Insurance scams - Page 2

17-01-2018, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GO FURTHER

Looking carefully at the video, the dashcam driver was not on the wrong side of the road though... But he took the turn too sharp on entering the carpark.

If the red car had not moved and obeyed the law... The dashcam driver might have had time to realise his mistake and stop in time or lessen the damage caused.

He cut the corner so sharp that he gave the red car nowhere to go. The red car couldn't have avoided that accident even if he had stop, but I don't think "give way" officially means you have to stop, it just means you have to give way. There was no way for that red car to have given way, the cam car cut the corner on red car's of the intersection.

Here's a snippet from the SA handbook

Quote:

If you enter an intersection:

if there are no markings and you are turning right into a multi-lane road, it is safest to turn into the lane on the new road closest to the middle of that road
when turning right, you should pass as near as you can to the right of the centre point of the intersection. Do not cut across the corner as you will risk a collision with a vehicle that is coming from the right - start your turn when you are close to the centre of the intersection (Example 10)

http://mylicence.sa.gov.au/road-rule...ndbook/signals

uniacidz · 17-01-2018, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GO FURTHER

I assume that you are inferring that this rule should apply to the dash cam driver in the 2nd video.

No... Because the dash cam driver did not have to give way to the red car.
It is the red car that should have given way to the dash cam driver.

Seeing as driver did not slow down at amber to red light and raced through it and did not bother seeing if safe to turn right into land

Mate I dunno what ya watching or whatnot, but simple and plain as day and even if red car was stopped to turn left, he would've been cleaned up

Anywayyyyyyyy

Evidence is there, road rules confirm

Unless there is a road rules that state driving not to condtions, driving through amber lights and not slowing and to turn right unsafely, then I'm done

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

Ben73 · 17-01-2018, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uniacidz

1st one, rear end anyone and it's your fault

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsqKwl8JUy4

Dashcam drivers fault

Tassie f100 · 17-01-2018, 09:41 PM

Dunno whether the give way rules even apply in carparks

Blue Shadow · 17-01-2018, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tassie f100

Dunno whether the give way rules even apply in carparks

Yes they do, all road rules do.

**GO FURTHER** · 17-01-2018, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tassie f100

Dunno whether the give way rules even apply in carparks

But is does in this particular case because the red car was exiting onto a public road.

It's the same situation if are exiting from your own private driveway onto a public road..... You have to giveway to all traffic on that road.

Tassie f100 · 17-01-2018, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GO FURTHER

But is does in this particular case because the red car was exiting onto a public road.

It's the same situation if are exiting from your own private driveway onto a public road..... You have to giveway to all traffic on that road.

Is a lane in a carpark classed as a public road,because this happened in a supermarket carpark

Blue Shadow · 17-01-2018, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tassie f100

Is a lane in a carpark classed as a public road,because this happened in a supermarket carpark

Yes....

**GO FURTHER** · 17-01-2018, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tassie f100

Is a lane in a carpark classed as a public road,because this happened in a supermarket carpark

Is the carpark public or privately owned?

But it does not matter... The red car was turning left into a public road.
The same road law would apply, whether the lane exiting the carpark was privately owned or public (council owned).

Same if you are exiting a McDonald's owned carpark, your private driveway, or private road from your farm onto a public road.

Lets take the example if you are driving your four wheel drive on a beach in the middle of no where...
Technically the beach is not a road... But the road rules still apply.
The police will still book you if you are drunk and over the limit, unlicenced or your vehicle is unregistered.

Tassie f100 · 17-01-2018, 10:59 PM

The red car wasn,t turning onto a public road,it was turning onto a lane on the carpark.I know this because the carpark in question is off the main road in Mowbray

Trump · 17-01-2018, 11:04 PM

It doesn't matter, if any private road connects to a public road and can be freely used by public vehicles, it is considered a road where the road rules apply.

