Mate had an accident over the weekend.Can someone advise on who’s at fault? The dash cam car or the other party. He’s claiming the bus blocked his view.
His claim: “As evident from the footage, I was exiting the mall, with a bus parked to my right . I slowed nearing the exit. The other party was speeding , changed her lane just past the bus, without even having the indicators on.”
Car Accident over The Weekend
Poll Options
- 497Dashcam car
- 10The other party
Comments
100% correct!
Its not even that dashcam man can't see. Mofo t-boned that red car. Case closed.
I'm going to make an unpopular opinion, and say the red car is almost as guilty. The red car was NOT speeding, but they certainly were driving unsafe. Why would you change into a lane that you cannot see?! There is an element of blame shared here.
-If we substitute that dashcam car with, let's say little debbie, well the fault would be 100% on the red car.
-In contrast, if we keep the dashcam car pulling out and substitute the red car with, let's say a little debbie on her bicycle, now the fault would be 100% on the dashcam car.…so yeah, two dummies here
You need to watch the video again if you think the red car changed into a lane they can't see. The bus is in a bus cut out off the main road for a start and the red car didn't change lanes, or if it did, it was completed by the time it reached OP’s car (A lane change that it would totally be legally allowed to do.)
This is entirely OP’s “friend’s” fault. That red car did nothing other than be on the road.
And, if Little Debbie was in the dash cam car position and walked/rode off the footpath and into the side of the red car, she would be at fault. Bicycles are treated as vehicles under the road rules and pedestrian can’t just walk off footpaths and into the sides of moving vehicles without repercussions/consequences.
The red car moved from one clear lane to another clear lane. The bus was in the bus bay, not in the lane.
The only one that did something wrong was the dashcam owner that pulled out without giving way.
tough one, but red car is entitled to change lanes. in regards to indicator, your mate didnt even see the car.
its your (mates) fault. or maybe proportioned 50/50Your mate entered a road when it was unsafe to do so. They are at fault.
Asked for a "mate"
Amazing take there champ.
Does "a mate" have insurance ? 😃
The other person may not be a great driver not indicating or what not, but they have priority because they're on the main road. The dashcam driver is trying to turn into the main road, so they're supposed to give way. A bus blocking the way is not an excuse to not give way.
When turning left onto a road, everyone has the right of way over you, not just the people in the left most lane. This lesson is as old as the hills, but everyone does it all the time so they can turn earlier, and many people are courteous to people trying to turn in, however courtesy won't get you off in court.
Funnily enough, the red car just keeps going all the way around the corner. It seems like the guy in the dash cam car could have just drove off and the other guy would have been left with the bill.
In VIC im pretty sure you can turn left onto the road IF its 3+ lanes each way AND the 2 left lanes are clear of traffic.
Yes that was the same in NSW, you need at least the lane you are turning in to and the next lane to be free, but I didn't bother specifiying as this is only a 2 lane road. I'm familiar with that road and it's just lazy that this bloke didn't go slow enough to check his "blind spot" (using the term generally)
@Jackson: IKR. OP would have had better luck with an mspaint, rather than showing what actually happened.
I just hope OPs "mate" doesn't make up some BS and get partial blame apportioned to the red car.
@Lurk Hartog: It's pretty niche as far as the rules go, but it was common knowledge when I got my license.
I had a quick look (5 minutes) and I couldn't find it either, but I did find something that said "if you are turning left, you need to give way to all traffic from your right". If you apply that, if means you technically can't turn left into any lane unless traffic is clear, which is even "worse" than the rule. I presume it's because in an at fault accident, you are responsible regardless of what the person coming from the right is doing (within reason). no witness is going to be able to say for sure if someone was not indicating and crossing lanes at the time, meaning even if someone coming from your right was crossing lanes, if they are indicating they are not at fault and you must give way
The speed limit on that stretch of road (Kiora Rd) is 60, they were not even close to speeding. Your friend pulled into a car, dashcam owner is at fault.
100%, no shared blame evident here
Hahaha, he literally ran into the side of a moving vehicle, and thinks he isn't at fault?
It's hilarious hey. It's nice of him to turn over the evidence to prove he is at fault to the other party though. :D
why is it dated 9/10
No they edited the post and removed the link to the video, that'll solve it LOL oh whoops what's this
Thanks to OP I today found out you can view OzB post revision history.
