Who's At Fault: Car Accident Involves Three Cars

Never thought of myself creating a Who's at Fault post as I have always been a safe and good driver. This time is for my friend who got into a car accident that involved three cars. Not going to tell which one was my friend's car to avoid bias.

It happened on a normal two way street with kerbside parking on both sides: At first there is car A reverse parking and car B is approaching from a distance. While car A has reversed more than half of its body into the parking spot, car B is getting close. Seeing car A has cleared enough space on the street, car B does not stop to wait until car A finishes its manoeuvre but decided to keep going. Then at that moment, car A moves forward back onto the street to adjust its position. Car B reacts to that, not by pressing hard on its brakes, but slightly crosses the middle of the street into the opposite way to keep going, because there is no incoming traffic and the middle line is a broken line. Car B misses car A, but unfortunately, car C, does not expect car B coming from its left, seeing there is no car coming from its right, comes out from a driveway of the opposite way at the same time. Car B hits car C, damaging both car's front bumper corner.

Tl;dr: car B avoids hitting car A, which suddenly undoes its reverse parking, crosses the middle broken line slightly into the opposite way and hits car C, which just comes out from a driveway on the other side.

These are the options with reasons (too long to put in the poll):
* Car A - It should not expect traffic from behind is stopped and should check before moving back onto the street.
* Car B - It should be in complete stop and wait until any car in front to finish parking, even though there is enough room to keep going.
* Car C - It should check its left before coming out from a driveway, as the middle line is a broken line, there can be cars coming from its left too.
* All have equal share of responsibility
* Doesn't matter, my friend is always at fault

I tried my best to draw a pic with the Paint program I have
Pic here

Poll Options

  • 6
    Car A
  • 191
    Car B
  • 304
    Car C
  • 1
    All have equal share of responsibility
  • 5
    Doesn't matter, my friend is always at fault

Comments

  • +13

    Please provide MS Paint diagram.

    • Dash Cam footage?

      • My friend does not install a dash cam, I wish he did.

        • Do reveal at the end which one was 'your friend' -

        • That "friend" is actually you OP. Car C.

    • +46
  • +10

    (the OP's post is much better if you listen to this while reading it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK6TXMsvgQg)

  • +36

    Car C. 100%.

    When entering a road from a non road-related area, that car must give way to all cars on the road (regardless of where they are on the road)

    • -6

      But why would Car C be checking its left, which is the direction it is going?

      • +61

        But why would Car C be checking its left, which is the direction it is going?

        Isn't that one of the main things you do when driving - watch where you're going?

          • +4

            @justwii: No, it shouldn't care if traffic is on the other side of the road, but it should see that traffic has now crossed to his side of the road. If they started driving left without looking back at where they were driving after checking right, their defence gets a bit thinner. Guess it depends on the speed and if there was sufficient time to avoid an accident.

            • -2

              @aragornelessar: For the purposes of insurance Car B would be at fault. The accident was caused by their first act of being impatient and overtaking a car that was parking.

              For the sake of argument, let's say there was a court case pending - variables would matter, such as speed, but Car C could argue that it did not see Car B as the event happened after he already commenced coming out of driveway and had no time to act. Yes you should look, but the only way i see contributory negligence is if it can be proven Car C sped out of his driveway - which could be seen as evidence he didn't pause to look.

              • +1

                @ImpulseMan: Nope. Car C is at fault legally and for insurance purposes.

          • +5

            @justwii: I would still (and I actually do) check the left because there might be something other than cars crossing in front of the car, e.g. a careless pedestrian, a cyclist, anything really. Takes a second but can save you a headache.

            • -3

              @snackerjoe: I didn't mean car C should not check its left. If I was in car C, I would check left first, then right, then accelerate. There is no need to check left again after checking right. By the time I finish turning left, I will be looking straight forward, not left anymore.

              • @justwii: You should be looking left before you accelerate… look left, look right, then look left again (where you are going).

      • +2

        give your license back

      • +33

        why would Car C be checking

        found the "friend"

      • +1

        Just imagine C is at a T junction with a stop sign. The rule is always to look both left and right.

      • This question popped into my head when reading.

        I was thinking… The only way this happened is car C didn't look where it turned, it looked only to the right and then started accelerating to the left.

        Now I just want to know that car C is our OPs friend.

