Who Is at Fault?

Llogistics on 19/09/2023 - 21:13

One of Oz Bargain's favourite topics. Let's see what the experts have to say.

Get Oz Bargain's favourite comments out of the way first:

  • Yes, the person has comprehensive car insurance.
  • Yes, a claim has been lodged, excess paid and the insurance company is dealing with it.
  • No dash cam.
  • MS Paint attached.
  • Accident occurred in NSW.
  • Not my car, not my accident but I am curious what others think.

Hopefully the image is self-explanatory.

  • 4 unbroken lines
  • Each side has a parking lane.
  • Black vehicle was coming from the left lane and turned right into the driveway to reverse park against the kerb.
  • There were no incoming cars in the right lane.
  • As the person in the black car was reversing to straighten the car out in the parking lane, the other driver (red car) who had his car parked on the left, decided to make a U turn, failed to see the black car reversing and as a result the two cars collided.

The insurance company sees this as black and white. The car that is reversing is automatically at fault and other details are irrelevant.
From my perspective, the person reversing has a duty of care to keep a proper lookout, so they don't hit anything or anyone. They would usually be at fault.

However, I am not sure if the black car should be deemed at fault in this instance. What's stopping someone with a shit-box doing a sudden turn into someone that is reversing and then lodging a claim because they can? This question was also put forward to the insurance company and they said the reversing car is always at fault. hmmmm..

MS Paint: https://ibb.co/DfsFMDj

Poll Options expired

  • 70
    Black car at fault
  • 14
    Red car at fault
  • 15
    Both at fault
Automotive

Comments

  • hasher22 on 19/09/2023 - 21:15
    +37

    MS paint my butt, that's a nice diagram.

    • Maths Debater on 19/09/2023 - 21:23
      +6

      Legit, I was expecting rectangles for cars.

    • randomusername2017 on 19/09/2023 - 21:24
      +4

      MS paint my butt

      Finger painting šŸ¤”

    • DashCam AKA Rolts on 19/09/2023 - 21:50
      +1

      Where's @Muzeeb? I'd like to hear an expert's critique.

      • MS Paint on 19/09/2023 - 22:01
        +4

        5/7 - always room for improvement

    • Steakz on 20/09/2023 - 07:07
      +3

      Ikr I only come to these for MSpaint, this is some adobe ps shit. I feel scammed.

  • whatwasherproblem on 19/09/2023 - 21:20
    +6

    What do the white cars think about all this? There were a lot of 'em on the road apparently, so at least one of them must have seen something.

    • logistics on 19/09/2023 - 21:42

      Those white cars are parked cars and no one inside them except the one that was further back on the main road.
      They did not stop to see it play out.

    • EightImmortals on 20/09/2023 - 06:52

      White cars' opinions are not relevant. The fact that you even care what the white cars thought tells me you are a racist Trump supporter who should be cancelled. :)

      Personally I think the red car was at fault for not looking where they were going.

      • Protractor on 20/09/2023 - 10:21

        Old saying,
        When you are on dead horse, (even it's a really tall one) , you should save energy & stop flogging it.

        • EightImmortals on 20/09/2023 - 13:40

          Better than flogging a bad horse.

          Bad Horse
          Bad Horse
          Bad Horse
          Bad Horse

          He rides across the nation
          The thoroughbred of sin
          He got the application
          That you just sent in

          It needs evaluation
          So let the games begin
          A heinous crime, a show of force
          A murder would be nice of course

          Bad Horse
          Bad Horse
          Bad Horse
          Heā€™s Bad

          The Evil League of Evil
          Is watching so beware
          The grade that you receive
          Will be your last we swear

          So make the Bad Horse gleeful
          Or heā€™ll make you his mare…

          Youā€™re saddled up
          Thereā€™s no recourse
          Itā€™s Hi-Ho Silver
          Signed, Bad Horse

  • barge-in hunter on 19/09/2023 - 21:23
    +3

    For me, I say the reversing black car - because of the break in the line (driveway?) they were reversing over.

    And to be fair (in vic at least), reversing is just like a u-turn. Must give way to everyone (I believe)

  • DogGunn on 19/09/2023 - 21:24
    +6

    Reversing car is basically at fault in almost all circumstances.

    Technically, it's worse for the black car since when making a U-turn, vehicles need to give way to all vehicles EXCEPT those entering from road related area or adjacent land, which the crossover would be, so the red car wouldn't have to give way to the black car, which had to re-enter the road (although a U-turn would be illegal over solid double lines).

