Car Accident - Page 3

"Peter" <spamfromnewsgroups@chatomatic.net> wrote in message
news:150920031035459301%spamfromnews...chatomatic.net...
> In article <3f6437ec$0$23610$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.au>, Sambo <sambo@nospam.com.uk> wrote:
> > > No you can make a claim on their policy.
> >
> > Wrong. You can certainly make a claim on them via their insurance company tho.
> >
>
> Rodbot.. if you're going to tell me I'm wrong then perhaps you can actually state why

All the rest of your desperate attempt to bull**** your way out of your predicament flushed where
it belongs.

Hi,

I would go and make a police report as well, to cover yourself off from the legal angle.

Realistically, the police should be issuing a traffic infringement against the motorist. Was the
damage to her car on the front, or the side? That can be an indication as to how you were hit...

Hope the ankle comes good soon....

Cheers,

Andrew "MN" <mness23nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3f63f5fe$1_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
> Hi,
>
> Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found it a pretty enjoyable experiance
> unitl a few weeks ago. Riding home at about 6.40 at night doing about 40 downhill on a main road
> (Prospect Rd Adelaide) a car pulled out of a side street straight into me. The middle of the cars
bonnet
> slammed into my side with most of the damage to the rear wheel. Myself and the bike went flying
> over the bonnet flipped over and landed upside down
on
> the road with the bike on top of me. Lukily I was wearing a backpack with
my
> work clothes in it which cushioned the fall a little bit.
>
> Anyway the lady that hit me was all apolagetic and even took me to the hospital where I needed 10
> stiches for a deep cut on my ankle. The next
day
> she and her husband were around my house claiming they wanted to see if I was alright. However
> they were more interested in informing me that since
I
> had no lights it was my fault and they wern't paying. They soon shut up
when
> I showed them the bike with backlight still working and front light
smashed
> from the accident. So they agreed to either pay or claim insurance
depending
> on how much it would cost to fix the bike. I got a quote (about $500) for my bike and also my
> watch which has a crack in the face and took it to
them
> today. The drivers husband claims when they reported the accident the
police
> told him they were not liable and he should do nothing ie not pay me or contact their insurance
> company. The reason for this is that he now claims
I
> was riding on the footpath. This is obviously not true considering the
speed
> I was travelling and the distance I ride everyday. Also how could the
driver
> know if one minute she claims I had no lights and she didn't see me but
now
> claims she did see me on the footpath.
>
> Anyway I was wandering what I should do now or if anyone has any expeience in a similar situation
> (and what my chances are if I have to sue her). I estimate the damage to the car at around
> $500-$1000. The driver was the
only
> occupant of the car and does have comprehesive insurance. However she can barely speak english so
> ive been mostly speaking to her husband who's english is only slightly better.
>
> -M.N

Get the cops to charge the driver. Lodge a CTP and Damages insurance claim Write down all the
details of the accident from time of accident to present and on.. Document all calls, conversations,
people you speak to (esp insco's) You were in the right, however, you need to prepare for all the
stupid and unskilled motorists and pedestrians who crawl this earth. We are catering to the lowest
common denominator. You will get damages paid probably for the car thing and if you have a scar etc.
you may get some 3rd party thing. - You won't buy a house but you might get enough to replace those
brown nicks! Jock

