I don't have any MS paint diagrams. Apologise for my inability to meet the minimum OzBargain standards!
Car A: Car entering the car park
Car B: Car leaving the car spot
I gave the dashcam copies to both drivers so they can show the recordings to their insurance providers.
And that's exactly what i did… I gave the footage to both of them.
This post is just me being curious.
Yes its fault of the guy pulling out of the car spot, but the other guy was going pretty quick too going into the car park. 10kph?
It is kind of you to give the footage to both, most people would not bother. Don't worry about the other guys comment, all his comments are like that.
Good on you, it would of help one or both of them.
@fredk1000: I'm repaying a past karma! In 2018, a truck company did a hit and run of my parked car and i was able to claim the accident because a stranger left a note on my windscreen with the name of the truck company and the rego.
That was a living dashcam there!
So, in this instance at the end of the video i just parked my car and gave them my number so i can send them a temporary google drive share of the footage.
what dashcams that you graced us with a 2nd perspective?
@capslock janitor: ah thats coming out of Tesla Model Y, there were four recordings in total and i only shared 2 as the other 2 recordings did not capture anything essential
If B was fast enough or speeding, it'd have been the other way around.
Interestingly the link opens an image of a smash repairs shop, right opposite the carpark.
Two…
Thread closed.
god help us if you actually were an admin
How do you know I'm not ?
Because every second word around here isn't bold
One of the most obvious ones, clearly the person leaving the bay didn't look properly before pulling out. Not to mention at the speed they pulled out they had an ability to brake before contact but didn't.
Makes sense. I sort of saw it before it happened while driving behind Car A but not sure if being the driver of Car A while he was turning would have seen Car B leaving its car spot.
Obvious as it is, 14 people voted "Car A". They need to hand back their driving licence….
No? From the vid they were already pulling out even before Car A entered?
That's plumb.
Beaten all ends up
watto still asked for a review
This one is not as simple as people think. First, car park is different to road.
You can clearly see Car B was moving before car A came around the corner, and car A also has a responsibility to avoid a collision. You need to be more careful going around a corner in a carpark.
I'd be letting the insurance sort it. Good on you OP for giving them the video.
I am aligned with you. Just as my previous comment, i saw the car exiting the car spot and both cars were at such an angle that became a blindspot to each other.
Though, clearly the driver of Car B was not looking forward as they were driving forward - if they were, their reaction time is slower than a rock.
I think you are right… Considering there was no other car on the right side of B, she must have been looking only to her left.
Car A needs to not be driving so fast, didn't slow down for the turn, entered the car park on the wrong side of the road etc,
And as you said, car B was already in motion, was halfway OUT of the car space when car A cut in front, so should have given way to the car exiting.
And the speed car A was going once he entered the car park. Pretty sure he was accelerating round that corner having seen the car pull out of the spot thinking they could get past quickly.
From my experience with insurers, they consider thoroughfares in car parks the same as roads. Car B was leaving a parking space into traffic and should've given way. Car B is clearly at fault.
they consider thoroughfares in car parks the same as roads
This comes from the road rules.
Yeah, I'm surprised people here didn't point this out. It seems folks here are getting their "god given right of way" feelings hurt. The car B that was leaving the parking spot was already moving way before car A entered.
Carpark rules are different. And whilst it's nice if the parked car gives way, the fact that idiot entered at speed, on the wrong side, one could argue the parked car had zero capacity to see it, let alone respond.
Both are at fault, until one is proven to be acting illegally. But in a carpark….
Car park rules are not different.
Please link to where you think that is the case
Road rule 74 is the one you are looking for, in case you were wondering
Didnt say the Road Rules didnt apply, I said who would be deemed at fault may change. Depending on the Carpark Act, if the person entering was doing more than the signed limit (quite likely, most people do more than 10 km/h), and whether they were on the right side, driving with due care.
Giving way is the least of the claims here. And with insurance, it always starts at 50/50
Didnt say the Road Rules didnt apply
Carpark rules are different
Pick one
Carpark Act
Care to link to this? You can't just make things up and expect it to fly under the radar
@coffeeinmyveins: I'm not sure private carpark acts still exist in every state but different rules do indeed apply in private car parks.
The terms and conditions apply, and they are generally considered shared spaces. There's a strong argument that Car As negligence for the rules and the nature of the space, as well as their arguably dangerous conduct prior to entering the carpark at high speed. This negligence led to the foreseeable risk that they might get into a little prang.
