[Solved] Who Is at Fault? Lane Merging - Dash Cam Footage Provided

Hi, guys another part denying liability saying both cars merged at the same time please check the video and let me know who is at fault?

PS It is Subaru not Mazda

Update - Liability is accepted by the other insurance.

Poll Options expired

  • 8
    Dashcam car (Camry)
  • 519
    Blue Mazda


    • The line's unbroken though - would that have any sway on the outcome?

      • +17 votes

        Pretty sure its clear cut. Blue car driver did not "head check" her blind spot for traffic before changing lanes. She assumed that just because there aren't any cars in her mirrors, it would be ok to change lanes.

        • You assuming what they assumed doesn't sound very clear cut.

          • +2 votes

            @zeggie: Nah amkssg didn't make any assumption. If she checked she would've seen a car already entering the lane behind her. Its not a assumption, its a sound observation.

    • Might want to review the video again. It's a broken line, not a solid line. Also, it's a Subaru not Mazda lol.

      • IKR? It made me lol too. "Cut and dry" but gets the car make wrong and misinterprets the traffic lane lines.

      • Pretty cut and dried. It was the yellow Datsun 180Y. In the kitchen. With the candle stick. It has all come down like a house of cards. Check mate!

  • won't vote for you, sorry. Because, non of the dash cam owner or the "MAZDA" at fault. But definitely the "SUBARU" is at fault. Guys, please see more into details. You're welcome.

    • +33 votes

      Better ask OP why did they even drive on that road? Just because some people do not know how to switch lanes, you are suggesting OP that they shouldn't too???

      • +5 votes

        I don't know how insurance will rule this one, I have no insight on that.

        OP was obviously waiting for that gap, but I am wondering why he needed to change lanes at that exact moment. Watching the video, it is pretty clear the other car has seen the same gap too, and not been looking 2 lanes over.

        And yes, the end result is proof that was not a great time to change lanes. I am not familiar with that road so not sure if OP needed to change lanes there to go straight ahead.

        • Who cares why. He had right of way to do so. Maybe he had a right hand turn coming up after the intersection.

          • -1 vote

            @blergmonkeys: The why is important, as the decision has resulted in a collision. Even if OP is insured and not liable for excess, this is an inconvenience.

            Not long after I got my license I had my only accident. Was not at fault, but if it happened again now, I am confident that I could avoid it due to being more aware of a potential danger on the road. We are always learning.

            As I said, I am not sure how insurance will rule this one, but I think OP (and everyone driving in large cities) should be doing everything they can to avoid collisions. I had not really considered this type of situation, but I think it is a good lesson to be careful of lane changes near intersections, especially when the lane you enter is next to one that is stationary.

            • @DisabledUser312923: It doesn't matter the why in this instance as he does things within his right and based on the clip he does it reasonably safely. Its the other car you should be questioning why they change lanes abruptly and why they didn't check for oncoming traffic. Otherwise you might as well not drive if you want to do everything you can to avoid collision.

              • +2 votes

                @John: Make no mistake, I also think the blue car driver was at most fault and did a dangerous move.

                Unfortunately the roads are filled with people like that, and if you want to avoid collisions you need to take that into account, and maybe delay a lane change where something like that could happen.

                P.s. to the anonymous neggers, even if you think OP did nothing wrong, are you saying that if he is driving the same road in future and wants to change lanes, that is the best place to do it?

                • @DisabledUser312923: @tenyearsgone i agree that its best to be defensive, regardless of who would be considered at fault. In response to video, also agree that OP isn't at fault, though i would always be very wary trying to merge in a position like that (with banked up cars 1 lane over)… It would always seem very risky and probably best to avoid that potential problem where possible. Have seen way too many ppl pull out of banked up traffic like that

            • @DisabledUser312923: I don't know why you're being downvoted. Lot's of people are killed on the road but still "right" or "correct". Common sense sits above "legal correct-ness" in my safety hierarchy.

          • @blergmonkeys: There's no such thing as right of way in Australia.

  • That's a Subaru Impreza (I own one) and it's at fault.

  • Wasn't safe to change lanes for the other car so I'd say they are at fault. Lucky you have a dash cam!

  • Give the video to your insurer they will decide who is at fault

    • I have already dispute in liability , the Subaru denying liability now , matter of fact at the scene of accident she accepted the mistake .

      • +24 votes

        Honestly this happens in the majority of these. Each side disputes liability.

        Just let your insurance company deal with it.

      • Next time it happened quickly activate voice recorder and put it on your pocket so no he says she says.

        In this case she wouldnt even able to deny the admission of guilt.

        • does admitting guilt on tape indicate they are guilty though?
          also can't they change their mind and say I made mistake?

          ultimately it will be decided by insurer, or judge etc..

          • @pinkybrain: Unless that person admitted guilt under duress, it would be an aggravating factor.

            • @burningrage: First thing, a fender bender like this never gets to Court. Like never. The insurance companies always work it out between themselves. Worst case scenario is OP fighting their own insurance company to avoid paying the excess.

