[RESOLVED] Recently Involved in a Car Crash but Uninsured

justinvu on 06/05/2018 - 16:20
Last edited 21/05/2018 - 12:28 by 2 other users

Hi guys,

I've recently involved in an accident and really need your advice as a way of preparation before things start going unfavorably for me.

Here is a summary:

  • I drove a Audi Q3, which belongs to my friend, who unfortunately did not buy any insurance (Yes I know, right !!!).
  • The other driver, who drove a Holden Cruze, had comprehensive insurance with Eric Insurance.
  • The incident happened at a petrol station where we were both trying to exit on the drive way.
  • Usually I would queue up and exit the station one by one, however, there was a large amount of space on her left hand side and because of the fact that she didn't not put on her signal light + it was possible to turn right from the drive way -> I decided to pull my car to her left, side by side.
  • We both tried to turn left to exit from the drive way -> I stopped immediately after realizing she was turning left on to me. However it was too late and we had a collision on my front right. She had a much heavier damage including 2 left doors, 1 rear left quarter panel & 1 rear bumper.

Luckily I had the full footage of what happened thanks to the kind servo manager - link of the footage - updated to actual speed

Let me know your opinion in this circumstance and comment the reason for your vote. I would also greatly appreciate if any one has experience in this kind of situation can share the possible outcome that I may face.

I have a feeling that this will be a lengthy process going back and forth with their insurer.

Edit: Can now confirm the video was 2x speed. Video duration was 21s but actual footage shows 42s of recording time. That means i waited twice as long, drove half as fast, proceeded with more caution while the other driver had 4s intead of 2s chance to turn left with more chance of checking blindspot but didn’t. Thanks viper8548 for the tip to check the video speed.

Edit 2: Video reposted with actual speed - so for those with faster fingers than brains, I drove at a normal speed, waited 6 secs before proceeding to crawl forward after seeing the other driver proceeded rightward. The video now showed clearly the other driver changed her mind at last sec and hit me while I was stationary (I stopped and she hit me)

UPDATE: Just had a call from the insurer confirming the following:

  • Their client was AT FAULT for not indicating and for not checking blind spot when turning.
  • They believe I did contribute to the accident in certain extent.

They offered Each Bears Own at this stage - however, are willing to consider some small compensation amount after I have my car checked out at their authorised repairer. I did make them confirm their offer because I didn't want them to turn around and settle by 50-50 as the other car's damage costs $8k to fix while mine is probably $2-3k.

I would like to thank those who have judged the situations fairly and given your opinions only based on only the facts - It's been a great help for me to gather up the reasons to stand on my feet against the insurer. For others, who have made stereotype comments based on your prejudice about people driving nice car, people that drives without insurance etc., I hope you know what to do next time, because everyone is DIFFERENT.

Poll Options

  • 510
    I was at fault and will be paying for both cars' damages.
  • 165
    The other driver was at fault and her insurer will cover both cars' damages.
  • 5
    The other driver was at fault and her insurer will cover only her car's damage.
  • 138
    Both drivers were at fault and each driver to pay for their own damage.
Automotive Accident

Comments

  • whooah1979 on 06/05/2018 - 19:56

    The driver of the white vehicle wins for violating rr 140 and rr 141.
    https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/regulation/2014/758/pa…
    https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/regulation/2014/758/pa…

    • ahly92 on 06/05/2018 - 20:04
      +3

      No he doesn't:

      The black car was stationary and was safe to go to the left of it:

      rr141:"unless…the vehicle is stationary and it is safe to overtake to the left of the vehicle."

      rr140 not applicable as there it applies to moving vehicles, and or in lined roads. Also the driver has a clear view of any approaching traffic, and given the point above is safe to overtake the stationary vehicle.

      • whooah1979 on 06/05/2018 - 20:14

        The white vehicle didn’t overtake in a safe manner rr 140 (b). The other vehicle was stationary between 00:00 to 00:08, but started to move forward at 00:09. Which also happened to be the time that the white vehicle moved to the left to overtake at an unsafe time and violating rr 141 (c).

      • whooah1979 on 06/05/2018 - 20:25

        Btw the white vehicle first appears in the vid at 00:09 by not even bothering to form a line of traffic and went straight to trying to overtake the other vehicle on their left side. Impatient was a factor in this collision.

  • zuuutoootuuu on 06/05/2018 - 19:56

    how recently did the insurance expire? you've got 2 weeks to pay it after it expires

    • justinvu on 06/05/2018 - 20:01

      It was 2 months ago - so no chance here unfortunately :(

      • [Deactivated] on 08/05/2018 - 13:32

        I was wondering about this concept. Could you or your friend contact the insurance company saying you intended to renew the policy but due to medical issues were unable to renew it in time. I have heard of extensions to renewals on policies due to compassionate grounds. Perhaps they will let you pay the premium cost plus the excess (if relevant) and the insurance company will cover the remainder of the costs (if any).

