Driver Hit Side of My Car and Now His Insurance Company Is Demanding $7000. HELP!

Lfield1985 on 13/12/2016 - 17:47
Last edited 14/12/2016 - 20:03 by 1 other user

Hey everyone,

My car was involved in an accident in Melbourne, I believe the other driver was at fault, because he turned into the side of my car, but now his insurer is demanding $7000 for the cost of repairs to his vehicle. My car was not insured at the time because it was my old car which I was preparing to sell. The damage to my car has been quoted at $1400.

There is no dispute about what occurred, but the road rules are vague regarding the line markings and who had right of way.

Basically, he was in a long line of traffic at the lights, as I went past on the left (to turn left at the green arrow) he turned into my car, causing damage to driver's door (see photos), and damaging the front left of his bumper.

The problem arises because there are no lane markings where the accident occurred about 10 cars back from the intersection (they only start a 10 metres before the intersection). Therefore his insurer is claiming he was already in the "left lane" and therefore had right of way.

From the best of my reading of vicroads rules, I had right of way because he "must give way to a vehicle which has any part of its vehicle ahead of yours" even if "there are no lines marked on the road." (Source Zip Merging )

But I'm not an expert, nor can I afford proper legal advice. So I am hoping someone out there can suggest what I can do?

The other drivers insurer has given me until friday to tell them how I wish to proceed; court or payment. I'm a student, so I can't afford to do either (especially if I lose and have to pay court costs). I've talked to legalaid but all they did was send me an email pack that wasn't very helpful.

Who can give expert advice regarding road rules? police? vicroads?

Any help or suggestions would be much appreciated.

This is the location of the accident
And here's a diagram.

Thanks!

EDIT: Here are the photos of the damage
Other Car
My Car
Close up of damage to my car

Poll Options

  • 36
    Who was at fault in the accident?
  • 15
    <Me>
  • 299
    <Other Driver>
  • 4
    <50/50>
  • 3
    <Not sure>
Automotive

Comments

  • whooah1979 on 13/12/2016 - 17:52
    +2

    This an easy one. Was there marking where the incident occurred?

    • Scrooge McDuck on 14/12/2016 - 12:08
      +13

      This an easy one.

      Yes, OP is not at fault and should chase up the other party for their damage.

        • whooah1979 on 14/12/2016 - 16:23
          +3

          Both drivers broke the law by driving on the shoulder of the road.

          There is no shoulder where the collision occurred.

      • Well Wasted on 16/12/2016 - 23:03
        -2

        when an accident causes more than 1 thousand dollars damage total… the police should be called. the police then make an accident report indicating who they think was at fault, for the insurance company's (and for those who just can't work it out themselves) you have no proof it wasn't your fault… unless you have a dashcam.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 17/12/2016 - 01:07

          you have no proof it wasn't your fault

          The facts of the matter aren't in dispute — both parties agree on them.

        • Well Wasted on 17/12/2016 - 10:25
          +1

          @Scrooge McDuck: no dispute…? this whole occurrence is a dispute. from what iv'e read, the other driver never admitted fault. why would you side with an online blogger who post's here to further their understanding of road rules? a police report for the accident was needed to negate any dispute… that was not done. why?

        • AlanI on 17/12/2016 - 16:33
          +2

          when an accident causes more than 1 thousand dollars damage total… the police should be called

          I don't know about other states, but in Victoria police will generally only attend an accident if a person has been injured.

        • John Dough on 17/12/2016 - 18:09

          @AlanI:
          You are correct. They may stop if they are driving past and have nothing better to do, but if you call them, they will ask: is anyone injured, is it causing major traffic disruption or if there is a threatening or violent situation.

          If it's none of those, you are way down the queue for a response if at all!

        • MrtheMoonbear on 17/12/2016 - 18:48

          @greydaniel:
          This.
          I got involved in an accident, way more than $1k damage but both cars were still drivable and noone was injured so when I called the cops all they said was, get off the road and stop blocking traffic. Other driver (at fault) drove off and went fruit picking where noone could find him and I got left with a chassis damaged car.

