Cost of Replacing Light Pole (DUI Collision)

Ljamess84 on 08/07/2019 - 20:25
Last edited 09/07/2019 - 12:35 by 1 other user

Hi all. I crashed my car into an Energex light pole and blew mid range. Car got written off, and I didn't claim it against my comprehensive insurance since they wouldn't cover it anyway. I know I messed up.

Received a letter last week from Energex to place the blame. I understand I will have to pay for the light pole since it got smashed up under my control, and neither my comp or QLD compulsary CTP will cover it. (Light pole only, not a stobie or power pole. Picture for reference

Does anyone know a ball park figure for the replacement of these poles? I have seen rough numbers online between $5k to $52k, which is a huge variance.

Automotive

Comments

    • syousef on 10/07/2019 - 18:05
      +11

      not many can say they have never done it…

      Who the hell do you hang out with!??

      You and your mates are literally risking lives. Call it my high horse or whatever else you want but the people I am friends with NEVER drink and drive and would be embarassed and shamed beyond belief if their friends caught them out, never mind the cops.

    • tcme on 11/07/2019 - 06:58

      Really? I mean, NRMA hardly change their quote when you declare a licence suspension and even then they don't ask specifically why it was suspended.

      • ssquid on 11/07/2019 - 07:36
        +1

        Often a drink-driving suspension will only increase the excess.

  • Some Guy on 09/07/2019 - 01:08
    +1

    Wait till you get the bill then declare bankruptcy.

  • Eeples on 09/07/2019 - 02:04
    +3

    I’d rather see the after picture than the before picture.

    Ask for itemised account and payment plan.

  • wannagrababargain on 09/07/2019 - 09:33

    Sorry "light pole" search not coming up with any results on Price Hipster.:( Can't help you.

  • Baysew on 09/07/2019 - 14:02
    +6

    You are probably not the first person to knock over a pole. Give Energex a call, maybe they can give you an estimate. Better than stewing over it.

  • Whisper Quiet on 09/07/2019 - 14:18
    -4

    I've had an accident like that (sober in pouring rain when I was really young) insurance covered the light pole. You said you didn't bother claiming because you thought they wouldn't do it anyway. Have you looked at the policy to see what it covers and different legal aspects? Even lawyers trying to fight it in court would end up being so much cheaper than paying up to $25,000 for the pole. Sounds like there might be more to the story as you've gone to straight to paying for the light pole instead of any other option…

    • ssquid on 09/07/2019 - 14:26
      +3

      Practically every car insurance policy says it will not cover any accident where the driver is impaired by alcohol (even if they're under the legal limit).

      • Whisper Quiet on 10/07/2019 - 02:42
        -4

        Practically isn't all. Also you can get lawyers to defend anything in court with certain loopholes in contracts. Go to the USA they'll go to court for sneezing on someone. Definitely worth a try to at least see a lawyer for a consult rather than paying tens of thousands of dollars without going through different options.

        • johnno07 on 10/07/2019 - 08:30
          -2

          And pay thousands of dollar to fight an unwinnable case?
          Yeah nah - try again.

      • syousef on 10/07/2019 - 18:10

        The legal limit is designed exactly for determining under the law if you're impaired by alcohol.

        https://www.bupa.com.au/staticfiles/BupaP3/pdfs/motor-insura…

        General exclusions
        " where you, a nominated driver, or an authorised driver
        – had a blood alcohol level higher than the level allowed by law
        – were under the influence of alcohol or drugs"

        Under the influence as in "DUI".

        By the way it doesn't appear to be that way in all countries.
        In the USA:
        https://www.insure.com/car-insurance/insurance-company-pays-…
        "However, if you drive drunk and cause a car accident, your car insurance policy will pay for damages you cause"

        • spaceflight on 10/07/2019 - 21:42

          Under the influence as in "DUI".

          That's not what the document says.

          It says "under the influence of alcohol or drugs"

          If you have 1 glass of wine you are technically under the influence, just like if you have a positive drug test. You might not be impaired but you are under the influence.

