Hit by Car Entering from Side Street Advice

Ldarkness on 12/08/2023 - 19:46
Last edited 13/08/2023 - 07:37

Hi. I've been a long time forum lurker, reading accident stories, but never thought I'd be posting one of my own.

My wife had a side-swipe type accident when changing lanes and I was wondering if anyone can shed some light on who's at fault.

Essentially:

  1. She was in the right lane in a two lane street with a car in front.
  2. Car in front stops due to traffic. Location has an side road on the left with cars wanting to enter.
  3. She also stops.
  4. Left lane was clear, so she changed lanes at the same time as another car coming from the side street resulting in a collision

Can anyone say who was at fault in this situation? Normally I'd assume the car entering the road would be at fault, but after looking at the footage, I'm not so sure.

We have comprehensive insurance. Unfortunately, they did not exchange contact details, so I'm not even sure if insurance would help.

Dashcam Footage and MS Paint

She is car A, and car B is the other driver.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

Automotive

Comments

              • gromit on 14/08/2023 - 09:52

                @Ghost47: she was indicating as she pulled into the lane and gave no indication prior to that. The Porsche driver definitely at fault (but I have some sympathy for him as she really gave zero warning prior to him starting to move), her driving showed incredibly poor defensive driving skills and she had ample opportunity to avoid the crash.

                • Ghost47 on 14/08/2023 - 22:34
                  -1

                  @gromit: In the clip her indicator blinks twice (nearly three times) before she leaves the lane so technically there is some indication albeit not much. IMO it's decent indication simply because I've seen drivers who only blink their indicator once before moving out of their lane in this sort of situation.

                  If anything OP's wife shouldn't have left a gap like that if she was going to change lanes because it signals to the Porsche (or anyone turning) she was willing to let them into the right lane. From the video you can see the Camry's (or Aurion?) brake lights go off right when she starts to signal, I'm willing to bet the Porsche thought "ok she's letting me in, the Camry is creeping forward so now I can move into the gap" and then they collided. Just as an aside it's possible that if the Camry didn't creep forward this collision wouldn't have occurred in the first place.

                  The Porsche probably didn't expect OP's wife to manoeuvre that way which is fair enough. Either way the Porsche still should've kept an eye to their right to make sure no one was coming their way, either in the left lane or by way of lane change. Not sure what the OP's wife was looking at when they left their lane, it's possible they were looking in the side mirror then the traffic ahead but you'd think they'd notice the Porsche creeping forward at some point in that time.

                  Personally whenever I'm in the situation the Porsche is in I'll always make sure I get a signal from the driver that they're letting me into the lane.

        • greater mimic on 14/08/2023 - 06:17
          +3

          Definitely agree, I wouldn't have changed lanes in that scenario.

        • Nebargains on 14/08/2023 - 17:38

          Lol such a bad take. The Porsche driver should have predicted that cars may change lanes, particularly when they have their indicator on. Porsche driver 100% at fault.

          • JimmyF on 14/08/2023 - 18:32

            @Nebargains:

            Lol such a bad take

            A bad take would be to think that either was a good driver.

            • Ghost47 on 14/08/2023 - 22:10
              -1

              @JimmyF: It's strange to say that's a bad take when your original comment doesn't mention any neglect from the Porsche driver.

              It was 'clear' when Car B started to pull out and Car A threw themselves in front of them.

              This also alludes that you were more in defense of the Porsche than the OP's wife, so were you really trying to say that both drivers were bad or just OP's wife in your original comment?

              • JimmyF on 15/08/2023 - 09:17

                @Ghost47:

                This also alludes that you were more in defense of the Porsche than the OP's wife, so were you really trying to say that both drivers were bad or just OP's wife in your original comment?

                The OP isn't the Porsche driver, I was commenting on the OP video and the OP driving. Again, I didn't say whos fault I thought it was, just that it was bad driving in by books by the OP wife.

                Both cars had a chance to avoid this issue, both didn't. If you think otherwise, then hand your licence in now.

                • Ghost47 on 15/08/2023 - 15:22
                  -1

                  @JimmyF:

                  The OP isn't the Porsche driver, I was commenting on the OP video and the OP driving. Again, I didn't say whos fault I thought it was, just that it was bad driving in by books by the OP wife.

                  Confused here, I specifically said "OP's wife" in each comment, not OP. By only criticising OP's wife I thought you were giving the Porsche driver an out. Even when I pointed out what the Porsche did you replied with everything wrong the wife did and didn't acknowledge the Porsche having any fault in this crash.

