Which Car Is at Fault ?

tomleonhart on 11/05/2018 - 08:17
Last edited 11/05/2018 - 08:19

Saw an accident yesterday.

1/ Car B turned right, he was an Ute so Car C can't see Car A.
2/ As soon as Car B turned right, Car C turned left as well. Probably assumed the road was clear.
3/ Car A caught up and rear ended car C about 40 metres down the road as car C didn't accelerate fast enough. Mill road speed limit is 80.

Here is the drawing, which car is at fault ? A or C.

IMO it's car C as he pulled in front of car A. But then there's a chain of thought that car C has already established on Mill Road and got rear ended by car A since the accident happened around 40 metres down the intersection. Everyone is ok as Car A did try to slow down enough for a low speed crash to happen.

Thoughts ?

I'm not involved in the accident.

Poll Options

  • 42
    Car A
  • 1
    Car B
  • 121
    Car C
Automotive

Comments

  • nocure on 11/05/2018 - 08:23
    +3

    Car C needs to give way to all traffic. Car A dashcam will show car C entering traffic :)

    • tomleonhart on 11/05/2018 - 08:27

      Hope Car A has dashcam or C don't turn around and say A rear ended him.

      • nocure on 11/05/2018 - 08:29
        +4

        Sounds like you're a independant witness, so all good.

      • [Deactivated] on 12/05/2018 - 05:26
        +1

        Car A is the default at fault without any other evidence (independent witness or dashcam etc) except the damage itself because it is a rear ender, but if A can prove that he couldn't stop in time despite reacting to the hazard as soon as it was apparent and he wasn't speeding then it would be car C

  • Dont Care on 11/05/2018 - 08:31
    +4

    Not interested unless there is a video.

    • kahn on 11/05/2018 - 08:33
      +15

      Username checks out.

  • ESEMCE on 11/05/2018 - 08:36

    Without seeing the video, Probably 80% C, 20% A.
    C created a high likelihood of a crash, but A might have been able to prevent the crash if they were more alert and/or braked harder and/or earlier.

  • inherentchoice on 11/05/2018 - 08:39
    +3

    Interesting about whether it was rear-ended. You are supposed to maintain a 2-3 second gap.

    As it happened 40 metres down the road I would say car A probably had enough time to avoid a collision, even though it was up to car C to give way.

    At 80 km/h it takes about 2 seconds to travel 40 metres. And as car A did manage to slow down somewhat they would have had even more time than that. Begs the question why car A couldn't go around to the right of Car C, especially as there is a painted traffic island.

    So technically I would say Car C at fault but car A probably could have avoided it if they had tried. But this is assuming it did actually happen 40 metres down the road and not 20 metres but then came to a stop a further 20 metres along.

    OP were you in car C?

    • tomleonhart on 11/05/2018 - 08:43

      No I'm in car D waiting behind car B to turn right. 40 metres is just my guesstimate, having said that it did seem to me that car A has enough time to slow down.

      • inherentchoice on 11/05/2018 - 09:05

        You did say it was a low speed crash. As car A had time to slow down so much then it surely had enough time to swerve into the painted median.

        • [Deactivated] on 11/05/2018 - 09:58
          +3

          Target fixation most likely.
          Or old mate Salim is looking for more money.

  • [Deactivated] on 11/05/2018 - 08:40
    +1

    The scenario provided puts car C at fault, however, the scenario provided needs to be proven.

    Without proof, the only evidence is that car A rear ended car C.

    • Euphemistic on 11/05/2018 - 09:26
      +1

      Yes, it appears that car C is at fault, but who is liable? ie The root cause of the incident was car C pulling out, not giving way, but legally it may be a rear end collision with liability directed at A.

      I am not a lawyer (except on the internet)

      • [Deactivated] on 11/05/2018 - 09:28

        If there is an intersection camera or a dashcam, it is reasonably demonstrable that car C failed to give way, merged into continuous traffic flow and directly caused the collision by obstructing traffic.

        Without video evidence, the above can be summarised to rear ended.

