roundabout accident.

[doyab]

ok heres the situation
My girlfriend mid last year had an accident in a roundabout.
she was entering going straight in the left lane
I was about 2 car lengths behind her on the right lane.
my gf proceeded and all of a sudden a car came and hit her(she was on inside lane)
my gf car had damage between rear wheel and rear door.
the other car had damage mostly on the front but more to the left hand side(idk how thats happened)
then after all this happen other car took off for 5 mins then returned.
my gf sent the whole letter of demand crap and all that at the time.
just the other day she gets a letter saying pay up 900 in excess to resolve this quickly and all that crap.

she rang up saying whats going on. and they said she was at fault because she didnt give way to the "right" which isnt a rule according to vic roads just the way it natually happens.

now they say my statement as a whitness isnt valid because i know jess but thats a load of crap. im not aloud to lie.

So who do you think is at fault. here is a quick pic i edited off vicroads
thanks

[88GreenVN]

I believe you must give way to traffic on the round about. So I'd say they are at fault if they drive into you.

I'd fight it for sure

(good pic/drawing by the way)

[doyab]

well thats what a thought but other car is saying she was pulled out in front of. but the other car was flying but you cant prove that so my gf is gonna fight its but its a hard situation. a bit of (your word against mine)

[graemevb]

she rang up saying whats going on. and they said she was at fault because she didnt give way to the "right" which isnt a rule according to vic roads just the way it natually happens.

now they say my statement as a whitness isnt valid because i know jess but thats a load of crap. im not aloud to lie.

So who do you think is at fault. here is a quick pic i edited off vicroads
thanks

You are right, there is no such rule at roundabouts re giving way to the right, the rule is that you must give way to traffic already on the roundabout, which means on clockwise roundabouts traffic that is already on the roundabout will be coming from your right.
The wording is simple: whoever got their nose across the giveway lines first is on the roundabout first and should right of way over other vehicles no matter how fast those vehicles enter or approach the roundabout, there is a priviso that drivers shouldnt put their car in a dangerous position/collision course , regardless of whether they have right or way or not.

Looking at your pic, the blue line is the car that hit your gf(not george foreman?) If that is the case it would appear to me that your gf is in the wrong, that vehicle would have been most likely already in the roundabout before she entered and she should have stopped to give way. What cant be know without witnesses is whether the blue vehicle sped up unreasonably and forced the collision, or whether their indicator was on, perhaps she thought they were going straight ahead or didnt see them at all. Perhaps contributory negligence if you can prove the other car speeding, but really they had just done a right hand turn around, how fast could they have been going?

[ClairBear]

I say your gf is clearly in the wrong as she has entered a roundabout with traffic on it. She fights this and the other party wins, which I believe would happen in this case, and she will end up paying a lot more than currently being asked.

Suck it up, pay it and learn to give way is the lesson of the day.

[Ado]

Give way to anybody already on the roundabout and you are a valid witness as you were not in the actual car that got hit.Think im right.

[doyab]

Yea thats the conclusion ive come too. it seemed like the other driver was in her own little word and once she saw her exit must of got alittle excited and put the foot down. but even me being a witness cant prove that so technically my gf(girlfriend haha) is at fault and thats shit cuz that mean you can ram anyone in the roundabout aslong as u got in there first. so i guess the only hope my girlfriend has got is the fact the other car left the scene of the accident for about 5 mins which is illegal. what do you think?

[smurf]

As said before, the rules state that you MUST give way to any car already in the round about.
From your drawing, unless the other car was speeding excessively, Jess is at fault. Sorry to say mate. Not to say you can't fight it. I mean they can't discount you as a witness because you know the person, you still witnessed the accident, and go under oath in court.

You can either cop it and pay the excess, or state that the car was excessively speeding and drag it through the courts and most likely lose.

Sorry to say mate.
-smurf

[smurf]

Yea thats the conclusion ive come too. it seemed like the other driver was in her own little word and once she saw her exit must of got alittle excited and put the foot down. but even me being a witness cant prove that so technically my gf(girlfriend haha) is at fault and thats shit cuz that mean you can ram anyone in the roundabout aslong as u got in there first. so i guess the only hope my girlfriend has got is the fact the other car left the scene of the accident for about 5 mins which is illegal. what do you think?