                  Both cars had a chance to avoid this issue, both didn't.

                  They sure did.

      • ssfps on 13/08/2023 - 01:28
        +15

        How was it bad driving?

        Being technically correct but oblivious is bad driving.
        Good drivers are "defensive" - you expect people to make mistakes, or sometimes be outright idiots.

      • HarryBolt66 on 13/08/2023 - 01:45
        +10

        Just because they have right of way or may not be technically at fault doesn't mean they haven't contributed significantly to the accident through erratic driving and lack of situational awareness.

        It's reasonable for the Porsche driver to have checked that the left lane was clear, and then turned his focus to the direction his car is travelling. If OP decides to make a sudden lane change then they should be aware that there's a good chance the Porsche driver will not have seen this, and creep into the lane until they've confirmed that the Porsche will yield.

      • Ughhh on 13/08/2023 - 08:42
        +4

        Being a good (and skilled) driver means being able to predict other drivers intentions, and make good judgements.

        • CurlCurl on 13/08/2023 - 10:18
          +2

          Being a good (and skilled) driver means being able to predict other drivers intentions, and make good judgements.

          You are kidding.

          I have no idea what I am doing so what chance do you have?

          • Ughhh on 13/08/2023 - 10:56
            +6

            @CurlCurl: I've spot many like you on the road then. My prediction on the road would be that you're probably an idiot who might make a sudden move without thinking, and I should avoid being near/next to you.

            If you pay attention to peoples driving behaviour, it becomes pretty obvious at times when someone wants to change lanes (before they turn on their indicator), cut in front etc.

            • Ghost47 on 13/08/2023 - 18:20

              @Ughhh: In this situation (where a car is coming to a stop in a long line of traffic with a completely empty lane next to them) it’s conceivable they might want to change lanes. If I was the Porsche driver I would’ve waited until OP’s car came to a complete stop for at least a second before pulling out.

            • CurlCurl on 13/08/2023 - 19:39
              -1

              @Ughhh:

              I've spot many like you on the road then. My prediction on the road would be that you're probably an idiot who might make a sudden move without thinking, and I should avoid being near/next to you.

              SARCASAM dumbo.

              • Ughhh on 13/08/2023 - 20:15
                +3

                @CurlCurl: I stand by my prediction ;)

                • CurlCurl on 13/08/2023 - 20:21

                  @Ughhh: That figures, as you allude to being a near perfect driver but according to your profile you say you aren't sure of your location. I guess I should stay away from you hey.

  • sumyungguy on 12/08/2023 - 20:54

    You know it doesn't matter what anyone on Ozb thinks - because your insurer will make a determination based on your most excellent dashcam footage. But it's great PSA for anyone who gets around without insurance because there are few worse marques to run into. Possible the Porsche was being driven by an unauthorised driver so the owner may be able to make a bogus claim with no details having been exchanged at the scene.

  • BatsRule on 12/08/2023 - 21:17
    +4

    She's not at fault. Was already in the lane. Then the other vehicle enters.
    Submit video and registration.
    You could go to police station and ask for a traffic cop. Or if you see a highway patrol car, you could ask/show them for their opinion.

  • darkness on 12/08/2023 - 21:41
    +1

    Can I lodge a claim with the insurance, and if they do want to charge an excess (eg. deemed her fault, or due to lack of other party details) not proceed with the claim?

    The car she was driving was not a high value car and if we can get it fixed for less than the excess, we would like to do so.

    • JimmyF on 12/08/2023 - 22:21
      +4

      Can I lodge a claim with the insurance

      You certainly can

      and if they do want to charge an excess (eg. deemed her fault, or due to lack of other party details) not proceed with the claim?

      Generally the claim won't go ahead until the excess is paid, but some do require the excess to be paid upfront before starting.

      But you will need the details of the at fault party though for them to chase for the money. So if you don't have them, it doesn't really matter. It will be classed as an at fault claim.

      The car she was driving was not a high value car and if we can get it fixed for less than the excess, we would like to do so.

      Maybe get a quote before going this path confirming the costs.

      • mrvaluepack on 13/08/2023 - 16:38
        -2

        Wrong. Just submit the claim and say the other driver drove off and didnt provide contact details. Show dashcam footage and say it wasn't your fault. Comprehensive insurance will cover and no need pay excess.

