Hit by Car Entering from Side Street Advice

Ldarkness on 12/08/2023 - 19:46
Last edited 13/08/2023 - 07:37

Hi. I've been a long time forum lurker, reading accident stories, but never thought I'd be posting one of my own.

My wife had a side-swipe type accident when changing lanes and I was wondering if anyone can shed some light on who's at fault.

Essentially:

  1. She was in the right lane in a two lane street with a car in front.
  2. Car in front stops due to traffic. Location has an side road on the left with cars wanting to enter.
  3. She also stops.
  4. Left lane was clear, so she changed lanes at the same time as another car coming from the side street resulting in a collision

Can anyone say who was at fault in this situation? Normally I'd assume the car entering the road would be at fault, but after looking at the footage, I'm not so sure.

We have comprehensive insurance. Unfortunately, they did not exchange contact details, so I'm not even sure if insurance would help.

Dashcam Footage and MS Paint

She is car A, and car B is the other driver.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

Automotive

Comments

  • bobbified on 12/08/2023 - 20:00
    +64

    Porsche is at fault. He/she is entering from a side street so must give way to all traffic already on the main road (except for U-turning traffic).

    We have comprehensive insurance. Unfortunately, they did not exchange contact details, so I'm not even sure if insurance would help.

    Getting the other party's details is crucial after a collision, especially in cases like this where it's the other party's fault. Without the other party's details, insurance will help - but you'll have to pay the applicable excess as though it's your (wife's fault).

    • darkness on 12/08/2023 - 20:15
      +5

      I get the feeling she was getting worried because the Porsche driver said his car would need at least $7k to be repaired, and implied that she was at fault. I'm not entire sure, but I got the feeling the guy knew he was at fault so didn't ask for my wife's details.

      I can get the car registration from the dashcam footage. Would that help? Or would we still need to pay the excess?

      • bobbified on 12/08/2023 - 20:20
        +3

        …..said his car would need at least $7k to be repaired, and implied that she was at fault. I'm not entire sure, but I got the feeling the guy knew he was at fault so didn't ask for my wife's details.

        Are you saying that your wife didn't want to exchange details because she was convinced she was at fault? He didn't ask for hers, but did she ask for his? If you can get the car registration, the only ones that can help are the cops - especially if he actually refused to provide his details. Otherwise, might need to harass them a little or try a few different officers - some are just lazy and will tell you that they can't due to privacy reasons. Sometimes (just sometimes), the registration is enough for the insurer, depending on who you're insured with. They have ("had" before - I'm not sure about now) access to the vehicle database or sometimes, they'd request it from the cops.

        • darkness on 12/08/2023 - 21:03
          +12

          All I can think of was she was in shock when it happened and didn’t think about it. She has never been in an accident before.

          • bobbified on 12/08/2023 - 21:07
            +1

            @darkness: Yeh, it's too late anyway. See if the cops will help you with the driver's details from the rego you get off the video. Show/give them a copy of the video so they know it's as legitimate incident.

            • siresteelhell on 13/08/2023 - 18:03

              @bobbified: cops (if in vic) wont want to know about it unless it is reported at the scene

              • Aleigh123 on 14/08/2023 - 15:13

                @siresteelhell: They also generally don't care as long as no one is injured and people comply with giving details on request at the time of the incident.

                • bobbified on 14/08/2023 - 16:27
                  +3

                  @Aleigh123: @siresteelhell: (and @darkness FYI) As I mentioned earlier, it depends on who you get at the police station. Some are lazy and will just say they can't give it. Others will give you the registered owners details on the sport and some will give it to you later (after a visit to the other party to determine if they were involved). Sometimes, you have to try a couple of different officers.

                  Otherwise, you can fill out this particular form (for individuals) as an official request for the vehicle information. (There's also a separate equivalent form for "authorised persons" like an insurance company, to request information).

                  • The General on 14/08/2023 - 20:51
                    +2

                    @bobbified: The police would be in serious breach of privacy laws if they were to hand someone's personal details to another person. it is not about being lazy, it is something that they are not allowed to do under any circumstances.

