Accident with a Truck (Uninsured)

Lausmansan on 21/06/2019 - 17:47
Last edited 22/06/2019 - 11:10 by 1 other user

I live in QLD and I had an accident in NSW region last year. The weather was terrible, it was hailing and raining at the same time. I was in a car and was hit by a truck. My car was written off and there were very little damages to the truck. I was uninsured at the time of the accident (my blunder).

Insurance company of the truck slapped me with a bill of nearly $42000 accusing me fully at fault. They forwarded the case to the lawyer. I offered them $10000 for their damages to pay them in instalments. They refused my offer. They want to take me to court. It can be seen from the video footage that the truck driver was not speeding according to the weather conditions. I have uploaded the dashcam footage that they given me as an evidence of my fault.

I want to know if I am at fault? If yes, to what extent? What are my chances if the matter goes to court.

Truck driver was definitely over speeding as per the weather conditions. Any comments on that?

Tried to calculate his speed by the dashcam footage.

He crossed 25 white lines in 10 seconds. Each white line is 10 feet itself and the distance between the lanes are 30 feet, in total 40 feet.

25 x 40 = 1000 feet
1000 feet = .308 meters in 10 seconds
.308 meters x 6 = 1.848
1.848 x 60 = 110 KMPH

Max speed for these kind of trucks in NSW is 100 KMPH

Automotive

Comments

  • ronnknee on 21/06/2019 - 17:48
    +51

    First of all, obligatory MS Paint diagram please.

    From the potato video footage, it appears that this took place on a highway or freeway. Your car was pretty much stationary (very dangerous on a high speed road) when you tried to change lanes (not sure why when there's nothing in front of you) suddenly. A truck or any other car would not be able to stop in such short amount of time. I think it's quite reasonable that you'll be at fault.

    Member Since
    46 min ago

    Also, welcome to OzBargain, although I have a feeling that you'll be disabling your account or never post anything again.

    • ausmansan on 21/06/2019 - 18:03

      Yes, it was taken place on a highway. I will attach the pictures of my car as well to get an idea and also my version of diagram.

      • Zonty on 21/06/2019 - 23:54
        +18

        Why you do not have insurance? That's really dumb when you have bought freaking land. Always have to have 3 rd party insurance.

        • idonotknowwhy on 22/06/2019 - 08:19
          +8

          Why you do not have insurance? That's really dumb

          That's all you need to post lol.

      • Zonty on 22/06/2019 - 10:16
        +6

        My advice on this is when you paying $42000 ask insurance company what are you paying for?
        If they written off truck then its means need to know report and take local mechanic to have look on truck whether report is right or just made up.
        You need investigate yourself before go court .you have right to know what you paying for.
        If they do not want let you check anything then must be doubtful about $42000 value.
        Better pay to truck repair mechanic few$$ then $42000.00 and ask him your side of report.
        All have to be written nothing on phone which will help you to prove in court if they drag you in court.
        I believe $42000 made up if that not include your car and truck written off value.
        Good luck.

        • CMH on 22/06/2019 - 10:22
          -6

          What truck costs $42000?

          • pegaxs on 22/06/2019 - 19:02
            +1

            @CMH: The truck in the photo is a Kenworth T409 SAR. $42k would not buy you a very good truck…

            Here is a second hand one for $180,000 that would be very similar to what hit OP.

            What this claim may also be made up of is lost time. The truck would have been off the road for repairs, and this may have been taken into account.

      • SpotTheOzzie on 22/06/2019 - 16:57
        +58

        Sanju,

        You're a complete idiot and are likely to kill someone.

        The fact that you didn't have any insurance (and the way you drive) means you don't know or respect the laws of the country you are visiting.

        I love the way you started this thread..'I was hit by a truck', more like 'I moved into the truck's path on the freeway when he was travelling at 100km while I was basically at a rolling stop for no reason.' Seriously mate take your bullshit elsewhere and learn to take responsibility. Is there anyway we can get in touch with the police to ensure this is followed up and license revoked? We will be saving a life by doing so.

        I was in my first accident where I stopped at a set of lights for an ambulance that had its sirens on and the guy behind me hit me, and had the audacity to get out of the car and say 'WHY DID YOU STOP!?' same non-sense here.

