Hi, guys another part denying liability saying both cars merged at the same time please check the video and let me know who is at fault?
PS It is Subaru not Mazda
Update - Liability is accepted by the other insurance.
[Solved] Who Is at Fault? Lane Merging - Dash Cam Footage Provided
agam2104 on 05/08/2019 - 00:28
Last edited 09/08/2019 - 02:37 by 2 other users
Last edited 09/08/2019 - 02:37 by 2 other users
Poll Options
- 8Dashcam car (Camry)
- 519Blue Mazda
Comments
Dashcam car isn't fully in the lane yet I don't think so might be joint fault? But probably more so the Mazda but sucks for the dashcam car :(
I know whose at fault. The Uber driver.
You mean the cyclist.
That too. Both are at fault!
@D6C1: I had a very similar experience. I am the in the dash cam car, the other car came out from the right and hit me on the driver side passenger door.
The insurance company decided its both fault and we have to pay for our own damages.
:(
So what's happening next? OP take a screenshot of this tread and pass it to insurance ?
Blue Mazda at fault 100%, not legal to cross solid white lines like that. This is cut and dry. The reason why there are solid lines leading up to an intersection is to stop idiots from doing exactly this.
The line's unbroken though - would that have any sway on the outcome?
Pretty sure its clear cut. Blue car driver did not "head check" her blind spot for traffic before changing lanes. She assumed that just because there aren't any cars in her mirrors, it would be ok to change lanes.
You assuming what they assumed doesn't sound very clear cut.
@Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Nah amkssg didn't make any assumption. If she checked she would've seen a car already entering the lane behind her. Its not a assumption, its a sound observation.
Might want to review the video again. It's a broken line, not a solid line. Also, it's a Subaru not Mazda lol.
IKR? It made me lol too. "Cut and dry" but gets the car make wrong and misinterprets the traffic lane lines.
Pretty cut and dried. It was the yellow Datsun 180Y. In the kitchen. With the candle stick. It has all come down like a house of cards. Check mate!
won't vote for you, sorry. Because, non of the dash cam owner or the "MAZDA" at fault. But definitely the "SUBARU" is at fault. Guys, please see more into details. You're welcome.
Better ask OP why did they even drive on that road? Just because some people do not know how to switch lanes, you are suggesting OP that they shouldn't too???
I don't know how insurance will rule this one, I have no insight on that.
OP was obviously waiting for that gap, but I am wondering why he needed to change lanes at that exact moment. Watching the video, it is pretty clear the other car has seen the same gap too, and not been looking 2 lanes over.
And yes, the end result is proof that was not a great time to change lanes. I am not familiar with that road so not sure if OP needed to change lanes there to go straight ahead.
Who cares why. He had right of way to do so. Maybe he had a right hand turn coming up after the intersection.
@blergmonkeys: The why is important, as the decision has resulted in a collision. Even if OP is insured and not liable for excess, this is an inconvenience.
Not long after I got my license I had my only accident. Was not at fault, but if it happened again now, I am confident that I could avoid it due to being more aware of a potential danger on the road. We are always learning.
As I said, I am not sure how insurance will rule this one, but I think OP (and everyone driving in large cities) should be doing everything they can to avoid collisions. I had not really considered this type of situation, but I think it is a good lesson to be careful of lane changes near intersections, especially when the lane you enter is next to one that is stationary.
@[Deactivated]: It doesn't matter the why in this instance as he does things within his right and based on the clip he does it reasonably safely. Its the other car you should be questioning why they change lanes abruptly and why they didn't check for oncoming traffic. Otherwise you might as well not drive if you want to do everything you can to avoid collision.
@John: Make no mistake, I also think the blue car driver was at most fault and did a dangerous move.
Unfortunately the roads are filled with people like that, and if you want to avoid collisions you need to take that into account, and maybe delay a lane change where something like that could happen.
P.s. to the anonymous neggers, even if you think OP did nothing wrong, are you saying that if he is driving the same road in future and wants to change lanes, that is the best place to do it?