Both parties were negligent, clearly, but… A's insurer has a case.
@Assburg: I think in most states they are treated as road related areas where traffic rules still apply.
Nah, if you're exiting a parking and it was clear the moment you exit, but some (profanity) just decided to corner and hit you, then it isn't your fault. If that's not the rule, then the rule is either wrong or lacking and must be changed and or added to.
Did you even watch the video?
@oscargamer: Yes? Car B (the one leaving the parking spot) was already moving even before Car A entered. If I was the driver of Car B and I looked right and left multiple times and saw no car coming, even I would do the same as Car B. Car A rushed, even using the wrong lane to enter, and then rushed into the parking area.
I had a similar near miss yesterday. Reversed out of a tight spot, two cars on either side. I had no visibility on my right hand side. See car at speed slam brakes as I'm inching out.
I presume I'm in the wrong if an accident happened cause I'm reversing out. But there isn't much I can do other than get traffic cones out and block off traffic to prevent an issue.
Maybe reverse in initially, so you can drive out forwards…..
I agree with this 100% unless picking up groceries and you need access to the boot.
@Ramrunner: Even then, if it's a small narrow car park: reverse in, when returning with groceries pull forward 1m to access boot whils you quickly load and go.
@sween64: Will scratch the car with trolley presuming it even fits between the two cars.
justifies shopping online and getting groceries delivered
@sween64: Yeah mate like MuppetDetector says the carpark of my local shops will not allow me to get behind the car with a trolley (bollards or huge kerb on the other side), plus trying to get a trolley between cars is near impossible.
Not all car parks are like yours maybe?
I reverse park always except when I can't get to but need the boot so in those cases I go in forwards and I'll stand by that. Opinions may differ :)
Sure, but that's a convenient hypothetical. The real and practical scenario here is that there will always be cars parked forward. The culture must be that cars be defensive driving through parking lots because of reversing cars. The car culture in Australia is "right of way", even though the VicRoads (as an example) handbook says to have "give way" mentality.
Both of speed and direction of travel are just regular road rules.
I can't see any posted speed limit that Car A is shown to be breaking. The footage does show Car A entering the carpark in the wrong lane, however, I don't believe that's relevant as the driveway itself isn't exit only, nor was Car A going in the wrong direction when the accident took place. Car B should have reasonably seen Car A and given way.
Having been involved in a very similar incident, I will say Car B at fault.
I was in a car park where I couldnt see past the car next to me as I started rolling forward (large van). Car coming down the carpark lane was clearly going too fast and ended up hitting the side of my front right quarter panel and headlight. I was found to be at fully fault by my company with the reasoning being that any vehicle leaving a parking space must give way too any traffic. Where blame can be apportioned is more where two cars are both leaving a parking space and collide.
In this instance, with only one car leaving I would say it is pretty clear cut.
I think the law will decide car B was at fault but if contributory negligence is a thing, I can see how things might turn out differently.
Regardless, if I was car A I'd be a bit embarrassed if other people saw that footage of the way I was driving.
Car A driver probably has no sense..
Just pointing out, it doesn't matter in this situation what Car A did before he entered the car park. That's a separate issue.
You also need proof of the assumptions you are attributing to Car B because "it seems like he was speeding to me" and "he shoulda done xyz" will have no effect on any legal obligations.
I believe that the length of that video and the interrupted coverage of car B as he turned the internal corner will be insufficient to have any meaningful influence on the legal findings, even on those points that are subjective.
All that video definitely shows at the legally defining moment that determines fault is that Car A drove into Car B who was immediately in front of him.'
All car A had to do was look straight ahead (he was after all moving forward), not withstanding that he had substantial uninterrupted peripheral visibility (you are after all supposed to give way to your right), and stop before he drove into Car B.
I mean stopping is pretty much one of the first thing they teach you in driving school.
You right but you got your car letter reversed.
B was the one leaving the spot.
Crap!
Thanks for helping me out.
Too late to edit. Did try though.
Now who looks like a silly muppet, eh?
