Who Is at Fault? Car Accident in QLD with Dashcam Footage

Last night I had a very minor car accident in Brisbane. A vehicle in front of me pulled to the side to parallel park on the road and I was trying to overtake him.
However, I immediately realized that he was not giving way and only paying attention to his left-hand side, so I stopped but it was too late.

In retrospect I should've waited for him to complete his manoeuvre but I guess I was a little impatient. There was just enough room for me to overtake and I hoped that he would see me. I remember reading similar discussions on OzB, I was under the impression that a reversing vehicle was usually at fault.

The fender on my vehicle got very minor scratches (pics attached). Couldn't really see anything on his because his car was dark. Also, he didn't seem to care about his vehicle much.

It was such a pain in the a** to get him (a rideshare driver) to produce his driver's licence as he kept saying "Why you come for me, why do you do that? Why you come for me?" insisting that I was at fault and demanding to see my license but not showing me his, etc. On top of that he refused to give me his phone number and insurance details. When I said I was going to call the police, he said he would go to them the following day. I was on my way to pick up my partner so decided to report to the police the next day as well since I already got his license. Besides I couldn't stand listening to him anymore; I didn't understand most of what he was saying.

I have a comprehensive car insurance and assume he does too since he's a rideshare driver.

Image
Image
Video

Poll Options expired

  • 376
    OP
  • 28
    Other driver

Comments

  • +45 votes

    You're fault….end thread ;)

  • +6 votes

    I don't think you can argue there was ever safe room to overtake. I think it's a shared responsibility situation, but OP mostly at fault.

  • +58 votes

    Why on earth would you try overtake someone in that scenario rather than waiting 20 second for him to park???? It was never going to end well.
    If I were him i would have been pissed off as well

    • -4 votes

      he wanted to teach him a lesson with a close passby thiking he will slam on his breaks at the last moment and get scared when OP drives past

  • +14 votes

    I had someone do what you did to me yesterday… :-( Luckily I was watching and I missed him.
    Wait until the car is parked… the front of the parking car always swings out..
    You are in the wrong… not enough room to pass, you could see the other car was reversing into a parking spot.

  • +40 votes

    However, I immediately realized that he was not giving way

    ummm thats because you had to give way, not him.

    I have a comprehensive car insurance

    As you're at fault, lodge a claim, pay the excess, move on.

  • +14 votes

    Knew someone that failed their Ps test because they tried to overtake a reverse parking vehicle.

  • +3 votes

    You're at fault. Unless you can prove the reversing vehicle broke one of these laws;

    (1) The driver of a vehicle must not
    reverse the vehicle unless the driver can do
    so safely. Maximum penalty—20 penalty
    units.
    (2) The driver of a vehicle must not
    reverse the vehicle further than is
    reasonable in the circumstances.

    There's no overtaking lane so you shouldn't be overtaking.

  • +5 votes

    did you give the other driver your details?

  • +5 votes

    do not know who was technically at fault, but i dare say you should wear this one or some of it as it was pretty rude what you did, you basically made youw own lane and that width was tiny, I doubt they would even think to think that you had done what you did.

  • +16 votes

    Is it for real? You are at fault. You saw him indicating with intention to reverse park and you went head. If yo show this to the insurer or he has back dashcam, you are done and dusted.

    I dont understand why people are so impatient and do foolish things.

    • -12 votes

      I'm not sure it's that simple. The reversing driver isn't just absolved from all responsibility just because he is reversing. It's usually the opposite. Happy to be proven wrong, if someone links QLD road rules.

      • +6 votes

        If it was safe when he started reverse parking it's not up to him to ensure some idiot doesn't pullup next to him.

  • +36 votes

    Don't know what is worse.

    That driving IQ or coming to Ozbargain to see if the other guy is at fault.

    • +7 votes

      I'm just here for the inevitable disableduser4827263 from the verbal caning OP is going to cop.

  • +22 votes

    Genuine question - can anyone prove the OP is at fault (by linking QLD driving road rules)? I was of the belief that whilst reversing, the reversing vehicle must give way. Whilst the OP was slightly impatient, what the hell was with the reversing driver swinging into the OP whilst parking? Damn, I hope they have better observation and scanning where pedestrians are involved. I think we are also forgetting technically the reversing driver hit the OP - the OP stopped and the reversing driver continued to reverse, hitting the OP.

    296 Driving a vehicle in reverse
    (1) The driver of a vehicle must not
    reverse the vehicle unless the driver can do
    so safely. Maximum penalty—20 penalty
    units.

    (2) The driver of a vehicle must not
    reverse the vehicle further than is
    reasonable in the circumstances. Maximum
    penalty—20 penalty units.

