Car Accident - Who Is at Fault?

Lhelp my insurance on 26/03/2022 - 13:24
Last edited 27/03/2022 - 19:56 by 1 other user

Who's at fault?

Car 1 had reversed from their driveway into the 2 way street and had come to a complete stop behind Car 2.

Car 2 was parked in an angled car park and began reversing while Car 1 had momentarily stopped in the street after reversing to check their surroundings (for cars pulling out of parking spots) before driving off.

2-way street can be busy on weekends, with many 'weekend drivers' filling up all of the parking spaces (that are usually empty) to go to nearby market and avoid paying a small fee for parking. Usually reversing out of driveway is very easy, with no vehicles in the street.

Car 2 reverses very quickly, without checking blindspot and impacts with Car 1 while Car 1 was stationary.
Note: Car 2 has a large blindspot. Car 2 also appears to have damage from a similar incident on rear passenger door.

The time period that Car 1 was stationary to check surroundings and Car 2 had reversed and collided was approximately 1 second.

MS Paint & damage to Car 1 & 2:

I only have 3rd Party insurance and the damage caused to my vehicle will likely be a higher cost than the car's value (as it's an imported Japanese car). My insurance have said that because the other party is at fault, I need to make a claim via their insurance. My policy only covers me in the event that the other party doesn't have insurance. However, they will defend against a claim from the other party's insurance, but this will cost me a lot in excess.

Update:
I uploaded high resolution photos of the damage to both cars. Maybe someone can determine which car was moving based on this.

Update 2:
I uploaded photos of the damage Car 1, as close as possible to show the paint. Maybe someone can determine which car was moving based on this.

Update 3:
My insurance advised to contact the other party, so that I can file a claim against their insurance (from the case number). Apparently the version of events that Car 2 told to their insurance was: 'they reversed from the parking spot and were about to drive off, Car 1 reversed into them"
I don't see how this is believable when the impact occurred between the rear of Car 1 to the drive-side rear of Car 2, while Car 2 was within the car space.

Update 4:
People have asked - why didn't I have comprehensive insurance?
Car 1 is a grey-import from Japan. Market value may be $6000. The quotes I received for comprehensive insurance for this car, was $3000 as it falls into the same category as a sports car. This is 50% the value of the car. 3rd party insurance was 5% the value of the car.

Update 5:
I'm going to contact my insurance company again and state that Car 2 has provided a different version of events to their insurer.

Poll Options

  • 6
    Car 1 (purple in MS Paint, white in accident photos)
  • 192
    Car 2 (blue in MS Paint, blue in accident photos)
Automotive

Comments

    • help my insurance on 26/03/2022 - 13:52
      +4

      I'm curious why you say Car 1. Can you please explain for my understanding?

      • help my insurance on 26/03/2022 - 14:00

        ok you can downvote me, but I only ask to understand your perspective.

        • pegaxs on 26/03/2022 - 14:13

          The perspective is, as the driver of the white vehicle (I am guessing is car One), did you back out of the driveway "further than is reasonable in the circumstances."?? How wide/narrow is the street? How far do you have to back out? Are you sure you were stopped or was it just your version where it suits you that you were stopped? What does the blue car driver have to say about how it happened?

          We are basing a lot of this on just your perception of what happened (ie: are you telling little porkies to seek confirmation bias?), but the blue car's recollection or that of an independent witness may offer an alternative version.

          • follow on 26/03/2022 - 16:49
            +1

            @pegaxs: what does it matter if op is lying or not?

            • Euphemistic on 26/03/2022 - 20:58
              +1

              @follow: It doesnt matter if OP is lying, could be a 6yo describing what haooened in Mario kart for all we know. But we only get to see what OP allows us to see, from their perspective. We do not get the opinion of the other driver who may well consider they were moving out before the OP came out of the driveway.

              • thom on 26/03/2022 - 21:35
                +3

                @Euphemistic: I assume that posts rarely have comments from both sides (unless it involves a sale from the marketplace).

                Where one side has provided their version of events, it's our duty as readers to make assumptions as to what may or may not have occurred for the other side.

                Which parts of OP's story seems unlikely? Could the other driver tell a similar story?

