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

  • Euphemistic on 09/02/2024 - 07:55

    This is a good popcorn thread.

    Regardless if the other car wasnt meant to be there, you still gave a responsibility to give way. If the other car managed to get in front, then she needed to give way and allow the douchebag back in.

    Classic road rage. There are no winners.

    • JimmyF on 09/02/2024 - 08:30
      +3

      I think the douche bag here is the wife, she started this by 'Regardless, my wife managed to get in front of that car'. This reads as her forcing her way in front of another car when there was no gap.

      • sir-screwball on 09/02/2024 - 11:34

        Interested to know what happened because there'd be equal chance that the wife was part of a 1 for 1 merge at the cones and the person behind her tried to block that from happening (other car is the d-bag) or the wife basically did something douchy and tried stuffing her car unceremoniously into a gap that wasn't there and annoyed the other car.

        No details given so I'm inclined to believe the latter but either are totally possible.

    • [Deactivated] on 09/02/2024 - 10:34

      Yes, we know that now. The question I was asking was whether getting a police fine equals automatic 'at fault' in the eyes of the insurer

    • ToothPickUser on 09/02/2024 - 23:32

      Which road rule says that a vehicle already in a marked lane has to give way to a vehicle who is trying to enter their marked lane from a closed lane?

      • Euphemistic on 10/02/2024 - 05:17

        You have a responsibility to avoid a crash even if the other party is breaking a rule.

  • pegaxs on 09/02/2024 - 08:07
    +5

    And of ALL these replies… no one has asked the most important question… “Where is the dashcam footage?”

    Instead of posting that whole bullshit diatribe, OP should have just posted the dashcam footage and said “who is at fault” and let us argue over it.

    At this point of time though, it sounds a lot like “(fropanity) around and found out…”

    • JimmyF on 09/02/2024 - 08:28

      And of ALL these replies… no one has asked the most important question… “Where is the dashcam footage?”

      Don't need to see it, the police have and fined the OP wife. So already know the outcome.

    • joka on 09/02/2024 - 08:41
      +1

      It would also be good to know how much of the dashcam footage he handed over to the police. Was it just the second half when the other driver retaliated or was it the entire footage showing the wife forcing herself in?

      • [Deactivated] on 09/02/2024 - 10:38
        -4

        Wife didn't force herself in.. The other car had stopped 50 metres away to join the left lane (the non-closing lane). My wife did go around that car to where the cones start (with lots of other cars) but the other car driver didn't like that. She must have expected that all traffic to merge 50m away from the roadworks because she did
        As for footage, we were limited to 50Mb on the link the police sent in but it did have everything from the merging bit to the accident

        • deme on 09/02/2024 - 13:42
          +5

          Post the footage here

  • JimmyF on 09/02/2024 - 08:27

    Insert wall of text

    TL;DR Wife cut off a car, who in turn cut the wife off. OP complained to police who fined wife for bad driving.

    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

    This should tell you all you need to know for who is at fault. Hint it was your wife.

    If my wife gets a fine like this, is she automatically at fault as far as the insurance is concerned?

    Well the police believe from your own video you supplied your wife failed to give way, so yes insurance will say the same.

    Does she now lose her no claims discount etc?

    See above, it is a at fault claim as your wife was at fault. So yes.

    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).

    There is lots of blame to go around, your wife clearly cut someone off badly that started all this and you even appear to say that yourself.

    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

    So your wife forced her way in front of a car that wasn't going to let her in as she felt she should be in front off it? Why didn't she just go behind them?

    • patso on 09/02/2024 - 10:20

      Why do you type like a douche?

      Anyway, not giving way at the start of the roadworks is independent of getting sideswiped by someone driving off road' at the end of it. So yes to the fine, no to the at fault 'accident', genius

      • JimmyF on 09/02/2024 - 10:42
        +3

        not giving way at the start of the roadworks is independent of getting sideswiped by someone driving off road' at the end of it.

        LOL But the wife started the issue by cutting off someone and forcing their way into traffic when there was no space to merge.

        The wife then doubled down on her actions by not letting the pissed off car back into traffic.

        There is more to this story, the wifes actions are clearly very aggressive. Any sane driver who may have cut someone off like that by mistake would realise their actions and let the driver who is clearly pissed off merge back in. But no, the OP Wife didn't. Then cried to the police who also agreed she didn't and fined her.