        • Well Wasted on 18/12/2016 - 17:44

          @MrtheMoonbear: did you get their name and exchange licence details… or at least get the registration number of the car? the other driver may not have their licence… the rego on their car paid… or could have even been pissed. F.F.S. call the police people… even if the accident was your fault you won't have to pay for damage to the other persons vehicle if they are driving illegally.

        • Well Wasted on 18/12/2016 - 18:01

          @greydaniel: sheesh… have you learned nothing from the game of life? police="police here how may i help?" you="iv'e just been involved in a traffic accident and i think i may be a victim of road rage… the person/they/him/her looks very angry/upset and i'm afraid for my saftey at this point in time" gives the police a reason to turn their lights on and drive fast. your taxes pay their wages… and it's pretty hard to be eloquent and tactful on the phone though… following an accident which may even be your fault.

        • MrtheMoonbear on 18/12/2016 - 21:57

          @Well Wasted:
          Yea I did, but after he went off the grid fruit picking there wasn't much anyone could do. Noone could find him.

        • John Dough on 19/12/2016 - 08:28
          -1

          @Well Wasted:
          That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. I'd personally prefer the police we pay for to be out there policing, not getting tied up in personal property disputes.

          It's not for the police to decide who is at fault in a minor accident unless the accident caused injury or was the result of dangerous driving. If they had to attend every fender bender out there, they would get nothing else done.

          People can disagree all they want, but IMO get fully insured and drive safely and you won't end up in situations like these. Let your insurer take all the worry and live life.

        • Well Wasted on 19/12/2016 - 10:43

          @greydaniel: leave it to the insurers? i think that's the problem… pass the buck much? and who decides if a person is driving dangerously? you or the police? F.F.S. who's job is it to enforce road rules? you? your insurance company? how about the police? the only time you see police is on the side of the road, being sneaky, police car hidden, trying to catch you making a mistake. how about helping people in their hour of need… that's what their paid to do.

        • SKiZO on 20/12/2016 - 15:33

          Oh… you are one of those people….

    • field1985 on 13/12/2016 - 18:07
      +10

      It was "safe to do so", I took the lead (he was stationary in a line of traffic), then he turned into the side of my car when it was not "safe to do so".

      Regarding the rules
      Rule 141 (1)
      141—No overtaking etc to the left of a vehicle

          (1)         A driver must not overtake a vehicle to the left of the vehicle UNLESS—

        (c)         the vehicle is stationary and it is safe to overtake to the left of the vehicle.
        • terrys on 14/12/2016 - 09:53
          +28

          " if they forward this to a debt collector or worse."

          At the moment they only have a claim they have made. They need a court finding or acceptance by the OP that a debt is due before they could even start down that path - and threats to do so at this stage aren't looked upon kindly by the courts…

        • outlander on 14/12/2016 - 10:25
          +57

          Don't be stupid, the other driver drove in the side of the ops car. He is entirely in the wrong, no doubt about it
          If the other car was already in the left lane, the other car would have been hit on the side or from behind.

          OP this looks like an open and shut case, I would not be worried at all. Insurance company is trying to take you for a ride. My advice is to use this as a learning experience to see how the courts work.

        • John Dough on 14/12/2016 - 12:41
          +14

          @outlander:
          I agree with outlander here.

          Let them take you to court, politely explain over and over to them that you are not at fault and can prove it in court, and offer to come in and show them the proof.
          They will likely drop it before it goes to court anyway, especially if they think you may win (and possibly even then have a court rule a claim against them to fix your car!).

          It's a shame you don't have insurance, it could be a long, expensive and frustrating path to fight for your car to be repaired from here, even if you prove the other party was at fault.

          Live and learn. Insurance is a really good thing to have, no matter what the circumstances. If you had insurance and you could prove you were not at fault (saving the excess), they do all the hard work and get your car fixed either way!

