Car Accident This Morning - Who's at Fault?

[Deactivated] on 10/02/2016 - 16:14

I was involved in a car accident this morning. I'm a little shaken up but okay.

The driver of the other car won't admit fault - I'm certain I was doing the right thing.

I approach the dreaded DFO roundabout from Australia Avenue in the left lane. It indicates you can go straight or turn right. My intention was to turn right on to Homebush bay Drive.

During this maneuver a car on the inside lane attempted to exit the roundabout at Underwood avenue and hit the side of my car.

The driver claims no fault and says I must pay. I tried calling the police to assist however they were busy.

What should my next step be? please see diagram here: http://postimg.org/image/l4ui8awt9/

Poll Options

  • 489
    The other driver was at fault
  • 12
    You were at fault
  • 2
    No one was at fault
Automotive

Comments

        • [Deactivated] on 11/02/2016 - 11:56
          +3

          @TrendyTim:
          No, the inside lane DOES NOT always have to give way to the outside lane. On dual lane roundabouts where the exit road is also DUAL lanes (not this Underwood rd case), approaching lane markings usually indicate that the left lane MUST exit (no right arrow, unlike this case) and the right lane MAY (a straight and right arrow) exit. The inside lane does not have to give way to a car which is illegally not exiting.

          So you usually cant hug the outside lane and turn right which is what the other driver may have been thinking EXCEPT in this unusual case where Underwood Rd is a single lane, and therefor the inside lane is not permitted to exit. The other driver was not complying with the approaching lane markings. OP was.

        • TrendyTim on 11/02/2016 - 11:57

          @bobbified:

          So your saying inside lane can just plough though the outside lane without looking ?

          The issue with road rules (and laws in general) is they are often open to interpretation because they are written in 100 page documents that could be succinctly written in a tenth of that.

          To me logic says that if you are in the inner lane, that to exit you are ALWAYS crossing a lane (if you are on the inside of something, you have to pass through the outer layer of it to actually get out), therefore you must always give way, simple as that, just because there is a break in the - - - line on that exact part of the road doesn't mean you can zoom across with impunity, you have to pass in front of another car, so you have to make sure its safe to do so before executing the maneuver.

          Suffice to say whoever designed that roundabout should be drawn and quartered. Not the worst i've seen, but still dreadful.

        • TrendyTim on 11/02/2016 - 12:00

          @Brissy1: Well obviously if the outer lane must exit then there is technically no lane for the outer car to be in so of course in that case.

          However i would still not exit if a car was in the way.

        • bobbified on 11/02/2016 - 13:10
          +1

          @TrendyTim:

          So your saying inside lane can just plough though the outside lane without looking ?

          I think it's quite obvious that I don't mean you should just plough through without looking.
          I don't even do that when I have a green traffic light! I drive defensively expecting people to break certain rules and actively try to avoid any accidents regardless of who might be at fault. (Typical life of a motorcyclist!)

          Driving involves due care and attention, despite what the rules say - no rule can help you when you're lying there trapped in a wreckage or worse, dead.

          But these rules are what matters when you try to lodge an insurance claim or get slapped with a neg driving charge.

          To me logic says that if you are in the inner lane…

          Logic, eh? We all know that rules and logic don't necessarily go together..

          that to exit you are ALWAYS crossing a lane

          just because there is a break in the - - - line on that exact part of the road

          Have a closer look at the lane markings at the exit point where the blue arrows are - they are not simply "breaks in the lines". They're lane markings that divide both lanes and actually lead the drivers out to the exit! There is no "lane" for the inside lane driver to cross!

          But yeh.. the person who designed that roundabout has a lot to answer for! LOL

        • pulsivesilver on 12/02/2016 - 14:38

          @TrendyTim:

          So your saying inside lane can just plough though the outside lane without looking ?

          I don't think this situation would occur because "Drivers must slow or stop to give way to any vehicle already in the roundabout."

          If you follow this rule, the only time there will be someone in the lane next to you is when you enter from the same entrance. The markings at the entrance dictate which exits you may take and in this situation the other driver has broken the rules.

    • artificialsweetener on 11/02/2016 - 09:29

      Agree it is strange. I think those turning right from the other standalone red circle, would need to "change lanes" (right lane to left lane) after the Homebush Bay exit?

