Car Accident (HELP)

m8 on 14/09/2014 - 11:51

I got mail today about NRMA speaking on behalf of a person who claims $xxx because of a car crash. Thing is:

  • The car accident occurred over a year ago, i got the mail on friday (which is from NRMA)
  • I've given a police statement indicating that I was not a fault (i was entering a roundabout and a car doing a u-turn from the left didn't have their indicator on that they're doing a u-turn and a collision occurred)
  • Police said insurance would cover it, I'm with third party insurance. I was given a ticket which for some reason decided to cancel itself after i decided to claim against it.
  • They're expecting >$1k

Note:

  • on the police statement, the guy wrote that i said "I misinterpreted the intention of the driver doing a u-turn", will this line screw me up or can I still stand strong with the argument that their indicator was off/cancelled

  • The letter that they sent from NRMA states that there's evidence supporting the claim attached but there isn't.

I thought I might go to you guys and ask for what I can do or what's the best plan to undergo?

Thanks guys, I appreciate anything.

Automotive

Comments

  • zolinger on 14/09/2014 - 11:59
    +3

    Coppers are often reluctant to assist with most car accidents. Ideally have one of the many witnesses write a letter describing the situation with references to it. The guy perjured himself on the police statement but it can be amended. Just contact the local sergeant and explain the situation.

    • Settero on 14/09/2014 - 12:09
      +2

      "misinterpreted the intention of the driver doing a u-turn" its hard to prove the person did not indicate.
      if you can prove they did not indicate ( the cops cant help you there) then you win, else you are at fault..

      • m8 on 14/09/2014 - 12:10
        +1

        How do I PROVE that though, man. I thought everything was sorted.

        • Settero on 14/09/2014 - 12:17
          +1

          that's the million dollar question, if this was taken to civil court with only both your statements as evidence , i would think you would lose …

          now the fact they are taking so long to claim anything may be a issue.

          when is the estimate for the repairs from ? can they prove the damages done 1 year ago are the ones they are trying to charge you for etc.

          this is actually probably one of them cases where you want to get sound legal advice unless you are willing to pay it out, as they may indeed be doing something dodgy as its taken a year, but if they are not , you will probably have to eat the bill.

        • UncommonName on 14/09/2014 - 12:21
          +3

          Dashcam? Did you have one?

        • m8 on 14/09/2014 - 12:26

          @bargainaus: No dice, bruvs.
          @Settero: Fair enough, man. Just for now, i'm going to send a letter asking for proof of the the damages that were done a year ago. There was no specified place where they got the quote from and it was saying it's dated back in mid-2013.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 15/09/2014 - 09:29
          +9

          @m8:

          The vast majority of people who indicate right at a 4 exit roundabout turn right rather than do a U-turn. However you must wait until they do exit because for all you know they could be doing a U-turn.

          This is probably a common accident at roundabouts caused by impatience of the driver who should've given way and so perhaps the police officer misconstrued that this is what happened in your case.

        • String name on 16/09/2014 - 02:58
          +1

          @Scrooge McDuck: In WA, you not only need to signal into a roundabout, but also when exiting a roundabout. I like this system as it prevents the issue you mentioned about the u-turns.

        • FutureTech on 16/09/2014 - 08:18
          +1

          @fanuch:in NSW you do too, unless it's not practical to do so. Unfortunately in most roundabouts, being too small for indicator change at the middle, is considered not practical.

        • snook on 16/09/2014 - 14:52
          +2

          Saying an indicator was on (or off) is not a reason/excuse for an accident.

          I remember a friend was turning left and a car came from his right (down street he wanted to turn into) with an indicator on to turn left (into the street he was turning out of). He turned left, thinking the car was not continuing down the road - expected yes, the indicator was on to turn there right? - NO. The car on the right hit him, totalled both cars. He was blamed - not giving way to his right. Indicator, sminndicator, no one cares.

          When on the road you must give way as per the rules. The first car in the roundabout has right of way.

        • maximum on 16/09/2014 - 18:19

          Yes same thing happened to my sister. It doesn't matter about the indicator - even if they admit the indicator was on it would still be the incoming drivers fault.