          The first point relates to what the law allows and the second point appears to invalidate this.

          • Harold Halfprice on 10/07/2019 - 23:16

            @spaceflight:

            If you have 1 glass of wine you are technically under the influence, just like if you have a positive drug test. You might not be impaired but you are under the influence.

            I believe you can still be charged for driving under the influence of alcohol, even if under the legal BAC limit - however, I'm pretty sure you actually need to display signs of intoxication.

            In other words you can't just be charged for driving under the influence simply because you have some alcohol in your system.

            • spaceflight on 10/07/2019 - 23:38

              @Harold Halfprice: You might be right, but I wasn't talking any being charged by the police.

              The Bupa policy excludes accidents where you are under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

              Any amount of alcohol means you are under the influence so may not have insurance as the PDS does not say you need to be charged by police for being under the influence, you just need to be under the influence.

              • Harold Halfprice on 11/07/2019 - 00:10

                @spaceflight: Driving under the influence of alcohol is a legislated offense though. I mean maybe you are right, but how can the insurance company make that call, if you have not been charged? What evidence do they have?

                The PDS doesn't say you're not covered if you have any amount of alcohol in your system. It states being under the influence which is defined in law

                https://lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch12s07s03s05.php

                http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/rsa198612…

                My PDS (Shannons) states the same thing about being under the influence, but also adds "and the alcohol or drugs contributed to the accident"

                • spaceflight on 11/07/2019 - 10:15

                  @Harold Halfprice:

                  Driving under the influence of alcohol is a legislated offense though.

                  It is however the PDS does not make any reference to law (as it does for blood alcohol content). It simply says "under the influence" which is common English.

                  but how can the insurance company make that call, if you have not been charged? What evidence do they have?

                  All they need to do is ask "had you consumed alcohol before the accident"

                  It states being under the influence which is defined in law

                  But the PDS does not reference any law.

                  I mean maybe you are right

                  I don't think I am because I do not think that what I am saying is the intent of the exclusion.

                  However the exclusion is written so broadly that my interpretation (the common language interpretation) could be applied by an insurance company.

              • syousef on 11/07/2019 - 13:42

                @spaceflight: They have to show you are under the influence. Under the influence is not one drink. If you were charged or blew over the limit that would be evidence. I have never heard of anyone's claim being denied because they blew under the limit for their license, were in control, and were not being reckless. Stop spreading misinformation and scare mongering.

          • brad1-8tsi on 11/07/2019 - 08:54

            @spaceflight:

            It says "under the influence of alcohol or drugs"
            If you have 1 glass of wine you are technically under the influence, just like if you have a positive drug test. You might not be impaired but you are under the influence.
            The first point relates to what the law allows and the second point appears to invalidate this

            No, Under the Influence relates to DUI where they know you were pissed but can't get a reading. Been there, done that, got acquitted.

            • spaceflight on 11/07/2019 - 10:17

              @brad1-8tsi: No, "under the influence" is defined in several laws (each state etc) however the PDS does not make reference to any law.

              It very broadly says "under the influence". There is no clarification or definition to that point.

              • Harold Halfprice on 11/07/2019 - 13:24

                @spaceflight: Right, so if they're going to use a term that is legally defined - and then not attempt to define it themselves, then clearly the only definition is the legal definition or it is up for contention.

                By their definition, would a glass of wine 1 hour before mean you are under the influence? How about 2 hours before? 4 hours? 2 days?

                They don't state anywhere that you can't have any alcohol in your system.

                If there is no evidence that you were intoxicated or impaired, or that the alcohol contributed to the accident then they can't just deny the claim. They have to prove you were under the influence of alcohol, which again, is legally defined. If the law says you weren't under the influence, then the insurance company can't make that accusation.

                • spaceflight on 11/07/2019 - 18:57
                  -1

                  @Harold Halfprice:

                  Right, so if they're going to use a term that is legally defined

                  Then they would reference the applicable law for the definition that they want to apply or use a defined term in the PDS.

