Who Is at Fault with This Highway Incident?

Tekon on 08/01/2021 - 16:51
Last edited 09/01/2021 - 16:53 by 1 other user

Hi everyone,

Just wanted to collect some opinions with regards to this incident.

For context, had an eager SUV (passes in the right lane following crash) behind so decided to return to the left lane as per 'left unless overtaking' rule.

Blue vehicle pulled out pretty much after I had four tyres into the left lane going about 10kmh while I was travelling at 95. The combined effort of me slamming the brakes and my vehicle's presence feature managed to significantly decrease the amount of damage. Might only need a new bonnet and front grill.

From my perspective I believe my response time was not too bad given I had just completed a head check before moving into the lane. Perhaps I made a poor assumption that the car would stick to the emergency lane to speed up before merging behind me?

Just looking for some insight from others whether I am in the clear.

And yes both vehicles have insurance.

ETA: There is indeed a give way sign there

Update 9/01/2021:

Just wanted to send thanks to all who've posted their perspectives here. While there does seem to be a clear majority of opinion in terms of driver at fault, I find myself agreeing with some individuals who believe I could have been driving more defensively. There definitely is a delay in the time it took for me to brake.

To be clear, there definitely was no distraction involved. On reflection, my view is that in the moment one of two things (or a combination) crossed my mind leading to me not slamming the brakes immediately as I saw the car start to move. And yes these are both poor assumptions that should not be made while driving.

  1. As this was an unfamiliar road, an assumption might have been made that there is a small on-ramp there for vehicles to get up to speed before merging and hence it would likely merge behind me.

  2. The vehicle would get up to speed within the emergency lane before getting on the actual freeway and, as above, merge behind me. Happy to be corrected but I would have suspected this might have been standard procedure where an on-ramp is not provided. I certainly did this when merging back on the freeway following the incident to head home.

However, I personally would still maintain that the blue should be found at fault. Regardless, this is a definitely a lesson learned for a younger driver like myself and possibly others who have followed this thread.

In terms of insurance, they seem tentatively confident that we are in the clear and there is no word on whether the other party is looking to dispute anything. Following the crash itself they also seemed to be somewhat accepting that they had made a mistake. Also I am absolutely thankful I had a dashcam installed as otherwise there really wouldn't have been a way to prove anything but I hit a car from behind.

P.S Those looking for an update for my previous post with Adam's debacle, I've updated it in the comments.

Automotive

Comments

  • Simoneee on 08/01/2021 - 16:53
    +129

    Blue Yaris

      • Tekon on 08/01/2021 - 16:59
        +6

        I had the understanding that that general rule applies where vehicles are already within lane and travelling and there is a rear end. Does this also apply where a vehicle pulls onto the freeway?

          • Ughhh on 08/01/2021 - 17:28
            +11

            @Hybroid:

            they may have mirror checked and seen the lane was clear and did not see you move over.

            Doesn't make you not at fault. It's like people who indicate and assume everyone has to make space for them.

          • stueyh on 09/01/2021 - 12:21
            +9

            @Hybroid: You're wrong here, the blue Yaris was at a give way sign, by pulling out in to traffic, even though they may have though they were ok to do so, meant they hadn't given way to all traffic currently on the road they're entering and puts them at fault

      • Gronk on 08/01/2021 - 17:35
        +19

        Unfortunately, technically, no. It's the car that rear ends the one in front that's at fault. Should have assessed the hazard risk and slowed down suitably.

        If both cars had already entered the motorway then that rule applies, but blue car was entering so the onus is on them to ensure that the intersection is clear before doing so.

      • OzzyOzbourne on 09/01/2021 - 10:55
        +5

        Omg, this is the reason why driving in Australia is so crap, seriously, why do people think like this? It's the attitude that you can pull out in front of anyone or cut any up and if they hit your rear end because of what you've done, it's there fault. FFS.

        • stueyh on 09/01/2021 - 12:22
          +2

          but my indicator was on /s

        • [Deactivated] on 09/01/2021 - 21:46

          I hate when people make bold general statements with no little to no experience in the field.

          If you think in Australia driving is crap, I would suggest go and drive or an extended period of time in the country of your choosing. You will find the same thing.

          Have a look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r… and remove the countries which are smaller than Sydney both in population and size. You will find we are not doing that bad.

      • ramb9 on 09/01/2021 - 21:44

        This is the dumbest thing I've read all day. Hope I never meet you on the road…

      • Munki on 10/01/2021 - 14:54

        Sorry, what?!

        Way to not know your road rules.

      • chriise on 10/01/2021 - 19:26

        Wheeew lad.

