Car Accident - (Police Sent Fine after We Sent Dashcam Footage)

[Deactivated] on 09/02/2024 - 00:11
Last edited 11/02/2024 - 13:55 by 3 other users

Hi all, would love some guidance on a car accident my wife had. I'll try and explain best I can but note I'm not trying to get out of paying money out, just want an idea of how the law works.

This happened in some roadworks. Two lands converged down into a single lane (right lane ended) and my wife navigated that part of this without issue. However as she approached the cones, a car in the left hand lane tried to stop her coming into the lane for no apparent reason. Regardless, my wife managed to get in front of that car and joined the traffic in the single left lane and entered the roadworks. I don't have a great explanation how she did that but I don't think it's relevant to this.

In this single lane roadwork, it actually tracks past a petrol station which has an entrance at the front of the roadworks and an exit towards the end of the works. Between the entrance and exit, there is actually another lane to the left of the single lane .. but it's got hatches drawn all over it so you're not supposed to drive there. After my wife got in front of this other car, the other car then proceeded to drive down the hatched part of the road attempting to get in front of my wife.

My wife did see her and if I'm being honest, it looks like a game ensued with my wife stopping this other person from getting back in. However, at the end of the hatched section, the road then converges to be a single lane when this other car didn't slow down. To me it looks like a game of chicken then happened with this other car cutting in front of my wife and hitting the front wing and damaging it. The other car drove off and she didn't get any details but we did have a dashcam in the car.

When my wife got home, we called the police and reported the incident. They sent out a link to upload the dashcam footage (which we did) and we then lodged an insurance claim. Fast forward a couple of weeks and a infringement notice arrived on the doorstep stating that my wife failed to yield and please pay $288

Now I don't particularly care about the money, it's not a lot and there are no demerit points for this so it's not that big a deal. However my question is around the car insurance side. If my wife gets a fine like this, is she automatically at fault as far as the insurance is concerned? Does she now lose her no claims discount etc? Or is the blame for an accident treated separately by the insurance company from any traffic offence? The other car was 'off road' and it does seem unfair to get this ticket but I understand the cop's approach would just be to let the court decide (which I doubt we'd bother for $288).

Any wisdom would be appreciated.

Thread closed: OP disabled account —Mod

Automotive

closed Comments

  • Unorthodox on 09/02/2024 - 00:16
    +34

    So basically your wife and the other driver got emotional and tried to play chicken and both copped the consequences…

    Could have caused a more serious accident, also injured road workers and far out if it's a 40 zone for construction so not like you're not already meant to be slow and aware.

    • [Deactivated] on 09/02/2024 - 10:21
      +1

      Yes to the emotional bit…

      • Lichen6420 on 09/02/2024 - 19:29

        You should be aware that failure to disclose information a reasonable person believes could alter or influence the outcome of an insurance claim can void your coverage under the insurance contract.

        The wording of such clauses varies from insurer to insurer but the general gist of the thing is the same. Read your PDS,

        Being issued with an infringement notice essentially established your wife was the at fault party in the accident because she broke a road rule that caused the accident (failure to yield) .

        Choosing not to disclose this may give your insurer cause to deny coverage.

        It is tempting not to tell them to try and not pay an at fault excess but there is a good chance they will find out anyway, particularly if the other party was advised by Police that you were issued with an infringement for causing the incident. When the other party is asked to give their version of events they will be definitely tell your insurer this if they are aware.

        Even if they don't deny the claim they may decide to cancel or decline offering your coverage moving forward if they become aware of the infringement and your failure to disclose this to them. This has its own set of consequences when trying to obtain insurance in the future.

  • ihfree on 09/02/2024 - 00:17
    +49

    Upload the dashcam footage?
    Paint diagram?

    • dbmitch on 10/02/2024 - 19:50
      +5

      Its always a pet peeve that everyone writes blocks of text to describe the dashcam footage but never just shows the bloody footage.

      • serpserpserp on 10/02/2024 - 22:41
        +3

        Why would they show you when they know they are in the wrong?

        • dbmitch on 10/02/2024 - 22:54

          Now that makes sense, if you only use text to describe your dash cam, you can spin it anyway you want.

