Who's at Fault? (Yes Another One of These Posts)

Capo93 on 09/12/2019 - 12:20
Last edited 12/12/2019 - 21:33 by 1 other user

So, mates daughter driving in a Westfield shopping centre car park. Comes up to a give way sign, proceeds through the intersection and a car going against the flow that is marked on the road and sign posted hits the rear of the car. Her whole car had cleared past the give way line and she was almost through the intersection when the accident happened. Now GIO are saying shes at fault for fail to give way even know she was:

a) Almost through the intersection
b) No part of her car was still behind the give way line
c) other vehicle was driving the wrong way

So does this mean I can be driving down a one way street in the incorrect direction in Sydney and if a car fails to give way to me they are at fault?

https://ibb.co/WgqwC5N - Damage to rear of mates vehicle
https://ibb.co/dWz76jc - Poorly drawn mud map

Hopefully I have satisfied everyone's needs with photos and a poll. Sorry, no Ms Paint drawing.

!!! EDIT 09/12 !!!

More photos taken today. In the time we were there today taking the photos, not one driver looked left to check for a car coming the wrong direction.

https://ibb.co/qjmK74P - Notice the pole marked "Q", look at the size of it, hard to see something coming the wrong direction.
https://ibb.co/th9z3k0
https://ibb.co/wgmWGN2
https://ibb.co/4pnhttk

!!! EDIT 10/12 !!!

So got confirmation today that Casey’s car is a total loss write off. Now do you thinks it’s possible to write a car off if the other driver was following the posted speed limit of 10km/h? Still no word from GIO yet on the review of the case.

And to the people who are saying the road rules don’t apply in a private parking lot or private land or that’s its only an recommend and blah blah, I’m afraid you’re incorrect according to the law.

“The Australian Road Rules (ARR) apply to ‘vehicles’ and ‘road users’ on ‘roads’ and ‘road-related areas’. Each of these terms has a defined meaning – of which ‘road’ is the most commonly misunderstood.”

https://autoexpert.com.au/owning-a-car/legal/do-the-road-rul…

!! EDIT 12/12 !!!

Wrong way signs

https://ibb.co/Pwr80YZ
https://ibb.co/qkP15Bn

Poll Options

  • 68
    Mates daughter at fault
  • 282
    Other drive at fault
  • 34
    Each drive at fault
  • 34
    Cyclist at fault
Automotive

Comments

  • bob smith on 09/12/2019 - 19:29
    +1

    Casey is guilty

    • hawkeye on 09/12/2019 - 21:29
      +1

      Satan is waiting

  • crentist on 09/12/2019 - 19:33

    I'm curious if the other side of that intersection (ie Caseys right, the side she might have expected to see a vehicle) has any Give Way signs as well?

    If it's one of those intersections that tells everyone to watch out, it's a strange loophole if people entering from the wrong side get automatic right of way.

    • Capo93 on 09/12/2019 - 21:48

      No give way sign to the right.

  • Cheapsize on 09/12/2019 - 19:45
    +2

    Take photos of the site with the wrong way sign and submit to the insurance company the other driver ignored a road sign and drove dangerously. It looks to the insurance company cut and dry by the photos.

    The wrong way sign can't be seen, take it from the viewpoint of the other driver.

    Try to get security footage from the shopping centre if possible. Good luck to your friend.

    • JimmyF on 09/12/2019 - 20:24
      +1

      It looks to the insurance company cut and dry by the photos.

      OP failed 101 of giveway sign, doesn't mater if the other car was going the wrong direction.

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

      Give way signs and give way lines
      ‘GIVE WAY’ signs and ‘GIVE WAY’ lines (broken line) are used at intersections to control traffic. When you come to a GIVE WAY sign you must slow down and prepare to stop if necessary.

      A GIVE WAY sign or line means you must give way to all vehicles travelling in, entering or approaching the intersection, whether vehicles are turning left or right, or going straight ahead. You must give way to any pedestrians crossing the road into which you are turning.

      Giving way at a GIVE WAY sign means the driver must slow down and, if necessary, stop to avoid a collision.

