Insurance. We have it in the hope we don’t need it but generally are pretty relieved we have it when worse comes to the worst…
Whereas most claims are based on the murky area of ‘he said, she said’ when it comes to a bod making a decision on whether to pay-out to cover costs such as vehicle damage, property damage or, more important, personal injury, the rise in the use of dash or helmet cams should pop the colour in those grey regions.
Which brings us to this video, posted to Dash Cam Owners Australia on Facebook, by a Kawasaki rider who was involved in what appears to be a typical SMIDSY accident when a Mercedes up ahead that had been obscured from vision by a motorhome, performs a u-turn in the road and is, well, you can guess the rest.
“Melbourne, Victoria, March. Exit roundabout, travelling Northbound up Lincoln Rd in Essendon,” reads the post from ‘Michael’.. “White Mercedes CLA pulled out from curb to do uturn, cutting me off. No room to swerve so I hit both brakes but still collided.
“Head was a daze, full of adrenalin. Driver pulled over. Good samaritan in ute helped move bike to side of road. Had xrays done afterwards, all okay now.
“Driver claimed I was at fault. Insurance took a bit over a month to deem motorcycle a write-off, I did nothing wrong and pay me out. Bike was 20 days old. Be careful out there.”
Playing devil’s advocate for a minute, the aforementioned vision obscuring appears to be the predominant reason for the clash, but - and opinions are mixed on a comments section of what we will assume are a combination car and motorcycle drivers/riders - but one has to wonder why the car driver took it upon themselves to claim the rider was at fault. An accident it may be, but it doesn’t make anyone blameless.
Indeed, the back and forth between the some 800 comments on the video - flagged up by Lad Bible - provides an interesting take for a few reasons.
Firstly, the rise in trial by public and the subsequent arguments - both healthy debate and less so - that can emerge from it, but also the fears of both motorcycle riders fearing they need to ride in spite of driver actions and car drivers whose vision may not be so tuned to expecting a slender, faster accelerating motorcycle around them.
It’s why helmet cams (and dash cams) have become such an important tool in determining circumstances for insurance companies - not that it necessarily leads to cheaper premiums - not least because in this case it helped determine the rider wasn’t at fault and he got a write-off pay-out on what was a shiny 20 day old motorcycle. After all, had it been left to evidence from the rider and the driver, would he have received the same response without video footage - probably not.
It won’t stop accidents happening and SMIDSY incidents aren’t going away any time soon but greater knowledge that riders will invest in helmet cams - whether that is to prove or disprove their own innocence or guilt - might become a significant momentary thought process when drivers, or indeed riders, consider making that move without looking twice or thrice...
