Accident Update and Questions
31-Oct-2004, 11:31 AM
#21
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: in the MOSH pit
Posts: 5,550
Originally posted by RApiDArTiFAcTs
I never claimed to be an "insurance guru" but if I was i dont think I would have an asthma attack everytime someone said something negitive about insurance. Take a breath man, u jump on everyone anytime they voice an opinion on this issue.
I never claimed to be an "insurance guru" but if I was i dont think I would have an asthma attack everytime someone said something negitive about insurance. Take a breath man, u jump on everyone anytime they voice an opinion on this issue.
who the hell calls themselves insurance man anyways?
31-Oct-2004, 04:20 PM
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scarborough and Mississauga
Posts: 7,065
im a little confused about this topic, from what i read matt was driving say N/S and she was driving E/W? She ran a solid red light and clipped your front bumper?
if thats the case she is completely at fault and there shouldnt be any problems with insurance and stuff.
If you were going north and she was going South on the same street and you were making a left hand turn and she clipped your bumper i believe you would be at fault.
if thats the case she is completely at fault and there shouldnt be any problems with insurance and stuff.
If you were going north and she was going South on the same street and you were making a left hand turn and she clipped your bumper i believe you would be at fault.
31-Oct-2004, 05:05 PM
#25
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 23,881
chris, thats what I'm saying...but I guess regardless there is no proof of what the colour of the lights were other than m word against hers (and I dont know what she put down in the police collision report)
so basically, its a roulette gamble if I go through insurance
so basically, its a roulette gamble if I go through insurance
31-Oct-2004, 05:08 PM
#26
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Burlington
Posts: 4,329
Originally posted by scarlemthug
im a little confused about this topic, from what i read matt was driving say N/S and she was driving E/W? She ran a solid red light and clipped your front bumper?
if thats the case she is completely at fault and there shouldnt be any problems with insurance and stuff.
im a little confused about this topic, from what i read matt was driving say N/S and she was driving E/W? She ran a solid red light and clipped your front bumper?
if thats the case she is completely at fault and there shouldnt be any problems with insurance and stuff.
ex. when stopped at a red light heading north, then the light turns green, you are supposed to make sure all traffic heading east or west has stopped.
so, the insurance would probably say that both persons were partially at fault, since the actions taken by cynikal and the lady caused the accident. if cynikal had made sure no traffic was coming from ALL directions, there would be no accident, and if the lady didn't run the red, there would be no accident
31-Oct-2004, 05:34 PM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scarborough and Mississauga
Posts: 7,065
if the light was green for matt for more than 10 seconds that means her light was red for about the same time if not more. basically she was driving carelessly and drove right through a red light, not even a yellow light just turned red.
I know it is the drivers responsibility to check traffic in all directions even the direction without a green light. Matt says that he slammed on his breaks because he did check so she is at fault for not paying attention as he tried to avoid the accident by stopping.
I would tell them to pay for the damages completely and maybe more for the fact she could be criminally charged i believe for careless driving.
I know it is the drivers responsibility to check traffic in all directions even the direction without a green light. Matt says that he slammed on his breaks because he did check so she is at fault for not paying attention as he tried to avoid the accident by stopping.
I would tell them to pay for the damages completely and maybe more for the fact she could be criminally charged i believe for careless driving.
31-Oct-2004, 06:16 PM
#29
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 330
Originally posted by scarlemthug
I would tell them to pay for the damages completely and maybe more for the fact she could be criminally charged i believe for careless driving.
I would tell them to pay for the damages completely and maybe more for the fact she could be criminally charged i believe for careless driving.
And just where is the evidence that would support conviction if she is charged?
This is what it comes down to. There is no evidence other than the word of each driver, so that effectively cancels out.
31-Oct-2004, 06:40 PM
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scarborough and Mississauga
Posts: 7,065
yeah i guess your right.........im just saying that there is no way that matt shouldnt be compensated for his damages as its not the typical someone was turning left and the person coming the opposite direction hit them.
