[dSpaceman]

Hello Revscene,

I was involved a motor vehicle accident on Monday, November 7th at around 8:05 AM. I was driving along E. 49th Ave. heading Westbound and the other party (minivan) was on the opposite side heading Eastbound. As I approached Quebec St., I saw the minivan slowing down and signalling left to turn onto Quebec heading North. This is the intersection where I usually make a left to get to the school parking lot (Langara) and so seeing that she was making a left as well, I proceeded to make my left turn. Right as I initiated my turn, the minivan changes its mind and decides to go straight instead, hitting me in the passenger rear quarter panel.

I dialed a claim the same day and also sent in the dashcam footage I have of the incident. I have uploaded the footage on youtube. Link is below:

https://youtu.be/UPKJ4uS5z2I

In the video, you can see the minivan's blinker on at 0:29-0:33.

I just got off the phone with an ICBC adjuster (who was not at all helpful, nor friendly) and she concluded that I was at fault. Her reasoning was that she does not see the minivan's blinker on in the video. She also said that even if their blinker was on, I cannot rely on it to make a decision. She used the example of people leaving their blinkers on while driving.

To be honest, I was a bit taken aback by that statement. I'd like to believe that everyone is accountable for their actions. If someone left their blinker on that ultimately resulted in an accident, is that not negligence?

Anyways, she says that is the final verdict. I plan on disputing this decision by bringing it to the adjuster's manager. If that does not help, I will request a Claims Assessment Review.

My question is, if all the above fails, is this worth bringing to a small claims court? I cannot afford to hire a lawyer and so will most likely be representing myself. I would like to know what the relevant fees are for pursuing this in court, and whether or not it is even feasible.

Your input is greatly appreciated.

[GS8]

I don't have the best eyesight but it looks like the turn signal stops before you started turning.

[dSpaceman]

That's correct, but we're talking about ~1/2 second here, which I was using to scan the crosswalk for pedestrian.

[radioman]

He never did come to a stop and like above mentioned his light was off before you turned regardless if you were using that time to scan. A clear road like that you could have scanned in advance of turning so its not an excuse in my mind.

Were you signalling? Also looks like you turned pretty early for what that matters.

Good luck with your claim process on whatever you decide to do.

[dSpaceman]

Thanks, and yes I was signalling

[supafamous]

I'd agree with ICBC. I can see what looks like a blinker but it's always the responsibility of the driver making the turn to ensure they are clear. I always wait till the car with the blinker makes clear action to turn before I assume it's clear.

[AndroidAAA]

I have been told that regardless of whether another vehicle has their turn signal on, if they decide to go straight and they hit you, you are at fault.

That's why I always watch the tires, if the tires aren't turning in the direction they are signalling and their vehicle isn't moving in that direction I wont turn in front of them.

Personally, I don't think the decision will be changed and in the end you will be found at fault. It's up to you if you want to take it to small claims.

[murd0c]

I agree with ICBC as well at you being 100% not only that you turned very early and if someone was in the lane you would of hit them. Just take the lumps and admit fault because if you go to small claims you will lose.

[dSpaceman]

I'd agree with ICBC. I can see what looks like a blinker but it's always the responsibility of the driver making the turn to ensure they are clear. I always wait till the car with the blinker makes clear action to turn before I assume it's clear.

I agree with you, but how do we define "clear actions to turn"?

The mini van was:

1. Slowing to a near stop
2. Signalling left

At the time, those were indications to me that she wants to turn. If we need the other party to start turning before we know without a doubt that they're going to turn, then both of us would have been stopped at the intersections for hours waiting for the other to turn first.

[dSpaceman]

That's why I always watch the tires, if the tires aren't turning in the direction they are signalling and their vehicle isn't moving in that direction I wont turn in front of them.

That's very good advice but at the time I didn't think it was necessary. Hindsight is always 20/20.

