Who Is at Fault with This Highway Incident?

Hi everyone,

Just wanted to collect some opinions with regards to this incident.

For context, had an eager SUV (passes in the right lane following crash) behind so decided to return to the left lane as per 'left unless overtaking' rule.

Blue vehicle pulled out pretty much after I had four tyres into the left lane going about 10kmh while I was travelling at 95. The combined effort of me slamming the brakes and my vehicle's presence feature managed to significantly decrease the amount of damage. Might only need a new bonnet and front grill.

From my perspective I believe my response time was not too bad given I had just completed a head check before moving into the lane. Perhaps I made a poor assumption that the car would stick to the emergency lane to speed up before merging behind me?

Just looking for some insight from others whether I am in the clear.

And yes both vehicles have insurance.

ETA: There is indeed a give way sign there

Update 9/01/2021:

Just wanted to send thanks to all who've posted their perspectives here. While there does seem to be a clear majority of opinion in terms of driver at fault, I find myself agreeing with some individuals who believe I could have been driving more defensively. There definitely is a delay in the time it took for me to brake.

To be clear, there definitely was no distraction involved. On reflection, my view is that in the moment one of two things (or a combination) crossed my mind leading to me not slamming the brakes immediately as I saw the car start to move. And yes these are both poor assumptions that should not be made while driving.

  1. As this was an unfamiliar road, an assumption might have been made that there is a small on-ramp there for vehicles to get up to speed before merging and hence it would likely merge behind me.

  2. The vehicle would get up to speed within the emergency lane before getting on the actual freeway and, as above, merge behind me. Happy to be corrected but I would have suspected this might have been standard procedure where an on-ramp is not provided. I certainly did this when merging back on the freeway following the incident to head home.

However, I personally would still maintain that the blue should be found at fault. Regardless, this is a definitely a lesson learned for a younger driver like myself and possibly others who have followed this thread.

In terms of insurance, they seem tentatively confident that we are in the clear and there is no word on whether the other party is looking to dispute anything. Following the crash itself they also seemed to be somewhat accepting that they had made a mistake. Also I am absolutely thankful I had a dashcam installed as otherwise there really wouldn't have been a way to prove anything but I hit a car from behind.

P.S Those looking for an update for my previous post with Adam's debacle, I've updated it in the comments.

Comments

  • +5 votes

    Yaris at fault, but OP drives like a dick.

  • +17 votes

    Back in the dinosaur age when I got my license, I distinctly remember the instructor emphasising the 'fact' (they said) that in VIC the 'LAW'/road-rules were that before turning onto any larger/main road (like a freeway etc.), you had to have at least TWO clear lanes where you were turning into; not just one. Presumably, for this exact reason (i.e. to avoid smashes between a car entering the main drag and car changing lanes on it at speed). I wonder if this is still the case?

    As a 'thankful aside', that dude in the little blue car is lucky that cars are much better now that they were even just a decade or so ago … otherwise they might easily have been accidentally shunted into and pulverised by that massive truck that 'nervously' passes on the right just after the impact …

    I'll be interested to see what the TAC makes of your footage.

    Please post back about the outcome, I'm sure that many of us would love to know what it is!

    • +6 votes

      Got my license in the last decade and my instructor told me the exact same thing: never assume cars in the right lane will stay in the right lane.

    • +1 vote

      I'll be interested to see what the TAC makes of your footage.

      What is there to make of it? I did this day in, day out before as a claims assessor and liability assessments were the first part of every claim. It's a clear case of the Yaris not giving way.

      •  

        Yo bobs, re:

        It's a clear case of the Yaris not giving way.

        I suggest that it is not that 'clear cut', because if you watch the footage carefully, in fact the two cars 'merge into each other'; because one is changing lanes at the same time that another is entering onto that same road. Hence my question about the law and two clear lanes, not just one. What if this Yarris driver states:

        "I carefully checked to my right for a couple of seconds to make sure the lane was clear, then I carefully checked to my left for a couple of seconds to make sure there was no obstruction there, then I proceeded onto the carriageway."

        ?

        That doesn't 'sound' unsafe/incorrect, but in this current situation, even if Mr Yarris had done that this accident would certainly still have occurred. Again, hence my question about the law and two clear lanes, not just one.

        • +2 votes

          It is clear.
          The Yaris is entering. They MUST give way.

        • +1 vote

          Just a heads up, but I'm sure you already know, and like it, but,

          Yo bobs

          making up nicknames for people makes you come across as extremely condescending.