                  You can't just say something is defined somewhere without saying where.

                  then clearly the only definition is the legal definition or it is up for contention.

                  You're wrong there.
                  If something is not defined in a contract then it is given the common meaning.

                  Just because something is defined in law does not mean it is defined in every contract ever written.

                  I am sure there is a definition in some law somewhere that says a mug is 462.97ml for some very specific measure. That does not mean that all mugs must be this size when referenced.

                  By their definition, would a glass of wine 1 hour before mean you are under the influence?

                  If you have any substance in your system (alcohol, caffeine, heroin etc) then you are under the influence.

                  The next question is are you impaired by that substance? (But the PDS does not state 'impared' in that exclusion)

                  They don't state anywhere that you can't have any alcohol in your system.

                  Yes they do. The exclusion says exactly that because if you have alcohol in your system then you are "under the influence".

                  They have to prove you were under the influence of alcohol,

                  Which they can do by asking you "had you been drinking prior to the accident"

                  which again, is legally defined

                  And again it doesn't matter because they haven't referenced what law or any law.
                  If something is not defined within the document then the common definition is given.

              • syousef on 11/07/2019 - 15:58

                @spaceflight: Please point me to one case of a person who's insurance claim was denied on the basis that they had a BAL that was legal but not zero.

                • spaceflight on 11/07/2019 - 18:45
                  -1

                  @syousef: Please point me to an online database if all the insurance companies internal decisions.

                  But I have not said it had happened. I have said it could happen.

                  • syousef on 12/07/2019 - 08:48
                    -1

                    @spaceflight: And the Earth could be struck by an asteroid in 5 minute, but I'm not going to live my life on that basis.

                    Plenty of designated drivers have 1 drink at the start of the night. If insurance companies started behaving the way you insist they could there would be some pretty big changes to how people behave.

                    I don't drink so for my own decision making it doesn't matter. But I'm not going to run around telling my friends and family not to drink because the sky is falling.

        • blackfrancis75 on 12/07/2019 - 10:57
          +1

          surely if "less than the legal limit" invalidated your insurance then no one would be able to drive their cars after any drinks!?

          • syousef on 12/07/2019 - 11:49

            @blackfrancis75: You need to correct "no one" to "no one sensible". This thread clearly demonstrates there are people who consider drink driving to be normal and getting caught to just be bad luck. So much for "common" sense.

            • gimme on 12/07/2019 - 12:43

              @syousef: Not entirely true. I didn't comment about drink driving etc because that wasn't the question. OP just wants to know how much it will cost. He wasn't even trying to get out of it. Plain and simple. Unfortunately that's not how it works on the internet, people feel like they need to share their wisdom or preach or get on their high horses blah blah blah.

              '>>>>>>>how much is a can of coke??
              <<<<<<(internet)… don't you know coke is bad for you!! sugar kills!! You are a strain on the health system!!

        • Whisper Quiet on 13/07/2019 - 13:43

          Exactly my point. If you can get away with it in the USA. Surely that means that it sets a precedent, so you can fight in court about it. Whether you win or not is another matter but definitely worth a try instead of forking out an insane amount of money straight away. At least speak to a few lawyers to see what the case would be. BTW we still don't know what OP was exactly. All he says it that he blew mid range?! Whatever that means

          • gimme on 14/07/2019 - 13:06

            @Whisper Quiet: Midrange means over the limit by approx 0.02-0.03. Bottom line over the legal limit for insurance purposes.

      • brad1-8tsi on 11/07/2019 - 08:52
        +1

        If you are under the legal limit then legally you aren't impaired by alcohol.

        OP was over, so moot point.

        • Harold Halfprice on 11/07/2019 - 13:26

          You can still be under and be charged for driving under the influence if you come across as impaired or intoxicated and deemed unable to control the vehicle.

