Accident with a Truck (Uninsured)

Lausmansan on 21/06/2019 - 17:47
Last edited 22/06/2019 - 11:10 by 1 other user

I live in QLD and I had an accident in NSW region last year. The weather was terrible, it was hailing and raining at the same time. I was in a car and was hit by a truck. My car was written off and there were very little damages to the truck. I was uninsured at the time of the accident (my blunder).

Insurance company of the truck slapped me with a bill of nearly $42000 accusing me fully at fault. They forwarded the case to the lawyer. I offered them $10000 for their damages to pay them in instalments. They refused my offer. They want to take me to court. It can be seen from the video footage that the truck driver was not speeding according to the weather conditions. I have uploaded the dashcam footage that they given me as an evidence of my fault.

I want to know if I am at fault? If yes, to what extent? What are my chances if the matter goes to court.

Truck driver was definitely over speeding as per the weather conditions. Any comments on that?

Tried to calculate his speed by the dashcam footage.

He crossed 25 white lines in 10 seconds. Each white line is 10 feet itself and the distance between the lanes are 30 feet, in total 40 feet.

25 x 40 = 1000 feet
1000 feet = .308 meters in 10 seconds
.308 meters x 6 = 1.848
1.848 x 60 = 110 KMPH

Max speed for these kind of trucks in NSW is 100 KMPH

Automotive

Comments

      • pegaxs on 22/06/2019 - 10:02

        “64% of all statistics are made up…”

        • Musing Outloud on 23/06/2019 - 12:16

          And 95% of the rest are cherry picked!

        • [Deactivated] on 26/06/2019 - 19:59

          13% of fake statistics are discovered because it's not a prime number.

      • qwerty on 22/06/2019 - 10:15

        https://lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch01s03s02s02.php

        Contributory negligence occurs in accidents at intersections where, for example, the driver of the vehicle with right of way may be held 25% responsible. This is because every driver is supposed to drive safely in all circumstances. Thus failure to take reasonable steps to avoid an accident (perhaps because of excessive speed) may lead a court to find that the driver is partly responsible for the accident.

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 24/06/2019 - 11:56
          -1

          reasonable steps to avoid an accident

          face palm

          OP merged lanes, in poor weather and incredibly low speed, in front of the truck. What else is the truck driver to do?

          You are so offtrack it's embarrassing.

  • Jetstream on 21/06/2019 - 18:21
    +22

    100% at fault.

    When you say speeding for the conditions, are you talking about the conditions of sharing the roads with a poor, uninsured driver, who should not have a license?

    If that’s what’s you mean, then yes, he was driving too fast for the conditions

  • o53djz7qTPY4der on 21/06/2019 - 18:22
    +8

    42,000 reasons to have insurance.

  • spackbace on 21/06/2019 - 18:25
    +18

    Who wants popcorn?

    Pulls up a chair

    • ronnknee on 21/06/2019 - 18:27
      +3

      Is it free?

      • spackbace on 21/06/2019 - 18:28
        +6

        Yes, but it's cursed

        I have frogurt?

      • ProlapsedHeinous on 21/06/2019 - 22:54

        Unfortunately it has increased by 40 dollars due to increased risk profile.

        • Never Pay RRP on 22/06/2019 - 10:18
          +3

          Haha, looks like those actuaries really paid off here, as the insurance company dodged a bullet on this one

    • l005e on 21/06/2019 - 18:28

      Room for one more?

      • craving on 23/06/2019 - 18:00

        or two?

    • savage bargain on 21/06/2019 - 20:37
      +1

      Looks like my Friday night entertainment is sorted…

  • mgh4me on 21/06/2019 - 18:34

    Been in similar situation but not as expensive. You have a right to get an independent inspection of the vehicle and a full break down of cost. Send letter to insurance company via. registered post stating that you will not be paying without an independent inspection.

    • ausmansan on 21/06/2019 - 18:35
      -3

      Accident was happened in Jan 2018. Is is still possible to go for an option of an independent inspection?

    • [Deactivated] on 21/06/2019 - 19:48
      +1

      That looks like a big freight truck.

      Even if they have to take it off the road for a day, the cost of losing the use of the vehicle would be substantial.

      I think $42,000 is reasonable to replace a few front panels and the inconvenience.

