Accident Fault Scenarios

Orion21 · 23 Mar 2016 at 23:33

I was wondering who fault for insurance purposes would likely lie with in the following scenarios if a collision occurred:

1/ 2 lane carriageway with inside lane clear but car in outside lane. Car from side road starts to pull out into inside lane and at same time car in outside lane pulls into inside lane and therefore there is collision. Who is at fault?

*I'm inclined to say the car pulling out is at fault if they are close and the car on 2 lane road is not able to stop in time. However if there was enough time that the car on the 2 lane road should have seen not to turn into inside lane or to brake then I think it could be their fault.

2/ A lane is merging onto a 2 lane carriageway, a car that that is in outside lane turns into inside lane just as another car is merging into it (at the same time). Who is at fault?

* I'm actually inclined to think this would be the fault of the car on the outside lane as if cars are trying to merge it's a stupid place to change lane as it should be foreseen that the cars in the merging lane need to merge for traffic to flow.

3/ On a 3 lane road 2 cars both changing into middle lane at approximately the same time. With one car half a car length in front of the other as they both move halfway into the middle lane. Who is at fault?

* For this one I think it is either going to go 50/50 as both merged into middle lane at same time or it would be the fault of the car that is behind the other as they should have had a better view and taken the evasive action.

xs2man · 23 Mar 2016 at 23:36

3 incidents when merging lanes? You need to be more observant.

Hades · 23 Mar 2016 at 23:59

I'm going with:

1) Drivers entering a major road from a minor road should give way. Therefore the driver entering from the minor road is at fault.

2) It depends on the lane markings. But insurance would probably go 50/50 to save them the cost of distputing it.

3) 50/50.

DereksDontRun · 24 Mar 2016 at 07:52

1) traffic on the main road (irrespective of direction or lane) has right of way over a car entering the road. So, the car entering is at fault. But, I would guess that with dashcam footage showing the car moving from lane 2 to 1 did so without indicating and close to the junction then it might be pushed towards 50/50, but they would still have a fight on their hands as the joining car is still technically at fault.

2) lanes do not just merge with equal priority - 1 will effectively end and merge into the other. Road signs will show which lane is ending/merging and that one should give way. Usually it's the outside/overtaking lane that merges and gives way.

3) 50/50 - thus the benefit of indicating to show your intentions to change lane

Orion21 · 24 Mar 2016 at 12:28

These are just hypotheticals as I see these kind of things most days when driving and wondered who is in the right / wrong and what would happen if a collision had occurred.

For scenario 2 I am essentially talking about a slip road merging onto a dual carriageway or motorway. Particularly where the slip road is very short. It should be obvious to all cars that the slip road cars will seek to merge onto the inside lane, so any cars in the outside lane moving to the inside lane where the slip road merges are at the least being very inconsiderate, or possibly reckless in changing lanes at that point. This is why I think it could be the fault of the car on the outside lane changing to inside lane and not the car merging onto inside lane. Although I do think it would come down to timing and witnesses and could end up 50/50 (i.e. both treated as a lane change). Still it is the one time when you ought to know people will be changing to inside lane from the merge lane.

As for scenario 3 the lane changing, would this still be 50/50 fault do you think if both cars had proceeded to move into the same lane, but one car noticed and went straight ahead (while straddling both lanes) while the other car did not notice and continued turning into the lane hitting the other car? In this case I would have thought that the car that stopped turning had been aware enough to take evasive action and was not at fault. Although in practice without a witness no chance of proving and so would go 50/50.

Further there is a 4th scenario which I have seen (once again applies in particular to multiple lanes but also to single lanes). If a car is parked but fully on the lane (single lanes this would be buses really), who would be at fault if it moved off while cars were either in the 2nd lane or overtaking if they then turned in across the car that just started moving off? Bearing in mind that the car that moved off was fully in its lane but moving from being parked.

* I think since the car / bus was fully in lane it probably is not at fault if it moves off and stays in the same lane. But could see that being wrong.

Semple · 24 Mar 2016 at 12:37

Agree with the other two posters on the first two scenarios, but for the third i think it's a little more complex.

If you're driving in the outside lane and wish to move into the middle lane, as part of checking you have enough room in the middle lane, you should also be checking that no-one from the inside is moving out, and also using judgement to see if the inside vehicle is approaching a lorry etc and will intend to move into the middle lane. Obviously this only happens correctly if the person on the inside lane uses their indicator, seen plenty of times this not happen and an accident almost happened.

If your scenario is that they're both doing that at the same time, then i guess it's just bad luck. But chances should be very very slim, and even more so, as you're supposed to continue to check that the lane is empty as you're moving over.

DereksDontRun · 24 Mar 2016 at 13:24

Orion21 said:
These are just hypotheticals as I see these kind of things most days when driving and wondered who is in the right / wrong and what would happen if a collision had occurred.

For scenario 2 I am essentially talking about a slip road merging onto a dual carriageway or motorway. Particularly where the slip road is very short. It should be obvious to all cars that the slip road cars will seek to merge onto the inside lane, so any cars in the outside lane moving to the inside lane where the slip road merges are at the least being very inconsiderate, or possibly reckless in changing lanes at that point. This is why I think it could be the fault of the car on the outside lane changing to inside lane and not the car merging onto inside lane. Although I do think it would come down to timing and witnesses and could end up 50/50 (i.e. both treated as a lane change). Still it is the one time when you ought to know people will be changing to inside lane from the merge lane.

Cars on the slip road have to give way to cars on the main road, irrespective what lane they're in, or what they're doing. As you've said, it's inconsiderate to purposely change lanes as the slip road merges, but it's fully within their right. Say they're overtaking someone and then moving back over to the left lane - technically they can move back whenever safe and anyone on the slip lane should just wait until it's clear. Yes, it's a lane change for the car on the main road, but it's not a lane change for the car on the slip road, as they're entering the road. So, I would argue it's not 50/50.

As for scenario 3 the lane changing, would this still be 50/50 fault do you think if both cars had proceeded to move into the same lane, but one car noticed and went straight ahead (while straddling both lanes) while the other car did not notice and continued turning into the lane hitting the other car? In this case I would have thought that the car that stopped turning had been aware enough to take evasive action and was not at fault. Although in practice without a witness no chance of proving and so would go 50/50.

I honestly think this almost never happens - if the car noticed while changing lane they don't sit straddling the lane, they swing back to their original lane to get away from danger. Well, every time i've seen it happen. This highlights the need to check around your car and over your shoulder when changing lanes and not just a quick glance in the mirror...

Further there is a 4th scenario which I have seen (once again applies in particular to multiple lanes but also to single lanes). If a car is parked but fully on the lane (single lanes this would be buses really), who would be at fault if it moved off while cars were either in the 2nd lane or overtaking if they then turned in across the car that just started moving off? Bearing in mind that the car that moved off was fully in its lane but moving from being parked.

* I think since the car / bus was fully in lane it probably is not at fault if it moves off and stays in the same lane. But could see that being wrong.

The car setting off is at fault - they need to give way to all moving traffic, whether it's a car in the lane or someone overtaking (and it's pretty dumb for the car setting off to not anticipate a car potentially wanting to change into their lane or even turn left at a junction in front of them). It's the same when overtaking - if there's a car overtaking a lane of traffic and a car in front also wants to overtake, they need to check it's safe to move out (change lane) before doing so - thus the car already in the outside lane has priority.