"MN" <mness23nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3f63f5fe$1_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
> Hi,
>
> Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found it a pretty enjoyable experiance
> unitl a few weeks ago. Riding home at about 6.40 at night doing about 40 downhill on a main road
> (Prospect Rd Adelaide) a car pulled out of a side street straight into me. The middle of the cars
bonnet
> slammed into my side with most of the damage to the rear wheel. Myself and the bike went flying
> over the bonnet flipped over and landed upside down
on
> the road with the bike on top of me. Lukily I was wearing a backpack with
my
> work clothes in it which cushioned the fall a little bit.
>
> Anyway the lady that hit me was all apolagetic and even took me to the hospital where I needed 10
> stiches for a deep cut on my ankle. The next
day
> she and her husband were around my house claiming they wanted to see if I was alright. However
> they were more interested in informing me that since
I
> had no lights it was my fault and they wern't paying. They soon shut up
when
> I showed them the bike with backlight still working and front light
smashed
> from the accident. So they agreed to either pay or claim insurance
depending
> on how much it would cost to fix the bike. I got a quote (about $500) for my bike and also my
> watch which has a crack in the face and took it to
them
> today. The drivers husband claims when they reported the accident the
police
> told him they were not liable and he should do nothing ie not pay me or contact their insurance
> company. The reason for this is that he now claims
I
> was riding on the footpath. This is obviously not true considering the
speed
> I was travelling and the distance I ride everyday. Also how could the
driver
> know if one minute she claims I had no lights and she didn't see me but
now
> claims she did see me on the footpath.
>
> Anyway I was wandering what I should do now or if anyone has any expeience in a similar situation
> (and what my chances are if I have to sue her). I estimate the damage to the car at around
> $500-$1000. The driver was the
only
> occupant of the car and does have comprehesive insurance. However she can barely speak english so
> ive been mostly speaking to her husband who's english is only slightly better.
>
> -M.N

Mike Doyle wrote:
>
> I had a similar experiance on my motorbike about 12 months ago.
>
> I know you don't wanna hear this, but you should have called the police (and ambulance). You had
> just been in a car accident, bare skin VS car. You were injured, possibly badly. If you are taken
> away by ambulance, the police will almost always press charges. Generally it will be a Neg driving
> charge against whoever was at fault. At the very least, it means that you have written evidence of
> what happened.
>
> Now...what can you do?
>
> Some people are suggesting claiming on their policy. You may be able to do this, but not all
> insurance companies will allow you to. NRMA won't. They insist its a privacy thing.

THAT is a bluff!! A third party CAN make a claim against an insured - or take the insurer to the
Insurance Inquiries and Complaints Limited (IEC) for investigation and determination (it will cost
the insurer $1400 to have the case investigated by them, win or lose)

http://www.iecltd.com.au

> Give this a go. Make sure you have everything in writing.
>
> Secondly, write to the person with a letter of demand. Give them a chance to view the damage. Give
> them 10 days to pay up, or you will take it to court.

This may be a better option. Details are here:
http://www.courts.sa.gov.au/communit...urt/index.html

The form is here: http://www.elodgement.courts.sa.gov.au

> Generally at this point they have a choice of calling your bluff, going to court alone, or going
> to their insurance company. Make the letter official, and generally people will pass it on to
> their insurance company.
>
> If they pass it on to the insurance company, you only need to convince the insrance company they
> were at fault.
>
> In my case, the driver refused to admit liability, and refused to inform NRMA. I sent him a letter
> of demand with description of accident, copy of police report, and quotes for repairs. He passed
> it on to NRMA. NRMA paid without question. The lady at NRMA did say he wanted them to represent
> him in court, but they refused to.
>
> After 10 days, consider sending another letter of demand (to show you are resonable), and then
> make a claim in small claims court. That will cost $100 or so, and they will be served.

The cost is $60 as I have said for lodgement fee. A solicitor will want over $100 to prepare a claim
- A claim need not be prepared by a solicitor. It isn't of great importance to the case in any event
in a small claims court.

> At this point they will pass it on to their insurance company.
>
> Good luck.

[..]
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Septic Renfors <Renfors@not.ollis.com.au> wrote in message
news:3F65D7AC.A0449B32@not.ollis.com.au...
> Mike Doyle wrote

>> I had a similar experiance on my motorbike about 12 months ago.

>> I know you don't wanna hear this, but you should have called the police (and ambulance). You had
>> just been in a car accident, bare skin VS car.

>> You were injured, possibly badly. If you are taken away by ambulance, the police will almost
>> always press charges. Generally it will be a Neg driving charge against whoever was at fault. At
>> the very least, it means that you have written evidence of what happened.

>> Now...what can you do?

>> Some people are suggesting claiming on their policy. You may be able to do this, but not all
>> insurance companies will allow you to. NRMA won't.

>> They insist its a privacy thing.