          • serpserpserp on 11/02/2024 - 08:45

            @dbmitch: It is a bit like someone having CCTV footage of themselves punching another person and then telling you all the reasons why this person "had it coming" before they show you the footage. Get you onside with their own bias first, if you completely disagree, just don't show them the video.

            • dbmitch on 11/02/2024 - 13:23

              @serpserpserp: In this case OP couldn't even spin it good enough even using just text, and now they've deactivated their account.

  • Some Human on 09/02/2024 - 00:31
    -3

    However as she approached the cones, a car in the left hand lane tried to stop her coming into the lane for no apparent reason

    I do this to cue jumpers as well.

    • [Deactivated] on 09/02/2024 - 07:48
      +12

      So you try to snooker them?

    • jjjaar on 09/02/2024 - 09:04
      +29

      Ever heard of a zip merge? You know, the correct way to merge when two lanes form one.

      It’s not jumping the queue to use all available road space as it was intended to be used. It’s more efficient, and reduces the impact to the wider road network.

      • Some Human on 09/02/2024 - 09:54
        +9

        OP admitted his wife was being aggressive with the other driver. The way I see it, she saw the lanes were merging, passed as many cars as she could to get in front of everyone else like so many do. Then she just happened to try it with the wrong person, who has probably had this happen so many times, they are just sick of it and stood their ground.

        • ihfree on 09/02/2024 - 10:14
          +5

          The way I see it, she saw the lanes were merging, passed as many cars as she could to get in front of everyone else like so many do.

          Assuming, normal driving and no road rage, when do you think people should merge?

          • Some Human on 09/02/2024 - 10:20
            -2

            @ihfree: They should merge like an actual zipper. One from the left, one from the right. Not one from the left, 3 from the right.

            The woman stopping OPs wife from getting in probably saw her pass many cars when she knew the lane was ending. So, a cue jumper.

            • ihfree on 09/02/2024 - 10:40
              +5

              @Some Human: Do you think cars should still run to the end of a lane if people choose to merge early?

              • Assburg on 09/02/2024 - 22:50
                -3

                @ihfree: Absolutely not… People choose to merge early when they see there's a bit of a queue already.. usually at night or when traffic isn't that bad (otherwise congestion would generally stop everyone from seeing what's going on).

                The others think they're better than those who have paid attention, identified the situation and done the respectful thing to those who have already been waiting. Then, with that sense of entitlement, zoom down the other lane as far as they can then start indicating right.

                And guess what? They're seldom marked as zip merges.. The dashed line continues until the road ends, so the people who queued up have no obligation to let those dirtbags in - I make a point of refusing this and am happy to trade paint over the issue.

                Your wife got what she deserves in this case, be glad that her road rage copped her a less severe fine than what sitting a phone on her lap would've.

                • ihfree on 09/02/2024 - 22:58

                  @Assburg: How do you feel about motorcycles filtering?

                  • Assburg on 09/02/2024 - 22:59
                    -1

                    @ihfree: That's fine, lawful in most states and because they generally take off so much faster than cars it's best they get to the front and out of the way…

                    • ihfree on 09/02/2024 - 23:07
                      +2

                      @Assburg: One the advantages of motorcycles filtering is that it lets more of the road be used. A motorcycle filtering takes up no room. It's also seen by some as "queue jumping" or "thinking they're better."

                      In some respects, I think it is comparable in that it is beneficial to other road users but often perceived negatively. In both cases, cars can take up more room which helps everyone out. This is already detailed in other comments, so no point reiterating.

                      • Assburg on 10/02/2024 - 12:07
                        -1

                        @ihfree: While there are infographics that show why there are some benefits to treating road work lane merges as zipper merges… one could put together a simple infographic that basically markets queueing up as beneficial.

                        E.g. if people want to turn left any time before the roadworks, they can just zip down the free lane and turn left. Only those who actually want to cross the road works need to queue up.

                        • ihfree on 10/02/2024 - 12:53
                          +1

                          @Assburg: Would it be backed by research that shows an overall benefit for all cars and the network in general?

