 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / May 2005Accident story from another forum
Funny how some people manage to be angry even though they're totally responsible for causing a collision Post #1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Well, there's a problem. Today, after dropping Mandy and I off at school/work, Rob and Mike, with Mike driving, were in an accident. From what I could piece together, they were heading up to post to buy gas for the van. They were in a green light-left turn yield, and Rob told Mike that he could go. So Mike did. He saw the car coming at him in time to gun the engine and the impact was directly behind the passenger seat, which saved Rob's life, as the impact was enough to dent in the entire side of the van, kick the passenger seats to a roughly 45 degree angle, and send the van into another car, which it front ended and sent into another car. This big hurky van was then knocked onto its side and sent skidding. Had the car hit where Rob was sitting, he, according to the investigating police, would have been killed. Rob and Mike were hurt the most, with scrapes, sore muscles and seat belt bruising. The driver and two teen aged daughters of the other car were sent to the hospital with shock and bruising. The drivers and passengers of the other two cars walked away. Mike and Rob are both still in a sort of state of shock. We're borrowing Mandy's boyfriend's Mother's van, as Geico refuses to pay for a rental after my accident three years ago. We are canceling future plans left and right. Both Mike and Rob are battered but un-bowed. The money we'd planned on using for the trip is going to another car/van. We don't know how much we'll have to spend on another vehicle. The van is, of course, totaled. Mike and Rob are each blaming each other. I think I've experienced every emotion there is. I was at work when I got the call saying they were at the hospital. Some one up there loves and/or hates us. They saved Rob and Mike, but the car is a loss. I'd rather have Rob and Mike. Purrs and prayers for things to go better for us would be really appreciated right about now. Pam S. still going in and out of shock Post #2 ------------------------------------------ OK, got the police report today. Mike was given a ticket for $10 and $100 court costs for "Failure to Yield." The woman who hit him claimed that she was only doing 45 mph and had hit the brakes before she hit Mike. I'll Post an album of the damages to both vehicles later. BTW she was cited for driving while her license was revoked. Mike is still considered totally at fault for the accident. Geico is refusing to pay us anything for the van. They are going to replace this woman's car. I feel so frustrated and angry right now. Please help me get over my anger with this woman and the insurance system that will reward an illegal driver. Even though the woman was driving with a revoked license, the woman was judged to be not at fault. I want to know what she did to lose her license. The damage to both her Lincoln Town Car and the van is horrendous. I don't think that she could have been doing only 45 in a 45 at the time of impact. It is a long straight stretch of road. There is now way that she couldn't have seen Mike and that big white van. Yes, it was raining, but not heavily. So that shouldn't be an excuse for her. Again, Please help me get over my anger with this. I upset Rob and Jim by calling her what I think of her, and I don't usually use that kind of language. And don't ask me about the VA and their treatment of Rob lately. Pam S. sill living a nightmare. > OK, got the police report today. Mike was given a ticket for $10 and > $100 court costs for "Failure to Yield." Sorry to followup my own post, but see how absurd our laws are? A $10 ticket for causing a multi-vehicle collision resulting in injuries, while for harmless 'speeding' you can be fined hundreds of dollars. >> OK, got the police report today. Mike was given a ticket for $10 and >> $100 court costs for "Failure to Yield." > > Sorry to followup my own post, but see how absurd our laws are? A $10 ticket > for causing a multi-vehicle collision resulting in injuries, while for > harmless 'speeding' you can be fined hundreds of dollars. Too true. In Italy it used to be the way that people, who just drove faster than they were allowed to were pretty much left alone, but if you caused an accident you would get hit with heavy fines and such. 'Used to' because like any other government the Italians found a convenient source of revenue. Chris > > OK, got the police report today. Mike was given a ticket for $10 and > > $100 court costs for "Failure to Yield." > > Sorry to followup my own post, but see how absurd our laws are? A $10 ticket > for causing a multi-vehicle collision resulting in injuries, while for > harmless 'speeding' you can be fined hundreds of dollars. Did you tell her what a moron she is to be blaming someone else for what is clearly not their fault? Traffic fines are only for revenue. There are a lot more speeders out there than traffic crashes to ticket. > Funny how some people manage to be angry even though they're totally > responsible for causing a collision No kidding. People are often irrational, especially after a trauma or a shock. <snip cut-n-paste story> > Even though the woman was driving with a revoked license, the woman was > judged to be not at fault. Oh, like not having a license somehow makes Mike's own illegal driving justified... That's like a LLB complaining about "speeders" breaking the law, when the LLB is just as illegal. IOW: Pot, kettle, black.  Signature~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. ******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant." (pgp@v6stang.com for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) > Funny how some people manage to be angry even though they're totally > responsible for causing a collision Most people always need someone else to blame. I also don't get how the woman not having a license excuses Mike's mistake and supposedly blind reliance on Rob's 'go'. On a left turn yield I don't get why the passenger has to tell the driver to go anyway. I have a feeling there is more to the story (alcohol, drugs or maybe vision problems on Mike's part) than meets the eye. Chris > > Funny how some people manage to be angry even though they're > > totally responsible for causing a collision > > I also don't get how the woman not having a license excuses > Mike's mistake and supposedly blind reliance on Rob's 'go'. It doesn't. But it would be nice if people breaching their licence conditions, or driving an unregistered/unwarranted car, were legally 100% at fault in any incident. That would be a greater deterrent than any I could think of. It seems odd to me that Mike and Rob's insurance wouldn't pay out for their van. Or did they not have full cover? >> > Funny how some people manage to be angry even though they're >> > totally responsible for causing a collision [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > licence conditions, or driving an unregistered/unwarranted > car, were legally 100% at fault in any incident. And why is that? If you make a mistake, own up to it. > That would be a greater deterrent than any I could think of. No, that would just be more incentive to flee. > It seems odd to me that Mike and Rob's insurance wouldn't > pay out for their van. Or did they not have full cover? Probably not, who has full coverage on an old van? Chris >> I also don't get how the woman not having a license excuses >> Mike's mistake and supposedly blind reliance on Rob's 'go'. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >car, were legally 100% at fault in any incident. That would >be a greater deterrent than any I could think of. How about throwing them in jail if they get caught driving without a license? Being judged at fault is still just a fine - the bulk of which will be paid by their insurance company. No skin off their noses. >It seems odd to me that Mike and Rob's insurance wouldn't >pay out for their van. Or did they not have full cover? They are "insured" by GEICO. Does that answer your question? :) >> > Funny how some people manage to be angry even though they're >> > totally responsible for causing a collision [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >car, were legally 100% at fault in any incident. That would >be a greater deterrent than any I could think of. Well, if you're looking for dumb answers, you've found one. Joe Blow the red light running drunk gets off scott-free because he hits a legally-driving teenager driving outside his restricted hours. Jane the Ditz putting on makeup and "drifting" into John Doe's car gets off because Doe forgot to renew his registration. Genius. A perfect model for justice. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >I also don't get how the woman not having a license excuses Mike's mistake >and supposedly blind reliance on Rob's 'go'. On a left turn yield I don't >get why the passenger has to tell the driver to go anyway. That's a good point. Sometimes you have to rely on signals from others, but not when the traffic is straight ahead of you. My insurance covers damage to my vehicle even if I break a law or drive recklessly. It covers the first $5,000 of damage to the other vehicle even if I hit it intentionally. (I try not to take advantage of this feature.) If you don't buy full collision coverage you have to live with the risk that the insurance companies won't pay. SignatureJohn Carr (jfc@mit.edu) >> Funny how some people manage to be angry even though they're totally >> responsible for causing a collision > >Most people always need someone else to blame. So, so true. It's obvious that all these people are 20somethings. People of that generation never seem to take responsibility for their own fuckups - it's *always* someone (or something) else's fault. >>> Funny how some people manage to be angry even though they're totally >>> responsible for causing a collision [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >generation never seem to take responsibility for their own fuckups - >it's *always* someone (or something) else's fault. Deflection of blame was popular before you crotchety old f.ckers were born. Trying to pin it all on 20-somethings is merely an attempt to deflect responsibility from yourself. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>>> Funny how some people manage to be angry even though they're totally >>>> responsible for causing a collision [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >born. Trying to pin it all on 20-somethings is merely an attempt to >deflect responsibility from yourself. In order for me to deflect blame, some blame has to be aimed towards me in the first place. Perhaps you can cite a collision which I caused and for which I attempted to deflect blame? SignatureLife is short - drive fast! http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/ >>>>> Funny how some people manage to be angry even though they're totally >>>>> responsible for causing a collision [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >me in the first place. Perhaps you can cite a collision which I caused >and for which I attempted to deflect blame? I'm blaming crotchety old f.ckers like you for a continuation of the ancient practice of deflection of blame. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >OK, got the police report today. Mike was given a ticket for $10 and $100 court costs for "Failure to Yield." The >woman who hit him claimed that she was only doing 45 mph and had hit the brakes before she hit Mike. I'll Post an album [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Pam S. sill living a nightmare. Even Skip has to admit that Pam S. is a dumb c.nt. Mike f.cked up and caused an accident. He is 100% at fault. The fact that the victim did not have a valid driver's license did not cause the collision, or even contribute to it. Of course, even dumber than Logic-Challenged Pam is Moron Mike who took Retard Rob's word for it instead of looking down the road with his own eyes before making the turn. Now THAT guy deserves to have his license revoked! Oh, and I suppose Pam is also a misogynist: > I upset Rob and Jim by calling her what I think of >her, and I don't usually use that kind of language. :) >Oh, and I suppose Pam is also a misogynist: No, it's okay - she might have used non-gender-specific terms like a.shole. >> I upset Rob and Jim by calling her what I think of >>her, and I don't usually use that kind of language. >Mike f.cked up and caused an accident. He is 100% at fault. The fact >that the victim did not have a valid driver's license did not cause >the collision, or even contribute to it. It used to be very important in determining fault because a person driving without legal right was considered a trespasser on the highway and other drivers didn't have a duty to be careful to avoid hitting him. In the modern era lawyers have put an end to that and other defenses against lawsuits. The more lawsuits are allowed, the more business lawyers get. (See also: contributory negligence and spousal immunity.) SignatureJohn Carr (jfc@mit.edu) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.