Insurance Implications - Car accident where at fault driver fled the scene and unable to be identified

Lebola89 on 22/06/2019 - 20:25
Last edited 22/06/2019 - 23:43

Hi OzBargain,

I was recently involved in a car accident where the other driver was at fault but fled the scene of the accident, I have dashcam footage of the accident which shows they are responsible but it is not clear enough to read the rego.

I have filed a police report and after a period of time investigating the matter, the police were also unable to identify the other vehicle.

I have RACV comprehensive insurance but they are saying that I have to pay the excess because I do not have the other driver's details.

What are my options, specifically because I have footage showing the accident was not my fault?

Thanks

EDIT: Thanks everyone for your comments so far, here's a download link for those who want to view the footage:
https://dashcamownersaus.wetransfer.com/downloads/7bb834f20d…

Automotive

Comments

  • [Deactivated] on 22/06/2019 - 20:33
    +27

    If you cannot put the blame on a specific individual, you need to pay the excess.

    It's a small sting but that's why you get comprehensive. Use it.

    • picklewizard on 24/06/2019 - 16:24
      +2

      Comprehensive does not make any difference if you can't identify the other party…

      Edit: Nevermind I get the point you were making, it's the difference between paying the excess or paying the full cost :)

  • bloom on 22/06/2019 - 20:33

    Pretty common
    Some insurers will cover the excess in this situation but not many do

    • funnysht on 24/06/2019 - 18:44

      with nrma they did cover the excess when it someone else was driving my car, and no premium rise.

      Maybe ask them nicely to not increase the premium, you could also try posting on their facebook page

    • kaleidoscope on 26/06/2019 - 11:02

      pretty common in the sense many drivers at fault flee the scene or if can’t be identified have to pay the excess?

  • kahn on 22/06/2019 - 20:35
    +34

    You have exhausted your options with the police and insurance company, so here are the remaining options:

    1. Submit the dashcam footage to Dashcam Owners Australia
    2. Create an MS Paint diagram for ozbargainers
    3. Bikies
    • l005e on 22/06/2019 - 20:36
      +2

      3

    • bdl on 23/06/2019 - 00:10
      +1

      6

    • Kangal on 24/06/2019 - 14:47
      +3

      4- ????
      5- Profit!!

  • thatonethere on 22/06/2019 - 20:43
    +4

    Better paying the excess than the whole cost

  • xuqi on 22/06/2019 - 20:49

    As far as this issue, you have no choice but to pay the excess as the video footage you have is useless.

    Buy a better dash cam improving your chance of catching future culprit/s.

  • epkh on 22/06/2019 - 20:53
    +63

    Hahaha this guy has a dashcam and comprehensive insurance.

    Check mate ozbargain gods!!!

    • GangGang on 22/06/2019 - 20:57
      +13

      It's also his first post. What's going on?

      • AdosHouse on 22/06/2019 - 21:29
        +7

        I'm off to check if hell has frozen over, will report back.

        • kiitos on 23/06/2019 - 10:51
          +4

          next ozb post: "Help - Crashed Car on Icy Roads in Hell, No Insurance"

          • AdosHouse on 23/06/2019 - 11:31

            @kiitos: (profanity) it was cold down there. It has indeed frozen over.

            And the icy roads weren't a problem, hell cars have tyres with spike on them.

      • savage bargain on 22/06/2019 - 23:27
        +1

        🤯

  • djkelly69 on 22/06/2019 - 21:09
    +17

    Get police to involve CSI so they can do their zoom/exhance picture thing.

    • bdl on 23/06/2019 - 00:11
      +4

      They will also work out the IP address, and then the driver's home address from that IP.

      • lachhelix on 24/06/2019 - 17:56
        +5

        Only after they stay connected to the internet for 30 seconds and don't hang up!

    • [Deactivated] on 23/06/2019 - 00:22
      +4

      Enhance 224 to 176. Enhance, stop.

      • WhyAmICommenting on 24/06/2019 - 14:20
        +3

        Check the reflection in the window. Enhance…

    • funnysht on 24/06/2019 - 18:46
      +2

      i heard once they got an image of a face that was reflected off a puddle which was reflected off a mirror which itself was reflected off a window.

