Got into an accident, 50/50 or 100% at fault? [Archive]

yelnats8

01-03-2016, 07:18 PM

I got into an accident a couple weeks ago. I was making a lane change and hit another car. Prior to making the lane changed I shoulder checked and didn't see another car so I made the lane change. After looking at my dash cam footage I am pretty certain that the car I hit was also making a lane change into the same lane.

I showed the video the ICBC and they say the footage and screen shot I provided to them is still not enough to confirm the third party vehicle had made a lane change so I am 100% at fault for the accident.

I've shown the video to a bunch of objective people and they all agree that the video shows that the other car was coming from another lane. What do you guys think?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFEkEyqr4Ps

http://i63.tinypic.com/ek143o.jpg

bluejays

01-03-2016, 07:23 PM

Looks pretty obvious to me that it's 50/50 and that you both turned into each other at the same time. I'm no expert but just looking at where the damage is + video evidence, you can easily see he turned into it as well

meme405

01-03-2016, 07:28 PM

I'm with ICBC can't really tell if they are changing lanes, or if they swerved to avoid you and didn't manage it enough.

Either way sounds like ICBC has made up their minds, your only choice now is if you decide to lawyer up and fight it. I strongly advise against potentially wasting money fighting something like this, I doubt you will come out in better shape than you are in now, and you will cause yourself so much stress and headache dealing with it.

Accidents happen, it's why we all carry insurance. Let the insurance take care of it, and you can more or less move on.

tegra7

01-03-2016, 07:29 PM

Looks like 50/50.

StanleyR

01-03-2016, 07:29 PM

meme405

01-03-2016, 07:34 PM

Hmm 3 other replies with a definitely opposite answer. Maybe you have a better case than I thought. Starting to think it might be worth it to lawyer up. Ultimately up to you, best of luck.

i-vtecyo

01-03-2016, 07:38 PM

looks like u were half way in when the collision happened so its possible that both of u 2 merged at the same time unless he swerved by reflex.

dared3vil0

01-03-2016, 07:38 PM

supafamous

01-03-2016, 08:23 PM

Inconclusive - the other MAY have been coming from the other lane but there's not enough evidence to say that it DEFINITELY was coming from the other lane.

KO7

01-03-2016, 08:28 PM

I'm leaning more towards 50/50 than he was trying to swerve. If he swerved he wouldn't have looked like he would commit so much to going into that same lane IMO.

dark0821

01-03-2016, 08:35 PM

it looks to be a 50/50...

But since your dashcam is actually pretty high def, would it be too much if you ask the adjuster/estimator to call all the other drivers on scene?

I mean just by your short clip, ICBC should be able to find the driver for
Grey BMW X5
Orange Honda Element
Black BMW 3er sedan
Black Acura MDX

At this point, I think a 3rd party witness will be your best bet

underscore

01-03-2016, 08:50 PM

The gunmetal Acura SUV rolling down their window and looking over likely saw the accident, if you can get their plate from the footage I'd try to see if they can be contacted as a witness somehow.

Akinari

01-04-2016, 09:41 AM

I can't stand it these days when witnesses see an accident and just fucking drive away like it's absolutely none of their business. What is it with people and not wanting to help these days? Really pisses me off. Especially in Richmond.

/rant

Good luck with the case OP

jackmeister

01-04-2016, 10:00 AM

50/50 or 100/0 makes no difference to you, your rates will go up. If you know for sure the other car changed lanes into you and won't admit it, i'd fight for 50/50 so both of you are punished. If the other car didn't lane change or you're not sure, chalk this up to an expensive mistake.

I think if you take the option of paying everything upfront the rates don't go up. I've had that option before where if I paid 100% upfront it would be like 600 dollars, but if i use insurance it would be like 1k over 3 years. Now having said that, looks like there's a lot of $$$ damage so it won't be worth it in the end.

Lomac

01-04-2016, 10:11 AM

I think if you take the option of paying everything upfront the rates don't go up. I've had that option before where if I paid 100% upfront it would be like 600 dollars, but if i use insurance it would be like 1k over 3 years. Now having said that, looks like there's a lot of $$$ damage so it won't be worth it in the end.

Yup. For minor fender benders where the only damage is paint scuff or something, it's worth paying out the damage to prevent taking a rate hit. However, most accidents involving new(er) cars will likely exceed the increased rate, making it not worthwhile to buy it out.

My single at-fault accident a few years back ended up amounting to around $5k in damages (90% of that was on my car), whereas my insurance hike was going to be about $900 after everything. Decided to bite the bullet and take the rate increase instead.

jasonturbo

01-04-2016, 10:21 AM

Tough call based on the video, best of luck OP.