        So yes to the fine, no to the at fault 'accident', genius

        Well genius, this could have all been avoided if the wife just waited for a spot to merge or allowed the other pissed off car that she cut off over take/merge back in. But no genius douche bag she didn't.

        • patso on 09/02/2024 - 10:54

          Agree it could have been avoided if the wife waited. Same could be said for the other driver. Could also have been avoided if the wife was never born. Should the parents receive the fine as it's their fault for giving birth? That's not the point

          For the purpose of the fine and insurance which is what OPs question is, they are independent events

          • JimmyF on 09/02/2024 - 10:59

            @patso:

            Agree it could have been avoided if the wife waited. Same could be said for the other driver.

            Agreed either party could have stopped this at multiple points, but neither did. I also feel the wife stepped it up a notch by doubling down and not letting the driver back in, which was the entire reason this started, as she forced her way into traffic pissing the car off. So it is a bit of a double standard by her, that she likes to force into traffic but not let others in.

            For the purpose of the fine and insurance which is what OPs question is, they are independent events

            Independent yes, but also linked. Most insurance companies you have to advise about driving fines, so they'll get a copy of the fine ;)

            The outcome of the fine will be the same as the insurance company, they use the 'law' to work out who is at fault as well.

            • sir-screwball on 09/02/2024 - 11:37

              @JimmyF: Fines and police action are not determinate when it comes to fault for insurance purposes. There are legal tests applied to the situation that determine partial or full fault.

              • JimmyF on 09/02/2024 - 12:44

                @sir-screwball:

                Fines and police action are not determinate when it comes to fault for insurance purposes

                🤔

                There are legal tests applied to the situation that determine partial or full fault.

                and would they be based on the law by any chance? Insurance companies follow the law for who is right and wrong etc. They don't just make it up as they go.

                OP is going to have to provide a police report number to the insurance to get the other parties details if they want to do a not at fault claim.

                So guess what the first thing the insurance company is going to see when they receive the police report? LOL yeah the police stating the OP wife failed to yield.

                But sure if you think they are unrelated, then it's totally up to you to believe that.

                • sir-screwball on 09/02/2024 - 12:50
                  +1

                  @JimmyF: I didn't say they were unrelated, I said the police are not determinate. The police have the power to issue fines, and the courts have the power to overturn them because.. drumroll police are not legal personel. They are law inforcement. They are trained to cite people for things that, in their opinion, are enforeceable.

                  The fine for failing to yield wasn't necessarily regarding the hatched section of road, but entirely possibly (and probably, to be honest) related to the previous incident that led up to it, as the wife apparently magically found her way in front of the other car.

                  A person driving illegally up a hatched section of road that isn't a lane is an offence, and the OP didn't really say clearly whether the other car progressed through the hatched section into a valid lane THEN tried to merge across. They said that the road merged into a single lane, but that's not very helpful in making any measure of determination.

                  So, long and short of what I'm saying is, it's possible the fine was regarding the former incident, not the latter, and in that specific circumstance, the police's opinion is irrelevant when determining fault.

                  For what it's worth, based on the limited information about the latter indicent, it's almost guaranteed that both parties would be found partially at fault as both had ample chance to avoid the incident and chose not to. The reasonable person test puts them both at fault pretty clearly.

                  • JimmyF on 09/02/2024 - 12:59

                    @sir-screwball:

                    The fine for failing to yield wasn't necessarily regarding the hatched section of road, but entirely possibly (and probably, to be honest) related to the previous incident that led up to it, as the wife apparently magically found her way in front of the other car.

                    Who knows, OP won't share the video. But the police have seen the video and for whatever reason they felt that a fine was necessary after reviewing it.

                    A person driving illegally up a hatched section of road that isn't a lane is an offence

                    And maybe they got a fine also, we or the OP would never know.

                    For what it's worth, based on the limited information about the latter indicent, it's almost guaranteed that both parties would be found partially at fault as both had ample chance to avoid the incident and chose not to. The reasonable person test puts them both at fault pretty clearly.

                    Both are displayed bad driving, but the OP wife who 'magically' merged when there was no gap, didn't offer the same kindness to others. So putting this on her. Plus she was aware the other driver was angry and failed to adjust.

