Who's at Fault? (Three Car Nose to Tail)

mooodeng on 07/02/2024 - 21:51
Last edited 08/02/2024 - 00:29 by 1 other user

A mate of mine (Car A) a few days ago was involved in a car accident and we were discussing on who was at fault.

Three cars were involved. Pretty much he wanted to turn right at the intersection on an amber light but decided not to go in the last second and made a hard stop. He stopped on the pedestrian crossing and a bit after it. Car B initially assumed that Car A was going to go and was right behind Car A. However, it managed to stop without hitting Car A by a few cm's (most likely the AEB kicked in and stopped the car by a hard stop). Car C also initially assumed A and B were going to go and only started to stop in the last second. Didn't manage to stop on time and rear ended Car B.

Area between the blue lines is the pedestrian crossing.

Of course I have a MS Paint diagram.

So who would be at fault in this case? I'm thinking that this isn't a simple case of who rear ends the car in front is at fault ?

Poll Options

  • 5
    A
  • 3
    B
  • 365
    C
  • 4
    AB
Automotive

Comments

  • spackbace on 07/02/2024 - 21:53
    +7

    Car C is at fault as they were the only ones who collided.

    Safe distance, blah de blah

    Of course I have a ms paint diagram attached:

    MS paint is old, should be a gif

    • Jimothy Wongingtons on 07/02/2024 - 21:59

      @mspaint

      • brendanm on 07/02/2024 - 22:23
        +1

        I wonder where that guy went…

        • Yummy on 07/02/2024 - 22:57
          +1

          Plastic surgery.

        • CrispyChrispy on 08/02/2024 - 02:12

          Last I heard he was with Dell or something…

          • brendanm on 08/02/2024 - 09:50
            +9

            @CrispyChrispy: Probably had to fix the mess left by that muzeeb guy giving out hundreds of cheap monitors.

        • DashCam AKA Rolts on 08/02/2024 - 09:43
          +1

          šŸ•µļø

    • deme on 08/02/2024 - 09:26

      Negged for saying it should be a gif

      • CrispyChrispy on 08/02/2024 - 10:04
        +11

        At least pronounce it correctly šŸ¤¦

        It's gif, not gif

  • angywoo on 07/02/2024 - 21:55
    +5

    absolutely car C

      • angywoo on 07/02/2024 - 22:06
        +25

        Had C kept a safe distance ( eg 2 seconds between cars) the collision would have been avoided altogether.

          • spackbace on 07/02/2024 - 22:11
            +23

            @mooodeng: But it stopped…

          • CodeXD on 07/02/2024 - 22:13
            +7

            @mooodeng:

            most likely the AEB kicked in and stopped the car by a hard stop

            This is an assumption and shouldn't have a play in this at all. B didn't hit A and that's all we need to know. How it was done whether the driver slammed hard on the break or AEB is irrelevant.

          • donny donny on 09/02/2024 - 23:06
            +1

            @mooodeng: hang on a sec, your friend drives car A or car C?

            or let me ask you with a US senator style.

            What car is the friend of yours driving?
            Are you or your friends of friend associated of affliated with the driver of car C?
            is your friend of friend happens to be the driver of vehicle C?

      • jv on 07/02/2024 - 22:41
        +7

        Yeah but had car A not stopped, this would have all been avoided.

        So?

        The cars behind need to always leave enough room to stop…

      • JimmyF on 08/02/2024 - 08:04
        +12

        Yeah but had car A not stopped, this would have all been avoided.

        If cars B and C didn't plan to run the red, then all this would have been avoided as well.

        Car A was turning on the amber, car B would have been amber at best, maybe red, Car C would 100% been turning on the red.

      • deme on 08/02/2024 - 09:28
        +1

        Tell the RMS you need a medical check for your license as you clearly have something wrong with you with this logic.

      • pegaxs on 08/02/2024 - 10:48
        +5

        Yeah but had car A not stopped, this would have all been avoided.

