Is this 50/50?
-
TS, nobody is against you, we relay what we have experience before and judge according to the video you have provided.....
Insurance not going to play goodman just becos you "make an effort" to reverse where you keep stressing, without the 1st cause, there won't be a 2nd cause on reversing.....
Frankly speaking, your video actually don't really show you make an effort to reverse, I watch at least 10times, yes, you claim that you need to look out for traffic also while reversing, but many ways to bite your statement.....
This video is disadvantage to you, hope you never submit or maybe Capt CT is right? You have submitted? Good luck to you.....
-
"but this other bugger is a brute who drives a big continental car. this type they expect to be served, not to serve. to them, they are high class, td is not even on the radar of what they consider human. closer to strays they see on the road, roll over get kill? too bad lor. but don't say this case, this type will push their way any situation then proclaim its the other party fault no matter what. they are willing to go all the way to argue out..even in the end 80/20 they also shiok. this part is ts suay encounter (but as they say, climb mountain often sure will meet tiger one day, this one all td must mental)"
This statement I don't agree, if situation change, taxi become doing right turn, the reaction will still be the same....
On SG road, there's no graciousness one, don't tell me driving big car or driving a taxi.....all sama sama
-
No worries, I posted this as a discussion, this had already been classified as 50/50 case by Transcab, with video submitted, so posting here asking you guys opinion.
Everyone has their own view, guess I am the only one with different view, as if I am tying to justifiy my action and push all the blame to the other party..hahaha...
I just don't know how the insurance company work and how they classified cases based on what criteria.
Bro 666, from 22sec when I stop till 28sec when the collision occur, If I did not reverse, was the taxi pushed backward by the other vehicle? In fact, this video is more of a advantage than a disadvantage to me.
I understand what you guys are talking about, causes and consequences.
My view is, yes, I slowed down instead of stopping, this is my mistake. But this is not the cause of the collision. I only ALMOST cause the collision at that point.
If the other party had stopped and waited while I reversed, this collision will not occur, am I right? And everything will be ok, am I right? So isn't his action/decision to push forward that caused the collision? It is his sotong poor judgement that cause the collision.
Quess nobody agree with my view, and I am a lone ranger here, hahaha...
Anyway, like some of you guys said, I can only said I am suay to met this impatient idiot with no judgement. Don't even know that angle of turning can cause a collision.
-
This day, accident cases, insurance just take out BOLA and sentence from there.....
Gone are those days, I say mine, you say yours.....
That's why cases can drag from 6mths to 6 years, between insurance coy, both don't agree on the judgement, so they happily drag and drag.....
Not only TC, CDG, private car insurance, lorry, bus.....all the same.....
Beh song, engage lawyer to fight, provided you very confident your liabilities is on upper hand.....
Why CDG sometime can complete the claim in double quick time? Becos thief is them, police also them mah, hope you understand what I meant.....
On the reversing issue, you also can count right, 6 second.....to 3rd party, is like not reversing at all, insurance can say that you reluntant to reverse until such situation the on coming vehicle are coming too close....I watch many many times, bro, it give me that feel....
All the best to you.....money can earn back de, move on.....
-
Originally posted by strikezero1975:
No worries, I posted this as a discussion, this had already been classified as 50/50 case by Transcab, with video submitted, so posting here asking you guys opinion.
Everyone has their own view, guess I am the only one with different view, as if I am tying to justifiy my action and push all the blame to the other party..hahaha...
I just don't know how the insurance company work and how they classified cases based on what criteria.
Bro 666, from 22sec when I stop till 28sec when the collision occur, If I did not reverse, was the taxi pushed backward by the other vehicle? In fact, this video is more of a advantage than a disadvantage to me.
I understand what you guys are talking about, causes and consequences.
My view is, yes, I slowed down instead of stopping, this is my mistake. But this is not the cause of the collision. I only ALMOST cause the collision at that point.
If the other party had stopped and waited while I reversed, this collision will not occur, am I right? And everything will be ok, am I right? So isn't his action/decision to push forward that caused the collision? It is his sotong poor judgement that cause the collision.
Quess nobody agree with my view, and I am a lone ranger here, hahaha...
Anyway, like some of you guys said, I can only said I am suay to met this impatient idiot with no judgement. Don't even know that angle of turning can cause a collision.
The situation where it made it difficult for that idiot to turn safely was created by you, not him. His side hit your right front bumper whilst turning means you did not give him enough turning radius. You are therefore partly liable.