    • m8 on 14/09/2014 - 12:09
      +3

      Even after this much time has passed. I doubt it is in their system. Read this,

      "Due to the xtended elay in Stae Debt Recovery Ofice receivng the details of your penalty

      notice from the isuing authority, we are unable to consider your equest for eview.

      It has ben decided that he penalty wil not proced, therfore no further action is required on

      your behalf."

      • [Deactivated] on 14/09/2014 - 12:45
        +9

        Good news and you played it well, they were probably hoping you didn't ask for a review!!

        Next time in such situations, you are best to say as little as possible, and let your insurance company formulate a response as to how the car accident occurred…admitting details like the assumption you did could have really stuffed you. Would it have been just? Probably not, but insurance only cares about the easiest way to prove whose liable in a scenario and not who was being a shit driver.

        If NRMA try to contact you again, you tell them that you've been advised that all correspondence regarding the matter should be handled with my insurer…and that's the end of it, for that is what insurance is for

        • m8 on 14/09/2014 - 12:56

          Are these police statements now not valid? Since the corresponding ticket is now not considered? I still have a copy to myself. The mail states that if i don't pay by the 22nd of this month, I'll be forced to deal with an External Recovery Agent.

        • blitz on 14/09/2014 - 13:52
          +2

          nerangsta is absolutely right about everything.

        • [Deactivated] on 14/09/2014 - 15:01
          +6

          @m8:

          If I was you, I'd contact your insurer and tell them NRMA is hassling me about an accident (be brief because you know it was so long ago) and seek free legal advice, and just wait. You already badly handled the accident by incriminating yourself on a police report (but given a lifeline it seems), so you definitely don't know how to deal with debt collections, your rights and the various acts regarding insurance and personal injury etc…

          legalaid.nsw.gov.au is a good place to start especially because you're asking broad questions like the validity of police statements etc… Before you go in, prepare a neat and cogent timeline of events and bring in all documentation you feel is relevant to your cause. Even if it's screenshots, the free lawyer would be more willing to go that extra length because he sees you have taken initiative and you are concerned.

          Again, if they contact you again, your reply is simple… "I have been advised to direct all correspondence regarding this matter to my insurer. My insurer is ….. and this is the original claim number: ….." it is your insurers job to handle this, this is what you pay for, they should be seeking your insurer for debt recovery if the debt is actually valid.

          If they start asking more which they are trained to do, you end the conversation politely repeat the same line and hang up.

          Insurance provides an avenue for you to defect liability off you. If you start telling NRMA 'Oh yeah I drove through the roundabout but the (profanity) didn't indicate and drove into me' then you are quite possibly removing that deflection by admitting liability and your on the hook to pay with your third party insurer ever so happy with your mistake.

        • pjetson on 14/09/2014 - 17:21
          -2

          The OP stated that he had third party insurance only.

        • [Deactivated] on 14/09/2014 - 17:23
          +3

          @pjetson:

          and?

        • [Deactivated] on 14/09/2014 - 20:57
          +5

          @pjetson

          OK ok ok…so the OP has third party insurance… but he has no insurance company? Haha this is amazing tell me more on how this occurs!

        • pjetson on 14/09/2014 - 21:08
          -8

          @nerangsta: I hope you're not being serious. Do you really not understand what third party insurance is?

        • [Deactivated] on 14/09/2014 - 21:14
          +4

          @pjetson:

          enlighten me

        • zeomega on 14/09/2014 - 22:46
          +4

          @pjetson:

          It seems you understand 3rd party insurance a little more than the laymen. Please do explain how does 3rd party insurance work.

        • kks on 14/09/2014 - 23:20

          @zeomega:

          There's two types of "third party", OP wasn't very specific.

          You can have CTP (Compulsory third party) insurance which only covers bodily injury or there is

          third party property insurance which covers other vehicles…

          Depends on which one the OP has.

        • UncommonName on 14/09/2014 - 23:30
          +1

          @kks:

          Wut?!! Is there a choice?

          CTP (Compulsory third party) insurance is must for rego. Third party property insurance which covers other vehicles/property is optional, as well as Comprehensive insurance is.

        • zeomega on 14/09/2014 - 23:52
          +4

          @bargainaus:

          No one i know of has ever referred to ctp as 3rd party insurance. CTP is CTP, 3rd party is 3rd party. Please don't be another one that believes bureaucratic shit about CTP being 3rd party. It's only there so private companies can make good money.

          It should have always been part of the rego, and afaik, only WA has stuck to their guns about this.

          In future, please stop referring to CTP as 3rd party insurance, it's "part" of rego.

        • [Deactivated] on 15/09/2014 - 00:13
          +11

          @kks:

          I think it's pretty evident what the OP meant…

          If the OP didn't have CTP… he'd be driving unregistered and this thread would have started with…"so guys… been driving unregistered and got in a car smash…but it wasn't my fault. Cops were called and the first thing he did was check our car regos and I have none!! Am I going to jail!? Do I need to learn how to fight?! If I get good at fighting to protect myself in jail do I really have to register my fists as deadly weapons!?"

          Anyway, no matter how clear you are, or how pedantic people must be re: specificities people still just don't get it…

          Unfortunately I think a lot of people I've seen in court get their advice from their mates in the centrelink queue, or they do their 'research' and read what was on 'knowyarights.com.au'…and represent themselves so badly that something so minor ends up being a permanent impediment to the rest of their life. If their research was so good how come they don't know that everyone is entitled to a free legal consult and know where to find it!?

          but hey, I don't know what insurance is, I bet you can find it heaps cheap on gumtree though.

        • [Deactivated] on 15/09/2014 - 00:16
          +1

          @zeomega:

          This.

          So many people drive around thinking they are 'covered' because insurance comes with rego bro!!!

        • UncommonName on 15/09/2014 - 00:19

          @zeomega:

          Not sure why you replied toward me, shouldn't it be @kks?

        • [Deactivated] on 15/09/2014 - 00:21

          @bargainaus:

          misread. proceed :p

        • nicksinternet on 15/09/2014 - 07:00
          +1

          @zeomega:

          Its only part of the rego in some states so stop being so rude to the guy. And yes, its is referred to as 'Third Party Body'.

        • bobbified on 15/09/2014 - 10:17
          +3

          @kks: Not sure why this comment got negged. You'd be surprised at how many people get the two types of insurance confused.

        • zeomega on 15/09/2014 - 10:32
          +3

          @nicksinternet:

          It's a National requirement.
          Some states include it as part of the rego, such as WA, SA, ACT, etc. But all requires CTP.

          I don't know what you mean by "Third Party Body". Another new term coined to confuse people?

        • zeomega on 15/09/2014 - 10:32

          @bargainaus:

          Sorry….fat fingers :P

        • UncommonName on 15/09/2014 - 10:55
          +1

          @nicksinternet:

          <Facepalm>

        • Soundwave on 15/09/2014 - 12:00
          -4

          @zeomega:

          I work at a dealership.CTP is Third Party because as you said, they're done by Private Companies.

          I do refer to it as CTP, but it doesn't change the fact that it is Third Party as you have a choice on what company to use.

          When I do a delivery, I do state that the CTP is your compulsary insurance to legally drive on the road, have you organised your comprehensive insurance.

          I was weirded out when I moved from the NT to NSW. In the NT, your CTP is included in the rego cost, which I guess wouldn't be Third Party.

        • [Deactivated] on 15/09/2014 - 14:05
          +5

          @Soundwave:

          Of course zeomega knows CTP is 'compulsory THIRD PARTY'. His point was that the usage of CTP being referred to as '3rd party' by car places, people, registration bodies and insurance companies only serves to confuse the stupid even more and now makes the term 3rd party pretty vague…and that anyone that has a clue knows that when someone says I have 3rd party they are usually referring to insurance that is not CTP. Jesus. If I'm dealing with someone that has had an accident asking someone if their car was registered is a lot easier than 'do you have insurance?'

          This thread alone is testament that they should keep the term car rego as just car rego, and stipulate that registering your car means you are generally indemnified if you kill or injure someone…not this convoluted mess of rego + CTP and you can't do one without the other. There is a lot of people that drive around thinking they have '3rd party' (read: insurance against others property) because they've registered their car. It is another useless layer to convolute the beauracratic mess even more.

        • gimme on 15/09/2014 - 15:03

          ..