    This is also from the QLD Your Keys to Driving handbook:

    Reversing
    You may reverse, only when it is safe to do so and only as far as is reasonable.
    This includes reversing out of a driveway, but once again, only when it is safe to
    do so.

    • +8 votes

      I also found this on Qld transport.

      • Reversing vehicles have no right of way. If a
      vehicle approaches from behind, remain
      stationary and GIVE WAY until it passes.

      However is it legal to overtake on a single lane road?

      Both parties could be found at fault for not operating safely I guess.

      •  

        Thanks mate. Based on that, I'd say that it's pretty conclusive that the reversing driver is not at fault - going by that info from the QLD Transport website, the reversing driver should have remained stationary and given way.

        • +3 votes

          Dose not change the fact it was a single lane

        • +1 vote

          So if theres a line 1km of traffic behind him he is supposed to just sit there never being able to park? Or is he in the lane and if people want to go around him then overtaking rules apply.

      •  

        I can see myself starting a parallel reverse parking, and then a car approaches. At this point, I stay stationary and wait till the car approaching has overtaken me. I'll do this in a busy road, where there is steady incoming traffic.

    • +9 votes

      OzB collective has this wrong. OP did a totally arsehole move, but at the point of contact they were stopped and the other car reversed into OP - OP's not at fault.

      • +1 vote

        OP broke this rule:

        144 Keeping a safe distance when overtaking
        Subject to section 144A(1), a driver overtaking a vehicle—
        (a)must pass the vehicle at a sufficient distance to avoid a collision with the vehicle or obstructing the path of the vehicle; and

        It was obvious that the car in front was going to move in the manner it did.

        I thought there was a rule about not having 2 cars side by side in one lane too, but my time limit to search for such things has elapsed without finding it…

        It's possible they may each have some fault, as the reversing driver should have notice OP being a frackwit and stopped. I hope OP gets 100% of the blame though!

        • +1 vote

          Yes, but OP stopped. I'll actually backtrack a little - OP is certainly partly at fault, but there's no way the other car escapes fault when they reversed into a stationary object.

      • +1 vote

        It's like if I see someone running in a straight line, then I go deliberately stand in his way causing a collision. He could be seen not at fault as he should have stopped and not run into me or I could be seen as the idiot for causing the collision by obstructing his path.

        I think the voting was partly a knee-jerk reaction after seeing the sheer stupidity by the OP in the video.

        It's a single lane too, OP shouldn't have tried to overtake the other guy.

    • +1 vote
      1. This does not talk about the parallel car park reversing.
      2. Other driver indicated long back that he is parallel parking.
      3. Incorrect judgement to overtake by OP.

      Lesson : Learn to be patient while on road.

  • +12 votes

    I'd say the other driver is technically at fault (reversing driver, didn't take due care), but what you did was plain stupid, as your footage shows you had ample time/opportunity to stop.

    He indicated, pulled to the side, stopped and began reversing. At this point he didn't check or check long enough to notice you weren't stopping.

    You slowed right down, and then decided to make your own lane in an attempt to pass crossing white line.

  • +2 votes

    I guess I was a little impatient.

    Yeah you were.

  • +7 votes

    I'm concerned by the number of people that think the reversing car is at fault.

    •  

      Still waiting for somewhat to link qld driving regs supporting that the op is at fault.

      • +14 votes

        Still waiting for somewhatone to link qld driving regs supporting that the op is at fault.

        Australian Road Rule: 144 (Qld and NSW rules are the same unless otherwise noted.)

        144 Keeping a safe distance when overtaking
        A driver overtaking a vehicle—
        (a) must pass the vehicle at a sufficient distance to avoid a collision with the vehicle or obstructing the path of the vehicle

        Which OP failed to do.

        If you wanted more "regs" to support OP being in the wrong, you could use 148A (and maybe some 146 as well?)

        148A Giving way when moving within a single marked lane
        If a driver diverges to the left or right within a marked lane, the driver must give way to any vehicle that is in the lane.

        Which OP also failed to do.

        • -1 vote

          Hmm, not sure you're interpreting the law correctly there.

          What is the definition of "overtaking" in this context? IMO OP was "passing" not "overtaking" since the other vehicle was stationary (at the point he proceeded to pass, not at the point of the collision).

          As for 148A - this suggests that the other driver (which has diverged to the left within a marked lane) must give way to OP who was in the lane.

          OP was impatient, but IMO was not the at fault driver (as per the law).