          E.g if you smell of alcohol, slur your words, are unsteady etc

          • syousef on 11/07/2019 - 13:46

            @Harold Halfprice: And how often have you heard of that happening exactly? If it were common, the police wouldn't bother with breathalyzers or blood tests.

          • brad1-8tsi on 11/07/2019 - 14:54

            @Harold Halfprice:

            E.g if you smell of alcohol, slur your words, are unsteady etc

            I had all that and blood shot eyes and the magistrate threw it out of court and gave the police prosecutor and the police giving evidence a bollocking.

            smell of alcohol
            Your breath smells the same if you've had one drink or 6

            slur your words
            There are many conditions that will cause this including shock

            unsteady
            There are many conditions that will cause this including shock

            bloodshot eyes
            There are many conditions that will cause this - allergies, conjunctivitis. I've had bloodshot eyes my whole life as both tear ducts clog up regularly.

            NB: I'm not condoning drink driving, just stating my experience.

            • Harold Halfprice on 11/07/2019 - 15:04

              @brad1-8tsi: You missed the bit where I said "deemed unable to control the vehicle".

              Anyway, I'm not saying it can't be contested in court - but being under the legal limit does not automatically exempt you from a drink driving charge. That much is black and white. Whether the charge will hold in court is a different matter.

              • brad1-8tsi on 11/07/2019 - 15:28
                -1

                @Harold Halfprice: I reckon hitting 2 cars on the LHS of the street and a car and light pole on the RHS is possibly deemed as "out of control".

                I probably went OK in court because I was a cleanskin, contrite, wore a suit and had a haircut… and barrister (and the prosecution were hopeless). My discussion with the senior sergeant afterwards we both agreed they would have been better off trying for a lesser charge with more chance of sticking.

                I'd say they would use it with effect on offenders with a history of drink driving.

  • [Deactivated] on 09/07/2019 - 14:20
    +1

    Mate, this one event does not define you as a person.
    It’s not like we wake up one morning and think ‘Hey, I think I will take out a light pole tonight after a few drinks’ (or 800m of railway fencing and totaling my car as was my case).
    As the saying goes ‘Stuff happens’ for a whole variety of reasons coming together and it’s all over and done with before we know its even started and we wish for a time machine to wind back the clock for a second take.
    Google famous people who have been done for DUI and it’s a veritable ‘who’s who’ including Keanu Reeves who would have to be one of the most respected people on the planet.

    • wozz on 10/07/2019 - 07:03
      +2

      Wow but how did you manage 800m? That is massive, would've thought you'd be stopped after about 100m :o

      • [Deactivated] on 10/07/2019 - 14:35
        +2

        It was the cyclone fencing along side the railway line which I hit side on after going through a T-Junction so all being connected it came down like domino's :-(

    • cktftw on 10/07/2019 - 09:46
      +8

      What if someone innocent got killed instead of a light pole?
      Loved ones will live with it for the rest of their lives while you're here saying stuff happens

      • brad1-8tsi on 11/07/2019 - 09:07
        +4

        What if someone innocent got killed instead of a light pole?
        Loved ones will live with it for the rest of their lives while you're here saying stuff happens

        But nobody got killed. I'm sure the OP will use this as an ongoing lesson but he doesn't have to beat himself up over it.

        If we lived our lives constantly asking "what if" then we'd get nothing done. (Paralysis by analysis).

        When I was in my 20s and a motor mechanic I used to drink and drive a lot. The company I worked for would buy a carton of beers for the workshop to drink while we did overtime (it was the '80s, everyone else was doing coke or smack). I did overtime most nights (10-12 hour days were normal). I drove home one night after 3 beers in an hour, had a blow out while doing 80kph around a bend in a 60kmh residential street, hit 3 parked cars and a telegraph pole and wrote off my favourite car. I was charged with DUI and neg driving and was looking at the costs on 3 cars and losing my licence and job. I was acquitted on both charges because the police were hopeless. I took stock of where my life was going and changed quite a few bad habits. No problems since.
        There were a million What-Ifs on that occasion. I could let it haunt me and feel guilty the rest of my life or move on, make appropriate changes and live my life as best as I can. I chose the latter.

