Two cars changing into middle lane - scrapes occur... Who's at fault?

Imightnotbearobot on 24/06/2016 - 23:28

Hi all,

Just got into a minor scrape today. Considering whether I risk putting through a not-at-fault claim through insurance.

Was peak hour Friday evening traffic. I was on a three lane road, and indicated left to change lanes into the middle lane. Guy in the middle slowed to let me pass. But the thing is that the guy on the left had the same idea to zip into the middle lane too. Can't remember if his signals were on or not, and the next second, there was a loud screech, as we scraped each other… No collision.

The thing about this is that I can't remember what really happened, but on my left front wheel arch, there is scrape damage, but the only damage to the other suv were scratches on their right doors.

Based on this scenario, what are everyone's thoughts on who's at fault? I'm thinking that there was a rule around persons giving way to the right.

And the cost to fix is not significant, probably about $1000 to take care of both. But just can't help but think that I might possibly be in the right, and maybe get away with a no-excess claim?

Automotive

Comments

  • [Deactivated] on 24/06/2016 - 23:47
    +28

    Rudimentary analysis of the damage would suggest that, because the front of your car collided with the counterparty's side doors, the counterparty was in your blind spot and you neglected to do a head check. As such, by the time you were changing lanes the other vehicle was already in that lane and ahead of you.

    I would say that this is a case of either shared liability, or your full liability.

    • macrocephalic on 27/06/2016 - 16:02
      +7

      You drive a car with a blind spot in front of you? That scares me a little.

      • TenaciousTom on 27/06/2016 - 16:38
        -2

        You have a entirely see through car?

      • Donaldhump on 27/06/2016 - 16:46
        +1

        I just spent 10 minutes reading his comment, glad im noit only one confused.

        Seems the ozbargainer asking the question was the rearmost car, so I would go with them being at fault.

    • Dollarsandsense on 27/06/2016 - 20:21
      +2

      It depends on car speed also. Just because a car is in front of you doesn't mean that it wasn't driving recklessly.

      That 2nd car could have been zig zagging between lanes way over the speed limit with no indicating.. if it was travelling faster than imightbearobot then the crash marks would be the same.

      I have been in this same situation a few times but luckily not had an accident, I have always managed to see the other car with enough time to cancel the lane change..

      It's usually some idiot going 20km over the limit in the opposing lane that you don't expect to be merging..

    • Slippery Fish on 25/06/2016 - 00:12
      +22

      Im no expert but I dont belive that applies when you both merge into the center lane lol.

        • saintmagician0 on 26/06/2016 - 11:52
          +9

          Really? That's your only reply?

          Do you have a source for this or are you just asserting your opinion of the road rules as facts?

          I tried to google and the only thing I could find (for my state anyway) is that you have to give way to cars in the lane you are changing into. So whoever started their lane changing first has right of way (assuming they already gave way to anyone already in that lane).

        • endotherm on 26/06/2016 - 15:59

          @saintmagician0: You have to giveway to cars IN the lane you are changing into. As neither car is completely IN the lane this doesn't get a chance to apply. It comes back to both drivers being obligated to avoid a collision with each other. This has always been a curly situation with no clear definition of who has right of way when two cars merge at once. It catches out most drivers, just like many roundabout rules do. The normal rules do a flip on their head at a moments notice, e.g. a driver on the right approaches an empty roundabout at speed and a slower vehicle approaches on its left. Before entering, the vehicle on the right has right of way. With this knowledge the driver has no intention of slowing or giving way and barrels through. However if the slow vehicle enters the roundabout first, he suddenly has to give way to a vehicle already in the roundabout. If he collides with the slow vehicle that has cut him off, bad luck, he'll suddenly find himself at fault because the right of way has suddenly changed.

        • Euphemistic on 26/06/2016 - 16:32

          @endotherm: approaching the roundabout the driver on the right doesn't have right of way. As an aside there actually is no such thing as right of way in the driving rules. But the rules for roundabouts apply at the entry point nowhere else, you have to give way to cars on the roundabout.

          IME there are virtually no intersections around that don't have a give way or stop for at least on direction of traffic. Give way to the right doesn't apply to them either.

        • endotherm on 26/06/2016 - 18:30

          @Euphemistic: Plenty of uncontrolled 4-way cross intersections in the country, especially dirt roads. Give way to the right applies.

          When turning at an intersection, you must give way to:

          Oncoming vehicles going straight ahead.
          Oncoming vehicles turning left.
          Any vehicle on your right.

          If you and an oncoming vehicle are turning right at an intersection both cars should pass in front of each other.

          If other drivers do not give way to you, do not force them or yourself into a dangerous situation.

          You must also give way to any pedestrians at or near the intersection on the road you are entering.

          http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/safety-rules/road-rules/inte…

          The road rules specify "give way", but the nomenclature of having "right of way" has been a traditional terminology given to the receiver of the "give way". It is not a legislative term.

          The roundabout example was more of an example of how drivers can have a mindset of certain rules that are applicable to some situations, but circumstances can change them. In fact a roundabout is not an intersection but many drivers treat them as such (especially smaller ones). You are correct about the rules applicable to them. In my example, the slower vehicle can only enter the roundabout when there is a safe gap in the traffic. It could be argued that he should not enter the intersection due to approaching high speed traffic (there are roundabouts on 80 and 100km/h highways). In this case you would obviously consider vehicles 100 meters away and not just those within the roundabout.

        • johnno07 on 26/06/2016 - 20:11
          +1

          Nope. It doesn't.

        • johnno07 on 26/06/2016 - 23:07
          +3

          @Drew22: "You must give way to any vehicle in the lane you are moving into.". This means that you give way to the left also. You do NOT "Always give way to the right", as you have so incorrectly stated.

        • johnno07 on 27/06/2016 - 00:16
          +2

          @Drew22:

          Not coveted by your link.

          Not by me either.

          If two people move into the same lane, at exactly the same time, and neither gives way to the other, then they are both at fault. The principle is though, that you simply give way to whoever is already in the lane you are merging into. Common sense dictates that this would also include vehicles partially in the lane. Your obligation to give way doesn't all of a sudden disappear just because the car you're going to run into has a couple of wheels over the line.

          I don't give two sh*ts about your fish preference. A combination of researched facts (like I have provided) with a healthy dose of common sense (like I have tried to impress upon you) will make you a more informed, intelligent human. If you chose to ignore facts, and reject common sense… then good luck, mate.

        • macrocephalic on 27/06/2016 - 16:05

          @Euphemistic: I've known of intersections which had a give-way one direction, and stop the perpendicular direction; that normally confuses people.

        • macrocephalic on 27/06/2016 - 16:07

          @endotherm: Roundabouts are best described as circular, one way roads. You give way to the cars on the road you're entering, and you indicate when you exit the road. The only thing not explained by this logic is indicating right when you're turning right.

    • Diji1 on 25/06/2016 - 00:43
      +1

      o.0

    • getcarter on 26/06/2016 - 22:31

      nah, always give way to the left, too easy.

    • DarkOz on 28/06/2016 - 06:48

      That's true only and if only there is a roundabout in the middle lane.

  • Slippery Fish on 25/06/2016 - 00:11
    +6

    Lol go to police, you will both be slapped with driving without due care.

    Is it an expencive fix? If so roll the dice if you can afford the premium bump if not in your favor.

    • Thenarrator on 25/06/2016 - 08:53
      +1

      no, dont go police for these trivial matter. Police is only when someone is injured

      • Slippery Fish on 25/06/2016 - 11:00
        +3

        It was obviously a joke. Lol why would anyone go get themself a ticket, rofl.

      • TenaciousTom on 27/06/2016 - 16:39
        +6

        The police is definitely not just for when someone is injured.

        • tramperleo on 28/06/2016 - 21:32

          Don't know if there's any rules there. But when fell in accident last time. The police told us that we shouldn't call police if there's no one injured (NSW).