**GO FURTHER** · 17-01-2018, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tassie f100

The red car wasn,t turning onto a public road,it was turning onto a lane on the carpark.I know this because the carpark in question is off the main road in Mowbray

It still does not matter whether that particular road was public or private.

The Australian Road Rules (ARR) apply to ‘vehicles’ and ‘road users’ on ‘roads’ and ‘road-related areas’.

A road is “an area that is open to or used by the public, and is developed for, or has as one of its main uses, the driving or riding of motor vehicles”.

The car park at Woolies (or Coles, Aldi, IGA, or any supermarket) is a road.

Blue Shadow · 17-01-2018, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tassie f100

The red car wasn,t turning onto a public road,it was turning onto a lane on the carpark.I know this because the carpark in question is off the main road in Mowbray

If you run up the back of a car in a car park you can be done for neg driving. The rules are the same in a public or private car park as they are on a public or private street

yearby · 17-01-2018, 11:38 PM

Did anyone notice that the passenger in the vehicle hitting the red car asked the driver to

"just be careful Tibby, I just don't everything to go flying thankyou"

...... just seconds before the collision.

A case of careless driving, I would suggest.

stig_3754 · 17-01-2018, 11:55 PM

Give way is not the same as a Stop sign. You don't need to come to a complete stop. It's just that other traffic have right of way when you're entering that road.

Based on the evidence shown, I think we're clutching at straws if we're going to let the idiot behind the wheel of the dash cam go because the red car was rolling. The red car was obviously looking to their right and saw that there was no one coming. I'm not sure how they could've anticipated old mate taking the racing line to enter a supermarket car park.

commodorenutt · 18-01-2018, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stig_3754

Based on the evidence shown, I think we're clutching at straws if we're going to let the idiot behind the wheel of the dash cam go because the red car was rolling. The red car was obviously looking to their right and saw that there was no one coming. I'm not sure how they could've anticipated old mate taking the racing line to enter a supermarket car park.

Exactly - the red car no doubt looked to his right, saw it was clear, and proceeded out into the correct lane. No way in hell could he have predicted some fool would come tearing down the road & hook in on the wrong side of the road (probably wanted to straddle the driveway to avoid scraping due to the speed he was doing).

If the red car wasn't going as quick as he was out of the carpark, he'd probably have a good argument, but the insurance company will pick the slightest fault as a reason to hit him with the excess, and will conveniently ignore the blatant disrespect for road rules & other users that the dashcam driver was clearly showing. Cops will tell you amber means stop unless it's totally unsafe to do so. Any cop who witnessed that effort would have written him a ticket (or several if you include other things), but they'll ignore that & pin it on the other guy.

With the one running up the back of the CR-V, it's been mentioned above, that driver took no evasive action at all, until it was too late. Regardless of a GPS speed, you can tell they didn't made any attempt to slow down or clear the area in front to avoid it, until the CR-V comes back across into the left lane. Where did they think it would end up, losing it on a right hand bend? If the dashcam driver had backed offand slowed when the CR-V first started losing it, hey would have been fine to stop.
And for the comment about towing a heavy trailer being an excuse - it isn't. I often tow a loaded car trailer, and adapt my driving to suit. Despite no evidence in the video of towing anything heavy (as evidenced by how sharply the dashcam car did manage to brake once the driver finally woke up to what was going on) if they did have a load on, then the driver should have been even more alert and allowed more space, and the trailer brakes would have helped slow it down too.

It's probably more likely the dashcam driver was daydreaming or playing with the radio.

18-01-2018, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by commodorenutt

If the red car wasn't going as quick as he was out of the carpark, he'd probably have a good argument

I don't think he was going fast at all. You can see him driving up to the exit a few seconds before the crash, before he comes around the corner. To me it just looks like an optical illusion that he was 'driving fast' because the cam car came upon him fast.

**FairmontGS** · 18-01-2018, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leesa

Does anyone else watch the videos on the Dash Cam Australia facebook page?

