Welcome Home !!!

smoothrider · A Forum Supporter

A recent accident. What do you think ? Is the Blue car in the right ?

Chiku · A Forum Mentor

Did you take a picture of the cars "kissing"? and the position?

FT can be Foreign Trash or Foreign Talent

-- Edited by Chiku on Tuesday 12th of November 2013 12:11:00 AM

taxiuncle · Senior Guru

judging from the diagram you provided, obviously it was the front left of the blue hitting the right rear side of the green car.

also, it shows that the green car had tried to keep further to the left to give way to the blue which seems to have went over-steer.

if you have in-car video OR accident scene photos (with the car positioning as per diagram) to support, i'm sure is blue hits green.

go claim his insurance.

Chiku · A Forum Mentor

Dont understand this. The blue car eat into the green car lane, so how can blue car got right of way?

smoothrider · A Forum Supporter

I was more confident today after going back for a thorough look. On the day of the accident, the other guy pointed out that there was a carpark on the left, and so my lane was for that purpose. Only today, I discovered that it was only an exit - strictly one-way - as my photo shows. Several metres away before the turn, there is a straight arrow on my lane, so I thought he was right. But today, I found out that the last right-turn arrow before the bend is by itself, whereas there is no straight arrow beside it.

I have an in-car camera shooting only the front. Today I played back many times until I can draw the whole sequence as shown in my diagram. As you can see, my vehicle is touching the centre line because of cars parked on the left side. Anyway, looking at the photo down Marina View, there is enuf space to squeeze 4 cars side-by-side, so no problem at all.

The other guy cut into my side because he was following another vehicle in front of him that did exactly the same thing. Only diff is that for the other car in front of him, there was no one blocking his path.

My company classified this as 50/50 and told me I have a weak case. Today, I can say that it is not weak.

Take a look at the Foreign Talent :

The Foreign Talent.JPG

smoothrider · A Forum Supporter

Chiku wrote:
Did you take a picture of the cars "kissing"? and the position?
FT can be Foreign Trash or Foreign Talent

Unfortunately, that idiotmoved it(I'm trying very hard to choose nice words, but can't help it lah).

I opened his door and told him to stop, but he refused. Some more, bull**** that his neck was injured. No bang, just a slight kiss, how can injured lah ??? The corner of his car is tapered (slanting) so it just rubbed my rear-side, that's all.

Very sian that day.

Chiku · A Forum Mentor

Your company ARC said your fault or what?

I thought they (surveyors) can assess whose fault by looking at the damage.

I know its very sian for this kinda ****. But at least you are not injured, so still can drive and make money.

lazybone · A Forum Mentor

I have an in-car camera shooting only the front..... key words.

imo you are suay.
This type of cases are classified as 50/50.

Unless you can produce video clip of the accident to shown the key moment. You can't change this 50/50.
Any witness willing to help u ? Is your statement against the other party.

My hirer captured an accident few months ago.
He produced the clip to help one of them.

Good luck.

Taxilim · A Forum Supporter

Hey smoothrider,

In the BOLA (Barometer of Liability Agreement) between insurers, it's either 100% liable or 50/50. No in-betweens.

Unfortunately, you were travelling in the lane with a straight arrow only. This could have been an old road marking before the road was closed off and became a dead end.

At best, it's a 50/50. Much as I hate it, I do not think the FT will be 100% liable cos the road markings appear to be in his favour, unfortunately.

100% cases in the BOLA are very clear cut, e.g. Front/ Rear collisions, hitting a parked car etc..

lazybone · A Forum Mentor

Mr Smoothrider,

Imo, this accident is a lose lose situation for both parties. So who will benefit ?
Is unlikely that the other party can claim from the taxi co. for this 50/50 case.
What made u so sure that he can claims for the damage ?
His car's insurance premium will shoot up at the next renewal.

For u, you should know what is the "damage" right?
If both parties can keep cool and know how insurance work.
Then both can minimize the lost.