31-Oct-2004, 06:52 PM
#31
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Burlington
Posts: 4,329
hes still partly at fault, if he did indeed check he wouldn't have been in the intersection in the first place.
and just cause he tried to avoid the accident doesn't mean he's now innocent of any fault.
and just cause he tried to avoid the accident doesn't mean he's now innocent of any fault.
31-Oct-2004, 09:32 PM
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scarborough and Mississauga
Posts: 7,065
its like saying if someone gets raped and there the only person there to testify agains the rapist that they cant be charged.
The evidence would be in the way the damage was done to matts car, maybe there was tire marks on the ground from where he most likely skidded when you stomped on the breaks.
Just because he got his front end clipped doesnt mean he was IN the intersection. He obviously checked to see if someone was coming and saw this car not stopping even on a red so he stomped on his breaks and most likely skidded slightly putting his bumper slightly over the crosswalk line and this car hit his front end.
The evidence would be in the way the damage was done to matts car, maybe there was tire marks on the ground from where he most likely skidded when you stomped on the breaks.
Just because he got his front end clipped doesnt mean he was IN the intersection. He obviously checked to see if someone was coming and saw this car not stopping even on a red so he stomped on his breaks and most likely skidded slightly putting his bumper slightly over the crosswalk line and this car hit his front end.
01-Nov-2004, 12:59 AM
#33
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 330
Rape is quite a bit different.
First off, Crown policy has long been to encourage complainants to come forward by treating all allegations of sex assault as being truthful, whether or not there is independent or physical or witness evidence. This means there is little or no discretion when it comes to "believing" the complainant's allegation of rape or not. There is virtually no pretrial examination of the allegation to determine if it is legitimate, frivolous, or made out of malice, even if the story stinks to all high heaven. Once the complaint has been lodged, an accused is just about automatically brought to trial even if the allegation is clearly absurd.
The presumption of innocent until proven guilty is just about discarded, with persons accused of sex assault facing a huge burden to prove the complainant is lying or mistaken, as opposed to the Crown having to prove that the accused is guilty. The arguement is that since much sex assault occurs in private and in absence of witnesses, that this is necessary and good to ensure that legitimate complainants have their day in court. Unfortunately it's not so good for those targeted by bogus complaints made out of malice, which some studies put at around 10 to 15% of all sex assault complaints.
Second, in real cases of rape, at least those where the complainant comes forward in a timely manner, there is often, though not always, DNA evidence that can prove whether or not a contact did occur. Then it becomes a matter of determining the nature of that contact - consensual, nonconsensual, etc.
Let's come back to "Matt's car". That Matt's car was damaged doesn't necessarily mean that Matt was in the right. Skid marks say nothing about what colour the lights were facing each driver. Your reasoning is that Matt "obviously checked to see if someone was coming and saw this car not stopping even on a red so he stomped on his breaks and most likely skidded slightly putting his bumper slightly over the crosswalk line and this car hit his front end" says nothing about whether Matt was in the right. The same scenario could also apply if Matt was in teh wrong.
Without other evidence, such as traffic camera video or reliable indepentant witnesses, there is absolutely no way to know which party had the right of way through the intersection at the time of impact.
First off, Crown policy has long been to encourage complainants to come forward by treating all allegations of sex assault as being truthful, whether or not there is independent or physical or witness evidence. This means there is little or no discretion when it comes to "believing" the complainant's allegation of rape or not. There is virtually no pretrial examination of the allegation to determine if it is legitimate, frivolous, or made out of malice, even if the story stinks to all high heaven. Once the complaint has been lodged, an accused is just about automatically brought to trial even if the allegation is clearly absurd.
The presumption of innocent until proven guilty is just about discarded, with persons accused of sex assault facing a huge burden to prove the complainant is lying or mistaken, as opposed to the Crown having to prove that the accused is guilty. The arguement is that since much sex assault occurs in private and in absence of witnesses, that this is necessary and good to ensure that legitimate complainants have their day in court. Unfortunately it's not so good for those targeted by bogus complaints made out of malice, which some studies put at around 10 to 15% of all sex assault complaints.
Second, in real cases of rape, at least those where the complainant comes forward in a timely manner, there is often, though not always, DNA evidence that can prove whether or not a contact did occur. Then it becomes a matter of determining the nature of that contact - consensual, nonconsensual, etc.
