Insurance scams

17-01-2018, 03:47 PM

Does anyone else watch the videos on the Dash Cam Australia facebook page?

I've seen two now where the insurer has declared someone at-fault when I (and many others) think they're the innocent party.

Dashcam car had their not-at-fault claim denied by NRMA, told to pay excess due to failing to maintain a safe distance behind a car without control.
https://www.facebook.com/DashCamOwne...6637200062580/

and here. Driver of red car is declared the at-fault driver by dashcam driver's insurer AAMI! Despite the dashcam driver talking on the phone while driving, gunning it to run the light, pulling in to the car park on the wrong side of the road and then hitting another car!
https://www.facebook.com/DashCamOwne...8510230208611/

What gives? Both the dashcam driver in the first video and the red car in the second video look innocent to me.

yearby · 17-01-2018, 03:59 PM

I agree with you on both these accounts, but I also have had experience with insurance company's going to great lengths to pass the buck.

whitelion65 · 17-01-2018, 04:49 PM

No,
saw the first one the other day, and thought the driver had no idea. Who knows, he probably would've run into the bus with his skill-set.

The second guy?? No comment needed, is there?

17-01-2018, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whitelion65

No,
saw the first one the other day, and thought the driver had no idea. Who knows, he probably would've run into the bus with his skill-set.

The second guy?? No comment needed, is there?

Why do you think the driver had no idea? The conditions were clearly wet and slippery so he was right to not slam on his brakes and for all we know he might have been towing a heavy load. As someone who tows horses, I can't just slam on my brakes and come to a stop or my horse will be thrown towards the front of the float and get hurt. Why should it be someone's fault that they can't avoid someone else's accident?

As for the second guy... clearly there is a comment needed as we seem to be disagreeing. Care to share an opinion?

whitelion65 · 17-01-2018, 05:07 PM

OK
1 Drive to the conditions. Ray Charles could have seen that pos starting to lose it. I don't know, maybe cam-guy felt lucky, but if it were me driving, I would have been out of there and let him have his own accident.
2 Are you serious? OK, if you care to ignore him running the light, than I guess you will think that cutting the corner onto the wrong side of the road to enter the drive-way was OK too. I know there is a sign indicating to enter the car park at that point, but it looks like it is a two way drive way (entry/exit). even if it were entry only, I believe cam guy (CS) is in the wrong.

17-01-2018, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whitelion65

OK
2 Are you serious? OK, if you care to ignore him running the light, than I guess you will think that cutting the corner onto the wrong side of the road to enter the drive-way was OK too. I know there is a sign indicating to enter the car park at that point, but it looks like it is a two way drive way (entry/exit). even if it were entry only, I believe cam guy (CS) is in the wrong.

I think you may need to re-read my post.

Quote:

What gives? Both the dashcam driver in the first video and the red car in the second video look innocent to me.

The driver of the red car - AKA not the dash cam car - was declared the at-fault party based on that video.

whitelion65 · 17-01-2018, 05:11 PM

OOPs!!

17-01-2018, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whitelion65

OOPs!!

Yeah, almost all the comments on that facebook page agree that the dash cam driver should have been declared the at-fault driver in that prang. I deliberately avoided insuring with AAMI after I saw that, it's nuts.

lra · 17-01-2018, 05:21 PM

I see one driver who seems to have very little knowledge about car control, another not looking ahead for obstacles (stationary bus), and one who seems to not give a stuff about any other road user, and thinks it is all a joke..

stig_3754 · 17-01-2018, 05:40 PM

A few months ago I got rear ended while coming to a stop. Nothing major but the lady behind me didn't stop in time. Didn't stop her insurer's collections agency from sending me a letter a few weeks later saying 'due to the information received, it is determined that you were at fault'.

Needless to say, I scanned the letter, emailed it to my insurer and they said they'll deal with it. I never paid an excess.

Sounds like insurance companies passing the buck in this case, especially the 2nd video. The 1st video is more of a grey area but still seems harsh on the dash cam driver.

**GO FURTHER** · 17-01-2018, 06:17 PM

I agree with the insurance company that the driver of the RED car in the second video is clearly at fault.