  • Archi on 11/05/2018 - 08:47

    Depends on how it's reported…

    Car C can just claim that car A rear ended them

    Car A claims car C didn't leave enough room or didn't give way when entering the intersection..

    Insurance company says both at fault and collects excess from both parties especially if both car A and C belong to the same insurance company.

  • [Deactivated] on 11/05/2018 - 08:49
    +11

    OzAccidentQueries

    • soyea on 12/05/2018 - 19:26

      ozBargein!

  • Ebisu on 11/05/2018 - 08:50

    car C shouldn't have crossed the intersection till it can see its all clear to go. what if B was big truck and C has 0% visibility will it still take a chance to turn left.

    always make sure you have visibility.

    in this incident.

    2/ As soon as Car B turned right, Car C turned left as well. Probably assumed the road was clear.

    • Mike88 on 12/05/2018 - 12:10

      What if car A was a truck, car C could have been a fatality.

  • DarkOz on 11/05/2018 - 09:02
    +1

    Car C is at fault.

    The driver of car C made the wrong assumption that it was clear to turn left because car B could turn right.

    Car A had done absolutely nothing wrong unless it was speeding over 80kph and thus unable to slow down to avoid hitting car C.

    The fact that car B could turn right doesn't mean car C could turn left SAFELY. Car C needs to accelerate quickly and immediately after turning.

    • ESEMCE on 11/05/2018 - 09:26

      Good point on the speeding…
      This could definitely be a major contributing factor.
      Car B and Car C might have assumed Car A was doing the speed limit and therefore there was more time than reality.

      • buckster on 12/05/2018 - 14:41

        Or car Cs driver could have horrible judgement.
        @OP were they driving a Jeep?

        • tomleonhart on 12/05/2018 - 14:51

          Nah a people mover.

  • Ryanek on 11/05/2018 - 09:06

    Usually I would blame car C but this is a common collision and in most cases it almost always happens at the intersection. The fact that it happened 40m down the road, I'd be willing to bet car A was not paying attention.

    It's a dick move by car C but I think there would have been plenty of time to slow down and avoid that collision.

    • [Deactivated] on 11/05/2018 - 09:20
      -3

      Given it's not Car A's responsibility to have accommodated for Car C (because Car C must give way), and neglecting the fact that Car A was distracted for whatever reason as this cannot be easily proven, would you place responsibility on A or C only given the information at hand?

      40 metres isn't that much of a distance. A car travelling at 80km/h is equivalent to 22.2m/s, so at that speed it would take 1.8 s to cover that distance.
      If I was going at 80km/h and some cereal-box licence holder pulled out in front of me, I can assure you that I would not be making any brake-to-the-floor effort in stopping for them. It may avoid a collision with me and the car in front, but I could also lose control, cause discomfort or harm to passengers in my car, plus be rear-ended by vehicles behind me where I would be liable for improper driving and thus at fault.

      In short, cut me off at 80km/h and I'm going straight into you.

      • ESEMCE on 11/05/2018 - 09:30
        +7

        I can assure you that I would not be making any brake-to-the-floor effort in stopping for them.

        In short, cut me off at 80km/h and I'm going straight into you.

        Huh?
        Do you maybe wanna rephrase that?
        If not, hopefully this is the dumbest thing I see all day…

        • [Deactivated] on 11/05/2018 - 09:37
          -5

          Why should I rephrase this?
          I meant exactly what I said.
          I'm not risking my safety or the safety of anyone in my vehicle by hydroplaning into a tree for some idiot on the road who can operate a motor vehicle but obviously cannot drive.
          If I can slow down safely, I will. But stopping within 40 metres at 80km/h, a distance which would take me less than two seconds to cover, is not safe driving.

        • dogboy on 11/05/2018 - 13:14
          +7

          @KaptnKaos: If you think causing discomfort to your passengers or the possibility that you could lose control braking is worse than definitely running into another car, you have bricks in your head mate. Which cereal box did you say you got you license in?