      • trapper on 11/01/2021 - 13:00

        Unfortunately, technically, no. It's the car that rear ends the one in front that's at fault.

        There is no such rule.

        The one who caused the accident is at fault - this is usually the car behind but not always, such as in this case.

  • AndyC1 on 08/01/2021 - 17:00
    +82

    The blue car pulled out of a side street. The blue car did not give way!!!

    Blue car is at fault.

  • emblurr on 08/01/2021 - 17:03
    +31

    I'm gonna say the Yaris because they didn't give way to traffic. You can see the Give way sign there and it's a 100km/hr road, pulling out with cars coming at you at 100km/hr is madness.

    I don't know which state you are in, but here are the rules for Victoria.

    https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/road-r…

    Entering the traffic stream
    You must give way to all vehicles travelling on the road when you enter the traffic stream from a parked position, or through a break in a median strip.

    • capslock janitor on 09/01/2021 - 13:13
      +5

      Also an observation, Yaris probably saw Cam on right lane and thought it was "safe", but they switched lanes during that split second for Yaris.

      Very often I see cars do the "sneaky" entry like that on highways, so I tend to lane change after the T junction, just personal thing. So many idiots out there I don't have time for.

      • Buyme on 11/01/2021 - 10:26
        +1

        I recall learning to never pull out unless the lane you’re pulling into, AND the one next to it, are free, to avoid the chance of this happening.

        A practice I continue to employ everyday behind the wheel.

    • bohn on 08/01/2021 - 17:06
      +3

      I definitely thought that the car could have not hit it if they braked earlier.

      • John Kimble on 08/01/2021 - 17:31
        +5

        True. But if the blue car gave way in the first place, then that also would have resulted in no accident.

        • bohn on 08/01/2021 - 17:32
          +2

          True, but at the same time, you are also meant to do all you reasonably can to avoid it. I don't think it shows that much was done (even if as you said there is a slight delay in the GPS).

          • John Kimble on 08/01/2021 - 17:39
            +5

            @bohn: It's not the same time. One happened before the other, which is why fault lies with the blue car.

          • cheng2008 on 10/01/2021 - 17:53
            +2

            @bohn: Disagree, OP has responded in a reasonable amount of time. It's not like he took 5 seconds to respond to the Yaris, after all he's not an F1 driver.

      • ankor on 09/01/2021 - 13:01
        +1

        Taken from https://www.drivingtests.co.nz/resources/how-to-calculate-br…

        Typical total stopping distances
        We already know that a huge number of factors affect this, but let’s assume a medium-sized car with good tyres on a dry road:

        Speed Reaction distance Braking distance Total stopping distance
        40km/h 17m 9m 26m
        50km/h 21m 14m 35m
        60km/h 25m 20m 45m
        70km/h 29m 27m 56m
        80km/h 33m 36m 69m
        90km/h 38m 45m 83m
        100km/h 42m 56m 98m
        110km/h 46m 67m 113m

        I don't think what you're asserting is possible.

        Look at how slowly the Yaris pulled out, there was absolutely no braking distance possible within a 2second window.

        That Yaris driver was driving and accelerating like it was on a suburban 50kph road and not like he/she was on a 100kph highway.

        edit: Looks like it was a 90kph speed limit. But the same issue applies; there would not have been sufficient braking distance even if all the right things were done.
        No way for op to avoid accident even with proper and safe braking. OP can't go back into the previous lane because he was moving lanes to let the car behind him pass and that car may have been accelerating behind him to overtake him.

    • John Kimble on 08/01/2021 - 17:22
      +23

      There's always a slight delay/lag on the dashcam GPS speed.

      You can clearly see the DC car brake about a car length before impact.

    • This Guy on 08/01/2021 - 22:42
      +4

      The video clearly shows OP doing under 30kmph before the impact while reporting 81kmph.

      How do I know? I drive.

    • Buyme on 11/01/2021 - 10:28

      The Yaris wasn’t hit a 96km/h. #camlag

  • orangetrain on 08/01/2021 - 17:06
    +13

    Blue Car Yaris. Blindly trusted right lane not to change. Right lane is not meant to give way to side streets.

  • AustriaBargain on 08/01/2021 - 17:12

    Did you indicate your lane change?

    • Tekon on 08/01/2021 - 17:15
      +4

      Yep the version with audio has clear sound of the indicator going for about 6 seconds before indicident.

      • John Kimble on 08/01/2021 - 17:28
        +14

        I'm going to guess the blue car saw you indicating and moving left, so incorrectly assumed you were going to magically turn left into the side street it was coming out of. Rookie error on their behalf.