                    • sir-screwball on 09/02/2024 - 14:36

                      @JimmyF: Yeah, I agree with what you're saying, but from an insurance fault standpoint both drivers almost certainly will be found partially liable, as both engaged in behaviour that resulted in an accident and both had many chances to mitigate the situation and didn't.

                      • patso on 09/02/2024 - 15:11
                        +1

                        @sir-screwball: Welcome to the circular convo. You can only lead a horse to water…

                        • JimmyF on 09/02/2024 - 17:09

                          @patso:

                          You can only lead a horse to water…

                          Certainly can…. But the circular convo you think is happening is that I'm not agreeing with you nor you not with me. You don't think you're wrong and I don't think you are right.

  • Drpepper666 on 09/02/2024 - 08:29
    +1

    play stupid games etc

  • wiipantz on 09/02/2024 - 08:55
    +1

    wheres the footage?

  • Fredfloresjr on 09/02/2024 - 09:17
    +1

    Just scan the thread for the DC footage. Where it is??

  • Duckie2hh on 09/02/2024 - 09:35
    +2

    MS paint or it didn't happen

  • Nutrino on 09/02/2024 - 09:38

    The most important question is, Did you divorce your wife?…

    • ihfree on 09/02/2024 - 09:52

      At the minimum, maybe there's a need for anger management, especially if road rage is a common occurrence.

  • mrkorrupt on 09/02/2024 - 09:54
    +1

    Dashcam footage please.
    I think it is a case of Wife pays fine, but other driver fixes the cars? but we need to see the video so that ozbargain liability department can decide who pays what

  • EightImmortals on 09/02/2024 - 10:01
    +3

    "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."

    Life lesson: never get in between an idiot and their goal.

    • JimmyF on 09/02/2024 - 10:42
      +1

      But which one is the idiot here? The wife or the other driver?🤔

  • freefall101 on 09/02/2024 - 10:06
    +1

    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).

    You're required to yield and drive safely at all times. It doesn't matter that they did something ridiculously stupid (and hopefully they got a bigger fine), it doesn't absolve your wife of also driving safely and correctly. Two wrongs don't make a right.

    The cops approach is that your wife didn't follow the law and she was fine, they didn't just throw it to the courts, that's not how the system works.

  • [Deactivated] on 09/02/2024 - 10:18

    Thanks all for your comments and expected wisdom. I agree with most of the points above and agree that my wife should have just slowed down and let that other driver in. If she had done that, the only event here may have been a few middle fingers and dashcam picking up some colourful language in the car.

    • JimmyF on 09/02/2024 - 10:52
      -1

      and agree that my wife should have just slowed down and let that other driver in. If she had done that, the only event here may have been a few middle fingers and dashcam picking up some colourful language in the car.

      Hopefully it is a lesson learned for her. But I think we can all agree your wife shouldn't have doubled down by not letting the driver in when she clearly knew they had been pissed off. This never ends well regardless of who is right or wrong.

    • deme on 09/02/2024 - 13:40

      Post the footage

  • burningrage on 09/02/2024 - 10:26
    +4

    I don't know why you sent the footage to police. They are not your friends and you have just contributed $288 of your money to pay for their Friday's after work party.

    • [Deactivated] on 09/02/2024 - 10:41

      Yeah, I know.. never again.

    • JimmyF on 09/02/2024 - 11:02

      I don't know why you sent the footage to police

      We all know, the OP thought his wife was in the 'right' and wanted the police to back them up.

      They didn't.

      Then the OP came here looking for sympathy but found none.

      • [Deactivated] on 09/02/2024 - 11:17
        +1

        JimmyF, I wasn't looking for sympathy, just advice.

        • JimmyF on 09/02/2024 - 11:20

          Ok… OP came looking for advice. Was it the advice you wanted?

        • deme on 09/02/2024 - 13:41

          Your wife and yourself need to take a defensive driving lesson

    • EightImmortals on 09/02/2024 - 13:57

      "I don't know why you sent the footage to police."

      I thought it was to find out the ID of the person in the other car?
      Otherwise I agree, never contact the cops from stuff like this and never send them footage.