        • JimmyF on 13/08/2023 - 18:48
          +1

          Just submit the claim and say the other driver drove off and didnt provide contact details. Show dashcam footage and say it wasn't your fault. Comprehensive insurance will cover and no need pay excess.

          LOL love that you call me wrong, but haven't ever read a PDS.

          Comprehensive insurance will cover and no need pay excess.

          Sure when you are not at fault and provide the other parties details. Page 32 is your friend, have a read of "Understanding your excess" clause.

        • gromit on 14/08/2023 - 17:48

          you cannot see the number plate of the other car. YOU will be deemed at fault or at least liable for the excess unless you can provide information to identify the other car/driver. It doesn't matter whose fault it is if you can't identify other party.

  • hasher22 on 12/08/2023 - 23:01
    +7

    What is looks like from the video: your wife nearly came to a complete stop, decided to merge into the left lane and put her blinkers on last minute, then at the same time
    the porsche saw your wife nearly came to a complete stop then decided to go and didn't see your wife put her blinkers on.

    It's the Porsches fault. It's common for drivers to enter a road when the most left lane is free (whether or not there is traffic, stopped traffic or cars passing on the other lane), the Porsche risked to turn left cause we all don't know if the other lane cars will merge into the left lane.

    Most drivers see if there's a car turning left onto a double or triple lane road, usually oncoming traffic that's not in the left lane will not merge to the left lane before the vehicle as that vehicle may turn left into the left lane cause we just don't know if they're going to turn in.

    I always slow down really slow and assume the vehicle will always turn left in an empty left lane to avoid such collisions.

    • Gunnar on 12/08/2023 - 23:41
      +18

      Well said

      Porsche driver will probably be at fault because they were turning onto the road.

      However both drivers beg the question of “why didn’t you brake when you saw the other moving? If you didn’t see the other car moving what were you looking at?”

      • hasher22 on 13/08/2023 - 00:33

        I agree,

        From an moral/ethical point of view, the wife should have merged very very slowly because she decided last minute she wanted to merge left (as she was about to stop) and had her blinkers on last minute, possibly well aware that there is a car turning into the road.

        In this scenario, if I were the wife, I would have crept and merge into the left lane or give way to the Porsche or assume the Porsche was turning before I merged left cause technically, while I had right of way merging to the left lane, you got to assume all drivers on the road are dumb and play defensive always.

        I assume the Porsche saw the wife slow down then decided to turn left while the wife decided to merge left at the same time last minute, as you can see in the video, if the Porsche did see the wife merge left, most likely the Porsche would have stopped.

      • capslock janitor on 13/08/2023 - 14:23

        If you didn’t see the other car moving what were you looking at?”

        the way theyre going lol

  • The Value on 12/08/2023 - 23:42
    +8

    I think it's the Porsche's fault but people really need to start indicating a lot earlier and not just when you turn the wheel.

    Dashcam footage turns me on. Respect.

    • coffeeinmyveins on 13/08/2023 - 10:51
      +2

      Yep.

      So many people indicate AS THEY TURN.

      • capslock janitor on 13/08/2023 - 14:25

        I USUALLY INDICATE AT THE SLIGHTEST INTENTION
        dunno if its right thho no problems either yet. knock wood

    • capslock janitor on 13/08/2023 - 14:24

      Dashcam footage turns me on.

      NAME CHECKS OUT

    • Aleigh123 on 14/08/2023 - 15:39

      Agreed. If you're going to put your indicators on as you turn, why bother indicating at all?

  • The Value on 12/08/2023 - 23:45

    Unfortunately, they did not exchange contact details, so I'm not even sure if insurance would help.

    Failing to give details is an offense.

    https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/safety_and_prevention/crime_pr…

    • bohn on 13/08/2023 - 12:08

      don't think they need to provide all those details though - eg, licence number.

      I know some ppl demand to see the other person's licence but that is not a legal requirement - at least in Vic.
      You must provide your licence to police if they get involved.

      • capslock janitor on 13/08/2023 - 14:27

        so what- just name, phone, rego?
        and take some photos ?

  • The Value on 12/08/2023 - 23:48
    +2

    I keep a copy of this in my glovebox.

    https://www.nrma.com.au/sites/nrma/files/nrma/documents/NRMA…

  • Protractor on 13/08/2023 - 00:13
    -2

    Who says opposites attract?

  • blitz on 13/08/2023 - 00:34
    +3

    Porsche driver at fault, no question. Doesn't matter if your wife was indicating or not. Porsche has the holding line and must wait no matter what.