        • Scrooge McDuck on 14/12/2016 - 13:05
          +10

          well the evidence that it wasn't safe is the collision.

          That's bunkum! The collision was caused by the other driver failing to give way.

        • aong152 on 14/12/2016 - 13:38
          +3

          This seems like a pretty black and white case

          if OP is at fault, his front right would be damaged and the other cars door would be damaged ("other driver already in lane, OP not giving way")
          If other driver is at fault, OP's door would be damaged and other drivers front left corner would be damaged ("op already in lane, other driver not giving way").

          From just looking at the damage (op's door is damaged, front left corner of other driver) it is obvious that the other driver is at fault. It is literally impossible for only OP's door to be damaged if he was at fault. If the other driver was ALREADY in the lane then the front of OP's car would have made the collision not his door.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 14/12/2016 - 13:42
          +4

          @greydaniel:

          It's a shame you don't have insurance, it could be a long, expensive and frustrating path to fight for your car to be repaired from here, even if you prove the other party was at fault.

          It needn't be expensive. On the contrary, comprehensive insurance is expensive.

          OP needs to get two quotes for the repair of their damage and send a Letter of Demand to the other driver. The Letter of Demand could describe the matter, as confirmed by both parties, and assert liability of the other party referring to Rule 148 (2). It should also demand payment of the lesser quoted cost of repairs by a reasonable deadline e.g. 28 days.

          Insurance companies, like many others, employ some staff who are incompetent and/or lazy. So either they have handled this claim or they are simply trying to intimidate the little guy (OP).

          Sending the Letter of Demand to the other driver and following up the matter with them should be much more convenient than dealing with their insurer — the other driver is now responsible for dealing with the insurance company's staff and procedures, and they are likely to deal more urgently with their own customer.

          In the unlikely event that the above is fruitless, OP should follow it up with their own Statement of Claim and take the matter to court themself.

        • IamEzza on 14/12/2016 - 15:11
          +2

          @aong152:

          Exactly. You can't drive into another car with your door.

        • John Dough on 16/12/2016 - 08:28
          +1

          @Scrooge McDuck:
          Whilst I agree, on principle, I know how the court system works. It's not as simple as you make it out to be.

          It's expensive and takes up a LOT of your time. For most people, just having insurance saves the hassle.
          The other driver and their insurance company is highly likely to ignore the demands from OP. They usually only take a letter of demand seriously when issued by a lawyer (a few hundred bucks). Even then they will probably just ignore it. Thousands of dollars in legal fees and lost time later, you MIGHT get them to show up to court. They will assess the situation before the court hearing and MAY offer to settle (probably a zero $ settlement), but not before you have spent a lot of money getting there.

          In my uni days I barely had time to study as it was, this sort of thing wouldn't be a healthy distraction from the bigger picture.

          IMO OP should not part with a cent here unless a court rules it. Let the insurance send letters, call etc, just keep to the facts, explain to them you are not at fault and offer to prove it. Get a few quotes to repair their own car and just suck that unfortunate fall out from not being insured, up.

          I see your opinion and respectfully disagree based on previous insurance and court dealings.

        • Winston100s on 16/12/2016 - 21:24

          @outlander:
          It could also be that the driver of the white car was in front and trying to enter the left lane, where the OP hit the gas to cut him off and not give way. If OP was in front then the markings would have been on the rear of the car.

        • Well Wasted on 16/12/2016 - 23:08

          @Scrooge McDuck: prove it… no accident report was made. one's word against another's.

    • wallet72 on 14/12/2016 - 12:47
      +5

      not necessarily. OP was already past the other car and not the first car to go past, so it could be argued that it was a line of traffic. The other driver turned left without due care and hit the side of the OP's car that was already passing.
      Road markings would have added certainty.

  • nocure on 13/12/2016 - 18:01
    +1

    It's your fault because you overtook one left when it wasn't safe to do so

    Yes correct but the next question is when is it safe to move into the left turning lane where the line marking isn't complete?

