Give way to your right

How is it upto the RACQ to figure who is at fault, thats up to the Bacon?

Im afraid its your fault old mate.

You MUST give way to your right.

I was tought 20 odd years ago that you do NOT pull out in front of a car even if its indicator is going until that car has started to turn.

Insurance has a strange way of working tho, a mate of mine hit a car from behind, it was parked on the road, no lights on in the fog.
Cops charged the bloke for parking where he did and causing the accident.
My mate had to claim off his insurance because the insurance co said he was liable because he hit from behind.

(You may as well get that new bull bar)

Brockie,
Yeh mate you are in the wrong. She had right of way being on the main road rather than the give way to the right rule. You should have had a Give Way sign against you too.
You no doubt gave her the loss of pride salute. Remember that you did assume she was turning. Assume is an acronym, well almost. In this case she made an ASS out of yo.U rather than ME. Sorry mate.
Perhaps you need a bigger truck Brockie

I'm not a bush lawyer, they charge.
John

I rekon the govt should make it mandatory for each and every person to ride a motorcycle on public roads for two years before they even jump into a car because you learn to think that everybody is on a collision course for you............ I would say that ½ the accidents wouldnt even happen on the roads because they approach every scenario with the intent to make it past alive......(motorcycle riders doesnt include the wankers that split moving traffic with no licenses)......
The silly prangs like Brockie explains dont happen and the other beauty that car drivers do is driving straight into the rear of a waiting car because you have ASSUMED that he has moved off from the side street out into traffic because there is a great gap till the next lot of cars on the main road... COME-ON.. Admit to that one.... hehehehee.........
P.S. I am a car driver of course but bikes also..._____________________________________________

_____________________________________________

Brockie - All of the above - plus a thing nobody has mentioned - Defensive Driving.
These days you cant assume everybody has got their mind on driving.

Kes

Gee they have given you the thumbs down on this one Brockie.
The moment I saw you use that word "assume" I new you could be in trouble. It was a solicitor, before I went into court to give evidence, who warned me about that word, it can get a man jailed. Law works on hard evidence not assumptions. However there is another word which will often get you out of trouble. "Intent". The letter of the law can be about guilt, but if you can prove it was not your intent(ion) to break the law, that there were mitigating circumstances, you appear as a person of good standing with a good (reasonable is in the eye of the judge) record and show contrition for the "misunderstanding", you will mostly win your argument. Who knows, the other party concerned may have a shocking record and they after all did admit to an error and therefore subscribed to the cause. If you refuse to pay the worst that can happen is they may accept a lesser offer from you before the issues of a summons or if it goes to court you may yet prove your point. They will intimidate you but they can't lock you up, they must prove you are guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Let them play their tune, but you dance your dance.
BTW was the accident reported ?