        On a yellow traffic light, cars are required to stop.

        If you are blaming Car A, then 100% you your "friend" was not in Car A.

        Well how about B, it also wasn't keeping a safe distance and was right behind A.

        Car B didn't hit Car A though. Car C was the car that collided with the stationary cars.

        If you are blaming Car A or Car B, you your "friend" was 100% driving Car C.

        • LoogiIsSad on 08/02/2024 - 16:42
          +6

          Ok but had the driver in car A and car B chosen to take a different route that day, this whole accident would have been avoided. Hence it's clearly not car C's fault.

          • mapax on 08/02/2024 - 16:47
            +5

            @LoogiIsSad: Ok but had car C driven faster the whole way they would have been at the intersection before car A and B, hence itā€™s car Cs fault for not getting there firstā€¦

          • ThithLord on 09/02/2024 - 10:27
            +3

            @LoogiIsSad: If there wasn't a cyclist on Coronation Drive in Brisbane, Car C would have been fine

        • TiredKitty78 on 09/02/2024 - 14:32
          -3

          Yeah but had car A not stopped, this would have all been avoided.

          On a yellow traffic light, cars are required to stop.

          To be fair, iirc, they are required to stop unless it is unsafe to do so.
          If i was thinking (inb4 bad hmmmkay) about making the yellow light, and had a split second thought not to, but saw that the car behind me was up my ass and seemed to be thinking the same thing, i might make a split second decision to continue with it, rather then have this car ram up my ass causing damage, possibly killing/injuring my passengers (inb4 then why aren't you driving cautiously then like the other grandmas, idiot. I do, it's a hypothetical).

          You don't know what you'll do in split second decisions. I once had - obligatory ms paint - to make a risky Manouver to merge between two cars, close together, to avoid being hit by a car that had stupidly decided in a split second to not take an exit, - there was no road for him to safely merge, and he was STILL driving at speed, possibly in a 'fawn' response to impeding doom - and was running out of road and would either end up hitting the cement bollard (?) or my car - and my mum was in the passenger seat! So my brain - split second decision, cars just enough distance apart, no signs of traffic altering up ahead, we're all being consistent with speed. So i went for it. I got the beep. Probably because the car now behind me didn't realise WHY i had done what i did. Now, you see people merge suddenly between two cars and think you f'ing idiot. But this was more sudden, more close, and more quickly done then that because it was a split second decision. If anything had changed it would have gone very badly. It was a dangerous manouver, but sometimes the outcome of not doing it is so much f'ing worse.

          Because thinking about it, being a bit scared once i had done it, if i had not made that move, on Tonkin highway at near peak-hour traffic mind you, people would have f'ing died. If i had hesitated, my car would have quickly went sideways and i would have died being T-boned by cars unable to stop in time. Would have been a (profanity) disaster. Might be i could have just sped up at little, risking maybe just a fender bender with the car in front. But that's not the choice i made.

          • Kazzilla on 09/02/2024 - 14:48

            @TiredKitty78: Your long pointless story has nothing at all to do with the OP.

            • TiredKitty78 on 09/02/2024 - 15:10
              -3

              @Kazzilla: Oh yes, i'll take my understanding and empathy, and relevant anecdote elsewhere.
              Because @Kazzilla said they don't care.

              • Kazzilla on 09/02/2024 - 20:05

                @TiredKitty78:

                relevant anecdote

                Nope.

                You must be extremely tedious irl with this need to insert yourself into other people's stories.

      • banana365 on 08/02/2024 - 18:36
        +3

        And if they'd stayed in bed it wouldn't have happened either. That has the same level of relevance to the incident.

      • smartazz104 on 09/02/2024 - 08:55
        +1

        By that logic, this entire accident could have been avoided if cars had never been invented.

        • LoogiIsSad on 09/02/2024 - 10:12
          +2

          Clearly, the solution here is to travel back in time and prevent the birth of humanity. Then there wouldn't be any accidents!

