Saw a coworker's video on a car crash he witnessed on his dash cam. He's given the video to both parties and they've lodged it with their respective insurance companies. Not sure of the outcome.
Who do you think is at fault?
This is in Perth.
Under the merging and changing lanes section, the vehicle in front has right of way, but it appears the truck crosses the line and changes lanes before the two lanes merge into one.
Sorry, was waiting for the youtube video to upload, and hit submit without realising. It's been updated.
https://youtu.be/aWSsxeAfbuw
All good!
It's interesting that your colleague also stopped after the accident. Did he mention whether the vehicles in the prang had working dash cams?
No, he stopped because this was his first crash he's caught on dashcam.
I think trailor guy fault because i can not see any side light working on trailor. And as result guy did try overtake him because he thought he might stay his lane.
If side light working then suv guy fault.
Time waster
None of anyone's business
Where's the video or am I a dimwit?
No, that would be me.
Sorry, was waiting for the youtube video to upload, and hit submit without realising. It's been updated.
https://youtu.be/aWSsxeAfbuw
I would say the fault is with the Toyota 4WD.
Let's say both didn't intend to have a collision, they were both neck and neck, and it was entirely accidental. Thinking about it logically, both vehicles are entering the highway and they have to accelerate to match the posted speeds. The truck with the trailer has more mass and lower acceleration, so it needs more time to get to posted speed. If the truck-trailer hit the brakes, it would have an even lower speed, and would require even more time to get to regular highway speed, which endangers everyone.
On the other hand, the Toyota 4WD could safely hit the brakes, be a little patient, merge into the highway, and then overtake the truck-trailer afterwards when they're both at the posted highway speed.
I don't know what happened 30 seconds before the footage though, which might affect the nuance or context of the issue. Did the truck-trailer drive like a jerk? Was it normal? Was the Toyota driving like a jerk all throughout?
No video
Uh oh, Perth driver merging… how am I not surprised
Sorry, was waiting for the youtube video to upload, and hit submit without realising. It's been updated.
https://youtu.be/aWSsxeAfbuw
No video, but usually it’s the Toyota 4wd that’s at fault.
The vehicle in front does not have right of way. The vehicle behind has to give way.
Sorry, was waiting for the youtube video to upload, and hit submit without realising. It's been updated.
https://youtu.be/aWSsxeAfbuw
Toyota was behind, should give way. Both stupid for not planning better.
Someone posted recently, in QLD anyway, that merging rules for roads that merge depend on whether or not there is a line at the end merge point. You didn't post the video though so I don't know what you expect us to tell you.
Sorry, was waiting for the youtube video to upload, and hit submit without realising. It's been updated.
https://youtu.be/aWSsxeAfbuw
Well the rules say in lined merge point the trailer car must give way and wait for a gap regardless of which car was ahead. On unlined merge point car on the right must give way by braking and allowing room because the trailer car was ahead. The rules say, for QLD anyway, "Lines of traffic refers to adjacent rows of vehicles that do not have a lane separation line between them" but there were lines separating them, even though those lines were just about to end. This page is not clear about which rule applies for the road just before the unlined merge point where there is still lines https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/road/lanes
It looks like the 4WD sped up to prevent truck merging in front of it
Looks like the truck was trying to merge early and went over the line to the car in the other lane.
I reckon the 4WD sped up to try and get in front of the truck before the merge to avoid getting stuck behind him. The truck driver saw the 4WD coming through and moved across to block him.
Could be accurate, but the speed limit did just change to 100km/hr. Both cars should be speeding up. The 4WD would be easier to speed up though.
Wth lol..
Zip merge.
Truck would have been past the lines so he had right of way.
Except he clearly crosses the line.
I think they're both idiots.
Don't know how long the trailer is.
The truck was at least past the form one lane sign when the collision occurred.
Classic Perth.
Toyota 4wd driver could have waited and overtaken the truck ON the freeway, not in the bloody form one lane merge point but it's Perth, and I see this every day. Some of the dumbest drivers in Australia. Indicators are optional, changing lanes in the middle of an intersection is okay, merging as a zipper and letting people in is heresy and doing 90 in the right hand lane in a 100 zone on the freeway is okay.
Assuming zipper merges work the same way in WA then the Toyota is at fault. Not only should they have given way to the vehicle that was ahead of them but they had plenty of chance to drop back when they did realise yet decide to come across and collide with the trailer anyway.
