Announcement

**Dauphin** · February 9, 2005, 16:46

Its mph in the UK.

**Wezil** · February 9, 2005, 16:48

Ah, that makes more sense. 80 mph will do you a good hurt.

Why mph there?

**Kidlicious** · February 9, 2005, 16:54

Originally posted by Wezil

What State are you in? You need to find out how the insurance scheme works in your jurisdiction.

As the law applies here, the onus is on you to fight any charge that may be laid. If the charge is withdrawn or the case dismissed (acquitted) an insurance penalty will not apply, although a claim for damages (ie to fix your car) will almost certainly raise your premiums.

We work under "no fault" insurance in Ontario so your situation may be quite different.

Were any charges laid?

I live in California. I'm pretty sure we can a contibutory neglegence clause. I hit someone from behind, but the insurance company just paid, and my rates went up of course. There were no charges. I don't really know much about how it works, but I was just wondering what a persons options would be in that case.

**Hot Mustard** · February 9, 2005, 16:55

I knew a guy who was in a no fault rear ender - the car he rear ended cut him off as traffic was slowing down. He was diligent in getting contact information of surrounding drivers and they backed him up. I don't think it even went to court.

**Flubber** · February 9, 2005, 17:01

Originally posted by dejon
I knew a guy who was in a no fault rear ender - the car he rear ended cut him off as traffic was slowing down. He was diligent in getting contact information of surrounding drivers and they backed him up. I don't think it even went to court.

That would not be considered a true rear-ender in the sense I was thinking of-- A true rearender is one where you hit a car from behind that is travelling in the same lane and direction as you without any immediate lane changes.

I believe the insurance chart apportions liability in the case of the "cut-off" .

**Wezil** · February 9, 2005, 17:04

Originally posted by Kidicious

I live in California. I'm pretty sure we can a contibutory neglegence clause. I hit someone from behind, but the insurance company just paid, and my rates went up of course. There were no charges. I don't really know much about how it works, but I was just wondering what a persons options would be in that case.

I don't fight insurance companies, I fight government. Sorry, I have no advice for you as you apparently were not charged.

I'm sure someone at this site has some good insurance info though....

**Hot Mustard** · February 9, 2005, 17:10

Originally posted by Flubber

That would not be considered a true rear-ender in the sense I was thinking of-- A true rearender is one where you hit a car from behind that is travelling in the same lane and direction as you without any immediate lane changes.

I believe the insurance chart apportions liability in the case of the "cut-off" .

If they believe you that you were cut off, sure. But if it is his word against yours and the damage is pretty much the same as a typical rear ender - you're screwed (without further evidence).

**Imran Siddiqui** · February 9, 2005, 17:15

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
Its true. Teenage drivers account for a disproportionate number of vehicle accidents and deaths. This is no surprise when you combine inexperienced drivers with general immaturity. There are a number of studies which demonstrate this.

I think the training period should be much longer before you're allowed behind the wheel of a 1 tonne object hurtling freely through open space at speeds up to 120MPH. The six or so months it takes now before you can get a license is ridiculous.

Jimmy, you are dealing with an ideologue here. It's like arguing with Fez about Republicans and Democrats. You will never get through to him on this issue. Best just not to try.

**JimmyCracksCorn** · February 9, 2005, 17:21

Originally posted by Wezil
Ah, that makes more sense. 80 mph will do you a good hurt.

Why mph there?

They haven't converted.

**Wezil** · February 9, 2005, 17:23

Slackers.

**Chemical Ollie** · February 9, 2005, 17:33

Better to have your first car accident than your last...

**Kontiki** · February 9, 2005, 17:42

Ah, first car accidents. My first was a dandy - I was doing a u-turn by veering right into an intersecting street but didn't pay enough attention to traffic coming from behind me. I didn't even slow down, just continued with my turn as a van plowed into driver's front of my car (luckily not into my door). Wrote the car off, but thankfully no one was hurt at all.

Ever since then I am beyond careful making a u-turn.

**Flubber** · February 9, 2005, 17:43

Originally posted by dejon

If they believe you that you were cut off, sure. But if it is his word against yours and the damage is pretty much the same as a typical rear ender - you're screwed (without further evidence).

I agree. Liability will always be apportioned based on the facts as they can be established (through proof or admissions)

**Dauphin** · February 9, 2005, 17:47

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn

They haven't converted.

The conversion has occured in everything else except, specifically, in regard to the sale of alcohol and traffic laws. Go figure.

**JimmyCracksCorn** · February 9, 2005, 17:51

Originally posted by Dauphin

The conversion has occured in everything else except, specifically, in regard to the sale of alcohol in pubs and traffic laws. Go figure.

Yeah, I know. I think it actually makes sense. Go metric for important things (like government, trade), but for other stuff that only really affects individuals stick with what they're used to.

Announcement

Kuci's first car accident

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment