So, I had an accident...

[hotwire 352]

I think their case will depend entirely on the 'speed' I came around the corner. I wasn't speeding, but as no-one measured this, and no-one present could have seen the contact between the cars, that's a flimsy start at best.

BUT - YOU were stopped at the point of contact. She omitted to make sure her path for the u turn was clear. Quite likely a simple "didn't see" on her part, but still her mistake.

Flimsy case is an under statement.

[kiwi535 538]

i think the damage makes it quite clear she drove into you.If you had been still moving at the point of impact there would be a large dent at the point of impact,not a scrape mark getting worse as it goes

Edited January 7, 2016 by kiwi535

[Allanw 1071]

From those 2 pics... the Merc won!

Oh, you were in a Mercedes?

Totally your fault! Douchbag.

Bahaha! I Seriously had a giggle!

Well Done!

[hybrid 1043]

If I understand you correctly you were stationary at the time of impact?

If so then she hit you...

Edited because apparently my shift key wasn't working too well...

No this is incorrect .. unfortunately he was attempting an over taking manoeuvre.

The dice of it comes down to weather the turning car indicated of not. Seeing as it will be a she said he said it will fall back to the fact he was performing an over taking manoeuvre.

Was in a similar situation a decade ago and it came down to a stale mate. Was easier to just move on and get on with life.

[M3AN 4016]

No this is incorrect .. unfortunately he was attempting an over taking manoeuvre.

I think we both read a different description of the incident. Overtaking somebody doing a u-turn? As they pull out of a carpark into your path?

I'm not sure my "stationary theory" has any merit but I'm far from convinced by your logic.

Mate of mine almost lost both legs when a fool u-turned in front of his motorbike on the harbor bridge years ago (prior to the barrier being in place) and that certainly wasn't classified as him attempting to overtake them! Maybe the rules have changed.

[gjm 3258]

Just to clarify - she had been parked, stationery, on the left side of the road. I had positioned myself to pass a stationery, parked vehicle.

The driver of the other car pulled out from the kerb in a manoeuvre intended to perform a u-turn.

As such, I was expecting to pass a stationery, parked vehicle. Had I been there as little as a second earlier, she may have driven into the side of me when pulling away.

As it was, when I saw her start to move I braked hard, coming to a full stop. Then she made contact with my car, as a result of the u-turn being performed. Had she been simply pulling out from the kerb (around another parked car) and driving down the road, there might have been no contact at all; the only consequence would have been me forced to brake hard to avoid a collision. (Which essentially I did anyway.)

[Red Dwarf 136]

Sorry Josh but I think you've got it wrong...

Whether the driver was indicating to pull out from the side of the road is irrelevant (although relatively simple to prove)... It's simply a case of someone pulling into /attempting to cross a lane of traffic from being parked at the side of the road and not having sufficient time/space to complete the manoeuvre...

[Olaf 3309]

Its easy enough to say that in a hypothetical sense but when you have people running from the scene or making up lies to the police, you may change your mind on what to do the next time around. Also, you would be surprised how many people deny liability when its blatantly obvious that its their fault. Also by being a 'minority' (asian) we get bullied by those who think they can strong-arm us into letting them go. My mother has been abused with a bombardment of words when it wasnt even her fault and since english is her second language she was too scared to say anything in response. Ever since this happened my attitudes on the matter have changed..

Anyway each to their own mate not telling you how to live your life or anything.

thanks for your views. It's not hypothetical; I've been driving for more than 30 years, used to do 1200+kms per week so have been exposed to a number of RTAs, some mine, many more others. I may not have seen it all, though I have seen a lot. It's sad your perspective draws the race card; your experiences are in fact universal regardless of race. I've been there, done that, including the second language.

The point I will reiterate is that where you choose to become a pushy ass seeking admissions on video at an accident, you are more likely to experience dismissal by those who count, or worse, end up assaulted. How you conduct yourself has greater bearing on your personal outcomes, after the accident.

Denial of liability is natural for some. Car A is stationary. Car B runs into the rear. It matters not what driver of car A or car B says - Car B is at fault. Let the insurers work it out, concentrate on safety, welfare, rehabilitation. There will be plenty around with their blood pressure elevated; why contribute further?

Any competent lawyer will destroy your video if it came to court. You'd be portrayed as a technology bully. Isn't that - bullying - what you were taking exception to?

regards

[hybrid 1043]

Question, did she say weather or not she was performing a u turn? or swinging into the car park at all.

See where im going with this ... it doesn't matter where she is on the road .. they go you for performing an over taking maneuver and you argue the opposite that she was parked and pulling a uturn.

