PDA

View Full Version : If a car in front of me kicks up debris from the road which hits my car and causes damage, is he liable?


psteng19
01-09-2007, 01:00 PM
Some guy driving in front of me kicked up a huge piece of debris, which smacked right into my headlight, hood, fender and caused visible scratches.
I'm pretty sure he saw what happened because he then started driving like he wanted to get away... really fast, changing lanes, dodging traffic, etc.

Is he liable?
I wasn't tailgating.

Vic
01-09-2007, 01:01 PM
No.

Comprehensive coverage on your insurance.

Phoenix86
01-09-2007, 01:01 PM
Road debris=no.
Something off his car=yes.

I'm sure this varies by state.

AnyMal
01-09-2007, 01:01 PM
No

dullard
01-09-2007, 01:01 PM
If debris hit your car, you were too close. Call it tailgating or not, you were too close. Thus it was your fault and you are liable (true in most states).

Edit: since this was misinterpreted, here is a retype:

Whether you were tailgating or not, you were too close. You can be too close to avoid flying debris even if you are not tailgating.

MercenaryForHire
01-09-2007, 01:02 PM
IANAL and YMMV, but generally if debris strikes you while airborne and without bouncing, the originator of the debris is at fault, unless you were deemed to be following too closely. Check your local laws.

Edit - as mentioned above, it's the originator of the debris. If it was on the road, "you should have avoided it" is all you'll get.

- M4H

psteng19
01-09-2007, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by: dullard
If debris hit your car, you were too close. Call it tailgaiting or not, you were too close. Thus it was your fault and you are liable (true in most states).

Nope, I was well behind him. It was a flimsy piece of hard plastic that kicked up really high and got good air.

But I am fine with the answer no, he is not liable.

dullard
01-09-2007, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by: psteng19
Nope, I was well behind him. It was a flimsy piece of hard plastic that kicked up really high and got good air.

But I am fine with the answer no, he is not liable.
If a piece of ANYTHING flies up and hits you, you were too close.

Edit: Since this was misinterpreted, here is a retype.

Whether you were tailgating or not, you were too close. You can be too close to avoid flying debris even if you are not tailgating.

leftyman
01-09-2007, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by: Vic
No.

Comprehensive coverage on your insurance.

thats your answer.

randay
01-09-2007, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: psteng19
Nope, I was well behind him. It was a flimsy piece of hard plastic that kicked up really high and got good air.

But I am fine with the answer no, he is not liable.
If a piece of ANYTHING flies up and hits you, you were too close.



so if a plastic bag flies up and hovers in the air for about 2 minutes then hits your car, you are too close to the car in front of you?

Zenmervolt
01-09-2007, 01:09 PM
If it were road debris, the only way he would be liable would be if he hit it because he was driving in an unsafe manner (for example, drunk driver hits a tree that falls onto your car).

If it was a part of his vehicle, or if it was something that he threw out of his vehicle, then he's liable.

ZV

imported_Devine
01-09-2007, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: psteng19
Nope, I was well behind him. It was a flimsy piece of hard plastic that kicked up really high and got good air.

But I am fine with the answer no, he is not liable.
If a piece of ANYTHING flies up and hits you, you were too close.



so if a plastic bag flies up and hovers in the air for about 2 minutes then hits your car, you are too close to the car in front of you?

Of course :P

dmw16
01-09-2007, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: psteng19
Nope, I was well behind him. It was a flimsy piece of hard plastic that kicked up really high and got good air.

But I am fine with the answer no, he is not liable.
If a piece of ANYTHING flies up and hits you, you were too close.



This is absolutely NOT TRUE! My car got hit by a rock kicked up by a truck in the lane next to me. Was I too close? Get off your high horse about it. The right object in the right circumstance can get a good amount of distance and hang time.

Viper GTS
01-09-2007, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: psteng19
Nope, I was well behind him. It was a flimsy piece of hard plastic that kicked up really high and got good air.

