How to prove it wasnt my fault..? - Page 3

ebxr82nv · 16-02-2009, 05:59 PM

Regardless of what the other driver did, you hit him from behind even though you took all care in your actions you hit the back of his car. Due to this you will be at fault. Pay the excess it will be cheaper in the long run

_CRUZ_ · 16-02-2009, 06:13 PM

um not always at fault sorry dude, depends on the circumstances. Especially now adays with road rage being a factor.

For instance if there was a witness who saw the guy jot infront of him and slam on the brakes how would he be at fault? He wasn't following to closly or anything lets say!

Just an example.

**aussiblue** · 16-02-2009, 07:13 PM

Quote:

EgoXR... I also understand what you are saying. You have explained it very clearly three times now. What I don't understand is how some people on here, after reading it three times, are still not following what took place. I was getting frustrated reading this thread because so many people were clearly not reading what you were saying... that or they are a bit thick in the head lol.

I think we understand what he is saying but are just not convinced of the rationale for arguing the other driver is solely at fault.

pauljh74 · 16-02-2009, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by merlin

You will most likley be deemed at fault as you hit him in the rear - personally I think your both at fault. You say you left enough room to stop - but obviosuly you didn't if you hit him - in other words you didn't account for all potential hazards (this includes morons cutting in front of you). Not having a go here, just telling you how it is.

He left room to stop, until he was abruptly cut off. The other guy failed to give way and changed lanes in an unsafe manner. You can leave a gap to ensure you can stop safely, but if someone pulls into that gap and brakes hard, then a reasonable person can't be expected to avoid a collision in these circumstances.

EgoXR · 16-02-2009, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattkeane88

EgoXR... I also understand what you are saying. You have explained it very clearly three times now. What I don't understand is how some people on here, after reading it three times, are still not following what took place. I was getting frustrated reading this thread because so many people were clearly not reading what you were saying... that or they are a bit thick in the head lol.

Good luck to you mate. Let's hope the insurance company understands a little better. Maybe go in an see them - take sock puppets and pretty diagrams :P

Matt

Haha thanks mate. People just dont seem to get it!

Anyway I spoke to the insurance company today. Turns out the guy isnt answering his phone nor is he returning calls. same with his boss who is the owner of the car. They clearly they know there inthe wrong and are not ready to fess up.

dave289 · 17-02-2009, 09:03 AM

Why or how could someone come from behind you as you were merging then go two lanes across and then around in front of you when the other lane was probably full, if not why would'nt he have stayed there. I know there are plenty of tools out there ,but the bottom line is if there is no witness it is your story against his.if you have no photos of the car half in your lane or no witness unfortunately you will have to pay. your only agument was the damage to your car was on one side,which could just mean he was in his lane dead straight and you swerved across to the side to avoid the collision but could not and thats why the damage is only on one side. while this may not be the case, if there is no witnesses thats what this guy will say happened. I dont know exactly what happened because you have no proof and either will anybody else that you tell, weather it be insurance or the police or the magistarte, it does not look good but I wish you good luck. next time, get your camera out and take some pics which might have told the story as to what happened.

LTDHO · 17-02-2009, 09:16 AM

OK, where Y = You and H = Him.

He followed you.
Y
H

He passed you (either side doesn't matter in this case)
YH

He pulled infront of you.
H
Y

The fact you don't like is, whilst he was passing, you had the oportunity to make space. You chose not to. Sure he did cut infront of you and mad an unsafe manuver, but you didn't do anything to make it safe.

Take some responsibility for your actions.

GT-0099 · 17-02-2009, 09:29 AM

i think some people should lay off EGOXR as a lot of you dont seem to understand what he has said i dont know wether you dont actually read the posts or what but like the above example it was more like this

Y=EGOXR H= other vehicle
merging into traffic
Y
..H

merged into traffic
Y
H

then car behind passes
YH

Then car behind pulls in front but does not make the full lane change and impact occurs with him half in EGOXR's lane
...H
..Y

GS608 · 17-02-2009, 10:18 AM

sounds like to other bloke didn't like you merging infront of him and wanted to pull infront of you causing the accident

GS608 · 17-02-2009, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LTDHO

OK, where Y = You and H = Him.

He followed you.
Y
H

He passed you (either side doesn't matter in this case)
YH

He pulled infront of you.
H
Y

The fact you don't like is, whilst he was passing, you had the oportunity to make space. You chose not to. Sure he did cut infront of you and mad an unsafe manuver, but you didn't do anything to make it safe.

