Rear End Collision, Other Vehicle Is Suspended

L[Deactivated] on 31/01/2020 - 00:39
Last edited 31/01/2020 - 09:37 by 1 other user

I was the driver at the back of a rear-end collision, the driver of a car in front slammed the brake and stopped at least a meter away from the red light.
I kept a good distance but my 18 years old car just simply couldn't stop as fast as her's. I'm aware that it's not a valid argument to claim that I'm not at fault.

But then I did a vehicle rego check and found out that the other vehicle is suspended.
Message from DoT. "This vehicle licence is either suspended or cancelled."

The other driver's insurance is trying to claim the car damages against me.

Should I be held liable for the damages of her car, considering this other car should not even be on the road?
Should I even try to claim for the damages against my car? My car has been written off.
In WA.

Automotive

Comments

  • Hybroid on 31/01/2020 - 00:43
    +9

    I do believe it's likely to be categorised as your fault if you rear-ended someone.

  • ozhunter on 31/01/2020 - 00:47
    +8

    Should I be held liable for the damages of her car,

    Yes, you can't go smashing up other cars, even if they are suspended.

    considering this other car should not even be on the road?

    If caught, then she should get penalised accordingly.

  • spackbace on 31/01/2020 - 00:52
    +19

    Don't think about anything else other than the fact you were at fault and need to pay to fix their car. If the other car is unregistered, that's for the cops to fine her, but it doesn't get you out of your responsibilities

    • [Deactivated] on 31/01/2020 - 02:42
      +1

      Fair enough, thanks

      • TheMindsetTraveller on 31/01/2020 - 07:21
        +3

        And if you haven't done so, I would report it to the police that you had an accident with X person in a Y car where registration had been cancelled or suspended.

  • ProlapsedHeinous on 31/01/2020 - 00:52
    +1

    You're at fault. the other vehicle not being registered, while unfortunate for you, does not negate the fact you failed to stop your vehicle. Time to pay up.

  • Simoneee on 31/01/2020 - 01:00
    +1

    Should I be held liable for the damages of her car, considering this other car should not even be on the road? 

    Yes 100%. It doesn't matter if they're suspended. It's the fact that you damaged somebody else's property which means you have to cough up the money

  • tsunamisurfer on 31/01/2020 - 01:04
    +4

    The attempt to invalidate the other car/driver is incredible.

  • HardlyCharly on 31/01/2020 - 01:13
    -8

    I do believe it is a valid argument, I would take it to the ombudsman if necessary (assuming you have a dash cam, without video evidence nothing much gets taken seriously), the government has decided that your 18 year old vehicle is perfectly safe to operate on the road, the fact that it cannot brake within the same distance as a modern vehicle which has unsafely slammed on their brakes should not be considered your fault. Also the fact that the other driver have admitted to driving the vehicle, as proven by their claim, means that it is undeniable proof they were driving while suspended and you should absolutely report it to the police.

    • spackbace on 31/01/2020 - 01:15
      +8

      You forgot the "/s" 😉

    • payton on 31/01/2020 - 02:19
      +4

      too funny.
      that's some grade A commie crack you're smoking.

    • HighAndDry on 31/01/2020 - 08:56
      +5

      the fact that it cannot brake within the same distance as a modern vehicle

      …means OP needed to leave a larger gap between themselves and the car in front to be safe.

  • Donaldhump on 31/01/2020 - 01:57

    you caused the accident regardless of their status IMHO

  • payton on 31/01/2020 - 02:18
    -1

    But then I did a vehicle rego check and found out that the other vehicle is suspended.
    Message from DoT. "This vehicle licence is either suspended or cancelled."

    People have licence, vehicles have registrations

    • [Deactivated] on 31/01/2020 - 02:38

      Yep, that message came from DoT WA's website

  • CMH on 31/01/2020 - 02:22
    +3

    I'm aware that it's not a valid argument to claim that I'm not at fault.

    You're absolutely right.

    Should I be held liable for the damages of her car, considering this other car should not even be on the road?

    Maybe if the other driver wasn't born they wouldn't be on the road neither?

    Should I even try to claim for the damages against my car? My car has been written off.

    You can always try. 0% of success tho.

  • godofpizza on 31/01/2020 - 02:30
    +1

    I would check on the other party insurance PDS. If their car isn't registered at the time of the accident, the insurance cover also be null /voided?

    • coin saver on 31/01/2020 - 07:51
      +1

      Section 54 of the Insurance Contracts act would override the insurance contract.

