Car Park Incident Witness Now Needs Help

pegaxs on 27/10/2020 - 18:55
Last edited 19/11/2020 - 20:11

Had a customer come in late today to pick up their vehicle from some work and they threw out an interesting situation they have found themselves in. They know I am a great reader of traffic road rules and an avid weekend armchair lawyer, but this had my mind blown, I didn't know where to start and told them I had just the professional forum to post it to to get the answer they needed…

The story (as I understand it):

A few weeks ago, my customer (let's call them "Frank") pulled into a car park (small park, 40 odd spaces, 20 down each side with roadway in the middle). A car was about half way out of the space and both they and Frank stopped. Frank thought the right thing to do was to wave the lady (let's call her "Karen") out from her space and give her room to get out and then park in that spot.

At this point, Karen started to reverse out of her parking space, another car from the opposite side also started backing out. Karen was all the way out if her parking space when her and the other car, about 4/5th of the way out, connected.

Frank got out, checked everyone was ok. A discussion between the two collision vehicles on who was at fault ensued, blaming each other. Frank stepped in and said he saw it and that Karen was backing out first. The other driver then claimed they had no insurance (surprised they didn't beat me here). The other driver finally gave up their details and swapped them with Karen. Frank offered their phone number to Karen as a witness and they all went on their way…

Fast forward to yesterday and Frank tells me he received a call and an SMS demanding his insurance details from Karen. She is citing that Frank is at fault based on him giving her "traffic direction signals" that caused the accident and that Frank is not qualified to give directions to traffic. (I did see the SMS Frank had on his phone demanding insurance details.)

Frank believes that Karen is clutching at straws based on the other driver saying they had no insurance and she just wants someone else to pay, but he is concerned that if he just ignores it, it will get out of hand and end in some form of legal action.

I told Frank to laugh it off and call her bluff and offer her nothing, give her nothing.

What do we all think. Is Frank F'ed in the A, or is Karen being a "Karen"?

NB: MS Paint diagram will get posted later when I get time to draw it…

Edit: MS Paint Diagram (As required by site rules and current Road Rules legislation…) Find it here somewhere (drawn to the best of my knowledge of the car park in question. All cars depicted are correct at time of printing…)

Edit 2, The Update!: Well, you will all be pleased to know that "Frank" got back in contact with me today (Well, I called him to check up). Turns out, he called his insurance company just to be sure. According to Frank, his insurance company initially thought it was a prank call. After some more explaining, they laughed and said that "Karen" had no chance of making that stick and that if she was going to continue to pursue it, they would gladly assist Frank.

Frank went back to Karen and told her that in no way was he giving her any further details and that his offer to be a witness was henceforth rescinded (And I 100% doubt that Frank said it like that, it would have had a few more choice words in there, cow cocky farmer and all.)

I did pass on a link to this thread to Frank and he said to say thanks to all for all the help and kind words. He said he will just chalk it up to a life experience and move on. Not much water sticks to Frank's back.

Poll Options

  • 8
    Frank's fault. Pay up.
  • 5
    Partial Frank's fault. Pay some.
  • 716
    Not Frank's fault. Pay none.
  • 44
    New phone, who 'dis??
Automotive

Comments

    • ozbjunkie on 28/10/2020 - 11:14
      +4

      If you're going to criticise other's prose, at least know the difference between drivel and dribble.

    • smartazz104 on 28/10/2020 - 21:19

      And here you are dribbling. If you can’t read just admit it and stop wasting everyone’s time.

  • AlanJ on 28/10/2020 - 10:08
    +10

    Tell "Frank" that Channel 9 needs him and that sms urgently. What an opportunity for Tracy Grimshaw (or similar) to get a good fifteen-minute segment on how people have gone "sue-for-compensation" crazy! He should reply, quite straight-faced, to 'Karen' and say that he has forwarded the sms to "ACA" and that he has been requested to provide Karen's address also so they can follow it up and interview her in person for a segment.

    • BartholemewH on 30/10/2020 - 21:41
      +1

      On tonight's show, Karen's gone krazy - we catch up with the fraudster trying to take an elderly good samaritan battler pensioner to the cleaners!

  • Brian McGee on 28/10/2020 - 10:43

    Frank should get a qualification in traffic management.

    But seriously, it is on the moving car/cars to look around and not run into each other. 50/50 fault for both KarenA and KarenN-I.

    No need to be cranky with Frankie.

