You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
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:
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
__________________
"As Sir Francis Bacon once said, 'There is no beauty which hath not some strangeness about its proportions'.
And he's right, who ever he is. I mean, look at Keira Knightley.
She's just an ironing board with a face. And she works." - JC on the Alfa 8C
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
