Car and Truck Side by Side Collision, Who Is at Fault?

highdealer on 20/11/2019 - 14:10
Last edited 22/11/2019 - 11:34 by 1 other user

A side by side accident occur at the corner of Princes Highway and Gannon Street Tempe NSW.

A car is stopped on the left lane waiting to turn left, a truck drive pass on the middle lane, the side step of on the left side of the truck come into contact with the right front side of the car. Both party claim they are within their own lane.

Car position

Damage to car

Damage to the truck

MS Paint Diagram

Update: Insurance company decided that we are not at fault since the car is stationary at the point of impact. Now it is up to the trucker to provide evidence that proves otherwise.

Anyway, lesson learned, dashcams bought and will try to drive more carefully especially around tight corner, lane and be mindful of oversize truck.

Poll Options

  • 28
    Car is at fault and is responsible for damage
  • 151
    Truck is at fault and is responsible for damage
  • 8
    Both at fault and each repair at their own expense
Automotive

Comments

  • dust on 20/11/2019 - 14:13
    +25

    Not enough information to tell. This is why you get a dashcam.

    • highdealer on 20/11/2019 - 14:19
      +5

      Yeah, I have a dashcam, but this was a relative car and it did not have one. At least now I know what to get them for Christmas.

    • MrMoo on 21/11/2019 - 13:53
      +9

      I don't agree. If the car is stopped and stationary, the car could be sideways for all it matters. It's the trucks fault for hitting a stationary vehicle.

      Or do you mean we can't be sure the car was stationary? In which case it'll come down to witnesses. If no witnesses then I think it comes down to each party pays their own?

  • HighAndDry on 20/11/2019 - 14:24
    +19

    If car is stopped, more likely to be trucks fault.

    • [Deactivated] on 20/11/2019 - 15:31
      +30

      It depends, if the truck is a Mack, the driver would have been picking his nose.

      If it was a Scania, they were probably snorting marijuana.

      This was a Kenworth so the driver is definitely masturbating and not keeping in lane.

      • pegaxs on 20/11/2019 - 19:26
        +22

        This was a Kenworth so the driver is definitely masturbating

        As a Kenworth driver, can confirm… :D

  • GG57 on 20/11/2019 - 14:28

    Too many variables to determine, but if the car did not deviate from the position shown in the photo, logic would suggest that the truck must have crossed the line marking.

    • spackbace on 20/11/2019 - 14:34
      +4

      Except the picture is of a Captiva, when the damage was done to a BMW. We're just supposed to assume that OP, and their family member, are telling the truth about them being in the centre of their lane

      • Euphemistic on 20/11/2019 - 14:37
        +5

        The car position picture is just a screen shot off google. Not a true indication if the position of the car.

        The OP gives no indication of wether either vehicle was in their own lane or not.

        • Baysew on 20/11/2019 - 14:52
          +1

          Needs MS Paint diagram to show position of vehicles in lanes.

      • highdealer on 20/11/2019 - 15:05
        +2

        Yes, the BMW was not as Center as the Captiva in this picture, it was a lot closer to the right side but it did not cross the white line.

        Insurance claim was submitted and my family member is just gonna go with whatever the insurance company decide.

        My concern is that this is a K104 Kenworth and the side step seem the be an aftermarket job. It sticks out from the side of the truck by at least 25cm. The width of a K104 Kenworth is already 2.5m adding the side step making it 3m wide. The width of this lane is only 3.2-3.4m according to google map.

        The truck came from behind and the bulk of the collision is just the side step hitting the car causing it to bend backward. Is it even legal to have such protruding side step like this?

        • viper8548 on 20/11/2019 - 15:09
          +11

          If the truck came from behind and hit you why is the damage only on the front right and not the whole right side? was your stopped diagonally?

          • rickxs on 22/11/2019 - 10:29

            @viper8548: Driver is doing the 'Scandinavian flick' as per Ms paint

            ..