      • AdosHouse on 21/06/2019 - 21:19

        I would have to look up truck insurance, but if it is like car insurance than the companies vehicle insurance could only cover the cost of the truck repairs. It's not like a tradie can claim lost income on their car insurance. Company would have to sue OP for the business costs.

        • [Deactivated] on 21/06/2019 - 22:18

          Even if their insurer paid for the lost income, the insurer will still go after OP. Either way the money has to come from somewhere, may as well be from the person who caused the damage.

  • pegaxs on 21/06/2019 - 18:35
    +46

    You paid with cash and not with your life. This could easily have been much worse.

    As a truck driver, this kind of accident always makes me feel sick. I dread it every time I go out on the road and have dash cams up the wazoo to cover me. Car drivers just don't give a flying (fropanity) most of the time. They think the steel box they are in is impenetrable. There is a good chance that the truck driver didnt even see you, as you were on the blind side of the truck.

    As for your comments in this thread trying to claim the driver is going to fast for the conditions. Trucks are already limited to 100km/h. They also have larger tyres and about 60tonnes pushing them onto the road. You are clutching at straws trying to get out of paying by claiming "conditions", as there is no road rule that says what speed you must go when it is wet. So long as the truck was under/at the speed limit, they have not done anything wrong. You on the other hand, failed to give way when changing lanes.

    All that being said, what you will need is a good lawyer and some mediation (not bullshit advice from a bunch of armchair lawyers). Ask to see copies of the quotes for repairs. If what they are claiming is the repair costs, ask for a complete breakdown. It doesn't look like $42k to me, and I work on trucks like this for a living. But that isn't to say that your car didn't do further damage along the truck.

    You may be able to get the cost of repairs reduced, but not down to $10k, but you need professional representation and you need it sooner rather than later. And at the end of the day, $42k is a small price to pay to get out of your car alive.

    Also:

    Member Since
    1 hour 25 min ago

    Where is TB? This is right up his alley… :D

    • pegaxs on 21/06/2019 - 22:57
      +1

      EDIT:

      OP has just added some funky math and is trying to say now that they are obsolved because the truck driver was speeding… The math is wrong and I have proved it below in a separate post.

    • crashloaded on 22/06/2019 - 11:15
      +1

      I agree, at least you survived, 42k is a shit load of money but you could be living with the guilt of killing someone and spending 42k on hospital bills.

      Money is replaceable. As much as the situation sucks, consider it the best outcome compared to what could have happened.

    • WhoGiveAShxt on 23/06/2019 - 00:47

      agreed.

      OP have not f-ing clues how lucky he was. He might already exhaust all his luck in the next two decades or even longer.

      The truck could fxxk he up really really hard and op might depend on feeding tube on the rest of his life.

    • ankor on 25/06/2019 - 07:32

      I think that a part of the 42K is the time the truck is out of operation as a result of the accident.

  • mgh4me on 21/06/2019 - 18:35
    +1

    Missed the last year bit. Why have you left it so long.

    • ausmansan on 21/06/2019 - 18:39

      I never ran into this kind of situation before, so didn't know what to do next.. contacted insurance company of truck after a few days of accident to ask what are the truck damages and they said you will be notified once it has been repaired. They sent this bill after 6 months.

    • kolorijo on 22/06/2019 - 12:36

      He just found Ozbargain when looking to buy some eneloops

  • timthetoolman on 21/06/2019 - 18:56
    +2

    I would have assumed this is a troll post but then you posted the videos. Let's say the truck was going at 100kmph instead of the 110 you claim, do you really think that would have changed a thing?

    • ausmansan on 21/06/2019 - 18:59
      -5

      Truck was going at 110, where he was allowed to do 100. I am not saying that I am not at fault, but also want to show his negligence as well if it goes to court.

      • Jetstream on 21/06/2019 - 19:05
        +3

        How much diff you reckon that 10k would have made to your stupidity?

        • ausmansan on 21/06/2019 - 19:11
          -8

          so, you are saying its not an offense to drive 10km's over the speed limit?

          • [Deactivated] on 21/06/2019 - 22:22
            +8

            @ausmansan: Let's entertain the idea that the truck was going at 110kmph in a 100kmph zone.

            The accident would still be inevitable. It would have been inevitable if the truck was going at 50kmph.

