Road rage and subsequent accident - any suggestions appreciated...

mad__llama on 22/09/2014 - 23:45
Last edited 24/09/2014 - 16:54

My mate was involved in a road rage incident which resulted in a accident.

She was driving a one lane road last week and was tailgated for a number of minutes by hoon. She claims that she slowed down to let the hoon past, but at the same time a car pulled into the oncoming lane from a driveway and the hoon wasn't able to overtake. Hoon got furious and tailgated ever closer while yelling abuse from behind.

As soon as it was clear to pass the hoon overtook my friend, re-entered the lane directly in front of her (a few metres max she says) and slammed on the brakes. My mate was so shocked that even though she she braked hard there was no way she could stop in time and rear-ended the hoon.

Hoon got out, yelling abuse and threats and tried to open my mate's car to pull her out, then put their hands through the window to try and open the door (luckily my terrified mate had the presence of mind to lock the car). Hoon then pushed and rocked the car, my mate started calling the cops on her phone and the hoon freaked out, got back into her car and sped off. My friend luckily managed to record the plates.

Long story short: my mate reported the incident to the cops, who got onto the hoon - she has now provided her details for insurance. She also claims that there was no road-rage, she was simply rear-ended by my mate who she claims is at fault (and lying about how the accident happened!).

My mate's insurance company has told her that she (my friend) will likely be considered at fault (as she was travelling behind) regardless of the circumstances of the accident (road rage, hoon leaving without providing details etc).

Is there anything my poor friend can do?

UPDATE: So the insurance company assessor has determined that my mate is at fault for not allowing sufficient stopping distance and they are unwilling to fight a she said/she said case. She has not been able to find a witness to the incident and isn't happy to start an extended legal fight over the matter, she's just going to pay up her excess and move on. She has asked me to thank the OzB forums for all the suggestions.

And I think I'll be getting her a dash-cam for Christmas :)

A quick recap of the issues raised below for TLDRers (or to save redundancy in comments):

  • I am not the victim here, this is a second-hand story (happened to my buddy)
  • Both victim and perp are female (there seems to be some confusion about this)
  • Victim was travelling at least 55 km/h in a 60 zone before the incident - dusk conditions etc
  • Incident occurred in a residential area, no other cars or witnesses present (or CC cameras from a business)
  • Police report was made on the day
Automotive

Comments

  • Puska on 22/09/2014 - 23:57
    +23

    if he was just rear ended, why would he have sped off without taking down details? use that in her case

    • mad__llama on 23/09/2014 - 01:10
      +2

      lol, the hoon was actually a "lady". But yes, that seems to be the strongest evidence that my friend has in her favour at the moment.

      • ronnknee on 24/09/2014 - 11:58

        Not really evidence as it can easily be twisted by the hoon. The hoon can say that your friend was threatening her so she sped off.

  • c0balt on 23/09/2014 - 00:03
    +11

    That's horrible, poor girl.

    If your friend called the police at the time of the incident and reported it as it was happening, I would think that information would definitely help her chances of her insurer fighting for 100% liability against the hoon rather than any split based on just rear ending the car.

    Filing a police report was a good idea as hopefully there's marks against the other person which your friends insurance company may be able to find and help her case, but I don't know if that's a thing they do or not.

    There may have been cameras recording at the time of the incident, it could help to go back to the area and maybe have a look. It might also be an idea to put a letter in the mailboxes of the houses saying what happened and a contact email for your friend in case anyone saw what happened and can be a witness in her case.

    To others - let this be a lesson that dash cameras are a cheap insurance policy of their own.

    • MondaySleeper on 23/09/2014 - 13:10
      +3

      exactly. I have requested almost all friends to fit a dashcam. you never know when it will be helping you.

    • SaberX on 24/09/2014 - 09:44

      How much is a basic dashcam? Can you install something for a low cost that can be removed easily like a gps?

      Im imagining if not you may be a target for break ins because people already break in to steal adder stereo decks and gps systems.

      Can dashcams record basic audio as sometimes sound can be a great evidence that a soundless video cant provide.

      I waa considering this because like the OP and everyone said -there's not much you can do when theres no witness. My gf. Brother etc hav all had accidents where without an independent witness they were at fault or unable to prove fault and reverted to road rules e
      G. You were behind so it's your fault.

      • Gazette on 24/09/2014 - 12:45
        +2

        https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/162607
        Best under $50 dashcam imo, plenty of good reviews and sample videos on youtube

        Easily removable off the mount like a GPS and records sound quite well

        • SaberX on 26/09/2014 - 22:18

          Thanks - I'll scope it out. But can you get one that has rear view cameras or something? Not sure how this would all work, main thing is Just need something that can be pulled out/put back in at a notice, so no wiring etc that would be a pain everytime you get out of the car.

          I'm assuming otherwise they'd be targets for break in and steals.

          Also - how do these sort of dashcams work in terms of a 32GB sd card - I thought video would chew through in no time? Do cameras stay on 24 hours until you turn them on/off when you get in the car? Or are these technology automated so when you're cars running or parked they record? But turn off otherwise?

          Or can these safely record for lengthy periods of time without chewing through memory?

          Also you mentioned this is easily removable off the mount - i can see it's a suction cap on but can't see if it's a body that fits into a chassis - i assume it is if you said it easily removes from the mount (meaning the suction cap mount can be left where it is each time)?

          Also with aus deadly sun/heat do you think these things would melt? I had an issue with my window share the suction caps warping and becoming hard plastics so they no longer suction capped on becuase they weren't soft/malleable…. :(

          Finnicky stuff I know but just thought i'd consider it.

        • Gazette on 29/09/2014 - 00:02

          There's no real specific model for the rear view afaik, the cheapest option is to buy 2 dash cams, one for the front, one for the back, plenty of different mounts for different cars, positions and weather if you look around.

          The one I linked has expired but there's a new deal on a capacitor model which is better for the really hot days https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/163009
          I still would not recommend very long unnecessary exposure to the sun if possible, it's still possible for the suction cups to warp from the heat, fortunately most mounts are quite cheap for replacements.

          I would highly recommend googling/youtubing reviews on the G1W and various other types of dash cams so that you'll see how they work and they're quite simple to connect up and operate once you've seen pics/videos, this site is good for starters https://dashcamtalk.com/ and you'll find most of your answers here.

          For 1080p videos at 30fps, I believe it's just a little under 1GB for every 10minute clip (you can select the quality, fps, clip lengths of 3/5/10 minutes etc. which may affect the size of the video files), so you'll get about about 5hours of 1080p 30fps videos on a 32GB microsd card on the G1W. Most good dashcams have a "loop recording" option you can enable/disable which allows it to record over the oldest videos once the card is full, so it can technically record forever if you don't have anything interesting you want to take out of it.

          The camera is usually plugged into the car's 12V Accessory Power Outlet so when you turn your car on, the camera turns on (you can turn it on/off manually if you wish). Some cameras have small built in battery in them which runs the camera in a "sensor mode" when you turn off the car (if you choose to leave your camera in the car) and record either movement it detects from the camera's view or from a "shock" if your car is hit by something.

          You can indeed leave the power cable and suction cup in the car in their usual position if you want for the ease of popping it on/off the mount and plugging in the cable (the power cable is actually quite long so you can route it around your window/dash with blutac or something so that it doesn't obstruct vision or tangle onto things. This video review is quite good and shows what you want to know too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo76bkytA3o

          I would recommend getting just one for the front and once you've gotten the hang of how they work and if you're happy with it, you can consider a rear one, they really are worth the peace of mind for the low cost of it.

  • bobbified on 23/09/2014 - 00:23
    +3

    Unfortunately, the options are quite limited in this case. Without any witnesses, its going to be his word against your mate's.

    My best suggestion would be to ask your mate whether she can remember which driveway that car (the one that prevented the overtaking) pulled out of and perhaps door-knock the house to see if the driver had noticed the tailgating. If she was a little shaken and can't remember exactly where, perhaps take her for a drive down that road to help jog her memory.

    If she can find a witness there who is willing to make a statement to the police, (eg, the witness states that he/she saw your mate's car ahead of the other car a few metres before she ran into his back) then that may help her case.

    If it's a street with only one lane going in each direction, I'm guessing the traffic wouldn't be too heavy…. A loud bang and shouting etc perhaps caught the attention of some people inside their homes. They could've been watching the events unfold through their windows and too scared to come out at the time. You could perhaps also door knock a few houses around the area and politely ask if anyone saw anything.

    Good luck to your mate….

    Edit:

    My mate's insurance company has told her that she (my friend) will likely be considered at fault (as she was travelling behind) regardless of the circumstances of the accident (road rage, hoon leaving without providing details etc).

    I should also mention that what the insurance company has said above only applies where there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

  • Uncle Chop Chop on 23/09/2014 - 00:53
    +5

    This will a tough one given the way the crash occurred, you'll need to put together as much circumstantial evidence as you can to show that it wasn't a simple rear end crash. Obviously there's already the fact that your friend contacted police and reported the matter, while the other driver left the scene. Make sure this isn't overlooked during the claim process.

    Make sure the police took a report for the incident following the crash, not just the crash itself. What you've described would constitute an assault despite the lack of physical contact. Even if the assault can't be proven due to the lack of corroborating evidence, the report number is still valuable. If the police you speak to are lazy and refuse to take a report first time around, try again on a different shift. Also get a hold of the job number for the incident (made at the time she initially called the police). Police communications will have this.

    You'll want to identify and photograph the exact location of the crash. Was is a straight road? Try to show that there was no reason for the lead car to be slowing down at that location (if this is possible).

    Door knock houses / businesses near or before the scene of the crash ASAP. They may have witnessed the crash itself, or the behaviour leading up to the crash - or better yet, a business may have captured this on CCTV. If they didn't see the crash, did they see the tailgating before the crash?

    If the other driver is lying about the circumstances of the crash, they're probably lying about everything else too (as an example, they may deny that they overtook your friend, and instead claim they were always in front). If you can disprove even an irrelevant part of their story, it will cast doubt over their entire version of events. At the same time, if you can prove even irrelevant parts of your own story, it gives your overall version more credibility.

    Also get your friend to make notes in as much detail as she can about anything she can remember about the other driver - physical description, any accent, scars, tattoos, clothing, jewellery etc etc. This could be useful if the other driver spins a version of events that would make obtaining this information impossible - i.e. if they claim they never got out of their car…

    • Crazy Diamond on 23/09/2014 - 08:34
      +2

      Re physical description (scars etc) not sure how feasible or costly it is - but if you really want proof more went on than a usual incident, dust your car for her fingerproofs all over it from rolling and rocking it. Especially if they dispute any of their actions.