        • TenaciousTom on 01/07/2016 - 14:51

          @tramperleo: In a car crash maybe, but not in general.

    • doodo477 on 26/06/2016 - 20:09

      Last time I checked for the road laws in the NT you have to report to the police after a incident has occurred between two vehicles. Could be different in different states, but I still think you can have your insurance claimed declined due to not reporting the incident to the police.

      • R3XNebular on 26/06/2016 - 21:48
        +3

        In qld you only report to police if there is an injury. If no injury then it's up to the insurance company to investigate.

        • ThithLord on 27/06/2016 - 10:25
          +1

          Don't know why this is getting down voted - it's true. QLD transport sent out flyers advising of this.

          I will only add, if there's a traffic incident and any driver apepars to be under the influence of drugs/alcohol, it's advisable to report as well.

        • Thenarrator on 27/06/2016 - 21:59
          -1

          its true, read my comment above also

        • perkinma on 27/06/2016 - 23:33
          +2

          No that is not true according to the Queensland Police website

          Do I have to report a traffic crash to Police?

          You must report a traffic crash to police if it involves one or more of the following criteria:
          •death or injury (requiring medical attention from a qualified ambulance officer, nurse or doctor), or
          •a driver fails or has failed or is refusing to provide required details*,
          •vehicle not driveable - A vehicle involved in the crash is towed or carried away by another vehicle

          If none of these circumstances exist, you are not required to report the traffic crash to police.

          Any 'reportable crash' that police attend will be reported by attending police officers. However, if police did not attend you will have to report the matter.

          i.e. vehicle not driveable

          From a quick read I am guessing that the confusion is over when to report to police via 000 for "police attendance criteria"

          You must stop at the scene and call 000 (triple zero) if there is an emergency or any of the following 'police attendance criteria' are met –

          1.death or injury (requiring medical attention from a qualified ambulance officer, nurse or doctor),
          2.a hazardous environment or threat to public safety exists, including traffic congestion (e.g. fuel spill, power lines down).

          If it does not meet the "police attendance criteria" but is a "reportable crash" then it should be reported:

          If your traffic crash involved
          •death or injury (requiring medical attention from a qualified ambulance officer, nurse or doctor),
          •suspected involvement of drugs, alcohol , or
          •a driver who failed/refused to provide required details

          You must report the traffic crash at a police station or attending police will take the report, if applicable.

          If your traffic crash involved
          •a vehicle that required towing

          You must report the traffic crash either
          •online at www.policelink.qld.gov.au
          •using the Policelink Application for smart phones and tablets (via the My crash function),
          •phoning Policelink 131 444, or
          •attending your local police station.

        • perkinma on 27/06/2016 - 23:43
          +1

          @ThithLord:

          QLD transport sent out flyers advising of this

          Is this the flyer?

          Step 3 does just say "report the crash". But step 4 does say "Report the crash to Policelink".

        • lostn on 28/06/2016 - 21:16

          In VIC, they will fine the at fault party for reckless driving, or loss of concentration. Best not to involve the police unless someone is injured.

        • ThithLord on 29/06/2016 - 12:12

          @perkinma: That's the one. If you answer NO, NO and NO, it says "You are not required to report the crash to Police" And then gives instructions if you want to. You've proved my point EDIT It only has to be reported if vehicle needs towing. This was for a scrape. EDIT EDIT I was referencing this case in particular RE:whether a police report should be filed

        • perkinma on 29/06/2016 - 22:54

          @ThithLord:

          You've proved my point

          No. The point as stated (which you agreed with) is wrong.

          The original quote was:

          R3XNebular on 26/06/2016 - 21:18
          In qld you only report to police if there is an injury. If no injury then it's up to the insurance company to investigate

          The statement is wrong. See above references.

          EDIT EDIT I was referencing this case

          It makes no sense (and is misleading) to reference personal injury in the context of the original post yet exclude referencing vehicles needing to be towed when there was clearly no personal injury just as there was clearly no vehicles needing to be towed.