                    What the police can do though, is contact the other driver and hand them your details providing you give them consent.

                    How would you feel if someone was able to get your personal details because they asked the police? Would be to easy to give some BS story about being in an accident with you blah blah blah. They just cannot do it.

                    • bobbified on 14/08/2023 - 20:55
                      -1

                      @The General: I know what the privacy rules are but, in practice, it happens a lot.

                      How would you feel if someone was able to get your personal details because they asked the police?

                      If i was a big enough d-head to do a hit and run, I'd be feeling glad to not be charged with the hit and run offence.

                      Would be to easy to give some BS story about being in an accident with you blah blah blah. They just cannot do it.

                      I've questioned this in my own mind, but like I said, I know some cops will hand over the registered owners details.

                      • The General on 14/08/2023 - 21:19

                        @bobbified: Maybe, but that is about police not following correct policies. Absolutely noting to do with laziness.
                        In fact, it is the lazy cops that would hand out someone's details and not go to the effort of contacting the owner.

                        • bobbified on 14/08/2023 - 21:21
                          -1

                          @The General: I say it's 'laziness' because I assume that after the requestor leaves, they probably have to do some sort of report or at least enter the details of the person requesting the information into the COPS databases. That part, I don't know and is a pure assumption on my part.

      • Malik Nasser on 12/08/2023 - 21:33
        +2

        In NSW the following details what needs to be done, and what info needs to be exchanged. I am assuming VIC would have something similar.
        https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/file/0004/315445…

      • Scrooge McDuck on 13/08/2023 - 16:32
        +1

        the Porsche driver said his car would need at least $7k to be repaired,

        Sounds like he's crashed like this before.

        I feel sorry for the nice cars driven by bad drivers.

        • smartazz104 on 14/08/2023 - 08:43
          +1

          Sounds like he's crashed like this before.

          Or he really just needed 7K…

      • Jake D on 14/08/2023 - 12:31
        +2

        Pay the excess, hand over all the footage and information you have. Let the insurance company deal with everything else.

      • Iost on 15/08/2023 - 20:01
        +2

        Your insurance company just needs the rego and make of the car. You're all good if you can provide that. Your insurance company will do the rest. Will likely be required to pay excess anyway but if found not to be at fault, it will be refunded.

      • Scrooge McDuck on 13/08/2023 - 16:25
        +36

        You wrote all that but didn't bother to watch the dashcam footage which clearly shows what happened.

        • randomusername2017 on 13/08/2023 - 17:03
          +10

          Why let a picture get in the way of a few hundred words…

          • Yamete Kudasai on 14/08/2023 - 08:42
            +3

            @HeWhoKnows: scroll down, there is a footage under the drawing.

          • sraymond on 14/08/2023 - 08:59
            +2

            @HeWhoKnows: Gave you a couple of negs. Sadly you have NO IDEA.

          • dzpliu on 14/08/2023 - 09:35
            +2

            @HeWhoKnows: There is a video footage lol.

          • Morkai on 14/08/2023 - 14:20
            +3

            @HeWhoKnows: You clicked on a link titled "dashcam footage and MS Paint" and yet you didn't scroll down to view the footage?

      • OZKap on 13/08/2023 - 21:07
        +8

        Nothing else to add

        But you didn't add anything

      • blitz on 15/08/2023 - 14:29

        this is all "here-say"

        "hearsay"

      • Baysew on 23/08/2023 - 13:07

        Is Amazingone sponsored by Specsavers?

    • capslock janitor on 13/08/2023 - 14:00
      -6

      WHY EXCEPT UTURNING TRAFF?

    • Drakesy on 14/08/2023 - 11:48
      +4

      Dashcam car though acted carelessly, failed to indicate for the required amount of time and drove into the situation rather than cautiously entering the lane.

      OP's partner needs a lesson in defensive driving.

  • randomusername2017 on 12/08/2023 - 20:00
    +10

    Is there not a road rule that gives Porsche drivers right of way…

    • quog on 12/08/2023 - 21:00
      +2

      the inside out porcupine rule

    • Malik Nasser on 12/08/2023 - 21:30
      +6

      You are confusing that with tradies…

      • randomusername2017 on 12/08/2023 - 21:37
        +3

        Don't tradies drive their Porsche on weekends?

