Car Accident - Who Is at Fault? (Turning Right into Driveway - Uninsured)

takutox on 15/05/2019 - 13:37
Last edited 16/05/2019 - 19:06 by 1 other user

Hi Ozbargain,

Just got into a car accident and thought I'd ask the experts

I was turning right into my driveway with blinker on. A car gave way, and I proceeded to turn. As I was turning, a car came from the parking lane (to overtake the two cars that were giving way) crossing a solid line. I managed to brake but she did not. The right corner of her car collided with the front-right side of my car. My car had a scratch but the entire front-right corner of her car was damaged.

Since we do not have any witnesses who will most likely be determined at fault here? (i.e. what will the damage show in this case)

Thanks.

edit: Diagram requested by Spackbace (our competition overlord)

Edit 2: The spot right past the shoulder lane solid line marking is a bus stop (until driveway 2) to which it then dotted lines start after that

Automotive

Comments

                • microsnot on 17/05/2019 - 21:05

                  @takutox: She did give way and entered the road. You turned in front of her. Shouldn't you have given way?

            • [Deactivated] on 15/05/2019 - 18:57

              @takutox: To play devil's advocate here, the other driver's lawyer maybe, the drivers giving you way didn't need to stop where they did and created a traffic hazard that she was avoiding. They were stopped unnaturally so she took the next best option. I would say that area is grey and not quite the 100% illegal case you state. Unfortunately you, as the right turning vehicle, need to give way to oncoming traffic of all kinds. If she even had a 1% reasonable reason for being there, you pretty much need to accommodate that and give way.

              Also think very carefully whether you would volunteer being waved through in court. If that turns out to be illegal you are just self incriminating.

      • coin saver on 16/05/2019 - 13:08
        -3

        Any Neg. voters care to explain themselves?

  • pegaxs on 15/05/2019 - 15:11
    +4

    Hahaha… Man, these threads do my head in.

    I was a bit worried though. We had not had a stupid "uninsured" thread in at least a few days, but it's ok now, we can all resume the status quo.

    Thread cycle seems to go, uninsured car accident, speeding fine, parking fine, revenue raising disgust thread…

    OP pulled into the path of incoming vehicle. Proceed to depart with stupid tax.

  • Taro Milk Tea on 15/05/2019 - 15:19

    We need more thread like this…..

    Anyway, to avoid getting negged, OP let your insurance deal with this, If you have it

    • [Deactivated] on 15/05/2019 - 15:24
      +2

      to avoid getting negged

      That's no way to live life.

      let your insurance deal with this

      šŸ˜‚

      • Taro Milk Tea on 15/05/2019 - 15:25

        That's no way to live life.

        Hey, I tried my best though!

        I leave my fate to everyone's hand now.

        Edit:

        Ah ok, uninsured just read that part, forgive me.

        No insurance, no witness, you were the one who turning = you're at fault.

        Bring me all the negS!!!!

        • takutox on 15/05/2019 - 15:43

          No worries. Happy to entertain/make some people feel better ,if the misfortune of others makes you happier.

          To be clear I am not negging anyone in this thread, its other ozbers. So possibly consider your own behaviour?

      • Charity on 16/05/2019 - 23:59
        +1

        to avoid getting negged

        Exactly. If you are never getting negged, you are probably not saying anything worth listening to.

  • Skramit on 15/05/2019 - 15:27
    +5

    Oh you are 100% at fault.

    As soon as you mention 'turning right' you will be at fault if the other person is proceeding straight on the same carriageway.

  • Ocker on 15/05/2019 - 15:31

    I had an exact same accident and the insurance company said it was my fault.

    • takutox on 15/05/2019 - 15:42
      +1

      Hmm, did you try to argue against it?

      • [Deactivated] on 15/05/2019 - 15:44
        +6

        Insurer: it's your fault.

        Driver: Nuh uh.

        Insurer: Our mistake. Pardon us.

        • takutox on 15/05/2019 - 15:48
          -1

          1) That is why there is even a court process and negotiation process. I have read that its possible to negotiate the amount and sometimes there are investigations where you are asked what happened, its not always as clear cut as that.

          2) You've made your point already, stop beating a dead horse?