        • ESEMCE on 11/05/2018 - 13:37
          +2

          @KaptnKaos:
          Well firstly it is most definitely Car A's responsibility to accommodate for any other traffic on the road.
          Secondly, the maths can and will show whether Car A was distracted or speeding by analysing the braking capabilities of the car and estimating the speed of impact from the damage.

          Plugging numbers in here https://www.random-science-tools.com/physics/stopping-distan… , it looks to me as though Car A was either speeding or VERY distracted.
          Modern cars easily exceed the highway code braking distances. As such, I'm assuming even older cars can at least meet them.

          It should have taken far less than 60m to stop from 80km/h according to the British Highway code.
          and if the impact was at 40m down the road, then there was ample time to respond and stop or at least swerve safely around, cause Car C didn't just magically appear 40m down the road.
          It was in the lane for barest minimum 4 seconds, assuming Car A is going 80, and didn't brake at all!

          That's assuming Car C accelerates to 79km/h in 2 seconds across the 40m, which is pretty quick. If it's not that fast to accelerate then Car A would have had even more time to respond.
          And if Car A bothered to brake at all, then the time/distance increases again.

          The more maths I do, the more I think Car A is at fault. I think it's more like Car A 80% Car C 20%.
          If Car A is speeding, then Car C 's responsibility plummets further.

          PS: Happy to have my Maths ripped to shreds, I'm Wanted for crimes against Mathematics in many other situations… :-)

        • buckster on 12/05/2018 - 14:43

          @KaptnKaos: you would be riding the safety of your passengers by not trying to brake before a collision to reduce the force

        • bobby1234 on 12/05/2018 - 20:41

          @scubacoles:

          Reaction time is normally the biggest factor. If A didn't see C because B just crossed in front of him then he would be suddenly confronted with a slow moving car immediately in front of him.
          It is C's obligation to turn safety into the road.

      • pjetson on 11/05/2018 - 09:58
        +2

        Given it's not Car A's responsibility to have accommodated for Car C

        Every driver has a responsibility to avoid an accident. It's probably unfair, but driver A is going to be found at least partially at fault, and possibly found entirely at fault if there is no independent evidence that driver C did something wrong.

        If there's no dashcam video, the OP is the only independent witness, so if he thinks that driver A is completely without fault, he should file a police report in the hope it will get to driver A.

        • photonbuddy on 12/05/2018 - 11:51

          Every driver has a responsibility to avoid an accident.

          I take it you're not a fan of dash cam videos then!

          Spend any time at all in this genre, and you see the real consequences of thinking like this.

          While it's true that you should be braking hard to minimize an accident, swerving can lead to all sorts of misery, quite often far worse than the what hitting the other car would have caused.

        • pjetson on 13/05/2018 - 11:12

          Perhaps you need to try thinking defensively and anticipating rather than braking hard and swerving. It's a lot safer.

  • geek001 on 11/05/2018 - 09:29
    +3

    Although what Car C did was a d*ck move, the general rule of thumb is that if you rear end someone, you are generally at fault unless the car in front backed into you. If Car A hit Car C from the side, then Car C would be at fault.

    • Nugs on 11/05/2018 - 09:53

      so someone changes lanes in front of you and stops suddenly it's your fault?

      yeah nah.

      .

      • geek001 on 11/05/2018 - 10:35
        +4

        Not saying it is fair or even nice, but generally that is the case. If someone changes lanes in front of you, and stops suddenly, and you hit them from behind, then yes, you are still considered at fault because once someone completes the lane change in front of you, you are to slow down to keep a safe braking distance. If you hit them on the side, or they hit you on the side, then it is their fault.

        • R-Man on 11/05/2018 - 11:38

          you can't actually believe what you're writing? If that's the case I'm never giving way or indicating again, "good luck everybody else"

          if someone unsafely merges in front of you, particularly while you are speeding up, you try to brake but still hit them - they are at fault for merging unsafely. Or if it's an intersection, they're at fault for failing to give way.