But I am fine with the answer no, he is not liable.
If a piece of ANYTHING flies up and hits you, you were too close.



so if a plastic bag flies up and hovers in the air for about 2 minutes then hits your car, you are too close to the car in front of you?

At some point the risk from following to closely fades into stupidity for not hitting your brakes.

Viper GTS

OutHouse
01-09-2007, 01:13 PM
\
Originally posted by: Phoenix86
Road debris=no.
Something off his car=yes.

I'm sure this varies by state.

yip

psteng19
01-09-2007, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: psteng19
Nope, I was well behind him. It was a flimsy piece of hard plastic that kicked up really high and got good air.

But I am fine with the answer no, he is not liable.
If a piece of ANYTHING flies up and hits you, you were too close.



I don't really want to argue this but I don't know how you can even debate it if you didn't witness my situation.

Zenmervolt
01-09-2007, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by: dullard
If a piece of ANYTHING flies up and hits you, you were too close. I've seen some things get spectacular air. I was on a drive with the PCA and the guys at the front of the line were about three car lengths behind a pickup that was carrying a propane grill in its bed. The grill was not secured and the guy in the truck whipped around a corner and the grill was simply launched. The grill hit almost immediately, but the cooking grate was flung skyward and landed off to the side of the third Porsche in the line. (That's about 11 carlengths behind the pickup.) The lead car, by the way, was perfectly able to stop in time to avoid hitting the grill.

It's entirely possible to be following at a safe distance and still have kicked-up debris hit you.

ZV

dullard
01-09-2007, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by: randay
so if a plastic bag flies up and hovers in the air for about 2 minutes then hits your car, you are too close to the car in front of you?
Like Viper said, again it isn't the liability of the car in front of you. It is your fault for not hitting the brakes.

Originally posted by: dmw16
This is absolutely NOT TRUE! My car got hit by a rock kicked up by a truck in the lane next to me. Was I too close? Get off your high horse about it. The right object in the right circumstance can get a good amount of distance and hang time.
This only applies to the car ahead of you. You can't really follow *behind* too close when you aren't behind someone. Common sense for the win. I can see people in this thread don't have common sense. Attack the messenger and not the message. :roll:

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
It's entirely possible to be following at a safe distance and still have kicked-up debris hit you.
We aren't talking about safe distances. We are talking about liability. Safe distance is not equal to liability distance.

Originally posted by: psteng19
I don't really want to argue this but I don't know how you can even debate it if you didn't witness my situation.
Go ahead and take it to court. You can bet the front car driver's lawyers and the judge didn't witness the situation either. But of course, they can't debate the liability either according to you.

OS
01-09-2007, 01:16 PM
how can i be supreme court god like some of you

Vic
01-09-2007, 01:24 PM
:roll: to this thread.

To those who think the driver of the car is at fault, tell ya what: track him down (somehow), take him to court, and then try to prove before a judge that it was his car and his car only that kicked up the road debris that damaged your car.

Yeah, good luck with that.

In the meantime, the OP should call his insurance company.

Aikouka
01-09-2007, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by: Vic
:roll: to this thread.

To those who think the driver of the car is at fault, tell ya what: track him down (somehow), take him to court, and then try to prove before a judge that it was his car and his car only that kicked up the road debris that damaged your car.

Yeah, good luck with that.

In the meantime, the OP should call his insurance company.

Seems to me that people are arguing whether or not it's the OP's fault because he should've been able to avoid it.

It's comprehensive by the way. Also, trying to swerve out of the way of a possible comprehensive claim accident is a bad idea, you can end up wrecking or causing an accident. Comprehensive usually doesn't ever raise your rates, collision does ;) (usually only on claims > $1000 from what I've seen).

d3n
01-09-2007, 01:40 PM
I take the view that if you get hit you were too close. I am split on it a bit.

One of the more dangerous things I see is construction equipment pulling off of a job site with a bulldozer or such that has a million chunks of mud and gravel waiting to go flying off. It should be a practice to clean equipment off before taking it on an interstate.