      • winterseed on 27/06/2016 - 00:53
        +3

        In SA You're supposed to report to police if estimated damage exceeds $3000. Non-emergency (131 444) is probably the go, apparently you can report online instead if you don't need police to attend.

  • Ughhh on 25/06/2016 - 00:23
    +3

    I'm thinking that there was a rule around persons giving way to the right.

    I thought that only applies to intersections and roundabouts. What we think isn't important, it's what the insurance company thinks. It's human nature to believe we're always in the right.

    My bet is on both at fault. These types of scenarios are popular on 3+ lane roads, have to look further than the car directly surrounding you.

    • Euphemistic on 25/06/2016 - 08:25
      +5

      Not on roundabouts. Give way to vehicles already on the roundabout. As most vehicles approach from the right in a roundabout most people interpret it as giving way to the right.

      • [Deactivated] on 25/06/2016 - 12:25
        +6

        I think it's both - you must give way to the right, or a car already on the roundabout.

      • saintmagician0 on 26/06/2016 - 11:54
        +5

        i thought the two statements were 100% equivalent. Cars always approach from the right in a roundabout.

        Or do we have roundabouts that run in the opposite direction (and I've just never encountered one)? On a normal round about there should never be a car approaching from not-right

        • Euphemistic on 26/06/2016 - 14:48
          -2

          Well there could be a car on your left to give way to, one that is passing, but not past your point. It might mean the same thing, but the rule is to give way to cars on the roundabout.

        • saintmagician0 on 26/06/2016 - 18:00
          +2

          @Euphemistic: If the car has not past your point, then it is to your right isn't it?

          If everyone is doing clockwise on a round about, a car that has not yet gone past your entry point is always to your right.

          Well just had a look, for NSW at least, the rules only say give way to cars already in the round about. There's no rule saying to give way to cars to your right, so even if the two mean different things, there doesn't actually seem to be any ambiguity.

        • cameldownunder on 27/06/2016 - 16:59

          @saintmagician0:
          Is the car right of me, about to enter the roundabout, just there, I consider the car in and wait.
          Is a car approaching the roundabout, and I am already there, and I will be in before the other car gets into the roundabout then I go.

          I had a case where the roundabout has 3 lanes getting in, that means the the car who doesn't have a lane on their right, only have to worry about cars coming straight on, and turning in front of them. This leads to cars literally ignoring the roundabout, if no car is coming ahead of them, ignoring any car approaching from the lane to their left.

          So I approach the roundabout, am there, and I see this car on my right, about 70m away, no car on the left, I have to turn left.
          The car approaching from the right clearly not slowing down, doing more then 50kmh.

          Being 70m away, I enter the roundabout, and exit it a few seconds later, and this guys honks, toots, and breaks screeches as he almost rear ends me when I am OUT of the roundabout. He obviously though right of way from the right.

        • [Deactivated] on 29/06/2016 - 15:49

          "Giving way

          Approaching a roundabout: Vehicles entering a roundabout must give way to any vehicle already in the roundabout.

          Giving way at a roundabout: means the driver must slow down and if necessary, stop to avoid a collision.

          When entering, you must give way to all vehicles, including bicycles, already on the roundabout. So slow down or stop if necessary. Only enter when there is a safe gap."

          http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/safety-rules/road-rules/roun…

          http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/downloads/top-10-misu…

  • kimmylala on 25/06/2016 - 00:45
    +5

    Both parties are equally liable

    • dasher86 on 25/06/2016 - 07:03

      I thought the give away rule was now etiquette at round about rather than a rule like it used to be.

      • shanakatak on 25/06/2016 - 08:54
        +3

        Now it is whover is in the roundabout first, but given the dynamics of a roundabout giving way to the right is normally correct.