        • gimme on 15/09/2014 - 15:05
          +1

          @nerangsta:
          sorry man, didn't mean to neg u. Was trying to click on the idiotic comment above yours from pjetson

        • Musing Outloud on 15/09/2014 - 20:46
          +5

          Perfect advice.

          I was in a somewhat similar situation, but 8 months after everything had been sorted I received legal documents saying I was to be sued for $13k. Legally I was at fault. Practically I was not. But only the legality matters. You live & learn number 1.

          The background was the other guys car was only worth $8k which my insurer reimbursed as per normal rules - they pay out the market value only. He was a tradie who had extended the loan on the car to cover business expenses and expected a full $21k worth of reimbursement for an $8k value car.

          I just handed the documents over to my insurer, who was the same for both of us. The insurers LH didn't know what the RH was doing. Also was NRMA, hah! Problem went away after about 2 months. Turns out the lawyer this guy used was known for trying it on. You live & learn number 2!

          I bet there is a somewhat similar background story going on here…

          I'd just call your insurer and just post the documents over to them (after you keep a copy of course) to handle on your behalf. The only contact you should make to the other guys insurer is exactly what Nerangsta said. No more. No less. No explanations. No buts. That is exactly what your insurance contract is/was for.

          Don't do anything to chase your fine. Let it be!

          I suspect this is all just a try on to get you to part with some cash because your insurer said no to NRMA.

      • [Deactivated] on 14/09/2014 - 13:12

        NRMA needs to start using spell checker for typos.

        • m8 on 14/09/2014 - 13:13
          +1

          Sorry, brah. That was from the SDRO. The copy pasta was a little off.

        • [Deactivated] on 14/09/2014 - 13:33
          +15

          @m8: It's because you are using pasta which tends to rubbish for pasting.

        • theStinge on 15/09/2014 - 21:31

          @m8: LOL @pasta was a little off :)

  • spersephone on 14/09/2014 - 14:39

    Just out of curiosity, isn't it the same everywhere that people doing u-turns must give way to everyone else?

    • NancyCat on 14/09/2014 - 15:47
      +17

      But that car is in the roundabout, you can't stop in the roundabout in the middle of the turn, u-turn or not. It's the car that is entering the roundabout that must give way.

  • NancyCat on 14/09/2014 - 15:41
    +27

    The roundabout rule rule is 'A driver entering a roundabout must give way to ANY vehicle in the roundabout.'
    (Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2008104/…)

    You did entered the roundabout and hit a car that was already in the roundabout, regardless of what that car was doing/not doing.

    • spersephone on 14/09/2014 - 15:44
      +3

      I guess I'm unclear what the u-turn part is about - if they're entering the roundabout, they're not technically doing a u-turn, they're just exiting at one particular exit of it. I was unclear if you meant that they were doing a u-turn where they don't go into the roundabout, but instead cross back into the other side.

      If I've understood it correctly now, the other party was in the roundabout and it would appear that they were going straight ahead, leaving the roundabout, but they didn't have their indicator on and instead continued around the roundabout into the path of the OP's vehicle?

      • NancyCat on 14/09/2014 - 15:53
        +12

        I think OP meant the other car entered from a 6 o'clock position. It intended to do a full circle, ie exit at 6 o'clock. OP entering from 3 o'clock, but thought that other car was to exit at 12 o'clock (because it didn't indicate) …then BANG at 3 o'clock …. does it make sense? (Is that correct?)

        • spersephone on 14/09/2014 - 16:19

          I think that's what I have now understood - so there's fault on both sides really, one for not indicating, and the other for not anticipating what they might be doing, and giving way accordingly.

          Tricky situation, especially since it's so far in the past.

        • NancyCat on 14/09/2014 - 16:49
          +21

          I think NRMA has a pretty strong case against OP (unfortunately). OP entered the roundabout and hit a car that was already in the roundabout. That's a fact, no one can argue with that. Whereas it's almost impossible to prove the other car didn't indicate.

          Sorry OP!

        • [Deactivated] on 14/09/2014 - 17:19
          +5

          +1

          Time for the OP to pay up and admit his fault. And to be able to hit another vehicle for the owner to lodge an insurance claim, you have to be traveling at a good speed.

        • m8 on 14/09/2014 - 20:01

          Spot on, NancyCat.