        • cktftw on 11/07/2019 - 10:40
          +2

          I am glad you managed to turn your life around. I hope OP gets a hefty lesson and do so himself as well.
          Many victims don't even know what struck them and lost their lives.

          So stop normalising DUI and take it seriously as it is.

        • syousef on 12/07/2019 - 12:06

          I'm not saying you should beat yourself up or suffer "paralysis by analysis". But OP definitely needs to do some introspection. You do realize that for both of you it's pure luck that your life story doesn't involve time in gaol right? tm87 said it very well - "stop normalising DUI".

          • brad1-8tsi on 12/07/2019 - 13:58
            +2

            @syousef: It's hard not to normalise something that was normal for the time.

            There was a culture of drinking on a daily basis at all the places I worked including Toyota and Qantas Engineering. In a workshop of 12 mechanics, 9 of us went to the pub every lunchtime and drank 3-4 schooners and then went back and worked on cars and did road tests. Then a few of us would stay back doing overtime and the boss would put on beers because nobody wanted to do overtime.

            If you were a corporate type you went out for long boozy lunches on the company credit card.

            Times have changed. Drinking during work hours among the trades has stopped although the suits seem to hit the turps without issue. Girly posters have come off the walls (thank goodness) and a million other improvements.

            I'm really sorry if my attitude offends you but obviously you've never done anything wrong in your life… ever.

            • syousef on 12/07/2019 - 16:58
              -1

              @brad1-8tsi:

              I'm really sorry if my attitude offends you but obviously you've never done anything wrong in your life… ever.

              If that's the message you took, I suspect the only reason you're not continuing to drink and drive is that you can't get away with it. It's not about doing nothing wrong, it's about taking responsibility for your actions. Rambling about "paralysis by analysis" when someone tells you they've been in an accident due to drink driving is incredibly irresponsible. OP doesn't need to "beat himself up" but sure needs to take a good hard look at himself. Brushing it off as you have, when you claim to be reformed really makes everything you say suspect.

              Btw, you make it sound like you think I was born about 5 minutes ago. I'm aware that some workplaces were "boozy" but that doesn't mean it was okay or normal. You make it sound like every workplace flouted the laws. Just not true.

              • brad1-8tsi on 14/07/2019 - 17:22

                @syousef: You lived & worked in Sydney in the 80s & 90s did you?

                And you assume a lot about my attitude and actions…

                • syousef on 14/07/2019 - 18:54
                  -1

                  @brad1-8tsi: Lived here all my life. Worked here in the 90s. Been fully employed or studying in Sydney ever since. My first job was in a pizza joint where a couple of staff behaved badly. I left after just 2 weeks. I haven't seen blatant drunk driving in any of the workplaces I've been at - not even that pizza joint.

                  You were quite quick to assume I didn't work in Sydney, but you don't seem to be able to take on board the fact that not every workplace had an alcohol problem attached in the 80s and 90s. Sure some did. You clearly worked in at least one of them. But that didn't make it normal or okay.

    • SydStrand on 10/07/2019 - 18:12
      +3

      You're only saying 'it does not define you as a person' because it happened to be a pole. If it happened to be a pedestrian, they would have been killed since OP was apparently carrying enough speed to write off the car. Props to the OP for putting a hand up and accepting responsibility (unlike that last guy who swiped a truck), but a DUI shouldn't be shrugged at with 'stuff happens.' It was only blind luck that someone else's family isn't living with his poor decision-making.

      DUI is no more forgivable if a celebrity is caught; and for a Keanu Reeves, there's a Matthew Broderick.

  • brad1-8tsi on 09/07/2019 - 15:08
    +6

    Oh well, lesson learned (Been there, done that).

    We do a few timber power poles at work. The costs were anywhere from $2k (bargain and we think they lost money) to $15k. Most of our poles are on our own land and we can close off roads without needing contract traffic management.

    try and be totally honest with them and explain the costs will probably bankrupt you. They probably have room to negotiate if you aren't a dick about it.