        • geek001 on 11/05/2018 - 11:54
          -1

          @R-Man: When merging, everyone is supposed to merge like a zip, but in my experience, not everyone does that. Some people just keep really close to the car in front to avoid having to give way when merging. Not indicating is another d*ck move, not saying they don't bother me, just that when you learn driving, your instructor will tell you to slow down when you see a "hazard". "Hazards" are anything from a turning vehicle to a person walking on the street.

          Put yourself in the insurance/police's shoes, in the absence of evidence, it is your word against the other person. Unsafely is very subjective, all anyone can do is to go via the rule of thumb. When does turning at an intersection change from "failing to give way" to "hitting someone from behind"? The answer is if you are hit from the side, then you are considered to have "failed to give way" because obviously there wasn't enough room to turn, that's why you are hit from the side.

          Again, this is just a rule of thumb, not saying it will work out that way. Maybe invest in a good dashcam?

        • [Deactivated] on 11/05/2018 - 12:30
          +4

          @geek001:

          When merging, everyone is supposed to merge like a zip

          No.

          You only zip merge when there is no lane marking separating the merging lane and the adjacent continuing lane.
          In this case, the vehicle in front has right of way, and the vehicle behind must give way.

          If there are lane markings separating the merging lane from the continuing lane, only then do you need to indicate and wait for a driver in the continuing lane to give you way.

        • R-Man on 11/05/2018 - 12:47
          +1

          @geek001:

          Good points. You're right, while it wouldn't be my fault in reality, to an insurer it is hard to prove whether they failed to give way to not. Definitely a case for a dash cam.

          I should have said changing lanes not merging, I meant someone change lanes to come in front of me for no particular reason.

        • Euphemistic on 13/05/2018 - 08:44

          @KaptnKaos:

          If there are lane markings separating the merging lane from the continuing lane, only then do you need to indicate and wait for a driver in the continuing lane to give you way.

          Which should still work like merging like a zipper. There are too many douche drivers that can’t deal with letting someone in to help the overall traffic flow better. Backing off for a second to let someone in and ‘merge like a zipper’ helps everyone out, lane markings or not.

      • Euphemistic on 11/05/2018 - 11:23

        It's called presumed liability.

  • mbck on 11/05/2018 - 09:53

    You need to be alert when driving. The fact that it's a rear end (not on the sides, but literal rear), then car a was not alert to brake earlier. Or he may be speeding hence not having enough time to stop.

    Car c is a (profanity) yes. But the case is against car a without camera.

    Best case for car c, gets away with murder

    Best case for car a, insurance co will force both to pay.

  • maybeamacy on 11/05/2018 - 10:28
    +3

    This happened to me a few years back, except there wasn't car B - only A and C. I was car A, C thought he could pull out in time but I rear ended him. Insurance deemed me not at fault (but I had a dashcam to back this up). That one incident paid off the dashcam alone lol.

    • newjerseydamo on 11/05/2018 - 10:56

      Next time I own a car, I'm getting a dash cam thanks to your story.

      And that's the thing; without a dash cam, it would almost fall on A's fault. With dash cam, you can prove C didn't properly give way.
      Will be interesting to know the outcome.

  • ausdday on 11/05/2018 - 11:00

    C. Period. You are not suppose to assume lane clear, until you see it youself. This kind of scenarios appears in Vicroad Hazard Perception test. Never ass-u-me.

    • R-Man on 11/05/2018 - 11:40

      yep and the broken road rule would be failing to give way to right. if car C was trying to sneak in while B turns right, even though it's a wrong move, they should have done so quickly.

  • pegaxs on 11/05/2018 - 12:15
    +3

    Firstly, thanks OP for the Google maps photo edition, rather than a really badly drawn whiteboard marker rendition…

    This falls under Road Rule 67, as it appears that there are "Stop Lines" marked on the road in the photo. There does not appear to be traffic lights.

    If there were no markings or signs, it would fall under Rule 73.

    Either way, Car C is at fault. Didn't give way to Car A. Easy one.

    NEXT!!