There is one condition that I see being able to nail someone for liability. That is if they are passing illegally on a shoulder and they happen to kick some debris up on your car. You only have a chance at this if a police officer observers the illegal maneuver. Otherwise your SOL.

DougK62
01-09-2007, 01:43 PM
Good luck. The only case you could have is if the vehicle was not road worthy - like the huge raised up pickup trucks that do not have fender flares which results in it flinging rocks.

mugs
01-09-2007, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by: dullard
If debris hit your car, you were too close. Call it tailgating or not, you were too close. Thus it was your fault and you are liable (true in most states).

I don't agree that he was necessarily too close.

But the other driver definitely was not at fault, which leaves the OP to pay for the damage to his own car.

Chiropteran
01-09-2007, 01:46 PM
What about a giant sheet of ice coming off the roof of the truck in front of you and pieces bouncing up and hitting your windshield?

randay
01-09-2007, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: randay
so if a plastic bag flies up and hovers in the air for about 2 minutes then hits your car, you are too close to the car in front of you?
Like Viper said, again it isn't the liability of the car in front of you. It is your fault for not hitting the brakes.


what if you do hit the brakes and come to a complete stop, meanwhile the plastic bag continues on and still hits your car?

d3n
01-09-2007, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: randay
so if a plastic bag flies up and hovers in the air for about 2 minutes then hits your car, you are too close to the car in front of you?
Like Viper said, again it isn't the liability of the car in front of you. It is your fault for not hitting the brakes.


what if you do hit the brakes and come to a complete stop, meanwhile the plastic bag continues on and still hits your car?


Just generally, what is up with this plastic bag? Does it cover the windscreen causing you to crash? Is it filled with some kind of lighter than air explosive? Perhaps it clings to the muffler making it smell like burnt plastic.

dullard
01-09-2007, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by: randay
what if you do hit the brakes and come to a complete stop, meanwhile the plastic bag continues on and still hits your car?
If you aren't driving, then you aren't following at all. If you aren't following, then by definition, it is impossible to follow too close, just the right distance, or too far. This situation is not covered by my comments above. You cannot use it to disprove or to prove my comments.

Note: I'm assuming you just want to get under my skin. It isn't happening today. Keep picking away with situations that don't apply. As long as they don't apply to my comment, it doesn't disprove my comment.

I can say I'm attracted to tall blond women. Then you come back with an example of a 20 foot tall blond female space creature covered with whatever nasty stuff you want. The fact that I'm not attracted to that alien doesn't disprove the statement that I like tall blond women. Why not? The alien isn't a woman. It is female but it isn't a huMAN required to be a woMAN. Same goes with your silly, I'm not driving a car, can I be following too close post.

psteng19
01-09-2007, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: randay
so if a plastic bag flies up and hovers in the air for about 2 minutes then hits your car, you are too close to the car in front of you?
Like Viper said, again it isn't the liability of the car in front of you. It is your fault for not hitting the brakes.


what if you do hit the brakes and come to a complete stop, meanwhile the plastic bag continues on and still hits your car?



Duh. Obviously you are supposed to throw it in reverse and then floor it in an attempt to avoid the bag. But don't swerve into another lane because that could be dangerous ;)


Originally posted by: dullard

Go ahead and take it to court. You can bet the front car driver's lawyers and the judge didn't witness the situation either. But of course, they can't debate the liability either according to you.

I'm not trying to argue whether he is liable or not anymore. I already got my answer to that.

What I'm arguing is you weren't there to witness the scene so you therefore cannot tell me I was following too closely.
And like others have already stated, it is entirely possible to be following at a safe distance and still be hit by road debris from the car directly in front of you.
You don't know the force, trajectory, wind/air resistance that comes into play in any given scenario, so you cannot make a blanket statement like that.

Tom
01-09-2007, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by: Chiropteran
What about a giant sheet of ice coming off the roof of the truck in front of you and pieces bouncing up and hitting your windshield?


I was about to ask the same thing..I've been in ice storms where sheets of ice a half inch thick and 10 feet square flies off semi trailers.

i don't know about liability..