    • whooah1979 on 13/12/2016 - 18:07

      Yes correct but the next question is when is it safe to move into the left turning lane where the line marking isn't complete?

      a line only exist when the are clear markings. you can see that the turning line starts from about ten metres from the lights. passing a vehicle on the left any time before the markings in called overtaking. pass it at your own risk.

      sorry i don't know how to link maps.
      https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-37.7457409,145.0070384,3a,7…

      • Baysew on 13/12/2016 - 18:32
        +1

        It is a little clearer if you look backwards, it shows how the road markings are laid out.

        Bell Street

        It shows how 3 lanes of traffic, turns into 5 lanes.

      • [Deactivated] on 14/12/2016 - 14:39
        +4

        The only line marking for that lane is a solid line, which you're unable to cross. So by the way you're looking at it there's no way to legally be in the turning lane.

  • indium on 13/12/2016 - 18:12
    +27

    Rule 148 (2) - 148 Giving way when moving from one line of traffic to another line of traffic

    A driver on a road with 2 or more lines of traffic travelling in the same direction as the driver, and who is moving from one line of traffic to another line of traffic, must give way to any vehicle travelling in the same direction as the driver in the line of traffic to which the driver is moving.

    Source

    I could be wrong but I believe you are in the right in this situation

    • field1985 on 13/12/2016 - 18:19

      Thanks!

    • whooah1979 on 13/12/2016 - 18:19

      I could be wrong but I believe you are in the right in this situation

      op tried to overtake another vehicle on the left from the same lane.

      • indium on 13/12/2016 - 18:28
        +1

        Same lane but different line, rule 148 (1) refers to different lanes, however I'm not really sure

        • whooah1979 on 13/12/2016 - 18:36
          +1

          Same lane but different line, rule 148 (1) refers to different lanes, however I'm not really sure

          there were no lines. please see the link op provided.
          https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-37.7457409,145.0070384,3a,7…

          edit
          bell st goes from three lanes to three lanes + left turn + right turn at the lights. op and the other vehicle were both in the left lane. the left lane gets wider the closer it gets to the lights, but it's still one lane and overtaking on the left is still risky. the collision is evidence of that.

        • ProspectiveDarkness on 13/12/2016 - 18:43
          +4

          @whooah1979: Different line of traffic, not line on the road.

        • whooah1979 on 13/12/2016 - 18:49
          +1

          @ProspectiveDarkness:

          Different line of traffic, not line on the road.

          can op provide evidence that it were indeed more then one line of traffic in the left lane? or is op claiming that they were the first vehicle in the left line without a third party to support it?

        • ProspectiveDarkness on 13/12/2016 - 18:54
          +3

          @whooah1979:

          line of traffic means—
          (a) 2 or more vehicles travelling in line along a road
          (whether or not the vehicles are actually moving, but
          not including vehicles in a marked lane); or
          (b) a single vehicle, other than a vehicle that is part of a
          line of traffic under paragraph (a), that is travelling
          along a road (whether or not the vehicle is actually
          moving, but not including a vehicle in a marked lane);
          Examples
          1 A vehicle travelling along a road (except in a marked lane) in line
          behind another vehicle (the leading vehicle) forms part of a line
          of traffic with the leading vehicle.
          2 A vehicle travelling along a road (except in a marked lane) with
          no other vehicles in the vicinity constitutes a line of traffic by
          itself.

          Point (b) and example 2 would indicate that the OP could be forming a line of traffic by himself. The wording is ambiguous though.

        • terrys on 19/12/2016 - 08:03

          @whooah1979: " they were the first vehicle in the left line without a third party to support it"

          That the damage is on the O.P's door and the front of the claimant's car has been considered 'third party' enough since the days of Da Vinci and Newton with historic reference to various classical Greek philosophers.

    • berry580 on 14/12/2016 - 20:56
      +1

      Good job phew!

