Other Party Insurance Says It Is My Fault, I Do Not Think It Is. Please Advise

Lbunkr on 29/04/2020 - 13:59
Last edited 13/05/2020 - 16:03

Edit 3: Thank you guys. The other party's insurance resolved the case in my favour. I had asked for a review of their original decision. I got a call today morning. Thanks heaps

I was recently involved in a car accident. I have a 3rd party insurance.

I do no believe it is my fault, and hence my insurance company told me to deal directly with other driver's insurance company. I submitted my version and diagram letter and the dashcam footage.

My version:

  1. I was turning right on green arrow from Great Western Highway into Cumberland Highway.
  2. Other vehicle was travelling on Great Western Highway in opposite direction to me. It was intending to turn left into Cumberland Highway.
  3. Other vehicle had to obey the traffic sign "Turn Left at any time with care" and had to give way.
  4. I had the right of the way into Cumberland Highway. However, the other vehicle did not stop and crashed into my car.
  5. The front right side of the other vehicle crashed into the front left side of my car.

https://imgur.com/a/Ui0OqQk
I am Car A in above diagram.

Now the other party's insurance has come back to me and tells me that they think I am at fault - when I do not think I am.

This is my first rodeo and I do not know what to do. My question to you fine gentlemen and ladies is:
1) Do you think I am at fault
2) How do I approach this? Do I stand firm with other party's insurance that I do not agree. Will I need to file a claim through the court (if you agree with my view that I am not at fault).

PS: I have the video footage, not sure if I can share the youtube link here, given it is an ongoing matter.

Edit: The video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSjTJfxkmas

Edit 2: Thank you all for your helpful comments and suggestions, specially on how to deal with this situation. I will have a chat with other party's insurance and see if we can resolve it amicably. If not, I will take up the escalation mechanism suggested by many of you, including either going to AFCa or going to the court of law.

Automotive Car Insurance Insurance

Comments

  • spackbace on 29/04/2020 - 14:02
    +98

    You're not at fault, assuming you weren't speeding etc.
    Send them everything. Dashcam footage, diagram, picture of the signage from Google Maps.

    If they don't agree, yes you need to go to court.

    This is why you get comprehensive insurance ;) But we do love a good 3rd party insured accident post, I wondered how much longer it would take!

    • ESEMCE on 29/04/2020 - 14:09
      +25

      Kinda surprised that OP's Insurance company is not handling this…
      And fighting for it, cause they're the ones that will pay if he is at fault (assuming OP is claiming)?

      Seems pretty open and shut to me, suspect OP hasn't claimed and Insurance Company B is trying to get away with it.

      Is there any reason not to claim OP?

      • k-rokfm on 29/04/2020 - 14:36
        +2

        I have a 3rd party insurance.

        • stumo on 29/04/2020 - 19:27
          +16

          they're the ones that will pay if he is at fault

          • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 30/04/2020 - 08:55

            @stumo: OP probably wants other party's insurance to pay for OP's car damage. That's why.

            • Chandler on 30/04/2020 - 10:07
              +2

              @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Which as the other party has insurance is not unreasonable.

              I think I've commented on a similar post before that some insurers will assist you with a not-at-fault claim against another party, even if you only have 3rd party.

    • apsilon on 29/04/2020 - 15:51
      +7

      I know that intersection well as it's part of my regular commute and have had several close calls there myself as cars making that left only look to their right for cross traffic and don't take into account turning traffic from ahead. Agree OP is not at fault. Get a solicitor that specializes in traffic cases OP.

        • TilacVIP on 30/04/2020 - 08:23
          +32

          There is nothing grey or messy about this at all. It's the other driver's fault 100%, he had a duty to give way, which he didn't. The OP turned on a green light, and stayed in the correct lane, so I'm not sure what you're on about. It's all there in the video!!

          • gromit on 30/04/2020 - 17:19
            +4

            @TilacVIP: yes you are right, it is all there in the video, HENCE WHY I SAID IT WOULD BE GOOD TO SEE IT. The video was not their when I commented. definitely not his fault.

            • rehevoli on 01/05/2020 - 11:01
              +2

              @foxinsox8: the law also states:

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

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

              and when turning right into an intersection you can pick any lane
              https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/images/roads/safety-rules/roadrul…

            • kirbycario on 01/05/2020 - 11:11
              +3

              @foxinsox8: that rule is for marked turning lanes, meaning the entire turn is dotted into the intersection - you are wrong.

              https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/images/roads/safety-rules/roadrul…

              look at the image here for the middle lane right turn car, it has a choice. now imagine the green car on the right is gone from the equation, you still have a choice

              stop bullshitting

              • picket23 on 01/05/2020 - 11:20

                @kirbycario: kirbycarlo is correct.

                foxinsox8; Do you drive? If you had spent any amount of time on the roads you should what you are saying is not true. Even if you don't drive yet, as Kirby said, just look at the pictures in the link you keep posting.

                Now please stop posting rubbish like this, you may actually convince people and put us all at risk on the roads.

            • TilacVIP on 03/05/2020 - 09:19
              +1

              @foxinsox8: Let me know when you are on the road, so I stay off!!!

    • monkeyfood on 29/04/2020 - 17:46
      +3

      I drive down a main road quiet often and am in exactly the same situation as OP, people always give way to me, as there is a give way sign and I always assume i am 100% right, I would also think the OP is not as fault, especially if the other car hit OP. Means OP was already on the main road and joining traffic through a give way sign must stop

      • daaaaas on 30/04/2020 - 22:35
        +6

        firstly, give way means give way regardless, OP is not in the fault as the other person should have waited anyway
        secondly, how do you know you can turn right from the second most right lane

        • MrFrugalSpend on 30/04/2020 - 23:54
          +3

          On checking google, no it appears you can't turn right from both lanes in OP's situation - I was incorrect as I had assumed OP's map that north was up, but on checking the labels it isn't, so I had envisaged OP turning the other direction.

          However, you have assumed OP is not at any fault because Car B did something wrong. This is not necessarily the case. Just because Car B has done something wrong doesn't mean Car A gets off scot-free:

          Sometimes there may be more than one driver at fault. If the matter goes to court, depending on the evidence, a magistrate may decide that both drivers caused the accident and they will share the costs of the damage. This is called 'contributory negligence'.
          Source: https://www.lawaccess.nsw.gov.au/Pages/representing/lawassis…

          Regardless, I do think Car B has fault. Arguably most of the fault given their lack of care turning out. However when I did my driving test, my instructor said you can pick any lane turning right at signals, but you can't veer over the lines of two lanes, you have to go into one and once you've done that indicate properly to change lanes if you need to - that's what still concerns me about possible contributory liability.

          Presuming OP wasn't going to the park immediately on the left, there was no reason to use so much of the road to turn the corner, and whilst I would have given way if I was Car B, I would have been frustrated that drivers turning right into a three lane road weren't turning into the first two lanes to allow traffic turning left out to continue flowing too. However I'm not saying it isn't allowed to turn into the left lane, as there is no dotted line marking leading to a specific lane, but you should turn directly into one lane only from the intersection so it is clear which lane is being chosen - otherwise, someone may argue you have changed lanes without indicating.

          • Piranha2004 on 01/05/2020 - 04:14
            +2

            @MrFrugalSpend: What a load of drivel. The op hadnt finished the turn so half your thought bubble is irrelevant (most of your post is irrelevant but i was being kind). Op has 0 blame and i cant believe people are attempting to defend the other party.

            • MrFrugalSpend on 01/05/2020 - 22:25
              -1

              @Piranha2004: A reputable regulated/licensed insurance company has looked at this and determined OP to have some fault - there must be a reason for this as they wouldn't waste everyone's time without at least some basis; I bounced the thread off a friend who's got experience and qualifications in road design/safety before commenting and without knowing my answer, they looked at the dashcam footage and came to EXACTLY the same response as me regarding crossing lanes and shared liability.

              I provided a relevant piece of information - that is liability may be shared. It is quite possible a court will just order each party to pay their own car's damage - the law is rarely as black and white as people think. As I stated, yes Car B has fault for failing to give way, however it is not a foregone conclusion that OP is without some fault too. I wish OP all the best as OP certainly has a case to argue Car B has the lion's share of liability - However it is relevant that OP knows and weighs up all possibilities of risks and outcomes before trying to undertake some kind of further action.

              It could potentially be argued by the insurer that the OP had ample opportunity to straighten up directly into one lane without driving diagonally over linemarked lane separator lines, appeared as though they chose lane 2 but then proceeded to veer further encroaching over the line into the left lane, and was also looking straight at Car B and failed to make corrective action - not exactly tidy driving… it gives Car B's insurer something to argue about and that's all they need to mount a defence / refuse to pay.

              Quick dispute resolution (by a negotiation with a neutral mediator/arbitrator) is how most legal disputes of low value like this are resolved (this is very low $s in law court terms), because lawyers cost $300+ per hour, court appearances cost more per hour again - it costs many thousands for disputing parties to take an actions against each other. Chances are at dispute resolution a mediator will try get each party to just pay their own costs quickly (in the first hour), so everyone can go home and stop wasting billable hours over small dollars. I've been off to court, and mediation - There is no way this low level of damages is worth going to a full Court action - there's a reality regarding hefty costs of legal action that make it a diminishing return. Sometimes it really just doesn't matter who is most at fault etc - all you need is an argument on both sides then avoiding the costs of legal action is the main leverage - parties just need to sort out some sort of compromise and pay a bit each. That's the reality of how it works I'm afraid.

              • RJK on 02/05/2020 - 09:59
                +3

                @MrFrugalSpend:

                A reputable regulated/licensed insurance company has looked at this and determined OP to have some fault
                there must be a reason for this as they wouldn't waste everyone's time without at least some basis

                When I was literally rammed from the left by a ute entering a round about - a pretty open and shut case - an opposing insurer sent me the same letter.

                They're not a judge, they have a financial interest in not paying. They benefit if they pressure the innocent party to cave into threats.

                • ankor on 02/05/2020 - 13:03

                  @RJK: They were probably told a lie by their insured driver.

                  You can and always should dispute things with banks, insurers, or anyone else if a decent sum of money is involved and you think it is wrong.

          • daaaaas on 01/05/2020 - 10:38
            +3

            @MrFrugalSpend: you are at fault if you cause a crash.
            OP did not cause the crash by changing lanes. The other driver did.
            End of story.

            • MrFrugalSpend on 01/05/2020 - 22:35

              @daaaaas: if only legal disputes were so simple in real life

            • Piranha2004 on 01/05/2020 - 23:52

              @daaaaas: Exactly. Trying to attribute any blame on the OP is just stupidity. It doesnt matter one iota if someone has toad safety and design credentials.

              • MrFrugalSpend on 02/05/2020 - 00:30

                @Piranha2004: Its not stupidity if you are Car B's insurer - it gets them out of paying for the damage… welcome to the reality of insurance claims and the law. If Car B / their insurer has one little issue to point even 5% of blame, they can make a stand off that results in legal action, which costs someone like OP too much money, which means the parties go to dispute resolution to negotiate some sort of settlement which reduces their damages.

                PS The same qualifications are those held by people who make the road rules and interpret them as expert witnesses in a court of law - its 100% relevant, that's why I asked them.

      • bcarp on 01/05/2020 - 07:34
        +7

        Sorry OP, but i don't think you can just strafe across the line into the third lane like that.

        I think you can. If you come from single lane to multilane, you can pick any lane you want. The rule of not changing lanes applies only to multilane to multilane turns. For a right turn, this would be right lane goes to right lane, 2nd most right lane goes to 2nd most right lane, etc. The least most right lane can pick any lane not already taken. (Unless there are specific lane markings.)

        • haimrevolution on 01/05/2020 - 08:12
          +3

          You are correct. Turning right with a single lane you can turn into any lane you see fit

        • MrFrugalSpend on 01/05/2020 - 21:38

          You have missed my point. Yes you can pick any lane as I already stated (unless it has those dotted line markings that guide you to a specific lane which this doesn't). However, you cannot strafe across multiple lanes once you have passed into the linemarked area. You are required to turn DIRECTLY into one lane. OP crosses over the lane linemarkings diagonally.

          • Piranha2004 on 01/05/2020 - 23:54
            +1

            @MrFrugalSpend: They hadnt finished turning. How do you know which lane they were going into?

            • MrFrugalSpend on 02/05/2020 - 00:24

              @Piranha2004: because they were already in centre lane, but the point of impact was when the left side of the car went over the line into the left lane… that's the point, OP had entered a lane (centre) but the point of impact was left - it's quite possible to take a wider angle then turn into a single lane - look at the diagrams on how to drive here, the car goes forward a lot further then turns sharper to arrive in one lane only… not take a wide sweep running the wheels via the centre lane to get to the furthest lane - https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/images/roads/safety-rules/roadrul…

              Again I agree Car B has some/most of the fault. That won't stop them trying to use a rule like "Giving way when moving from one marked lane or line of traffic to another marked lane or line of traffic" against OP - which states "A driver who is moving from one marked lane (whether or not the lane is ending) to another marked lane must give way to any vehicle travelling in the same direction as the driver in the marked lane to which the driver is moving."