      • Cheapsize on 09/12/2019 - 21:55
        +1

        You can't give way, if you previously attempted to give way, subsequently the intersection was clear and proceeded. Then other driver failed to follow a road sign (wrong way) and the driver failed to give way to you oncoming traffic to their right. C was driving straight and the road was clear. Other driver collided into her and failed to stop colliding on her REAR left hand side. His RIGHT.

        My argument would be I gave way to all visible oncoming traffic. The road was clear then the driver drove into me. Then I would get security footage.

        The law is clearer in Victoria. https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/road-r… Where C would be correct and not at fault in my opinion.

        • capslock janitor on 09/12/2019 - 22:12

          Yeah agree OP if possible request surveillance footage from the Centre around that incident intersection.

          • JimmyF on 09/12/2019 - 22:25

            @capslock janitor:

            Yeah agree OP if possible request surveillance footage from the Centre around that incident intersection.

            It'll just show a car coming and a car that failed to give way darting in front of another car that hits them :)

            • capslock janitor on 09/12/2019 - 22:30

              @JimmyF:

              failed to give way darting in front of another

              good to see

              clearly not enough time for them to be zooming around the carpark at great speeds.

              could argue clearly enough time to stop at such slow speeds :)

              • JimmyF on 09/12/2019 - 22:34

                @capslock janitor:

                could argue clearly enough time to stop at such slow speeds :)

                Agreed, but that goes for the OP as well. Slower car is easier to spot ;)

                • capslock janitor on 09/12/2019 - 22:36

                  @JimmyF:

                  Slower car is easier to spot ;)

                  Not as easy as a car travelling straight-on into your side rear door ;D

        • JimmyF on 09/12/2019 - 22:24
          -1

          My argument would be I gave way to all visible oncoming traffic

          But you didn't as a car hit your rear pax door after you proceed through the GIVE WAY SIGN.

          As per the image, the other car was 3 car spaces away, clearly not enough time for them to be zooming around the carpark at great speeds.

          https://ibb.co/dWz76jc

          Other driver collided into her and failed to stop colliding on her REAR left hand side.

          Rear pax door if you want the detail, near the middle of the car.

          So you're driving down the street which has right of way, and someone zooms through a giveway sign and you hit their rear left hand pax door/side. You're at fault then I take it based on what you're saying here, as you have failed to stop.

          As this is what happened here, OP failed to give way at a give way sign. Simple as that, the insurance company agrees. Heck the insurance company would rather the OTHER party be at fault so they don't have to pay money out.

          • Never Pay RRP on 10/12/2019 - 21:13
            +1

            @JimmyF: If I was driving the wrong way down a one way street and had an accident, I would assume that I am entirely to blame (unless the other driver also happened to be driving the wrong way too)

      • hawkeye on 09/12/2019 - 22:24

        Give way rules where there are no signs
        Some crossroads have no traffic lights or signs. Generally if you’re turning across another vehicle’s path, you must give way.

        When turning at an intersection, you must give way to:

        Oncoming vehicles going straight ahead.
        Oncoming vehicles turning left.
        Any vehicle on your right.

        Your web page not mine, You should do a gig on Judge Judy

      • Dan_ on 09/12/2019 - 22:41

        @JimmyF

        doesn't mater if the other car was going the wrong direction.

        This page on Fault and Contributory Negligence indicates otherwise:

        https://www.lawaccess.nsw.gov.au/

  • pulpfiction on 09/12/2019 - 20:22
    +1

    Seems like rubbish to me, however, I'm not an expert. Another analogy is someone driving the wrong way down a freeway and colliding with a car going the right direction in a merging lane. That would be the driver going the wrong way at fault regardless that the merging lane should give way.

    Besides of who should give way given the other driver was going up the wrong way, for her to be so far through the intersection then to be hit in the rear seems to me like the other drive would need to be driving fast or not paying attention. Either case, it's unsafe driving - and if found as such, liability would rest on the other driver.

    • JimmyF on 09/12/2019 - 20:26
      -2

      Besides of who should give way

      OP was facing a giveway sign, see the post above of what you're meant to do at a give way sign. OP entered a intersection that wasn't clear.

      • pulpfiction on 09/12/2019 - 20:54

        Doesn't count for dangerous driving. There are plenty of cases where a vehicle is speeding and collides with a car who should yield, and the vehicle speeding is at fault.