      • Freitag on 09/02/2024 - 09:59
        +3

        Car A is allowed to stop here, car C isn't allowed to crash into the back of car B.

  • angywoo on 07/02/2024 - 22:08

    because c was too close

  • Tech5 on 07/02/2024 - 22:09
    +1

    Car C only.

    The car in front of you stopping rapidly would not be an accepted excuse to insurance. They will always say that you need to maintain a safe distance. Car A, B and C's assumptions don't matter.

  • JIMB0 on 07/02/2024 - 22:12
    +2

    The white car.

  • mapax on 07/02/2024 - 22:26
    +16

    Were you driving car C?

    • brendanm on 07/02/2024 - 22:40
      +8

      Sounds like it by their reactions.

  • AdosHouse on 07/02/2024 - 22:29
    +12

    Car C is at fault, and Car A should get a fine for entering an intersection without ensuring it is clear to exit. That's my 2 cents.

    • Elegant Giant on 07/02/2024 - 22:50
      +2

      Absolutely this. Road rules state that, on an amber light, you must stop if it is safe to do so / with reasonable time. If you can't stop before the line, it's not safe to do so, and you should continue through the intersection.

      Car C is at fault.

    • Minimum chips on 09/02/2024 - 09:18
      +3

      Could very well be that A saw some (profanity) in the oncoming lane who wasn't going to obey they amber. You see it all the time - someone puts their foot down to make the amber, crosses the line just as it turns red instead of stopping safely, screwing over turning traffic that was waiting for the amber.

      When this happens A can legally still turn (having entered the intersection) on the red, B would have to wait. C should never have expected to get through an amber light as the 3rd turning car anyway, and is an idiot.

  • jv on 07/02/2024 - 22:40
    +10

    Car C

    100% at fault

  • Pelicannn on 07/02/2024 - 23:49
    -2

    There is zero debate here, Car C and only Car C.

    If Car C had of hit Car B with such force that Car B collided with Car A, then it is likely (in Australia at least) that Car C would be liable for full damages to Car B and ~ 50% liable for damages to Car A, Car B would be liable for the rest of damage on Car A.

    I've been in the above situation before and that was the agreed upon findings of the assessors from the insurance companies.

    • follow on 08/02/2024 - 01:18
      +1

      I was involved in a similar situation. I was car B.
      Stopped barely and Car C pushed me in to Car A.
      Car C was at fault for both.
      I don't see why Car B would accept that outcome.

      • Slinky0111 on 08/02/2024 - 06:59

        Same here. I was car a in a similar situation except for it was on a road and not approaching an intersection. Car C was liable for all damages to their own car and car b and a.

      • md333 on 08/02/2024 - 12:39

        In this case as car B didn't hit car A they were clearly not at fault. If they'd collided with Car A it might be harder to prove whether it was only because they were hit by car C or would have hit anyway.

    • Kremleen on 08/02/2024 - 17:21
      +7

      Never in a million years would car B be liable for any damage caused to car A unless car A was hit twice, once from car B and car C

      • Pelicannn on 08/02/2024 - 20:32
        -1

        Not what happened in my case. Car B was found to be partially responsible because they didnā€™t leave a sufficient gap. Just saying exactly what happened.

        • trapper on 09/02/2024 - 00:45

          because they didnā€™t leave a sufficient gap.

          That would not be the reason.

          A court may rule 50/50 if it wasn't possible to determine which driver was responsible. Insurance companies may come to a similar agreement out of court.

          There is often just no real evidence either way - and not worth hiring a crack forensics team over a few thousand dollars, which may find against you anyway.

  • blitz on 08/02/2024 - 00:28

    Sorry, OP: it's Car C all day.

  • trex on 08/02/2024 - 01:01
    +4

    It was the chicken's fault as it was crossing the road.

