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 came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...