Take some responsibility for your actions.

when someone pulls beside you, do you slow down?
you don't expect someone who just pulled beside you to boot it and jump into your lane with traffic up a head stopped.

ILLaViTaR · 17-02-2009, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LTDHO

OK, where Y = You and H = Him.

He followed you.
Y
H

He passed you (either side doesn't matter in this case)
YH

He pulled infront of you.
H
Y

The fact you don't like is, whilst he was passing, you had the oportunity to make space. You chose not to. Sure he did cut infront of you and mad an unsafe manuver, but you didn't do anything to make it safe.

Take some responsibility for your actions.

So every time there's a car next to me I should account for the fact that he may decide cut over in front of me, without reasonable notification with indicators.

Are you one of those people who decides to stop in the middle of the roundabout until the oncoming traffic comes to a dead stop?

Yaw · 17-02-2009, 06:27 PM

Go back to post 1 where what was said was this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by EgoXR

During this week I drove my ute up somebodys rear. Through no fault of my own. Was a little hilux ute, with an aluminum tray.

It was on Canterbury Rd just over blackburn rd, it goes from three lanes into two. I was merging from the left lane into the next, when this bloke was behind my car. the traffic in front of us was slowing down as was I.
I was indicating and was clearly halfway into the next lane,

From what he has said here, he was changing lanes and halfway into the next lane.

Now he needs to give way to all traffic in the lane beside him when he is changing lanes.

He then goes on to say :

Quote:

Originally Posted by EgoXR

Then the same guy that was behind me darted around me in the next lanepulled in front of me, when clearly there was no room, and slammed on his brakes to avoid hitting the traffic infront which was now stationary. Now at the point of impact, he was half in my lane and half in the lane next to mine, hence me only having damage to my FRHS.

Which in fact means whilst EgoXR was still changing lanes and not yet completed his manurvre, the other car has had time to PASS him and be in front of him. hitting his front right side and the other persons rear left side of the tray.
To make what EgoXR is saying plausable would mean that the other guy would have to have damage to his left side, not his rear left side.
EgoXr has been in the process of changing lanes and then hit a car that was in front of him.
Best outcome you will get if the other person admits to EXACTLY what EgoXr is saying would be an "EACH BEAR OWN" costs, which means there is no recovery from the other person therefore his excess will stand. But I seriously doubt the other person will state that, as his damage to his rear left side shows that EgoXR according to HIS OWN words that he was clearly halfway into the next lane, If the other person was half way in this same lane there would be no impact.
Which in turn means EgoXr has either failed right of way to the other guy who by his damage was clearly further foward than EgoXr.

I am sorry this is not what you want to hear, but this is how it will turn out based on the road rules and liability.

pauljh74 · 17-02-2009, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yaw

From what he has said here, he was changing lanes and halfway into the next lane.

Now he needs to give way to all traffic in the lane beside him when he is changing lanes.

He said it went from 3 lanes to 2 - which means zip merging rule was employed ie. car in front has right of way. He has done this, then the car he just merged in front of drives around him, moving into the next lane and cuts him off and hits the brakes in rapid succession. So the other guy has moved from what had become the left lane, into the right lane, then back into the left without giving way and braked hard. If the other guy wasn't driving in such an unsafe and illegal manner, this collision wouldn't have happened.

EgoXR · 17-02-2009, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GT-0099

i think some people should lay off EGOXR as a lot of you dont seem to understand what he has said i dont know wether you dont actually read the posts or what but like the above example it was more like this

Y=EGOXR H= other vehicle
merging into traffic
Y
..H

merged into traffic
Y
H

then car behind passes
YH

Then car behind pulls in front but does not make the full lane change and impact occurs with him half in EGOXR's lane
...H
..Y

Spot on. Ignore previous posts. This is what happened.

Rob's 76 Effy · 17-02-2009, 08:16 PM

It's simple really, just put a claim in and see what happens, but i dont think it really matters if he was half in your lane or not you still hit him, looks like your more upset that you got damage to your car and he drove of with nothing

Yaw · 17-02-2009, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pauljh74

He said it went from 3 lanes to 2 - which means zip merging rule was employed ie. car in front has right of way. He has done this, then the car he just merged in front of drives around him, moving into the next lane and cuts him off and hits the brakes in rapid succession. So the other guy has moved from what had become the left lane, into the right lane, then back into the left without giving way and braked hard. If the other guy wasn't driving in such an unsafe and illegal manner, this collision wouldn't have happened.