        Video of the accident that he removed for anyone else to see:
        https://vimeo.com/323054028

        • syousef on 22/06/2019 - 17:34
          +5

          He's also removed the actual video. That link is dead.

          I'm not sure what he's trying to achieve posting here. I think he's just desperate, so I won't pile on. I know I wouldn't be in the best head space if I'd just incurred a $42k debt, and that's before he looks at legal fees.

          • SpotTheOzzie on 22/06/2019 - 17:49
            +137

            @syousef: Don't worry Syousef, I backed up the video and have re-uploaded it here for all OzBargainers:

            https://streamable.com/x48xy

            • syousef on 22/06/2019 - 17:52
              +7

              @SpotTheOzzie: I'm not saying his driving or his decision making in canceling his insurance was good, but I'm going to flag again that he might not be in a mental state to make good decisions about the ensuing ridicule. I don't want him making any more bad decisions.

            • [Deactivated] on 22/06/2019 - 17:59
              +3

              @SpotTheOzzie: why?

              And what makes you think OP is not Australian? Because you're assuming his name is Sanju?

              • SpotTheOzzie on 22/06/2019 - 22:15
                +3

                @[Deactivated]: There's a video of him in another country that is titled in a foreign language. Refer to page 3 where another user found this.

              • gazza the great on 22/06/2019 - 20:01
                +3

                @bobwokeup: Exactly what I thought billybob, The truck driver ,though technically in the right, should not have been barrelling down the highway in those conditions! Common sense ( missing in this case) would tell you to back off the speed when seeing a flashing light on the side of the road. I'm in a big truck, buggar the rest of you!, seems to be the attitude.

              • WhoGiveAShxt on 23/06/2019 - 00:28
                +4

                @bobwokeup: It is not about how the truck driver drive at that moment. OP is the one who merged lane right before the accident. This is the major reason of the accident. The rest is just history.

              • MrFrugalSpend on 24/06/2019 - 14:59
                +2

                @bobwokeup: OP knows he is at fault…

                "I offered them $10000 for their damages to pay them in instalments"

                Even if he could argue otherwise, I'm guessing without legal advice, this right here would constitute admission of liability.

                NEVER ADMIT LIABILITY OR MAKE OFFERS WITHOUT LEGAL ADVICE PEOPLE! Shoot yourself right in the foot

            • tryagain on 22/06/2019 - 18:33
              +1

              @SpotTheOzzie: Someone should pin this post!

            • zarbicore on 22/06/2019 - 20:40
              +29

              @SpotTheOzzie: Wow what an absolute idiot. Car is 100% at fault, he just blindly merged into another lane. Even if that truck was going half his speed, there is no way he could have stopped.

            • aussieolfaction on 22/06/2019 - 22:36
              +1

              @SpotTheOzzie: My God, the way that car was driven was utterly idiotic. I'm 100% with the insurers on this one (a strange thing to say, I know).

            • Kranbone on 23/06/2019 - 12:00
              +2

              @SpotTheOzzie: Thanks for re-uploading. OP should keep the video up even when he's at fault.

            • Zachary on 25/08/2020 - 12:02

              @SpotTheOzzie: wat is this 144p in 2019?

              • spackbace on 25/08/2020 - 12:15

                @Zachary: You threadmined a 14 month old post just for that?!

                • Zachary on 26/08/2020 - 14:12

                  @spackbace: No, it was passed on from somewhere…I forget where….that's how I found this….

      • No ONE on 23/06/2019 - 10:29

        Sanjo bai,
        Next time ahteyat karo; or baghair insurance drive muth kiyakaro.

        No ONE on 23/06/2019 - 10:29 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
  • apsilon on 21/06/2019 - 18:00
    +26

    Assuming you're the car at the end you changed lanes into their path so of course you're at fault. There was nothing in your lane so not sure what you were trying to achieve. I can't comment on damage to the truck, it looks relatively superficial so I doubt it's $42k of damage but I'm not a truck mechanic so maybe it is or maybe they're claiming lost income while the truck is off the road being repaired.

    I'd strongly suggest speaking to a solicitor rather than Oz Bargain.