    • Vote for Pedro on 24/06/2019 - 22:15

      No no no, NCIS double keyboard hacking

  • ShannonN on 22/06/2019 - 21:26
    +5

    Put the dashcam footage up for us, someone may have better software than the police, more time etc to blow up and get a number?

  • Godric on 22/06/2019 - 21:27
    +4

    It's not complicated, if they can't be identified then you pay Excess.

  • Never Pay RRP on 22/06/2019 - 21:40
    +6

    Post the dashcam footage and see if the eagle eyes on here can make it out. I think it's happened before

    • DarwinBoy on 22/06/2019 - 23:16

      I was just wondering what happened in that case now.

      • Gandalf the Thrifty on 23/06/2019 - 08:27
        +1

        They received an insurance payout but no update on why police didn't do anything.

  • MountFranklin on 22/06/2019 - 22:18

    pay the excess but make sure it is a "not at fault claim" so it doesn't affect your future premiums as much

  • p1 ama on 22/06/2019 - 23:24

    What are my options, specifically because I have footage showing the accident was not my fault?

    Pay the excess or get it repaired out of pocket. Or maybe if it's not a big deal (minor dent or paintwork only) then just leave it.

    Whether you are at fault or not is not actually that relevant, it's who pays the costs. If the other guy can't be identified then who pays the costs? Would you also expect to not pay an excess if a tree fell on your car? That's not your fault either.

    • p1 ama on 22/06/2019 - 23:30
      +4

      Go to the police station with their rego.

      The issue is that the rego is unreadable.

      • Spanglish on 24/06/2019 - 15:19
        +9

        I think the real issue is he didn’t bother reading the whole post before replying…

        • Daabido on 26/06/2019 - 18:19
          -1

          Police will just laugh at knick007. "You've got to blow on the pie and read the whole post."

  • dcep on 23/06/2019 - 00:34
    +3

    didn't know it's that easy to get away

    nothing like movies with csi and shit

    irl nothing happens after hit and run

    plenty of unsolved serious crimes

  • Ryanek on 23/06/2019 - 01:01
    +3

    Enhance!

  • Yummy on 23/06/2019 - 02:26
    -8

    It's both sides fault, but as other guy did a runner so you might be the jackpot winner here. It's hard to see but either you hadn't attempted to brakes or you did only in the last 0.5 sec, as you have a full 2 secs chances to brake as it's in a very low speed motion. Defensive driving skill is thrown out of the window.

    And beside, crappy camera with year 2000 timestamp…

    Pay the excess & move on.

    • oscargamer on 23/06/2019 - 08:18
      +3

      NOT both sides fault.

      • Yummy on 23/06/2019 - 14:18

        This ain't GTA. :P

    • Never Pay RRP on 24/06/2019 - 10:08
      +2

      It's both sides fault

      The OP clearly has right of way in this scenario

      • Soothsayer on 24/06/2019 - 17:17
        +2

        There is no such thing as right of way. Even if there was, right of way doesn't give you the right to smash into another car.

        As pointed out by many people in this thread, OP should have made some evasive measures (braking, swerving) to avoid the other car. It is in the law that drivers must do what they can to avoid accidents (negligence), otherwise insurance scams where people crash into others because they have 'right of way' would be common.

        I don't agree that it is 50:50 but OP has some responsibility and I wouldn't be surprised if some insurers ruled that way.

        • Never Pay RRP on 24/06/2019 - 17:40
          +1

          There is no such thing as right of way

          Seriously? Are you under the impression that people can turn right into an intersection into oncoming traffic?
          From the RMS website https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/safety-rules/road-rules/int…

          When turning right at traffic lights:

          Wait until oncoming traffic clears, or there is a break in the oncoming traffic, and then turn safely.

          There is zero indication that people going straight ahead in a green light are supposed to give way to people turning into their path.
          If you don't know this basic rule then you shouldn't be driving.

          I'd agree that the OP should have braked (which they do appear to do somewhat), but they are under no obligation to swerve. Why should they endanger themselves (and other innocent parties) because someone else broke the road rules?

          insurance scams where people crash into others because they have 'right of way' would be common

          It wouldn't be an insurance scam, if you had an accident and crashed into someone else who had "right of way" you are literally at fault in the accident.

          • Euphemistic on 24/06/2019 - 18:23
            +6

            @Never Pay RRP:

            There is no such thing as right of way

            This is true. Within the laws there is no such thing as ‘right of way’. There are many instances where there is a responsibility to give way however. It is a subtle point of law, but an important one.