Nutdotnet
01-09-2007, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Chiropteran
What about a giant sheet of ice coming off the roof of the truck in front of you and pieces bouncing up and hitting your windshield?


I was about to ask the same thing..I've been in ice storms where sheets of ice a half inch thick and 10 feet square flies off semi trailers.

i don't know about liability..


I think the driver would be liable...it was on the vehicle, driver of said vehicle chose to not remove it.

AbAbber2k
01-09-2007, 04:30 PM
You'd have to be a complete douchebag to even try and go after someone because his car kicked a rock/trash/whatever up off the ground causing it to hit your car. It's not his fault. :roll:

Zenmervolt
01-09-2007, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
It's entirely possible to be following at a safe distance and still have kicked-up debris hit you.We aren't talking about safe distances. We are talking about liability. Safe distance is not equal to liability distance. That may have been your point. However, your comments very clearly make it sound as though you were saying that he was not maintaining a safe distance.

I agree that the driver of the other car, provided that said other car was being operated in a reasonable and prudent fashion, is not liable for any damages. However, your previous statements are very far from being clearly limited to a discussion of liability. In fact, when viewed purely logically, your comments must be read as using tailgating to prove the liability. They cannot be interpreted as applying only to liability for hitting the object without the caveat that you have only just added.

ZV

Gunslinger08
01-09-2007, 04:43 PM
Is dullard always this much of a douche?

Tom
01-09-2007, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by: Nutdotnet

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Chiropteran
What about a giant sheet of ice coming off the roof of the truck in front of you and pieces bouncing up and hitting your windshield?


I was about to ask the same thing..I've been in ice storms where sheets of ice a half inch thick and 10 feet square flies off semi trailers.

i don't know about liability..


I think the driver would be liable...it was on the vehicle, driver of said vehicle chose to not remove it.



on the other hand, it's an act of nature. wonder what difference that makes ?

Zenmervolt
01-09-2007, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Nutdotnet

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Chiropteran
What about a giant sheet of ice coming off the roof of the truck in front of you and pieces bouncing up and hitting your windshield?I was about to ask the same thing..I've been in ice storms where sheets of ice a half inch thick and 10 feet square flies off semi trailers.

i don't know about liability..I think the driver would be liable...it was on the vehicle, driver of said vehicle chose to not remove it.on the other hand, it's an act of nature. wonder what difference that makes ? In Ohio at least, it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle on public roads without clearing the snow from the roof, hood, and trunk (and, of course, the headlights and tail-lights). Of course, this is almost never enforced, but it is required.

ZV

Insane3D
01-09-2007, 04:53 PM
FYI -

dullard is always right...at least in his mind. He will also spend hours posting lengthly posts that supposedly prove him right.

It's all black and white with him...he has envisioned every possible scenario in his head...of course.

:roll:


Originally posted by: joshsquall
Is dullard always this much of a douche?

Pretty much...

BudAshes
01-09-2007, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: randay
what if you do hit the brakes and come to a complete stop, meanwhile the plastic bag continues on and still hits your car?
If you aren't driving, then you aren't following at all. If you aren't following, then by definition, it is impossible to follow too close, just the right distance, or too far. This situation is not covered by my comments above. You cannot use it to disprove or to prove my comments.

Note: I'm assuming you just want to get under my skin. It isn't happening today. Keep picking away with situations that don't apply. As long as they don't apply to my comment, it doesn't disprove my comment.

I can say I'm attracted to tall blond women. Then you come back with an example of a 20 foot tall blond female space creature covered with whatever nasty stuff you want. The fact that I'm not attracted to that alien doesn't disprove the statement that I like tall blond women. Why not? The alien isn't a woman. It is female but it isn't a huMAN required to be a woMAN. Same goes with your silly, I'm not driving a car, can I be following too close post.



Dude, you must be really high.

Vic
01-09-2007, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by: Aikouka

Originally posted by: Vic
:roll: to this thread.

