accident

Harryin Ford · 24-12-2008, 04:12 PM

Last Sat, When I reversed my car from the car space at MQ shopping centre car park, another car came from the wrong direction hit my car, damaged my rear bumper, and the insurance company said it was my fault. What d ....?

: So next time if I want to change my front bumper, should I just drive the wrong way and hit someone who reverse from the car space? :evil3: kidding....

Pinkbits · 24-12-2008, 04:31 PM

They way they see it is irrespective of what the other driver did, it is your fault as you "did not reverse when safe to do so".
I know it and you know it is wrong, but it is their ticket out.

Mullett · 24-12-2008, 06:01 PM

Which makes it even worse with the w**kers doing 40km/h through the carparks.

-RM.

819_FLY · 24-12-2008, 07:20 PM

I should not and will not try to avoid the swear filter in future.

Its not a good thing to do

Go baby Go · 24-12-2008, 09:18 PM

Unfortunately, you are technically at fault.

As the previous post said, you didn't "reverse when safe to do so". i'm not saying it's right or wrong, just what the insurance companies say.

hubby was reversing and made contact with the car directly opposite who was also reversing (other car only just started to reverse when hubby already out of carpark and about to change into 1st), and insurance said they both at fault because both were not reversing when safe to do so.

DragonMesh · 25-12-2008, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 819_FLY

I should not and will not try to avoid the swear filter in future.

Its not a good thing to do

lol swearing filter on a car owners forum? whats the driving age? :(

xr6turbo2005 · 24-12-2008, 09:34 PM

regardless of if it's your fault, if u have comprehensive insurance, arent you covered ??? still would have excess to pay.

Mullett · 25-12-2008, 12:29 AM

yup, covered.

-RM

Mullett · 25-12-2008, 12:45 AM

That said, it'll ruin your no-claim, affect your history...etc

So weigh up the cost of paying for the repairs yourself (and get a few quotes) versus the overall cost of the insurance claim before you decide to get them to pay for it.

-RM.

819_FLY · 26-12-2008, 12:40 AM

Yeh it caught me by suprise aswell... apparently people are offended too easily these days... pity. :(

RG · 26-12-2008, 12:43 AM

This is a family oriented forum and believe it or not younguns can use computers too. You don't need to be old enough to drive a Ford to be a fan.

Mullett · 26-12-2008, 01:56 PM

Much as it's annoying having a swear filter, try using an un-moderated forum...somehow they just rapidly descend into swearing matches and immature one-upsmanship...so it's not all a bad thing

-RM.

DragonMesh · 26-12-2008, 05:31 PM

fair call its a filtered forum doesnt affect me... just some of the things ya hear kids comming out with today they worse than the adults lol

as for the thread... i've just had my back bumper/boot lid scratched by someone... looks like they have dropped something on it maybe, its annoying though because i've just got the bumper repaired from where someone drove into it... both times no details left!

Yaw · 26-12-2008, 07:22 PM

As i work in Motor Claims, I take acception to everyone who is saying it is the insurance companies way out.

This is what the Traffic Opperations Road Use Manual (TORUM) {legislative road rules state :
296 Driving a vehicle in reverse
(1) The driver of a vehicle must not reverse the vehicle unless the
driver can do so safely.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.
(2) The driver of a vehicle must not reverse the vehicle further
than is reasonable in the circumstances.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.

Source: http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LE...ntOpRURR99.pdf

Now as you can plainly see YOU must not reverse unless safe to do so, as you had an accident with someone driving in a foward motion, YOU ARE AT FAULT in this accident.
It is not the insurance company, it is the traffic laws.

Randy_G · 27-12-2008, 01:16 PM

Quote:

It is not the insurance company, it is the traffic laws.

Fair enough, but it is a cop-out, and taking the easy way out by the insurance companies (in my opinion). It is also a violation of the traffic laws to exceed ANY posted speed limit, and to drive in the wrong direction. Does not the person driving forwards in a car park have an obligation to drive in a safe and responsible manner, obeying all traffic laws as well ?? Were they driving with all due care and attention, they would see a vehicle reversing out of a stall.