      • bobbified on 11/02/2016 - 11:45

        Also, I think that "right turn" lane at the standalone red circle is missing a "go straight ahead" arrow, because that's where the lane also leads to.

    • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2016 - 10:31

      Regardless wouldn't the driver need to give way to my car before exiting the roundabout?

      • bobbified on 13/02/2016 - 11:26

        In your case at that particular exit of the roundabout, the other driver had to give way to you because he was changing lanes to try exit - the lanes are clearly marked at the exit point.

  • Marcsie on 10/02/2016 - 20:19
    +7

    With this classic and unique car, I don't understand how come you didn't take out comprehensive car insurance ?
    ,

    • Davros on 11/02/2016 - 07:48
      -6

      This ^

    • sd4f on 11/02/2016 - 12:46
      +3

      Comprehensive would have cost too much. I drive a 'classic' 1994 mercedes, but just opting for third party meant that I have saved the cost of the car in two years. So it's quite simple to weigh up.

      • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2016 - 10:20

        Exactly, I can't afford to pay $80 per month when the car is worth $6k (its worth a lot more to me though)

  • CCDee on 10/02/2016 - 20:39
    +3

    When you purchase Comprehensive Car Insurance you also get the benefit of having your claims "handled" by your insurer, whether you are at fault or not (in your case it appears like you are not at fault).

    If you have called your Insurer and provided sufficient information to identify the other party:
    - name, contact details, rego number, driver licence number, vehicle make and model, insurance company details
    + any statements and witnesses (if any)

    then that should be the end of your involvement with the claim in terms of determination of fault, dealing with the other party etc.

    I find it very strange that your insurer has asked you to basically "handle" the claim yourself with the other party. I'd actually like to know your insurer as to avoid them in the future.

    • bobbified on 11/02/2016 - 00:55
      +3

      The OP has mentioned that he's only got 3rd party property damage insurance…

      Although, some third party property damage policies have a limited benefit (of a few thousand dollars) if the driver at-fault can be identified. OP hasn't mentioned whether his policy has that benefit.

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 11/02/2016 - 08:23
        +1

        ^ This

        I logged in to post exactly this.

        Was in an accident years ago and only had 3rd party.

        Took photos of both cars, gave name, phone and license no of the other party and my insurance company took care of everything.

        Worth checking OP

      • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2016 - 10:19

        My insurance will cover the accident only in the event that the other driver does not have insurance.

    • CLoSeR on 12/02/2016 - 09:06

      It's because the OP only has Third Party Property Insurance, not Comprehensive.

    • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2016 - 10:19

      The insurer was AAMI…

  • 2Poor4Ozb on 10/02/2016 - 20:44
    -1

    how can someone past their licensing test driving like that? must have international driver license?

    • dogboy on 11/02/2016 - 09:46
      +2

      Nah, they just hit parked cars while adjusting the aircon…

    • Multiverse on 11/02/2016 - 23:52
      -4

      racist.

      • 2Poor4Ozb on 12/02/2016 - 02:04

        no not racist, just stating facts. international license holder dont go through the same test we all go through, some cant even read english and yet they still drive.

        • Multiverse on 12/02/2016 - 02:45
          -6

          Yep, racist, just stating facts

        • Multiverse on 12/02/2016 - 14:56
          -2

          A new screen name for you- 2poor too comment

      • [Deactivated] on 12/02/2016 - 14:26
        +1

        US, Europe and Russia are all international. So….? International does not mean non-white.

        • 2Poor4Ozb on 12/02/2016 - 20:47

          it mean every country outside of australia not one or 2 countries

    • UNO on 12/02/2016 - 18:08

      So Australia obviously has the best drivers in the world then! Hence the accident. The driving test here is pretty easy compared with several other countries.

    • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2016 - 10:18

      Funny enough, they were an international driver…

      • 2Poor4Ozb on 13/02/2016 - 14:29

        lol nearly pissed myself

        • UNO on 23/02/2016 - 18:51

          That explains it then!

  • suchislife12 on 11/02/2016 - 01:57
    +2

    This roundabout sucks. See an accident there every second day on my way to work. As for the driver not admitting fault they're simply doing what they've been told to do by their insurer. Insurers can void claims if their client admits fault. I really think hindsight is a great thing but if the car really meant that much you need to have Comprehensive…it's now a no brainer.