        Give way signs are not some magical accountability remover.

        Either way, I suspect neither of us are qualified on the topic. Just another avenue for the OP to explore.

  • hawkeye on 09/12/2019 - 20:22
    +2

    Get GIO to put in writing why shes at fault get a police report ring the owner of the other car find out who they're insured with and claim number so she can send a letter of demand then take it to the insurance ombudsman.
    My thoughts are GIO are pulling a swifty holding her to ransom admit or no payout the other party may not be insured and GIO are bullshitting to recoup some costs.
    Not a high value car by the time excess and ratings go down it's cost them nothing for little work.
    Shame shame shame

    • JimmyF on 09/12/2019 - 20:27
      +1

      My thoughts are GIO are pulling a swifty holding her

      GIO doesn't want her to be at fault, then they can claim all the money from the other insurance company.

      She was facing a giveway sign, see the post above of what you're meant to do at a give way sign. She entered a intersection that wasn't clear. Simple as that and got hit.

  • Marcsie on 09/12/2019 - 20:26

    Insurance?

  • hawkeye on 09/12/2019 - 21:06
    +2

    GIO doesn't want her to be at fault, then they can claim all the money from the other insurance company.

    GIO aren't telling her that part.
    Last year video footage number plate and admission of fault police report idiot reverses into my fence insurance deducted excess from my claim WTF
    If they can try it on they will never believe anything from an insurance company.

    • CDNBargainer on 11/12/2019 - 12:20

      Your fence would be covered by a property insurance policy. That type of policy never has a provision to waive the excess regardless of who is at fault, so that would be why an excess was deducted. That being said, your insurer should have gone after the driver who caused the damage. Assuming they recover the claim costs from that driver, your excess should then be refunded back to you.

  • groot on 09/12/2019 - 21:16
    +1

    Other guys should have looked at the exit arrow. He was driving in wrong direction. Casey can't be blamed as she already gave the way and car has hit her card from sides, that definitely not Casey fault.

    Looks like the other guy was either carried away or speeding

  • capslock janitor on 09/12/2019 - 21:29

    Funny from all the people here not many had thoroughly commented on the drawing provided.
    Sometimes it can't be clear cut as "Give way!!" there needs to be some common sense if the judge has a brain. SEE my other points from earlier - I truly believe Casey might have a leg to stand on.

    OP am wondering from your mudmap, I don't see the Wrong Way sign (2 spots left of Q) depicted in img-5? Only seeing the one in distance.

    • Capo93 on 09/12/2019 - 21:53

      It probably hasn’t been drawn on the correct pole but she’s I do have photos of the wrong way signs that I can upload tomorrow.

  • yoshipau on 09/12/2019 - 21:45
    +1

    How fast was the other car moving?
    I mean it is a car park where people normally drives very slow.
    If she was hit on the near the back of the car, that means the other car would have a bit of time to stop from when he saw the front of the white car?
    Is there any speed limit there?

    • Capo93 on 09/12/2019 - 21:56

      I believe she said the other car actually got caught up on it, slightly lifted up and hooked on. I believe the limit in there is 8(or 10km/h) from memory.

      If the other car had hit the front of white car in a normal intersection then yes that is fail to give way but the damage is the rear. Casey said she remembered seeing the lady looking down, she didn’t say if she was on a phone or not cause she couldn’t see and didn’t wanna make it up without being 100% certain but her head was defiantly looking down.

      • Hellfire on 09/12/2019 - 22:34

        The daughter is at fault for failing to give way but that may be shared with the other driver if they had the opportunity to stop but didn't. The low speed of the car park coupled with the side rear impact means that the other driver should have had enough time to stop. Perhaps they were on the phone or busy scanning for a parking spot.

        It's worth taking further. Not much to lose and you can always fold before it gets to court.

    • JimmyF on 09/12/2019 - 22:32

      How fast was the other car moving?

      Based on the diagram, about as fast as you can get in 3 car spaces widths…. (spoiler, not that fast)

      https://ibb.co/dWz76jc

      If she was hit on the near the back of the car, that means the other car would have a bit of time to stop

      Not at all, if the OP car failed to stop/slow down for the giveway sign and just appeared, they won't have time to stop.