Removing the video is pretty suss, pretty sure OP is the driver
T-boned by dashcam car!
Your mate may as well start writing out a cheque for his insurance excess as he/she is done for
I've been the red car in a similar but mirrored situation (although I was in a Troopcarrier with a bullbar and not changing lanes). Woman tried to cross both lanes in front of a stopped bus without being able to see me doing 50 ish in the other lane.
T-boned the little rental hatch she was driving with her kid in the back. He was ok. Not sure if she ever learned her lesson but it didn't cost me a cent.
It cost your time to take the car to get fixed and devaluation of your vehicle
devaluation
What
I was in a Troopcarrier with a bullbar
Scratch on the bullbar, not going to devalue a Troopie.
The bullbar was bent but not the mounts, I think it was an hour or two for them to replace it and put my spotties back on.
Pretty sure I just used the spare troopy or another one of the family cars that day and got my mum to do the legwork haha.
We're going back 20 years here.
Steel bars on the front of vehicles are banned in most countries for a reason. Lucky the kid survived and didn't end up getting his skull smashed by your bars. Still the important thing seems to be that it didn't cost you a cent.
I'm sure I would have been concerned if anyone got hurt.
Not sure if you've ever driven or lived outside of a metro area but unlike most countries we have these things that bounce in front of vehicles at dusk and dawn that tend to destroy cars if you don't have some type of metallic based protection.
But it is true, I do also hate children.
Let insurance sort it. both are bad drivers.
Realistically, both drivers need to pay an excess and that's it.
Entering from private property or driveway: give way to everything.
LOL… The bus? Why do you even need to post this as a question?
Road Rule #74 applies here "enter a roadway from a road related area…"
He’s claiming the bus blocked his view.
Bus is parked legally.
I slowed nearing the exit.
Well, that is a blatant lie from the video footage I have seen… After they went over the speed hump, there is no indication in the video that they even tried to slow down.
The other party was speeding
No they were not. It takes 1 second from where the front of the car appears to when the back of the car appears. Working on an Outlander being about 4m long, we can estimate that the speed they were traveling was somewhere between 14 ~ 16km/h. Well below the 40~50km/h limit for that area.
changed her lane just past the bus
No they didn't. They were in that lane the whole time in the video
without even having the indicators on
Don't need to have it on. You only need to indicate when you have intent to change lanes not during the whole change procedure.
Ergo, your friend is full of shit.
Google Maps Streetview for reference.
InB4: Disabled account + deleted video
No they didn't. They were in that lane the whole time in the video
Gees you’re right, it’s an indented bus bay.
InB4: Disabled account + deleted video
I’m here for this.
Well, part 2 “deleted video” has been made. OP has removed the link to the video from the post.
Just waiting on the “DisabledUser123456” to swing in.
@Muzeeb: I didn’t get that they removed the link but not the video from the link. As soon as I saw there was a video, I uploaded to a mirror site straight away because I knew it was going to go south and get deleted.
@Muzeeb: your mate is at fault - he didn't even hesitate about pulling out and hit the side of the red car
the impact point is important - if he was fully out and the red car hit the side of his car, then I'd blame the red driver
but yeah nah your mate looks to be in the wrong here - entering a roadway, failing to take due care, failure to give way to the right
if that was me I would hesitate at the kerb and then nudge out slowly allowing oncoming cars from the right to see me and avoid
but your mate just punched right out across the lane and hit a passing car on its side - you(r mate) is in the wrong
the impact point is important - if he was fully out and the red car hit the side of his car, then I'd blame the red driver
If the DC car didn’t allow enough space for the red car to react it’s still ‘failure to give way’. Even if the red car did have time to react you still can’t pull out and cause the other car to take evasive action.
His friend is in the red car that gets driven into, not behind the dashcam.
The way OP puts it, it sounds to me like their “friend” is in the dash cam car…
“I was exiting the mall”
“Bus blocked my view”
“Other car was speeding”Yeah, I see how it was worded now mate. Reckon you're right. Had me confused.
From the video it seems the red car did change lane. Both sides did make a mistake but the dashcam car was worse I think? If it's like this then both sides need to pay their own insurance.