> THAT is a bluff!!

Not when they say they arent prepared to deal with you.

> A third party CAN make a claim against an insured

Complete and utter drivel. Legally its an issue between the two partys to the accident. The
insurance company can CHOOSE to deal directly with the claimant, but they dont have to do that.

> or take the insurer to the Insurance Inquiries and Complaints Limited (IEC) for investigation and
> determination

Wrong. They aint a party to the insurance policy.

> (it will cost the insurer $1400 to have the case investigated by them, win or lose)

They wont investigate it at all, just tell you to bugger off if the insurance company chooses to not
deal with the claimant directly.

> http://www.iecltd.com.au

>> Give this a go. Make sure you have everything in writing.

>> Secondly, write to the person with a letter of demand. Give them a chance to view the damage.
>> Give them 10 days to pay up, or you will take it to court.

> This may be a better option. Details are here:
> http://www.courts.sa.gov.au/communit...urt/index.html

> The form is here: http://www.elodgement.courts.sa.gov.au

>> Generally at this point they have a choice of calling your bluff, going to court alone, or going
>> to their insurance company. Make the letter official, and generally people will pass it on to
>> their insurance company.

>> If they pass it on to the insurance company, you only need to convince the insrance company they
>> were at fault.

>> In my case, the driver refused to admit liability, and refused to inform NRMA. I sent him a
>> letter of demand with description of accident, copy of police report, and quotes for repairs. He
>> passed it on to NRMA. NRMA paid without question. The lady at NRMA did say he wanted them to
>> represent him in court, but they refused to.

>> After 10 days, consider sending another letter of demand (to show you are resonable), and then
>> make a claim in small claims court. That will cost $100 or so, and they will be served.

> The cost is $60 as I have said for lodgement fee. A solicitor will want over $100 to
> prepare a claim
> - A claim need not be prepared by a solicitor. It isn't of great importance to the case in any
> event in a small claims court.

>> At this point they will pass it on to their insurance company.

>> Good luck.

Whilst undoubtedly under the effects of alcohol, ocean1@removeiinet.net.au (Gary K) wrote:

>Contrary to what someone without knowledge says, cycling is a low risk activity with slightly less
>risk of death than car driving. Dont worry a bicycle with a head light as very visible at night as
>any who drives at night can testify. Trying to argue bikes are "much less visible than a car" is
>doomed to fail for them.

Bull****. As someone who cycles about 40km per day (not a lot, I grant you, but a lot more than
some) I am more than aware of the potentiality of a cyclist being out there. I am extremely "cyclist
aware" when driving.

Having said this, I have still collected one cyclist (riding without lights at night) and nearly
collected at least three others, also at night. It is quite often difficult to make out th cyclist,
particularly if the street lighting is either sub-standard or non-existent.

=========

Dave

Don't Drink Drive.... It's A Laundry Detergent

In article <6d3cmvcut46tuschoq1ijjl275vkshr9b4@4ax.com>, Dave Proctor
<david@spambait.proctor.net> wrote:

> Bull****. As someone who cycles about 40km per day (not a lot, I grant you, but a lot more than
> some) I am more than aware of the potentiality of a cyclist being out there. I am extremely
> "cyclist aware" when driving.

So am I... but tell you what.. I wish a lot more cyclists were car aware. Some seem to take the
attitude that the road rules don't apply to them.

Dave Proctor <david@spambait.proctor.net> wrote:

> Whilst undoubtedly under the effects of alcohol, ocean1@removeiinet.net.au (Gary K) wrote:
>
> >Contrary to what someone without knowledge says, cycling is a low risk activity with slightly
> >less risk of death than car driving. Dont worry a bicycle with a head light as very visible at
> >night as any who drives at night can testify. Trying to argue bikes are "much less visible than a
> >car" is doomed to fail for them.
>
> Bull****. As someone who cycles about 40km per day (not a lot, I grant you, but a lot more than
> some) I am more than aware of the potentiality of a cyclist being out there. I am extremely
> "cyclist aware" when driving.
>
> Having said this, I have still collected one cyclist (riding without lights at night) and nearly
> collected at least three others, also at night. It is quite often difficult to make out th
> cyclist, particularly if the street lighting is either sub-standard or non-existent.
>

"Potentiality" and "nearly" or any othe "made up" facts dont count. How many are dead at the end of
the year does. Per hour of activity, cycling is no more dangerous than driving.