  • JimmyF on 09/12/2019 - 22:30
    +3

    In the time we were there today taking the photos, not one driver looked left to check for a car coming the wrong direction.

    but yet you should be….. this means nothing. If 10 people run a red light, does that mean you can too?

  • Miss B on 09/12/2019 - 22:37

    Neither driver was paying attention, if either of them were the accident wouldn't have happened. I would say both at fault. Up to the insurance companies though.

  • takemymoney on 09/12/2019 - 23:20
    +1

    If the other car, or a bike, skate, wheelchair, running kiddo or whatever thing in movement, could hit her, then there is no discussion - she is at fault.

    Think the other car as a bike - no judge would put the fault at the bike.

    The only thing saving her is if the other driver was driving under the influence, above limit or completely reckless because this change intention and due diligence from the other driver.

    The direction only has influence if the crash would not happen depending on the other car trauectory. Apparently the hit was on the side/back so cause by not giving way/not enough time for the lady car to cross.

    Clearly, the timing for crossing was wrong. Maybe the cause was a blind spot but if we change the direction of the incoming vehicle it would be always a hit.

    I personally hardly believe she missed viewing the car - more likely she timely wrongly or got a blind spot.

  • [Deactivated] on 09/12/2019 - 23:55
    +1

    If you're arguing that the other driver is at fault because they shouldn't be there in the first place the consider this - if you drive into a stationary vehicle parked along a no standing sign, would you be absolved simply because the car shouldn't have been there.

    The collision may have been avoided if the other driver was going the right way.

    The collision would have definitely been avoided if the other driver gave way.

    • John Kimble on 10/12/2019 - 06:49
      +1

      If you're arguing that the other driver is at fault because they shouldn't be there in the first place the consider this - if you drive into a stationary vehicle parked along a no standing sign, would you be absolved simply because the car shouldn't have been there.

      No, different scenario. But personally, yes, I think the no standing car should be at least partly at fault.

      The collision may have been avoided if the other driver was going the right way

      Why only may? If he went left instead of right out of his parking spot, he wouldn't have been there and there definitely wouldn't have been a collision between these two cars (as it happened).

      • [Deactivated] on 10/12/2019 - 13:35

        Why only may? If he went left instead of right out of his parking spot, he wouldn't have been there and there definitely wouldn't have been a collision between these two cars (as it happened).

        She could still have hit a car coming from a different direction.

        Of course, no one is saying it's all good to go the wrong way. That's just a different matter and a seperate offence.

        • John Kimble on 10/12/2019 - 13:40
          +1

          You said the collision, perhaps you should have said a collision.

          That's just a different matter and a separate offence.

          And I argue it was a major contributing factor to the collision, so it is not separate…yes I understand it is technically a separate offence in the road rules etc

          • [Deactivated] on 10/12/2019 - 13:57

            @John Kimble:

            You said the collision, perhaps you should have said a collision.

            You're quite right.

            yes I understand it is technically a separate offence in the road rules etc

            On the matter of policy, technicalities are all important. It may seem unfair at times but imagine the exposure to corruption if we allowed case by case application of law.

            • John Kimble on 10/12/2019 - 14:02
              +1

              @[Deactivated]: I'm not talking about the application of law, I'm talking about assigning fault in an accident.

              In this specific case, I strongly believe the other car should be at fault…even if the insurance company says otherwise…not that my opinion or any of our opinions will make a difference to the actual dispute…

              • [Deactivated] on 10/12/2019 - 14:06

                @John Kimble: And the way the legal system works is that the most direct cause/contributory factor will be the deciding factor when assigning blame for the specific incident.

                The other offence may or may not be relevant. If Casey gave way, the collision would not have occured. It would have still been an offence to go the wrong way.

                If Casey failed to give way, she could have hit another vehicle or person, going the right way or otherwise. The collision can only occur because Casey failed to give way.

                • John Kimble on 10/12/2019 - 14:11

                  @[Deactivated]: We are going in circles, and probably have to agree to disagree, but if he went the right way, there would be no accident either.

                  Both offences caused the accident. Just in my view, the other driver's offence is worse.

                  If Casey failed to give way, she could have hit another vehicle or person, going the right way or otherwise.