          • +4 votes

            @iDroid: From the legislation's own dictionary (which, coincidentally, does not have an entry for "passing")

            overtake, for a driver, means the action of—
            (a) approaching from behind another driver travelling in the same marked lane or line of traffic; and
            (b) moving into an adjacent marked lane or a part of a road where there is room for a line of traffic, whether or not the lane or part of the road is for drivers travelling in the same direction; and
            (c) passing the other driver while travelling in the adjacent marked lane or line of traffic.

            It makes no mention of the speed it is done at or if the other car is stationary or not. If you take your car and go around someone else's car, you are "overtaking".

            As for 148A, OP moved to the right to "overtake" the other car and must give way to "any other vehicle in that lane" while leaving "sufficient distance" and no "obstructing the path" of the other driver.

            •  

              @pegaxs: The driver of the other car was not "travelling", I never mentioned speed. But stationary is not travelling. While it does not explicitly say anything about being stationary, each is referring to travelling vehicles.

              "Passing" was my own term used to differentiate between passing a stationary car vs overtaking a travelling car.

              OP did not overtake. The other vehicle was stationary not travelling.

              •  

                @iDroid:

                The driver of the other car was not "travelling"

                So, they were at home, in front of the TV while their car was in the garage?

                I never mentioned speed

                But you did when you said "the other vehicle was stationary". It's speed reference was "zero".

                "Passing" was my own term

                Yeah, not really how law works…

                OP did not overtake. The other vehicle was stationary not travelling.

                If OP didn't "overtake" and the other vehicle was stationary, how the hell did they collide?
                From the video it certainly looked like OP was trying to overtake the other driver while that driver was moving. I don't know. I'm happy to watch it again if you think the other car wasn't moving and OP was behind them…

                •  

                  @pegaxs:

                  So, they were at home, in front of the TV while their car was in the garage?

                  Oh come on, the vehicle was stationary when OP proceeded to overtake. The word to "travel" or "travelling" means to move from one place to another - that is, "is in motion". The other car was stopped and stationary when OP proceeded to pass.

                  But you did when you said "the other vehicle was stationary". It's speed reference was "zero

                  Err no. You can infer a reference speed of zero, but I specifically said he was stationary. You're implying there was some reference to the rate of movement (ie speed) in response to me saying there was no movement (stationary). See the difference?

                  Yeah, not really how law works

                  Yeah, totally how it works.

                  If OP didn't "overtake" and the other vehicle was stationary, how the hell did they collide?

                  At the point in time when OP proceeded to pass the other vehicle was stationary. OP was in motion and "travelling" when the other car then proceeded to reverse and move into the way of OP (ignoring the moral status of this).

                  So to simply answer your question, they collided because the other car stopped being stationary and started travelling only after OP had started to pass. These are the facts from the video, not an emotionally charged opinion.

                  From the video it certainly looked like OP was trying to overtake the other driver while that driver was moving. I don't know. I'm happy to watch it again if you think the other car wasn't moving and OP was behind them…

                  Yeah, that was after OP had already started to pass. OP was moving forward before the other car moved. Technically the other car collided with OP and was in the wrong. The other car moved into the path of an already moving vehicle that was entirely on the road. The other car was partially on the road and partially on the road side (over half the car over the line) and during his reversing moved into the path of OP. It's how it actually happened. True Story.

                  •  

                    @iDroid: Stationary =/= not travelling. If you are en-route to your destination, you are travelling. If on that journey, you have to stop, this does not negate the fact you are travelling. If I am travelling to work and get to a red light or a stop sign, I have not suddenly stopped travelling, I am still on my journey, albeit with a slight inconvenience.

                    The word travel means to go on a journey. Don’t cherry pick the definition to suit your diatribe. Travelling means out and about in your vehicle, going from one place to another, as opposed to it being at home in the garage.

                    Your original comment was: “I never mentioned speed”
                    Errr, yes. You did refer to a speed, and that speed reference was “stationary”.

                    Nah, that’s not how law works. If there is a definition listed, that is the definition. You can’t just go and say “my own term” or “what I meant was…”. That’s called… “making shit up”.

                    The point in the video that I watched, the other driver was moving as OP was overtaking. Don’t know what video you were watching. If OP wasn’t overtaking and the other car was stationary, this whole thread wouldn’t exist.

                    Do you need me to get some crayons out and some fresh butchers paper to make it easier for you to understand?

                    not an emotionally charged opinion.

                    Oh, I see you edited your snide remark out. So it was emotional then, just not now?

                    •  

                      @pegaxs:

                      Don’t cherry pick the definition to suit your diatribe.

                      Diatribe, ha! Keep it going!

                      Nah, that’s not how law works. If there is a definition listed, that is the definition.

