There should be a slight discount, as it makes the investigation process in a lot of cases much easier and more clear.

HOWEVER, given that this is such a new thing (atleast here in BC) we are caught in this rare loophole where ICBC doesn't recognize people who have cameras. As a result people who have cameras can choose to submit their footage or not, now I certainly don't condone lying about the cause of an accident, or what happened in the event of an accident, but there are those who most certainly abuse this little loophole. I have no doubt.

huh dash cam can only help your case? if someone was gonna lie, they're gonna do it regardless with or without one.

bleh all the 2 channel haven't come down in price and still 300+. Think i'll just buy another G1WC...but not sure if tapping into power is a bitch in the back.

Sorry for turning this into a dash cam thread.

I was in the exact same situation as you years ago. I was further in the lane than you are and still got a nice fuck you from ICBC. 75%/25% was how they determined fault. Zero witnesses and it was the police officers opinion who attended the scene that the other driver was going well over the speed limit and that was likely the cause for the collision. Guy was 10 car lengths down the road at least by the time he stopped. Because a parking meter and a tree was in his way.

In regards to your video however. It should be clear as a fucking hole in the head that the rav4 was changing into that lane the same time you were. Also you had your signal on and it doesn't look like he does. Best of luck to you man.

I feel like everyone is missing a very important point in this scenario. the OP does not remember where the blue car was. Even if the blue car was two lanes over, the driver(op) should be aware of this as a potential hazard. When driving on a 3 lane road it is not enough to just look in the lane you are entering, you must be aware of any possible hazards.

Not trying to be a prick but this is how icbc will think about your case. If you can't remember where the other car came from, then they will assume you weren't paying enough attention.

Hey guys, appreciate all the comments. I appealed ICBC's original decision that I am 100% at fault and just heard back from them today and the claims manager has reversed the decision to 50/50, hurray!!

http://i65.tinypic.com/15dawko.jpg

Wow they normally don't work like that at all. Good on you for sticking with it.

How do the percentages work?

I thought if both parties have fault both insurances go up?

Congratulations.

Fail me for being not observant, but where did they see that the other driver had his turn signal on?

I got curious and went back to the OP's video and couldn't find it, or maybe there was another video.

From icbc site

"Your insurance premium may increase if you are found to be more than 25 percent at fault for a crash unless you have been claim-free for a long time."

Insurance for op was going to go up, but with the change in fault the other driver gets to pay more too.

Yup, my premiums will still increase the same amount but now I am only responsible to pay 50% of my deductible rather than 100%

I think if u watch it in slow mo and when the other car first appears on screen u can kinda see their lights but I dunno I never caught it either, just happy they decided 50/50 now

Good work on getting the decision reversed.
It's very quick, but you can see the front signal light at the 0:02 mark just before the impact.

i believe on rav 4s the turn signal is actually on the fog lamp assembly. what they're seeing in the video might just be the corner lights :troll:

If the turn signal was activated, shouldn't it be flashing from the rear too?

I know a really good lawyer


:awwyeah:

not sure how the turn signal proves anything since the driver could have just been slow to turn it off or even turned it on accidentally white swerving to avoid impact. Regardless though, good for you op for getting icbc to reduce it to 50/50 fault

correct me if I'm wrong, turn signal means nothing when it comes to determining the fault of an accident.

ie you're turning right and the car with right of way signals to turn where you're about turn out from. You think he's turning in not going straight and you complete your turn...he keeps going straight regardless of signal and hits you...technically you're still at fault even if he communicated he was gonna make a right turn?

Also, on my car you can't see any part of the signal lights from the sides...no mirror signals nor sidemarkers, and the both front and back signal are tucked on the inside of the headlights/brakelights which is why I'm super cautious changing lanes on a multilane road. Design oversight at Acura.

Looks like a 2nd generation Rav4.

Turns signals are above the fog lights.

Too me, it's looks like the the reflector was reflecting lights off the headlight of the op car.