If you look at the BOLA, 100% liable cases are very clear cut, like front to back collision etc. Even side swipe where another vehicle had cut into your lane is not 100% case.
-
Originally posted by Taxilim88:
(The situation where it made it difficult for that idiot to turn safely was created by you, not him.)
Yes, I agree, I created this situation. But main point is, no collision occured here, right?
(His side hit your right front bumper whilst turning means you did not give him enough turning radius. You are therefore partly liable.)
Not that I did not give him enough turning radius, but he did not give me time to reverse back for him to turn safely. Had he waited like 5sec for me to reverse back to the stop line, he will have been able to turn, right?
(If you look at the BOLA, 100% liable cases are very clear cut, like front to back collision etc. Even side swipe where another vehicle had cut into your lane is not 100% case.)
Yes, I look at BOLA. But doesn't it apply only if accident occured right after turning out, or if the other party have no time to react?
In my case, we have both stop the vehicle at certain time, that means there is enough time to react and think of the next course of action. My action was to reverse back for him to turn. His action is to carry on and try to turn. Had he waited, no collision will occur, yes? no?
Or is it my thinking is totally wrong???
Or maybe instead of paying lawyer to fight it out in court, the insurance company just choose the easy way out, since I make a mistake of not stopping at stop line?? I pay better, instead of them pay lawyer?
Bro666, yes, I can only treat this as a paid learning experience, carry on driving and earn back that course fee. At least this is another experience I learn..hahaha..
-
Wah bro, maybe I give you an example. You were speeding on the road and exceeded the speed limit. You got captured by the speed camera. Then you quickly slowed down to be within the speed limit. No accident caused. Can you argue with the TP that you slowed down after realising you speed and no accident was caused?
The point is you drove in a manner that endangered other road users, regardless whether an accident had occurred or not. Your mitigation was that you took action to minimise this danger by reversing. That idiot was impatient. That's why I said 50/50 because both of you had a part to play in the accident, before and after. I did not say you were totally wrong. Neither were you totally blameless. You have to understand this. :)
Instead of harping on whether you are liable, you should think about what is going to happen next.
That idiot thinks that he is 100% right based on his behaviour and what he said ("you better find a good lawyer") after the accident. Imagine his shock when it is 50/50 that will affect his NCD and premium (on this point, you win already) Given his farking ego, he may engage a lawyer to fight the case.
The idiot had made a big mistake. He failed to signal. Your defence is that because he did not signal, you had thought that he was going straight. Only when he suddenly turned that you realised too late that he was turning. You took immediate steps to give him room to turn by reversing. He was impatient and did not wait for you to complete your action. Thus, the accident happened.
-
Let me quote you with the same example with extra scenarios.
I was speeding and get caught on camera (my case is not stopping at stop line), offence committed, nothing I can do. Right after the camera, there is a congestion. Because I sped, I had to ebrake and managed to stop without collision, but very near to the vehicle infront. I reversed back just in case. However, the front vehicle suddenly reversed back and bump into my car. Why did he reverse back? Did I contribute to this accident (just like that bugger, why did he continue moving ahead when he should be "common-sense-ly" know that he cannot turn?) So who is at fault here FOR the collision?
There is a vehicle coming out from a small road. You are on the main road, you have to slow down (not sudden brake) to avoid colliding with that vehicle. Do you slow down, or do you continue with the same speed and bump into that vehicle, just because you have the right of way and buay song? If you bump into that vehicle, whose fault is it? Knowingly you can actually avoid a collision just by slowing down (not sudden brake).
OR, this vehicle SUDDENLY come out of the small road. If you apply ebrake, you can prevent a collision. So do you ebrake or you just carry on and bump into that vehicle? If you bump into that vehicle, you can claim that you do not have the time to react, thus you win the case. But you know you can actually prevent a collision if you want to ebrake. So whose fault?
Mine is in between the two example, not a sudden stop. But there is ample time to react. After my fault, my rectification is to reverse back to give space. But that idiot chose to move forward without waiting.
I know what you guys are trying to say, had I stop at stop line, none of this will happen, this is my fault here, I am not denying. Or maybe I should not have enter that carpark, or even drive on that day, or should turn with the taxi infront (which i usually did when I always go there, but don't know why that day I chose to turn at that fateful junction) then nothing will happen..hahah..or I should blame the red car parking on the left for blocking my view?
But what I am trying to say is, yes, my fault for not stopping at stop line, but this is not the cause for the collision as there is time to react to that situation. It is what happen next that cause the collision.