  • HarryBolt66 on 13/08/2023 - 01:48
    +6

    From recent experience, the insurer will get out of it by telling you that both vehicles were in motion, both drivers had a duty of care, and thus both parties are at fault. They love a bit of ambiguity, and there's plenty enough here to justify not paying up.

    • Drakesy on 14/08/2023 - 10:45
      +2

      Agreed
      I said the same thing and got downvoted to oblivion, lel.

  • mmrazz on 13/08/2023 - 03:15
    +9

    You haven't mentioned state, but in NSW the law is that "The driver must give the change of direction signal for long enough to give sufficient warning to other drivers and pedestrians." Based on the dashcam footage it's not clear if that happened - although obviously the "sufficient warning" bit is very subjective.

    The Porsche driver should be watching where he's driving, so he would have looked to the right, seen no cars moving and likely not seen the indicator (as it hadn't started yet), looked back to the left, started driving, and then hit the other vehicle. The Porsche driver could easily claim that if the OP's vehicle had indicated for a longer period they would have seen the indicator and not moved, thus the OP's vehicle did not give "sufficient warning" of their pending lane change.

    • DogGunn on 13/08/2023 - 12:51

      The road rule relevant to the Porsche is as follows:

      (2) Unless the driver is turning left using a slip lane, the driver must give way to a vehicle in, entering or approaching the intersection except—
      (a) an oncoming vehicle turning right at the intersection if a stop sign, stop line, give way sign or give way line applies to the driver of the oncoming vehicle, or
      (b) a vehicle turning left at the intersection using a slip lane, or
      (c) a vehicle making a U-turn

      At no point does it state only if a vehicle is giving sufficient warning. OP vehicle was approaching the intersection and therefore the Porsche must give way, regardless of their indicating or not.

      That's not to say it was good driving, it wasn't - but in terms of the legal issues, it is clear which driver will be responsible for the accident.

    • Ghost47 on 14/08/2023 - 23:19

      Based on the dashcam footage it's not clear if that happened - although obviously the "sufficient warning" bit is very subjective.

      Another issue that also stands out is the OP's wife left a clear gap. Whenever someone does this they're basically saying they're letting a driver merge in front of them. In the case of OP's wife she may have left a gap because she noticed how far the traffic had banked up and that the left lane was completely clear upon her approach to the end of the queue so she wanted space to be able to change lanes.

      If OP's wife wanted to change lanes, she shouldn't have left a gap that large, at least then if she still wanted to change lanes she would've been directly in front of the Porsche driver and they would've had a higher chance of seeing her change lanes.

      Whenever people leave gaps like this (i.e. pseudo "Keep Clear" gaps) they need to stay put unless the person who wants to merge into the gap no longer can (e.g. due to moving traffic). OP's wife was too ambiguous in that regard.

  • The tiger on 13/08/2023 - 07:40

    The other party is at fault as your wife was on the right track.

  • brad1-8tsi on 13/08/2023 - 07:43
    +2

    Who is at fault is a moot point as there is no means of identifying the other driver.

    Make a claim on your insurance, pay the excess, get the car fixed.

    I commend you on being insured properly.

    Just a thought but the Porsche driver may have had something to hide. Possibly unregistered?

  • pdperth on 13/08/2023 - 07:56
    +1

    I recently had a prang from another car failing to give way. Their insurer sent me a letter of demand for the write off value almost immediately without any consideration of who was at fault. I only had third party so even though I was sure I was in the right I rang my insurer and they agreed to handle the claim with the understanding that the excess would be refunded if the conclusion was in my favour. You should be able to do something similar. It doesn't matter what you think about who is at fault the insurers decide. If you don't get a letter of demand I guess you don't need to proceed? Talk to your insurer that's what they are for.

  • 2esc on 13/08/2023 - 09:39
    +2

    Porche is in the wrong but actually looks like they were not turning left but going across after she slowed. Thinking they could get across to turn right with no indicator.

  • pegaxs on 13/08/2023 - 09:58
    +10

    Porsche = Failing to give way in accordance with Road Rule 69(2).
    OP's car = Failed to give sufficient change of direction signal, Road Rule 46(2). (less than a second between indicator activation and lane change.)

    I would say that both the Porsche driver and OP are making a dumb.