      All the best for your friend

    • StewBalls on 23/09/2014 - 08:57
      +6

      Make sure the police took a report for the incident following the crash, not just the crash itself. What you've described would constitute an assault despite the lack of physical contact.

      ^This. I would be pressing the cops to charge this person with assault, period. We (as a society) need to weed this kind of behaviour out. Even without the post-accident incident, there is a potential for injury/loss of life purely through the reckless driving. In the wrong hands, a vehicle is a lethal weapon, I lost a mate who was not even remotely involved in the actual altercation to a RR incident last year, all because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

      Even if the assault can't be proven due to the lack of corroborating evidence, the report number is still valuable.

      You don't need to have any physical evidence, the police are still obliged to investigate & act; and you can still initiate civil proceedings, seek an AVO, and apply for Victims of Crime compensation/counselling.

      If the police you speak to are lazy and refuse to take a report first time around, try again on a different shift. Also get a hold of the job number for the incident (made at the time she initially called the police).

      Correct. You need to stand your ground if you get a lazy cop, perhaps take a support person with you…but definitely press the issue. Trying a different shift is a great idea, but should not be necessary, once they realise that you're serious & will take the matter further they'll usually get with the program.

  • mad__llama on 23/09/2014 - 01:00
    +4

    Many thanks all for your suggestions, some very useful tips there! I pass all these on. I'm never disappointed by the generosity shown in these forums :)

    Also: think I'll be investing in a dash-cam for myself now…

    • Musing Outloud on 23/09/2014 - 19:32
      +1

      Also see whether you can ID the car that came out of the driveway, or the house number. The driver may have seen what happened before or after, adding weight to your version of events.

      • Musing Outloud on 23/09/2014 - 19:33
        +2

        Now we need a good ozbargain deal on dash cams. Any recommendations???

  • [Deactivated] on 23/09/2014 - 01:28
    +1

    Wait - the hoon was female too?

    lol crazy!

    Good luck to your friend. Keep us posted on whatever happens.

    • Cheeper on 23/09/2014 - 02:05
      +6

      I have noticed a lot of females are tailgating these days. They are more frequent than the impatient males.

      • bobbified on 23/09/2014 - 07:10
        +6

        …..esp the ones that are holding their phones in front of their mouths talking on speaker phone thinking they won't get pulled over because they're not holding it to their head…

      • StewBalls on 23/09/2014 - 08:03
        +9

        Agreed. I'm also noticing that the majority of aggressive, impatient & downright dangerous drivers out there are now female…it's a bit of a slap in the face to males that despite this, women also get a discounted insurance premium based on their gender.

        I'm on the road a lot, I might not have stats to back it up, but purely anecdotally I call total BS on females currently being safer drivers. Next time you're in traffic trying to merge, I'd be willing to wager it's a bloke that eventually lets you in…younger women especially will move heaven & earth to cut you off!

        • thepigs on 24/09/2014 - 12:20

          women are better at blaming the other party

  • Windows7forever on 23/09/2014 - 07:30
    -2

    Just out of curiosity, is your friend a slow driver? As in, was she going well below the speed limit. Most people's tolerance for that sort of thing is pretty thin. Add a hoon to the mix and they get pretty agro, pretty quickly. That's just the reality of it.

    • felipe1982 on 23/09/2014 - 08:41
      +11

      As I have said before, the speed limit is a maximum, not a minimum. There is not justification for that kind of abuse and dangerous driving. That's simply wrong.

      • bobbified on 23/09/2014 - 09:46
        +8

        Are you telling me you'd happy to sit behind a car that is travelling 20km/h in a 60km/h zone?

        This is years ago, but I recall something in my driving test that says that the driver should drive according to the conditions and if there's nothing preventing a driver sitting close to (but under) the speed limit, then they should do so.

        Generally, I don't blame the driver if they're driving to the conditions. I blame the way the stupid government sets these speed limits.

        • StewBalls on 23/09/2014 - 10:26
          +14

          Are you telling me you'd happy to sit behind a car that is travelling 20km/h in a 60km/h zone?

          Happy, no of course not; but if it puts you into a murderous hulk-like rage then you have bigger issues…suck it up, you won't be behind them forever.

        • [Deactivated] on 23/09/2014 - 11:04
          +13

          @StewBalls:

          No, that is just stupid logic. People driving 40kmh below the speed limit should be pulled over for dangerous driving. That is dangerous, creating such a massive speed differential. 60kmh might be the limit, but it is also the suggested speed, you can drive slower, but most of the time, most of the traffic will be travelling at the recommended speed limit. If you drive slower than the rest of the traffic, you are a hazard. This especially applies to idiots who sit in the fast lane of the freeway 20kmh under the limit, or idiots who enter a freeway at 70kmh. The ramps are there for a reason.

        • StewBalls on 23/09/2014 - 11:12
          +1

          @thorton82:

          No, that is just stupid logic. People driving 40kmh below the speed limit should be pulled over for dangerous driving.

          Pulled over by who??? Since it's not against the law it won't be the cops, so your own logic is actually pretty bloody impractical. People like you ARE the problem, you only think of yourselves, and whip yourselves into a frenzy over something you cannot control.