                Let's assume Car 2 reversed into the road first, Car 1 make impact, where would the damage be on the OP's car?

                • Euphemistic on 27/03/2022 - 06:59
                  +2

                  @thom:

                  it’s our duty as readers to make assumptions

                  We have no more duty than the OP does to tell the whole truth. This is the internet, while posts like this are often genuine, they are inherently biased towards whatever position the OP holds. We should question their version of events as much as providing a response based on precisely what they told us.

                  Let's assume Car 2 reversed into the road first, Car 1 make impact, where would the damage be on the OP's car?

                  Same place if they hit at the same angle. The photos of the damage don’t prove much more than both cars have been damaged.

                  • help my insurance on 27/03/2022 - 12:03

                    @Euphemistic: I disagree with this comment about hitting at the same angle.

                    In scenario where Car 2 reverse first, they would have exited the angled park.

                    If Car 1 reverses afterwards, it would hit Car 2 in a different position than the corner of the rear bumper.

                    Car 1 needs to cross approximately 3 small car lengths from the driveway to accident area.

                    Even if both cars are reversing at the same time, the area of impact would be different, towards the front of Car 2.

                    The area of impact that occurred, from the driver's side of rear bumper of Car 2, to driver's side of rear bumper of Car 1, can only occur in the scenario where Car 1 is already in the road before Car 2 begins reversing.

                    I also disagree that photos don't show more than both cars being damaged. The photos will show which car was moving at speed and which car was stationary.

                    • Euphemistic on 27/03/2022 - 13:19

                      @help my insurance:

                      I disagree with this comment about hitting at the same angle

                      My comment wasn’t what could have happened, just that if they hit at the same angle the damage would be the same no matter which was actually moving. The incident may have occurred differently If the other car had reversed out further, but it didn’t according to you.

                  • tikei on 27/03/2022 - 12:59
                    +5

                    @Euphemistic: Who cares if it's biased. We're not here to play detective, just here to answer a question based on presented points. If the points are false then it is OP who would suffer from the non-applicable advice. Not our concern to go further than that.

                    • Euphemistic on 27/03/2022 - 13:27

                      @tikei: I don’t care if it’s biased, but we all call it the way we see it. You take it at face value and provide ‘what the OP wants to hear’. I’ll pose questions that occur to me to help the OP come to their own conclusions.

                      Social media can be a dangerous echo chamber. Sometimes it’s worth posting an alternative opinion.

                      • help my insurance on 27/03/2022 - 17:32

                        @Euphemistic: Thank you for posting alternative opinion.

                        I didn't post for confirmation bias.. I want to find out where mistake was made so I can avoid being involved in future accident.

                        I try to be a good driver and I am very cautious.. but this accident scared me because I could not stop the person crashing into me.

                        • Euphemistic on 27/03/2022 - 18:23

                          @help my insurance: The mistake was largely with the other person IMO, but perhaps you could have been more aware of the potential for the other driver to pull out. Perhaps brake lights were on already, or you could have seen someone get into the car.

                          Then again, if the driver was a senior citizen, perhaps they didn’t look as well as the should have, maybe they hit the go pedal a bit harder than they should have. Not much you can do about that.

                          • help my insurance on 27/03/2022 - 18:33

                            @Euphemistic: I didn't see anyone entering the vehicle. The passengers were all very elderly, so my assumption is that they would have entered slowly.

                            The other vehicle didn't have any brake lights on when I was reversing, otherwise I would have reacted.

                            It seemed like within 1 second when I'm checking my surroundings Car 2 has started and began quickly reversing.

                            I didn't even have time to press the horn it happened so quick.

                            • Euphemistic on 27/03/2022 - 18:39

                              @help my insurance: You would have been better to try to move out of the way rather than hit the horn - if you had time.

                              • help my insurance on 27/03/2022 - 18:45
                                +1

                                @Euphemistic: What prevented me from accelerating was that I hadn't finished checking my surroundings. In the brief second that I'd seen Car 2 start reversing it had already hit me quickly.

                    • help my insurance on 27/03/2022 - 14:01
                      -1

                      @tikei: How can Car 1 & Car 2 hit at the same angle in both scenarios?