      • bobbified on 09/01/2021 - 14:54
        +1

        I'm interested to know - in this "audio" version, does it show that you used the horn at any stage?

        • Tekon on 10/01/2021 - 16:08

          Yep approx 5 seconds in on this video is where my horn started.

          • bobbified on 10/01/2021 - 16:34
            -3

            @Tekon: In hindsight, do you think it would've helped avoid a collision if you didn't blow the horn and focused on braking/evasive action? (By the time the car is in your lane, it's pointless blowing the horn since there's not really much they can do that's quick enough to get out of your way. It could even be counter-productive and cause a non-confident driver to freeze).

            From the relatively small collision, it seems that you really only needed to have braked a fraction of a second earlier or emergency braked and you might've been able to avoid contact altogether.

  • loropy9 on 08/01/2021 - 17:12
    -4

    I'd say the bule yaris didn't give you enough time to slow down. He had less than 3 seconds distance from your car when he started pulling out. OP could have been more careful as well though.

    • John Kimble on 08/01/2021 - 17:45
      +56

      Cars on the main road are not supposed to slow down for entering traffic…

      • elgrande on 08/01/2021 - 18:47
        -8

        So.. full steam ahead then?

        • John Kimble on 08/01/2021 - 18:51
          +20

          No, obviously one should slow and try and avoid an accident where possible, fault or no fault.

          I was specifically referring to the previous comment of "the bule yaris didn't give you enough time to slow down"

          This should 100% not be a consideration for the blue car. They should only be looking for a safe gap to enter.

  • bohn on 08/01/2021 - 17:14
    -6

    There was almost no braking. I don't get it. Sure, the person is cutting you off, was the rear ending punishment? ;)
    Were you distracted with something at the time and only just realised at the last second what was happening. That's the only explanation I can think of for no braking. That or a 'punishment'.

    • ThithLord on 08/01/2021 - 17:22

      OP says they were shoulder-checking

  • Ocker on 08/01/2021 - 17:17
    +2

    Yaris failed to obey the give way sign and give way markings on the roadway. Debatable whether you actually "rear-ended" the Yaris or in fact hit his rear quarter panel. Their is no obligation to slow down to avoid the other car.
    Regardless, the primary cause of the accident is the failure of the Yaris driver to obey the give way signs.

  • John Kimble on 08/01/2021 - 17:20
    +9

    Poll required.

    Oh and blue car at fault. Case closed.

  • Ughhh on 08/01/2021 - 17:22
    +21

    Blue Yaris at fault. If you are entering a road and traffic has to brake for you, then you should not have entered, highway or no highway. So many people underestimate speed and overestimate their cars capabilities.

  • kanmen on 08/01/2021 - 17:24
    +4

    Blue car.

    I'm so sorry this happened to you.

  • Gronk on 08/01/2021 - 17:33
    +7

    Blue yaris, it entered the motorway when it was clearly unsafe to do so, ignore those citing the 'rear ender' rule as it's irrelevant here.

  • brad1-8tsi on 08/01/2021 - 17:36
    +2

    Blue Yaris at fault

  • ozwog05 on 08/01/2021 - 17:38
    +2

    Yaris. Poor judgement.

  • FlipCrank on 08/01/2021 - 17:40
    +3

    Blue Yaris but I do think the response time is pretty slow, even if you are headchecking you should be done before moving into the lane.

    • bohn on 08/01/2021 - 17:54
      +4

      must get a record for world's longest head check.

  • DannyC on 08/01/2021 - 17:43
    +8

    Lucky you had dash cam footage. Usually insurance companies would put the damage at the front of the vehicle as the one who is at fault. Assuming you got all their details?

    • capslock janitor on 09/01/2021 - 13:16

      what dcam ya recommend

      • Caped Baldy on 09/01/2021 - 19:49
        +1

        Most of viofo's range is good. They all have capacitors afaik which are better in the Aussie heat.
        The A129 duo has front and rear cameras and has been on sale for less than $150.

      • DannyC on 10/01/2021 - 18:22

        I have a brand called Apeman from Amazon. Imported in from the US. Pretty decent for a budget/mid range dash cam.

  • bohn on 08/01/2021 - 17:43
    +3

    Contributory negligence

    What is contributory negligence?

    Reductions to compensation apply if an injured person’s own actions contributed to the accident, such as failure to keep a proper lookout or driving at excessive speed. Contributory negligence applies in addition to statutory reductions.