I forgot about that, I'd say they were excessively speeding, and thats obviously why the fled the scene of the accident. Thats almost an admission of guilt right there.
What i would do, is send a letter back, demanding X amount of dollars for an early settlement out of court, Due to the excessive speed of there driving, proven by the way they fled the scene.
Send it off and see how you go.
cheers,
-smurf

[needwork2-4fillhabbit]

Depends if the other car had the indicator on... If you can prove/reasonable doubt they didnt and turning right was their intention it leaves them as the cause.

[graemevb]

so i guess the only hope my girlfriend has got is the fact the other car left the scene of the accident for about 5 mins which is illegal. what do you think?

Tell us more about this?
Are you sure the person who drove the vehicle in the accident was the same one who returned to the scene, sounds very suspicious. Did they stop to see that your gf was not hurt? Did your gf see the picture licence of the other driver and take down the details? is it the same name as the paperwork asking you to pay damages. always pays to check these out as if they are unlicensed/suspended they'll most likely pull out of any claim very quickly even if they are in the right.

[doyab]

ok well girlfriend rang up amii appeals number or whatevea it is. and they said that they are going to reinvestergate it or somethign like that. so we will see how that goes.
then we will try the idea u suggested. thanks for ur help.

[doyab]

Tell us more about this?
Are you sure the person who drove the vehicle in the accident was the same one who returned to the scene, sounds very suspicious. Did they stop to see that your gf was not hurt? Did your gf see the picture licence of the other driver and take down the details? is it the same name as the paperwork asking you to pay damages. always pays to check these out as if they are unlicensed/suspended they'll most likely pull out of any claim very quickly even if they are in the right.

yeah, thats another thing thats possible too. maybe (the other) had alchol reading. but yeah details matched up with licence and claim details too.

but yeah just collided. the crash forced the car to stop but once she obviously got her bearings she sped off come back at about 5 mins (cud be less or more)

And girlfriend may aswell fight it cuz she worse she can do is pay the excess i guess?

[smurf]

yeah, thats another thing thats possible too. maybe (the other) had alchol reading. but yeah details matched up with licence and claim details too.

but yeah just collided. the crash forced the car to stop but once she obviously got her bearings she sped off come back at about 5 mins (cud be less or more)

And girlfriend may aswell fight it cuz she worse she can do is pay the excess i guess?

If it goes to court you could get stuck with excess + court fees for both parties.
But in court it would quite easy to provide reason for reasonable doubt that either: The driver was speeding, intoxicated, or plain and simple not the driver that filed the claim, due to the fact that they fled the scene.

-smurf

[smurf]

btw, police involved?
Because I'm pretty sure they've made it mandatory that police be called to any motor vehicle accident. Thats what i was lead to believe anyways. \
-Tom

[vlv8vic]

btw, police involved?
Because I'm pretty sure they've made it mandatory that police be called to any motor vehicle accident. Thats what i was lead to believe anyways. \
-Tom

Only if someone is hurt or one of the parties decide that due to dispute police need to be called. i believe that if police attend they are inclined to issue a fine to someone for something.

OP - give these guys a call - they've helped me out before and they are free


Insurance Ombudsman
National Toll Free
(Local call fees apply)
1300 78 08 08

FAX: 9621 2060

[Calaber]

You need to get a few facts in order to understand who is right and who is wrong here.

First and foremost, both drivers CAN be at fault, but I would have to agree with others that it appears your gf's car entered the roundabout AFTER the other car and is therefore the principal offender in this matter.

The other car's actions (ie speed) is not an issue - if it was already on the roundabout, it had the right of way. Full stop. (yes, even if it was speeding)

If the other driver failed to stop, then returned a short time after, it is suspicious but in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, how can you prove that the driver was not the same one? How can you prove that they drove off then returned - do you have any INDEPENDENT witnesses (ie not you)?

What was the condition of the other driver at the time details were exchanged - did you detect any evidence of alcohol or irregular behaviour?

If you can't prove any facts that would support your case in court, you shouldn't even bother trying to contest this matter. You would only get burnt.

[vlv8vic]

I'll just add - this is only going to cost you more if you choose to take it to court. You can argue your case as much as you like with the Ombudsman and AAMI and it can't cost you more than the excess which i assume was the $900.

I know it sounds shite (and deep down i suspect your mrs should have waited a little longer), but $900 is less than anything that'll come out of a court case.

[smurf]

You need to get a few facts in order to understand who is right and who is wrong here.

