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.
Don’t forget to save the video just in case.
Don't need to. This isn't OP making a dumb and then screaming at everyone that they were in the right.
Why is everyone so caught up on the truck merging "early"… its only a matter of metres before the end of 2 lane section. Pretty obvious to me the Toyota was at fault, sped up to try and beat the truck to the merge
Why is everyone so caught up on the truck merging "early"
Agreed, there's nothing wrong with merging early in a situation like this.
4WD was being a knob.
In the other post with the Ram truck people were blaming OP for not letting the Ram in, and now they're defending the 4WD? Absolute nonsense. In the Ram post, the lane markings didn't end which means the OP of that post had no right of way (nor did the Ram truck to be fair, it was simply courteous of the OP to let the Ram in, which they didn't), in this post the truck is clearly ahead of the 4WD — as you said — a few metres before the lane markings end.
Same with Cheap Bastard's post the other day with the B-Double, the B-Double was ahead before the merge and people said Cheap Bastard was in the wrong for sitting next to the truck not letting merge, but the 4WD is in the right here? As I said, nonsense, 4WD here was clearly being a stubborn idiot AND sped up before the merge, why are people saying they're in the right here?
Look at how damn close that 4WD was to the car in front of them. They were practically tailgating, I wouldn't be surprised if they were on ice.
The truck did not merge, he changed lanes.
I wonder if the driver was from over East, where it is common for slip lanes to taper off, and a car entering the freeway must change lanes to "merge" into the freeway traffic. That was not the case here.
The truck merging early is an issue because there was a 4wd there. The 4wd should not have been there and should have slowed down, the truck waiting until the merge point could have given the 4wd enough time to get out of the way. Having said that, I don't think the truck knew the 4wd had sped up alongside them.
Oh, he knew… he intentionally swerved to make a point, which resulted in unintentional contact lol…
They are both in the wrong, but as far as courtesy goes, the 4WD is an utter knob and provoked the situation.
Because merging early isn't merging early. It's changing lanes. How far back from the point where merging rules apply (aka where the lane marking stop and the lanes merge) do lane merging rules apply in your opinion? One metre? Two metres? Five metres? Ten metres? 200 metres?
Or…do the merging rules apply from the moment lanes merge? I haven't read the legislation but I would assume that to be the case.
Which is not to say the 'non-truck' hasn't breached a provision.
Why is everyone so caught up on the truck merging "early"
Because at the point of the collision, it is still two separate lanes. The driver of the truck should've stayed to the left of his lane and the 4WD should've slowed down a bit to get behind.
It's possible that the truck driver forgot he/she was towing a trailer.
Two idiots. They both knew that the two lanes were going to merge into one. So the Toyota driver tried to push his way up alongside the truck so he could come out ahead. And the truck driver tried to stop him by moving over early.
Since the Toyota was entitled to be there because they hadn't gotten to the end of the lane markings, let alone the merge sign, legally the truck driver is the one in the wrong. He committed the offences.
they both knew that the two lanes were going to merge
Did they? By Hanlon's razor*, I wonder if the Toyota driver was not watching the road and did not notice until too late.
*never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
the 4wd drives like someone who crashes into someone else then claims he wasn't at fault or a driver who speeds up just to intidimate someone who is turning into a T-intersection a bit late.
i think both at fault here. 4wd for trying to speed up at last minute without giving way and truck for merging into the right lane before it's safe to do so. Just because you indicated doesn't mean you are always in the right. you should still wait until it's safe to make the desired action (truck driver indicated and started merging instantly…)
Looks to me like the truck was trying to block anyone from coming up on the right at the merge, came over too early, and caused the crash. However, the Landy should have been backing off as the merge was close.
I get idiots like this all the time where the Graham Farmer meets Orrong Rd and there's a lane merge with no markings. Idiots think its their job to stop people coming up the merging lane so pull over halfway into the merging lane to stop people from using the whole lane AGES before the merge. Those people are massive tools.
If there's a broken line on the road showing the primary lane, usually the right most, it doesn't matter who's nose is in front, give way to primary lane. No line means nose in front has right of way. Usually the person who has sped up substantially because they are "entitled" to merge will be the one at fault.
There is no such thing as a "primary" lane at a zipper merge, which is what is in the video.
I don't know that your concept of primary lane having priorirty even where there is a broken line is correct either.
Dick move by the 4WD driver - show some respect for the vehicles that keep our country going.
The truck is in front when the "1 lane" sign appears. Truck has right of way.
truck does have right of way at the merge if he continued directly ahead. But thats not happened here, the truck changed lanes and hit the 4wd.