  • Kremleen on 09/02/2024 - 11:09

    Insurer will usually require a police report number that's attached to the incident. They will then contact the police and extract the needed information. I'd say the insurer will side with your wife in this case or split responsibility 50/50 if police inform them that they issue an infringement notice to your wife. All depends.

  • eciuj on 09/02/2024 - 11:30
    +2

    Wife forces herself in front of car. Other car makes the smart choice and concedes.
    Other car then forces themselves in front of wife's car. Wife makes a bad choice and challenges the other car.

    Funny how it changes when the shoe is on the other foot. Hopefully the wife learnt it's better to just let it go sometimes.

    • Drpepper666 on 09/02/2024 - 12:12
      +2

      wife… let it go… haha you're funny

    • JimmyF on 09/02/2024 - 12:45

      Forgot wife still thinks she was right so sent video footage to the police, who said yeah nah, here is a fine.

  • Drakesy on 09/02/2024 - 11:35
    +4

    I love the power of self incrimination.

  • deme on 09/02/2024 - 12:42
    +2

    Post the dashcam OP or are you too chicken?

    • Caped Baldy on 09/02/2024 - 13:46
      +2

      Send to Police? OP: yes, of course.

      Send to OzB? OP: no, they scary and judgy

      • skidexa on 10/02/2024 - 06:20
        +2

        Honestly OZB are some of the most judgiest people ive seen lol. Always love to shame and blame OPs someway somehow. Very high horse nose up types. Downvote me but its the truth

  • GordonD on 09/02/2024 - 12:47

    I vote that the traffic controllers who set up the cones was in the wrong.

    If there was a lane, even if it was hatched, that one of the lanes could have been diverted onto safely, they should have used cones to do that rather than force two lanes to merge into one. It would have saved exactly the sort of aggravation that occurred in this case. There is absolutely no prohibition on traffic controllers using cones to direct people onto parts of the road they wouldn't otherwise use.

    • deme on 09/02/2024 - 13:39
      -2

      I vote you are wrong

      • GordonD on 09/02/2024 - 14:03

        Just go away and stop being a nasty vindictive a.hole. You must have been a very unpleasant child with no friends, because you've grown into an obnoxious adult who goes around stalking other people.

        • CurlCurl on 09/02/2024 - 14:40

          You must have been a very unpleasant child with no friends, because you've grown into an obnoxious adult who goes around stalking other people.

          That's a very long bow you have taken thinking he/she is a grown up.

    • [Deactivated] on 09/02/2024 - 16:46

      I think the issue with this particular roadworks is that at the end of the hatched section, that lane ends really abruptly and the single lane becomes barriered on both sides for about 100m. I agree with your other comment though about roadworks etiquette. Either everyone goes right to the end of the lane and zip merges right at the cones OR it becomes etiquette to always follow the person who decides to merge and not go around them

  • GordonD on 09/02/2024 - 12:52
    +1

    There's theory and practice.

    Theory says that its best for traffic flow if everyone stays in their lane until the point where the two lanes have to merge. Its what I think people should have the sense to do.

    Practice says that as soon as one driver is "polite" and merges early, anyone else behind them who doesn't get seen as jumping the queue, and people get upset at them and you get these sorts of road rage incidents. So best practice is that as soon as one idiot does it wrong, everyone else has to too.

    And the signs at roadworks-related merges - ie, ones that are temporary not permanent - should say that a zip-merge is mandatory. Permanent lane end situations have marking on the road to indicate whether one lane has to give way, or whether they are merging into each other so a zip merge is required. But when it is temporary it should be a mandatory zip merge.

    • deme on 09/02/2024 - 13:39

      You really need to brush up on your road rules. The markings clearly tell you when you can zipper merge and when you get can't.

  • zathras on 09/02/2024 - 13:40
    +2

    Sigh, …please post the link to the dashcam footage….

    So, if two lanes are converging and drivers in both lanes don't want to yield, who wins? The crash repairer.
    Doesn't matter who has right of way, the crash repairer wins. Both drivers lose.

    If someone tries to force their way in front of me I never get angry, I just let them in and smile, happy in the knowledge that some time in the near future they will collide with someone like your wife.

    • [Deactivated] on 09/02/2024 - 16:03

      That's nice mate, cheers

  • CurlCurl on 09/02/2024 - 14:02

    Wow. All the posters on this thread must be perfect drives with a clear licence for whatever length of time they have been driving.

