Cam car insurance fail

[old4570]

Crazy toyota driver .. Already out of control as he enters freeway ...

 

[Moon]

Crikey ... that is ridiculous. Which Insurance Company is that?

 

[jokiin]

Crikey ... that is ridiculous. Which Insurance Company is that?

NRMA

 

[flank]

I have to agree with the insurance company, the camera car's driver is a idiot for not stopping in time. I would have withheld the footage in that case unless I had an unfavorable outcome.

 

[jokiin]

I have to agree with the insurance company, the camera car's driver is a idiot for not stopping in time. I would have withheld the footage in that case unless I had an unfavorable outcome.

without the footage he's no better off, you run into the back of someone you're liable anyway, had the car come straight into him I'm sure he'd be covered, he ran into once it had stopped and seemed to take a while to respond

 

[DashcamDPR]

Cammer literally didn't respond until 2 seconds after the slide began, almost as if "I need a new car and a few days off work, my dashcam will prove me innocent anyway!"

 

[SawMaster]

Must have taken their Driver Training in Russia Even if traffic laws don't require it, your insurance contract requires that you take all reasonable means to protect your property from harm which includes avoiding what is clearly an imminent collision when that is possible

Phil

 

[Nigel]

Could have argued that the road was covered in diesel causing the other car to slide and meaning he couldn't stop in time. The other car stopped faster because it had assistance from the barrier!

 

[kamkar]

Cammer literally didn't respond until 2 seconds after the slide began, almost as if "I need a new car and a few days off work, my dashcam will prove me innocent anyway!"

The guy in the camera car might very well have been doing something he shouldent do when operating a vehicle, so reaction time will become way off, also if he / she is a inexperienced driver i can easy see people handling the situation wrong ( just stomp brake and pray )

Personally i had one experience where me letting go of the brake and steer instead saved my ass, but you cant do both at least i still recommend you dont even with modern cars brake systems.

 

[raqball]

I slowed the video down and the car changes lanes and impacts the barrier at the 7 second mark. The driver with the dash cam is doing 52 kmh at that time. At the 8 second mark the dash cam reads 41 kmh so a drop of 11 kmh in less than a second. Just before the impact at the 9 second mark the driver speed had decreased to 28 kmh. That's a total drop of 24 kmh in under 2 seconds. Not much but factor in wet roads and reaction time. It's also difficuly to know the distance traveled in that time but the distance does not look to be much.

Factor in the wet roads and normal reaction time and I'd say the driver did what he/she could to avoid the accident. I dunno, maybe that's just me but I do not see how this accident should have been avoided. Maybe the impact speed would have been less than 28 kmh but I believe impact still would have occurred..

It's impossible to know why the insurance denied the claim though. What did the driver tell the police at the scene? What did the driver tell the insurance company? Based on the video alone, I don't see why the claim was denied so there must be more to the story.

The stopping distance on a wet road @ 52 kmh is roughly 44 meters (145 feet)..

 

[Nigel]

I slowed the video down and the car changes lanes and impacts the barrier at the 7 second mark. The driver with the dash cam is doing 52 kmh at that time. At the 8 second mark the dash cam reads 41 kmh so a drop of 11 kmh in less than a second. Just before the impact at the 9 second mark the driver speed had decreased to 28 kmh. That's a total drop of 24 kmh in under 2 seconds. Not much but factor in wet roads and reaction time. It's also difficuly to know the distance traveled in that time but the distance does not look to be much.

Factor in the wet roads and normal reaction time and I'd say the driver did what he/she could to avoid the accident. I dunno, maybe that's just me but I do not see how this accident should have been avoided. Maybe the impact speed would have been less than 28 kmh but I believe impact still would have occurred..

It's impossible to know why the insurance denied the claim though. What did the driver tell the police at the scene? What did the driver tell the insurance company? Based on the video alone, I don't see why the claim was denied so there must be more to the story.

The stopping distance on a wet road @ 52 kmh is roughly 44 meters (145 feet)..

Remember the GPS will be 1 second behind.

Reading the description it doesn't actually say the claim was denied, only:
"Description: "NRMA Insurance claims: dash cam driver did not maintain safe distance behind car without control and the insurance excess has to be paid.""

In other words the insurance did pay out, but because it wasn't entirely the other persons fault (probably got declared 50:50) there was a claim on their insurance and they do have to pay the normal excess.