                      Either Car 1 is in the street already, prior to Car 2 starting to reverse, allowing the rear bumpers to impact (as shown in the MS Paint).

                      Or, Car 2 starts reversing and enters the street first, resulting in the impact occurring at the front of Car 2 and the rear of Car 1. In the MS Paint, Car 2 is shown to be in an angled park.

                      • Euphemistic on 27/03/2022 - 14:57

                        @help my insurance: You were there. We weren’t. We can only go on what you told us as there is no video footage.

                        Just because the other car has some damage already doesn’t mean it was a similar circumstance. Was it likely similar? Possibly. Was it different? Well something hit the side of the door so it would appear that maybe they didn’t reverse into something.

                        • help my insurance on 27/03/2022 - 15:13

                          @Euphemistic: If the damage to the rear side door of Car 2 is supposedly from Car 1, where is the impact point on Car 1?

                          In my opinion there would be a big impact to the left hand side bumper of Car 2 if this was the case.

                        • help my insurance on 27/03/2022 - 17:29

                          @Euphemistic: It looks as though Car 2 reversed out of a parking space and scraped against another vehicle with their door. The location is similar to the bumper of an SUV or even a sedan.

                • HeWhoKnows on 27/03/2022 - 15:46
                  +1

                  @thom: Both reversing.
                  Both at fault
                  Doesnt matter who was first

              • HeWhoKnows on 27/03/2022 - 15:43

                @Euphemistic: 100% correct
                Its up to the insurance companies to decide whose lies make more sense.
                But for the record, anyone reversing is at fault.
                If both are reversing then both are at fault

                Again for the record
                When will people learn that 3rd party insurance is USELESS!

                CONCLUSION
                Suffer baby! (sorry about that but its true)

                • help my insurance on 27/03/2022 - 17:17

                  @HeWhoKnows: Why do you say "3rd party insurance is USELESS!"? I guess I am about to find out in the following weeks..

                  My car is a grey import, so the cost of comprehensive insurance was almost 50% of the value of the car.

                  The cost of 3rd party insurance is 5% of the value of the car.

                  My reasons for purchasing this type of insurance was to protect against damage to other people's property. The excess of comprehensive plus the cost of comprehensive cover is more than I would be willing to spend on my car.

          • help my insurance on 26/03/2022 - 17:45
            +2

            @pegaxs: I'm unsure what "further than is reasonable in the circumstances" means. I reversed from my driveway into the street, put my car in drive to prepare to drive off. Before driving off I always triple check the parked cars because people often pull out of the various parking spaces.
            I was definitely stopped, as I'd shifted into drive. If I tried to do this while moving in reverse the gearbox would be unhappy.

            Car 2, the blue car, apparently told their insurance that they had reversed out of the car space. If that was true, the impact from Car 1 would towards the driver's door or front fender, not the rear bumper.

            I'm telling exactly what happened because I'd like to learn to avoid accidents like this from occurring in the future.

            • HeadTheWall on 27/03/2022 - 17:35
              -2

              @help my insurance: I'm not sure of the rules in VIC but in NSW it is illegal to reverse out of a Driveway, and this was also the case in other countries I have lived in.
              So technically they should not have been there and if they had driven out they would not have been stopped in the middle of the road

              But that is irrelevant because Car 2 hit the other car because they were careless and did not check, what if it was a kid there. And the poll agrees with that scenario

              • help my insurance on 27/03/2022 - 18:01

                @HeadTheWall: In Victoria (which is the state where the accident occurred) it is not illegal to reverse out of your driveway.

                When reversing you should always ensure that it's safe, checking all mirrors, looking left & right for pedestrians / cyclists / etc. enter the street slowly. Some people use their horn to warn others. My vehicle has an audible beep when reversing for safety.

                If driving out forward the same situation would occur, when you enter the street you still need to check whether a parked car is going to pull out suddenly as they haven't had the opportunity to see you driving up the street.

                • HeadTheWall on 28/03/2022 - 09:18
                  -1

                  @help my insurance: It does say (for VIC) that you should not do it unless it is safe to do so. Reversing out is always going to be dangerous compared to driving out so its pretty obvious to anyone that has a bit of common sense that it is a stupid choice. It's much safer to back into your driveway and drive out and that is why it is illegal in so many other places.