Those "new evidence" that u had posted will not change anything... imo.
The other party will have his side of the story.
Nobody admit fault for this case so remain 50/50.

I can understand how u feel. That why I said "you suay".
Many have experience this type of cases. So have stronger case than your.

I suggest u write this off as a lost. Forget it asap.
Is no easy. Might need a few days.
Don't let this incident affect you concentration otr.

Drive safe and protect ur earning.

Good luck, my friend.

-- Edited by lazybone on Tuesday 12th of November 2013 06:49:02 PM

smoothrider · A Forum Supporter

Taxilim wrote:
Hey smoothrider,
In the BOLA (Barometer of Liability Agreement) between insurers, it's either 100% liable or 50/50. No in-betweens.
Unfortunately, you were travelling in the lane with a straight arrow only. This could have been an old road marking before the road was closed off and became a dead end.
At best, it's a 50/50. Much as I hate it, I do not think the FT will be 100% liable cos the road markings appear to be in his favour, unfortunately.
100% cases in the BOLA are very clear cut, e.g. Front/ Rear collisions, hitting a parked car etc..

lazybone wrote:

Unless you can produce video clip of the accident to shown the key moment. You can't change this 50/50

Hey, Taxilim and lazybone, thanks for your enlightening comments. I just thought I should recap the whole thing and summarize the relevant key points.

The moment of collision can be detected from the small thud coming from the video/audio - which is while my vehicle was close to the kerb as shown in the earlier diagram.
I doubt that the road markings are in favour of the FT because :

The Marina View road leads to a dead end. Does it make sense to expect any vehicle to continue going straight ?
There is a series of 3 arrow markings leading towards the bend. Notice the third marking does not have the straight arrow (circled).
Doesn't the rule take into account other relevant factors at the scene, like what I have just mentioned ?

Will these points change the "rule" that you highlighted ?

To me it does, but I need expert advice. Anyone care to clarify or validate my position ?

Road markings.jpg

Taxilim · A Forum Supporter

Hey Smoothrider,

As I have mentioned, at best 50/50. He has the right to turn Assuming the dead end reason is accepted,

you too have the right to turn. In such a scenario, it's 50/50 according to BOLA (there is a similar scenario i.e. no. 30).

Reason given in BOLA? Both vehicles should exercise caution when turning in the same direction.

Worst case if the dead end theory is not accepted and road signs are to be followed, then you could be 100% liable.

In any case, I doubt if we can do anything about the final decision as it rests with the taxi company and the insurer.

taxiuncle · Senior Guru

IMO, i think you have a case to fight.

see, where is the damage on your vehicle? real right side?

the damage of the FT's vehicle? front left side?

so who got the control? The FT could have avoided this accident should he exercise road safety rules.

who was knocking on who? The FT knock you with the front left onto your rear right which you could

not avoid at all. obviously, the FT was driving WITHOUT observing the road condition.

(there's a chapter of this offence and its commonly used by the TP)

i think you should fight on and denial any claims from the FT. in fact, you should claim him.

ultimately, (touch wood) even if you lost, you lost only $1k at most.

Chiku · A Forum Mentor

I agree with TU. I think u have a case.

lazybone · A Forum Mentor

taxiuncle wrote:
IMO, i think you have a case to fight.
see, where is the damage on your vehicle? real right side?
the damage of the FT's vehicle? front left side?
so who got the control? The FT could have avoided this accident should he exercise road safety rules.
who was knocking on who? The FT knock you with the front left onto your rear right which you could
not avoid at all. obviously, the FT was driving WITHOUT observing the road condition.
(there's a chapter of this offence and its commonly used by the TP)
i think you should fight on and denial any claims from the FT. in fact, you should claim him.
ultimately, (touch wood) even if you lost, you lost only $1k at most.

Hi Tu,

You mean after reporting the case you still have a say and fight the case.

This is new to me. Please share your experience. Anybody else ?