Car Insurance Warning - Lesson learnt

MelbEng on 01/05/2017 - 10:51
Last edited 01/05/2017 - 11:32

I just learnt an expensive lesson on the weekend and I wanted to let my fellow OzBargainers know.

I was driving along a two lane road in the right hand land with another car slightly ahead in the left hand lane. As I was passing that car, it drifted out of its lane slightly. I instinctively moved across to the right to avoid a collision. This caused me to hit the kerbing, which then split the side wall of my tyre. Replacing this one tyre has just cost me over $300.
I phoned my insurance company to see if I could claim as I had the registration number of the other car. Basically, I was told that unless I had hit the other car, there was nothing that they could do. So the lesson is, if another car drives towards you, unless you want to pay for all the damage, you are better off not changing course, but hitting it.

Automotive

Comments

  • try2bhelpful on 01/05/2017 - 11:04
    +9

    Presumably this post is being facetious. If you want to recover you $300 you could try contacting the car owner directly, continue to hassle your insurance company or talk to the Insurance ombudsman on whether the insurance company can claim this. Personally I would take the hit, or talk to the owner, because your premiums will go up when you make a claim and most insurance policies have an excess associated with them. BTW - What sort of tyres do you buy that cost $300 each?

    • MelbEng on 01/05/2017 - 11:23
      +6

      I am only being slightly facetious. I am annoyed that the other driver has done the wrong thing, I have done them a great favour by dodging them, but I am now left poorer for it. They are not even aware this has happened.

      I'd like to talk to the other driver, but the only way to get their details is to go to the police first. Could I be bothered?

      The tyres are 19 inch in size, so they are not cheap. Nothing fancy, just a normal good tyre for a VF Calais.

      • try2bhelpful on 01/05/2017 - 15:43
        +5

        hmmm. Sounds like another car to add to the list of "never buy".

        You really don't want to be hassling insurance companies unless there is a reasonably substantial payout. They will get their pound of flesh with insurance hikes when you lose your no claim bonuses and the excess is taken into account.

        • tunzafun001 on 28/07/2017 - 19:03

          Beat them at their own game by taking out a new policy with another company before claiming (setting a future start date the day your current one expires). Therefore you can tick the zero claims boxes, wait until the policy is processed and then file the claim the next day. They never ask you to update your claim history on your renewals, so you should keep trucking with a zero claim premium.

      • [Deactivated] on 01/05/2017 - 20:10
        +17

        Spend half of that amount on a Dash Cam. It will help in future.

        • John Kimble on 01/05/2017 - 21:46
          -8

          Spend 2 mins reading the posts. Will help in the future.

          https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/4647852/redir

        • [Deactivated] on 02/05/2017 - 20:40
          +3

          @John Kimble:
          thanks for the tip. Something similar happened to my Mrs and all we had to do was submit the video to AAMI. No excess charged

        • midlake on 02/05/2017 - 22:51
          +1

          A little off topic, but do you have any recommendations for a good (not overly expensive) dash cam? thanks

        • Beanvee on 03/05/2017 - 10:06
          +3

          @midlake: G1W-C and A118C are the two most recommended affordable dashcams in my experience.
          You can check the side bar on reddit.com/r/dashcam for more recommendations

        • [Deactivated] on 03/05/2017 - 11:26

          @enceladus94:

          First G1W-C worked fine. Second one kept hanging / resetting. Bought from Gearbest. Still no refund.

      • Seraphin7 on 02/05/2017 - 08:57
        +5

        There's not really anything facetious in the post.

        I had a similar, but much more serious incident some years ago. I was traveling along at about 60km/h when someone from a stationary line of traffic pulled out in front of me. Instinctively I swerved into the adjoining lane that was a left turn slip lane. Unfortunately that lane was not long enough (at this point) to allow me to either stop or negotiate the left turn and so I ploughed over the traffic island and through a street sign resulting in thousands of dollars damage.