                          • Assburg on 10/02/2024 - 14:39
                            -1

                            @ihfree: Nothing in government, infrastructure, etc. is ever backed by credible research, departments just support whatever the sitting government has marketed to the people who elect them, and then people spin whatever research the consultants fabricated to meet their varying agendas.

                            If you think real life is any different from that ABC show utopia… I have very bad news for you

            • illusion99 on 10/02/2024 - 13:38

              @Some Human: A cue or a queue jumper?

      • eek on 09/02/2024 - 16:49
        -1

        So using the 40m lane created for a gas station entrance and exit constitutes as a zipper merge? Might use launch control and off dart in front of a few cars next time I see this in bumper-bumper traffic. Nobody would think I was queue jumping.

        • jjjaar on 09/02/2024 - 19:48

          Where did you pull that from? I am clearly talking about when two lanes continuing straight merge into one, whether it be a standard lane end or due to construction. You don’t merge any earlier than when the lanes meet/one lane ends.

          As I said.

          It’s not jumping the queue to use all available road space as it was intended to be used.

          Obviously this is not what an exit lane was intended to be used for, so no, using an exit lane does not constitute as a zip merge.

          • Assburg on 09/02/2024 - 22:52
            -3

            @jjjaar: It's not a zip merge unless there's a forms 1 lane sign and the dashed line comes to an abrupt end in the middle of the road..

            I.e. the blocked lane need to be let in at the mercy of those who queued.

      • skidexa on 10/02/2024 - 06:16

        But in this case the person was not in a lane…

      • Miami Mall Alien on 10/02/2024 - 17:49

        jjjaar

        Ever heard of a zip merge? You know, the correct way to merge when two lanes form one.

        Lol, "zip merge".

        It's Australia dude. 90% of drivers leave it until they're within 10cm of the cars around them to decide how they're going to merge.

      • juki on 10/02/2024 - 19:49

        while i agree absolutely nobody does zip merging unless they are sort of forced into it. usually its one long line with some smart arse trying to jump the queue and push themselves in

        • Euphemistic on 11/02/2024 - 06:26
          +1

          I prefer to think of it as one longer line with some person trying to use available lane space and keep the traffic flowing more smoothly.

          What peeves me is that half the cars want to merge way too far back which then blocks others from moving up to the zipper point. If everyone ussd both lanes and properly merged like a zipper at the zipper point, then raffic would flow much better. noone would feel the need to 'race up' and everyone could just merge 1 for 1 from two equal lanes.

          • juki on 11/02/2024 - 09:36

            @Euphemistic: but it isnt the case and the guys racing up end up fighting like above or wasting everyone's time trying to push in (we may all have a slightly different scenario in our minds too)

            • Euphemistic on 11/02/2024 - 12:02
              +1

              @juki: Racing up and pushing in isnt what i was describing. Thats daft and slow everyone down. Driving slowly up the closing lane to near the merge point and then picking a suitable gap helps the flow.

              FWIW i will use the space in the lane to go futher up before merging, but equally i see no point blocking someone from merging in front of me. Exception being, if they are deliberately trying to push in front while theres a suitable gap behind.

    • transplanted on 09/02/2024 - 09:05
      +2

      Some Human

      I do this to cue jumpers as well.

      should you instead be preventing them not jumping the 'cue' and impaling themselves?

      • Some Human on 09/02/2024 - 10:03
        +1

        Well you know the old saying, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

    • [Deactivated] on 09/02/2024 - 10:24
      +4

      Is it queue jumping if the car in front starts to pull in 50 metres away from where the cones start? I personally find this annoying, people should use the whole road right up to the cones which would surely shorten the traffic jam wouldn't it?

      • Some Human on 09/02/2024 - 10:26
        -2

        You're all going through the same single lane section. Cutting in shortens it for the cutters and makes it longer for the people who actually wait their turn.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/02/2024 - 10:43
          +3

          So how far back should you merge? If the lane ahead is closing and there are cones, how far back makes sense? Surely that is why the cones are located where they are?

            • brad1-8tsi on 09/02/2024 - 11:22
              +8

              @Some Human:

              As soon as you realise the lane is ending.