You reversed the letters, but I disagree. Car B (the one exiting) probably looked left and right multiple times and was clear. That's when they started driving ahead. They were already on the move even before Car A entered the parking. If the rule is that Car B is at fault every single time a similar incident happens, then the rule needs changing. Because in that case, drivers can just start driving into exiting cars (as in this case, as I've mentioned Car B was already exiting even before Car A entered) and then claim insurance. This is an insurance fraud scheme waiting to happen.
https://imgur.com/a/kYUBSTP
what is this sign facing to??
also B at fault. it was pulling out from parking spot.
See the google maps above
the google street view image doesn't have the Give Way sign and that area to the right seems to be one-way looking at the angle car spots? i'm so confused… but I'm not from that area so I'm not familiar with that car park's layout.
From what I can gather from Apple's version of Streetview, the signs on the two poles to the sides of the driveway don't seem to be fixed securely so they're swiveling about and are often in the wrong direction.
When entering the carpark, there should be two signs on both the left and right poles: "Parking Area (Green P)", and "Park in Bays Only". On the reverse for exiting the carpark, the pole on the left has a single sign "End (Green P) Area," while the pole on the right has two signs: "Give Way" and "End (Green P) Area)."
Swiveling about is pretty much the state of Springvale on most days 😂
Did car A put the left indicator on to turn left? Could not see if it was flashing or not. If it was off then car A otherwise car B.
No indicator, driving on the wrong side of the road, driving faster than the posted speed limit in the car park.
They may have been driving like a twat but does any of that matter?
I could have sworn that a few years ago someone posted here (it would have been Whirlpool or even Reddit) about leaving a car spot and hitting a car that was coming the wrong way down a one way lane and being found at fault because they didn't give way to traffic already there (shopping centre car park or something) despite the fact that it was one way, so they shouldn't have had a need to check the wrong way.
They may have been driving like a twat but does any of that matter?
So you don't think that contributed to the problem in any way?
despite the fact that it was one way, so they shouldn't have had a need to check the wrong way.
The car pulling out, could have checked, and there was no car or a car to the left or right. Or at the intersection on correct side of the road.
If you look at the video, car B was already in motion and was halfway OUT of the car space when car A cut in front, so should have given way to the car exiting, but they had been going too fast. Simple as that.
I bet those two cars and OP didn’t even take the train
its irrelevant to this discussion but mind you, i was actually picking up my wife who just got off the train…
Because that’s where the pickup zone is
what do you mean? the pick up zone is actually a bit further: https://maps.app.goo.gl/v6FgKdMBZTrn4J3R7
that incident happened at https://maps.app.goo.gl/b6Ws26M3opFKPheK9
video and street view images from Google Maps clearly show that its a Parking Area as shown below the Give Way sign on the video
Even I don't drive that fast in a carpark.
How fast was he going?
At what speed was car A travelling that prevented him from stopping before driving into a car directly in front of him? I mean, he wasn't even reversing out. He was driving forward.
Car A was thinking if there is enough aggression everyone else will get out of the way. Car A was driving on wrong side of the car park, they knew it was aggressive behaviour but carried on anyways.
Car B insurance will pay. Car A just going to pay the price in time and frustration of repairs. Or they are going to pocket the money and drive with body damage.
I reject the assumption that Car A was thinking.
Muppet in action. Unfortunately, being a muppet won't get him penalised this time. No anti muppet laws.
what wrong side of carpark?
The speed that would put car A at 100% fault lies somewhere between the 10km/h limit of the carpark and the 299,792km/s limit of the speed of light.
You know, 99 times out of 100 there is no cam footage from a third persons perspective. When there is no footage or witnesses, its hard to convey each vehicles speed. With this footage, its obvious car A speed is a factor in the accident. How much weight to the outcome?, probably none.
I think there are two separate questions here - who insurance will rule is at fault, and who is morally at fault.
My guess is that insurance will rule B as being at fault, but my view is that both of them were not looking where they were going and both could have avoided the collision if they had more situational awareness.
The key moments for me are (apologies about the strange timestamps, smaller time is actually later, as they seem to be measuring time to the end of the video):
1) At 0:33, car A is entering the carpark completely in the lane going in the opposite direction - this makes it more difficult for car B to be aware of car A, and also means that car A is more likely to just speed through the turn rather than slowing down
2) At exactly from when the time ticks from 0:31 to 0:30, you can see that car B is already around half way out of the parking spot whilst car A is not yet in front of car B - this implies that the only way that car A got in front of car B was to be on the wrong side of the road (or attempting to go around car B exiting)
3) At 0:29, after car B has already stopped, you can see how far out of the box car B has already moved - it's already completely covered the left lane (from A's perspective), again implying that car A needed to go onto the wrong side of the road to get past
Conclusion really is that car A was careless and blatantly broke several road rules right before the accident. The curve around where car B was parked is designed to slow cars down - car A went on the wrong side of the road to go through faster and probably saw car B, but just expected B to give way. Car B wasn't looking (likely was looking left, instead of left and back), and did not see A come around the corner - from where B is, it's obvious that this should have been checked.