              Second thing, a voice recording after a crash, recorded without the other person's consent, whilst legal in VIC, good luck ever getting that admitted into evidence in a civil proceeding. Will never happen. :)

        • nice, get her liability to save a few hundred in excess in exchange for upto 5 years in gaol and $55,000 for recording a conversation without all parties consent.

          • @gromit: Before spewing rubbish, maybe check the relevant state laws? This seems to have taken palce iN VIC (St Kilda Sign in opening seconds of video), where one party voice recording isn't expressly illegal.

            In simple terms it is not illegal in Victoria, the Northern Territory or Queensland to record, without consent, a phone call you make or receive, or a private conversation you are having.

        • I think its illegal to do this..

        • burningrage has seen one too many tv shows

      • They will dispute liability in order to get the hire car at the other person’s cost (if they were correct). Submit your evidence to your insurer and they can dispute this with the other insurer.

        Admitting fault at the scene does not prove things one way or another.

        • Yes it will , the first thing a barrister ask you what was conversation between both party at the scene.

          • @agam2104: It would have weight if there are independent witnesses or has been documented. Otherwise, it would be very difficult to demonstrate that this occurred.

          • @agam2104: Lol, why would a barrister be involved in a simple car collision like this? Few hours of their time costs more that the Subaru :D

  • Subaruuuuuuuuuuu

  • +3 votes

    MAZADA, car was in stopped condition (like parked) should have done shoulder check before changing lane.

    • In Vic, by law, minimum 5 seconds of indicator light.
      (Not many driver follow this rule, I am guilty of it too)

  • Subaru was at fault. The dashcam car was obscured by the white ute so they assumed it was clear. Too bad the footage doesn't show how long they indicated for.

  • Subaru on the right is at fault

    • +13 votes

      And here's why:
      They're trying to change lanes. They are stopped. They must wait for the traffic to pass.

      The Blue Subaru did all of that, except, check properly as they prepared to go directly after the White Ford.
      The Blue Subaru did not see the Camry, so it is accidental, but it is on them to make sure it is safe to do so/change lanes.

      The Camry may have seen the Blue Subaru and its indicator, regardless, they were fine to change lanes and the Blue Subaru needed to wait for it to pass. The accident may have been avoided by both parties if they were better drivers. However, the fault lies entirely on the Blue Subaru for not following the road rules and causing the event to happen.

      PS: I sympathise with the Blue Subaru, because sometimes you can get stuck behind a slow lane like that forever, and even if you wanted to change lanes sometimes there's really no gap/opportunity. And yes, for that reason many people change lanes quickly, but its a risk that's taken.

  • Hi, guys another part denying liability

    Other driver or their insurance company?

    Who are you in contact with? Pro tip: Do not speak to the other driver, converse with your insurance company only. Let them work it out with the other drivers insurance company, that's why you pay for insurance, to act on your behalf.

  • Did you call Michael Kuzilny?

  • The blue car (whatever it is) is at fault for not giving way to vehicles already in the lane they are merging into.

  • When you commenced changing lane the lane you were moving into was clear. When the blue car commenced changing lanes that lane was not clear. You had no time to avoid the accident. Obviously, the blue car is at fault. I hope the insurance companies see it the same way.

    • Engine running is automatically 10% at fault.

      Absolutely not the case. Often insurers can deem there is no fault on behalf of one of the parties, and will even waive your excess.

    • Engine running is automatically 10% at fault.

      LOL… What a load of garbage. Please, I'm truely curious and I have to ask, but "source"??

    • Engine running is automatically 10% at fault.

      That's why when I go through red lights I turn my engine off!

  • I’d love to hear the end result from insurance company.

    Looks like both cars were merging lanes, neither entirely in the lane yet. One car is in front( blue car), the behind car has more momentum ( dash cam car). Recipe for an accident.

  • Might be denying liability after the fact, because she saw you were an Uber driver. (Trying to claim with your insurance, as your car is 'more important' and you'd likely be wanting a resolution quicker)

  • Further to the above discussion, what about the black car (can't see what make it is) that is trying to push in to turn right? That is what is holding up the Subaru and other cars in that lane, waiting to go straight ahead. I'm seeing more of these selfish + impatient drivers around. I saw one vehicle yesterday pull up alongside the right hand turn lane and block dozens of cars getting through a green light (straight ahead) while waiting for a green right turn arrow (there were multiple vehicles in the right turn lane).

  • While common sense says the blue Subaru is at fault, since you were both changing lanes and neither had completed changing lanes, technically I'm fairly sure it's partial fault on the part of both sides.

    • I think if both car in motion , then liability should be share , other car was stationary , you can expect other driver who is merging and already in lane to be responsible as he can't do anything to avoid it,but let see if it go to court .

      • Again, yes common sense says this. The road rules don't actually make a distinction between a car that's in motion and a car that's stationary, only which car is already in the lane (and which other cars have to give way to). Which is why the fact you're not fully yet in the lane is going to mean it'll be partial liability to both parties.