              • Piranha2004 on 02/05/2020 - 09:02

                @MrFrugalSpend: They hadnt finished making the turn so you cant assume it was fully in the centre lane. At no point did the op move the car left (it was still completing the turn). Based on the collision angle the other wasnt even turning into the far left lane anyway so all your ramblings are irrelevant.

                • MrFrugalSpend on 02/05/2020 - 09:58
                  +1

                  @Piranha2004: Ok I agree - you've convinced me. If I were the judge, having reviewed all this, I'd rule in favour the OP.

                  Doesn't mean everything I've said is irrelevant. There's a reality regarding mounting legal action, it's expensive and people on each side have different points of view they hold strongly. Unless it was a very definite and clear frivolous or vexatious claim, it usually costs both sides something even if one side wins. Usually there's a dispute resolution process first, where each party agrees to concede something to resolve without wasting court / legal representation time. There's a game lawyers play about making offers to settle for a reduced sum at different stages through the process - the court does not like it when a party rejects a reasonable offer from the other side - it effects what costs orders you may get. My main point I'm trying to make if there is ANYTHING that a party may honestly argue as a defense (so as to not make it frivolous), there is a risk the insurer won't roll over and pay, it won't get resolved immediately and it will end up costing time and money to resolve (I'm already right on this because it was timestamped August last year and they still haven't paid up). Even if a costs order is awarded, it may not cover all costs and certainly not OP's time - particularly if self-represented. The courts and mediators push heavily for the parties to reach a compromise. Mediation is an amazing thing - Mediators are very well trained at getting parties to discuss in front of each other and agree to a compromise. Reject all that, want your day in court, waste legal time & $s, and it risks costs mounting. OP needs to know how to play that game to maximise returns for cost/effort.

      • TilacVIP on 03/05/2020 - 09:23

        Go show the RTA your replies on here. Your license would be cancelled on the spot.

  • [Deactivated] on 29/04/2020 - 14:03
    +16

    Car B at fault.

    (I don't even know which car you are. This is a simple case based on the diagram provided.)

    • bunkr on 29/04/2020 - 14:05
      +3

      I am Car A

      • [Deactivated] on 29/04/2020 - 14:07
        +9

        You're going to have to chase the other party for payment. The upside is, the other party has probably lodged a claim so they are not in a position to deny involvement.

        (Just read your post. If the other party's insurance is disputing the obvious ruling, you need to be assertive. You need to know your avenue to have legal representation and pass the cost of said representation to the other party's insurer. Refute their claim and provide them a letter of demand for damages. If they continue to dispute it any further, do not have further back and forth, seek legal rep.)

      • anonymous01 on 29/04/2020 - 22:38
        +7

        Hey OP, you are definitely not in the wrong at all. Do you mind naming and shaming the other insurance company trying to pin this on you? Just so I know who to avoid being insured with next time, since all they care about is their own profit and are willing to bully the weak, who they think will not stand up for themselves. Hate those kind of morons and companies.

      • capslock janitor on 30/04/2020 - 13:13
        -7

        ARE you using a bs VPN just for this account?

      • Zonty on 30/04/2020 - 15:58

        Send video it wil lol be enough ask his insurance no and claim reference no. They will fix all.

      • Zonty on 30/04/2020 - 16:00
        -1

        Go consumer affair. You got more then enough to prove you are right.

        • picket23 on 01/05/2020 - 11:02
          +5

          You need to look a bit closer at that link you keep spamming. I mean you don't even need to read it, just look at the pictures and you'll see you're wrong. I.e check the picture under the heading "traffic lights".

          • TilacVIP on 03/05/2020 - 09:24
            +4

            @picket23: Perhaps he was the driver of the other car.

        • Revrnd on 02/05/2020 - 19:09

          https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/images/roads/safety-rules/roadrul…

          did you happen to miss this pic?

          Google Maps link

          Turn left at any time with care - clearly the other driver didn't take any care when they were to give way (there's dashed lines they crossed before merging with the Cumberland Hwy) - don't they usually mean Give Way?.

