Would like some advice about a traffic incident

[SteveJH]

Originally Posted by bobuleh

A weird question to ask people is, would you rather have a head on collision traveling at 60, or hit a tree at 100?
if the other car is doing 60, the accident has the force of as if you were doing 120. The tree is the better option.

That my friend, is a myth. The force exherted on each car is the amount of force required to get the car to 0km/h in both cases, though the mass of the vehicles colliding will have an impact. Fairly sure they tested it on Mythbusters a few years ago.

[lilmattie]

A few years ago, a lady driver in an XD falcon ran up the back of my Mazda 626. My car was a write off - and she wasn't insured. I was insured with 3rd Party Property..

I got nothing from her and obviously because she wasn't insured I couldn't get any money for it.

I 'did' get a small payment from Suncorp (my insurer) as a young driver not at fault which helped, but otherwise I had to wear the cost.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by aussie muscle

so, if i drive down the wrong side of the road and you swerve to avoid me and hit a pole i'm not responsible for your damage?

I think that pretty well sums up the insurance companies way of looking at it.

[ray38l]

So many dumb responses in this thread.
In the rta handbook it says that drivers must do whatever is possible to avoid an accident. Im assuming its the same in other states. The op did this and is right in thinking that he is not responsible. However even though she would be liable in a court its a matter of proving it.
Every time someone comes on here asking for advice certain people take the chance to put the boot in. In a perfect world he probably would of crashed into the car and survived but we don't live in a perfect world. There is so many experts here after the fact.

[svo supporter]

I'd love to see some of these members in a similar situation. It appears as though they'd deliberately ram the other car, just to get their car repaired.

Yeah, you'll get a pay out for hurting yourself ( ), but can you put a price on pain for the rest of yuor life? Buggered if I can.

The OP. Who cares you didn't have insurance. It's great in hindsite, but you didn't and as they it happens. Some should just move on about it

I am glad you're not hurt and I do wish you the best in trying to recover costs. Hopefully the coppers have her being honest in saying it was her fault.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by svo supporter

The OP. Who cares you didn't have insurance. It's great in hindsite, but you didn't and as they it happens. Some should just move on about it

having insurance has nothing to do with hindsight. driving without some form of motor vehicle insurance should be illegal.

in this particular instance, its not so critical as the OP is on the recieving end.

if someone with no insurance runs into you, and causes you personal injury as well as damage to your car, good luck getting money out of them.

it is there for a reason, and if you can't afford it, then you can't afford to drive. to me its that simple. i realise not all will agree, but thats my view. it has been my only criticism in this thread.

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by prydey

it is there for a reason, and if you can't afford it, then you can't afford to drive. to me its that simple. i realise not all will agree, but thats my view. it has been my only criticism in this thread.

while i agree it should be mandatory to have at least third party cover, at the moment its not, so the op has done nothing wrong.

i only have third party on my car, and full comp on the bike. the bike only has full comp because it has to, to keep the finance company happy.

if i had a lot of money tied up in the car then i would go full comp, but i dont and after pricing it up the insurance costs would exceed the value of the car within 36 months.

but third party is cheap, exceedingly cheap compared to the cost if i t-boned a new car or something exotic.

[Dave3911]

Some of the replies to this thread are all over the shop.

A couple of points.

1. Civil Liability is detirmined by a court not by an insurance company.

2. Insurance companies apply organisational policy guidlines as to whether they will accept Liability, but in a lot of cases this is in no way a reflection of how a court would detirmine liability or award cost. Just because an insurance company says something, doesn't make it "law".

3. There is no definiate law written anywhere in this country that says "If you don't make contact with the other car, it's your fault". That all comes from how insurance companies handle their claims and their polciys in doing so. The very idea that this is the case is proposterous, there are numerous examples in both criminal and civil cases of this occuring. There are also numerous examples of the oppossite occuring, each case needs to be looked at on it's own merits and the balance of probabilities weighed.

4. If you can prove that but for the action's of the other party you wouldn't have suffered a loss then you have a case. You don't need big bucks or lawyers either, filing in the small claims court against the other driver is usually under $100, and you'll likely get that back.

[aussiblue]

Send her an invoice giving her 14 days to pay then if she doesn't pay a letter of demand - for the damage (replacement versus salvage value you'll need independent documentation to prove this before going to court - insurance write off letters, purchase receipts, repair quotes etc). If no response its off to the small claims tribunal or similar depending on what state you are in. Your registration 3rd party only covers death and injuries not your car. Do you have any vehicle insurance ? If so, your insurance company will often help you to pursue recovery, albeit if only with advice.

