Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Either way, you should have gotten photos right then and there...who's idea was it to move the cars from the acco scence? yours or her's? (my bet is it was her's) you should leave them where they are and get as many photos / witnesses as possible.

Because you moved the cars there is no evidence to support your claim.

Spot on.

I hate it when cops behave like this. It just adds to the belief that they are unprofessional. When was the last time 4 patrol cars arrived at a minor accident like this? They are clearly looking after a mate irrespective of how bad it looks for them. Was she insured? You can imagine the temptation if you were a cop and you have just crashed into an expensive merc driven by a P plater and you have no insurance. Call your mates to intimidate the kid and hope he admits fault.

Let your insurer handle it.

I would also lodge a complaint with the commander or inspector at the local station. Take your mate and lodge a formal complaint which deals with the conduct of the officers rather than the accident and who was at fault. I had a Highway Patrol cop deal with me inappropriately in a traffic matter and I immediately rang the LAC and went to his superior officer. I politely explained the situation and noted how I felt it reflected badly on the police force. He listened carefully for 20 minutes and followed things up with me the next day. The commander made the point that he believes incidents like this made people untrusting of police and can have an impact on the credibility of evidence given by police to juries. He may not have actually counselled the cop involved but as a senior officer he knew what had happened was unacceptable. He also wanted to avoid the officers stupidity becoming a formal performance/integrity matter.

^ ^ ^ I had a patient about 9 yrs ago: a 70+ yr old man who was totally nonplussed.

He couldn't remember anything about an accident he'd had the previous month with an unmarked police vehicle.

He was totally demoralised at how he could have been at fault > wanted hypnosis to determine if he was.

His driving history was 2 speeding tickets and no accidents over 50+ yrs at the wheel.

Since he couldn't remember anything after leaving his home at Marana Rd Clemton Park, the 1st session was totally devoted to helping him to recall his preparation to go to Campsie shops.

2nd session:- under hypnosis, he turned left from Marana Rd into Calbina Rd and stopped at a busy intersection ready to turn right onto Bexley Rd (See :google:maps if you wish)

3rd session:- under hypnosis, he made his right hand turn in plenty of time to avoid a bus coming on his right.

The police car (a grey falcon) was overtaking the bus and hit my patient in a head-on whilst on the wrong side of the road.

My patient could recall nothing more.

He went away to investigate further on his own.

4th session (bro bono):- across the road from the accident, two witnesses were at the front of their house at the time. My patient elicited out of one of them that the policeman was indeed at fault. And here's more...

But that policeman wasn't the bad boy (except for not putting on lights and siren). He was in fact still in shock.

Other police arrived (- sound familiar?).

One of them (before Accident Investigation team arrived), put his hand into the damaged police car, reached for the red strobe, put it on the roof and turned it on (according to the witness).

Sorry, I don't know the rest. I just know that I'd done my job. It's not always as exciting as this, but I still get thrilled about solving puzzles. :thumbsup:

To me I see it like this and its generally true. If you are struck by the front of another car, its their fault. Look at the size of that road. If I saw someone veer to the left, no indicators as such and no indications pointing right, I am going to go straight ahead. I wouldn't need to overtake either, the size of that road is huge.

Clearly the police are covering that shit up. Dodgy as f**k. You saw what happened to me man, dumb bitch runs the red and tbones me. Was all going downhill without a witness coz the lying rat said I was speeding infront of her.

You will always have disgusting, pathetic, dishonest people man.

If the road had NO ROOM for you to pass her without crossing to the other side, yes it is your fault because well, its not possible to move any lefter. But the size of that road. Moving left... You cant just go left then veer infront of the car behind you without indicating. How is that fair? Sure you can give space but if you are the car behind, are you gonna come to a complete stop everytime you see some dead shit driver move left?

Thats like the lady who hit me, she said to me, in her own f**king words "if you have a green light you should still make sure no one is gonna run the red". What the f**k? Do you want me to stop at green lights now and double check? f**k off bitch, its my way of right to go on green as it was yours to proceed forward when she veered to the left of a large road. Had you been in her situation, you would be raped right now.

