[RESOLVED] Recently Involved in a Car Crash but Uninsured

justinvu on 06/05/2018 - 16:20
Last edited 21/05/2018 - 12:28 by 2 other users

Hi guys,

I've recently involved in an accident and really need your advice as a way of preparation before things start going unfavorably for me.

Here is a summary:

  • I drove a Audi Q3, which belongs to my friend, who unfortunately did not buy any insurance (Yes I know, right !!!).
  • The other driver, who drove a Holden Cruze, had comprehensive insurance with Eric Insurance.
  • The incident happened at a petrol station where we were both trying to exit on the drive way.
  • Usually I would queue up and exit the station one by one, however, there was a large amount of space on her left hand side and because of the fact that she didn't not put on her signal light + it was possible to turn right from the drive way -> I decided to pull my car to her left, side by side.
  • We both tried to turn left to exit from the drive way -> I stopped immediately after realizing she was turning left on to me. However it was too late and we had a collision on my front right. She had a much heavier damage including 2 left doors, 1 rear left quarter panel & 1 rear bumper.

Luckily I had the full footage of what happened thanks to the kind servo manager - link of the footage - updated to actual speed

Let me know your opinion in this circumstance and comment the reason for your vote. I would also greatly appreciate if any one has experience in this kind of situation can share the possible outcome that I may face.

I have a feeling that this will be a lengthy process going back and forth with their insurer.

Edit: Can now confirm the video was 2x speed. Video duration was 21s but actual footage shows 42s of recording time. That means i waited twice as long, drove half as fast, proceeded with more caution while the other driver had 4s intead of 2s chance to turn left with more chance of checking blindspot but didn’t. Thanks viper8548 for the tip to check the video speed.

Edit 2: Video reposted with actual speed - so for those with faster fingers than brains, I drove at a normal speed, waited 6 secs before proceeding to crawl forward after seeing the other driver proceeded rightward. The video now showed clearly the other driver changed her mind at last sec and hit me while I was stationary (I stopped and she hit me)

UPDATE: Just had a call from the insurer confirming the following:

  • Their client was AT FAULT for not indicating and for not checking blind spot when turning.
  • They believe I did contribute to the accident in certain extent.

They offered Each Bears Own at this stage - however, are willing to consider some small compensation amount after I have my car checked out at their authorised repairer. I did make them confirm their offer because I didn't want them to turn around and settle by 50-50 as the other car's damage costs $8k to fix while mine is probably $2-3k.

I would like to thank those who have judged the situations fairly and given your opinions only based on only the facts - It's been a great help for me to gather up the reasons to stand on my feet against the insurer. For others, who have made stereotype comments based on your prejudice about people driving nice car, people that drives without insurance etc., I hope you know what to do next time, because everyone is DIFFERENT.

Poll Options

  • 510
    I was at fault and will be paying for both cars' damages.
  • 165
    The other driver was at fault and her insurer will cover both cars' damages.
  • 5
    The other driver was at fault and her insurer will cover only her car's damage.
  • 138
    Both drivers were at fault and each driver to pay for their own damage.
Automotive Accident

Comments

    • justinvu on 09/05/2018 - 21:07
      +2

      Once upon a time, I used to drive all the sport, modified car and completely ignore all road rules. I became a lot more defensive than I used to. I would normally queue up, no question ask. Yes I was a bit impatient on that day, but I didn't think I was ignorant. Clearly I observed the situation and came to an interpretation that she's not turning left, hence made the decision. Also, it is reasonable to say it was safe for me to do that considering she was stationary and there was more than enough space.

      • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2018 - 02:18

        I can tell you that if I had not done the defensive driving course I could have easily made the same mistake as you - became too complacent in predicting traffic patterns (despite unpredictable drivers).

        A defensive driving course changes your mindset completely.

        Please don't underestimate the value of a defensive driving course despite gaining a valuable lesson to learn from this time.

