Car Accident Advice - Who's wrong?

So I had a car accident yesterday and was wondering if I could get some insight.

So a bit of context. This is a road with no lane markings, but it is EASILY wide enough for two cars. If you go to this road at anytime of the day, there is ALWAYS cars in both lanes despite no lane markings. Even the satellite view shows 2 cars driving side by side at this intersection.

From my point of view, I was sticking to the left side of this road while the other car was on the right side of the road. I indicate early to turn left, and proceed to do so. At the last second, he starts indicating left and then turns as well (but this is kinda hard to prove! Should've invested in a dashcam). Thus, we crash into each other.

This is the main thing, why would you stick to the MOST right side of the lane if you are turning left?!?! To me, it seems like he changed his mind last second and maybe if he indicated earlier, I would've seen him and given way. I personally believe he should've checked his mirrors or done a shoulder check before turning left.

The damages are minor but it is clear from the dents, that at the time of accident, my car was in front of his but only by like 30cm or so.

Here is a quick sketch of the incident:
https://imgur.com/a/sBKgVYb

Thanks in advance :)

Poll Options

  • 42
    I am at fault
  • 225
    Other car is at fault

Comments

  • +23 votes

    Grabbing some popcorn..BRB

    • -1 vote

      unless your car was parked, both insurance companies will say you are both to blame & they will both collect excesses. Just the way they work. They never miss out.

  • +1 vote

    That's a terrible photo.

    • +100 votes

      I spent 3 hours on that :(

      • +3 votes

        Next time use a Google Earth screenshot as the template for the exact location you're trying to illustrate.

      • +2 votes

        No amount of "ENHANCE!" is going to help I'm afraid. We may have to go old school which is use our imaginations … we are doomed :(

        BTW, no lane markings means that only 1 lane of traffic is allowed and to turn left so does that mean the red car was out of lane, i.e. went around you to turn left. Could argue this?

        OP, one of you probably should have given way to get back to a single lane of traffic.

        • -2 votes

          Both are at fault. This is when people are stressing on the road. Both shoudl be fined and lose 2 demerit points.
          OP for provoking an accident, other car for actually causing the accident.

          Looking at the picture, the other car, if turning left, should have gone in the right lane of the two lanes.
          Intersections like that normally hale left side turning left or going straight, and right one going right or straight. Not right one going left.
          Good luck OP, and if you would not have stressed, you would not have this problem right now. Think next time.

    • +3 votes

      why does every lane have markings except yours. suss… jk

  • +2 votes

    In a single lane road, you need to line up behind each other before attempting a left turn. The red car is in the wrong and shouldn't have turned left.

    If you have satellite evidence, that should be enough to bring a claim against the other driver.

    • +3 votes

      In a single lane road the car behind shouldn’t attempt to overtake (or in this case undertake). OP is wrong for not lining up behind the other car. If OP had kept 3 seconds behind this wouldn’t have happened. Road widths are irrelevant if there is only one lane marked.

      • +8 votes

        I thought the OP was ahead of the other car, albeit by 30cm. He was also on the left side turning left. Can't see how he's wrong here.

      • +10 votes

        OP did not clearly state which car got there first. If he got there first followed by the car on the right, then OP has right of way. If the other car was already there and he attempted to squeeze in on the left, then OP is at fault.

        The only reason why the red car should be that out when making a left turn is because the vehicle is long or there's a hazard on the left section of the lane.

      • +10 votes

        Apologies, (and at the risk of downvotes), but this is a pet hate - Please don't use "undertake" in this sense.

        Overtake means "catch up with and pass while travelling in the same direction", regardless of which side you pass on.
        Undertake means make a commitment or promise to do something.

        So you can undertake to overtake another car, but you cant undertake another car.

        • +7 votes

          And while we're at it, there is no such thing as "right of way" defined in the road rules. There is a requirement to give way in a defined set of circumstances.

        • +1 vote

          It might be your pet hate, but it is 100% correct English.

          Google can help you out here:

          Undertake - catch up with and pass (another vehicle) while travelling on the inside

        •  

          @mister2:
          The few dictionaries I have seen that do use that definition also refer to it as a british colloquialism.