        • pegaxs on 13/08/2023 - 09:35
          +2

          Tradies dont have Porsches… They just have another Ranger/LandCruiser (just bigger and more expensive)

          Their 17yo "missus" drives a clapped out Cayenne though, if that counts?

        • tessel on 13/08/2023 - 15:02

          RAM during week, Porsche weekend?

      • terrys on 13/08/2023 - 10:22

        To vehicles on your road, not ones jumping a give-way sign when the driver imagines a vehicle's acceleration capabilities somehow transfer to their reaction time via some cyborg process.

      • quog on 13/08/2023 - 17:32

        the law says you must indicate intentions AND give way.

      • bobbified on 14/08/2023 - 21:26

        What planet are you on?

    • randomusername2017 on 13/08/2023 - 17:00
      +5

      Found the aspirational BMW drivers …..

    • CurlCurl on 14/08/2023 - 13:06

      Is there not a road rule that gives Porsche drivers right of way…

      Or a Raptor

  • [Deactivated] on 12/08/2023 - 20:01
    +1

    Did the dashcam driver indicate as they were changing lanes?

    • askbargain on 12/08/2023 - 20:04
      +3

      can hear the indicator so yes?

      • [Deactivated] on 13/08/2023 - 13:46
        +6

        You missed the 'as' …. last time I checked, you should indicate before changing lanes.

        • beach bum on 15/08/2023 - 13:05
          +2

          Yes , so many drivers don’t realise an indicator is to indicate to other drivers your intention to move in another direction ,

          and needs to be engaged some time before turning the wheel ,
          so trucks don’t run over your car or you kill some people .

          • [Deactivated] on 15/08/2023 - 13:21
            +3

            @beach bum: Some people struggle with appreciating how their actions on the road & elsewhere affects others. These people should not be driving or elsewhere so they don't cause havoc.

            • beach bum on 15/08/2023 - 16:05
              +1

              @[Deactivated]: Yep , thinking about giving up riding motorcycles on the road now in QLD after 45 years riding ,
              as all the new people in the last 18months are either really agressive or completely clueless and randomly unpredictable.

              Even the M1 Goldy to Briso is now practically unusable as people sit in fast lanes completely oblivious to everything around them .

    • terrys on 13/08/2023 - 10:24
      +1

      Good question. It seems one user can't imagine a situation where an audible signal may not be apparent to a viewer, or has misunderstood the aims and purpose of "Get your five a day!"

      • [Deactivated] on 13/08/2023 - 13:49

        Some people are plain weird

    • capslock janitor on 13/08/2023 - 14:04
      +4

      even if they didnt .. porsche still fault here innnit

      • [Deactivated] on 13/08/2023 - 14:07

        I disagree

        Maybe that's why OP is checking whether the dashcam may be worth providing to the insurer or "what dashcam?"

        • capslock janitor on 13/08/2023 - 14:08

          some cams dont even got audio recording. easy to remove also.

          i reckon visual evidence is stronger here in these sitches,
          unless porsche can provide cam too

  • askbargain on 12/08/2023 - 20:06
    +10

    Unfortunately, they did not exchange contact details,

    lmao

    • boomramada on 12/08/2023 - 20:12
      -2

      Then unfortunately OP need to folk out lol
      Otherwise its Porsche drivers fault, it need to give away to anything off the main road.

  • Stopback on 12/08/2023 - 20:09
    +1

    Op you are chilled to not react after a hit. I would swear.

    But your reaction times are bad. You can clearly see the Porsche moving thus should have more than enough time to brake.

    Still you are not at fault. Porsche hit your side.

    If you hit Porsche side it might be both parties.

    • askbargain on 12/08/2023 - 20:14
      +2

      maybe driver was doing a head check

    • darkness on 12/08/2023 - 20:18
      +1

      I wasn't the driver, lol. If I was, and didn't get the details… well, I'm sure most can guess what would have happened to me.

