Wednesday, June 16, 2010 - 02:00 am, by: Ali Saeed(Ali)
i think the rule used to be that if the damage was more than a $1000 you could call the cops or whatever. but i think now you can just report it online or something.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010 - 06:47 am, by: Matthew Sharpe(Madmatt)
Callum Finch wrote on Tuesday, June 15, 2010 - 10:35 pm:
Interesting, a good mate of mine was in the same situation (coming down a hill, tboned an old lady turning out) and copped the blame by the police.
How fast was he going? What were the conditions like? Had he been drinking or using drugs?
When my Soarer was nearly written off last year, the guy who pulled out in front of me was done by the police for failing to give way (controlled intersection) - as was the guy 6 years ago when my first Soarer was written off (he got done for dangerous driving since he never even stopped at the stop sign) Both times I was under the speed limit in good conditions with plenty of witnesses to back me up, but I imagine if I had been speeding, or driving too fast for the conditions, or drunk or whatever, I would have copped the blame.
If this is not the same set of rules in Australia, remind me never to drive there again! It would be terrifying to think that someone could just turn out, left or right, in front of you without warning and you'd be the one up creek!
Wednesday, June 16, 2010 - 02:42 pm, by: Aiden Cheese(Chillpen)
I don't know but that story doesn't add up. I think his mate might not have disclosed all the details. The only thing that cops WOULD have done is blame him for reckless driving. They don't have input on the case they only take facts in the report they don't make decisions.
If they make decisions that would ruin the objectivity of insurance claims. Chances are "Blamed by the police" was words to the effect to "Did something illegal and noted it in their report" and as soon as that was the case, then the party being illegal probably lost over the party that pulled out.
Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 09:57 pm, by: Damian Ware(Frozenpod)
I have heard first hand of a few people who didn't have insurance and even though they were not at fault didn't have there cars repaired by the other at fault drivers insurance company.
Simply due to not having insurance they were left in the both ended up in court where one was proven not in the wrong and the other left the country with it still unresolved years later.
The found not in fault accident had a police report of the accident and two wittnesses that proved he was not at fault (the other driver ran a red light) yet the at faults driver insurance company didn't pay for the repairs to his car and sent him a bill for the damage to the other car.
He was proven in the right but it took nearly 2 years to resolve and $3000 in legal fees. He was issued I think a very small portion of the blame (it was 5 or 10%) which I have since found out always what happens. Having some very small portion of blame ment he was left out of pocket for the legal fees.
If he had insurance even third party he would have had zero issues as insurance companies generally don't fight other insurance companies in court and they certainly don't when there is clear cut cause/wrong party.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010 - 06:11 pm, by: Callum Finch(Sigeneat)
In my mate's case it was classed as a failure to allow appropriate stopping distance. If you rear-end someone i understand the law is always on the side of the person you hit, until it goes to court and logic is allowed to come in to play.
As per the other article there has yet to be any evidence presented which shows the car in the event of failure can not be shut down, neutral selected or brakes applied to overcome the engines sudden accelleration.
From the above report 60% of drivers didn't even apply the brakes I wonder if these accidents were caused by uninteded accelleration or was this driver error whilst trying to accellerate as hard as possible....