[maxx]

it appears that you didn't stop at the intersection
it also appears that as you turn, you are actually turning in the opposite lane of traffic on the side street.
it also appears that you're blaming this on the blinker, (which i do not see, but that doesn't matter), rather than on good road judgement.
i wouldn't waste the time and/or money on arguing this.

[inv4zn]

Agree w/ everyone else.

I (think I) see the blinker, but regardless, if you were hit while turning by a car coming at you, you didn't have the right of way.

Also, since it wasn't mentioned, even if that car WAS turning left, what you did was still dangerous. There could have been another car behind the Sienna that you missed, who would have hit you as well. Same outcome.

I'm not gonna lecture you on how to drive but as far as fault goes I agree w/ ICBC.

[dSpaceman]

it appears that you didn't stop at the intersection
it also appears that as you turn, you are actually turning in the opposite lane of traffic on the side street.
it also appears that you're blaming this on the blinker, (which i do not see, but that doesn't matter), rather than on good road judgement.
i wouldn't waste the time and/or money on arguing this.

Those are good points, allow me to try to explain myself.

1. According to the Motor Vehicle Act (section 165 I believe), I am not required to come to a full stop before initiating a left turn.
2. The front of my car was pointing towards the appropriate side of the side street, that is until I realized that the oncoming car was about to hit me.
3. I'm not trying to put all the blame on the other party. All I'm saying is this would've been avoided if I was not mislead by her blinker.

[VR6GTI]

You are at fault

[SSM_DC5]

So you're not trying to put all the blame on the other driver then what is your end goal? You're insurance rates will go up regardless(unless you pay everything out of pocket) so why bother putting in the time and possibly money to fight it? So the other driver's rate goes up too.

[maneetkaran]

You were mislead by her blinker, but you are still 100% at fault.

Could also been avoided if there was a car at the stop sign on Quebec. You also took your left way to early.

If the minivan was actually going to take a left, since they were in the intersection first I would let them take the left and then proceed to make my left. That way I would not end up in the opposite lane.

[H.Specter]

Those are good points, allow me to try to explain myself.

3. I'm not trying to put all the blame on the other party. All I'm saying is this would've been avoided if I was not mislead by her blinker.

You assumed the oncoming vehicle was making a left turn and took the risk to make the left turn. Unfortunately, that risk didn't pan out for you.

I don't see the responsibility decision changing based on the evidence.

[ilvtofu]

Agree with others who say you are 100% at fault.
Best case scenario you can get a 50/50 which isn't really worth pursuing

[ilovebacon]

in the video, its kind of hard for me to see the blinkers.

[dSpaceman]

So you're not trying to put all the blame on the other driver then what is your end goal? You're insurance rates will go up regardless(unless you pay everything out of pocket) so why bother putting in the time and possibly money to fight it? So the other driver's rate goes up too.

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.

[dSpaceman]

I'd like to again thank everyone for their opinion on the case. It seems that the general consensus is that this was 100% my fault. Whether I agree or not with it, I'd like to assess my options available at this point.

Is anyone familiar with how buying out a claim works? I'd venture to say the property damages she's suffered would not exceed $1,500. But if she made injury claims, how would this be affected?

[FerrariEnzo]

It looks like your Left turn was pre-mature, as you even crossed the Yellow line before the break and end up driving into oncoming lane.

And I think the general rule, People who are making turns will be generally at fault, as they are the ones who need to be extra cautious.

[bomboi1]

Well, no. That would be a prick move. The problem is that I don't have collision coverage

so its your fault but you want it to be a 50/50 settlement because you dont have collision coverage? that's a prick move

[inv4zn]

I'd like to again thank everyone for their opinion on the case. It seems that the general consensus is that this was 100% my fault. Whether I agree or not with it, I'd like to assess my options available at this point.

Is anyone familiar with how buying out a claim works? I'd venture to say the property damages she's suffered would not exceed $1,500. But if she made injury claims, how would this be affected?