                  Completely irrelevant to this particular accident

            • Dan_ on 10/12/2019 - 14:14
              +1

              @[Deactivated]:

              case by case application of the law.

              Isn't that the entire reason the judicial branch of government exists?

              And what are your thoughts on this page regarding contributory negligence?

              • [Deactivated] on 10/12/2019 - 15:41

                @Dan_: I don't know what would be a fair way to assign part blame.

                If I were presiding on this case, I would make Casey 100% at fault and failure to give way. I'd then fine the other driver for driving in against direction of traffic and dangerous driving.

                Isn't that the entire reason the judicial branch of government exists?

                The law is applied universally. The judicial branch is there to ensure consistent application of the law in every case.

                • trapper on 10/12/2019 - 16:12

                  @[Deactivated]: Dangerous driving is a crime so would be pretty weird for the other non-criminal driver to be 100% at fault. lol

                  • [Deactivated] on 10/12/2019 - 16:19

                    @trapper: Yeah, but the offence may not have caused the collision. Just because someone who commited an offence was involved in a collision doesn't mean the offence is the cause of said collision.

                    If we assigned fault solely on who commited an offence first, we would have a society that looks for illegally parked cars so we can drive our over insured cars into them and get a payout.

                    • trapper on 10/12/2019 - 16:21
                      +1

                      @[Deactivated]: Criminal dangerous driving, the wrong way through an intersection, crash occurs, 0% at fault?

                      Man that is one serious stretch of the imagination.

                      • [Deactivated] on 10/12/2019 - 16:26

                        @trapper: No imagination involved. This is purely an exercise on assigning fault.

                        As with any legal issues, the outcome can be used as precedence so you'd have to consider the implications of the judgement to all other traffic collisions.

                        Would your judgement in this case be robust enough to be applied to every other collision?

                • Dan_ on 10/12/2019 - 16:27

                  @[Deactivated]:

                  If I were presiding on this case, I would make Casey 100% at fault and failure to give way.

                  I'd then fine the other driver for driving in against direction of traffic and dangerous driving.

                  Why are we talking about fines? No one is disputing that both parties failed to follow road rules.

                  We're trying to determine the extent to which each party is liable for the cost of repairs. If you say one party is 100% liable then that means the other is 0% liable, which is clearly not the case.

                  The law is applied universally. The judicial branch is there to ensure consistent application of the law in every case.

                  And the reason we need the judicial branch to do so is because you can't legislate for every possible scenario. Furthermore, not every scenario will have a precedent. Hence the law is in fact being applied case by case.

                  • [Deactivated] on 10/12/2019 - 16:33

                    @Dan_:

                    Hence the law is in fact being applied case by case.

                    The reference to the law is being argued case by case. If successfully argued to be relevant, the law is applied to one person as it would to anyone else. Ie. No preferential treatment (although we know that's sadly untrue for certain demographics).

                    If you say one party is 100% liable then that means the other is 0% liable, which is clearly not the case.

                    I understand that the total sum of liability is 100%. I'm saying that one person was the cause of the collision. The other was breaching the rules that had little to do with the collision but was involved in the collision.

                    If we were to argue that the other driver was in the intersection because he broke the rules, therefore the collision wouldn't have occured if not for said rule breaking since the other car would not have been there, this would mean every collision with an improperly parked vehicle should be blamed on the incorrectly parked vehicle.

                    • John Kimble on 10/12/2019 - 16:40

                      @[Deactivated]:

                      this would mean every collision with an improperly parked vehicle should be blamed on the incorrectly parked vehicle.

                      Rightly so, will stop idiots parking illegally. I don't see the issue with that.

                    • Dan_ on 10/12/2019 - 20:34
                      +1

                      @[Deactivated]: I'd rather not spend time going around in circles like everyone else. Let's look at an example from the NSWDC, where Contributory Negligence was assigned mostly to the plaintiff.

                      Saleh v Faddoul [2015] NSWDC
                      Defendant reversed ute.
                      Defendant failed to give way to Plaintiff (on motorcycle).
                      Motorcycle had time to slow down and avoid but did not do so.

