[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

        • Aneurism on 08/05/2018 - 10:53
          +1

          That is the point.

    • ozmu on 08/05/2018 - 14:11

      The other car never indicated right so you are only assuming they wanted to turn right. Assumption is the mother of all f…ups.

  • taitems on 07/05/2018 - 20:40
    +1

    Take it from someone else who bought an (admittedly cheap, depreciated) Audi but hated the service costs, your "friend" sounds like all the other muppets I see on Facebook. First job, completely maxed out on the finance, buys the cheapest entry level Audi they can afford, but no cash left for anything else. In 2-3 years it's either wrapped around a tree (uninsured of course), or they're selling it on to the next person telling them it's "always been driven respectfully, always serviced on time". From the video it looks like they've possibly splashed the cash on the custom Euro plates too?

    • justinvu on 07/05/2018 - 21:12

      lol at you for making judgement based on no fact / foundation. He recently had a medical bill and a visa issue that ended up costing him over $50k. The last policy costed him $3k in premium p.a. He's not on his 1st job.

      I guess everyone grows old, but not necessarily grows up - this saying is well proven in your case.

      P/S: The number plate came with the car.

      • taitems on 07/05/2018 - 23:24

        It's the internet, it's what we do. But I am talking from experience. A few examples right off the bat: friend with a brand new chipped A4 B7 or maybe it was B8, can't remember. Couldn't afford to insure it, boom, written off in less than 2 years. All that money and pride down the drain. Another one, small business owner, A4 B7, couldn't afford to keep it running, sold in ~3 years. Another one, a relative, doesn't "believe" in servicing cars. A 3-Series of course.

        I guess I assumed they were financed out the wazoo, and I was wrong. But they also assumed they could drive uninsured because "I'm a good driver, it'll never happen to me". And it did happen. They gambled, and they lost.

        • justinvu on 08/05/2018 - 08:04
          +1

          Lol again you keep making assumptions only based on ur imagination. You’re funny ;)

  • ITveteran on 07/05/2018 - 20:53

    Deja vu. Years ago we had similar incident as op. Unfortunately the other driver would not admit at fault, no camera footage, no police showed up, and the idiot NRMA claim would not investigate the case except encourage to sue the other Party by ourselves. Due to we only had 3rd party property damage policy NRMA would not follow up the case.

    Anyways, we contacted a solicitor trying to sue the other party. It turned out only wasting money and time. We eventually assumed the responsibility due to unwilling to put up with the prolonged upsetting situation. Lesson learned: always get comprehensive policy, always install a dash cam. If possible avoid NRMA - we found AAMI is much better in protecting clients' interests.

    • Ughhh on 08/05/2018 - 06:38

      AAMI are willing to do comprehensive work for third party price?

  • john_conner on 07/05/2018 - 21:36
    +11

    Justin, I logged in just to post this.
    Personally I think you are not at fault. But you will need to argue your case carefully.

    Let’s review:
    1. You were both pulling out of a wide driveway with no clear lane markings.
    Unfortunately road rule 28 does not apply:
    http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr20172…
    You should bring this up anyway and argue same logic should apply.

    1. The other car was stationary when you pulled up beside it.
      This means the other car was no longer “ahead” of you once you were side by side. In effect by both turning left you generate a similar scenario of rule 28.

    2. You both turned left at the same time
      This is where it gets interesting. Logical extension of rule 28 would mean the other driver should be pulling into the right lane. Too bad that doesn’t apply (given the letter of the law).
      The other driver is now in effect merging into you as you are ahead of her. When merging, you must give way to the car which is ahead of you.
      You should also probably be looking in the direction which you are driving, in which case she would have seen you and stopped. Also presumably you were looking in the direction you were driving and this You didn’t see her coming until it was too late.

    3. She did not indicate until after you were beside her (and presumably you missed her turn signal)
      This is important because it means she could have been stationary putting on lipstick, adjusting her mirror. Makes sense you tried to go around her and weren’t trying to cut in front of her.

    4. You did not indicate at all
      Why didn’t you indicate, you turd? Do you not ever indicate? I hate people who don’t indicate, and you deserve everything you have coming to you. Just kidding. I do dislike people who don’t indicate though. It’s rude.
      Lucky for you, despite being an inconsiderate road user, you still have right if way.

    Good luck and please update us. I hope you don’t have to pay for the other drivers damages. And please indicate in future. It’s the law. And it’s polite.

    • John Kimble on 07/05/2018 - 21:43
      +3

      Why aren't you always logged in? 🤔

    • justinvu on 07/05/2018 - 21:50
      -3

      Appreciate your time and effort in posting this. I’ve pretty much gathered up my ammunition for the battle.