  • John Kimble on 19/09/2023 - 21:30
    +3

    Sure it's not an insurance scam? Looks like red car made a beeline for the black car! šŸ˜‚

    • bobbified on 20/09/2023 - 12:13

      They're probably friends!

  • Iwantthebestprice on 19/09/2023 - 21:30
    +6

    This should be the new minimum standard for MS paint diagrams regarding who is at fault accidents..

    • MrFrugalSpend on 19/09/2023 - 21:57
      +6

      Except it doesn't make sense, if you follow the yellow line and turn manoeuvre loop depicted, the black vehicle should be facing forwards at the time of the accident.
      Following the yellow line from 3, I see it as black car driving into driveway to 4, then reversing whilst swinging left to 5 which would point the front of the car opposite the direction of flow and to move back up the image to 6 would have to drive forward to cross the driveway if it was the same driveway the red car was turning into…. I can't see how they could come out of the driveway with a turn like that and end up in front of the driveway and need to reverse back…. they would have to be reversing out of the driveway itself at the time the red car comes in… effectively and definitely at fault if that was the case and they just backed back as someone entered the same driveway…. story / image not quite accurate I'd say.

      • exxonsign on 19/09/2023 - 22:11
        +5

        Agree - despite all the props the diagram is getting, how does the black car get from 4 to 5? It surely came out from point 4 in reverse and would have reversed towards point 6, then moved forwards to point 5. Did it then reverse again back to point 6?
        Seems like there may have been more reversing by black here than appears in the description….

        • logistics on 19/09/2023 - 23:16

          I guess there is always room for improvement with the diagram :D
          What the yellow line is showing is that at point 4 the black car reversed a bit, moved forward (point 5) and then reversed into point 6.

          In this type of scenario, I normally go straight from 4 to 6. I don't know why they moved the car forward (step 5). Seems like an unnecessary extra step.

          • exxonsign on 19/09/2023 - 23:52
            +2

            @logistics: Yep, makes you wonder what connection the black car turning around in the driveway even has to the collision.
            That was all over and done with before they began the second reverse.
            And the black car moving forwards after they exited the driveway may have led the red car to expect the black car was going to park on the other side of the driveway at point 5.

  • freefall101 on 19/09/2023 - 21:37
    +7

    What's stopping someone with a shit-box doing a sudden turn into someone that is reversing and then lodging a claim because they can?

    Usually people drive shitbox cars because they can't afford something else. Getting paid out the $3k they insured their car for and going through the hassle of trying to find another car when there's nothing else but other shitboxes on the market isn't anyone's idea of fun.

    Letter of the law, black car is probably in the wrong. Unfortunately it doesn't matter that red car driver is as blind as a bat and have the turning circle of a school bus.

  • MrFrugalSpend on 19/09/2023 - 21:43
    +1

    So… did both cars turn illegally over solid double lines? Have I interpreted this correctly?

    If I were in black car, I would leave this detail out and focus on the fact I was there parking first, and this red car just careered out of control over double lines and into me - no choice but to admit they turned over double lines to explain the accident if the red car was hit on the right angle/corner to prove this.

    Would also suggest they were making a U-turn. If they were pulled over and randomly turned into a driveway afterward, chances are their aim was a u-turn…. unless their driveway (or attempting to go for same carpark, also a U-turn). So that would invoke the rule that all people u-turning must give way and then argue they weren't paying attention as would have seen me…. That's a stretch I know, but muddies the waters.

    However, not convinced the image is accurate depiction….

  • MrFrugalSpend on 19/09/2023 - 22:04
    +2

    OP, can you explain the turn following the yellow line from 3, to 4 to 5 to 6…. because I see it as black car driving from 3 into driveway to 4 in forward gear, then reversing whilst swinging left to 5 which would point the front of the car opposite the direction of flow and to move back up the image to 6 would have to drive forward to cross the driveway. I can't see, given how it is drawn, how they could come out of the driveway with a turn like that in reverse, but somehow end up in front of the driveway, and need to reverse back… unless they drove on the footpath as part of the u-turn or somethingā€¦ which would mean they would have to have been hit either at a different/second driveway further back up the street or whilst in the process of reversing out of that same driveway (Was it a really wide driveway or something?) and not already on the road, or they were going back and forth to straighten up which is also relevant but missing info ??