            It happened because you changed lanes for no sane reason and completely ignore the giant mass of steel moving straight forward.

            If you want to start an inquiry into the alleged driving offence of the truck driver, you're opening a can of worms that's far worse for you.

            Your driving can easily be argued to be endangering lives in the most serious manner.

          • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 22/06/2019 - 09:24

            @ausmansan: its also an offence to obstruct the path of another vehicle.

            Why were YOU changing lanes doing half the speed limit, without checking your mirrors?

      • altomic on 21/06/2019 - 19:17
        +9

        regardless of the truck doing 100 or 110 - the truck would not have been able to stop to avoid you.

        it would have been unsafe for it to swerve to avoid you.

        you changed lanes without due care.

        there is no contributory negligence on the part of the truck driver.

        and you assuming that the truck was doing 110.

        you have no proof other than a rough guesstimate.

        • ausmansan on 21/06/2019 - 19:21
          -4

          What if there was a collision or a hazard ahead?, was the truck in condition to slow down or stop? +10 or -10 does make a difference, otherwise you wouldn't get booked for doing +10k by coppers.

          • ssquid on 21/06/2019 - 19:35
            +12

            @ausmansan: You're right. If the truck was going 10-20km/h faster he might have gotten past without some idiot driving into his side.

            • ausmansan on 21/06/2019 - 19:38
              -7

              @ssquid: Avoided my question again.. You win!!

              • ssquid on 21/06/2019 - 19:42
                +5

                @ausmansan: It doesn't matter. From the video and the damage to the truck you hit him, not the other way around. His lane was clear and he had no reason to slow down.

          • ronnknee on 21/06/2019 - 23:01
            +1

            @ausmansan: Let's say if the truck was doing 100, 90 or 80; it would've been the same result if you changed lanes all of a sudden.

          • Never Pay RRP on 22/06/2019 - 15:45
            +4

            @ausmansan: If the truck was going 10kph slower, you would have been further into the lane when the inevitable collision (which is 100% your fault) occurred and you would probably have ended up in hospital or dead

            • ankor on 25/06/2019 - 07:34

              @Never Pay RRP: hah, that might be what a judge says later on if this ever goes to trial.

        • qwerty on 21/06/2019 - 19:41
          +1

          If he was going 100 the damage might have only been 10 grand so you cant say that speed didnt contribute to the severity of the accident.

          which is what a lawyer would do.

          • gromit on 24/06/2019 - 13:06
            +1

            @qwerty: IF the truck had been going 10k slower then the OP probably would have gotten off free as the OP would have had more time to fully move into the lane and he would likely be in a grave. realistically at those speeds the difference in damage to the truck would be negligible and most likely a large part of the 42k is time off the road/towing recovery etc.

      • ssquid on 21/06/2019 - 19:32
        +2

        Do you really think the truck company would willingly hand over evidence of their truck not being restricted to 100km/h?

    • qwerty on 21/06/2019 - 19:07
      +1

      It does change a thing at court because his speeding is seen as Contributory negligence

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 22/06/2019 - 09:27
        +1
        1. No chance of contributory negligence.
        2. This will never go to Court or OP has rocks in their head.
        • qwerty on 22/06/2019 - 10:55
          -1

          If he is speeding and op can somewhat prove it successfully you bet its contributory negligence

  • Ryanek on 21/06/2019 - 19:02
    +31

    There should be an option on OZB where you can only register an account if you have comprehensive insurance.

    • spackbace on 21/06/2019 - 19:05
      +18

      Forums would die overnight!

    • GangGang on 21/06/2019 - 19:57

      Oh man, this made my night. Please pin it to the top mods.

    • Domingo on 21/06/2019 - 23:48
      +1

      3rd party would have been helpful in this situation too - covers the cost of the expensive vehicle the OP hit.

    • smartazz104 on 22/06/2019 - 12:18
      +1

      This place is turning into Whirlpool…

  • Baysew on 21/06/2019 - 19:09
    +16

    This may not be related to this thread, but have there been any studies into the correlation between the stupidity of being uninsured and the stupidity of their driving?

    • ProlapsedHeinous on 21/06/2019 - 22:58

      It would appear in this instance, that correlation does indeed equal causation…….. of a truck to be off the road and cost 45k in repairs and business loss.