        • spackbace on 20/11/2019 - 15:11
          +7

          Without video proof it's he said-she said. Expect both to cop equal blame from insurance

          • viper8548 on 20/11/2019 - 15:43
            +8

            @spackbace: very strange indeed, looking at the direction of the bent step, its the truck that made the impact assuming the truck was moving forwards.

            Only thing i can think of is the truck hit the car as the car swerved to the right before making a left

        • philmccracken on 21/11/2019 - 10:40
          +3

          There's no way that bottom step stuck out 25cm prior to the collision. If anything the side of the bullbar would stick out further and it looks like it possibly took the first impact.

          It would be almost flush with the wheel arch normally, as there's no reason to have any steps protruding anymore than necessary since otherwise they have a habit of collecting shit everywhere they drive such as gutters, bollards and BMWs.

          Here's an example of an un-BMWed side step on a K104 Kenny with the same setup… https://www.mymachinery.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/00…

          My hunch is that the car took the turn wide into the path of le truck.

      • ATangk on 21/11/2019 - 13:08
        +10

        Everyone does this stupid thing where they swing to the right before turning left. Just drive a bit further forward if you dont want to scrape your rims, right?

        • stumo on 21/11/2019 - 16:04
          +1

          Agree. They dont even realise they are doing it.

        • serbpie on 22/11/2019 - 20:18

          Most frustrating thing when people cross into a second lane to turn a <2m car.

          • ATangk on 22/11/2019 - 21:25

            @serbpie: I think you underestimate how long cars are.

            • CMH on 22/11/2019 - 23:46

              @ATangk: Maybe it's one of those Smart ForTwo.

              But even those are 2.5m long.

              Maybe serbpie got confused watching a ride-on lawnmower…

    • pegaxs on 20/11/2019 - 18:35
      +1

      Too many variables to determine, but if the car truck did not deviate from the position shown in the photo, logic would suggest that the truck car must have crossed the line marking.

      Now, I'm off to ask my auntie if she has balls and if she may actually be my uncle…

      You may as well have said "If the car wasn't on that road and the truck was interstate, I don't think they would have hit…"

  • Euphemistic on 20/11/2019 - 14:36
    +4

    If the car was stopped, even if not fully in the lane, then the truck is likely to be at fault

  • xeion on 20/11/2019 - 14:46
    +46

    I've seen too many drivers swing out way too wide and into the other lane to go around a corner, instead of slowing down more.

    I'm inclined to think the car may have done that, I'd argue (most) truck drivers are more awear of their size than those driver.

    Without actual photos or video it's hard to say.

    • dcuksuop on 20/11/2019 - 16:19
      +20

      I second this, always see cars doing this. You're not a truck/bus, you don't need to and shouldn't do this!

      • Meeb on 20/11/2019 - 17:12
        +15

        Yep I see idiots doing this all the time too, have been nearly hit by a few. They turn as if they're driving a rally course or something and need the extra wide angle to make the turn at high speed. Problem is the idiots are doing this at speeds of 10-15 km/h which is perfectly fine to make the turn without the need to swerve into another lane.

        A lot of drivers have really bad perception of their car size…

    • dogboy on 20/11/2019 - 17:17
      +4

      This is what I am thinking. Just bad driving to swing out wide before turning a corner.

    • wizzy on 20/11/2019 - 17:55
      +5

      Yes I know the particular intersection that OP is referring to very well. The lanes are narrow and the turn is tight. It is still not necessary for a car to swing right in order to turn left, but lots of cars do it in that spot.

      It is also a spot where a truck can easily veer into a neighbouring lane because the lanes are narrow.

      It is an intersection with frequent accidents.

    • CVonC on 21/11/2019 - 12:00
      +6

      Even in the bloody ms paint diagram, the car is drawn showing that it's veering to the right before making the left turn lol!