      I have been hit enough times, that I know I need to at least get their contact details prior to them driving off.

      As askbargain suggested, yes I believe she was checking her back.

      • [Deactivated] on 13/08/2023 - 13:51

        If I was, and didn't get the details… well, I'm sure most can guess what would have happened to me.

        What would have happened to you?

        My guess is that you were the driver just by how you worded the OP

        • darkness on 13/08/2023 - 19:16

          I can tell you with certainty that I was not driving. How did I ‘word’ the OP to give you this impression?

          To answer your question, wife would’ve given me the verbal.

          Regardless, whether I was driving is moot to this discussion. I was after who should be at fault.

            • Blitzfx on 15/08/2023 - 22:25

              @[Deactivated]: Are you also an anti-vaxxer and flat-earther? Do you imagine things and come to conclusions where there is no hint of any evidence?

              • [Deactivated] on 16/08/2023 - 11:29

                @Blitzfx: No.

                No.

                No.

                No.

            • darkness on 16/08/2023 - 12:41

              @[Deactivated]: I assume you meant my second to last sentence, which was:

              She is car A, and car B is the other driver

              Is there some hidden meaning you are interpreting from this sentence?

              If this is not the sentence, please quote for my reference.

              • [Deactivated] on 16/08/2023 - 12:57

                @darkness: Yes, I am a professional truth seeker & interpreter of online posts.

                Evidence:

                I've been a long time forum lurker, reading accident stories, but never thought I'd be posting one of my own.

                The giveaways are in italics.

                You're welcome.

                • darkness on 16/08/2023 - 13:15

                  @[Deactivated]: Ok I can see how you can interpret that.

                  However, it can also be interpreted as posting one of my own stories, but not of my own accident.

                  • [Deactivated] on 16/08/2023 - 13:18

                    @darkness: Are you having a go at my English language prowess?

    • Flying Ace on 15/08/2023 - 10:37
      +3

      But your reaction times are bad. You can clearly see the Porsche moving thus should have more than enough time to brake.

      It's easy to say that when looking at a video after reading a description of the incident - it's a lot different at the time. We know the Porsche is going to hit the dashccam car, so we know to look for it.

  • Aureus on 12/08/2023 - 20:17
    +22

    Dashcam not at fault. Dashcam is changing lanes, after indicating correctly, while Porsche is entering road and not giving way. Both drivers probably could have prevented the accident if they were concentrating, but IMO dashcam is legally 0% at fault.

    Submit it to Dash Cam Owners Aus.
    https://dashcamownersaus.com.au/contact-us/

    • Ramrunner on 14/08/2023 - 17:04
      +2

      This. 100%. I really think your wife could have been more aware of the Porsche for sure, it seems to me that car was always going to go as soon as it got a clear lane. This was definitely preventable and your wife could have stopped when it saw the Porsche move.

      BUT

      There's no denying I can definitely hear the indicator before she pulls out of her lane so the Porshe also was not paying attention to her indicator. It then also did not stop when it (didn't?) saw/see your wife coming.

      I think bad awareness from both drivers to be fair BUT legally definitely I believe 100% due to the situation the Porshe is technically at fault for causing the collision.

      • Breno785au on 15/08/2023 - 11:31
        +1

        You can hear indicator but by law (asking question here) did she have indicator on long enough before making the change? It seems almost immediate change from indicating.
        It has been a long time since getting my license but I do vaguely remembering a rule which I found here, again, not sure if recommendation or law. The wording of 'must' indicates law.

        "Once it is safe to indicate, then the indicator must be operating for a minimum of 3 seconds prior to moving"

        • resisting the urge on 15/08/2023 - 13:13

          I, like most drivers, can barely imagine why you say ThiS!

          In my entire experience driving I have can count the amount of times anyone has indicated for a reasonable or appropriate amount of time on barely a few hands.

          Most move prior to indication, a few manage 3 flashes (not necessarily 3s) many 2 flashes, some 1s and others not at all.

          Indication once a vehicle has left the lane it is travelling in, not before, is the norm. Quite literally as it happened in this case (The car proceeded to leave the lane without stopping, and as soon as the indicator went on, and without noticing the way was not clear (probably because still busy checking the left lane was free).