        Witnesses provided details of the other car to police who followed up, but basically the owner of the car denied being the driver (and no one actually saw the person driving) so the police didn't do any further follow up. To be fair, they did inform my insurance company in the end that I was not at fault so I avoided the excess and black mark on my insurance, but equally the other driver got off scot-free.

        While all of this was going through claim, I was speaking with someone at my insurance company. I said to them words to the effect of "I think this would have been a lot easier if I'd just ploughed into their car". To which the response was along the lines of "you're probably not wrong".

        Moral of the story, in single vehicle incidents without witnesses and accompanying police statements supporting your case or the other party owning up to their actions, it will be deemed your fault as it can't be pinned on anyone else.

        • ozbargainer888 on 02/05/2017 - 15:27

          That's sh*t.

        • outlander on 02/05/2017 - 18:34
          +5

          @ozbargainer888:

          That's the law.

          Consider that if she had plowed into the car she might have been seriously hurt, a few thousand in damages is a better outcome

        • MelbEng on 03/05/2017 - 08:49
          +1

          @outlander: Thank you for your post Seraphin7. That's the extreme of what can happen. You have done the right thing by avoiding a more serious accident and have produced the best outcome for all involved. But why does the poor innocent driver cope all the expense and hassle and the guilty part get off scot-free?

        • outlander on 03/05/2017 - 09:21
          +1

          @MelbEng:

          Because life isn't fair, not in the short term. But take consolation in the knowledge that things regress towards the mean; if they keep doing that, eventually that driver will meet up with their fate, and when they do you won't be asking why they got off scot-free.

          A more logical way of saying karma gets you in the end

        • cameldownunder on 03/05/2017 - 12:19
          +3

          @MelbEng: He has not done the right thing. Never Swerve. Hit the brakes and hope for the best.
          anything else is your fault. Imagine if a small car with family inside would have been on the other side: they have absolutely done nothing wrong and now have a car colliding front on with them. And he would be at fault, possibly wiping out a whole family.

        • ankor on 04/05/2017 - 13:58
          +1

          @seraphin7

          Witnesses provided details of the other car to police who followed up, but basically the owner of the car denied being the driver (and no one actually saw the person driving) so the police didn't do any further follow up. To be fair, they did inform my insurance company in the end that I was not at fault so I avoided the excess and black mark on my insurance, but equally the other driver got off scot-free.

          Unless the at fault driver is reporting that his/her car is stolen,I don't think he/she has a leg to stand on.

      • supersabroso on 04/05/2017 - 00:33
        +6

        Mate this is definitely 100% your fault, end of story. You should have hit the brakes. NEVER EVER swerve, so dangerous. Much safer to brake or let the idiot hit you while you brake. What if they didn't just come into your lane a little? What if they change lanes completely without looking? You'd have hit swerved and hit them anyway. You over reacted in the wrong way, hit the horn and the brakes.

        • ThithLord on 04/05/2017 - 07:47
          +1

          Yep. So many atrocious drivers on OzB. Brake, and in a straight line.

        • mahazza on 05/05/2017 - 10:05

          Agree, just imagine if you swerve and hit someone on the sidewalk. This should never be your instinct IMO. Just pump those breaks or let the ABS take over if you have it.

      • fusion17 on 04/05/2017 - 13:36

        I was at a clogged roundabout at Eastwood when the car in front me going straight, suddenly decided to reverse back so they could turn left (instead of being stuck).
        I instinctively reversed back and honked so they didn't hit me. It immediately occurred to me i should have just stayed put, because even though I checked my rear view for a split sec and saw it was ok, if someone came into the vicinity behind me i'd have hit them and been at fault.

        I don't think the other car even released what happened.
        Lesson learnt. If it's not your fault, just don't try and avoid something (unless its a person of course)

  • pantsparty on 01/05/2017 - 11:06
    +5

    Wouldn't your car insurance excess cost more than $300? Not worth going through insurance in my opinion. Hard to prove the other guy was even at the scene when this happened, unfortunately you cannot claim from him - unless you have a dash cam with proof of what happened?