    • ATangk on 21/11/2019 - 13:10
      +1

      People need to drive forward a bit more before turning right, instead of doing that stupid swing move. Its just because they have ran over too many kerbs, but driving forward more achieves the same thing.

    • gummibears on 21/11/2019 - 13:29
      +2

      It shiits me when I see this.

  • viper8548 on 20/11/2019 - 15:07
    +7

    Did the collision happen when the light turned green and both cars started moving?
    I also assume both cars stopped in their lanes without any collision, seeing that the damage was on the front side of the BMW and not starting all the way from the back side, this leads me to think that the BMW swung to the right before turning a left and hit the truck.

    If the truck didnt stay in his lane your WHOLE right side would be damaged. Also assuming that theres no way the truck can get off faster than a regular car, I think most likely OP swerved to the right before making that left turn and thus hit the side step.

  • arkie0 on 20/11/2019 - 15:35
    +1

    Based on OP's description - Truck is at fault.

    Based on insurance without evidence - Both at fault and each repair at their own expense.

    Similar thing happened to me, 2 cars side by side, 3rd party drifted into my lane but claimed I drifted into him. 3rd party also faked a witness. No dash cam footage. Insurance covered my repairs without having to pay an excess. Have a dash cam now.

  • dcep on 20/11/2019 - 15:36

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKYB4fDz5Vc
    “The stewards determined that both drivers had the opportunity avoid or mitigate the incident and therefore that neither driver is predominantly at fault”

  • brad1-8tsi on 20/11/2019 - 15:38
    +11

    people just love doing the "swing right to turn left" on that corner. There's not a lot of room along that whole stretch.

    Without proof from either party it's just "he said, she said"

    I'm surprised the truck hasn't got a camera…

    • GG57 on 20/11/2019 - 15:48
      +3

      The truck may well have a camera; we just haven't heard from the truck driver as yet, the hear the full story.

    • singingwolf on 21/11/2019 - 11:11

      Yeah I hate people that pull the opposite way before turning. I suspect the OP had moved to the right a bit. That left lane looks smaller than the other 2 lanes.

  • Dumax on 20/11/2019 - 16:15
    +1

    Considering the damage to the BMW's right front wheel it would indicate that it was stationary - i.e. if the car was moving and hit the truck, the damage would be radial (as the wheel would be turning - e.g. like gutter rash) not linear (as the photo would appear). However, this doesn't indicate who was in the other's lane and whatever happened immediately before that.

  • GoldenDragon888 on 20/11/2019 - 16:26
    +6

    Not saying the car did this but the amount of times you see a car veer to the right when turning left is amazing.

  • Eeples on 20/11/2019 - 17:08
    +3

    The corner looks tight. Most likely the car swerved right before turning left.
    Car is damaged right front so this would be the likely scenario.
    If so, car is mostly at fault.

    If the car right rear or side was damaged more likely the truck was not in its lane. (Not the case).

    With safe driving technique however, the truck could have anticipated the swerve and just waited.

    • viper8548 on 20/11/2019 - 17:55
      +2

      Yes completely agree and same as the conclusion i made

      • pegaxs on 20/11/2019 - 19:23
        +8

        Yep, same conclusion here. if the car was parallel within its own lane, why is the damage isolated to the front? and not the whole side of the vehicle and OP isnt complaining about the mirror being torn off.

        99% convinced BMW was not parked within their lane AND parked at a "swing out and around" angle. Hence damage localised to only the front bumper…

  • Snake 4 on 20/11/2019 - 17:41
    +3

    If the car was stationary the truck is at fault.

    • viper8548 on 20/11/2019 - 17:53

      Yes, if this happened after the lights turned green and both started moving, its the car's fault

  • Richardc on 20/11/2019 - 18:43
    -3

    no left turn over 6m long

  • whooah1979 on 20/11/2019 - 18:44

    Where is the dash cam video?

  • whooah1979 on 20/11/2019 - 18:56

    Op, did the BMW try and turn left on the inside lane?