I could see it both ways personally.

vitaminG

01-04-2016, 01:09 PM

I think if you take the option of paying everything upfront the rates don't go up. I've had that option before where if I paid 100% upfront it would be like 600 dollars, but if i use insurance it would be like 1k over 3 years. Now having said that, looks like there's a lot of $$$ damage so it won't be worth it in the end.

ya but thats usually not an option since 99% of people claim injury no matter how minor the accident. you cant pay out if theres an injury claim in my experience.

from ICBC perspective OP is claiming they were both merging into same lane. other driver saying OP merged into his lane. ICBC knows that OP was merging, video proves OP was merging and nothing else. So from ICBC perspective OP was admittedly merging, but theres no proof other party is lying so not enough evidence to make it 50-50.

only way it would have been 50-50 is if each party claimed the other was merging into their lane. in this case the video did not help OP case one bit, if anything it strengthened the other parties'

xXSupa

01-04-2016, 01:48 PM

I'm pretty sure that from the video, the other car was changing lanes as well. However, because there is no way to prove 100% that he was changing lanes and not just trying to avoid you, ICBC cannot put the other driver at fault. Im assuming the other driver probably told ICBC that you changed lanes into him, hence the 100/0 fault split.

Time to invest in a rear cam maybe?

a00755836

01-04-2016, 02:15 PM

JesseBlue

01-04-2016, 05:06 PM

Its either you lose or both parties lose. Either way icbc wins.

From your video. Guy was ahead of you so technically he has the right of way (got that from initial d)

jasonturbo

01-04-2016, 05:54 PM

it's hard to prove that the rav4 changed lanes. Someone please correct me if i'm wrong here...

- it's always the person turning left (for sure in an intersection) that the person is at fault, unless proven.

in this case, if my above statement is correct, the blue rav4 driver could be at fault if he/she admits they changed lane.

The wording is that you are only to turn left WHEN SAFE TO DO SO, same goes for changing lanes... it doesn't matter if the other person is breaking the law (running a red light while you have the green) and hits you... you are still at fault.

My GF is an adjuster, it's incredible how much a kangaroo court system it can be that determines who is at fault, the driver statements are very very important. If they can't determine who is at fault by the statements they will usually call the involved in for an interview and have them draw out the accident as they claim it happened. They will then decide if there is sufficient "evidence" to determine fault.. if at this point they can't determine fault they may go 50/50 or attempt to locate camera footage from businesses etc for more info.

a00755836

01-04-2016, 08:52 PM

The wording is that you are only to turn left WHEN SAFE TO DO SO, same goes for changing lanes... it doesn't matter if the other person is breaking the law (running a red light while you have the green) and hits you... you are still at fault.

My GF is an adjuster, it's incredible how much a kangaroo court system it can be that determines who is at fault, the driver statements are very very important. If they can't determine who is at fault by the statements they will usually call the involved in for an interview and have them draw out the accident as they claim it happened. They will then decide if there is sufficient "evidence" to determine fault.. if at this point they can't determine fault they may go 50/50 or attempt to locate camera footage from businesses etc for more info.
thats good insight.

i'd like to know the outcome since i pass this road after work regularly. main st added more chaos during the holiday season. it felt like i was in china for a sec

E-SPEC

01-04-2016, 11:19 PM

Maybe its just me, but it sounded like McLovin from Super Bad saying "oh shit".

twitchyzero

01-05-2016, 12:49 AM

get icbc to contact the grey mdx if you can get his plate

good luck

your case has prompted me to start looking for a 2-channel dash cam again.

asian_XL

01-05-2016, 03:44 AM

^ same here...I just took my other car's camcorder and mount it on my SLK's rear window. Going to order a pair of cheap one for the back.

ICBC should lower the premium of whoever has a car cam.

meme405

01-05-2016, 07:46 AM

ICBC should lower the premium of whoever has a car cam.

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.

twitchyzero

01-05-2016, 09:32 AM

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.

DGN23

01-05-2016, 05:11 PM

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.

negative.one

01-05-2016, 05:38 PM

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.

yelnats8

01-06-2016, 01:37 PM

meme405

01-06-2016, 01:51 PM

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

hchang

01-06-2016, 02:45 PM

How do the percentages work?

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

banana200

01-06-2016, 02:52 PM

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

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.

SSM_DC5

01-06-2016, 02:59 PM

How do the percentages work?

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

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.

yelnats8

01-06-2016, 03:10 PM

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

yelnats8

01-06-2016, 03:12 PM

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.

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

Dasani

01-06-2016, 03:21 PM

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.

TOPEC

01-06-2016, 03:24 PM

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.

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:

Eff-1

01-06-2016, 04:24 PM

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

ScizzMoney

01-06-2016, 04:46 PM

I know a really good lawyer

https://youtu.be/OGk3lsbwiUs

:awwyeah:

negative.one

01-06-2016, 06:52 PM

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

twitchyzero

01-06-2016, 08:14 PM

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.