A; No, it didn't, or at best it's "inconclusive". (Maybe just moved across a bit to avoid the bus?)
B: Even if the red car did change lanes, it was allowed to change lanes.
C: No, only person making a mistake here is dashcam car (Leave road related area/adjacent land-not give way to vehicle on road . RR#74, $352 fine and 3 demerits)
D: Nope, dash cam car pays all, as they are the "at fault" party. They literally ran into the side of the other car.But thanks for playing :)
Red car driver is still an idiot for changing lanes like that, although not a legally at-fault idiot.
@CommuterPolluter: What are you talking about?? The red car didn't change lanes… The only idiot in that video was
OPOP's "friend". Did you even watch the same video as the rest of us??@CommuterPolluter: Look at the street view image mate. The bus is in an indented parking bay.
The red car did not change lanes and was driving straight.
@Sad Dino: That’s a good point, but the street view camera is literally showing the red car in the outside lane. So they changed lanes after all.
street view camera is literally showing the red car in the outside lane.
100% conclusive there 😂 I like how the red car also swapped badges and chassis too. Only someone at fault would do that!
Thanks for linking to the deleted video. Can't see how dashcam car isn't at fault unless the person viewing the footage is trying to convince themselves the other car is at fault.
Seeing the exit at Google Street View I reckon they should install a mirror there, so people can see behind a bus if it is there.
This one is a no brainer, your 'Mate' is at fault
His claim: “As evident from the footage, I was exiting the mall, with a bus parked to my right . I slowed nearing the exit. The other party was speeding , changed her lane just past the bus, without even having the indicators on.”
His mate is in the car with the dash cam.
The sentence just before what you quoted.
The dash cam car or the other party. He’s claiming the bus blocked his view.
Terrible grammar, made me think he was saying what the other party said.
Now I'm a nonce telling everyone that.
Cube of shame.
@WhatWouldBiggieDo: Oh my… I should probably just stop writing in this thread. It's gone from bad to worse. :P
dashcam car at fault, though if red car changed lane without indicating, they may be held liable for some portion of the blame.
Doesn’t matter. Road rule 74 says that the car coming from the “road related area” must “give way” to all other vehicles “on the road”.
And the video does not show the car changing lanes, and even if it was, by the time it got to OP’s car, it had almost all but completed the change and at that point, the indicator is not required. You only need to signal your intention to change lanes. You don’t need to keep your indicator on for the entirety of a lane change and half way down the road.
OP literally drove off the sidewalk and ran into the side of the other car. In just what way did the red car contribute to this collision.
In just what way did the red car contribute to this collision.
Isn’t it obvious? If the red car wasn’t there there wouldn’t have been a crash.
Oh yeah, I forgot the new revised part of the Road Rules under the "Luck" sub-division…
Aust. Road Rule #404: Wrong place, wrong time:
A driver is to be held proportionally liable in the event of a collision if the driver is found to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.Apparently it's a $564 fine and 5 demerits. Would be a shit place to find yourself in on a double demerits long weekend.
@pegaxs: I searched rule 404 and ‘rule not found’. No wonder not many people know about it. Is it new?
@Euphemistic: I can't tell if you're being serious or not, but 404 is the error code for 'page not found', so it's a joke
which is why the dashcam car is at fault, but that doesn't change the fact that if the other car in the accident does something illegal, they can be held liable for a smaller portion of the blame (and costs involved)
the video does not show the car changing lanes, because the FOV does not cover that far. by the time it has reached the car, yes, it has almost completed the change, but you can change lanes quickly or slowly, there was enough time for a quick lane change.
i'm not saying the dashcam car is not at fault, but if you commit an illegal action just before an accident, that muddies the waters, no matter if the other car shouldn't have been there.
to play the devils advocate, if the red car was visible in the right lane, and changed to the left lane, without indicating, they would share a larger portion of the blame.
that doesn't change the fact that if the other car in the accident does something illegal
Ok, point out to me where the red car in the video did anything illegal…
the video does not show the car changing lanes
Ergo, it's entirely possible that it wasn't. And even if it was, it was legally entitled to do so.
but if you commit an illegal action just before an accident
What "illegal" action did the red car perform? You keep saying "illegal" but are yet to produce anything that indicates what the red car was doing was "illegal". So far, you are riding off "changing lanes" (that is totally hearsay) which the red car was legally entitled to do.
if the red car was visible in the right lane
"IF"… But you see… it wasnt. And even if it was, the red car is "allowed" to change lanes.
without indicating
We have absolutely no proof of this whatsoever. And the road rules state that you must signal your intention before moving from one lane to another, not that you must indicate the entire change and then a little extra, "just to be safe"… So, even if the red car did change lanes, it may have indicated its intentions further back along the road in accordance with RR#46
they would share a larger portion of the blame.