  • pegaxs on 20/11/2019 - 19:01
    +1

    Car position

    Based on speculation. Dismissed. It's your word against theirs.

    Damage to car

    Car has what appears to be badly worn tyres on the outside edge. This makes the car unroadworthy. Should not have been there unless going to get tyres replaced or taking it to get repaired or a roadworthy done (ironically, Tempe Tyres is right on that intersection, opposite where the BMW was going).

    And how the (fropanity) did that ladder not rip that front bumper completely off?

    Damage to the truck

    Lol. Kenworth, huh. That ladder is going to be priced like it is made of platinum and dipped in gold… :D

    Had a good look over Google Maps and I think the car driver was outside their lane. It's a very narrow lane and most cars are right on the dividing line. The right turn into Gannon is awkward because it's over 90 degree and the right lanes coming out also restrict the lane space. The BMW has been right on or just over the dividing lane to give themselves space to turn into that horrible, narrow 90+ degree street from a lane that looks like it's best suited to bicycles. This is what happens with councils turn 1 and 2 lane roads into 3 lane highways… But then again, truck driver should have taken more care and paid more attention… So, I'm guessing 50/50.

    But you know, with all the anti-truck hate on this forum, the truck driver is guilty by default…

    • whooah1979 on 20/11/2019 - 19:09

      How does the step manage to rip both the guard and bottom of the rim?

      • pegaxs on 20/11/2019 - 19:20
        +1

        The car was moved?? Tyres rotate when moved…

        At the time of impact, the damage would have aligned. And if you rotate the tyre 180 degrees, it may even line up again…

  • JimmyF on 20/11/2019 - 20:09
    +3

    Both party claim they are within their own lane.

    Well clearly one wasn't, so you either had been over the line or the truck was.

    Was someone doing a truck turn in the car? :)

    I'm 99% sure the truck will have a dashcam, so if the car was over the line, the footage will appear.

  • adam on 20/11/2019 - 21:37

    Even if the car is not in its lane it doesn't give the truck the right to run into them. I'd say as the car was stopped and the truck was moving it was the responsibility of the truck to avoid a collision. I say truck driver is at fault.

    • whooah1979 on 20/11/2019 - 21:55
      +1

      Even if the car is not in its lane it doesn't give the truck the right to run into them

      Trucks can’t stop on a dime. Move across their lane when they’re turning left and they’ll collect a piece of your side.

    • viper8548 on 20/11/2019 - 23:11
      +2

      Car swerved right before turning left and truck ran into it, otherwise the damage on the car would start from the rear side not just the front side damaged

  • HeWhoKnows on 21/11/2019 - 07:59
    -7

    Who cares?

    If its not you involved then mind your own business
    Its not up to anyone here anyway
    Insurance companies will sort it it.

    This post a complete waste oif time

  • TEER3X on 21/11/2019 - 08:03

    Need a new poll option
    Truck is at fault but no way to prove anything so both parties responsible for their own repairs

    • pegaxs on 21/11/2019 - 08:15
      +1

      And that, kids, is an oxymoron…

      The truck is at fault but no proof? How did you come to that conclusion? Do you have proof? Or you just on the “all trucks are guilty by default” train?

      Truck Car is at fault but no way to prove anything so both parties responsible for their own repairs

      • whooah1979 on 21/11/2019 - 10:14

        This is between a BMW driver and truck driver. Corsair of course the BMW driver isn't at fault.

      • TEER3X on 21/11/2019 - 21:33
        +1

        Oops I think I meant car is at fault. I did checkout the photos and agree with a lot of the analysis on here, not sure how I wrote Truck.

        Most truck drivers are courteous, they somehow keep their cool when cars cut them off and slam their brakes, even though they could easily crush them like a can.

        On the flip side, you have some (profanity) that shouldn't be on the road, maybe because you can get a truck license in half a day.