      I understand you hate drivers who don’t indicate, and me too. But honestly, have you been 100% in your driving? One mistake shouldn’t make me or anyone an Automatic INCONSIDERATE person, right? We all make mistake, we accept, we say sorry and we move on.

      • [Deactivated] on 08/05/2018 - 02:11
        +1

        Again with your assumptions.

        Nobody has claimed to be a 100% perfect driver but if you want to post your dirty laundry on here people will give you their honest two cents worth.

        You are a adult and not a child. Your driving was/is erratic just like the other drver. Accept the costly lesson and move on.

        Perhaps some more driving training will teach you how to drive in a a sensible manner especially if the driver in front was all over the place.

        • ozhunter on 08/05/2018 - 03:14

          Your driving was/is erratic just like the other drver. Accept the costly lesson

          So both are at fault?

        • justinvu on 08/05/2018 - 08:56

          This monkey hasn’t had his banana for days :)). He’s so vulnerable :))

        • R-Man on 09/05/2018 - 11:54

          username checks out

      • mgsydney on 08/05/2018 - 08:21
        -1

        Maybe put a new poll up, "who indicates pulling out of a driveway" because I genuinely don't see it done, I don't indicate pulling out of my driveway at home for example.

      • FloatingPoint on 08/05/2018 - 12:08
        +2

        Not going to judge who is at fault, but I can tell what will happen to you next:

        • I can almost guaranteed the insurance company (from the other party) will say you are at fault. It's simple maths: They will payout less if they do that. It's business, all they care is money. The truth doesn't always matter, especially your case is clear as mud.
        • You will receive a letter of demand from their insurance company. I won't be surprised if they try to claim the damage worth $3K+. Yep. They are pretty much holding a blank cheque of yours.
        • Plus now you have to pay for the damage to your friend's car.
        • You can try to lodge a complaint at Financial Ombudsman. Good luck with that.
        • If the result is unsatisfactory, you can try small claims court. Do not start this before you get a result from Financial Ombudsman otherwise your dispute process will be stopped automatically. You can get some advice from local community legal service before you do that.
        • Lodge you claim directly against the other driver rather than their insurance company.
        • Everyone on road has share responsibility of care and both parties did some silly mistakes, it's likely you will get a 50/50 at the end. If the insurance company offer that at any stage, I'd take it.
        • Don't proceed any further if you lose in the small claims court. Cost > Benefit.
    • Aneurism on 07/05/2018 - 22:52

      This is the more relevant as this accident occurred whilst entering a road from adjacent land.
      http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr20172…

      Refer to REG78 Rule 2d point ii

      • me4president on 07/05/2018 - 23:29

        I would pass on the video to the other person's insurer if they come and claim you are at fault, the other car did not indicate till you had passed it, what they did was confusing by sitting there and not indicating which way they are going.
        And technically they hit you while they were turning, meaning they didnt check what car is to the left of them.
        At worst case you will both have to cover your own cars.

  • ywpn on 07/05/2018 - 22:21

    For what it's worth, in my opinion it's not your fault, but I doubt the insurance company will rule in your favour.
    That Cruze shouldn't point their car straight if they're planning to turn like that.

    I have this exact same intersection at the end of my street - 2 unmarked lanes - one turns left, one goes straight & into the middle island to eventually turn right.
    I've never seen anyone stupid enough to turn left from the right lane.

    Good luck with battling this out! Will be keen for updates.

    [edit] a similar situation happened to me when I was in the middle island (coming from that 2 lane unmarked intersection) waiting to turn right, and someone in a CRV came from behind and almost clipped my car and hit oncoming traffic from dashing out. I definitely right of way and had I driven out, we would have ended in the same accident you had with that person being at fault.
    The only difference was there were line markings on the road.

  • 4foxache on 07/05/2018 - 22:40
    +6

    She hesitated to go (and rolled forward slightly) when you first pulled up. That should've been alarm bells to you she was about to go at the next chance.

    Instead you got impatient and pulled up on her blind side while she would've been looking in the other direction into the oncoming traffic so had no idea you were there.

    You failed to read the situation correctly and to understand the other driver and their likely awareness.

    Immature dumb mistake on your behalf. You'll be paying for both cars imo. Next time check your ego before you do some more serious damage.

  • lookingforTV on 07/05/2018 - 23:05
    +2

    At the end of the day, you shouldn't have made an assumption which way she was going to turn. It's entirely your fault.

  • Of Aquitaine on 07/05/2018 - 23:26

    When you say quote “-> I decided to pull my car to her left, side by side.” makes it sound like it is actually YOUR car.

  • AutomationGuy on 07/05/2018 - 23:32
    +3

    Already lots of advice here.