I've seen two now where the insurer has declared someone at-fault when I (and many others) think they're the innocent party.

Dashcam car had their not-at-fault claim denied by NRMA, told to pay excess due to failing to maintain a safe distance behind a car without control.
https://www.facebook.com/DashCamOwne...6637200062580/

and here. Driver of red car is declared the at-fault driver by dashcam driver's insurer AAMI! Despite the dashcam driver talking on the phone while driving, gunning it to run the light, pulling in to the car park on the wrong side of the road and then hitting another car!
https://www.facebook.com/DashCamOwne...8510230208611/

What gives? Both the dashcam driver in the first video and the red car in the second video look innocent to me.

First video - driver ran into a stationary car - that's a clear "at fault" to him.

Second video - red car innocent.

Thanks

**Beastie** · 18-01-2018, 08:21 AM

All I want to know is, did the CR-V driver get a fine for failing to indicate whilst changing lanes?

whitelion65 · 18-01-2018, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beastie

All I want to know is, did the CR-V driver get a fine for failing to indicate whilst changing lanes?

It's quite an interesting question, and one that has been tested by the Police in the past, with respect to self-filmed and posted "hoon behaviour".

In this case, I would say Johnny in the second incident is a fool (at the very best) for posting the video he did. One would think you would have the common sense to cut out all that occurred before running the traffic light!

I see the proliferation of dash-cams as producing a lot of holier-than-thou so-and-sos who think that;
1 their s#!t doesn't stink, and
2 that they can run into anyone who they believe is in the wrong (roundabouts are a prime case of this)/.

ps I think the red car was exiting a DRIVEWAY, NOT a T-intersection. Hard to get an interpretation of this from the web.

Tassie f100 · 18-01-2018, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whitelion65

It's quite an interesting question, and one that has been tested by the Police in the past, with respect to self-filmed and posted "hoon behaviour".

In this case, I would say Johnny in the second incident is a fool (at the very best) for posting the video he did. One would think you would have the common sense to cut out all that occurred before running the traffic light!

I see the proliferation of dash-cams as producing a lot of holier-than-thou so-and-sos who think that;
1 their s#!t doesn't stink, and
2 that they can run into anyone who they believe is in the wrong (roundabouts are a prime case of this)/.

ps I think the red car was exiting a DRIVEWAY, NOT a T-intersection. Hard to get an interpretation of this from the web.

The Red car was exiting a lane in a supermarket carpark,and turning into an entry/exit lane in same carpark

**FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0** · 18-01-2018, 10:30 AM

Amazing to me that there are so many bush lawyers on this forum who think that their view of the world is the only one that matters.

I get that we have have opinion about who is right or wrong, but it is all just that; opinion. The only way this can be resolved is to refer it to a subject matter expert, and even then that may need to be put to a court of law for an official ruling.

And whilst it is easy to quote certain laws that apply, I do know that there is a precedence of rules that apply. What I don't know is what rules take precedence others and when. For example, I recall a situation where a car was driving down the incorrect side of a road when a car turned left into the lane that the car was using illegally. However, the outcome of that was that the car turning left was at fault because it had a responsibility to give way to ANY cars on the main road (even if they were driving against a law that applied to that road).

I think, in the second video shown, that is why the red car was deemed to be at fault. But that is just my opinion based on what I know.

18-01-2018, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whitelion65

In this case, I would say Johnny in the second incident is a fool (at the very best) for posting the video he did. One would think you would have the common sense to cut out all that occurred before running the traffic light!

Funnily enough it wasn't Johnny who posted the video. Johnny sent it to his insurer.. who sent it to the driver of the red car.. who submitted it to DCA.

But still you'd think he'd at least get rid of all the incriminating stuff before the collision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by psychobimbo

Amazing to me that there are so many bush lawyers on this forum who think that their view of the world is the only one that matters.