    • logistics on 19/09/2023 - 23:27
      +1

      I need to up my game and create an animation of this.

      1. Car pulls into driveway. - Step 4.
      2. Car reverses back into parking lane and then drives forward to be in line with the bottom kerb. - Step 5
      3. Car then attempts to reverse to be in line with the top side of the kerb - Step 6.

      I made a similar comment above. I don't know why the chose to add an extra step, that is Step 5. They could have just as easily reversed straight from Step 4 to Step 6.

      • trapper on 20/09/2023 - 11:42

        So black car reversed across a driveway and hit a car pulling into the driveway.

        How is there any confusion over fault here?

        • MrFrugalSpend on 20/09/2023 - 19:19

          There is, because black car shouldn't have had to be looking that way because the red car illegally turned across double lines.

          Whilst they did previously do the same thing… that move was over and therefore irrelevant for the purposes of this collision… it would be far clearer why there is confusion over who is at fault if all that was happening was black car reversing into a park when someone illegally turned from behind them across double lines into their path…. everyone wouldn't be so quick to say black car at fault because they would argue black car doesn't need to look that way because no one should be turning in from that way… only reason we aren't all saying that is because black car did the same thing…. but that shouldn't matter at the time of the incident

          …hence I went with both at fault.

          • trapper on 20/09/2023 - 20:09

            @MrFrugalSpend: It's not illegal to turn across double lines to enter a driveway.

            • MrFrugalSpend on 20/09/2023 - 21:21

              @trapper: Depends on where you are I guess:

              per VicRoads, ā€œYou are not allowed cross over these lines for any reason, unless you have to avoid an obstruction and it is safe to do so. You can't overtake, turn, or enter or leave the road across double linesā€. "Drivers may briefly cross a single or double centre line to overtake a bicycle rider, but only if the way ahead is clear and it is safe to do so".

              Queensland / NT / Tas: "Double continuous centre lines: You must not cross a double continuous centre line except to safely pass a bicycle rider."

              In Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania it is illegal for motorists to cross a double dividing line to enter or leave the road.
              Drivers in Victoria are only allowed to cross double lines to avoid a hazard, while those in Queensland can only do so to avoid cyclists.

              Who would have thought, we don't have uniform road rules in this country!? So much for the uniform Australian Road Rules…. kind of defeats the purpose of a single white line - two parallel and single line sounds the same in NSW and WA!?

              I guess I will change my answer to its the government's fault then…

              • trapper on 20/09/2023 - 21:52

                @MrFrugalSpend: This incident took place in NSW.

                https://www.nsw.gov.au/driving-boating-and-transport/roads-sā€¦

                Double dividing line
                You can cross double unbroken lines to enter or leave the road by the shortest route.

                • MrFrugalSpend on 20/09/2023 - 21:54

                  @trapper: Fair enough - I didn't realise any state was crazy enough to have this rule.
                  Certainly a lot of places marked with double white lines near me you'd be taking your life into your hands to turn across with low sight distance… that's why double lines are there instead of single! Anyway… each state to their own I suppose. We proved during Covid we are all only tentatively linked together really when the walls went up….! ! !

  • Godric on 19/09/2023 - 22:08
    +3

    That is a very nice MS Paint Diagram

  • katykat on 19/09/2023 - 22:18
    +2

    If red car entered a driveway then it's not a u-turn, it's a 3 point turn.

    I think black car is at fault because at the end of the day reversing car is always at fault. If you consider that red car is making a legal 3 point turn, then black car has also failed to give way to the car entering the driveway. Though if someone drives into your path then I can see why it seems unfair.

    Also, I'm not quite following the diagram. If black car turned left and then reversed to park against the kerb, then it would have reversed into point 6 and not needed to reverse back across the driveway and hit red car. If it did, black car reversed into point 6, moved forward into point 5 and then reversed again?

    If black car reversed as per diagram, then it would have been forward facing when moving into point 6 and not reversing when it hit red car. They also would have been illegally parking against traffic.

    Which is it?

    • pegaxs on 20/09/2023 - 08:04
      +1

      If red car entered a driveway then it's not a u-turn, it's a 3 point turn.

      Depends on the copper.

      Near my daughters school, the cops regularly hide and wait for cars to do exactly this. The parents drive up to the school gateway, pull across double unbroken lines and nose into the driveway, reverse out and drive up to the parking area. Cops step out and throw u-turn in school zone tickets at them.