@[Deactivated]: @tenyearsgone i agree that its best to be defensive, regardless of who would be considered at fault. In response to video, also agree that OP isn't at fault, though i would always be very wary trying to merge in a position like that (with banked up cars 1 lane over)… It would always seem very risky and probably best to avoid that potential problem where possible. Have seen way too many ppl pull out of banked up traffic like that
@[Deactivated]: I don't know why you're being downvoted. Lot's of people are killed on the road but still "right" or "correct". Common sense sits above "legal correct-ness" in my safety hierarchy.
It's good ol' Punt road.
https://www.google.com/maps/@-37.8232012,144.989148,3a,75y,1…Really no need to merge lanes so early. The road forks out but not after some distance.
I'm a bit appalled 6 people have upvoted the idiotic comment about "Just because some people do not know how to switch lanes, you are suggesting OP that they shouldn't too???"
Looking at the road markings, by the way, they're long strokes.
You can change lanes there, but it's not recommended and obviously not wise given the result in this thread.So to repeat what the other person said, just because some other person doesn't know how to head check OP just shouldn't ever change lanes? You never know when someone is not going to head check.
I would say the lane change was reasonably unnecessary, however it appeared to have been done safely (by OP).
Yes, because other drivers don't know how to head check is a very good reason not to change lanes at that exact moment. Sure, he would get away with it 999 times out of 1000. But he could have made it 1000 by changing lanes after the intersection.
discussion around what OP could have done is irrelevant.
whilst it may not be the smartest option, it was done legally.
the blue car on the other hand, came out without doing shoulder check.
that is outright wrong….
That's a Subaru Impreza (I own one) and it's at fault.
Were you driving it?
I hope not! It's at fault!
Is that so "Fury"? Perhaps you can tell me exactly where you were on Friday the 21st of June at 11:49 AM?
How many cars sooner or later? Are there particular models that are less likely to pull out into you?
Please answer Johnno's question
Wasn't safe to change lanes for the other car so I'd say they are at fault. Lucky you have a dash cam!
Give the video to your insurer they will decide who is at fault
I have already dispute in liability , the Subaru denying liability now , matter of fact at the scene of accident she accepted the mistake .
Honestly this happens in the majority of these. Each side disputes liability.
Just let your insurance company deal with it.
Next time it happened quickly activate voice recorder and put it on your pocket so no he says she says.
In this case she wouldnt even able to deny the admission of guilt.
does admitting guilt on tape indicate they are guilty though?
also can't they change their mind and say I made mistake?ultimately it will be decided by insurer, or judge etc..
@burningrage: First thing, a fender bender like this never gets to Court. Like never. The insurance companies always work it out between themselves. Worst case scenario is OP fighting their own insurance company to avoid paying the excess.
Second thing, a voice recording after a crash, recorded without the other person's consent, whilst legal in VIC, good luck ever getting that admitted into evidence in a civil proceeding. Will never happen. :)
nice, get her liability to save a few hundred in excess in exchange for upto 5 years in gaol and $55,000 for recording a conversation without all parties consent.
@gromit: Before spewing rubbish, maybe check the relevant state laws? This seems to have taken palce iN VIC (St Kilda Sign in opening seconds of video), where one party voice recording isn't expressly illegal.
In simple terms it is not illegal in Victoria, the Northern Territory or Queensland to record, without consent, a phone call you make or receive, or a private conversation you are having.
I think its illegal to do this..
burningrage has seen one too many tv shows
They will dispute liability in order to get the hire car at the other person’s cost (if they were correct). Submit your evidence to your insurer and they can dispute this with the other insurer.
Admitting fault at the scene does not prove things one way or another.
Yes it will , the first thing a barrister ask you what was conversation between both party at the scene.
@agam2104: It would have weight if there are independent witnesses or has been documented. Otherwise, it would be very difficult to demonstrate that this occurred.