              Why? Does the road become lava because somebody has chosen to merge 100m before the lane ends?

              If they wanted people to merge early they would move the cones further up the road.

                • ihfree on 09/02/2024 - 12:00
                  +9

                  @Some Human: Not really - I get the feeling fear is the motivator. I think it is problematic to merge early - I've missed lights and been held up by idiots who decide to merge early and block a lane. It's also problematic behaviour not to let cars merge.

                  By merging early, you just make the situation worse for everyone. If traffic is stopped, the empty lane will fill up and will likely zipper merge when it starts moving. You and the cars behind you in the lane you just merged into are now further back than necessary. You're also inviting behaviour that is perceived as "queue jumping." Driving isn't about being first or getting ahead of other cars - it should be about benefitting everyone - we live in a society, after all.

                  Of course, depending on whether there is a line or not, the cars in the empty lane may also have right of way:

                  https://www.nsw.gov.au/driving-boating-and-transport/roads-s…

                  Traffic is an interesting topic and well worth learning about.

                • bomberswarm2 on 09/02/2024 - 16:06
                  +5

                  @Some Human: It is not. You are suppsoed to use the entire road. It's called a Zipper merge. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmSTSj_OMpA

              • jjjaar on 09/02/2024 - 11:39
                +12

                @brad1-8tsi:

                If they wanted people to merge early they would move the cones further up the road.

                Spot on. There are actually examples of construction zones where they have started putting up signs telling incompetent drivers to use all available lanes until the lane closure point.

                The impact of people only using one lane has knock on effects to the wider road network, blocking earlier intersections is the most common.

                If you have a stretch of road that fits 10 cars in each lane between a previous intersection and the lane closure, and you have 20 cars, if all 20 cars use both lanes, you don’t block the intersection. But if you have a driver who has no idea that you’re meant to use both lanes decide to be a “hero” and sit in the middle to block people from using both lanes, now you have 9 cars in one lane, this (profanity) in the middle, and the other 10 cars are stuck before the intersection, meaning that people who aren’t even going toward the lane closure are now impacted.

              • jv on 09/02/2024 - 21:44
                -2

                @brad1-8tsi:

                has chosen to merge 100m before the lane ends?

                I have good eyesight, I can see it coming 800m away…

              • Assburg on 09/02/2024 - 22:53
                -1

                @brad1-8tsi: That's logic that relies on the very big assumption traffic companies give a damn

            • jjjaar on 09/02/2024 - 11:35
              +2

              @Some Human:

              As soon as you realise the lane is ending.

              So if it’s a road I know well and I know in three kms a lane will end, I shouldn’t use it?

              I’ll bet you’re a middle lane hogger on the freeway too, rather than keep left unless overtaking.

              • Some Human on 09/02/2024 - 11:36

                @jjjaar: This is roadworks, not a multi lane highway.

                • jjjaar on 09/02/2024 - 11:49
                  +5

                  @Some Human: Zip merges exist in a lot of situations, so if you don’t know how to do it in one location, you don’t know how to do it in another. Roadworks, normal lane closures, freeways - zip merges are really basic driving skills. Not sure why you’re flaunting that you don’t know how to drive, but now is a great time to learn and change your behaviour.

                  https://www.youtube.com/shorts/bi-dTb5m-7E

              • cainen on 09/02/2024 - 13:25
                -3

                @jjjaar: FYI the keep left unless overtaking rule only means stay out of the right lane unless overtaking. There's no rule about staying in the middle lane…

                • jjjaar on 09/02/2024 - 20:06

                  @cainen: FWIW I just looked it up and you’re right, there is no rule (in Vic at least).

                  But anyone who has ever been in the left lane and come up to a slower driver who they are unable to overtake because they have a wall of more slow drivers in the middle lane knows that sitting in the middle lane is infuriating and it’s not hard to just keep in the leftmost lane out of courtesy for other road users.

                  Then again, maybe I’m expecting too much by assuming drivers will be courteous to others.

