • dragonfly090 on 10/05/2018 - 10:43

      Both Cars indicated the intention, middle lane was safe to switch..both did not stop for other to complete the move. Car A which is me has been hit on rear left door.

      • ATangk on 11/05/2018 - 09:21
        +4

        Even when indicating you cannot cross solid line, unless to enter driveway or else. So indicating doesn’t allow car C to change lanes in any case.

  • boomramada on 10/05/2018 - 10:31
    +1

    Usually Ozb fault for not having insurance for been cheap as.

  • pegaxs on 10/05/2018 - 10:34
    +5

    Car C cannot change lanes as designated by the continuous white line. No matter that they had their indicator on or not, they cannot change lanes.

    Car A is allowed to pull into lane 2 with indicator but is not allowed to exit the off ramp from lane 1. But I doubt your drawing is to scale,so who knows how far back Car A indicated to change lane. If Car A only used the off ramp because of the accident, then Car C is in the wrong.

    I know Car C cannot change out of that lane and the police officer that told you otherwise is incorrect. One of the guys at work recently received a ticket for doing exactly this. Crossing over a solid white line at the end of a merge lane. It was all caught on dash cam and reviewed, including what the police officer said. Even though the driver used their indicators, they were still ticketed for crossing over the solid part of the road marking.

    NSW Road Rule: 147 - Driving in Marked Lanes (for NSW. Other states may vary but i would imagine would all be very similar.) says…

    147 Moving from one marked lane to another marked lane across a continuous line separating the lanes

    A driver on a multi-lane road must not move from one marked lane to another marked lane by crossing a continuous line separating the lanes unless:

       (a)  the driver is avoiding an obstruction, or

   (b)  the driver is obeying a traffic control device applying to the first marked lane, or

   (c)  the driver is permitted to drive in both marked lanes under another provision of these Rules or under another law of this jurisdiction, or

   (d)  either of the marked lanes is a special purpose lane in which the driver is permitted to drive under these Rules and the driver is moving to or from the special purpose lane, or

   (e)  either of the marked lanes is a special purpose lane during specified times only and the driver:

       (i)  is moving to or from that lane outside of the times during which it is a special purpose lane, and

       (ii)  is permitted to drive in that lane outside of the times during which it is a special purpose lane under these Rules.

    Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.

  • Caped Baldy on 10/05/2018 - 11:19
    +1

    It's hard to say without the footage and seeing the damage. Looks like it is a combination at fault imo however obviously the other car has gone over the solid line and drove off at the scene of an accident, fingers crossed your dash cam shows this.

    Just let your insurance company handle it. You will likely pay the excess upfront but should get reimbursed.

    The lesson here it that everyone should have a working dashcam in their car.

  • Quantumcat on 10/05/2018 - 11:49
    +1

    It does not matter. Make a claim with your insurance and give them the footage.

  • Shadowsfury on 10/05/2018 - 11:51

    Does the don't cross solid line rule also apply at traffic lights? Until now I've actually just made the assumption the dotted line becoming solid line between each lane are just to make them more obvious at the intersection and therefore no related road rules, but this thread is making me think otherwise. Quite often I find myself moving to the lane with fewer cars and this would mean crossing the solid white line if it has already started.

    • pegaxs on 10/05/2018 - 12:20
      +3

      Keep doing it until you get booked for it, then make a post on OzB asking who is in the right and how to get out of paying the ticket. Get lots of conflicting answers and heaps of hate mail. Sift through the thread until someone posts actual laws from government sources. Go with what legislation says.

    • cloudy on 10/05/2018 - 15:00
      +2

      Yes it applies at traffic lights, in fact it is deliberately put there for the sake of effiency by not letting people cross lanes so close to intersection, as a crash would be greatly more distruptive.

      • resisting the urge on 12/05/2018 - 12:04

        Pretty much globally the rules are that you should never change lanes crossing junctions/intersections, regardless of unbroken line, no line, dotted line, etc. This is one of the major causes of accidents worldwide, as are people and intersections themselves.

    • OzzyOzbourne on 11/05/2018 - 14:53

      Yes otherwise what the hell else is it for? Guidance? A suggestion?

      • resisting the urge on 12/05/2018 - 12:17

        @OO; Guidance, yes.

        Honestly, people painting lines at intersections are not lawyers and don't know much. I guess they follow a plan written by someone who thinks they do (give/take your choice of 'interpretations' and mistakes).

        The kind of lines are not what count IIRC, only their position and the fact that in an intersection you should stay in your lane, period. In this instance it is not an intersection, it is a fork/dividing of lanes, and crossing unbroken lines, as is changing lanes without adequate indication, is an offence.