          • [Deactivated] on 15/05/2019 - 15:51
            -2

            @takutox: You're an uninsured driver. You're not a dead horse.

            Getting money out of an uninsured driver is more akin to beating a dead beat.

            • takutox on 15/05/2019 - 16:02
              +1

              @[Deactivated]: Relax and mature a little? This is OzBargain, not League of Legends.

              • [Deactivated] on 15/05/2019 - 16:06

                @takutox: Maturity would be having insurance and not assuming you had it nor that someone else plays League of Legends.

                If only you did less assuming.

                • takutox on 15/05/2019 - 16:09

                  @[Deactivated]: I didn't say you played League of Legends (nothing wrong with the game).

                  Just that you're in this thread flaming nonstop like someone who is obviously not mature. Feels like I am in a LoL game with you.

                  • [Deactivated] on 15/05/2019 - 16:13
                    -5

                    @takutox: What is obvious obviously eludes you.

                    Maturity is buying insurance, not assuming it is the default.

                    • takutox on 15/05/2019 - 16:15
                      +1

                      @[Deactivated]: So you've never used someones car and not asked for their insurance papers/proof/receipt? What if this person is your partner/relative?

                      I agree, that is maturity. Your behaviour in this thread is not maturity. It's the kind of online gaming behaviour where people are trying to get their self esteem. Not welcome on ozb, imo.

                      • [Deactivated] on 15/05/2019 - 16:17
                        -3

                        @takutox: Never. I don't typically loan someone else's car. I rent one and pay for excess reduction. If I absolutely have to drive someone elses' car, I check for insurance.

                        So, no. I have never driven uninsured.

                        • takutox on 15/05/2019 - 16:21
                          +1

                          @[Deactivated]: I have never borrowed someone elses car either, if we go by your definition. Renting is not the issue here. You might not understand, usually when you have a close family its normal to sometimes use someone elses car to do something or go on short errands. Sometimes you take turns driving or maybe you're driving them to airport and you decide to use their car (They drive on the way, you drive back).

                          Sometimes people make mistakes in life, its ok. It happens and is possible.

                          • [Deactivated] on 15/05/2019 - 17:08
                            -1

                            @takutox:

                            Sometimes people make mistakes in life, its ok. It happens and is possible.

                            I hope you do not really believe this. Actions have consequences, not all consequences are reversible.

                            • takutox on 16/05/2019 - 08:25

                              @[Deactivated]: You hope I do not believe that people can make mistakes in life? Consequences have nothing to do with what I said, that's why you need to use actual logic to argue and not attack strawmen. I'm not saying its ok don't need to face any consequences, I'm saying its ok people make mistakes just focus on what can be done now

                        • Taro Milk Tea on 15/05/2019 - 16:40
                          +1

                          @[Deactivated]: Spare him tshow lolll

  • maybeamacy on 15/05/2019 - 15:37
    +6

    At least you can use the money saved from not having insurance to pay for the repairs.

    • takutox on 15/05/2019 - 16:04

      True, that's a plus!

  • brad1-8tsi on 15/05/2019 - 15:43
    +6

    You are at fault.

    You have to ensure the road is clear before making a RH turn. If you can't see then you shouldn't proceed.

    These silly tossers that stop and give way when they don't have to are a menace.

    edit: I can't understand why people don't take out TPPD insurance. What happens if you hit a Rolls Royce?

    • takutox on 15/05/2019 - 15:53

      Just a whole chain of events that lead to thinking they had insurance, but not having it. Knowing the whole story I do not blame them although its possible that someone genuinely thought this was the case. It's not unimagineable. For example, someone telling you they have insurance and you used their car. Normally you take their word for it, right?

      That's one of these situations.. although now I am implicated.

      • Aneurism on 15/05/2019 - 21:07
        -2

        You take their word for it if you trust them implicitly or you are stupid. A lot of people don't evern read their insurance terms and conditions and in a lot of cases wouldn't even realise if they were covered for certain circumstances.

        But even if you do trust them, you get them to write down on paper a contract to say that they are insured and will absorb any liability beyond the equivalent of what would be an excess payment if you are in an accident and found at fault.

        Personally I believe you would be both found partially at fault if you were insured. However, as you weren't they will try to pin it on you.

