Who's at fault in this scenario?

[SABloke]

In the picture below Car A turns left into the side road. Car B turns right and crashes into the side of Car A. Who is a fault?

 

A) Car A

B ) Car B

C) Both Car A and Car B

 

I'll leave the question up for a while and then compile the answers later.

[lannarebirth]

In the absence of signage or flashing lights and assuming proper turn signals were used, I'd say car "B" is at fault.

[ezzra]

Both cars at fault, had they had the courtesy and the patience not shove themself

like Me first, both would have been continuing on their merry ways.... 

[pearciderman]

Car B, he is crossing a white line, therefore Car A has right of way.

[robblok]

Hard to say car A is not on the right side but its car B that slams into him. Id say both maybe to blame. Can't be 100% sure but seems A is the least guilty . Though it depends on things like speed..  WAs A waiting there and B slammed into him (B to blame). Was A going really fast and B already turning when out of nowhere A appeared.  

[SABloke]

5 minutes ago, robblok said:

Hard to say car A is not on the right side but its car B that slams into him. Id say both maybe to blame. Can't be 100% sure but seems A is the least guilty . Though it depends on things like speed..  WAs A waiting there and B slammed into him (B to blame). Was A going really fast and B already turning when out of nowhere A appeared.  

For today's purpose both cars were travelling at "normal" speed. There is not a stop sign for Car A. Car A arrives at the corner 1st.

Edited February 26, 2018 by SABloke

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, SABloke said:

For today's purpose both cars were travelling at "normal" speed. There is not a stop sign for Car A. Car A arrives at the corner 1st.

Then I would say B is to blame... but I would not bet my life on it. Shared blame is a possibility too. 

[cornishcarlos]

Whichever car is the Merc, they are not to blame... It was all the Toyotas fault :)

[jerry921]

The one driven by the farang is at fault. If both are driven by Thais, the one least related to the police is at fault. If neither Thai is related to the police, but one is Hi-So, the other Thai is at fault. If neither Thai is Hi-So or related to the police, it's both their faults so the police can collect double.

 

[Gulfsailor]

Car A turning left has to give way to car B turning right. Hence Car A is in the wrong. 

And yes I know that's not the case in the U.K, but this is not the U.K. Rules of the road are different. So better learn them. 

[KhunBENQ]

15 minutes ago, Gulfsailor said:

Car A turning left has to give way to car B turning right. Hence Car A is in the wrong. 

And yes I know that's not the case in the U.K, but this is not the U.K. Rules of the road are different. So better learn them. 

A rule little know to foreigners driving here.

[worgeordie]

Car B is at fault, cutting the corner as they always do,

Car  A is just doing a normal turn, while Car C  is also

behind Car A and crashes into the rear end of Car A.

That seems logical to me, but this been Thailand,a

good chance I am wrong.

regards worgeordie

Edited February 26, 2018 by worgeordie

[Monomial]

Depends on the country, but in English speaking countries, at a 3 way uncontrolled intersection, the terminating road usually must yield to traffic heading straight in the absence of any other markings. Therefore, you must always yield to oncoming traffic when making a right hand turn in this situation, because there is no requirement for car A to stop. Given this, car B is at fault.

 

Even though car A was turning left, he is still oncoming according to the law. Car A could have just as easily gone straight at the last minute instead of turning.

 

I suppose if car B was already substantially through the turn and car A was a formula one race car that attempted to cut him off you might be able to argue that A was at fault, but it seems pretty obvious the fault lies with B under any normal circumstance.

 

Note that different rules can apply elsewhere. I know in countries like Germany you must follow uncontrolled intersection protocols at any intersection, whether 3 way or 4 way, in which case the car that entered the intersection first had the right of way, and there is not enough information provided in the picture to make a determination in this instance.

 

Usually, any reasonable government will place controls and stop signs where necessary to remove any of the ambiguity around right of way in a situation like this.

 

So my guess would be but I have lived here long enough to realize that logic often doesn't apply.

[SABloke]

Gulfsailor is correct. Car A is at fault in this case.

 

There is some 'logic' as to why Car A should give way according to the Thai traffic code:

Car B is crossing traffic that is going in the opposite direction and as such is performing a more 'dangerous' manoeuvre. Car A has to give way so that Car B can be out of danger quicker.

 

This might explain why when trying to drive straight across a 4 way intersection I am often confronted with a train of cars turning across me and traffic from my side going straight comes to a stop until the last car has turned right (from the opposite side) - or maybe they're just selfish <deleted>?

Edited February 26, 2018 by SABloke

[mogandave]

25 minutes ago, Gulfsailor said:

Car A turning left has to give way to car B turning right. Hence Car A is in the wrong. 

And yes I know that's not the case in the U.K, but this is not the U.K. Rules of the road are different. So better learn them. 

Would that only be if they arrive at the intersection at the same time?

[SABloke]

2 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Would that only be if they arrive at the intersection at the same time?

Apparently not - Car A needs to give way if they see Car B turning- It's a problem if you're already in the turn and focused on driving straight ahead. And how do you determine if you've arrived at the same time. Car A is turning into a side street - Car B is driving on the opposite side of the road so are we supposed to stop before turning left just in case someone suddenly decides to turn into the same side street from the opposite lanes? 