        Either way, you are right, no proof at all of anything, just conjecture, but not sure if it qualifies as an oxymoron. Maybe some of the scholars can chime in.

    • viper8548 on 21/11/2019 - 15:25
      +2

      Actually truck had advantage here bmw will need to explain how only front got damaged this is consistent with bmw suddenly going into trucks lane and got hit

  • gyrex on 21/11/2019 - 08:30
    +4

    I wonder if the driver of the car thought he was Lewis Hamilton and thought he needed to swing wide into the centre lane to maximise his entry angle into the side street at 20km/h. This seems to be a strange, bizarre and growing phenomenon in Australia. Don't do this. Your crappy BMW, Commodore, Ford etc. isn't a sports car and swinging wide will not improve your traction at 20km/h.

    • highdealer on 21/11/2019 - 09:07

      The car was stopped as there was a red left arrow light…

  • Hirolol on 21/11/2019 - 09:42

    If the car is over the line then it’s obviously the cars fault
    Regardless of whether the car was stationary.

    Not sure why some people seem to think that because the car is stationary and the truck is moving then the truck is at fault.

    • pegaxs on 21/11/2019 - 10:34

      Because that is the meta here. Seems to be that "truck = at fault" is the default setting for most of the sheep on this forum.

    • trapper on 21/11/2019 - 13:06
      +4

      You can't just ram shit because it's in your lane. If you hit a stationary vehicle you are driving carelessly at best.

  • Hoobz on 21/11/2019 - 09:52

    Get dash cam footage from truck for proof?

  • OzHunterNSW on 21/11/2019 - 09:52
    +1

    I fear the full story is that in order to get around this parked vehicle, you infringed into the other lane.
    In that case, you are at fault.

  • rave75 on 21/11/2019 - 09:54

    why not take the photo while the car was stopped and show the lane markings clearly?

  • Zondor on 21/11/2019 - 10:31

    Just push R and you will get enough money from creeps to pay all the damages anyway.

    • [Deactivated] on 21/11/2019 - 11:30

      I have a dashcam that is positioned where the untrained eye will never see.

      If someone tried the ol' reversy trick, I will not inform them of the damning evidence and let them perjure themselves and let them stand to be jailed.

      • trapper on 21/11/2019 - 13:02
        +1

        I use the opposite strategy and tell them I have it all on dash cam when I don't actually have one.

      • tryagain on 22/11/2019 - 10:19

        Or then charge them a fee twice that of the damage to not let it see the light of day?

        • [Deactivated] on 22/11/2019 - 11:47

          That's blackmail.

      • Zondor on 22/11/2019 - 11:56

        I was making a Dota reference cause his avatar is a Dota Character. lol

        • [Deactivated] on 22/11/2019 - 13:50

          Ah. I'm out of the gaming loop for so long I can't do gaming references anymore. :(

          Diablo 4… tempting…

  • OzzyOzbourne on 21/11/2019 - 11:29
    +3

    As only one edge of the wheel is damaged and as I see it all the time, I suspect the BMW swerved right before turning left just as the truck was going past. So BMW at fault

    • greater mimic on 21/11/2019 - 11:42

      I've noticed other drivers do this, why do they swerve right a little before turning left? I've never had to do this and I can turn left just fine. is the turning circle that bad for some cars?

      • OzzyOzbourne on 21/11/2019 - 11:48
        +1

        Dunno, there seems to be some obsession with slowing down as little as possible no matter what the consequence… Swerve into the other lane to turn left, going wide when turning left, cutting the corner when turning right etc etc.. And the general belief that everyone else should avoid you…..or if they don't, the belief that it's the other driver's fault.

  • [Deactivated] on 21/11/2019 - 11:45
    +1

    Ive been noticing a rather increasing trend lately of people turning (Left & right).

    Many many drivers seems to be pulling out of their lane to take a wide entry then cutting the corner (such as the race car drivers do).