      • brad1-8tsi on 16/05/2019 - 07:39
        +1

        Fair enough.

        I use my GFs and my daughters car all the time and have never asked for proof they are registered or insured.

      • db87 on 17/05/2019 - 08:38

        Has it said anywhere in this post that the owner HAD any form of insurance at any time? If it was a case of not paying a renewal or missing a letter (with everything going online these days), you may find the insurer can still cover the owner if they pay what would have been their normal premium.

        Failing that, if they just blatantly didn't pay it and are now chasing their tail, they only have themselves to blame.

        Although you've now been dragged into it, it's entirely the owners problem to deal with. You might offer what would have been their premium or an equivalent rental cover but I personally wouldn't go further than that.

        It was their responsibility to ensure they were insured and I have zero sympathy for anyone who isn't diligent in maintaining important items, insurance being one of them. Not to be rude, but I/you find it's always these people that also cry poor when shit hits the fan and expect to be bailed out and or put pressure on a system that wouldn't otherwise have to if they'd towed the line like everyone else.

  • Seraphin7 on 15/05/2019 - 15:50

    In the absence of witnesses, etc., etc. you have ultimately not given way as required by law. Looks like you'll be getting stiffed with the bill.

  • pjetson on 15/05/2019 - 16:37

    a car came from the parking lane crossing a solid line

    I think the actual line markings on the road may decide this. Do you have a google map or google street view or a photo?

    In general, you need to give way to oncoming traffic. However, it could be that the other driver was not allowed to be driving where they were. That might make both parties at fault.

    • takutox on 15/05/2019 - 16:42

      I'll see if I can get one without revealing too many personal details.

      There are no markings on the road apart from what was drawn in the diagram. The place she came from is a bus parking zone. The dotted lines saying you can even enter that lane only start right at my driveway

      Anyway, will see if I can get a photo to hopefully get more help. Thanks guys.

      • Eeples on 19/05/2019 - 22:08

        But you are assuming where the car came from….. because you didnā€™t see it until it was too late.

  • Herbse on 15/05/2019 - 16:49
    +3

    She was driving illegally in the parking lane.
    You'll have to argue that you couldn't see her because that is not part of the driving road and she shouldn't have been there. Make those points very clear.

    I know everyone will say, "herp you should have checked before going".
    But you did. You waited until the ONE lane of the road was clear and then you turned in. She was driving in an area she shouldn't be. It's like blaming someone for hitting a car driving on the footpath as you turned in. The other cars obstructed the view and they shouldn't have been there.

    That's my opinion on it. And I would be interested to know how what the real outcome is

    • coin saver on 15/05/2019 - 17:32
      +2

      " You waited until the ONE lane of the road was clear and then you turned in." What if it had been a bike?.."She was driving in an area she shouldn't be" for OP to know this he must have seen her so why was there a collision?

      • eggboi on 15/05/2019 - 17:39
        +1

        1. it wasn't a bike.

        2. bikes can only travel in the shoulder on roads where the speed limit is 90kmh or above (see below)

        "Motorcyclistsā€”with an open licence for the type of motorcycle they are ridingā€”can also use the road shoulder on roads with a speed limit of 90km/h or over, to pass stationary or slow moving traffic providing theyā€™re not travelling over 30km/h."

        • coin saver on 15/05/2019 - 18:09

          I was talking about a bicycle on the road.

      • takutox on 15/05/2019 - 17:41

        I did, and car was fully breaked in time. 100% breaked due to noticing. It was her speeding in the parking lane trying to make it past my driveway before I turned in. By this point all the cars have already stopped.

        When you are going in driveway you also have time to give way to pedestrians/bikes before you proceed all the way in.

        The question is if someone is doing something clearly illegal am I still forced to pay for their repair?

        • stumo on 15/05/2019 - 19:00
          +1

          you cant prove it so its moot anyway.

        • brad1-8tsi on 16/05/2019 - 07:44

          She was breaking the speed limit? (note correct spelling of break whereas you were braking).

          Do you definitely know they were doing something illegal? Have the Police or SMA confirmed this?

          If it was a motorbike…

          Seriously, you are stuffed and will have to pay.

