Hazelbridge = single yellow

The statement to use in this case would be "I've exhausted all options to stop my car in time in order to not result in a collision with the other party and other motor vehicles behind me; but despite my effort, the other party crashed into me because he/she failed to yield to the traffic on the highway (including me) who had the right of way which is a violation of section 176 of the Motor Vehicle Act."

If you actually told ICBC, "I don't feel like I should stop," ICBC would think that you hesitated in braking just because you had the right of way.

if he is inching through, and you hit the driver / pass door, then you must have seen his front end long before you hit him....

you probably saw his front end in lots of time but failed to make any attemps to stop untill the last sec...

Well, I never gave the a statement to them claiming "I don't feel like I should stop". The way ICBC put it they made me understand that I should have stopped & let him thru. When they advised me that I was going to be 25% fault I asked for their rational behind the decision. They said b/c he was already inching in on the right lane I should have proceeded w/ caution. But if the guy didn't see me, or failed to check for traffic, & came out I can't stop the car to a dead-stop. I braked & did what I could to have prevented the accident. That's what I told ICBC.

No I never saw his front-end. Not @ least in the left-lane I was travelling on. He honestly came out pretty quickly w/ maybe 1.5 car lengths. In all honesty, put in my situation I don't think anyone could have stopped in time to avoid collision.

That make no sense. Why would I choose to stop until the last sec? Have I seen his car in my lane w/ ample distance/time I would have stopped. If I had a choice I wish I was never in the accident so I can go on w/ my life as it was instead of taking time out of my life dealing w/ this whole ordeal.

Was he really "inching" or was he coming out quickly to beat the traffic? I fail to see how anyone could inch past the right lane.

If he came out quickly, then you just defeated ICBC's argument. But yeah, best to fight it with a lawyer. Never know when ICBC is going to change their policy regarding people who have been involved in 25% fault accidents in the past not having to pay a premium.

I don't see how this could be anything other than 100% the other guys fault. Anyone making a left like this should wait until either there's no traffic coming at you, or you have a car in each lane that you are crossing stopped for you (or at least obviously on their way to stopping).

THis exact situation happened to my dad years ago. He is still battling in court for a proper payout. His arm was permanently damaged and he only had about 10% movement. He was deemed 100% not at fault. It's the driver turning who was labelled at fault.

^ I'm not sure how it works in Canada but maybe if the OP can reference your dads case it might help.

I think they got you on these:
Section 171, and 172 involve giving turn signals and don't affect the meaning. Remember that "highway" means any legal street.

What you can argue is what constitutes an immediate hazard...but they can still argue there may have been a pedestrian which was in front of the stopped car which you didn't see. That leaves you to argue that you though the car was parked and didn't see the other car at all as it shot out from there.
I doubt you can do that though...25% is being generous if there was a witness for the other driver.

So you are lucky it was only 25%...you could have been more responsible.

fail, because he was not at an intersection.

How about you getting mass failed for not understand what an intersection is? An intersection is where two roads join. What you think is an intersection is called a 4 way intersection. This was a 3 way intersection...FAIL. You are right about the first one not applying though, I didn't understand his diagram....still partly responsible though.

Nice try buddy, but double fail because, as stated in the OP, the guy was coming out of a complex, not off a road.

Double fail for you again:

the public is not invited to come park in a housing/apartment complex. unless you are a guest or resident they don't want you to park there, and can tow you.

So in other words you don't want to admit you are not familiar with the definition of an intersection or a highway? I guess a "private place" (see above) is public but a housing complex drive is private? Give me a break...
I was man enough to admit I made a mistake about Section 174. Still at fault for 179(3)...so 25% is more than fair.

179(3) refers to a pedestrian crossing at an intersection or crosswalk...the op hit a car...

:haha:

Fail for not knowing the difference between a pedestrian and a car
:haha::haha::haha:

The last few posts actually made me laugh on otherwise a depressing situation :lol

i had some one turn left on me and icbc put it 50/50
i said noway and they changed it 100 to him

Hide625, u dont even really need a lawyer. Next time you talk to them say "well ive talked to a lawyer and he said..........." I used that line to bump up my ICBC settlement and it worked.

Anyways every1 has given you alot of good advice, but to me it comes down to the fact your going straight and hes coming out of a sidestreet/privatestreet turning left. Hell if he was making a right turn and got rear ended, it would of been his fault. He was the one that proceeded through without care. It isnt your job to full on brake at everysingle sidestreet you see to your side. And from your picture it looks like cars were even stopped past that sidestreet, which leads me to believe that traffic was stopped for a Light ahead not for that car so theres no way u would of known that traffic was stopping for him.

Only way ICBC seeing you being 25% at fault is if he was already in your lane for awhile, and you just hit him without trying to stop. But that would mean either 2 things, You were speeding and couldnt slow down in time to stop(they cant prove this unless a cop saw u speed) or You just decided to hit him cause you didnt care. Both options dont make no sense so obviously your not at fault for this at all

Interesting situation, I would have give 100% fault to the other guy too. I think ICBC is trying to pin you on not being prudent/careful enough about your surroundings to see him 'inching' into your path, which they MAY have a case since you hit him square on the side and not his front. He may have pulled through the curb lane quite fast though, these things are difficult to recall when you are actually in the accident.

If they are saying you should have slowed down because the curb lane car slowed down or stopped, you can also say that you don't know whether the car in the curb lane was trying to turn right to enter that complex. With the number of cars that turn or change lanes without signalling, you have a valid argument there. If the curb lane car was slowing down, it really shouldn't be up to you to figure out whether he's actually trying to stop or if he's only trying to make a right turn.

It sounds like you did what you could to avoid the accident and it sucks you may have to shoulder some of this for the other driver's careless actions. They should also ding the curb lane driver for 25% for slowing his flow of traffic down and risking a rearender to himself to let this guy 'inch out' and cause this accident, makes about as much sense to me.

ivan needs to be banned

I think one of the possible reasons why ICBC left you with 25% is because if you were not at fault, you could've also claimed for injury for this and that, resulting more money claimed back for you.

I have a uncle that had a similar situation and he kinda faked injury with his family and they paid him $10,000+. There's probably too many people doing that nowadays and so that's why ICBC is trying to figure out ways to prevent paying so much.

Nevertheless, don't give up. I'm sure you can fight for what is rightfully yours.