got into an accident today, no witness = 50/50?
 

got into an accident today at richmond.. i was going straight in an intersection when this car hit me as she was turning right.. my light was green at the time.. it was her fault but now she said it's my fault.. she can't even speak english too.. some gal from a business had to come out and translate to her..

if there is no witness, icbc usually give a 50/50?


btw, do we not have to go to icbc claim center and see an adjuster now?? i called icbc today and they just ask me to go straight to a body shop..
i had an accident before but i had to go to icbc claim center and let them see the damage.. and explain what happened..

more details please

In a situation like this it's gotta be somebody's fault.

what intersection, going what direction, what colour were the traffic lights. draw pictures if you think they will be legible.

did she have stop sign? which intersection was this?
if there wasnt a stop sign, then it would be treated as 4 way stop which i assume she arrived first or at the same time as u, she has the right of way
if she had the stop sign then it's obviously her fault.

wow so many replies already... i had the green light when i was going straight.. it was near lansdowne mall where that mcdonalds is..


my friend said if no witness, we can say whatever we want so hard to win..

I think he means he got to an intersection with traffic lights on every side. His light was probably green, he went straight through. Lady drove up to traffic light going perpindicular to him but is taking a right turn at the traffic light. Her light is obviously red, but she can take a right turn if the way is clear. The way obviously isn't clear as this guy is driving through. They collide. If this is the case, then it would be her fault.

That's what I think he's saying.

yup.. tha'ts about it... but with no witness, pretty much hard to prove who is right or wrong??? my whole side of the car was damaged.. her car was only the front left bumper..

how is it possible that in that busy part of richmond, there were NO witnesses?

Wouldn't they make it her fault? I mean they'd pretty much have to argue you ran a red light to place any blame on you. You're driving straight and she's the one who is to proceed when it's clear. I had an accident exactly like this 10 years ago, 100% the car making the turns fault.

kinda off topic, but just for the future you should look into this.
you would've been saved this time too.

http://www.revscene.net/forums/drivi....html?t=566442

the lady can be a bitch and turn the story around and claims he ran a red or late yellow which will deem to be his fault i believe.

but if the lady sticks to the story that she turned on a red, then its 100% her fault.

Yeah, the only way you could even be partly at fault is if she argues you ran a red light, because otherwise the onus would be on her to make sure it's clear before turning right. Hope she's stupid and decides to use some other argument instead...

Ya, that might be the case. This shit anoys me so bad I can't stand people who lie when in an accident.

I think the problem is many parents don't do a good job of teaching their kids morals, right and wrong and how to take responsibilty for actions. I'm far from perfect and I make mistakes from time to time, I never ever place the blame on others. If I fuck up at work I'll be the first one to admit it is my mistake and do whatever I have to do to fix it. I work with people who will pass the buck every chance they get, I hate this quality in people. I'm ranting now but seriously shit happens, when it's your fault own it. [/rant]

I had a similar situation in my supra...I was driving straight through an intersection and some hindu lady decided to do a left turn and we collided. ICBC found it was her fault...in most cases it's the person whos turning that gets screwed. You have right of way as your going straight.

It's sketchy if there aren't any witnesses. It becomes your word versus hers. She simple needs to say that you ran a red and it becomes 50/50.

It's sad that most people construe a red light to mean "proceed with caution" when they are turning right. It means coming to a full stop. Nothing less.

Hopefully, she does say that you ran a stale yellow. That would mean her light was red and she would be completely at fault for failing to stop and/or yield.

There got to be witnesses. It's just they don't want to get involved or they don't care.

enough is said.

start posting notices around that area to get witnesses,
Also if u know any friends in that area (sneaky sneaky, RS members probably know tons of ppl in richmond neways) say they were biking by or walking past etc, when they saw it.

There is no way ICBC will fine you at fault even if you ran a red since the damage is to the SIDE of your car. She pretty much drove into you.

Agreed. You win, provide that evidence and she is at fault 100%

u shudve fone the cops whn the accident happened

This is such a silly incident. Honestly.

I mean I had an accident before and anyone with any sense of logic and understood physics, could of easily figured it out. But I got the 50/50 anyway.



I wouldn't even need to hear the testimony. The damage says it all.

Fact: Lady's car has damage on her front bumper. OP's car has damage on the side of his car. Conclusion: Lady driver basically T-boned him.

:rolleyes:

I mean I don't know... she can say you ran a red, but the fact is she still turned into you. So if you were running a red, then conclusion is, she purposely ran into you despite seeing the intersection wasn't clear... so wtf?? Either way, it doesn't make logical sense on her side...

they'll rule it's her fault for sure

sometimes ICBC can look at the way the car is damaged to sort of re-picture the moment it happend, i had the same incident where i was going straight on green, and some lady turning left on opposite direction and hit me, damage was in my left front fender and for her it was the whole front bumper, ICBC some how came to the conclusion base on the fact she was turning and the point of damage.

i dunno how they came to the conclusion about the point of damage.. but they got their ways thru.

They will rule her fault for sure. She has to wait for clear before she turns right.