witnessed an accident this morning

[Scruit]

this situation depends on which side of the fence you are standing on.

the law says if you didn't make contact, you weren't involved. and can't be held liable for "causing" anything.

then you are on the victim's side, I'd like to beat the snot out of someone for that myself.

but technically they really didn't make them crash. the "victim" failed to control their vehicle.

and that's how this will be settled.

I've seen people cited and listed at fault on accident resports where no contact was made.

The at-fault driver will try to claim you over-reacted.

Edited April 27, 2011 by Scruit

[John]

the law says if you didn't make contact, you weren't involved. and can't be held liable for "causing" anything.

of course you arent. otherwise every jerk who sucks at driving and drove their car into a tree would be blaming some phantom driver for making them swerve.

[redkow97]

of course you arent. otherwise every jerk who sucks at driving and drove their car into a tree would be blaming some phantom driver for making them swerve.

That's bogus though. You're telling me if I run a red light, and cross-traffic (with a green light) slams on their brakes to avoid hitting me, and is then rear-ended, I'm not at fault because no one ever contacted my vehicle?

Bullshit. I ran the red-light. I broke the law. I caused the accident to occur. If I hadn't run the light, the accident wouldn't have occurred. They MIGHT cite the driver who rear-ended someone for failure to maintain a safe following distance, but the car that braked to avoid hitting me wouldn't have any fault whatsoever.

The black xterra failed to yield the right of way. She broke the law. She caused the accident.

[serpentracer]

That's bogus though. You're telling me if I run a red light, and cross-traffic (with a green light) slams on their brakes to avoid hitting me, and is then rear-ended, I'm not at fault because no one ever contacted my vehicle?

Bullshit. I ran the red-light. I broke the law. I caused the accident to occur. If I hadn't run the light, the accident wouldn't have occurred. They MIGHT cite the driver who rear-ended someone for failure to maintain a safe following distance, but the car that braked to avoid hitting me wouldn't have any fault whatsoever.

The black xterra failed to yield the right of way. She broke the law. She caused the accident.

I think it boils down to the actual accident. say someone did run a red light, but no contact was made, but if one car hits the curb, I don't think the person that ran the light will be liable to pay for the car to be fixed.

it's a grey area of the law i'm sure. but I was told as long as the person didn't hit me, I can't sue them, the cops can't site them for the accident. it was all my fault for losing control of my vehicle. they said you are responsible for your car and what happens to it.

Edited April 27, 2011 by serpentracer

[redkow97]

But do we agree that they should be?

[John]

That's bogus though. You're telling me if I run a red light, and cross-traffic (with a green light) slams on their brakes to avoid hitting me, and is then rear-ended, I'm not at fault because no one ever contacted my vehicle?

Bullshit. I ran the red-light. I broke the law. I caused the accident to occur. If I hadn't run the light, the accident wouldn't have occurred. They MIGHT cite the driver who rear-ended someone for failure to maintain a safe following distance, but the car that braked to avoid hitting me wouldn't have any fault whatsoever.

The black xterra failed to yield the right of way. She broke the law. She caused the accident.

you are at fault for running a red light. thats about it.

you say if you had not run the light, then the accident would have not occured. why not say if the other car was not following too close, the accident would not have occured?

you did not cause the accident. the guy following too close did. you may have contributed, but you were not the direct cause.

they will DEFINITELY cite that other driver, as its their fault for hitting someone from behind. about the only way you can get away with that is if someone reverses into you.

Edited April 27, 2011 by John

[serpentracer]

But do we agree that they should be?

I'll have to say no. only because it keeps other idiots from saying you caused them to crash and you had nothing to do with it.

[redkow97]

proof would still be required.

I just find it hard to believe that people here wouldn't feel I was responsible if I attempted to cut them off, and they wrecked as a result.

Say someone makes a left turn in front of you on your bike, and you "lay it down" to avoid the accident (like the cruiser guys do). You wrecked before ever contacting my vehicle. So I'm not at fault.

It's just not adding up for me...

[John]

Say someone makes a left turn in front of you on your bike, and you "lay it down" to avoid the accident (like the cruiser guys do). You wrecked before ever contacting my vehicle. So I'm not at fault.

at fault legally or morally?

[redkow97]

I don't think morally is a debate. I am talking legally. Change the circumstances a little - say you do a stopping and fly over the bars. You go over the car even. The car completes its left turn as if nothing ever happened. no contact is made.

You're saying the rider is at fault for the wreck despite the fact that the car is the one who failed to yield the right-of-way.

that may indeed be the law, but it does not add up for me.