 

The rule makes little sense because it takes the onus of responsibility to stay safe away from  Car B. 

[Monomial]

11 minutes ago, SABloke said:

 

There is some 'logic' as to why Car A should give way according to the Thai traffic code:

Car B is crossing traffic that is going in the opposite direction and as such is performing a more 'dangerous' manoeuvre. Car A has to give way so that Car B can be out of danger quicker.

 

 

Question:

 

Is this actually explicitly stated in the road code or is this just some Thai policeman's twisted opinion of conflicting requirements and deciding to apply a rule when another one should logically have priority?

 

[jackdd]

This situation is regulated in the Traffic law under Section 51, which says:

ในกรณีที่มีรถเลี้ยวซ้ายและเลี้ยวขวาพร้อมกัน ให้รถเลี้ยวซ้ายให้ทางแก่รถเลี้ยวขวาก่อน

In the case that there is a vehicle turning left and a vehicle turning right, the vehicle turning left has to give way to the vehicle turning right.

 

In case vehicle A would be going straight vehicle A would have the right of way, that's also regulated under Section 51.

 

So in the case that both cars used their indicators properly and drove with a reasonable speed car A was wrong, but whatever car A does give not car B the right to crash into him, and he should have been more carefully, so in the end both would have done wrong.

[canuckamuck]

Logically it would be the car with front end damage that would be at fault because they are the one that failed to use their brakes and drove into the other.

Legally I know it doesn't always work that way.

[theguyfromanotherforum]

The pedestrian crossing the street was at fault.

[SABloke]

18 minutes ago, Monomial said:

 

Question:

 

Is this actually explicitly stated in the road code or is this just some Thai policeman's twisted opinion of conflicting requirements and deciding to apply a rule when another one should logically have priority?

 

It's in the code. I learnt it because when I saw the question (Mrs.SABloke was studying for the test) I answered wrong and we were both dumbfounded until her instructor explained the rule and 'logic' to us.

[BEVUP]

I would say car B

 

Reason being by looking at the diagram, car A had already committed into the turn hence being hit by car B in the right rear quater panel, which would also suggest that car B cut the corner

[StreetCowboy]

I traverse a junction similar to that every day, except that there is a left filter lane, and traffic on the filter lane gives way to traffic from the main junction turning right.

 

on the other hand, it’s hard to argue with the principle of giving way to traffic that’s in front of you.

[Mattd]

Car A is required to give way to car B as per Thai traffic regulations.

[KhunBENQ]

2 minutes ago, Mattd said:

Car A is required to give way to car B as per Thai traffic regulations.

Repetition does not seem to help

So again: car A is at fault.

It's in the law.

It's also part of the English language question for the theory test.

(although in a quite confusing wording and terrible graphic)

 

[Mattd]

8 minutes ago, KhunBENQ said:

Repetition does not seem to help

So again: car A is at fault.

It's in the law.

It's also part of the English language question for the theory test.

(although in a quite confusing wording and terrible graphic)

 

Which is exactly what I said, which was to repeat (pun intended) Car A is required to give way to Car B, so by definition Car A is at fault, as it did not give way!

[JungleBiker]

Well, being from the UK, I thought B was at fault but apparently I am wrong. 

 

I reckon it would be safer if there was international  consensus on such kinds of traffic laws and all countries followed the same rules.   

 

I've noticed at some 3-way junctions, the white lines on the road look like they're in the wrong places but perhaps they are correct according to Thai traffic rules. 

[Mattd]

2 minutes ago, JungleBiker said:

Well, being from the UK, I thought B was at fault but apparently I am wrong. 

And you would be correct if it were the UK and IMHO it makes more sense that way, however there are some strange traffic laws here, some of which make no sense and some that make more sense.

Unfortunately, in reality, the traffic rules are made up on the spot and when it suits and 95% of the road users have no idea about the written ones anyway.

In the example, it would be who is the biggest has right of way...........

My mates wife thinks that so long as she is indicating then she has right of way..............

[jak2002003]

Its the fault of the foreigners and immigrants!!! 

 

And, netizens are OUTRAGED...

 

They will have a CLAMP DOWN

 

Make  the country a HUB of cars turning safely.

 

CLOUD FUNDING for the victims who had no medical or car insurance. 

 

Plus the street dog on the corner was upset and needs a bag of food form dog rescue charities. 

 

Candle light vigil and prayers from religions people for help / or blame if they were not from the same religion.

 

And the Vegan Feminist LGB Black lives matter White Privilege, Eco Warrior Transgendered Disabled Minority group will have a demonstration about it being an agenda against their rights.  

 

Sorted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 26, 2018 by jak2002003

[Classic Ray]

Even more stupidity demonstrated if Car A is deemed to be at fault. Car B should be waiting to be sure that Car A is really turning left, even if indicating, rather than going straight on. If Car B did that, he could then turn right without danger, if a suitable gap appeared behind Car A on the main road. 

 

 Car A stopping to allow Car B to turn right leads to the possibility of traffic behind Car A trying to overtake into the path of Car B, on either side, especially here where there are so many motorcycles that overtake on either left or right of slower or stationary traffic.

 

With rules like this, no wonder so many people get killed on the roads here.  Let's hope the cooperation between the British Embassy and the Thai Transport Ministry leads to some commonsense being applied to driving here, but I'm not holding my breath.