    • Sawtell on 21/06/2019 - 18:23
      +8

      They would be claiming for a replacement truck while it was off the road plus salvage of the truck, trailer, spoilage etc. depending on circumstances obviously. Cant expect them to be out of pocket because of the OPs terrible driving.

      • nocure on 21/06/2019 - 19:24
        -7

        Username checks out

    • macrocephalic on 24/06/2019 - 12:04

      Taking a guess: Front bumper - Replace. Front nose panel - repair or replace. Light cluster - Replace. Door (possibly) - repair or replace. Fuel tank (possibly) - repair or replace. Tyres, possibly replace two. So before you even get to whatever it was towing you're already looking at multiple thousands of dollars in repairs.

      For comparison, I scratched a two panels and a mirror on a 5 year old Golf a few years ago and it was a $1000 repair bill. Now think about the damage that might be done by a car scraping along the side of half million dollar truck.

  • [Deactivated] on 21/06/2019 - 18:02
    +46

    You are unequivocally at fault.

    You will be paying the $42,000 in full.

      • chumlee on 21/06/2019 - 18:24
        +28

        There's no law that states you need to lower your speed when it's raining.

        You're at fault. If I was you I would request copies of quotes and have these reviewed by someone e.g. private insurance assessor & see where you can negotiate it down?

        Do you own any assets like a house? If not, you can always declare bankruptcy

        • ausmansan on 21/06/2019 - 18:30

          Yes, I have recently settled on a land, but only paying interest as of now. I haven't started paying off loan as yet.

          • [Deactivated] on 21/06/2019 - 18:33
            +1

            @ausmansan: Just be aware that declaring bankruptcy has consequences. I would seek advice from LegalAid first before doing anything rash.

          • Hardlyworkin on 23/06/2019 - 08:16
            +6

            @ausmansan: Enough money for land though not enough for third part insurance? Sometimes when you gamble, you lose:(

          • spackbace on 21/06/2019 - 19:25
            +107

            @ausmansan: Negligent is moving into the right lane, when you're stationary, into the path of a vehicle doing 100kph.

            Negligent is when you do this for no reason, as the lane you're already in is perfectly clear.

            Negligent is when you have no idea of your surroundings.

            • Ozpit on 22/06/2019 - 09:10
              +10

              @spackbace: Negligent is when you don’t have 3rd party insurance. The financial repercussions can be devastating, not to just the driver at fault, but also to the other driver if they don’t have comprehensive insurance.

              Why 3rd party insurance isn’t compulsory when registering a vehicle - primarily to protect the not at fault driver - has always bewildered me. Particularly when it’s not that costly compared to comprehensive insurance.

              What are the arguments against compulsory 3rd party insurance?

              • richo262 on 22/06/2019 - 13:07
                +4

                @Ozpit: Making a product mandatory will result in prices being jacked up.

                An insurance company has a marketing department to do 2 things, 1) Convince the potential customer that they need insurance and 2) Convince the potential customer their insurance is better than what other insurance companies provide.

                If you make it mandatory, insurance companies can simply fire their marketing departments as they no longer need to convince you, as the Government will force that position for them.

                There is also the position of, 'there is no such thing as an idea so good it must be mandatory'.

                • arcticmonkey on 23/06/2019 - 13:26

                  @richo262: You'll still need the marketing team to convince buyers that their product is the best and to create awareness etc

                • [Deactivated] on 23/06/2019 - 14:18
                  +3

                  @richo262: Agreed with caveat.

                  People should be free to drive uninsured but they should never be given leniency or financial relief from the consequences.

                  Since driving isn't strictly "essential" making insurance mandatory is technically still discretionary. People can choose not to drive.

                  The argument for making it mandatory can be summarised as such - because the act of driving caries risks and those risks can be significant, and affect others, the rules of minimal government does not fully apply. Think vaccinations.

                  • Vote for Pedro on 23/06/2019 - 15:49
                    -1

                    @[Deactivated]: How do you feel about Government bailing out Mascot Apartments residents to the tune of about $3million

                    • [Deactivated] on 23/06/2019 - 15:56

                      @Vote for Pedro: $3million divided amongst residents for the purpose of temporary accommodation.

                      I feel that should be clarified.

                      I'm not familiar with the case so have no opinion either way.