        • nith265 on 16/05/2019 - 13:22
          +1

          The question is if someone is doing something clearly illegal am I still forced to pay for their repair?

          You need to get this idea out of your head. There is no ā€œGotcha!ā€ you were driving illegally in an unmarked lane therefore Iā€™m not liable.

          Even if you can prove she has broken a road law so have you by not giving way - you could both get tickets from police. These are road (criminal) law issues ā€“ your concern is civil law and damages.

          It seems fairly inarguable that you are at very least partially liable for causing the accident. But from how youā€™ve described it the other party may have failed to drive reasonably and contributed to the accident. Itā€™s a shame you have no witnesses to support your side of things though.

          Your focus should be on building as strong an argument as possible as to how they failed execute their ā€œduty of careā€ to you, how they contributed to the accident, and what reasoinable steps you took to avoid it .

        • coin saver on 16/05/2019 - 14:35

          So what is the speed limit on your road?

  • eggboi on 15/05/2019 - 17:36

    The long and the short of it is that all parties were doing the wrong thing, and all of those things contributed to the accident, but only OP and the other car involved in the collision will be held responsible by insurance.

    -Driver giving way should not have stopped to give way
    -OP should not have executed the turn without being 100% certain of no oncoming traffic
    -Driver who ran into OP should not have been driving in the shoulder, as it is only there for overtaking cars turning right, or very slow moving vehicles to drive in so other traffic can pass (tractors, diggers etc).

    Bottom line is, insurance will most likely find you both responsible, but the oncoming driver illegally driving in the shoulder would likely sway the apportionment of blame toward the oncoming car who collided (in the OP's favour). (assuming i'm reading everything correctly)

    • takutox on 15/05/2019 - 17:45

      Thanks. Would the insurance company also be able to tell that its their fault in this case?

      • eggboi on 15/05/2019 - 17:48
        +2

        only if the driver of the other vehicle agrees with you (unlikely) or if the drivers of the witness vehicles agree with you in writing (you said you didn't get their details).

        without seeing dashcam footage of the incident and also road markings etc, it's impossible for us on the forum to know who is mostly at fault and what percentage, but it sounds like they were driving in a shoulder illegally. but if the shoulder ended just before your driveway (ambiguous curved line meeting driveway 1 in in your diagram) then they were no longer in the shoulder when they hit you, and it would be your fault unfortunately.

  • [Deactivated] on 15/05/2019 - 17:38
    -2

    YOUR FAULT

    thank you and goodnight

  • Godric on 15/05/2019 - 18:11

    Yes

  • oz-eh on 15/05/2019 - 18:28
    +1

    OP should be at fault, as you should only turn right when safe to do so.

  • crentist on 15/05/2019 - 18:31
    -1

    I managed to brake but she did not.

    Sounds like you didn't, actually.

  • Cheapsize on 15/05/2019 - 18:43

    Did person B overtake and perform a lane change on unbroken lines?

    • [Deactivated] on 16/05/2019 - 20:05

      That's what it looks like, although it'd be nice to look at the location or at least a screenshot of it from google maps, rather than a rough sketch. If that's the case then I think the other vehicle was doing an illegal undertaking manoeuvre on the shoulder, and is at fault. Surely you can't be held liable for failing to give way to people driving illegally.

      • Cheapsize on 17/05/2019 - 09:26

        Yeah I was thinking that's the only defence.

        However I think it's illegal not to have at least 3rd party insurance in some states?

        • [Deactivated] on 18/05/2019 - 16:02

          I assumed you had to have 3rd party in all states. Its part of your registration fees in Qld.

  • stumo on 15/05/2019 - 18:49

    A car gave way, and I proceeded to turn.

    How did you not get those cars as witnesses? At least note their numberplates in a photo.

    • qwerty on 15/05/2019 - 19:19
      +1

      Would most likely hurt his case and what extra evidence could they provide - that you left him turn in front of you and he hit someone in the side lane ?

      Imagine getting a letter or call from the police to make a statement or worse getting subpoenaed to court and missing a day of work for a low speed crash where all the evidence you could provide was letting them turn in front of you - i would bet 90% of people would paint op in a negative light saying that he wasn't looked when he turned just for the hassle .

