car accident.. am i liable?

Forums › Off topic › car accident.. am i liable?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

29107 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10222

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#683541 9-Sep-2012 19:27

If its 2 intersections then there needs to be markings at the second one to show what you can and cant do. If it is one intersection then there shouldnt be anything stopping traffic half way thru it.

Richard rich.ms

KevinL

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 20

Trusted

#683545 9-Sep-2012 19:38

richms: If its 2 intersections then there needs to be markings at the second one to show what you can and cant do. If it is one intersection then there shouldnt be anything stopping traffic half way thru it.

I think that's the intention - at least coming from Cranmer Square, it's considered to be one (somewhat wonky) intersection. There are no other lights or impediments to stop the flow of traffic onto Montreal Street.

TheUngeek

924 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 35
Inactive user

#683546 9-Sep-2012 19:41

The movements of the 2nd intersection is dictated by where you come from, so can't have two sets of markings.
That's why the huge signs.

oxnsox

1923 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 138

#683567 9-Sep-2012 20:26

TheUngeek: Don't get why it's confusing. The signs make it quite clear. I think some people are failing to take into account the effect the traffic lights have on the directions ;)

Anyway this thread also highlights one of the big failings of NZ drivers. Situational awareness. Failing to take note of and think about what is around you.

+1
Folks are getting well away from the fact the OP was traveling Montreal to Montreal thru a controlled intersection. Only markings and signs that are relevant are those along that route.

The vehicle driver is responsible for his piloting of the vehicle, position on the road, and awareness of others. Whether he's insured or not. Whether he's in the wrong or not.only

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#683585 9-Sep-2012 21:45

TheUngeek: Don't get why it's confusing. The signs make it quite clear. I think some people are failing to take into account the effect the traffic lights have on the directions ;)

Anyway this thread also highlights one of the big failings of NZ drivers. Situational awareness. Failing to take note of and think about what is around you.

The traffic lights have the directions for the first intersection, but not the second. The things is there are two intersections, not one, that the driver goes through. If there are two intersections then there needs to be two sets of command/signage, otherwise the normal giveway rules would apply. That's how I read it anyway. But I think it is a very poor road, and they are trying to apply motorway rules to a grid layout with multiple intersections, and multiple rules applying depending on which way you approach the intersection. The thing is that there is no sign saying 'don't' turn left if you the the right lane' into the two laned road, which there should be if you aren't allowed to do that.

KevinL

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 20

Trusted

#683590 9-Sep-2012 21:59

mattwnz:
TheUngeek: Don't get why it's confusing. The signs make it quite clear. I think some people are failing to take into account the effect the traffic lights have on the directions ;)

Anyway this thread also highlights one of the big failings of NZ drivers. Situational awareness. Failing to take note of and think about what is around you.

The traffic lights have the directions for the first intersection, but not the second. The things is there are two intersections, not one, that the driver goes through. If there are two intersections then there needs to be two sets of command/signage, otherwise the normal giveway rules would apply. That's how I read it anyway. But I think it is a very poor road, and they are trying to apply motorway rules to a grid layout with multiple intersections, and multiple rules applying depending on which way you approach the intersection. The thing is that there is no sign saying 'don't' turn left if you the the right lane' into the two laned road, which there should be if you aren't allowed to do that.

There is, the painted markers on the road prior to the intersection are fairly explicit - you can turn left only from the left lane; either lane can continue "straight" onto Montreal St.

As oxnsox correctly points out, though, if you are approaching from the south you are effectively already on Montreal St (and just taking a detour around the park). Having just made a similar manouvre (a dogleg turn from Montreal St onto Cranmer Square), it should be fairly obvious that you need to do the opposite to continue back onto Montreal St.

And honestly, who in their right mind turns left from the right hand lane (or left from the right hand lane)? It just doesn't make sense.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

gzt

18691 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7830

Lifetime subscriber

#683609 9-Sep-2012 22:31

KevinL: You know, regardless of what the true answer is, it terrifies me that there seems to be an equal number of people who think the bus is at fault vs the OP is at fault. Terrifying.