  • Screamingeagle on 28/10/2020 - 12:32
    +1

    Frank was not acting in any official capacity. Frank could have been waving to someone behind Karen or anything else.

  • Dreamcast on 28/10/2020 - 12:39

    A front runner for Karen of the year, for sure!

  • Piranha2004 on 28/10/2020 - 12:42
    +3

    Both drivers equally at fault. Frank has nothing to do or be worried about. No different when people wave through drivers making right hand turns. Onus still on the driver to make sure everything is clear before proceeding

  • baker bob on 28/10/2020 - 13:40

    I get it we want to understand if Frank is at fault but to help Frank sleep at night he should understand no one saw him wave her on so it's a moot point, the action simply didn't happen unless he admits to it so his butt lives to fight another day and lesson learnt, nice guys finish last.

  • Jono05 on 28/10/2020 - 13:55
    +1

    Frank should tell Karen that he is actually qualified to direct traffic.

    • tomsco on 29/10/2020 - 15:30

      That is what is called a pro gamer move.

  • minniethemoocher on 28/10/2020 - 14:06
    +2

    A police officer once told me that if you are reversing and involved in an accident then you are automatically at fault. I would think that as both parties were reversing they would be equally at fault regardless who is reversing first. Karen was probably told this by her insurance company so is looking for someone else to blame. Otherwise her insurance would pursue the other party regardless of their insurance status. Sounds like she is clutching straws. I hope he denies everything.

    • leiiv on 28/10/2020 - 18:37

      You just answered my question Sir. The strangest thing here is why Karen went after Frank instead of the other guy.

      • pegaxs on 28/10/2020 - 18:52

        I've got a feeling that "Karen" doesn't have insurance either and doesn't want to battle with the other driver who has no insurance, so Karen just targeted Frank who drives a vehicle that looks like it would be insured in the hope that he would just make a claim… (For the record, I didn't ask what cars the other drivers were driving.)

  • roguescholar on 28/10/2020 - 15:04
    +1

    Why do people not look out their rear vision mirror/camera when reversing? Just a crazy lack of environmental awareness.

    Also using indicators or hazards when backing out of parking spots may help to prevent these type of accidents.

  • cydia9k on 28/10/2020 - 15:10
    +3

    In my short decade of driving, I have quickly learned that there is zero benefit to being a good samaritan and waving people through.

    Either they will be too cautious to listen (distracting them and taking up more time overall), or you will be made to look at fault if someone decides to pull out and zip through.

    As for the legality, I don't think they have a leg to stand on. Noone is reasonably expected to accept 'traffic directions' from another car…..

  • Serapis on 28/10/2020 - 15:17

    Have a laugh and have Frank block her number. Frank shouldn't bother responding unless he hears from her insurance company or receives a letter of demand.

    • pegaxs on 28/10/2020 - 18:46
      +3

      That's what I told him. Give her nothing and wait for a more formal letter of demand or something more serious, then tell them to go (fropanity) themselves as well.

  • newjerseydamo on 28/10/2020 - 15:20

    So let me get this straight.

    Two vehicles (not Frank) were both reversing opposite one another and both collided with each other?
    So both vehicles were in motion? Or was one stationary?

    Either way Frank is not liable as he was not in control of either vehicle involved in the accident.

    In terms of the two drivers, if both were in motion, it's 50/50 at fault.
    If only one was in motion and the other was stationary, then the vehicle in motion is at fault.

    So let's hope only Karen was in motion and collided with the other vehicle, so she is completely at fault….

    • pegaxs on 28/10/2020 - 18:45

      So both vehicles were in motion? Or was one stationary?

      Don't know. Didn't really get that much detail. How it was described to me was, "Karen" pulled partly out, saw "Frank" and stopped. Frank stopped and waved her to come out. As she started moving, another car moved out and at some point they both collided.

  • barge-in hunter on 28/10/2020 - 15:33
    +2

    Nothing against Frank, but the number of near misses (and an accident) I've had on my motorbike from this kind of situation is crazy.

    I call it the "courtesy wave of death". Never trust another driver saying you're good or clear to drive somewhere.

  • Kamsi on 28/10/2020 - 15:53

    WTF is wrong with people these days. Common sense have gone nuttiest. Seriously, there is nothing wrong for Frank have done in this scenario. I would probably do the same thing.

  • stumo on 28/10/2020 - 16:03

    Wait a second. Why didnt the other driver get a name?

    • pegaxs on 28/10/2020 - 18:48

      Not really relevant to the story (yet). They aren't making a stink or threatened legal action. The other driver just gave their details, apologised, said they didn't have insurance, swapped details and left.