        • +2 votes

          I'm going to assume you're asking a serious question here.

          There isn't a specific rule about individual lanes, but the Give Way rules (for an intersection) cover that by saying that a driver must give way to vehicles approaching that intersection. Note that it doesn't distinguish between vehicles in different lanes, so it's ALL vehicles. (ROAD SAFETY ROAD RULES 2017 - REG 69)

          There is nothing stopping you from turning out into traffic if one lane is free and you can make it. But if a collision occurs, you will be held liable as you did not "Give Way" - which, funnily enough, is what has happened in this thread.

    • +2 votes

      My instructor told me the same. I don’t believe it’s a road rule, but his advice was to never pull out unless you have two lanes free.

      Always drive defensively.

      •  

        Wix, re:

        I don’t believe it’s a road rule, …

        I was definitely told that it was, but that was decades ago. I would like someone 'in the know' here to clarify … is this a rule/law, or not? If it is, then the Yarris is nailed/defo' at fault. Open-and-shut resolution. If it is not, then it's going to come down to dodgy/subjective/wanky legal interpretation of what constituted 'reasonable care' in this specific situation, which driver did not observe 'reasonable care', etc. … in which case most likely the best lawyer would win; regardless of any facts or footage.

    •  

      have at least TWO clear lanes where you were turning into; not just one. Presumably, for this exact reason (i.e. to avoid smashes between a car entering the main drag and car changing lanes on it at speed).

      I came to check if this had been posted. Shame it wasn't in one of the first few comments.

      I've also encountered a few crappy drivers who turned left when I was in the 2nd lane, couldn't keep their car within the left lane and I had to evade them.

      •  

        Mmyeah … Do you know the answer re the actual law? To my mind that is what liability hinges on in this particular case. I will be interested to see how many road rules are 'revised' (or completely rewritten/abolished/created) in this new age of dash-cam footage. Such footage certainly is very telling. I reckon it might be even MORE telling with audio … which is absent from the current post …

        •  

          I had a quick Google before posting but didn't find anything.

          •  

            @Scrooge McDuck: Yeah, I had a 'quick look around' too to try and determine the answer re the law in this situation … it's not straightforward …

            BTW MiserDuck, I invite you to vote in the little poll I've just set up … re the displaying or otherwise of the usernames of comment voters …

  • +1 vote

    Blue car is set fault 💯

  • +1 vote

    100% blue Yaris

  • +4 votes

    Blue Yaris had give way sign. Blue Yaris did not give way. Dont be like Blue Yaris.

  • +1 vote

    Down with blue Yaris!

  • +5 votes

    Idle Observation: There probably wouldn't have been a crash if the merging lane was of realistic length.

    •  

      I agree, it isn't the safest merging lane but blue car here is 100 per cent at fault.

      Just also good nobody got seriously hurt but I've learnt the hard way to always expect the unexpected on the road.

    • +1 vote

      That escalated quickly…

    •  

      Yeah, the whole family deserves to die because of that small mistake… Seriously? Even rapists aren't punished that severely.

      •  

        Its okay guys, koala just didn't have his cocoa in the morning. Here you go little one… please forgive him, he did have a horrid year after the bushfires and is still finding his feet.

        •  

          Judging by his name it's another stimulant of plant origin that he needs.

  • +1 vote

    They are… pure and simple.
    They failed to give way to oncoming traffic.

    This is precisely why and how deaths occur in the country. These people pull out and simply commence to drive off at a slow pace, whilst you are in a constant 100k mode.

    These people are not intelligent. lucky you have dash cam footage. But as it clearly shows, they pulled out in front of you.

    What as &^%$#

  • +1 vote

    Blue Yaris

  •  

    Why didn't you brake earlier?

    •  

      Because

      Perhaps I made a poor assumption that the car would stick to the emergency lane to speed up before merging behind me?

      Poor driving.

      •  

        Not as poor as the blue car.

        • -1 vote

          No, they are both at fault. Yaris more so.

          • +2 votes

            @bohn: Both could have avoided the accident but there is no shared fault here. OP was already on the road and a car entered the road without giving way.

  • +1 vote

    Lucky either car was not pushed or did not merge to the left lane where that truck came flying. Both of you should be thankful this is a minor accident, however, blue car is definitely in the wrong.
    I’m pretty sure it is a rule that you don’t enter a road unless both left lanes are clear but can’t be bothered looking it up.