  • ahly92 on 06/05/2018 - 19:57
    +10

    Not sure why others are saying it's your fault. Clearly It was the other car that hit you and failed to see you on the left.

    They failed to indicate for over 3 seconds, you relised this and went to the left lane to turn. There was space for two cars to turn left and that's what you did. You did not have to que behind that car. They should have took the right most lane when turning left or else should have turned left from where you did.

    Might need a strong worded case though. Best of luck!

    • justinvu on 06/05/2018 - 20:06

      Thanks mate, I think it is a prejudice for a vehicle to queue behind another when exiting a servo station - which I think is true. However, like you said, I observed that she had 2 opportunities to exit but didn't, hence decide to crawl to her left.

      As mentioned previously, her home address is only 30 sec drive if she was to turn right but will be 5mins+ if she was to turn left. So I think she wanted to turn right but changed her mind later. Agree, will need a strong worded case :(

    • Aneurism on 07/05/2018 - 23:08

      It is because most people rightfully treat service station exits as single lane. If a car is turning left or right from a single lane..you are still supposed to be queued behind them.

      • justinvu on 08/05/2018 - 07:54

        That’s a common perception, not a law

        • smartazz104 on 08/05/2018 - 19:02

          Your situation is very good evidence as to why it should be more strongly enforced; people can't be trusted to use common sense.

  • Name on 06/05/2018 - 20:01
    +8

    After a few watches, I reckon she is to blame. Although in the eyes of the law, I think you're to blame as you failed to yield. Reason I think she is to blame…

    -She is sitting in the middle of the driveway (who sits that far over when turning left out of a really wide driveway)

    -she doesn't go when that Ute was stopped with a huge gap in front of him to let her come out

    -she edges forward after the Ute and the outside lane opens up

    When she changes her mind she puts her left indicator on and goes within a few seconds without checking.

    Apart from how fast you drove up to exit (how fast were you going in a fuel station!!) I think 9/10 would have thought and done the same thing.

    I think you're argument is going to come down to whether you can argue it's a two lane exit, right turn and left turn..

    • Bap1337 on 07/05/2018 - 15:16

      The video is sped up. He’s not going fast.

  • burningrage on 06/05/2018 - 20:24
    +5

    I think the other driver is at fault.

    1. She hit you. Made even worse by indicating really late. A reasonable person wouldn't have seen her late indicating as you were already left of her.

    2. She failed to check her left and right. I recalled when I was in the driving school to always check left and right no matter which way the traffic goes.

    The fact that you may have been speeding in the Petrol station was irrelevant. At the point of impact, you were not speeding.

    The only issue is of course you have no insurance. You may have to lawyer up I'm afraid.

    • Yummy on 07/05/2018 - 00:20

      But… but Point #2 should be applied to everyone. If that followed, we wouldn't see this post. :)

  • WreckTangle on 06/05/2018 - 20:25

    Dup comment,.ignore me. Fat fingers, little buttons.

  • Skramit on 06/05/2018 - 20:51
    +5

    Lol the video is epic fail on both parts. But why are you such a hoon in the servo?! So impatient. I’m kinda glad this happened to you so you learn a lesson and stop driving like a douchebag.

    • justinvu on 06/05/2018 - 21:01
      -5

      I've been driving for close to 9 years, with no traffic offences except few parking tickets and one speeding fine (over less than 10km/h) 8 years ago? What's your record, keyboard warrior :)

      • Skramit on 06/05/2018 - 21:03
        +11

        Lack of speeding offended doesn’t make you a good driver. Plenty of moronic hoons don’t get tickets.

        • justinvu on 06/05/2018 - 21:11

          True, but you can't SIMPLY say you're an outstanding student without being able to achieve a D / HD. Or can't say you're an excellent worker without having any experience. So this is just an indication of what a good driver SHOULD be. And for your information, not many hoons drive a slow Audi Q3 with less than 120kw on the spec sheet.

        • Skramit on 06/05/2018 - 21:19
          +11

          @justinvu: you were still super aggressive and fast exiting a servo. You got what you deserved.

        • justinvu on 06/05/2018 - 21:31
          +2

          @Skramit: Thank you for your comments :)

        • burningrage on 07/05/2018 - 09:46
          +2

          @justinvu:
          Ignore Skramit dude.

          Whether or not you were speeding or impatient is not relevant. You were neither at point of impact.

