Recently got into a car crash, but don't know who's at fault. I'm turning into an intersection, the lights are green but no green arrow, and it was clear no cars, nothing. As I turn in a new car begins to drive out of parking next to the butchery, a 4WD, and runs it into the left side of my vehicle, who's at fault? Cos I didn't see him come out until I was turning in already.
A Crash at an Intersection (Who's at Fault?)
Comments
https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/safety-rules/road-rules/int…
Anyhoo, insurance will tell you who's at fault once you claim and provide them the crash details.
Weird he was driving in the far left lane as there's usually parked cars in that lane…unless he wanted to turn left into the same street? But your blue arrow indicates he wanted to go straight.
well thats what he said he came out of before he smacked into me
Welcome to Yagoona, OP. You need to keep up the speed around that suburb (Hoons paradise), maybe your turning is super turtle slow. Definitely you didn't see the car coming as you are turning. Slowly.
Unless there's a green light pointing RHS, the car turning right would be at fault. You need cam or witness to show that as well
In this case, how can you proof that the green arrow right was on/off without dashcam? Since he doesn't have one, can he say the green arrow right was on?
?
I think OP did say right arrow is blank.
"I'm turning into an intersection, the lights are green but no green arrow, and it was clear no cars, nothing. ".
Assuming he meant no green arrow as in blank turning right arrow.
I think OP actually means there are no arrows? Or that is what I read from his original post.
I mean if OP lies and say the green arrow right was on, how can the other party approve that it didn't?
That’s the ops car. So need to prove he is at fault
OP: You are at fault unfortunately. It is hard to believe that this guy accelerated at the speed of light to hit you in the middle of the intersection. To go from not seeing a car as you are going to turn, to being T-boned a split second later, I think you probably weren't paying attention and caught this poor guy just going straight down the road off guard.
but he said he was parking near the butchers…, that was the other thing
So when he was turning there are no cars on the road, suddenly, the butcher perp runs out to his car, makes a perfect clean exit from the car park, rapidly moving through 3 gears as he shows no mercy and plows into OP a split second later? Doesn't matter, OP still at fault.
The park where the guy was isn't exiting into the intersection, so he is on a road where there is a green light and he has fair right to continue through the intersection.
or maybe OP was turning at snail speed?
Do you have that in writing or in recording? Or else it doesn't mean anything.
From the photo, the other drivers car was in motion prior to entering the intersection. So does the parking reason even matter? Its not like the driver pull out and collided with op straight away.
Was it Daytime or Nightime?
Did his vehicle leave any skid marks to indicate he tried to avoid collision ?
Did the other driver seem under the influence of any sybstance Booze/drugs ?
Did the 4WD look like it had any Modifications to it ?
Any of those shops like the Foodworks or Chemist have CCTV you can look at?
Just trying to help.
They are a few things I would consider.Daytime, from what i saw, there wasnt any skid marks, he seemed sober, there's a bull bar on it, and i didnt notice any camera near the shops so ill try it out
I tried looking on Google Maps but the definition is so low I cant make out if they are lights outside shops or cameras.
But I don't know how else you can help your situation more than that.
Sorry mate.It's okay, atleast u helped 👌
Whichever driver left skid marks in their pants is not at fault
This is cut and dry, OP did not give way to oncoming traffic (regardless of what point the other car entered the road, you need to continue to pay attention as you turn.)
Seems unlikely that they were able to enter the road and accelerate hard enough to go from not even on the road to involved in an accident. Sounds like you weren't paying attention mate!
How many meters is it from where he entered the road to the intersection?
I'd say around 10? Not sure
@Civadgnaoh: Then he didn't suddenly pop out of no where. You're hanging on to the parking so strongly as your excuse, but it's really irrelevant. You didn't check properly/didn't see him/not paying attention, that's why it appeared to pop out of no where.
The other car needs to give way to cars travelling on the same road in motion when joining the road, not people opposite.
@Civadgnaoh: If they were parked within 20 metres of the traffic light they were illegally parked, directly contributing to the incident.
Dashcam would help you, but only to get to point of each party responsible, each pay their own cost. Both you and they should lose your license, but in Australia we let anyone drive, even after solid proof you should not.
if you were paying attention, you'd have noticed a 4wd travelling on the Hume highway heading in the opposite direction to you, and in an ideal world, you would have waited till that 4wd had passed, thereby avoiding an accident and an ozbargain post.