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?

[dSpaceman]

so its your fault but you want it to be a 50/50 settlement because you dont have collision coverage? that's a prick move

I think you've misunderstood. My take on this accident has always been this:

It could have been avoided had I not been mislead

But everyone above has brought up valid points, that I could have assessed the situation much better. And so I believe a 50/50 is fair.

What you're insinuating is that my ONLY intention for disputing this is to mitigate my losses. Please don't put words in my mouth.

[E-SPEC]

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

[dSpaceman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[bomboi1]

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]

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]

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]

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_]

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]

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]

Professional Drivers' Manual 1990 Edition

http://i.imgur.com/oHodoZB.jpg?1


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]

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]

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.]

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

[MarkyMark]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

[supafamous]

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.

This was just bad driving on your part and a failure to understand your responsibilities as a driver. You didn't drive defensively to protect yourself and got yourself hit. A good driver never puts their car into a bad spot and if they take on risk they know their exit strategies.

If you think the other driver has any responsibility for the accident then you need to rethink how you drive.

[dvst8]

Sorry man but youre likely at fault here. You're suppose to make sure the intersection is clear before attempting the turn rather than assume it was safe to turn.

[Djiban]

The other driver is an idiot but the retard has the right of way. Looks like you have sometime/some distance to hit the brake and avoid the collision but you kept going without being cautious. In my opinion you are at fault.

[AzNightmare]

Unfortunately, as much as the other driver mislead you into making a decision that turned out to be bad, the responsibility is on you to read the situation properly and apply "defensive driving" if you are not certain (which usually just means slowing down or coming to a complete stop when in doubt).

I understand how you feel as I've almost came in close encounters where idiots have forced me to suddenly swerve out of my lane to avoid an accident.
I generally have good awareness of what's around me in adjacent lanes so another car has never been beside me at the wrong time when I swerve out, but knock on wood, if I'm not so lucky one day, it would be 100% my fault regardless of the reason why I swerved out of my lane.

[meme405]

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.

TBH i watched the video and before I read any of the comments, the first thought in my head was "he rushed that turn".

You turn way before the intersection, as if you are coming in at an angle. Entire sequences screams of someone rushing, or at the very least not making a good defensive decision.

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s52/meme405/Untitled_zpsmz7layon.jpg (http://s149.photobucket.com/user/meme405/media/Untitled_zpsmz7layon.jpg.html)

^Red line looks like what you are doing. Green line is the proper way of making a turn.

I can say I have done red, just like you are attempting to do in the video. If anything I just learned another reason to kill that habit.

The other reason to kill that habit is; what if there is a car behind the blue car which decides to go around him (completely legal), in that instance you would be fucked as well.

EDIT: Sorry about the diagram, contrary to what you guys would believe I didn't draw that on one of those signature pads, my laptop touchscreen is just real shitty.

[RickyTan3]

This is why I breach better be safe than sorry while driving.

I don't care how good a driver you think you are, or anyone else. You can control your actions and be defensive.

You did some reckless driving now you have to take it... BE A MAN.
I am 100% sure you will never turn like that ever again.

[Marco911]

The other vehicle was already moving straight past the intersection when you initiated your turn. She had the right of way. Whether her turn signal was on or not is irrelevant. You're responsible to ensure the intersection was clear before entering it.

[Urrtoast]

Well sorry to say your 100% at fault FailFish. And maybe should review the defensive driving list.

Following these defensive driving tips can help reduce your risk behind the wheel:

Think safety first. ...
Be aware of your surroundings — pay attention. ...
Do not depend on other drivers. ...
Follow the 3- to 4-second rule. ...
Keep your speed down. ...
Have an escape route. ...
Separate risks. ...
Cut out distractions.

[Nvasion]

You are at fault

[corollagtSr5]

Well sorry to say your 100% at fault FailFish. And maybe should review the defensive driving list.