        • cuteseal on 15/09/2014 - 14:32
          +1

          @m8:

          Who hit who though? Did you enter the roundabout and the other person hit you coming around?

        • BartholemewH on 16/09/2014 - 13:26
          +2

          The other car was already in the roundabout as the op entered. You must give way to all vehicles already in the roundabout. The op is at fault.

        • snook on 16/09/2014 - 14:59

          @spersephone: fault is on the driver entering the roundabout, NOT the driver in the roundabout.

        • spersephone on 16/09/2014 - 15:01

          @snook:

          Yes, but there is fault on both sides - you're still supposed to show your indication, it's just that the car entering the roundabout should have assumed nothing, and waited to confirm what they were doing.

        • snook on 16/09/2014 - 15:12
          +1

          @spersephone:
          Unless there is a police witness, or numerous joe public ones that come forward with statements, indication is completely irrelevant in this case.

          He entered the roundabout when a car was already in there. Fault is on one side only.

          Edit: They may teach you about blinkers in roundabouts, or on the road in general, but the bottom line does not rely on the use of blinkers. I am completely jack of new drivers putting their blinkers on and changing lanes on top of me. Who the hell is teaching them this? Give way as you should give way and move when you have room to move.

        • spersephone on 16/09/2014 - 15:13

          @snook:

          It's not irrelevant. It may not relate to the actual case, but you are still required to indicate. However, there is no way to prove whether they did or didn't. Still, the people who don't indicate cause others to make bad decisions based on their lack of indication.

        • snook on 16/09/2014 - 15:22
          +1

          @spersephone:
          If i come down a road with my blinker on to turn left into the street you are turning left out of … and I decide not to turn left but go straight ahead … meanwhile you turn out thinking you are safe to turn because you saw my blinker.

          I hit you.

          Who is at fault?

          You are. You did not give way to your right. You can argue that blinker was on until your head explodes, you will still be at fault.

        • spersephone on 16/09/2014 - 15:32

          @snook:

          And it doesn't change the fact that you are still required to indicate your intention, meaning that you contribute to the accident if you fail to do so.

        • snook on 16/09/2014 - 15:41
          +1

          @spersephone:

          Required to or not, it doesn't matter to me. I have not contributed by using or not using my blinker. You're at fault for not giving way. This is the only letter of the law taken into account without independent witnesses.

          I suggest that this is why there are so many accidents with younger people these days. They see the blinker as a god of the road. It is not.

        • NancyCat on 16/09/2014 - 16:18
          +1

          @snook , @spersephone

          OK guys (or girls?), you are both right.

          Both OP and the other driver were at fault. The other car should indicate, and OP shouldn't assume and jump to conclusion. If OP waited another second, the whole accident would be avoided.

    • morpheu on 14/09/2014 - 21:28

      m8, i think the odds are against you, indicator or no indicator you have to give way to someone already in roundabout, from memory old rule was you must give way to your right, but i think the new rule sucks because now it's a race to see who can hurl themselves into the roundabout first!

      • Randxyz123 on 15/09/2014 - 13:30
        +1

        This… You have to give way to anyone already in the roundabout. For me if someone isn't indicating I just wait. Cars behind can honk all they want …

    • dealman on 15/09/2014 - 17:42
      +4

      The roundabout rule rule is 'A driver entering a roundabout must give way to ANY vehicle in the roundabout.'

      Op if you wanted to have fun , you could enter a round about and keep doing loops all day and every other vehicle would have to give way to you. ;-)

      • cheng2008 on 17/09/2014 - 11:45

        I tried doing that once, until my passengers told me they were going to throw up if I did another lap. Then I stopped quick smart.

    • [Deactivated] on 14/09/2014 - 20:58
      +14

      i would definitely not follow this advice…he doesn't even know what insurance is

    • blitz on 14/09/2014 - 21:59
      +12

      I'd write NRMA a letter offering them half of their claim on the basis that their driver did not correctly indicate their intentions in accordance with the road rules

      That's bad advice. NRMA will take this as an admission of guilt in writing.

      • BartholemewH on 16/09/2014 - 13:33
        +2

        Put without prejudice at the top. That'll fix anything.

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 15/09/2014 - 20:37
      +5

      I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice

      Damn straight.