  • hasher22 on 15/05/2019 - 18:52
    +1

    Hate to say it, but OP is at fault. Even tho the 2 cars gave way to you in lane 1, I assume you didn't have enough vision to see lane 2 to see the other car, thus you stopped in-time when you saw the car but the other car might not have seen you as well turning right. So both cars didn't have vision of each other.

    I remember when getting my L's and Green P's, the right answer is always turn right when safe to do so. You would fail a question if a vehicle is blocking your sight.

  • Randxyz123 on 15/05/2019 - 19:27

    The other driver sounds like an idiot but unfortunately, you were turning right so you need to give way to everyone.

    What do you mean by "parking lane"? Do you just mean the left lane? (Sorry I've never heard of that term being used). Doesn't matter if they were there or pulled out illegally, you still need to give way.

  • p1 ama on 15/05/2019 - 20:41
    +16

    This entire thread disappoints me and demonstrates why Australia, compared to other similarly developed countries, is a horrible place to drive.

    Let me get this straight - you had a driver who was trying to overtake stationary vehicles on the left, and also in a parking lane in order to just push into the queue two cars earlier. Regardless of whether she hit OP or not, this is exactly the sort of driver that we should get off the roads. By doing that, she is putting other drivers at risk by potentially hitting cars (rightfully) stopped in the parking lane, she will be holding up traffic when she pushes back in the queue of cars and tries to weasel her way back in and, most importantly, she is creating a danger not just for people like OP trying to turn right, but also cars that are trying to turn left.

    This is not to mention the seriously bad manners. If I pushed into a line like that in any other situation (imagine airport, busy restaurant, footy game), I would rightly be bundled straight back to the end of the line. This behaviour is unacceptable in civilised society where we have learned to wait in queues.

    My post isn't about who is in the right/wrong, pushing in line in a long airport queue is also "legal", it doesn't make it acceptable behaviour. Even if OP is in the wrong here legally, the other driver's behaviour should be called out. The reason why the quality of drivers keeps going down is because we don't call out bad driving when we should.

    • Herbse on 16/05/2019 - 01:54
      +4

      Couldn't agree more. There's a huge sense of selfishness when it comes to driving. Everyone is out to look after themselves, and find technically "legal" ways and mostly illegal ways to get ahead of the traffic or beat a red light, with complete disregard for everyone else.

      • driving through the service side road to get ahead of a traffic jam
      • driving in the bus lane
      • driving in the emergency, shoulder lane
      • driving over solid lines and painted islands
      • not keeping intersections clear because they don't want another car to get in front of them
      • driving too close to other drivers

      Everyone is in such a rush to get to work because they're too lazy to leave on time, then after work everyone's in a rush for what? To get home and watch Bachelor in Paradise I assume. Then they're so used to driving like a (profanity) all week, this follows them into the weekend.

      Something that really annoys me lately are people who park where they're not supposed to because they're too fat and lazy to walk 10 metres.

      • parking in the parents with pram spots when you have no kids
      • parking in disabled spots to "pop into the post office quickly"
      • parking during the timed no parking during school zones

      Selfishness and laziness is on the increase

      • p1 ama on 17/05/2019 - 20:26
        +1

        Everyone is out to look after themselves, and find technically "legal" ways and mostly illegal ways to get ahead of the traffic or beat a red light, with complete disregard for everyone else.

        I just hate this sort of behaviour, especially the sort of arrogance that these sort of drivers tend to have, especially when they go and try to lecture other people about driving.

        When I went overseas, especially in Europe (and even in Asia), what I find is that drivers are so much better at communicating and understanding each other. If someone's ahead of you in an overtaking lane and blocking, either a flash of the headlights or a light beep of the horn and they'll move out of your way, sometimes even raising their hand as an apology. I wouldn't feel comfortable doing that here because I feel like I'll be flashing a moron and he'll just jump on the brakes or tries to start a fight.

        It's just driving for f's sake, not like some contest about one's manhood.

        Everyone is in such a rush to get to work because they're too lazy to leave on time, then after work everyone's in a rush for what? To get home and watch Bachelor in Paradise I assume.

        I used to leave work at 6pm and get home at 7pm, I now leave work at 7.30pm and get home at 8pm, and I'm much more productive and even though I get home later, I feel much fresher avoiding all the traffic, people should try it!