  • Randxyz123 on 10/05/2018 - 12:04

    OP, have you got insurance?

    • dragonfly090 on 10/05/2018 - 12:15

      Yes, have raised the claim.

      This is to understand the road rules better. I mentioned of rule 147 to the cops yesterday and and arrogant response was "you need to know the road rules"

      • CMH on 10/05/2018 - 12:48
        +5

        Just lodge a police report. Driving off without exchanging contact information is a criminal offences I believe.

        • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2018 - 13:05
          +8

          OPs lack of MS Paint skills is a criminal offence.

          Use Google maps and annotate.

        • CMH on 10/05/2018 - 13:19

          @tshow:

          I'm thinking theres more to this story

        • ozzpete on 10/05/2018 - 17:59

          @tshow: OP already lost his MS paint license and had his registration suspended until further notice.

        • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2018 - 18:06

          @ozzpete:
          Doodling under the influence?

      • Blitzfx on 11/05/2018 - 08:47

        Sounds like the cop deflected your question because they didn't know it themself

  • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2018 - 12:42

    Car C's fault. Rule 147 - continuous line, no crossing unless obstruction, stopped traffic is not an obstruction, bla bla bla.

  • Major Packer on 10/05/2018 - 13:33

    Car C is at fault and is in trouble by not stopping. Report it to the police.

    Did the dashcam footage capture the whole thing including car C's illegal land switch act? If not you might need witnesses. Car B should saw the whole thing happening.

  • MrB on 10/05/2018 - 13:44
    +24

    I find it strange that you numbered and lettered the lanes right to left.

    • ThithLord on 10/05/2018 - 13:56
      +2

      It was very annoying.

      • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2018 - 14:47
        +1

        It still is.

      • dragonfly090 on 10/05/2018 - 14:49

        because I was busy marking my Car as A and number 1..dint realise until you pointed :)

        • pegaxs on 10/05/2018 - 15:57
          +2

          I wouldn’t want to be Car C either. Cause the guy in Car C is a C……. (fropanity)

  • fullmetal on 10/05/2018 - 13:59
    +5

    What is the role of car B?

    • dragonfly090 on 10/05/2018 - 14:50
      +1

      can be a witness to this accident, other than that nothing

    • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2018 - 15:32
      +3

      To reappear at the last scene of the conclusion to this discussion, serving as the perfect cliffhanger.

  • hmac on 10/05/2018 - 14:05
    +2

    do you count right to left?

    • dragonfly090 on 10/05/2018 - 14:50
      +1

      no, I count and read left to right as most of you :)

      I was busy marking my Car as A and number 1..dint realise until it was pointed :)

  • grr1701 on 10/05/2018 - 15:05
    +1

    From what you described, Car C is at fault twice. Once when he crossed the solid line; and secondly when he left the scene of the accident. The police will hunt him if you provide the rego and your insurance company will love the information. Good luck buddy (you knew you were in the right, hey? 😜)

  • follow on 10/05/2018 - 15:39

    Simple really… START A POLL

  • Godric on 10/05/2018 - 16:18
    +4

    More who's at fault threads please

    • OzzyOzbourne on 11/05/2018 - 14:54

      It's 50/50 as half of the population don't know the damn rules

  • agam2104 on 10/05/2018 - 16:32

    car c

  • Neenie Beamer on 10/05/2018 - 16:38
    -3

    Remember the rule you have to give way to your right. Car C is at fault. And the unbroken line makes it doubly so.

    • Quantumcat on 10/05/2018 - 18:53
      +2

      That's not a rule. The rule on roundabouts is to give way to people already on the roundabout.

      • pegaxs on 11/05/2018 - 07:59
        +5

        "Give way to the right" is a rule, but it is not applicable in this instance. It exists in the Road Rules when referring to intersections without lights/signs (Road Rule 72), not with regards to to who gets to merge first on a multi lane road.

        (2) If the driver is going straight ahead, the driver must give way to any vehicle approaching from the right, unless a stop sign, stop line, give way sign or give way line applies to the driver of the approaching vehicle.

        With regards to merging on multi lane roads, the car already in the lane has right of way. If two cars are merging into one lane, what ever car is in front is the car that has right of way. This is covered under Road Rule 148, 148a and 149.

        A driver in a line of traffic that is merging with one or more lines of traffic travelling in the same direction as the driver must give way to a vehicle in another line of traffic if any part of the vehicle is ahead of the driver’s vehicle.

        (And I dont know how roundabouts came into this… But here is the NSW legislation regarding roundabouts.)

    • jacross on 11/05/2018 - 10:00

      Thats not a rule that applies in this instance (or even merging/form one lane which is where I hear it the most).

