[Solved] Car Accident Help - Truck Driver Hit My Father's Car from behind Yet Insurance Saying It's My Father's Fault

rxjb on 26/02/2019 - 13:46
Last edited 27/02/2019 - 15:07 by 3 other users

My father was recently hit from behind by a truck on a 3 lane road.

Some context:
1. left and middle lanes were blocked due to an earlier accident
2. all traffic was moving into right lane
3. no witnesses
4. no police called
5. drivers exchanged details

Truck was a small truck - similar to a flatbed towing vehicle.

My father moved safely into the right lane and some 15-20 seconds later, a truck hit him from behind. The truck driver is alleging that my father did not allow sufficient space for him to stop.

RACV is saying that my dad is at fault, however we do not believe that is fair not accurate. any help on this would be appreciated.

I have asked my dad to:

  1. confirm with the police what the specific road rules are and challenge if what the other driver is saying is right.
  2. ask RACV to review the case as part of their complaints handling procedure.

photos of damage
https://photos.app.goo.gl/f9qv7d2q1sdHbN3Q9

EDIT 2 - My father just advised that he only stopped after he was hit. The traffic was flowing and the truck hit him whilst moving. In my mind, this changes things quite drastically. Either way its being re-assessed.

EDIT 3 - RACV's complaints process reviewed the incident and all data. The truck driver has been deemed at fault. Should not have come to this, however thanks to the OZB community for thoughts and opinions.

Poll Options expired

  • 98
    1.truck driver at fault
  • 53
    2. dad at fault
Automotive

closed Comments

  • rxjb on 27/02/2019 - 13:53
    +4

    EDIT 3 - RACV's complaints process reviewed the incident and all data. The truck driver has been deemed at fault. Should not have come to this, however thanks to the OZB community for thoughts and opinions.

    • Ahbal on 27/02/2019 - 14:00
      +3

      oh sweet right after I typed my comment I see this lol.

      Congratulations I guess?

    • Taro Milk Tea on 27/02/2019 - 15:29

      congrats OP

    • ankor on 27/02/2019 - 21:40

      Most insurance companies have good claims officers there, but they also have a high number of incompetent people who don't actually know the road rules or how to assess liability in claims, as you've now discovered.

      They pay peanuts so you get quite an assortment.

  • GG57 on 26/02/2019 - 13:50
    +7

    I'm sure it is covered in the VicRoads info, but my understanding is that you must give way to other vehicles when changing lanes. Wouldn't matter if all lanes moving freely or in the circumstances you describe.

    Harsh, but I know a few truckies and they really hate how some drivers just don't realise the stopping distance of a truck.

    • rxjb on 26/02/2019 - 14:03
      +5

      the accident occurred after he had safely changed lanes, not while entering the right lane.

      hes the most cautions driver and wouldn't just cut in because there was space.

      • HighAndDry on 26/02/2019 - 14:09
        +4

        You said the collision happened after 10-15 seconds. How accurate is that number, and how fast was the traffic going in the lane he merged into?

      • Dovrick on 27/02/2019 - 12:07

        Most trucks are required to have dash-cam active at all times, in circumstances like this they are required by the insurance agency to present any footage they have of the incident. If this is the case it may contradict the provided story in some way in regards to fault ruling.

        As others have mentioned, even if this is not the case merging in front of a much heavier vehicle is always a tricky one and it will be their word against your dad. The damage photos would lead me to believe the trick was hard on the breaks.

        It could have been worse.

    • Ughhh on 26/02/2019 - 18:20
      +1

      don't realise the stopping distance of a truck.