    You will need to get in contact with his insurer. Don't talk to him directly. Ask for his insurer and claim number. They will stall…ask for diagrams, say they never received them ect. Probably will need to make a claim in small claims court which then they will probably pay up.

  • gstfree on 11/02/2016 - 07:27

    If I were you:
    Take pictures at the scene if it's safe to do so.

    If the car is still moveable, move to a safe spot.

    Xchange details and get the other party admit fault in writting. If the other party has insurance and can provide insurance details and damage is not significant it's okay to settle without police.

    If otherwisr, call police and advise loss more than $1,000 and argument.

    If I am the other party,

    I will definitely not admit any fault, I will only execrise legal obligations to exchange details and let insurance company to settle the claims.

    • tonsta on 11/02/2016 - 23:46

      If otherwisr, call police and advise loss more than $1,000 and argument.

      This don't constitute police attending a accident any more. Monetary value don't mean anything these days. These are the 2008 changes in NSW policing.

  • Serapis on 11/02/2016 - 08:32
    +8

    You should NEVER admit fault if you are insured, even if you know you are. Read your insurance PDS, they can refuse to cover you if admit fault.

    Every insurance company has this clause in their PDS, it is up to them to work out who is at fault, not the drivers involved.

    I don't get why people argue on the side of the road when all that's needed is an exchange of details.

  • mthree on 11/02/2016 - 08:40
    +7

    Lucky that you both missed the ATM that is in the middle of the road

  • Sex on 11/02/2016 - 08:44
    +1

    Wait…what do you mean when you say the police were 'busy'? You should be able to file a report for the incident.

    • grb1234 on 11/02/2016 - 09:27

      And for insurance purposes, in most cases you must have a police report.

      • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2016 - 10:16

        Police do not attend accidents unless someone is injured, I went to the station after and they were unable to assist.

  • Gomo on 11/02/2016 - 09:29
    +3

    This is why dashcam's are so valuable invest in one for next time OP, good luck with your claim though

  • dogboy on 11/02/2016 - 09:45
    +10

    Anyone who votes that you were in the wrong or no one was at fault should surrender their license now as they shouldn't be on the road.

    • dabarkle on 11/02/2016 - 10:57
      +7

      So let me get this straight - if you get rear ended twice in a 10 year period, it automatically makes you a bad driver? What a load of rubbish.

      • [Deactivated] on 11/02/2016 - 11:54
        +1

        According to the insurance company, if you get rear ended by a person without insurance you are a "bad bad bad" driver and deserve higher premiums. If you get rear ended by a person with insurance, all good.

      • sd4f on 11/02/2016 - 13:04
        +6

        I don't think factor2 is entirely wrong, didn't word it the best, but there's some attitudes of people exerting their right of way at all costs, and having an accident as a result. I think it's better to drive in a manner which avoids accidents altogether than having them and constantly being in the right. Sometimes they're unavoidable, I'm not talking about those.

        Some examples are not sitting in someone's blindspot. Yea, you're in the right, but if you don't want to have an accident, don't provide an opportunity for someone to not check their blindspot and change lanes into you. Another one is when someone signals their intention to change lanes, a lot of people speed up to close the gap to not let them in. That's risky. Another great one is when you know someone's lane is ending, also speeding up to not let them in, or not creating room to let them in. The signs are up there, so you don't need to have read 'driving by nostradamus' to know that maybe in a few seconds someone will want to leave their ending lane.

        At the end of the day, you don't know the other driver. You don't know if they're drunk, on drugs, licensed or driving a safe roadworthy vehicle. So why risk it?

        • bobbified on 11/02/2016 - 13:21
          +2

          ^^ This is great! Exactly my attitude!

          I hate it when I'm with mates who do random stuff like you've described and then when I say that it's best to avoid any potential accidents, their response is "who cares.. it wouldn't be my fault anyway!". I just shake my head.

          Always best to avoid further increasing the risk of having an accident in the first place.

          I find it helps to picture an actual person around me, instead of just another metal box with an engine in the front.

      • factor on 11/02/2016 - 14:50
        -3

        Correct. If you're not monitoring your rear you are an idiot. You were taught that before you got your license.

        • Kamsi on 13/02/2016 - 00:39

          Stuck in traffic and a idiot forget to slam his brake and rear end my car. How do your monitor that?