      • MondaySleeper on 25/06/2016 - 11:03

        "I thought the give away rule was now etiquette at round about rather than a rule like it used"…

        the law changed a few years ago. Actually there is no such law to give preference to right. But most people follow and I am also cautious if i see someone rushing from my right…. you never know he might still be reading the old books.

        • supersabroso on 27/06/2016 - 02:01
          +2

          This changes things dramatically, it means that no driver would ever need to wait for a car on their right that hasn't yet entered the roundabout. That sounds dangerous.

        • samcro on 27/06/2016 - 16:09

          It depends on the dynamics. If I see a car approaching the roundabout from my right "at speed" then I'll always wait. Otherwise I'm just as dead, in the right or not.

        • cameldownunder on 27/06/2016 - 17:00

          @IndecentExposure:
          It makes the traffic more fluid, assuming both care are at low speed: both car can be in the roundabout at the same time.

        • Euphemistic on 01/07/2016 - 16:31

          @cameldownunder: I have once, just once, rounded a roundabout with four cars approaching at the same time, entering at the same time and all exiting at the same time. Driven around thousands of roundabouts in my time behind the wheel and it has worked perfectly just once.

    • lostn on 28/06/2016 - 21:18

      This is probably the most likely outcome. Call insurance and find out who they believe is at fault, and they'll give you your options. If it's not too expensive to fix out of pocket, you might be better off doing that.

  • His_Holiness on 25/06/2016 - 01:16
    +19

    Merge like a zip. From the damage you described their car was about half a cars length ahead of yours so they would get right of way.

    • moo on 26/06/2016 - 19:34
      -2

      Merging like a zip doesn't work when the 'fly' gets caught in it. It will only cause more pain..

  • rambao9 on 25/06/2016 - 02:06
    +1

    If you don't have a dash cam, he can probably just say he was driving in the mid lane the whole time. You're in trouble, sorry.

    • spoonmugen on 26/06/2016 - 12:16

      if other party doesnt have cam too?
      and if they did it'll just show that he wasnt in the middle lane…

      its a 50/50 incident both of you didnt merge with care so just take care of your own excess each…
      no one was completely in the lane to claim right of way…

      • rambao9 on 26/06/2016 - 12:43
        +1

        I was thinking judging from the damage, the other car was ahead of OP. So if you look at it that way, he can just say OP cut dangerously into his lane.

        • cameldownunder on 27/06/2016 - 17:05

          What if OP was merging in after seeing that there was space from the middle line car, and no cars in the far right lane. The car on the far right lane out of sight, but incoming at high speed ( hidden by middle lane cars ). While entering the middle lane, this other car, speeds in from the left, and touches OP's car that was merging into middle lane. Unavoidable for the OP, as the other car just rushed in.
          You probably need the car in the middle lane to witness what happened.

        • lostn on 28/06/2016 - 21:19

          Who is ahead and who is behind can change in a split second if both of you are driving at different speeds.

  • endotherm on 25/06/2016 - 03:12
    +3

    You are required to diverge with due care and attention. If there was another car also attempting a similar maneuver they are also required to exercise the same care. You are both required to avoid each other. As neither of you avoided the collision, it is prima facie carelessness on both parties. It would be shared liability.

    Flip off the guy in the middle that allowed you the space :).

  • Puska on 25/06/2016 - 08:14
    +5

    You won't win your claim… I got into an accident at a set of lights turning right. Left hand lane can turn into the middle or far left lane and the right lane can only turn into the far right lane (white dividing lines on the road indicate that). Anyways, I was turning from the left lane into the middle lane and the car in the right left drive straight into the side of my car and we were "both at fault" because there was no witness' who stopped… Ended up buying a dash cam and it happened again and we were going down the same path of it being "both at fault". Showed the dash cam footage and only then I won my claim.

    • ankor on 27/06/2016 - 10:50

      What dash cam did you get? I want to get one for the wife but she already has her phone and a gas hooked up to the console argh.