            • Never Pay RRP on 25/06/2019 - 01:42

              @Euphemistic: I was going by the dictionary definition of "right of way":
              the legal right of a pedestrian, vehicle, or ship to proceed with precedence over others in a particular situation or place

              My take on that is that it is the opposite of having to give way

              Since the white car was supposed to give way, the OP had right of way.

              I'm not doubting you, but curious, what is the legal distinction?

              • Euphemistic on 25/06/2019 - 07:45
                +3

                @Never Pay RRP:

                Since the white car was supposed to give way, the OP had right of way.

                No. The white car had to give way, the OP still didn’t have ‘right of way’ to force the other car to give way, they also have a responsibility not to hit the white car.

                I'm not doubting you, but curious, what is the legal distinction?

                The legal distinction is that there so only responsibility to give way, no right of way in law. It is a subtle difference, but it means no one can just barrel along the road and smash everyone out of the way because they have right of responsibility to give way determines who is at fault in an incident. Saying right of way is just the opposite way of saying give way, but it is not within the law.

                Not saying no does not mean saying yes. Subtle difference, but important in determining responsibility.

          • Soothsayer on 24/06/2019 - 19:32
            +4

            @Never Pay RRP: Never said anything about turning into traffic. Search the link you gave yourself for any mention of "right of way". The law states give way and not right of way. It's important because people wrongly assume it's their "right" to continue or do something in a scenario which could prevent a crash if they didn't.

            It wouldn't be an insurance scam, if you had an accident and crashed into someone else who had "right of way" you are literally at fault in the accident.

            Of course you would be. But if the person who had 'right of way' purposely did nothing to avoid an accident they would also be at fault.

            • Never Pay RRP on 25/06/2019 - 01:54

              @Soothsayer: In a 2 party scenario, if one person is obliged by law to give way, does the other person not have the right of way?

              Never said anything about turning into traffic

              The entire thread and video is about someone turning right into oncoming traffic

              • Euphemistic on 26/06/2019 - 19:51

                @Never Pay RRP:

                In a 2 party scenario, if one person is obliged by law to give way, does the other person not have the right of way?

                In a manner of speaking yes, but legally the other person does not have right of way, they just don’t have to give way to the one person.

                The whole right of way thing is not in the law because at some point everyone has a responsibility to not crash into others.

  • salekhard on 23/06/2019 - 02:31
    +4

    IGA over the road might have CCTV?

  • dogboy on 23/06/2019 - 05:12
    +8

    Should have chased the pr!ck. I got sideswiped by a truck a few years back and he didn't realise he had hit me. Had to chase him for 15 minutes until he stopped at some lights.

    • beyondtool on 24/06/2019 - 23:34
      +3

      Yep me to. I was young and dumb and he gave me a sob story and so I let him arrange to have my car fixed.. big mistake. Two resprays later.. Never let someone arrange to fix your car.. always have an apprivedcrepairer through your insurance. No matter how painful the process.. easier than fixing bodgy repair job.

  • Euphemistic on 23/06/2019 - 06:40
    +18

    Looked to me like you had enough time to at least brake, but didn’t.

    • AdosHouse on 23/06/2019 - 11:37
      +5

      Holy crap OP was not paying attention to the road, plenty of time to stop.

      Not saying OP is at fault, they aren't, other car is clearly at fault.

      And the other car just casually drove off? Didn't go after them?

      I saw a chase once, saw a car pull out and hit this nice VZ Monaro and do a runner, the Monaro lit his tyres up chasing after the other car. Next set of lights up the road I saw both cars stopped with the Monaro driving standing over the other driver who had his face firmly planted in the dirt. Justice.

      • WhyAmICommenting on 26/06/2019 - 07:01
        +1

        Justice.

        Assault.

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 26/06/2019 - 08:56
          +1

          Assault

          Citizen's arrest.

        • AdosHouse on 26/06/2019 - 15:41
          +1

          While I don't 100% agree with the Monaro drivers actions, especially trying to chase them down on a public road, the other driver deserved this. He thought he could get away with a hit and run, and got taught a lesson in not being a scummy maggot.

      • Yummy on 26/06/2019 - 07:34
        +2

        Plot twist: OP was drunk. Hard.