You said that I drove in a way that endangered others, ok, I partially agree. And this is why I had said earlier, I would rather be charged or fined for this action, then hold resposible for the collision. Because this collision did not happen because of my action. I had already tried to prevent collision (my view).
Anyway, let's stop here lah. We can debate until end of world, our view will still be different. My view is, yes, I did not stop, but nothing happen at that point. With time to think of the next course of action, I tried to rectify, but that idiot chose to move forward without waiting, when there is clearly not enough space to turn. Your view is I did not stop at stop line thus contributed to this collision.
Maybe this is why the case was classified as 50/50, both insurance company cannot come to terms, just like now. So instead of paying more to lawyer to fight out in court, they choose to let us pay instead, which is cheaper for them....hmmmm....
But what you said is true, although it is classified as 50/50, I am still happy as his NCD should be affected, due to his poor judgement. Damn his arrogance! haha..
I will still look for Jasmine and ask how they came to this decision. Want me to die also must let me know what is the reason.
-
Always been mentioning 2014 ,,if the case 20/80 can td collect back 2014 from company?
-
Hi guys... just a small query on same topic (Don't want open another thread)
I am relief and have a 50/50 case (as dedused by Transcab). I've submitted my pax witness letter to support my case and it's on going with insurer. Meanwhile, Transcab is asking me to pay up 1070 thru monthly installment. Is it die die I have to pay up first till case resolved? Then refund if in my favour? If i'm hirer, i know they will forcefully withhold monthly incentive but as relief i have to go pay cash $250 monthly.
Would appreciate feedback from any of you guys who had 50/50 case before.
Ps: My case briefly is that I was travelling straight in middle lane when a private car coming out from MRT drop off banged into my back passenger door.
-
Heard ....even the case 90 -10 in driver favour ..transcab will still take 2140 from driver..hope this not the case as in some case repair only cost much less then 2140
-
TC bought the cheapest insurance for their fleet, so to be safe, they tends to put their drivers at fault or part of the fault first, talk later, much easier adminstration for them. However, tia kong after that, they will not care anymore, so everytime you ask if your case is solved, they will tell you 50/50 or 100% yr fault, money sabo'ed from you already, signature signed already, talk with you for what??? That's also why many of my brothers give up TC. Hitting rear seat and tire is other wrong, he or she did not check back before moving out, hitting front seat and tire is you wrong, you did not give way, but it can be 50/50 if no signal from the other vehicle
-
Talking about signal light, many of us turn without using the signal light, touch wood, once get banged, quickly on the signal light that you intent to turn, so that when they took picture or video, at least it shown you on the signal light. Be smart
-
Hello, this case is carpark collision.....
No matter what is 50/50 case.....
Don't quote example until too far.....
My friend case in Mandai Zoo, you all know why involve TP?.....
Becos that car reversing out from the lot, inside got a pregnant lady, she claim stomach pain, so activated ambulance.....follow up by Traffic Police.....
With injury, normally case settle very fast de, 3 months nia, know result liao.....
-
wha, u talk like you know alot about accident and insurance leh...either you worked as car insurance before or u tiam tiam tio bang si bo??
-
Last time I also feel that taxi like jin ho jiak by insurance coy.....
But in fact all kind of road accident is the same.....
Taxi more on assess....Don't tell me you on the road so many years, still don't know all the update?......
-
Hello, taxi driving is not a matter of how many years driving...but how much mileages your clocked, some taxi driver only drive 150km, keep liao, some drives until 500km still driving...wha lau, these are, touch wood, more likely to get into people asses due to stress and tiring
-
oo
-
Originally posted by bowah:
Hello, taxi driving is not a matter of how many years driving…but how much mileages your clocked, some taxi driver only drive 150km, keep liao, some drives until 500km still driving…wha lau, these are, touch wood, more likely to get into people asses due to stress and tiring
Haha, best place to learn all this insurance thing is sit at kopi shop lor.....
Ah niao bang table, ah gao also bang table.....
Than we just, ya, ya, ya lor.....
-
Yalor, u dunno meh, nowaday, at kopitiam, alots of Tua pek Kongs and Tu Ti kongs
-
Bukit merah view hawker centre many many
-
Not me, I only pray to si more kong hor...if see u at Bukit Merah kisok, sure beat you...
-
-
As for the forumer above, see one time...beat 2 times, limpek go beo i40 with ...
-
Originally posted by bowah:
As for the forumer above, see one time…beat 2 times, limpek go beo i40 with …
Remember to jio me hor