There are numerous times when it is impossible to see what is coming when parked between two 4wds (for instance). Especially if the other vehicle is driven in the wrong direction, or exceeding the posted limit. So the only option is to creep out, and hope no idiot is pretending he/she is Skaife/Lowndes etc. and hope for the best. I know what a lawyer will say, "have your passenger get out, and look for you ...". Fair enough, but what about when I'm on my own ??? Wait for one of the behemoths to move so I can see?? Not really a realistic option.

I'm not having a go at you Yaw, just offering up my opinion on what I see as using the reversing party as an easy scapegoat, when it is clear that both parties are in the wrong, and are responsible. Yes both are in the wrong, as the driver who is driving in the forward direction is clearly not driving with all due care and attention.

Yaw · 03-01-2009, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randy_G

Fair enough, but it is a cop-out, and taking the easy way out by the insurance companies (in my opinion). It is also a violation of the traffic laws to exceed ANY posted speed limit, and to drive in the wrong direction. Does not the person driving forwards in a car park have an obligation to drive in a safe and responsible manner, obeying all traffic laws as well ?? Were they driving with all due care and attention, they would see a vehicle reversing out of a stall.

There are numerous times when it is impossible to see what is coming when parked between two 4wds (for instance). Especially if the other vehicle is driven in the wrong direction, or exceeding the posted limit. So the only option is to creep out, and hope no idiot is pretending he/she is Skaife/Lowndes etc. and hope for the best. I know what a lawyer will say, "have your passenger get out, and look for you ...". Fair enough, but what about when I'm on my own ??? Wait for one of the behemoths to move so I can see?? Not really a realistic option.

I'm not having a go at you Yaw, just offering up my opinion on what I see as using the reversing party as an easy scapegoat, when it is clear that both parties are in the wrong, and are responsible. Yes both are in the wrong, as the driver who is driving in the forward direction is clearly not driving with all due care and attention.

Unfortunately there is a difference between traffic infringements and liability.
An insurance company deals with liability. Let me explain what I mean with 2 hypothetical examples.
Example 1:
Failing right of way
Let’s say you are turning right at a t intersection and you have a stop sign.
As you turn right a car coming from your right hits your car. So you have damage to the right side of your car and he has front end damage.
I am sure you would agree you are 100% at fault for failing right of way.
You are responsible for paying both his damage and yours.

Example 2:
Exact same accident as described above, except the car coming from the right is unregistered being driven by an unlicensed driver who is drunk as a skunk.
It would surprise most people to find out you are still responsible to pay for the damages to his car, regardless that you argue the unregistered, unlicened; drunk driver should not have been on the road. It comes back to this:
Would the accident have happened if you did not fail to give way?
The answer is no, therefore you are still responsible for the accident.
It's not to say that person would not get a truck load of traffic infringements, but that does not negate your liability.

819_FLY · 03-01-2009, 11:53 AM

Considering the fact that you pulled out in front of the person on the road would mean that you are 100% liable, if they weren't drunk or unlicensed you would be at blame so why given the fact that their personal circumstances change should you moral responsibility change that they are under the influence. I know it is a way, but the insurance company would prove that You caused the accident, not the drunk person, so you are liable.

Then the drunk person should have to deal with the Police when they report to the scene of the crime.

fishontherun · 06-01-2009, 04:40 PM

hi Yaw,
from your 2nd example could I put it this way : " Would the accident has happened if the other guy wasn't speeding in a wrong direction in a car park ? " I don't think it would. If I were reversing out of parking, should I only have to look to the on coming traffic direction ?

**PepeLePew** · 06-01-2009, 04:52 PM

This thread is going a bit awry but I'll air my old accident which wasnt reversing, but interesting. I was turning right onto Port Road here in Adelaide, dual carriageways with a nice fat strip of lawn and carparks in the middle. I had made it into the middle and was turning right obviously with the flow of traffic, and there was stuff all. Looked for cars coming, none, turned my head forwards to commence turn, nothing. As Im commencing the turn, I have a glimpse of a vehicle coming to whack me...braked quickly but not quickly enough to avoid quality contact.

Said vehicle was coming up the WRONG way up the road from a driveway, trying to save a few metres travel.

Long and short...insurance company quietly threw some blame my way, even though the cops (who just happened to be travelling past at the time) clearly reported the illegal act of the other vehicle. Jacked up my premium and dropped my rating.

So I rang another company, explained the situation, got offered my rating back, and I was partially happy again except the memory of my pride and joy being damaged.

Insurance companies are very black and white, but they are a business, not a friend.