    • darkdinkum on 08/02/2024 - 19:39

      So… Why did the chicken šŸ” cross the road?

      • trex on 08/02/2024 - 20:17

        to get to the other side

        • Yummy on 08/02/2024 - 21:07
          +2

          Must be KFC time… Yummmm…

  • El cheepo on 08/02/2024 - 02:03
    +2

    Doesnā€™t really matter what the car in front of them did/was doing.

    If they had left a safe stopping distance, this would of never happened.

    C in the wrong. Thats an open and shut case.

  • payless69 on 08/02/2024 - 07:43

    asking for somebody else, so how much there is in the details, who knows.

  • pegaxs on 08/02/2024 - 07:55
    +1

    Wow, this was even a discussion? Canā€™t have been a very long discussionā€¦

    ā€œ*insert scenario above*ā€¦ who is at fault?ā€
    ā€œCā€
    ā€œYep, I thought the sameā€¦. Anyway, how about them blue boys on the weekend, really kicked the shit out of that leather bladder and ran a lotā€¦ā€

  • Fredfloresjr on 08/02/2024 - 09:02
    +2

    Whoever that lonely driver who answered A, GTFOH. surrender your license.

    • smartazz104 on 09/02/2024 - 08:53
      +1

      It was Driver C.

  • deme on 08/02/2024 - 09:27
    +14

    OP is car C

    • pegaxs on 08/02/2024 - 10:44

      no no no… it's their "friend"… :D

  • DashCam AKA Rolts on 08/02/2024 - 09:48
    +1

    A mate of mine (Car A)

    MATE

  • [Deactivated] on 08/02/2024 - 11:34
    -3

    C is ultimately at fault, but A contributed by not clearing the intersection. A was already across the stop line so should've continued.
    A will have to claim on B's insurance, B's insurance will then seek compensation from car C.

    • CodeXD on 08/02/2024 - 11:37

      A will have to claim on B's insurance

      A didn't get hit at all

      • [Deactivated] on 08/02/2024 - 11:39
        +3

        Who's at Fault? (Three Car Nose to Tail)

        So if A didn't get hit how is it a 3 car accident?

        • CodeXD on 08/02/2024 - 11:41

          Good question for OP

          Car B initially assumed that Car A was going to go and was right behind Car A. However, it managed to stop without hitting Car A by a few cm's

    • Kremleen on 08/02/2024 - 17:23

      Both car A and B will seek compensation from car C. From OP's story, car B's insurance will deny liability due to the fact it was stationary and did not make contact with car A before car C's collision.

    • pn09 on 09/02/2024 - 08:09
      +1

      Whether A was over the line or not they should only have continued if they felt it was safe to do so. They did not feel safe in this case - so they stopped. They could be pinged for misjudging the junction as a whole and not holding back before the line (nothing to do with the accident - just safe driving in general), but they should not be penalised for not continuing when they felt it was unsafe.

      Either way they are not at fault for the accident, especially as the car directly behind them was able to stop. If B had collided with A then they could have claimed that they braked too suddenly, but as B stopped in time there was obviiously enough time/distance between them to stop.

      C was the one who was either going too fast or too close to B to stop quickly if needed.

      As far as accident in the thread - C is liable for all damages.

  • Gunnar on 08/02/2024 - 12:54
    +4

    Sorry OP you are Car C is at fault

    • pegaxs on 08/02/2024 - 17:04
      +8

      Let us know what insurance company you worked for so I can make sure I NEVER use their services.

      Let's say I was Car B and parked 2 car lengths back and was hit with enough force to still hit the car in front (Car A), Still at fault?

      Under the road rules, when waiting at a set of lights, just what is the minimum distance required between cars? I'm happy to wait while you find the relevant legislation. Hell, find it in your policy statement where it states a "minimum distance". Please… Take your time. Make sure you have a really good look.