                  Why do it, it's not like you are saving yourself a reversing manoeuvre, you still have to do it but now you have just multiplied the risk by having to back out into a road that can have passing/moving traffic

                  There's a lesson to be learnt here for you

              • Euphemistic on 27/03/2022 - 18:32
                +2

                @HeadTheWall:

                NSW it is illegal to reverse out of a Driveway

                What? Never heard that before.

                Edit: no it’s not illegal.

                • HeadTheWall on 28/03/2022 - 09:30

                  @Euphemistic: I have provided a link stating that you must always reverse into a driveway. Can you provide your evidence that states otherwise?

                  • pegaxs on 28/03/2022 - 10:49
                    +4

                    @HeadTheWall:

                    I have provided a link stating that you must always reverse into a driveway.

                    That "link" you provided is bunk. It doesn't apply to light vehicles and doesn't say "illegal to reverse out a driveway"

                    Can you provide your evidence that states otherwise?

                    Why, yes. Yes I can… Road Rule 296 deals with reversing a vehicle. It makes no mention or a requirement to reverse into a driveway OR that it is illegal to reverse out of a driveway…

                    BUT WAIT!, there's more… I also found the rules about entering a driveway from a road and it too makes no mention of reversing into said driveway. In fact there is a picture of a car driving front first into said driveway.

                    Seriously, some people must win their driver's license from a meat raffle at the local RSL club.

                    NSW it is illegal to reverse out of a Driveway

                    A new benchmark has been set for the biggest piece of bullshit I have read on this site regarding road rules.

              • 42 on 27/03/2022 - 19:04
                +3

                @HeadTheWall:

                NSW it is illegal to reverse out of a Driveway

                I've never heard of this rule, can you provide a reference or link, thanks.

              • 42 on 27/03/2022 - 19:55

                @HeadTheWall: I routinely reverse out of my and other driveways and have also seen it done routinely so would be interested to know if it's illegal to do so

              • help my insurance on 27/03/2022 - 21:39
                +1

                @HeadTheWall: What country in the world would apply such strange rule?

                Our road rules in Australia allow for drivers to use common-sense, but it appears that the country that would dictate which direction people can enter their driveways has given up on their population having common-sense.

                • HeadTheWall on 28/03/2022 - 09:33
                  -1

                  @help my insurance: Common sense is far from common in humans.

                  And you come here asking these questions and still question why places make it illegal to reverse out of a driveway. I can't tell which of the cars you were in based on your wording but it appears like you haven't learnt a lesson from this scenario.

              • kiitos on 28/03/2022 - 11:34

                @HeadTheWall: Really? I can't find a reference that shows that is illegal to reverse out of a driveway in NSW, do you have one?
                Edit: should have refreshed, now see all the others saying the same thing.

              • resubaehtgnolhcs on 28/03/2022 - 13:01

                @HeadTheWall:

                in NSW it is illegal to reverse out of a Driveway

                Can you please link the relevant law or legislation for this?

      • rektrading on 26/03/2022 - 14:05

        The blue car haven't told their side of the event.

  • Unorthodox on 26/03/2022 - 13:31
    +3

    Car 2 as they were reversing.

  • JimmyF on 26/03/2022 - 13:36
    +6

    Car 2 didn't check it was 'clear' when reversing.

    • help my insurance on 27/03/2022 - 15:27

      How can Car 1 prove that Car 2 didn't check their blindspot or side mirror?

      • Euphemistic on 27/03/2022 - 15:49

        It comes down to who to believe. You can’t prove they did or didn’t check their mirror. You cant PROVE who hit who. It’s your word (‘I was stationary’) against theirs (whatever they tell their insurer).

        If you both say ‘I was stationary’ the obviously one is lying, but it will be difficult to prove.

      • Cherry12 on 28/03/2022 - 15:56

        I think that the insurers take the decisions based on the hits (bumps on the car). Last time I claimed they charged me the co-payment (not sure of name) until they saw the pictures (that I submitted) and talked to witnesses. Once they had the "evidence" they completely determined I wasn't at fault and refunded me the money. However, I have Comprehensive insurance. Not sure if they will do all this with 3rd party.