    I think it is important to note that insurance companies attribute fault using their own methods not the law. It is common for one party to be legally at fault (acknowledged by police) but the other party still have to pay at least their own. This could go in either way in your situation.

    I think your biggest argument from an insurance logic (from my limited experience), is that you were completely stationary at the time of the incident and can prove it. Physically, the other car hit you. They are the ones that inflicted the damage, regardless of relevant road rules. The fact that you were technically ahead of them will be of benefit too.

    I still think the best scenario you would be hoping for would be to each cover your own costs.

    • ozmu on 08/05/2018 - 14:26

      Likewise, the video evidence could go against OP because in the driveway scenario OP was at blind spot to the other car.

  • belongsinforums on 07/05/2018 - 23:34
    +2

    You should have waited in line. She had right of way. Therefore, not her fault imo

  • Eeples on 07/05/2018 - 23:45
    +2

    I think she turned into you. She wasn’t being attentative. Or, at worse, not looking where she was going,

    But, I think you weren’t being careful either.

    Without an insurance company on your side you will prolly pay the lot. (Well, you pay the woman’s repairs, and your friend pays his own repairs IMO).

    If you had had insurance then both companies would have come to an arrangement…. I’m guessing both cars fixed, costs split 50-50.

  • jv on 08/05/2018 - 00:25
    +12

    OP's car was stopped before the collision happened. They could therefore not have collided with the other car. The other car caused the collision by not looking where they were driving.

    Case Closed.

    • CMH on 08/05/2018 - 03:37

      I'm just have a question: how long do you have to be stationary before you are legally considered stationary?

      Ie: if I pulled out of the driveway (say as in this video) and just slammed on the brakes immediately upon being in the lane and another car going straight forward collided with me, I am technically stationary upon impact, however I doubt you can say "your car was stopped so the other car caused the collision".

      In OP's case, he stopped for a fraction of a second, hardly a convincing argument.

      A tough case indeed. OP please put any updates in your first post thanks.

      • jv on 08/05/2018 - 07:36
        +2

        A tough case indeed.

        No. The other driver should have been looking ahead in the direction they were driving and not to the right. They caused the collision. The OP had already stopped to prevent the collision.

        • CMH on 08/05/2018 - 13:02
          +2

          While OP might not be in the other driver's blind spot, they would have needed to do a head check to see OP's car on the left.

          I personally wouldn't even think I'd have to do a head check in this case; I wouldn't expect someone to squeeze in that space. Not that I personally would have left that much space if I were going left anyway.

          And again, my point that OP stopped but just for a fraction of a second might not be considered stopping. There's still the argument that he didn't give way.

        • jv on 08/05/2018 - 14:26

          @CMH:

          I personally wouldn't even think I'd have to do a head check in this case; I wouldn't expect someone to squeeze in that space.

          That's irrelevant.

          If you aren't looking at the direction you are driving in, and you hit a stationary car, then it's 100% your fault…

        • ozmu on 08/05/2018 - 14:30

          @jv: That is what the law will say though I suspect the insurance company lawyers will see a lot more than the point of impact. Again, without insurance and the driving habits of OP this was waiting to happen.

        • CMH on 08/05/2018 - 17:46

          @jv:

          Like I said, he may not be visible if one were just looking in the direction of travel (ie required a head check). The other driver's seems to have scraped the side of their car with OP's front bumper.

          So I would say you actually had to be doing a complete turn of the head looking through your rear window to actually see OP's car.

    • UFO on 08/05/2018 - 14:59
      +3

      JV, using your argument I could pull out in front of any oncoming traffic and then stop dead in the middle of the road…. and you'd blame the oncoming car for hitting me?

      Whether OP was stationary or not, the requirement for him to give way is quite clear. He failed to give way and caused the collision. The physics of which car was stationary at the time and which car collided into it is not a factor in this instance.

      NSW Legislation- Road Rules 2014, Div 3, Sec 74.
      https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/regulation/2014/75…

      It conveniently even mentions service station driveways in the foot notes ;).
      You've case closed but have lost your case :).

      • John Kimble on 08/05/2018 - 15:07
        +1

        But in this case, that's where it gets grey. He did give way initially (very briefly and we all agree he could have waited longer), but once he pulled up alongside her (possible slightly ahead of her), wouldn't that mean technically she would have had to give way to him now?

        • UFO on 08/05/2018 - 15:10
          +1

          Nope, because she's approaching him. The onus is still on him as he has a car coming towards him "from the left or right".

          He doesn't get the protection of "must leave enough distance in front to avoid collision" until he's traveling on the road.
          He's still merging from the road related area in the circumstances shown on the video.

        • John Kimble on 08/05/2018 - 18:09

          @UFO: What do you mean she's approaching him? She's stationary, then eventually trying to turn left. She's not approaching him?

