I like the "Cop can't give you a ticket if he's not wearing his hat" one.
ashwattau,
Feb 27, 12:29am
If someone in a Kingswood is riding up your arse when you're about to pull into a driveway, why not show some courtesy to other drivers and pull onto the shoulder a few metres ahead of your turn, let them pass safely on the right and THEN perform the turn in!.
I'm thinking that the OP's friend either didn't use his mirrors, or didn't think that temporarily obstructing another driver's passage down a narrow road was a problem.
Sorry but people not indicating far enough ahead of time/not giving enough room just tends to peeve me off a bit. Perhaps that was something to do with why the cop gave him a fine!
wrong2,
Feb 27, 12:54am
the car that hit your freind had no right to be on the road
responsibility for the crash rests entierly on the illegal driver
this isnt what some here like to know about
ashwattau,
Feb 27, 1:00am
What! I hope you aren't implying that this discussion is being motivated by some kind of hidden agenda.
I don't know about the other people who posted, but I sure as heck couldn't care less about some old piece of hsit holden.
wrong2,
Feb 27, 1:02am
many others "couldnt" either
but one car in this incident is an insurance write off , & the other was described as "minimal"
mrfxit,
Feb 27, 2:13am
OFFS Here we go AGAIN. (skimmed most of above this garbage) (creds to those that DO know)
The CAUSEof ANY accident is decided AT THE MOMENT OF THE ACCIDENT. It's based strongly on the MECHANICS of WHAT caused the accident. Nothing else matters for the CAUSE of the accident apart from PHYSICAL condition of the car / road & Mental conditions of the drivers presiding AT THE TIME of the accident.
Sudden physicly bad roads SuddenHEAVY rain /show/ice Sudden faulty car Drunk driver Suddenly faulty traffic lights
By "suddenly" I mean VERY suddenly = instant Other then sudden physical changes to the road or car involved .
Once the physicalCAUSE of the accident is established, blame is then assigned to the driver of the car that CAUSED the accident (presuming a car was at fault)
mrfxit,
Feb 27, 2:23am
A faulty car is the direct responsibilty of THE DRIVER (not the owner) By law you are required to inspect the wof & reg statis of the vehicle (including basics like tyres/windscreen etc) you intend to drive. Not that anybody bothers. There are civil cases that defie the above but thats a defended court hearing & a slightly different matter
If a perticuler car is found to have caused the accident then the blame resides with THAT driver
Physical vehical + physical driver + mental/medicalcondition of the driver + legal statis of the situation + accident site
Follow the chain & in the 1st instance . remove the emotion or you will get twisted up in silly comments like we see every week in threads like this
mrfxit,
Feb 27, 2:35am
For a driver to be tempted to pass another car in front ,on the left, then there must have been a 'reasonable" amount of room to be able to fit another vehicle in that gap.
possiblitys. . . .! car "A" = front car / Car "B" = back car Maybe what really happened was both cars traverling side by side but 1 behind the other. "A" slowed down getting ready to turn which left "B" suddenly traverling faster then "A", "B" driver saw the gap /decided to pass "A" & got dinged by "A" as they turned. maybe . "A" did what so many ppl do & turned on the left indicator AS . they started to turn left. which at that point may have meant that "B" was almost along side by that stage & unable to see "A"'s indicator. It's also possible "A"'s indicator was stuck in the right turn position from a previous right turn, which could be what "B" saw prior to the impact.
Of course it could also just be a pack of ^$%#@ from "B" about the indicator
Either way, it's got NOTHING to do with Reg/Wof statis. Sucks in somwe ways but fair enough when looking at what physicly caused the accident
mrfxit,
Feb 27, 2:44am
With some minor exceptions Yep (sudden medical/ weather/ road collapse etc) but even then can be tricky
lookoutas,
Feb 27, 3:55am
Jeez - this had some moths on it!
The road rule sez that you must be able to: "Stop within half the clear distance in front" When you can't do that, YOU are in the wrong - no matter what the car in front does right or wrong.
marcos1,
Feb 27, 5:08am
That was a big dredge.
I'm sure there are a few more newsworthy threads from 2007
johnf_456,
Feb 27, 5:52am
Well said just like what they have in oz and it works with no wof.
johnf_456,
Feb 27, 5:56am
Yip
mrfxit,
Feb 27, 7:26pm
Lane changes are the responsibility of the changer unless it can be proven the approaching car unreasonably ignored all safety proticols & drove on through anyway (Eg: suddenly sped up after the change had been started/ driving well in excess of that roads max legal speed etc)
bjdw,
Feb 27, 8:47pm
What's wrong with just slowing down a little bit until the car in front has made it's turn!It's only going to take a few seconds!
mrfxit,
Feb 27, 9:31pm
D'oh yea . Tho already covered the main issue in #72 (as above)
socram,
Feb 27, 9:40pm
I have only had two road accidents in 47 years of driving. First (minor traffic island ding where the lady was in the wrong lane and turne dinto me) was not my fault, but the second arguably was.