        Maybe they can prove who is at fault with pictures.

  • kanmen on 26/03/2022 - 13:37
    +7

    Car 2 but I'm perplexed as to why Car 1 reversed straight out instead of turning. Seems like stupidity on both sides

    • help my insurance on 26/03/2022 - 13:58
      +2

      The reason Car 1 reversed straight is due to the condition of the street. The bitumen street is raised very high due to tree roots, where driveway crossover is, so if Car 1 was to reverse on an angle their front bumper would scrape a lot. Reversing straight is the only way to avoid this hazard.

      • kanmen on 26/03/2022 - 14:29
        +1

        Ah so basically you've lowered your car :p

        • help my insurance on 26/03/2022 - 14:39
          +2

          Car 1 is stock ride height, but it would be considered low compared to an SUV.

        • help my insurance on 27/03/2022 - 15:21

          I don't know how people drive a car that is lowered. Even with the stock height the bumper will scrape when entering & exiting on an incline, when going at low speeds. I think it's almost necessary to drive an SUV to get into shopping centre areas.

  • AndyC1 on 26/03/2022 - 13:38

    The car with the blind driver who cannot see or has short vision so they cannot see past the end of the car.

    • help my insurance on 27/03/2022 - 15:38

      I don't know if the driver of Car 2 had short vision. They wore glasses.

      Their driver's licence said Senior Citizen.

  • pegaxs on 26/03/2022 - 13:55
    +10

    Car Two, because car One was already there and was stationary and reversing was not done "safely" (1). But it's hard to know without seeing the street, as car One could have contributed to the accident by backing out further than "reasonable in the circumstances" (2).

    Victorian Road Rules say:

    296 Driving a vehicle in reverse
    (1) The driver of a vehicle must not reverse the vehicle unless the driver can do so safely.
    (2) The driver of a vehicle must not reverse the vehicle further than is reasonable in the circumstances.

    • help my insurance on 27/03/2022 - 15:26

      What does "must not reverse the vehicle further than is reasonable in the circumstances" mean in this situation?

      Car 1 didn't reverse into the angled car space.

      Car 1 only reversed onto the street.

      Are their road rules on how quickly a vehicle can reverse from a car space?

      One thing I forgot to mention was that the momentary stopping was only 1-2 seconds. However long it takes to check rear vision, both mirrors and both blindspots.

      Car 2 reversed very quickly from the car space and Car 1 didn't even have time to press the horn or press the accelerator to move out of the way.

  • GordonD on 26/03/2022 - 14:07
    +5

    The car that was moving at the time the collision occurred.

    I expect one driver will argue they were both moving, and that they ran into each other because they were both looking up and down the street for other vehicles, not across it. So each is responsible for the damage to their own vehicle.

    And the other driver will argue his vehicle wasn't moving because his vehicle isn't insured and that will mean the other vehicle's insurance will pay for both. But the problem is that he will have to prove that was the case, and he won't have an insurance company to argue for him. The other vehicle's insurer isn't going to care whether OzBargainers agree with him or not, they won't want to pay to repair or write off his grey market import.

    What's important is not what is true, its what you can prove is true. And the OP admits his vehicle was only stopped "momentarily" before the collision occurred.

    This is yet another example that would have been easy back when I was young. The police would have been called. They would have looked at the damage to both vehicles and the statements of both drivers and any witnesses, determined fault, and booked that driver. Now its determined by insurance companies and whatever is in their interests for them to decide. And the OP might not like what the other driver's insurance company decides.

    What would be far more convincing that the OP's view of the matter would have been close up images of the scraped paint on both vehicles. The direction the paint was scraped on both vehicles often reveals which vehicle was moving.

    • help my insurance on 26/03/2022 - 16:02
      +1

      I uploaded more detailed images of the damage to both cars. Maybe you can see from the scrape which vehicle was moving.

      • GordonD on 26/03/2022 - 17:13
        +1

        OK, that paint damage says car 2 was moving quickly for a reversing car, and car 1 was either stationary or moving very slowly. Specifically because it says car 2 bounced off car 1, rather that car 1 being dragged to a stop by hitting car 2. That says car 2's driver was responsible for the damage that occurred.

        • help my insurance on 26/03/2022 - 17:47
          +1

          Car 2 was definitely moving quickly because I didn't even have time to press on my horn before the collision occurred.

          How can you tell from the damage to Car 1?

          Is it obvious enough that the insurance would also come to the same conclusion?

          • GordonD on 26/03/2022 - 18:20
            +1

            @help my insurance: The amount of force with which the two bumper bars are being pushed together can be seen by how much the paint is ground back at the point of contact. So when the two hit each other at an angle and one slides across the other you get a good idea of the relative motion of both at time of contact by whether the paint damage trails off quickly or whether it is sustained. In this case it does trail off quickly, indicating car 1 wasn't pushing against car 2 and being dragged to a stop by the friction between car 2's tyres and the road. Car 1 must have already be stationary or close to it.

            I can't speak for the engineering competence of insurance industry assessors. I've never had anything to do with them. My experience comes from looking at wrecks after serious crashes to extrapolate backwards.

            • help my insurance on 26/03/2022 - 19:08
              +1

              @GordonD: Thank you for sharing your knowledge. I agree with your previous point that it would be a lot easier if police had attended the scene and determine who was at fault in terms of the traffic rules. However this is likely going to be each parties insurance claiming the excess from both policy holders.

              Hopefully the insurance assessors are able to determine what occurred from the paint damage but I think they will likely place blame on both parties as it's less work for them.

              • Euphemistic on 27/03/2022 - 07:01

                @help my insurance: Be careful what you do with that information. Posting what you know of a crash based on a few not-hi-res photos and an MS paint diagram is hardly a reliable scientific approach.

                • help my insurance on 27/03/2022 - 12:05

                  @Euphemistic: Why do you say "be careful what you do with that information"?

                  The person has stated their opinion based on what can be seen from the paint damage to Car 1.

              • HeadTheWall on 27/03/2022 - 17:39

                @help my insurance: They will place blame on both parties because they are both to blame, not because it is easier. Both parties stuffed up here

                • help my insurance on 27/03/2022 - 17:53

                  @HeadTheWall: What did Car 1 do wrong?

                  • HeadTheWall on 28/03/2022 - 09:36

                    @help my insurance: They did not minimise their risk, the fact that they reversed onto the road and got hit by another car implies that it was not safe to do this.

                    If they drove out and the other car reversed out and had a crash then it would 100% be the fault of the person reversing. That is not what happened here, car 1 reversed out and stopped in the middle of the road. That doesn't negate what Car 2 did but it is a known fact that there is reduced visibility when reversing so this will be a 50/50 split

                    • help my insurance on 28/03/2022 - 09:42

                      @HeadTheWall: I think the stopping of the road momentarily has been misunderstood.

                      Car 1 has only stopped for a brief second to check surroundings, while in drive about to depart.

                      During the time Car 2 has reversed quickly and had an accident with Car 1.

                      If Car 1 had been driving past slowly, Car 2 would have still had a collision with Car 1.

                      The accident didn't occur while Car 1 was reversing. Car 1 had already reversed onto the street and was about to drive forward.

                      • HeadTheWall on 28/03/2022 - 10:06
                        -1

                        @help my insurance: You still don't get it mate, if you were driving out the reversing car would 100% be at fault.
                        My opinion is that it is never safe to reverse out onto a road when you have an alternative safer option. Everyone has that alternative safer option, and don't mention your low bumper because I don't buy that. Does your vanity come before safety?

            • thom on 16/06/2023 - 08:37

              @GordonD: Hi @GordonD,
              I sent you a message asking for some guidance. I'm unsure if you saw the notification or were able to read it.
              It should be in: My Account > Messages

  • Master Bates on 26/03/2022 - 14:20
    +14

    My suggestion for the future is that you reverse into the driveway to park so you can drive out forwards into traffic.

    • Jimothy Wongingtons on 26/03/2022 - 18:49

      Agreed. Especially as op seems to know this Is a high problem area.

    • PeterSnoot on 27/03/2022 - 10:31

      Good one - unfortunately I can only upvote once!

    • help my insurance on 27/03/2022 - 15:19

      Usually the street is empty. However on weekends it can be full of people going to a nearby market.