          Like I said, time to grow up & learn some patience, not everyone in this world needs to be subject to your own vehicular egocentrism…you don't know the reason another person might just happen to be travelling below the speed limit in any given circumstance, there might actually be a bloody good reason for it that you aren't privy to. I've actually seen this many times, the one person slowing down & pissing off the huffy whingers behind them is the one that actually saves them from a bigger collision & possible injury/death!

          Why not take some responsibility for your own driving & give them the benefit of the doubt for just a few seconds or minutes of your precious travelling time…it might just save a life!!!

        • [Deactivated] on 23/09/2014 - 11:47
          +9

          @StewBalls:

          Dangerous driving is against the law. Driving at 80kmh in the fast lane on a freeway is dangerous driving.

        • StewBalls on 23/09/2014 - 11:55
          +1

          @thorton82:

          Dangerous driving is against the law. Driving at 80kmh in the fast lane on a freeway is dangerous driving.

          Have you got a link to the relevant offence for that specific vehicular act in NSW or your own state, VIC???

        • 000lynx on 23/09/2014 - 11:59
          +4

          @StewBalls:

          http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/geared/your_driving_skills/driving…

          Couldn't be effed finding the legislation link.

          Its the same law in QLD also, and I suspect in Victoria.

          It just makes sense.

        • Settero on 23/09/2014 - 12:00
          +4

          @StewBalls:

          http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fragview/inforce/subordleg…

          the problem is , people mistake it for EVER road, in nsw its multilane roads > 80km/h thats GREATER than 80km/h not 80km/h or more.

        • 000lynx on 23/09/2014 - 12:03

          @Settero:

          Yep that's true.

          the speed limit must be Over 80 (e.g a 90km road, or 100k+ freeway only).

        • StewBalls on 23/09/2014 - 12:04
          -4

          @000lynx & @Settero: I'm not sure what you guys are getting at there…could you please direct my attention to the salient points for both links in the context here?

          Just remember, thorton82 isn't talking about the overtaking lane here, he's referring to any of the regular lanes that aren't specifically designated for slow vehicles!

        • 000lynx on 23/09/2014 - 12:06
          -1

          @StewBalls:

          lol, you're taking issue with thornton calling it "dangerous driving" then?

        • Settero on 23/09/2014 - 12:09

          @StewBalls:

          i was just providing the whole legislation which relates to travelling in "the fast lane" on free-ways for your discussion with thorton, proving thortons argument only true under the right conditions.

          we can only conclude that "the fast lane" is the right lane, so all keep to the left laws are covering "the fast lane"

        • StewBalls on 23/09/2014 - 12:13

          @Settero: Cheers mate!

          I suppose that my main point is that AFAIK under the current legislation that merely travelling under the speed limit in NSW does not constitute the legitimate offence of "Dangerous Driving"…happy to be proven wrong by somebody with specific knowledge though! ;)

        • 000lynx on 23/09/2014 - 12:14

          @StewBalls

          all he said was "Driving at 80kmh in the fast lane on a freeway is dangerous driving"

          As mentioned above the law is - If you are travelling over 80 on a multilane road then you should keep to the left.

          In that sense Thornton is correct. If we are splitting hairs - we could say Thornton is wrong because technically some freeways have roadworks which bring the speed down from say 100 to 80. In that scenario, although its a freeway if your driving 80 (the road work speed limit) then technically you don't need to move.

          However, you should always move if you can because it is courtesy and also it is the law in most scenarios as mentioned above.

          EDIT: it is ALSO against the law to drive too slow. See this from NRMA: (cant be effed pinpointing legislation) http://www.mynrma.com.au/blog/2013/05/16/driving-beneath-the…

          Its called "Driving abnormally slow so as to cause an obstruction"

        • Settero on 23/09/2014 - 12:18
          +1

          @StewBalls:
          http://www.mynrma.com.au/blog/2013/05/16/driving-beneath-the…

          According to the NSW Road Rules you cannot drive so abnormally slowly that you cause an obstruction.

          going 40 in a 60kmh zone would not be abnormally slow as , case and point school zones ( adapting to environmental factors)

        • StewBalls on 23/09/2014 - 12:19
          -2

          @000lynx: No, what he actually said was:

          Dangerous driving is against the law. Driving at 80kmh in the fast lane on a freeway is dangerous driving.

          He is just plain wrong AFAIK, as I said happy to be corrected by anyone not purely speculating though.

          Not keeping left when not overtaking is a specific offence in NSW, completely unrelated legally to DD.

          @settero: Go back & read that more carefully in the context of what I've already said above:

          An example of driving ‘abnormally slowly’ would be, if you were travelling at a speed of 20 kilometres per hour on a road with a speed limit of 80 kilometres per hour, then you could be causing an obstruction to other drivers if there is no reason for you to drive at that speed on that road.

          Remember, this is NRMA talking…not RTA or NSW Police…they can speculate all they like, they do not have the final say on anything.

        • Settero on 23/09/2014 - 12:22
          +4

          @StewBalls:

          man , we have showed you where it is a offence to not keep left. on highways over 80kmh that are multilane in nsw. and on roads 80 or under , you just can not drive abnormally slow regardless of lane. it might not be CALLED driving dangerously , bit it is against the law and you can get a driving citation for it.

          yes nrma is going to be fairly reliable, if you can prove me wrong then sure ill by it , its not concrete proof , but it is reasonable proof.

