ICBC Collision Question
 

So my brother got into an accident and ICBC has deemed him 100% at fault.

I personally don't think it is right.
I would like other opinions on this.

Here is a link to the video of what happend. (collision occurs around 32s in the video)

Basically what happend was, we needed to merge right. We saw lots of room and merged. However the van in front decided to stop for no reason, which you can see in the video. After that, the vehicle behind us rear ends up.

As of now, we are 100% at fault according to ICBC. My brother has spoke with the adjuster and even spoke with her manager because we don't think this is right.

My questions is, what do you guys on RS think?

Personally, I wouldn't have changed lanes that soon after the intersection. I can't see the other car's space behind you, but in my mind if they hit you there wasn't enough.

But 100% your fault seems harsh. Typical ICBC..

Lawyer up and stop talking to icbc, they are not your friends at all.

Look at it from the other driver's perspective. Guy changes lanes in front of you then slams on his brakes (albeit, justified). Should he be at fault?

Unfortunate series of events. In this case I can see why ICBC would deem you or even both parties partially at fault.

Sorry dude.

^ yea I understand. I'm more pissed I dont have a rear camera to show the distance he had.

Looks like your brother did not quite complete the lane change before he was hit.

You can ask for adjudication. It is only a few inches but I think it is one of those instances the video comes to haunt you. One thing you might want to do is to some how prove your had completed the lane change, if the perspective of the camera is on the passenger side.

Lawyering up won't do you much good because determining fault is an internal ICBC operation, nothing to do with the courts.

I hope you have your one free accident bonus thing. in the future, only give video out when you are absolute sure it won't bite you. It is not an obligation to give away video.

I agree your bro should be at some fault. But the the factors of slow speed, and the time elapsed between your braking and then being rear ended... Anyone behind who was paying attention should have EASILY stopped in time. You guys were going like 20km/h... That being said, your bro shouldn't have been there in the first place

If you're genuinely unhappy with the outcome of your claim, know that you have every right to present your case to the ICBC fairness commissioner.


http://=http://www.icbc.com/about-ic...s commissioner


'What can the fairness commissioner do?
The fairness commission could:
Help you understand and/ or resolve your issue with ICBC
Make recommendations to ICBC to resolve your complaint
Recommend mediation or arbitration (if necessary)
Dismiss the complaint.'

Yea, I understand what the next step would be if we decide to pursue any further.
I just wanted to gather some opinions on it first.

Id fight it for sure, you can clearly see you were already in the right lane and almost stopped, watch when the thud of the camera happens. You had already changed lanes, rear ender for sure.

I'm willing to bet a paycheque the person behind you had their phone in their hand at the moment of impact. I really don't see how this can be 100% on you.

I just don't get how you can get rear ended stopping for a legitimate reason, and be found 100%. Yes, I understand you just changed lanes etc, and perhaps I could see them throwing 25% of the blame at you (slap on the wrist, doesn't affect premiums) but 100%? WTF? Fight this, please.

i don't think your brother is at any fault. if the person hits you immediately after you changed lanes, then your brother didn't leave enough room. But it took a good 2.5 seconds AFTER you completed your lane change until you were hit. 2.5 seconds....do you know how long that is in terms of braking time? In addition, it also took time for your brother to signal and maneuver into the right lane. The entire process took a good 5 seconds to complete. The person in the rear was either driving really really fast, distracted or shouldn't even be on the road.

I am thinking the same thing as you guys.

I had forgot to mention, this is where the damage is located. (the rear bumper is our vehicle, front is the other partys)
http://i65.tinypic.com/29w4u9f.jpg

What happend was, when the guy slammed on his brakes, i guess he tried to dodge it by swerving towards the curbside. Because of this, the damage is slightly offset.

ICBC on the other hand does not believe this. They claim that our vehicle was not 100% straight in the lane which is why the damage is offset.

Then he goes and tells me that any accident related with a lane changer, then lane changer is always 100% at fault.

Everything I bring up, the adjusters manager is telling me to prove it.

So then I asked the adjuster to get the other party to prove that he wasn't driving too close to me. He then tells me the other party does not have to prove anything because we were the ones changing lanes.

They are placing complete blame on us, he believes the other party did absolutely nothing wrong, and will not place any partial fault onto them(25%, 50% etc)

In other words, ICBC believes the collision was caused by the act of changing lanes, as opposed to being caused by a driver following too closely. When changing lanes, the driver making the lane change is responsible for ensuring they maintain a safe distance in front and rear of the vehicle during and after the lane change, so as to avoid a collision from happening. The timing really is too close to call.

Hindsight is 20/20 but the van braked at the exact moment your brother started making his lane change. I think he should have seen the van braking, and then he should have cancelled the lane change and kept to his original lane.

Don't really have any suggestions on how you will be able to convince them otherwise now they have come to this conclusion... good luck!

Here is one little detail that no one saw. Tell icbc to look at the video and pay attention to the mini cooper bumper because that is where you can see your headlights is being reflected. You can clearly see that you had done a complete lane change before the impact happen. Also as soon as the mini hit the brake. you also hit the brake. Meaning your brake light is already on a for at least 3 sec *judging by the video timer* before the impact. This lead to the guy behind you is either not pay attention or on his phone.

I agree with ICBC's decision. Your brother was changing lanes and braked unnecessarily hard judging from the amount of space in front to the mini. We have no rear-cam but it would seem like there wasn't that much space to merge to start with hence the guy behind couldn't react fast enough.

Think about it in the other perspective. Someone just merged in front of you and then slam on the brakes. Even if the lane change was complete, you have one full car length less than you originally had to safely stop.

In your brother's case, even if ICBC deems that he's not 100% at fault. Anything over 25% fault the insurance goes up anyway so there's really no difference.

Just my opinion.

I'm surprised they didn't rule this partially at fault for both drivers. Recoup the most cost through deductibles and rate increases...

to be fair i can complete a lane change at any time. that doesn't mean i didn't just cut off the guy and force him to slam on his breaks.

and yes it's not impossible to cut someone off, come to a complete stop and then get hit.

your bro whipped it in too fast and too soon. who the fuck changes lanes immediately crossing an intersection when there are clearly cars around?

other drivers' award for not riding ass and allowing enough room ahead? so your bro can slam it in for no reason. thats' why you had time to stop, then get hit.

besides if they don't rule against your bro, ANY idiot can just cut me off and slam the breaks and voila, i'm 100% at fault then?

because that's kinda what your argument is.

What kind of vehicle rearended you?

It was just an old civic.
We're not concerned with the damage to be honest. His rates will most likely go up. In which case we may consider paying off the claim if the decision stays the same.

Even if you have a rear camera, the wide angle footage is hard to verify the actual distance apart.

What I see ICBC made the decision is based on insufficient braking distance for the car behind due to your lane change.

To me it looks like the lane change was complete... at 30 sec

Then at 31.5-32sec the impact occurs... at that speed, and the other driver can CLEARLY see the other car is switching lanes in.... this shouldn't have happened.

At worst I'd say 50/50.... this isn't a cut off situation, assuming your brother signaled right, and the fact that there was time to react given the slower speed.

Just my take

if the rear car has a slightly less deceleration than OP, it takes longer time for the impact to come, but still doesn't prove the distance is sufficient enough from kinematics standpoint.....