    The Porsche driver will most likely be found partially at fault, but not 100% at fault. Porsche driver would have seen OP's car pulling up with no indicator, thought it was safe to go and OP indicates at the last second as they the change lanes.

    • DogGunn on 13/08/2023 - 12:41
      -3

      There is zero chance that they will find the OP partially at fault.

      The Porsche driver has an obligation to give way to all traffic on the road it is turning into (a specific obligations in the road rules), and that includes vehicles that are not indicating or are indicating incorrectly according to the road rules.

      • pegaxs on 14/08/2023 - 09:59
        +3

        OP also has the obligation to indicate for "long enough to give sufficient warning to other drivers". Which OP failed to do.

        If this went to court, 100% the lawyers for the Porsche would play this angle and OP would be hit with a reduction in compensation due to "contributory negligence".

        It could easily be argued that had OP indicated for 3 to 5 seconds (not 0 seconds) before moving, then the Porsche driver would have either moved out of the way and gone OR at least had a chance to notice the indicator and stop to give way.

        But yeah… sure, the Porsche driver is totally 100% at fault here. No fault at all on OP's car. </s>

        • DogGunn on 14/08/2023 - 10:30
          -2

          Contributory negligence won't apply when a substantially higher onus, by the manner in which the road rules are written, is placed on the Porsche which is required to give way to all vehicles on the road it is turning into, vs a requirement to sufficiently indicate.

          The OP is not required to give way to the Porsche, it's as simple as that.

          Bad driving yes - would it amount to negligent driving when considering the road rules? Probably not.

          Heck, I would possibly even argue that indicating there would make it more confusing in the scheme of things.

          Defensive driving here would've saved all drivers though. There was no need for this accident.

        • netsurfer on 14/08/2023 - 20:08
          +1

          Even so, it does feel car B's driver is a bit shrewd. From the footage, car B barely stopped for 3 seconds before turning into the road.

          Also, it would have been nice if the masking of the car in front of car A wasn't done as much. I can sort of see the car in front of car A's right indicator flashing for a brief second then stopped. So, if that car initially had a plan to turn right, then decided to not to, it adds even more complication to the whole situation.

          Car B also forgot an unofficial rule that we need to follow: ladies first.

          • Ghost47 on 14/08/2023 - 23:39

            @netsurfer: I agree the masking is annoying and unnecessary (what is the point of hiding some random's licence plate?). Interesting pickup on the signal, maybe it was left on after the car merged at the start of the clip?

            The car in front was doing some pretty bad driving too IMO, the gap it left to the car in front of it was way too big (you can see it just when the OP's wife changes lane), looks to be nearly a whole car's length.

    • Drakesy on 14/08/2023 - 11:44
      +3

      Funny how we both see it the same way, Ozbargain downvotes one to oblivion and the other gets upvoted.

      • pegaxs on 14/08/2023 - 12:26

        Yeah, I dont get that either.

        My other favorite one is when you do nothing more than quote the legislation and the neggers all carry on like I personally wrote the law and it was me who issued the infringement notice.

        A lot of it is "oh wow, 2 negs already, that guy must be wrong… I'll add my neg as well…"

        Fickle crowd.

  • Nugs on 13/08/2023 - 10:50
    +10

    dashcam driver stops (nearly) in intersection - bad
    dashcam driver changes lanes in intersection - bad
    porsche driver fails to give way - bad
    dashcam driver ignores moving porsche - bad
    just bad all around
    and who else doesn't depress handbrake button when pulling the lever up?
    .

    • gromit on 13/08/2023 - 11:48
      +1

      agreed, both drivers in the wrong, dashcam driver especially so with extremely poor choices.

      • capslock janitor on 13/08/2023 - 14:30

        dashcam driver stops (nearly) in intersection - bad

        is this the way ?

    • bohn on 13/08/2023 - 11:51
      +1

      hopefully this minor accident will help them both improve.

    • Ghost47 on 14/08/2023 - 23:46

      dashcam driver stops (nearly) in intersection - bad

      There's no obligation for the OP's wife to leave a gap in this situation, that's mainly just a courtesy thing. The issue is that they left a gap (implying that the Porsche could merge) but then decided to change lanes when they should've stayed put.

      • Nugs on 15/08/2023 - 09:26

        I'm saying illegal (and bad), as copied from page 83 SA MR200 handbook

        "Obstruction
        Blocking an intersection
        You must not enter or attempt to cross an intersection if the
        intersection or road you wish to drive into is blocked by other
        vehicles.:"

        The road that dashcam driver 'wished to drive into' was 'blocked by other vehicles'

        Also (note 'or stop' in sentence below)

        "Parking
        You must not park or stop your vehicle in a way that could
        be likely to obstruct other road users or be a danger to
        other road users."
        .