But the merge was attempted on the lined part of the road, not the unlined part.
You're right, two idiots then.
Two idiots.
The Toyota driver thought "If I can just get in front before the end of the dashed line, I win. Even though that means I have to tailgate the other car in my lane". Idiot.
The other driver saw the idiot and thought "I can be an idiot too".
Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes.
If it were up to me, I'd tell them to pay their own costs.
Yeah but it's just ahead and, the 4wd wouldn't have been fast enough to overtake the truck without speeding.
In this instance the truck slowly merged, and the merge really needs to be completed before the dashed line ends on narrow roads because, if not you have two vehicles in one lane.
4wd driver is the kind of person who causes accidents but says he or she is a great driver.
The truck didn't need to complete the merge, it could have slowed and stopped. Even if the 4WD slowed and stopped when it reached the unlined part of the road the truck still would have needed to slow and stop.
@AustriaBargain: If everyone came to a complete stop every time something remotely dangerous happened, there would probably be a lot more accidents.
It's more important that your driving needs to be predictable than it does to the exact letter of the law i.e. doing everything in your power to avoid a collision. I mean, sure it's an ethical question…do you do the inherently safer thing, or the strictly legal thing, but I think Australians are generally seen as pragmatic enough to put safety and sensibility ahead of legislation.
I would rather cop a dangerous driving fine once or twice in my lifetime than slam on my brakes every time someone tried to illegally merge into me…
@Assburg: I think you have the truck and the 4WD confused. The truck towing the trailer was attempting the illegal merge and it was the 4WD that wasn't obliged to slam on their brakes to accomodate the truck's illegal merge.
@AustriaBargain: Nah, truck was ahead when both parties could be reasonably expected to see the 2 lanes become 1 sign on both sides of the road, SUV is obliged to slow down and let the vehicle in front in, even if it's just a hair in front.
Speeding up to get in front of a vehicle as 2 lanes become 1 is incredibly reckless.
The truck had only started to merge because, given the proximity of the signs, the SUV driver should've already been giving away to them.
@Assburg: It doesn't matter who was ahead when it comes to merging across a lined road. That only applies when it comes to the unlined section. I can find no rules saying you need to make room for someone to merge when there is an unlined merge point ahead, but I can find rules saying you can't merge across a line when it is unsafe to do so. The truck should have slowed down and prepared to stop. If the truck didn't try to merge across the line then it would have had to slow down and prepare to stop no matter what. The truck chose to collide with the 4WD simply because he didn't want to slow down and prepare to stop, which is foolish and reckless. Or the truck didn't notice the 4WD there, which is just as foolish and reckless to make attempt a lane change without checking your mirrors and blind spot, that's one of the first things we teach children learning to drive, it's a literal schoolboy error.
@AustriaBargain: But why would the truck stop if he's in front approaching a merge?
The merge is a 2 lanes become one, not a left lane merges into right lane…. Approaching a merge the slower vehicle should well and truly be giving way, not trying to speed up and get in front…
If you are not trolling, did you get your licence in Europe? Living in Europe I am finding the road rules incredibly silly and unintuitive, because many of them are legitimately a reverse of Australian norms
Ah I’ve seen you’ve captured Cheap Bastard on dashcam, well done!
The Toyota was at fault. The lane markings end and the truck was in front so had the right of way.
Also the car in front of the 4WD went ahead of the truck, usually people will do a zipper merge in this scenario and it seems the idiot in the 4WD didn’t want to let the truck go.
My work here is done.
Time to rename this site, oz4RoadRulz
Interested to know the outcome. The vehicle on the left merged before the lanes merged and didn’t indicate.
The vehicle on the left did indicate from what I can see.
They indicated too late and merged immediately.
They went a couple of lines early - but why should they indicate where there are no lines?
Exactly. It is a zipper merge. There is no need to indicate.
I don't even.believe that they started to zipper merge early. The front of their car looked to be at the point of zipper merge starting.
LandCruiser was an idiot and speed up.
@praga: I don't know rules in WA. If that is the case which lane needs to indicate at a zipper merge, the right lane or the left or both?
I believe the car in front merged in time, but his trailer was a bit "ahead". 4wd driver is an idiot, trying to push his way through at the last second
I think you've summed it up in your first 3 words.
'I don't drive'
It's extremely straightforward.
Speed signs have no baring on the 'form 1 lane' sign (zipper merge) that follows. 100km/h is due to the highway and leaving what is usually an 80km/h onramp.