  • original15 on 21/06/2019 - 19:11
    +6

    Who’s to say the video is playing back at the correct speed which seems central to your calculations? Looks like it’s playing a little fast to me

    Also with the line measurements, have you gone back and measured this exact stretch of road and the spaces? (Hope not as that would likely lead to causing another accident)

    I know you’re looking for ways to get out of this (very understandable) but it looks like you’re 100% at fault, sorry

      • canyoudoitcheaper on 21/06/2019 - 19:26
        +12

        No, I don’t think any normal person would put irrefutable evidence of being at fault for a car accident, for advice on the forum section of a bargain website.

        The best advice would probably be to request a payment plan for the debt. If they have to take you to court they can get a costs order for you to pay their legals fees on top of the $42k

      • SydStrand on 21/06/2019 - 20:15
        +8

        Thats exactly you would have come here for if you were in a similar situation.

        Why DID you come here? As in, why do all you uninsured one-off accounts wind up on OZB's Auto subforum? Was it the first Google hit?

        • pegaxs on 21/06/2019 - 23:30
          +1

          I got my money on this thread being on Whirlpool as well… OP doing a bit of “advice shopping”

  • Allan on 21/06/2019 - 19:29
    +3

    I got to admit it doesn't look good for you on video

    Trying to prove the truck driver speed is irrelevant in this situation - from the video it seemed like you were at a complete stop or going less than 10km/hr on highway lane and you were trying to merge with no obstruction in your lane. I'm not a lawyer but if you were to go to court it would seem your chances of winning would be pretty slim.

    My opinion - start looking at ways to pay in instalments and speak to legal aid. Instead of focusing on the speed of truck driver, work out what's a fair cost for repair of the truck and aim to pay off that figure.

  • cuy on 21/06/2019 - 19:35
    +2

    From my point of view, OP appears to be at fault. Crossed lanes without checking properly. If you say that you couldn't see due to rain/hail, it was unsafe to cross lanes. You should have waited for it be visible and clear before switching lanes.

  • [Deactivated] on 21/06/2019 - 19:48
    +3

    For $40 you didn’t renew your insurance, ffs op. I’ve had over $120k of house and car claims, I love insurance and Nrma :)

    • ausmansan on 21/06/2019 - 19:56
      -3

      I had a full insurance just a month before the accident.. terrible weather from the time when I started traveling and was sunshine just 10 mins after the accident (my bad luck)

      • Ace Ventura on 21/06/2019 - 20:00
        +20

        You not keeping your insurance up to date, is not your bad luck. It is your negligence though, much like your driving.

      • [Deactivated] on 21/06/2019 - 20:10

        More like rolling the dice than bad luck and you lost.

      • [Deactivated] on 22/06/2019 - 09:20
        +9

        Not bad luck

        The decision to drive in terrible weather is entirely yours. The weather didn't sweep your vehicle onto the highway where you claim you're unable to see clearly.

        The decision to pull over and wait for better conditions was available, especially since you brought up multiple times that there are vehicles already stopped on the side.

        You chose to drive when you didn't feel comfortable; you chose to change lanes when you didn't know what what was happening around you. If you chalk this up to luck, you learn nothing and this will happen again.

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 22/06/2019 - 09:30
        +1

        Hard to call it bad luck when you MERGE LANES on a freeway doing half the speed limit without checking your mirrors.

      • Makaveli99 on 22/06/2019 - 18:59

        No, your a bad driver whose bad driving caused the accident. There heaps of bad drivers on road that drive like this. You had no reason to change lanes.
        If weather causes dangerous conditions (bad visibility) you take greater care. Before changing lanes check it’s safe to do so & also signal alot earlier so other road users know that your attempting to change lane.
        Change your attitude & also get some professional driving lesson. Don’t be cheap & actually improve.

      • aussieolfaction on 22/06/2019 - 22:46
        +1

        Terrible weather, and no insurance would mean driving with utmost care for most normal people. The way you merged onto that fast moving truck's lane could not be blamed on terrible weather or bad luck. Own up to your negligent behaviour, pay the compensation, and be happy that nobody was killed due to you.

  • [Deactivated] on 21/06/2019 - 20:09

    Was this in December just before xmas around the Yamba area?