"Gary K" <ocean1@removeiinet.net.au>
> >
>
> "Potentiality" and "nearly" or any othe "made up" facts dont count. How many are dead at the end
> of the year does. Per hour of activity, cycling is no more dangerous than driving.

** Your claim is ambiguously worded.

Do you mean "no more dangerous" - according to death statistics ?

Do you mean "no more dangerous" - for any given person to do ?

They are not the same thing and you are telling lies.

............ Phil

"Gary K" <ocean1@removeiinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:1g1dkte.f7mo7417jit50N%ocean1@removeiinet.net.au...
> Dave Proctor <david@spambait.proctor.net> wrote:
>
> > Whilst undoubtedly under the effects of alcohol, ocean1@removeiinet.net.au (Gary K) wrote:
> >
> > >Contrary to what someone without knowledge says, cycling is a low risk activity with slightly
> > >less risk of death than car driving. Dont worry a bicycle with a head light as very visible at
> > >night as any who drives at night can testify. Trying to argue bikes are "much less visible than
> > >a car" is doomed to fail for them.
> >
> > Bull****. As someone who cycles about 40km per day (not a lot, I grant you, but a lot more than
> > some) I am more than aware of the potentiality of a cyclist being out there. I am extremely
> > "cyclist aware" when driving.
> >
> > Having said this, I have still collected one cyclist (riding without lights at night) and nearly
> > collected at least three others, also at night. It is quite often difficult to make out th
> > cyclist, particularly if the street lighting is either sub-standard or non-existent.

> "Potentiality" and "nearly" or any othe "made up" facts dont count.

Neither does your utterly bogus 'statistics'

> How many are dead at the end of the year does.

Not when you dont allow for the vast differences in the situations in which the two modes are done
they dont.

> Per hour of activity, cycling is no more dangerous than driving.

Utterly bogus when the main cause of death in cars is on the open road and when you compare apples
with apples, hours of activity within builtup areas, the death rate with bikes is MUCH higher than
it is with cars.

Exactly as i said. Stats according to number of deaths. No one can predict probabilities for
any particular person. Safer riders are safer, unsafe riders aren't. No surprise. But the
overall is similar in Canada, USA and Australia. Drivers are killed at very similar rates to
cyclist. Maybe most those victims are weighted by the bad drivers, also by the bad cyclist, its
not the point anyway.

Phil Allison <philallison@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> "Gary K" <ocean1@removeiinet.net.au>
> > >
> >
> > "Potentiality" and "nearly" or any othe "made up" facts dont count. How many are dead at the end
> > of the year does. Per hour of activity, cycling is no more dangerous than driving.
>
>
>
> ** Your claim is ambiguously worded.
>
> Do you mean "no more dangerous" - according to death statistics ?
>
> Do you mean "no more dangerous" - for any given person to do ?
>
> They are not the same thing and you are telling lies.
>
>
>
>
>
> ............ Phil

"Gary K" <ocean1@removeiinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:1g1dnx9.1fxj0e8tid7uoN%ocean1@removeiinet.net.au...
>
> Phil Allison <philallison@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > "Gary K" <ocean1@removeiinet.net.au>
> > >
> > "Potentiality" and "nearly" or any othe "made up" facts dont count. How
> > > many are dead at the end of the year does. Per hour of activity,
cycling
> > > is no more dangerous than driving.
> >
>
> > ** Your claim is ambiguously worded.
> >
> > Do you mean "no more dangerous" - according to death
statistics ?

> > Do you mean "no more dangerous" - for any given person to do
?
> >
> > They are not the same thing and you are telling lies.

>
> Exactly as i said. Stats according to number of deaths.

** That does ***NOT*** demonstrate your "no more dangerous" conclusion.

> No one can predict probabilities for any particular person.