Following these defensive driving tips can help reduce your risk behind the wheel:

Think safety first. ...
Be aware of your surroundings — pay attention. ...
Do not depend on other drivers. ...
Follow the 3- to 4-second rule. ...
Keep your speed down. ...
Have an escape route. ...
Separate risks. ...
Cut out distractions.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaX9Q6nvUK8

[swfk]

Sorry for the situation. Not very good luck with your car since you got hit and run last year.

I always remember this "Only proceed through the intersection when safe"

[jmanhas]

I did see that his blinker was on just prior to your turn, but regardless, he wouldn't be at fault because ultimately it was your duty to make sure it was "safe" to cross, since you are going into oncoming traffic.

Shitty move on the other guys part for changing their mind last minute though..

[Galactic_Phantom]

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...

Drives a 350Z meaning most likely able to afford to pay gas for 15L/100KM on premium. Doesn't want to spend money buy sufficient coverage :derp:

[E-SPEC]

lol who does that even?? Honestly, do a lot of people seriously neglect to buy collision?

[VR6GTI]

lol who does that even?? Honestly, do a lot of people seriously neglect to buy collision?

You would be surprised how many people I have dealt with that have no collision and it's not old junk cars they are bran new mustangs and 5 series bmws lol. I'm just like are you nuts?

[dark0821]

^ that is unthinkable.... fu... i buy collision for my wife's old Versa LOL....

[racerman88]

Happened to my sister at Renfrew and Grandview highway. Driver going south signalled left and was pulling into the left turn lane to go east on Grandview hwy. My sister was going north and was turning left to go west on Grandview hwy. Seeing that the other driver was moving into the left turn lane, my sister proceeded to do her left turn. Unfortunately, the other driver changed their mind pulling back out of the left turn lane and proceeded straight through the intersection, hitting my sister on the passenger rear 1/4 panel.
There were no witnesses to confirm her story of the other driver changing their mind of turning left and pulling back out to go straight.
ICBC told her that it will be her fault b/c she was turning left.

[racerman88]

Always worth to appeal. You never know unless you try.
Worse case scenario is they say no again.

[Urrtoast]

lol who does that even?? Honestly, do a lot of people seriously neglect to buy collision?

Lots of people fail to get proper insurance on the vehicles, rentals, homes and storage etc to name a few. They all think that it will never happen to me. Well shit happens to everyone as they will learn.

[murd0c]

when someone is turned towards me and I'm turning I always wait until the person actually commits to the turn before I go. This day and age you can't trust the other drives which is a huge part of defensive driving.

This is a shitty lesson but a big one for the OP why you should have collision on your vehicle if it aint a beater you don't care about.

[vantrip]

OP unless I'm mistaken didn't you also have a hit and run on your car?

Seriously, please look into buying coll & comp coverage. Unless your putting the money you saved directly into a separate bank account your fooling yourself when you say "I'll just pay for it if its my fault"

VR6GTI your totally right, I know a korean couple who bough a new forester and proceeded to write it off in a few months later, and they neglected to buy collision. FailFish

[matrixfwd]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[E-SPEC]

"

VR6GTI your totally right, I know a korean couple who bough a new forester and proceeded to write it off in a few months later, and they neglected to buy collision. FailFish

Lovely.

[UFO]

I had a similar signal light situation several years ago. I was stopped in the intersection waiting to turn left on my green. Bike in the opposite direction signals his right and takes the curb lane, slowing down as he approaches our intersection, keeps his right blinker on. I turn left as we would have both had our own lanes to turn into.

I'm 3/4 done my turn and see him dump his bike in my rearview mirror, sliding through the intersection. Fortunately he didn't hit anything. Afterwards I told him what happened from my POV, he said he left his blinker on and slowed down to turn into the gas station AFTER the intersection.