No love lost for either of the drivers IMO - car A was driving in such a way that deserved to be hit, car B was driving unaware / aloof, and will likely pay the price for that silliness.
Car B had a bad parking spot. It is one of the worst spots from a danger point of view.
Car A is just asking for trouble with that kind of driving.
Personally if I was A I would try to get back into the proper lane when turned in and slow down to like 10kmph and watch it when going into where car B was but you know some people just want to give back all their time savings in dealing with insurance and repairs.
The uber driver.
Both are turkeys. A needs to slow down and B needs to give way.
ESH
A was in a helluva hurry, but B wasn't checking for oncoming traffic.
In my experience since it is in a parking lot they may default to 50/50 fault. From a road rules perspective, I would say the person pulling out is at fault but parking lots are a different thing.
Car B will be at fault.
Car A is just a bad driver. Cut the corner entering the car park and should have seen the B starting to move but still went in fast thinking he would get right of way.
Common sense is A shouldn't be driving at all. Spend more time dealing with accidents than time saved cutting a few corners and driving that tiny bit faster. Too many of those types around.
And Car A missed the train anyway.
Car B was altering direction of travel and is therefore at fault
Car A was driving at an excessive speed.
Car B could not have reasonably seen Car A as Car A was turning the corner at excessive speed.
This should have been sorted out by chicken wing face lock in the car park - winner takes both cars.
Dashcam driver (OP?) isn't exactly giving a textbook lesson in defensive driving.
Pulling out and driving down the wrong side of the road, then cutting across the corner on wrong side.
Because of impatience.
defensive drivin ?
None of the three vehicles directly involved in this covered themselves in glory.
But car B at fault without a doubt.
three vehicles?
i wasnt involved, but not proud of my driving either 😅
At least you managed to stop and not drive into the car in front of you! You win today.
its about awareness… i already saw Car B moving and already slowed down myself if you see on the video but Car A continued on at constant speed with no awareness of Car B's movement at all.
but apart from that, i was equally naughty in how i entered the car park 😅
but apart from that, i was equally naughty in how i entered the car park 😅
Meh, you were rushing to the scene of an accident. Imperative that you kept up so you could film it. Providing a community service.
You're the hero of this story!
If both drivers have insurance through the same insurer, they will most likely have both at fault
It has been said for both drivers contributed to this, the only question is the % to both.
But both vehicles leaving the main road crossed into the incorrect lane and crossed a solid Lane Line.
So little patience, so many little fails in 15 seconds, no wonder there are collisions.
Many years ago when there was a crash the police decided who was at fault. They have retreated from that role, leaving it to insurance company claims assessors.
This has left a blind spot in the road law enforcement system. You are visible to it if you cause a serious injury crash and the police get involved. Or if a highway patrol or automated enforcement mechanism catches you committing a technical infringement. But if you commit an offence that actually causes a crash, but it isn't serious, you get away scot free. It also means that the determination of who was at fault is left to be decided by commercial interests, and questions come up in places like this where people want to know what the law says, and all they can get is the opinions of other people who have no expertise or legal standing. The most widely held opinion may or may not be the legally correct one.
My suggestion to the local road safety minister's office is that they commission someone to train an AI on the road law and case law in relation to road crash fault, and require insurance companies to put all determinations for crashes in the state through it. If it saw an offence it would refer it to the police. If you didn't like its opinion you could refer it for a human second opinion, for a charge,
It referring possible offences to the police would increase the number of bookings and increase revenue, but it would do so in regard to the people who should be getting booked and now aren't, people who haven't just committed technical offences but actually caused crashes, and are now getting away with that. It would ensure uniformity of decisions, removing commercial motives of insurance companies, and it would provide an authoritative reference source for threads like this.
It would be an AI doing something that is not being done now.
B needs to give way. He hit A on the side.