Let's come back to "Matt's car". That Matt's car was damaged doesn't necessarily mean that Matt was in the right. Skid marks say nothing about what colour the lights were facing each driver. Your reasoning is that Matt "obviously checked to see if someone was coming and saw this car not stopping even on a red so he stomped on his breaks and most likely skidded slightly putting his bumper slightly over the crosswalk line and this car hit his front end" says nothing about whether Matt was in the right. The same scenario could also apply if Matt was in teh wrong.
Without other evidence, such as traffic camera video or reliable indepentant witnesses, there is absolutely no way to know which party had the right of way through the intersection at the time of impact.
01-Nov-2004, 03:17 AM
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scarborough and Mississauga
Posts: 7,065
What about admission from the other party, does that not count as "evidence of being guilty?"
I am just trying to prove a point that matt really shouldnt have to worry about anything as it obviously was her who was in the wrong, but then again thats my opinion.
I guess I used a bad topic to compare to this event but its like any case where someone says there the victim of being robbed, assaulted etc with no witnesses. It is the victim's word and the physical evidence against the perpetraitor's word.
I would say go to "there shop" and see what the guy there says, if its ALOT lower then tell them you would like to go to a shop you are familiar with and somewhere you know the car will be done right and corners wont be cut. Or do it yourself and save the left over money for some beer
I am just trying to prove a point that matt really shouldnt have to worry about anything as it obviously was her who was in the wrong, but then again thats my opinion.
I guess I used a bad topic to compare to this event but its like any case where someone says there the victim of being robbed, assaulted etc with no witnesses. It is the victim's word and the physical evidence against the perpetraitor's word.
I would say go to "there shop" and see what the guy there says, if its ALOT lower then tell them you would like to go to a shop you are familiar with and somewhere you know the car will be done right and corners wont be cut. Or do it yourself and save the left over money for some beer
01-Nov-2004, 04:16 AM
#35
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 330
Her "admission" is useless unless she did so in front of witnesses. Without those witnesses she can just as easily claim that she admitted no such thing. Or you could have tried recording the admission.
I got rear-ended last week while sitting on a red light. In a moment of weakness I took pity on the guy who did it and agreed to settle things without going through the insurance. After all, it wasn't a heavy hit, and the only apparent damage was a slightly bent bumper and some minor paint damage. How expensive could it be?
Well, the body shop estimate I got the next day pegged the damage at about $1,000, half of which was the cost for a replacement rechromed bumper. This was an honest estimate to replace the back bumper, do a little work to touch up the paint damage and fix the hidden bumper reinforcer bar that sits behind the chrome bumper shell.
I got challenged on the estimate, so I told the guy "that's fine, I'll just go to the collsion reporting center and go through insurance." He then agreed to pay the amount of the estimate but needed a few days to gather the money.
The problem still remains that without witnesses, he could just as easily claim that I backed up into him, and that story, implausible as it seems, would be enough to make it impossible to determine who really ran into who.
What he doesn't know is that at the time of the accident, I did take down the names off a couple of commercial trucks that were in the adjacent lane, and I was able to track down the driver of one of them, so I do have a witness should I need it.
I also made a point of not answering my phone a couple of times, and letting my voicemail take the message. Fortunately, the guy admitted running into me on my voicemail, so now I have some added ammo in the form of recorded admissions should the guy have another change of heart and decide to stiff me.
Tomorrow is settlement day. Tomorrow I find out of I have to use the extra ammo I've gathered.
My suggestion is that every driver should treat their driving much more seriously than what most do. Most drivers are blissfully ignorant about what their motorist skills should be, and what their rights and responsibilities are. Drivers should make a point of taking defensive driving, car and skid control courses, and refreshers of same on a periodic basis. I think insurance companies should encourage these with heftier discounts for doing so, or even surcharges for failing to do so. Drivers should have a working knowledge of the HTA and CC laws as they pertain to expected driving behaviour. Drivers should also have a basic knowledge of how auto insurance works, including how fault is determined when an accident occurs. That knowledge can be invaluable when you do end up in an accident.