[FgNewbie]

Originally Posted by bobuleh

... if the other car is doing 60, the accident has the force of as if you were doing 120. The tree is the better option. ...

Apparently not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=la6e6eodVbY
It has also been discussed at great length in another thread(s) so hopefully the Mythbusters clip will cover it in this one

[falconnut]

Why didnt you have insurance? I dont get why people dont have insurance in this day and age.

If it costs me $300 to insure my old au2 for just 3rd party surely it would only cost you about $700 for compo

[FgNewbie]

Originally Posted by ray38l

So many dumb responses in this thread.
In the rta handbook it says that drivers must do whatever is possible to avoid an accident. Im assuming its the same in other states. The op did this and is right in thinking that he is not responsible. However even though she would be liable in a court its a matter of proving it.
Every time someone comes on here asking for advice certain people take the chance to put the boot in. In a perfect world he probably would of crashed into the car and survived but we don't live in a perfect world. There is so many experts here after the fact.

"dumb" is a relative term.

Without ignoring mitigating circumstances, I believe we are still responsible for our actions.

The rta handbook doesn't advocate effectively losing control to avoid a smash. It is very fortunate no one was injured and no one was in the path of the vehicle with locked up brakes.

Relative to swerving around animals, the rta handbook says "If you can’t avoid the animal safely you may have to hit it to avoid injury or death to yourself and others".

I'd prefer to think in a perfect world they didn't crash at all.

There has been some good information, I hope the OP has a good outcome.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by FgNewbie

The rta handbook doesn't advocate effectively losing control to avoid a smash. It is very fortunate no one was injured and no one was in the path of the vehicle with locked up brakes.

Locking the brakes up = losing control of the vehicle?

if he'd just hit the anchors without locking up a wheel and still not managed to avoid the lampost he'd of been in control?

I have severe reservations about "threshold braking" and its recommended use in reflex emergency situations where the total time of the incident(at 60km/h) is only in the order of 1.5 secs or so. There seems to be a myth out there that if you stop the front wheels from locking up you can steer around anything at any speed you may be going at.

In a straight line, with a dry road a car that is setup for front/rear bias that matches the friction coefficient of the road and tyres then threshold braking is going to get a much better result than locking up the wheels. This is ideal for race drivers who can set their braking points etc, and predict where they are going to hit the brakes hard,(or even drivers on a training day) but doable as a reflex to an incident in traffic?

Sure, if trying to turn the vehicle then locked up front wheels make this impossible, yet backing off the brakes and still not avoiding what is front of you is going to have you hit harder.

In a turning maneouvre threshold braking is simply impossible in a non ABS vehicle, all that the driver can do is stop the wheels that get weighted least from locking up, typically the inside rear. If braking pressure is reduced to stop that wheel locking up, the other three wheels aren't getting anywhere near the braking force they can tolerate before locking. that's of course where ABS comes into its own, it can provide the maxiumum braking force to all four wheels not just one as is done in threshold braking whilst cornering .

In most circumstances Ive witnessed and possibly as the OP has stated, there is just nowhere left to go in many collisions and locking up all the wheels ensures that basically all available braking force has been used, rather than "i didnt lock up the wheels....pity I only really got maximum braking happening on one wheel(the wheel that will have least effect in stopping the car) and still hit the lampost doing 40km/h"

Im not advocating there isnt a place for threshold braking in driver training , its certainly something anyone who drives on slippery alpine roads has to deal with all the time to make sure their car doesnt end up in a ditch.

Good luck to the OP with claiming from the other party. Hopefully she may be just a good honest citizen and do the right thing.

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by prydey

having insurance has nothing to do with hindsight. driving without some form of motor vehicle insurance should be illegal.

Agreed

Originally Posted by prydey

it is there for a reason, and if you can't afford it, then you can't afford to drive. to me its that simple.

Agreed again!

[geckoGT]

Round and round in circles we go.

Question for the OP, do you have any details of independent witnesses? If so they will help greatly in a claim through the courts, if not I would not rely on her daughter telling the truth. Did she complete an accident report with the police or just have a chat about it? If she did an actual report, your lawyer can gain access to that.

It think it is time to give the OP a break about the insurance thing, I bet he wishes he had it now.