To those who think the driver of the car is at fault, tell ya what: track him down (somehow), take him to court, and then try to prove before a judge that it was his car and his car only that kicked up the road debris that damaged your car.

Yeah, good luck with that.

In the meantime, the OP should call his insurance company.

Seems to me that people are arguing whether or not it's the OP's fault because he should've been able to avoid it.

It's comprehensive by the way. Also, trying to swerve out of the way of a possible comprehensive claim accident is a bad idea, you can end up wrecking or causing an accident. Comprehensive usually doesn't ever raise your rates, collision does ;) (usually only on claims > $1000 from what I've seen).

Correct. That's more or less what I posted in the first reply.

Think of it this way (if it helps)... the road debris is at fault... but uninsured.

dullard
01-09-2007, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by: psteng19
And like others have already stated, it is entirely possible to be following at a safe distance and still be hit by road debris from the car directly in front of you.
You don't know the force, trajectory, wind/air resistance that comes into play in any given scenario, so you cannot make a blanket statement like that.
I never said you weren't at a safe distance. But if you are close enough that the foce, trajectory, wind/air resistance allowed an object(s) to hit you, then you were too close on that day for that location. You were probably at a very safe driving distance. But safety is different from avoiding all damage to your car. It is a cut and dry case. But as long as you think I'm talking about safety, you'll misunderstand me.

dullard
01-09-2007, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
That may have been your point. However, your comments very clearly make it sound as though you were saying that he was not maintaining a safe distance.
My own words: "tailgating or not, you were too close". I intended to say exactly that. If you were tailgating (unsafe distance), you were too close. If you weren't tailgating (safe driving distance), you were still too close for that situation.

I am sorry that was misinterpreted. Let me retype it.

It doesn't matter if you were tailgating or not. For this situation, you were too close to avoid the debris. It is your car, and you were too close. Thus, you have the liability.

Is that more clear?

dmcowen674
01-09-2007, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
You'd have to be a complete douchebag to even try and go after someone because his car kicked a rock/trash/whatever up off the ground causing it to hit your car.

That's what America is full of now as evidenced in here everyday.

dullard
01-09-2007, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by: dmw16
Get off your high horse about it.

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Is dullard always this much of a douche?

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Pretty much...

Originally posted by: BudAshes
Dude, you must be really high.
All the personal attacks, and yet I'm the douche. All I said was if you hit flying objects in situations like the OP described, it is your liability. If that is being a douche, then I'm a douche.

Originally posted by: Insane3D
dullard is always right...at least in his mind. He will also spend hours posting lengthly posts that supposedly prove him right.
I will clairify this issue. I am often wrong. I admit I'm wrong on these forums frequently. I post opinions at times, and opinions can be wrong.

However, if I have indisputable facts, I won't back down. I will bring links, scientific studies, or whatever it takes. I don't admit to losing an argument if I'm in the right. I also don't argue if I'm in the wrong. I take my lumps early and bow out to the experts. I let the people who know better than I do the talking.

So, if I'm arguing, I'm always right. That doesn't mean that I'm always right. It just means I selectively choose when to argue and when to admit I'm wrong.

Gunslinger08
01-09-2007, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: dmw16
Get off your high horse about it.

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Is dullard always this much of a douche?

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Pretty much...

Originally posted by: BudAshes
Dude, you must be really high.
All the personal attacks, and yet I'm the douche. All I said was if you hit flying objects in situations like the OP described, it is your liability. If that is being a douche, then I'm a douche.

You are so far up your own ass that it's unbelievable.

brandonb
01-09-2007, 05:19 PM
Cars get dinged, knicked, scratched by every day events. Nobody is really "at fault." It just happens to come with the territory of moving vehicles, acts of nature, and physics. I doubt the driver in front of the OP intended on scratching the guys car behind him by running over road debris.

Get over it.