Well sorry for asking, and I would have noticed the 4wd, but it decided to pop out of it's parking space during my turn, what can I do?
@Civadgnaoh: It's approx 29 metres from the first parking spot to the intersection. You moved approx 15 metres from the turning lane to where you had the accident. Therefore, he was in motion before you started your turn.
Hey? Damage is to front left panel, were you facing backwards in the seat? Weird definition of arse… the damage alone appears to have you at majority fault and the diagram plus mention of distance secures it. G'luck
I would suggest the other driver was already driving and you didn't saw him as you were looking for cars in the 2nd lane and made the assumption there are none. I believe you didn't look before crossing the road.
My semi-educated opinion is that you are at fault.
What are you semi educated in?
This sort of things.
Can't post credentials sorry.
haha
Maybe u should read 'parking near the butchery', and the man himself even told me that
You're clinging to this parking story like straws on the bank of a river. Doesn't matter, still your fault.
From the map YOU provided, there are several car lengths between the butcher and intersection. About 15-20m. Unless he was in an F1 car, there's no way he could have accelerated so quickly from park to blindside and T-bone you. You just weren't paying attention.
And for those who think the damage to OP's car is evidence the other guy was speeding, it was likely all bullbar.
You don't seem to agree with many here that it's your fault. If you are adamant that you are not at fault, why ask for our opinions?
The fact of the matter is if there is no right arrow, he has the right of way. And unless you have a dashcam, theres no way to prove your story that "he pull out of the parking lot and ram straight into you at the intersection".
Tough luck mate.
It's not that I don't agree I'm just throwing in details so that u guys could further help but if that's what you think, then alright then.
You're at fault. The person has right of way. You need to wait for all lanes to be clear before commencing turn.
If the person had entered from a driveway, they'd be at fault.
Give the other person your details so they can lodge a claim.
And if it's all clear and as soon as u almost enter the street a car decided to hit into me? And that last line sounds was unnecessary…
The street most definitely was not clear, otherwise the car could not have been there to "decide to hit you". Clearly, you did not look properly before you turned.
You were hit towards the front of your car. How are you "almost entering the street"?
the other party had right of way. Last line is necessary. You need to provide details for the accident.
Learn from this incident and improve your driving.
OP has to wait till all the parked cars in the right lane have moved on. Only then it's safe to proceed.
False. No such thing as right of way.
Clearly at fault OP. Next time dont turn into the intersection unless absolutely certain there are no cars.
I live around there and use that turn frequently, the new railing they put up makes it very hard to see incoming vehicles when you are executing the turn as the OP. Not saying that the OP has right of way.
But I think it's may not be entirely his fault.
You're at fault.
Maybe don't drive at the speed of a turtle next time then a parked car leaving from a standing start wouldn't run into you.
Alright
You are at fault. Hope you've got insurance OP. Good luck!
Funny thing, happened to me 18 years ago near QVM in Melbourne. I was doing about 55kph travelling south about to go into Peel/Victoria streets intersection when a red Magna came through the slip lane the opposite way and turned right into my way. Lights were amber when it all happened. Because she was doing about 20, my car got into a partial frontal crash and was thrown onto the tram tracks on Victoria street where a decelerating tram was coming.
From my end, it was her fault, she hit me. I was going straight, it was my way. And having sat in that Nando's on the corner where she turned (several times during my undergrad uni days), I saw that the arrow for turning right was always red when lights for Peel go amber. I was certain she had crossed a red turning light.
I was stunned when a police officer from Werribee calls me up at 7am the next morning and insists I present within an hour to the station. The officer insisted that I sign on a totally made up version of the incident, recounted by the girl to her uncle who happened to be a constable at that station (my cousin overheard her talk to her bf when the accident happened, saying her uncle assured her he'll fix things up).
I was intimidated into signing. Back then I was scared and still about new to the country so I signed while telling the officer that I respectfully decline the version of the events and that he did not note any of my comments.
If I ever get the time to find this officer I will probably sue him.
Perhaps it's your fault for failing to notice an incoming vehicle. It's usually never 100% at fault. But your starting position is crossing lanes which puts you at 60% at least, discounting all other factors.
Humoured at repeated "who is at fault" posts. Not yet have I read one where failure to give way was the cause of the crash. OP you should learn the rules before driving again, give way would be in the top 3 rules mate. Government trout on about spending money on safety barriers to save lives, how about a competency based licensing system? Cheap to implement and solve congestion at the same time?