      I agree that I should reverse into my driveway so that I can exit driving forwards. Usually this will will scrape the front bumper a lot, but doesn't seem to do it in reverse.

      I think it's good advice to always exit the driveway going forward. I will do this from now on.

      • Master Bates on 27/03/2022 - 15:29
        +1

        Can you drop some concrete/bitumen or wood chocks as a ramp to make the camber/dip less harsh? Might need council approval for a permanent solution.

        • help my insurance on 27/03/2022 - 15:35

          I have been requesting the council to drop some bitumen / hot ash on the driveway area, so that the incline is less harsh. Unfortunately our street is almost at a 45deg angle. They refuse to do any maintenance. I thought to spray paint on the section of road so that they cover it in hot ash, but they may just fine me for the graffiti.

          Council said that I am not allowed to pay someone to put bitumen because if someone in that area, I could be responsible because I've changed the road surface.

            • help my insurance on 27/03/2022 - 16:30

              @Master Bates: Thank you, those are good suggestions. The crossovers in the street already have existing steel ramps, that have likely been there for years. However, these only lessen the incline of the crossover.

              The street is angled sharply so that cars parked parallel with the naturestrip are on an angle and their doors would hit the naturestrip when opening.

              I asked the council if I could put a longer ramp, as a temporary measure, onto the bitumen of the road. The issue is the same, if I place something onto the street and either a driver or pedestrian have an accident near there, I could be blamed.

  • terlalu on 26/03/2022 - 14:23
    +4

    we really need a way to create topics anonymously so people don't have to create new accounts to get help with their car insurance

    • HairyChickens on 26/03/2022 - 16:36
      +1

      OzBargain Motor Accidents & Insurance Consulting
      Tell us about it and we won't give a sh*t

      Also, how did OzBargain become the go-to place for this type of stuff to the extent that people are making new accounts? Lurkers or too embarrassed to use main account (which is against OzB guidelines)

      • [Deactivated] on 26/03/2022 - 18:07

        because the only other option is whirlpool and no one wants to enter that cesspool

  • Seraphin7 on 26/03/2022 - 14:26
    +3

    Why has car 1 effectively stopped right across the road? It seems "interesting" to back straight out across the totality of the road, then stop there to potentially block both directions of traffic.

    This sounds like a defence based on "momentarily" stopping just at the point of collision.

    I suspect there may be more detail to this story than is being told.

    • help my insurance on 26/03/2022 - 14:33
      +1

      Stopping momentarily to change from reverse to drive and to check for other vehicles that may begin moving. Before moving forward, I always perform checking all directions because people often pull out from car spaces quickly. However, in this situation, I when I was stopped I saw the car 2 begin reversing so my car remained stopped.

      • GordonD on 26/03/2022 - 14:38
        +3

        You saw him reversing into you, so you remained stopped there? Here's an idea, you could have gotten out of the way. Or blown your horn to alert him to stop.

        • help my insurance on 26/03/2022 - 14:42
          +5

          I saw Car 2 begin reversing, within a second they have hit my car. I don't think it's possible to drive quickly out of the way without risking causing another accident.

    • GordonD on 26/03/2022 - 14:37
      -4

      More details we haven't been told? Gee, that'd be unusual wouldn't it? That we'd only get the version of the story that the storyteller wants us to believe, and the facts that support that it? Don't we always get all the facts so WE can make the decision, not just swallow the one we've been told?

      • help my insurance on 26/03/2022 - 14:48
        +2

        How can I provide you all of the facts? Car 2 did not provide details of their version of events.
        From their perspective, I would assume that they haven't seen Car 1 before they begin reversing. They may not have even seen Car 1 at all due to the blindspot and only became aware of Car 1 when they felt the impact.

      • help my insurance on 27/03/2022 - 15:36

        I don't understand why you were downvoted. I agree with your comments. It's frustrating when the OP doesn't state the full story and you have to read through all of the comments to obtain all of the details. I will try to include these as updates, as I still find out more relevant details as people ask questions.

  • orangetrain on 26/03/2022 - 14:30
    +7

    Car 1 illegally blocking both lanes instead of reversing into intended lane.

    Car 2 100% fault for reversing into a stationary car.

    Both drivers suck.