Except that the car in front was the other car, the damage to that car was the rear, meaning he was not the lead car.

GT-0099 · 17-02-2009, 09:41 PM

basically all you can do mate is just ride it out see what your insurance company will do best of luck it could go either way really

pauljh74 · 17-02-2009, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yaw

Except that the car in front was the other car, the damage to that car was the rear, meaning he was not the lead car.

He was, THEN the other car drove around him by moving into the next lane to the right. It's all in his first post.

gz1 · 17-02-2009, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EgoXR

Now at the point of impact, he was half in my lane and half in the lane next to mine, hence me only having damage to my FRHS.

Does that mean you were wholly in your lane and he was half way between two lanes? Cause if that is the case then he should be booked for not changing lanes with care which makes him liable for the accident.

Trendseeker · 17-02-2009, 11:27 PM

1. Forget the merging. It happened well before the collision occurred, because the other driver had time to go around in the next lane. It may have had an influence on the other driver's thinking processes (causing him to try to cut you off) but no one can be confident of what he was thinking, so anything you say about it is speculation. Leave the merging out of the report to the police and the insurance company.If the other guy mentions it in his report, it will only cast a worse light on his actions.
2. The collision to the rear of the other driver's car doesn't automatically imply that the car behind is the one at fault. There is no law that says so. Typically, rear end collisions are the fault of the driver behind, but not always. It isn't a certainty.
3. If two cars collide and one was changing lanes, then the one changing lanes is at fault because the road rules state that you must exercise caution when changing lanes. The other driver didn't.
4. State clearly that the other driver changed lanes and the collision occurred when he was half way between the two lanes. Draw it that way in the diagram.
5. I can tell you from experience that the insurance company will hold the other driver at fault if they accept your version of events. If the other driver decides to tell a lie, then it will be more difficult to support your claim without witnesses. If he's gone to ground, then it would appear he knows he's in trouble.

_CRUZ_ · 17-02-2009, 11:42 PM

well said

EgoXR · 18-02-2009, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2008WhiteSR

1. Forget the merging. It happened well before the collision occurred, because the other driver had time to go around in the next lane. It may have had an influence on the other driver's thinking processes (causing him to try to cut you off) but no one can be confident of what he was thinking, so anything you say about it is speculation. Leave the merging out of the report to the police and the insurance company.If the other guy mentions it in his report, it will only cast a worse light on his actions.
2. The collision to the rear of the other driver's car doesn't automatically imply that the car behind is the one at fault. There is no law that says so. Typically, rear end collisions are the fault of the driver behind, but not always. It isn't a certainty.
3. If two cars collide and one was changing lanes, then the one changing lanes is at fault because the road rules state that you must exercise caution when changing lanes. The other driver didn't.
4. State clearly that the other driver changed lanes and the collision occurred when he was half way between the two lanes. Draw it that way in the diagram.
5. I can tell you from experience that the insurance company will hold the other driver at fault if they accept your version of events. If the other driver decides to tell a lie, then it will be more difficult to support your claim without witnesses. If he's gone to ground, then it would appear he knows he's in trouble.

Much thanks to your post!

LTDHO · 19-02-2009, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XR-CHIEF

when someone pulls beside you, do you slow down?
you don't expect someone who just pulled beside you to boot it and jump into your lane with traffic up a head stopped.

Yes I do, as anticipate his move, as all good drivers do. This prevents accidents.
If someone pulls out from behind you, common sense will show they need to pull back in, especially if the lane ends.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

So every time there's a car next to me I should account for the fact that he may decide cut over in front of me, without reasonable notification with indicators.

Yes. Again, it’s being responsible and careful driver. Think first and don’t assume you only control the radius of your car. It’s dangerous to assume that the other driver cares for their car or cares for the law, so you need to protect yourself from that. It is not hard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

Are you one of those people who decides to stop in the middle of the roundabout until the oncoming traffic comes to a dead stop?

No that is just plain stupid and causes accidents. It’s all about looking ahead whilst driving, see potential dangers before you are involved in an incident. Any responsible driver does it.

The irresponsible, they point fingers any always blame the other person.

RG · 21-02-2009, 09:57 AM

And on that note