Hi Ozb,
Just wondering if anyone has ideas on who was at fault at a small T-intersection (no lines):
1) Car A in the small road stuck its nose very far out into the main road (to turn left) and waited
2) Car B on the main road tightly turns right into the small road and its side body clips A's nose, minor damage to both cars.
With the small intersection, I don't think A can turn left at the same time as B turning right in.
Thanks.
Theoretically car A should be able to turn left (i.e. enter the road) while car B turns right.
So if car A was within that zone, that means Car B cut the corner and is at fault.
If car A was beyond that zone, like halfway through turning right, then Car A is at fault because car B has right of way, but if Car B cut the corner the fault may be shared.
right of way,
Not down under.
Correct. There is no 'right of way'. There is a responsibility to give way. That's why we have 'Give way' and 'Stop' signs, not 'Carry on' signs
My guess car b, as it hit a stationary car.
If Car A was stationary at the time, that means B hit A, so B would be at fault I believe. How far out was A? I assume A was going to turn right.
If a car was parked illegally and you hit it, Im pretty sure you would still be at fault.
Not unless you're a firefighter. They can legally destroy a cop car and get away with it with a thumbs up!
They're the kings of the road when a large fire is at hand!
Yep, I've heard that to, no excuse for hitting a stationary car, no matter how illegal the car is.
Agree, Moving car has responsibility to make sure it moves safely
Without dash cam footage, it would be almost impossible for Car A to prove his/her car was stationery at the time of collision. Car B could simply say (lie) Car A came out of the small road without giving way/stopping.
Don't you have to stop behind the line?
OP mentioned no lines.
I edited my original post after that comment to say there were no lines
Fair enough.
I remember my driving instructor said it was perfectly ok to edge out past the line if visibility isn't great. I don't know if that's legal or just something he made up, though.
the car in the terminating road must give way to traffic on the road that does not terminate
that said, it sounds like you are saying the car on the continuing road actually moved into the terminating road??? but it's not very clear
it all sounds a bit iffy…..maybe a google maps location with a couple of sketched on car outlines?
re-read it and think i understand
car B, turning right, can't just drive into car A, regardless of where car A is - that said, car A shouldn't be where it was
from an insurance perspective, both cars have some fault in causing the collision (if car A was not in the intersection, then no crash. likewise if car B had driven around car A, then no crash)
hope you have fully comp insurance…………
+1 to a Google Map. Very interested to see how this could have happened. Can only think the street Car A has come from must be very narrow.
Car A is at fault. Its nose is in the intersection means it has entered the other road. Stationery or not stationery is irrelevant. Car A basically failed to give way.
At T intersections the vehicle travelling on the road that ends must give way to any pedestrians crossing or vehicles travelling on the road that continues unless otherwise signposted.
(Source: http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/safety-rules/road-rules/inte…)
maybe……….but maybe not
if car A stopped in the intersection (illegally) then car B also has a duty to give way to car A, it can't simply crash into car A and blame car A
If this happened in China or some Asian countries, car A was at fault…
Stationery or not stationery is irrelevant.
Actually, it makes all the difference when making a claim.
Unless the incident has been caught on someone's dash cam or here's a third party witness, it's almost impossible to prove Car A was stationery or 'giving way'. Given the collision happened in the intersection/on the road that continues, and Car B was already there before Car A entered, Car B does have a much stronger leg to stand on.
Yes, both are bad drivers. Car B should be careful when turning, and should be able to avoid the other car. But Car A should also give way/wait BEFORE entering the intersection, not after entering the intersection.
Both are bad drivers. Perhaps they should split the repair costs.
This is why you have insurance.
You simply ring them, and your car gets fixed. Simple.
Otherwise gets dragged out for ages in the Ozbargain court.
Our car has minor scratches which do not need repairing, while the other car is new and the other person would want to put the blame on us to get a free repair.
The excess is hefty. I'm trying to determine if it's 50/50, so they can fix their own car and I'll leave mine.
Should put it as a vote.
If it went to court, my guess is that both drivers would share fault, although perhaps not exactly 50/50.