    • LPV569 on 16/05/2019 - 08:31

      Agree with you 100%. Thereā€™s so many inconsiderate/dangerous drivers on the roads. Op is at fault legally, but the other driver is a menace on the road also.

    • nith265 on 16/05/2019 - 11:41
      +1

      Great comment ā€“ agree entirely

      It also highlights that the other driver could be held to have contributed to the accident by not taking "reasonable" care to avoid it.

      The onus is on all drivers to do everything "reasonable" to avoid the accident. Driving at 30-40 kms an hour in an unofficial left lane, while other traffic is stopped in the right hand lane might not be considered ā€œreasonableā€ by a court.

      OP is mostly to blame to failing to give way but for the sake of deciding civil damages it could well be argued the other driver didnā€™t exercise their duty of care to OP. OP should at least put this line of argument to the insurance company when they come after them.

    • Homr on 16/05/2019 - 11:59
      +1

      If I was the jury and after reading this, I would have changed my verdict from 100% OP fault to both parties at 50% fault.

      Does she have insurance? if not, tell her to get nicked.

    • gromit on 16/05/2019 - 14:39

      If his diagram is correct then it wasn't a parking lane at all, it was a traffic lane with a parking lane just prior to it which they pulled out of. very hard to be certain from diagram but sounds like the other driver wasn't doing anything wrong.

      • takutox on 16/05/2019 - 18:33

        It did not become a traffic lane yet, note the lack of dotted lines. It is a bus parking zone right up to my driveway. I know legally she broke a road law by crossing the solid lines earlier. The speed at which she was moving in shoulder lane and trying to overtake to beat the traffic light right ahead is why she had no time to brake and I was fully stationary. Although most people are saying I am at fault legally/financially regardless of what she did which I now accept (well without dashcam not much I can do)

  • Repi on 15/05/2019 - 21:07
    -2

    Diagram is not very clear, are you one of the specialists crossing a solid white or double solid white line to get into you drive way? If yes, serves you right, if no, bad luck, should have looked

    • coin saver on 16/05/2019 - 05:21
      +1

      Both of which are legal.

  • Pantagonist on 15/05/2019 - 21:51

    Long story short, it doesn't sound like any eyewitnesses were obtained and police weren't called so this will be a case of what you say vs. what the other driver says.

    If the damage is minimal and likely to exceed the other driver's insurance excess / cost them their no claim bonus then they may not put in a claim. You'll just have to wait to see if you hear from their insurer and decide where you want to take things from there. You can formulate whatever defence you'd like to if you decide to contest the claim in court. There will be no objective facts or dispassionate testimony submitted so whether you win or not will depend on whether your story is deemed more credible than the other driver's story on the day.

    Good luck, hope you can get it sorted out.

  • Michaelz101 on 15/05/2019 - 22:06

    my wife did something similar last year. It was ultimately her responsibility to check both lanes before turning right into our driveway.

    • Herbse on 16/05/2019 - 01:41
      +1

      It's not a lane. It's a parking spot

      • Pantagonist on 16/05/2019 - 07:05
        +3

        If you look at OP's diagram, the parking section ends about two car lengths before OP's driveway.

        OP hasn't clarified whether the oncoming driver was racing up the lane from a distance, or if they pulled out from behind the two stationary cars and briefly entered the parking lane to overtake just before the second lane starts.

        Both actions aren't permitted, but without any evidence, witnesses or a police report it's going to be difficult to prove.

        • Herbse on 16/05/2019 - 08:43
          +1

          This is true. I guess the OP could be in trouble

      • imurgod on 16/05/2019 - 07:18

        It's irrelevant. OP crossed her path and she was travelling straight.

  • TheBooleanOne on 15/05/2019 - 23:19

    You mention there were no witnesses for you, but did she get any?

    Seems to me like they will have a hard time proving anything, if this is how you want to play it.

  • Mrgreenz on 15/05/2019 - 23:45
    +2

    Is their such thing as a parking lane?

    You're at fault IMO

    • Benji on 16/05/2019 - 00:44
      +1

      The parking area has a solid white line sectioning it off from the road. They're narrower than a normal lane as well.