      • Revrnd on 02/05/2020 - 21:00

        Car B had a "Turn left at any time with care" sign, there were dashed lines indicating car B had to give way to anyone on Cumberland Highway.

        You had a Green Arrow, you've turned into any lane as allowed (due to there being no dashed lane lines across the intersection).

        Single turning lane and the diagram posted (https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/images/roads/safety-rules/roadrul…) with the above info should clearly show your insurer that Car B was driving with undue care, and failed to give way.

        Good luck with your insurer, should be clear cut. Other driver failed to give way, they were driving with undue care.

        Would a police report with a copy of the dash footage, diagram of the intersection (and the image from my google maps view below) help?

  • jv on 29/04/2020 - 14:06
    +19

    If you had a green arrow and have footage to prove it, you are not at fault and the other insurance company is bluffing.

    This the reason you should always have full insurance, regardless of the value of your car. It is cheaper than hiring a lawyer.

    • Save 50 Cent on 29/04/2020 - 23:07
      +2

      What if my car is cheaper than the premium x3?

      • jv on 29/04/2020 - 23:50
        -5

        The difference between comprehensive and third party would be minimal for cheaper cars as they will only pay out market value.

        • serpserpserp on 30/04/2020 - 11:08
          +8

          That is false. I just insured my bomb second car yesterday and after much research the premiums between third party and comprehensive was at least 40% so it was at least $200+ per year in premiums for the cheapest I could find. The market value payout on this car is $1000-$4000 max (and this car has damage from a previous owner so no way I'll get anywhere near upper range) so third party it is.

          • jv on 30/04/2020 - 11:09
            -6

            @serpserpserp:

            That is false.

            Not when I last checked. It was about $50 difference.

    • Chandler on 30/04/2020 - 15:48

      Agree that full insurance makes life easier, but disagree that it is cheaper than hiring a lawyer. Not unreasonable that if you're not at fault for the at fault party to pay for damages and legal fees, since you shouldn't have to pay said legal fees if they just paid what they should have in the first place.

      Having said that, who's going to want to gouge you more - the other party's insurer who will want to absolutely minimise how much they pay, or your insurer, who will also want to minimise what they pay but also not piss you (their customer) off with a shitty job (which the former insurer won't give a shit about apart from potential reworks).

      • jv on 30/04/2020 - 17:42

        Not unreasonable that if you're not at fault for the at fault party to pay for damages and legal fees

        doesn't always happen though… often judgment is a percentage and you have to pay your own legal fees.

        • Chandler on 01/05/2020 - 08:14

          True.

          Had an interesting thought but.

          1. Two-parties have an accident.
          2. Both are insured with third party.
          3. Ruled 50/50 at-fault.

          Who pays?

          Does party A's insurer pay for party B's damage; and party B's insurer pay for party A's?

          • jv on 01/05/2020 - 09:11

            @Chandler: Are you asking me for legal advice?

            • Chandler on 01/05/2020 - 09:36

              @jv: Haha. No. Just an interesting thought I had.

    • Caped Baldy on 29/04/2020 - 14:12
      +18

      From OP's diagram there is only one turning lane from their original direction. It is still Car B's onus to give way.

      Whilst accurate the RMS diagram doesn't represent this scenario.

      • ThithLord on 29/04/2020 - 14:25
        -5

        Of course - I still believe they are meant to turn into the equivalent lane, though. Absolutely could be mistaken.

        • jimbobaus on 29/04/2020 - 15:06
          +25

          This only applies when lines indicate you must do that.
          If you are turning right you can turn into any lane if you are the only turning lane.

          So if there was two right turning lanes, the inner lane must turn into outer most lane when they turn
          the outer turning lane could then turn into middle or left lane.

          This is same in NSW as in many other states.

          as pictured under "Right Turns" on linked further reading above.

          If its one turning lane: you can turn into any lane
          if its more than one or road is marked then the lane you turn into matters.

          • ThithLord on 29/04/2020 - 15:23
            +8

            @jimbobaus: Yep, you're right. I can't edit my original comment now, though, unfortunately.

            • jimbobaus on 29/04/2020 - 15:44
              +3

              @ThithLord: i saw you conceded below after i posted mine

              • mattyman on 30/04/2020 - 10:42
                +15

                @jimbobaus: Well look at you two being adults, having a friendly discussion and conceding points when you should. This is a first for the internet. 10 points to Gryffindor.