In my state, you had to pass 100% on the give way test to get your learners.
Just because one knows what to They're supposed do, doesn't mean they'll listen and do it. Like in the other thread, everyone thinks their driving is 'godlike'.
So you are saying that OP knows what he/she is supposed to do? I disagree, if that was the case he would not be on this forum asking others opinions.
My opinion, OP does not know what he is supposed to do, hence the crash. If he knew what he was supposed to do and just didn't do it, he would have had the crash, but not have come on the forum.
I have travelled extensively in SE Asia (cheap travel!), many crashes in some of the countries I visited, the drivers get out, argue their case and ultimately decide on the spot the party at fault (often will also exchange cash to resolve on the spot). Some of that culture is starting to appear in some cases, the concept that you can argue (or come on a forum like this) that you are not at fault is irrelevant. Rules are in place, competent drivers will be aware of give way to a bus that is signalling and will not have a crash.
So you are saying that OP knows what he/she is supposed to do?
Nope. I'm talking about the competency system.
If you didn't see the car then I suspect when he/she got onto the road, he saw you and sped up to get your slow ass out of the intersection.
According to the image, you had 3 lanes to cross so you need to be crossing at a fast speed.
Either you were driving too slow and he/she decided to teach you a lesson not to drive slow or the driver was a grumpy person that wanted to make you grumpy.
If you don't know who's was at wrong then I'd say your not ready for the road cos this shouldn't have happened in the first place. You may need more lessons. Drive to the conditions. Crossing 3 lanes = more speed in that traffic light situation.
The fact that you got hit means you didn't look far enough or didnt drive fast enough. This means your In the wrong. Regardless whether he was grumpy or wanted to teach a lesson, you failed your part.
With your attitude OP not surprised you're at fault!
OP at fault. Cut and dry.
OP you make it sound like the other car came out of the driveway, turned, accelerated and traveled 10m in a split second and crashed in to you from nowhere. For the other car to appear, turn and accelerate in the time it takes you to cross the oncoming lanes, it is simply not possible to "surprise you". From your diagram it is clear that you looked once and then failed to pay attention to look again as you turned. You should always be watching for oncoming traffic making a right turn.
No sympathy from me. It's your fault.
Yep, your fault. You're the one turning and it's your responsibility to turn safely on a non-green light traffic light.
Awesome collision illustration by the way. Thanks.
I think you got all the answers by now.
Am I the only one that looks at the car accident threads just for laughs at MS paint?
How dare you treat these threads as a joke. They are serious business!
Damn straight… it's serious Paint business!
Lol the matters are no joke. Just idea of MS paint illustrations and the absolute necessity that they have to all accompany with.
We should create a portfolio of these or a specific upload page just for ozb car accident ms paints!
I think this street view image pretty much draws the conclusion as to who's at fault: https://goo.gl/maps/LP1nZphxXNN1qyNi8
- At one point OP was waiting where that yellow van is
- OP sees/thinks there's no on coming traffic and proceeds with the right hand turn
- Out of no where a 4WD that was parked (exactly where that white ute is) travels at 100km/hr and slams straight into OP's car.
Geez, between the state of the road surface (looks like it was laid down in the 20's and never maintained since), and the abandoned retail shop, the ancient and run-down supermarket, this whole area has a total 'post apocalypse' vibe to it.
Perhaps a heedless, mindless, unthinking zombie was driving the vehicle which collided with the OP?
He had right of way - you were crossing his path. He probably wasn't expecting having someone turn in front of him as you did.
He did hit you however so unless you gunned it trying to beat him and were travelling at a reasonable cautious speed he wasn't paying enough attention to his surroundings, but neither were you.
As for who was legally in the wrong - you were (unless you had a green arrow which as you specified - nope). If you want to fight it and strongly believe you are not in the wrong who's to say, make a case take it to small claims court if you want. Goodluck!
OP can you please clarify if you have third party/comprehensive insurance?
I hope not! Why should we need to collectively pay for creating such avoidable damage?
You are at fault
The way I understand it.. the 4wd was coming out of private property and you were already on a public road, so in this scenario, you had right of way. Kinda like pulling out of your driveway and you get into a collision with another vehicle already on the road. It'd be your fault.
There is no off street parking, the OP thinks they were parked on Hume Hwy and pulled away from the kerb.
ahh i just saw the "diagrams"..
Chances are it was negligence on both parties, but if I were to pick, OP was at fault.