  • [Deactivated] on 13/12/2016 - 18:14
    -2

    Sadly driving a car in this day and age with comprehensive insurance is just not an option even if you are about to sell a car. You can always get a cover note to give you short term coverage without paying anything.
    That said similar thing happened to me when I was a student ( hence lesson learnt). I was up for around 4000 dollars to pay for the damage I caused and was not insured. Went to my student council who sorted everything out for me even negotiated a payment plan with the insurance company which was like $80 a month as I was a poor student paid it for about a year stopped moved on never heard anything again. As the guy at the SC legal section said hey what are they going to sue you for your undies:)
    Good Luck really hard to go up against an insurance company once they have made a decision against you.

      • [Deactivated] on 13/12/2016 - 18:46

        Sorry meant any insurance stand corrected.

        • chriise on 14/12/2016 - 11:14
          +2

          ..did you mean, without* insurance?

      • Domingo on 14/12/2016 - 11:07
        +5

        Do you ever say anything remotely positive on this site?

    • Scrooge McDuck on 14/12/2016 - 13:50

      really hard to go up against an insurance company once they have made a decision against you.

      Not if you're in the right (like OP).

  • stratbargain on 13/12/2016 - 18:17
    +4

    You could potentially argue you broke the road rules by overtaking on the left (and get hit with the fine from the police), but argue that because your vehicle was in front of his when the accident occurred it was now "your lane" and he should have given way to you…

    That's just me being hypothetical. I'm not a lawyer.

    Good luck. Even if you did break the rule you just did what everyone does on that street. But unfortunately you got caught out.

    • aoeueoa on 15/12/2016 - 23:16

      This isn't overtaking from the left. It's merely passing a stationary car. It's also legal to overtake on the left of multilane roads.

  • oscargamer on 13/12/2016 - 18:25
    +27

    few things….

    neither of you were merging, so the zipper rule of merging (when no lines exist) is not relevant

    you were in a line of traffic

    the other car was also in a line of traffic

    as previous post above, Rule 148 (2) - 148 Giving way when moving from one line of traffic to another line of traffic is absolutely relevant

    you have not committed any offence

    the other driver changed lines of traffic without giving way to you

    there are a couple more comments, but if the other driver hasn't raised them, then neither will i, as it might confabulate you

  • mbck on 13/12/2016 - 18:54
    +8

    The other driver is at fault. Other driver obviously did not do a head check hence resulting in the accident. I agree with phew:

    Rule 148 (2) - 148 Giving way when moving from one line of traffic to another line of traffic

A driver on a road with 2 or more lines of traffic travelling in the same direction as the driver, and who is moving from one line of traffic to another line of traffic, must give way to any vehicle travelling in the same direction as the driver in the line of traffic to which the driver is moving.

    It says line of traffic.

    Insurance company obviously trying to recoup its costs. They either try and get 7k from you, or only get whatever the excess is (eg, <1k) and lose 6k. Try and show them this rule; however if it doesn't work, you'll need to lawyer up.

    I also second having comprehensive. Unless your car is a hunk of junk and you don't really care about it; 3rd party is a must in the least.

    • whooah1979 on 13/12/2016 - 18:59
      +1

      op can always roll the dice and dispute this in court. both parties will then have the opportunity to present their versions and evidence.

      • mbck on 13/12/2016 - 19:02

        yap. It's a pain in the bum.

        I suppose something to add to my original comment; if you replace OP with a bike. If the other party hits the bike, it's pretty clear who's at fault (THE BIKE! just kidding).

        So the other party has the responsibility to ensure the situation is safe before s/he can move from one line of traffic to another.

        • apple2016 on 13/12/2016 - 20:36
          -5

          Unless there is a marked bike lane the bike would still be in the wrong.

        • mbck on 13/12/2016 - 22:22

          @apple2016:
          So what, in areas where there are no bike lanes…the bike has to stay in the middle of the road as if it was a vehicle?

