[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


        • -1

          So if you've stopped in the process of changing lane because there isn't enough room in front to straighten your car, the car behind you in the lane that you're changing to can just smash into you from the side and not be at fault?

          Common sense tells me that it matters whether the cars are stationary or not

          • +1


            Common sense tells me that

            Wait just a second… I literally just said, TWICE:

            While common sense says…


            Again, yes common sense says…

            And in your scenario it'd just be careless driving, same as if you rear-ended any other car in your lane in front of you.

      • -1

        The rule with cars in motion is that the car in front has right of way. So you would have been at fault.

        • -1

          …the car in front has right of way.


          Source: NSW RMS: Road rules > Lanes

          Before changing lane, signal in plenty of time and check for other vehicles by looking in your mirrors and your blind spot (look over your shoulder).

          You must give way to vehicles in the lane you are moving into.

          The only matter up for debate here is whether the OP is considered to be "in the lane" or not (my non-legal assumption would be yes as they are obviously at least partly in the lane when the blue car begins to pull out and, I would argue, fully in the lane by the time the incident occurs).

  • +15

    Dashcam too hard to understand, need it broken down into a simple MS Paint image please.

      • +1

        Fair point. I did not use the correct terminology (for what I thought would be simplicity), but by right of way I meant the vehicle that the other vehicle has to give way to. But I think my point still stands (which I assume by the -5 negs, is not what most people feel).

        Intersection is in VIC (from my recognition). Road Safety Road Rules 2017 VIC s148 and s149.

        Also what I should have typed instead (i.e. using give way):

        "In this situation, usually the car that is not in lane has to give way to the car already in lane but neither car is in lane. Failing this, when changing/merging lanes the car which is behind has to give way. Both cars tried to merge behind the white car and the blue Impreza is in front."

  • Its the blue car it was stopped ,and just like if it was coming out of a car parking spot he needs to give way to moving traffic , they didnt check their mirrors.

  • +6

    VicRoads says “You must give way to vehicles in the lane or line of traffic, when you change from a lane marked with lines, to another.”
    Op was already in the lane when Subaru woman started to move from her lane. Not 100% in the lane, but still in the lane.

    • +2

      Though by this reading of the law, when the accident happened, the blue Subie was also in the lane, just:

      Not 100% in the lane, but still in the lane.

      And this:

      “You must give way to vehicles in the lane or line of traffic, when you change from a lane marked with lines, to another.”

      Also applies to OP, because OP was also in the process of changing lanes.

  • +2

    Car pulling out is 100% at fault. No doubt at all.

  • +14

    post vid to Dashcams Australia

  • +2

    This needs no argument. 100% the fault of that Suburu.
    P.S I drive passed that Richmond bridge all the time.

  • +2

    Subaru, no checky the blind spot. Road Rules insurance no problem hands down.

    TBH that is one of the worst spots in melbourne, right after busy part of hoddle st then everyone trying to merge as can't tell which lanes are straight or right turn only then further up heaps of traffic merges into the start of toorak.

  • +1

    Actually just looked at the end of the footage, it's the fault of that jackass who has blocked the straight line lane the subaru is in trying to turn right. But alas, we must accommodate for the plebs.

  • That subaru Blue is at fault. It cant be Camry. it would be insane to blame camry..not fair.

  • The Mazda at fault for not checking blind spot.

  • +1

    The cyclist is at fault.

    • Traffic light is at fault, duh!!

  • It’s a little bit hard to tell from the video, but it looks like the camera car had basically completed their merge into the middle lane, and the Subaru was too quick on their lane change after the Ute passed them. They didn’t ensure that the lane was clear after the Ute passed before beginning their hasty merge Into the moving traffic.

    I certainly wouldn’t be accepting any blame if I was the camera car without a fight.

  • +2

    I think the poll options should include c. both at fault, because I think insurance would be ruled that way as dashcam car hasn't changed completely into the lane.

    • +1

      Dashcam car is basically in that lane entirely before the woman begins moving over. Blue Subaru should be checking her side mirrors as she initially begins moving over.

    • +1

      "racing incident"

  • +1

    Cut the video down so all you see is the Subaru cut you off. Send that to the insurance company

  • I voted for Blue Subaru as the driver at fault.

    It is one of those dangerous maneuvering due to the Camry in the blue car's blind spot but nevertheless, the driver should always double check.

  • -1

    I vote Subaru too - he's stopped and should have been more careful pulling out, you were at least 50% in the lane imo

  • +1

    It's blue car fault because dash cam car already was changed lane and blue car did not head check and enter in his lane. not sure about lane was straight line or not if was straight line then both fault because none car allow to change lane. So both liable.

  • 2500+ views and counting! A YT star in the making.
    Subaru is at fault!

  • Mazda did not do the head check..

  • +1

    The insurance company can apportion blame but the blue car appears to have committed the offence of change lanes to danger.