I get that we have have opinion about who is right or wrong, but it is all just that; opinion.

I think, in the second video shown, that is why the red car was deemed to be at fault. But that is just my opinion based on what I know.

I'm not sure who it is that you're referring to but why is it OK for you to share your opinion but when everyone else shares theirs, they're accused of being bush lawyers who think their view is the only one that matters?
Anything that I've said in any of my posts is also just my opinion but I'd like to hope that I don't have to add disclaimers to everything I write stating that it is just an opinion and I that I am not a lawyer.

**FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0** · 18-01-2018, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leesa

I'm not sure who it is that you're referring to but why is it OK for you to share your opinion but when everyone else shares theirs, they're accused of being bush lawyers who think their view is the only one that matters?
Anything that I've said in any of my posts is also just my opinion but I'd like to hope that I don't have to add disclaimers to everything I write stating that it is just an opinion and I that I am not a lawyer.

Hey leesa, I most certainly wasn't aiming my comments at you, and I apologise if it came across that way.

For the record, I have no problems with people voicing their opinion as exactly that (and as I have done). I just get frustrated when people represent their opinion or view as fact and that anyone who has a different opinion is wrong.

I actually like the discussion (as long as they are respectful to others) that posts like yours elicit, as it enables me to see how others view things and allows me to refine my own views.

Keep posting away!

uniacidz · 18-01-2018, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psychobimbo

Amazing to me that there are so many bush lawyers on this forum who think that their view of the world is the only one that matters.

I get that we have have opinion about who is right or wrong, but it is all just that; opinion. The only way this can be resolved is to refer it to a subject matter expert, and even then that may need to be put to a court of law for an official ruling.

And whilst it is easy to quote certain laws that apply, I do know that there is a precedence of rules that apply. What I don't know is what rules take precedence others and when. For example, I recall a situation where a car was driving down the incorrect side of a road when a car turned left into the lane that the car was using illegally. However, the outcome of that was that the car turning left was at fault because it had a responsibility to give way to ANY cars on the main road (even if they were driving against a law that applied to that road).

I think, in the second video shown, that is why the red car was deemed to be at fault. But that is just my opinion based on what I know.

Yep

And at the end of the day, none of us was involved so no need to get worked up over spilt milk which wasnt ours anyway

And as for title, no scams

**FairmontGS** · 18-01-2018, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uniacidz

And as for title, no scams

Good point. Thread title is just click-bait.

18-01-2018, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psychobimbo

Hey leesa, I most certainly wasn't aiming my comments at you, and I apologise if it came across that way.

For the record, I have no problems with people voicing their opinion as exactly that (and as I have done). I just get frustrated when people represent their opinion or view as fact and that anyone who has a different opinion is wrong.

I actually like the discussion (as long as they are respectful to others) that posts like yours elicit, as it enables me to see how others view things and allows me to refine my own views.

Keep posting away!

No worries, psychobimbo. Thank you for the clarification, I did think it was directed at me but I'm glad to hear it wasn't.

I try and make sure I don't ever make my opinions seem like facts but I do know what you mean as I reckon I've seen it from others!

Quote:

Originally Posted by FairmontGS

Good point. Thread title is just click-bait.

Maybe it's not the generally accepted version of 'insurance scams' but I do think there's a bit of scamming going on by insurance companies! I'd feel scammed if I was the driver of that red car in the second video.
It could have been worse, I could have said "What happened to one of these drivers after this collision will SHOCK you..."

Mercury Bullet · 20-01-2018, 10:43 PM

Talking of insurance company scams...

Allianz have just been hit with an order for $45 million to be repaid to Australian buyers.
Couldn't happen to a better bunch of pricks imo.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-17/allianz-suncorp-to-repay-$60m-over-useless-car-insurance/9336436?section=business
Edit.
Can't seem to link using a tablet. Use Google.....sorry.

Line up for your refunds folks.