Accident in Carpark

[Kelvingoh45]

Both is kayu,kiasu and selfish.

[Dojon]

  On 7/21/2010 at 6:43 AM, Darryn said:

There is no doubt that the TS reverse into the Latio,

 

But think about this though...

 

1) the Latio is "straight straight" so quite obviously not leaving lot, but rather repositioning,

2) There is not enough space in front of the Latio for the TS to go past, meaning that the TS WAS ALREADY REVERSING when the TS start to come out.

 

Based on the above, I would see at the Latio fault, but not sure how the insurance company will see it...

 

For point 2, precisely there is not enough space in front of the Latio for TS to go past meaning TS misjudge the space she had trying to reverse into the lot impatiently while the Latio tries to reposition.

 

Left right up down, the pic is a disadvantage for TS.

 

But I believe TS's story though...

[Kiadaw]

  On 7/21/2010 at 8:45 AM, JX83 said:

Many ppl would said signal left or right when parking but seriously i have never ever seen 1 ppl do that when they park whether open or mscp.. So i assume this ppl don't surf MCF... that means out of 1000 ppl maybe only 1 will signal

 

Last time, I also signal left or right. But since I saw one of my friend use Hazard, I follow. It may not be the school method, but its more attention gripping, & if you put hazard, people instinct is to slow down or stop mah.Use signal, can means move forward also, so not necessary the other driver will slow down.

[JX83]

  On 7/21/2010 at 9:15 AM, Kiadaw said:

Last time, I also signal left or right. But since I saw one of my friend use Hazard, I follow. It may not be the school method, but its more attention gripping, & if you put hazard, people instinct is to slow down or stop mah.Use signal, can means move forward also, so not necessary the other driver will slow down.

 

Yes thats wad i mean..

[Wheeler]

  On 7/21/2010 at 8:42 AM, Joseph22 said:

but i always put hazard light before parking....

 

 

to let the car behind go first before i park.

 

My five cents,

 

It all boils down to individual driver. Blur drivers alway confuse other driver and blur drivers are easily confused by other driver ... It depends on how you use your hazard light as a indicator for At Halt and AWAITING clearance to park in a carpark. Use correctly, it should not be a confusion.

 

There are several road practises not written that junk piece of 'highway cork ' and if you are the type that follows this book like a bible on the road, I'd say you are most likely a very self-fish (buay zi tong) or not road-wise driver on the road .

Edited July 21, 2010 by Wheeler

[Darryn]

  On 7/21/2010 at 8:54 AM, Dojon said:

For point 2, precisely there is not enough space in front of the Latio for TS to go past meaning TS misjudge the space she had trying to reverse into the lot impatiently while the Latio tries to reposition.

 

Left right up down, the pic is a disadvantage for TS.

 

But I believe TS's story though...

 

Yeah, but TS had to get past Latio first right? So when TS go past, the way ipso facto was not blocked...so Latio MUST have come out when TS already reversing....(or am I crazy?)

[JX83]

  On 7/21/2010 at 9:30 AM, Darryn said:

Yeah, but TS had to get past Latio first right? So when TS go past, the way ipso facto was not blocked...so Latio MUST have come out when TS already reversing....(or am I crazy?)

 

 

I believe the latio driver also drive out at the same time when TS is reversing.. Both must be kan chiong spider..

[Wrc206]

If TS is reversing into the lot on the right, ie.. car already turning into the lot, the Latio may not see the right signal cos its on the other side rite?

 

Does anyone really look at the left when reversing into the lot on the right as in TS case? I think I will be looking out for that pillar instead.

 

My take is anyone moving out of lot should give way to those on the main pave, please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I would have said the Latio already in the lot and I move forward and stopped to park into the lot opposite the Latio and before I reverse the Latio bang into me

Edited July 21, 2010 by Wrc206

[Neutralsg]

QUOTE (Icekitten @ Jul 21 2010, 09:51 AM)

Yesterday I had an accident at Rivervale Mall carpark

 

I wasn't going fast at all, just normal parking speed and had been reversing for about 2-3 seconds. Was just making the full-lock turn into the lot when without warning, the Latio dashed straight out of its lot then I felt and heard impact at my rear left corner.

--------------------

It seems obvious the Latio 'dashed out' otherwise it could not have been hit at that position and the Lation driver would have seen a car reversing if it had move out slowly. Hence, it is akin to a pesdestrian dashing out in front of a car moving forward or reverse. How many of us drivers can actually react to avoid an accident when we are encounter such a situation.

 

It is easy to take TS to task unnecessarily for her involvement in the accident but if we are in the same very situation, don't we want others to be more understanding???

