REVscene - Vancouver Automotive Forum

E-SPEC · 11-10-2016, 04:39 PM

How is this even a thought that you are possibly NOT at fault??

dSpaceman · 11-10-2016, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inv4zn

ICBC is cracking down on stupid injury claims, and they'll take a look at your video as well as damage on both cars to see if her injury claims are bogus, if she does claim so at all.

There's no "buying out" a claim - you can pay back whatever ICBC paid to her so that your premiums don't go up.

Your options are to dispute the claim for re-review, or to go to court. Neither of which will be favourable to you. Wait for correspondence from ICBC, and do some maths to see which is more financially viable for you.

And why the hell did you decline collision?

That's good to know. I think my best course of action now is to request a Claim Review. If that does not go in my favour, then I will be better off paying for her property damages than tanking the insurance premium.

Collision coverage would've increased my annual insurance by $2,000. I figured I'm better off saving $2k a year and fixing my own damages if an accident occurs. A little ironic now that I look at it...

bomboi1 · 11-10-2016, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dSpaceman

Well, no. That would be a prick move. The problem is that I don't have collision coverage, so I will have to fix my own car out of pocket and my insurance rate will still go up. What I'm hoping for is a 50/50 settlement so that my car would be covered as well, and possibly buying out my part of the claim. Seeing that the only damage the minivan suffered was the front bumper, this would be the most economical solution for me.

I didn't put words in you mouth as you stated here in your post that you are hoping for a 50/50 settlement so that you car would be covered so you wouldn't have to pay for this out of pocket. So you basically want the rest of us to pay for the damages to your car because you decided not to buy collision coverage

inv4zn · 11-10-2016, 04:50 PM

Insurance always looks very expensive until that one time when you have to use it.

Good luck man, but honestly I don't think a review is gonna change anything. It's within your right to request it, but unless you either provide more evidence or claim that your adjuster was a racist or something they'll give you the same outcome.

inv4zn · 11-10-2016, 04:52 PM

Insurance always looks very expensive until that one time when you have to use it.

Good luck man, but honestly I don't think a review is gonna change anything. It's within your right to request it, but unless you either provide more evidence or claim that your adjuster was a racist or something they'll give you the same outcome.

dSpaceman · 11-10-2016, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomboi1

I didn't put words in you mouth as you stated here in your post that you are hoping for a 50/50 settlement so that you car would be covered so you wouldn't have to pay for this out of pocket. So you basically want the rest of us to pay for the damages to your car because you decided not to buy collision coverage

I don't want to argue with you on the technicality of my words. Bottom line is I don't believe I should be fully at fault here, and so I don't think I should be responsible for all the damages.

You can interpret it however you like, though. If you want to think of me as the bad guy, that's fine. You don't have to say hi to me when you see me on the streets.

dSpaceman · 11-10-2016, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inv4zn

Insurance always looks very expensive until that one time when you have to use it.

Good luck man, but honestly I don't think a review is gonna change anything. It's within your right to request it, but unless you either provide more evidence or claim that your adjuster was a racist or something they'll give you the same outcome.

Thanks, I appreciate the help.

E-SPEC · 11-10-2016, 05:05 PM

Just out of curiosity how much fault would you say you take for the accident?

bomboi1 · 11-10-2016, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dSpaceman

I don't want to argue with you on the technicality of my words. Bottom line is I don't believe I should be fully at fault here, and so I don't think I should be responsible for all the damages.

You can interpret it however you like, though. If you want to think of me as the bad guy, that's fine. You don't have to say hi to me when you see me on the streets.

im not interpreting anything, bottom line is you can believe what you want to believe. The only problem is that you are 100% at fault. blinkers don't mean shit, I've seen so many people drive without signaling and unfortunately you decided to make a left with oncoming traffic without checking first and that's the bottom line cuz stone cold said so!

dSpaceman · 11-10-2016, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by E-SPEC

Just out of curiosity how much fault would you say you take for the accident?

To be honest, I thought I was in the right initially. But that's most likely due to my bias approach on this entire incident.

What everyone has brought up so far is undeniable. I could have definitely handled this much better. But imagine being in my shoes. I'm not speeding, I'm not trying to rush a turn before oncoming traffic. All I wanted to do was make my turn so I can get to school. I see her blinker on and assumed she would turn. She changed her mind and I was hit.

I'd like to see her at least take some responsibility. A 50/50 settlement, or a 75/25 in her favour.

Mikoyan · 11-10-2016, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dSpaceman

I see her blinker on and assumed she would turn. She changed her mind and I was hit.

You summed it up right there. You made a judgement call and it it turned out to be the incorrect one.

I can see the blinker turn off for a split second before you initiated your turn. It's hard to spot with the glare, and I was looking for it.

I think you're SOL on this one.

yip_yee · 11-10-2016, 05:36 PM

To be honest, I actually saw that car was blinking. But I'm not sure about how's the switch of Sienna. For me, I guess he/she was switching the headlight on but also turn the signal on by accident. Even it's true, I don't think you will get 50/50.

mb_ · 11-10-2016, 05:37 PM

If you actually look in your RoadSense for drivers book, there's a section that you actually have to wait for the vehicle to change directions and not solely rely on their turn signals. I honestly think you'll be wasting a lot of your time and possibly money if you decided to appeal the decision.

dark0821 · 11-10-2016, 05:41 PM

To go against the grain here...

Personally, if it is up to me, I will call this a 50/50.

I honestly think everyone is being a bit harsh, realistically after re-watching the video 10 or so times, it seems the Van did in fact slow down to almost a complete stop and had blinkers on.