      • mrkorrupt on 20/09/2023 - 09:03
        -1

        so the police breaks the law, to stop someone who can be argued on a technicality that they didn't break the law. nice.

        • pegaxs on 20/09/2023 - 09:44

          Iā€™m not the police. I am not booking people. I donā€™t know their SOPs. I donā€™t write the rules. Iā€™m not saying what they are doing is right or wrong, I am merely stating an observation and relaying the feedback from the people I have seen that have been booked telling me what ticket they received.

      • trapper on 20/09/2023 - 11:54
        +2

        The parents drive up to the school gateway, pull across double unbroken lines and nose into the driveway, reverse out and drive up to the parking area. Cops step out and throw u-turn in school zone tickets at them.

        Anywhere that a u-turn is not permitted neither is a three-point turn. They are basically considered the same thing.

        So the cops are totally correct in this situation.

        • MrFrugalSpend on 20/09/2023 - 19:24

          Agree - are people overlooking if there's a double continuous centre line, you're not permitted to cross it at all.

          • MrFrugalSpend on 20/09/2023 - 21:24

            @MrFrugalSpend: Edit: apparently you are in NSW … (you're not In Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania)

      • Protractor on 20/09/2023 - 13:05

        Cops hanging near a school. How convenient

  • blitz on 20/09/2023 - 00:12

    Do we still have the MS Paint diagram awards?

  • Ruddaga on 20/09/2023 - 00:21
    +1

    Black is at fault. It's Black cars job to make sure they're clear to reverse. Red car must've assumed Black was pulling in and didn't expect them to slap it into reverse and hit them.

  • pegaxs on 20/09/2023 - 07:56

    Letā€™s start by saying, if they are both doing a u-turn here, and both of them have started their u-turn from the side of the road, both are idiots. And just because the red car is doing something illegal, Iā€™d doesnā€™t absolve the black car of its obligations to give way while reversing.

    They both played stupid games, and they both won stupid prizes.

    What's stopping someone with a shit-box doing a sudden turn into someone that is reversing and then lodging a claim because they can?

    Again, someone else doing something illegal does not absolve your obligation to give way. If you are reversing and you see them chucking an illegal u-turn, you stop and let them hit you. If you are stopped at the point where they hit you, you are not reversing and they have driven into you. They are at fault.

  • mrkorrupt on 20/09/2023 - 09:01
    -1

    what happens if it was someone crossing the road, lets say a 5 year old kid and the black car hit it

    • PeterSnoot on 20/09/2023 - 09:41

      I would expect to see that in the diagram

    • Protractor on 20/09/2023 - 13:06

      is the kid called 'Kenny' ?
      ( because I may have an inkling)

  • donga100 on 20/09/2023 - 10:09
    +2

    Not my car, not my accident but I am curious what others think.

    Translated: I did it. I was the driver. It's my car. Insurance said I'm at fault.

  • CurlCurl on 20/09/2023 - 10:29

    So far 18 on here have no idea about the road rules.

  • Drakesy on 20/09/2023 - 10:59
    +1

    A couple of numpties is all i know that it is.

    Technically black car for reversing dangerously.
    But Red car for cutting across multiple lanes of traffic and slotting themselves in behind a reversing vehicle. is a d&^#head

    Good diagram though

  • trapper on 20/09/2023 - 11:36

    The diagram doesn't show the red car making a U-turn, shows him turning into the driveway.

    And black's path in the diagram doesn't really make sense. If he wanted to get to point 6 he would just reverse directly from point 4, no need for point 5.

    But either way the black car is at fault.

  • trapper on 20/09/2023 - 11:40

    What's stopping someone with a shit-box doing a sudden turn into someone that is reversing and then lodging a claim because they can?

    You mean intentionally causing a collision?

    If you crash on purpose that is a crime. You won't just be paying for the other car.

    • Protractor on 20/09/2023 - 13:10

      "You won't just be paying for the other car."…
      …if you are caught / charged / convicted.

  • Protractor on 20/09/2023 - 15:37

    Mid burn out OPs mate taps his ass. Pay attention next time. Both of you

  • logistics on 20/09/2023 - 21:49

    I am curious what (if any) the exceptions are where the reversing car is not at fault. Couldn't dig up any info.

    • Protractor on 21/09/2023 - 10:03

      If it was driven by a cop (on or off duty) or a politician or Eddie Maguire

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join