 

Hazard lights are to indicate a hazardous situation. There's nothing wrong giving such indication when one is about to park because it is suppose to catch the attention of those in the surrounding area. However, hazard lights while driving in low visibility is a no no because it creates a confusion.

 

Just my take

Have a nice day ppl!

[HARDGAYHOOOO]

I have similar encounters in the MSCP weeks ago involving another taxi. I was doing reverse parking and obviously becos I stopped along the side of the lot metres away before reversing out of his lot. I have looked behind and side mirrors, thinking it was ok to reverse, heard a loud honk and as i turn to my right , like checking blind spot.....apparently a taxi parked opposite the lot i was turning in , try to turn out of his lot and his front right bumper rubbed against my back right bumper.

 

Same old s--t, said how come I didnt signal while reversing and so on. I stopped my vehicle along the lot liao before reversing in and if he claimed I should have see him, what about taxi driver who was in full view of what was in front of him???? Obviously he didnt care a damn when turning out of his lot. Besides, he wasnt the only on in his vehicle, so many pairs of eyes in full view of my car reversing and he just dashes out. Well what can i say , 50 50 lor..... live with in la bro, these kinda s--t will happened.

Edited July 21, 2010 by HARDGAYHOOOO

[Derek_phua]

Bro,

 

I was involved in open carpark accident before but thank God, i managed to claim 100% from the other party.

I produced a very detailed report in WORD with pictures, a sequence of picture illustrations of the chain of events happened, road condition, speed.

This will help your insurer understand the situation and the 'judge' have a better understanding. Hence, your insurer can easier fight your case.

Writing space on IDAC form is too limited for clear illustrations.

 

 

Nevertheless, learned a lesson .....

 

I always ON my car headlight in carparks or in dark areas, whether day or night.

So that other people can SEE me and reduce any discrepancies if pple 'cant' see me.

 

All the best Bro!!

[Kiadaw]

  On 7/21/2010 at 9:48 AM, Neutralsg said:

QUOTE (Icekitten @ Jul 21 2010, 09:51 AM)

Yesterday I had an accident at Rivervale Mall carpark

 

I wasn't going fast at all, just normal parking speed and had been reversing for about 2-3 seconds. Was just making the full-lock turn into the lot when without warning, the Latio dashed straight out of its lot then I felt and heard impact at my rear left corner.

--------------------

It seems obvious the Latio 'dashed out' otherwise it could not have been hit at that position and the Lation driver would have seen a car reversing if it had move out slowly. Hence, it is akin to a pesdestrian dashing out in front of a car moving forward or reverse. How many of us drivers can actually react to avoid an accident when we are encounter such a situation.

 

It is easy to take TS to task unnecessarily for her involvement in the accident but if we are in the same very situation, don't we want others to be more understanding???

 

Hazard lights are to indicate a hazardous situation. There's nothing wrong giving such indication when one is about to park because it is suppose to catch the attention of those in the surrounding area. However, hazard lights while driving in low visibility is a no no because it creates a confusion.

 

Just my take

Have a nice day ppl!

Bro, you have same thinking as me. I have a feeling you are a smart guy.

 

I think the key thing is the the latio is moving too fast, if not, he would have seen the Lancer just a metre out of the lot, & will have time to react.

 

I however, is not so confidence that the insurance company bother to analysis & investigate. maybe they will take out hand book, & pick one of the scenario, (like car cA got hit position ABC, Car B position BDF), & judge the blame.

[Joseph22]

  On 7/21/2010 at 9:20 AM, Wheeler said:

My five cents,

 

It all boils down to individual driver. Blur drivers alway confuse other driver and blur drivers are easily confused by other driver ... It depends on how you use your hazard light as a indicator for At Halt and AWAITING clearance to park in a carpark. Use correctly, it should not be a confusion.

 

There are several road practises not written that junk piece of 'highway cork ' and if you are the type that follows this book like a bible on the road, I'd say you are most likely a very self-fish (buay zi tong) or not road-wise driver on the road .

 

why you so serious. relax lah... a joke to Kr_toy niah dont need to get so serious. Althought that is what i always do.

[Nzy]

I got this type of accident before. They told me the person reversing will get most of the blame.

[Icekitten]

Didn't expect this to be such a hot thread...

 

Will edit photos and reply posts tonight. :)

[Neutralsg]

Kiadaw Today, 06:08 PM | In Reply To Neutralsg

Bro, you have same thinking as me. I have a feeling you are a smart guy.

 

I think the key thing is the the latio is moving too fast, if not, he would have seen the Lancer just a metre out of the lot, & will have time to react.