          • foxinsox8 on 01/05/2020 - 10:48
            -6

            @jimbobaus: Wrong. You must turn into the same lane when turning right if the roads have marked lanes. (whether there are guidelines or not) https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/safety-rules/road-rules/int…

            Left turns can be made into any lane. Right turns have to maintain the same lane. Read the manual. See the diagram. It's clear. It's the law.

      • macrocephalic on 29/04/2020 - 16:01

        Further, there are three lanes in the OP's diagram and neither car turned into the closest lane.

        • Maximum64 on 30/04/2020 - 15:27
          +1

          OP absolutely isn't required to turn into the closest lane, they can pick any lane they wish. Two reasons, they are the only turning lane, as opposed to a larger intersection that may have a number of turning lanes, plus there are no lane marking through the intersection indicating they need a particular lane, thus law quite clearly states they can choose any lane to enter on the new road.

          • foxinsox8 on 01/05/2020 - 10:21
            -7

            @Maximum64: You are completely wrong. The NSW road rules state that "In marked lanes, you must stay in the same lane as you go from one road to another."

            ie turn from the right hand lane into the right hand lane. The OP broke the rule and is at fault as much as Car B.

            • kirbycario on 01/05/2020 - 11:10
              +3

              @foxinsox8: that rule is for marked turning lanes, meaning the entire turn is dotted into the intersection - you are wrong.

              https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/images/roads/safety-rules/roadrul…

              look at the image here for the middle lane right turn car, it has a choice. now imagine the green car on the right is gone from the equation, you still have a choice

              stop bullshitting

            • [Deactivated] on 03/05/2020 - 00:50
              +2

              @foxinsox8: You should really read up on the road rules more carefully or you'll end up being Car B assuming other cars play by your invented road rules. Such misunderstandings can be dangerous.

            • Maximum64 on 03/05/2020 - 11:28
              +1

              @foxinsox8: LOL, what a facepalm moment when you completely shoot yourself in the foot in front of people eh? Maybe try keeping your mouth shut next time when you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Even the very legislation you chose to quote proved that you are way off mark, talk about an own goal. There were no lane markings through the turn, so just refresh me again, who was it that was "completely wrong" as you so succinctly put it?

    • FTTNope on 29/04/2020 - 14:49
      +9

      This diagram and this diagram disagree that you need to stick to the equivalent lane except where you're specifically guided to stay in that lane.

      • ThithLord on 29/04/2020 - 15:02
        +8

        I concede.

        • foxinsox8 on 01/05/2020 - 10:21
          -2

          You shouldn't. You were correct. The rules state that "In marked lanes, you must stay in the same lane as you go from one road to another."
          https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/safety-rules/road-rules/int…

          • ThithLord on 01/05/2020 - 10:45

            @foxinsox8: Yeah I'm kinda feeling like I was probably right, but not much we can do about that now.

            • foxinsox8 on 01/05/2020 - 10:54
              -2

              @ThithLord: Scary how many people on this forum don't know the rule!

            • picket23 on 01/05/2020 - 11:29
              +2

              @ThithLord: Don't feel bad, you were wrong oringinally (but right to concede). The lane OP was turning from can turn right into any of the three lanes. foxinsox has misinterpreted the rule and somehow even misinterpretted the pictures (all in the link he is posting) which show the scenario that OP posted about.

              What foxinsox is reading, actually means that you need to stay within lane marking of a marked turning lane (i.e there is lane markings THROUGH the intersection). You can actually see examples of such a marked turning lane in the video - but it is for traffic coming from a different side of the intersection.

      • wiipantz on 29/04/2020 - 16:35

        Is that only in the state of NSW?

        • FTTNope on 29/04/2020 - 16:49
          +1

          Start researching and find out for your state.
          For SA, where I live: "if there are no markings and you are turning right into a multi-lane road, it is safest to turn into the lane on the new road closest to the middle of that road". So it's saying it's safest (fair point) but not mandatory.

          • wiipantz on 29/04/2020 - 16:51
            +1

            @FTTNope: Yeah just a brief peruse of a few states and countries I had lived in, seems fairly consistent but the SA recommendation whilst not law is how I was taught (defensively) I like these posts where as I would hope some people learn to be better drivers as I certainly learnt something

            • [Deactivated] on 03/05/2020 - 01:00
              -1

              @wiipantz: It is safer sometimes, but I tend to dislike this recommendation. Firstly because most people do stay right other people like @foxinsox8 assume it will always happen / is there right to drive like car B. And secondly there are many places where you need to immediately turn left causing people to quickly merge across a few lanes, rather than just moving straight into the lane they require.