  • BargainCowboy on 11/02/2016 - 10:25
    +4

    The solution is clearly marked on the road - inner lane is right only, your lane was straight and right. Usually the exterior lane is left and straight and the right lane is right and straight, but this case is obviously different as there is a left exit prior to the roundabout.

    He's at fault, easy.

  • blitz on 11/02/2016 - 10:56
    +2

    a) He is in the wrong lane
    b) He cannot change into another lane if that lane is not clear

    I hope you are feeling OK.

  • Donaldhump on 11/02/2016 - 11:00

    tell your insurance company
    assuming his right hand lane has a right only arrow, they are at fault.
    You say your lane has a straight or right arrow, so if this was the case it would make no sense for him/her to have a straight option

    They probrably wanted to bully you into saying its your fault. Stand up for yourself, let your insurance company know, they will persue them, hopefully you got their info. I doubt you will hear from them again.

    RELAX …

  • SnakeCasablanca on 11/02/2016 - 11:08

    Basically if you have an accident where the other party is clearly at fault. You tell them that they either have to admit fault or wait for the police to come and decide who is at fault. And let them know that if they do not wait for the police to come they are committing a criminal act of hit and run. You film everything including their license plate on your phone camera. Problem solved.

    • bobbified on 11/02/2016 - 14:03

      I'm picturing someone on their knees confessing their sins! lol

      Just a few points:

      1. Police won't necessarily show up to a minor accident
      2. There is no obligation to admit fault - the drivers are only required to exchange any information.
      3. It is not a case of hit and run after the details are exchanged.
      4. I have seen quite a few cases where drivers will readily admit fault at the scene of the accident, but when it comes to speaking to the insurer, their story has changed in a way that blame is laid upon the other driver. It is then up to the insurer to assess the available material to determine who is actually liable.

      So instead of trying to beat a confession out of the other driver (which is not going to help your case), it'll be more useful to take pictures of the cars in their post-accident positions (if possible) and record the details of any independant witnesses - ie, people on the street that you do not know.
      The witness statements of people in your car don't have as much weight as someone who is completely independant and was not known to you prior to the accident.

      In short, gather as much evidence as you can to present to the insurers/police later on if you have to so that it's not simply your word against theirs.

      • SnakeCasablanca on 11/02/2016 - 14:23

        OK. I agree. At least get them to agree to how the situation has occurred. As much as possible. Not necessarily admission of fault.

        I would at least want photos of the drivers license and person. But if they will not provide those details I say call the police.

        How can the police decide if it is a major or minor accident without coming to the scene may I ask? They will come if you ask them to come. Then you and the other person will have to wait there as well. Otherwise they are leaving the scene of an accident.

        • bobbified on 11/02/2016 - 15:00

          How can the police decide if it is a major or minor accident without coming to the scene may I ask?

          Seems like the accidents have to meet their definition of a "Major Traffic Crash".

          here's a link to their FAQs that provides the criteria: http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/community_issues/road_safety/cr…

          It looks like they've worked out that they don't collect enough money just handing out Neg Driving tickets at the scene of minor accidents. In the time it takes them to show up and do nothing, they could've easily issued 5 speeding tickets or soemthing! lol!

  • AlanHB on 11/02/2016 - 11:08
    +2

    I reckon this roundabout is pretty horrible, and if it weren't for the arrows upon entry, I'd assume you could go straight from the inner lane. In fact if the other car entered from the left hand side of the roundabout as portrayed in the photo, you could take this route from the inner lane.

    Considering the arrows and shared point of entry, it's pretty clear that the other car acted adverse to them. I do understand the other car's position however, and don't always assume that the outer lane can turn right.

  • CVonC on 11/02/2016 - 11:22
    +2

    keep us updated OP

  • jinkhaos on 11/02/2016 - 11:34
    +1

    Was the other driver in front of you or behind you when you collided? Not sure about the rules, but personally I think it would be a gray area if the car was in front of you - it would almost appear like you hit him if you know what I mean. Sometimes, even if the other driver is not doing the right thing and you can see them, doesn't mean you can drive into them too. It's like if a thief was inside your house and you realised, it doesn't mean you can attack or shot them with a gun.