          Not sure if troll or what…

          Be safe on the road this holidays peeps

    • Ughhh on 13/12/2016 - 19:47

      Except the other driver wasnt moving into another line of traffic. He was still in his lane as there's no marking, the one lane hasn't split into two lanes yet- look at the map again. So what you quote does not apply.

      • ProspectiveDarkness on 13/12/2016 - 20:07
        +4

        A line of traffic isn't the same as a lane.

        • apple2016 on 13/12/2016 - 20:35
          -3

          It's not legal to create two lines of traffic within a marked lane.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 14/12/2016 - 12:20
          +1

          @apple2016:

          It's not legal to create two lines of traffic within a marked lane.

          Source?

          The "lane" in question here is only delineated by lane markings on one side (with the curb forming the other) and is clearly wide enough to safely accommodate two lines of traffic.

        • geoffellis on 15/12/2016 - 09:19
          +2

          @apple2016:

          Logically that doesn't make sense. You're not allowed to cross a single white line such as is at that intersection. So how would you enter that lane of the intersection?

          You'd need to do it before that white line started.

      • mbck on 13/12/2016 - 20:19
        +1

        By your logic, the hypothetical bike would be at fault? It's just common sense (as well as the law), that when you want to do something on the road, you need to be checking in all directions to make sure that maneouvre is safe to be done.

        It's the same as backing out of your driveway. You make sure the path is clear.

        The fact the road does not have a line is moot. The insurance co is attempting to be smart. Plus going against a student, that's "derisked" from their pov.

        • Ughhh on 13/12/2016 - 20:59

          I think you've misunderstood my logic. Bikes are not the same as cars.

          maneouvre is safe to be done.

          Yes, same thing can be said to OPs position. Im not disputing that checking is necessary, nor was that my point.
          The other driver could've stopped in right in the middle of the lane (thus blocking OP from driving forward), instead of leaving a gap on the left and he wouldn't have broken the law as it's still one lane- though it would be annoying.

        • mbck on 13/12/2016 - 22:16

          @Ughhh:

          Yes bikes are not cars, but you still need to keep an eye on them. Hence any maneouvre must be made safe by ensuring checks are done.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 14/12/2016 - 12:28

          @Ughhh:

          Bikes are not the same as cars.

          They are for the purposes of giving way to a line of traffic.

        • Ughhh on 14/12/2016 - 13:12

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          Yes, if a bike or a car or a truck intends to overtake a vehicle in a single lane, He should give way and manoeuvre with care.

          If you're crossing a pedestrian crossing (as a pedestrian), you should check and cross with care.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 14/12/2016 - 13:59

          @Ughhh:

          Yes, if a bike or a car or a truck intends to overtake a vehicle in a single lane, He should give way and manoeuvre with care.

          Give way to whom?

          Not a vehicle changing from one line of traffic to another, that vehicle needs to give way.

          If you're crossing a pedestrian crossing (as a pedestrian), you should check and cross with care.

          The other driver in this matter didn't check and/or didn't change lines of traffic with care.

        • Ughhh on 14/12/2016 - 16:47

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          He (as in OPs position), give way to the cars that were already in the lane.

          By your definition, you can create a new line in an already marked 4 lane road (not yet 5, a lane for left turn isnt marked on the floor yet), thus the car already in the lane needs to give way to the newly formed line?

          From the map, it appears that where the collision occurred, its technically still 1 lane. If you're overtaking someone, you should do so with care. It was stupid of the other driver to not check, even though its an imaginary line, knowing that people cut through to turn left, he should've done it anyway to avoid this mess. One mistake people often do on the road is make assumptions- this goes to both the OP and the other driver.

          Perhaps the term "line of traffic" needs to be specifically defined by a person of authority. No doubt we often interpret things to go in our favour.

        • whooah1979 on 14/12/2016 - 17:30

          @Ughhh:

          From the map, it appears that where the collision occurred, its technically still 1 lane.

          the left lane does look like it's wide enough to accommodate two lines of traffic.
          https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-37.7457409,145.0070384,3a,7…

          there will always be some hothead trying to overtake or cut in from the left. motorists driving in the middle of the lane until they reach the markings is one way to deal with this behaviour.

          op still have a few days to decide what to do.