        A defensive driving course will pay for itself over and over again. Please don't be so quick to skim over advice just because you've learnt something this time and you aren't as bad as you used to that is no replacement for actually doing the course.

        • resisting the urge on 10/05/2018 - 12:58

          No way I would ever rush around someone like that, even at half the speed, waiting like 10s to leave a forecourt is hardly unreasonable.

          Any experienced driver knows many people put their foot down and go full lock at the last moment, esp if they fail to indicate. Half the time they are trying to have a bet both ways, so going round them is risky.

          Esp. little white hatchbacks

          What goes through my head in these situations is not just that, but what happens if they are a moron that actually wants to have an accident or might just get all agro if I try to zip around.

          Will they do something stupid like deliberately drive into me? Or will they just try to scare me (and crash in the attempt)? Or will they think they are in the right and be thinking, "Thanks mate, I'd like to claim on my insurance again… get a new car… " Or just be on prescribed drugs, or worse.

          If you don't end up in court over this, you're lucky the insurance company is looking the other way. You put your mate's car in harm's way for sure (drove into danger), and should be thinking about taking more care now.

          Not that a lot of people driving SUVs and the like drive any better than this. All the cup-holders and safety features are only there to make the driver feel all powerful and totally invincible

  • ipiok on 09/05/2018 - 20:36
    +2

    might want to buy the servo owner a cartoon, without that video footage you'd be royally farked.

    • John Kimble on 09/05/2018 - 20:41
      +2

      The other driver also had the footage apparently. Cartoons are expensive.

    • [Deactivated] on 09/05/2018 - 20:56

      I reckon an Apu Nahasapeemapetilon because it is going out of fashion or because I'm perpetuating a stereotype that is causing the character to go out of fashion.

    • justinvu on 09/05/2018 - 21:08

      yea, it was the other driver that lodged the footage, despite the potential issue already warned by the servo manager. I cared about what he may be up against and hence did not send it to the insurer.

      you may say, hang on, you posted online - but I don't think anyone can recognise the station or the cars.

    • McFly on 09/05/2018 - 23:55
      +1

      Worst. Accident footage. Ever.

  • [Deactivated] on 09/05/2018 - 21:01

    @ John Kimble

    Your numbers are worse than mine. To think I share the road with some of the over 580 that have no idea about the road rules.

    Scary as hell.

    • Dan_ on 10/05/2018 - 21:04

      @annandale

      Which driver is more scary?

      A. A driver who is able to identify this hazard and (incorrectly) assumes it is against the road rules, thus avoids it.
      B. A driver who is able to identify this hazard but doesn't care because the driver knows the road rules are on their side.
      C. A driver who is not able to identify this hazard and just goes for it.

      Assumptions:
      The driver abides by the road rules.

      Which driver is least scary and would have avoided significant amounts of stress to both parties involved?

  • Viospeed on 09/05/2018 - 21:58
    -6

    You just couldn't wait the extra few seconds before it was your turn?

    I also believe this car is not your friends and is actually yours however you didn't want to admit you are stupid enough to not have insurance.

    No one in their right mind would buy a reasonable expensive car, not have insurance and then lend it to someone and lie about having insurance.

    The story sounds too far fetched.

    • [Deactivated] on 09/05/2018 - 23:18
      -7

      Got to love those who actually neg a valid common sense point.

      Will there be another crash in the future? Yes.

      Will this bad careless driver change their driving behaviour? I highly doubt it.

      You got lucky so do not let it get to your head. Your driving is equal to the bad driver in front. Pity in your case it was not another uninsured fool then you would have been getting a few bucks a week for decades even if they were ultimately found liable.

      Lazy insurance assessors cost decent motorists more in premiums. If I was assessing your case I would have dragged it on costing you heaps.

      If your mate can afford to own an Aldi then they can afford insurance. If not they should have sold it a long time ago.

    • justinvu on 09/05/2018 - 23:53
      +1

      Hi viospeed, ur rite. i made all that sh** up. It was me a typical Audi driver who’s also a tightass and did not buy insurance. I came here to beg for public sympathy for being impatient and drove like an a**hole and caused the tragic accident to a poor lady.

      Happy now ?

    • CocaKoala on 09/05/2018 - 23:55

      I also believe this car is not your friends and is actually yours however you didn't want to admit you are stupid enough to not have insurance.

      No one in their right mind would buy a reasonable expensive car, not have insurance and then lend it to someone and lie about having insurance.

      That's exactly my thoughts. :-)

    • Moderatorneil on 10/05/2018 - 12:06

      @viospeed

      Discussion is fine but being rude and disrespectful is not.

  • htc on 09/05/2018 - 22:08
    +6

    thanks op for giving us the update, coming to these ozbargain daily just to check the ending, how uncomfortable it will be to watch a movie without an ending, btw, had there been no cctv at the petrol station, I think it will be hard for the OP to prove the other person did not put the indicator on. Thumbs up for the petrol station owner to let OP to take the footage of the accident.

    • justinvu on 09/05/2018 - 23:43
      +4

      After all this settled i will buy him a present tat is for sure. I’ve been filling up only at his station ever since haha.

      • [Deactivated] on 11/05/2018 - 04:34

        The only thing you should be buying is insurance or perhaps some much needed driving course

  • Munki on 09/05/2018 - 23:14

    Next time, just stay off the coke, bro. ;) hahahahaha (profanity) that line still kills me.

  • CocaKoala on 09/05/2018 - 23:47
    -2

    Is this kind of a trend, or just me noticing that most people driving without any sense also don't seem to have their cars insured? You sure it's your "friend's" car you're driving?

    • justinvu on 09/05/2018 - 23:52
      -1

      No mate… i made all that sh** up. It was me a typical Audi driver who’s also a tightass and did not buy insurance. I came here to beg for public sympathy for being impatient and drove like an a**hole and caused the tragic accident to a poor lady.

      Happy now ?

      • CocaKoala on 09/05/2018 - 23:53
        -3

        I couldn't be sure about you making shit up or not, but you sure do drive like an a**hole as you've put in your own words. I've no reason to be unhappy or happy about your post or your situation, it's for you to deal with.

        • justinvu on 09/05/2018 - 23:57
          +2

          So is there a need to make ur personal judgment on what i’m supposed to deal with huh, keyboard warrior?

        • CocaKoala on 10/05/2018 - 00:00

          What's the personal judgement you're talking about? You said that you drive like an a**hole, not me. You're now calling me a "keyboard warrior", whatever that means, and are telling me that I'm the one making a so called "personal judgement", whatever that means as well.

          I merely pointed out some highly plausible facts to you, and you're all wired up immediately and start your name calling.

  • Daedalus on 10/05/2018 - 00:37

    Great news. Once you have it in writing that the insurer thinks their customer is at fault, you can try to negotiate a better deal for yourself. It can only get better from here on.

  • jubjub69 on 10/05/2018 - 00:47
    -1

    OP if you do eventually get the positive outcome then good for you. However I think it's not a black and white open shut case/by the rules that others and maybe you, are shaking your heads saying 'tsk tsk mean, prejudice ozbargainers i told ya so'.

    My guess is that the woman thought it was mostly or entirely her fault for cutting you off, and as most women would do in collisions is emotionally react. feeling bad for not paying attention to her surroundings and hitting you. and perhaps if she found out you were not insured, probably felt guilty for causing you trouble. She also may have been stressed out with her life or is an anxious driver who hates confrontation which tipped her over the edge.

    Unlike a more savvy driver who would deny everything to their insurer and blame it on you for recklessly overtaking on their left blind spot and failed to avoid their legitimate driving path turning left (what I would say if I were her). So it can be a game of stronger wits than facts.

    She may have been insisting to her insurer to claim it was her fault and is fine with paying the excess to the detriment to her premium and rating. and maybe even insistent on paying part or entire figure of the OP's damages. The insurer doesn't want to do that and because you have no insurer to back you up or duke it out they will likely charge you a maximum of 50%.