The 4wd has a right to be in his lane so long as he lets the truck move ahead when they merge.
The
When line merging the car on the left has the right of way. That's what I remember.
What everyone else here "remembers" about merging is:
1. if there are lane markings or signs that say one lane has to give way to the other, then that's what you do,
2. if there are no signs or markings giving priority the one with its nose ahead at the merge sign gets it,
3. if the traffic is clogged up and moving slowly you zip merge. One from one lane, then one from the other. Repeat.
The scenario where there's very different opinions is where everyone can see that there's a choke point that's slowing the traffic down up ahead, so most people merge into a single lane well ahead of it. Then some people jump the queue by zipping up the empty lane and pushing their way in at the merge point. Merging early doesn't get everyone through the choke point faster, and it disadvantages people who do it, and creates ill-feelings, by giving the queue jumpers an empty lane to zip past them in. It feels like the right thing to do when (nearly) everyone else is doing it, but it just makes the situation worse.
Definitely the truck at fault, changing lanes without due care. The impact happened before the lane markings stopped and before the Form 1 Lane sign. The truck had already drifted into this lane at least 3 lane markings before the impact. The mistakes were:
1. Changed lanes well before the "Form 1 lane" sign, maybe 40-50 metres before.
2. Straddled both lanes for 4 lane markings before the markings stopped.
3. No attempt to avoid the other vehicle … plenty of room on the left, didn't brake. Maybe didn't see the 4WD or "I'll force you to give way"
4. No indicator to change lanes
While the 4WD driver was a jerk for trying to get in front, he braked hard and attempted to avoid impact by moving as far to the right as possible.
At the point of impact it is not a merge, it is changing lanes and this was started at least 2 seconds before the impact. How many metres before lane markings end does it stop being 2 separate lanes? Answer: Zero.
Shared this scenario/video with someone who reviews claims for a large insurance underwriter/multiple brands. They agreed with your conclusion, Truck & trailer changed lanes in an unsafe manner (they crossed over 4 white markings before they ended) and will be deemed at fault if the 4WDs insurance is any good. If collision happened in few more meters further up the road, 4WD would have been deemed at-fault.
Road ethics were poor from either driver and both should be made to pay own damages on moral grounds. That is not how insurance works though.
I'd say truck moved early, but cruiser was trying to get in front for sure. Looks like the car in front moved early too and truck was just following to make zipper merge.
Landcruiser driver finally found out it's not the biggest thing on the road. I'd guess he's pulled this move on smaller cars plenty of times and lost this one
hardly a crash, just a minor scrape
i wouldn't be surprised if repair costs are lower than going through insurance, just to try save a few seconds
both should be at fault
To me it looks like the truck started changing into the 4x4 lane before the two lanes actually came to merge. So in the case I would say truck at fault? If it had been after the Form 1 Lane sign, then 4x4 at fault
Really hard to tell how much into the zipper the truck was when the trailer started crossings the line but the 4wd decided to try and race ahead of it hoping to get ahead of it so is the (profanity) in the situation
trailer trash crossed the line early to cut off accelerating Toyota
in the video I didn't see any advance sign about 'Lane One Form' so don't know - shoulda been methinks
but if there was, then Toyota was the a/hole in trying to overtake in a merging lane
and trailer trash just went yeah Nah - (elbow) - oops !
I liked the way the Toyota wiggled and nearly rolled from that minor swerve maneuver
ah - the feeling of safety being up high, right ? Nah - enjoy your rollover !
OP - can you provide a google maps location?
-31.857103, 115.800315
thanks for the location - the circular onramp to the Reid Hwy where it crosses the Mitchell Hwy -
and yeah wow the 'Form 1 Lane' signs occur only at exactly the point where the two lanes merge into one !
- https://goo.gl/maps/7upZ9EJWtq57Z2Cq9 - in other words no advance signage or warning at ALL !
I'd be suing the WA roads authority for inadequate signage causing accidents !
So you need to wait until you get to a sign before you read it? Most of us read the sign at a distance that would be far enough away to give warning.
@Euphemistic: easy to say but I suspect crowded traffic especially large SUV type vehicles merging are likely to block a view of those signs by first-time unfamiliar drivers until the last moment of OMG
viz - this accident …
also this road is coming around a tight curve when most would have their eye on tracking the curve, and a sudden unexpected merge, having not seen any sign before is likely to render
sudden unexpected merge
It’s an entry ramp onto a highway. There would be a merge at some point. It should be expected.