                  • cainen on 10/02/2024 - 08:38
                    +1

                    @jjjaar: I agree the courteous thing to do is stay in the left most lane if it's clear. It's beyond my comprehension why 90% of drivers when entering a freeway move straight to the middle lane then proceed to drive under the speed limit, even if the left lane is totally clear.

                    Half the time the left lane ends up being the quickest as all the slow drivers are in the middle and right lanes.

            • Bobby Hill on 11/02/2024 - 04:01

              @Some Human: This thread is a good way of pointing out the drivers who DON"T KNOW HOW TO DRIVE.

        • fusion17 on 09/02/2024 - 22:27

          There's also always situations where someone goes all the way to the end to 'get ahead' even though there were gaps earlier they could get into without having to adjust their speed or brake.

          So now they get to the end of their lane and have to brake, or start merging and force the person in the other lane (and everyone else behind) to abruptly brake and adjust their speed to let this clown in.
          This is never a good situation.

        • CommuterPolluter on 10/02/2024 - 02:12

          Traffic engineers say that traffic is reduced by merging at the last possible section.

      • 1Kenobi on 09/02/2024 - 18:19

        There is no such road infringement called cue jumping

      • The General on 09/02/2024 - 19:18
        -1

        What about at traffic lights where you can see parked cars in the left lane just after an intersection?

        Where there is two lanes going the same way but the left lane has parked cars most of the way, most people stay in the right lane knowing they have to merge back into the right again.

        But what about the goose that can't help themselves, and wants to jump two cars when the lights go green by going in the left lane? The two cars that stopped in an orderly manner then get bumped back a spot. Or should they?

        Is it OK for both orderly cars to stop the queue jumper from being able to merge or should they concede and reward the impatient one?

        • jjjaar on 09/02/2024 - 20:03
          +2

          This is intersection capacity. If the lights have multiple lanes, you should be using all lanes to ensure the most efficient use of road space and allow the maximum number of vehicles to pass through the intersection during the green phase.

          This is exactly where a zip merge works best because not everyone leaves the intersection at the same speed and often happens this way naturally (until you get a cranky driver who is now butthurt that a whole extra vehicle might now be in front of them so they speed up just to make themselves feel more important).

          It’s not about the driver in the left who “can’t help themselves” just “to jump two cars”. It can literally be the difference between that driver getting through the green or not. And even if they were gonna make it through either way, if they use the left lane, someone else behind them in either lane will now also get through, so they’re helping other by using all the space.

          It also can be easier if the driver is approaching the back of the queue but hasn’t had to come to a stop or even slow down, they’re able to use the other lane to maintain their speed and then slot in front of another car as the driver is only just beginning to move again. Things in motion stay in motion.

          If you’re not gonna use all available roadspace it’s just wasteful and we should close all those lanes and give the space back to pedestrians, cyclists, public transport or nature strips.

          • The General on 10/02/2024 - 13:01

            @jjjaar: I think this all reatly depends on the intersection. If you know the lights are only going to be green for a few seconds, fair enough. If you know they will be green longer, then people should wait their turn in an orderly manner.

    • Jake D on 09/02/2024 - 11:11
      +5

      queue

      also, its not queue jumping its just merging

    • R4 on 09/02/2024 - 15:57

      People who can't take a cue are dicks

    • Franc-T on 10/02/2024 - 10:41

      I have to deal with this every time I drive into work (Docklands). You just have to let them though it (profanity) sucks when it happens for the 200th time and adds 10 mins to trip.

      Its just not worth getting in an accident for.

    • pegaxs on 09/02/2024 - 08:03
      +23

      Holy shit, jv, now you have stooped to using ChatGPT for your content?

      • ihfree on 09/02/2024 - 09:50
        +7

        jv probably found out that you can ask ChatGPT to output in markdown.

        • bazingaa on 09/02/2024 - 14:49

          thanks for giving me the same idea lol :D

      • R-Man on 10/02/2024 - 14:39

        ChatjvT

    • payless69 on 09/02/2024 - 08:44
      -1

      I was listening to the voice recordings when that Alasken B737 had the plug blow out:
      The chick at the yoke got into a verbal fight with the chick at ATC.

      Then ATC found a man to calm her down and all was ok…….