    For example, all drivers are required to drive defensively. If the at-fault vehicle in an accident failed to stop at a stop sign, but the driver with right of way had enough time to avoid the accident by slowing down or braking, then that injured driver may be found to have also been negligent and contributed to the accident and their injuries.

    https://www.ctp.sa.gov.au/for-injured-people/how-to-settle/o…

    See the bold example there - driver breaks the law, doesn't stop at a stop sign, but, the other driver had enough time to avoid it by slowing down or braking. This is very similar to what has happened here. Not sure how insurance companies apply these principles to accidents.. but I am sure they would.

    OP may need to take some of the blame. 25%

    • Hellfire on 08/01/2021 - 18:38
      +4

      OP could have 100% avoided the accident and will be found at least partially at fault.

      • John Kimble on 08/01/2021 - 18:48
        +10

        I 100% disagree.

        • Hellfire on 08/01/2021 - 19:25
          +1

          So OP didn't have plenty of time to brake when he saw (or should have see) the blue car merging?

          • John Kimble on 08/01/2021 - 19:42
            -3

            @Hellfire: I see your argument and can see where in some cases contributory negligence could apply, but I still feel the blue car is 100% at fault in this case.

            Assigning any fault to the DC car I feel is almost like victim blaming…it's probably an extreme example, but it's like saying to a rape victim "you shouldn't have been out late at night by yourself and/or dressed so provocatively".

            • Hellfire on 08/01/2021 - 20:12

              @John Kimble: Highly offensive and poor analogy.

              • John Kimble on 08/01/2021 - 22:25
                +1

                @Hellfire: Highly offensive to who? Do you have a better one?

              • Deridas on 09/01/2021 - 10:13
                +4

                @Hellfire: I didn't think it was a poor analogy. John Kimble did say it was an extreme example, and it was quite appropriate. If OP could've "100% avoided the accident…", then you also say to a rape victim he/she could've "100% avoided it by not being there".

                And no, OP didn't have plenty of time to brake when he saw the blue car merging, it's a 100km/hr road.

                It would be nice if you can elaborate when you make accusations of "highly offensive and poor analogy".

    • This Guy on 08/01/2021 - 22:56
      +23

      OP is traveling 5kmph under the limit.

      OP looks like they hit at ~20kmph.

      I count 4 seconds from the Yaris moving forward until impact and 2.5 seconds before breaking. But we know the Yaris pulls out. OP was clearly breaking with 1.5 second of the Yaris clearly failing to give way. That is well below the response times roads are designed for. And that is my call. OP might have more faith in traffic and only decide this Yaris is behaving stupidly one second before clearly breaking.

      Further, most people are not trained to brake correctly and will start gently, which would not be clear in a low frame rate video like this. OP might have started breaking genitally one second after the Yaris moved forward and we would not be able to tell with out a video showing their brake lights.

      How is OP negligent???

      • bobbified on 09/01/2021 - 10:25
        +9

        OP might have started breaking genitally….

        Breaking genitally..😫 that just sounds very very painful! 🤣

        • capslock janitor on 09/01/2021 - 13:21

          and it might be dangerous to hardbrake IF there was a load in the back

          • abb on 10/01/2021 - 18:02

            @capslock janitor: rule #1 of load restraint: never pack your car such that you need to "drive carefully"

      • munecito on 09/01/2021 - 10:29
        +8

        Op is very well endowed to press the brakes with his genitals during an emergency.

      • Mikeer on 09/01/2021 - 11:35
        +3

        Actually it appears that the OP is travelling 6-10 km/h above the speed limit - that section of the road is limited to 90 km/h. The limit sign is 350 meters (about 13 seconds) before the video starts.

    • [Deactivated] on 09/01/2021 - 11:10

      I agree OP definitely partially. Always takes two to tango. I was going to post the same thing probably yaris 75% and OP 25%…

  • xuqi on 08/01/2021 - 18:04
    +4

    Lucky for the maggot you weren't the semi on the right lane…..

    A few years back I had someone pull the same move writing off my almost new Audi S5. Quickest insurance settlement I've had from the other party.

    • WhyAmICommenting on 09/01/2021 - 09:12
      +3

      They pulled in front forcing you to rear end them?

      • xuqi on 09/01/2021 - 23:56
        +2

        Yes, I was doing 90KM/h in a 90 zone @ ~10pm, when the fool decided to make a left hand turn in my my lane.

        Luckily for me a police car drove by ~5 minutes later, stopped, tested both for alcohol, and find the other guy for driving with undue care.

        Accident occurred Thursday night, and I had the settlement money in my account Tuesday morning the following week.

        The insurance assessor who called to speak with me, said he had 5 pages worth of parts but decided to stop the process after the first page, and write off the car once he'd received the quote from Audi.

        • WhyAmICommenting on 10/01/2021 - 15:26

          lol @ the parts list and Audi quote. I hope it worked out ok for you.