  • Davo1111 on 23/06/2019 - 09:09

    What are my options,

    pay the excess because I do not have the other driver's details.

    or sell the car.

  • FoxJump on 23/06/2019 - 09:59
    -2

    Nice Potato camera.
    Which dashcam was that? So that I do not buy potato cam dashcam :(

    That's what annoys me about dashcams. most of the time I can't read the number plate because the quality is potato.

    • Euphemistic on 23/06/2019 - 14:43
      +1

      Very few cameras will work well in that situation. It is worst case for reason the rego plate of the oncoming car. They’re headlights are shining into the camera, then when they shine away the drivers headlights are shining into the reflective rego plate which reflects back to the camera. The exposure will not have time to react. It is also recording through angled glass.

      • FoxJump on 23/06/2019 - 19:41

        Well, your comment makes it sounds like the $500 dash cams wouldn't be better off.
        Yay. I'm glad I have low-middle cheapie then.

  • Nugs on 23/06/2019 - 10:37
    +3

    looks like the Getz driver might have run over one of the pedestrians had you not collided.
    "silver lining"
    .

    • katykat on 24/06/2019 - 17:01
      +3

      I was just thinking that! Even with the oncoming traffic there were still pedestrians on the crossing obstructing the turn. What a shit driver!

    • takezo on 26/06/2019 - 14:44
      +1

      My thinking is that the oncoming car slowed down as they didn't see the pedestrians until they were in the intersection.

      • WhyAmICommenting on 26/06/2019 - 15:48
        +1

        Unlike the OP… (as previously mentioned)

  • bloom on 23/06/2019 - 12:12
    +15

    I've seen this on CSI before..
    You should be able to pick up the cars rego from the reflection on a some dudes sunglasses across the road

    Solved.

    • Yummy on 23/06/2019 - 14:20

      I like you.

    • TheOneWhoKnocks on 24/06/2019 - 06:01
      +1

      They wear sunglasses at night in CSI?

      • Yummy on 24/06/2019 - 06:53

        Go back & watch your teletubbies. :p

      • Nugs on 25/06/2019 - 08:56
        +1

        Horatio ALWAYS wear sunnies
        .

  • Never Pay RRP on 23/06/2019 - 12:42
    +1

    Even though the dashcam was not able to catch the number plate, didn't you look over to your left after the accident to catch the number plate details of the other car?
    You can still use this, along with the dashcam footage to file a police report

    • Euphemistic on 23/06/2019 - 14:44
      +6

      Driver too busy looking up from his phone trying to work out what just happened.

      • zambuck on 24/06/2019 - 10:26
        +2

        I tend to think that dash cams are a two-edged sword. When we're driving there are many things competing for our attention, and when we view dashcam footage explicitly looking for an oncoming accident our entire focus is on the vehicle we know is about to crash. It's easy to say from the hindsight-drivers-seat how avoidable an accident was, and unfortunately it'd be trivial for an unfriendly cop to charge the OP with some sort of "not driving to conditions" type offence as it's almost by definition that if you crashed then you didn't/couldn't avoid a crash.

        I doubt there's such a thing as a 100%/0% blame split in a two car accident, but obviously the white car was much more at fault than the OP. Maybe the OzB crowd can keep an eye out for left panel damage on that model of car and report back to OP.

    • funnysht on 24/06/2019 - 18:47
      +1

      driver too busy posting on ozbargain this event to do so. please be considerate.

  • HeWhoKnows on 23/06/2019 - 13:00
    +2

    TOUGH LUCK Im afraid.

    Nobody here can help you.

    Unless you have any eye witnesses that recorded the details

  • Ughhh on 23/06/2019 - 18:21
    +9

    Your reaction time is horrible OP.

    • Whisper Quiet on 24/06/2019 - 07:26

      Hahaha. It didn't even seem that he braked at all. Not even a swerve at the last moment to avoid the car. Looked like around 30km/h speed too. Probably on the phone or not looking at the road. The car that caused the accident, they were gona hit the pedestrians that were crossing if OP wasn't there. So maybe he can be pleased that he possibly save some lives by the accident? :)

      • Never Pay RRP on 24/06/2019 - 10:13
        +6

        I wouldn't swerve unless I was 100% sure of no risk to others/myself. Heard too many horror stories about people swerving to avoid another drivers mistake, and then having a separate accident due to swerving for which they are now at fault, and the original driver just leaves (since they are not impacted)

  • Peanut money on 24/06/2019 - 00:21
    +2

    Surprised the cops didn’t defect your car for not having proper brakes

    • smartazz104 on 26/06/2019 - 07:37

      Too busy hiding in the bushes fining people for going 3 over.