          Just need to lawyer up I am guessing.

        • Skramit on 08/05/2018 - 20:42
          -1

          @burningrage: I guess you’re an impatient shithouse driver as well?

          Bravo.

        • burningrage on 09/05/2018 - 19:21

          @Skramit:

          Last time I checked being impatient is not illegal and very human thing to do. No one is perfect.

          I am guessing you are holier than thou driver then

    • nomadspartan on 10/05/2018 - 22:07

      How in the world was he aggressive or impatient? The video was on 2x speed, which may be the cause of your assumption.

  • strangeloops66 on 06/05/2018 - 20:57
    +1

    Your poll needs some amendment. The fourth option is not a real option. "[E]ach driver to pay for their own damage" is not how it works if liability is shared, equally or not. Example:

    You and the other driver are both at fault (and can be made to pay for any damage you caused to the extent you were at fault – for example if you contributed 50/50 to the accident you can only be made to pay for 50% of the damage, and can claim 50% of the cost of repairs to your car).Remember that the value of the cars will determine the outcome of an apportionment of liability i.e. if your car is not worth as much as the other car you may still lose, for example, you hit 2007 BMW in your 1994 Ford laser. The damage to your Laser is assessed at $2,600 and the damage to the BMW at $12,500. 50% of $ 12,500 = $6,250;50% of $ 2,600 = $1,300. Therefore you owe $6,250-1,300 = $4950, in addition to paying to get your own car fixed!

    By the way, I consider that liability would be shared in this instance, perhaps as high as 60/40 or even 70/30 in your favour. Users Name and burningrage have set out the reasons why. If she didn't want to look to her immediate left, she ought to have made sure that she was as far left as possible. It looks to me as though she wanted to take the shortest route home, the heavy traffic prevented her, so she made a quick decision to turn left without due care and attention.

    • justinvu on 06/05/2018 - 21:03
      +1

      Thanks mate, I understand about the principle you mention and read the article you were quoting. Appreciate your feedback !

    • bobbified on 07/05/2018 - 14:04

      "[E]ach driver to pay for their own damage" is not how it works

      Insurers can agree to use an Each Bears Own determination if they cannot agree on who's at fault. Then each driver (or their own insurer) is liable for the damage on their own/insured vehicle.

      • strangeloops66 on 07/05/2018 - 16:44

        Yes, a knock for knock agreement. However one party is not insured here.

  • Ace Ventura on 06/05/2018 - 21:02
    +7

    I watched the video with Benny Hill music playing in the background, it was quite fitting.
    Slow down, let other people complete their maneuvers before you dart in, especially if you don't know what they plan on doing.

    • Save 50 Cent on 06/05/2018 - 23:01
      +8

      Let’s be honest. Who waits behind a car trying to turn right in such a situation when they are trying to turn left? You could be waiting for a very long time for no good reason.
      OP I don’t know whose fault it is but I sympathise with you because I know I would’ve done the same thing as you. Some users on this website pretend they are perfect all the time for some reason.

      • justinvu on 06/05/2018 - 23:11

        Thanks Sam. I appreciate all commments, whether for or against. They all give me different perspectives before this battle. Although I gotta prep myself for not being confused and going all over the place haha

      • [Deactivated] on 06/05/2018 - 23:28
        +2

        They had no indicator so you are making a assumption which will put you in danger if you continue with that sort of attitude.

        • John Kimble on 07/05/2018 - 14:07
          +1

          True, but you can't trust when driver's have their indicators on either…some have them on without realising or change their mind last second…

  • dcep on 06/05/2018 - 21:06
    +5

    is the video normal speed or 2x ?

    petrol station in/out lane is only for 1 car at a time (no matter how wide it is)

    you waited 2 seconds behind her and decided to cut the queue

    within that 2 seconds window, you claimed she missed 2 opportunities of turning left

    you must be joking

    • justinvu on 06/05/2018 - 21:15

      1.25x. I was starting the engine and saw her missed an opportunity when the light went red (a longer version of the footage, which I didn't record should be able to explain). Another opportunity to turn left was between 0:04 and 0:06.

    • viper8548 on 07/05/2018 - 04:46
      +1

      Looking at the rate of the indicator I think the video is at least 1.5-2x (no way it's 1.25), if this is the case OP wasn't really going that fast although not relavent to the case…just saying as everyone's been bashing OP on his speed

  • gimme on 06/05/2018 - 21:20
    +12

    You're reckless (probably not fully developed frontal lobe) and the other driver is clueless with poor positioning no indicating etc. Your friend is also a moron so all in all everyone should be a third responsible in my kingdom. In reality who knows… good luck with what the insurance decides.