      This is the worst advice Ive ever seen. Why admit fault IN WRITING and give them more ammunition? Madness.

    • andyken on 16/09/2014 - 00:26
      -1

      worst than my 85yo granny advise

  • m8 on 14/09/2014 - 20:04
    +3

    I really appreciate the response from you guys. I might have to go with some legal advice perhaps.

    • lplau on 14/09/2014 - 22:38

      You need to discuss the situation with a lawyer.
      For example:
      Show the lawyer how you entered the roundabout and where the other person was in the roundabout. With or without indicators, who is technically wrong under Road Rules.

      You have totally no proof that he/she didn't indicate correctly, therefore it will boil down to he said she said. (Good idea to get a dashcam, it will easily get you out of this pinch).

      Then the next step would be, what I described above, in regards to road rules, who was technically correct with or without indicators. That will decide who needs to pay.

      Also, I don't get it… why are you discussing all of this directly with NRMA, they have broken protocols in contacting you directly, they should be contacting your insurance agency. Refer them to your insurance agency to sort things out. You paid Third Party Insurance for a reason, now it is time to use it.

      • Utopian on 16/09/2014 - 16:30

        "Good idea to get a dashcam, it will easily get you out of this pinch"
        …in the ideal situation. It's only facing one way, and showing one piece of the puzzle. ie: Not speed & all the fancy stuff the foreign ones have (insurance companies give discounts for having them installed professionally).

        I've been in a TURD of a situation, much worse than the OP… and I could have front & back dashcams, and they would do zero to help me.

  • [Deactivated] on 14/09/2014 - 23:18
    +2

    So hang on, if you had third party insurance, and you are at fault, why don't you make a claim with your third party and let them sort it out with NRMA?

    Get legal advice about who is at fault.

    If you are not at fault, then NRMA can't recover from you if you don't acknowledge the debt until the statute of limitations kicks in and they don't take you to court in this time (a lawyer can advice the likelihood of this.. ha ha). They will sell it to debt collectors who you have a right to tell them not to contact you. NRMA don't have access to your credit report so you are safe unless you enter into an agreement with them.

    Check with your lawyer.

    • bobbified on 15/09/2014 - 10:15
      +3

      Assuming it is Third Party Property Damage insurance that the OP has (seems to be a bit of confusion above as to whether it's Compulsory Third Party or Third Party Property Damage), NRMA would only deal with the other insurer if the OP has instructed them to act on his behalf - ie, by notifying his own insurer that there is a claim and paying the Excess amount (Excess is payable where it's not clear who is at fault and is refunded later if it is determined that you're not at fault).

      Before that, NRMA would send the Letter of Demand to the OP directly. It is now up to the OP to forward this letter to his own insurer. This is the point when direct contact between NRMA and the OP ends.

    • Utopian on 16/09/2014 - 16:31

      Everyone driving a registered car has 3rd Party insurance. That doesn't cover their property, ie: their car.

  • singlemalt72 on 15/09/2014 - 07:57
    +8

    If I read this correctly then the OP was at fault.

    The other car was not doing a U Turn (which is a turn across traffic on parallel lanes), he entered a roundabout thinking a car already on it was doing a right turn (for example, exiting on the thrid exit from a normal 4-way roundabout, but the other car was in fact leaving via the 4th exit.

    If this is the case it is cut and dry - OP WAS at fault as he/she is required by law to give way to any vehicle already on the roundabout. Hence the police description of misinterpretation of the other drivers intentions.

    • bigticket on 15/09/2014 - 10:52
      +2

      Exactly what @singlemalt72 said, plus the OP is lucky due to a technicality to get out of a negligent driving penalty that has dollars and points attached to it.

    • [Deactivated] on 17/09/2014 - 10:44
      +1

      Transport departments call going back the way you came on a roundabout a u-turn:

      http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/downloads/top10misund…

  • markpace on 15/09/2014 - 07:58
    +5

    Hi
    ****** READ THIS. ********
    Please check the phone number
    Do NOT pay any money. It could be a scam.
    We have received a number of these calls.

    Ask for a reference number and call the insurer on their advertised number.

    If you type the caller id number into google it's most prob a scam.

    I hope it is for your sake.