  • +1

    its amazing, she only had to wait 12 seconds for the traffic to start moving again

  • The car merging left. The rule is that you must check to ensure it is safe to merge.

    Send the video to your insurer.

    You should not have to pay any excess.

    • -2

      Both cars have to check the lane was clear before merging - the OP car hadn't fully merged so need to apportion blame between the two. https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/motoring/on-th...

      • +1

        Which is what a poor insurer will do. Each bear own costs, but the vehicle in front is easily at fault because the argument is that OP could see the other vehicle and also merged first, the other vehicle, being in front, is unlikely to have seen OP and also merged without due care.

        I've won this exact scenario for my client this morning.

      • I just checked the video properly and OP was fully merged at the time of incident.

        I guarantee this will result in the third party 100% at fault.

    • +1

      Changing lanes left or right makes no difference . Both vehicles are required to give way.

      • -1

        I see these every day. The vehicle merging that caused the incident is the one in front. A poor insurer will accept each bear own costs and a good one will will push that the OP vehicle was behind the other car so the other car merged without proper care.

        I have literally won this exact same scenario for my client this morning.

        • -1

          The Blue car made a sudden turn (lane change) without any warning because her lane was getting blocked in traffic and I would consider it dangerous driving. OP would not have any time to react because Blue car entered his lane suddenly without any warning.

  • +1

    Both bad drivers

    • OP did make an attempt to switch back to left lane to prevent the accident..

      Just didn't get out of the way in time from the oblivious driver of the Blue Mazda

  • -1

    100% the fault of the Impreza

  • Looks like the Sub is at fault. You're pretty much travelling in that lane already when she tried to merge. Send the dashcam footage to insurance and let them sort it out with insurance.

  • +1

    I'm more concerned about the amount of people in here saying the Mazda car is at fault when clearly is a Subaru

    Did the Subaru driver got out to check if you were ok???

  • +1

    Unfortunate situation.

    I would blame the Subaru driver mainly.

    I guess the insurance will do the same or 50/50.

    From the Subaru's perspective it was a risky manouver and a crash such as this is highly probable whilst conducting this manouver.

    The Camry also conducted a risky manouver and left themselves open to such an accident.

    Remember legal =/= safest.

  • -1

    If you used signal indicator early then it is not your fault.

    Also, in Australia, there's no partial liability or anything but there's always the one who made fault 100%. (At least on my experience with the insurance)

    • FYI, there is definitely partial liability in certain circumstances and there's case law to back it.

      • I don't really know what would be the outcomes from the court. Not much people goes to the court with the crash like OP shared but at least "insurance" company does not have "partial" liability or to say situation your excess drops because of the "partial" liability.

        I have no idea how they do it but one for sure, they are good at making one party at 100% liability.

        • You're right, but not all of them do that. There are very good insurers who will apportion liability. In some cases it's fairer but it takes work to do it and most people are lazy.

  • +3

    Subaru is at fault, but the driver with the dashcam should have used common sense and/or defensive driving skills to avoid the accident.

    • Nah, you're supposed to hit them so they learn a lesson.

  • if this was on DashCam Australia page, someone would say the dashcam driver would be at fault as he should've consulted with Dr Strange with the probability of hitting that blue Subaru.

    edit: Lol see above my post "defensive driving".

  • -1

    How is this even a question?

    All the poll does is show that about 1% of respondents have no idea about the law, even if it's purely common sense as it is in this case.

    That's a scary thought if that many people are driving on our roads with no idea on how to drive and what the laws are.

  • 100 percent the Subaru driver at fault. Merged without checking blind spot way too fast.

  • Can’t say either as it’s not shown the Camry was indicating while changing lanes.

  • The Subaru any day of the week. It's a maneuver that makes me nervous as I've gone to make it before- you check your mirrors, think you're clear to go, go to pull out but check once more as your moving and someone is there from another lane over. Easy mistake to make but they're at fault regardless.

  • I was in the exact same situation not too long and I was in the same situation as the dash cam driver.
    The other car has a responsibility to check blind spot. This quick indicate and change lane bullshit is what caused the accident as well as not checking blind spot.
    The indicator is not for the driver but for other drivers to be aware they need to change lanes. So the fact that a car ’indicates’ for less than a second and assumes that it’s fine for them to change lanes beats the crap out of me. I’m pretty sure there was a rule of a 2 second indicator before any change happens but will need to find the book to verify.

    • So what happened with your insurance company?

      • Other driver was at fault

    • -1

      Except in this case the indicator was on for a while. Check the video and it's on from the start.

      • +1

        Hard to tell but yeah if that’s the case it does change. Still the Subaru is at fault for not checking blind spot. The difference in my situation was the middle lane was completely free and the green p player changed without checking blind spot.
        We also can’t tell how long the dash cam driver had has indicator on or if he even had it on? Maybe that’s why the Subaru changed lanes???

