Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

(Qld) Section 141 vs. $11k

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by wil_g, Apr 23, 2009.

  1. I had an accident about a month ago:

    Queuing traffic to turn right and 1.5 - 2m gap to the left between parked cars and the queue). Also, there is a left turning lane after the queue. Actually, I have a photo of the typical situation. I'll see if I can post it. Wait. Apparently not until I've posted 5 times. Maybe later if anyone is interested.

    Anyway, I took the gap very slowly and got taken out my a car door from the RHS; meaning that it was a passenger in the traffic queue opening the door.

    My bike (CBR1000RR 2004) was a write off (I was fine).

    I just found out today that RACQ are not going to pay, despite all witness reports agreeing on the above events.

    As far as I can see, I have done everything by the law, and the car in the traffic has broken the law by opening a door in traffic and causing a hazard.

    (See the sticky posts on Qld lane splitting for for background on Qld road rules regarding this situation or Find Section 141 in the current Qld Road Rules)

    It's probably worth noting that although police attended, no charges were laid. They are not considered witnesses.

    It's me vs. RACQ. (I have a detailed accident report with photographs and diagrams if anyone is keen. I would post it, but it seems difficult).

    Does anyone think I should take it to court? The financial ombudsman will not consider the case as it's over $3k.
  2. you need to speak to a legal type, and also you should post in the "welcomes" Section.
  3. Ah yeah, sorry for the lack of introduction; it's just that I could have sworn I already had a netrider account. Just couldn't remember my username or which email I used to join.

    I just found out that I also can't take it to "small claims" because it's over $7.5k. It has to be normal hardcore court.

    But first, I get RACQ to process an "internal dispute resolution" where a board of hotshots review this guy that doesn't seem to be able to read the law.

    At the moment, RACQ's argument is that "the cop said she would have charged you both if she charged anyone" (she didn't charge anyone). My argument is that the cop has nothing to do with it as she was not a witness to the accident and wasn't carrying a print out of the Road Rules when she made her comment. It was her opinion. I made her say that in a subsequent phone call, and then made her call RACQ and tell them it was only her opinion.

    So in summary, they are ignoring current road rules in favour of an unsubstantiated opinion.

    They must be just trying it on. Surely they can't take this argument to court. Surely.
  4. First step - get legal advice;

    Second step - get legal advice;

    and finally - get legal advice... :wink:
  5. I just called RACQ to ask them advice on how to take it to court (they are obliged to give me this information in accordance with their CoP).

    They told me to hold my horses and that he'll speak to his managers about the case...

    In any case, they would recommend that I go through an internal dispute resolution before going further; to show that I've exhausted all avenues.
  6. I take it you are not insured or have 3rd party only.

    Did someone say 'legal advice'.
  7. No insurance, only 3rd party.

    The other guy is fully insured by RACQ.

    So, legal advise. All right. Will do.

    But I'll wait until I head back from this guy that's "talking ot his managers" yeah? He's not the guy that made the original call. He seemed to grasp Section 141 better.

    But he did ask about my intentions (ie if I was turning right or left; turning right would have meant that I was going to break the law by pulling in front of the queue). I claimed that it was "irrelevant" on basis of trying to pin me with a "future breach of law". This is not Minority Report.

    Ok, ok. Legal Advise. So no more giving RACQ information (because, I assume it can be used against me, like the "intentions" thing)?
  8. I learned a lesson when I was 16 when it comes to road accidents. Give them the minimum information they need in order for them to make their decisions. Don't lie, but the strategic application of the truth is a useful tactic to ensure you receive the correct outcome.

    Rest assured, the other driver will employ this technique and if you're the only person not using it, you will lose.
  9. Considering that RACQ are talking to what I imagine is an army of lawyers dressed in trench-coats, I should probably shut up then.

    I was looking forward to my fifth post so that I could blow you all away with an image of the accident site, showing how safe it really was to pass on the left hand side (excluding cases where doors are opened into me). But it turns out that my work blocks the image hosting sites.

    I'll post an image when I get home tonight.
  10. Do not listen to what they tell you mate. Get a lawyer.
  11. Update:

    Just as I was searching the net for lawyers, they called me up and apologised.

    They have stated that according to the witness statements so far, I was not at fault. We are waiting on two more witness statements which should agree with my statement (I've called them to check) and if they check out, they will pay me the market value of my bike, helmet and towing.

    They were just trying it on.

    So I guess that's a lesson: despite having plenty of measures in place to ensure fair practice, insurers are not fair.

    That could have cost me over $11k.
  12. I think the lesson is: have your own insurer, and let them fight it out.
  13. Insurers owe you, the aggrieved party, nothing. Their responsibility is to their owners, shareholders and their client. They always try it on.

    If you have your own insurance, this is normally not a problem as they will resolve the issue, normally to your satisfaction, with next to no input from you. But, you pay for the privilege.
  14. Ah, but that's another discussion...

    I've already saved over the market value of my bike by not having 1st party insurance (I was under 25 when I got it in Melbourne).

    Statistics, in general, is against insurance customers. Otherwise they wouldn't be a profitable business. It's gambling; thowing money away on the chance that you might get a big payout (if you can beat the lawyers).

    Besides, being an insurance company, they probably would have found some loop hole where they don't have to pay. It's their job: not paying people.
  15. Dont agree to any conditions. Or "if other things checkout", etc.

    Tell them your expecting a payout, give them a deadline, then get a lawyer.
  16. In that case, that money that you saved would be in a bank account waiting for the time when you might have needed to use it. But as most people don't save the money that they're not spending on insurance, they then don't have the cash when it's needed. In this instance, you had a fairly clear cut case, but if there was some ambiguity or real dispute about fault, then you'd be up shit creek with no paddle.

    Anyway, the truth won out in this case and it's a good thing.
  17. insurance companies love getting payouts for their clients because it makes them happy and likely to keep ensuring their vehicle, house, girlfriend, etc well into the future.

    if no one got paid out, no one would insure.

    its often the larger things that are difficult to get payouts on, - house fires, life insurance, etc.

    the key though, is that the insurance company will fight tooth and nail for you if you're involved in a multi-vehicle accident.
  18. ...sounds like the lotto!

    So really, insurance is a "risk sharing" facility where everyone continuously feeds money into a pool for when some of the people need it. Only the money-pool is guarded by profiteering insurance monsters with obligations to shareholders.

    Imagine a insurance co-op. Everyone feeds money into a pool but gets paid back dividends from the interest earned on the money pool. Also if someone pays upto the value of the thing they are insuring, they just get it all back to put into an account for a rainy day.

    I'm sure there's loop holes in this scheme. But I can't be bothered thinking of them.

    I'm not a hippy.
  19. well you have to pay for lawyers, fraud, etc.
  20. and people to manage the funds, deal with clients, etc.