Driver at fault?

[paddyj]

Haven't been driving in Australia for long, never had an accident but I always notice that the insurance companies always ask how many 'at fault' accidents you have had.

Who decides who is at fault in an accident or is it automatically the younger driver or P plater

 

[89vncommy]

At fault refers to the person who showed negligence and caused the accident.

E.g. If you are driving normally and brake, then someone slams up your rear end, then they are at fault.

E.g. 2. If you are driving down the road, and loose control and slam into a wall, then you are at fault.

 

[paddyj]

Sounds pretty straight forward but what if for example somebody slams into the back of you and claims you braked excessively or unnecessarily when you were just driving normally?

Seems like it would be a nightmare to determine who is wrong in a lot of cases.

 

[NVE_069]

should matter if thay say that coz if u get rear ended automaticly there at fault no matter wot. so say if someone was tail gating u an u hit the brakes to tell them to stop it an thay hit u, there at fault. as i have done it b4

Edit: mind you i eevn told the police that an thay said thats fine, must have been my luck that day?

 

[minux]

Sounds pretty straight forward but what if for example somebody slams into the back of you and claims you braked excessively or unnecessarily when you were just driving normally?

Seems like it would be a nightmare to determine who is wrong in a lot of cases.

You didnt provide enough stopping room between yourself and the car in front of you, so you are at fault.

 

[NVE_069]

nope the person behind u has to make sure he isnt to close, u dont have to worrie about wots behind u. from wot i have done my self an heard someone hits u there automaticly at fault?

 

[1991_Vn2nV]

nope the person behind u has to make sure he isnt to close, u dont have to worrie about wots behind u. from wot i have done my self an heard someone hits u there automaticly at fault?

Rear end collisions are 100% their fault (the person behind). They are the only collisions that are 100% someones fault.

Even my accident where a lady ran a stop sign and t-boned me, it was still judged an 85-15 situation, giving me 15% fault for being there or something.

 

[crazyspoon05]

So the minor accident I had a couple of weeks ago in peak hour when I was stopped at the traffic lights near a shopping strip and a guy trying to park backed into me was my fault then cause I hit the rear of his car with my front end ?

I couldn't reverse or anything and honked my horn, flashed my lights, etc but he still kept coming and bang...

We both hopped out of our cars and he says to me 'Don't worry about hitting me, looks like there's no damage'

I really felt like decking the idiot :ranting:

 

[1991_Vn2nV]

So the minor accident I had a couple of weeks ago in peak hour when I was stopped at the traffic lights near a shopping strip and a guy trying to park backed into me was my fault then cause I hit the rear of his car with my front end ?

I couldn't reverse or anything and honked my horn, flashed my lights, etc but he still kept coming and bang...

We both hopped out of our cars and he says to me 'Don't worry about hitting me, looks like there's no damage'

I really felt like decking the idiot :ranting:

lol in my VN I was sitting in a line of traffic in town, and a guy reversed into the side of me and I honked etc. also. believe it or not I was given 10% of blame for being there, and that would probably be the same for you as well with an insurance company.

What you described isnt really a 'rear-end collision' anyway more of a front on collision, it just happened to be his car's rear end that hit you front on

 

[Wombat]

My nephew had a pretty spectacular accident in Adelaide about ten years back, where he was waiting in a narrow two lane (one lane going each way) road to turn into his house..a car was approaching from the other way. There was a line of cars parked beside him on the side of the road, and he was about to turn across when a car flew through on his left, trying to squeeze through the small gap between my nephews car and the parked cars, and in doing so he sideswiped the parked cars pretty heavily, and bouncing back and smashing into his car, tearing off the front left hand wheel and mudguard. It goes without saying that the other car was absolutely flying...

When it went to court, my nephew was assuming he would get the full payout for his written-off Subaru, but at the end of it all, it was assessed to be "80% the other drivers fault, 20% your fault". My nephew hit the roof, and the apparent reasoning was that even if you are completely innocent, you won't get much better than an 80-20 ruling. Just by being out on the road, you are taking a "risk", they say, and this means that you are always "at fault" in some small percentage just by driving on a public road, no matter what.

This kind of ruling may have changed, but I have since heard of similar things happening here in Queensland.

One case in point: about five years ago, my wife was driving along in our old Fairmont, and slowed and indicated to turn right into a side street. Close behind her was a guy on a Harley Sportster, ahd he completely failed to notice the indicators and brake lights on our car, and as my wife began her turn, he decided she was going too slow and tried to overtake! He glanced off the front guard of our car, and by some miracle stayed upright. He had a massive bruise on his thigh, and the Harley had a dented tank, broken indicator, and scraped motor. The Fairmont had a big ding in the guard and a scrape on the side of the front chrome bumper. He had full comprehensive insurance, and his insurance covered our damages, but our full comprehensive insurance also had to cover a portion of the damages to his bike! He was completely, 100% at fault in anyone's eyes, but apparently not in the insurance companies eyes...