      Also trucks have a bigger range of blind spots ie. The front

    • Champagnepapa on 27/02/2019 - 10:26
      +1

      When changing lanes, one must give way to traffic already in that lane. Basically, the position of the party that is more probable than the other's will prevail should the matter proceed to Court. Given the circumstances, this will come down to what each party testifies to and the credibility of each party. If the rear impact was truly 15-20 second after the change in lanes, there is certainly room to argue that the truck was negligent in that it did not allow sufficient space in front as this would likely be regarded as sufficient time to brake. This argument is valid whether your dad was stationary or not at the time of the collision. In the event that the truck driver argues that the collision occurred much sooner (which I suspect would be the case), he would have a decent argument that your father failed to give way when changing lanes and that the truck could not stop in time. This argument is based on negligence (your dad ought to have given way and ought to have known that a truck would need more stopping time, especially given the wet conditions of the road). If there is no solid evidence, the Court might rule that one party was negligent and the other was contributorily negligent resulting in a split damage bill. Perhaps try and obtain camera footage of the road from any nearby cameras (if any). Your dad should pay his excess and let the insurance companies sort it out. Perhaps he will get a refund if established he was not at fault.

  • spackbace on 26/02/2019 - 13:52
    +16

    Do you really think a truck would intentionally cause an accident by braking late?

    Yeah, I don't trust the accuracy of the "15-20 seconds"… that's a hellova long time

    • rxjb on 26/02/2019 - 14:01
      +9

      No i didnt say that but we think he might have distracted by the incident that had previously occurred.

    • wozz on 26/02/2019 - 19:05
      +2

      Can't possibly know without seeing it. I don't think op was inferring that. Could have been rubbernecking, using phone etc etc

    • DonWilson on 26/02/2019 - 22:43
      +1

      15-20 seconds is an insanely long time. Going 25kph, which in my experience is pretty fast for a three lanes into one merge point, that's 100-150m after the merge.

  • boomramada on 26/02/2019 - 13:56

    You only have two choices, pay the excess, move on or hire a lawyer, which would be more than your excess fee and some. Pick your poison.

  • QW3RTY on 26/02/2019 - 14:01
    +19

    15 to 20 seconds? Either the truck driver needs to seriously consider a new braking system or your dad needs a new watch.

  • qwerty on 26/02/2019 - 14:02
    +18

    Be prepared for the truck driver to have gps evidence of speed and breaking distance or video footage of the accident and the 15-20 seconds being lots less and the truck driver avoiding a jackknife situation .

    • Almost Banned on 26/02/2019 - 16:15
      +5

      How does a flatbed towing type vehicle EVER have a jackknife situation?
      Those trucks aren't normally articulated.

      • gromit on 26/02/2019 - 18:52
        +1

        from the photos he has put up it actually looks like it was a prime mover not a small flatbed truck at all. Though perhaps the photos are distorting size, looks like a circa 2000ish model MB prime mover

        • HighAndDry on 26/02/2019 - 18:58
          +1

          I don't know how anyone could mistake the two. A prime mover is something like double (or more) the size of a small flatbed.

          • gromit on 26/02/2019 - 19:05
            +3

            @HighAndDry: maybe it is the photos, but looks almost identical to what my parents had back then and if it is then that aint no small truck, it is the other end of the scale.

        • Antikythera on 27/02/2019 - 23:59
          +1

          sure looks like a truck.
          looks like a Mercedes-Benz 1833 Axor

          but i ran the plates and it seems to be registered as a

          2017 Mercedes-Benz Sprinter 319 CDI MWB 906 MY14
          3D Van DTV6 3.0 Litre Diesel
          7 Speed Automatic

          you can get an aami insurance quote to find what type of vehicle it is. just use the badly obscured license plate from the OP's photo lower down. 1KL5WH

      • qwerty on 26/02/2019 - 20:48
        +3

        Further down itsdougie used the photos and found the truck drivers rego and its a prime mover

        • gromit on 26/02/2019 - 21:31
          +1

          thanks, yeah that is pretty well exactly what my parents had, though a few years older. Not sure how anyone could mistake that for a small truck.

  • Randxyz123 on 26/02/2019 - 14:03

    Let’s clarify a couple of things here.. is RACV your fathers insurer or the truck drivers?