    Either way at least you aren't up for full damages it seems. Did you mention how the woman reacted at the scene? Was she apologetic or emotional? What did you say? did you think it was her fault all along and told her that? This is why if there is doubt at whos at fault one should never apologise or talk too much to the other party. exchange info and take pictures, then report your version of events to your insurer.

    • justinvu on 10/05/2018 - 06:52
      +2

      You realise it’s the insurer who decides to pay the damage not the other driver yea? The excess is only to cover a smal amount. That means even if she said she was at fault to the insurer it would be up to them to decide, psrticularly when there is a full footage available.

      When the accident occured, i walked out thinking it was my fault so I only exchanged the details while she and her husband blaming me for causing the accident - in a ok-nice way.

      The fact that she sent in the footage also indicated her intention for not admitting her fault + i met them again last weekend and they still said im at fault.

      • CMH on 10/05/2018 - 12:34

        Why did you meet up again? Once it's sent to insurers I would assume your business with them is done.

        • justinvu on 10/05/2018 - 12:40

          The other driver didn't have her phone at the time and couldnt remember her number so I just went to their place to get the phone number.

  • chriise on 10/05/2018 - 01:28

    OP Did you get the admission of fault on record? I have been in a not-at-fault accident without insurance and i visited a panel beater the next day. they arranged via their own insurance to have them chase down the at-fault driver's insurance to pay for damages. even had a hire car while the work was being done. i had no idea the shop would be able to arrange that so may be worth asking. I got insurance pretty quickly after nonetheless. good luck.

    • justinvu on 10/05/2018 - 06:53

      They still said im at fault slighlt. So no I can do the same approach u did. They are organising things in writing but one thing for sure is that i dont have to pay the other party. Whether they are covering my damage or not- it’s being decided

  • GourmetFoodie on 10/05/2018 - 07:07
    +1

    Thanks for the update OP. It was an unfortunate situation all round. Am sure a few of us have learned something from your story!

  • paloverde88 on 10/05/2018 - 07:56

    Oh good justice is served
    The court rests.

  • AutomationGuy on 10/05/2018 - 08:20
    +2

    Thank you for updating OP, it’s always good to see a resolution and in this case it sounds like it’s pretty much as best as you could hope for.

    Reading some of your replies I know you won’t, but don’t push the insurance too much. They are just as likely to realise that you are uninsured and think that if you are fighting over a few dollars you can’t afford a lawyer and therefore sue for the full amount.

    And of course, once you have a decision get it in writing so you don’t have the question hanging over you.

    • follow on 10/05/2018 - 09:25

      I'm sure a no win no fee will take it on

  • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2018 - 09:35
    +10

    So many comments from the vocal OP's fault camp.

    Many faces had egg. How hard is it to say, "wow, I was wrong. Glad you're coming out of this okay, OP"?

    If OP made the whole story up, who cares? It would mean all comments here are inapplicable

    • Skramit on 10/05/2018 - 09:52
      +4

      There are road rules and there's also etiquette.

      O.P. got off on a road rule technicality (lack of indicator by other driver, fair enough) but still failed miserably on etiquette by being too impatient and cutting in the queue. Each pays their own seems a fair outcome.

      • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2018 - 10:28

        There is etiquette and there's also concessions.

        In this case, OP has been cleared of any rule breaches. I think the only etiquette infringement is failure to signal, although the other driver didn't even notice OPs car entirely (ergo, she wouldn't have seen the indicators by extension) The other driver missed multiple turning oppurtunities, changed their mind and signalled only when she turned.

        Sure, OP could have waited for an indeterminate amount of time for the other driver to potentially turn right first, however, that's not a concession that's required of him.

        • John Kimble on 10/05/2018 - 10:49

          I thought indicating is a road rule/mandatory…

        • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2018 - 11:32
          -1

          @John Kimble:
          Indicating is road rule. OP was not on the road, he was on a driveway. Strictly speaking, road rules do not apply on private property and driveways.