        • StewBalls on 23/09/2014 - 12:26
          -4

          @Settero: You haven't shown me anything mate, you've both just wasted my time with idiotic misinterpretations of what's been said on many fronts…I'm sick of arguing moot points with you at this point, keep up the good work…peace, out! ;)

        • 000lynx on 23/09/2014 - 12:27
          +1

          @StewBalls:

          Lol, if I thought it would change your mind I would go find the relevant legislation. Obviously in the context of that blog, if you look at it, its clearly written with the actual NSW Legislation in mind (although it doesn't provide reference).

          We've both shown you, its illegal to be in the right lane when doing over 80 and its also illegal to drive significantly too slow.

          Looks like you've made up your mind either way.

          SOURCE: NSW Legislation, NRMA Blog, I'm a Lawyer, not just speculating have actually looked at it..

        • 000lynx on 23/09/2014 - 12:36
          +7

          @StewBalls:

          Thank you for trying to insult me, when all I've done is attempt to find the information YOU asked for. Your funny.

          Anyway I have found for you the relevant law in NSW that prevents drivers from driving too slowly:

          http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fragview/inforce/subordleg…?

          In case you have trouble finding the relevant section, it is section 125 (2)(B)

          In case you have trouble clicking the link, Ill reproduce it here just for you:

          (1) A driver must not unreasonably obstruct the path of another driver or a pedestrian.

          Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.

          Note. Driver includes a person in control of a vehicle—see the definition of drive in the Dictionary.

          (2) For this rule, a driver does not unreasonably obstruct the path of another driver or a pedestrian only because:
          (a) the driver is stopped in traffic, or
          (b) the driver is driving more slowly than other vehicles (unless the driver is driving abnormally slowly in >the circumstances).

          Example of a driver driving abnormally slowly. A driver driving at a speed of 20 kilometres per hour on a >length of road to which a speed limit of 80 kilometres per hour applies when there is no reason for the driver >to drive at that speed on the length of road.

        • 000lynx on 23/09/2014 - 12:44
          +8

          @StewBalls:

          No thanks. Not trying to have an argument with you. You asked for some facts, and those were given to you. I now see you didn't actually want the facts to begin with because you're just being belligerent - kind of like those angry drivers you are so against.

        • [Deactivated] on 23/09/2014 - 12:46
          +2

          @StewBalls:

          You write 1000 words and 10 posts and we are wasting Your time?

        • bobbified on 23/09/2014 - 12:48
          +5

          @StewBalls:

          Pulled over by who??? Since it's not against the law it won't be the cops….

          There is actually a law against driving too slow, but it falls under the offence of "Unreasonably obstruct driver/pedestrian" which references Rule 125(1). This offence carries a fine of $242 and 4 demerit points.

          Like tailgating, it may not be enforced often, but it does exist.

          For those who are interested, I'll also quote the actual Road Rules below:
          (http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fullhtml/inforce/subordleg…)

          Note that the example below is not my example - it is the example used in the Rules

          125 Unreasonably obstructing drivers or pedestrians

          (1) A driver must not unreasonably obstruct the path of another driver or a pedestrian.
          Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.

          Note. Driver includes a person in control of a vehicle—see the definition of drive in the Dictionary.

          (2) For this rule, a driver does not unreasonably obstruct the path of another driver or a pedestrian only because:
          (a) the driver is stopped in traffic, or
          (b) the driver is driving more slowly than other vehicles (unless the driver is driving abnormally slowly in the circumstances).

          Example of a driver driving abnormally slowly. A driver driving at a speed of 20 kilometres per hour on a length of road to which a speed limit of 80 kilometres per hour applies when there is no reason for the driver to drive at that speed on the length of road.*

          Edit: Got beaten to it! lol

        • StewBalls on 23/09/2014 - 12:50

          @thorton82: Good point…I won't waste any more of mine on you.

        • [Deactivated] on 23/09/2014 - 13:46

          I did not read the long "discussion" before this. It is of my opinion that regardless the law and what happens (I definitely would not be happy to sit behind a car that is travelling >66% under the speed limit). I would not do anything about it. I will continue to maintain my safety distance/pull over when safe to take a break/over take when absolutely safe.

          No point arguing about the law because in practice you can't take the law in your own hands and you can't force people to do what they do not wish. The only thing you can influence within reasonable safety limits is your behaviour and nothing can/should justify your deviation beyond safety limits (unless its a lesser of two dangerous situations).

        • zambuck on 23/09/2014 - 14:11

          Have you got a link to the relevant offence

          @StewBalls:
          It's not just a high speed limit thing. The offence is "Unreasonably obstructing drivers or pedestrians". The example given in the legislation is doing 20 in an 80 zone, but is described as "the driver is driving abnormally slowly in the circumstances".

          http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2008104/…

          "Example of a driver driving abnormally slowly : A driver driving at a speed of 20 kilometres per hour on a length of road to which a speed limit of 80 kilometres per hour applies when there is no reason for the driver to drive at that speed on the length of road."

          Edit: Also beaten to it.

        • LlamaLlamaLamp on 23/09/2014 - 17:55

          @StewBalls:
          It's against the law in WA. On a freeway (without heavy traffic, rain, etc.), driving 20km/h or more below the speed limit is an offence. e.g. 100km/h speed limit, you must drive at 80km/h or faster.

          For every other road, 30km/h below the speed limit is an offence. e.g. 60km/h speed limit, you must drive at 30km/h or faster (unless road conditions are not ideal).