          Indication at the time of changing lane does not allow the car entering the clear lane time to notice, and thus choose NOT to proceed where the way is otherwise clear. They have proceeded but also so did the faster Right lane driver, who beat the car entering to the point of impact. Insurance company may look at damage as being pre or post B pilar to decide which one pays. Either way, this is a very common collision type and cannot be avoided unless drivers give others adequate notice of their intention to leave a lane.

          • Car entering did not need to assume the R lane drives should leave right lane without indicating- as otherwise car is just stopping to allow the vehicle in front to turn.
          • Car leaving right lane should perhaps have been keeping left in the first place, given she didn't wish to turn right like the car in front. Choosing to do so at the last moment and indicating would be worse than just failing to adequately indicate.

          That said cops don't like to book people for failure to indicate and other 'etiquettes' so this is hardly the first and certainly not the last. Why they don't do this and instead prefer to book people for speeding and seat belts only is the real cause of increasing numbers of 'at speed' impacts.

          Add to that all the silver/faded/mirror-effect indicators that cannot be seen to be flashing in even partial sunlight, or indicators up too high, or down too low, drivers seem to be going one of two ways- don't bother (people won't see it anyway), or don't bother, (they don't notice, IDK why), so basically the end of civilisation as we know it began in the lane next to you 20 years ago when AS and the DoT's began allowing idiotic lighting designed by marketers running product preference questionnaires.

          • Breno785au on 15/08/2023 - 13:22

            @resisting the urge: I am asking because of a vague memory of a law which I am seeking clarification.
            You also need to make some separation from what people do to what people SHOULD do.
            For eg, last time I remember tail gating was an offence but happens daily.

            • resisting the urge on 15/08/2023 - 13:29

              @Breno785au: AFAIK the law does require indication, I doubt it is specific enough because no-one seems to provide an amount that is anywhere near safe IRL.

              When doing the test years ago I remember figuring I needed to try to give as much as I could, so it must have been vague then. And if I can't, don't proceed/stop. Clearly few others interpret it like this. IIRC, teh law mentioned things like courtesy, which is considered as optional, 'best effort', or when time permits, et al.

              Law enforcement will not care who did what, when. Simply does not care about right and wrong, like the law itself.

              The insurance company will go on location of pillar damage, a blunt instrument at best, but practical as otherwise they begin a war of wills with consumers which gets in the way of business

              Blind Freddy can tel us how much is an amount that is adequate for all others to avoid the potential for a collision.

              But poor ol' Blind Freddy can't see at the best of times…

              • resisting the urge on 15/08/2023 - 14:49
                +2

                @resisting the urge: OK, so I looked it up to address the general ignorance.

                Vic gov publishes this in its handbook (not sure about the law, the gov website seems to ignore the legislation that defines this interpretation. I assume this is because it like most governments and authoritarian regimes does not bother to maintain legislation to a level that allows it to be half-read and comprehended by the public, who have an onus to comply in every respect.

                This is what it does share, however:
                * Use your indicator to show you want to change lanes or turn. You need to show other road users your intent to change lanes.
                * The signal must be given for long enough to warn others that you are about to change lanes or direction.
                * Before turning or changing lanes you must signal for long enough to give sufficient warning to other road users, including other drivers, bicycle riders and pedestrians. In 60 km/h zones, it is best to signal for at least 30 metres or about the length of two houses and driveways before turning or changing lanes.
                - https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/-/media/files/formsandpublic…

                If not do not, you risk being fined for:
                "Turn or stop without signalling"

                Perhaps if found to be a causal factor in an incident, a penalty levied in Court would be more commensurate with the impact caused, and is probably why most videos of incidents are edited to remove footage leading up to each incident.

                Given that 60km/h=~17m/s, and 30m is about 2s worth of indication at 60kmh, but crucially this is before changing lanes, not the total period for which a driver might indicate before finishing the manoeuvre.