The 'form 1 lane' is a zipper merge.
Think how a zipper works and comes together seamlessly and this is how the traffic is supposed to flow.
4wd is just impatient of didn't see the form 1 lane sign, either way at fault.
The truck veered into the 4wd's lane before the lanes actually ended therefore legally I would say that the truck was in the wrong.
However seeing that I am someone who has experience behind the wheel, I would say that 4wd should have yielded to the truck as the 4wd driver should have seen that that truck would have been in front when the lanes actually merged.
Therefore I would say that both parties do have some blame.
Truck was indicating left though, before the 4wd even started to come up alongside it.
When zip merging you don't expect a car to shoot up from behind and try to come along side for no reason.
I mean what exactly was the 4wd trying to do here, how could he explain this action.
I can indicate all I want to, it doesn't mean that I have right of way when changing into someone else's lane.
..it is proper to indicate when moving lanes at a zip merge.
I do not think the 4WD owned that lane.
..it is proper to indicate when moving lanes at a zip merge.
But the lane merge was further down the road (granted only a few metres) but when the truck moved into the other lane there were still 2 separate lanes.
I do not think the 4WD owned that lane.
The fact that there was a collision suggests otherwise.
You don't have 'right of way', but if you are indicating to change lane and then someone zips up intentionally to try and block you off, then that person is driving in a dangerous way and likely to cause an accident.
See here for an example: https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/752388
It is hard to see if the truck was indicating as the reflectors are shining in the sun (at least it looks like it to me).
I think the truck may have been indicating right.
When zip merging you don't expect a car to shoot up from behind and try to come along side for no reason.
When zip merging you should expect a car to shoot up from behind and try and get in front because then they’ll be 1 car ahead in the traffic queue and get home 0.6s quicker.
FTFY
haha true, but in this instance there was no hope of 4wd getting past both the truck and trailer to the front.
The best he could hope for was a dangerous situation as the lanes ran out - and that's what he got…
When zip merging you don't expect a car to shoot up from behind and try to come along side for no reason.
laughs in Canberran
“The truck was indicating left”???
The truck veered into the 4wd's lane before the lanes actually ended therefore legally I would say that the truck was in the wrong.
There's nothing illegal or wrong about changing lanes before the lane markings end at a spot like this. The 4WD should have started slowing down to let the truck in at the start of the video.
In most situations like this, people should zipper merge. The truck was ahead of the 4WD the whole time, the 4WD was simply impatient and did a stupid by speeding up, likely because the driver was thinking "this truck is gonna be way too slow since he/she is towing a trailer, I can't wait for this bloody knob."
The car in front of the 4WD wasn't very far ahead of it either, it is simply courteous of the 4WD to let the truck go first (again, zipper merge), but sadly not everyone is courteous these days. Now the drivers of both vehicles have to go through an annoying repairs process just because some idiot couldn't spend 10-15 seconds behind a truck and then just accelerate past it after it moved onto the freeway.
This is the answer.
If the truck remained in it's lane for an additional few metres, then it would have been 4x4's fault.
The evidence is clear. Truck's fault.
Well io the truck remained in his lane then there would not of been any accident at all.
Bring your lane change video to work week..
Next week brake checking tailgaters.
Next week brake checking tailgaters.
Hold my beer.
Saw a coworker's
Don't worry about the crash. More importantly, has your coworker recently purchased a house? If so, don't forget a present.
The truck changed lanes before the merging area; there are still lane markings on the road so it needs to give way to the 4WD/traffic in the lane it’s entering. Seems to have been 2-3 flashes of the indicator just before it moved to change lanes, though by the time of the indicator starts the 4WD is already in the truck’s blind spot. Can see the 4WD hitting brake lights while the truck keeps on its rightward trajectory. The truck driver quite possibly had no idea the 4WD was there.
I agree with the same observation. So the truck appears to just indicator and verge straight away right without checking (mirrors and over right shoulder) it was clear and safety to do so.
He is a tiny bit at fault in the sense that he should have been aware what was happening and put on a boost of speed to be clear of the 4WD, which was doing the wrong thing. I would guess 10%-20% fault to the truck and 80%-90% 4WD.
I think both. Can see the point that truck merged too early but can also see how they would say they were just merging or preparing to merge. Although in a way we see the back of trailer cross the lines but it's possible the front of the truck was at the point where the middle line had stopped. 4WD probably should have known the merge would happen and that they needed to let the truck continue on in front of them.