  • dirtybigbjelke on 28/10/2020 - 16:26
    +3

    Hah. Comes back to the reasonable man argument. A Judge would throw this not qualified argument right out based on it being a normal and reasonable action for Frank to take

  • mrvaluepack on 28/10/2020 - 16:26
    +6

    Wow quality MS paint diagram. Good job OP.

  • reactor-au on 28/10/2020 - 16:53

    Why didn't Frank hoot when he saw the second car reverse?

    But still not Frank's problem.

    • pegaxs on 28/10/2020 - 18:49

      He didn't say if he did or not, or if they listened or not and I didn't think to ask.

  • balbags on 28/10/2020 - 19:16

    Good on Frank. Don't be a Karen.

  • djgreedo on 28/10/2020 - 19:57

    "Frank" should say he was actually signaling Karen to stop because the other car was already halfway out, and because she ignored him, the accident happened.

  • Maxxiz on 28/10/2020 - 19:59
    +2

    Firstly, frank not at fault or even a contributing factor.
    Secondly, no requirement to exchange insurance details.. Name and address only…

    • imurgod on 29/10/2020 - 08:08
      +2

      Not even name and address. He has zero responsibility here.

      • pegaxs on 29/10/2020 - 08:16
        +1

        He said he only gave his first name and phone number as a witness. I urged him to give her nothing more than that. With an address, she can start sending letters of demand, and a Frank is the type of bloke to just pay it to make it go away.

        • imurgod on 30/10/2020 - 09:32

          She can send all the letters of demand she wants. He has no liability in this incident at all. He was not in control of the vehicle, she was.

          He can rest easy, I assure you.

      • Maxxiz on 29/10/2020 - 09:12
        +1

        I agree.
        But unrelated, people have an expectation to exchange name/address/phone/insurance/licence.

        I can't stress enough to only exchange name and address if you're involved in a collision. Do not let the other party take a photo of your licence.

        • imurgod on 30/10/2020 - 09:36
          +1

          I upvoted you, but I'm afraid you're wrong (in NSW at least).

          Regardless of damage, if you are asked to, you must provide the owner or driver of any other vehicle involved in the crash with the following information:
          Your name, address and licence details
          Your vehicle registration number
          If you are not the owner of the vehicle, the name and address of the owner.
          You can ask the other driver(s) for similar information.

          Source [Roads and Maritime Services website] (https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/safety-rules/safe-driving/a…)

          • Maxxiz on 30/10/2020 - 12:47

            @imurgod: Ah good call.
            I'm speaking from Victoria, it's only name/address here but good to know.

  • trapper on 28/10/2020 - 20:10
    +2

    Surely Frank now remembers clearly that it was Karen who caused this accident. Accelerating back dangerously and without warning, colliding with the other innocent party. lol

  • This Guy on 28/10/2020 - 20:14
    +2

    The Karen is a moron.

    In some industries, the guide takes all liability, not the operator. But if the operator follows instructions of some random person, like this Karen, the operator is at fault. They don't work together. They didn't even confirm signals. There is no relationship. The Karen is clutching at straws.

    Karen probably has half this story.

  • Jaystea on 28/10/2020 - 22:42

    (let's call her "Karen")

    Here we go, this gon' be a good one.

  • HeWhoKnows on 28/10/2020 - 22:51
    -4

    WHO CARES?
    Another boring useless post

    HeWhoKnows on 28/10/2020 - 22:51 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
  • bigbadboogieman on 28/10/2020 - 23:03

    …and here I am still wondering what kind of Arm Chair OP uses for his avid weekend law practice.

  • Jackkkkkk on 28/10/2020 - 23:31

    What a Shiela.. i mean Karen 😂

  • TheBird on 28/10/2020 - 23:38

    I want Karens mobile number. I have a bridge to sell…

  • McBanny on 29/10/2020 - 00:10
    +1

    This actually happened to my family, I sort the the insurance claim for them (RAC). According to RAC WA, if both cars is reversing out and collided, both cars are at fault. "each individual need to be vigilant of the surrounding". So both party paid for their own damage.

    Now if one car is stationary before the collusion then the other car is at fault. this is based on the response received from RAC, suppose different insurer have different standards. Road rule wise I'm not aware if three's one for right of way.

    I think dash cam can help. Hope "Frank" had been following OzBargain and had one installed.

    • pegaxs on 29/10/2020 - 08:18

      No dash cam or else I would have posted it. He is reluctant to get one installed, much to my disgust.