    • help my insurance on 26/03/2022 - 14:37

      Car 1 is too small to block both lanes.
      Car 1 reversed into left lane. It's not possible to reverse on an angle into left lane, due to a big hazard on the street (tree root that has raised bitumen).

      • orangetrain on 26/03/2022 - 15:21
        +2

        Car 1 is too small to block both lanes.
        Car 1 reversed into left lane. It's not possible to reverse on an angle into left lane, due to a big hazard on the street (tree root that has raised bitumen).

        Are you saying that Car 2 crossed two lanes to hit Car 1 in opposite lane then?

        MS Paint looks weird with this because there's no lane markings and car 1 doesn't look like they're in drive way. I would ask for location to see how it looks but then we would know where you live ;)

        • help my insurance on 26/03/2022 - 15:53
          +1

          There are no lane markings in the street.
          The size of the vehicles and the width of the street in the MS Paint image is not to scale. There is just enough width for 2 cars to drive in both directions.
          Car 1 has crossed over the 1st lane, that drives towards the right of the image, they are within the 2nd lane, that drives towards the left of the image. They are in drive and checking all directions for cars that may pull out of parking spaces and Car 2 begins reversing and hits the rear of Car 1.
          Car 2 didn't cross any lanes, they started to exit the angled park and hit Car 1.

          • orangetrain on 26/03/2022 - 18:00

            @help my insurance:

            Car 1 had reversed from their driveway into the 2 way street and had come to a complete stop behind Car 2.

            Car 1 is too small to block both lanes.

            Car 2 didn't cross any lanes, they started to exit the angled park and hit Car 1.

            Story doesn't quite add up here.

            Since it sounds like you live there, I would petition the council with neighbour signatures to make the street one way as it sounds like an awfully narrow street. Especially if Car 1 is not blocking a two lane road and the Car 2 on the opposite side was able to hit the Car 1 without entering a lane.

            • help my insurance on 26/03/2022 - 19:21
              +1

              @orangetrain: My vehicle is a small car, it can fit within 1 lane of traffic without blocking the other direction.

              Due to the angled parks, it makes the section of the street narrow, but other sections are wide enough for 2-way traffic.

              I'm unsure what municipality you live in, but it sounds like your council actually listens to its residents. We don't have that kind of luxury here and petitions have no impact.

  • plmko on 26/03/2022 - 16:41
    +3

    The answer will be both parties are proportionally wrong.

    • help my insurance on 27/03/2022 - 15:30

      Hopefully this is not what both insurance companies decide. I think it's easier for them to do this, so that they can collect more excess and more from premiums, but I would hope that they do some analysis to determine who is actually at fault.

  • 87percent on 26/03/2022 - 16:42
    +14

    Don’t care who is at fault, but that’s an excellent ms-paint

  • Brian McGee on 26/03/2022 - 17:55
    +1

    I’m confused, you were still facing your driveway when the impact occurred? Did you not turn when entering the traffic lane? Which way were you going after reversing? Why are you blocking the flow of traffic for both lanes at 90degrees?
    Make believe situations of cars pulling out, jay walking people or busy markets will not help your case for dawdling in the middle of the road.
    Is there dash cam footage seeing as this is a special imported car?

    • help my insurance on 26/03/2022 - 19:31
      +1

      Car 1 has reversed from the driveway, past the vehicles parked parallel to the naturestrip, into the centre of the road. The street is narrow but vehicles can pass in both directions if they are travelling slowly.

      I don't reverse on an angle because there is a hazard (tree roots have lifted the bitumen) which would rip off my bumper if I tried to drive over it. So to avoid that I just reverse straight.

      After reversing, I stop momentarily to put the car in drive, then I check all around me again because it's on weekends it's not uncommon for people to pull out of their parking spaces quickly.

      Car 1 was turning to drive away to the left.
      Car 2 was also reversing from the angle park to drive away to the left.

      There wasn't any dawdling in the middle of the road. It was approx 1-2 seconds, when Car 2 reversed quickly from the parking space into the rear of Car 1.

      Car 1 isn't a special imported car. It's a grey import that is of low value. The cost to repair would require imported parts which would be expensive.

      If there was dash cam footage it would have been uploaded.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join