No, they wouldn't. The road rule broken here is RR#74. It clearly states that the car entering from the road related area MUST give way ANY vehicles "traveling" ON THE ROAD. It has no exception stating "unless that vehicle is changing lanes, then feel free to t-bone them".
So, I'll ask again… HOW did the red car contribute (not assumptions and hypotheticals) and WHAT did the red car do that was ILLEGAL (actually illegal not "hypothetically")?
Ok, point out to me where the red car in the video did anything illegal…
really?
Ergo, it's entirely possible that it wasn't. And even if it was, it was legally entitled to do so.
it is possible, i am just going off what the poster said, i have no skin in the game, so i don't really care if they're telling the truth (or if their friend is), so i will base my comments on the assumption that they are telling the truth.
What "illegal" action did the red car perform? You keep saying "illegal" but are yet to produce anything that indicates what the red car was doing was "illegal". So far, you are riding off "changing lanes" (that is totally hearsay) which the red car was legally entitled to do.
according to the post, a lane change without indicating. so far, you are riding off "it totally indicated at the start" (that is totally assumption)
"IF"… But you see… it wasnt. And even if it was, the red car is "allowed" to change lanes.
your whole premise is based on "if", fact is, neither you nor i know what actually happened, as it was outside the cameras view.
We have absolutely no proof of this whatsoever. And the road rules state that you must signal your intention before moving from one lane to another, not that you must indicate the entire change and then a little extra, "just to be safe"… So, even if the red car did change lanes, it may have indicated its intentions further back along the road in accordance with RR#46
that's true, we also have no proof that the red car indicated at the start of their lane change, either, so if we are going off what we have proof of, the rest of your comment is irrelevant.
No, they wouldn't. The road rule broken here is RR#74. It clearly states that the car entering from the road related area MUST give way ANY vehicles "traveling" ON THE ROAD. It has no exception stating "unless that vehicle is changing lanes, then feel free to t-bone them".
which is why i didn't say all the blame.
you know what else the road rules don't say? they don't say to feel free to change lanes without indicating, because the other cars must give way to you.
So, I'll ask again… HOW did the red car contribute (not assumptions and hypotheticals) and WHAT did the red car do that was ILLEGAL (actually illegal not "hypothetically")?
then you shall not receive an answer, because your comment is based on assumptions and hypotheticals ("they actually did indicate at the start").
is this the part where i get the trash dove version of my comment?
really?
Yes, really and treally. Anywhere in the video that the red car did anything illegal to cause OP to run into them. Anywhere…
it is possible
Then that is all.
i am just going off what the poster said… so i will base my comments on the assumption that they are telling the truth.
That is hearsay and OP is blatantly lying when confronted with the video that contradicts what OP is saying.
according to the post, a lane change without indicating.
You have proof of this? Or more hearsay bullshit from OP? You cant even confirm if the red vehicle was even in the other lane, or do you just have to use your left indicator the whole time you are traveling in the left lane?
your whole premise is based on "if"
No it isnt. My whole premise is that it doesn't matter what the red car did leading up to the collision, as OP broke RR#74. In the video it clearly shows the red car in the left lane upon impact. YOUR whole premise is based on "if" and road rules don't work on "ifs"
we also have no proof that the red car indicated at the start of their lane change
We don't NEED proof of that, because that is between the red car and the cars behind them during the start of the lane change. Not for OP, as OP has to "give way" to ALL VEHICLES on the road (regardless of what lane or lights they are/are not showing). So, yes, it is irrelevant, but not for the reason you think it is.
which is why i didn't say all the blame.