    Let us know how you go
    Good luck.
    Do not ever send any money or give them any details about you or accident.

    Mark

    • Randxyz123 on 15/09/2014 - 13:31

      huh?

      • [Deactivated] on 15/09/2014 - 18:49
        +2

        His saying it could be a scam claim. Its not really, someone just got hold of the fact their was an accident and this guy was involved and is trying to scam money out of him.

        Could be possible.

    • theclearout on 15/09/2014 - 21:18

      |"Due to the xtended elay in Stae Debt Recovery Ofice receivng the details of your penalty
      |
      |notice from the isuing authority, we are unable to consider your equest for eview.
      |
      |It has ben decided that he penalty wil not proced, therfore no further action is required on
      |
      |your behalf."

      If this is a copy of what the OP received then it's almost certainly a scam.
      If the OP retyped and made this amounts of errors then maybe not

    • dezaman on 20/09/2014 - 18:07

      I actually got a call like this, he used my real name and all, told the guy i had 3 accidents in 3 cars and if he could guess my plates id give him a million dollars, he didn't guess them (Also i didn't actually crash 3 times, or even once in the past many moons)

      I prefer the microsoft scams more, funner to make them wait on a half an hour call while you go to the john explaining the intricate details of your moment while he guides you to the registry on an invisible computer, or when he says click start act confused and describe the homepage of linux pretending you don't know the difference (I work for a microsoft partner so i always ask them their m number, I don't even know if thats a real thing as ive never heard of it, but its funny them making it up on the spot, alternatively that setup actually was at telstra, an id starting with a letter and 6 digits, when the 6 digits maxes it would go up a letter, so ask for an A number and if they say one they are obviously one of the founders of telstra and you should give them your money).

  • dazweeja on 15/09/2014 - 10:45
    +1

    I find it a little strange that you don't appear to have made an effort to check the road rules yourself before making this post. You are clearly in the wrong.

    Firstly, you have to give way to cars already in the roundabout. Secondly, you only need to indicate left that you're leaving the roundabout - ie. 'blink off' - once you pass the exit before the exit you're getting off on. So in this case the other driver would only need to indicate that he was exiting after he had passed the exist that you were waiting at. The other driver was following the road rules, you were not.

    Here's a clear explanation:
    http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2014/02/26/3952843.htm

    • randompunter on 15/09/2014 - 11:58
      +2

      That information is not 100% clear as it doesn't explain when to indicate right. In this instance the douche bag that didn't indicate should have had his right indicator on almost the whole way around until he passed the exit one before his intended exit then should have switched the left one on. OP had no way of telling his intentions. Unfortunately the "give way to cars already on the roundabout" will likely screw over the OP. In reality nobody obeys this rule and as previously said everyone charges on as if their road is the "main road" and drivers on their left can get stuffed.

      I have recently moved to NQ and the drivers up here are shocking. Very few people (including cops) seem to understand how roundabouts are supposed to work and drivers rarely indicate correctly. FRUSTRATING! The odd thing is when I discuss this with colleagues they have no idea what I am talking about. Another odd thing up here is that the locals/bogans speed everywhere even though nowhere is more than a 15min drive away :S

      • dazweeja on 15/09/2014 - 12:33
        +1

        I agree that that's what the other driver should have done but that's not always practical either. If it's a small roundabout, you often have to turn the steering wheel slightly left to enter, which can cancel the right indicator (in most/all cars?). Then you might have time to turn on the right indicator again but then you might need to immediately put on the left indicator to exit. Given this and the unreliability of determining who indicated and for how long, I doubt indicators have much weight with the police when apportioning blame. As you say, the fact that the OP hit a car already in the intersection would be far more conclusive. These are the actual road rules:

        http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/safety-rules/road-rules/roun…

        • This Guy on 16/09/2014 - 00:10
          +3

          If you can't indicate safely, slow down so you can. The speed limit is just a maximum speed. Indicating properly is a condition of your licence.

        • dazweeja on 16/09/2014 - 13:12

          @This Guy:

          I'm talking about small roundabouts which are the ones where you have to shift your car a bit left to enter. You are in the roundabout for a matter of seconds. At best your indicators might blink a few times while you are in there.