Looks like the 4WD was accelerating up, truck should have noticed that before merging. There was a safe gap for the truck to slow down merge behind the 4WD without causing a collision but the truck still chose to merge. Regardless of who is legally at fault, truck should have more common sense. Take the safer merge and add 1-2 seconds commute onto your journey.
Since there are so many clowns on the road these days, it's inevitable that two of them are going to get caught up with each other, and so there's no need to always apportion 100% blame to one party, particularly in this case. Both clowns share blame here.
The 4WD sped up before the lanes converged to try and get ahead of the truck…but his problem is that he left it too late, knowing the lanes were merging. Within a second of the 4WD accelerating, the truck sees this, begins indicating, and almost simultaneously starts movement into the right lane - still well before the lanes have converged. There was plenty of time to naturally merge as the lanes do, but because he wanted to stop the 4WD from passing (and in the process likely forcing him to brake to allow the 4WD to pass at the point of the lanes conveging), he went immediately.
IMHO, the end result is the best outcome for the rest of us…ie. both clowns are likely inconvenienced with damage repairs. Suck shit.
Pretty sure it's the government's fault since it's such a poorly designed road that you can't see that the left lane abruptly ends until you finish turning the corner
Like others have said, mostly 4wds fault but truck holds a portion of the blame for the early merge.
However, the 4wd was driving aggressively, being greedy, and for that they deserve 100% of the blame from a moral point of view. Had lots of time to decide not to be a (profanity) and just give way, but instead put themselves in a dangerous position just to save 30 seconds off their journey.
100% trucks fault.
Toyota was driving a little bit behind and not accelerating, actually stopped to avoid bigger crash.
On the other hand - truck gave signal, but this won't give you rights to move immediately. Something more people are not aware of - you just give signal indicating you want to change lanes, not telling all other parties "move away, I am the boss here".
Even Toyota was 20-30-50 meters behind (it was 2-3) truck should wait and do the lane change when it's appropriate, not when they want.
It's a zipper merge, vehicle in front has right of way. Truck deserves some blame for going slightly early but it's mostly the Toyota's fault.
From here - https://www.wa.gov.au/organisation/road-safety-commission/mo…
Click on Merging lanes:
If there are dual lanes, and the lane you are in ends, give way to the vehicles in the lane you are moving into.
Watch the video again. The truck's lane doesn't end, both lanes merge into one. From the page you linked "Where two lanes merge into one (i.e. lane lines end) the vehicle in front has the right of way.".
You can tell this is the case because the lane markings end, rather than continuing on until the left lane ends.
@nigel deborah: Watched it, thanks. And checked google maps.
Looks like sign for merge is 50-100m before actual merge and doesn't give enough time for both parties.
Expected speed was 100km/h as both are entering the highway.
Also 200-300 meters before that should be a sign "merge ahead" but it's missing.
@localhost: Yes not a great intersection. I don't really ever like zipper merges unless it's a quiet road, just invites accidents like this one. Not great drivers in this case either. Hah
Obviously the fking cyclist!
Hi everyone 👋
Truck had time to merge when it was safe or show intention, 4WD tried to defensively slow and move aside but the truck was already half way in his lane…
Changing lanes with eyes closed..
I think the point that everyone is missing with identifying the Toyota at fault is that the trailer is an extension of the vehicle (truck), and was crossing the dotted lines (even thought the truck had reached the point where the lines had ended) and therefore should have given way to the vehicle already in the lane it was entering. Truck is 100% at fault
Iol your comment makes 100% no sense
At the 0:00 second mark you can see that the 4wd is behind the trailer (about .5-1 meter). At about 0.5-1 second both vehicles move around the corner and both drivers would have had a clear a clear view of the "merge ahead" sign.
4wd is now roughly in line with trailer at this point.
At about 2 seconds 4wd starts to accelerate and by about 3 seconds the vehicle is now roughly in line with the front of the trailer - but not the truck.
Truck/trailers starts to merge at about 3.5 seconds - at 4 seconds 4wd puts on breaks, at 5 seconds collision occurs and a bit after 5 seconds divided line ends.
The merge here is a zipper merge - there is no termination of the trucks lane so the truck did not need to give way to 4wd. In this instance the vehicle who is behind gives way to vehicle in front (in this case the truck is very clearly in front). If the left lane terminated it would be a different story and a different merge.
The 4wd was never in front of the truck at any stage and positioned themselves in a way where it is impossible for them to give way to the merge ahead. 100% 4wd fault here.
The question about who has a right of way or not is largely irrelevant - the better question is who was better positioned to avoid the accident in the first place.