Squisher
01-09-2007, 05:22 PM
I was driving down the e-way once doing 70 mph with quite a bit of traffic around me. A car two lanes over kicked something that kinda looked like two bear traps connected by a foot of chain about 60 feet in the air. As I watched the two bear traps gracefully spinning in the air I noticed the trajectory of the traps were starting to veer toward my lane. Well, it wasn't the traps that were turning it was that e-way had a slight curve. About the time I started to see the potential for trouble the bear traps seemed to be accelerating at the speed of a Peregrine Falcon and were about twenty feet from windshield. At about ten feet from impact my body, without any thought, decided that I needed to duck. So, there I was, laying down on the bench seat of my pickup doing 60 mph staring at my dashboard when it hit, the windshield looked like someone had dropped a barbell on it.

Insurance is a wonderful thing.

d3n
01-09-2007, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by: Squisher
I was driving down the e-way once doing 70 mph with quite a bit of traffic around me. A car two lanes over kicked something that kinda looked like two bear traps connected by a foot of chain about 60 feet in the air. As I watched the two bear traps gracefully spinning in the air I noticed the trajectory of the traps were starting to veer toward my lane. Well, it wasn't the traps that were turning it was that e-way had a slight curve. About the time I started to see the potential for trouble the bear traps seemed to be accelerating at the speed of a Peregrine Falcon and were about twenty feet from windshield. At about ten feet from impact my body, without any thought, decided that I needed to duck. So, there I was, laying down on the bench seat of my pickup doing 60 mph staring at my dashboard when it hit, the windshield looked like someone had dropped a barbell on it.

Insurance is a wonderful thing.

Nice detail in that post. Gave me a bit of a thrill to read it.

mugs
01-09-2007, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by: dullard
My own words: "tailgating or not, you were too close". I intended to say exactly that. If you were tailgating (unsafe distance), you were too close. If you weren't tailgating (safe driving distance), you were still too close for that situation.


You actually said "call it tailgating or not, you were too close." Most people would interpret that as meaning whether the OP's opinion was that he was tailgating or not, he was too close (a.k.a. tailgating). That is why people interpreted it differently from how you say you intended it.


Originally posted by: dullard
I will clairify this issue. I am often wrong. I admit I'm wrong on these forums frequently. I post opinions at times, and opinions can be wrong.

However, if I have indisputable facts, I won't back down. I will bring links, scientific studies, or whatever it takes. I don't admit to losing an argument if I'm in the right. I also don't argue if I'm in the wrong. I take my lumps early and bow out to the experts. I let the people who know better than I do the talking.

So, if I'm arguing, I'm always right. That doesn't mean that I'm always right. It just means I selectively choose when to argue and when to admit I'm wrong.

Eh, I rarely see you admit that you're wrong, even when you are wrong. You're obviously a very intelligent guy, but I think sometimes you post things without thinking them through completely. I've noticed a pattern with you when you post something that is incorrect. You start arguing it from all different angles, moving the conversation completely away from your original point so that you're arguing something entirely different in the end. Then you can declare victory, even if what you said originally was wrong.

I respect you a lot, you're one of the few elites who I think truly deserves the title. You almost always have thorough information and well-thought arguments, but sometimes you're just too bull-headed. I can be the same way, but I think posting on Anandtech has trained me to think things through more thoroughly before I post them and subject myself to PWNAGE ;)

BudAshes
01-09-2007, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: dmw16
Get off your high horse about it.

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Is dullard always this much of a douche?

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Pretty much...

Originally posted by: BudAshes
Dude, you must be really high.
All the personal attacks, and yet I'm the douche. All I said was if you hit flying objects in situations like the OP described, it is your liability. If that is being a douche, then I'm a douche.

Originally posted by: Insane3D
dullard is always right...at least in his mind. He will also spend hours posting lengthly posts that supposedly prove him right.
I will clairify this issue. I am often wrong. I admit I'm wrong on these forums frequently. I post opinions at times, and opinions can be wrong.

However, if I have indisputable facts, I won't back down. I will bring links, scientific studies, or whatever it takes. I don't admit to losing an argument if I'm in the right. I also don't argue if I'm in the wrong. I take my lumps early and bow out to the experts. I let the people who know better than I do the talking.