      • jv on 08/05/2018 - 15:13
        +1

        JV, using your argument I could pull out in front of any oncoming traffic and then stop dead in the middle of the road….

        Then he would have broken the law, because you can't stop in the middle of the road.

        Here, he stopped to give way at the end of the driveway to oncoming traffic. He didn't do anything illegal. He also did not drive into another vehicle to cause a collision. The other driver drove into him…

        • UFO on 08/05/2018 - 15:19
          +2

          Yep, he stopped for oncoming traffic as required to do so.
          And if he stayed on the driveway instead of going out onto the road surface there would have been no collision.

          At point of impact, they are both on the road. Her completely on it, him half way on it. It's like two house driveways next to each other. If two cars come to the edge of the road at the same time, the car to the right has right of way. You can't just barge in.

          He didn't give way and that's why she drove into him.

        • jv on 08/05/2018 - 16:06
          +2

          @UFO:

          the car to the right has right of way.

          Not really. That changed many years ago.
          Car in front has right of way.

          Anyway, OP stopped, so they gave way regardless and did not drive into the other vehicle.

          Pretty easy case for even a first year lawyer to win.

        • UFO on 08/05/2018 - 16:51
          +2

          @jv:

          We will have to agree to disagree :).
          No wonder the legal profession has a neverending supply of clients. Every one of them interprets the law differently :).

          (But hardly an easy win for a 1st year lawyer when the black and white Road Rules are applied!)

        • justinvu on 08/05/2018 - 17:13
          +1

          @UFO: will update y'all with the outcome :)

        • CMH on 08/05/2018 - 17:50

          |Then he would have broken the law, because you can't stop in the middle of the road.

          Wrong. You are legally allowed to come to a dead stop in the middle of a road, no matter the speed limit on said road.

          Plenty of different reasons to do so, the most prevalent one being something we call "traffic".

          I hereby claim jv has no clue on road laws, with the more severe breach of thinking he does. On top of making up his own rules of course

        • jv on 08/05/2018 - 17:55

          @CMH:

          You are legally allowed to come to a dead stop in the middle of a road

          Not if there isn't a good reason to do so…

        • CMH on 08/05/2018 - 18:27

          @jv:

          Again, no. Hence the 2 second rule. Although I'd say there are other rules in effect if you did stop and caused an accident, but the actual act of stopping is NOT illegal.

        • jv on 08/05/2018 - 18:42

          @CMH:

          but the actual act of stopping is NOT illegal.

          Yes it is…

          Causing an obstruction or danger
          It is an offence to stop or park a vehicle on a road in a position that could:
          *cause or be likely to cause danger to other traffic or people
          *be likely to obstruct traffic on a road.

        • CMH on 08/05/2018 - 19:29

          @jv:

          I believe stop is defined similarly to park in this instance except the driver is still in the vehicle, although I can't find it legally defined anywhere atm.

          If this is not true, then anyone stopped in traffic is an obstruction regardless of if they could have moved forward. Otherwise there would be a clause for stopping (ie at red lights, etc).

          Then there would be 200 pages of clauses - animals, right turns, potholes…

          Also to clarify, I said you can come to a dead stop, I did not say you can stay stopped for an unreasonable amount of time.

        • jv on 08/05/2018 - 19:50

          @CMH:

          If this is not true, then anyone stopped in traffic is an obstruction regardless of if they could have moved forward.

          There are laws for stopping at red lights

  • Lockieasy on 08/05/2018 - 00:57
    +1

    She was at fault because she turned into you when you were the inside car. You are still screwed however because you don't have an insurance company to make this argument for you!

    Also, just ignore all these other dumb comments about queue skipping and undertaking as they are irrelevant. Good luck.

    • jv on 08/05/2018 - 07:39

      You are still screwed however because you don't have an insurance company

      Yep… unless they can find a cheap lawyer

  • ozhunter on 08/05/2018 - 01:23
    +1

    Both at fault.

    Don't see how it was just the OP's fault. The other driver wasn't looking and scraped him.

  • [Deactivated] on 08/05/2018 - 01:59
    +3

    Yawns. The majority of OZb's have voted. Pay up and shut up.

    Since your driving is so bad perhaps you should return to walking or riding a tricycle.

    If only you bothered to wait your turn this could have been avoided.

    However if continue this queue jumping rude behaviour your next post will on where can I get a new set of teeth when someone whacks you one for pushing in.

    To all queue jumpers. If we have to wait so can you.

    • dbui8743 on 08/05/2018 - 09:09
      +1

      Name checks out lol!

  • Steve-o on 08/05/2018 - 07:32
    +3

    In surfing terms what you did was "snaking". Never cool to do that bro, never! :P

    Hard luck man, I get what you're saying but look at it from her perspective as well.