    If the latter, what did your father’s insurance say?

    The truck driver is alleging that my father did not allow sufficient space for him to stop.

    Could this be true ? Could he have merged at the same time as the truck? Or merged in front of a large truck and misjudged the distance ?

    Did the truck have a dash cam?

    • rxjb on 26/02/2019 - 14:05

      RACV is my fathers insurance company.

      Could he have merged at the same time as the truck? No - because he was hit some time after he had moved lanes.

      Or merged in front of a large truck and misjudged the distance ? No - i asked the same question and he does not seem to think so. he believes he moved with sufficient space and time to do so safely.

      Dashcam? Not sure - i asked the same thing and to find out.

      • Randxyz123 on 26/02/2019 - 14:19
        +6

        Ok so tell your father to deny everything and to provide diagrams as to what happened. Did the truck blast their horn ?

        It’s very much he said / she said unless there is a witness.

        Also the police don’t need to be involved in simple fender benders unless the road is blocked / fuel is spilling etc.

        If they are his insurance company then they should be supporting him, unless it is very clearly his fault OR they have been sent video by the truck driver /their insurance.

  • abb on 26/02/2019 - 14:05

    Any witnesses or videos?

    • rxjb on 26/02/2019 - 14:06

      There would have been but unfortunately he did not ask for any witnesses nor called the police.

      • abb on 26/02/2019 - 14:09
        +1

        Sorry I missed your comment about no witnesses up top. Gonna be tough to prove anything. Usually the vehicle behind is presumed at fault, but maybe the truck driver has a dash cam that shows your dad doing something wrong?

        Does dad have insurance? Normally you'd give your version of events to them and they fight it out with the other party…

        • rxjb on 26/02/2019 - 14:16

          Does dad have insurance? Normally you'd give your version of events to them and they fight it out with the other party…

          Yes has comprehensive with RACV - you would think they would be trying to act in his interests.

          • Sharp on 26/02/2019 - 14:28

            @rxjb: They must have an evidence or reasonably confident that you dad jump in front of the truck. Did your dad signal, check his blind spot and confirm that no vehicle is approaching before changing lanes?

            • rxjb on 26/02/2019 - 15:22

              @Sharp: As i was not in the car, i cant say for sure - but i asked the same questions - he said he did all those things and he is the most cautious driver, so no evidence to suggest he had not….

            • wozz on 26/02/2019 - 19:06

              @Sharp: Not necessarily.. sometimes Just takes 1 lazy person who doesn't care about others to cause a lot of grief

  • Sharp on 26/02/2019 - 14:10

    Off course his insurance will blame you. You get your insurance to work for you and get them to blame the truck driver. That's how it works. At the end, if no one can prove anything rear collisions are usually paid by the insurance of the car hitting from behind.

    • HighAndDry on 26/02/2019 - 14:14
      +2

      rxjb 8 min ago new
      RACV is my fathers insurance company.

  • HighAndDry on 26/02/2019 - 14:12
    +15

    If the collision occurred actually a full 10-15 seconds after your father changed lanes (and barring exceptional circumstances like the traffic in that other lane moving at 80km/h), then your father should not be at fault.

    But I second others that many many many times, drivers underestimate how far it takes a truck to slow down or stop, because they're used to estimating that space/distance with regard to cars and not trucks (which weigh far more, especially if loaded). I've seen a lot of cars change lanes in ways which would be safe if the vehicle behind in that lane was a car, but which is downright Final-Destination-esque because the vehicle behind was a truck.

    The above is especially true because truck drivers usually leave a large gap between themselves and the vehicle in front because of the longer stopping distance required for trucks, which to so many drivers seems to be an invitation to merge and risk getting pancaked.

    • Bargain80 on 26/02/2019 - 14:54
      +4

      in saying that, truck driver should have more clearance view to the traffic in front so the driver should be able to see if the traffic slowing down due to accident/blocked on other lanes and they should slow down.

      If the traffic completely stopped after he changed lane and the truck behind was travelling at 100 kmh and didn't brake at all, that means there was over 400 metre gap.

      If 15 seconds delay is true, that's definitely truck driver fault.
      (That's a big IF)

      • HighAndDry on 26/02/2019 - 18:59

        No amount of visibility lets the truck driver predict that someone will merge into the lane dangerously though, if that's what happened.

        • Bargain80 on 27/02/2019 - 10:06
          +2

          my point was that the truck driver should be able to see traffic building up ahead so they should slow down.
          based on OP, we're not talking about last second lane change

          my other point was that 15 seconds (~400) should be enough for a truck to brake hard to complete stop from 100km/h

          • Nebargains on 27/02/2019 - 10:16
            +2

            @Bargain80: I agree, doesn't sound like a sudden lane change nor does the traffic look super busy. 3 lanes coming to 1 should have been obvious from a distance and everyone should just play nice and let people merge in.

            If it is as Op describes I don't understand how his insurance could possibly say he is at fault.

            • HighAndDry on 27/02/2019 - 10:25

              @Nebargains:

              If it is as Op describes I don't understand how his insurance could possibly say he is at fault.

              Which is why people in this thread are taking OP's second-hand account with a grain of salt.

          • HighAndDry on 27/02/2019 - 10:25

            @Bargain80:

            based on OP

            Yes, but based on OP's insurer ruling against OP, I think OP may be missing some pertinent details.

            • Bargain80 on 27/02/2019 - 10:38

              @HighAndDry: could be. maybe the truck driver has a dashcam that proves OP dad was wrong.
              I was just saying based on the 'fact' given by OP.

  • [Deactivated] on 26/02/2019 - 14:24
    +11

    Many commercial drivers have dashcam.

    Think about how reliable the details of the event are.

    If you think 10-15seconds is what happened, escalate the claim to RACV (if you have comprehensive) or hire a lawyer.

    If your story isn't straight and you pursue this further, be prepared for a lot of financial damage.

    • nickj on 27/02/2019 - 10:32

      Surely the Dad's insurer can say to the truck driver's insurer: "based on the version of events from our customer it sounds like the truck driver is at fault. Do you have an reason to dispute that? E.g. if you have footage, can you show it to us please?" Because there must be different accounts of accidents regularly, and the insurance companies need a way to resolve those situations without going to court all the time - i.e. common sense would indicate that surely there must be some mechnanism for insurers to share evidence about an accident to resolve who is at fault, without going to court.

      • HighAndDry on 27/02/2019 - 10:37

        This is why people are skeptical of some of the details in OP's account, because it's OP's own insurer who's come back and said OP's father is at fault.

      • [Deactivated] on 27/02/2019 - 10:38
        -1

        E.g. if you have footage, can you show it to us please?

        You'll never be able to get footage from the insurer. It is never released unless requested by police or a court.

        insurers to share evidence

        They don't need to share it with the claimant. The insurers decision does not require a discussion with all parties if sufficient evidence is available.

  • timthetoolman on 26/02/2019 - 14:40

    Interesting that they're accepting his claim of changing lanes (thus being at fault), but not accepting that it was near 15 seconds later (truckie's fault). Either believe it all or nothing at all?

    • rxjb on 26/02/2019 - 14:49
      +1

      thats the bit that has me stumped too - as per vicroads,
      "Changing lanes
      You must give way to vehicles in the lane or line of traffic, when you change from a lane marked with lines, to another.

      This rule applies when crossing over any broken line on the road showing that the lane ends, e.g. merging into freeway traffic. "

      they dont seem to listen to the bit that the accident happened after he moved….really strange so will escalate within RACV.

    • HighAndDry on 26/02/2019 - 14:53

      Not really - they might've contacted truck driver who confirms OP's dad changed lanes, but differed on how long after the lane change the accident occurred.