4wd had right of way, from his POV, op just turned outta the blue.Not saying OP lied about his story.. it's probably not the complete truth. no offence, everyone lies because everyone sees the same situation from different angles and the shock of the crash also has its effects.
No point in pursuing who's who and what's what. Just be glad you were able to walk away from this.
and you were already on a public road
The other driver didn't cross or join ops side of the road. Op was the one who cross the other side of the road.
You seem to think that the other car wanted to T-bone you.
Why would anyone waste their time, car and money for that? What is the gain in this situation?
You lose the car, being stuck at the repairers, you lose money because you have to take taxi/uber/etc, you lose nerves because you have to plan and plan ahead and do all sorts of juggling as you don't have a car and share one with your partner. It is, by all standards, not a pleasant thing to have (lack of car).
Stop arguing that the other car was "parked". Parked means that the car was fully stopped, the shift was in either P or N and no one has control over the acceleration or deceleration of the car. When you are being stopped at the traffic lights, that's not a park. That's why there are both no parking and no stopping signs.
You simply failed to see the other car, in motion.
You seem to think that the other car wanted to T-bone you.
Why would anyone waste their time, car and money for that?
Yeah, that's one-off. One bad apple doesn't ruin the whole basket.
Regardless of how idiot you or the 4WD driver was, you are going to be found at fault (imo). You are turning right without an arrow, therefore by the rule book you give way to everyone, full stop.
I had an accident once where I was turning out of a T-intersection and hit someone who had done the works - false indicated, slowed down, pretty much started the turn, but at some point changed their mind obviously. I was at fault because I was behind the give way sign.
I'd say your at fault OP, unless you can prove that the other driver was stopped in the no-stopping zone and then took off whilst you was mid turn.
Sorry to say this but you turned right into oncoming traffic.
Your picture of the damage indicates that he got the front left side of your car, which means you turned into his path. Which means he must have been traveling in your direction for a while. You must have just not seen him.
If he had hit the rear left side of your car, then you might have a leg to stand on… I.e. you were into your turn and he would have seen you long enough to apply brakes.
But from the damage, he got the front side of your car. If you didn't see him coming, then you didn't probably look enough (or had a blindspot from your windscreen frame) and that's why you can't reconcile the accident.
Sorry dude these things happen and that's why it's called an accident!
You're at fault, no green arrow means you need to give way to oncoming traffic.
That said coming out of the parking like that was a bit dumb but still your fault.
100% you are at fault.
If you don't know why or need explanation then honestly you should not be driving or need to take the driving test again!
It is a black and white scenario.
OP I've looked at the street view..where did this car come out of a private car park?
Do you mean it was parked out the front of the butchers and then drove from the kerb? How couldn't you see him then
I can see why OP may not be at fault, but impossible to prove without cameras.
Lets say I am the other car…
Pretty sure if I am a stationary vehicle and I drive into a car that has already started turning in front of me, it's not automatically fully their fault.
A similar example is when traffic is banked up, and OP is unable to completely turn into the street and needs to stop. I can't just drive into him and not be at fault.
Or let's say a pedestrian decided to cross and run out of nowhere and ran in front of OP while OP was crossing those 3 lanes and had to stop/slow down. I can't just start accelerating into him (especially from stationary) and not be at fault.
If OP's story is true, I could have been waiting to drive off from my parking spot which happens to be the one right before the intersection, checking my side mirror to make sure noone coming from behind trying to turn left, see noone coming from behind, and drive straight forgetting to look straight cuz im still looking in my side mirror. (Yes I've seen many drivers do this from a pedestrian perspective). And bang.
Pretty sure in most cases, if I am stationary, and I can avoid an accident by not moving my car, but i decide to move my car and it causes an accident, I will have at least some if not all fault assigned to me. I can't just drive and crash into a car on purpose, even if he is in my lane.
Also if OP has seen that the coast is clear of cars coming from the opposite direction, once he's started going into the turn (like 30-45 degrees), he shouldnt be looking for uncoming cars anymore because his eyes should be looking at the street he is turning into and looking out for things to avoid hitting (like random pedestrians)
Anyway, I've been told with accidents, they decide whos fault it is and assign percentages.
Every one should get a dashcam, even a sht one for $30. People will lie to save themselves.
op must of been turning at like 5km per hour and be on their phone not to notice a 4wd turn out and drive straight…. or like all other ozb posts always other driver appeared from nowhere, put on indicator at exactly the last moment or disengaged the cloaking device right in front of them.