@agam2104: Lol, why would a barrister be involved in a simple car collision like this? Few hours of their time costs more that the Subaru :D
@Typical16-bitEnjoyer: If liability in dispute both parties will go in the court hearing, and then Judge will decide who is at fault I assume you know that.
@agam2104: Like zaggie said. It is unlikely that this may be presented to a judge. A magistrate perhaps if both parties have the time and money, but not a judge.
@agam2104: What world do you live in that a <$1k fender bender goes to trial?
Will always be resolved or settled beforehand. OP is insured.
Subaruuuuuuuuuuu
MAZADA, car was in stopped condition (like parked) should have done shoulder check before changing lane.
In Vic, by law, minimum 5 seconds of indicator light.
(Not many driver follow this rule, I am guilty of it too)
Subaru was at fault. The dashcam car was obscured by the white ute so they assumed it was clear. Too bad the footage doesn't show how long they indicated for.
Subaru on the right is at fault
And here's why:
They're trying to change lanes. They are stopped. They must wait for the traffic to pass.The Blue Subaru did all of that, except, check properly as they prepared to go directly after the White Ford.
The Blue Subaru did not see the Camry, so it is accidental, but it is on them to make sure it is safe to do so/change lanes.The Camry may have seen the Blue Subaru and its indicator, regardless, they were fine to change lanes and the Blue Subaru needed to wait for it to pass. The accident may have been avoided by both parties if they were better drivers. However, the fault lies entirely on the Blue Subaru for not following the road rules and causing the event to happen.
PS: I sympathise with the Blue Subaru, because sometimes you can get stuck behind a slow lane like that forever, and even if you wanted to change lanes sometimes there's really no gap/opportunity. And yes, for that reason many people change lanes quickly, but its a risk that's taken.
Thanks Stephen A.
HAHAHAHAHAHA someone watches first take
Hi, guys another part denying liability
Other driver or their insurance company?
Who are you in contact with? Pro tip: Do not speak to the other driver, converse with your insurance company only. Let them work it out with the other drivers insurance company, that's why you pay for insurance, to act on your behalf.
Did you call Michael Kuzilny?
The blue car (whatever it is) is at fault for not giving way to vehicles already in the lane they are merging into.
Why change lane when is solid line? change lane to be next to congested lane where people will try get out off? or where you trying to jump to front of the turning lane? you asked for trouble and got it when your lane was empty to continue…….
It isn't a solid line. They are long broken lines if you look closely.
Look like Dash cam driver was trying to avoid being in the lane where everyone turns left onto Swan St. Many people do that driving down Punt Rd. They aren't trying to jump a queue. Maybe just trying to avoid the construction on the left side of the road that you can see when they both pull over.
ROAD SAFETY ROAD RULES 2017 - REG 147
Moving from one marked lane to another marked lane across a continuous line separating the lanes
A driver on a multi-lane road must not move from one marked lane to another marked lane by crossing a continuous line separating the lanes unless—(a) the driver is avoiding an obstruction; or (b) the driver is obeying a traffic control device applying to the first marked lane; or (c) the driver is permitted to drive in both marked lanes under another provision of these Rules; or (d) either of the marked lanes is a special purpose lane in which the driver is permitted to drive under these Rules and the driver is moving to or from the special purpose lane; or (e) either of the marked lanes is a special purpose lane during specified times only and the driver— (i) is moving to or from that lane outside of the times during which it is a special purpose lane; and (ii) is permitted to drive in that lane outside of the times during which it is a special purpose lane under these Rules; or (f) the rider of a motor cycle is engaging in lane filtering in the circumstances set out in rule 151B.Penalty: 3 penalty units.
it's not a continuous line. why is that so hard for you to grasp?
So close. You wanted to quote Road Rule 148: "Giving way when moving from one marked lane or line of traffic to another marked lane or line of traffic".