So, if I'm arguing, I'm always right. That doesn't mean that I'm always right. It just means I selectively choose when to argue and when to admit I'm wrong.

Mine wasn't a personal attack, i just figured with that analogy you must have been really stoned.

dullard
01-09-2007, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by: BudAshes
Mine wasn't a personal attack, i just figured with that analogy you must have been really stoned.
Ok, you are forgiven. I really don't hold grudges, so you were forgiven anyways.

It was my attempt at humor. But, I admit my humor is far from the norm. I like using extreme examples to prove my point. I laugh at the idea of the extremes and I hope a little humor takes the passion and anger away from the debate. Since my humor is way off in left field, I can see how it doesn't always work out as I planned.

SampSon
01-09-2007, 05:50 PM
Not in New York State.

dullard
01-09-2007, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by: mugs
That is why people interpreted it differently from how you say you intended it.
There, that is a constructive post. If I fail at explaining my viewpoint, help me explain it better. That is far more constructive than calling me a douche. I'll gladly rewrite my viewpoint so that all can agree (like hopefully I did above).

As for the rest, thanks for the compliments and the criticisms. I am bullheaded if I'm correct. However, my communication skills can be lacking. I think the problem is that I often don't communicate my post properly in the first place. Then people attack it as if my idea were wrong. The idea isn't wrong; instead, the way I may have typed it is misinterpretted. Then without realizing the simple miscommunication, I defend it. ATOT simply needs the "switch this word to that word" post and I'll do it. Don't just say I'm wrong, because I'll be bullheaded and defend my correct (but poorly typed) idea.

As for the multiple angles, that is just my style. People hate it. My ex-wife once told me that if I have more than one reason to do something, then all the reasons are wrong. I don't understand that concept. To me, the more reasons you have and the more data backing you up, then the more correct you are. I will try to cut my reasons down for my posts.

Zenmervolt
01-09-2007, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by: dullard
It doesn't matter if you were tailgating or not. For this situation, you were too close to avoid the debris. It is your car, and you were too close. Thus, you have the liability.

Is that more clear? Better, though still logically faulty since liability does not depend upon how close he is, or even whether he was able to avoid the debris.

From a legal standpoint, no-one has liability in such a situation. Granted, the burden of repair then falls on the owner (in this case the OP), but he is still not legally liable. It's like if a tree falls on your house in a windstorm. No-one is legally liable for the situation, but it's the homeowner who pays for the repairs (well, the homeowner's insurance, but you get the idea).

The most correct way to put it would be as follows:

"While you may not have been tailgating, the burden of paying for repairs to your vehicle is still yours because no-one is legally liable for the incident."

ZV

dullard
01-09-2007, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
From a legal standpoint, no-one has liability in such a situation. Granted, the burden of repair then falls on the owner (in this case the OP), but he is still not legally liable.
There is our difference. You were thinking legal liabilty. I was talking liability as in the sence of bearing the repair burden. A simple use of two defintions of the same word. The car ahead was not legally liable, thus you must pay the repairs.

Suppose the OP been driving a rental car, he'd be legally liable to pay for repairs of the damages. Of course, insurance will take care of that, so then the OP could shift the liability for the repairs to the insurance company. That is the sense that I was using the term liable. If repairs are required, the OP is liable for making those repairs. I use a rental car in this example to get rid of the complication of not repairing the damage.

I like this way of debating far more. Find the definition where we differ and correct the difference.

IGBT
01-09-2007, 06:18 PM
..the only successful litigation I'am aware of is a case where the vehicle in front had oversized tires that exceeded the wheel well and was unequiped with mud flaps.

Shawn
01-09-2007, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: psteng19
Nope, I was well behind him. It was a flimsy piece of hard plastic that kicked up really high and got good air.

But I am fine with the answer no, he is not liable.
If a piece of ANYTHING flies up and hits you, you were too close.



bullsh|t!