  • lost in transit on 09/07/2019 - 15:16

    What is it with power poles and vehicles… You could have one installed in the Outback and I bet every bastard that lost control would hit the blamin thing.. Do they install big bloody magnets inside powered by the electricity they carry…

    Oh yeah I've hit a concrete one…I came offf second best, vehicle written off.. Wasnt drinking tho

    • brad1-8tsi on 11/07/2019 - 09:10
      +2

      It's called target fixation. You see a hazard and think "I better not hit that" but because you are looking at it you steer towards it.

      Always look where you want to go, not where you don't want to go.

      • lost in transit on 12/07/2019 - 14:46
        +1

        In my case the vehicle was spinning 360 in the wet , didn't even see the pole till the vehicle hit it and stopped…

  • pistachio on 10/07/2019 - 00:23

    I don't understand why your 'comprehensive' insurance doesn't cover that?

    • pistachio on 10/07/2019 - 00:24
      +6

      Me bad. Didn't read comments before me

  • idonotknowwhy on 10/07/2019 - 00:39
    +1

    That'll buff right out

  • Logical on 10/07/2019 - 01:48
    -2

    The pole was installed in a dangerous position to begin with and contributed to the accident. I would advise Energex of your intention to commence legal proceedings against them and as such propose a settlement to share the cost 50% / 50%.

    • Yawhae on 10/07/2019 - 08:41

      Why don't they just use an army of drones to light the streets. No more pesky poles.

    • Piranha2004 on 10/07/2019 - 08:52
      -3

      Lol what. Please dont give out bad advice (sarcastic or otherwise).

      • gimme on 10/07/2019 - 10:07

        No worse than the majority of 'advice' on Ozb. At least this one acknowledges it's sarcasm.

        • Piranha2004 on 10/07/2019 - 10:23
          -1

          This one says initiate legal proceedings which is just plain stupid in this situation.

          • Logical on 10/07/2019 - 10:32

            @Piranha2004: It says intention and not initiate. This is the basics to initiate negotiation for the benefit of the OP. If you don't try you don't get.

      • Logical on 10/07/2019 - 10:34
        -1

        Piranah, Looks like you know nothing about negotiating!

  • Domingo on 10/07/2019 - 07:25
    +3

    My brother took out a power pole in an accident once about 10 years ago - was around $8-9k to replace a wooden power pole, not just a light pole. This was on a non busy street which would have required only basic traffic management during the replacement of the pole.

    From a quick scan on google street view, it has 2 sets of 3 power wires plus HFC on it. Assuming that has only gone up with CPI which is probably unlikely, you'd be looking at somewhere in the $12-16k range for a similar pole. Given yours is just a light pole, I'd expect it to come in less than that, but that's my slightly educated guesstimate.

  • [Deactivated] on 10/07/2019 - 07:51
    +3

    keep picturing you're that guy on RBT "what collision"

    • Pittyh on 10/07/2019 - 09:06
      +6

      Hah, is that the same one as "I'm just waiting for a mate"? when his car was half up the gutter

      • [Deactivated] on 10/07/2019 - 13:23
        +7

        "who's your mate?"
        "James"

        happens to be OPs name

    • rave75 on 10/07/2019 - 11:39

      he killed the pole.

    • DingoBilly on 10/07/2019 - 15:31

      There's reasonable punishment, and OP seems to completely understand they were in the wrong and will have to pay a hefty fee.

      Then there's punishment which can ruin you for many years, and ironically end up causing more of the same behaviour (if you get depressed, start drinking, may end up in same situation etc.). Just flat-out ruining people's lives to punish them isn't the best answer.

      • cktftw on 10/07/2019 - 15:37

        Tell that to relatives with a loved one killed/disabled by DUI

        • Roman Sandstorm on 11/07/2019 - 12:14

          @tm87

          Sincerely hope it is closer to 52K. No excuses. You could be in jail for killing someone.