The best you can do is push back on her insurance company and state she didn't indicate her intentions blah blah ... but it will end up in a stale mate. It sucks I know and you're probably gonna be left with the bill for the loan car. Unless they have insurance, which most only have 3rd party.

Been there done that with this whole exact situation insurance companies are sh*t and will try it on.

PS insurance companies choose not to take something to court for a minor fender bender ... its not worth their risk if they loose over a relatively small amount of money.

[Nobimmer 694]

Txt her husband, call her bluff.

[M3AN 4016]

Or, txt her husband and ask if they swing?

[gjm 3258]

Question, did she say weather or not she was performing a u turn? or swinging into the car park at all.

See where im going with this ... it doesn't matter where she is on the road .. they go you for performing an over taking maneuver and you argue the opposite that she was parked and pulling a uturn.

The best you can do is push back on her insurance company and state she didn't indicate her intentions blah blah ... but it will end up in a stale mate. It sucks I know and you're probably gonna be left with the bill for the loan car. Unless they have insurance, which most only have 3rd party.

Been there done that with this whole exact situation insurance companies are sh*t and will try it on.

PS insurance companies choose not to take something to court for a minor fender bender ... its not worth their risk if they loose over a relatively small amount of money.

I see what you're saying, but this wasn't an overtaking move (on my part). I was passing a stationery parked car.

Hopefully this shows what happened. I was passing her, she started to pull out, I stopped. Had she of been heading straight down the road we might have been OK, but she turned tighter on something similar to the line I've showed, and contacted my car. She didn't stop at that point, and continued to move forward, dragging her car on the corner of mine. At one point she was virtually at 90 degrees to me, something she would never have been if just pulling out. Then she seemed to realise something was wrong, turned away slightly and pulled into one of the bays shown. (I think it was the 2nd or 3rd bay from the end.) I reversed, then moved forward so I could also park in one of the bays.

In basic terms, I was proceeding along the road when she pulled out of a parking space and drove in to me.

[gjm 3258]

I've not made any attempt to contact the other party involved, either her directly or her husband who's number was provided to me.

This morning, I have received a call from their insurer. I explained the situation, and the representative said "I assume you're not admitting liability?" Lol.

He asked if could email me, asking if I would respond with details of what happened.

I duly received his email:

"Thank you for speaking with me today.

As discuss can you please provide a statement and diagram of the vehicle incident?

Please draw basic pictures to show where the vehicles were and how they came to hit each other with a brief description,"

No problem. I'm happy to do that.

I replied:

"I’ll get some details and a description sorted for you. It may take a day or so.

Be assured I most certainly am NOT admitting any liability!"

I anticipated that would be it until I had sent through the details, but the insurance rep responded:

"Thank you for your reply, no worries if it takes a day or so.

And yes, definitely understand you are not liable for the damage."

This is verbatim - I've not edited for grammar, punctuation or anything.

[M3AN 4016]

Ha! Perhaps he should have proofed his own work?

[gjm 3258]

This one has been put to bed. Following my writing an extensive diatribe on what happened, accompanied by pictures and annotated diagrams, the insurance company have replied:

"Thank you for sending through your statement and diagram along with the images.

We will not be holding you liable for the damages to our clients vehicle,"

Given they'd already said that I doubt they'd have had much luck had they changed their mind.

[DR1FTMONKEY 15]

Glad to hear it worked out. I very nearly had a similar situation on Saturday. Turning right at a T intersection on a quiet street a lady had just pulled over to the left of where I was turning into, as I pulled out seeing she had stopped she then pulled at again into my path. There was also a car coming the other way but I managed to just squeeze through the gap as she realised I was there, must have been bloody close. I was in a tough position for her to see but no indicating or anything from her. I would have been fairly annoyed as I was in my own car, but no harm done, she got a shock and I needed a new pair of undies haha.

[Olaf 3309]

This one has been put to bed. Following my writing an extensive diatribe on what happened, accompanied by pictures and annotated diagrams, the insurance company have replied:

"Thank you for sending through your statement and diagram along with the images.

We will not be holding you liable for the damages to our clients vehicle,"

Given they'd already said that I doubt they'd have had much luck had they changed their mind.

indeed, good result.

what they really meant was "we're not going to try and extract monies from you.... becuase we haven't a leg to stand on, our client is irrational, and you're a consistent and articulate witness.". They (try to) make it sound as though they're a court. "hold you liable" ha! Pull the other one... 500 times. ahhhh, that's better.

cheers

Olaf