  • +1 vote

    I deduce that a car is at fault and the owner of said car will be liable for insurance costs and their premium will rise. I also foresee the use of dashcam footage as evidence to vindicate the other driver. I shall take your leave now.

    In other matters, that road is woeful to have 100km traffic merging with pretty much stopped traffic and no merging gap. That is definitely an issue.

    • +2 votes

      ..that road is woeful to have 100km traffic merging with pretty much stopped traffic and no merging gap. That is definitely an issue.

      It would be common sense for a competent driver to wait for a big enough gap (not only to be able to get out, but also to be able to match other cars' speeds) before coming out into the main stream of traffic. Even if there was a merging lane like the kind of ramp that merges onto a freeway, the number of people I see that slow down at the end of it before trying to merge just shocks me. I can't help but shake my head. They should be using that ramp to build up speed to match the stream of traffic before merging.

      •  

        Agreed. I generally like to drive fast and can't stand anyone less than 10km below the speed limit (my issue I know) but feel the same as you when I see people driving at 50km whilst still trying to merge into 100km without care of the people who may be incoming (not to mention those behind them who are also merging and are probably more at risk from impact from a car because they also have to go slow).

        • +1 vote

          It's the ones that pretty much stop at the end of the ramp and then try to merge, that bother me the most. They treat it like an intersection with a "turn left at any time with care" sign. Everyone behind them is then forced to merge without the opportunity to match the main traffic speed.

          These drivers are a danger to themselves and a danger to everyone else.

      •  

        On the road point, most of metro Vic, from my experience, have large merging lanes for 100km roads, this gives drivers enough time to build up speeds to join the flow - the fact this road has such a short one (or one which isn't really there) is still an issue.

        I'm curious where this road is if in Mlbn? Doesn't take away from the fact that we still have incompetent drivers.

        •  

          …most of metro Vic, from my experience, have large merging lanes for 100km roads

          In the regional areas, there are plenty of these side streets that merge onto 100km/h+ roads without a merging lane. If there isn't a "merging lane", then it's up to the driver to to wait for a bigger gap and accelerate appropriately after coming out. It's really just common sense. They shouldn't be relying on the drivers on the main stretch to slow down for them.

          I'm curious where this road is if in Mlbn?

          OP doesn't appear to have provided the location, but judging by the video and still image, it looks like a regional area.

        • +3 votes

          Kamikaze Yaris turned from Troups Road North onto "National Highway M8" Rockbank.

          Just one thing though - is the speed limit actually 90?

          •  

            @Baysew:

            Just one thing though - is the speed limit actually 90?

            Looks like your right, but it's not going to make a difference in this case in terms of liability.

  • +5 votes

    100% at fault the Yaris. however very poor defensive driving skills on your part, easily avoidable with better awareness.

  • +3 votes

    Both drivers don't know how to drive their cars.

  • +3 votes

    Blue Yaris 100%.

    This is textbook black and white. Unsure why anyone else is trying to pin the blame/part blame on OP, they were driving at 95 km/hr and Yaris came out late and like a crippled turtle onto a motorway. We can make many conjectures about when braking occurred but there is a lag and just because it ended up with a kiss doesn't mean it wasn't the best case scenario.

    It's very interesting you can literally categorise the people in this thread as either the driver of the Yaris who somehow thought it justifiable to enter the motorway or the OP. Scary.

    Good job for not doing a dangerous swerve and copping it.

    • +3 votes

      I think people underestimate just how fast 95 kph is, and how long it takes for a car going that fast to stop.
      Slowing down that rapidly and moving that slowly on a highway is also extremely dangerous to do. The Yaris driver put everyone on the road around them in serious danger.

  • +7 votes

    Firstly, I believe the Yaris is clearly at fault here with a textbook example of failing to give way.

    However, another factor to consider is that the OP appears to be doing about 6-10 km/h above the speed limit, as that section of the road is limited to 90 km/h, according to the sign 350m (about 13 seconds) before the video starts.

    According to the GPS speed readout, the OP was doing 96km/h, however, counting the video frames and road line markings, it appears that the OP is actually doing 99.75 km/h, which would be almost 10 km/h above the speed limit.

    Source:
    Lane line markings spec is 3m long with a 9m gap between them (so you hit a new line every 12 meters), in the video the OP travelled the distance of 13 lines (156 meters) in 169 frames (30fps=>5.63 seconds), so 156m / 5.63s to km/h = 156m / 1000 / 5.63s * 3600 = 99.75km/h. You can verify the distance in Google Maps, and although the satellite pic of that intersection isn't the best, lane markings on that road are surprisingly precise.