    I'm going to guess it was the car driver.

  • happirt on 21/11/2019 - 12:13

    no sympathy for sedan driver trying to take over or at least not give room for a truck at a turn.

  • trapper on 21/11/2019 - 13:00

    It depends on a lot of things that we don't know…

    It is hard to see how the truck would only hit the front corner of the car though (unless the truck was also turning left), so it is probably car at fault.

  • mubd1234 on 21/11/2019 - 13:00
    +3

    I'd say the car driver was likely to have swung out wide to take the left turn, but we can't know for sure. If the damage is only on the front corner of the car, it makes it even more likely to have been the case.

    Cars are not trucks. They don't need to swing out at intersections to take turns.

  • Toons on 21/11/2019 - 13:32
    +3

    Vettel

    • CVonC on 22/11/2019 - 00:52

      lmao so true!

  • Kkuba on 21/11/2019 - 13:41

    I notice that the car in your paint diagram is pointing to the right, is there a reason for this? Or was it just the way it came out in paint when drawing with a mouse?

    • [Deactivated] on 21/11/2019 - 14:14
      +3

      Because the car swung out wide to take the corner. 100% car driver at fault.

  • max900 on 21/11/2019 - 14:22
    +2

    If the car is stationary i doubt that the truck will hit it, unless truck driver is not paying attention (very unlikely at a busy intersection). Most likely both vehicles are moving during the collision with the car swinging out right for the left turn.

    There is a no left turn sign for long vehicles. 100% sure the car swung into the passing truck. 100% car fault.

  • monkeyfood on 21/11/2019 - 14:26
    +5

    if the damage is to the car on the bumper side only logic would suggest the bumper was hanging out on a angle, most likely like everybody is saying swinging right to turn left.

    A truck driver most likely has more experience, drive hours and control then the car driver. Mr Spock would say the chances of the car driver being at fault are 78 thousand point 4 to 1 captain

  • jparga on 21/11/2019 - 14:44
    +6

    Bet the BMW went right to turn left as if was an 18 wheeler turning…..bmw at fault…..same as the sketch…..

  • CheeryCheapskate on 21/11/2019 - 15:55

    Too late now perhaps but I'm surprised no witnesses stopped to help assist in the blame game.

  • Erkel on 21/11/2019 - 16:06
    +2

    Do you have a picture of the right side mirror? If the truck was outside its lane when it drove past the car then the right side mirror would've received significant damage as well. In this case the truck driver at fault.

    If the right side mirror is unscratched then the car swerved into the middle lane whilst turning left. Car driver at fault.

    • shakman on 21/11/2019 - 16:57

      I agree with your comment, let's see the mirror as if the truck hit first, the mirror would most likely be missing from the car…

    • max900 on 21/11/2019 - 17:16
      +1

      There is more damage towards the front of the car. Means the car is positioned at an angle pointing towards the right lane. No need to see the mirror.

  • Jugganautx on 21/11/2019 - 16:21

    I love how everybody is saying that truckies are better drivers. I've seen some pretty shocking ones that dgaf.

    • pegaxs on 21/11/2019 - 17:03

      Because I'm lazy… please point me to a few examples in this thread where "everybody" is saying that "truckies are better drivers"…

  • shakman on 21/11/2019 - 16:55

    Even if the BMW was partially on the line or out of its' lane, if it's too narrow for the truck to pass, then it is the truck drivers fault. The only way both are at fault is if both vehicles were moving.

  • Davo1111 on 21/11/2019 - 18:25
    +3

    Full story not given. Can't give an answer. One was not in their lane.

    Pay the excess and let insurance sort it

  • Obkay on 21/11/2019 - 20:07

    When all else fails… "who hit who?"

    Truck hit car as car was stationary.

  • BoomTetrisForJeff on 21/11/2019 - 21:49

    Why is this even a post?
    If you get hit while stationary at the lights why would you ever be at fault, obviously more to this story.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join