        • +12

          I think from the language you can tell OP / OP's friend is Car B.
          It is not Car A, as per how it is written "…Car A, which suddenly undoes its reverse parking" suggests the writer has defensiveness of why Car B swerved.
          Also the detail "Car B reacts to that, not by pressing hard on its brakes, but slightly crosses the middle of the street" - this is subconscious bias in defense of Car B - e.g. "slightly crosses". Additionally, if Car C was OP (sorry, OP's "friend"), why would they have a view on whether Car B pressed hard on their brakes or not? They would just be like "this idiot was on the wrong side of the road"

          There is also subconscious bias in the polls - Car B's one says "even though there is enough room to keep going" to sway you against that answer…. The other two (A & C) only put blame on the driver without a defensive retort built into the language (e.g. Car A should check before moving back onto the street, and Car C should check… there can be cars coming from its left too."

          • @MrFrugalSpend: i will give OP benefit of the doubt and presume he just wants to learn/understand more about it - to gather the correct answer from more info/sources

          • @MrFrugalSpend: You're starting to convince me.

            But I keep thinking about the "not by slamming hard in the breaks" line as a criticism of car B (given that breaking rather than swerving is recommended in most accident situations? Precisely because B might cause another accident.

            Still believe C didn't look where they were going.

            But then again, my own driving problem llss) leaves much to be desired. So perhaps you're right.

            • @ozbjunkie: Yeah I don't think it is a criticism, it is a level of detail being accounted by the driver of car B - whether that be OP or OP's "friend" - It provides justification for the reasoning "because there is no incoming traffic and the middle line is a broken line." - i.e. OP / Car B is recalling seeing diverting around Car A as a safe option at that point. "Car B reacts to that, not by pressing hard on its brakes, but slightly crosses the middle of the street into the opposite way to keep going, because there is no incoming traffic and the middle line is a broken line."

              OP has created this post, hoping more people would agree Car A should have been at fault because of remorse for swerving 'slightly' onto the wrong side of the road to go past Car A and hitting another car. Thinking about it, it's probably an easy mistake to make and I kind of feel sorry for OP because I could see myself doing that and being angry at Car A for suddenly coming back out (despite them not actually being at fault). If you look at later more recent comments, OP is in disbelief more people don't think Car A is at fault and talks in even more defense of Car B. OP goes on speaking from Car B's perspective:

              Example 1:
              OP: "But if you were in car B, you might reasonably predicted car A's movement was only reversing, not forward, by the time you drive pass it while staying within your lane."

              Example 2:
              whooah1979: Did B indicate and was it safe? I can't tell from the fuzzy image.
              MSPaint: Ask the OP. He was the one driving it :-)
              OP: No not me, I am just helping my friend here.
              OP: Its safe, the road is a long straight road and there was no income opposite traffic.
              whooah1979: If it were safe then we wouldn't be here talking about it.
              OP: It was safe at that moment; unless you are requiring car B to check also for cars like car C trying to get out from driveways?
              whooah1979: Of course. B drove in the wrong side of the road. They should have anticipated that bad thing may happen.
              OP: Don't know, seems more people voting for car C rather than car B?
              whooah1979: Then you have to nothing to worry about. Tell your friend to keep driving on the wrong side of the road because Ozb voted for them.
              OP: No chance for you to blame Car A suddenly sticks its head out?

              Example 3:
              OzHunterNSW: …Vehicle B caused all this mess.
              GeorgeJETson6: YES THE OP is car B & trying to make excuses
              OP: :(

      • +2

        Don't you check left when crossing any road for anything… including pedestrians?
        Think turning left at traffic's light, the traffic is coming right but you would check left to see if someone is crossing the road, or whether is a gap enough for you to left or any number of thinfs

      • +3

        Cyclists, pedestrians, road works. Could be all kinds of obstructions in the road so anyone that pulls out without looking both directions is a fool.

      • Your friend is Car C!

        Cat* C

      • People tell you the truth and you don't like it. Lol

      • That’s like saying not to check the other roads because the signal is green.
        Who knows if there’s going to be another vehicle (e.g. emergency vehicle) popping out when you least expect it.

  • +56

    This time is for my friend

    Not going to tell which one was my car

    Got you op

    • +6

      Facepalm…I meant my friend's car, edited, cheers!

    • +4

      P.I. bendanm on the case.

      • +9

        No "posting for a friend" story is safe.

      • +1

        Never thought of myself creating a Who's at Fault post as I have always been a safe and good driver.

        Still makes it sound like it's him, fa'sho.