I still suspect there was oil on the road, the cam car seems to stop slowing in the last second so not 100% SUVs fault seems reasonable to me.

 

[raqball]

Remember the GPS will be 1 second behind.

Reading the description it doesn't actually say the claim was denied, only:
"Description: "NRMA Insurance claims: dash cam driver did not maintain safe distance behind car without control and the insurance excess has to be paid.""

In other words the insurance did pay out, but because it wasn't entirely the other persons fault (probably got declared 50:50) there was a claim on their insurance and they do have to pay the normal excess.

I still suspect there was oil on the road, the cam car seems to stop slowing in the last second so not 100% SUVs fault seems reasonable to me.

Yes and the GPS being one second behind lends more credence to the dash cam driver..

Even without oil on the roadway I do not see how the dash cam driver could have stopped in time, The distance is short, wet roads and reaction time would make it difficult. The dash cam driver does not appear to be speeding (is doing the same speed as other cars seen in the video) and drivers do not stare forward at the roadway 24/7 when driving. Maybe the driver was checking rear view or side view mirror at the time? Maybe the driver admitted to being distracted which slowed reaction time? Without knowing what was said to the police and / or the insurance company it's difficult to understand the reasoning.

I was involved with working accidents, reconstruction of them ect my entire adult career. Just based on the video alone I have a hard time finding fault with the dash cam driver.

My .02

 

[Nigel]

I have a hard time finding fault with the dash cam driver.

My .02

It appears fairly obvious to me that the SUV was going too fast for the conditions and the cam car was going the same speed, so also too fast for the conditions.

If that is true then you can't put all the blame on the SUV, just most of it, and that means the cam car driver has an excess to pay.

 

[raqball]

It appears fairly obvious to me that the SUV was going too fast for the conditions and the cam car was going the same speed, so also too fast for the conditions.

If that is true then you can't put all the blame on the SUV, just most of it, and that means the cam car driver has an excess to pay.

Not to me.. Too fast for conditions is open ended. What was the posted speed limit? Were the roads just wet or icy? All other cars in the video appear to be going the same speed so a I don't buy that without having more information. Tire conditions also factor in and the SUV over corrected which led to the incident even starting.

 

[Daffypuck]

Wow, I am seeing something completely different than all of you. The cammer was in his own lane of travel. Following distance from a car in another lane is a moot point and shouldnt be a consideration. The SUV obviously drifted into the right lane, realized it and jerked the wheel back and overcorrected his mistake causing him to lose traction and spin into the cammers lane. Hell, the car in the far right lane never touched their brakes from what I can see. Makes me wonder what they were thinking. Bu the cammers lack of action, or perceived lack of, makes me wonder. I wonder if the cammers brakes were locked down or not. But for an insurance company to deny on the grounds of following distance for a car in another lane is laughable. Once another car encroaches your lane of travel an an unsafe distance with unreasonable time to adjust your following distance puts the blame squarely on the encroacher, especially if they cause the accident. But, as we all know, the wide angle of dashcams sometimes makes it difficult to perceive distance. Ill post a video here and yall tell me what you think happened and how the insurance company handled it. Then Ill tell you the circumstances and what really happened. FF to about :40

 

[davecam]

looks to me like the 05 chevy didn't look when changing lanes?

 

[Daffypuck]

Oh no, I looked long and hard.

 

[jokiin]

But for an insurance company to deny on the grounds of following distance for a car in another lane is laughable. [/MEDIA]

just to be clear, they didn't deny his claim, just that he had to pay his excess (deductible) which is generally around $650

 

[raqball]

Ill post a video here and yall tell me what you think happened and how the insurance company handled it. Then Ill tell you the circumstances and what really happened. FF to about :40

Just based off the video you posted, and with no other information to go on, I'd say the dash cam driver was found at fault for either unsafe lane change or inattentive driving;

In the video it looks like the dash cam driver changes lanes, forcing the car behind off the road. Since that car has nowhere to go other than off the roadway and into the concrete barrier I'd say the dash cam driver was at fault.

I suppose it's possible the car missed the exit and was driving on the shoulder but the dash cam driver should have made sure he/she could safely change lanes before doing so.

 

[old4570]

The video does show something I don't like ...

A) Further ahead the lane was blocked ...
B) The conditions
C) I would have slowed earlier ( Thats just me )
D) As soon as I saw the other car in trouble I would have leaned on the brakes

I just don't understand this reluctance to slow down when things look dicey , better safe than sorry ? ( No ? )