    TL;DR OP appears to be going 6-10km/h above speed limit, what are the insurance implications of this?

    • +1 vote

      OP appears to be going 6-10km/h above speed limit, what are the insurance implications of this

      There are none, unless they can prove a with a high probability that the collision wouldn't have occurred if OP was travelling at the speed limit, rather than slightly over. And even if they are able to prove such, it will likely be in the form of contributory negligence rather than having full liability for the incident.

    •  

      You get my vote for the detailed analysis.

      But I don’t believe OPs speed contributed at all, even if he was going 125km the yaris can see OP and should wait till the lanes are free, cars are free to change lanes there. Must be expected.

  • +3 votes

    Legally it's the fault of the blue car but the dashcam driver really should be more aware of whats ahead of them when changing lanes to avoid this situation.

    •  

      I'm also unsure as to why the OP decided to lane change into LHL where the feeder lane is.

      Most other drivers try and stay out of the feeder lane when driving past them on the highway in order to avoid this exact scenario.

      •  

        Did you read the post?

        •  

          The OP can just do the lane change after the feeder lane and the person behind him can wait..

          Simple.

          •  

            @ankor: Unfortunately there isn’t actually a feeder lane there at all. It’s a simple get on and go hence my thought process as I’ve written about in the update.

            • +1 vote

              @Tekon: ah yes you're right. It's a side road, not a feeder lane. fwiw, I don't think you'd really have been able to stop in time even if you weren't distracted. People who say that you could have stopped in time are underestimating the braking distance required for a vehicle at 90kph and higher.

  • +13 votes

    If oncoming traffic needs to slam the brakes for you, you've failed to give way.

    • -3 votes

      But .. there was no need to slam brakes at all, just slow down the slightest bit. Did you even watch the video?

      • +2 votes

        Did you? Op was doing 95 kph and the Yaris entered the highway at a crawl. How is "slowing down the slightest bit" going to help in that situation? The Yaris clearly forced the dashcam driver to slam the brakes, but the speed difference between the two cars was too great to avoid the collision.

      • +1 vote

        Did you watch it? OP is clearly braking heavily after accounting for reaction time and clear disbelief that someone would decide to pull out like that. Braking at those kinds of speeds most of your speed is lost in the last few metres, so it looks like OP isn't braking that hard but they definitely have their foot on the brake. Technically oncoming traffic shouldn't have to slow for cars coming out of a give way sign at all. Just people do out of courtesy and now some people have taken it for granted that they can just pull out and oncoming traffic will slow for them. The onus is on the person at the give way sign to avoid a collision not oncoming traffic.

      •  

        yikes.

      •  

        Lol even if she had crash Yaris without brakes still Yaris responsibility to cover all, better you do not try next time. Give way means you need wait till It's clear and also Yaris got 1.3 ltr engine so If want you speed up to 100 kms it's take atelast 30 second.

  • +1 vote

    Blue yaris should not have entered the road, even if you were still in the right lane. 100% at fault

  • +1 vote

    100% Yaris. Just because you could have braked earlier doesn't put responsibility on you. Need to give way to all traffic on the road, and that includes if they are changing lanes.

    Was the same thing for me, had someone pull onto the road in front of me and I swerved after a second or two, still had a minor scrape. Still all on them.

  •  

    I would say the blue Yaris is technically at fault but any competent driver could easily have avoided this incident by just slowing down a bit once you saw a potential hazard ahead. There is ample time to do this but no braking was applied at all. This is very poor driving skills and you should probably consider how you operate a vehicle in future. Being 'right' doesn't matter when you could have easily avoided the incident altogether with some common sense and caution.

  • +1 vote

    Hey not at fault OP, what happened to Adam in the end?

  • +2 votes

    Good job on you for not swerving, which could have potentially caused a serious crash with your blind spot.

  •  

    blue car that merged without giving way, 100%.

  • +1 vote

    Who Is at Fault with This Highway Incident?

    With a dashcam, the blue vehicle. Without a dashcam, the white vehicle

    • +1 vote

      Even without DC, it's still the blue yaris' fault.

      • +2 votes

        It's up to what the insurers say. All they see is a driver rear-ending another vehicle.

        • +1 vote

          I wouldn't put it past them to make both parties pay the excess.

  •  

    Have provided an update in the main post.

  •  

    The Blue Yaris is clearly at fault, although this is also a poorly designed intersection (lack of an acceleration lane)

    OP's judgement was not the best but that's down to lack of experience in defensive driving

    A combination of issues but the Yaris driver will be the one forking the bill

  • +1 vote

    The blue yaris is at fault for turning into a lane which was not safe to do so.