  • +2

    when did WAF become a thing?

    • +7

      JRN

      • +2

        WTF is even WAF? And JRN… I'm getting too old for this internet slang txt speech shit…

        • +5

          WAF - Who's At Fault
          JRN - Just Right Now

          YMBAOF

        • +1

          Also "wife acceptance factor" so I can see how you might be confused.

  • +7

    No dashcam? B was driving on the wrong side of the road. 50/50 fault between B and C.

    • +5

      You are allowed to drive on the wrong side of the road as long as you indicate and it's safe.

      • +1

        as long as you indicate and it's safe.

        Did B indicate and was it safe? I can't tell from the fuzzy image.
        https://files.ozbargain.com.au/upload/184008/84539/paint.jpg

        • Ask the OP. He was the one driving it :-)

          • @Muzeeb: No not me, I am just helping my friend here.

        • Its safe, the road is a long straight road and there was no income opposite traffic.

          • +3

            @justwii: If it were safe then we wouldn't be here talking about it.

            • @whooah1979: It was safe at that moment; unless you are requiring car B to check also for cars like car C trying to get out from driveways?

              • -4

                @justwii: Of course.

                B drove in the wrong side of the road. They should have anticipated that bad thing may happen.

                • @whooah1979: Don't know, seems more people voting for car C rather than car B?

                  • +5

                    @justwii: Then you have to nothing to worry about.

                    Tell your friend to keep driving on the wrong side of the road because Ozb voted for them.

                    • @whooah1979: No chance for you to blame Car A suddenly sticks its head out?

                      • @justwii: Vehicle A didn't hit B nor C. They are not a party to the accident. However, they may be a good witness. You should give them a call.

                    • @whooah1979: That was awesome (23.45)

              • @justwii: Always anticipate

              • @justwii: I do expect it from careful drivers.

      • +1

        Not if it's double unbroken lines

        • This

      • +2

        I would say the fact that car B collided with another car while driving on the wrong side of the road is a pretty good indication that it wasn't safe.

  • -2

    car A moves forward back onto the street to adjust its position.

    If A knew how to parallel park properly they would not have had to renter the road and thus avoid this situation.

    free lesson

    • +1

      Yeah thats good for car A to learn, but do you think car B should stop until car A finishes?

      • +1

        What speed was car B going and how far out into the other lane was car B?

        • +14

          By two whiskers according to the image.

      • +2

        Yes car B should stop until car A finishes parking, I failed driving test because I was not wait until car A finish parking.

  • Car B can be partially at fault if speed is involved. Typically if an area is 50 or 60 kph these days many drivers think they are amazing drivers (NOT) and do 70 to 80.

  • +11

    There's whole for all three drivers.

    Car A needs to give way (both while reversing AND reentering the road to readjust)
    Car B needs to be driving slow due to a traffic hazard.
    Car C needs to give way to all vehicles.

    There are some undisclosed variables. Indicating, speed etc.

    NOT Legally speaking, I can only give you my opinion that all three share fault with C bearing the brunt of it.

    • +2

      Car C needs to give way to all vehicles.

      Is giving way the right argument for Car C? Car B came on the wrong side of the road and pretty sure they did not indicate.

      • +7

        Car C has a responsibility to give way until it's safe for them to enter the road. It wasn't safe. I'd huess they didn't look left before turning left.

        • +7

          It was safe until Car B swerved into Car C's lane without indicating.

          • +1

            @BuyOrNot: If you're driving along and there's a pile-up in front of you, doesn't matter who caused it - if you didn't leave a safe distance to stop and crash into it, you're deemed at fault aren't you? I've not experienced it myself, but that's what I've heard.

            Would come back to the speed of it happening and did Car C have time to react? Or were they not paying attention?

            • +5

              @aragornelessar: Yes I agree.

              I believe Car C might not have had the time to react but since there is no video, I want to give the benefit of the doubt to C since all this could have been avoided if car B was patient enough to wait.

              • +2

                @BuyOrNot: I had assumed, perhaps mistakenly, that Car B was on the other side of the road for some length of time and Car C impacted before it was fully in the lane.

                I hadn't considered the situation where Car C was already fully in the lane before Car B suddenly swerved. So under that circumstance, yeah sure, I wouldn't consider C to hold any fault.

                I guess the devil is in the details.