                      Plaintiff was found to be 70% at fault. Does this convince people that failure to give way doesn't automatically make someone completely at fault? (And yes, I know incidents as minor as this one won't end up in the NSWDC)

  • Sr11 on 10/12/2019 - 00:33

    If the accident was to the front of the vehicle then your mate is at fault, because she should have given way. The damage is to the rear of your mates car, which means at the time of passing the 'give way' sign, the other vehicle was not present. So the other car is at fault, then should have stopped because your mate was already in motion.

  • jojo13 on 10/12/2019 - 07:22

    Does the car park have surveillance cameras?

    • Capo93 on 10/12/2019 - 22:19

      Not where the accident happened.

  • [Deactivated] on 10/12/2019 - 07:32
    +1

    carparks are a free-for-all and all signs are advisory. negligent driving on both parts and they both share the repair bill. the "wrong way" driver shouldve slowed for the car blocking his path.

    • trapper on 10/12/2019 - 17:15

      Believe it or not in any publicly accessible carpark or road area all normal road rules apply. There is no free for all unless you are on a private road / racetrack etc

  • OzHunterNSW on 10/12/2019 - 09:55

    Calm down calm down… now let's start from the beginning… you were at a GIVE WAY intersection turning into a ONE WAY road, yet a driver driving up the wrong way, hits the back of your car.
    The back of your car…. the back of your car…. the back of your car….
    Let me tell you what happen… you reversed out of the parking space and reversed into a parked car — yes yes I confess I reversed into a parked car

    • Skramit on 10/12/2019 - 10:12

      Will you be my lawyer at my upcoming murder trial?

    • Capo93 on 10/12/2019 - 22:20

      I want whatever you’ve just taken

  • [Deactivated] on 10/12/2019 - 10:11
    +1

    Team Casey!

    The other driver was negligent by not following the 'one way' painted arrow markings.

    I appreciate the points being made by others in relation to 'give way' sign rules but at a minimum, this is a case of contributory negligence.

    Has GIO determined that Casey is 100% at fault?

    • ssjwill on 10/12/2019 - 10:20
      +1

      GIO has determined it's ok to drive down the wrong way on a one way street.

      • smartazz104 on 10/12/2019 - 18:24

        In a private car park only.

    • Capo93 on 10/12/2019 - 22:20

      Yes they did. There is a current review pending on the case though.

  • shaybisc on 10/12/2019 - 10:25

    Give way means give way, not Sir, I am not giving way because you are going the wrong way - BOOM!

  • THL on 10/12/2019 - 10:59

    I think the other driver is at fault and bad luck to your mate's daughter. Yes there is a Give Way sign and Give Way line marking. But if the car park has "Arrows painted on road, one way signs and wrong way, to back signs hanging from ceiling." (from OP's other comment), is it reasonable to Give Way to vehicles that you wouldn't reasonably expect?

  • DarkOz on 10/12/2019 - 11:02
    +1

    OP, check the speed limit of the car park. Most car parks has a 10kph speed limit with some as low as 8kph. It is almost impossible to hit another car at speed of 10kph or under. So the other car would have been going the wrong way AND speeding to cause the accident.

  • adante on 10/12/2019 - 12:12
    +2

    For the folks who say the overriding factor is failing to give way, just curious how wary you are on roundabouts.

    A mate of mine had a collision while entering once due to someone reversing through the roundabout (as in, the other car was going counterclockwise, in reverse, through the roundabout).

    You could make the argument my mate has to give way regardless of whether others are going in the right direction or not, but it did get me thinking frankly that my checks for people going the wrong direction on a roundabout are probably not as thorough as the checks for cars in the right direction.

    In his case both insurance and police (QLD) ruled in his favour.

  • Bad Company on 10/12/2019 - 12:20

    You could make the argument my mate has to give way regardless of whether others are going in the right direction or not, but it did get me thinking frankly that my checks for people going the wrong direction on a roundabout are probably not as thorough as the checks for cars in the right direction.

    Forget about who's at fault here, how the hell did he not see the driver going in the wrong direction?

    • Never Pay RRP on 10/12/2019 - 21:24
      +1

      Why would you look for someone going in the wrong direction?
      Do you also look up in case you need to give away to a car coming out of the sky?

      • Bad Company on 10/12/2019 - 21:32
        +1

        To avoid this scenario of course! Duh!