    • CVonC on 11/02/2016 - 11:37
      +1

      obviously the other car was behind since OP was hit on his right side

      • jinkhaos on 11/02/2016 - 11:41

        Yea my bad, didn't finish reading OP's post

    • ozhunter on 11/02/2016 - 13:47

      Sometimes, even if the other driver is not doing the right thing and you can see them, doesn't mean you can drive into them too

      Yea because people normally go around driving into cars that don't follow the road rules….smh

  • FittyFitty on 11/02/2016 - 11:49

    If indeed as you say, then the other driver is at fault 100%. If you don't have a witness, get one! wink wink (you have to be right though, else karma will sting you in the painhole)

  • ant meal on 11/02/2016 - 12:08
    -2

    The driver behind you hit you with his car. He is definitely at fault. Report the Police who were too busy to attend; it's their job to attend the scene of an accident, then ring your insurance company, explain what happened and lodge a claim without delay.

    • NeggerOfDeals on 11/02/2016 - 15:48

      it's their job to attend the scene of an accident

      No it's not. They only attend if someone is hurt and needs to go the hospital or if one of the drivers was under the influence. They don't attend crash scenes if some (profanity) couldn't use common sense.

      • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2016 - 10:07

        Correct, I went to the police station after to file a report but they were unable to assist.

  • sd4f on 11/02/2016 - 12:09
    +1

    Don't forget to mention that he didn't indicate his intention to exit the roundabout. Just FYI, you're supposed to indicate with a left signal when you're exiting all roundabouts.

    Under the 'signalling' heading. http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/safety-rules/road-rules/roun…

    The other thing is, read the link thoroughly. The rules of roundabouts are very important because there's lots of things that basically determine fault, and a lot of people think incorrectly. For instance "The roundabout sign means Slow Down, prepare to Give Way and if necessary stop to avoid a collision." A lot of people incorrectly think that roundabouts mean the person entering from the right has right of way. If you get in the roundabout first, you have right of way.

    Next, he didn't slow down or stop to avoid a collision. From what you have explained, he hit you.

    Main thing is, he definitely was in the wrong lane as the lane markings don't permit his maneuver.

    Being a resident of Sydney, I am familiar with that roundabout, and it's a disgrace. It's one that you definitely should plan a route to avoid. This person you had an accident with basically admitted that they always did it, and have probably had numerous near misses, if not accidents.

    • CVonC on 11/02/2016 - 12:34

      Just FYI, you're supposed to indicate with a left signal when you're exiting all roundabouts.

      This is true. Hardly anyone in Sydney does it so it wouldn't surprise me at all if the other driver didn't.

      • bobbified on 11/02/2016 - 13:42

        Not really true about having to indicate all the time - it was a case where drivers were previously meant to indicate left to leave a dual-lane roundabout.

        And then I think it was around 1999 when the rules relating to indicating changed and we were supposedly meant to indicate to exit any roundabout.

        BUT, if you look closely at the link that sd4f posted above, at Point number 6 under Going Straight Ahead, it says:

        You must indicate a left turn just before you exit unless it is not practical to do so.

        In a video that TrendyTim posted earlier https://youtu.be/sCXtcXD17qU?t=74, it uses the example of a "small single-lane roundabout" where it may not be practical to indicate.

        So the rules don't seem to be much different before the change, except it's now worded in a more ambiguous way and open to intepretation if you get pulled over for it.

      • CircularIllusion on 12/02/2016 - 11:06

        I'm a new driver as of last year in Sydney (currently have my red P) and I'm not so sure about this. From my driving instructor, I was always taught that you must signal when exiting a multi-lane roundabout but it's "optional" otherwise. I've done a bit of reading and some information seems to contradict this but I didn't signal when exiting single lane roundabouts but I did in two double-lane roundabouts in my driving test back in November and didn't lose any points for the former. (The only fault I had in the test was that my vehicle was positioned a little off while parking.) Like bobbified said, I think it's a bit ambiguous.

  • FiDad on 11/02/2016 - 12:24
    +1

    I almost had the exact same accident last year but thankfully other driver hit the brake hard and came to stop 2 inches from my car side. This roundabout is just accident waiting to happen. OP you are definitely in right, good luck and hopefully it works out for you

  • minniethemoocher on 11/02/2016 - 12:31

    If you only have third party and you aren't at fault I have read on whirlpool some people try compass claims to sort it out. I am not recommending them however.

  • ProjectZero on 11/02/2016 - 12:34

    I know this exact same thing happened to someone I know in the exact same roundabout…

    Can't remember what happened in the end as it was a few years back, OP is not in the wrong as the lanes are clearly that only the OP's lane can go straight and turn right.