    • UFO on 08/05/2018 - 15:02
      +1

      I knew it as "dropping in" on someone… or is that old school now? :)

      Numb nut tourists out on the break dropping in on locals wouldn't last too long out there ;).

      • Steve-o on 08/05/2018 - 19:37
        +1

        Yeah "dropping in" is still a currency. "Snaking" makes them sound worse ;)

        • UFO on 08/05/2018 - 21:36
          +1

          Thanks for the heads up. When I finally (ever) have time to get out there again, least I know what "snaking" is now :).

  • unqualified89 on 08/05/2018 - 07:46

    I dont think 'who is at fault' matters that much now tbh… you dont have insurance, she does have insurance and this situation has the potential to end up in a lengthy and expensive drawn out sh!t fight. I would be being as nice as possible to the woman, tell her the full story, and tell her that u are uninsured and at this stage (if you are to be directly out of pocket for the entire lot) it might take months to be able to cover the costs and fix her car (feel free to use a sob story and some hyperbole, Mr Poor Audi driver). You might be able to come to an arrangement where you use her insurance, you cover the cost of her excess and reimburse her a little extra for the hassle. Will be much cheaper in the long run

    • Aneurism on 08/05/2018 - 10:34
      +1

      This is ridiculous. The person at fault is important in determining who is liable.

    • Name on 08/05/2018 - 12:33
      +1

      I think you misunderstand how it works. She has full comprehensive insurance. Her insurance company will pay to fix her car (she'll have an excess depending on her insurance). The insurance company will then come after OP to pay the cost of repairing her car. Depending on the type of insurance she has, she'll need to take it up with OP to cover the excess.

      Because she has full comprehensive she is fine. It's OP who isn't if he is found at fault.. If she is found at fault, OP will have his uninsured car repaired and she'll have hers repaired and she'll just pay her policy excess.

      It's why a lot of people get full comprehensive insurance.. Less hassle if the person who crashes into you is uninsured.

      • unqualified89 on 08/05/2018 - 12:56

        OK, in simple terms - "pay her out". I get that whoever is at fault is liable, sure. The issue (for the person without insurance) is who is determinging who is at fault, and fighting that if necessary. It mind end up costing more to prove in court that you are not liable. Sure, they might be ordered to pay legal bills, but it's still the hassle. We have a situation here where OP thinks he is not at fault and the female driver thinks she is not at fault. How will her insurance side, who knows? Let's say that they can't come to an agreement and the insurance company comes after him for costs. He can either pay the FULL AMOUNT for her car and also for the AUDI, or he can go and fight it in court. OR, he can pay her now to tell her accept fault, pay her excess and a bit more for the hassle (so she accepts fault but has something in her pocket), save himself some money overall and avoid going to court. Not sure what you'd choose, but I'd choose less money and not going to court. Yes it's an insurance dodgy, but it's a fair grey area here, and it ends up as a win-win for everyone but the global-evil insurance company

        I have a Rating 1 for life and full comp. If I was in an accident (that it wasn't clear who was at fault) and the other person said, look I don't have insurance I can't afford to pay for your car to be fixed, but I'll pay your excess and give you $500 if you say that it was your fault and go through your insurance. I'd do it just to make the situation go away.

        • CMH on 08/05/2018 - 13:05

          If you admit liability (as in this case you're proposing) she will lose her insurance cover. It's in every insurance company's fine print.

          So no, not an option and may even be considered insurance fraud.

        • unqualified89 on 08/05/2018 - 13:08

          @CMH:
          If you have an accident where you are at fault then you can't be insured by that company any more? Ridiculous. Her rating will drop and she will be charged more in the future, unless she has a Rating 1 for life.
          All she has to do is say that "I wasn't looking and pulled out and collided with this car". I'd hardly call that fraud in this case, you're paying her to agree with what you are saying, instead of fighting it.

        • CMH on 08/05/2018 - 15:30

          @unqualified89: You can be in the wrong, and insurance will pay out.

          What you cannot do is admit fault and take the blame.

          What is fraud is accepting payment to admit fault.

          If you can't tell the difference between all 3 above statements, please don't reproduce.

        • justinvu on 08/05/2018 - 15:37

          @unqualified89: too late for that option as the other driver has provided the details of the accident the way it happened, and so did I. So it's not up to us to decide anymore - it's in the insurer's hands now.

          If I was insured and an uninsured person asked me to do that dodgy thing, I wouldn't do it. 1. my premium will go up, 2. potential litigation for myself as the insurer can sue me.

        • CMH on 09/05/2018 - 12:55

          @unqualified89:

          Just some links
          AAMI

          What you must not do
          • do not admit liability or responsibility to anyone to pay for any damage
          unless
          we agree;
          • do not negotiate or promise payment

          Allianz

          Deciding who is at fault
          We will be solely responsible for deciding whether you contributed to the cause of an accident.