If the truck had maintained his velocity and not lane merged .4 seconds sooner then they did the 4wd would have been in line with the rear of the vehicle - still unable to pass. The truck in this instance would have not been able to avoid the accident, the truck driver is unlikely to have known that that 4wd increased speed after coming off that corner. Even if the truck did lock up its breaks and accident would have been unavoidable.
Throughout the video, the 4wd was the one better positioned to avoid the accident. If the truck did not do the 0.3-0.4 second earlier lane merge would the accident still have been avoided from actions of the 4wd?
Precisely this.
If the 4wd Driver was to successfully pass the Truck, that would rely on the Truck driver seeing the 4wd coming up along side, the Truck slowing down to let the 4wd past or move across. I can almost guarantee at they're both building speed, it wouldn't have gone well.
The truck merged before the merg lane and the 4WD being a dick to speed up to get ahead. The truck is at fault as it forces its way into other lane. Just because you give signal does not give you the right to merge and cut off others when they are in your blind spot.
The 4WD probably deserved it for acting like a dick driver.
Think predominantly Toyota 4WD, but truck is also partially to blame
probably already said and I didn't read the comments before
zip merge… car in front has right or way and if car behind speeds up then they suck
4WD for sure, it's a merge into 1 lane and truck was well ahead to merge. 4WD sped up to beat the truck and I can't fathom why he/she would think speeding up in an already merging truck in a narrow 1 lane would be smart.
I hate these types of 2-1 lanes with no road merging arrows, I avoid them at all cost cause most people don't know how to merge. If I do come across one, I put my indicator on very early and always look at my blind spot.
One merge that I see people breaking alot and playing chicken is here on parra road. That's why, if I can stay on the left lane. While there's plenty of room and view to see traffic, I just think of all the people that break when entering motorways and break again when merging into the motorway…. sigh
The 4wd is an idiot and doesn't zipper merge and speeds up to overtake the truck before the merge ends (there appears to be enough road to do this) and the truck being a complete knob cuts him off because he doesn't want to get overtaken. The 4wd doesn't slow down and gets (profanity).
Seriously learn to (profanity) zip merge and no one gets hurt.
Truck + trailer = I doubt the 4wd would have enough time to overtake without hitting the sign pole.
Truck probably at fault, merged with car next to him. But Toyota 4wd was definitely being a C bomb to force him to slow down.
Truck shouldn't have moved over so early, but it likely wouldn't have made a difference as the 4WD didn't look interested in merging. 100% the 4wd fault.
Given this is OzBargain, its clearly OPs fault
Edit: changed opinion to Mr Truck Driver being at fault, having watched the video from Mr Landcruiser's perspective using the assumption he was not familiar with that particular road.
In the video, I could not tell at all that there was a merge coming ahead. There was no signage, and we could not yet see the two lanes becoming one. By the time we can see the 'Form 1 Lane' sign (and before the two cars involved here pass that very sign), Mr Truck Driver is already half way across Mr Landcruiser's lane.
Mr Truck Driver jumped the gun on the merge and its very possible Mr Landcruiser driver was not familiar with the road… He seemed caught off in the video, as opposed to someone being a dick and not wanting to let the truck in.
The truck hit the 4WD's car intentionally. He should avoid it where possible.
I think it's the truck or possibly shared blame.
Based on the street view link, the truck merged early. The lane ends at the end of the second bridge. The 4WD shouldn't have put themselves in that situation and it doesn't look like they would have had room to get passed the truck.
Dash cam driver was not driving defensively enough and should have prevented the collision
As for this poll option, I don't think there's much that the dash cam drive could have done. You've got about 4 seconds to do something. Given reaction times, it's practically nothing.
On rewatch, where the collision occurs, the truck is ahead. More likely the 4WDs fault. He should have been braking hard when the truck crossed into his lane.
Toyota 4WD is a fault.
Here's how it'll play out with insurance.
They'll both tell conflicting stories. Truck will say he zip merged, 4WD will say lines were still there but they'll agree it happened before a zip merge metres ahead.
Insurance will ask where the damage is?
4WD: Front left panel
Truck: Rear right trailer
Insurance will side with truck. There's no scenario where the 4wd would have made it in front.
There is the video which I assume will go to insurance of both drivers. Do you think that will change anything?
It blows my goddamn mind the number of people who've declared the Toyota driver to be wholly in the wrong.
There's a line on the road between the vehicles. Do you know what that means, people? It means the vehicles are in "lanes" and that if either one wants to enter the other "lane", they can do so only if that "lane" is clear. Hard concept to grasp, apparently.