          You are just vindictive and nasty.

          Tell that to relatives with a loved one killed/disabled by DUI

          Relatives of a light pole???

          @Jason Genova

          if he had hit and killed your kid would you be welcoming him with open arms? OP I hope you get the highest possible bill and learn from this

          It is oh-so-easy for you morally superior types to sit up in your ivory tower and cast judgement.

          No-one was injured. Read this again: No-one was injured.

          Yes, the OP was a very bad boy. And yes, he will pay the consequences for his silly actions. He has acknowledged this.

          What more do you want? More than a pound of flesh?

          Maybe his hand should be cut off? Perhaps a stoning would be appropriate? And you guys who take such delight in other's misfortune, and are so morally upright can cast the first stones?

          Yes, driving while over the legal blood alcohol limit is a socially (and legally) bad thing. No-one denies this.

          Mind you, there are variable factors: differing limits in differing jurisdictions around the world, differing effects of alcohol impairment due to weight, metabolism, etc. Perhaps what is legal in Georgia (the state), Georgia (the country), and Queensland are quite different. So where does the hard-and-fast morality come now? A BAC of 0.07 may be acceptable and legal in Georgia, and garner no moral outrage, but in Victoria that same person is the devil incarnate?

          To be honest, I am more offended by holier-than-thou moral absolutism than I am by the OP's minor transgression. It's a slippery slope, and we have seen where this leads.

          • cktftw on 11/07/2019 - 14:41

            @Roman Sandstorm: Firstly, he was mid-range, i.e. between 0.08 to 0.15. And obviously enough for him to lose control and smash into a light pole. If it was a pedestrian, would've died.

            Secondly,
            I sincerely hope you don't one day suffer in the hands of someone DUI. Won't wish this on my worst enemy.
            But if you do, I hope you maintain your oh-you-poor-thing attitude and go hug the driver next to the grave of a loved one

  • ExpressCoffee on 10/07/2019 - 10:24
    +1

    A friend who knocked out a pole from SP Ausnet was quoted around $5k. Unless it's a super modern pole then it would be on the lower side of your estimate.

  • jacobb on 10/07/2019 - 10:46

    About 15 years ago my brother had to pay 10k when he did a similar thing, although wasn't over the limit.

    • funnysht on 10/07/2019 - 20:09

      strange how if a pot hole does damage to your car you can't claim anything

  • giventofly on 10/07/2019 - 12:24
    +1

    Yeah, I have zero sympathy. Hopefully you learn from this, if not, it could be a person next time.

  • Pootie Tang on 10/07/2019 - 12:27

    10k-12k and you will be able to go on a payment plan. If you provide a google map location of the pole, I can give you a better idea.

    • Pootie Tang on 10/07/2019 - 12:29
      +1

      Saw the pole. What the call a gooseneck pole. I would say about 20k.

  • aussieolfaction on 10/07/2019 - 13:15
    +2

    It looks like you've realised you've messed up, but it doesn't help the "right now", does it?

    I'm terribly sorry for your situation, and I wish you well. I'd recommend that you ask about a payment plan and take care in the future. Be thankful it wasn't a person, or you'd probably be in jail for a long time!

  • Kamsi on 10/07/2019 - 13:29

    Damn, how you going pay for the pole assuming you don't have a million dollar in your bank account. A hard lesson learn to anyone of drink driving. Good luck to the OP.

  • vicosads on 10/07/2019 - 13:31

    Would guess 5 to 10k

  • curtturtle on 10/07/2019 - 14:21
    -1

    It is a loooooong shot. But I'd call your insurance and just see if they cover it. Or if QLD roads cover it with CTP. There's got to be heaps of people that have done this and been too broke to fix it.

    • tcme on 11/07/2019 - 07:22
      +1

      CTP is for personal injury, not property damage

      • curtturtle on 11/07/2019 - 08:03

        Fair enough. I thought it might have covered public property.