Rule of thumb as I stated(obviously this isn't the case if road rules are broken(lights, speeding) and applicable if you drive like a normal f**king person): The front of someones car hits you, its their fault.

i had a similar accident in my local area when i was on my green p's in my old s13. wont go into the long details but the case went to court because i refused to pay the fine, which was failure to give way. the police who arrived at the scene could not decide who was at fault for the incident so they pissed of back to the station to ask their superior. after an hour or so the attending officers rand my mobile to inform me that their superior had said "the p plater was at fault", end of story, no reason why i was the one deemed to be at fault. we contacted the guy who made the decision n he pretty much told us to drop it, so naturally we took photos of the scene of the accident and took it to court :P which unfortunatly that officer was unable to attend. my charges were reduced to like 120 dollar fine and no demerit points because the magistrate said the responsibility for the accident was equal for both drivers.

however the insurance companies didnt share the magistrates view of the accident. and according to the claims people i spoke to at both nrma and just car. the car failing to give way is at fault under any circumstances, regardless of speeding , failure to indicate, crossing unbroken lines etc..( except i later found out that apparently drink driving isnt included in this)...ended up costing me a small fortune + my car was a total loss... but im happy to say i well and truly learnt my lesson back then and i hope OP has now too...

from reading though other people's posts its easy to spot massive flaws in traffic law but it probably does work quite well in 99% of cases..good luck with appealing the matter and keep us posted, will be interesting to see what happens if the police are asked top please explain :whistling:

however the insurance companies didnt share the magistrates view of the accident. and according to the claims people i spoke to at both nrma and just car. the car failing to give way is at fault under any circumstances, regardless of speeding , failure to indicate, crossing unbroken lines etc..( except i later found out that apparently drink driving isnt included in this)...ended up costing me a small fortune + my car was a total loss... but im happy to say i well and truly learnt my lesson back then and i hope OP has now too...

absolutely unbeleivable. are you saying an insurance company claims department over-rode a magistrate's decision on blame?

that is a new low, even for the bottom feeders in an insurance claims department.

absolutely unbeleivable. are you saying an insurance company claims department over-rode a magistrate's decision on blame?

that is a new low, even for the bottom feeders in an insurance claims department.

well yes n no. from what my insurance company told me when i first rang them to notify them of the accident was that, whatever was decided in court was irrelevant because according to them the person failing to give way is always at fault..

so i had to pay up for the insurance and everything ( p plater in 2 door import was huge excess :angry:). i just thought it was interesting that in my case (although the magistrate decided that both drivers were at fault) that the insurance companies have there own set of protocals to follow.. which is apparently why after the cops couldnt decide who was at fault they just decided i was because they said to me, someone has to be at fault for insurance purposes and i was deemed to be more at fault.

my understanding was though that after the magistrate ruled both drivers at fault we would just have to pay for our own damage but that wasnt the case, NRMA (the other drivers insurer) threatened legal action against me because i wouldnt pay my excess to Just Car, and im like wtf i havent had a chance to go to court yet, which is when i found out that they dont really give a rats f@!* haha....at the end of the day still played my part in accident , and im just grateful nobody got hurt. in most cases a car is just a car, but then again im still glad i didnt already have my skyline back then :thumbsup:

This is my actual job, I work on cases like yours as a profession (claims officers).

Realistically your issue here is that you probably do not have insurance (silly you). Insurance basically works on 2 key elements; honesty and a balance of probabilities.

Her story would be that you tried to overtake her on the oncoming side of the road, where as yours is that she was pulled to the far left and you were passing to her right. The balance of probabilities would make it more reasonable to assume that you were overtaking to her right rather than she was turning right from the left lane.

The other element to take into considertion are road rules. Without having my road rules PDF handy I cannot confirm, yet there would be a number of rules for the insurer to fall back on in stating that the circumstances put you at fault. Not supposed to overtake to the right of a vehicle that is indicating to turn yada yada. I know you said she was not indicating, however her story would say otherwise. It is more reasonable to assume the person making a turn would be indicating to do so rather than her not indicating and the poor guy overtaking to her right being the victim lol. (key words "overtaking to her right", the photos are of a single lane road with provision for parked vehicles - read the road rules).

Its a hard cold world, buy comprehensive insurance and the worst you will EVER have to endure again is your policy excess. Its that simple. Pay the excess, insurer fixes your car NO MATTER WHAT. Driving is a risk, just need to accept it and move forward. Unfortunate that in this case the circumstances are not in your favour, better luck next time.

FYI being a P plater is usually a non issue for an insurer, we hardly take it into consideration (its neither fact nor probable).

The best you can hope for is EBO (each bare own). Argue your point enough and atleast the insurer will be able to see your story as "reasonable" and determine that either could have happened. This is good as they will not pursue you for monies for their loss. You will not need to pay for the damage to the bad ladies car nor will you need to lodge a claim if you have third party insurance. Instead she will need to pay her excess to get her own vehicle repaired.

GL

however the insurance companies didnt share the magistrates view of the accident. and according to the claims people i spoke to at both nrma and just car. the car failing to give way is at fault under any circumstances, regardless of speeding , failure to indicate, crossing unbroken lines etc..( except i later found out that apparently drink driving isnt included in this)...ended up costing me a small fortune + my car was a total loss... but im happy to say i well and truly learnt my lesson back then and i hope OP has now too...

absolutely unbeleivable. are you saying an insurance company claims department over-rode a magistrate's decision on blame?

that is a new low, even for the bottom feeders in an insurance claims department.