    • [Deactivated] on 06/05/2018 - 23:25
      +2

      Welcome to the dumb and dumber of drivers.

      As a responsible driver you could have

      A) flashed your headlights, used your horn or screamed out where's your bloody indicator

      B) accepted that you had an idiot in front (no indicators or a car with a lot of dents is usually a good sign) and stayed behind them and waited your turn instead of being an arrogant pushy bleep.

      • Aneurism on 07/05/2018 - 22:27

        A. would still be considered an irresponsible driver

  • minniethemoocher on 06/05/2018 - 21:50
    +1

    In my opinion she hit you, as you were stationary, so as far as I can tell she was at fault. But it doesn't matter, as you were uninsured the insurer will refuse to cover her damages or your damages, and they will go after you. It's not right but thats how they work.

  • Meho2026 on 06/05/2018 - 21:51
    +7

    I could be wrong but it looks like you actually started to pull out then stopped when you realised the other driver had (changed their mind) and decided to turn left. It looks like your vehicle was actually stationary when you were hit by the other driver.
    If that's the case and the video supports that then I think it gives you a good point to argue your case.
    Other things that could be relevant are if you look at the NSW Road Rules 2014, under the
    Road Transport Act 2013, Part 11, Division 3, section 141 on overtaking states "No overtaking etc to the left of a vehicle" however there are exceptions to this…
    (b) the vehicle is turning right, or making a U-turn from the centre of the road, and
    is giving a right change of direction signal and it is safe to overtake to the left
    of the vehicle, or
    (c) the vehicle is stationary and it is safe to overtake to the left of the vehicle.

    Now if you had seen the driver indicating right earlier before you approached you could reasonably assume that it was safe to pass them on the left. Do you think you could have seen that right indicator on at any time? You've mentioned a couple of times you are convinced she intended to turn right, why are you so convinced? Could you have seen that right indicator on at anytime before you pulled up?
    If not then the fact the other vehicle was stationary you could determine it was a safe manoeuvre to pull up on their left side because the other vehicle had made no attempt to turn into the left lane at any time before despite there being safe opportunities to do so.

    Part 7 of the same road rules, Division 2 relates to Giving way at an intersection without traffic lights or a stop sign, stop line, give way sign or give way line.
    There is a note related to this section that states "…give way means the driver must slow down and, if necessary, stop to avoid a collision"
    Again if you were stationary when the collision occurred you can argue that you did give way and stop to attempt to avoid a collision and the other driver did not therefore they failed to give way.

    I dont know what the process involves but can you claim against her insurance for the damage to the car you were driving?
    Keep that video close to your chest initially and tell the other drivers insurance company you have video footage that confirms all of the following…
    the other driver initially intended to turn right then changed their mind after you were parallel to them.
    That the other driver was stationary when you pulled alongside them.
    That you actually stopped your vehicle when you saw other driver turn towards you and that their vehicle collided with yours while you were stationary.
    Then add that the damage to your car supports that and the opinion of the police you reported the accident to is that the other driver is at fault. It would be good if that was documented.

    Good luck

    • justinvu on 06/05/2018 - 22:06
      +1

      Thank you so much Meho2026,

      The arguments for my decision to crawl side by side to her were:
      1. She did not position her car to the far left and in a way that naturally indicated she wanted to turn left.
      2. There were 2 occasions (1 can't be seen in the footage, but a longer footage is also available, that showed she was given way to exit the driveway), 1 was between 0:04-0:06 where the ute gave way to her. However, she didn't not move her car at all.
      3. She didn't indicate her signal.

      In addition, after exchange the address, her home is only 30s away if she was to turn right, but would be 5mins+ if she was to turn left. Although, I can't recall whether I saw her turning the right indicator - I should ask the servo for a longer footage to check.

      • swimmingtoad on 06/05/2018 - 23:40
        +6

        "after exchange the address, her home is only 30s away if she was to turn right, but would be 5mins+ if she was to turn left."

        Who cares where she lives. This has no relevance at all! Absolutely stupid argument.

        • nomadspartan on 10/05/2018 - 22:10

          No, not a stupid comment.

        • gromit on 11/05/2018 - 21:24

          @nomadspartan: yes it is a stupid argument as there was no way for him to know that before he cut in, all he had to go on was someone sitting there with no indicator on waiting to merge, he made a dangerous assumption. Both of them fail miserably at driving, He didn't indicate at all which is the amusing part of him calling out her for not indicating earlier. Either way her lack of indicator should have been a huge red warning sign to exercise caution like not pulling into her blind spot.