        It's a car park. Do you expect no cars will move against the direction of the arrow?

        You know, there are legitimate reasons to do so. Not saying it's the case here, but there are.

  • Hangryuman on 10/12/2019 - 12:26

    ah - in a carpark - on private property - not on a public road - different rules may apply !

    reminds me of a housemate - came back one day saying he'd totalled his VW beetle - how ? he'd been proceeding at speed like 30kph through a car park, when a vehicle suddenly reversed out of a space or somesuch (I forget that detail) and he slammed into it - wrote off his car.

    I asked why he was speeding in such a known dangerous place - he replied 'I didn't expect …'

    well duh - road rules are telling you to expect the unexpected, etc.

    from the look of the Foulcan or Oldhen (didn't know which) with ?mag wheels I'm guessing little sister might have planted her foot and rocketed across that crossing taking Idiot2 by surprise, otherwise bingle wouldn't have happened.

    So yeah of interest to me is how insurance looks at claims for an accident that happened on private property …

    • trapper on 10/12/2019 - 13:00

      In any public carpark or other publicly accessible road area the road rules apply as normal. Private roads like race tracks etc are different.

  • Bad Company on 10/12/2019 - 12:52

    he'd been proceeding at speed like 30kph through a car park, when a vehicle suddenly reversed out of a space or somesuch (I forget that detail) and he slammed into it - wrote off his car.

    What an idiot.

    Unfortunately this is what I see at Seven Hills Commuter Car Park often. Idiots flying down the aisle of the car park. Those people are accidents waiting to happen.

  • trapper on 10/12/2019 - 12:58
    +1

    She didn't give way, this is true, but there is no way she is fully liable given that the other car was driving in the wrong direction.

    Driving in the wrong direction is obviously contributory.

    • Winston100s on 10/12/2019 - 17:20

      just because there is a sign for her that yiu can not turn left or right doesnt mean it is a one way road! It is illegal to turn form the road you are driving from, maybe it is allowed to enter from a different place.

      • Never Pay RRP on 10/12/2019 - 22:14
        +1

        There were also arrows painted on the floor

        • Capo93 on 10/12/2019 - 22:21

          The more I scroll the more it keeps getting better.

  • dogboy on 10/12/2019 - 13:06
    +3

    The majority of comments suggest the daughter is at fault but the voting doesn't reflect this. Weird.

  • justwii on 10/12/2019 - 13:43

    My friend's story: he's traveling down hill, speeding, a parked car pulled out from the kerbside in front of him and they hit each other. Police came and the other driver was complaining he checked already but my friend's car just appeared all of a sudden. At the end the police said that driver was at fault ¯_(ツ)_/¯

  • trapper on 10/12/2019 - 13:46
    +5

    Just drive everywhere on the wrong side of the road, now you will never pass a give way, stop sign, or even a traffic light - all cars must give way to you! lol

    • Never Pay RRP on 10/12/2019 - 22:15

      Gotta do it while reversing just to be sure…

  • Herbse on 10/12/2019 - 16:30

    Fight it with the insurance company. It's his fault

  • Winston100s on 10/12/2019 - 17:18
    -3

    There are too many comments for me to scroll through, but in case it hasn't been mentioned, where did you come up with the idea that it is a one way road??!?
    Just because there is a sign telling you that you cant turn left/right, doesn't mean that it is a one way. You frequently find signs like this on busy roads, epsecially ones that have 2 lanes in one direction, because it is risky to turn and go in the lane of the oposite direction.
    Once you have that "one way" confusion out of the equasion, it is clear as day that your mates daughter is at fault. It amazes me how person your age, presuming you are in you 40ies at least, does not know this.

    • Capo93 on 10/12/2019 - 17:20
      +2

      Where did I get the idea, ummm let me list them:

      Arrows painted on road
      One way sign
      Signs hanging from ceiling saying “wrong way”

      If you’re to lazy to read correctly then that’s your issue.

      • Winston100s on 10/12/2019 - 17:28
        -1

        I did read, but the picture that the other driver is driving in the wrong direction is not clear.
        edit:
        It would be best if you made a video, according to the pictures there is no evidence that the other party is driving in the wrong direction.