          All references under Australian law & road rules are for “overtaking on the left”. There is no such thing in the road rules as “undertaking”

        • +1 vote

          I feel ya , one of my pet hates is people posting about pet hates …… ahhh wait ;-)

    •  

      no lane markings and a single lane road are two different things. Just because there isn't lane markings doesn't mean its only one lane. In small roads there are no lane markings at all but traffic still travels in both directions (unless its a one way road).

      If a driver indicates to go right and is waiting for oncoming traffic are cars not allowed to go around on the left side when there's no lane markings? in most cases people do not drive on the side if there is no lane markings but it doesn't mean that you can't drive on that side. People still do and in most cases it goes smoothly.

      Red car should've checked mirrors and done a head check when indicating to go left. red car at fault for failing to do so.

      Just because red car was in front doesn't mean OP had to give way. if that's the case people would have their car halfway in front to cut people off.

  • +1 vote

    No line markings and the other car is in front of yours. You have to give way to them.

    They totally suck for taking the turn from the right and at the last second.

    But this is why you should always keep 3 seconds behind vehicles in front of you, to avoid incidents like this from happening.

    Can you provide a satellite photo of the intersection?

    • +9 votes

      Pretty sure when you're turning you need to turn left from the left side of the lane. At least that's what the driving examiners teach and penalise you on.

    • +4 votes

      You only give way to the car in front if we're talking about lanes merging. This is a left turn… He shouldn't be turning left from the right lane… And even if he /she did, they should stick to the same lane (ie right)

      Also OP stated they were ahead of the other car. Even tho the picture seems to indicate otherwise

      •  

        Initially, my car was behind his car, but he was driving like 20km/h below the speed limit which is why I was ahead of him at the time of collision.

        •  

          This…you are at fault!

        •  

          Initially, my car was behind his car, but he was driving like 20km/h below the speed limit which is why I was ahead of him at the time of collision.

          Unlucky, illegal overtaking move, you're at fault as you were not on a marked multi-lane road.

          https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/regulation/2014/75...

          141 No overtaking etc to the left of a vehicle
          (1) A driver (except the rider of a bicycle) must not overtake a vehicle to the left of the vehicle unless:
          (a) the driver is driving on a multi-lane road and the vehicle can be safely overtaken in a marked lane to the left of the vehicle, or
          (b) the vehicle is turning right, or making a U-turn from the centre of the road, and is giving a right change of direction signal and it is safe to overtake to the left of the vehicle, or
          (c) the vehicle is stationary and it is safe to overtake to the left of the vehicle.

        • -1 vote

          Your are sadly mistaken my young padawan … you were always in front ;)

    • +13 votes

      You only have to give way to cars in front of you if the lane is merging. If there are two lines of traffic (note not lanes), then the car in the right line of traffic must give way to vehicles in that line of traffic.

      (2) A driver on a road with 2 or more lines of traffic travelling in the same direction as the driver, and who is moving from one line of traffic to another line of traffic, must give way to any vehicle travelling in the same direction as the driver in the line of traffic to which the driver is moving.
      https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/regulation/2014/75...

      Further, a driver turning left from a road with no marked lanes (a multi-lane road) must turn left from the left side of the road.

      (1) A driver turning left at an intersection from a road (except a multi-lane road) must approach and enter the intersection from as near as practicable to the far left side of the road.
      https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/regulation/2014/75...

      OP is 100% not at fault for this accident.

      • +3 votes

        Good post and interesting maybe you'll be in the clear OP.

        But then where can you make two lines of traffic? Any road that's wide enough for two cars? If I am the only car who driving on the left side of a wide lane does that mean I have created a line of traffic no matter where it is? The only time I can think of where lines (not lanes) of traffic occurr near me is for a short time before intersections that actually have two (or more) lanes marked at some point before the intersection. And only really when traffic has stopped/slowed at that intersection and the lines of traffic are flowing back from those marked separate lanes.

        I can't think of an intersection around me that looks like the one where this collision occurred though. Certainly looks like it should have two marked lanes leading up to it, if not the whole road. Why the hell doesn't it?

        •  

          I'm not OP but here is one near me…
          https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@-37.8579326,145.1341799,54m/data=!3m1!1e3

          You can see that the road further East becomes 2 lanes. Eveyone on this road drives in 2 "lines" even though there aren't 2 lanes until further along. Its quite a long road too.