        • +3

          If I am coming out a driveway to my left , I check right first , wait till it's clear then slowly merge whilst looking in the direction of my travel (left in this case)

          In this context I would not be expecting a car to come into my Lane in front of my car as I am merging onto the road. (Nobody would)

          The issue here is with driver B being impatient , yes ultimately driver B is "entitled" to cross to the other side if it is clear but they also have to do so knowing they have enough vision of any potential "risks" associated with said manuever.

          In this case driver B was a retard and clipped into driver C (with speed also a factor as a likely scenario).

          I could be wrong and it could have been driver C that just clipped driver B due to in-attention , but the reality of the matter is…the accident would not happened if it were not for Driver B's initial reaction to driver A.

          The true "who is at fault" lies with Driver B.

          In Australia , you drive for other people not for yourself.

          As a motorcycle rider as well as a car driver it is my job to take calculated risks every second I am on the road , whether I am in the right or in the wrong it does not ultimately matter so the decisions i have to make always cater to prevent the worst possible outcome even in the most trivial of situations.

          And this situation…is completely trivial and this "accident" should not of happened at all if drivers were more patient and more observant and actually cared about the ramifications of their actions.

          • +1

            @[Deactivated]:

            In this case driver B was a retard and clipped into driver C (with speed also a factor as a likely scenario).

            We can continue to play the guessing game…

            Driver B was at an almost standstill and driver C didn't look where they were going and ran into B. With the details that were given, we just don't really know.

            And this situation…is completely trivial and this "accident" should not of happened at all if drivers were more patient and more observant and actually cared about the ramifications of their actions.

            Yes.. So yes. This!

            The vast majority of errors are unforced errors and shouldn't happen to start with. But we're human and unfortunately, not everyone carries the same level of care for the safety of others.

    • +3

      For C it depends entirely on when they started pulling out and when B crossed the middle line and whether B indicated. B should have been going at a low speed given the traffic hazard.

  • +7

    Personally I think it's car B. Yes Car C has to give way to all cars but at the same time it seems like car B swerved and it was a fast movement, one that Car C really may not have been able to reasonably predict.

    Car B however, should have been more able to perceive hazards in their way- ie. Car A that could drive back out onto the road during their parking procedure. They maybe should have slowed or came to a stop even until it was obvious Car A had finished.

    • -4

      But if you were in car B, you might reasonably predicted car A's movement was only reversing, not forward, by the time you drive pass it while staying within your lane.

      • +3

        predicted

        The word is anticipate. The process is Scan > Anticipate > Respond.

      • +4

        a. If they had to come back out, it must not have been a good attempt at a park which an approaching car would have been able to see
        b. Typically you wouldn't go until you saw they had stopped, you said Car B didn't stop and wait.

        What's more likely to you? A car that's doing a parallel park a bit badly, coming back out of their space onto the road in front of you to recorrect or a car that's turning left that has a car swerve onto the oncoming side as you turn? I'd be more likely to expect the former rather than the latter. The latter is more of a hazard to expect than the first one.

  • Car C which one was ur friend if you dont mind me asking?

  • +9

    Car B should not have moved until car A was done with their full move and fully off the road.

    If car B had of waited he would not have needed to cross the road and into car C.

    always be patient.

    • Would you not blame car A for re-entering onto the main road before checking if there is any car approaching?

    • +5

      Wrong. Car A must give way to Car B.

      If Car A was reversing, they must give way. (Aus. Road Rule: 296)
      If Car A were moving forward out of the spot to reposition, they must give way. (Aus Road Rule: 87)

      • Wrong. Car A must give way to Car B.

        Yes, but being right doesn't mean you're being smart, as shown in ops situation.

        Being smart is what will save you, not just being right.

        • I wasn't saying "don't be smart", I am saying what a drivers "legal responsibility" is. "Legal responsibility" trumps "being smart" when the inevitable happens.

          What "should" have happened is that Car A should have "been smart" and stayed in place until it was safe to move, because that is what the road rules tell them they must do.

          What would have caused less headaches is that Car B should have just let Car A drive like a dunce until it was safely parked. But you know, 30 seconds of inconvenience and all…

          • +1

            @pegaxs:

            "Legal responsibility" trumps "being smart" when the inevitable happens.

            What "should" have happened is that Car A should have stayed in place until it was safe to move, because that is what the road rules tell them they must do.

            Yes, I don't disagree. While car A has the legal responsibility to give way, in this situation, car A will not have the legal responsibility for the damages in the insurances eyes.

Login or Join to leave a comment