I have been a witness for an accident where ICBC ruled a 50/50 for a collision with a left turn driver VS a car in on coming traffic having right turn blinker on, slowed down at the intersection only to floor it and go straight last minute.

Now i am not saying everyone saying the OP is 100% at fault is wrong, and I could see how ICBC came to this conclusion. But I think it's a bit harsh... because the Van clearly had the intention to turn only to change their mind last min...

just my 0.02

coneZONE · 11-10-2016, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Professional Drivers' Manual 1990 Edition

May be old but still holds true.
To be frank, you were neither when this incident happened

My rule of thumb is that you cannot rush. If you are late, you are late. Nothing can change it. It will always be better than becoming the subject of an incident.

dSpaceman · 11-10-2016, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yip_yee

To be honest, I actually saw that car was blinking. But I'm not sure about how's the switch of Sienna. For me, I guess he/she was switching the headlight on but also turn the signal on by accident. Even it's true, I don't think you will get 50/50.

When we were exchanging information, she did admit that she had changed her mind on turning. Unfortunately that was not what she told ICBC.

bomboi1 · 11-10-2016, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dSpaceman

When we were exchanging information, she did admit that she had changed her mind on turning. Unfortunately that was not what she told ICBC.

changing her mind does not constitute her being at fault, she in fact is going in a straight line, if she was in the middle of her turn and then decides to go straight and ram into you that's her fault.

smoothie. · 11-10-2016, 05:52 PM

You would've failed your drivers test for that left turn if the van wasn't there at all.

MarkyMark · 11-10-2016, 05:52 PM

Sucks that it took an accident to learn this, but if you assume everyone on the road is an idiot you'll save yourself from a lot of problems. After 16 years of driving if I trusted someone's turn signal every time I'd have either been hit many times or dead by now.

Euro7r · 11-10-2016, 06:05 PM

It's so hard to prove the other party at fault, even remotely. I had to watch the video a couple times to really focus in to see the blinker going from the other car. Person turning left is always screwed unless you are able to prove otherwise. Best of luck. I know this sucks, first thing in the morning

FerrariEnzo · 11-10-2016, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dSpaceman

And so I believe a 50/50 is fair.

IF you have valid points for this being 50/50 then you have grounds to argue.
According to MVA acts and what everyone else says, you are clearly in the wrong.

I think this thread should be closed before it turns into a spitting war. OP ask for opinions and everyone here has stated it.

SSM_DC5 · 11-10-2016, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dark0821

To go against the grain here...

Personally, if it is up to me, I will call this a 50/50.

I honestly think everyone is being a bit harsh, realistically after re-watching the video 10 or so times, it seems the Van did in fact slow down to almost a complete stop and had blinkers on.

I have been a witness for an accident where ICBC ruled a 50/50 for a collision with a left turn driver VS a car in on coming traffic having right turn blinker on, slowed down at the intersection only to floor it and go straight last minute.

Now i am not saying everyone saying the OP is 100% at fault is wrong, and I could see how ICBC came to this conclusion. But I think it's a bit harsh... because the Van clearly had the intention to turn only to change their mind last min...

just my 0.02

A little more detail on this one? What type of lane was the right turner on? Right turn only? Unmarked?

asma123 · 11-10-2016, 06:37 PM

In my opinion you are at fault regardless what the other driver did. You should have stopped and scanned the intersection before proceeding. Everytime you turn its your responsibility to ensure its safe to go. Not only that but you also went prematurely. Again always assume that everyone is a retard and take caution.
On the other hand it's possible that this guy could have rammed your car when they saw the opportunity (wanting to total their car for $$?) but then again it comes back to my first point. You should have stopped and scanned before proceeding. You are at fault here.

dark0821 · 11-10-2016, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSM_DC5

A little more detail on this one? What type of lane was the right turner on? Right turn only? Unmarked?

The lane was unmarked, but it was a "parking lane" for sure, since there are cars parked on both sides of the intersection. Which means you wouldn't be in that lane if you were not planning on turning. If you went straight, you would have to change lanes back to the left right away as your lane will be blocked with parked cars.

It was this summer at the intersection of Kingsway and Knight in Vancouver.

I was waiting at a red light first row on Kingsway going west bound towards Downtown.

The left hand driver was making a left from knight street (south bound) going onto Kingsway east bound (towards Burnaby). He was already completely stopped at the intersection for quiet a while since the roads were busy. Light is about to turn red from amber and driver starts making the left turn. At this point the other driver going north bound on knight street had his signal to turn right onto Kingsway, he braked hard in "anticipation for a turn" then ran straight instead, with his right blinker still going.

Now ICBC did ask me if the driver that went straight ran a red, I honestly didn't pay enough attention so I told the adjuster I do not know, but it will be a late amber for sure.

The adjuster did mention that regardless of running a red or not, the left had driver should only proceed at a clear intersection, even if it means he is turning on a red.

There are still photos on my xperia, but I switched to Samsung... -.- and too lazy to grab them lol...

E-SPEC · 11-10-2016, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dSpaceman

To be honest, I thought I was in the right initially. But that's most likely due to my bias approach on this entire incident.

What everyone has brought up so far is undeniable. I could have definitely handled this much better. But imagine being in my shoes. I'm not speeding, I'm not trying to rush a turn before oncoming traffic. All I wanted to do was make my turn so I can get to school. I see her blinker on and assumed she would turn. She changed her mind and I was hit.

I'd like to see her at least take some responsibility. A 50/50 settlement, or a 75/25 in her favour.

Honestly for myself whenever this happens, i NEVER make the turn until i 100% see that other party start to cross the center line fully commiting to the turn, just because their are scumfucks out there that are looking for a payday, and then the others don't have a clue what they are even doing in the first place. Trust nobody. Good luck with everything though honestly!