    • MelbEng on 01/05/2017 - 11:20

      Sorry, I should have mentioned; yes I do have a dash cam and therefore I have a video of the incident and the rego of the other car.

      My thought in contacting my insurance company was that because all I had was the rego of the other car, they could then be responsible for finding the details of the other driver. I couldn't go after them when it happened because I had a flat tyre.

      • StonedWizard on 03/05/2017 - 06:15

        They can't track down the details of the other person due to privacy laws. Even if the person is insured with them they can't do this.

        Thats why most PDS say you need to have the persons full name, rego and address.

        OP the insurance company isn't in the wrong here, you're the one who moved across, you're better off having the other car hit you.

        • Wiser on 04/05/2017 - 19:08

          That is not correct.
          I had one incident where the driver refused to provide details
          Then I went to police for help.
          I was told to push the insurance company to collect details.They have all the resources to collect info but they are making us to do patt of their job.I did the as per police advice
          Initially QBE did not agree. When I persisted they came to the party.Returned the excess collected next day and started pursuing the driver at fault.

        • StonedWizard on 04/05/2017 - 20:18

          @sachy:

          If you provide details like a contact number to the insurance company then yes they can and will push to obtain the information from the other party.

          The insurance company can't just use the rego to locate the other person as the OP originally said.

          I can't just go to any insurer and go this is xyz rego find their details, if it's in their system because that persons insured with them they still can't do it. Due to privacy laws.

        • ankor on 04/05/2017 - 21:11

          @sachy:

          Police can also go after the person for refusing to provide details. They are able to access registration information quite easily, and this sounds like it won't be the last time that a copper has decided to try and offload some of his/her work to an insurance company.

      • Dollarsandsense on 03/05/2017 - 20:07

        Is the correct process then to report the problem to the police and give them the evidence. Then you can pass the police report onto insurance for them to compensate/ chase the trouble maker?

        Worth doing in my opinion as they were doing something stupid/ illegal and could have caused you serious harm..

  • idontalwaysnotlie on 01/05/2017 - 11:09

    nope, you would have still been up for the excess which would be at least $500. Thats how insurance works, if its something small you pay. They only bet against the car being written off completely, and even then they will fight tooth an nail to not pay.

    • Love a bargain on 01/05/2017 - 14:03
      +6

      Not if the other car is at fault & the insurance company can recover from them.

    • HandsomeMonkey on 03/05/2017 - 00:30
      -2

      In other words insurance is big scam? Why the (profanity) do people buy insurance anyway?

      • Euphemistic on 03/05/2017 - 14:27

        Insurance? Just in case.

      • thanatos350 on 03/05/2017 - 15:48
        +2

        I always find that thought kind of funny. We have gigantic institutions making billions from selling a product based on possibility - and then when that possibility actually eventuates they still only provide a chance of compensation.

        That's like buying a couch from ikea and asking it for it to be delivered when you need it, only to be told that you don't deserve it.

        • jacross on 04/05/2017 - 10:46
          +2

          The terms are clearly outlined in the PDA.

          If you crash and it's your fault, you want insurance.

          I've crashed into a car and written it off. I'm damn glad I had insurance to cover the cost.

          My friend also crashed into a car and wrote it off. He didn't have insurance. He ended up having to declare bankruptcy.

          Our lives have headed in very different directions since then.

        • ankor on 04/05/2017 - 14:03

          @jacross:

          I hope thanatos350 has determined that it's worthwhile to insure him/herself. Running into anything more than a single 1990's car is going to be very expensive otherwise.

          e.g.
          - running into a taxi or hirecar - you not only pay for the car repairs, but also the lost income
          - running into a telephone pole, guard rail, petrol bowser
          - running into the back of a car and pushing it into another car, or another car after that

          Everyone has a level of risk that they can stomach, I'll happily pay a small amount to reduce the chance of being required to declare bankruptcy.

          A hot tip for those who want to get out of traffic fines or debt, the sovereign citizen defence doesn't work.