      • mbck on 13/12/2016 - 22:18
        +13

        I'm genuinely concerned about this comment. No offence but you need to be as safe as you can when you're on the road. You know, responsibility, not a privilege, etcetc.

        I've made my point and will no longer reply

        • tomsco on 14/12/2016 - 09:06

          Haha, reminds me of a guy on Whirlpool (I think) that basically said they refused to turn their lights on in rain/low visibility as they were not legally required to and if anyone else crashed into them, that the other party should hand in their licence.

          Completely ignored the part the driving is a privilege not a right and that you have to cooperate/coordinate with other road users.

      • Scrooge McDuck on 14/12/2016 - 14:06
        +4

        Head check is not required since one lane is splitting into two.

        Firstly, that's incorrect since the other driver was changing lines of traffic.

        Secondly, if you only perform the checks which you think are "required" please cease driving immediately and don't recommence until you've had adequate lessons from a qualified driving instructor.

    • Thenarrator on 15/12/2016 - 11:44
      +1

      Mbck : "I also second having comprehensive. Unless your car is a hunk of junk and you don't really care about it; 3rd party is a must in the least."

      Yes but OPs car is a hunk of junk and OP dont really care about it. Look what hes gotten into now… bit of a contradiction there.

  • altomic on 13/12/2016 - 19:24
    +7

    nor can I afford proper legal advice

    legal aid victoria - 1300 792 387, Monday to Friday from 8.45 am to 5.15 pm, - ask to have some face to face or over the phone advice with a solicitor. -make an appointment. (at tleast that is how QLD legal aid works)

    My car was not insured at the time

    jesus (profanity) christ

    • Zarcady on 13/12/2016 - 19:41
      +1

      "I've talked to legalaid but all they did was send me an email pack that wasn't very helpful."

      Legalaid was an absolute joke the couple of times I called them. Best to talk to one of those no win no pay lawyers.

      Or I even had more luck getting decent advice from one of the internet lawyers for like $50 where you summarise your situation and they will give you an idea of how to proceed and what your rights are

    • sien on 14/12/2016 - 11:20
      +1

      Exactly this.

      Get a face to face meeting with them and bring the information presented here.

    • ajdlinux on 15/12/2016 - 15:25
      +1

      OP, you mention you're a student - try talking to your student union and see if they have a legal officer able to give you some advice. They may not be specialists in traffic law, but they can help.

  • Flying Ace on 13/12/2016 - 20:00

    Irrespective of whether you should have been where you were (I happen to think you are completely right in your argument), surely the onus is on the driver who is leaving his line of traffic to check his mirrors or do a head check before just turning into your line?

    • tomsco on 13/12/2016 - 20:25
      +8

      Agree with this. At worst, I would say both at fault.

      The fact the other driver was stationary while the OP was moving leads me to say other driver is 100% at fault.

  • rompastompa on 13/12/2016 - 20:19
    +1

    They can probably argue that the lane doesn't exist yet, so you're overtaking in lane that doesn't exist and in the wrong. That's why you have insurance, so the insurance companies can argue amongst themselves.

    You realise you can get your money back pro rata, so lack of insurance due to selling the vehicle isn't really an excuse..

    I also think the idiot that hit you is negligent due to pulling out and not looking.

    What if it was a cyclist?

    • apple2016 on 13/12/2016 - 20:31
      -5

      Cyclist also do not have right to overtake from a non existent left lane.

      • Hoju on 14/12/2016 - 09:57
        +6

        Sorry not true:

        141 No overtaking etc to the left of a vehicle
        (1) A driver (except the rider of a bicycle) must not overtake a vehicle to the left of the vehicle unless…

    • Scrooge McDuck on 14/12/2016 - 14:12
      +1

      That's why you have insurance, so the insurance companies can argue amongst themselves.