Always same story from same type of driver 100% at fault and looking for dirty tactics to get out of paying, hope you get slammed for full repairs and car hire
I'm going to go against the grain here and say OP is not at fault. When there is no video evidence, insurance companies often rely on visualising the damage caused by the accident simply because it's much easier than hearing what he said, she said. In this case, OP was hit from the side, so IMO, the car leaving the street parking is 100% at fault, it's pointless to speculate whether the 4wd driver was too busy looking at their rear vision mirror, was on the phone, wanted to an insurance job, etc. what you see is what you get, 4wd driver didn't merging into traffic safely and hit another car at an intersection.
The other car hit the front side of OP's car, negating whatever you just said. If he was hit at the back side then he may have a small fighting chance.
Negating what I just said? did you even read what I said? and did you even look at the image? front side? what picture are you looking at? You know, you can just have discussion without having to resort to the downvote button.
often rely on visualising the damage caused by the accident simply because it's much easier than hearing what he said, she said
What if a car cuts infront of you /changes lanes such that it results in a collision between your front right and their left passenger door?
Going by your reasoning (ignoring road rules) , you're at fault 100% because you drove into them.
you're at fault 100% because you drove into them
Prove it, where's your evidence?
Going by your reasoning (ignoring road rules)
Well then, going by your reasoning (ignoring simple facts), the 4WD is at fault for not safely entering traffic.
Prove it, where's your evidence?
This is what you said in previous comment:
In this case, OP was hit from the side, so IMO, the car leaving the street parking is 100% at fault,
You based on who was at fault by looking at who hit who. Ignoring the fact that 4WD is going straight, OP is crossing the road.
Well then, going by your reasoning (ignoring simple facts), the 4WD is at fault for not safely entering traffic.
You realise the same can be said for the car (OP) crossing the other other side of road with no green lights??
This is what you said in previous comment:
Which you have conveniently ignored, how do you know who hit who?
You based on who was at fault by looking at who hit who. Ignoring the fact that 4WD is going straight, OP is crossing the road.
Yes, 4WD is going straight, so he couldn't see a car turning right in a right turn only lane? OP has to give way, but like he said, he saw no one. As I already mentioned, without video evidence, you can't prove anything. Your assumptions are as good as mine, but none helpful to OP.
You realise the same can be said for the car (OP) crossing the other other side of road with no green lights??
So we're going around in circles with this discussion? You realise that everything you have said contribute to what I've said initially, without evidence, it's he said, she said.
For some reason, it won't let me format properly.
Which you have conveniently ignored, how do you know who hit who?
Are referring to my example (lane change) or OPs case? Im not sure how to make this more clearer… your opinion on who hit who was based on damage/visual damage, correct? Is it possible for your side passenger door to hit someones front???? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
It is clearly the lane changers fault, despite their passenger door being hit.Without evidence, it's based on road rules, which you clearly have trouble interpreting and that concerns a lot of people here.
Is it possible for your side passenger door to hit someones front???
Yes, maybe the driver on the right (in front) had to avoid hitting a dog? Maybe your car avoided a jaywalker and swerved and hit the rear passenger door, where's the evidence?
Without evidence, it's based on road rules, which you clearly have trouble interpreting and that concerns a lot of people here.
What concerns me more, is that you're worried about what others think. On a serious note, without evidence, road rules does not automatically apply, OP can say he didn't see the 4WD moving, 4WD can say OP should've waited for me, even while I'm still parking :)
Yes, maybe the driver on the right (in front) had to avoid hitting a dog? Maybe your car avoided a jaywalker and swerved and hit the rear passenger door, where's the evidence?
And your insurance would tell you you'll have to pay for the damages done to the other car. Btw I'm stating a hypothetical but common situation, what evidence would you like in this hypothetical example? Thats there's a hypothetical Cop in the bush taking a video of the incident? LOL
What concerns me more, is that you're worried about what others think.
When did I say I'm worried about what others think? Comprehension fail. I said "which you clearly have trouble interpreting and that concerns a lot of people here"…I'm concerned about the education system in Australia and people like you on the road who could kill someone.
When did I say I'm worried about what others think?
here :
and that concerns a lot of people here
Comprehension fail
and you've clearly understood everything I've said, clearly
I'm concerned about the education system in Australia
You should try politics, you'd do well, maybe.
people like you on the road who could kill someone.
I've killed an ant on the road, does that count?
explain perhaps? i really need a reason why its me or him