                      It wasn't in the definition listed because it's not referring to passing stationary cars. Read again what I said. It was qualified with "IMO", I made that quite clear.

                      That other car had pulled to the side of the road and stopped. It was not inconvenienced at a traffic light or similar. There was no guarantee they were about to park, they may have pulled over for another reason. (I know that's not the case, but point holds)

                      You can’t just go and say “my own term” or “what I meant was…”. That’s called… “making shit up”.

                      Errr, what the hell are you saying? You're going on like I used the term as part of law. What I'm saying is the definition makes a distinction about vehicles travelling. It does not say just "vehicles" but is quite clear about them travelling. You pass stationary objects no? Do you overtake a stationary traffic light? No, you pass one. I used a term that describes a situation that is not referenced in the road rules you quoted.

                      At what point does a car stop travelling? By your definition my car is taking a journey (travelling) from the factory to the scrap yard. It's just one big journey it's been travelling all it's life. (I'm be obtuse here to make a point - Something stops travelling when its movement stops. The travelling as your using it here is in the abstract sense.)

                      The point in the video that I watched, the other driver was moving as OP was overtaking. Don’t know what video you were watching. If OP wasn’t overtaking and the other car was stationary, this whole thread wouldn’t exist.

                      Really? Did you not see the other car stopped? Then OP proceed to pass, and then after that the the other car started to reverse? If you think different, you need to watch it again - everything else in this discussion is moot unless we can agree on this?

                      You've addressed many things in reply to each of my comments but each time ignore that very specific detail, I'll bold it and put it on its own paragraph:

                      When OP started to pass the other vehicle, it was stationary. It was. It stopped, completely. OP then became impatient and proceeded to pass the other car. After and ONLY AFTER OP started moving did the other car start to move.

                      In fact OP had completely stopped again before the other car collided with him.

                      The order of events actually matter.

                      Oh, I see you edited your snide remark out. So it was emotional then, just not now?

                      My reference to your inability to comprehend? Yeah well you seem more intent on arguing than actually looking at the facts. So I'm not sure if it's comprehension or your MO, hence why I removed it. I'm honestly not sure if you're ignoring the actual details in order to argue, it's just how you work or it's your comprehension?

                      Your entire argument seems to be based on the fact both cars were moving at all times. That's just wrong. That other car was stationary when OP started to pass. Nothing you say and no arguments you make with me over the words I used or what you think I implied will change that. OP attempted to pass a stationary car that then proceeded to move into his path and collide. If you can't agree to that, then there's no point to this discussion, we're talking about different events.

                      •  

                        @iDroid: *sigh*. Have to see if there is a deal on crayons…

                        If it's not in the definition, you cant just make up a definition or manipulate words to suit your narrative. Adding "In my opinion" doesn't make it fact. Trying to pass off you "opinion" as "fact" is called "making shit up".

                        The other car had pulled over and stopped, because the laws of physics determines this. If I am moving forward and then I want to move backwards, I must stop. The other car also had its indicator on, signalling its intent to reverse park, added to this were the reverse lights, which I would say were more of a dead give away that the car was about to move (a fact you keep forgetting to include that goes to showing the other drivers intent). OP only stopped when they realised that there was not enough space, breaking road rule 140 (b) and then remaining there, breaking 144 (a), all because they failed to adhere to 148A.

                        There was no guarantee they were about to park

                        You know, apart from being pulled over to the left, in front of a vacant parking space and those revering lights and the left indicator being on, you mean, apart from all that??

                        And a car stops travelling when you have reached your destination and have completed your journey (ie: after you have reverse parked the car and gotten out). You are trying to colour the word "travelling" to mean "moving" and trying to replace "overtake" with "pass".

                        Then OP proceed to pass overtake
                        When OP started to pass overtake the other vehicle

                        FTFY

                        than actually looking at the facts.

                        I stated the facts. You're the one trying to change or alter definitions to fit your version. You are also trying to force me to say things without reading what I am already saying.

                        Your entire argument seems to be based on the fact both cars were moving at all times

                        Never said that. You are the one trying to alter or force fit words or what I say to suit your agenda. (ie: You're taking your version of "travelling" to mean "moving" and replacing it in my sentences.)

                        not an emotionally charged opinion.

                        Making snide remarks, excessive use of bold, condescending tone and three page reply. Yeah, I can see how it's not "emotionally charged".

                        Anyway, this is going around in circles. While ever you have nothing new to add, all this is doing is wasting page space. You have your "opinion", and that's fine. But you're not going to change mine. So, for that reason, I'm out.