      You say that as though individuals aren't proficient in nor partial to arguing.

       

      Have you ever used the internet? ;P

      • rompastompa on 14/12/2016 - 14:18
        -1

        I once used the internet, and I have proof.

        More-so, OP not being able to be proficient at arguing specific road rules, positions, fault etc. Saying that, OP has more ammunition for their arguments against the insurance companies minions after this thread.

        I also enjoy arguing, but I make sure I know the likelihood of winning the argument. I'll argue that then argument I'm arguing right now, is an argument worth arguing… Oh no, I've gone crossed-eyed.

  • Euphemistic on 13/12/2016 - 20:23
    +1

    Keep in mind the insurance company has a lot of resources to try to recover their losses (damage costs). I think they were in the wrong for what you've described (I'm not a lawyer) but that may not stop them from trying to get out of paying,

    Stick to your guns, don't admit fault. keep everything in writing too, and don't accept anything from them verbally.

  • apple2016 on 13/12/2016 - 20:29

    My car was not insured at the time because it was my old car which I was preparing to sell.

    You could have had third party insurance which would have helped you in this scenario if you did not care about your own car.

    From the best of my reading of vicroads rules, I had right of way because he "must give way to a vehicle which has any part of its vehicle ahead of yours" even if "there are no lines marked on the road." (Source Zip Merging(vicroads.vic.gov.au) )

    You did not have right of way because the lane did not exist. Just because there is space does not mean you can squeeze thru.

    How ever if you believe that $7000 is not justified for the damage caused you can dispute that. What was the damage to the other car?

  • whooah1979 on 13/12/2016 - 20:39

    back up a bit. what happen after the collision? you guys exchanged details, then what? did you guys discuss how to settle this at the time?

    • field1985 on 14/12/2016 - 10:13

      We exchanged details. It was so clearly his fault we didn't even need to discuss who caused it. We took photos of the cars, licences, etc. I wrongly assumed he would do the right thing. But after a week, his insurer hadn't called to discuss settlement, so I called them and lo and behold, he's made a claim against me.

      • D6C1 on 14/12/2016 - 10:17
        +12

        Of course. Are you surprised? Being nice and doing the right thing between people no longer exists.

        • chubbychicken on 14/12/2016 - 13:59
          -1

          Maybe he didn't want a confrontation right there on the spot…? I know I wouldn't - doesn't matter who's fault it was or wasn't - being in an accident is stressful enough & you don't need a massive argument / fight to top it off. Best is to make sure everyone is ok / swap details & let the insurance companies sort it out.

          As far as you know he might have done the right thing & its the insurance company that advised him not to admit fault & make a claim against OP as OP doesn't have their own insurance company to fight for him?

          Anyway good luck OP – something tells me you are going to either accept & pay or spend time and $$$ on some legal stuff. Hopefully in the future you will wise up & get some sort of insurance for this exact reason. Just be glad it wasn't a Bentley as you would be looking at a lot more then 7K…

        • field1985 on 14/12/2016 - 14:32

          @chubbychicken:
          Thanks, if I claimed he was at fault at the accident scene, he probably would've got violent. P-plater covered in tatts and very aggressive..

          And no the other driver didn't do the right thing. His insurer had us both submit our version of events, so he has lied to them too.

          It would be so good if his insurer goes after him for fraud/false statement, if he is found to be at fault in court.

          Either way the insurer will never see the money, if I lose in court then I will be forced to declare bankruptcy.

        • [Deactivated] on 14/12/2016 - 18:51

          I've been in two collisions where the other driver was at fault, one quite similar to this. The other driver was honest in both cases and there were no problems with their insurance.

        • REDRUM on 15/12/2016 - 00:16

          @fieldo85: It could be worth having a scout around and see if any of the buildings/businesses have security cameras with a view of the intersection. If asked nicely they may be willing to supply the footage, that would certainly help you fire one up the insurance company in court, settle things very quickly :)

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join