This is an illusion created by looking at the number of recent posts only, and counting posts instead of users. ; ).

Moving on, the OP's question is "am I liable?" - therefore the focus is not about fault on either side.

The focus is on legal liability. The reality is - fault and legal liability are two different things. There are many traffic accidents where it is obvious someone could have done something better but the legal reality is neither party will be found legally liable for the costs of the other.

This is all IMHO of course and IANAL.

tardtasticx

3084 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 483

#683621 9-Sep-2012 22:58

No point getting quotes etc. That wont do you any good. The other party gets the right to choose where to repair the car. I recently got into a car accident and the quote for our repair bill was $1,702 for minor scratching and denting on the drivers side of my car.

We went to the panel beater down the road for this who is authorised by our insurer, and the other party tried to get us to use her panel beater and said she'd pick our car up so we told her no and to deal with our insurer who said we were well within our rights.

Good luck though. please please please get 3rd party, saves everyone a whole lot of time and trouble. Cars aren't cheap to fix.

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#683629 9-Sep-2012 23:23

tardtasticx: No point getting quotes etc. That wont do you any good. The other party gets the right to choose where to repair the car. I recently got into a car accident and the quote for our repair bill was $1,702 for minor scratching and denting on the drivers side of my car.

We went to the panel beater down the road for this who is authorised by our insurer, and the other party tried to get us to use her panel beater and said she'd pick our car up so we told her no and to deal with our insurer who said we were well within our rights.

Good luck though. please please please get 3rd party, saves everyone a whole lot of time and trouble. Cars aren't cheap to fix.

I would think that the repair value must be a fair market price, hence getting the quotes from other panel beaters. So if the bus companies insurer comes back at you with a repair price that is far higher, I believe you could dispute that and give them the quotes that you go.

tardtasticx

3084 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 483

#683636 10-Sep-2012 00:19

mattwnz:
tardtasticx: No point getting quotes etc. That wont do you any good. The other party gets the right to choose where to repair the car. I recently got into a car accident and the quote for our repair bill was $1,702 for minor scratching and denting on the drivers side of my car.

We went to the panel beater down the road for this who is authorised by our insurer, and the other party tried to get us to use her panel beater and said she'd pick our car up so we told her no and to deal with our insurer who said we were well within our rights.

Good luck though. please please please get 3rd party, saves everyone a whole lot of time and trouble. Cars aren't cheap to fix.

I would think that the repair value must be a fair market price, hence getting the quotes from other panel beaters. So if the bus companies insurer comes back at you with a repair price that is far higher, I believe you could dispute that and give them the quotes that you go.

Yeh but I'm pretty sure the bus company wouldn't have to go to a different place if they didn't want to. I doubt they would let another company repair their busses anyway.

gogokr431

77 posts

Master Geek

#683704 10-Sep-2012 09:48

oh, and about the insurance, the bus company gave me their insurance company's dtails.

gave them a call and explained what had happend straight after the accident, they said they will give me a call on monday.

i'm pretty sure they will cover the damage done on the bus.. just hoping they cover my car.. lol

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

wallop

367 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 11

#683708 10-Sep-2012 10:06

The insurance company will pay for the bus repairs and then go after you to get their money back.

TheUngeek

924 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 35
Inactive user

#683709 10-Sep-2012 10:06

Ah no. They will chase you for all and every expense to do with it. If I was you I'd be getting legal advice NOW

gogokr431

77 posts

Master Geek

#683712 10-Sep-2012 10:12

........ FML

might have to hang myself lol

richms

29107 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10222

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#683719 10-Sep-2012 10:35

Not if you don't admit any liability at all, it makes it very hard to go after someone with no insurance so they will usually not bother for a small amount.

Richard rich.ms

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9