        • Ghost47 on 15/08/2023 - 14:14

          I thought the rule for intersections are more for the larger ones with lights, not smaller t-junctions in the case of the video. I stand corrected in this regard then.

          You must not enter or attempt to cross an intersection if the intersection or road you wish to drive into is blocked by other vehicles.:"

          The wording here seems a bit confusing, because shouldn't it imply that one must not enter an intersection if it will result in blocking traffic? Because when I read that text it implies the Porsche shouldn't enter?

          The parking rule makes sense and would imply that OP's wife needs to stop.

          This video from VicRoads shows what a driver entering a T-junction should do, but not what drivers travelling on the road should do (i.e. stop to allow people to enter the road if the traffic is banked up).

          From the SA Handbook on page 74 it says this about T-intersections:

          A T-intersection is where two roads meet; one that continues and one that terminates. At most intersections, one road will physically terminate and it is important to understand which is the ‘terminating’ road and which is the ‘continuing’ road:

          • if there are no road markings or signs indicating otherwise, the terminating road is the ‘stem’ of the ‘T’ (Example 21)
          • when there are road markings or signs indicating otherwise, the terminating road can be either of the roads that meet at the
          T-intersection. This is a modified T-intersection (Example 22).

          If you are on the terminating road, you must give way to all vehicles approaching from either direction on the continuing road and to any pedestrian at, near or crossing a continuing road.

          The last part of the rule is why I believe that cars are not obliged to let people in unless the road is marked with "Keep Clear", that's why I think it's simply courteous to let people in in this instance. So you're saying that the intersection and parking rules take precedent over the give way rule in the OP's example? If so, why do they take precedent? Simply trying to understand this properly.

          • CurlCurl on 15/08/2023 - 18:41

            @Ghost47:

            The last part of the rule is why I believe that cars are not obliged to let people in unless the road is marked with "Keep Clear", that's why I think it's simply courteous to let people in in this instance.

            Oh dear here we go again. In all seriousness, are you for real. Once again, ITS ILLEGAL TO BLOCK AN INTERSECTION The reason a road is marked KEEP CLEAR is to remind the drivers that don't know the regulation to keep it clear.

            You can pick up a free learners book from your states road authority.

            • Ghost47 on 15/08/2023 - 20:13

              @CurlCurl: First of all, I wasn't replying to you because I knew you wouldn't care much about which rule takes precedent.

              Secondly, this is what the Vicroads learner handbook says. PAY ATTENTION TO THE BOLDED ITALICISED SECTION.

              A driver facing a Stop sign or line must come to a complete stop. After stopping at a Stop sign or line, or when facing a Give Way sign or line at an intersection, you must give way to any vehicle in, entering or approaching the intersection except:

              • a vehicle making a U-turn
              • a vehicle turning left using a slip lane
              • an oncoming vehicle turning right if that vehicle is also facing a Stop or Give Way sign or line

              Thirdly, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE INTERSECTION AND PARKING RULES TAKES PRECEDENT OVER THE GIVE WAY RULE WHICH YOU CONVENIENTLY DIDN'T INCLUDE IN YOUR QUOTE. In all seriousness, you don't know why the intersection rule takes precedent over the give way rule either. Piss off with your (profanity) insults.

              • CurlCurl on 15/08/2023 - 20:27
                -1

                @Ghost47:

                A driver facing a Stop sign or line must come to a complete stop. After stopping at a Stop sign or line, or when facing a Give Way sign or line at an intersection, you must give way to any vehicle in, entering or approaching the intersection except:

                Ok princess, I'll be nice to you. Why are you talking about giving way when facing a give way sign. Please explain what that has to do with blocking an intersection that you had no idea was illegal and attracts fines?

                Please pick up the learners book as there maybe many more laws you don't know.

                • Ghost47 on 15/08/2023 - 20:32

                  @CurlCurl:

                  WRONG.

                  Guess what the Vicroads book says on Page 151:

                  General stopping and parking rules. You must not leave a vehicle stationary:

                  • double parked
                  • where there is a Keep Clear road marking

                  • within an intersection (except on the continuous side of a continuing road of a T-intersection)

                  I KNEW I was right about this rule. YOU don't know how to DRIVE.