  • Summoner on 08/01/2021 - 18:05
    +1

    Well both parties could have prevented the incident. Blue car could have given way, or you could have slowed down when you saw the blue car merged into your line. Pointless to fight over what has happend. Lose-Lose situation for both parties.

    • Hirolol on 10/01/2021 - 10:06
      +2

      No it’s not
      Blue car clearly in the wrong
      If you are entering you must give way.

      • Summoner on 10/01/2021 - 12:19
        +1

        That doesn't change anything. Even if you are in the right, you risk bodily harm, waste your time, and money (at least the excess). There are lots of idiots on the road. Its just best drive defensively to avoid any accident. It will still happen, but risk are lower.

  • Porker on 08/01/2021 - 18:58
    +1

    Doesn't matter what people say here in terms of who is at fault or not. Your insurance will determine who is at fault and act accordingly.

  • brendanm on 08/01/2021 - 19:41
    +6

    Why does the dashcam car wait so long to brake? Why weren't they paying attention to idiots pulling out? Why did the Yaris pull out to start with? So many questions.

    • John Kimble on 08/01/2021 - 19:44
      +1

      He said he just changed lanes and also thought the yaris was going to stay on the shoulder before merging into his lane.

      • brendanm on 08/01/2021 - 19:45
        +11

        You can see the Yaris pulling out a mile away. Why can't people into defensive driving?

        Edit - I'm not even attributing fault, just can't understand how 2 drivers couldn't use any sort of defensive driving between them.

        • chriskq on 10/01/2021 - 23:34

          Why can't people into defensive driving?

          probably the same reasons one cannot always type well constructed sentences… laziness, reacting too quickly / too slowly, in their own thoughts, distractions etc

  • pharkurnell on 08/01/2021 - 19:43
    +2

    Its a yaris, what do you expect LOL!!!

  • Heaps for Cheaps on 08/01/2021 - 19:54
    +9

    I, on the 8th of January 2021, hereby declare the driver in the Yarris to be 100% liable for this accident.

  • life is suffering on 08/01/2021 - 19:56
    +1

    The blue yarris expected him to change lanes. why the expectation from a person coming from give way is beyond me

  • Lichen6420 on 08/01/2021 - 20:02
    +3

    Yarris is at fault however the impact was entirely avoidable had the OP been paying proper attention to the road in front. Basic defensive driving was certainly lacking here.

    Probably not the best place to change lanes but we all live and learn from our mistakes. Importantly no one was hurt, that's all that really matters.

    End of the day the blue cars insurer will be the one to pay up for this one.

  • lgacb08 on 08/01/2021 - 20:51
    +1

    my only concern is if you spend that much money on a blackvue and probably couldn't get a single licence plate number out of the dash reflection then just buy a cheap sub $100 and get someone decent skill to install it for you

    • bobbified on 08/01/2021 - 23:39
      +1

      BlackVue have a polarised filter to reduce the glare. But it's about $45.

  • nomoneynoproblems on 08/01/2021 - 21:09
    +23

    scary how many Muppets are justifying the yaris.

    • SF3 on 08/01/2021 - 23:10

      Often it seems more like a popularity contest, not about what is or isn’t right or wrong.

    • asafasr on 09/01/2021 - 08:43
      +2

      Victim blaming on the internet is pretty rife

    • brendanm on 09/01/2021 - 09:46
      +2

      I don't think anyone is justifying the Yaris, they shouldn't have pulled out, especially so slowly, just saying that the entire thing could have been avoided with defensive driving from either party.

      Op even says he saw the Yaris but didn't think they'd pull out, so should have been watching for them to pull out, as people do stupid things every single day.

      • bohn on 09/01/2021 - 10:18
        +1

        OP also says

        Perhaps I made a poor assumption that the car would stick to the emergency lane to speed up before merging behind me?

        Some people have been suggesting that the OP was gently braking but it wasn't shown in the dashcam video - however, this comment makes it even clearer that the braking was not occurring earlier like they are suggesting. He wasn't braking and the accident wasn't avoided.

        • brendanm on 09/01/2021 - 10:19
          +2

          Yep, you can see in the video how late he starts braking. Australia really needs tougher licencing and driver training. Never assume someone is going to do the right thing.

    • Nebargains on 09/01/2021 - 15:13

      Scary how many people are writing Yarris instead of Yaris.

  • bobbified on 08/01/2021 - 23:21
    +3

    Yaris is at fault, but collision could've been avoided by either car. DC driver seems to have overestimated his vehicle's ability to stop quickly and left it too long before actually starting to brake. Doesn't look like it was an emergency brake either.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join