The driver of the RED car should have given way when exiting a carpark onto a public street.

If you watch the video carefully, the RED car did not stop, slow down or giveway before exiting.

LPGUTE · 17-01-2018, 07:00 PM

the first video, the dash cam car just need to step on the brake as hard as possible and let the ABS work and keep the steering the car, the accident might not even happen, so that i think thats fair

the second video, the dash cam car cut the corner and hit the red car on while he was on the wrong side of the road. this in unfair on the red driver if the insurance forced the red car to pay for excess.

Tassie f100 · 17-01-2018, 07:15 PM

That second video is in a supermarket carpark where the lanes are quite wide,so it is obvious the cam car cut the corner to turn into the carpark.

uniacidz · 17-01-2018, 07:17 PM

Both dash cam drivers are at fault

1st one, rear end anyone and it's your fault
middle lane losing control and didn't slow down until car was in lane

2nd one the car entering carpark from main road is at fault.
Turn when safe to do so

To the OP, if you need a forum to tell you the road rules, then that's also a concern

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

17-01-2018, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uniacidz

Both dash cam drivers are at fault

1st one, rear end anyone and it's your fault

Yeah? So truck drivers have nothing to complain about when a car pulls infront and they can't stop in time?
The entire incident between the car losing control and getting rear ended was 4 seconds. It should not be your fault if you're unable to avoid someone else's accident as well as others could.

Quote:

2nd one the car entering carpark from main road is at fault.

To the OP, if you need a forum to tell you the road rules, then that's also a concern

Seems you may also need someone to tell you the road rules as that dash cam driver was deemed not-at-fault for that accident.

uniacidz · 17-01-2018, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leesa

Yeah? So truck drivers have nothing to complain about when a car pulls infront and they can't stop in time?
The entire incident between the car losing control and getting rear ended was 4 seconds. It should not be your fault if you're unable to avoid someone else's accident as well as others could.

Seems you may also need someone to tell you the road rules as that dash cam driver was deemed not-at-fault for that accident.

Whole thread has told you and you still question them and the rules.

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

**GasoLane** · 17-01-2018, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leesa

Yeah? So truck drivers have nothing to complain about when a car pulls infront and they can't stop in time?

They can complain, but it wouldn't do them any good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leesa

The entire incident between the car losing control and getting rear ended was 4 seconds. It should not be your fault if you're unable to avoid someone else's accident as well as others could.

The dash cam cars speed only dropped 2kmh from when the other car started loosing it. He still managed to only wipe off 10kmh to the point of impact.

If you see someone driving erratically close in front of you a normal driver should instinctively start to bring the speed down fast!

Quote:

Originally Posted by leesa

Seems you may also need someone to tell you the road rules as that dash cam driver was deemed not-at-fault for that accident.

Of course, no insurance company is going to say "oh bugger, looks like our client stuffed up, you win'

**GO FURTHER** · 17-01-2018, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uniacidz

Whole thread has told you and you still question them and the rules.

No... Not the whole thread... I agree with Leesa on her comment on the 2nd video.

The RED car is technically in the wrong.
Yes, the dash-cam driver might have taken the turn into the carpark too sharp, but that is not the point.
Now if the RED car had stopped and the dash cam driver crashed into him because he took the turn too sharp... Then he would be the one at fault.

From the Vicroads website on turning at a T - Intersection:

"When turning at a T-intersection from the road that ends (The RED car), you must give way to all vehicles travelling in the road you are turning into (the continuing road)".

Ben73 · 17-01-2018, 08:24 PM

Wouldn't say they are insurance scams. More like insurance companies trying their hardest to save a payout.
No idea why the hell the dashcam car is at fault in the first one.
I wouldn't expect them to jam on the brakes mid corner in the wet for a car that appears to be sliding into the right lane. Remember that GPS speeds take a few seconds to update. Within a few seconds of the CRV sliding to the left the GPS speed appears to slow.

I bet that both the dashcam car and the CRV were insured by NRMA, so NRMA deemed the CRV at fault for hitting the wall and the dashcam car at fault for hitting the back. That way they would have double dipped on the excess payments.
If the CRV was with another insurance company I bet NRMA would fight tooth and nail to say that it 100% their fault for loosing control.