                      Typically, I am against a bailout but there are always nuances. The emergency fund for example, if it is a fund collected from residents of high rise dwellings, then drawing from that fund isn't really an issue. If the fund is taken from the state budget, ie. something else like my street isn't getting resurfaced, then there has to be more justification.

                      Too many nuances to a case I am not invested/informed in.

                      • Vote for Pedro on 23/06/2019 - 17:41

                        @[Deactivated]: Yeah, this is coming from the state’s budget. If it was from the residents fund, then that’s their prerogative how to spend it.

                        Edit: Just heard on wireless radio it will be in the form of an interest free loan. Still not totally sure about it, but it’s better than a complete $3million hit to the budget.

                    • Rumstein on 24/06/2019 - 21:50

                      @Vote for Pedro: Government should be billing the construction company and owners, or owner/building insurance should be copping it.

                      That one's totally not fair on taxpayers.

                • try2bhelpful on 26/06/2019 - 08:10

                  @richo262: Third party person insurance is compulsory, it should be run on those guidelines. There are a lot of good ideas that are mandatory. The third party property would save a lot of problems for a number of innocent people. Not sure why you think this would cause an increase in pricing, in fact it will decrease because it will be spread across more people.

                  • CMH on 26/06/2019 - 10:10
                    -1

                    @try2bhelpful:

                    The third party property would save a lot of problems for a number of innocent people

                    If you really cared about being compensated for the damage to your vehicle, then get comprehensive insurance.

                    Ergo, by trying to mandate TPP insurance, you're pushing your responsibility to get comprehensive insurance on to someone else.

                    If you buy comprehensive insurance you don't give a crap if someone else has TPP or not.

                  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 26/06/2019 - 10:53
                    +1

                    @try2bhelpful: I'd have to side with richo262 there.

                    Third party person consists of medical bills which, in laymans terms, are regulated to an extent and controlled by the health care system. No such systems in place, nor easily implemented, for third party property which could consist of vehicles, fences, houses, bridges, you name it. Would require a huge amount of regulation.

                    in fact it will decrease because it will be spread across more people.

                    Not true. Richo262 is correct.

                    Canada is a classic example here. Some states have privatised auto insurance. Some states have a public system. On average the public system costs 50-75% more than the privatised states.

                    Happy to hear any facts otherwise.

          • DarwinBoy on 22/06/2019 - 20:39
            +2

            @ausmansan: Negligent driving is not doing a shoulder check when changing lanes.

          • Antikythera on 23/06/2019 - 17:38

            @ausmansan: the visibility was fine. some (profanity) pulled out in front of a truck on a highway. (profanity) is lucky he isn't dead.

          • ankor on 23/06/2019 - 20:41

            @ausmansan: Even if he was going at or below the speed limit, I reckon he'd probably still hit you, since you merged into his lane.

            So his speed might not make any difference whatsoever as to if that collision would have occurred or not. A judge will tell you in court later on I suppose.

        • WhoGiveAShxt on 23/06/2019 - 00:36

          agreed. Morally, trucks driver should be cautious in west conditions. But it does not break the rules if they do not slow down.

          Besides, op obviously is an amateur driver because this kind of accidents are absolute avoidable.

      • ssquid on 21/06/2019 - 18:25
        +2

        It can be seen from the video footage that the truck driver was not speeding according to the weather conditions.

        • [Deactivated] on 21/06/2019 - 18:34

          I think that was a typo from the OP.

      • [Deactivated] on 21/06/2019 - 19:39
        +30

        Wet or dry, that truck couldn't have stopped in time. Not sure if the average SUV could stop in the dry.

        You pulled out quite literally in front of the truck. It's almost suicidal.

        … and you should be so grateful that it was a truck and not a motorcycle. If you didn't see a truck, you wouldn't have seen a motorcycle, and you'd likely be going to court for manslaughter.

        There would be a chorus of slapping sounds when your evidence video is played as many a palm would be coming in firm contact with the respective faces attached to the aforementioned palms.

        • Musing Outloud on 23/06/2019 - 12:13
          +1

          Even if the truck was traveling at a lower speed commensurate with the wet conditions on the freeway, it could not have stopped in time.

          The best you can do is get legal advice and work on reducing the $42k claim.

        • AnophthalmiaCervidae on 23/06/2019 - 18:14
          +1

          If you didn't see a truck, you wouldn't have seen a motorcycle

          Not a motorcyclist I know that would have blasted past those cars on the side of the road like that truck did without at least slowing down.

  • Ughhh on 21/06/2019 - 18:09
    +19

    Yeh you're at fault. Very dangerous to just change lanes (especially when you didn't even need to) and travel at such slow speed in free traffic, even if not on a freeway/highway.

      • Ughhh on 21/06/2019 - 18:15
        +12

        Pretty sure you're still at fault. You changed lanes when it wasn't safe, you're supposed to give way to cars on the lane you want to change to.
        In addition, at the speed you were going when changing lanes, even if the truck wasn't speeding, he would have to brake for you, which they shouldn't have to do.

      • CMH on 22/06/2019 - 10:21
        +4

        The big question is if he wasn't speeding and you pulled out in front of him like that, would he have been able to avoid the accident?

        The answer is a big fat no.

        At best, even if the answer was yes, he'd only be found partially at fault as you were the driver changing lanes. Remember, this is BEST CASE SCENARIO, you'd still be up for most of the cost.

        Given that there is absolutely no truck is stopping in that distance even at 80kmph, you can't even try to use that defence.

        I hope you saved $42000 from not having insurance.

        Might be a good idea to spend a few hundred on a good lawyer and see if they can come up with something. Might be a case of throwing good money after bad though.

      • gromit on 22/06/2019 - 18:43

        He might get a small fine. Does not change your negligence or that you are 100% at fault one iota.

      • Kranbone on 23/06/2019 - 12:02
        +3

        stop milking for different answers. you're at fault. Accept it, own up, say sorry, pay the bill and move on.

  • [Deactivated] on 21/06/2019 - 18:10
    +3

    Why did you change lane, OP? Not that it matters, you're at fault :(

      • ssquid on 21/06/2019 - 18:20
        +35

        Unlike the bloody big truck that you drove in front of, those cars were off the road, stationary and presented no danger.

        You're actually lucky you hit a truck, if it was a smaller vehicle who knows what would have happened to its occupants.

      • Ryanek on 21/06/2019 - 18:58
        +14

        So you merged into the fast overtaking lane? Good grief.

        • ssquid on 21/06/2019 - 19:14
          +19

          "Merged" would imply some awareness of other traffic.

          • lolz112 on 21/06/2019 - 23:29

            @ssquid: Honestly if I was op I would counting my lucky stars I didn't win some kind of darwinism award

          • Hirolol on 22/06/2019 - 12:53

            @ssquid: So true. More like blindly entered the right lane

      • taoz on 23/06/2019 - 08:39
        +1

        Please stay off the road in future. Your lucky you didn't cause a serious accident

      • ThithLord on 23/06/2019 - 16:05
        +4

        Hand your license in - dear god.

        • Kamsi on 23/06/2019 - 16:58
          +1

          Pry the lord Jesus the man is right!

  • kahn on 21/06/2019 - 18:12
    +43

    I want to know if I am at fault?

    LOL, we've struck gold again in the ozbargain forum. I can't believe that a) someone would even doubt that they are at fault in this case and b) actually ask others for their opinion. Nice effort at posting all the evidence, maybe put as much effort into driving next time.

    • digitalbargain on 24/06/2019 - 15:16

      It's again one of those ones that makes you wonder if it's even real.. but I've gotta say the level of detail must make it one of the best troll posts.. so I'll enjoy it anyway

  • Blue Cat on 21/06/2019 - 18:15
    +8

    Looks like you changed lanes while it was not safe to do so. Truck driver was driving safely and in a straight line.
    100% your fault.

  • toniyellow on 21/06/2019 - 18:16
    +2

    You look to be at fault.

    Legal Aid QLD has a page with some info, and scroll further down, suggestions on how to get free advice if you can't afford to pay for a lawyer.

    http://www.legalaid.qld.gov.au/Find-legal-information/Cars-a…

    • charligirl on 22/06/2019 - 10:11
      +1

      Although it sounds like it is NSW jurisdiction so not sure QLD Legal Aid will give advice. Usually you have to travel to a NSW office, or he could try LawAccess NSW to get over the phone free advice.