    • [Deactivated] on 29/04/2020 - 22:38

      You need to look further down at the “Traffic lights” section.
      There you will see if a single lane turns into a multiple lane road you can choose whichever lane you want.

    • dbun1 on 30/04/2020 - 06:58

      Wrong

      • ThithLord on 30/04/2020 - 07:56
        +3

        Thank you for pointing it out - it hadn't sunk in that I was mistaken, even after a few other posters demonstrated that I was wrong. It was your comment, a whole 16 hours after my original (and subsequent corrections), that has convinced me. I shall name my firstborn after you, DBun1. I shall call him DBun1 II.

    • Dancasper on 30/04/2020 - 10:12

      I agree with you Thithlord.

      Car B is still in the wrong but I also dont think the OP is in the clear here.

      It comes under Rule 33 (3) of the NSW Road Rules;

      (3) If there is no turn line indicating how the turn is required to be made, the driver must make the turn so the driver—
      (a) passes as near as practicable to the right of the centre of the intersection, and
      (b) turns into the left of the centre of the road the driver is entering, unless the driver is entering a one-way road.

      The opposing party could argue that the OP entered in the middle lane (not as near as practible) then travelled into the far left lane without indicating.

      • elusive on 30/04/2020 - 14:15
        +2

        I think you've misinterpreted the intent of that rule.

        Here, let's look at the legislation: https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/regulation/2014/75…

        The rule you quote is, emphasis mine:

        (a) passes as near as practicable to the right of the centre of the intersection, and

        This doesn't say anything about where you're supposed to end up after the turn (the lane you enter), just where you go during the turn. And it seems to exist for cases where opposing traffic is also performing a right turn - by passing right of the centre of the intersection, both directions can turn right without crossing each other.

        Especially relevant is the example image on the legislation page, which shows the intent of the rule:

        Example 2Making a right turn from a road with no turn lines indicating how to make the turn (image)

        In fact, watching the video, OP did pass to the right of the centre of the intersection, timestamp 0:32.

        I'm not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

        • Maximum64 on 30/04/2020 - 15:34

          Absolutely correct.

          (a) passes as near as practicable to the right of the centre of the intersection

          This is exactly as per your diagram, spot on, it allows for two opposing directions to turn at the same time.

          (b) turns into the left of the centre of the road the driver is entering, unless the driver is entering a one-way road.

          Simply means that you need to turn into the left of the median strip, ie, keep left and don't pull into the oncoming traffic on the right side of the median strip. Lans choice is irrelevant as long as you are in teh correct direction of travel.

        • Dancasper on 01/05/2020 - 10:47

          My bad, I mistook it for meaning to be as clear as possible from the centre of intersection. In which case a wider swept path would be contrary to this.

          Kind of odd, my driving instructor (1991?) tore me a new one when I did the same thing (right lane into middle lane). I was always told to enter the same lane that you exited from. I'm wondering if this was prior to turn linemarking coming in.

  • Caped Baldy on 29/04/2020 - 14:10
    +96

    Wow that is an amazing diagram. Please submit a poor quality paint one.

    Car B is at fault. Seems pretty straightforward.

    Your insurance company needs to step up their game. Have you sent the footage to the other insurer?

    Best of luck OP.

    • [Deactivated] on 29/04/2020 - 14:11

      Your insurance company needs to step up their game.

      Third party only.

      • Caped Baldy on 29/04/2020 - 14:13
        +3

        Ahh, I've only had comprehensive. Pretty annoying if they don't help out.

        Edit: they should help out right? Otherwise they'd be on the hook for repairs.

        • [Deactivated] on 29/04/2020 - 15:14

          Otherwise they'd be on the hook for repairs.

          Nope. They can simply say they are not disbursing because client not at fault. That doesn't imply that the other party is at fault.

      • tastycheeks on 29/04/2020 - 17:25

        wait so your insurance company won't help you if you only have third party?

        • [Deactivated] on 29/04/2020 - 17:57
          +2

          Yes. Representing you is part of the comprehensive.

      • Domingo on 29/04/2020 - 23:47
        +2

        That doesn't sound right. "The other party was at fault but their insurance company is blaming me" - say that to your 3rd party insurance and they'll do their best to not have to pay.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join