      • rxjb on 26/02/2019 - 15:06

        how do you solve the he said/he said situation?

        • HighAndDry on 26/02/2019 - 15:29
          +6
          • Dashcam/other cam footage;
          • Witnesses;
          • Forensic examination of the dents/crash (wholly impractical in this case).

          Otherwise the insurance company makes a judgment call. Considering it's your insurance company making this call against you, I don't particularly like your chances because generally they'd prefer not to do that.

        • CMH on 26/02/2019 - 16:03
          +3

          Trucks these days often have dashcam exactly for this situation.

          I'm betting RACV has already seen the footage, and determined fault because of it.

          Ask them to be sure.

          • Blitzfx on 26/02/2019 - 22:05
            +2

            @CMH: I would request this information too. Even 10s is a LOT of time to brake for road trains.

  • thatonethere on 26/02/2019 - 14:46
    +3

    Good time to buy dad a dash cam I think.

    • dcep on 26/02/2019 - 14:49
      +6

      you mean 2 dash cams

      • [Deactivated] on 26/02/2019 - 14:57
        +5

        1 dash cam would demonstrate the critical timing.

      • DazMon on 27/02/2019 - 10:35

        You mean 1 dashcam 2 cameras?

    • [Deactivated] on 26/02/2019 - 14:58
      +5

      Every week we get regular veteran members needing advise because they don't have a dashcam. At least we've moved past the uninsured drivers stage.

      • tomsco on 26/02/2019 - 15:49
        +2

        There was one on Whirlpool a few days ago. Sent a bill for $17k. Yikes!

        • [Deactivated] on 26/02/2019 - 17:39

          Sounds about right. Legal fees for both parties plus court fees.

          • ozhunter on 26/02/2019 - 18:50

            @[Deactivated]: No court or legal fees included. Here's the quote that he linked, https://imgur.com/gallery/UwoADcY

            • [Deactivated] on 26/02/2019 - 18:55

              @ozhunter: Ah. That's fair enough. Doesn't take much.

              Little old lady hit me and the damage was $22k. Doesn't look it but the xenon assembly itself was a few thousand bucks. Small big of the door was dented so new door. She thought it was a little fender bender and most people would have thought so.

              Lucky she's insured.

        • Homr on 27/02/2019 - 09:37

          whirlpool link plz

  • [Deactivated] on 26/02/2019 - 14:56
    +1

    Were there skid marks and did you photograph the crash scene?

    • [Deactivated] on 26/02/2019 - 14:59
      +7

      There were probably skid marks but may not be any tire marks.

      • rxjb on 26/02/2019 - 15:07

        No photos - but dad did not hear him brake either - or the screech of tires indicating a hard stop.

        • [Deactivated] on 26/02/2019 - 15:40

          Are there shops very closeby that might have CCTV, even just the timing difference.

        • Taro Milk Tea on 26/02/2019 - 15:43
          +1

          No photos? really? Not even both the drivers (your dad and the truck driver) took any photos? This is starting to sound a bit weird….?

          Was it a commercial truck driver? There is no way he wouldn't take any picture and insurance company will not progress if there were no pictures/evidence taken at all at the time it happened. This starting to sound like a fake topic.

          • HighAndDry on 26/02/2019 - 15:46
            +2

            @Taro Milk Tea: I think OP means no photos from their side. I assume the truck driver - if they're a commercial driver - will have dashcam footage (if nothing other than to reduce their own insurance premiums), and have already provided that to RACV which is why they're ruling against OP.

            • Taro Milk Tea on 26/02/2019 - 15:51

              @HighAndDry:

              I think OP means no photos from their side

              Well toughie if that's really the case, no lawyer even want to take this job for OP i'm sure.

            • [Deactivated] on 26/02/2019 - 16:02

              @HighAndDry: I was told by RACV that commercial drivers will have a dashcam. Not sure how true but the one that totalled the wife's car had a cam.