  • capslock janitor on 29/10/2020 - 00:24

    farnk was flexing his new phone

  • Donaldhump on 29/10/2020 - 00:27

    Tell her to get stuffed, and to serve you papers if she wants to take it to court.

  • highdealer on 29/10/2020 - 00:47

    https://youtu.be/OO5nKXBxRCQ?t=2m28s

    this was the accident?

  • Willco88 on 29/10/2020 - 00:50
    +2

    KAREN needs to take responsibility for her actions, she is an adult she cannot claim anything on Frank as she made the decision to follow his "guide" therefore he is not liable for anything.

    Any adult in this situation needs to take their own judgement into consideration in this situation, the fact she chose to follow Frank without making her own observations is entirely her own fault and nobody else's.

    Tell Frank to block her phone number and move on

  • AustriaBargain on 29/10/2020 - 06:00
    -3

    It sounds like Frank gave her the all clear and then when she reversed she found it wasn't all clear. Frank is kind of ultimately at fault, but it was always Karen's responsibility to check herself. There is no law against indicating to someone that their path is clear when it really isn't. And even if there was, if I remember my Criminal Law 101 topic I dropped out of correctly, then ignorance is a valid defense for breaking the law.

    • trapper on 29/10/2020 - 12:02

      Ignorance is not a valid defense for breaking the law. Most offenses do require intent though, maybe you meant that?

      There is no law against indicating to someone that their path is clear when it really isn't.

      Depends on Franks intent. If Frank had the intent to try and cause an accident then it would be a criminal act.

      • AustriaBargain on 29/10/2020 - 16:58

        I knew it was something like that.

  • AustriaBargain on 29/10/2020 - 06:05

    Also if you study carefully the simulation you uploaded, Frank was only one half car length away from Karen. Karen didn't have room to back up fully like normal without hitting Frank, so Karen was forced to pull out on a wide angle. The car that Karen hit was forced to do the same thing. It sounds to me like Frank is some kind of real life Mr Magoo, just causes chaos that he's blind to wherever he goes.

    • pegaxs on 29/10/2020 - 08:21

      (*MS Paint diagram not to scale…)

      • TK Deadwalker on 29/10/2020 - 13:10

        Where did the Formula 1 come from? Was it actually green? Who was driving it? You left out some important details Frank. If Frank is your real name.

  • syousef on 29/10/2020 - 06:57
    -6

    Frank should talk to his insurance company and seek advice there.

    • syousef on 29/10/2020 - 16:41

      That got downvoted?

      haha. hahahahaha. bwwwwaaahahahahahaha.

      Ozb0rk3n.

      • UFO on 29/10/2020 - 16:58
        -1

        I didn't neg, but I know why. As soon as Frank talks to insurer, they'll hit him up for excess.

        Frank was not involved in the collision. Karen didn't take due care and attention when reversing, and is failing to accept that she (and the other driver) both didn't see each other. 50/50 to them… nothing to do with Frank (or his insurer).

        • syousef on 29/10/2020 - 18:11

          Asking advice and stating that you weren't involved in the accident but were a witness does not require paying an excess. He is not making a claim. If asked if he wishes to make a claim he should answer "No. I am just asking for advice as a customer who pays my premium". Of course his insurer can direct him to seek legal counsel and not get involved.

          Meanwhile below there's one suggestion of fraudulently asking Karen for payment that hasn't been negged in any way.

          Why I was negged likely has nothing to do with the post. You see what happens when you give human beings the ability to vote anonymously is that they tend to hold grudges when they disagree with you.

          • syousef on 30/10/2020 - 14:11
            -1

            @syousef: UFO you actually upvoted that. You have my respect, for what that's worth.

  • Milk tea on 29/10/2020 - 07:49

    I do remember that you can fail your drivers licence test if you wave a pedestrian to cross the road/street that you are entering and it is their decision to make if they want to cross it or not where you just give way to them so based on this it could be perceived that it was franks fault for waving her to go

  • imurgod on 29/10/2020 - 08:05

    The witness has no liability at all here. He was not operating the car and offering directions has no bearing on this whatsoever.

    He can safely ignore her.

    • AustriaBargain on 29/10/2020 - 08:38

      And even if Frank was liable, it sounds like the insurer's have no proof he was even there. If Frank just ignores it then it will naturally go away, because you don't send investigators out for supposed witnesses over dinged fender. If you ignore even a lawful demand and no one ever bothers to follow it up, then it's like it never happened as far as your own accountability is concerned.