                The NSW Government OTOH now states online that drivers must “give the change of direction signal for long enough to give sufficient warning to other drivers and pedestrians”. This is okay for normal people like those on OzB(!?), because if someone doesn't see you signalling, you might appreciate you'd be in the wrong.

                But it does risk the lowest common denominators out there not having clear enough instruction to get it right.

  • AustriaBargain on 12/08/2023 - 20:19
    +5

    You want to harvest our gmail addresses just to look at your MS Paint diagram?

    • darkness on 12/08/2023 - 20:22

      Sorry I didn’t realise it exposed your email. I thought it works in incognito mode?

    • darkness on 12/08/2023 - 21:16
      +1

      Here is a imgur link.

    • Munki on 14/08/2023 - 01:11
      +1

      Who doesn't use burner accounts for all OzB activities?

    • smartazz104 on 14/08/2023 - 08:46

      Oh no not my secure Gmail account.

  • Tee Rex Arms on 12/08/2023 - 20:22
    +18

    Who the (profanity) doesn’t get other involved parties details at a crash? Jesus wept.

    • bobbified on 12/08/2023 - 20:25
      +1

      Sounds like it's going to be an expensive lesson!

    • solidussnake on 15/08/2023 - 07:15

      And also has nonexistent reaction times and situational awareness

  • JimmyF on 12/08/2023 - 20:35
    +4

    We have comprehensive insurance. Unfortunately, they did not exchange contact details, so I'm not even sure if insurance would help.

    So you don't have their details!? Full comp will work out who is at fault and go from their.

    Can anyone say who was at fault in this situation?

    Honestly it was bad driving to change lanes like that when they can see traffic on the side. It was 'clear' when Car B started to pull out and Car A threw themselves in front of them.

    But if you all didn't exchange details, then really just worry about getting your car fixed and move on.

    • Ghost47 on 12/08/2023 - 21:56
      -5

      How was it bad driving? It’s on the Porsche to make sure when they make the turn there’s no oncoming traffic and that includes people changing lanes (and you can hear the indicator too, implying Porsche should’ve seen the indicator go off).

      • JimmyF on 12/08/2023 - 22:16
        +20

        How was it bad driving?

        How is it not bad driving!? If I was in that lane, I would have predicted the side traffic was going to pile out and at least take it slower when changing lanes.

        Then the fact they didn't see the Porsche driver starting to exit and stop, they did have heaps of time to stop, so yeah seems like bad driving to me.

        It’s on the Porsche to make sure when they make the turn there’s no oncoming traffic

        I didn't say whos fault I thought it was, just that it was bad driving in by books.

        • Ghost47 on 12/08/2023 - 23:59
          -5

          How is it not bad driving!? If I was in that lane, I would have predicted the side traffic was going to pile out and at least take it slower when changing lanes.

          And if I was driving a Porsche, I would've taken more time to ensure there is no oncoming traffic before making the turn especially considering that the left lane was so empty.

          Then the fact they didn't see the Porsche driver starting to exit and stop, they did have heaps of time to stop, so yeah seems like bad driving to me.

          You could say the exact same thing for the Porsche driver; OP's wife indicated her intentions and also had right of way (which is very important in this situation) so the Porsche driver should've stopped, especially considering they [Porsche] weren't driving fast in the first place.

          I didn't say whos fault I thought it was, just that it was bad driving in by books.

          Read your comment again, I don't see much impartiality in it.

          • ripesashimi on 13/08/2023 - 17:55
            +4

            @Ghost47:

            right of way

            People need to stop saying this. Theres no such thing in Australia. It is not defined in any road rules. Every driver has a duty of care to avoid collision.

            Porsche did break the road rule but the duty of care shown by OP's wife is non-existent.

            • Ghost47 on 13/08/2023 - 18:18
              -2

              @ripesashimi: Should I have said Porsche driver should have “gave way” then? It’s basically the exact same thing. The cars on the road the Porsche was driving onto had priority, not the Porsche.

              OP’s wife at least signalled and it blinked three times, I’ve seen a lot of drivers that blink the indicator only once in this exact same situation and then they pull out. Saying there was no duty of care is a complete exaggeration.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join