  • [Deactivated] on 31/01/2020 - 02:36
    -5

    My argument is that the other driver is being negligent for driving a suspended vehicle. The vehicle should not be on the road in the first place.

    If I use another scenario where a ute driver is being negligent, did not securely store his cargo, the cargo dropped, I rear-ended the cargo, the cargo should not be on the road.
    Should i be paying for the damage or should he be paying the damage to my car? or is this apple/orange analogy?

    It seems that the opinion is unanimous. Very well then, I will pay for the damages.

    • godofpizza on 31/01/2020 - 02:39
      -1

      when you hit the other car, was it written off? it may explain why the rego has been cancelled.

      • [Deactivated] on 31/01/2020 - 02:41

        Checked on DoT's website on the same night of the accident. her car's bumper needs to be replaced.

        • godofpizza on 31/01/2020 - 10:17

          what car/truck were you driving?

    • spackbace on 31/01/2020 - 02:42
      +1

      What if you drove into a light pole? They don't need to be registered, but if you hit one, you'd be at fault wouldn't you? Or would you claim the pole should be licensed to be in the way of your car?

      • [Deactivated] on 31/01/2020 - 02:51
        -3

        Pretty sure this one is apple/orange analogy, Poles normally aren't placed in the middle of the road, and they don't slam brakes.
        But yeah, I would be 100% at fault if I hit an unlicensed/suspended pole on the SIDE of the road, heh :)

        • spackbace on 31/01/2020 - 02:52

          Ok a cyclist on the road, hits the brakes for an amber light, and you hit them because you're not keeping a safe distance.

          Same same

          Stop clutching at straws. No one here is buying your argument.

          • [Deactivated] on 31/01/2020 - 02:56

            @spackbace: Wouldn't have this thread if it was a cyclist.
            Cyclist does not need a rego/license to be on the road. Drivers and cars do

            • ProlapsedHeinous on 31/01/2020 - 05:52

              @[Deactivated]: No weaseling out of this one. trying to find loopholes to excuse your bad driving just makes the whole situation even more pathetic.

    • CMH on 31/01/2020 - 03:41
      +4

      If I use another scenario where a ute driver is being negligent, did not securely store his cargo, the cargo dropped, I rear-ended the cargo, the cargo should not be on the road.
      Should i be paying for the damage or should he be paying the damage to my car? or is this apple/orange analogy?

      Apple/Orange.

      You said it yourself in the first part: the ute driver is being negligent and did not secure his cargo. The fact you hit the cargo is due to that. If they had secured their cargo then you wouldn't have hit it.

      Now to your actual scenario, you did not hit the other car because the car was unregistered. Would the fact the car was registered at the time prevent you from hitting that vehicle? You hit the car because you did not leave enough braking space.

      • Zachary on 31/01/2020 - 12:18

        OOooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhh. What's OP gonna reply to that?

    • HighAndDry on 31/01/2020 - 08:58

      Driving a suspended vehicle is not negligence. Failing to keep a safe distance is though.

  • Euphemistic on 31/01/2020 - 06:16
    +6

    the driver of a car in front slammed the brake and stopped at least a meter away from the red light.
    I kept a good distance but my 18 years old car just simply couldn't stop as fast as her's

    Does not compute.

    1. Red lights fo not appear suddenly. There is a 4s warning of an orange light which you chose to ignore, no doubt trying to rev through when you should have been stopping.
    2. Stopping 1m short makes no difference. Unless your estimate is significantly wrong and you meant more than a car length.
    3. You didn’t keep a good distance. You weren’t far enough back to stop safely. Your 18yo car will have pretty much the same braking force as a new car. I would be surprised if your 18yo car doesn’t have ABS. Maybe if your car was 40yo it might not stop as well as a modern car.
    • Ozpit on 31/01/2020 - 09:43
      +4

      I think what OP is effectively saying is that if it hadn’t been for the other car stopping him he would have run the red light.

    • Andard on 31/01/2020 - 10:39
      +1

      Red lights fo not appear suddenly. There is a 4s warning of an orange light which you chose to ignore, no doubt trying to rev through when you should have been stopping.

      Really this should be /thread right here. OP should have been watching the lights.

    • CMH on 31/01/2020 - 10:52

      I would be surprised if your 18yo car doesn’t have ABS.

      Just a side note: my 04 corolla did not have ABS.

      Or ESC, or power windows…

      • godofpizza on 31/01/2020 - 12:25

        and only driver air bag.

        05 owner here.