    And to all the people saying that Car A is partially to blame because they had plenty of time, let's do a little bit of maths. At 80km/h, (about 22m/s) Car A would have covered the 40m to the accident site in about 2 seconds. Taking into account reaction times, vehicle braking force and a whole heap of other factors, I would say that there was probably 50m worth of distance and about 1 to 1.5 seconds of time to make a decision. Car A could have also had their view of Car C obstructed by Car B, thus reducing what time Car A had to assess and react to the situation.

    Ya'll a bunch of F1 drivers in here…

    PS: To whomever voted B in the poll, thanks for making me laugh :D

    • ESEMCE on 11/05/2018 - 13:43

      Car A didn't magically appear stationary 40m down the road though. (I guess that's an assumption on my part, but a pretty safe one)
      Unless it was a supercar, it was in the lane for more than 2 seconds just to get to 40m.
      Plus you're assuming Car A didn't brake, at all, in that 2 seconds?

      • pegaxs on 11/05/2018 - 19:04
        +2

        @scubacoles

        The issue I have is that no one knows the exact location of cars at the initiation of this traffic accident. Was Car A 100m away or was it 1km away when Car C pulled out? How fast did Car C accelerate? How fast was Car A travelling? How close was Car A to Car B when it pulled out? How much of the road ahead did Car B block from view? What kind of car was Car A? How much weight was it carrying? The list of variables is almost un-ending…

        My point is made on the assumption that Car A was travelling at or near the speed limit. That is 80km/h. This equates to 22m/s. So, even if Car A was 60m away, that is still only 3 seconds. Not a whole lot of time to view the situation, make a mental risk determination, move your foot from the accelerator to the brake and apply braking force AND slow the car sufficiently to either not hit Car C to be slow enough to do no major damage. All of that had to happen in about 3 seconds and within 60 or so metres.

        To give you an idea, at 80km/h, the average distance travelled for reaction time is between 20 and 25m. Average braking distance for an average car is about 50 to 60m. That's approximately 70 to 80m just in reaction and braking. From the data available, approx 40m after the intersection the cars collided and working backwards from that, factoring in braking distance and reaction time and the fact that the cars did actually hit, I would estimate that Car A was under that 70m braking best case scenario, hence my guess at between 40 and 60m… So yes, I would say, under the circumstances,that Car A had little or no time to react given the current data that OP supplied.

        • ESEMCE on 12/05/2018 - 09:50

          According to the highway code calculator linked above, a car travelling at 80 should have been able to stop inside 58m including reaction time. Mathematically, the minimum distance that Car C pulled out is 60m.
          So Car A ought to have been able to stop in time.
          We're all making assumptions though.

        • OzJD on 13/05/2018 - 08:59
          +1

          @scubacoles: you're right, but if car B has obstructed the view for just 1 second, it won't be able to stop.

        • pegaxs on 13/05/2018 - 09:49

          @OzJD:

          It all hinges on where Car A was when Car C pulled out. Without that information, it’s pointless. But the number of people in this thread saying Car A should have avoided it/braked earlier is just a ludicrous assumption to make without working out where the cars were on the road.

          The other thing that opinionated people don’t seem to realise is just how much distance is travelled in such a short time when going at these speeds. I just wanted to put the distance perspective into the discussion and make at least some people aware that “holy shit, at 80km/h, I’m covering 20+ metres every second.”

          Sure, if Car A was 200m away when Car C pulled out, that’s plenty of space to stop. If Car A was only 60m away, then no chance.

    • Baysew on 11/05/2018 - 13:50
      +7

      Someone should get these A, B, C, guys off the road. They are involved in way to many accidents.

      • pegaxs on 11/05/2018 - 18:37
        +1

        It's this Car B guy I'm worried about. Always seems to be getting away without a scratch while the world is in chaos around them…

        Maybe the Car B is the catalyst for these accident… We need to look more closely at Car B…

  • bhm133 on 11/05/2018 - 12:23

    Something similar happened to me yesterday. I was car A. Car B was a massive bogan 4WD and Car C was a knob in a BMW. I hit the brakes as bogan 4WD pulled out in front of me. Fortunately knob in BMW floored it. Knob BMW presumed that lane was clear. I was the git in the Mazda FYI.

