Insurance/traffic accident question

[Mercury Bullet]

Originally Posted by Fed

We cross posted commodorenut, your advice is 100% but I'd still not write back at this stage, I'd ignore them & keep my powder dry until later if they bother continuing on with it.

And if it came to the crunch get your insurance company involved.

I wouldn't be writing anything unless I was a lawyer. One misstep and they will walk all over you.

Originally Posted by NTF6

You are correct but this was lane changing not merging.

Isn't it the same thing? Isn't the act of changing lanes called merging?
The link that I posted explains it all. Merging is still merging whether you're changing into someone's lane or two lanes are coming together into one.

OP was changing lanes/merging on marked roads, someone else was in the other lane and given the lanes were marked, they have right of way over OP even if he is further infront.

Edit: just assuming here that the lanes were marked

[ozpacman]

By your own admission Scottc, you were indicating to change lanes and a collision occurred when you were effecting that lane change. It doesn't matter that the other vehicle was accelerating, the fact remains that it was already obviously in the right lane.

The onus is upon you to ensure that lane is clear before you move into it. Unfortunately mate, as I see it, you are in fact the 'at fault' driver with this one.

If it were me I'd be contacting my insurance company. Just in case the other party tries to pull something else out of the hat and throw at you whilst the going's good. I know it's going to cost you a healthy excess but at least it'll be sorted.

Don't beat yourself up over it mate - I would bet that there's not one of us here that hasn't done the same thing or had a near miss doing a hurried lane change at some point. Get it dealt with and move on I reckon.

Russ.

[comfortablynumb]

Originally Posted by Tassie f100

If there is doubt over who was right the the other parties company will demand payment from the you.This is almost normal procedure and really is just bluff.If you admit fault they will demand payment,if you deny fault it most likely will not be pursued any further

Spot on.

Act like a politician with dual citizenship. Deny, deny, deny.

It's a bluff. Bluff 'em back !

[comfortablynumb]

Originally Posted by NTF6

Quick question Scott.
If she was behind you and she had to follow you around the cars waiting to turn right, how did she manage to get up the inside of you?
Did you delay lane changing back to the right hand lane and she didn't because if you had lane changed as soon as you had cleared the cars waiting to turn right she would've still been in the left lane clearing those cars and she wouldn't have been able to come up the inside. So, if you did delay moving back into the right hand lane and she didn't then I think you have lane changed into her...sorry.

More to the point, Scott wasn't trying to be Ayrton Senna, putting on a slingshot pass at the chicane exit and was driving like a normal person.

Alleged aggrieved party was trying to be a smartarse with the "gotta be one car in front syndrome". Came off second best. You wouldn't try that trick in the lineup at the front bar. Quick way to get yourself knocked out !

So it's tough luck, in my book.

The law, however, is different. Proportions of blame will be distributed.

Paying allotted portions of repair cost's of course.

Watch the cost of repair drop dramatically then !!!

[NTF6]

Originally Posted by comfortablynumb

More to the point, Scott wasn't trying to be Ayrton Senna, putting on a slingshot pass at the chicane exit and was driving like a normal person.

Alleged aggrieved party was trying to be a smartarse with the "gotta be one car in front syndrome". Came off second best. You wouldn't try that trick in the lineup at the front bar. Quick way to get yourself knocked out !

So it's tough luck, in my book.

The law, however, is different. Proportions of blame will be distributed.

Paying allotted portions of repair cost's of course.

Watch the cost of repair drop dramatically then !!!

Didn’t say he was, but if he took his time and then she was already in that lane and he moves across, well sorry but not her fault.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[NTF6]

Originally Posted by leesa

Isn't it the same thing? Isn't the act of changing lanes called merging?

The link that I posted explains it all. Merging is still merging whether you're changing into someone's lane or two lanes are coming together into one.



OP was changing lanes/merging on marked roads, someone else was in the other lane and given the lanes were marked, they have right of way over OP even if he is further infront.



Edit: just assuming here that the lanes were marked

Similar but not the same, different rules apply from lane changing to when 2 lanes go into one.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Mechan1k]

The rule WorkHorse wrote on the prior page is correct.
This is a case of lane changing ... and not merging (NTF6 posted this as well)

Going on what was said ... the OP was at fault in this case. And the insurance company will find this as well.

Merging is completely different from lane changing. If there are parked cars and the lane is still there .... it's not merging at all. It's only merging if your lane ends and the left unbroken line guides your lane across to the right.

Originally Posted by NTF6

On merging, if the broken marked line continues all the way to the very end of the lane that merges then the lane that wishes to merge to the right has to give way to any traffic in the right hand lane, IF the broken marked line stops before the lane runs out then the vehicle in front has right of way.

99% don't realise this ... and think it is their god given right that they are allowed to merge at will .... across broken lines.

This is from the SA legislation ... which looks pretty much like the NSW one anyway (and should all be the same Australia wide really



See it everyday in NSW ... if people were a little smarter and just allowed to to flow smoother ... there wouldn't be this problem.