      • Euphemistic on 31/01/2020 - 15:00

        Fair enough. It’s been quite a while since I drove a car without ABS. Now I think about it when we were looking for a 2000ish model with ABS it was only on the premium models.

        Still, cars have had pretty good brakes for well over 20yrs.

        • CMH on 31/01/2020 - 17:12
          +1

          It does feel like every car has had them since forever…

          Another note is ABS doesn't reduce brake distance so….

          • Euphemistic on 31/01/2020 - 21:46

            @CMH:

            Another note is ABS doesn't reduce brake distance so….

            True, but it allows you to put full effort into the brake pedal and not skid which means you don’t lose control or, in the case of skidding, increase the braking distance over not skidding.

            As mentioned I’ve driven cars with ABS almost exclusively for around 15years. In that time I think it has only been used in anger a couple of times. Most of the time ‘normal’ hard braking is enough if you are paying Attention.

  • MS Paint on 31/01/2020 - 06:39
    +4

    I kept a good distance but my 18 years old car just simply couldn't stop as fast as her's.

    I call bs on this also. You must drive to the conditions. If you know your brakes aren't as good then you need to allow more distance.

    What car do you drive? A 2002 car is modern as far as brakes are concerned. Is it an unmaintained sh!t box with drum rear brakes?

    You damaged someone else's property and have insurance. Take some responsibility for your actions.

    • Euphemistic on 31/01/2020 - 08:29
      +2

      Is it an unmaintained sh!t box with drum rear brakes?

      There is nothing wrong with drum rear brakes. Most utes still have them and they stop just fine. It’s all about the front brakes.

    • pegaxs on 31/01/2020 - 08:52

      sh!t box with drum rear brakes?

      Christ. Nearly every twin cab ute on the market is a shit box if "rear drum brakes" is your yard stick.

      • MS Paint on 31/01/2020 - 09:42

        I'm picturing the op in an old Ford Festiva with worn out crap front brakes and rear drums.

        • pegaxs on 31/01/2020 - 09:53
          +2

          I'm worse. I saw "18yo car" and started thinking EH/HR Holden VH/VK Commodores and XD/XE Falcons, not 2001~02 model cars… I'm getting too old for this shit…

          • CMH on 31/01/2020 - 13:11
            +1

            @pegaxs: I was thinking along similar lines as well… Can't believe some millennials are considered adults now… for the last 2 years!

  • Okayy on 31/01/2020 - 07:08

    that car shouldn’t be on road doesn’t justify that you can rear end it!

  • haimrevolution on 31/01/2020 - 07:54

    what If the license for a different person is the suspended one? From your argument if it were a parked car you could just ram it up the back and not be at fault which doesn’t make sense. The property (car) doesn’t hold a license

  • Austaurean on 31/01/2020 - 08:17

    If the vehicle was unreg prior to the accident, I am surprised her insurance company hasn't washed their hands of it.
    not keeping a vehicle registered and driving on a public road would be an easy out for them, as much as not keeping it in a road worthy state.

    • mbck on 31/01/2020 - 08:31
      +1

      No, the insurance company will keep taking money. Then when she is about to use the insurance, they will reject the claim.

      Win for the insurance.

      • HighAndDry on 31/01/2020 - 09:01

        Insurance companies aren't going to waste time keeping track of whether every one of the hundreds of thousands of cars they insure are all registered all the time.

        • mbck on 31/01/2020 - 09:33
          +1

          Ofc. The onus is always on you to be truthful and update them as required.

          Insurance companies arent your personal assistant

    • azonki on 31/01/2020 - 10:28

      Correct.
      If your car is unregistered, your comprehensive insurance is VOID.
      So, you need to inform the other party's insurance company that their insured has made a fraudulent claim and allow them to investigate.
      This, however, has no bearing on your guilt.

  • [Deactivated] on 31/01/2020 - 08:22

    There are 2 issues here - Statutory Law and Common Law.

    Statutory Law - you are at fault.

    Common Law - will cost you more than it is worth to chase this in a court.

  • [Deactivated] on 31/01/2020 - 08:23

    Arguments like the car shouldn't have been there in the first place is rubbish.
    If that car wasn't on the road, there'd be another one in its place anyway.

    You failed to keep a safe distance, you failed to be attentive to the situation, you failed to stop in time.

    You're at fault, no matter how you want to justify your actions in your head.

    Call your insurance, pay the excess, yours and their car will be fixed.

    • Euphemistic on 31/01/2020 - 08:28

      Call your insurance, pay the excess, yours and their car will be fixed.