Quote:

Originally Posted by uniacidz

1st one, rear end anyone and it's your fault

Not exactly.
So your saying if you are driving and a car swerves into your lane and brakes hard at the same time it's your fault?

uniacidz · 17-01-2018, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GO FURTHER

No... Not the whole thread... I agree with Leesa on her comment on the 2nd video.

The RED car is technically in the wrong.
Yes, the dash-cam driver might have taken the turn into the carpark too sharp, but there is not the point.
Now if the RED car had stopped and the dash cam driver crashed into him because he took the turn too sharp... Then he would be the one at fault.

From the Vicroads website on turning at a T - Intersection:

"When turning at a T-intersection from the road that ends (The RED car), you must give way to all vehicles travelling in the road you are turning into (the continuing road)".

But dash cam did not stop, did not check and did not see if was safe to enter car park

Doesn't matter what red car did.

If dash cam driver stated that his insurance said he was fine, then more then likely his insurance will try to blame the other red car and dash cam prob won't admit on social media he is in the wrong.

Rules are black and white

No if, no buts.

Dash cam caused collision by cutting corner.

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

17-01-2018, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uniacidz

Whole thread has told you and you still question them and the rules.

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

Whole thread? yearby agrees with me, whitelion agrees with me, lpgute doesn't and you don't. By my count that makes 50/50. Where did you get 'the whole thread'?

uniacidz · 17-01-2018, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leesa

Whole thread? yearby agrees with me, whitelion agrees with me, lpgute doesn't and you don't. By my count that makes 50/50. Where did you get 'the whole thread'?

Lol ok

Cya

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

**GO FURTHER** · 17-01-2018, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uniacidz

But dash cam did not stop, did not check and did not see if was safe to enter car park

Doesn't matter what red car did.

Dash cam caused collision by cutting corner.

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

Red car should not have moved from carpark, under the law it should have given way to traffic in both directions, including the dash cam driver entering the carpark.

Yes, red car would probably still have been hit.... But because red car broke the road rule at a T- Intersection, he is technically at fault.

17-01-2018, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uniacidz

Lol ok

Cya

What, can't stand by your statements when evidence is given to disprove it? Ok then, bye I guess.. have a good night..

17-01-2018, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GO FURTHER

Red car should not have moved from carpark, under the law it should have given way to traffic in both directions, including the dash cam driver entering the carpark.

Even if the dashcam car is driving on the wrong side of the road?
If that's true then I wonder why they weren't BOTH declared at fault. dashcam car seems to have gotten off scott free despite doing several illegal things, one of which contributed to the accident

**GasoLane** · 17-01-2018, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leesa

Even if the dashcam car is driving on the wrong side of the road?
If that's true then I wonder why they weren't BOTH declared at fault. dashcam car seems to have gotten off scott free despite doing several illegal things, one of which contributed to the accident

Umm, exactly who is going to say that they were both at fault?

17-01-2018, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Umm, exactly who is going to say that they were both at fault?

Wouldn't the dashcam car's insurer have incentive to declare both drivers at fault if they could? That way they get the excess from the cam car, knock his rating down and aren't responsible for the costs to repair the red car.

**GO FURTHER** · 17-01-2018, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leesa

Even if the dashcam car is driving on the wrong side of the road?

Looking carefully at the video, the dashcam driver was not on the wrong side of the road though... But he took the turn too sharp on entering the carpark.

If the red car had not moved and obeyed the law... The dashcam driver might have had time to realise his mistake and stop in time or lessen the damage caused.

uniacidz · 17-01-2018, 08:53 PM

By the way

Rule 75 (1)(c) Not give way to vehicle-right turn into area/land -- Fine Level 5 Costings - $330 3 demerits

**GO FURTHER** · 17-01-2018, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uniacidz

By the way

Rule 75 (1)(c) Not give way to vehicle-right turn into area/land -- Fine Level 5 Costings - $330 3 demerits

I assume that you are inferring that this rule should apply to the dash cam driver in the 2nd video.

No... Because the dash cam driver did not have to give way to the red car.
It is the red car that should have given way to the dash cam driver.