Anyhow ICBC deemed me not at fault originally. Then he sued, turned down a 15k settlement. I tried to get my ICBC lawyer to argue negligence on the biker's part, and also the fact that he used poor judgement in dumping his bike and caused his own injury as there was no collision; had he stayed on his bike he would have been able to stop in time

My lawyer seemed more interested in just settling the case and not going to court. No idea what the eventual settlement amount was

Moral of the story, don't rely on other drivers. And make sure you have adequate insurance

[XplicitLuder]

i see a blinker, but like you said 1/2 second before you turn he does turn it off and go straight , as you are beginning your turn. It's a shitty situation and sucks that their change of mind in the last possible minute screwed you over, but i will say that ICBC would deem you 100% at fault. I would prob be screaming bloody murder for 50/50 or 75/25 but in the end i know i'd lose that one. You can try to argue and fight it, and waste your time doing so but i'd say you have like a 10% chance of winning anything less than 100% at fault

[JDM88]

also agreeing with those who said you are 100% at fault. hopefully everything works out for you.

[Reeyal]

Sorry bud. From the video, I saw the van's blinker going, and then he turned it off and started going straight again. You are still 100% at fault.

[Porsche957]

Whether the blinkers were on or not, I always make sure the other vehicle is AT LEAST fully stopped as if they were preparing to make the turn (with blinkers on for added assurance). If this were the case, you would have a slightly stronger argument.

The onus is ALWAYS on the turner to ensure a safe, clear route prior to turning.

No matter what you do, it's going to be deemed your fault, because it is. Sorry it's a hard lesson learned.

Not to come down on you but that was not a "safe" turn by any means. It may not look like a high speed reckless turn, but it does look careless and abrupt.

It could of been much worse, glad you are okay though.

One question: what type of insurance coverage do you have if not collision? man....isn't that the point of insurance?

[Oscar_Binswood]

Can't remember how many times I've seen people leave their right blinker on looking like they're going to turn right but continue on forward while I'm trying to make a right turn into their lane.

From the angle of the camera, the van doesn't look like it's going to turn, and is coming pretty quick towards you.

Take it as a lesson learned to be more cautious.

Good luck!

[Port Man]

Can we lock this thread. There is 4 pages of saying your SOL and people keep rehashing the same opinion lol

[RiceIntegraRS]

Id fight it, theres nothing to lose. I think its pretty obvious the Sienna was turning, and its your job to convince the adjuster that Sienna was. Cause your adjuster believes the Sienna wasnt. I can see the blinker especially on the hood of your car, theres 4 white dots from the reflection of the headlights of the Caravan and Sienna, 1 of the dots is pulsating which indicates to me that the blinker is on. Also the gap between the Caravan and Sienna, theres about 1 car length between the 2 at the 29 second mark, and within 3 seconds theres 6+ car lengths which also tells me that the Sienna was basically or almost stopped.

Now everyone says they wouldnt turn unless the Sienna gives clear indication that he or she is. I think there was. How long is the OP supposed to sit there? 1 more second? 3? 10? 30? Even at 30, if the OP decided it was safe to turn, the Sienna could just as easily change its mind and go straight like it did in the video and cause this accident.

Goodluck OP

[axxess]

Now everyone says they wouldnt turn unless the Sienna gives clear indication that he or she is. I think there was. How long is the OP supposed to sit there? 1 more second? 3? 10? 30? Even at 30, if the OP decided it was safe to turn, the Sienna could just as easily change its mind and go straight like it did in the video and cause this accident.



So what you're saying is, he shouldn't wait for people to turn and should just go for it? Waiting is a part of driving. If you don't have the patience to wait, you shouldn't drive.

If the sienna made a full stop with his signal on and OP waited 3 seconds before making a turn but then the Sienna changed his mind and went straight, then the OP would have a case to fight. But with this specific situation, he should have waited. There is absolutely no point in fighting this case as he is going to lose.

[trollface]

100% your fault brah

[Urrtoast]

nothing has changed still 100 percent your fault...

LOCK THE THREAD!!!