        • saintmagician0 on 23/09/2014 - 18:34
          +2

          It doesn't matter how badly another person is driving, how dangerous or how illegally, you do and always do have a responsibility to drive safely.

          For example, people driving drunk should also be pulled over for dangerous driving (and thankfully, are). But if you're behind such a driver you still have a responsibility to drive safely, which does not mean engaging in unsafe overtaking maneuvers.

          Same deal for people driving too slowly. It doesn't actually matter whether or not this is 'dangerous driving' or illegal, because even if it were, your responsibility to do everything you can do to be a safe driver does not diminish.

      • 2025 on 23/09/2014 - 18:01

        There is no justification for road rage. But delay me 3 mins a day 5 days a week 50 weeks a year as a driver and that is 12.5 hours of my life wasted because of people that feel they can set their own limit and ignore all others.

        • syousef on 24/09/2014 - 07:30
          +2

          I'm sure the next time you're booked for going 3 or 4 over the limit you can try telling the cop that.

          My issue isn't with people getting upset at others doing 20 in a 60 zone (though as you say it doesn't excuse road rage). It's with people who think others doing 55 in a 60 zone or even 60 in a 60 zone when they want to overtake and do 65 are the ones in the wrong. And those that think they can do exactly the speed limit within 1 or 2 km/hr but in fact are constantly drifting over the limit, and therefore constantly breaking the law. They are part of the problem, not the solution.

          Bottom line is if you don't have 12.5 hrs a year of your life to waste making sure you do the right thing get off the road.

        • bobbified on 24/09/2014 - 11:50
          -1

          because people that feel they can set their own limit

          Isn't this exactly what the government does? Except they go one step further and put cameras up so that they can fill their piggy banks.

        • bobbified on 24/09/2014 - 11:54
          -2

          @syousef:

          It's with people who think others doing 55 in a 60 zone or even 60 in a 60 zone when they want to overtake and do 65 are the ones in the wrong. And those that think they can do exactly the speed limit within 1 or 2 km/hr but in fact are constantly drifting over the limit, and therefore constantly breaking the law. They are part of the problem, not the solution.

          You sound like someone who sits in the right lane of the highway just under the speed limit to stop others from "breaking the law"…

        • syousef on 24/09/2014 - 17:48
          +2

          @hv:

          You sound like someone who sits in the right lane of the highway just under the speed limit to stop others from "breaking the law"

          Actually I'm someone who prefers the left lane because I don't like being tail-gated and don't have any desire to be involved in an accident with some idiot doing 40 over the limit because "I'm a good driver I am". Are you sure you're not just reflecting your own bias?

      • [Deactivated] on 24/09/2014 - 07:32
        +1

        rips out the popcorn and sitting on a chair stool to watch the show…

    • mad__llama on 23/09/2014 - 12:32
      +1

      Just out of curiosity, is your friend a slow driver?

      Not especially, although she did say that she was tired after work and thought she was travelling about 5 km/h under the limit.

      • Tuttorix on 23/09/2014 - 13:11
        +8

        Just to confirm for you. That's not slow.

    • boonanza on 23/09/2014 - 18:51
      +1

      It shows the maturity of some people trying to find a good reason for road rage…

  • markpace on 23/09/2014 - 08:56

    Its simple. From insurance side, your friend is in the wrong for 'not keeping a safe distance' and is automatically in the wrong. (even though not her fault) I know because I was in the same situation once before.
    HOWEVER< the police informed me I can pursue it civilly and if won, would be reimbursed all expenses even for the accident.

    Did I win? NO because I didn't pursue it as didn't have the time.

    • Windows7forever on 23/09/2014 - 11:05

      …and money? Surely, the court fees involved and having a lawyer would be big bucks to pursue.

      • airzone on 23/09/2014 - 22:05

        Sue for costs.. Make sure you win :p

  • Sweetnsour on 23/09/2014 - 09:02

    This is a case where if you had a front dashboard camera, perhaps then insurance company might be able to defend your case. Its the only proof in cases of your word against theirs.

  • RobMel on 23/09/2014 - 10:55

    For that reason I have dash cam I including second rear cam . saved me paying for last Carmack incident. Cost is about $70 incl memory card. Money well spend.

  • Annoying Source on 23/09/2014 - 11:14
    +7

    Not sure if I'm the only one who does this but if you tailgate me when I'm doing the speed limit I'll slow down because there is no need to be that close to someone, at any speed it increases the chances that an accident will happen.

    But everything everyone else has said is spot on, especially with the fact if it was a simple rear end then why did the hoon speed off and having the police report because it's (I think) Illegal to not swap details in a car accident

    • StewBalls on 23/09/2014 - 11:21
      +5

      Not sure if I'm the only one who does this but if you tailgate me when I'm doing the speed limit I'll slow down because there is no need to be that close to someone…

      Hand goes up… ;)

      • craigoss on 23/09/2014 - 18:09

        Me too.. then when they do eventually overtake I pull angy face and 9/10 times they won't even look at me.

  • [Deactivated] on 23/09/2014 - 11:37

    On the topic of following distance and auto fault for the driver in the back, how on earth do they gauge the 'safe distance' for all given situations?

    I was rear ended a few months back whilst sitting in traffic on my motorbike, the dumb bimbo that rear ended me from behind was on her phone. I was a solid car and half distance from the car in front in peak hour traffic which is not an easy thing to do.