          RACV

          you must not:
          • attempt to settle a claim made against you without our permission
          • make any admissions to anyone about any incident covered by your Policy

          Just the first 3 insurers I checked. I'm sure ALL of them have similar clauses. If you feel that I am still in the wrong, feel free to make your own deals when you're in an accident in the future.

  • unqualified89 on 08/05/2018 - 07:57

    Lesson for the future: it's better to be wrong and alive than right and dead. Nit really much point of legally having 'right of way' if ur car is in a crash or someone ends up hurt or worse. That's what I was taught when learning to drive, about being patient and not assuming the actions of other drivers too much until it is very clear what they are doing (as often they do not even know themselves!), especially if it is only to save a couple of seconds. Granted your situation did not have the potential for a fatality, but the principle is the same. She had no indicator when you arrived, regardless of who ends up 'legally' at fault, this situation was easily forseeable and avoidable. Just give her a few extra seconds and a healthy dose of the horn if she really starts to take her liberties. Quicker and cheaper in the long run!

  • HKS on 08/05/2018 - 08:40

    I have something with RACV so no matter what car I drive I have insurance, road side assist, etc. i'd probably invest in that.

  • Mikerobertsn on 08/05/2018 - 09:18
    -2

    You are in the right. However if you are found to be in the wrong your friend should pay, since they deceived you, you should only pay what their excess would have been for an unlisted driver.
    Correct me if I'm wrong but, there is no road rule I am aware of specifying that on private property you must queue behind the other driver. Did you drive recklessly, doesn't look like it. Could you have been more courteous, probably, no rules against that though.

    • cameldownunder on 08/05/2018 - 10:13
      +1

      " Did you drive recklessly, doesn't look like it." To me it does. Beauty of each having their own opinion.

  • jubjub69 on 08/05/2018 - 09:21
    +13

    In that situation if you're going to risk any collision then you must have the reflexes and skill to react to any sudden movements from the other car, especially at night. When you sneak up like that and try to pull a fast one then be prepared if it goes wrong in a split second.

    To avoid collision you could have immediately peeled left to the left lane and accelerated fast. Instead you centered up, even leaned right slightly.

    If you sensed her cutting you off to your right you could have also slammed on the brakes. But you didn't, it's clear you were unsure and or unaware by the way you kept creeping forward even until she hit you.

    For me any slight sense of object entering my peripheral vision I'm that much quicker to react. In my mind i already assume things can go wrong anywhere I drive. You are classic case of being aggressive while not taking into account the ignorance of the other driver.

    Dare I say feeding the stereotype of a young Asian driver driving a flashy white euro hatch but lacking full awareness and spatial skills. Also relates to skimping out on insurance to be honest. (I'm Asian too)

    • cameldownunder on 08/05/2018 - 10:14
      +2

      You are rude. ( I upvoted your comment )

    • Hybroid on 08/05/2018 - 10:45
      +3

      lacking full awareness and spatial skills

      Is this a stereotypical thing for Asians? Is it simply a cultural thing? Would explain behaviours at shopping malls and lifts a lot.

      • Aneurism on 08/05/2018 - 11:00
        +1

        Actually, that would be females

      • jubjub69 on 08/05/2018 - 13:31
        +5

        Ok to be absolutely politically incorrect (trigger warning)
        It's probably cultural in that Asians care more about what they're doing and not much of anyone else. if you've seen those terrifying dashcams from China and other asian countries you know what I'm talking about. Eg, children getting run over multiple times and zero f's given by bystanders, trucks running over whole families, losing control of cars. Because it's not the west road rules, courtesy and common sense are optional. I also think ability in maneuvering a vehicle with many variables in the environment is inherently lacking.

        Some will say well it's the fobs that drive like that not ones born here. But I've seen similar incompetence with younger asian drivers - maybe they were taught by their parents? Defensive driving and predicting other drivers behaviour is most important and should come natural with experience.

        The stereotype is true nearly all the time in my 18 years driving. regular close calls are guaranteed because of oblivious asian drivers. you can put indians (& other ethnics) and female drivers in this category too. females can be confident and aggressive when driving in a straight line but throw in a corner or obstacle and they dont do too well. Parking is the ultimate test.

        protip: any car with tissue boxes, pillows or any other paraphernalia in the back windows regardless of race or sex - they can't drive. this indicator has not failed me once.

        I'm not forgetting other crappy drivers like bogans in utes, wog hoons, soccer mums, blind old people, and truckies who think they own the road.

        That said I don't think OP is as bad, just not as aware and skilled like the woman in the cruze, when pulling off a cowboy move. Add to that driving on no insurance then it's amateur hour.