  • Tuftsdude on 06/05/2018 - 21:53
    +2

    If it goes to court, don't be afraid of their lawyers. From experience, they'd have a lot bigger cases to actually care much about something like this and it's not hard to self represent, just take Marks advice.

    • justinvu on 06/05/2018 - 22:08

      Thanks mate will do :)

    • mgsydney on 07/05/2018 - 10:40

      This.

  • djmm on 06/05/2018 - 22:03

    Lol OP drives like typical Audi tool who thinks they own the road

    • justinvu on 06/05/2018 - 22:07

      I thought this comment should be directed to the WRX, Civic, Evo, Silvia, Skyline community haha. Just my 2c ;)

  • dufflover on 06/05/2018 - 22:13
    +2

    I've said in a previous comment I'd say OP has a case as the fact he was stationary puts rules in his favour, but just also saying here you've gone to A LOT of effort it seems to justify your own shitty driving that contributed the biggest amount to the situation occurring in the first place.

  • Oofy Doofy on 06/05/2018 - 22:22
    +1

    I personally believe it was the other person's fault. They should have been indicating, they also seemed to not check their surroundings at all before they took off.

    Could have saved yourself all this trouble by just staying away from their car and waiting, but hey…

    It's a shame you were driving so fast beforehand though, makes me think you're a little careless, like the type who would drive 40-50km/h in a carpark.

  • euk on 06/05/2018 - 22:38
    +3

    Other drive is at fault imo, not signalling and then suddenly signalling and moving into traffic which you were partly into

    However
    1) You were driving way too fast in a petrol station
    2) Other driver will force you to go to court via lawyers from insurance firm. Their money will bleed you dry. Unless you're loaded and can go all the way through the courts and appeals they will launch, you'll bleed money and give up, many thousands (up into 5 digits) and end up giving up, and paying out the insurance company claim. They will then ream you for repair costs, and if bad enough claim the other car an economic writeoff and charge you a ridiculous price.

    Either way, get some of that lube out, because whatever happens you're going to get reamed.

  • aman00024 on 06/05/2018 - 22:42
    +1

    Hi Justin

    Firstly, She didn't give indicator and seems like she was going to turn right for sure.

    Secondly, you didn't give indicator either but she was the one who hit you.

    She did give indicator at the last which was even way too quick to turn.

    You shouldn't be liable for her damage and if you know her insurance policy number than call them and let them know that your client hit my car with straight forward attitude.

    • Save 50 Cent on 06/05/2018 - 23:07
      +1

      No, Aman. You can’t call insurance companies ans say: “Hi, your client hit my car”. Doesn’t work that way whether with a straight forward attitude or not.

      • justinvu on 06/05/2018 - 23:12

        Yep, Sam is right. It is now the game of waiting :)

        • aman00024 on 07/05/2018 - 18:50

          Did she admit or deny her fault?

  • [Deactivated] on 06/05/2018 - 23:16

    Three points

    1. To quote my driving instructor "…never make assumptions as you will make an arse out of yourself."

    2. Curious was your rude pushy push in really worth the few seconds you saved with the drama you now face?

    3. It should be illegal to drive a uninsured car. It is (bleeps) like you that pushes up the price of premiums for decent and considerate drivers who pay for insurance.

    • pinchies on 07/05/2018 - 11:57

      FYI the quote is usually said something like "never assume - it will make an ass out of u and me (ass-u-me)".

    • Name on 07/05/2018 - 15:01

      Agreed. They should up the cost of CTP and make sure it includes damage to other property too. I've heard a few people over my time think that CTP covers property damage and as a result not get 3rd party fire and theft insurance.

  • Twolate on 06/05/2018 - 23:25

    Looks like the Hume hwy

  • witsa on 06/05/2018 - 23:32
    +1

    I think you're likely looking at resolving this at court. However, I don't think it's as bad as everyone is saying. If anything, the OP will have an advantage over the insurance company.

    Unless the damage is greater than 10k (seems unlikely IMO) - the OP will probably be able to resolve this at small claims court.

    In which case, he can self-represent. For a case like this, as you can see from the poll, it's relatively uncertain who was at fault, it's unlikely that the judge will rule that the loser pays for the other side's legal fees (and i think for small claims court, that is restricted anyway)

    So the costs of going to court is mainly time for the OP but much more to the insurance company who'll have gun lawyers who cost tons of money per hour and probably have other priorities. It's simply not in the best interest of the insurance company to go through the court system to chase what amounts to small change for them.

    Even if they think they will win, justice is never certain. Plus to them, there's even a chance even if they win, you won't be able to pay (remember that most people driving uninsured aren't in great financial positions). So with all of this uncertainty, they're not going to want to risk spending too much of their expensive lawyer time on this.