** Straw man.

>Safer riders are safer, unsafe riders aren't. No surprise.

** Yawn.

>But the overall is similar in Canada, USA and Australia.

** Red herring.

> Drivers are killed at very similar rates to cyclist.

** Lies , dam lies and statistics that do not apply.

> Maybe most those victims are weighted by the bad drivers, also by the bad cyclist,

its not the point anyway

** Sure isn't.

Cycling in traffic is extremely dangerous - often reckless.

Only fools do it and even bigger ones like you downplay the risk.

............ Phil

hehe Gee, great points u have there.. Nothing like an intelligent debate! I suppose cycling IS a
horrendously dangerous because YOU SAY SO.

Whatever mate, dont let me disturb your cosy little worldview. U and speedfreak must be married.

Phil Allison <philallison@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> "Gary K" <ocean1@removeiinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:1g1dnx9.1fxj0e8tid7uoN%ocean1@removeiinet.net.au...
> >
> > Phil Allison <philallison@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > "Gary K" <ocean1@removeiinet.net.au>
> > > >
> > > "Potentiality" and "nearly" or any othe "made up" facts dont count. How
> > > > many are dead at the end of the year does. Per hour of activity,
> cycling
> > > > is no more dangerous than driving.
> > >
> >
> > > ** Your claim is ambiguously worded.
> > >
> > > Do you mean "no more dangerous" - according to death
> statistics ?
>
> > > Do you mean "no more dangerous" - for any given person to do
> ?
> > >
> > > They are not the same thing and you are telling lies.
>
>
> >
> > Exactly as i said. Stats according to number of deaths.
>
>
> ** That does ***NOT*** demonstrate your "no more dangerous" conclusion.
>
>
> > No one can predict probabilities for any particular person.
>
>
> ** Straw man.
>
>
>
> >Safer riders are safer, unsafe riders aren't. No surprise.
>
>
> ** Yawn.
>
>
> >But the overall is similar in Canada, USA and Australia.
>
>
> ** Red herring.
>
>
> > Drivers are killed at very similar rates to cyclist.
>
>
> ** Lies , dam lies and statistics that do not apply.
>
>
> > Maybe most those victims are weighted by the bad drivers, also by the bad cyclist,
>
> its not the point anyway
>
>
> ** Sure isn't.
>
> Cycling in traffic is extremely dangerous - often reckless.
>
> Only fools do it and even bigger ones like you downplay the risk.
>
>
>
>
> ............ Phil

Gary K <ocean1@removeiinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:1g1dnx9.1fxj0e8tid7uoN%ocean1@removeiinet.net.au...

> Exactly as i said. Stats according to number of deaths. No one can predict probabilities for any
> particular person. Safer riders are safer, unsafe riders aren't. No surprise. But the overall is
> similar in Canada, USA and Australia. Drivers are killed at very similar rates to cyclist.

Not in built up areas they aint, liar.

> Phil Allison <philallison@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > "Gary K" <ocean1@removeiinet.net.au>
> > > >
> > >
> > > "Potentiality" and "nearly" or any othe "made up" facts dont count. How many are dead at the
> > > end of the year does. Per hour of activity, cycling is no more dangerous than driving.
> >
> >
> >
> > ** Your claim is ambiguously worded.
> >
> > Do you mean "no more dangerous" - according to death statistics ?
> >
> > Do you mean "no more dangerous" - for any given person to do ?
> >
> > They are not the same thing and you are telling lies.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ............ Phil

"Gary K" <ocean1@removeiinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:1g1dp1j.8v3ivb186xpfrN%ocean1@removeiinet.net.au...

> hehe

** Only idiots giggle - and brain dead top posters.

> Gee, great points u have there..

** So you top posted to avoid them.

> Nothing like an intelligent debate!

** When have you ever had one ??????

> I suppose cycling IS a horrendously dangerous because YOU SAY SO.

** The risks are only too obvious - to anyoone with a brain.

> Whatever mate, dont let me disturb your cosy little worldview.

** You could not disturb a sick cat.

........... Phil