cop lying to icbc
 

ok i'll try and make as much sense as possible.

my brother was driving on a two lane road (1 in each direction) with a single solid yellow line. he was looking for a buddies house on the left so admittedly he was driving slow, he said ~30 in a 50 zone. an incoming car was approaching so he let it pass and finally spotted the house he was looking for. put his signal on and basically right away made his left. (he says maybe one or two blinks of the signal)

well as he makes his turn he gets t boned by a car coming FROM BEHIND making a pass in the oncoming lane. right into the drivers door. car is heavily damaged. probably got hit at ~40kmh.

cops show up and asses the situation and give the other guy an illegal pass ticket on the spot.

a couple days later icbc calls for a statement

fast forward a month. icbc calls him tell him the guy that hit him was an off duty rcmp and his story was very different claiming my brother was stopped and without signalling he suddenly just turned left. icbc tell my brother they have deemed it 75% my bothers fault because they are taking the off duty police officers word over his...

needless to say lawyers are now involved...

it was my understanding that if someone is issued a ticket on the scene for something that caused an accident they are automatically deemed at fault?

Are you saying that tickets should be issued at the scene to someone who was NOT at fault? I'm assuming you were not at the scene and your info is coming from your brother who was charged?

From what you told us he made the turn put his signal on and basically right away made his left. (he says maybe one or two blinks of the signal) and that would support the ticket he got. Just because you put your signal on you don't get to turn when you have traffic behind you, you must yield first as you are cutting across in front of them. I know a Cop who was charged for what your brother did...and he was driving a marked Police car with emergency lights on at the time.

As one final observation, just because your brother who got a ticket for an unsafe turn (I would guess?) told you his point of view, that does not mean that the Police lied to ICBC. Maybe your headline could be "my brother lied to me, ICBC and the Cops?" My experience has been that almost everybody who got a ticket had, at the very least, a differing point of view. Very few ever accepted responsibility for their actions.

Unless I am reading OP's post wrong, his brother didn't get the ticket, the guy who hit him did. And despite getting a ticket for an illegal pass, ICBC is still saying it's the brother's fault.

You'd think of someone crashed while doing an illegal pass AND getting a ticket for it, it would be 100% his fault. But it sounds like the OP's brother is considered 75% at fault... Not sure what the other driver being a cop has to do with anything, but it still seems like OP would need some clarification on why they ruled the way they did.

Sounds like ICBC,

I remember readin a couple situations where people were changing lanes to the designated left turn lane and didn't notice a car from behind (cutting into oncoming to get into the turning lane), and ICBC still deemed them at fault (the one not going into oncoming traffic). (Or maybe both at partial fault)

The rational is.....you have to be on the look out at all times. Which...boggles my mind. It's on the same lines as going through a red and being automatically at fault. You cross a double solid line or go into oncoming traffic, you should also be at fault.

But guess when ICBC can get some money from both parties.... greed will always prevail

I agree with skinny's interpretation

It appears, on re-reading the OP several times, that you may correct. The fact that ICBC said he was only 25% responsible, indicates them that the OP's brother must have been 75% at fault for his unsafe turn. It is not uncommon for both drivers to be at fault....not every crash has someone 100% responsible. Civil law is based on percentages of liability....a balance of probabilityl, criminal law is based on guilty or not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. From what OP told us, his brother made an unsafe turn and the passing driver made an unsafe pass.

Personally whenever I choose to pass someone I always honk the horn in advance. One could assume that the OPs' brother should have looked first to see if his turn was safe to make. Either he did and chose to turn anyway while being passed....or he didn't look. Either way can you not see how possibly ICBC chose the way they did? Think back about every time you passed a car going 1/2 the speed limit. Did you consider that it would suddenly do a turn in front of you? Probably not.

I would agree with you zulutango, however it sounds like the cop was passing in the oncoming traffic lane. He probably saw the car (the one being passed) and felt it was safe to turn. But it would be hard to predict there would be another car in which would be opposing traffic lane coming from behind him as well.