[Ben73]

So I'm guessing she told her insurance that she was in the right lane and you were in the left changing across and hit her.
If you were indicating and started moving across into a free lane and she attempted to zip around you at speed I would say she is at fault. Proving that without a dashcam would be tricky though.
Dashcam saved me from an insurance excess in a situation that sounded dodgy during and explanation. The camera doesn't lie though.

[scottc]

Originally Posted by NTF6

Quick question Scott.
If she was behind you and she had to follow you around the cars waiting to turn right, how did she manage to get up the inside of you?
Did you delay lane changing back to the right hand lane and she didn't because if you had lane changed as soon as you had cleared the cars waiting to turn right she would've still been in the left lane clearing those cars and she wouldn't have been able to come up the inside. So, if you did delay moving back into the right hand lane and she didn't then I think you have lane changed into her...sorry.

If I recall correctly, there was room to safely change lane, but she was closing the gap, possibly to get in front of me, maybe she was distracted and wasn't concentrating. I was well into the lane when she struck me.
I actually never felt like I struck her, but felt like she ran into me. It was a fairly wide lane, and maybe she thought she had room to go around?

[commodorenutt]

Be interesting to see the damage to her mirror - where it is damaged, and what the direction of impact (and severity) is.

If the impact goes parallel (or close to parallel) to the direction of travel, in a rearward direction - either twisting the mirror around on it's pivot against the window, or shearing it off, then it proves she was moving much faster than you - hence adding weight to the "must get in front at all costs" driving practice we all think she was trying to do (which is pointless, and very dangerous when you're in a near single-file processing meandering around obstacles).

If the impact is pushed in from the side - towards the centre of the car, then she has right to claim you moved onto her at similar speeds - you'd clearly be in the wrong, as it shows she was there for some time (to be able to match your speed) and you should have seen her with a mirror or head check.

And if the impact is parallel or close to parallel to the direction of travel, but goes forward on her car (not rearward) - dragging the mirror around to the front on its pivot, then it would show you scraped along her while she tried to avoid you. This would win her some brownie points in the blame game too.

[ford71V8]

Originally Posted by hawke

How did the other insurance company find you?

That was my first thought too.

scottc obviously didn't hand over details after the incident so this must mean the insurance company tracked him down via rego plate?

[Pepscobra]

I'd ignore it totally. It's nothing but a poxy demand letter intended to intimidate. It has no legal merit whatsoever. For the sake of 10 minutes writing the letter and a 60c stamp, they are taking a punt you will get scared and pay.
Was there a police report or any other report written at the time of the incident?
If not, they have nothing.

[whitelion65]

Wearing the black hat; you're gone!
C'nut, it doesn't matter which way the mirror is bent, it's an interesting analysis, but the fact remains OP has changed lanes without due caution.
A lot of opinions offered from a few lines of description, but IF it were necessary for you to get back to the RH lane, you should have been indicating right as you were passing the turning traffic, giving you the legal requirements (30m? 3sec??) to change lanes, and no-one could've come up along-side you.
Why people make things difficult for themselves, I'll never know!

[snowcone]

Standard insurance company practice.
Just ignore and keep ignoring it.
They will give up once they realise you aren't coming to the party

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by CyberWasp

Isn't it a standard practice for car insurance companies to claim damages on behalf of their client?
Even if the client is in the wrong and the other persons pays, they have saved money.

No, far from it. I only know of one line of immoral insurers that do it.

Originally Posted by Sioso

Do you still have the envelope the letter came in?
Re-seal and write - RTS - Not at this Address.
Otherwise wait for the next letter, don't open it and do the above.

I hate scumbags that do this. If you are at fault for something, stand up and accept it.

[comfortablynumb]

Originally Posted by Pepscobra

I'd ignore it totally. It's nothing but a poxy demand letter intended to intimidate. It has no legal merit whatsoever. For the sake of 10 minutes writing the letter and a 60c stamp, they are taking a punt you will get scared and pay.
Was there a police report or any other report written at the time of the incident?
If not, they have nothing.

Exactly.

Son in Law got a letter from an insurance company a while back.

He had been in a rear ender 6 months previously. His fault. Reasonable damage to his car (towed away). 4 x4 he hit, all jacked up with high lift jacks, jerry cans etc etc. had no damage.

6 months later receive a letter of demand claiming a shock absorber had "fallen out" while driving along the road. Caused by 6 month earlier prang etc etc.

Son in law was in a bit of a flap about it. Several thousand dollars.

I laughed an asked "just fell out? 6 months later?"

Send them an email and ask if that was while driving the Simpson or was it the Strezleki Track.

Heard nothing more.....

Did you or did you not, exchange details with this woman?

If you did not, it never happened or it is a case of mistaken identity.

[Itsme]

Letter from insurance is a bluff to get you to pay, ignore it.

[uniacidz]

Originally Posted by Officemanager

Letter from insurance is a bluff to get you to pay, ignore it.

Lol exactly

Don't pay attention to it



Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD [MM .352]

[scottc]

Originally Posted by ford71V8

That was my first thought too.

scottc obviously didn't hand over details after the incident so this must mean the insurance company tracked him down via rego plate?