Truck 100% at fault. As for Toyota - maybe he sped up a tiny bit? - and that might make him a twat but it doesn't change the liability situation a jot.
What was the toyota going to do? There was a car in front of the truck - there was no way the toyota could make that merge in front of the truck. The toyota sped up to beat the truck, to prevent the truck (which was ahead of him) from merging.
Send a link to the road rules that specify you can't merge where there are still lines on the road.
It blows my goddamn mind the number of people who've declared the Toyota driver to be wholly in the wrong.
Perhaps… your viewpoint on the matter is actually incorrect?
Perhaps… your viewpoint on the matter is actually incorrect?
How many metres before the lane markings finish are they not considered lanes and the merge rules apply? 500 metres? Of course not. 100 metres? I believe it is zero metres. Right until that last bit of paint, there are two lanes. Only after that does the merge rule apply. It would be ridiculous to have a vague interpretation that merging rules applied instead of lane changing rules x metres before the lanes end, and before the sign.
The same with a speed sign. Can you speed up before the increased speed limit sign? Absolutely not.
So, the truck changed lanes without due care because he was straddling the lane markings for at least 2 seconds before impact and made no attempt to avoid the impact, while having plenty of room on the left to do so.
To rephrase your words …..
Send a link to the road rules that specify you CAN merge where there are still lines on the road.
Perhaps… your viewpoint on the matter is actually incorrect?
Except I'm not the one with my mind blown at how my opinion is in the clear minority.
The 4wd very clearly sped up, arguably into the truck's blind spot, to try and get in front of the truck right before a merge was about to take place.
The merge sign was visible, and instead of keeping a safe distance for the truck to safely merge, the 4wd did the opposite right before the lanes were about to end.
The situation was entirely avoidable and would have been avoided if not for the actions of the 4wd driver - the 4wd made the situation unsafe purely on their actions alone. The only thing you have on the truck driver is a technicality that the merge was initiated a few meters before the lines ended.
If the truck merged a few meters later, once the lanes ended. What would have happened then? There was no way the 4wd had enough distance or speed to get in front of that truck safely.
@Harold Halfprice: You're confusing morality with legality.
Toyota driver - perhaps a dick.
Truck driver - wholly liable.
@dwarves: No I am not confusing anything with "morality" - drivers on the road are liable for creating dangerous situations. Drivers are required to adapt to traffic conditions and drive in a safe manner.
Speeding up to get in front of and cut off another vehicle before a merge, who you otherwise would have had to give way to, is dangerous driving. That's not even taking into account that the vehicle being cut off is a truck with a trailer. The 4wd created an unnecisarily dangerous situation and it resulted in a collision.
Section 60 of the Road Traffic Act 1974 deals with ‘reckless driving’ and subsection (1) states: ‘Every person who willfully drives a motor vehicle in a manner (which expression includes speed) that is inherently dangerous or that is, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, dangerous to the public or to any person commits an offence’.
@Harold Halfprice: Speeding up (within the limit), move into blind spot, try to get in front are not illegal while still in the lane. Being a jerk, yes but not illegal.
Yes, the situation was entirely avoidable if the truck had not crossed the lane markings into the other vehicle. It was also avoidable if the truck driver had noticed there was another vehicle there. Or maybe he was more of a jerk than the 4WD driver and decided to force his way regardless of the consequences. Both are offences because of not taking due care.
After the lane markings ended there was still plenty of room on the left hand side for the truck driver to have avoided impact. Only once the sign is passed and the lane markings end do merge rules apply. Until then, lane changing rules apply and the truck driver changed lanes without due care.
The person who didn't bring popcorn, 7/11popcorns fine.
Its a zip merge so whoever is behind has to give way. That doesnt mean the guy behind accelerates and tries to get in front. 4wd fault for me.
Pair of idiots. 50/50 claim.
True fault here is the 4wd is driving like its a high yield investment and was clearly accelerating out of danger. Had they been in the correct vehicle, just like their investments, the move would have been both expected and successful.
Unsure because we need to confirm that parties were not under the influence
4WD driver should have seen that coming if he or she was a half decent driver. Truck should have seen the 4WD beside him and remained to the left and slowed down to avoid a collision. Both need to drive better. Blame is up to someone else.
Perth drivers share the "Me First" mentality. In the end we see each other at the red lights…
Every time. Especially on Graham Farmer at the merge point onto Orong Rd.
Any update on this @User0001? What decision did insurance make?
ThAnkS foR YoUr iNpUt.