    To the OP - I think the insurance company will definitely say you're to blame - it's their job. I would just adamantly stand your ground, providing all the reasoning and evidence why their client was at fault. There's a chance they may even look at the footage and either say it's not worth even going to court or offer you a reduced amount to settle.

  • Will Mcdonald on 06/05/2018 - 23:43
    +1

    Uninsured, your pretty much f**ked. Get some quotes for her and your car from a couple of repair places and do it without the insurance company getting involved. Otherwise you will be paying through the roof

  • Yummy on 07/05/2018 - 00:16
    -1

    Your fault OP.

    She saw you cutting her instead of queueing behind her, hence she turn her indicator on at the very last second. Regardless indicator or not, she wont be able to turn to right with that kind of traffic on double lanes. Also you drives too fast, you wouldn't drive like that speed in Maccas drive thru, would you?

    Ultimately, it WILL be YOUR fault since you drives without insurance. What the cop gonna say about that when they pull you over?

    Edit: I just read above post about cop's comment.

  • Tech5 on 07/05/2018 - 00:52

    I reckon it is other drivers fault. One of the first lessons you are taught (and will fail your driving test if you dont do), is check your blind spot when turning left. Check it even if you are in the left most lane and turning left

  • bert-lifts on 07/05/2018 - 00:58
    +2

    Her fault. But there was no reason for you to drive so aggressively.

    You had no idea which way she was going but you took the 50/50 chance anyway and assumed she was going right? Should've just waited behind her. Very silly on your part.

  • icejester on 07/05/2018 - 01:04

    Unfortunately even if she's a bad driver she has right of way
    so you are at fault

    • Piranha2004 on 07/05/2018 - 07:53

      No such concept as right of way

    • whooah1979 on 07/05/2018 - 07:59

      Australian haven’t had right of way since 1949. We use give way here.

  • Lucky13 on 07/05/2018 - 03:18

    You should always drive defensively, eg. think of how shit can turn bad/plan for the worst case scenario. Also times that by two being in an expensive car. Hope it doesn't cost you too much in the end. Good luck with it :/

    EDIT: Just watched your video. It was unclear which direction they were going to turn, as person doesn't have indicator on until last minute. You must have assumed they were going to go right as they weren't right over on the left hand side. IDK good luck with it, but never assume anything when driving

  • Jackkkkkk on 07/05/2018 - 03:41
    -1

    Ouch! my wallet.

    Good luck

  • singlemalt72 on 07/05/2018 - 07:15

    Regardless of how you try and interpret the other drivers intentions and if she should have moved in on your left.

    You hit her - you are responsible for ensuring that your path is clear. This happens often where people are so fixed on the oncoming traffic they forget to look where they are actually going.

    Just be happy it was a car and not a pedestrian you hit.

    • stonkered on 07/05/2018 - 16:56

      OPs car is in left. Other car hit him.

      +1 more Juz.

  • HADOUKEN on 07/05/2018 - 08:25
    +4

    Where was OP's indicator? He was turning left and I couldnt see at any point he put it on. The speed you also are going in the servo seems too fast. Downvotes ahoy but Audi drivers are complete (profanity) and you have fit perfectly into that stereotype. Impatient and indicators are an optional extra. Like seriously, mate. How bloody fast did you come out of that servo before stopping at the intersection?

    • Cheap as chips on 07/05/2018 - 08:39

      you do realize that the video is sped up?

    • bhm133 on 07/05/2018 - 12:04
      +1

      This. I can't see the indicator. I can see the other car's indicator turning on at the last minute.

      You were always in her blind spot. If you wanted to turn left, get in her line of sight.

  • haimrevolution on 07/05/2018 - 08:45
    +2

    It looks rather reckless driving to me. Yes there is space on his left however the sheer amount of traffic and the fact that he is 3/4 over to the left tells you that it’s likely he is turning left. Considering a driveway is not a road he has no obligation to put his blinker on. Do you indicate coming out of your driveway in the morning? I doubt it. You’ll need to pay up for sure

  • doctordv8 on 07/05/2018 - 08:47
    +1

    You are in the wrong for being where you were when you should of queued and shown more patience.
    First come first served. No passing on the left. No 2 vehicles in one space/lane etc. There are many reasons for you to wait, and even if the exact Road Law is disputable and questioned as to a share of blame, common sense and courtesy should have you wait.
    My mum did that to a semi, and lost - her car and licence - exact same scenario.