  • Whisper Quiet on 24/06/2019 - 07:44

    https://i.imgur.com/tBw21JY_d
    Number plate view

    No point anyway police rarely do anything and even if they do, no guarantee that the person would pay the damage anyway. Been in many situations for hit and run and other situations where I've had number plates to give to the cops plus camera footage of damage to my car with faces and still nothing was done about it.

    • Never Pay RRP on 24/06/2019 - 10:19
      +1

      I'm pretty sure the police report would help the insurance claim.
      However I agree with you the police would be completely useless. My mum went to the police as a victim of a hit and run, and they just gave her the other person's name and address and told her to sort it out herself! Couldn't believe how lazy they were!
      For all the posturing about how their speeding and drink driving enforcement is to reduce accidents, and then they don't actually care when a collision occurs.

      • Yummy on 24/06/2019 - 10:50
        +1

        Woot!

        I had a runner on me and gave the cop the dashcam clip, asked for the other driver details and they flat out refuses, citing privacy act blah blah.

        • Never Pay RRP on 24/06/2019 - 12:13
          +1

          I think I would have preferred that they didn't give her the details. She actually went to their address to confront them. I still have a bruise on my forehead from when I facepalmed (not literally).

          Luckily nothing happened (the other party just denied responsibility), but it could have easily ended in violence. I still think it was obscenely negligent of the police to handle it that way.

          Check these forums and whirlpool, there are numerous instances of police being completely useless. They're just too busy setting up speed traps to actually enforce any other laws.

    • gromit on 24/06/2019 - 17:34

      plenty of point. the point is to get a police report number and to show insurance you have identified the at fault party, at that point it is up to the insurance to fight them not you and you should not have to pay any excess.

  • alexwar on 24/06/2019 - 10:59
    +3

    The driver (white Hyundai Getz) here is in more trouble as for not stopping after an accident. But the Police can look at traffic cams around the area (as per time stamp) and check any White Getz ..with a left side damage. I would polite go back to the Police Station and ask, if that fails. go to your local state MP.

    • Never Pay RRP on 24/06/2019 - 12:14
      +1

      if that fails. go to your local state MP

      I second this. The police will almost certainly do nothing, so I would recommend to escalate further when the inevitable inaction occurs.

  • lysp on 24/06/2019 - 14:19
    +12

    Word of advice - if situation comes up like this again, (if possible) say the number plate out loud. If the camera doesn't pick up the rego you'll at least have it on audio.

  • Homr on 24/06/2019 - 14:38
    +9

    hrmmm, a normal person with normal reaction/reflexes would've stopped at 1:58:25

  • Aerith-Waifu on 24/06/2019 - 14:38

    How is that in this day of age the police can not identify a vehicle?

    Follow the pass of the route and this car should be on camera somewhere

    • lockmc on 26/06/2019 - 14:49

      But that requires the police actually doing something.

  • Mrgreenz on 24/06/2019 - 15:21
    +4

    You deserve to pay exess IMO

  • vengeance88 on 24/06/2019 - 15:35
    +1

    If you have a lot of time on your hands, camp out at that intersection, same day of week, roughly same time of day. Hope they drive the same path home from work and you'll see their dented car go past.

    I was involved in a hit and run when i was under 25. No one could take the blame so i forked out close to $1k in excess. Was bitter for a year or 2.

    • Yummy on 24/06/2019 - 15:38
      +3

      Was bitter for a year or 2

      Username is approved!

  • zooter on 24/06/2019 - 15:44
    +1

    Wow OP, did you even try to brake? What did you expect - that you could just go through the other car?

    • RSmith on 24/06/2019 - 16:35

      Maybe OP was busy checking ozbargain on the phone.

  • Capo93 on 24/06/2019 - 15:47

    Depending on how long ago the incident was, go back to the scene of the accident and look around for council CCTV or shop CCTV cameras along the street he made the get away on. If its council cameras you can request footage through council or apply under freedom of information act, if its a shop they may be happy enough to check for you. You may get a clearer shot of the number plate.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join