        • [Deactivated] on 08/05/2018 - 18:17
          +2

          Mate, Asians have the sickest reactive driving skills. In our prim and proper roads, pedestrians and drivers, what's there to avoid?

          "Oii, watch out! Bazza's ute is a full twenty centimetahs from the curb mate! You're gonna be within a metah from the cars when ya crossing." says the Aussie in a brush with death.

          Somewhere in South East Asia, there's a dude that can barely look over the steering wheel and so much stuff in the backseat there's no rear view having to dodge potholes, chickens, tuk tuks, open sewer grates, goats…

        • zooter on 09/05/2018 - 13:45
          +1

          why is tissue box in the back window an indicator of driving skill?

  • [Deactivated] on 08/05/2018 - 09:30
    +1

    After due consideration and deliberation with the council of my right brain, my left brain, and some home brewed beer, I have come to an inconclusion.

    Whether right or wrong, OP cannot defend that he could have avoided the collision by waiting patiently. His inference of the other driver's intended direction does not excuse his lack of signalling hence the argument of turn signals and intended direction negate one another. This is not sufficient to assign fault.

    It is, however, evident that the other driver failed to recognise a stationary vehicle and collided during the turn. The OP's stationary vehicle occupied a space that would be reasonable to assume a car may occupy. Furthermore, the space in which the collision occurred did not have marked lines, therefore the argument of an unsafe overtake is moot.

    I find in favour of OP.

    (Good luck getting a defense team.)

    • UFO on 08/05/2018 - 16:49

      Hmm, but OP's "stationary vehicle" was stationary in the middle of the outside lane- and 1 second earlier was moving.
      Other vehicle is not required to check left on a left turn (even though obviously prudent to do so).
      She had right of way in that instance, because on a road or road related area (as this driveway is), you must give way to oncoming traffic approaching from right.

      Road Rules 2014, Div 3, Sec 74 is where you'll find your answer.

      • [Deactivated] on 08/05/2018 - 17:14
        +1

        After repeated viewing of exhibit A (and the only evidence exhibited), it is demonstrable that the damages sustained is a direct result of a moving vehicle without sufficient turning radius around a stationary car. OP's car, however briefly, was stationary and the green car manouvered into the driver's side front corner and continued in the trajectory for a full car length. The green car catergorically caused the damage by failing to see the position of a car that is entirely within the confines of the pavement and continued to infringe into the space already occupied by OP's car.

        To quote the road rules referred above, in Sec 74 sub-sec 1-d(ii), "(ii) any other vehicle ahead of the driver’s vehicle or approaching from the left or right."

        It clearly stipulates that a driver does not just give way to the right, but also the left. This is equally applicable to OP and the driver of the green car.

        Objection overruled.

        (Gosh… The power! This must be what judge Judy feels like, except she gets to sport that powerhouse tomboy hairdo too).

        • UFO on 08/05/2018 - 17:39
          +2

          You conveniently dropped off "approaching" :).

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

          OP's car is the only one where the other car is approaching. ie does not apply to the other car because no one is approaching it.

          Feel the burn- objection sustained :).

        • [Deactivated] on 08/05/2018 - 17:59
          +1

          @UFO:
          It was shown in the video that the green car turned into the corner of OP's car.

          The green car did not just approach, nay, it encroached and the rest is history.

          Order order! (This is fun. Lawyers actually get paid for this?)

        • John Kimble on 08/05/2018 - 18:03
          +1

          @UFO: Yeah I think that part is what they'll ping the OP on. He did not give way to "any other vehicle ahead of the driver's vehicle"

      • nith265 on 10/05/2018 - 15:22

        Road Rules 2014, Div 3, Sec 74 is where you'll find your answer.

        My learned friend, you're quoting criminal law - and this is a civil case to decide damages.

        Breaches of road rules would mostly only dictate as to if the police can issue a ticket. (police issuing a ticket would be bad for OP's case but not a deal breaker)

        While road rules are taken into account, of equal importance in this case is the civil law concept of what a "reasonable person" would do, and the "duty of care" each of the parties owe each other.

        To me it looks like the other car hit OP while he was stationary. If a judge agreed with me on this, regardless of what road law says, civil law would hold that she has a "Duty of Care" not to hit OP and they are mostly responsible for causing the damage.

        I say mostly however as this would be mitigated somewhat by the fact that OP also had at least some "Duty of Care" to the the other driver and that a "reasonable person" would not have anticiated OP being there on the left hand side.

        I find that OP is 20% to blame and the other party 80%.

  • freakatronic on 08/05/2018 - 10:08

    Your fault dude. The way you drove is not how traffic works, and even though the other driver should have known you were there, you should have had the forethought to consider her position. She's turning left, so she'll only be looking right. Shouldn't be, but she definitely is.