Those that suggest taking the head on hit with another vehicle, that is a worrying thought. The simple physics suggest that impacting a pole at 25 km/h is a much better option than another car at 60 km/h. We can all sit here for hours contemplating the situation and probably come up with a heap of other options the OP could have taken, but he made his decision in a split second, not after hours of contemplation. Personally, I think he made the right choice, my paramedic experience suggests he picked a low speed impact, minor vehicle damage and no injuries with a possibility of no impact with anything. The other option was a certain impact with another occupied vehicle at a higher speed that is likely to have caused larger damage and a lot higher risk of serious injury.

[FgNewbie]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Locking the brakes up = losing control of the vehicle?

Not necessarily. Locking up the brakes can be a means of control.

Originally Posted by FgNewbie

You may find a course in threshold braking will help you adapt to your tank if you get it repaired.

sudszy, relative to my suggestion I have reservations about your reservations. I'd suggest saving the threshold braking discussion for another thread.

Flamin, any news?

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by FgNewbie

Not necessarily. Locking up the brakes can be a means of control.

Any time there is tire screech, there is loss of control.

This is a great thread. Keep comments coming.

[svo supporter]

Originally Posted by prydey

. driving without some form of motor vehicle insurance should be illegal.

.

if someone with no insurance runs into you, and causes you personal injury , good luck getting money out of them.

.

With this quote, everyone pays this insurance. It is illegal to drive without it. It's called third party insurance (CTP), which is part of your rego costs.

Damaging a car or property is a different insurance again, so do some research first. Good hint for a starting point is your rego papers. The CTP portion is on that slip.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by svo supporter

With this quote, everyone pays this insurance. It is illegal to drive without it. It's called third party insurance (CTP), which is part of your rego costs.

Damaging a car or property is a different insurance again, so do some research first. Good hint for a starting point is your rego papers. The CTP portion is on that slip.

that is true but if you've followed my argument (which you have) you would know that i'm talking about property. yes, i made a mistake by adding in personal injury to the previous post i made.

if i run into your car, and i have no insurance, i will be held accountable and be told to pay up, but i can do so at $1/week if i like. its one of a number of reasons why premiums are so high.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by prydey

that is true but if you've followed my argument (which you have) you would know that i'm talking about property. yes, i made a mistake by adding in personal injury to the previous post i made.

if i run into your car, and i have no insurance, i will be held accountable and be told to pay up, but i can do so at $1/week if i like. its one of a number of reasons why premiums are so high.

I dont see any need to make property insurance compulsory. Its simply personal choice.

If you run only third party insurance then you choose to take a loss if the accident is your fault, the car is damaged by persons or events unknown/vandalised in the street etc. You also take on perhaps not recovering damages caused by people who are unable/unwilling to pay for the damage they cause.

......that's why comprehensive insurance is available.

[Road Games]

Originally Posted by sudszy

I dont see any need to make property insurance compulsory. Its simply personal choice.

If you run only third party insurance then you choose to take a loss if the accident is your fault, the car is damaged by persons or events unknown/vandalised in the street etc. You also take on perhaps not recovering damages caused by people who are unable/unwilling to pay for the damage they cause.

......that's why comprehensive insurance is available.

Now there ya go making complete sense again...

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by sudszy

I dont see any need to make property insurance compulsory. Its simply personal choice.

If you run only third party insurance then you choose to take a loss if the accident is your fault, the car is damaged by persons or events unknown/vandalised in the street etc. You also take on perhaps not recovering damages caused by people who are unable/unwilling to pay for the damage they cause.

......that's why comprehensive insurance is available.

I think you will find that prydey wants 3rd party property to be compulsory

he realises the 3rd party personal is built into the rego cost
he did not suggest full comp to be compulsory

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

I think you will find that prydey wants 3rd party property to be compulsory

he realises the 3rd party personal is built into the rego cost
he did not suggest full comp to be compulsory

Sorry you havent intepreted my post as I intended. I understand he wants compulsory third party, which I believe I hinted at with;

"If you run only third party insurance then you choose to take a loss if......."

[prydey]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Sorry you havent intepreted my post as I intended. I understand he wants compulsory third party, which I believe I hinted at with;

"If you run only third party insurance then you choose to take a loss if......."

given the premiums for full comprehensive, on many cars it is simply not worth the expense, so third party property does the job..... until some novice who decides insurance isn't necessary, decides to run into your means of transport and put it off the road. insurance will not fix it until they secure the funds from the person at fault. if they have no insurance, good luck getting your car fixed. for some, this could mean they lose their job.

i guess this is just bad luck for the person who 'chose' not to spend $1000+ on full comp every year, on their car only worth a fraction more than that. for many people, this is a real situation.

i stand by my comment, if you can't afford the insurance, you can't afford the car.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by prydey

insurance will not fix it until they secure the funds from the person at fault. if they have no insurance, good luck getting your car fixed. for some, this could mean they lose their job.