          • rxjb on 26/02/2019 - 16:06

            @Taro Milk Tea: sorry no dashcam footage but have photos of damage

            https://photos.app.goo.gl/f9qv7d2q1sdHbN3Q9

            • [Deactivated] on 26/02/2019 - 16:11

              @rxjb: I don't know the details of what is and isn't recorded, but the vehicle may have a log of g forces and other data to help your case, maybe brake pedal or engine RPM would be useful.

  • carlJack on 26/02/2019 - 14:58

    If there is no evidence that your dad did anything wrong then deny everything.

  • cypher67 on 26/02/2019 - 15:01
    +5

    Public Service Announcement - Everyone should get a dash cam, they are relatively inexpensive and can prevent these such incidents

  • pantsparty on 26/02/2019 - 15:24
    +1

    If the accident really happened 10 - 15 seconds after your father changed lanes than it is the truck drivers fault. If it was more like a few seconds than it would be hard for your father to prove that it wasn't his fault.

  • Taro Milk Tea on 26/02/2019 - 15:37
    +1

    Upload us the picture of your dad's car that got hit. Did it get hit by the truck on the side or on the back?

    If it's on the side, good luck in arguing that it's not your dad's fault. If you still believe, this happened after 10-15 seconds after changing lane, the only way is to hire a lawyer and you will not only cost $, but also time and energy. Best of luck.

      • Taro Milk Tea on 26/02/2019 - 16:06
        +8

        I thought there was no picture taken lol.

        Anyway, OP, from the pictures it seems that that was not the kind of accident that happen 10-15 seconds after changing the lane..

        It looked like your dad's car got hit on the left back side, which IMO, your dad might have managed to switch lane. But I think he was just managed to do it 'just on time' that the truck driver did have enough time to hit the brake.

        Because if a car is inside a lane for 10-15 seconds and got hit from behind by a truck, it would have smashed the whole back side of the car.

        Anyway, I think based on this photos, you can TRY to argue you got hit on the backside of the car, which means your dad was already inside the lane. But I'm suspicious that it only got hit on the left back side of the car.

        • npc on 26/02/2019 - 16:12

          Remarkable forensic skills

        • Nebargains on 27/02/2019 - 10:29
          -1

          How are you coming to the conclusion that he hit the back left of the car when there is damage right the way across both the front of the truck and the back of the car?

      • Randxyz123 on 26/02/2019 - 16:20
        +1

        From those photos it seems that your dad might have slightly cut off the truck. It’s a massive truck not a small one so it would have likely had a dash cam. In fact I think it is a insurance requirement these days. It can be assumed the insurance company has been given that video.

        You say he didn’t hear the horn or screeching tyres but maybe he had the radio on and didn’t hear ? Regardless the best you could probably get is 50/50 fault. Partly truck drivers for driving too close and partly your dad’s for not giving the truck enough room.

        I doubt you’ll get the blame on the truckie but tell the insurer to fight it. That is what they are paid for.

        • Almost Banned on 26/02/2019 - 18:24
          +2

          How do you get to 'might have slightly cut off the truck'.
          The vehicles were merging into the right lane. If the car had not been completely in the lane any damage SHOULD be done to the right side of the vehicle.
          The actual damage is to the left side.
          While swerving to avoid collision MIGHT have caused it, it seems more likely that the car was completely in the new lane.

          • HighAndDry on 26/02/2019 - 18:41

            @Almost Banned: Not really - if you don't leave enough of a gap (and decelerate after you merge as would happen in these situations), you could merge fully into the lane and still not give the truck enough distance to slow down behind you.

            • Almost Banned on 26/02/2019 - 19:11
              +3

              @HighAndDry: I agree completely it is possible to get fully into the new lane, and still not leave enough braking distance for the truck.
              I do not think that the photos in any way support the suggestion that the car 'slightly cut off the truck'.
              If the pics support anything at all it is that the car was fully in the new lane - whether they allowed enough braking distance cannot be determined.