  • [Deactivated] on 11/02/2016 - 12:59
    +1

    The OP is correct, but as a matter of self preservation, I always mirror or head check people charging through straight. You can also maintain space and timing to be safer at roundabouts. I will slow slightly early at an intersection to position my car so that I have an out if something goes wrong. Too many people blindly follow GPS instructions like a cop told them to do it as an order.

    • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2016 - 09:59

      This is my first accident ever, and i've avoided so many I can't count. As a rule a absolutely agree, the MX5 doesn't have a space to check blind spot as it has no rear windows.

  • GameChanger on 11/02/2016 - 13:17

    Write up a letter in legal language or get a lawyer to do it.

    Watch how fast this idiot will crawl under his rock or he will try to fight it then you know no money is coming back.

  • derek324 on 11/02/2016 - 13:21

    It should be noted that all insurance companies always advice that in case of an accident you should NEVER admit that it was your fault, regardless what you think, and regardless on the situation.

  • RolandWaites on 11/02/2016 - 13:36

    If the other driver thinks they're in the right and they're willing to explain their position truthfully then you've got nothing to worry about. The insurance company will recognise that the other driver was wrong. Try not to get too flustered, if the other person tells the truth (thinking they're in the right) then it'll come out in your favour surely.

  • OzzyOzbourne on 11/02/2016 - 14:00
    +1

    Simple, send the diagram, any photos and witnesses to your insurer, they will sort it, other driver clearly at fault.
    Note, this is standard procedure it says it in your insurance documents, along with not admitting fault, hence why the other driver didn't admit it.

  • sulmar on 11/02/2016 - 14:12
    +1

    Been on this roundabout a few times and i have to say its a little tricky.

    Most roundabouts are pretty straight forward as you just give way.

    • ProjectZero on 11/02/2016 - 14:17
      +1

      Actually, this is pretty straight forward if you look at the markings on the lanes.

      OP's lane is the only one marked to be able to turn and go straight whilst the one next to it is a turn right only lane. I just think maybe the other person missed it. The roundabout in question is not that difficult to understand…

  • dbun1 on 11/02/2016 - 14:31
    -1

    Roundabouts are not hard at all if you follow the lane markings.
    Unfortunately for the OP, some people just don't have the required skill to drive properly.

  • jovialjosie2002 on 11/02/2016 - 14:36

    Very unusual case….
    When I first saw this diagram, I clearly thought that YOU were in the wrong, because the left hand lane on a roundabout cannot turn right. However, there is very unusual lane markings indicating that you can. I think the true person at fault is the transport department for not clearly letting the drivers know that there is changed (weird) traffic conditions ahead. I am sure that both drivers could say that the road is not following "kosher" lane markings and that accidents are common on this intersection because of the "non Orthodox" road markings.
    In any other roundabout, you would be at fault. However, this roundabout seems to be following the ridiculous English roundabout law of "each lane is its own road", hence, you may be not at fault. However, another interpretation of the law could be…." Always give way to the right"… So you very well may be at fault.
    In summary….the ridiculous lane markings are the cause of this accident. They should be changed back to the Orthodox method, which is "the left hand lane cannot turn right on a roundabout"

  • jovialjosie2002 on 11/02/2016 - 14:38
    +2

    Please let us know what the ruling is on this case.

  • jellykingdom on 11/02/2016 - 16:25
    +1

    I think you may have a problem. It will just become a "he said, she said" situation, and noone would be considered at fault. His company will blame you, you will blame him, but they will just call that an impasse. You should get your car fixed by your company i would imagine? But i doubt you will get it from his

    • gomertose on 11/02/2016 - 17:19
      +1

      I agree that this is the most likely thing that will happen, even though the other driver is at fault. If the op had comprehensive insurance, then it would be another matter.

      The other driver could cover it up and say that he was going east on Homebush Bay Drive and turning right onto Underwood.

      • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2016 - 09:56

        In which case he would still need to give way to traffic turning right?

        • gomertose on 13/02/2016 - 23:16

          That the grey area due to the non-standard markings on this roundabout. In such a case the other driver cannot be deemed totally at fault (compared to your case where nearly 100% agree the other driver is totally at fault) and hence a ruling may not be able to be made and you end up each fixing your own car.