  • CalmLemons on 10/07/2019 - 16:21
    +1

    Luckily for you those are pretty cheap compared with the wooden ones - plus if it was wooden you'd probably be dead. You're looking at about $10k-$20k.

    To be honest, I'm surprised they're even chasing you up for it. I've seen plenty of trailers just barrage through one, so don't stress.

    • tcme on 11/07/2019 - 07:22
      +1

      Why wouldn't they?

  • dailygringo on 10/07/2019 - 16:40
    +2

    if they come back with a number that you can't easily manage, it may be worth seeking independent legal advice as to whether;
    - your comprehensive insurance should cover the cost;
    - whether Energex's claimed damages are reasonable.

    Yes you did wrong, yes you know it and feel guilty, and yes strangers on the internet want to see you punished, but this isn't an excuse for an insurer to profit off your guilt, or energex to profit off your guilt either. I'm sure you're facing other punishments (fines, convictions, license suspensions) that relate to your actions.

    • Twilight on 10/07/2019 - 21:20
      +4

      You misunderstand the word 'profit'. You see, they don't earn money by having drunk people knock their stuff over and charging them to repair it.

      • regenade on 10/07/2019 - 21:48

        In USA, insurance covers it, so not sure why insurers here dont !

        • mrcherry on 10/07/2019 - 21:54
          +2

          His insurance will have a general exclusion that they won't cover when person was over the legal BAC.

      • dailygringo on 11/07/2019 - 08:19

        Oh the profit would be the difference between what it actually costs to replace the pole, and the massive over quote at first instance.

        For the insurer, it's more an actuarial difference across the entire client pool between what the insurance contract, case law and legislation says they are obliged to cover in the situation, and what people actually claim based on what they read on an internet forum, and what they can get away with rejecting at first instance because at fault drivers feel guilty and assume that this is what they deserve on top of all the other penalties they are subject to.

        Suggestion here about seeking legal advice isn't about getting out of it, or making a killing in US damages for whiplash because the pole wasn't designed to keep someone hitting it safe, it's about paying what it actually costs to restore the injured party to their original position, and for the insurer to cover what they are obliged to do so.

  • balbags on 10/07/2019 - 16:59
    +11

    Hi James,

    Hitting that pole, surviving and not killing anyone (I presume) was the cheapest cost for all. Naughty boy for DUI but credit to you for putting your hand up and not seeking sympathy on the web. Therefore happy to give you my $0.02.

    Costs can vary quite a bit depending on location/environment. Energex is more than likely constrained by is the compliance to quality, safety and the environment which subsequently requires a fair bit of management. Unlike poor subcontractors, Energex will have likely invested in all of these areas and will have crews that are appropriately trained which may reduce the costs when compared with contractors, like for like.

    I presume one pole is affected and the following is purely a guesstimate:
    -Labour Crew of 4, rate somewhere around $2400/day for about 3 days
    -Electrician (Energex), rate somewhere around $700/day for about 1 day
    -Plant - wet hire of crane of some sort, maybe $1500/day for about 2 days
    -Materials - pole and light $1000
    -Permits - take a guess… different everywhere
    -Guesstimate total $10.5k

    If the footing is damaged then it will need to be replaced and I'm just going to guess this because there are too many unknowns, say another $6-8k.

    Overall my guesstimate puts it between $15-20k but there is still so much that needs to be investigated before putting a shovel into the ground.

    I hope though it works out cheaper than this and it be the cheapest lesson for you.

    Best of luck.

    Source: QLD Civil engineer here.

    • Eeples on 11/07/2019 - 09:16
      -1

      ‘Naughty boy’ trivialises.

  • peterw1 on 10/07/2019 - 18:25
    +1

    light poles, you should ask for a quote for the full fat ones. it might be cheaper.

  • gimme on 10/07/2019 - 18:51
    +3

    Don't forget cashback

  • c64 on 10/07/2019 - 19:09

    suprisingly expensive iirc

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join