  • WreckTangle on 21/06/2019 - 20:13
    +3

    Oh my OP, you’re definitely at fault there changing into a lane that wasn’t clear. Not sure how you can avoid the bill here.

  • [Deactivated] on 21/06/2019 - 20:28
    +10

    OP, please hand in your licence.

  • savage bargain on 21/06/2019 - 20:38

    🤦

  • Nutrino on 21/06/2019 - 20:41
    +1

    thank your lucky stars you didnt make the news op.

  • Godric on 21/06/2019 - 21:01
    +7

    900% At Fault

    • pegaxs on 21/06/2019 - 23:06
      +14

      WTF did I just read??? The truck was following to closely? Good lord. OP entered the trucks lane without giving way to the truck. The truck wasn't following OP.

      Please, for the amusement of everyone here, explain to us, and use crayons if you have to, how you would attribute 25% of the blame to the truck driver… I'm curious.

      I'll give you a hint at why you are wrong… Aus. Road Rule 2014, Div. 4, Rule 148: Giving way when moving from one marked lane or line of traffic to another marked lane or line of traffic

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 22/06/2019 - 09:32
          +7

          No we read it just fine. You have no idea of road laws and are making up 'hypothetical' rubbish.

        • Never Pay RRP on 22/06/2019 - 21:08
          +2

          I did say I was unsure about the merging rule

          By your own admission you don't know the rule, so why are you posting? You could easily have looked this up and gained the precious knowledge within minutes.
          Side note: I hope to god you don't have a driver's licence, and are not out there driving on the roads if you don't know this basic road rule

          • Cave Fire on 22/06/2019 - 21:24
            -2

            @Never Pay RRP: no one does that irl lol. I seen one of those dotted line merges today and it would be ridiculous to wait while you are ahead. Not to mention dangerous as people would not know what you are doing, while you sit there indicating while they pass through. I want to see this rule quoted above written in hard copy as it does not seem correct.

            • Never Pay RRP on 22/06/2019 - 21:36
              +2

              @Cave Fire:

              no one does that irl lol

              No one does what? Follow the road rules?

              Pegaxs already posted a link to the rule, but here it is again https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/regulation/2014/75…

              Here is the text from RMS:

              Before changing lane, signal in plenty of time and check for other vehicles by looking in your mirrors and your blind spot (look over your shoulder).

              You must give way to vehicles in the lane you are moving into.

              https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/safety-rules/road-rules/lan…

              • Cave Fire on 22/06/2019 - 21:40
                -1

                @Never Pay RRP: yep that exact picture "Example 1". In real life, the car that is ahead will usually just go first in the merge. I can't actually think of a time when I've seen someone stopping or hanging there (dangerous).

                • Never Pay RRP on 22/06/2019 - 22:04
                  +2

                  @Cave Fire: Hmm so did you read which car was legally supposed to give way in that example?
                  I'll give you a hint, it's written directly underneath the picture.

                  Note: it doesn't say that you have to stop (which might be the misunderstanding). It just means car A (the truck in this scenario) has right of way and the other vehicle should not merge if there is a risk of collision

                  I can't actually think of a time when I've seen someone stopping or hanging there (dangerous).

                  If car A doesn't let you in to the lane and there is a risk of collision, I would highly recommend stopping unless you want to be at fault in a car accident (but then you could create an awesome OzBargain thread about it)

    • Ughhh on 22/06/2019 - 08:52

      The basis of this for me is that if you were ahead of the truck, braked and then collided, he is at fault for following too closely

      Is irrelevant to this case. This doesnt fall under tail gating.

      Please read your driver education book or consult with driving instructor to review your driving Knowledge.

      Op could have been killed or turn into a vegetable and be billed for $42k.

      • Cave Fire on 22/06/2019 - 11:37
        -3

        #ozpreachy You have no shame in saying that to a total stranger.

        • Ughhh on 22/06/2019 - 11:54
          +1

          I would have shame if I killed someone because of ignorance and negligence on the road though.

          Please don't ever change lanes unless there's absolutely no cars near you.

          • Cave Fire on 22/06/2019 - 12:20

            @Ughhh: Please don't ever change lanes unless there's absolutely no cars near you. okay I'll just keep driving till the lane gets empty lol

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join