              • HighAndDry on 26/02/2019 - 19:13

                @Almost Banned: I think we might be operating under different definitions of "cutting off" here. Imo, "cutting off" includes merging without giving the vehicle behind enough room.

          • Dancasper on 26/02/2019 - 19:19
            +6

            @Almost Banned: Agree with this ^^^.

            If the truck were to rear end your dad's vehicle square on, it is expected the damage would be in the middle of the bumper and boot lid.

            With the damage to your dads car being wholly contained to the left side and the truck also having damage on the left side, this would suggest that the truck approached your dad from behind and from the left (7 o'clock). The same approach as if the truck driver were merging into the right lane coincidentally.

            The damage doesn't really stack up with the truck drivers version. Tell them to put that in their pipe and smoke it.

          • Homr on 27/02/2019 - 09:42
            +1

            @Almost Banned: Yeh I don't get this either. How can a car merge from left lane to right lane and get hit on the left backside???

        • stumo on 26/02/2019 - 18:57
          +1

          its also wet, so the truck would have even more stopping distance.

  • GG57 on 26/02/2019 - 15:46
    +2

    Too many unknowns, and all this commentary is based on assumptions and heresay.
    Consider:
    - 3 lanes of traffic merging into one lane
    - we assume the truck was already in the open lane
    - we assume that when the car merged into the open lane, they had to stop
    - we don't know the speed of the truck when the car merged, if it was already braking, etc.
    <edit> and the photos just uploaded show it was a wet road.

    No one here is suggesting that either party intentionally made the accident happen. It would appear to have been just that, an accident. Maybe one party left it a little bit late to change lanes; maybe one party did not immediately notice a car merging in front of them and start to brake straight away.
    That is what insurance is for, and the insurance provider will assess and make a call. You can ask them to re-assess, that is all.

    • HighAndDry on 26/02/2019 - 19:00
      +1

      *hearsay

      Sorry, pet peeve.

  • rxjb on 26/02/2019 - 15:53
    +1

    Thanks all - comments and perspective has been helpful.

  • jelko on 26/02/2019 - 16:05

    If what your dad says is true, then it's clearly the truck driver's fault. People who are saying it's your dad's fault clearly think he is not telling the truth.

    Did the RACV disclose why they think you're dad is at fault?

  • JimmyF on 26/02/2019 - 16:24
    -1

    15-20 seconds later, a truck hit him from behind

    RACV is saying that my dad is at fault, however we do not believe that is fair not accurate

    Sounds correct, your father cut in front of the truck, not leaving enough room for the truck to stop. Hence 15 seconds later the truck hit your father.

  • HighAndDry on 26/02/2019 - 16:32
    +1

    photos of damage
    https://photos.app.goo.gl/f9qv7d2q1sdHbN3Q9

    The photos seem to show the impact happening at an angle, because it's the centre-left of the front of the truck that's damaged, and it's the rear-left of your father's car that's damaged.

    Also - the road looks wet - are you sure your father left enough space? Wet roads mean longer stopping distances.

    Any forensic experts in vehicle accident reconstruction here? I can't figure out what kind of collision would lead to this damage pattern.

    • [Deactivated] on 26/02/2019 - 17:07
      +15

      Any forensic experts in vehicle accident reconstruction here?

      The road is wet and so are the cars. There are no signs of broken fire hydrants. I suspect rain.

      The car appears to be cosmetically asymetrical with the left side being more undulated. This is not by design

      The same asymetry and dimpling of the trucks front left is also not by design. There may have been contact between these two vehicles.

      The photograph appears to be in 16:9 ratio suggesting it was taken with a smart phone. No signs of water droplets on the lens. The phone is dry. The driver took the photo with a smart phone.

      The car was in a collision and the driver came out to take a photo with their phone. Case solved.

      • HighAndDry on 26/02/2019 - 17:19
        +3

        Mate what'd we do without you? 🤣

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join