      As for jv's above: Charles is still King! Thread closed?

    • cdaddy on 09/02/2024 - 18:30
      +2

      I aint reading any of that, happy for you though

  • Jimothy Wongingtons on 09/02/2024 - 00:40
    -2

    @Muzeeb

  • follow on 09/02/2024 - 00:44
    +7

    How will the insurance company know you received a fine?
    Who's to say the other party did not also receive a fine?

  • hasher22 on 09/02/2024 - 00:52
    +12

    Make a claim as per normal. Insurance can not see any fines issued unless you tell them, and why would you?

    Your wife lost , but at what cost? A fine, an insurance claim and time loss all because she wanted to merge and got hot headed.

    I understand, people are selfish on the road, they don't want to give way and ive had my fair share of a.holes not giving way to me in a 2 to 1 lane merge all because they want to be Infront, all I do is cuss in my car about them and move on and glad I didn't get into an accident

    • [Deactivated] on 09/02/2024 - 10:26

      Agreed. I really hope my wife learns from this experience and next time just lets the person in

      • CalmLemons on 09/02/2024 - 21:48

        To be honest OP your post is probably the only worthwhile traffic post in a while.

        Footage would have been awesome in this case lol.

  • trapper on 09/02/2024 - 00:56
    +26

    My wife did see her and if I'm being honest, it looks like a game ensued with my wife stopping this other person from getting back in. However at the end of the hatched section, the road then converges to be a single lane when this other car didn't slow down. To me it looks like a game of chicken then happened with this other car cutting in front of my wife and hitting the front wing and damaging it.

    and you guys though it would be a good idea… to send a video of this… to the cops.

    honestly wtf haha

    • [Deactivated] on 09/02/2024 - 10:27

      Yeah, hindsight is 20:20… I wish I hadn't bothered

  • ihfree on 09/02/2024 - 01:10
    +6

    Lol, yet another post that could have used this template
    - bike fall meme.

  • El cheepo on 09/02/2024 - 01:41
    +3

    and a infringement notice arrived on the doorstep stating that my wife failed to yield and please pay $288

    Thats a fine from the police i can agree with…
    Why would you send a video of yourself purposely holding someone out and think the two wrongs will make a right 😂

    However my question is around the car insurance side. If my wife gets a fine like this, is she automatically at fault as far as the insurance is concerned?

    Insurance wouldn’t know this information, but they too have eyes. They will come to the same obvious conclusion as the police did.

    Does she now lose her no claims discount etc?

    Likely.

    • [Deactivated] on 09/02/2024 - 10:30
      -1

      We thought the other person being 'offroad' would automatically make them at fault. It seems that even if someone drives onto the pavement, as long as they get ahead of the car on the actual road, they need to be let in otherwise it's the road user's fault for not yielding.

      • El cheepo on 09/02/2024 - 11:34
        +8

        If you saw a clearly visible pedestrian in the middle of the road and hit them because they shouldn’t of been there - whos at fault?

        Just because someone else is in the wrong, doesn’t mean you can go vigilante on them.

        The only way you could get away with what your wife did is if she was in a truck and claim it was in her blind spot.

        • ToothPickUser on 09/02/2024 - 23:31
          +1

          This is just not true at all. You can't just merge from off the road and not give way to all cars that are already in the lane you're merging into. Unless 2 lanes are going into 1, you have to give way to vehicles in the lane you intend to merge to. People are under no obligation to let anyone in. Is it courteous? Yes. Is it required? No.

          • El cheepo on 09/02/2024 - 23:36
            -1

            @ToothPickUser: Thanks for your opinion.
            I disagree, and the fact she was fined shows the police would disagree too.

            You can’t just hit people because they are in the wrong…

            • ToothPickUser on 09/02/2024 - 23:41
              +1

              @El cheepo: You can disagree but the road rules support what I have said. You must give way to all traffic in the lane you are merging into. Simple. You're not "hitting" anyone, they're hitting you by merging into your lane illegally.

              Also, without knowledge of the location of this incident or dashcam footage, your guess is as good as mine as to what really happened. Police issuing a penalty notice in this particular instance doesn't change the fact that you can't just merge into a lane without giving way because you feel like it.