    A friend in the Highway Patrol told me he could fill his book in half his shift every time he is on duty if he followed every law and booked everyone that broke it.

    • Drpepper666 on 09/02/2024 - 15:11
      -1

      yes I am an excellent driver with a perfect record. thanks for noticing.

      • CurlCurl on 09/02/2024 - 16:58
        +1

        yes I am an excellent driver with a perfect record. thanks for noticing.

        My Highway Patrol friend would call you lucky. Every poster here has rolled through a stop sign and has gone over the speed limit. Of they say they haven't they are a liar.

        • eciuj on 10/02/2024 - 01:10
          -1

          That may be so, but it’ve never been so stubborn to the point of having an accident and then submitting the footage of my foolishness to the police.

  • bobbified on 09/02/2024 - 15:37
    +1

    The road rules are one thing. We're humans and mistakes happen and sometimes it causes collisions. I get it.

    What I don't get are people who intentionally make no effort (and sometimes even speed up) to avoid a collision just because they think that they're not at-fault. Just like this case (btw, I'm not having a go at OP. It wasn't him). Just saying that this collision was totally avoidable.

    • [Deactivated] on 09/02/2024 - 16:05

      It was totally avoidable, I agree. My question right at the beginning was only if getting a ticket would automatically equal blame in the eyes of the insurance company and therefore affect no claims bonus

      • bobbified on 09/02/2024 - 17:28

        Unfortunately, from my experience as a claims assessor (back 20 years ago), yes, the infringement notice was usually an automatic decider on liability. Things may have changed though, since dashcams are much more common now.

        • Save 50 Cent on 09/02/2024 - 20:36

          It doesn’t make sense.. maybe the infringement was for something else on the video that didn’t directly cause the accident. Perhaps the other driver got a heftier fine?

          • bobbified on 10/02/2024 - 00:02

            @Save 50 Cent:

            maybe the infringement was for something else on the video that didn’t directly cause the accident.

            It's pretty obvious to see if an infringement is not related to the incident being claimed through insurance.

            Perhaps the other driver got a heftier fine?

            I don't know about now, but previously, the TINs were noted on the P1 police reports (if i remember correctly, a P1 being an actual report written by the cops and a P5 was a self-reported incident).

            The key driver for liability determination was often whether the decision would likely stand up in court.

  • Gaz1 on 09/02/2024 - 15:51

    Do you need to tell them you had a dashcam?
    How did they know to ask you for this?
    I guess one of the issues of a dashcam it is being used against you.

    • [Deactivated] on 09/02/2024 - 16:06

      With hindsight I shouldn't have given it to them. Next time something like this happens, I won't bother unless asked for

    • Save 50 Cent on 10/02/2024 - 10:12

      Nah, nobody can force you to give them your own footage. Maybe the court in extreme cases? But you can always say it wasn't plugged in at the time or whatever to insurance/police if they ask for it.

  • AustriaBargain on 09/02/2024 - 15:58

    Next you'll tell us you captured Bigfoot on video without a link to the video.

  • [Deactivated] on 09/02/2024 - 16:14

    Lots of requests for the dashcam footage but I won't be posting it here. Nothing you see in that video is going to change anyone's mind about what happened, we know it was avoidable and was nothing more than two angry people playing chicken in their cars. Hopefully both drivers have learnt some lessons here. Also, it would be fairly easy to identify our location from the footage and I have no idea how to remove number plates from video or even the dashcam's telemetry which includes the speed and number plate of the car etc.

    • Ghost47 on 09/02/2024 - 17:46
      +2

      Come on OP post it, at least give the people some entertainment! No one cares about your location either.

    • Save 50 Cent on 10/02/2024 - 10:15
      +1

      Yeah don't bother posting it. It will also end up on youtube (popular channels) and your wife might come across it and you'll have a bigger problem.

  • apu on 09/02/2024 - 16:37

    To answer your original question, if the accident arose/was borne out of conduct which was dangerous or illegal, and this is evidenced by a police fine, then there is a good chance you have voided your insurance coverage. Insurers have the right to refuse a claim provided they can demonstrate that the illegal conduct resulted in or contributed to the accident. Happened to a mate years ago, where insurance refused to cover him after an accident, due to a minor infringement received by police who attended the scene.