  • PeppyDog on 29/10/2020 - 08:25
    +1

    Frank should F Karen in in A

    • phr0 on 30/10/2020 - 09:26

      I saw a movie like that once. Very poor production quality but luckily I didn't see it all.

      • PeppyDog on 30/10/2020 - 10:54

        Hope you were not relying on Google Chrome's incognito mode.

  • Headless on 29/10/2020 - 08:37
    +1

    This almost exact same situation happened to me.
    Insurance company said 50/50 fault in a car park - but because the other driver claimed i said it was my fault she went for my insurer. My insurance company didn't believe me and forced me to pay my excess to pay for her car… that was a $601 Bunnings bucket i bought that day…

    • AustriaBargain on 29/10/2020 - 08:40
      +1

      It'd be kinda funny if at the end of the day it really was all decided just based on how convincing you each sounded on the phone. Narcissists who routinely bully and manipulate all situations might have more success over wimps who sound like they don't even believe themselves when they tell the truth.

      • Headless on 29/10/2020 - 09:00
        +3

        You'd be surprised how often bully / agressive types get their way in this world

        Toilet paper drama this year for example - move over grandma I'm first - so many videos of this type of behaviour in auz

        I see it every day at public hospitals - they get all the attention (rightly or wrongly)

        I got rear ended out the front of a primary school whilst at peak time of 8.30am - tradies floored it away in their commodore 100ks an hour in a school zone - lolly pop grandma almost got blown away lol - i had 2 small kids in the back…commodore owner didn't give a S..T

        With my car example I was 18 at the time, without guidance or support of friends or family I wasn't aware of my options and my rights - Insurance company certainly werent going to help me - plus my car was damaged too, so I felt that was my only option - money always talks! the more you have the more important and more rights you have (cough Coronavirus examples)

        • AustriaBargain on 29/10/2020 - 09:18
          +3

          There's no justice in the world. I almost wish we had a real life Big Brother situation, so people will finally stop doing to each other things which require justice in the first place. Other than the spying, but if it means everyone can wipe their butts and no one can scam their way into having their victim pay for their own insurance, then maybe it's worth giving up all our privacy. If the world is full of 40% bullies and 60% passive people who are bullied, then a real life Big Brother scenario would improve most of our lives. Two-faced people will be forced to wear their friendly honest face 100% of the time, until the imposition of always being a good person makes them snap and go psycho. But if I read more science fiction books then I can probably come up with an elegant solution to that problem too.

    • AdosHouse on 29/10/2020 - 12:42

      In this situation both parties need to pay their excess. So the other party would have had to pay theirs too.

      • Headless on 29/10/2020 - 17:34

        My insurance covered theirs, how do I know? they told me

        • AdosHouse on 30/10/2020 - 03:58
          +1

          The insurance company didn't decide both parties were at fault?

  • squaredonut on 29/10/2020 - 09:17
    +6

    If Frank has not replied yet, tell him to reply and just say "Hey, sorry this is Anne, think you got the wrong number?"

    • dangerdanger on 29/10/2020 - 09:32
      +5

      Yep. Or just block Karen's number and be done with it.

      Just goes to show, no good deed goes unpunished…

      • TK Deadwalker on 29/10/2020 - 13:01
        +2

        Agreed, Frank tries to lend a hand, and Karen just rips it off.

        Just goes to show you can't help anyone these days without them dragging you down further :(

        Frank should have seen the crazy in Karen's eyes and drove for the hills. Should've "noped" yourself from a bad situation Frank, and now she has your number.

      • squaredonut on 29/10/2020 - 14:35
        +3

        Pretty much. It's so sad, the great Australians are probably further out in rural areas. When my folks immigrated to Australia, they found that every Aussie was damn nice, no hidden agenda, just easy going, what the world knew Aussies to be.

        All I heard was stories of "we would come back from work one day and our laundry was folded on our kitchen top, because the neighbours saw the rains were coming and came over to take our clothes in for us", then the milk money, you just leave your milk money in the mail box, etc etc.

        But nowadays, you can't even help anyone without being threatened with being sued, cause you know we love going down the same path as the yanks and go through litigation for every pointless thing.

  • kaleidoscope on 29/10/2020 - 10:21

    tell frank to tell karen that he will report to police for harassment.

  • tasty-falafel on 29/10/2020 - 10:28

    OP please post the Karens rego number and first name so we can investigate.