Or...the insurance company says the other party has no insurance so you have to use yours.

Which means your no claim bonus could go down and your premium will go up.

Either way you'll be out of pocket because someone else wanted to save a dollar or two.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Locking the brakes up = losing control of the vehicle?

if he'd just hit the anchors without locking up a wheel and still not managed to avoid the lampost he'd of been in control?

I have severe reservations about "threshold braking" and its recommended use in reflex emergency situations where the total time of the incident(at 60km/h) is only in the order of 1.5 secs or so. There seems to be a myth out there that if you stop the front wheels from locking up you can steer around anything at any speed you may be going at.

In a straight line, with a dry road a car that is setup for front/rear bias that matches the friction coefficient of the road and tyres then threshold braking is going to get a much better result than locking up the wheels. This is ideal for race drivers who can set their braking points etc, and predict where they are going to hit the brakes hard,(or even drivers on a training day) but doable as a reflex to an incident in traffic?

Sure, if trying to turn the vehicle then locked up front wheels make this impossible, yet backing off the brakes and still not avoiding what is front of you is going to have you hit harder.

In a turning maneouvre threshold braking is simply impossible in a non ABS vehicle, all that the driver can do is stop the wheels that get weighted least from locking up, typically the inside rear. If braking pressure is reduced to stop that wheel locking up, the other three wheels aren't getting anywhere near the braking force they can tolerate before locking. that's of course where ABS comes into its own, it can provide the maxiumum braking force to all four wheels not just one as is done in threshold braking whilst cornering .

In most circumstances Ive witnessed and possibly as the OP has stated, there is just nowhere left to go in many collisions and locking up all the wheels ensures that basically all available braking force has been used, rather than "i didnt lock up the wheels....pity I only really got maximum braking happening on one wheel(the wheel that will have least effect in stopping the car) and still hit the lampost doing 40km/h"

Im not advocating there isnt a place for threshold braking in driver training , its certainly something anyone who drives on slippery alpine roads has to deal with all the time to make sure their car doesnt end up in a ditch.
Good luck to the OP with claiming from the other party. Hopefully she may be just a good honest citizen and do the right thing.

I have severe reservations that you hold a current drivers licence, and or drive period!

what did we ever do before ABS was invented..

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by prydey

given the premiums for full comprehensive, on many cars it is simply not worth the expense, so third party property does the job..... .

You complain about some driver's not having 3rd party insurance then whinge about how comprehensive is not worth the expense? again your decision, but if you have invested serious coin in a car then not having insurance to protect you from damage for anything other than fire and theft would be considered foolhardy to most

Whilst you haven't stated so, comprehensively insurance is not expensive because of uninsured drivers, evidence of which is why we can get comprehensive insurance on many vehicles for not much more than third party fire theft and property policies.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by burnz

I have severe reservations that you hold a current drivers licence, and or drive period!
..

If you have any criticisms of my post that bare any logic why not lets hear them? it is a discussion forum. But you come hear to abuse/troll just because it makes you feel better within yourself.

Originally Posted by burnz

what did we ever do before ABS was invented..

we got a whole lot more people killed on the roads.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Or...the insurance company says the other party has no insurance so you have to use yours.

Which means your no claim bonus could go down and your premium will go up.

Either way you'll be out of pocket because someone else wanted to save a dollar or two.

Most insurance companies will not charge you any excess or increase premiums if you can name the other party and prove they are at fault with no conditions on whether the other party is cashed up or a feral.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by sudszy

If you have any criticisms of my post that bare any logic why not lets hear them? it is a discussion forum. But you come hear to abuse/troll just because it makes you feel better within yourself.



In general a lot more crashes happened because people locked up the wheels and lost steering ability or they attempted threshold braking and came up with lines such as:
"i didnt lock up the wheels....pity I only really got maximum braking happening on one wheel(the wheel that will have least effect in stopping the car) and still hit the lampost doing 40km/h"

i love how people can't control their cars...
stop belittleing people sudzy, they/we can steer a car..
your sumation on "in general a lot more crashes happened because" and that sums it up..