 

I however, is not so confidence that the insurance company bother to analysis & investigate. maybe they will take out hand book, & pick one of the scenario, (like car cA got hit position ABC, Car B position BDF), & judge the blame.

------------------------

Hi Bro, I guess it's about being rational than emotional

 

I'd had my share of bad experience. Once, while my vehicle was parked along a road, a cab driver reversed and continued to do so until he bumped the front of my vehicle and damaged the no. plate although he could have stopped after being parallel along the curb. He was about 20 meters from the front car. Can you believe it?? Since he admitted his fault, I asked him to sign an agreement to repair the damage but he refused saying that it's about trust. Trust??? Eventually, I got an simple agreement which he signed and finally got the cheap repair done.

 

I had another accident where the lights turned green in my favour when a vehicle driven by a 60 year old motorist beat a red light and rammed my car after I off moved from the junction. Although I tried to avoid the collision, it could not be avoided but I managed to save my front passenger from grevious damage. However, my fender was dislodged and front panel badly damaged. The 60 year old motorist was apologetic and asked me to claim against his insurance. When the vehicle repair workshop called him prior to repairing my vehicle, he denied liability although I trusted him and did not ask for a signed agreement at the time of accident except to exchange particulars. Hence, blind trust is a thing of the past especially where it concerns motor accidents. Even though many will say - get a signed agreement, do you think many drivers (especially those who are unable to or are not prepared to fork out $$$) will ever sign an agreement for private settlement?

I am skeptical about it because while I will be willing to do so if I'm at fault or if it is a 50/50 case, I doubt some will do. Of course it is to motorists advantage to settle privately and deny insurance companies to gain both ends for 50/50 case especially for minor accidents.

Therefore, unless motorists appreciates the need to deny deny insurers of exploiting innocent policy holders, the advantage will always be to the insurers than to the motorists on the whole. Hence, while motorists claim against each other, the insurers collect the spoils.

Just my view.

 

It is apparent that you are one of the many experienced members here who shares with sincerity for which I am thankful.

 

Cheers and have a nice day!

[Requiemdk]

  On 7/21/2010 at 6:26 AM, Jamesc said:

I scolded the Latio driver, "You want to adjust your car you don't have to look out for traffic on the main road ah? I was already reversing. I did signal and the car behind me already stopped. Who said I didn't check? You were already parked in your lot when I started to reverse. How can you not know that I'm parking? You didn't see me reversing meh?"

 

To which he answered, "Got."

 

You didn't see me reversing meh?" is the most correct question you could have asked.

 

If he says no, he is at fault for driving without looking.

 

If he says yes then he is more at fault - see and still won't stop and drive until crash into people's car.

 

If I were TS I would buy both licence plates and reverse the number, hopefully stirike and something

good comes out of people bumping into you.

 

The most crucial bit should be here. A reversing vehicle has HUGE blind spots. From the pictures, it is possible that the Latio was in the blindspot all the way till impact. On the other hand, the car driving forward has a clear view of everything. If he still chooses to shoot out despite seeing the danger, he can go find a spider to screw now.

[Piyopico]

The most likely scenarios of how this happened is this:

 

Scenario 1:

Ice kitten reversing to her right. You will be watching your right side and rear mirror. These two will show that it is all clear cos no one on the right and your rear mirror will not show the latio as you are turning as it is not in sight.

 

The Latio got into his lot and looked right for oncoming traffic before moving car forward to adjust his car. The car on his right had stopped so he moved out without cheking his left where Ice kitten is reversing. By the time he moved forward and saw Ice kitten he could not stopped and you giys knocked each other.

 

Scenario 2:

Ice kitten reversing to her right. You will be watching your right side and rear mirror. These two will show that it is all clear cos no one on the right and your rear mirror will not show the latio as you are turning as it is not in sight.

 

Latio checked right. Clear. Moved out of his lot to adjust car. Saw Ice kitten moving "slowly" in reverse. He assumes Icekitten will stop cos she cannot just reverse without making sure it is all clear. Latio cotinues to move forward, assuming Icekitten will stop. BUT Icekitten did not and they knocked each other.

 

 

OK guys. If scenario one is true then the Latio is in the wrong. BUT Icekitten is not absolved of fault cos the reversing vehicle has a much greater duty of care. Most likely 50/50 liability.

 

What about scenario two? Icekitten more at faut BUT the Latio is not absolved of fault cos he had the opportunity to stopped when he saw the reversing car or at the very least horned to alert Icekitten. Likely outcome? 50/50 liability.

 

Moral of the story: Both assumed and acted but their assumptions turned out to be wrong. Only winners are the insurer/surveyor and lawyers..............

 

Real moral: Do not assume. Check and confirm......................

Edited July 21, 2010 by Piyopico