                  It is NOT ILLEGAL in MELBOURNE to sit in an intersection when it is a T-INTERSECTION. As I have said MULTIPLE TIMES despite being rebutted against with laws that are IRRELEVANT TO VICTORIA, leaving a gap at a T-INTERSECTION is COURTESY in VICTORIA, something which YOU would know NOTHING about considering your UNNECCESSARILY RUDE replies to me in this thread.

                  I absolutely knew I was right about this rule.

                  OP is in Melbourne, therefore THIS RULE APPLIES.

                  YOU SHOULD LEARN THE RELEVANT STATE ROAD LAWS BEFORE APPLYING NSW ROAD LAWS TO ALL STATES IN AUSTRALIA. Since you CLEARLY don't know, road laws DIFFER BY STATE.

                  SO GLAD I DIDN'T FALL FOR YOUR OBVIOUS GASLIGHTING. Unlike you, I would not repeat myself if I didn't have a good feeling about what I was saying was correct. Next time CHECK WHICH STATE THE OP LIVES IN FIRST BEFORE NEEDLESSLY INSULTING OTHERS WITH YOUR CHILDISH NAME CALLING.

      • CurlCurl on 15/08/2023 - 11:51
        -1

        There's no obligation for the OP's wife to leave a gap in this situation, that's mainly just a courtesy thing.

        Hmm. Been thinking you were a know all know nothing type of person. The above confirms it. Blocking an intersection is illegal.

        NSW. Rule 128 Enter intersection when intersection/road beyond blocked. Penalty $272.

        • Ghost47 on 15/08/2023 - 14:15

          I stand corrected, thanks for the insult anyway.

  • coffeeinmyveins on 13/08/2023 - 10:53
    +9

    No one is innocent here but the Porsche is "more" in the wrong

    Your wife needs some driving lessons

    • capslock janitor on 13/08/2023 - 14:31

      they should quiz what to do in in event of accidents ..

  • John Kimble on 13/08/2023 - 11:15
    +2

    Porche 100% at fault IMO

  • bohn on 13/08/2023 - 11:25

    Follow up with police since he didn't provide your wife with his particulars - which is his duty to do.

  • ar7ist on 13/08/2023 - 11:53
    +1

    What dashcam you have OP?
    Anyone recommendations on which one to install?
    Is it easy to self install or better to get it installed at a mechanic etc?

    • darkness on 13/08/2023 - 19:32
      +1

      It is a Thinkware F770. I only got it as it was what was in our other car- didn’t need to install different apps to manage them. It is an older model now.

      I always got someone else to install them as they tend to have more experience running the cables neatly. I used Airtasker to for this car.

  • mctubster on 13/08/2023 - 11:54
    +5

    Poor driving from everybody! :)

  • Uncle Chop Chop on 13/08/2023 - 12:31

    This one is not clear cut. Both vehicles had a requirement to give way. One before entering the road, and the other before changing lanes.

    In my opinion, it will technically come down to who acted first, with the onus to give way then falling on the other vehicle. But it is hard to say from the dashcam footage who acted first.

    Edit - I should also mention this is further complicated by the requirement to sufficiently indicate. If the Porsche was indicating their intent to turn a few seconds before the other vehicle began indicating, then it could fall in their favour given both vehicles more or less began moving simultaneously.

    • Ghost47 on 14/08/2023 - 23:53

      Both vehicles had a requirement to give way. One before entering the road, and the other before changing lanes.

      Hmm I wouldn't say that OP's wife had a requirement to give way. In this situation where there are no road markings it's simply courtesy to let the Porsche (or any side street traffic) in, the issue is that they implied they were going to give way by leaving a big gap.

      If there were "Keep Clear" markings on the road then there'd be an obligation to let side street traffic onto the road.

      • Uncle Chop Chop on 15/08/2023 - 00:01

        The obligation to give way relates to changing lanes. Like I said it's not clear cut, but the easiest way to think about it is if you're stopped on the side of the road, and a vehicle begins enters the road from a side street ahead of you, you then have an obligation to give way to them before pulling out. On the other hand, if you begin pulling out before the other vehicle begins entering the road, then they have an obligation to give way to you.

        It basically comes down to who acts first. Which is what I see in the OPs situation as well.

  • bohn on 13/08/2023 - 12:57
    +4

    Where was OP's wife looking to miss seeing the porsche moving?