        • UFO on 10/05/2018 - 12:03

          @tshow:

          very wrong.

          The driveway is a road related area open to and used by the public. OP and other car were most definitely supposed to follow the road rules. Indicating and giving way etc. still definitely apply.

        • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2018 - 12:19

          Would genuinely like to know conclusively.

          Anyone with unambigious references?

        • justinvu on 10/05/2018 - 12:42

          @tshow: UFO is right. The driveway is road-related area. I should have put my indication on. However, it would be irrelevant to the other driver in this instance. A person (if sitting in the right lane and assumed she wanted to turn right / go straight) would not be able to see my indication and thus, even if I did put it on, it would not have been able to prevent the accident.

        • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2018 - 12:47
          -2

          @justinvu:
          Without references, I have my reservations. Not all road rules and limits extend to road related areas. We'd have a huge issue if speed limits were the same in driveways.

          Again, if proof is out then I stand corrected, otherwise, I'll patiently wait. I won't contest if the law dictates that I have to indicate from my own driveway but analogy and "logical" extensions are not ways I accept knowledge.

        • geoffs87 on 11/05/2018 - 10:50

          Maybe the other driver was going straight?

      • Your Friend on 10/05/2018 - 10:30
        +1

        have you driven in Sydney mate? in some cases if you don’t go to the left like OP did, d***heads behind you will start honking

        • follow on 10/05/2018 - 11:07
          +2

          *driven anywhere

      • [Deactivated] on 11/05/2018 - 04:39

        Etiquette is the hardest word for the OP. Like many have pointed out a driver with common sense and good etiquette would have advoided this potential hazard in the first place.

  • Skramit on 10/05/2018 - 10:35
    +1

    The other driver missed multiple turning oppurtunities

    Irrelevant.

    Sure, OP could have waited for an indeterminate amount of time

    That's what etiquette is…… waiting for the other drive who is ahead to turn. He waited all of 3 seconds which breaches common etiquette IMO. If the other drive was sitting there for 2 mins, sure…. but that wasn't the case.

    • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2018 - 12:12

      We are talking about etiquette, missing turn oppurtunities is relevant as etiquette is subjective.

      The fact remains unchanged, by law the other driver is at fault. On a subjective basis, I don't think OP was giving any concessions nor was he breaching etiquette.

      We don't need to stoop to the lowest common denominator at every oppurtunity.

  • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2018 - 10:55
    +2

    @ Skramit Hope I never get to sit behind you waiting to turn. My beard will grow 3 mm.

    Please tell me how long Miss Etiquette considers is a enough waiting time.

    • Skramit on 10/05/2018 - 10:58
      +2

      More than fricken 3 seconds. In the video theres small gaps sure, but they are hardly massive gaps where you can crawl out, you'd need to push out fairly agressively. Not everyone drives like that.

    • John Kimble on 10/05/2018 - 11:00
      +2

      Last weekend I had to sit behind an Audi trying to turn onto a main road in Alexandria for at least 2-3 minutes (could have been more). Multiple opportunities for them to enter (left lane was empty and many gaps in the middle lane, but they still didn't want to go. No gap on the left for me to "undertake" and wife didn't want me to beep in case of road rage…it was torture…

      Anyway, 10 seconds would have been enough to avoid the accident for the OP.

      • Skramit on 10/05/2018 - 11:05

        1st world problems though.

        I agree it's torture and I would be tempted to beep in that situation, but whats worse - somebody causing a serious t-bone accident by agressively pulling out - potentially causing death, or you having to wait a minute or two?

        Hmmmmm

  • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2018 - 11:25
    +1

    @ Skramit.

    "More than fricken 3 seconds."

    Oh dear. What happened to your etiquette?

    As I said, I would hate to behind you at an intersection.