    • cameldownunder on 08/05/2018 - 10:17
      +4

      The other car is very busy looking at the heavy incoming traffic, trying to find a spot to get onto the road. No need for OP to sneak up on the driver like that. The driver did put on the indicator to turn left, and OP still advanced.
      That + the fact you have no insurance puts you in an awful position.

    • shaiguy on 09/05/2018 - 12:04

      I think the issue with your comment is that she is definitely turning left. How can she definitely be turning left when:
      - she is in the middle of the exit
      - she does not turn left at ample opportunities, including when a car stops to let her go
      - she only indicates when she is turning

      If you saw a car stuck there waiting like that you cannot say they are definitively turning left. If she was indicating, on the left side, turned when she could have then yes.

      Also, if cars were stationary on her left and she rammed into them then she cannot use the excuse that she was not looking as she was watching oncoming traffic on her right.

  • Whomastadon on 08/05/2018 - 11:43
    +3

    Lol @ OP.

    Why would a friend list you as a driver on their insurance policy.

    Also.you didn't indicate either.

    You tried to cut in and that's why the accident happened.

    The video footage does nothing to help your case.

  • Fishfinger on 08/05/2018 - 12:47
    +2

    Don't sweat it. You can go on a payment plan and pay $10 a week or fortnight if you want.

  • netizen on 08/05/2018 - 12:49

    The other was a fool and selfish.

  • SupeNintendoChalmers on 08/05/2018 - 13:35
    -5

    After looking at the footage, mate you really your licence taken away- seriously, absolutely 0 road sense on your part since the Cruze driver was clearly indicating.

  • WaterMark on 08/05/2018 - 14:13

    Sorry but OP is wrong here. Despite the other car not indicating early enough, she did actually indicate when you started going around her. From there you can see her indicators blinking as they blink on the rear and the front side (below the side mirrors). You clearly would of seen them blinking from your drivers side seat as you were right next to it - so you weren’t paying attention. You are in her blind spot and supposed to give way to your right (even though there are no lines - then you give way whoever was first). Next time don’t be so pushy.

    • ozhunter on 08/05/2018 - 14:16

      OP was pushy and should have waited behind. But where the other car was waiting to go on the main road wasn't a marked lane or anything, so OP was allowed to exit from where he did.

  • shaiguy on 08/05/2018 - 16:45
    +5

    Initially when I read the post and watched the video I was fully against the OP, however having watched it a few times, even though the OP is an idiot not to. E more cautious when driving someone else’s car and being impatient, it is the other car’s fault/responsibility given the following:
    a) it did not indicate
    b) it sat in the middle of an exit where 3 cars could have easily fitted
    c) it ignored times when it could have easily turned left - even when a car stopped to let it go.
    d) it only indicates when it was turning left
    e) it did not check when it was turning left that another car was there
    f) it initiated contact
    For all the above it is very much more in the wrong and I believe should have to pay costs for both (OP may struggle getting it). If you are not going to indicate and leave a spot for a car to turn left then if you decide to turn left then you should check whether a car is there when you decide to turn left. Obviously the other car was trying to find a break in the traffic to turn right and check that it was safe to turn right but you can’t just hedge bets and if you do, then you need to make sure it is safe to turn left - to make a safe left turn then you get on the far left side of the lane to turn and if you don’t then check left before turning. This is no different to the car crashing into stationary cars on the left - it should have checked. It could have resolved each of the above errors by:
    a) indicating early
    b) moving over the far left
    c) turning when it had easy opportunity
    d) indicating very early
    e) checking before driving or ensuring it had moved to left of lane initially
    f) - doing any of the above

  • STE on 08/05/2018 - 18:33
    +4

    typical impatient audi driver, pay up.

    • bloobat on 08/05/2018 - 18:50
      +2

      Impatient, yes. But I would be too if you had an idiot in front not turning when they have the chance. The other driver is at fault imo

    • max900 on 09/05/2018 - 11:56

      Yes the audi driver is impatient but the other driver shouldn't be on the road. Most people would go around the black car. Absolute poor judgement and skill from the black car. Go back to Learners if you drive like that.

  • bargain_knight on 08/05/2018 - 20:29
    +3

    Everyone is so mean on here. This is the definition of accident. It could happen to anyone here, despite what people are saying.

    The OP made a mistake but the other driver contributed massively to the accident.

    It is now a civil matter and up to the other person's insurance to claim from him. If I was in his position I would insist I'm not at fault and never admit liability. They may give up.

  • payless69 on 08/05/2018 - 20:35

    ride a bike from now on and you get the real feeling if some impatient sub VW driver cuts you off

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join