        • thanatos350 on 04/05/2017 - 22:33
          +1

          @ankor:

          I didn't mean to imply that I don't believe insurance is necessary. My comment was in jest more than anything.

        • ankor on 04/05/2017 - 22:40

          @thanatos350:

          Don't get me wrong, I hate paying my monthly premiums too!

          I also think insurance companies have a lot to answer for in relation to the whole life insurance debacle that was uncovered last year..

        • FirstNameLastName on 05/05/2017 - 18:28
          +1

          @ankor:

          'thanatos' means 'death incarnate'.. or death in human form..
          i doubt Death really needs insurance.
          Could just claim Fate was the cause?
          Or he could at least demand a game of Battleship to determine liability.

  • Skramit on 01/05/2017 - 11:23
    +27

    You should have braked and braked hard to avoid a collision, not swerved. Lesson learned.

    • MelbEng on 01/05/2017 - 11:31
      +1

      Yes, I now agree. That's also the other lesson here. Stay on the road to avoid an accident.

    • rodinthink on 03/05/2017 - 00:20
      +1

      As I was passing that car, it drifted out of its lane slightly

      As OP mentioned Its suddenly drifted out , most people reflex will slightly turn in this case of scenario.
      I even reckon that if he brake hard , it make collision worst as their car came from opposite direction.

      Perhaps High Beam - Low Beam / horn will be a better option

      • MelbEng on 03/05/2017 - 08:53
        +1

        Yes, like most people, my natural reflex was just to steer slightly as the other car was next to me. There was no time to hit the horn as I needed to evade first.

        • danyool on 03/05/2017 - 10:18

          Yep - you know it's a close call if you don't have time to hit the horn!

      • Dollarsandsense on 03/05/2017 - 20:05
        +3

        After spending 6 months driving a scooter around Hanoi, I now instinctively hit the horn and the brake at the same time. I often surprise myself in doing so!

      • Skramit on 03/05/2017 - 08:57
        -2

        lol idiot.

      • John Kimble on 03/05/2017 - 09:17

        Maybe in some situations. Probably not this one.

        • Skramit on 03/05/2017 - 09:24
          +1

          I can't think of a single situation where accelerating to avoid an accident is a better idea than braking.

        • John Kimble on 03/05/2017 - 09:28
          +3

          @Skramit:

          Anything coming up from behind or across the rear of the car I would think.

          Eg https://youtu.be/GRR31NaXoVw

          But you need a Tesla maybe?

        • FirstNameLastName on 03/05/2017 - 11:25
          +1

          @John Kimble:

          or in this situation of course:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhyLGjdBW98
          (link: 'drive through it' moment in Days of Thunder)

        • Skramit on 03/05/2017 - 12:06

          @John Kimble:

          That's a 1 in a million type of incident. The chances that 1) you own a super car capable of doing this is slim and you notice in time to react and 2) that there's nothing in front of you allowing you to suddenly accelerate is slim. Usually you are at an intersection where accelerating into it is even more dangerous than being rear ended.

          I stand by that its always better to brake if already moving. The less energy in an accident, the better. And the accelerate from stationary to avoid being rear ended is a 1 in a million type scenario and dangerous in itself.

        • FirstNameLastName on 04/05/2017 - 19:27
          +1

          i assume you ignore obvious 'i'm about to be t-boned i better put my foot down' moments where braking would do nothing except choose the place of impact.

          lets say you have traffic directly behind you..
          you suddenly a faced with a random car (from another lane/direction/ or accident spin-off).
          your foot is already on the accelerator..
          you may not have time to move it to the brake.
          it's a split second, and so you swerve.
          would acceleration help at all with torque/grip/something to help maintain traction, whilst clearing you of those behind with less 'madskillz' ??

          (btw i think we have little ability to control 'reactions'.. without simulation training for that particular scenario.. although gaming may help reduce reaction time and increase dexterity… with a split second there's little you can do but react.. rather than respond. if you have time to think about whether you'll brake or speed then it may be ok to do either one at that point.)