  • Capo93 on 29/10/2020 - 10:53

    If both vehicles were in motion at the time of the impact it is 50/50 fault, each party will be responsible for their own damage to their vehicle. For example if one vehicle had come to a complete stop, lets say to change from reverse to drive and they got hit whilst they were stopped then the driver who still in motion would be deemed at fault for the accident.

    • EBC on 29/10/2020 - 11:52
      +1

      I had this exact thing happen to me in a carpark once. A large pickup truck had parked in an empty spot across the lane just before I started pulling out. I started backing out of my spot when halfway through I see that they are now backing out again directly towards me. I stopped and beeped them to let them know I was there (hoping they weren't doing this without looking or hearing what was going on around them). Turns out I was wrong when they neither saw me nor heard me lay on the horn for about 3 seconds as they continued to drive right into me. I was young and dumb and didn't ask the person who saw it all to be a witness. The insurer said collisions in parking lots with no witnesses are generally just called 50/50 fault. Luckily given my statement and the fact that the damage was on the side of my car (and presumably the other driver didn't argue these points), I was found not at fault.

      Moral of the story, Frank is not even a little bit at fault. Karen can go jump in a lake.

  • TK Deadwalker on 29/10/2020 - 12:51

    Tbh I think Karen was distracted by the F1, but then again who wouldn't be?

  • Logical on 29/10/2020 - 14:34
    +1

    Frank should send a text to Karen: Thank you for your request. I have consulted a solicitor and was advised that I am not at fault. As such please advise your postal address so that I can forward to you my solicitors bill for the amount of $562 + GST for your immediate payment. Thank you.

    • syousef on 29/10/2020 - 16:44
      -2

      Follow that advice and if he hasn't actually consulted a solicitor he just went from her having nothing of substance on him, to making a fraudulent request for payment. Great work.

      • Logical on 30/10/2020 - 13:09

        I'll give Frank the invoice.

        • syousef on 30/10/2020 - 14:10
          -2

          No benefit in playing silly games.

  • netjock on 29/10/2020 - 15:18
    +1

    Had same accident but it was a long time ago and I was Karen (no Frank waving me out).

    Went all the way to court with the other driver until I demonstrated the damage to my car was consistent with the fact that I was out of my space and pointing straight to the direction of traffic and the other driver did not pay enough attention (not looking at their driver side mirror) and clipped my rear passenger side.

    Karen has no hope of claiming on Frank because it is still her responsibility to ensure it is safe to reverse. The uninsured driver also needs to ensure it is safe to reverse. I suspect that Karen probably doesn't have comprehensive insurance therefore trying to shift the buck.

    Lets say I learnt my lesson and now I check all mirrors and reverse at a reasonable speed and check all mirrors. People are just unreasonable.

  • tomsco on 29/10/2020 - 15:31

    Is Frank going to sign up to OzBargain to keep us updated?

    • pegaxs on 29/10/2020 - 16:43
      +2

      I will keep in touch with Frank just to make sure the silly old bugger doesn't just pay her to make her go away.

  • UFO on 29/10/2020 - 16:55

    Frank not involved, Frank didn't wave, there is no spoon.

  • superuser on 29/10/2020 - 17:25

    There is a similar incidence on dash cam australia, both cars reverse and hit each other
    https://youtu.be/OO5nKXBxRCQ
    at 2:20

    • tomsco on 29/10/2020 - 20:21

      Peggy didn’t say frank had a dash cam.

  • juzza87 on 29/10/2020 - 17:30

    I had something similar happen, car was stopped waiting for a car to leave their spot and I thought I saw the driver hand gesture out the window for me to overtake. I did so and collided with the car that was exiting the spot. I was in the wrong because I went over a solid line to overtake but it all got settled out of court.

    1. Never trust another's hand gestures regardless and
    2. Always follow the road rules
  • wchau on 29/10/2020 - 17:51

    Feel kinda sorry for Karen, she was taking advice from Frank but - I've seen something similar whereby a person in another car tries to help by signalling that there is no on coming traffic, but as a result plays a part in the collision…. - car moving towards intersection of a T, 2 way road and wishing to turn right, but there is a queue of cars on the left that blocks the vision to turn right safely.. the driver queuing at the T intersection ( who has left a gap in front of him to allow cars to turn )is kindly giving signals to the car wanting to turn right that there is no oncoming traffic and they may proceed .. next thing ..an oncoming car comes down the road and scrapes with the car turning out.. as you would imagine you would rightly be unhappy about the situation..

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join