The video clearly shows a broken line and Google maps also shows a broken line. The Subaru was allowed to move lanes, just not into the path of other traffic…
@pegaxs: i'm not so sure it is intentionally a broken line. i think the breaks may just be an artefact of the rabbit eye placement and high traffic volume.
https://www.google.com/maps/@-37.8235242,144.9890676,3a,75y,…
though in 2007 they were broken lines.
https://www.google.com/maps/@-37.8235691,144.9890544,3a,75y,…
either way both vehicles crossed the same type of line.
When you commenced changing lane the lane you were moving into was clear. When the blue car commenced changing lanes that lane was not clear. You had no time to avoid the accident. Obviously, the blue car is at fault. I hope the insurance companies see it the same way.
Insurance will say both at fault, 50-50, both pay premiums and both at fault.
Engine running is automatically 10% at fault.Engine running is automatically 10% at fault.
Absolutely not the case. Often insurers can deem there is no fault on behalf of one of the parties, and will even waive your excess.
Engine running is automatically 10% at fault.
LOL… What a load of garbage. Please, I'm truely curious and I have to ask, but "source"??
South Australian laws are stupid :)
Engine running is automatically 10% at fault.
That's why when I go through red lights I turn my engine off!
I’d love to hear the end result from insurance company.
Looks like both cars were merging lanes, neither entirely in the lane yet. One car is in front( blue car), the behind car has more momentum ( dash cam car). Recipe for an accident.
Might be denying liability after the fact, because she saw you were an Uber driver. (Trying to claim with your insurance, as your car is 'more important' and you'd likely be wanting a resolution quicker)
Oh, is OP? That's… interesting.
- If the other driver reports this, unless OP has commercial insurance their insurer might just wash their hands of this. And this adds onto the fact that since OP hadn't completed changing lanes, liability is likely to be shared.
Yep, check out the bottom left hand corner of OP's footage.
I'm not knowledgable when it comes to car sharing and insurance, but "Blue Impreza Driver" might be! ;)
Yes it is uber but nothing to worry it has uber rideshare insurance.
how does uber ridershare insurance work?
what is the model of the dashcam used?
@pinkybrain: Rideshare insurance can be done my TAXI CLUb\B they work as a broker , it simple and they cant reject your claim by saying you a uber driver using car as a business ,and if you not a fault they will give loss of use each day your car was off the road normally it will be $150 to $200 per day.
Dashcam for Yi mirror dashcam
@agam2104: this your dashcam?
https://www.amazon.com/YI-1080P30-Dashboard-Emergency-Record…how far into the new lane were you when you got hit?
Did you get 5 stars from your passenger?
Further to the above discussion, what about the black car (can't see what make it is) that is trying to push in to turn right? That is what is holding up the Subaru and other cars in that lane, waiting to go straight ahead. I'm seeing more of these selfish + impatient drivers around. I saw one vehicle yesterday pull up alongside the right hand turn lane and block dozens of cars getting through a green light (straight ahead) while waiting for a green right turn arrow (there were multiple vehicles in the right turn lane).
Ohh didn't notice that , thanks
Yea most people are obnoxious drivers, don’t want to drive past and do a u-turn. Shouldn’t punish other drivers for they’re inability to be in the correct lane ahead of time.
Bud ring ASIO .
Great observation skills .
black Ford Falcon
While common sense says the blue Subaru is at fault, since you were both changing lanes and neither had completed changing lanes, technically I'm fairly sure it's partial fault on the part of both sides.
I think if both car in motion , then liability should be share , other car was stationary , you can expect other driver who is merging and already in lane to be responsible as he can't do anything to avoid it,but let see if it go to court .
Again, yes common sense says this. The road rules don't actually make a distinction between a car that's in motion and a car that's stationary, only which car is already in the lane (and which other cars have to give way to). Which is why the fact you're not fully yet in the lane is going to mean it'll be partial liability to both parties.
Solved - Liability is accepted by other insurance.
Thanks for the update, good to hear the insurer agreed with the majority opinion here.