  • FrugalBugger on 01/05/2017 - 11:25
    +11

    No accident is worth the risk to your own, or others safety. Unless you are a professional driver how are you going to ensure your safety, a small hit in the wrong spot could cause either car to react dangerously.

    I'd do exactly what you did and pull over safely rather than risk harm to myself or others. Life and health first, money second.

    • try2bhelpful on 01/05/2017 - 11:28
      +2

      What sort of an Ozbargainer are you? Emergency visits to public hospitals are free :)

    • AddNinja on 02/05/2017 - 18:23
      +7

      I'm with FrugalBugger. Avoid accidents and don't think of cost. If your insurance isn't worth it, just get third party. Ploughing into a car to potentially avoid a small payout is…. crazy. Think of it like this - life can be unfair, but you stand above the others, occasionally taking a $300 hit to promote the wellbeing and health of the people around you. Conversely, imagine if you thought "nah - insurance won't cover this damage, so I'm going to hit the car in front" and then you badly injure someone.

    • highdealer on 02/05/2017 - 22:10
      +1

      Swerving right and hitting the kerb at speed isn't exactly safe either, if anything that could have potential to cause a much much more serious accident.

  • WaitAwhile on 01/05/2017 - 13:03

    The kerbs councils are installing these days will cause accidents. 15+ years ago here in WA they started replacing the flattish kerbs approx 20% angle with higher kerbs with a 45%+ angle. Previously you could hit a kerb and correct the car easily but know the newer kerbs grip your tire and try and pull the car off the road.

  • Ughhh on 01/05/2017 - 13:11

    Do you have comprehensive or just third party insurance?

    • MelbEng on 01/05/2017 - 13:14

      Comprehensive

  • try2bhelpful on 01/05/2017 - 15:45

    Has anyone had experience with ditching Comprehensive insurance when their car wasn't worth covering and then restarting again when they bought something worthwhile. Our current car has gotten beyond being worth Comprehensively insuring it, but we are concerned what the premium hike will be when we get Comprehensive for whatever the next replacement car is. Any idea on what the payoff timeperiod is?

    • Love a bargain on 01/05/2017 - 15:55
      +3

      Personally, I think it's better to get the minimum comprehensive insurance (eg lower the insured value) vs just taking out a third party property insurance because if, say, someone damage your car & they're at fault, your insurance company will take care of the chasing up for you if you have comprehensive insurance. Otherwise, you're left to argue your car with the other party's insurer (or the other party themselves) who are, obviously, trying to save costs.

      • try2bhelpful on 01/05/2017 - 15:59

        That is a good point, will need to look into that as an option. Given they are going to write your car off if it gets more than a bumper crumpled as they get older they do get a bit greedy with the premiums.

        • Love a bargain on 01/05/2017 - 16:09
          +1

          I was looking at that recently, the difference in premium between a minimal comprehensive & third party property policy is relatively small. (With a low value, most of the premium is for what damage can be done to someone else's car rather than the damage that can be done to your car anyway.)

          To me, it's worth that extra piece of mind (+ if my car does get written off, I'll get something back to contribute towards a new car).

        • try2bhelpful on 01/05/2017 - 16:29

          @Love a bargain: can you please tell me which insurance companies were you looking at?

        • Love a bargain on 01/05/2017 - 16:42
          +1

          @try2bhelpful:

          Coles & Bingle were the cheapest 2 for me, but it might be different for you.

        • try2bhelpful on 01/05/2017 - 16:47

          @Love a bargain: Thanks.

    • ankor on 02/05/2017 - 17:59
      +2

      If Whirlpool has taught me anything, there are a number of uninsured drivers on the road. So going to Third party cover only could be risky, unless you are actively putting away that extra money saved on your premium and keeping it ONLY for the cost of a new car.

      • try2bhelpful on 03/05/2017 - 08:21
        +1

        looking at third party property and fire. Don't want to cover my own car but do want to cover other people.