    My bike crashed and slid partly under the car in front, which was an expensive Jag, the guy moved his car forward, got out, was an elderly and chilled guy, looked underneath and said it's all good.

    I don't have any insurance, and even if I did I sure as hell shouldn't be paying a single cent should my bike foobar'd his car, I deem 5-6m plenty of a distance for safety travelling at 0km.

    • Annoying Source on 23/09/2014 - 12:01

      The auto fault is a very general assumption, but in situation like that where you were being overly safe and you sill hit the guy in front of you it should be her fault and she (or her insurance) should pay. I just can't wait for the time where cameras in cars (as in built in dash cams) are a mandatory safely features like seat belts and they have to be built with them, It would single handedly solve most he said she said situations

      • syousef on 24/09/2014 - 08:02

        Doesn't work that way in practice. My mother was involved in a 5 car pile up a few years back in Blacktown. Police attended. She claims she was fully stopped when she was hit. Each driver was at fault for hitting the car in front. The car that hit her and piled her into the next car was driven by an L plater and the father swapped out the plates so his son on the L plates wouldn't get the neg driving. My mother dobbed them in. None of that made one bit of difference in terms of who was deemed at fault.

    • [Deactivated] on 23/09/2014 - 13:49

      Damn, a bike got rear ended by a car. Hope you were okay. Did you follow up with the offending car?

      • hellbound on 23/09/2014 - 14:21

        Happens far too often. Second most common accident type involving motorbikes and another vehicle.
        It's why I filter as much as possible, to avoid being rear-ended.

      • [Deactivated] on 23/09/2014 - 14:49
        +1

        It's all too common unfortunately. I was already stopped to one side of the lane, got bumped off the bike and onto oncoming traffic, but morning slow traffic and I didn't get creamed. If I was smack bang in the middle it would have been disastrous.

        Going to physio for back stiffness and running out of opinions from specialists regarding my wrist. It's no skin of her nose all she had to pay was a few hundred for excess and a point or two and she's back on her merry way. That's the part that gets me worked up the most, a few days of pay cheque in exchange for potentially wrecking someone's life forever.

        • [Deactivated] on 23/09/2014 - 23:40
          +1

          Thats terrible. May it turn out well for you in the end.

          I don't understand, it seems that the occurrence of extreme emotion seems to increase when in a dangerous machine. We don't see my footpath-rage going on do we, even in the most crowded cities. Give a person horsepower and speed, we get impatience and annoyance.

    • paizuri5 on 24/09/2014 - 02:46

      If you were rear ended, you aren't at fault anyway.

      I was at a red light and got rear ended by a van who wasn't even close to stopping. Sandwiched me into the car in front. I wasn't at fault, so I assume his insurer picked up the bill for both of our cars.

    • Mumbles on 24/09/2014 - 12:49
      +1

      I'm a motorcycle rider too. Luckily, I've never been rear ended. But I chatted with several elderly motorcyclists who have been hit in the rear end. I've realised its very common and there is no rhym or reason.

      A tip I read from a motorcycle magazine, when stopped at a traffic light have an escape route, be in 1st gear and ready to throttle out at short notice, jump the gutter if you need to (scratched up paint or a fallen bike is better than being sandwiched, broken bones, physio, insurance claims).

      For me, I now take a cautious approach. When I stop at a traffic light I keep an eye in my rear vision mirror. As a car is approaching I make sure I'm in first gear, put on my brake light, point my front wheel towards an escape route. After the car has stopped I'm back to being relaxed, point the wheel straight, slip into neutral and relax.

  • Speckled Jim on 23/09/2014 - 11:55
    +3

    Hoon got out, yelling abuse and threats

    This is assault. Threatening someone is assault.

    and tried to open my mate's car to pull her out, then put their hands through the window to try and open the door (luckily my terrified mate had the presence of mind to lock the car). Hoon then pushed and rocked the car,

    This is attempted aggravated assault. If all is as described, this is a criminal matter.
    I hope the car hasn't been washed since the incident. Fingerprints can be taken to further validate your mates version of events, thus the insurance claim.

    • mad__llama on 23/09/2014 - 12:35

      I hope the car hasn't been washed since the incident. Fingerprints can be taken to further validate your mates version of events, thus the insurance claim.

      Good thinking, will pass that on…

  • ankor on 23/09/2014 - 12:32
    +4

    If it was just the bare facts of who ran into who, then yes your mate is solely liable. As it stands, there is case law that asserts that a person cannot predict the actions of an errant driver, and there is risk to the other party that your mate is a credible witness. This is something that your insurer should be well aware of.

    If I were in the shoes of your friend I would:

    1) file a police report for assault
    2) get as much info as you can about the other driver
    3) do a facebook search and see if they have any posts relating to the incident - or any incidents relating to road rage - they may self-incriminate
    4) talk to the insurer, and ask them what they have done to verify each party's story

    Your friend could also have tried to take a video or photo of the person doing the tailgating and all that- which itself is very dangerous- so they would have to pick a safe time to do so. This would have helped them verify their story. I suppose a gopro or some other dashcam recorder would be quite handy in the future. As Puska noted, the behaviour of the alleged road rager is quite suspect. Why would they leave the scene of an accident?