      Or your car will be laid out if written off. The other car may be argued about by the insurance company as being unregistered, but it’s not your problem anymore.

  • mbck on 31/01/2020 - 08:30
    +1

    The fact that you rear ended a car meant you did not keep a good distance.

    The fact that its 18 years old means you should know your car better.

    Be responsible. The other driver will be charged by the police. But at least you have insurance right?

  • Well Wasted on 31/01/2020 - 08:32
    -2

    if she's pissed… she shouldn't have been on the road… same if she was on drugs… being unlicensed or driving an unregistered vehicle. insurance doesn't cover driving an unregistered vehicle… therefore she is liable for her own damages and yours. W.A. law… she was on the road illegally driving an unlicensed vehicle (shouldn't have been there to crash into) sure hoped you got the police to attend to prove yourself right… people lie in these instances… to insurance companies and anyone else that listens.

  • pegaxs on 31/01/2020 - 09:09
    +2

    The other driver's insurance is trying to claim the car damages against me.

    Hand it over to your insurance company, pay the excess, let them sort it out (That's why we pay insurance). Unless this is a thinly veiled way of saying you don't have insurance and you don't want to pay??

    PS: I don't believe all the other "my 18yo car" bullshit. If your 2001~02 car cant stop quick enough, your car is unroadworthy and maybe it's you who shouldn't have been on the road.

    • wiipantz on 31/01/2020 - 11:15
      +1

      Plot twist; his crumbledoor was far from roadworthy in this saga.
      Reading the stopping at a red light and he just happened to rear end… get this rubbish off the road both driver and car.

  • Kail on 31/01/2020 - 09:16
    +1

    If the light ahead was orange or red, why were you not breaking regardless of what the car in front of you was doing?

    • Meerkatsrok on 31/01/2020 - 09:53
      +3

      why were you not breaking

      He was in the process of breaking the other car

  • Baysew on 31/01/2020 - 09:40
    +1

    Your insurance company will deal with the other insurance company.

    So why post here?

    • CMH on 31/01/2020 - 13:13

      Hoping to weasel out of paying an excess probably.

      Best OP can do is let their insurer know the car was not registered at the time. Doesn't change the fact OP is liable though.

  • OzHunterNSW on 31/01/2020 - 10:48

    You should be more cautious and you clearly know your "old car's" capability… or lack there of.

    you are in the wrong

  • MontyMacaw on 31/01/2020 - 11:10
    -1

    If you were THEIR insurance company you wouldn’t have to pay them a cent but you are not and I think that is what you are going for. You crash into somebody else’s property and you are liable is how most lawyers would see it. Not that I’m a lawyer but I have had a few battles over the years and learnt a thing or to about blame. For example I would have said that they backed into me as I was slowing down. So they could get their car fixed and roadworthy. But you need to think pretty quick when you (profanity) up.

    • CMH on 31/01/2020 - 13:17

      Not only this is highly illegal, the damage won't be consistent with OP's written off car. Unless the other driver had so much time to accelerate (in reverse) to get enough speed (1 meter isn't going to cut it. Even 1 car length is pushing it).

      And even then, the other driver just needs to show tyre marks on the road (I'm guessing there will be some tyre marks?) and it should support the fact OP crashed into them, or if no tyre marks, OP's car wasn't pushed backwards with their brakes on, and who stops at a red without applying brakes?

  • wiipantz on 31/01/2020 - 11:13
    +1

    1 meter from a red light… Are you saying you would have sailed through without her car assisting your brakes?

  • BobD on 31/01/2020 - 12:30
    +1

    She obviously stopped for the red light or the orange light whichever but you were going to run the red light and weren't quick enough when she stopped. Your problem.

  • Oz8argain on 31/01/2020 - 13:10

    should have bought Brembos so you can tail gate harder

    • coin saver on 31/01/2020 - 22:07

      Yeah right the NSW police would not accept " Brembos " on their pursuit Commodores because they considered them unsafeand inferior to the standard brakes LOL

  • netjock on 07/02/2020 - 17:47
    -1

    Sorry you rear ended an incompetent driver. One thing I have learnt is you need to treat everyone one the road as utter idiots or zombies out to kill you if they had the chance.

    Only consolation is maybe make good use of the following freebies next time: Here

  • olivecheese on 13/02/2020 - 16:38

    Did a police officer attend the crash? If not, maybe you could let the driver know that you'll be passing their information and all footage onto the police and their insurance company unless they agree to settle outside of the insurance companies. This might motivate them to back off.
    Might also motivate them to use bikies instead, your call.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join