    • capslock janitor on 13/08/2023 - 14:33
      +2

      maybe her seat is adjusted too low ..

      • darkness on 13/08/2023 - 19:35

        Lol. I laughed at this comment.

        Unfortunately, I’m much taller than her, so the seat should’ve been at the correct height.

        I don’t know where she was looking, maybe as suggested above that she was checking her rear, and didn’t check her front again before changing.

        • [Deactivated] on 15/08/2023 - 00:04

          I don’t know where she was looking …

          Why don't you ….you know ….just ask her?

        • capslock janitor on 15/08/2023 - 14:13

          glad you could lol

          i see too many ladies on the road goosenecking with their eyes perked up slightly above the steering wheel.

          also if the car has memory-seating, then pre-set it, usually has option for 2 saves for different drivers.

  • MS Paint on 13/08/2023 - 13:17
    +1

    FFS, it's PORSCHE.

  • trapper on 13/08/2023 - 13:19
    +2

    Didn't indicate for three seconds, changed lane in an intersection… could go either way really.

    Porsche driver looked at OP's wife and saw her coming to a stop, saw she wasn't indicating (yet), so the way was clear, he decided it was safe to go…

  • stickingly on 13/08/2023 - 13:35
    +5

    The other person's fault ,but bad driving from your wife.

    I remember being told when I was learning to drive to assume that every other driver is an idiot and to expect them to do something stupid

  • capslock janitor on 13/08/2023 - 14:01
    +1

    HOW DO YOU BLUR NUMBER PLATES LIKE THAT OP?

    • darkness on 13/08/2023 - 19:36
      +1

      I don’t know an easy way. I just used LumaFusion to add a blur layer, and key framed it to follow the car plate. Google was my friend.

  • Empharand on 13/08/2023 - 14:30
    +2

    Porsche will likely take the L here

    I could be wrong but isn't it a requirement to indicate for 5 seconds before changing lanes? Not that many people do though. If that is indeed the case hopefully the insurance company doesn't decline the claim on a technicality (per se)

    • zonra on 13/08/2023 - 14:35
      +4

      These days you’d be lucky if people indicate at all.

    • easternculture on 13/08/2023 - 15:37

      Correct. My friend got fined a few months back because he only indicated for one sec. Police car was coincedently behind him.

      • Empharand on 13/08/2023 - 16:24

        Hopefully luck is on OP and their wife side because I'm sure the Porsche driver's insurance (assuming they have insurance) could argue that dashcam driver didn't indicate for the legally required 5 seconds.

        Yes the Porsche driver was entering the main road but OP's wife failed to indicate for 5 seconds before moving on… had OP's wife indicated for 5 seconds then changed lanes then this may have averted any incident from occurring as the Porsche driver would have already entered the main road by that point so OP's wife would have had to give way.

        • quog on 13/08/2023 - 17:39

          the porsche has to give way to all vehicles in the intersection.

          the law is pretty simple.

    • pegaxs on 14/08/2023 - 09:45
      +4

      isn't it a requirement to indicate for 5 seconds before changing lanes?

      No, the rule just states;

      (2) The driver must give the change of direction signal for long enough to give sufficient warning to other drivers and pedestrians.

      The only time a minimum time is mentioned is if you are parked at the side of the road and want to move into a line of traffic; (then it is 5 seconds.)

      (3) If the driver is about to change direction by moving from a stationary position at the side of the road or in a median strip parking area, the driver must give the change of direction signal for at least 5 seconds before the driver changes direction.

  • easternculture on 13/08/2023 - 14:32

    There needs to be a 5 second indicator and safe distance when merging.

    Before pulling out from the side of the road or a parking area, you must indicate for at least 5 seconds.

    Its the porche drivers fault.
    The insurace company will juat follow what legislation says

  • nwa on 13/08/2023 - 16:34

    OP your sure you got the other cars number plate? Perhaps your wife is not trained in road accident procedure to never admit fault and always exchange details. I think there are a few reason behind this and one of them probably is if put on the spot after a shock you don't have time to think and analyse the situation. The Porsche driver sensed this and convinced her that she was at fault and got away.

    • darkness on 13/08/2023 - 19:39

      I have the license plate captured from the rear dashcam. Didn’t post it as it doesn’t show any relevant info.

      Yes, I also suspected that there may be an ulterior motive. She hasn’t been in an accident by herself before, though she has been in the car when someone rear ended us while I was driving. So I think this was an experience for her.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join