Had a similar thing happen to a mate of mine:

* night time

* he turned right into a driveway

* oncoming car with lights off hits him in his LH front guard

* oncoming driver over legal blood alcohol limit

The police charged the oncoming driver with neg driving and being over the limit, and declared the crash her fault.

But his insurance company forced him to pay his excess _because he was turning right_.

Cheers,

Saliya

get your insurance company to fight it for you and have them do a forensics report on the accident (both cars) from which they can determine if the other car had an indicator on etc as well as angle of impact etc. It wont be easy as she will probably put in a 'not a fault' claim with her insurer. But it's the best shot you've got.

This is my actual job, I work on cases like yours as a profession (claims officers).

Realistically your issue here is that you probably do not have insurance (silly you). Insurance basically works on 2 key elements; honesty and a balance of probabilities.

Her story would be that you tried to overtake her on the oncoming side of the road, where as yours is that she was pulled to the far left and you were passing to her right. The balance of probabilities would make it more reasonable to assume that you were overtaking to her right rather than she was turning right from the left lane.

The other element to take into considertion are road rules. Without having my road rules PDF handy I cannot confirm, yet there would be a number of rules for the insurer to fall back on in stating that the circumstances put you at fault. Not supposed to overtake to the right of a vehicle that is indicating to turn yada yada. I know you said she was not indicating, however her story would say otherwise. It is more reasonable to assume the person making a turn would be indicating to do so rather than her not indicating and the poor guy overtaking to her right being the victim lol. (key words "overtaking to her right", the photos are of a single lane road with provision for parked vehicles - read the road rules).

Its a hard cold world, buy comprehensive insurance and the worst you will EVER have to endure again is your policy excess. Its that simple. Pay the excess, insurer fixes your car NO MATTER WHAT. Driving is a risk, just need to accept it and move forward. Unfortunate that in this case the circumstances are not in your favour, better luck next time.

FYI being a P plater is usually a non issue for an insurer, we hardly take it into consideration (its neither fact nor probable).

The best you can hope for is EBO (each bare own). Argue your point enough and atleast the insurer will be able to see your story as "reasonable" and determine that either could have happened. This is good as they will not pursue you for monies for their loss. You will not need to pay for the damage to the bad ladies car nor will you need to lodge a claim if you have third party insurance. Instead she will need to pay her excess to get her own vehicle repaired.

GL

The OP was driving a friends car I believe, and WAS covered by insurance.

What you're saying is pretty much what everyone else has been saying, and it's good to have the "insurance compay" view.

But at the time, his treatment by the attending officers was quite misleading.

They were saying he was AUTOMATICALLY at fault because he was a P plate driver; rather than for any relevant rule related fact.

Edited by Daleo

The p-plater part is total BS, but you cant fight the fine for not wearing P-plates - you lose there.

Just one thing tho... I HATE cops ! THEY SHOULD BE ALL DROWN AT BIRTH ! AS NWA ONCE SANG " F U C K T H E P O L I C E "

Edited by RBEE

The p-plater part is total BS, but you cant fight the fine for not wearing P-plates - you lose there.

Just one thing tho... I HATE cops ! THEY SHOULD BE ALL DROWN AT BIRTH ! AS NWA ONCE SANG " F U C K T H E P O L I C E "

GET THE f**k OUT.

If you don't have respect for the hard work that some of these people do, you're not welcome here. Yes, some of them are bastards, but there are a LOT of good cops out there doing the right thing.

A few bad apples doesn't make the whole of them a bunch of dream boats. So if you're going to keep this attitude, you're invited to not come back.