If the only choice the truck had was to slowdown/stop or merge into the 4WD over the lines, then the truck should have slowed down or stopped.
Being the vehicle behind, it would have been much easier and safer for the 4WD to slow down/stop than the truck.
The truck saw that his lane was ending and chose not to slow down. It wouldn't have killed him to stop even if that's what it took.
@AustriaBargain: The truck slowing down would've put him further beside the 4WD, it might have made the collision more likely.
The 4WD is definitely an idiot, but I'm not sure if he'll be considered fully at fault or shared fault. I am curious about what the insurance outcome will be.
@AustriaBargain: There was no way the 4wd was going to pass the truck in time, they should have slowed down.
The truck slowing down would have really f'ed things if the 4wd had slowed down like they should have.
The truck should have waited to change lanes to give the 4wd more time to slow down, but probably didn't realise the 4wd had sped up beside them at the last moment.
Not really, if they tried to slow down suddenly there would be no room to get behind the 4WD before the two lanes became one and there would definitely be a collision
Then the truck would definitely have been at fault if it was driving so fast on a terminating road that the only choice was to collide with the car in the next lane or drive off the road. Driving off the road would have been a valid choice if collision could have resulted in injury or death to other drivers.
@AustriaBargain: How is that? When you're slightly in front of someone in a merging situation you need to brake really suddenly so that you're behind them, even if it is really dangerous to do so? You would cause loads of accidents that way. Even if you manage to get behind the person who is slightly behind you, braking really suddenly on a 100 km/hr road will cause people behind you to crash into you. And yes they should give you enough room so that if you throw on the brakes they have enough time to stop as well, but you can't control what other people do. Your comments make zero sense. How can it possibly make sense that the person who is ahead is the one who should give way, having to throw on the brakes to do so. Just asking for insane accidents.
Looks like the Reid HWY / Mitchell FWY on ramp. Drive it regularly and it’s a shit show for people who can’t merge or are too impatient to lose 5 seconds of their day.
So basically, every on ramp.
Initially I thought both stupid.. But the Toyota was behind then tried to get in front at the final moment (might have been in the mindset they had the right of way) Could quite possibly go to 50 50 for insurance purposes though..
Just curious, does each driver pay a percentage of their excess according to the at-fault ratio? Or do the insurers benefit from such accident by charging excess twice?
Not completely sure.. But I'd say they both pay their full excess.
There was no reason for the truck to cross the white line. He changed lanes without looking, before they started to merge. Guilty.
As for the Toyota, bad driving. He should have seen the merge coming, and not tried to pass the truck.
Is that a rear fog light turned on, on the Toyota? That alone would deserve a week in prison IMHO.
If the truck just stayed in his lane, most likely the Toyota would have braked when he finally saw the "form 1 lane" sign. If they still collided after the dashed white line, it would have been the Toyota's fault.
Note that this is quote different to the usual road markings in some other states.
Does not look like much damage, so I'd say it should be knock-for-knock. ie keep it simple, each does their own repairs. No lawyers, no arguing over costs.
This is a tough one.
The truck has the right of way but he merged into the Toyota before the lanes became one.
The truck didn’t have right of way. No one has right of way. The vehicle behind is responsible to give way.
Responsible to give way to the vehicle that has right of way? lol
No. No one on the road has right of way. It’s a false concept that doesn’t exist in legislation.
Yes, it’s effectively the same as the other person giving way but it’s a subtle but important change in mindset. If everyone always thought in terms of responsibility to give way, it would help to create a more defensive driving attitude.
"The truck has the right of way"??? WTAF dude. No-one has the right to cross lines and hit another car.
Toyota 4WD had no chance(to little chance) of overtaking the truck because of the car in front of the merge lane. The truck driver knew this and decided to start merging anyway into the 4WD.
Yeah this is the core of the issue imho.
There was no way the 4wd could actually have succeed in a zipping past to the front di*k move, there simply wasn't space.
So what exactly was he trying to do? other than intentionally create a dangerous situation…
The idiot was clearly trying to beat the truck, probably was thinking "This guy is towing a trailer and will therefore be too slow and unable to accelerate quickly once he moves in front of me, so I'm gonna floor it and beat him at the merge."
How wrong he was.
Lol… they both made a dumb. Truck for changing lanes before the zipper, the Toyota for speeding up to try and cut them off.
So many idiot drivers.
Vid link?