We both pulled over and exchanged details at the time of the accident.

[ford71V8]

ok, a few assumptions being made then on my behalf.
I took it you were surprised to see a letter but it seems you should have been expecting some further communication about the incident.
Was there any admission of guilt at the time of swapping insurance details?
I can imagine I would have been telling the lady off for undercutting and its no wonder she lost a mirror.

Expensive mirror.

[Tassie f100]

Originally Posted by ford71V8

ok, a few assumptions being made then on my behalf.
I took it you were surprised to see a letter but it seems you should have been expecting some further communication about the incident.
Was there any admission of guilt at the time of swapping insurance details?
I can imagine I would have been telling the lady off for undercutting and its no wonder she lost a mirror.

Expensive mirror.

I seem to recall a while ago when some one complained about Jeep parts prices.Pretty sure it was something like $2000 for a mirror.If it went to a shop to be fitted there was probably $100-200 labour charge

Originally Posted by comfortablynumb

Exactly.

Son in Law got a letter from an insurance company a while back.

He had been in a rear ender 6 months previously. His fault. Reasonable damage to his car (towed away). 4 x4 he hit had no damage.

6 months later receive a letter of demand claiming a shock absorber had "fallen out" while driving along the road. Caused by 6 month earlier prang etc etc.

I wouldn't be quick to blow it off. I've had people run into the back of my car with a load-levelling towbar on it and they all go "Phew, lucky you've got that tow bar, no damage to YOUR car" but they don't seem to consider that the bar is attached to the chassis of my car which is where the force of the impact will be transferred to.
It's designed to pull a lot of weight but gradually, it's not designed to be slammed into with a sudden impact; they're two different forces and if you hit it hard enough the damage is likely to be visible underneath my car, not really something you can properly check on the side of the road immediately after an incident. But they all just look for panel damage.

[comfortablynumb]

Originally Posted by leesa

I wouldn't be quick to blow it off. I've had people run into the back of my car with a load-levelling towbar on it and they all go "Phew, lucky you've got that tow bar, no damage to YOUR car" but they don't seem to consider that the bar is attached to the chassis of my car which is where the force of the impact will be transferred to.
It's designed to pull a lot of weight but gradually, it's not designed to be slammed into with a sudden impact; they're two different forces and if you hit it hard enough the damage is likely to be visible underneath my car, not really something you can properly check on the side of the road immediately after an incident. But they all just look for panel damage.

"A while back" was 4 years ago.

That 4x4 could have gone anywhere in that time and the cause of the shock absorber "falling out" could have been anything.

Nice try fella. Do better next time.

[Mercury Bullet]

Originally Posted by Tassie f100

I seem to recall a while ago when some one complained about Jeep parts prices.Pretty sure it was something like $2000 for a mirror.If it went to a shop to be fitted there was probably $100-200 labour charge

Kangaroo knocked the drivers mirror off my Volvo.

Was told two grand to repair. I said your freaking kidding me, its a mirror ffs!
Mechanic went onto explain the s80 external mirrors are heated, hence the cost. Once upon a time a mirror was a piece of silvered glass.

[.:4:.]

Originally Posted by Tassie f100

I seem to recall a while ago when some one complained about Jeep parts prices.Pretty sure it was something like $2000 for a mirror.If it went to a shop to be fitted there was probably $100-200 labour charge

My brother in law had the same gripe when he had a jeep years ago. Someone stole both the heated mirrors (just the glass) and it cost pretty much the cars value to replace them. He couldn't find any second hand as they go like hotcakes.

[BENT_8]

Another example of impatient driving and an innocent party paying the price.

Almost happened to me last week.
I was towing the new caravan down Grand Junction Rd here in Adelaide, where it intersects with Old Port rd it merges into a single lane with a slip lane for the traffic entering from Old Port rd and then becomes two lanes again.
So I had to slow slightly to get into the right lane as the left lane ends, I indicate my intentions to merge into the right lane and a Suzuki Vitara makes way for me, all good.
I looked left as I crossed the lights and saw no one coming around the corner off of Old Port rd and put my indicator on so I could merge back into the left lane when the concrete divider ends.
Once i'd cleared the lane divider for the slip lane I go to re enter the new left lane which was clear, check my mirrors again and begin to merge, only for the Suzuki driver behind me to dart into the left lane and up beside the back quarter of the van.
At this stage I'm already half way into the left lane.
She blasts her horn and gives the usual gestures obviously believing she was in the right.
Luckily I was watching carefully and saw her pop out behind me on the left and i pulled back fully into the right lane.
If i'd hit her it would be deemed as my fault even though it was her that failed to give way to my well signalled intention to change lanes and allow her to go through on my right as I hadn't been able to get back up to speed in the short 100m distance since i'd moved into the right lane.
Turns out she needed to turn left at the lights 2 or 3 hundred meters up the road and would have easily done just that had she passed me on the right but no, she was impatient and I almost paid the price.