As is often the case at night, you tend look at the curve of street lamps to decide how tight a corner is or where the road goes.Road junction had been resurfaced so no road markings and only doing 35kph, I didn't see the stop sign (in a hedge on the left, road was veering right - why don't they put stop signs on both sides of the road!).
I went straight through into the side of a car (that hadn't been regoed for four years) as I didn't even know there was a junction and assumed he'd be going up the road I was goimg down!
As the owner of the other car was also a driver with a string of DiC convictions, all the police were interested in,was was he the driver of the other car - he had conveniently left the scene.Was it him or one of his female passengers!
I couldn't answer honestly though I suspect it was the male.
The police agreed with me that the Stop sign was virtually obscured and the lack of road markings meant they weren't really interested in prosecuting me at all.
A week later, the insurance company had replaced my car.One of the women turned up at the police station, claiming she was the driver - but had no licence.We still think the disqualified owner was the driver, but they had worked out that driving without a licence was a lesser crime.
My insurance company didn't pay out for the unregistered car. I was somewhat shaken by the experience.
mrfxit,
Feb 27, 9:50pm
Yep Ray, pretty much the same here
Side swiped from right side back by a car going straight ahead from a compusery right turn (he was parked on the lights & changed to green as I got there, so I (of course) carried on through.
Right front cleaned off from a car swinging 'right' across 2 lanes of traffic & that car turning from opposite direction. (head to head)
Same panels crumpled on a car park "I" beam piller backing out & turning out to fast late at night (clearly my fault on that 1)
flitt,
Feb 27, 10:14pm
While considering the context of the whole post, with which I agree. This sentence is hilarious. You are an obstinate man biker69.
socram,
Feb 28, 12:08am
Understand your sentiments totally biker, but looking at the local drivers and their driving standards, would you even trust 40% of them to check their cars, let alone 90% if there was no compulsory check!
Fewer people these days do home maintenance on the modern cars.Most of my age group were brought up on fairly uncomplicated cars but they needed a decoke now and again; greasing about a dozen points every 3.000 miles or less; oil changes on my cars at 3,000 miles and oil filters at 6,000;batteries needed topping up regularly; in the days before sealed cooling systems, the water needed topping up too; points and plugs needed constant adjustments and the old SU carbs needed the dashpot oil level maintained.
With fuel injection, computers, sealed for life components and particularly Japanese standards of reliability, we tend to take the mechanical condition very much for granted.I certainly haven't done anything under the bonnets or undersides of my moderns for at least ten years now, relying on services and WoF checks - fortunately with virtually no failures on the moderns other than a very occasional minor and I do drive through the seat of my pants.
The classics and older cars - keeping them up to scratch is a totally different story.
r15,
Feb 28, 12:36am
i didnt bother reading all of the responses, but read the initial post.
my opinion of this is good job. and yes dangerous driving.
i see this all the time, paticularly with old people- they dont seem to bother looking in their mirrors or consider other road users when turning into driveways.
the correct way to make a left turn is to indicate for at least 3 seconds, move to the left side of the road then turn left.
with old drivers it seems very common for them to come almost to a stop in either the center of right of the lane, (as if they were going to turn right) then breifly indicate left and take a wide turn into the driveway. i've almost been caught out many times assuming they were going to turn right.
if your friend left enough space for a car to pass him on the left before he turned, then clearly he failed to move left before turning left, and therefore he was driving dangerously.
hopefully he tells all his other old friends about this and they can all learn his lesson to move left before turning left.
elect70,
Feb 28, 12:40am
They can get you on the clause thatsays you must inform them of anything that affects the insurance . They COULd refuse saying car notlegal .
bitsy_boffin,
Feb 28, 1:03am
Nope.
It is simply against the law to decline a claim on a basis that is not relevant to the liability.This can not be contracted out of, just like two people can't write a contract that allows one to, say, kill the other, it's still against the law.
Not having, vs having, a current vehicle licence ("reg") simply doesn't increase your individual liability in a meaningful way, it would be trivial to prove this.
Especially since the offence is "failure to display" the licence - ie, I could walk out to your car, remove the licence label, and the insurer would have to say "now you are at a higher liability to us", then I put it back and they would have to say "now you are at a lesser liability to us", clearly that's nonsense.
mrfxit,
Feb 28, 1:06am
Yep, it's up to the insurence companys IF they pay out or not but to make that decision, they must have all relaient facts of to who/how & what conditions at the time of the accident /road/ vehicles/ drivers etc
mrfxit,
Feb 28, 1:09am
Pretty sure there is a situation where it happens. it won't be on the accident it's self & not even sure if it's to do with accidents Per se Failier to display is a police matter, not insurence. . . Theres something there but can't put my finger on it . . .
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.