          But I still think OP is in the wrong. What was the other car OP, was it some kind of long wheelbase vehicle?

      •  

        Incorrect. OP is at least partially at fault (they stated above that the other car was initially ahead).

        https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/regulation/2014/75...

        141 No overtaking etc to the left of a vehicle
        (1) A driver (except the rider of a bicycle) must not overtake a vehicle to the left of the vehicle unless:
        (a) the driver is driving on a multi-lane road and the vehicle can be safely overtaken in a marked lane to the left of the vehicle, or
        (b) the vehicle is turning right, or making a U-turn from the centre of the road, and is giving a right change of direction signal and it is safe to overtake to the left of the vehicle, or
        (c) the vehicle is stationary and it is safe to overtake to the left of the vehicle.

    •  

      Huh, the other car is in the right hand lane and does not turn until the intersection ( that what the drawing shows ). He is required to be in the left hand lane when turning. The picture is drawn to show two lanes ( not one ). If you turn left from a right hand lane it is your obligation to make sure you don't slam into the car turning left from the left lane.
      Yes it is wise to be one second behind the car in front for every ten metres but this does not apply to a car in another lane from you.

  • +3 votes

    OP is probably in the right, but I wouldn't say you saw their indicators as that suggests you were well behind.

    • +1 vote

      I was referring to seeing the indicators on the side. Not the back.

      • +3 votes

        Just my view, but saying the other driver should check their mirrors suggests you were further behind.

  • +11 votes

    Is this photoshopped?

  • +2 votes

    Poll needs a third option "Both at fault".

    So many road rules broken by both sides!

    But OP, you have insurance right? Let them sort out who is at fault ;)

      • +3 votes

        Why bother having drawn lanes on any road?

        Just because everyone does it, doesnt make it legal or smart- otherwise you wouldn't be in this position.

        The only time made up lanes is ok is when you're closer to the lights and traffic has stopped.

  •  

    If he was behind you few secs before the intersection, then Red at fault.

    There are too many idiots on the road attempted this maneuver, even on 2 lanes.

    Where is this road, OP?

  • +2 votes

    Here we go again.

  •  

    This is a road with no lane markings, but it is EASILY wide enough for two cars.

    this is where one should always occupy the whole lane.

    •  

      Look at this: https://imgur.com/a/EbX75XK

      After this intersection, the road has lane markings for two lanes. It's a main road which is easily big enough for 2 cars. you can see the silver Holden ute on the left lane despite no lane markings.

      • +2 votes

        The minimum seal width of a road is to allow for aadt. A lane may be wide enough for a vehicle, two or even a bus. but that doesn’t mean that drivers are free to overtake or undertake as they please. Driving in the middle of the lane is the safest position to prevent undertaking or overtaking in the same lane.

    • +3 votes

      Actually looking at it from the opposite angle:

      https://i.imgur.com/jSlLDq8.jpg

      Looking at the lights there, that would indicate to me that it's a 2 lane road.

      •  

        looking at the position of that lights pole, some vehicles would need to take that corner rather wide to avoid wiping out the pole. Just sayin

        •  

          Another thing as well, as it's going from "double lane" to double lane - there is a chance the car in the left could be going straight ahead.

          As there's no turning arrow forcing the left lane to turn left, there is no way you can possibly turn left from the right lane.

      • +1 vote

        It isn’t two lanes. It’s one. The wide width is to allow busses to turn left at the traffic light.

        • +1 vote

          Its double width so if there is a red turn right into the shopping complex and a green light for straight thru traffic doesnt back up and have to wait for the turning traffic. Nothing illegal about using left side of road to turn left.

      •  

        lysp, I think that's great detective work in getting that street view map. I think you're spot on.

  • +1 vote

    If you have insurance just tell them the other party attempted to overtake and turn left in front of you

    •  

      hahaha isn't falsifying information illegal? Besides, I believe I have a pretty strong case right now and if they catch me lying, I will 100% be liable. Not worth it :\

  •  

    There is no line marking so it's a single lane.

    OP is at fault if OP had moved up from behind the other car to its left. Unless OP could prove the other car is driving recklessly.

    • -1 vote

      Which arguably indicating right and moving to the right is, if they then changed their mind without checking their left mirror and out the left windows.