      • Puska on 27/06/2016 - 16:54

        i need to get a new one. it was good during the warranty and as soon as it rolled over 1 year, its now playing up.
        Just look up

    • lostn on 28/06/2016 - 21:21

      Yeah, that is an accident waiting to happen.

      After one near miss, I never ever take the middle lane if two turning lanes are going to become three.

      Just out of safety, because you can't trust other people to know the road rules.

    • lostn on 28/06/2016 - 21:22

      What would a 'good' person say to win this game? Because if the other party reports to his/her insurance exactly what happened, then insurance will determine who was at fault.

  • cloudy on 25/06/2016 - 09:14
    +1

    Is anyone infront of the other? If ur equal side by side ur both at fault. But practically speaking, the left car should see the accident coming earlier, and had more chance to take evasive action.

  • Imightnotbearobot on 25/06/2016 - 10:46
    +6

    HMm… thanks all guys. Seems like this is another one that we should be dumping into the too hard bucket… No witnesses around, and probably not worth going the trouble for what it is worth. I think we'll just shell out for our scratch repair and move on with life. Thanks very much for the feed back, much appreciated!

    • yoshipau on 28/06/2016 - 16:55

      What about the guy in the middle lane?
      He slowed down to let both of you in and just watching the 2 cars in front of him scraped each other.
      He could at least horn?
      Isn't he/she your witness also?

      • lostn on 28/06/2016 - 21:23

        If that person stopped to render assistance, sure. But how many people would do that?

    • lostn on 28/06/2016 - 21:24

      It might not be that simple. Depending on the other guy. He might be determined and insist that you were the one at fault and he had no fault. I've had shared liability cases where the other guy claimed it was all my fault. This guy wouldn't get off my case.

      Make sure you contact the other party and he agrees to share liability and isn't going to try and persue a no fault claim.

  • andylch on 25/06/2016 - 14:33

    If I was doing an illegal u-turn on double continous line, and someone hit me when I was in station.
    What's at fault? Can win the claim?
    What happens if go to police?

    • lostn on 28/06/2016 - 21:25

      You go to police, you will get fined.

      Don't know if you will win the claim or escape being at fault. But no matter who is determined to be at fault, the police will give you a hefty fine for an illegal u-turn.

      • andylch on 29/06/2016 - 22:51

        How about just go to insurance?

  • Mumbles on 26/06/2016 - 11:56

    Its not a win-lose thing. Its a win-win (or lose-lose) proposition since both drivers were equally unsafe with their lane change. Nothing would be different if the positions changed and you were in the other car.

    The good news is the other driver is just as dangerous at changing lanes on a three lane road.

  • MattADL on 26/06/2016 - 12:58

    Racing incident, both parties pay their own damages.

  • pmupsinep on 26/06/2016 - 13:31
    +7

    there was a loud screech, as we scraped each other… No collision.

    What…

  • chinezejew on 26/06/2016 - 13:36

    Ive heard of cases where ppl split.

    Split the cost 70/30 of excess.
    At fault party pays 30.
    Not fault party 70.

    May not work in all cases.

    • ankor on 27/06/2016 - 10:52

      Won't work here since if both are insured, each will have to pay an excess.

      • chinezejew on 27/06/2016 - 13:03

        Why?
        Just have 1 party say it is their fault.

        • ankor on 27/06/2016 - 15:10

          Read your insurance policy…

        • OzBrogains on 27/06/2016 - 19:55

          Don't listen to this man.

        • chinezejew on 27/06/2016 - 20:04
          -1

          @jas0nt:

          Just an example…

          I am at fault of an accident.
          The person i hit wants to pay me 100% of the cost of my premium.
          We both have insurance. (From the goodness of his heart)

          I pay my excess. The party i hit pays me. Both cars get fixed.

          (Am i missing something?)

        • Ughhh on 27/06/2016 - 20:08

          @chinezejew:

          I pay my excess. The party i hit pays me. Both cars get fixed.

          Why would the not at fault person want to pay you?
          More like, the party that you hit does not need to pay you, his car gets fixed- whether you go through your own insurance or not. Even if he claims via his own insurance, he won't need to pay an excess and his premiums won't be affected.