    • [Deactivated] on 09/02/2024 - 16:39

      Thanks Apu, hopefully it doesn't come to that.

  • JIMB0 on 09/02/2024 - 17:39
    -2

    Wives often make for terrible drivers.

  • Ghost47 on 09/02/2024 - 17:45

    I don't have a great explanation how she did that but I don't think it's relevant to this.

    Oh, it's definitely relevant. Did she speed down the empty right lane and barge in front of the car?

    Can't answer the insurance part, it's all case-by-case.

    • [Deactivated] on 09/02/2024 - 17:56

      It was stop start traffic. So this other car in the hatched lane and my wife, side by side stopped, then moving. The other car 'could' have just accelerated in that hatched lane and got in front of the cars in front of my wife… but that wasn't the objective. So no speeding was going on, it was a traffic jam up to and including the roadworks. I also did explain in an earlier reply that this other car had stopped some 50m short of the cones to join the waiting traffic. My wife went around the car up to where the cones were (along with other cars) but this other woman must have wanted all other traffic in the right lane to also merge 50 metres away from the cones.

  • Kranbone on 09/02/2024 - 18:36

    can you upload the dash cam, in full, without edits. doing this would allow me to give you a better answer.

  • bingsta on 09/02/2024 - 19:00

    Why bother posting without footage and paint diagram. What a tease…

  • randomusername2017 on 09/02/2024 - 19:32

    plus 1 for the maintenance on the title

  • TEER3X on 09/02/2024 - 19:41
    +1

    I played this game once. I ended up chickening out, but I saved the headache of damaging my car.

    Now when it happens, I just do the mature thing and swear loudly in the confines of my car.

  • noob999 on 09/02/2024 - 19:46

    You probably got fined as the vehicle was ahead of you and already nosed into lane and you kept creeping forward, so when the other car moved forward and more into the lane your car did not allow enough clearance and the accident occurred.

    Did the other driver get charged with anything?
    i see they can be charged with;
    1) overtaking in a signed work zone
    2) overtaking on the left

    • TEER3X on 09/02/2024 - 21:07

      How would the op know if the other driver got charged with anything?

      • CalmLemons on 09/02/2024 - 21:51

        They wouldn't

        And if so, with what?

        Only thing would be reckless driving, but if OP got the fine, then they wouldn't be able to justify it if the other person challenged it in court.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/02/2024 - 23:17

          I'm guessing the other woman got a fine too but we haven't been told anything

          • wisb0 on 10/02/2024 - 18:36
            -2

            @[Deactivated]: haha get f*****.
            never ever snitch to the police.

            serves you right, police are never there to help you remember and don't ever think they're on your side.

  • DiscoJango on 10/02/2024 - 08:06

    This is why the arab countries banned women from driving lol

    • mrXO on 11/02/2024 - 08:10

      You see a lot of women in their SUVs. Quite pushy too. But around the bend or the round abouts, not so much.

  • Lockieasy on 10/02/2024 - 11:04
    +1

    Well don't leave us hanging. Share the dashcam footage please? 😇

  • aobed on 10/02/2024 - 11:54
    +1

    It sounds like your wife volunteered video footage to the police in an effort to get funds to pay for the damages thinking she was in the right.

    The infringement should be declared, otherwise your policy may be void. As you’d expect, insurance companies and police do share information.

  • lltravel on 10/02/2024 - 12:32
    +2

    lol this has to be the funniest post in a long while

    The op was dumb enough to report himself to the police

    Police are never your friends. You played yourself

    Further to this you will lose in court 100%, stop wasting the time of the magistrate. Cops have the magistrates hands in their pockets, its a system designed to make you lose and give your money to the government.

    • wisb0 on 10/02/2024 - 18:38
      -2

      exactly, silly people need to stop thinking police will side with you and help you out.

      they dgaf about the community only care about themselves

  • derrida derider on 10/02/2024 - 12:37

    They've probably issued a ticket to both parties - rightly IMO.
    As for insurance, I'd reckon both insurance companies will deem both at fault - ie both pay the excess and likely lose a no claim bonus. And that would have happened regardless of the dashcam.

  • xuqi on 10/02/2024 - 13:27

    @OP did you provide the entire footage to police?

    Not just the specific section where the crazy lady came out of nowhere and hit your car?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join