    In addition, I think your mate's insurer should be thinking of doing a door knock via investigators, looking for any potential witnesses, or cctv that may have recorded the incident as alleged.I will also note that there are a number of classes that she can take for self-defence- ranging from krav maga, bjj, wing chun, karate, kick boxing, muay thai, boxing, judo etc

    Good luck to your mate, that would have been a very frightening experience indeed. I hope she's alright.

    • mad__llama on 23/09/2014 - 12:42

      Good luck to your mate, that would have been a very frightening experience indeed. I hope she's alright.

      I think she's doing ok now. She was (understandably) very shaken initially.

  • StrawberryCheesecake on 23/09/2014 - 13:00
    +1

    Can't comprehend the aggression from people who road rage. Although I highly doubt the outcomes will be favourable for your mate, I really hope the hoon gets what they deserve. I would definitely be fighting the case though. If the driver drove away, they might have something to hide. They could easily have been under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

  • [Deactivated] on 23/09/2014 - 14:00

    Your mate= you. Nice try OP ;) , no need to hid behind "my friend" alias. The hoon should feel shameful.

    • mad__llama on 23/09/2014 - 15:45

      What would be the point in hiding behind an alias in this situation? Nothing to be embarrassed about here as far as I can see…

      EDIT:

      Although now that I think about it, if there is a chance of a legal case resulting I probably wouldn't want to be talking about my own situation - I'll bet even hoons read OzB :)

  • 1Dollar on 23/09/2014 - 14:53

    If there's a wide one lane road (no markings except for the one separating the incoming traffic), are we supposed to keep to the left and let others overtake or just stay in the middle.

    • [Deactivated] on 23/09/2014 - 15:11

      One vehicle per lane, you cannot overtake within a lane.

  • effgee on 23/09/2014 - 16:15
    +1

    May be worth her checking google location history depending what is on her mobile phone there could be enough GPS points to validate her claim of how fast she was travelling and at what time, plus she should have the call log of her phone as to when she called the cops afterwards.

    The more facts you can document in a case like this, the stronger position you're in, especially against someone who is simply lying, once they tell a porky that is proven wrong by your facts you start winning. Logic dictates that one person is lying and the other telling the truth, once you can demonstrate to the cops/insurance company that the other party is lying you're looking good (notwithstanding that insurance companies lie as much as they can too)

  • ahly92 on 23/09/2014 - 16:46
    +5

    Ok this is what u should now:
    1. preserve the car for fingerprints
    2. follow up on police
    3. Go door knocking
    4. CHECK FOR SKID MARKS AND TAKE PIC OF THEM
    you said

    re-entered the lane directly in front of her (a few metres max she says) and slammed on the brakes.

    in that case there should be skid marks that show the hoon breaking and your freinds skid marks not far behind…. Police can easily determin the speed the car was going at and the distance between the two cars which would imply sudden breaking … when this is put with the other evidance's then i hope your friend would have a strong case.

    ALSO
    it would be worth a try to see a lawyer…and see whether your friend qualifies for no win, no fees
    ALSO
    I would take ur friend to a doctor physiologist, specialist etc ASAP to write down a full detailed assessment of the situation. This can be useful if the hoon is found guilty to ask for compensation due to trauma

    I really hope that helped.
    ahly92

    • 2big4u on 23/09/2014 - 16:58

      excellent ideas. +1 for the tyre skid marks. crucial evidence
      https://www.slatergordon.com.au/firm/legal-costs/no-win-no-f… lawyer

      • Davo1111 on 23/09/2014 - 21:14

        If you sued, you'd probably only get damages, which would be the cost to repair the car. You don't want a lawyer taking a dip of that.

        Might be worth just taking the guy to small claims for the damages yourself. Especially after the road rager is charged.

    • mad__llama on 23/09/2014 - 17:06

      I really hope that helped.

      In-deedy! cheers :)

    • [Deactivated] on 24/09/2014 - 15:00

      How do you prove said skid mark is from YOUR incident, not prior nor post?

    • ahly92 on 23/09/2014 - 18:06
      -1

      100% her fault.

      u need to check what ur taking cause whatever it is abbott needs one! ;)
      that's insulting!!! something tells me ur more than a 'leecher'. Do u know the accused?

    • mad__llama on 23/09/2014 - 18:10
      +2

      Normally I wouldn't engage with what I think is a provocative and trolling comment but I'm actually interested in your point of view here.

      My feeling is this: if my friend had a dashcam installed then there would be no question as who was at fault, hence no need for the insurance company to chase down both stories and evidence (the cost of which I assume we all pay is higher premiums) and no potential lawsuit to recover costs if either party disputes the outcome etc. Wouldn't that actually result is a less litigious society?

  • wkd on 23/09/2014 - 17:55

    tell the insurance company the other driver did a hit and run.

  • dsp26 on 23/09/2014 - 18:02
    +1

    yep, as mentioned, unfortunately it is going to be your friends fault… and her passenger doesn't count as a witness. Dash cams work awesome in these circumstances

  • pebee47 on 23/09/2014 - 18:24

    At least she didn't fall for the trap of reporting online. My daughter ran into a ute that turned right across her front, through a Give Way (in WA).
    Took 7 months to get to Court and despite requests for info re date of appearance , missed the court. Even though he was found guilty of dangerous driving, leaving the scene, not report etc, no order to pay damages happened. Net result no reparation ($3000 car + under 25 owner/driver so minimal 3rd PP insurance only).

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join