        • chinezejew on 27/06/2016 - 20:43

          I 100% agree.

          How it happens should be told to insurance.

          But… it ain't how it always happens.

        • Ughhh on 27/06/2016 - 20:59

          I don't see how anyone who is not at fault will feel its acceptable to pay for the damages.

          How it happens should be told to the insurance
          But… it ain't how it always happens

          The most likely scenario would be the at fault party lying and blaming the other party.

          If you hit my car, I ain't pay a cent for the damages you caused- I'm sure many would agree.

        • chinezejew on 27/06/2016 - 23:13
          -1

          @Ughhh:

          Yer…. i knw i knw.

          But what if… ur merc gets hit by a old corolla with no insurance.

          Corolla negotiated with $1000 cash.

          Merc tell insurance corolla was correct merc at fault.
          Collect cash $1000 from corolla.
          Pay merc insurance excess of $500.

          Merc just wants his car fixed with minimal headache

        • dji1111111 on 28/06/2016 - 09:57

          @chinezejew:
          Ever tried logic in your life. Non of what you say makes any sense not to mention it's extremely poorly written

        • lint on 28/06/2016 - 10:31

          @chinezejew: What about your no claim bonus though?

          If the other dude has no insurance then they pay the cost of repairs in full out of pocket.

          Unless the damage is minor and you don't care too much about it, only then is it a good idea to take the cash and not bother to get it fixed.

  • Hirolol on 26/06/2016 - 18:16
    +3

    as it has been said already you are at fault as the damage is on the front of your car and only on his door, meaning he was in front of you.

    ask them if they are willing to cut their losses and both of you just pay your own premium, unless there is a way to do it so that you are both better off, EG pay each others premium? not exactly sure…

    If the other party turns around and says that its your fault then you may need to cut your losses and take this as a lesson. When im changing lanes on a busy road/freeway where its 3 or more lanes i always do the head check a few times just to be careful of this very thing.

    i have nearly been in the exact situation as you but as i do the double head check i can see the other car in time and go back to my original lane.

    i hope it works out for you.

    • asianbargain on 27/06/2016 - 07:16

      My thought exactly .👍

    • OYC on 27/06/2016 - 18:08
      +4

      NO. That is not necessarily the case.

      The car further behind and in the right lane ( CAR R ) may have already completed 80% of merge and the left car (CAR L), though in front, starts merging to middle lane and hits car R front wheel area.

      Even though the contact was made on the front area of CAR R and back passanger door area of CAR L, this scenario would have car L at fault.

      I am not saying this is what happened, but just highlighting that you cannot simply generalise who is at fault based on who is further forward.

      • reon on 27/06/2016 - 19:03

        Check your vicroads book again buddy, topic of zip Lane.

        • OYC on 28/06/2016 - 10:40
          +1

          are you referring to this?

          "Zip merging
          If you are on a road where there are no lines marked and the road is such that two rows of vehicles must merge into one, you must give way to any vehicle which has any part of its vehicle ahead of yours. This is called zip merging. Note: If you cross any lines marked on the road, then you are not zip merging but changing lanes and you must give way accordingly."

          What the OP described is not zip merging it is normal changing lanes.

        • jacross on 07/07/2016 - 16:36
          -1

          I think you are the one that needs to check your road rules again mate. The scenario described isn't a zip lane.

      • Hirolol on 29/06/2016 - 14:10

        ah yes fair point you have here.
        so many different factors need to be accounted for which i wont go into.
        but lets hope the other party doesn't claim they were in the lane first and OP merged into them.
        there are a lot of sneaky people out there and will say they had a passenger in their car at the time (even when they didn't) and would be a witness.

    • dji1111111 on 28/06/2016 - 10:01

      Why would the parties pay premium! It's called excess, not premium. Premium is what you pay monthly/yearly for your insurance policy,not what you have to pay when you make a claim!

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join