But no... most drivers put minimal effort into learning how to become proficient, educated and skilled motorists. Some think that being able to slam a quick one-two shift or weave in and out of traffic makes them hot ****. Others have no idea how their driving habits can disrupt the smooth flow of traffic and increase the risk of accidents for everyone else around them. And far too many people have little or no courtesy for other drivers, fighting to gain one more "position" in traffic rather giving others a break. The result is the traffic mayhem we see out on the streets, caused by wannabee racers, oblivious soccer moms, and "my hurry is more important than your hurry" morons.
I got rear-ended last week while sitting on a red light. In a moment of weakness I took pity on the guy who did it and agreed to settle things without going through the insurance. After all, it wasn't a heavy hit, and the only apparent damage was a slightly bent bumper and some minor paint damage. How expensive could it be?
Well, the body shop estimate I got the next day pegged the damage at about $1,000, half of which was the cost for a replacement rechromed bumper. This was an honest estimate to replace the back bumper, do a little work to touch up the paint damage and fix the hidden bumper reinforcer bar that sits behind the chrome bumper shell.
I got challenged on the estimate, so I told the guy "that's fine, I'll just go to the collsion reporting center and go through insurance." He then agreed to pay the amount of the estimate but needed a few days to gather the money.
The problem still remains that without witnesses, he could just as easily claim that I backed up into him, and that story, implausible as it seems, would be enough to make it impossible to determine who really ran into who.
What he doesn't know is that at the time of the accident, I did take down the names off a couple of commercial trucks that were in the adjacent lane, and I was able to track down the driver of one of them, so I do have a witness should I need it.
I also made a point of not answering my phone a couple of times, and letting my voicemail take the message. Fortunately, the guy admitted running into me on my voicemail, so now I have some added ammo in the form of recorded admissions should the guy have another change of heart and decide to stiff me.
Tomorrow is settlement day. Tomorrow I find out of I have to use the extra ammo I've gathered.
My suggestion is that every driver should treat their driving much more seriously than what most do. Most drivers are blissfully ignorant about what their motorist skills should be, and what their rights and responsibilities are. Drivers should make a point of taking defensive driving, car and skid control courses, and refreshers of same on a periodic basis. I think insurance companies should encourage these with heftier discounts for doing so, or even surcharges for failing to do so. Drivers should have a working knowledge of the HTA and CC laws as they pertain to expected driving behaviour. Drivers should also have a basic knowledge of how auto insurance works, including how fault is determined when an accident occurs. That knowledge can be invaluable when you do end up in an accident.
But no... most drivers put minimal effort into learning how to become proficient, educated and skilled motorists. Some think that being able to slam a quick one-two shift or weave in and out of traffic makes them hot ****. Others have no idea how their driving habits can disrupt the smooth flow of traffic and increase the risk of accidents for everyone else around them. And far too many people have little or no courtesy for other drivers, fighting to gain one more "position" in traffic rather giving others a break. The result is the traffic mayhem we see out on the streets, caused by wannabee racers, oblivious soccer moms, and "my hurry is more important than your hurry" morons.
01-Nov-2004, 10:04 AM
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scarborough and Mississauga
Posts: 7,065
very informative man, i hope your stuff gets settled properly.
I believe matt said they made a police report but maybe im wrong?
I just had an accident about 20 minutes ago and I have no idea what to do but i will be posting up the info eventhough i doubt there's anything i can really do.
I believe matt said they made a police report but maybe im wrong?
I just had an accident about 20 minutes ago and I have no idea what to do but i will be posting up the info eventhough i doubt there's anything i can really do.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
EG-6
Honda Civic (+ other) Parts/Accessories for Sale or Trade
0
23-Jul-2009 02:20 AM
CivicsGalor3
Interior - Audio - Security
10
18-May-2009 01:29 AM
vikko
Traffic tickets, accidents, insurance
4
19-Oct-2008 08:59 PM
imported_CivicD
Honda Civic (+ other) Parts/Accessories for Sale or Trade
14
01-Apr-2007 11:16 AM
imported_baby boi gsr
Custom Honda Civic Exterior - Lighting
6
22-Apr-2003 07:01 PM
