Being 100% NOT at fault, but ICBC screwing you over for slow judgment?
 

Wondering if ICBC had ever screwed someone over for having slow judgment in an accident. Like for example, hitting some one who's at fault but ICBC saying something "you should have been able to avoid that or brake sooner" can someone be penalized for having bad judgement? I have always wondered this for a long time. Has this or similar situations ever happen to people?

Not that I've heard of. However this is something I've wondered as well especially with old people. The police would judge at the scene if something was avoidable or not. Fault would also be done that way too.

Can you give a example of what exactly your question is? Like if a car is pulling out of a driveway and a person hits that car even though there would have been ample time to stop or simply drive around the car?

Berz out.

I've never heard of that, maybe if there was a witness who claims you purposely decided to not avoid the collision, or there's video proof?

You're not supposed to avoid them though, according to ICBC. Because if you try to prevent an accident, you could possibly cause another one.

Well maybe as far as swerving out of the way, but if you just choose to not apply the brakes on something you had ample time to stop for I could see it being an issue.

100% true.
When I first started driving (16) I had my N. I was parked on the side of a street and was signalling to pull out. I started to pull out and then a bum ran out in front of my car to cross the street. So naturally I stop the car.
Just after he was clear of the front of my car a lady in an Acura legend drives her car passed scraping the whole left side down the very corner of my front bumper.
ICBC said 100% my fault. So I asked them what I was supposed to do. I had a clear exit from my spot but had someone run out in front of my car. My options were to run the guy over and not have an accident with the lady or have the accident and not kill him.....so messed up.

Wtf eh...%^^

Indeed. And for her to have hit me she had to cross a boule solid yellow to get around my car enough.....so because I was moving from the spot and was forced to stop it's 100% my fault despite the lady making an illegal pass and hitting me effectively from behind......ICBC for the loose.

What about this one
http://www.revscene.net/forums/70606...-question.html

ICBC ruled in flavour of the car behind, who (probably) made a slow judgement to stop.

So ICBC deemed you at fault even though you were completely stationary?
WTF.

this is pretty much why almost everyone will lawyer up regardless of how "clear-cut" a situation/accident is cus ICBC is a pain in the ass to deal with

my one major accident was 100% the other party's fault but everyone around me insisted I should lawyer up so I did. Can't remember what their cut was but it was honestly worth it. I didn't have to deal with ICBC's bullshit. All I had to do was let him take care of everything. ICBC was not allowed to contact me directly about the incident which was awesome.

Though what pissed me off a little was this, the lawyer i hired seemed genuinely disappointed that I was pain-free 6 months after the accident...the guy really wanted me to stretch out the claim and recovery period but I could never fake an injury that doesn't exist anymore regardless of how big of payout it would be. Plus, they were more than fair in paying me out for my totalled car.

So you never directly dealt with ICBC, and they were fair in paying out for your vehicle. Your lawyer wanted you to fake your injury to increase the payout. Yet you're saying ICBC is a pain and a lawyer is great?

Didn't deal with them in this instance but I've dealt with them before this on minor issues. That was a pain.

My lawyer was great in a sense that he took care of all the paperwork and communication with icbc. But didn't like how he wanted to draw out the process needlessly.

Is that easier to understand?

Lawyers get paid for hours billed. Mystery solved.

Everyone's mileage with ICBC seems to vary. I've dealt with them quite a few times and never really had an issue. When my MX6 burnt down, their initial offer was more than fair (especially considering the amount of modifications the car had). My one at-fault fender bender was painless enough and thankfully the car I hit didn't claim anything more than the paint scratches on her rear bumper. My body shop went to bat for me and got a few extra things repaired that wasn't actually damaged in the initial accident (yellowing headlights and a couple small trim pieces that were simply worn) and ICBC okay'd it. Also had a hit and run claim from some douche after a party and a comprehensive claim from a dump truck dropping gravel in front of me and both instances involved absolutely no pain on my end.

Maybe some of their adjusters are on here and are familiar with my bad luck and are taking pity on me? :lol

That said, I wish I knew more about making claims when I was earlier. I'm still injured from being hit by a drunk driver fifteen years ago and didn't know enough about medical and injury claims.