      • +1 vote

        The other car didn't indicate right and moved to the right. OP only said the other car "stick to the MOST right side of the lane."

        I do agree that the other car doing a sudden left turn is reckless but so is OP for sneaking up its left side.

        •  

          Imagine the silver toyota camry is his car, but my car is the silver Holden ute on the inner lane. That's essentially what happened, but we were side-by-side.

    • +1 vote

      That's not correct. Just because there is no marked lanes does not mean that there has to be only one line of traffic. The road rules deal with multiple lines of traffic.

      • +1 vote

        Exactly I don't know how some of these drivers would cope with rural roads around here that have no markings or signs. I didn't realise there would be oncoming traffic officer because there should be a line in the middle…

      •  

        The road rules deal with multiple lines of traffic.

        Indeed they do, and OP has broken them.

        141 No overtaking etc to the left of a vehicle
        (1) A driver (except the rider of a bicycle) must not overtake a vehicle to the left of the vehicle unless:
        (a) the driver is driving on a multi-lane road and the vehicle can be safely overtaken in a marked lane to the left of the vehicle, or
        (b) the vehicle is turning right, or making a U-turn from the centre of the road, and is giving a right change of direction signal and it is safe to overtake to the left of the vehicle, or
        (c) the vehicle is stationary and it is safe to overtake to the left of the vehicle.

        •  

          You're correct, however that rule breach by OP wasn't the reason why the accident occurred.

          If the OP said they were indicating right, straight away what they did was allowed, so it was hardly accident causing.

        •  

          @DogGunn:

          It is totally the reason why it occurred. If OP had have not broken the road rules, then OP’s car would not have been in the wrong place, thus, accident avoided…

        •  

          @pegaxs: The issue is there is nothing that stops the OP's car from being where it was. Had they been infront of the car, and the car to the right of them still tried to turn left into them, would you be saying the same thing?

          The issue that the insurance company will be looking at is what rule was breached which directly caused the accident to occur.

          Illegally overtaking on the left did not cause the accident to occur, but failing to turn left from the left side of the road and giving way to vehicles driving in the left line of traffic did.

        • +1 vote

          @DogGunn:

          OP putting their car in the position most certainly does have a direct relation to what caused the accident. Illegally overtaking was the primer for the accident. Had OP have remained behind this vehicle, there would have been no accident.

          The issue is how the insurance companies view this section of road. Considering that is has no markings to designate two distinct lanes, one could say that this is a single lane of road. If that is the case, OP jamming their car down the left side of the other vehicle was the cause of the accident. This road rule exists solely for the incident that OP has outlined here.

          Ever thought that the car could not move into the lane it needed to be in because of an impatient driver tried to jam their car down a non-existent lane and up the left hand side?

          Anyway, I stand by my earlier statement, that both OP and the other driver acted like turkeys and both deserve what they got. You're not going to convince me otherwise and I am certainly not going to be able to convince you, so I will leave it at that.

          Side note: I didn’t answer your first question because that is not what happened here and is irrelevant to this situation.

        • +2 votes

          @pegaxs: They will share the fault. +1 on the turkeys.

        •  

          @cameldownunder:

          I have no doubt. It's such a grey area piece of road. But the actions of both drivers was bordering on stupidity. If nothing else, I hope they both learned a valuable lesson of not being retards in traffic.

  • +10 votes

    If this is going through insurance I would be careful how much you tell them. If you keep to the very basic facts… you were turning left and a car that was in the lane behind / beside you turned into you then you are free and clear. As soon as you start introducing undertaking on single lane road etc then I think you are at risk.

  •  

    Which road is this?

  • -1 vote

    It looks like the outside car's driver thought both lanes could turn left into the lane-marked street, and they turned and entered the inner most lane by mistake, colliding with your car. I see it often even on marked roads where both lanes can turn.

    Or, is it possible you might have swerved out to turn the corner? Some drivers do this at every corner, seems second nature.

    •  

      I do not believe so. There are no lane markings in regards to being able to turn left, go straight or turn right. Also, there are no dotted lines to indicate which lane goes into which.

  •  

    So many of these questions recently, you would think road rules were a bit of a grey area. This is black and white, despite the fact all the people you regularly see or catch on sat image, they are all un-aware of the basic rule, what a joke.