  • Mysterious Laptop on 11/02/2016 - 16:34
    +1

    How do you decide who's at fault after you clear everything up? I hope you got photos OP.

    Another reason why you should install a dash cam…

  • Zozo6969 on 11/02/2016 - 17:36
    -7

    You are at fault, but those arrow markings are wrong. Your argument would mean that no one in the inside lane of the roundabout will ever be able to leave the roundabout.

    For example, where you have the other red circle, travelling southbound in the right lane and wanting to turn right, they would end up in the same lane as the other driver was, and trying to exit at Underwood Road as the driver who you crashed into did. Those arrows may have been painted in that direction due to the angle at which that road enters the roundabout, take it up with the RMS.

    • Shonky on 11/02/2016 - 17:46
      +2

      You are simply wrong. Inside lane must give way to leave the roundabout. End of story. Doesn't matter what the arrows are.

      • Zozo6969 on 11/02/2016 - 17:47
        -5

        Wake up to yourself. So you want everyone from the inside lane to stop on the roundabout or circle it forever?

        • Shonky on 11/02/2016 - 17:51
          +2

          Check the road rules. That's the law. Giving way doesn't mean stopping. The inside lane driver needs to ensure they can change into the lane. Nothing to do with circling forever or stopping.

          Surprises me how many people don't know basically road rules like this.

      • jovialjosie2002 on 11/02/2016 - 19:29

        Hi shonky,
        This intersection has "weird" lane markings. In any other roundabout the op would be in the wrong because you cannot (normally) make a right hand turn when in the left lane of a roundabout ( except in UK). The lane markings have most probably been put there to increase traffic flow, (I do not know this intersection, but I guess that was the aim because most people want to get on the freeway).
        Other people have mentioned that there has been lots of similar accident on this same intersection. Hence, the department of transport should either change the lane markings or put up better signs to warn drivers of the lane markings ahead.

        • Shonky on 11/02/2016 - 19:37
          +3

          I already have acknowledged multiple times that the arrows are not normal however it is quite clearly within the rules that special situations may have special markings and the arrows take precedence.

          Still doesn't change the fact the inside driver didn't give way. It's actually even worse for the other driver since they also ignored the arrows. If it were a normal roundabout the OP would have also been in the wrong for turning right from the outside lane but the blame would probably go 50/50 since the other driver also didn't give way. The outside driver could have entered elsewhere on the roundabout.

  • Camembert on 11/02/2016 - 17:37
    +1

    OP, perhaps I missed this, but did the driver come from Australia Ave, or did they come from the Homebush Bay Drive exit?

    Homebush Bay drive exit means they can exit onto Underwood Rd (they were turning right to get to Underwood Rd), but if they came from Australia Ave on the inside lane, then they definitely can't go straight and exit onto Underwood Rd.

    I hate this roundabout and normally avoid it at all costs, even though it's the more direct route for most of my journeys.

    • Zozo6969 on 11/02/2016 - 17:50
      -8

      And if they were both already on the roundabout how does it make a difference where they came from? If they were from here they're allowed to cut you off but if they came from there they're not? Give way to anything on already on the roundabout, anything to the right of you is on the roundabout before you so give way to them. The car was on the right of the OP, and they didn't give way to it. OP's fault.

      • Shonky on 11/02/2016 - 17:53
        +1

        Wow. You really don't understand the road rules. You don't only give way to the right when changing lanes and changing lanes to the left doesn't automatically give you right of way.

        • Shonky on 11/02/2016 - 18:07

          @Bangbang207:
          *You're

          Line marking and arrows have nothing to do with the actual accident. The reason there even was an accident was because one driver ignored them. Right or wrong with how they are painted is irrelevant. Inside driver didn't give way trying to exit and cause the accident.

          Also the lane markings always override the general rule you quoted. Check the road rules.

        • picket23 on 12/02/2016 - 10:17

          @Bangbang207:
          Lol. So deluded. Ignore road markings because "some brickie" painted them.. Might as well ignore stop signs cause the prime minister didn't personally install them.

      • Camembert on 11/02/2016 - 18:20

        I don't really understand why you've stated that anything to the right of you is on the roundabout before you? I asked because they could have entered the roundabout together at the same time from those two lanes entering the roundabout on Australia Ave.

        Alternatively, if the other driver was already in the roundabout when the OP entered the roundabout, then I would have given way.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join