    You need to minimise your risk out there regardless of fault.

    1// Look ahead, take note of potential risks (intersections etc).
    2// If performing a lane change, due it well prior to the intersection or do it well after.
    3// Don't let others bully you
    4// You share the road with idiots. Your goal is not to teach these idiots but purely survive.

  • -1 vote

    I personally think the blue Yaris is at fault, but legally I'm not so sure…

    Whilst the Yaris didn't give way, it was fully in the lane at the time of the accident, and it could be argued that OP didn't allow enough space between him and the car in front (the law isn't always fair) because This incident technically didn't happen as Yaris was entering the highway.

    Common sense (and the law) says Yaris should have waited, so chances are the Yaris will admit liability to insurance, and it'll be a open and shut claim.

  • +2 votes

    just seen the 9/1 update (and reviewed the video) - I am impressed that, in such a situation, the only damage is a few scratches and bumps.

    Could you have done it "better"? probably.

    Could the other driver done things "better"? almost certainly.

    But all in all, there was no "major" damage, no massive pile-up, no (serious) injuries (discounting pride ;), and no fatalities.

    All in all, I'd say that is a relatively good outcome.

  • +4 votes

    I'm so sick of all the high horse heroes on OzBargain. The Blue car that got hit is at fault. Doesn't matter if OP indicated or not, doesn't matter if OP used their horn or not, doesn't matter if OP didn't brake quick enough, and it also doesn't matter if OP was slightly distracted. The fact is that the blue vehicle pulled out into a dangerous environment with vehicles travelling at 100km/h and caused an accident. You can argue it all day, but it doesn't change who is at fault here.

    • +3 votes

      A good driver anticipates mistakes by other drivers and compensates for them. While it doesn't mean the OP is at fault, people are pointing out that the collision could have been avoided.

      • +2 votes

        The OP asked who was at fault, not if the collision could've been avoided.

        • +2 votes

          They asked whether, insurance-wise, they were in the clear, and there's some question whether insurance won't push back since they're assholes.

          The OP also wanted opinions, and the great thing about OZBargain is that people are not afraid of giving all sides, however blunt they may be! I believe the opinions expressed in the thread were exactly why the OP asked the question. If they know OZB forums at all, they knew what they were going to get.

          I actually think this thread is quite positive for the OP - they are validated that the other car is clearly at fault, but they also know that they should be more wary of stupid drivers in the future.

      •  

        Adam needs to go on a defensive driving course ;)

        I know someone that had their own insurer decline to renew their insurance after three "not at fault" incidents in one year. I once made the mistake of being in their car, and it was very scary, the exact opposite of defensive driving. So it is very possible to technically not be at fault all of the time and have insurance become far more expensive to obtain.

  • +1 vote

    I agree with the majority.

    The Yaris is definitely at fault in the accident.

    But TBH a bit of awareness by OP and anticipation would have avoided the accident and this whole discussion.

  • +2 votes

    OP could have avoided the accident, but for insurance purposes the blue Yaris is entirely at fault.

  • +1 vote

    100% the blue Yaris is at fault.

    For me it doesn't matter if the cars are in the right lane or left lane, if I'm pulling into a 100km/hr road I'm waiting until BOTH lanes are clear.. I don't know how quickly your vehicle can brake but people really need to apply common sense while driving.. there's no harm in waiting a few seconds for a massive truck to pass by.

  • -2 votes

    For context, had an eager SUV (passes in the right lane following crash) behind so decided to return to the left lane as per 'left unless overtaking' rule.

    You should have been on the left if you were not overtaking anyway! And are you certain the SUV was being eager? It doesn't appear so as even after you successfully change your lane, he isn't even in your frame till you have covered about 5 lane markings - that's more than a 3 second/chevron gap the SUV was maintaining.

    My verdict, I think yous are going to go halfsies. I eagerly await @pegaxs opinion on this.

    • +1 vote

      Common sense has to apply in this situation. You see a big truck coming at 100kmph and you're coming in from a side street, just wait the extra few seconds before merging. Didn't look like it was a busy highway at all. Sure 99.9% of the time you're safe, but if you get hit then it could be lethal. Regardless of whether it was a legal merge or not, it doesn't hurt to practice a bit of patience and safety. Not sure why everyone has to drive so impatiently. Something I always notice is eager drivers coming in from side streets sticking their nose out onto the main road and blocking the pathway in the left lane.. just be patient imo.