      It applies in roundabouts and certain intersections (depending on signage).

  • berry580 on 10/05/2018 - 17:25

    Car C as at fault, shouldn’t have changed lane due to solid line. Plus they’ve done a runner as well, what a dimwit.

    Car A should provide rego of car C to police to get car C’s contact detail. Provide all of that and dash cam footage (if available) to their insurer.

  • Just Hai on 10/05/2018 - 18:26

    I think OP already contacted Police but got nagative support from them! Is it true?

    • berry580 on 11/05/2018 - 07:47

      Doesn’t matter who is at fault to the police. Car A did a runner, police should assist C by providing him with car C’s contact details.

      • follow on 11/05/2018 - 10:26

        Car C doesn't know their own contact details?

  • hasher22 on 10/05/2018 - 18:34

    Easy….

    Car C is in the wrong. You can not merge on an unbroken line

  • bhm133 on 10/05/2018 - 19:19
    +1

    Who was in front at time of merging?

    • pegaxs on 10/05/2018 - 20:40
      -1

      Irrelevant. Car C should not have changed lanes. Doesn’t matter who was in front at that point.

      Car A which is me has been hit on rear left door.

      OP mentions that the damage to their car was on the left rear door of the car. To me that would indicate that Car C was probably the one behind at the point of merging.

      • Stevek1960 on 11/05/2018 - 08:32

        regardless of where it was when merging it crossed a solid white line.

      • bhm133 on 11/05/2018 - 10:06
        +1

        Thank you. I missed that point that OP's car was in front. However, a straight white line can be irrelevant in court. Years ago, I had a P plater do a u-turn in front of me causing an accident. He was in the left lane and indicated left. I went to the right lane (dual lane road) to pass. He suddenly did a u turn in front of me, causing me to collide with him at about 60km/h. He was doing his uturn over double lines. The lawyer representing me mentioned that it doesn't matter if there are double lines or not, or even if the u-turn was illegal. If it is deemed safe to to a u-turn, you can do it anywhere and this can be argued in court. He was covering the safety aspect of the aspect as well as the car position on impact. In the stand, the other lawyer pressed me about impact position to try and find fault with my driving and a way to prove that I could have avoided the accident. It was an overall crap experience.

        My point is that if OP'c car was ahead then there is the posibility of him being proven to be negligent in driving by not doing a head check etc.

        It clarified now. OP isn't to blame. His car was in front. Other driver negligent by not head checking and avoiding a collision.

        My 2 cents (which turned out to be a $7k payout to repair the front end of my beloved Scorpion).

        Oh and thanks for negging an honest question.

        • CMH on 11/05/2018 - 10:28

          In your case, I would have said that the fact an accident occurred means that it WASN'T safe to perform a U-turn.

          Tell me you won that case…

        • pegaxs on 11/05/2018 - 11:35
          +1

          However, a straight white line can be irrelevant in court.

          Incorrect. It is a law. It doesn’t become "irrelevant" if it is written as the legislated road rules. The only time it would become "irrelevant" would be if you were driving negligently, or under a subrule, they were able to cross the solid marked line.

          The lawyer representing me mentioned that it doesn't matter if there are double lines or not

          Worst. Lawyer. Ever. Were they even a traffic lawyer? Have they ever read the Australian Road Rules legislation? Did you fire them and ask for another lawyer? It matters a whole lot if the U-turn was legal or not. If anyone is performing a U-turn, they MUST give way to all other traffic.

          Road Rules, Part 4, Division 4, Reg. 38 says:

          A driver making a U-turn must give way to all vehicles and pedestrians.

          Furthermore, Road Rule Reg 37 states:

          A driver must not begin a U-turn unless:
          (a) the driver has a clear view of any approaching traffic, and
          (b) the driver can safely make the U-turn without unreasonably obstructing the free movement of traffic.

          I would say that the other car you hit would be classed as obstructing the free movement of traffic and obviously did not have a clear view of traffic.

          Basically, the rules for U-turns is, if you need to make one, you go to the bottom of the list for right of way.

          Edit: Finally found what I was looking for…

          Road Rules, Part 11, Division 2, Reg. 132 covers U-turn over continuous centre lines. (Even has diagrams for ease of understanding…)

          (2A) A driver on a road with a single continuous dividing line, a single continuous dividing line to the left of a broken dividing line or 2 parallel continuous dividing lines must not drive across the dividing lines to perform a U-turn.

          The only way this would have ended up in court is if it involved someone being seriously injured or killed. T-boning the drivers door at 60km/h and you having to pay for your own repairs, I'm guessing the latter.

          On a side note, I didn't neg you. I answered your "honest question".

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join