Minor accident. How to handle?

[katbh]

Unfortunately (s)he is. They both are. If someone behave like a *beep* and violates traffic regulations it does not make another someone to enforce his or her right.

That can't be right you know...

If that is true we can all stop following traffic rules. Because if I ignore the rules and cause an accident I can always say the other should have done his bit in avoiding the accident. It will always be 50-50 if your theory holds. You're basically saying if two have an incident, both are to blame.

No, I did not say anything like this. You clearly saw what was going on and had possibility to avoid it yet you chose to enforce your right of way. This can be done only by the police and also not in just any situation. Your responsibility was to act the way to avoid accident. You may get away with this (I've heard at least one story where police acted strange) if you are lucky or sufficiently convincing but this is not a clear cut situation.
Following your logic if you see somebody jaywalking this gives you the right to run over this person.

Sorry but legally (and this is what the Police are bound to follow), the driver travelling in the right hand lane had right of way over the car that was changing lane. The other driver is clearly legally wrong. Changing lanes with insufficient space and thereby causing an accident is also negligent driving. There is no grey/gray (to be inclusive of all cultures) area. Our OP had the right of way and was NOT the 'at fault' driver. I would suggest that the damage to the car (as described) would support his/her claim.
The only problem the OP could face was the penalty from his insurer for not reporting the accident within 24 hours. My Insurer took of $200 from my claim because I reported my accident 7 days later. At that time I did not know about the 24 hour timeframe - BUT I DO NOW!

[x9200]

I did not say that the other driver was not at fault. I said both of them are. It is a very common misconception that the worst evil is to blame. In majority if not any civilized country if it gets to the stage of court ruling the level of contribution of all the parties to the accident will be assessed and the OP contribution is simply not nil.
To give you a good example: somebody can be drunk driving and a fatal accident may happened but it does not mean he or she will be found guilty of the accident. This person for sure will be guilty of drunk driving but not necessary of causing the accident.

In the OP's situation the other driver will sure be found guilty of changing the lane without giving the OP his right of way but not necessary he will be found the only one guilty for causing the accident. Of course SG law could be specific and not follow what I know from some other legal systems.

[QRM]

Interesting in my "discussions" with local Sger about how bad the driving is here, what they dont seem to grasp is the gentlemanly concept of "giving way".

They actually argue by slowing down and letting/helping a person out of a side road or squeeze into your lane is actually breaking the rules and therefore may cause an accident, so they rather not risk potential prosecution for the sake of a bit of on road courtesy.

The OP case is classic Singaporean driving style, "Its my right of way so I wont let him in especially as he is driving a fancy car"

Everywhere else I drive, people me included, will slow the traffic down to make a slot so someone can pull in, even if it is my right of way I would flash the lights to say "after you". Here they flash the lights to say 'No way are you coming in get out of my way"

I have experienced drivers in the outer lane actually speed up to close the gap, the moment they see me indicating to swap lanes, they do it to make sure I would not infringe on his "right of way"

The OP should take this as a lesson next time slow down a bit give the other dirver some space and let the guy in. Maybe one day he or others will do the same for you?

[sundaymorningstaple]

^ +1

[zzm9980]

Hah I saw a local's traffic camera footage from an accident they were in. The local was on the main road, and a taxi was pulling out and trying to merge onto that road. It was complete gridlock, everyone moving up a meter or so every few seconds. Neither gave way, they both kept inching up, until their front fenders hit. I swear you can even see them both give it a little more gas and push AFTER they already made contact. It was like watching a train wreck in super slow motion. Even though the person who's footage it was had the right of way and maybe 0% of the blame, he still had the much nicer car with a torn up fender.

[nakatago]

The Russians sure are up to something good with those dash cams.....

[bgd]

They actually argue by slowing down and letting/helping a person out of a side road or squeeze into your lane is actually breaking the rules and therefore may cause an accident, so they rather not risk potential prosecution for the sake of a bit of on road courtesy.

I don’t believe that for one second. They can argue all they like but we all know what they really mean is…

…"Its my right of way so I wont let him in especially as he is driving a fancy car"

[x9200]

Even though the person who's footage it was had the right of way and maybe 0% of the blame, he still had the much nicer car with a torn up fender.

Yeah, this is the part I also don't get. If I see dog's poo in the middle of the sidewalk I try to avoid it rathen than step in it and sue the dog's owner for damages.

[sundaymorningstaple]

I'm going to be right at any cost?

[ScoobyDoes]

Following your logic if you see somebody jaywalking this gives you the right to run over this person.

Absolutely.

The only thing stopping me is the cost to get my car fixed. It all comes down to Darwin's theory of evolution.