      •  

        I am not disputing that.
        I am very curious to what made the OP think the SUV behind him was 'eager' as that is not evident from the video. Also the fact that he mentions "indicator going for about 6 seconds before indicident." could easily be misconstrued as his intention to turn into the road the Yarris was coming from - doesn't mean the Yarris was safe to merge though.

        • +1 vote

          Happy to clarify. I had overtaken a few vehicles in the right lane but could visibly see the vehicle behind me getting closer and closer over the past minute or so. From there it was pretty clear they were travelling well above the speed limit so I merged left to let them past. While they weren't tailgating, it was pretty obvious they were travelling at a faster speed than I was to overtake cars.

          In terms of the indicator, it was turned off once I had four wheels in the lane. Moreover, I would need an insane amount of downforce to take that turn going 95kmh so I would disagree with 'easily misconstrued'.

        •  

          True, but it would be inconclusive whether he was merging or turning into the side street, in fact that gives me more reason to not try and merge because we really wouldn't know what the truck was going to do then. I still really think it pays to be patient and safe, collectively you'll save more time because if you drive impatiently, you'll end up wasting hours of time repairing your car in the off-chance this happens, opposed to just waiting a few seconds here and there. I don't know the exact driving rule of who was technically right or wrong but regardless it's just safer to wait.

    • +3 votes

      Have linked the dashcam footage from the rear prior to the incident. You can see why I guessed he was a little eager

      https://streamable.com/fq9vsj

      •  

        Busy road.. big trucks.. 100kmph.. driver should have been much more diligent.

  •  

    There is a lot of discussion here which I won't read, but still feel compelled to put in my two cents' worth.

    Indeed you could have been driving more defensively, but I know that section of road along the Western Highway very well, and it's quite apparent to me that you could have ended up with a few B-Doubles up your backside had things gone differently. Count yourself lucky!

    In the end, however, the Yaris is at fault. This is a pet peeve of mine, and I've had several people pull out in front of me like this recently. They have (surprisingly) made the effort to stick to the left lane once they have failed to give way and turned out of the side street, but the fact remains that they have failed to give way. When I sound my horn, I usually get the middle finger or some other kind of retaliation, which is amusing at best, because it's not me who has broken the law, and not me who would be paying my excess if I changed lanes and ran up their backside or into the side of them.

    I've seen this law tested before, where somebody I know learnt the hard way (they did essentially what the Yaris in your situation did) and had to pay up.

    So in essence, the Yaris is at fault for failing to give way to all traffic on the road they were turning in to. Road Rule 69(2) deals with this and states that they should have given way to all traffic approaching the intersection. If the driver of the Yaris were to try and argue that they were merging into your lane, Road Rule 148 also makes it quite clear that they have crossed a line to perform the merge, and MUST give way to people already in the lane they want to merge into. Road Rule 149 deals with the situation where one lane is ending and there is no painted line that the vehicle which is merging has to cross in order to merge. I find this is often misunderstood and have just added it as an aside.

    Good luck anyway. Looks like a minor bingle for a road with a 90km/h or higher speed limit, so again, it could have been a lot worse!

  • +1 vote

    Didn't even have to read the whole post. Just looked at the video. Definitely the other car should have 'given way'.

    • +1 vote

      Same, looked at the video and the Yaris is obviously the one at fault.

  •  

    Also agree that blue car failed to properly give way but the timing of the lane change isn’t great. Blue car probably saw the left lane empty and decided to enter it but didn’t see you make the lane change. However blue car should have just waited for both lanes to be clear before attempting the manoeuvre. A bit average all round. Also you don’t appear to brake until you almost on top of the other car. Getting on the brake a fraction earlier would have avoided the crash.

  • +3 votes

    Agree that the blue car is at fault here, but yes you could also have gotten on the brakes or at least slowed down a lot earlier. I know you explained that it was because you just completed a lane change so fair enough. That highlights another problem I have similar situations like this, I really think that on sections of road like this, there should be a solid line and no lane changing allowed for 200m before and after a T section. Countless times I have been in the blue cars situiation, completely stopped and waiting for a break in traffic to pull out, however there are 2 lanes of traffic. Left inner lane is completely clear so I proceed to pull out and turn my head straight, and then all of a sudden a car in the right lane makes a last second lane change directly where the T is. into the left lane and almost hitting me. Both cars have to be really careful.

  •  

    Yaris at fault, but that was very slow response time.