StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
Originally posted by: NeuroSynapsis
Originally posted by: Francodman
Get a lawyer
Originally posted by: NeuroSynapsis
Originally posted by: Francodman
Get a lawyer
Originally posted by: freebee
Keep us updated. Insurance law is really a PITA sometimes. Lot of times it doesnt make logical sense or goes against stuff we do every day.
Working in the insurance industry has made me paranoid....there are so many laws and regulations and they differ among different states...and weird things like left turns, uncontrolled intersections, double left turns, four way stop signs, etc....all create liability problems for insurance examiners.
I don't think you were entirely at fault....but regardless of what the other driver is doing (wrong or not)...you should have left yourself enough room to stop. This is why sometimes you see drivers get issued "following too closely" citations for rear-endings, even though the driver in front of them stopped for no apparent reason (and therefore should share some % negligance.)
Originally posted by: DurocShark
You weren't at fault.
Does your car look "rice"? Lowered and fart tipped and such? The cop has prolly seen too many "racers" cause trouble and so has developed a prejudice towards rice. (I have a prejudice towards the ugly cars, not the owners as people...LoL) If he has, that's grounds for dismissal right there.
I'd be willing to bet that if you were driving a stock Volvo the report would be different.![]()
Originally posted by: OS
Originally posted by: freebee
Because your points of impact suggest excessive speed.
Though I am more familiar with NE law, from an insurance perspective depending on where you hit him, will vary your liability. I would have to examine Cal. law more carefully, but it should be fairly similar. Call your insurance company to verify the liability laws.
Let me remind you again that the collision report itself says I was going 45-50 and the posted speed limit was 45.
Originally posted by: BatmanNate
How did he know you were going to watch street races unless you were stupid enough to tell him or your car is riced out?
Originally posted by: Pepsi90919
Originally posted by: OS
Originally posted by: freebee
Because your points of impact suggest excessive speed.
Though I am more familiar with NE law, from an insurance perspective depending on where you hit him, will vary your liability. I would have to examine Cal. law more carefully, but it should be fairly similar. Call your insurance company to verify the liability laws.
Let me remind you again that the collision report itself says I was going 45-50 and the posted speed limit was 45.
so you basically admit you were speeding.
have a nice day.
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Francodman
Get a lawyer
Get a lawyer and ignore those here who have problems with reading comprehension.
No sh!t. Only 43 feet of skidmarks and no airbag deployment does not indicate "excessive" speed.Originally posted by: acemcmac
If you were really going 45-50 when you hit that truck, you'd be dead right now. end of story.
All well and good, but entirely irrelevant to determining who was at fault in ANY accident.Originally posted by: spikemike
if you are doing anything involved with illegal street racing in San Diego you can get your car impounded even for watching i believe.
This is true. When a cop asks you "How fast were you going?" ALWAYS says the exact speed limit or less. I cannot stress that enough. Cops are government employees, which means they are bureaucrats. Spirit of the law means nothing to them, they only care about the letter of the law, and will screw you if given the chance. You have to remember, that is their job.Originally posted by: cheapbidder01
Were you stupid enough to tell him you were doing 45-50? From now on, just state that you were doing 45 only. Sue big time. I would.
Originally posted by: NeuroSynapsis
Originally posted by: Francodman
Get a lawyer
This reading comprehension problem seems to be contagiousOriginally posted by: acemcmac
If you were really going 45-50 when you hit that truck, you'd be dead right now. end of story.
Originally posted by: acemcmac
If you were really going 45-50 when you hit that truck, you'd be dead right now. end of story.
Originally posted by: Cyberian
This reading comprehension problem seems to be contagiousOriginally posted by: acemcmac
If you were really going 45-50 when you hit that truck, you'd be dead right now. end of story.
The problem appears to plague all sides.Originally posted by: Cyberian
This reading comprehension problem seems to be contagiousOriginally posted by: acemcmac
If you were really going 45-50 when you hit that truck, you'd be dead right now. end of story.
Originally posted by: DurocShark
You weren't at fault.
Does your car look "rice"? Lowered and fart tipped and such? The cop has prolly seen too many "racers" cause trouble and so has developed a prejudice towards rice. (I have a prejudice towards the ugly cars, not the owners as people...LoL) If he has, that's grounds for dismissal right there.
I'd be willing to bet that if you were driving a stock Volvo the report would be different.![]()