Hypothetically, if your damage bill was $400 and theirs was $1200, a 50/50 split would mean paying $800 each.
A relative of mine once went to court and got a 70/30 settlement. However the other party had a much newer car and high repair costs, whereas my relative had already had the repair done at at a reasonable cost. This, combined with the lawyers fees meant that the 70/30 split was not a "win" financially.
Unfortunately, insurance companies are more concerned with settling quickly than with fairness so your insurance company will probably not be of any help to you. I think your fears are real, and the other party will try to get a 50/50 split in dollar terms if it would benefit them financially.
Paying an insurance excess would be a lot easier than going to a court, avoiding legal fees and having an excess cap.
Car B is at fault as they have not taken reasonable care.
i was driving car C and saw nothing……..
…well can you see that brown paper bag of eneloops with your name on it…
oh yes…. hhmmmmm ……. eneloops
Our opinion is irrelevant and will only raise hopes… in the end the insurance companies will decide.
if as explained above car A should normally be at fault. until you said and "waited"
Car B should have been watching road conditions and should have only turned right when safe to do so - you can't squeeze into a blocked intersection.
unfortunately B might of had right of way but since A had already entered the intersection they will argue you should have allowed them through rather than try and squeeze through
50/50
Both cars need to buy dash cams
powered by eneloops or bikies
A Xiaomi Redmi Note 3 Pro can act as a dashcam…
The butter did it
Because the margarine had an alibi?
Ducking autocorrect
With the small intersection, I don't think A can turn left at the same time as B turning right in.
Of course you can, it all depends on how both cars position themselves prior to and as the accident is about to happen. If both cars cut corners or if car A is leaning towards the middle of the lane, you have a higher chance of collision. Both drivers in the post are terrible drivers.
I've seen so many cars in car B's position drive into half of car A's Lane when turning.
Car "B" is clearly at fault because car "A" was in his allotted lane - on the approach side to the intersection (the LHS) and the travel lane (LHS) of the road he was entering.
If the driver of car "B" was paying due diligence he/she could have done (virtually) a 90 degree right hand turn from the LHS of the road "A" was entering into the road "A" was leaving.
The fact car "B" clipped the from of car "A" proves that car "B" has cut the corner.
Really couldn't say without seeing dashcam footage. Tell you what though- should definitely come back and share the results when it's all done. Hate threads with no ending.
Yeah I'll come back with results for the community.
Unfortunately there's no dash cam though.
Thanks for everyone's constructive opinions so far.
Blame should not come into this at all.
I cannot see how a licensed driver can collect a stationary vehicle when executing a 90 degree turn.
The brain processes the situation, carries out a risk assessment and then gives instructions to feet and hands.
If the brain does not process the situation correctly and the assessment is flawed, then an accident is likely to occur.
And this is how people get killed.
Inexperience is one reason for not processing the situation correctly.
Being under the influence of drugs or alcohol is another.
Either is not tolerable nor excusable and this accident should not have occurred.
So, an advanced driving course will help if inexperience is to blame.
If drugs (prescription, other) or alcohol are to blame, there is a serious problem.
Given that a licence is apparently handed out in a box of corn flakes I'm not surprised that a licensed driver can collect a stationary object. I am constantly surprised (but shouldnt be) at how bad some drivers are.
I had an accident a few years back. Unmarked, unsigned intersection in a car park. It was raining and it was night time. The guy I collided with was in a black car with no lights on, leaving a graduation in a rush to get to drinks, I was arriving for someone else's graduation.
Because he was to my right, I was technically meant to give way. I argued that I can't give way to something I can't see. Anyway, I lost that argument.
But regardless, in your scenario it sounds like car B was in the main stream of traffic already. Always have to give way if you are entering a main stream.
After a brief negotiation with the other party, bottom line is that my person will be paying $600+ insurance excess to cover damage to both cars. That amount wipes out months of deal hunting…
Your person as in B?
Yep.
Hard to say, but for car B to hit car A, they would have had to turn very tightly. For car A to be hit, they would seem to have been nearly obstructing the road. Sounds like they're both at fault. Still, as I said, really difficult to say without visuals.