    • BestofOZB on 02/05/2017 - 21:20

      Some insurers offer with theri third party policy up to 5k worth of cover on your car if you were not at fault. We switch to that when a car is worth less than 5k.

    • try2bhelpful on 03/05/2017 - 08:20
      +3

      Why the hell is this comment being negged. Some of you people are just weird.

      • Skramit on 03/05/2017 - 09:22

        Was about to reply and say the same thing.

        I think some people assume he is preferring to go around 'uninsured' which is not what he said. He's taking off comprehensive and going to third party only which is what I'd do if my car was of low value.

        • try2bhelpful on 03/05/2017 - 12:22

          Not uininsured, just third party property and theft.

  • djkelly69 on 01/05/2017 - 19:09

    Wow if the frontline call centre staff of an insurance company told you that, it must be true…

  • FirstNameLastName on 01/05/2017 - 20:42

    could it be other driver is partially responsible???
    I mean, i've heard that if you cross the centre line, and a vehicle coming head on flinches and swerves off the road.. causing a death in that vehicle.. you could be up for manslaughter.. it's a vague memory.. probably from the usa.

    anyway if yours was a reasonable reaction to the other driver's error then you'd have a right to take it further??

    if you could post footage, it would be interesting to see.

    • John Kimble on 01/05/2017 - 21:44
      +1

      Unless he has a crazy 270/360 degree dashcam, you won't see that much going off the description of the incident.

  • John Kimble on 01/05/2017 - 21:51
    +1

    drifted out of its lane slightly

    Don't represent yourself in court. You will lose.

    If a car drifted out of its lane slightly next to me, I would hope I would just brake and beep at them…not overreact and hit a kerb, but who knows really unless you're in the situation.

    Sorry for your loss.

  • Ken1977 on 01/05/2017 - 23:39

    If you have clear dash cam footage you may be able to contact them and convince them to pay, if they don't you could take them to small claims court. To find out there details you can go to vicroads or whoever it is in your state and perform a records search on their rego. There's a records search form on the vicroads site.

    • MelbEng on 02/05/2017 - 09:54

      VicRoads does not give out personal information like that without a court order.

      • twocsies on 03/05/2017 - 20:02

        https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/registration/buy-sell-or-tra…

        Although it does not reveal personal information, you can at least do a basic check to verify that it's registered and not stolen.

        Also, you might consider reporting it to crime stoppers. Careless driving causing property damage could be pursued by the police. The only difficulty is that the dashcam won't show the crime occurring, so it's your word against theirs. Be careful not to hit the central median; my friend did that and flipped the car. It's quite dangerous.

  • alxr0101 on 02/05/2017 - 07:57
    -7

    Simply stunned at your ignorance, stupidity and inability to acknowledge your own duty of care to anticipate and avoid incidents.

    Your solution next time is to HIT the other vehicle??!! Purely because you don't want the insurance hassles!?

    With that pre-programmed mentality when next faced with an incident, is any motorcyclist now safe to be on the same stretch of road with you?
    Mistakes happen, lapse of concentration, mechanical issues…whatever…why go out of your way to potentially cause a far more tragic outcome? You're now throwing the dice to be deemed partly or wholly at fault in any accident…or worse, causing lifelong injury to yourself or someone else.

    Next time..be more vigilant and remember to provide more safety margins…space…time…idiots…but don't exacerbate the situation and put two fools on the same stretch of road at the same time.

    • MelbEng on 02/05/2017 - 09:19
      +1

      I am merely reporting what I was told by my insurance company. That I would have been better off if I had not deviated and had hit the other driver. I am not saying that I agree with it at all. In fact, I think the situation is totally wrong. I did the right thing and as you said, I avoided an accident as the last thing I want to do is hit another car. However, the current 'rules' favour the driver who is more at fault, but get off blissfully scott free. If I had just stayed in my lane, we would have scraped the sides of both cars and I would now have my car off the road for a period of time, which is even more of a hassle than just paying for a new tyre.