Mermaidman
01-09-2007, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by: dullard
If debris hit your car, you were too close. Call it tailgating or not, you were too close. Thus it was your fault and you are liable (true in most states).

It's possible to not be tailgating and still be hit by debris.

edit: BTW, in NC, if debris falls off a dump truck and hits your vehicle, the operator/owner of the dump truck is NOT liable!

dullard
01-09-2007, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by: Mermaidman

Originally posted by: dullard
If debris hit your car, you were too close. Call it tailgating or not, you were too close. Thus it was your fault and you are liable (true in most states).

It's possible to not be tailgating and still be hit by debris.
You missed the rest of the thread. There is an OR NOT part in that sentence. If you are not tailgating, you may still be too close and be hit by debris.

Insane3D
01-09-2007, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by: mugs

Eh, I rarely see you admit that you're wrong, even when you are wrong. You're obviously a very intelligent guy, but I think sometimes you post things without thinking them through completely. I've noticed a pattern with you when you post something that is incorrect. You start arguing it from all different angles, moving the conversation completely away from your original point so that you're arguing something entirely different in the end. Then you can declare victory, even if what you said originally was wrong.

I respect you a lot, you're one of the few elites who I think truly deserves the title. You almost always have thorough information and well-thought arguments, but sometimes you're just too bull-headed. I can be the same way, but I think posting on Anandtech has trained me to think things through more thoroughly before I post them and subject myself to PWNAGE ;)


You pretty much put into words what I was thinking...

dullard -

I agree with mugs that you are one of the more intelligent posters on here. If I had to pick a list of members to start over a new AT forum, you would be on it. We all have our faults, I sure as hell have plenty, but maybe you should sometimes read what you are posting objectively, and possibly tone down the I'm always right tone, and people would be more receptive to your arguments. I've got no problem with you really, and it's just an internet forum.

:beer:


Originally posted by: dullard
You missed the rest of the thread. There is an OR NOT part in that sentence. If you are not tailgating, you may still be too close and be hit by debris.

Ok, as has been said already, depending on how high the debris gets thrown, the speed traffic is moving, and other variables, you can be a looooooooooong way back when something hits you. The fact remains you can be hit by road debris and not even be anywhere near the vehicle that the debris originated from.

Hell, you can be hit and be on the other side of the road. I suppose there are circumstances where you can not even be on the same road and get hit.

Regardless of all this, the person who threw the debris up in the air by driving over it is not liable or at fault, but that has been clearly pointed out in this thread...

arcas
01-09-2007, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by: dullard
Whether you were tailgating or not, you were too close. You can be too close to avoid flying debris even if you are not tailgating.

I don't necessarily buy the "you were too close" answer. On several occasions I've been struck by debris that flew off the top of dump trucks.[1] These rocks etc can bounce around for a good bit of time so you can be quite far behind the truck and still get hit. At interstate speeds, you'd have to be 1000 feet or more behind a truck before you can be reasonably confident that you won't get hit by debris.

[1] Yes, I understand this is debris originating from the truck's cargo and thus the driver is responsible but it could just as easily be existing road debris kicked up by the truck's tires. This is especially true if it's a semi that's not currently pulling a trailor. Only the rear-most tires have flaps. The front-most rear tires (you know what I mean...those guys have dual axles in the rear) don't have flaps and can throw gravel. Saw it today in fact (not to my vehicle).

slag
01-09-2007, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by: psteng19

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: psteng19
Nope, I was well behind him. It was a flimsy piece of hard plastic that kicked up really high and got good air.

But I am fine with the answer no, he is not liable.
If a piece of ANYTHING flies up and hits you, you were too close.



I don't really want to argue this but I don't know how you can even debate it if you didn't witness my situation.

he cant successfully and would be wrong in doing so. My wife is a claims adjuster and we've had this discussion. Simply because a piece of whatever hits your car does not mean you were too close. It could mean that, but does not always mean that.

0roo0roo
01-09-2007, 10:25 PM
assumed certain risks when you chose to drive on public roads. unless he had modified his car to spew rocks you are outa luck