  • LPV569 on 07/05/2018 - 08:56

    The red car was in front and was not indicating a right hand turn, therefore with no certainty the car was turning right, the white car should not have come up on the inside (left side).
    The red car indicated a left turn and moved first, the white car drove into the side of the red car. The white car is a fault.

  • angelkulit025 on 07/05/2018 - 09:42

    I feel you bro. That is a wide exit driveway out of a servo. The driver of the other car is really not courteous enough to share it as they positioned their car in the middle of it. Plus they didn't put on their blinkers until the last seconds that they decided where to go.

    but in that case, it is really risky to overtake them regardless of where you're going as they haven't indicated where they're going. IMO both of you made some mistakes but it will be very much unfavourable to you as you don't have any current insurance.

    Please update us and hope you can get out of it with as little as possible expenses.

  • Trying2SaveABuck on 07/05/2018 - 09:51
    -1

    Dont understand how you have buy a Audi but not at least have 3rd party insurance.

    You are at fault pay for damage - expensive life lesson

  • kaleidoscope on 07/05/2018 - 09:51
    +1

    From footage its clear she turned left without headcheck. So she’s at fault. How the insurance going to handle is entirely different story. Good luck.
    Never drive other’s car without insurance nor give your car to a friend who is adventorous on the road.

  • chuderino on 07/05/2018 - 09:59

    Overtaking a turning vehicle, lucky it wasn't a truck.

  • Cheapsize on 07/05/2018 - 10:01

    This is the person on the left fault, however only just. My reasoning is that they didn't indicate to turn left. Had they done so the person on the right is clearly in the wrong as they turned from around the other car and cut them off. By not indicating the person on the right misjudged and commenced turning. Causing the accident. Its nearly 50/50 no indicator no dice.

    • John Kimble on 07/05/2018 - 11:18
      +1

      The right car wouldn't be able to see the left car indicating left though…

      • Cheapsize on 07/05/2018 - 12:43

        @john Kimble. Normally if you stuff up you let the car through or peak out a bit to Make sure they bare not turning in your direction. Both drivers made an error. They should not be turning left from the right of the turning car nor cross into the other cars lane whilst doing so. You can't overtake if it is not safe to do so. If you didn't see the car indicating or not is irrelevant. You got to make sure the coast is clear before you turn into oncoming traffic. If Audi indicated it would be 100% her fault as he also has right of way.

        • John Kimble on 07/05/2018 - 12:47

          WTF, indicating does not automatically give you right of way or absolve you of any fault.

          Agree you can argue both made errors.

  • mgsydney on 07/05/2018 - 10:01

    Ordinarily I would say you're in fault because you did come up from behind, and enough smaller driveway it would be more clear cut. But from the footage it's not unreasonable to think that she wanted to turn right but changed her mind last minute to turn left. And I also think a lot of us even those criticising may have done the same thing as you.

    There are different standards for a traffic offence to be proven and an insurance claim to be established.It may even be worth stating that you're both equally to blame here.

    What this may mean in terms of covering the damage, given no insurance on your part, I am not sure. The bigger lesson here is don't cough up for a fancy car (or rather the hefty repayments) and scrimp on insuring it!

    But I digress…

    I would be speaking to the insurance company first explaining the footage you have and how it may be argued that she really wasn't intending on turning left first, given what you've stated in your original post. You really have nothing more to lose. Worst case scenario is you pay for the damage.

    You can never rely on what a persons blinker indicates because people can forget they are on, turn without them, etc. But with that said I hate when people don't use then.

    Good luck!

  • UFO on 07/05/2018 - 10:04
    +5

    OP you aren't going to like this, but you asked for opinions:

    You were impatient and you failed to give way to your right. Whether it's the same driveway, a separate driveway, or a separate street… if there's a car coming out of one of those to your right, they will have right of way.

    There is no argument where you win this.

    She doesn't have to give way to you in that situation. Ever. YOU MUST GIVE WAY TO YOUR RIGHT.

    You've made three mistakes.
    You were impatient by not waiting behind.
    You failed to to give way to traffic on your right.
    And you've assumed insurance coverage instead of confirming it.

    It's a single driveway with no line markings. The fact there's space for you to undercut doesn't mean you can do so safely or legally.
    It's wide for a reason (tanker delivery). Not for multiple cars to come out undercutting each other.

    It's an expensive lesson for you where you'll learn multiple points, but this is as clean cut as it could possibly be.
    Cut a deal for a lower payout figure on her car insurance, and sort out your mates car by buying it at market value from him. You stuffed up, now time to pay up. The reason I say to buy your mates car is because even if you fix it it's lost thousands in value because its been in an accident (would you pay the same price for a car that's been in one?). Although- some "mate" letting you drive an uninsured car without telling you. Up to you where you want this friendship to go from here, but that's pretty low by him- and naive by you.