So, you are still saying "some" and basing that on hearsay and this mystical "illegal" thing the red car was doing at the time… that you cant say and cant prove.
they don't say to feel free to change lanes without indicating
Correct, but then again, you cannot "prove" that the red car didn't use it's indicators or was even in the right lane. So this point is moot.
then you shall not receive an answer
I know I wont, because you cant come come up with anything substantial other than basing it on hypothetical "if" or OP's "lies".
"they actually did indicate at the start"
Where did I say this? I have no proof of this and would not say they did unless I had proof. What I said was that it is entirely possible that by the time the red car was hit, it had completed its lane change and that if it did use its indicator, it would have have been further back down the road, not that they did use it, but that it would have been used at the start of the lane change, not after they had finished it, and even all of this is based on IF the car even changed lanes, which we also cannot prove. Cant prove = didn't happen.
So, again, what did the red car "actually" do in the "video" that was illegal and contributed to this t-boning? (Not hearsay, not lies, not based on OP's 2nd hand version of events told to them by someone trying to colour their version to suit.)
@[Deactivated]: In NSW you have to have both lanes clear before entering. So even if the other driver did change lanes and with out indicating this does not remove fault from the dash cam car.
I'm actually scared that there are 2 people who picked 'the other party'
Dashcam car literally drove into a car who was already on the lane they wanted to turn into.
I’m actually scared that there are 2 other people who picked ‘the other party’
Trolls gonna troll.
dashcam driver is wrong but the troll in me is strong
I’m actually scared that there are people defending that the red car contributed to this collision… Yep, there are people here who think that the car that got t-boned contributed to this and should pay a portion of the damage repairs.
red car definitely had right of way, and dash cam car is fault, but could have been completely avoided by either car. red changed lanes without clear vision. youve never done a defensive driving course?
edit: i didnt look clearly enough. rewatched the video. bus was in bus bay. red car was in left lane. my apologies!No such thing as ‘right of way’ in traffic law. Red car not in the wrong, but the dash cam we definitely required to give way.
red car was in left lane. my apologies!
No problem :) The entire video is at absolute odds with what OP said happened, so I ignored what OP said and relied on what the video told me. There are plenty of people in this thread who didnt watch the video and just based their opinions on what OP said.
ok wrong of way
"obligation to give way". Australian road rules are based on the premise of "giving way" not "right of way".
Dash cam at fault. Little roads give way to main roads.
I don't know that area, but if you see a big/ truck/ something that may block your view, pull up very slowly and look at traffic behind the bus, instead of waiting till where the collision occurred to look.It’s not even a “little road”, it’s a driveway from private property. They have to give way to everything, including the footpath (also as shown on the video, though sign not required as this is the law when exiting private property).
Lucky it was only a love tap to a car, could have killed a cyclist.
What is up with those red mags?
miranda westfields
hate that spot. dashcam driver is wrong though
Not surprised.
"without even having the indicators"
What exactly do indicators mean?
If an approaching car is indicating they'll turn left before they get to you, but they don't slow down.
Do you:
a. Go.
B. WaitSame thing when you're approaching a green light intersection going straight, you see an oncoming car turn right across your path, and there are other cars behind it. You have right of way, do you proceed with caution or plough on ahead at speed?
You were entering a roadway, so you are at fault.
I will always remember getting shouted down and told I was wrong by all and sundry in one of these "who was at fault" questions some time ago when I said a vehicle that had driven across a solid white line onto an area marked as a traffic island, then had a collision as re-crossed the solid white line and re-entered the road, was the one that was in the wrong because it was "entering a roadway" and had to give way. That it was irrelevant that the law allows you to drive a short distance over an area marked that way to join a turning lane. The over-riding rule was that a vehicle entering a roadway always has to give way to any vehicle on the roadway.
What a long way of saying the same thing.
I voted for dashcam car purely based on the claim in op.
No need to watch the video.
Edit: ok, I watched the video. lol. Tell your "mate" to get off the bloody road. What a w@nker.
To those three morons who voted for the other party, please kindly surrender your driving licence and/or re-sit the licencing exam.
+1 for having a dashcam
-1 for failing to give wayI always see the "I couldn't see, so I let Jesus take the wheel". If you can't see, stop.
Sharing that dash cam footage simply helps the red car. Good work, OP.
He should give way. If bus is blocking the view then he should wait.
The dash cam car is taking a gamble entering the road when he can't see.