  • tsunamisurfer on 21/06/2019 - 18:20
    +23

    OP…You'll be fine. All those insurance premiums you saved by self insuring would cover most of the $42k.

      • SydStrand on 21/06/2019 - 20:45
        +129

        Best $40 you ever saved!

      • berger on 21/06/2019 - 22:29
        +1

        How do you just forget to renew!

        Big lesson in insurance here.

        • ankor on 25/06/2019 - 07:25

          There is no forgot.. All he'd have needed to do is call up and say hey, my premium increased, I am going elsewhere and they would have tried to do something to reduce the premium to keep him. He could have also used even the most obnoxious online brokerage to find another insurer to offer a lower rate, but he didn't do so.

          • truetypezk on 25/06/2019 - 22:52

            @ankor: Not necessarily. I called once because the renewal premium is like $100 more than an online re-quote. They just told me to buy the re-quote.

      • [Deactivated] on 22/06/2019 - 09:16
        +20

        Not bad luck.

        The decision to cancel your insurance was your executive decision. Your policy wasn't canceled by glitch in the system where you were unlucky enough to be affected.

        You chose to be uninsured. If you blame this on luck, you learn nothing. That's an even bigger tragedy than the accident itself.

        • Lord Fart Bucket on 22/06/2019 - 10:45
          +1

          And better yet… the statement you posted here means you can't claim ignorance either.

      • Homr on 22/06/2019 - 12:23
        +1

        LOL

      • Martini on 23/06/2019 - 17:04

        hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

      • trapper on 24/06/2019 - 12:50
        +1

        …and now its increasing by $42k lol

      • compugrid on 24/06/2019 - 14:37
        +1

        Mate, I just voted + for this message because you have made me laugh. It is hilarious indeed. As a true OZB I would shop around first before I have cancelled the old one. You have had not just driven it to the shopping next door, but you took it for a long distance highway trip with no insurance in bad weather condition, driving reckless/ selfish thinking of yourself only and you have got yourself in trouble losing your car and plus $42000 bill… wait for it: to save $40 dollars? Hillarious story big + for this last message and thanks for the lesson learned in capitals DO NOT DO THAT!. In Germany in the last lane drivers do 140-180+ km/h because they hope there are no insane drivers to pull to that lane at such slow speed. Fatal for everyone on the road including the cars behind. One day someone should make a TV episode based on your story. Thank you OZB community.

      • ol mate on 25/06/2019 - 00:15

        $40? Small increase compared to some I've had.

      • Dogfight on 26/06/2019 - 23:14

        saved $40 bucks now you got $40k to pay.

  • qwerty on 21/06/2019 - 18:20
    -1

    If you want to fight it go see a lawyer who deals with this stuff.

    They will probably come up with some sort of defense - truck driver going too quick near an accident in the rain and that you were indicating for a good 5+ seconds so he should have slowed down / anticipated what was going to happen to lessen the damage.

    But i would guess it will still be found to be 75% + your fault

    IMO best option would be to find a lawyer to write you a letter about truck drivers Contributory negligence and try to get the 42k lowered to something like 30k

    • [Deactivated] on 21/06/2019 - 19:45
      +8

      Uhh… If any lawyer can get away with any of those suggestions, please forward me his/her calling card.

      Seriously. I want that guy on my team for anything.

      • ausmansan on 21/06/2019 - 19:51
        -6

        post me your number.. will send him/her to you.. be careful with their skills though..

      • eldudebrothers on 22/06/2019 - 06:02

        That lawyer should win the nobel prize for physics

        • [Deactivated] on 22/06/2019 - 09:12
          +1

          The lawyer should win the nobel prize for medicine too.

          Give the lawyer a Pulitzer as well.

          The level of understanding of physics and the poetic ability to compel a lesser verdict has certainly cured the cancer that is my skepticism.

      • qwerty on 22/06/2019 - 10:14
        +2

        Insurance lawyers are doing this every day

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 22/06/2019 - 09:21
      +2

      But i would guess it will still be found to be 75% + your fault

      "Oh people can come up with statistics to prove anything Kent. 40% of all people know that!"

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join