    This will not "be a lengthy process going back and forth" mate.
    In these clear circumstances, you are 100% in the wrong. Sorry, I know you were hoping for support to your argument.

    Edited: Just re-reading what you typed.
    She DID indicate.
    2 seconds on video running 2x, so for 4 seconds prior to entering roadway.
    Once her insurer sees this footage, you are done.
    You have no legal argument and I'd think very hard before fighting this in Court (just in case you are thinking about it, I hope this post sways you otherwise), because then you could be up for their costs too. You have a very weak argument.

    Your argument that she didn't indicate prior and "could" have been turning right is very hard to argue, because that looks like a busy arterial road and there's no safe way for her to have crossed two lanes of traffic on this side, followed by a safe gap on the other two lanes to turn safely. And you're assuming she's turning right… a big mistake in road law.

    You undercut her. You hit her. You are uninsured. You will pay for both cars 100%. Not what you want to hear I know… but just remember that its not the end of the world. People have lost a lot more in life. Pay up and move on. Good luck with it all.

    • John Kimble on 07/05/2018 - 11:19

      There is a road rule that you must give way to your right?

      She indicated just before she started turning. You're supposed to indicate well before doing something. And just because you indicate, doesn't mean you can do anything you want.

      She hit him…he was stationary (I agree he shouldn't have been there though).

      I think it could go either way to be honest.

      Eg if someone was speeding in the right lane and someone in the left lane didn't check their blind spot and merged into the right lane and hit the speeding car, the left lane car would be at fault right? Yes the right car shouldn't be speeding, but the left car cannot merge until it is safe to do so.

      The "car shouldn't have been there to be hit" argument cannot be used… You could go back forever… The driver should have left home 5 minutes earlier etc

      • BryceW on 07/05/2018 - 13:18
        +2

        Yep, you must give way to your right. Whether you are entering a T-Intersection or a round-about. You must give way to your right. Its different when you are both on the road and merging though.

        Yes, she hit him and he was stationary. But lets say you are motoring down a straight road, I pull out in front of you, stop in the middle of the road and you hit me in the doors. I was stationary, you hit me, your fault right? Nope, I didnt give way to you coming from the right.

        OP is at fault.

        • John Kimble on 07/05/2018 - 13:22
          +2

          Source? The below are road rules. Technically they are not on the road yet.

          http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/safety-rules/road-rules/inte…

          Give way to your right for roundabouts was replaced with "give way to cars already in the roundabout" many years ago…At least in NSW (yes, most of the time that would be cars on the right).

          http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/safety-rules/road-rules/roun…

        • UFO on 08/05/2018 - 14:00
          +2

          @John Kimble:

          The driveway is a road related area, technically they don't have to be on the road yet.
          See the bold section below- its cut and dry. He broke the law.

          Here's the relevant legislation:

          Road Rules 2014 (NSW Legislation)

          Division 3 Entering or leaving road related areas and adjacent land
          74 Giving way when entering a road from a road related area or adjacent land

          (1) A driver entering a road from a road related area, or adjacent land, without traffic lights or a stop sign, stop line, give way sign or give way line must give way to:

          (a) any vehicle travelling on the road or turning into the road (except a vehicle turning right into the road from a road related area or adjacent land), and

          (b) any pedestrian on the road, and

          (c) any vehicle or pedestrian on any road related area that the driver crosses to enter the road, and

          (d) for a driver entering the road from a road related area:

          (i) any pedestrian on the road related area, and

          (ii) any other vehicle ahead of the driver’s vehicle or approaching from the left or right.

          Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.
          Note 1.
          Adjacent land, give way line, stop line and traffic lights are defined in the Dictionary, and road related area is defined in rule 13.
          Note 2.
          Adjacent land or a road related area can include a driveway, service station or shopping centre—see the definitions of adjacent land and road related area. Some shopping centres may include roads—see the definition of road in rule 12.
          Note 3.
          Part 6 applies to the driver if there are traffic lights. Rule 68 applies to the driver if there is a stop sign or stop line, and rule 71 applies to the driver if there is a give way sign or give way line.
          Note 4.
          For this rule, give way means the driver must slow down and, if necessary, stop to avoid a collision—see the definition in the Dictionary.

    • trapper on 07/05/2018 - 13:03
      +3

      The other car was not established on the road so the give way to the right doesn't apply. Also you can't just ram any car on your left and then say they were supposed to give way.

      • UFO on 08/05/2018 - 14:02

        The driveway is a road related area, so treated the same. Read the legislation I copied and pasted above.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join