      I'll give you a hint…
      Most traffic lights are located in an average of 60km/h zones.
      At 60km/h, Car C would impart about half of its momentum to Car B.
      The brakes in Car B would only be applied hard enough to keep the car stationary (so not a lot of friction to overcome)
      Being slammed at 60km/h would eject Car B at about 30km/h (if both cars were roughly the same mass)
      In about the average reaction time in an event like this, Car C's impact would punt Car B about 9 metres before Driver B even had a time to react (about 1 second).
      9m is about 2 car lengths.
      So, to overcome the worst case scenario in a 60km/h hit to the rear of Car B, they would need to leave at least a 20m gap AND be able to still react even after the initial punt…
      To overcome all variables, Car B would need to leave about a 20~40m gap every time they pulled up at the lights (Or about 4~10 car lengths.)
      If this was to be adhered to by ALL drivers (ie: it was law/voids insurance) 5 cars waiting at a traffic light would stretch some 250+m down the road, for just 5 cars.
      (ie: you're full of shit, there is no "safe distance" that isnt up to 40m or 10+ car lengths.)

      If Car C runs into Car B and punts Car B into Car A, Car C is 100% at fault. Car A can try and claim from Car B, but Car B would just laugh, slap their damages on top and just mail it all to Car C. Car B isnt paying for shit.

      • banana365 on 08/02/2024 - 18:59

        He's pretty vague about details, even if he's reading a PDS for insurance he's taken out - https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/796654

      • trapper on 09/02/2024 - 00:36

        Your calculations are pretty random lol, but the conclusion is correct.

        If you get rammed forward into another car, it is not your fault.

    • Kremleen on 08/02/2024 - 17:24
      +5

      Please tell me you don't do claims assessment for your company

    • brendanm on 08/02/2024 - 18:11
      +3

      Good lord.

    • banana365 on 08/02/2024 - 18:52
      +3

      Car B did keep a safe distance. They used that to safely stop and not hit Car B.

    • Eeples on 09/02/2024 - 00:14
      +5

      Why does Car B have to pay Car A… Car B didn't hit Car A…. And Car A isn't damaged… what is the pay for?

      Did you get fired from your job?

    • Gunnar on 09/02/2024 - 03:38
      +10

      You worked at an insurance provider. What were you? Janitor services?

    • smartazz104 on 09/02/2024 - 08:53

      Can't tell you which one, the expensive one

      That narrows it down, good job.

  • doctordv8 on 08/02/2024 - 17:39
    +1

    C, Road Rules say Stop on Amber, etc etc etc.

  • Drakesy on 08/02/2024 - 18:55

    This is the exact reason you take out minimum third party insurance.

    Also the reason if you go up someone's backside you hope someone runs up the back of your car.

  • harrywwc on 08/02/2024 - 19:16
    -4

    to the question at hand, I will add my vote to "Car C" being at fault for causing the collision - they did indeed hit someone.

    however, I would also like to note that Car A is most likely in the intersection illegally, as you are required stop behind the line at the stop lights, not half way into the intersection. if that had been a red-light-camera controlled intersection, Car A would have a little something in the post real-soon-now. Car B is possibly in a similar position, however, as a camera would not be able to see their number plate due to Car A being there, they would get off that particular charge.

  • Succulent on 08/02/2024 - 20:11

    Even if Car B did hit Car A, before Car C hit Car B, from insurance perspective, the fault will still be with Car C, right?

  • Serapis on 08/02/2024 - 20:25

    Insurance says Car C

  • Ghost47 on 08/02/2024 - 20:29
    +3

    If the light was amber and Car C had two cars in front of them, regardless of whether they were actually going to turn or not, they still probably should've stopped at the light and not tried to hoon their way through behind the other two cars.