  • +1

    Jees, Id never pull out into a middle lane unless both the middle and left lane are clear.

    Its basically in everyone's insurance contract that you must not admit liability, so the lady probably hasn't changed her story on what happened, just cant officially admit she's liable otherwise it wont be covered.

  • My eyesight must be poor, I can't even tell the make nor colour of the car

  • The white ute. It's blocking your view of her indicator, which could have given you warning of what was about to happen. And it's blocking her view of your car…until it was too late.

  • OP could you please post the official result when it's available? Very curious to see what the ruling will be.

    • +5

      No worries I will

  • Yeah but is it a Subaru or Mazda?

  • Always a recurring nightmare that this exact situation will happen to me (although I usually imagine it on the highway) - i.e. merging into the same lane as someone coming from other direction.

    It's a somewhat tricky maneuver attempted by the blue car at any time, let alone when you're stuck going slow in the fast lane, while the cars in the left hand "slow lanes" are passing you.

    Touch wood I've never had an accident, but I am always hyper hyper aware and over cautious in this type of scenario.

    … which is why …

    once I'm in the right lane I stay there foreeeever regardless of all of your criticism for doing so ;)

  • -1

    legit scary seeing even a single person vote for dashcam at fault.

    Insurance should rule in your favour entirely; if they don’t; continue up the ladder until they do. Video is as clear as day.

  • -2

    You were merging first so they were at fault, but (profanity) me, learn to merge… You merge promptly not over 6-7 seconds…

    • +2

      Surely that would have simply resulted in a bigger impact ?

      • -1

        Youd be in the lane and it wouldnt be a dispute. Merge promptly.

        • +1

          So you'd prefer to have a more dangerous accident than uncertainty around blame in a relatively safe accident???

          • +1


            So you'd prefer to have a more dangerous accident than uncertainty around blame in a relatively safe accident???

            Not necessarily. A lot of accidents happen because one party seems hesitant/uncertain, leading to other drivers unable to predict their behaviour.

            It's possible (but in this case… yeah I agree with you, unlikely) that if OP merged more decisively and quickly, that the other driver would've noticed them and not actually tried to merge too.

    • +1

      But you'd be in the same boat (car?) if both sides merged promptly

      • Then you didnt pay attention nd would deserve the bill. You are suppose to ensure its safe then promptly merge into the new lane, not meander on over as you see fit.

  • You have a dashcam, let the insurer decide as they will be compensating you. Submit ozbargain poll/link too as there are many expert reviews here.

    Subaru vs Camry…hmm I think the camry should be faster 😁

  • Subaru for sure.

  • Can anyone say what would happen if this went to court in an episode of Suits though?

    • +1

      They would establish that while the Subaru was at fault, the Camry driver had just come from the pub and had alcohol in their system. Not enough to be drunk, but enough to be possibly under influence. Oh, and the Subaru driver is an upstanding citizen. Case goes the way of the Subaru driver and all is good in the world.

  • -1

    Subaru without a doubt. The other car was 90% in the lane and the Subaru jumped out to the lane with a car oncoming.

  • Blue car. Failure to give way when changing marked lanes.

  • +3

    WAY to often its an ethnic female at fault… not sexist or racist, just a fact

    • Thanks for your contribution and welcome to the OzBargain community.

  • -1

    Option 2 should be a - Blue Subaru Impreza

  • It wasn't my fault

  • OP should just send this link to its insurer so it can see the majority of OZB members thinks Subaru's driver is at fault.

  • +1

    Very awkward. Both cars performed a lane change, both did not do so when it was safe.

    I agree with the majority Re: car on right at fault. However as you too were changing into that lane technically you were not in it yet.

    Please come back with update!

    • +1

      Not sure why you were negged, it's a relevant point.

      I'm not convinced that the OP was clearly in the lane as there seemed to be quite a bit of a gap for the subaru/mazda to come out even with minimal last second avoidance.

      The angle of the dashcam and spacing doesn't seem to change so even if OP had been fully in the lane he either had an inkling this was going to happen or left it confusing enough for the other driver to not notice very well which lane exactly OP was in.

      Doesn't take away the fact that other driver has made a terrible judgement but clear they are mostly at fault here.

  • OP Do you have any updates on this?

    • or Insurance?

      • not yet

  • +1

    Her fault in the blue car. Damn that's pretty unlucky on your part, I'd be pissed if that happened to me. Maybe you should have let her in, considering you can't make a right turn for a couple of km after that corner you could have done that lane change 2 min up the road where every idiot isn't trying to jump outta that right turn. Anyway shit happens. I'd say she doesn't have much of a leg to stand on seeing she is entering your lane.

    • This. Defensive driving.

  • It was exactly same spot and same accident to me 6 years ago. I was hit at the driver side. I had a comprehensive car insurance with AAMI. They decided I was not at fault after reviewing my dashcam footage. I still have that footage on my Youtube channel as private.

Login or Join to leave a comment