    • John Kimble on 10/05/2018 - 11:43

      FYI to actually reply to a specific post, you can press reply underneath the post you want to reply to (like what I've done here). This notifies the other user. What you have been doing doesn't. I dunno if you are purposely not doing that…

      • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2018 - 12:08
        +1

        Thanks John. Didn't notice it. Don't post here a great deal pluis I'm an old bugger.

  • ezhang6767 on 10/05/2018 - 11:28

    487 vs 149. I am from oversea and had my license passed in NSW. I had 4 accidents from 2013 until today and none of them was at my fault. I voted to the second option days ago and now coming back happy to see you solved it. I can't believe so many Aussies they actually know nothing about road rules and they only know judge others. Very good example and congratulate again.

    By the way, you can always choose another panel repair and request some unreasonable request now because the case is under his claim. Like free car rental.

    • John Kimble on 10/05/2018 - 11:30

      But poll option 2 is wrong also? It's option 3 or 4 at this stage.

      • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2018 - 11:35
        +1

        Poll 2 is closest to being accurate. Other driver is at fault and insurance is covering part of OPs damages.

        TBH, I would push for the whole cost of repairs. The insurer has admitted the other driver is at fault. Everything other than fault is irrelevant. How much OP could have done to avoid the accident can stretch back to conception.

        • justinvu on 10/05/2018 - 12:45
          +1

          for your reference, they never admitted the other driver was solely at fault. They said I contributed to the fault and thus will not be able to cover the whole cost - I can appeal than in court. However, I chose not to go for the lengthy, costly and stressful procedure. It's not worth it.

          To repair the Audi privately, it will cost probably $2k, my mate may pay some of it, and even if he doesnt, I'm ok to pay the full amount.

          If the insurer covers some of it, win-win :)

        • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2018 - 12:49

          @justinvu:
          You may have contributed to the collision but you didn't contribute to the fault.

    • [Deactivated] on 11/05/2018 - 04:44

      You make no sense.

      Choosing an outcome that was placed by the OP is not judgmental. If the OP does not like the answer then do not ask the question in the first place.

  • UFO on 10/05/2018 - 12:08
    -7

    I can't believe all the numpties coming out saying that all people who voted against the OP are now "wrong".

    Did it ever occur to any of you that just because the insurer has been VERY generous to the OP, doesn't mean the legal arguments posed here are wrong?
    The law is the law, and its quite clearly against the OP in this instance.
    The fact that he's been very lucky and had an insurance claim go his way doesn't mean the law has been followed.
    There is something going on behind the scenes of the insurer and their decision. The road rules as applicable in this instance isn't the only deciding factor.
    This is decision made by a commercial entity for commercial reasons. The law is only one factor. A Magistrate would have decided very differently.

    To all those high and mighty posts of late claiming a victory, wake up and realise that the MAJORITY of the poll votes here WERE CORRECT and that most people DO know the correct application of the law in this instance. I won't post the relevant legislation again here.

    I feel sorry for the minority who feel vindicated by the insurance result, because it solidifies your lack of knowledge of the road rules, and I honestly hope you don't get too upset in a future incident where you rely on this new found and misplaced confidence. OP should (and more than likely does) consider himself very lucky. Don't rely on that luck as legal precedent, because its not.

    • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2018 - 12:22
      +3

      All evidence points to the other person at fault.

      Now there's evidence that the insurer sees it the same way.

      To some, all the evidence and objectivity in the world will not be sufficient and will be chalked down to conspiracies or would have a different outcome if judged in this or that way.

      To these people, I say good luck. You'll never find justice because evidence, rules, etiquette, law and physics will always seem to work against you.

      • justinvu on 10/05/2018 - 12:38
        +2

        [@tshow]: he just does not want to give up the arguments - that's all.

        • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2018 - 12:54

          I'm actually pretty happy to be proven wrong, proof required of course. In this case, proof is out.

          This isn't a subjective discussion of etiquette or niceness, although some people have blurred the lines. It was about fault. Black and white.

          Absolutely no shame in saying, "woops, never knew that."