                        •  

                          @pegaxs: Wow, who cares what you think I said?

                          The facts I'm arguing about (and you dodge in every reply) was the order of events and if the other car was stationary or moving when OP proceeded to pass (or overtake if you will). OP was actually stationary at the time of impact too. But let's not facts get in the way of a good argument.

                          Everything else is arguing over who used the best words. I'm not massaging words to fit an agenda I only use a word you don't like. The rest of my argument is about the order of events. But you're not interested in the actual events.

                          I give up.

      •  

        No overtaking unless safe to do so
        A driver must not overtake a vehicle unless—
        (a) the driver has a clear view of any approaching traffic;
        and
        (b) the driver can safely overtake the vehicle.
        Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.

        • -1 vote

          Aust. Road Rule 140… Nice. Totally applicable.

        • -3 votes

          No overtaking unless safe to do so

          This is not overtaking. When OP proceeded to pass the other car was stationary. Overtaking refers to travelling vehicles.

          Even if it did qualify:

          (a) the driver has a clear view of any approaching traffic;

          OP had a clear view of approaching traffic (there's a traffic island between them!!)

          (b) the driver can safely overtake the vehicle.

          It was perfectly safe for OP to pass until the other car moved into his path.

          I'm looking at this technically (the law does) not by any moral standing on either party.

    • -1 vote

      I learnt to drive in the UK many years ago. Easiest way to fail the test was to keep going during the 3-point-turn or reversing around a corner parts when cars (or pedestrians) were nearby. We had to stop and wait for the cars or pedestrians to pass by.

  • -1 vote

    No only should the OP be found at fault, but good if he was fined too.

  • +2 votes

    There is a thread buried somewhere here that the insurer told their client that they should've waited, and so the responsibility was share.

    Although really you won't know until you claim.

  • +1 vote

    Unfortunately it looks as though you are to blame. If he's is already reversing then it's a given he would only be looking at his left and not expect anyone to be going through on the right, specially considering how narrow the road is.

    You should have just waited.

    •  

      That passing spot already looks like a tight squeeze. If there were 10 or 50 cars behind OP then according to some here the guy would just be kept waiting until they all passed, meantime a bike could have just come up and taken the spot since he was not moving anywhere and supposed to give way.

      •  

        that place is in Soutbank, a very busy entertainment district, very busy last night especially given a weekend, you are correct, there would have been a steady stream of cars.

    • +4 votes

      UK rules are irrelevant. So I don't know what you are quoting those.

      The Aust. road rules you are quoting are incorrect. The ones that people shouild be quoting is the road rules regarding overtaking and lane sharing.

      I have posted these in a comment above

      OP did not leave sufficient space while overtaking (ARR 144) and then while sharing the lane, failed to give way to other road user (148A)

  • +2 votes

    Man that music is terrible, of course you are at fault….,just because of your music taste

  • +6 votes

    Dash cam isn't clear to me…. Need an MsPaint diagram.

  • +2 votes

    OP should be fined for that terrible music

  • +1 vote

    The fact that you have to ask whos at fault shows you should resit your test.

  • +26 votes

    Are you serious? You had no legal manoeuvre there other than to wait. And apart from legality, show some f***ing courtesy. Driver was trying to park. Wait 10 seconds.

    And then you have the nerve to have a go at the other driver here on OzB and throw in some mild “he can’t even speak English” bs.

    Ffs triggered.

    Guess what, he might not be able to speak clear English, but you don’t know the road rules. So, which is worse?

    • -1 vote

      Ooo triggered.

      Guess what, he might not be able to speak clear English, but you don’t know the road rules. So, which is worse?

      Whilst I get the point you’re trying to make, I can’t help but see the irony of your statement. Would you say that there is a correlation between having an acceptable command of English and understanding the road rules? Keen to hear your thoughts on this.

  • +13 votes

    OP, if I were you, I would run for the first rock to hide under. Also on a personal note, drivers like you make living in our overcrowded cities so much harder.

    • +3 votes

      Slow down the video and you can see the left indicator reflecting on the black suv

      Wasn't safe to overtake on the single lane road, you can't blame the over vehicle not giving way in this senario, he was already reversing, it would mean you will need to cross that solid line and onto the median strip, which you did and shows that was not a safe distance between you and the other party

      You also started the video as you approached the reversing vehicle, showing the full unedited video would probably show you had ample time to stop, and should show they were indicating for an ample amount of time.

      •  

        I could not see it clearly first time, but the video has been taken down now so would have to take your word for it.

        In this case, OP definately should've waited and even trying to use the "other car was reversing, it's their fault" tactic would probably not stand up legally.

  • Top