    In this case Car C is to blame.

    I hope OP stopped to be a witness. Not many people do that these days. They just drive off.

    • DarkOz on 11/05/2018 - 14:32

      Same thing happened to me yesterday except that I was car C (NO I DON'T DRIVE A BMW SO THE KNOB WASN'T ME!!!).

      I knew I had enough distance from car A but car A wasn't slowing down for me. Just to be sure that I don't get rear ended I had to floor the pedal for a few seconds.

      • bhm133 on 12/05/2018 - 08:58

        How funny would that be if it was you!

  • [Deactivated] on 11/05/2018 - 14:51
    +1

    Car A 100%.

  • MagicOZ on 11/05/2018 - 23:47
    +1

    Is Car B fault, because the innocent cars don't run away.

  • Dr Techno on 12/05/2018 - 00:34

    we need a new website, ozaccident :)

  • Aneurism on 12/05/2018 - 01:16

    I'm voting for A at fault going up the rear end is bad in all forms.

  • Duc88 on 12/05/2018 - 08:35
    +1

    Car B and C MUST give way to car A. You then proceed with caution. If you can't see car A because car B is in the way, you are not proceeding with caution.

  • luffyex2010 on 12/05/2018 - 09:18

    Obviously C, you cannot assume car B is going to shield you from accidents…..even you cannot see the incoming traffic.

    Other than that whats up with all the car accidents/ related posts…..this should be presented/indicate to RTA/service to show how many poor drivers out there on the road.

    • [Deactivated] on 12/05/2018 - 10:27

      It should be presented to the RTA to show how many drivers don't know the traffic regulations. Goes to show why testing every 10 years should be done. Most drivers don't keep up with changing regulations or had no idea in the first place

      Car A hit car C forty metres after car C entered the road.

  • tiara on 12/05/2018 - 12:28

    100% Car C
    Let's just assume that there's no car B at that time, would Car C pull out at that instance? I guess not, because the driver probably knows that it's not a safe distance to pull out. The driver probably lost his focus when Car B pulled out and followed suit without thinking.

    Here's a link from government website https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/road-safety/driving-…

    According to this, typically it takes 33m for the driver to react to a hazard and another 36m before the car stops. So i think car A is not at fault at all, there's no way it could avoid the collision if car C suddenly pulls out

  • Oliver on 12/05/2018 - 12:50

    I've never heard of someone being at fault for not accelerating fast enough. Maybe you're not explaining it very well.

  • chickennuggets on 12/05/2018 - 12:55
    -1

    I reckon Car A should've also noticed that his vision was also obscured and slowed down. At this slower speed, there would be more time to react to slow down even further to prevent the crash with car C. (even if car C was driving pretty slow on the road).

  • HeWhoKnows on 12/05/2018 - 15:34
    -1

    If OP is not involved in the accident and doesn't require help or advice then why waste everyones time?
    Surely you can just go and ask the nearest policeman.

    • pegaxs on 13/05/2018 - 09:55

      Why not ask? I think it was a very valid question and it’s good to get a variety of different peoples perspectives on things like this. It may just help improve someone’s driving skills by making them think twice about pulling out in front of other drivers.

      And from evidenced in another similar thread, it seems that the comment about the police officer not knowing the road rules would have me rather seek the information myself or at least ask a broader section of the collective community to try and get the correct answer.

      So no, it isn’t a waste of time. And no, asking the police is sometimes not the best way to get questions answered.

  • jackjames on 13/05/2018 - 11:16

    car A will have to pay

  • shrugies on 23/05/2018 - 10:42

    80km/h is 22.22m/second. So that car would cover 40m in under 2 seconds if it maintained that speed. Taking into account reaction time, how close Car A was to the intersection in the first place, and how slow Car C accelerated, it may have been really hard to avoid a collision. Car C shouldn't have assumed it was clear, had to give way, and also should have waited for a safe enough gap to turn. If Car A needs to slow down for Car C, it wasn't a safe gap.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join