    'Testing' of driver knowledge and ability (at least in Vic) is part of the cause of these accidents…. If there are no lines marked, you are not allowed to be next to the car, let alone have most of your car along side the other car….. again, this road rule would possibly be in the top ten. Department needs to provide a learner permit guide book that is weighted to road rules, rather then BAC and speed.

    • +3 votes

      You should just stand at the intersection one day and you will see EVERYONE sticking either to the left, or right side of the road despite no lane markings. I have NEVER seen a car stay in the middle of the lane. https://imgur.com/a/EbX75XK

  • +5 votes

    Surprised nobody has mentioned this yet;

    Where was the damage to your cars? If you claim that you were about 30cm ahead, then theoritically the damage to your car would've been on your right side, whereas the red car should have damage to his corner/more towards the front. If this was the case, I'd think it would be common sense that the red car hit your car, therefore the red car is likely at fault. The alternative is, if The damage to your car is predominantly in the front, like you T-boned the red car, once again you can claim that the red car turned right into you, and their they are at fault.

    Regardless, commonsense tells me if you turn left and you hit a car and sustained damage on your left, surely you must've screwed up somewhere.

    I'm no lawyer though, take my advice with a grain of salt.

    •  

      My car had damage about 30cm in front of the front right wheel, while he had damage just in front left wheel. Thanks for the help :)

      • +6 votes

        So it sounds like none of the cars suffered any damage in the front part of the car. Based on your description, it's hard to tell who is hitting who, however, it really is bizarre how you can be at fault when your car sustains damage on the right side when you're turning left when you're next to the kerb, it just doesn't pass the pub test.

        There are quite a lot of people stating you are in the wrong based on the road rules of not overtaking on the left when there is only one lane; I won't disagree with that. However, that's just a technically. Once again, I'll employ the pub test - you have a dude (or a chick) going 20km/hr below the speed limit, and then turns left while leaving a gap large enough for a car to pass on the left - you ask 10 people at a pub, whose side are they on, and the answer's pretty obvious. In fact, keyboard warriors aside, do we really want to live in a world where everybody drives like that? Hardly anyone is commenting that it's quite negligent to turn left leaving such a large gap on your left whilst turning left without shoulder checking?

        Lastly, there's a defence which OP can use - just say that you have no idea what happened, you were happily minding your own business turning left, and you have no idea why suddenly you got hit on your right WHILST TURNING TO YOUR LEFT. It'd sound like the other car was trying to overtake you on the right and cut into you turning left. The only way the other car can defend himself is if there is a dashcam, and even if there is a dashcam, there's a reasonable chance it never got your number plate. Lastly, it all goes back to "I still can't believe how a car can be at fault when you get hit on your right when turning left"

        Once again, I'm not a lawyer. I'm just a drinker at a pub.

        • +2 votes

          These are my thoughts exactly, how can a car turning left sustaining damage from the right be at fault. The only possible way OP is at fault is if they swings wide before turning left (pet hate).

          I would just tell your insurance company what you said here, you stuck to the left, indicated and attempted to turn left, other party was as right as possible and turned left in to you.

        • +1 vote

          @mezje: I hate it when people do this - I've seen some people on little hatchbacks swing all the way to the right to turn left, as if they're driving a road train.

        •  

          Hardly anyone is commenting that it's quite negligent to turn left leaving such a large gap on your left whilst turning left without shoulder checking?

          This is true, but do you do a shoulder check when turning left from a single lane road? There could be a motorbike sneaking up beside you ;)

          I'm not a lawyer either but I would say this is a "each bears own" case. Both drivers seem to have done the wrong thing.

  • +3 votes

    Typically the person who's asking who's deal it is, and who's at fault, is the one.

    Seems it may be the case here as well.
    OP, where is the damage to both vehicles? As stated above, we cannot give you an answer without that info. Otherwise it's just conjecture.

    •  

      My car had damage about 30cm in front of the front right wheel, while he had damage just in front left wheel. Thanks for the help :)

  • +3 votes

    As this was a single lane road, the green car should not have come up on the inside of the red car. Also when turning left the green car must give way to cars approaching from the right. Therefore believe the green car is at fault.

  • Top