I think that is what makes the OP question as to why his brother is responsible.

sounds like your bro was driving 2 mph, pulled over on the shoulder so other cars could pass him. Then turned left out of nowhere without checking his mirror.

i can understand why ICBC is finding him at fault

this is not at all what i meant.

he was in his lane doing ~ 30 in a 50 zone. the other guy was apparently going pretty quick. acording to my brother when he looked back the car behind was quite aways away but came up behind him in no time. and in my brothers words he says it looked like the other guy was just super impatient and decided to cross a solid yellow to make an illegal pass.

regardless of the situation the off duty cop (the other guy) claimed my brother was stoped and he was waiting behind him then decided to pass because my brother was blocking the lane. a totally different story and one that doesn't match the damage of the two vehicles since both are basically write offs. plus it's never ok to pull into the oncoming lane to make a pass.

and icbc is basically saying my brothers version is just bs simply because this other guy is a cop and they trust him more????

edit: it might also be worth mensioning by brothers gf was also in the car and completely corroburates his version of the story as she was the one looking at the house numbers as they were cruising along.

but into oncoming traffic????

and if it did turn i would assume it was my fault since legally i should be staying behind and finding a legal place to pass.

Single Yellow = pass permitted with caution
Double Yellow = no passing permitted
Single White = no passing or crossing lanes

your brother shouldn't be talking to ICBC about this anymore. he shouldn't even have given them a statement over the phone.
Hopefully your brother's lawyer isn't a retard and will argue with ICBC. Worst case scenario, this type of claim will end up 50/50, if there are no witnesses and it's his word against the cop's.
In an accident situation, ICBC has to take statements from both drivers at equal value. If the stories don't match, it's deemed 50/50. Sounds like ICBC was favoring the cop and giving him 25% fault so his rates don't get affected.
It's hard to judge an accident from reading a story from a third party who was not involved, so there may be more to the story here. But based on the story posted and there are no witnesses, it sounds like a 50/50 situation.

The other car was well within his right to pass if your brother was driving at 30 km/h in a 50 zone. If your brother turned left without checking his mirrors, knowing that he's an impediment to traffic flow, it really is his own damn fault.

^I see this all the time, people crawling along looking for an address. Most of the time the driver is going much less than 30kmh as well. They should just pull the f#$k over and let the cars behind them pass.

You can only turn left when it is safe to do so. Didn't check mirrors or shoulder checked. Just blitz turned it.

passengers story/statement don't count.

might be true if it's OP brother's words against the motorist that attempted to pass in the oncoming lane

if a police officer came to the scene and issued a ticket wouldn't ICBC contact the on-duty police officer? ICBC is aware that police officer showed up, right? May be the off-duty cop who caused the accident didn't include that in his statement.

Right now it does seem strange ICBC put OP's brother at 75% fault.

The average police officer (and sometimes even the most highly trained officers) won't be able to definitively say "this is what happened" unless they were there or there are 3rd party witnesses/photos/video of what happened. All they have is the version of events of the people who were involved and any witnesses. Things like collision analysis by way of debris, skid marks, etc etc etc can give some information and clues to what happened, but rarely do we have a full picture.

...and the "best evidence" is always the physical marks, scrapes, gouges, debris,vehicle damage, positions etc. The physical evidence does not have opinions, lies, misconceptions, honest mistakes or agendas, hidden or otherwise.

These are the reasons I am seriously considering getting a dashcam.

^ get one! driving actually feels safer now, not like it will stop anything bad from happening in an accident... mostly just with ICBC

:suspicious: i'm only wondering of reasons as to WHY you don't have one yet.

at the very least get the ebay $35 shipped cheapo ones - at least it'll show the basics... then you can participate in the shitty driver thread :fullofwin:

My guess is the liability determination is based on the following two sections of the BC MVA: (from Motor Vehicle Act)

and

Because your brother was making a change of direction, more onus would be on him to ensure that it is clear before making the turn, but there is onus on the passing vehicle, therefore a split in liability.

In regards to the differing statements, I'm pretty sure that there's a bias in everyone's statement when they get into an accident, but look at the facts:

Your brother and the other party agree that your brother made a change of direction (left turn)
Your brother and the other party agree that the other person was passing on the left

Take these two facts and the above two sections of the BC MVA and liability is determined on that.

I'm sure there may be extenuating circumstances, but from the description you've provided, that's what it comes down to.

some interesting opinions. i'll keep you guys updated on what transpires.
so far ibcb just gave the first offer of 75% my brothers fault and $1700 in injury claim because he messed up his knee when the door got crushed.

thats interesting that they've already made an offer to settle. They are hoping your brother will take the money and go away without a fight... I hope he lets his lawyer handle it and push for at least 50/50...
In a situation like this, I would not think that it would be reasonable to expect someone passing you on a small two lane road. I think more fault should go to the cop for an unsafe pass, since he did get a ticket for that.