  • GordonD on 08/02/2024 - 20:41
    +1

    I have to admit, the only crash I've been responsible of in the last 50 years was one like this. I was behind another car at a shopping centre parking lot exit. We were waiting for someone coming from the right, then its driver decided at the last moment to turn into the shopping centre, so we both took off when we saw that to get into the gap ahead of the car behind it. But the driver in front changed her mind. Don't know why. But it was her right to do it. Fortunately for her, and unfortunately for the front of my car, her car had a towbar. It was a matter of having to watch two things in different directions, her in front of me, and the car coming from the right, I was watching the wrong one, and they both made last second changes of mind.

  • nikey2k27 on 08/02/2024 - 22:06

    B and C fail so keep safe stop.

  • hasher22 on 08/02/2024 - 22:48

    I would say B and C.

    Since it was an amber light, either car B wanted to go as well and car C maybe thought car A was about to go so he would have room to brake if car A went and maybe car B went.

    But car C should have slowed down either way cause it was an amber light, no chance car C would have made it

    What I want to know, why did car A all of a sudden didn't want to go half way in?

    • Minimum chips on 09/02/2024 - 09:24
      +1

      Car A might have been reacting to someone in the oncoming lane - who they would reasonably expect to stop - gunning it to make the amber. You know the type; they see the amber 50m away and suddenly mash the accelerator, making it through milliseconds before or after it turns red.

      Car A might also just lack confidence or skill. But to prove they are then at fault is an incredibly high bar.

  • Mrgreenz on 08/02/2024 - 22:51

    Car C.

    Although if car B and car C thought they were gonna make it through, sounds like car A is super conservative

  • AndyC1 on 08/02/2024 - 22:53

    C and depending on the driver of car B if they were pushed into car A or took their foot off the break and therefore hit car A.

  • Eeples on 09/02/2024 - 00:12
    +1

    I can not see how Car A is involved with Car C hitting Car B.

    However Car A shouldn't be stopped so far in to the intersection; but I do not see how that is involvement in Car C hitting Car B.

    Also, voting options should be…

    A
    B
    C
    AB
    AC
    BC
    ABC
    Nobody

  • Breno785au on 09/02/2024 - 06:33
    +2

    Plot twist. Mates car is actually car C

  • gromit on 09/02/2024 - 07:31
    -1

    Car A obviously in the wrong for his actions and should face a fine BUT, the responsibility/liability for accident is 100% car C.

  • Brick Tamland on 09/02/2024 - 08:10

    Car C at fault but car A caused the crash.

    I remember having it drummed into me when I was learning that you must not be indecisive when driving. It's not unreasonable that the cars behind CAR A thought it was going to proceed.

    Also one my of my only crashes on a motorcycle involved the same scenario. On my bike behind a car at an intersection that was giving way to enter a main road. I see the car in front of me move forward (assume they are going) I am looking behind me to see if there is gap for me to go as well, there is a reasonable gap so I accelerate. As I turn my head around the car infront has changed their mind. BANG.

    Given that cars B and C both thought there was enough time to go through the intersection it sounds like a bad decision and poor driving by Car A

  • pn09 on 09/02/2024 - 08:15

    If B thought there was enough time that's one thing as they were directly behind A, but there is no way that C should have assumed that 2 other cars ahead of them were going to get through an amber.

    It's thinking like this that ends up with red lights being run and bad accidents happening.

    • Brick Tamland on 09/02/2024 - 08:33

      Sounds like Car C assumed because they saw Car A initially start the manoeuvre.

      • pn09 on 09/02/2024 - 09:04

        Assuming based on a car that is not directly in front is pretty foolhardy if its amber, as you never know what the car in front will do. And in this case that's exactly what happened. Luckily nobody was hurt but C should have not tried to go through. A misjudged the intersection and perhaps should be more careful but we don't know if there were circumstances that made the situation unsafe to go through (e.g. something changed), hence they changed their mind. B allowed enough time/distance and was able to stop.

        • Brick Tamland on 09/02/2024 - 09:41

          Yes, itā€™s never a good idea to assume as indecisive drivers are a safety hazard on the roads.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join