  • imurgod on 16/05/2019 - 07:16
    -1

    You're at fault. You crossed her lane.

    You can't prove speed but even then, it wouldn't be a factor in this one.

    You will be up for the repair bill.

  • ankor on 16/05/2019 - 07:41

    Chances are that it's not a clear cut 100% fault determination in any party's favour. The insurance company you are with will charge you an excess regardless, most of them take it when you lodge a claim in the first place.

    If you look at their T&C, the return of an excess will be about whether the insurance company is able to fully recover damages against the other party. So in your situation, you'll probably have to pay an excess.

    The person who was undertaking by driving in the parking lane on a two lane roadway will be in a worse off position than you are when she's attempting recovery. Not legal advice btw. Just someone on Australia's foremost bargaining website braah

    • Pantagonist on 16/05/2019 - 09:06

      The insurance company you are with will charge you an excess regardless

      OP was not insured.

      The person who was undertaking by driving in the parking lane on a two lane roadway will be in a worse off position than you are when she's attempting recovery.

      How will this be proven when there are no witnesses other than the people who were involved in the accident?

      If the person who hit OP decides to file a claim, their insurance will attempt to recover costs directly from OP. At that stage OP will need to decide whether to contest the claim / take it to court and hope that their story is better than the insurer's.

      Not legal advice btw. Just someone on Australia's foremost bargaining website braah

      Ain't that the truth.

  • alexfire on 16/05/2019 - 09:34
    +1

    IF you turn right it becomes ur fault. Otherwise to prove the other cars fault u must have dashcam evidence.
    I had similar situation. Insurance didn't cover me

  • giventofly on 16/05/2019 - 10:45

    Sorry, OP - sucks but it's you at fault :(

  • giventofly on 16/05/2019 - 10:46

    Sorry, OP - sucks but it's you at fault :(

    EDIT: Parking lane changes my opinion. I honestly don't know.

    • Pantagonist on 16/05/2019 - 11:03

      Keep us up to date if you change your mind again.

  • tik tok on 16/05/2019 - 11:38

    The "solid line parking" you mention is actually called shoulder !!!

  • Homr on 16/05/2019 - 11:46

    Came here to see an ms paint diagram with a "ka pow" diagram, was disappointed

  • trapper on 16/05/2019 - 12:21

    You're at fault sorry mate

    • trapper on 16/05/2019 - 12:25
      +1

      Also lucky it wasn't a cyclist you pulled in front of, could have been a serious injury.

  • Kamsi on 16/05/2019 - 12:51

    Similar thing happen to me, call the insurance company tells me it is my fault. However, I did have a dashcam which shows I was stationary at the time and for some reason it wasn't my fault.

    • Homr on 16/05/2019 - 13:37
      +1

      Insurer: 100% your fault
      You: I have a dashcam
      Insurer: Ok not your fault

      šŸ˜„šŸ˜ƒ

      • Kamsi on 16/05/2019 - 13:57

        Crazy as it seems, I was surprise too.

        • nith265 on 17/05/2019 - 09:40

          well just because you break a road law, it doesnā€™t automatically give the other driver the right to crash into to you if they could reasonably avoid it

          perhaps that what your dashcam showed?

          • Kamsi on 17/05/2019 - 19:54

            @nith265: I don't know the real reason but that what my comprehensive insurer tells me. I guess having C.I pays off in the end.

  • Zanadar on 16/05/2019 - 14:37
    +1

    There is also yet another lesson here that nobody should be driving without at least third party property insurance. It should be mandatory!
    What would you do if you were at fault in the write off of a $300,000 supercar (ferarri, lambo etc)? You would be forced to sell your assets (house etc) to pay your debt.If you cannot afford third party insurance then you simply can not afford to be driving.

    • twocsies on 16/05/2019 - 22:40

      I believe that insurance is on a car, not a driver. Thus, although nobody should be driving a vehicle that does not have third party property insurance, it is credible that a driver would not know that a vehicle was not insured because it was a borrowed vehicle. In my state, there is no longer any physical proof of insurance located with a vehicle, and it could also be the case in NSW. How will you know? As a result, I believe that it is the owner of the vehicle who is liable for the damages, but if you force them to pay, they will not lend you their car again.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join