I'll follow that logic: People who don't know the word "drowned" should be "drown" at birth. Seems silly, doesn't it?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I have been being VERY quiet about what you're alluding to, as it is something that ticks me off... The number of cars from factory that run coil overs is HUGE! Most of them these days do... The other part that annoys me, is people saying "Well all the incabin adjustable suspension is illegal by blah blah blah"... If that's the case, then why can I buy a car brand new that can do it if, FULL STOP in cabin adjustable suspension is illegal...   Also, I could just chuck some aftermarket shocks in my car, throw the stock springs on, after my blue slip, dump my super low springs back in. Same shock and spring style setup... Hell, they could also be the same colour springs etc.     I'm voting, BlueSlipper didn't want to touch the above car for some reason. Whether it be some sort of bias against the car, the owner, them maybe having previously done dodgy shit and now they're being super careful in case they get slapped in the face by the Gumbyment again... Find a new blueslip place.   And can confirm as you had said, yes there are holy bibles of vehicle heights, and all sorts of other suspension stuff. Heck your run of the mill mechanic, and tyre shop has access to all of that stuff. It's how they do wheel alignments...
    • Funny story Heading to Sydney this morning on the HWY there was some slow traffic, so I gave it the beans and midway through my overtaking "power run" I lost all power It seems that I missed a hose clamp,  and the MAF and filter went WiFi To make this more problematic, the little tool kit that lives in the boot, is sitting in the sun room at Goulburn......LOL Luckily for me I found a bit of steel on the side of the road that could be used like a rusty and bent flat head screw driver to tighten it up enough that it got me into Sydney, it is now all tight like a tiger with the aid of a 8mm socket Note to self: Use my brain and double check stuff, and always keep that little tool kit in the car for when I have a brain fart
    • Oh, and as for everyone with their fuel economy changes, I switch between E10 and 98 in the company car. Even do when I had personal cars that could run on E10. You know what changed my fuel economy in any noticeable way? How I drove, and where I drove. Otherwise, say on full tanks of just back and forth from work only (So same trips, same sort of traffic), couldn't notice a difference that I can correlate to the type of fuel in use. In the current vehicle, that's over 42L of USABLE fuel. While 98 is all "more energy dense", it also has higher knock resistance as it takes more energy to get it to ignite too. The longer hydrocarbons, typically more tightly bound. So running the same ignition map, can also produce less power, if there isn't enough time to get it all burnt through properly, as yep, the flame propagation speed is different from lower octane fuel to higher (Higher has a lower flame propagation, due to the more tightly bound and harder to self ignite funs. This is also typically where, a vehicle that is designed purely to run on 91 (Whether it be E10 or normal 91) usually sees absolutely no real world difference in fuel economy for the normal man, woman, or dog.
    • We've got some servos around me that have 91 with E10, 91 (no E10), 95, and 98. At those stations the change from 91 E10 to 91, is typically around 8c/L.   But lets not get started on the price of fuel in Oz. It's ridiculous. All the service stations around me, bar one, the price of fuel has been over the $2 mark per litre for the cheapest, 98 being around $2.45. That one service station is a CostCo, fuel from it comes from the same refineries, and makes no pitstops, it runs great, including the 98. In fact, I've had no issues on CostCo fuel, but plenty of issues at other stations!. The CostCo fuel, was $1.65 roughly this week for 94 with E10. $1.88 for 98. Servos directly across from it, $2.10 for 91 E10, and $2.48 for 98. The part I had to laugh at? If I drive multiple HOURS away from Brisbane, say out near Nanango, or Kingaroy, or even out to Goondiwindi, the price of their fuel, is the same as what it is at the CostCo... Oh, and that BP servo at Goondiwindi is HUGE and goes through epic turnover of fuel, so it's not sitting there for weeks going to shit. And what blows me away, my mate is one of the people who drives the Fuel Tanker all around QLD, delivering to all those places. At the same company his previous role was doing the "local haul" deliveries... Same truck, same driver, same pickup point it all comes from. So you tell me, how the hell it is 60c/L CHEAPER for fuel, when nearly all else is equal, except they require a B-Double to drive half a day out of Brisbane, and half a day back, every second day, compared to the delivery that can be under 30 minutes drive from the fuel pickup point... Not to mention, go five blocks down the road, and Ampol to Ampol will vary 30c/L... And I've had this conversation with my mate... The way it's priced, is just typical, pure and utter rubbish... He also does runs from Brisbane, to all over QLD, down to Newcastle, Sydney, Nowra, Melbourne, Geelong, and even out to parts of the NT depending on the companies needs. His main stuff is all the longer distance away from home for a few days at a time, then when he's back, he loves to just pickup extra shifts wherever he can in whichever truck, hence all the weird different places.   Oh, as for getting E10 into all the fuels in Australia... It was very quickly highlighted, that we don't have enough biomass available to use to make E10 sustainably like they require, and it would dramatically cut into our, and the worlds food chain supply...   I vote we all just start running on liquid methane gas... Plenty of that just getting tapped off at tips from underground decay... (Note, this is pure just stupid commenting. I could very easily highlight the reasons its not a good idea especially on scale...)
    • Am I correct in assuming that the R35's are getting the classic skyline haircut off the odometer?  Quick search on carsales, there are 33 08 and 09 GTR's for sale, only 2 of them have more then 100,000km's on them (116,075 and 110,000 respectively).  And somehow there are about 25 for sale with around 60,000kms? Looks like the classic skyline haircut to me =/
×
×
  • Create New...