        • UFO on 10/05/2018 - 13:25
          -4

          @tshow:

          We have had this discussion in a previous part of this thread, but for the benefit of others reading here the relevant legislation is this part of the road rules:

          https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/regulation/2014/75…

          It's very clear, I am 100% confident in its interpretation.
          It even gives a service station driveway as the example in the road law!

          It's not a matter of pride on my part, or the inability to admit when I'm wrong.
          Like you said, it's fault… it's black and white.
          There is no argument.

          I've shown you the proof that road legislation backs my argument.
          How about you do the same? Prove your argument. Show me which legislation backs your argument.

          There's no shame in admitting you are wrong.

        • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2018 - 13:57

          @UFO:
          That's a give way priority example. Has no mention of turn signals other than the pictogram showing the car has indicators on. No wording regarding indication lights.

    • CMH on 10/05/2018 - 12:26
      +2

      The insurer has been generous to OP?

      And here I was thinking they're money-grabbing ****s that will deny any claim against them if there was a sliver of a chance they'd get away with it.

      My bad.

    • justinvu on 10/05/2018 - 12:36
      +3

      I can tell you one thing that If I was insured, I would press hard to not having to pay my excess. The only reason I'm happy with the outcome is because I'm uninsured.

      Honestly, I think I should have followed a common etiquette and none of this would happen. But would you think that had the other driver followed the most basic things before she should be driving, which is checking blind spot and indicating, none of this would have happened as well ?

      What if, really she wanted to turn right or go straight (there's a road there if you go straight), but she changed her mind in the last second and hit me ?

    • neosin on 10/05/2018 - 21:50

      UFO

      you are wrong, the legislation you link has no relevance to this case 😂

  • Tech5 on 10/05/2018 - 13:37

    Hey I was right about needing to check blindspot when turning left :)

  • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2018 - 13:39
    +2

    OP, sit down, be humble

    • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2018 - 13:58

      ???

      He is standing up and ready to rumble.

    • Blitzfx on 10/05/2018 - 22:06
      +3

      Why should OP be humble right now? He had shit flogged at him left and right, and by the MAJORITY of users.
      OP should drown everyone else in their own toxic crap that they threw at him.

      Like, it appeared that 3/4 of all the shit thrown at him was unwarranted and irrelevant to his question and situation.

      If people are so easy to give their shitty opinion, they better be ready to receive all of it back, and then some.

      • [Deactivated] on 11/05/2018 - 04:46
        +1

        Since you are talking about shitty he is a shitty driver.

  • Snail on 10/05/2018 - 14:09
    +6

    Finally a traffic-related case where the OP wins and half of the people are angry about it. This is an example of why Ozbargainers can be savage.

    • justinvu on 10/05/2018 - 14:15

      Lol at this !

      • MishyMoo on 10/05/2018 - 17:12
        +2

        OP. I tried to send you a private message of support (because I believe that writing it here, publicly, attracts the nay-sayers and I'm not interested in being hammered as I believe that you have been hammered by some, here).
        I asked a moderator to send my message to you, and my request was refused.
        Perhaps the entertainment value of ppl being hammered on OzBargain is more important than being supportive to someone in need?
        Anyway, now that I've had my rant, I'd like to send you a message of support. If you're interested in receiving it, please PM me.
        Regards
        MM

    • Aneurism on 11/05/2018 - 09:50

      I am pretty neutral about the OP and result as I don't really have any feelings one way or the other. I did vote for OP at fault because I believe both of them were shitty drivers and that the whole thing could have been avoided if the OP just remained queued behind.

      (and I thought that the insurers would be more ruthless).. but it also depends who you get and how they choose to interpret the situation..

      Either way it was a good learning lesson and reminder with visual examples of what not to do when exiting a servo.

  • ywpn on 10/05/2018 - 15:18
    +2

    Your update makes me happy :)
    Glad the insurance company recognise it was their client's fault!

  • Cheapsize on 10/05/2018 - 17:26

    Get that in writing. If she's at fault do not accept 50/50. They have admitted liability.