        • smartazz104 on 10/12/2019 - 18:24
          +2

          Found the other driver.

    • ssjwill on 10/12/2019 - 17:20
      +1

      the part where he says the arrows are pointed on the floor and signs saying "wrong way"

  • Capo93 on 10/12/2019 - 17:22
    +2

    So got confirmation today that Casey’s car is a total loss write off. Now do you thinks it’s possible to write a car off if the other driver was following the posted speed limit of 10km/h?

    • THL on 10/12/2019 - 17:47
      +1

      Hi OP, I reckon you have got enough support from the poll (most people believe it's other driver's fault). It is definitely worth contesting it. Ignore the posters on here with the typical 'victim blaming' fashion. If today your post was about "I drove on the wrong side of the road in a car park. But the other car didn't give way to me!", the comments would've been one sided. In reality, how many people would check the opposite way of a one way road and actually give way? Probably only a handful.

      Imagine in this scenario: You are crossing a 4-lane divided highway (2 lane each way) with a Give Way/Stop Sign facing you. There's a centre refuge for you to wait half way so you don't have to risk crossing 4 lanes at once. Do you actually look LEFT to see if there's vehicles coming that way before you cross to the centre median refuge, or you only look right? If some idiot hit you from the left because he/she drove down the wrong side of the highway, no way you'll be liable for the accident. (Image attached for a typical Australian highway design: https://imgur.com/rWNLkfO).

      Good luck to your friend's daughter and hopefully the contest will be successful.

  • Capo93 on 10/12/2019 - 17:33
    +3

    And to the people who are saying the road rules don’t apply in a private parking lot or private land or that’s its only an recommend and blah blah, I’m afraid you’re incorrect according to the law.

    “The Australian Road Rules (ARR) apply to ‘vehicles’ and ‘road users’ on ‘roads’ and ‘road-related areas’. Each of these terms has a defined meaning – of which ‘road’ is the most commonly misunderstood.”

    https://autoexpert.com.au/owning-a-car/legal/do-the-road-rul…

  • smartazz104 on 10/12/2019 - 18:26
    +1

    Everyone here blaming the daughter for not looking left, what was the idiot in the other car looking at, knowingly going the wrong way with their eyes closed evidently…

  • this is us on 10/12/2019 - 20:11
    +5

    Change scenario… Imagine a round about… Casey is waiting for a chance to get into the round about, and when she sees no one coming from the right, she gets into the round about, but a car that was arriving at the round about when Casey started the round about decides to go anti the round about way (he turns right at the round about),and then he hits Casey. Would anyone say that Casey should expect someone getting into the round about and driving the wrong way? No.
    If we have to imagine that a bastard can drive on the wrong way at any moment we won't be driving cars anymore.

  • geoffs87 on 11/12/2019 - 07:50
    -1

    What I find interesting, is when as a pedestrian crossing a one way road, often you see “look left” or “look right” painted on the road… so if this was on the open road, and OP was a pedestrian, they would be very injured, because one person failed to adhere to the road rules, and the pedestrian looked in the direction against the flow of traffic (ie to the right).

    Friends daughter (which we all know is code for your own daughter) really should be checking every which way, but surely they can’t be culpable for this incident when someone wasn’t following the road rules.

    Look at it this way, if you proceeded through a give way sign, and then someone hit you/you hit them that was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, their insurance won’t cover them…

    • John Kimble on 11/12/2019 - 08:54
      -1

      A pedestrian shouldn't/wouldn't cross in the first place.

    • Capo93 on 11/12/2019 - 10:17

      Friends daughter (which we all know is code for your own daughter)

      You people love assuming shit on here, PM me and I’ll happily give you my number and we can discuss the dribble coming out of your mouth. I have no reason to lie to a bunch of strangers. If it was my daughter I would of said it was.

      • geoffs87 on 11/12/2019 - 10:51
        +1

        Sheesh, i'll be the first to apologise for a poor taste joke… but even you commented "yes another one" so i'm sure you've read enough of these posts to see many people say "their friend" when in fact it certainly sounds like it was them.

  • ireadtermsofuse on 11/12/2019 - 09:45

    Looks like Casey Stoner should stick to motorcycles

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join