              • El cheepo on 09/02/2024 - 23:58
                -1

                @ToothPickUser: No one is disagreeing with you about the other car driving contrary to the road rules…

                Yes the other car is at fault too. But the Op literally said his wife actively blocked that person - thus saw them and hit them.

                You're not "hitting" anyone, they're hitting you by merging into your lane illegally.

                The police obviously disagree, and the insurance company will too.
                Again… just because you are right, doesn’t give you the right to block/stop/impede/hit another car. You are not the police.
                If someone chooses to over take you illegally and you purposely try to stop them, you will be at fault.

                Police issuing a penalty notice in this particular instance doesn't change the fact that you can't just merge into a lane without giving way because you feel like it.

                Correct, No they can’t.
                But you as a driver also can’t choose to not yield and allow an accident to occur.
                So if someone cuts you off illegally and you actively are trying to stop it… yes, you will be charged as the ops wife was.

                If she had half a brain she would of just used her brakes and then submitted the footage to the police like an adult.

                But she chose to go all mad max on the other car and lost…

      • trapper on 09/02/2024 - 14:14
        +1

        It seems that even if someone drives onto the pavement…

        If you hit them by accident, it would not be your fault. However, if you deliberately went out of your way to block them in and caused a collision, you could end up with a fine - or worse

  • joka on 09/02/2024 - 06:42
    +5

    It’s one thing if your wife realises she was in a lane which ended and felt bad for having to cut someone off. It’s a totally different thing if she cut them off and then decided to piss off the other person more by playing games with them.

    Sounds like it was the later. She deserved it.

    • Some Human on 09/02/2024 - 10:06

      100%

    • [Deactivated] on 09/02/2024 - 10:32
      -4

      I realise you can't really judge without the footage but it wasn't like that. It was very slow, stop-start traffic. If anything that last bit with the impact was them both stopped and then both going for it

      • Lichen6420 on 09/02/2024 - 19:01
        +7

        Then post the footage so people can make an informed decision?

        • iLikeSales on 09/02/2024 - 21:43

          Probably scared everyone would hate his wife. Usually whenever people say they have footage they dont post it because they know everyone will not be on their side.

  • mapax on 09/02/2024 - 06:52
    +6

    A car driving on hashed markings has to give way to traffic in a marked lane, for your wife to have received a fine suggests that she was aggressively trying to block the other car from entering rather than just not leaving much room and making it difficult for the other driver.

  • SBOB on 09/02/2024 - 07:08
    +8

    Fast forward a couple of weeks and a infringement notice arrived on the doorstep stating that my wife failed to yield and please pay $288

    Finally a car accident story on ozb with a happy ending

    • [Deactivated] on 09/02/2024 - 10:33

      :-/

  • cashless on 09/02/2024 - 07:27
    +1

    An everyday story of more crappy driving on our roads that was recorded and hopefully ended with both drivers being fined.
    You need to post this lesson on Dashcam monthly, not OzBargain

  • Dollar General on 09/02/2024 - 07:30

    Blame it on Dan Andrew’s. Everyone else is

    • Sinnerator on 09/02/2024 - 08:27
      -4

      the guy who tried to sell victoria to china?

      • JimmyF on 09/02/2024 - 08:29
        -1

        Wrong state Mate, WA is the one selling itself to China, one shipload of ore at a time.

        • ProlapsedHeinous on 11/02/2024 - 00:37
          -1

          I bet you could find something coming out of every state heading that way. Theres a reason Australia has been riding a wave of economic prosperity for so long.

          • JimmyF on 11/02/2024 - 13:39

            @ProlapsedHeinous: VIC is selling baby formula by ship load to China…. But slightly different to physically digging up the state and shipping it to China like WA!

            Why are we not refining it here and selling the enhanced product?

      • DashCam AKA Rolts on 09/02/2024 - 09:06
        +3

        Which political party sold the Darwin Port rights to China for xx years, upsetting Defence and US allies due to proximity to military assets?
        Hint: wasn't Dan.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join