  • bad hombre on 10/05/2018 - 18:38
    +2

    Great outcome and good to see the insurance company was fair as well.

    Thanks for sharing OP!!!

  • f1ra5 on 11/05/2018 - 07:47
    +1

    Just looking at the footage, the Audi Q3 is at fault.

  • iamblaq on 11/05/2018 - 07:50

    Haha I recognise that petrol station :P

    • John Kimble on 11/05/2018 - 07:54
      +1

      South West Sydney on the Hume Hwy?

    • [Deactivated] on 11/05/2018 - 13:18

      BP fairfield

      • justinvu on 11/05/2018 - 13:32

        Wrong :)

        • iamblaq on 11/05/2018 - 22:39

          Is it in WA?

  • leznix on 11/05/2018 - 09:12
    +2

    I wonder if the other driver did check the blindspot which was clear at that time and then kept her focus on the heavy on coming traffic not expecting OP to move into her blindspot position like that.

    The insurance company deemed it was the other driver's fault because of the "not checking blindspot" rule superseded OP's bad/impatient driving as there were no markings on the driveway indicating OP could not be in that position.

    This case reminds me to double check my blindspots in the future against bad drivers, to hell those have to wait longer behind me. :)

    • cloudy on 11/05/2018 - 15:46
      +5

      Your supposed to check your blind spot when you move. Not 5+ seconds before you move.

      I also might add, the bad driver in this case was not op. The lady should point her car in the direction she is heading.

  • cloudy on 11/05/2018 - 15:44
    +4

    Thanks for the update Op. I’m very glad you’re in the right, coz that’s what I thought too and I like being right haha.

    I’m also thankful you posted this, coz even though I see not a lot wrong in what you did, it reminds me that I should be more patient and treat every other driver on the road like idiots, so I can avoid sticky situations like yours. I mean, being right is nice, but it’s still a hassle to deal with insurance etc like you must have felt.

    All the best

  • yannyrjl on 11/05/2018 - 15:56
    +1

    if the insurance company indicated they may even offer some compensation, it would appear they acknowledge their client is at fault, i believe the not check blind spot does trump, just like collision while in reverse.

    I'm not sure how the queue and rules would work on private property where there are no lanes marked and if you have some burden. There is clearly sufficient space for two cars side by side. Ring up and get some legal advice, you may be able to pursue a greater share of compensation.

  • stonkered on 11/05/2018 - 16:14
    +4

    So, Ozbargain was…wrong!? Unbelievable, they sounded sooo confident.

  • natman on 11/05/2018 - 16:15
    +4

    I'm glad that common sense prevailed. Holden Cruze was intending to turn right and changes it's mind at the last second, causing the collision.

  • [Deactivated] on 11/05/2018 - 17:08

    For others, who have made stereotype comments based on your prejudice about people driving nice car, people that drives without insurance etc., I hope you know what to do next time, because everyone is DIFFERENT.

    Yes, then if knowingly, No.

    There is never a situation where you should be driving, knowing that you do not have insurance. I know this is not the case for you.

  • Cheap Charlie1 on 11/05/2018 - 17:25
    +3

    Well done OP.

    Lucky you didn't listen to most of the people on here.

    It was clear cut the other person at fault.

  • strangeloops66 on 11/05/2018 - 20:53
    +2

    OP, thanks for the update. Good result - you have actually done better than 70/30 in your favour:

    IF she was 70% responsible:

    Your share of her cost of repairs: $8000 x 30% = $2400

    Her share of your cost of repairs: $2500* x 70% = $1750

    Therefore you pay her $2400 - $1750 = $650

    If the agreement ultimately reached is to the effect that you each bear your own cost of repairs, that would be more like 75/25 in your favour.

    If her insurer contributes, say, $1000 towards your cost of repairs, you would have done very well indeed, almost 90/10 in your favour.

    [*halfway point between $2000 and $3000 taken to be your cost of repairs]

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join