First and foremost, both drivers CAN be at fault, but I would have to agree with others that it appears your gf's car entered the roundabout AFTER the other car and is therefore the principal offender in this matter.

The other car's actions (ie speed) is not an issue - if it was already on the roundabout, it had the right of way. Full stop. (yes, even if it was speeding)

If the other driver failed to stop, then returned a short time after, it is suspicious but in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, how can you prove that the driver was not the same one? How can you prove that they drove off then returned - do you have any INDEPENDENT witnesses (ie not you)?

What was the condition of the other driver at the time details were exchanged - did you detect any evidence of alcohol or irregular behaviour?

If you can't prove any facts that would support your case in court, you shouldn't even bother trying to contest this matter. You would only get burnt.

Ah yes but on the contrary, the other driver has fled the scene of the accident, so already broken the law. How can they then take Jess to court over the matter. Any little doubt in the judges mind = a loss of case. So simply by the other car leaving, there is reason to suspect somethin suss, which causes a reasonable doubt?

I'm no lawyer, but I imagine if you send them back another letter, asking for what Jess's excess is, stating that the driver of the vehicle was not the person sending previous letter, the driver was intoxicated, or any other reason you can think of. They most likely will pull out. You'll end up having to pay for jess' car, but not the other persons. Most people will afford court at all cost, so if they think thats where its heading, they most likely will pull out.
No harm in sending the letter anyways really.
They will either pull out or pursue it.
-smurf

[smurf]

I'll also add, that if it does goto court, your chances of winning are pretty slim without an independant witness. You could possibly bluff them out of it with a few well written letter before it gets that far.
-smurf

[Calaber]

Ah yes but on the contrary, the other driver has fled the scene of the accident, so already broken the law. How can they then take Jess to court over the matter. Any little doubt in the judges mind = a loss of case. So simply by the other car leaving, there is reason to suspect somethin suss, which causes a reasonable doubt?

I'm no lawyer, but I imagine if you send them back another letter, asking for what Jess's excess is, stating that the driver of the vehicle was not the person sending previous letter, the driver was intoxicated, or any other reason you can think of. They most likely will pull out. You'll end up having to pay for jess' car, but not the other persons. Most people will afford court at all cost, so if they think thats where its heading, they most likely will pull out.
No harm in sending the letter anyways really.
They will either pull out or pursue it.
-smurf

Smurf

This sort of thing varies from State to State and I don't know what Victoria's stance is, but as I mentioned, unless you have independent proof of their failure to stop, you are cooked. You can claim it happened, but can you prove it in court? If you can't, then it is irrelevant.

And failure to stop does not preclude action being taken against both drivers. As I said, both can be in the wrong at the same time. The fact that they may have fled the scene, doesn't make his girlfriend's actions legal. She made the first mistake, they might have only made the second. One doesn't cancel out the other.

[Holdens Rule]

Unless there is other witnesses then your screwed. You always give way to traffic already on the round about no matter what speed and the other driver could lie and say they weren't speeding anyway so you would need to prove that. If you could prove they drove off then came back then you might have a case. Perhaps the other driver drove off cause they had no license or something and someone else drove back instead, who knows why they drove off but it sounds a bit wierd.

[doyab]

ok well we will try our best to get out of it. but if that doesnt work, like you said going to court will fail. lets just accept the fact that (by law) gf was in the wrong, thanks for all your time and we will try a few of the idea's you all suggested. once again thanks have good night.
btw Vns are the best commodore.

[acarmody]

It should also be pointed out that if you pay the excess it costs you $900. If you go to court and lose its $900 plus court costs. If you go to court and win you will most likely only have to pay the damages to your car because you still didn't give way to the traffic on the roundabout, so guess what your excess will be, yep $900. You aren't going to get out of the $900 regardless.

[Keepleft]

Know a lady impacted the same way and point of damage AND who was fined neg drive - she knew she was on the roundabout first, and that the car that hit her entered at speed after her.

Appealing to the court she won, the fine was quashed and the other party had to pay up.

She had coverage in the NSW Express Advocate paper a year or so ago. She was pretty angry that attending police (not HWP staff) didn't know the law, and was cranky about the lack of knowledge in general re giving way to traffic on the roundabout, be that traffic ahead-of-you (having entered from the left) or elsewhere on it.

Accepting each case has its individual prevailing circumstances, of course.