          Even on the NSW road rules page, it is not mentioned once in the text that it is a requirement that you maintain your right blinker while in the roundabout, only on approach. You have to actually examine the diagrams to find this information. Either this is a big oversight, or indicating while in the roundabout is more on the level of a guideline than a rule.

          Under 'Signalling', it says:

          "You must indicate for long enough to give sufficient warning to other drivers and pedestrians before entering a roundabout when turning left or right. You must also indicate, if practicable, on exit when going straight ahead. That way, people around you know exactly where you’re headed."

        • This Guy on 16/09/2014 - 20:34

          @dazweeja:

          "if practicable"

          Do you only have one hand or another medical condition that restricts movement?

          Going too fast to practicably operate a vehicle is dangerious driving.

          Slow down to 20kmph for a few weeks, practise then speed back up. It sucks relearning skills but so do fines and car crashes.

          I know which roundabouts you are talking about. It is practicable to indicate off them at 40kmph (WHEN SAFE) if you shift down before the intersection.

      • bobbified on 15/09/2014 - 14:52
        +3

        Putting it simply:

        i) OP has made the assumption that a car that's already in the roundabout will leave the roundabout at a certain exit.

        ii) Based on this assumption, the OP has decided to proceed/enter the roundabout.

        The collision has occurred as a result of OP's incorrect assumption.

      • dealman on 15/09/2014 - 17:43
        +2

        I have recently moved to NQ

        What else did you expect ;-)

  • Almost Banned on 15/09/2014 - 11:34
    +1

    Roundabouts are funny things.
    I have seen at least the following at dual-lane roundabouts:
    1. People turn left from the right hand lane,
    2. People indicate a right turn and go straight,
    3. People cut through two lane roundabouts without regard to the vehicle in the lane next to them,
    4. People thinking that because their entrance is first into the roundabout (on your right) it doesn't matter if you get in first, you have to give way to them…
    One of the big problems is that is can be a bit tricky to change your signal while you are in the roundabout to indicate a left turn as you exit so lots of people just skip it.

  • dfr on 15/09/2014 - 11:57

    I think you are lucky you didn't have to pay the traffic penalty. Use that money wisely and book your yourself on a defensive driving course to avoid future accidents.

    I wonder if anyone has seen a post of 2 oz-bargainer's involved in the same accident, with each claiming no-responsibility. That would be entertaining.

  • hello007 on 15/09/2014 - 12:04

    The State Library of NSW has a free Law Access Information Centre.

    Ask the Librarian there to help find information relevant to your matter.

    At least you can make decisions based on some information rather than just shooting in the dark.

    From memory NSW Legal Aid also has some brochures that describe what you can do if you are involved in an accident and the legal steps involved.

    Hope this helps.

    Best of Luck

  • IdBuyThat4aDollar on 15/09/2014 - 12:31

    The car accident occurred over a year ago, i got the mail on friday (which is from NRMA)

    I believe one can make an insurance claim for something like up to 7 years after the incident (as long as you had an insurance policy at the time of loss).

    Are you referring to CTP or Third Party Property Damage when you say you have third party? If the latter, lodge a claim with your insurer. You'd have to pay the excess but they should refund this if they determine you're not at fault. However reading your post, I would say you will have difficulty proving you weren't at fault, because at a round-about you have to give way to anyone approaching you from the right whether someone is indicating or not.

  • bobbified on 15/09/2014 - 15:10
    +7

    btw… the accident was over a year ago and if there's over $1k damage on the other car, I'm guessing there was probably also damage to your own car.

    What has happened between the time of the accident and now when you've received this letter?

    Sorry if the next bit comes across as sounding a little harsh, but I'm just trying to get straight to the point without writing more than necessary….

    Have you fixed your car since then?
    And if you did, did you pay out of your own pocket?
    Or did you make a claim again the other driver's insurer (NRMA)?
    If there was a claim, did they (NRMA) accept or deny liability?
    And if you didn't make a claim against the other driver, why not?

    Did you already know you were at fault, but didn't expect to receive an insurance bill?

    I'm asking because if you believed you were not at-fault in the collision, it's unlikely you would've just walked away from the accident with a damaged car. I think any reasonable person would've at least tried to make a claim against the other driver if they believed they weren't at fault.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join