      I agree with you, I never have nor never want the mentality to not avoid an accident. I am always looking out for other drivers and the mistakes that they and we all make. I am just raising the point that the insurance companies do not share this attitude.

        • FirstNameLastName on 02/05/2017 - 09:47
          +11

          Alxr, you must be a complete nightmare to live with or near.

        • alxr0101 on 02/05/2017 - 13:22
          -4

          @Stitchy:

          why?

        • F1Maniac on 03/05/2017 - 10:38
          +1

          Split second things are exactly that you cant deliberate over it until after

    • burningrage on 02/05/2017 - 19:40

      Sorry but the reality now is that the driver whom OP was trying to avoid a collision with, has got away and to be honest, wouldn't care an iota about OP's predicament so I would have braked and braked hard and if that wasn't enough, well….. tough.

    • Ryanek on 04/05/2017 - 09:17

      Not sure why you're being down voted so much, you make some valid points.

  • Deridas on 02/05/2017 - 10:10

    OP, thanks for sharing your insights.
    I know you must be quite unhappy, and indeed, if I'm in such a position I'd remember to just slam on brakes and honk/hit the other car.

    300 sounds very much for a tyre. Mid range trees from Bob Jane's for 19 inches is like 100-120.

    I'm no expert in tyres, but I thought tyres that are at significant wish of side wall puncture are usually aged tyres. Perhaps the tyre was due for a change anyway.

    Alxr0101, slamming on the brakes and not swerving is not intentionally maiming somebody.

    • MelbEng on 02/05/2017 - 10:23
      +1

      Thanks for reply Deridas.

      Yes, next time I will be just braking as well. In this case I may have been able to. I have watched the dash cam video many times!!!

      Do a price search for 245/40/19 tyres. Cheapest brand name $241 unfortunately. I had only replaced all four tyres less than 12 months ago. So their age was not the problem. It is more of issue with low profile tyres I have learnt. When I bought them, the best deal was one of those buy 3 get one free offers. But given that it was only one tyre damaged, I had to replace it with the same model and I now had to pay full price.

    • alxr0101 on 02/05/2017 - 13:14
      -6

      Deliberately hitting the other car is intentional. If deliberately hitting the other car to avoid an alternative that is worse, eg. hitting a person…that's defensible.

      Deliberately hitting another car "so I can claim on insurance.." is not OK.

      • Deridas on 02/05/2017 - 17:39

        Alx0101, I never knew slamming on the brakes is "deliberately hitting the other car", unless you're talking about hitting the car behind you. There's clearly some reasoning issue there.

        MelbEng, oh, they're big tyres, I guess you got RRP then.
        Maybe low profile tyres increase sidewall stress… Think I forgot most of my high school physics to be absolutely certain…

      • burningrage on 02/05/2017 - 19:41

        Good luck proving "deliberately hitting another car so I can claim on insurance".

  • Ughhh on 02/05/2017 - 11:07
    +2

    So the lesson is, if another car drives towards you, unless you want to pay for all the damage, you are better off not changing course, but hitting it.

    Nope. Lesson is braking first. Increase the distance between you and the problem.

    • John Kimble on 02/05/2017 - 13:10

      If possible, sometimes the timing is so unlucky it is not possible.

      • Deridas on 02/05/2017 - 17:24
        +1

        Especially if in the OP's instance it was a car in the next lane. Can't really keep 'a safe distance' behind these.

        • Ughhh on 02/05/2017 - 17:34
          +1

          What I mean is, if the car is next to you, you can still increase the distance between you and the other car (the point where a collision is possible) either by accelerating or by braking. Chance is, the other car will still continue to go forward at the same speed.

  • Euphemistic on 02/05/2017 - 11:19
    +2

    I was disappointed the day a car pulled out in front of me and I emergency braked. I wanted to get rid of the car and their insurance would have been a better payout than selling the car. Unfortunately reflexes meant all I got out of it was flat spots on the tyres.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join